Intel Core i5 is here

http://www.newegg.com/Store/SubCategory.aspx?SubCategory=343&name=Processors-Desktops

Just thought I'd post this.

 

What really baffles me is that they now have two different sockets, LGA 1156 and LGA 1366. What's the deal?

 

Am I the only one who thinks the price difference between the 860 and the 870 is a bit much?

 

Yeah...

 

The LGA1366 has QPI (quickpath) and triple channel RAM, while 1156 has DMI and dual-channel RAM. Basically (from what I understand) QPI has a bit more bandwidth and lower latency (i.e. it's faster) than DMI, but we'll see what that means in terms of real-world performance soon I guess.

 

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3634

IMO, Core i7 lga 1366 is kind of pointless, unless you do multi GPU.

 

Dont bother with these units. They use too much power IMO. Id wait for the 32nm versions which are just around the corner. Stick with your core2duos for now everyone you will thank me later.

 

What are you smoking? It must be pretty intoxicating w/e it is. These use lower power than equal clocked Core 2 Quads. Unless you thought this was a notebook chip which is not. Anyway shouldn't this be in Desktop Reviews?

 

Be nice if Sager makes a 1156 based 9280 workstation.

 

These use less power at idle than any of the competing CPUs and are right at the lowest under load.

 

lol, He doesn't know what he's thinking about.

He probably thinks these desktop cpus are mobile versions. Anyway, these new Core i5's are the most power efficient quads out today.

 

Yea doesn't it make you wonder how Calpella will be? I think we'll see the thinnest and most power efficient quad core laptops yet.

 

When is the next i7 9x0 refresh?

 

95 watts = low power??? LOLz....95 watts is HELL OF ALOT power even for a desktop CPU.

95 watt CPU = electrical heater

Wait till 32nm versions come out, they are right around the corner....

 

Uhhh yeah thats low for an Quad core desktop cpu an i7 975 will cost you 130 watts,an phenom II 955-115,965-130,core 2 quad-125 watts.

 

uuuu I dont care if its 100 cores ANY cpu using 95 watts is a freakin heater....

 

Not really, on stock mine idles in the 40s and nevers goes over 75C, and thats with the crappy, inadequate stock cooler that Intel is providing, and on the extreme overclock mode.

Get a after-market cooler for sure, but I wouldn't say these are that hot at all.

 

And thats with a 130W TDP CPU too

 

yeah, i'm thinking of getting an i5 for running it passive cooled.. in a drawer..

 

I thought all the QX series and most of the current quads use atleast 95 watts already? and all the QX use 130 watt so what is the big deal?

 

the big deal.. hm.

it's faster, sometimes by much (single core / dual core performance is great), and uses less power than existing ones:





so, all in all, it's good progression.

that's the big deal.

oh, and, it's the cheapest quadcore around, too.

 

Whoops I meant to quote iGrim. I'm was wondering about the TDP, is 95 watts really hot for quads, like iGrim says it is?

 

At $209, no its not, but it is quite a nice buy from a performance/dollar standpoint. Now we just need some nicely priced boards to keep it competitive with higher PIIs

 

cheapest per performance, sorry

and here, motherboards are allready quite cheap.


thinking of getting one and putting it in my desk drawer...

what do you have in there? my quadcore..



(i like putting pc's into furniture so it's invisible.. )

 

*FacePalm*

1. Nehalem is 130W
2. Westmere is not right around the corner.

 

Naw, like I said in my post on the 2nd page I think, my i7 920 is 130 tdp as compared to 95, and it never goes over 75c(thats when one core is over clocked to 3.4Ghz), and on the crappy stock cooling Intel provided. So get an aftermarket cooler and it wont go over 60C. Mine is sitting at 45c right now just browsing and such.

 

well compared to the core2quad, (QX9300 or the Q9000/Q9100) they run at 45w TDP, vs the 35W tdp of the T series and 25W of the P series.

quite a large difference. only 17" notebooks and larger would be able to handle desktop processors....and its likely to be quite hot under load regardless

for a notebook, c2duo or c2quad is still the way to go...

 

Why don't we wait until Mobile i5/i7 hit the market before making statements like this.

 

isnt this thread about the desktop CPU's? i assumed when posters were throwing around figures like 95-130W it was related to the use of the desktop components in a notebook, such as a barebones

 

It is about the desktop CPU. And you're saying the way to go in a laptop is Core 2 Duo/Core 2 Quad. Obviously this is the case when there is no competition in the mobile market. In fact I think there's only one laptop out right now with LGA 1366. Let's wait and see what Intel brings us next in the mobile department...

 

so why did you say lets wait for the mobile versions to come out before making statements like that? i was OBVIOUSLY talking about whats on the market right now. hence saying "still the way to go"

 

Then you're making an entirely null statement, because no one is suggesting we use these CPUs in laptops. But whatever, forget it.

 

then why is this in notebookforums, bit OT dont you think?

 

I'm surprised that desktop cpus still exist ;-) 83W idle even for the overall system is wayyy too high. What the hell ???

Definitely not for me, last time i used a desktop computer I was about seventeen lol, about ten years ago.

My lap is 20W or so at idle and 70W under maximum load. Can't wait for the Arrandale cpus and <40 nm gpus...not to forget SSDs.

 

What he's saying is that there aren't nehalem mobile versions yet.

Obviously mobile versions of Nehalem would have a much lower TDP than the desktop core i5 that is being discussed in this forum.

The point behind the discussion of Core i5 at a notebook forum is because it gives us insight on the performance of upcoming laptop CPU's.

Hence, saying Core2Quad is the way to go cause its lower power than Core i5 when clarksfield/arrandale haven't been released yet doesn't make sense.

 

Arrandale i5/i7 standard voltage will be 35W TDP and high end 40nm GPUs will be 30-60W... then again probably more powerful than any of our notebooks at the same power consumption (though if we don't fully utilize the power, it would be a waste).

 

The previous page, it was you yourself who said "for a notebook, c2duo or c2quad is still the way to go..." which implies you were comparing the Core i5 to the C2D or C2Q, just an FYI on that. An insider's perspective, if you will.

Regardless, Core i7 is now officially a waste of cash. $209 for the Ci5 versus $280ish for the Ci7 920, which offers pretty similar performance when overclocked. All you lose is Hyper Threading, which is considered to be negligably useful at best anyway.

 

hyperthreading is very useful depending on the task. but yeah, for the ordinary user, it's a waste of money. i'd buy it for raytracing, there the gains are rather huge, and definitely worth the money..

 

Re-check your facts. I was quoting someone else who said that.

Thanks. This is the point I was making. I've just learned it's not worth arguing over stuff like this.

 

In gaming, HyperThreading has proven to given modest gains at best and has still been found to actually slow things down in some games. Same story as back in the day with the 3.06Ghz P4.

If you flat-out need the horsepower, Core i7 all the way IMO, but most would be happy with four cores.

 

Throw away previous perception of CPU TDP! It has been said multiple times before but 35W is the new 25W with these CPUs(just as 45W will be the new 35W). Remember, PCI Express controller/memory controller/GPU is counted as part of CPU TDP. Power management in Nehalem uArch makes all other CPUs look like they are in stone age.

This will probably change with dual core Arrandale since 2 core + Hyperthreading = 4 threads and most games are 4 threaded.

 

I'm well aware of the increased TDP are inclusive of those components. While power consumption for the CPU itself is lower compared to previous generations (obviously due to 32nm) and the chipset is lower due to the included parts into the CPU, my statement is still valid: high end notebooks will still have that high TDP. And in reviews, the desktop Nehalems, have shown only moderate gains with HT (video encoding and 3D rendering), games have basically negligible gains. For example from:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/Intel-Core-i7-Nehalem,2057-12.html

 

Then you'll be disappointed to find out that 35W Arrandale is replacement for Core 2 Duo P's and 25W Arrandale's are the Core 2 LV replacements. ULV Arrandale is 18W. So you cannot gauge TDP and power at all.

The Core 2 T's with discrete graphics will probably be replaced by Clarksfield with 45W.

You don't realize the reason for lack of performance gains for Hyperthreading is because applications don't support 8 threads properly not because Hyperthreading itself is a hindrance do you?

Well: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-cores-performance,2373-9.html

Even games are more than 2 threaded. That's the reason quad core i7's don't have advantages with Hyperthreading. Arrandale with HT will indeed see one in more situations.

Come 2010, no one will care about the high TDP values or HTT.

 

Why would I be disappointed? I agree with what you've said regarding the comparing Arrandale's and the current generation CPUs. My original statement was to state that at the high end notebook market, performance has gone up but thermals have not changed since they use the same envelope. I'm not disputing the fact that Arrandale is more efficient than it's predecessors.

 

Actually, I think I know what you mean. Anyways, the focus is usually more performance for same power rather than same performance but less power.

Update: Be aware that the very first reply to you was not a direct reply but in general.

 

I really hope the Intel Core i5 was worth the price of 200$ because I decided to upgrade my laptop a little bit. While the difference wont be huge I still hope it's worth it. The product is shipping now I guess... and the shipping is free which makes me happy

 

You ordered an i5 for your NP9280?

Perhaps you should have done a little more research before making the purchase. Your laptop is LGA 1366, the chip you just bought is LGA 1156.

 

Why would you do that??!!!!

Besides the different socket, i5 < i7

 

Core i7>Core i5

 

LOLz....oh ya??? http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/14/intel-begins-production-of-32nm-westmere-processors/