# Intel to Cannibalize Core i7 920 / 940



## btarunr (May 30, 2009)

Prepare to bid farewell to the $400 Core i7 upgrade dream. Chip major Intel is reportedly planning to discontinue some of the relatively affordable Core i7 processors, including the most commercially successful model, the 920. Cannibalizing the Core i7 920 and 940, will create market headroom for the company's upcoming Core i5 "Lynnfield" processors. Internal analysis reportedly show that the high-end Lynnfield processors perform too close to the lower models of Core i7, and that could potentially affect sales of those high-end Core i5 chips. Perhaps Intel is trying to oil the segment to make the most profits. Sources at motherboard manufacturers tell that the companies are already working on adjusting their X58 product lines to cater to the future lines of Core i7 processors, which, may start with the $649 Core i7 950 and beyond. What's more, 950 is expected to get the axe later down the line. It may have certainly been a good couple of quarters for you, saving for triple channel memory, true dual PCI-E x16 motherboards, and the elusive Core i7 920. You may want to execute your plans now, or change them.

*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## Weer (May 30, 2009)

This is what makes i5 possible. Everyone who can - get a 920 now.


----------



## btarunr (May 30, 2009)

Order placed.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 30, 2009)

Oh #@&%!

Makes sense but still...


----------



## freakshow (May 30, 2009)

wow that kind of sucks dont it lol.....im glad i got mine 3 months ago


----------



## Binge (May 30, 2009)

That says nothing about the xeon chips available for the i7.


----------



## zAAm (May 30, 2009)

I wondered if the i5 and i7's performance wasn't a bit too close for the price difference... But didn't think they'd stop making the i7 in the process. Glad I got mine a month ago then


----------



## DrPepper (May 30, 2009)

Ugh I wanted a cheap 920


----------



## lococol (May 30, 2009)

It could also be a very good way of making people think they are going to miss out so they rush to part with their cash , i'm quite happy with my e8500@4Ghz for now , but the first thing i thought when i read this was " quick , where can i buy one " ,lol , i don't have the money and i don't really need one yet


----------



## Wile E (May 30, 2009)

Perhaps when i5 releases, i7 will see 8 core cpus, thus moving the entire platform up a notch?


----------



## Assassin48 (May 30, 2009)

Wile E said:


> Perhaps when i5 releases, i7 will see 8 core cpus, thus moving the entire platform up a notch?



how much would they cost? $1000+


----------



## alexp999 (May 30, 2009)

Its always been said that i7 was like the EX and QX of the Core 2 range, now that they will be able to bring out mainstream chips it only makes sense to drop off the "affordable" enthusiast chips.

i5 should be good, its what I have been planning since it was announced, i7 is far too over priced IMO, and seeing as that they should be (or not long after) built on lower fab processes, they should run cooler too.


----------



## Wile E (May 30, 2009)

Assassin48 said:


> how much would they cost? $1000+



My guess is $1200 and up.


----------



## Assassin48 (May 30, 2009)

Wile E said:


> My guess is $1200 and up.



that's 900 more then what I would pay


----------



## Munki (May 30, 2009)

Other than the obvious, who can afford to run out and buy a $1300 CPU? I for one cannot.


----------



## DanishDevil (May 30, 2009)

Now the announced Core i5 Quad prices make sense.  They are going to replace the current i7 920 and i7 940 price bracket.  Dirty :shadedshu

Looks like I may be grabbing a D0 920, some DDR3, and an EVGA mATX X58 soonish.


----------



## MTnumb (May 30, 2009)

im not rushing anywhere. from a few benches i saw over at anandtech you could see the cheapest I5 performs very I7ish 920ish. and if you consider the platform price..920 performance for 200$ less then I7 i dont see why people are rushing to get the 920...its like waiting a month before HD5870X2 to go rush and buy a HD4870X2.


----------



## Wile E (May 30, 2009)

At any rate, I'm not so sure I believe this yet. Wouldn't it make sense to cut this level of performance from the cheaper line, and try to force people into the more expensive platform instead?


----------



## Gzero (May 30, 2009)

:'( seems Intel still don't want to go below £200 for a starting range product. We'll just have to wait and see how AMD undercut them.


----------



## jamesrt2004 (May 30, 2009)

Just get the equivalent Xeon's..


----------



## Black Hades (May 30, 2009)

MTnumb said:


> im not rushing anywhere. from a few benches i saw over at anandtech you could see the cheapest I5 performs very I7ish 920ish. and if you consider the platform price..920 performance for 200$ less then I7 *i dont see why people are rushing to get the 920...its like waiting a month before HD5870X2 to go rush and buy a HD4870X2*.



Without going in the details, don't forget that i7 > i5 and also more future proof as a platform. So your HD5870X2 analogy is a bit faulty. LGA 1156 shouldn't be at all, that's my opinion. What intel seems to be doing is artificially keeping a high  price for the i7 by inserting a new marked segment.
i5 would only make sense for me as a consumer if it would replace the core 2 duo/quad price range.
Maybe in a year's time i7 will be affordable and you'l be sorry for ever buying a i5...


----------



## alexp999 (May 30, 2009)

Black Hades said:


> i5 would only make sense for me as a consumer if it would replace the core 2 duo/quad price range.



Thats exactly what it should be doing


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 30, 2009)

Black Hades said:


> Without going in the details, don't forget that i7 > i5 and also more future proof as a platform. So your HD5870X2 analogy is a bit faulty. LGA 1156 shouldn't be at all, that's my opinion. What intel seems to be doing is artificially keeping a high  price for the i7 by inserting a new marked segment.
> i5 would only make sense for me as a consumer if it would replace the core 2 duo/quad price range.
> Maybe in a year's time i7 will be affordable and you'l be sorry for ever buying a i5...



i7/X58 is the new Skulltrail platform.  It is a multi-way architecture that doesn't take the FB-DIMM penalty that hurt the Xeon-based Skulltrail platform.  Just as the original Skulltrails were ridiculous, Core i7 is going there too.  I'm just happy there was a window where Core i7 wasn't ridiculous.  I highly doubt i7 will ever be cheap again.

I think Core i5 will be filling the Core 2 Duo/Quad void a few months after release.  It will intro more expensive but that is likely to change pretty quick.


----------



## mtosev (May 30, 2009)

Meh i dont like this. will the stock of 920 cpus last untill Sept?


----------



## Black Hades (May 30, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> i7/X58 is the new Skulltrail platform.  It is a multi-way architecture that doesn't take the FB-DIMM penalty that hurt the Xeon-based Skulltrail platform.  Just as the original Skulltrails were ridiculous, Core i7 is going there too.  I'm just happy there was a window where Core i7 wasn't ridiculous.  *I highly doubt i7 will ever be cheap again.*
> 
> I think Core i5 will be filling the Core 2 Duo/Quad void a few months after release.  It will intro more expensive but that is likely to change pretty quick.



Hmm I WAS presuming that i7's LGA 1366 is going to (eventually) be the next 775... I'm sure I wasn't the only one thinking this. As far as I know LGA 1156 could be as futureproof as amd's 754.


----------



## Wile E (May 30, 2009)

Intel is going to shoot themselves in the foot with this strategy. AMD learned this lesson with 754 and 939. They are killing the upgrade path. What about people that want to start with a low-mid range cpu, then perhaps jump to a high end later? I don't know of many people that would be willing to replace the entire platform for incremental upgrades.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 30, 2009)

Black Hades said:


> Hmm I WAS presuming that i7's LGA 1366 is going to (eventually) be the next 775... I'm sure I wasn't the only one thinking this.




Market | Old Package | New Package | Brands
Mobile | mPGA 478 | mPGA-989 | TBA
Desktop | LGA-775 | LGA-1156 | Core i5
Workstation/Server | LGA-771 | LGA-1366 | Core i7/Xeon
Server | PGA-604 | LGA-1567 | Xeon
I expect these new packages to stick around for at least four years:


Tick-Tock | Codename | Process | Technology
Tick | Nehalem | 45nm | Netburst
Tock | Westmere | 32nm | Netburst
Tick | Sandy Bridge | 32nm | P6
Tock | ??? | 22nm? | P6


----------



## btarunr (May 30, 2009)

jamesrt2004 said:


> Just get the equivalent Xeon's..



Sure, only $999 for Xeon X5550 (2.66 GHz, 8 MB L3, HTT (equivalent specs to i7 920)). You'd rather spend $650 on the i7 950.


----------



## mudkip (May 30, 2009)

*hoax Hoax Hoax * *hoax Hoax Hoax * *hoax Hoax Hoax * *hoax Hoax Hoax * *hoax Hoax Hoax * *hoax Hoax Hoax * *hoax Hoax Hoax * *hoax Hoax Hoax * *hoax Hoax Hoax * *hoax Hoax Hoax * *hoax Hoax Hoax * *hoax Hoax Hoax * *hoax Hoax Hoax * *hoax Hoax Hoax * *hoax Hoax Hoax * *hoax Hoax Hoax * *hoax Hoax Hoax * *hoax Hoax Hoax * *hoax Hoax Hoax * *hoax Hoax Hoax * *hoax Hoax Hoax * *hoax Hoax Hoax * *hoax Hoax Hoax * *hoax Hoax Hoax * *hoax Hoax Hoax * *hoax Hoax Hoax * *hoax Hoax Hoax *


----------



## btarunr (May 30, 2009)

not hoax


----------



## mudkip (May 30, 2009)

btarunr said:


> not hoax



prove me wrong , if the info doesn't come from intel itself it's just a hoax trying to make people buy an i7


----------



## btarunr (May 30, 2009)

mudkip said:


> prove me wrong , if the info doesn't come from intel itself it's just a hoax trying to make people buy an i7



I have a source to cite. I don't need any more proof. Of course Intel won't tell you it's discontinuing two of its chips months in advance, just as it doesn't officially tell anything about the chips that are slated for months later.


----------



## MTnumb (May 30, 2009)

Black Hades said:


> Without going in the details, don't forget that i7 > i5 and also more future proof as a platform. So your HD5870X2 analogy is a bit faulty. LGA 1156 shouldn't be at all, that's my opinion. What intel seems to be doing is artificially keeping a high  price for the i7 by inserting a new marked segment.
> i5 would only make sense for me as a consumer if it would replace the core 2 duo/quad price range.
> Maybe in a year's time i7 will be affordable and you'l be sorry for ever buying a i5...


i can't seem to understand how having triple channel and a QPI makes a platform more future proof. or better put. what makes I5 not-future-proof? the HD5870X2 analogy is indeed faulty but its the only thing i had on my mind when i written the post. and you are 100% about the artificial pricing but that was the plan all along. I7 = super high end, I5 = mid range.
i recommend you read the article over at anandtech and see where im coming from. the lowest performing I5, crippled by a low turbo mode perform very much like the 920. the more expensive version is even faster and has HT. this will perform better then the 920 at the same price but remember... the P55 costs the same as the P45. and dual channel DDR3 is also cheaper then triple channel. so for the same performance you get a platform that costs 200$ less then the 920.


----------



## madrooster (May 30, 2009)

btarunr said:


> Sure, only $999 for Xeon X5550 (2.66 GHz, 8 MB L3, HTT (equivalent specs to i7 920)). You'd rather spend $650 on the i7 950.



Er.. W3520 = i7 920. W3540 = i7 940.


----------



## Weer (May 30, 2009)

madrooster said:


> Er.. W3520 = i7 920. W3540 = i7 940.



Where did these come from? Can I run them in a dual-socket motherboard?

Only one link.. I guess not. So these are for servers that only have a single socket.. what's the point?


----------



## HaZe303 (May 30, 2009)

This sux for us current i7 owners, what am I gonna do if my 920 breaks??? Im a poor builder, I have never paid more than 400$ for a cpu, and Im not going to start either!? This is truely a low move by Intel. Instead of making me buy higher priced i7 cpu´s in the future, I might go over to the green team instead? Atleast AMD have cheap prices.

I kind of feel duped by Intel, here I have bought me expensive 3 channel ddr3 memory, a expensive gigabyte board, and now if I want to keep this system future proof Intel is forcing me to expensive CPU´s as well?? What a stupid move!


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 30, 2009)

Ok the i5 is going to replace the i7? I thought the i5 was a "lesser" version of the i7. Man if the i5 is meant to replace the i7 its a marketing failure.



HaZe303 said:


> This sux for us current i7 owners, what am I gonna do if my 920 breaks??? Im a poor builder, I have never paid more than 400$ for a cpu, and Im not going to start either!?!


 Simple. Go AMD.


----------



## madrooster (May 30, 2009)

Weer said:


> Where did these come from? Can I run them in a dual-socket motherboard?
> 
> Only one link.. I guess not. So these are for servers that only have a single socket.. what's the point?



They are higher binned for lower power consumption (and better overclocking).

Exactly like the X3320/30/50/60/70 series of Xeons (they were Q9xxx equivalents).


----------



## HaZe303 (May 30, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Simple. Go AMD.



Didnt I just say that??


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 30, 2009)

Can someone tell me why the i5 isn't called the i8? I mean the i5 should be faster no?


----------



## madrooster (May 30, 2009)

The fact the 950 is out, maybe there will be a 930 (2.8GHz maybe) too.

Otherwise effectively Intel has stopped those who can't afford an extreme edition CPU, from upgrading CPUs.

Looking at the rumoured Lynnfield speeds, the $284 one will supposedly be 2.8GHz, it would make sense either for:

1. There be a i7 930 to match the 2.8GHz Lynnfield
2. The 2.8GHz $284 Lynnfield isn't true, but is actually 1 speed bin lower (2.66GHz) - like how the 2.93GHz $584 Lynnfield, is 1 speed bin lower than the equivalently priced i7 950 at 3.06GHz. This would then mean the entry level Lynnfield would have to be either 2.4 or 2.53GHz to keep the differences roughly the same.


----------



## HaZe303 (May 30, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Can someone tell me why the i5 isn't called the i8? I mean the i5 should be faster no?



No because i5 is the lower end segment of this newer architecture.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 30, 2009)

HaZe303 said:


> No because i5 is the lower end segment of this newer architecture.



Then why is it replacing the i7 if its lower?


----------



## Gam'ster (May 30, 2009)

I always thought a cross-platform ability was a good thing, Although Im kepping an eye on the I5 as details emerge.


----------



## DrPepper (May 30, 2009)

Weer said:


> Where did these come from? Can I run them in a dual-socket motherboard?
> 
> Only one link.. I guess not. So these are for servers that only have a single socket.. what's the point?



They are workstation CPU's and I think they can do dual socket but definately not sure about that.



TheMailMan78 said:


> Then why is it replacing the i7 if its lower?



It's not replacing. They are removing the 920 at its price point so they can use the i5's at that price.


----------



## madrooster (May 30, 2009)

DrPepper said:


> They are workstation CPU's and I think they can do dual socket but definately not sure about that.



They can't, they are UP Xeons aka Uni Processor. One only.


----------



## DrPepper (May 30, 2009)

madrooster said:


> They can't, they are UP Xeons aka Uni Processor. One only.



I wasn't sure thanks for clearing that up.


----------



## grunt_408 (May 30, 2009)

Darn it when I done my last build i7 was just out of my grasp, due to needing to change ram cpu and mobo it was'nt realistic at the time so I went c2d. Far-q intel why did you do this to me


----------



## DrPepper (May 30, 2009)

Craigleberry said:


> Darn it when I done my last build i7 was just out of my grasp, due to needing to change ram cpu and mobo it was'nt realistic at the time so I went c2d. Far-q intel why did you do this to me



Just buy a cpu and wait till you get a mobo


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 30, 2009)

DrPepper said:


> It's not replacing. They are removing the 920 at its price point so they can use the i5's at that price.


 Ok I guess my reading comprehension was off then  I read it a few time but it just didn't make sense and the posts that followed confused me more.

<<(Holds his AM2+ board tight.) 

Anyway I feel for the people that bought i7 right now. Still I think calling it an i5 is a bad idea. I think Intel and AMD should take up the naming schemes as car manufactures do. Think about it. i7GT for the enthusiast version etc, etc.


----------



## qwerty_lesh (May 30, 2009)

Kinda gald now that I have a 920. It makes some sense why Intel would be doing this, since they have already had to delay the i5 release dates because of parner excess iventory (does that make sense??).
But what sucks is I wont be able to pay about the same price as i did for my 920 to get a better CPU, i'll have to in future look at paying a silly amount for a processing improvement.
Oh HaZe303, guess what happens if our 920's break and theres no inventory for them anymore, Free upgrade much?? 
there are some upsides for existing owners, but theres no upside for those planning on going i7 and have not done so yet.


----------



## LittleLizard (May 30, 2009)

it makes a lot of sense that intel do this and luckily for me, i never got high end, just low end


----------



## n-ster (May 30, 2009)

OMG that means if I buy i7 I won't have an upgrade path?!? So I'm getting screwed? They better make some affordable good Xeon lga 1366 processors or I'll assassinate someone... In mid-June I'm buying Assassin's i7 system.... NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO


----------



## DaveK (May 30, 2009)

So If I want Core i7 I have to buy the 950 or the 965 for €999, fucking bullshit.


----------



## Soylent Joe (May 30, 2009)

When the i5's hit the market, I wonder if all the C2D's and C2Q's will lower in price. If so, when are the i5's supposed to be coming out, because if it's soon, I might hold of on buying a CPU for my new build.


----------



## n-ster (May 30, 2009)

C2Qs and C2D's will not be manufactured anymore, so I'd guess it won't change in price since people who don't want to upgrade their mobo/RAM will jump on them?


----------



## TheLaughingMan (May 30, 2009)

*Confused*

Why is everyone so shocked.  I saw this coming a mile away.  Just wait, several of the higher end Core 2 Quads will be killed off soon as well.

This is just bad for the consumers all around.  3 different sockets, no interchangeability among them, no clue as to which will be continued in the future, and overlapping performance removing good products from the market.

I will be honest, my next upgrade will be AMD 955, but I am not a fanboy so I will not start a defense rant here.  The i7 920 was a great product with just about perfect price point.  i7's only real weakness was the expense of the Intel chipsets and the random lawsuit mess with Nvidia about their i7 solution.  Between the crap they started with Nvidia and the i5 were just bad decisions in my opinion.  An i5 is little more than a deliberately crippled i7, so why change the socket?  I was going with an i7 920 for a while, but after all that mess, I just can't help them dick people.


----------



## btarunr (May 30, 2009)

There's reason to cheer (for those planning to buy an i7 setup). Anandtech found out that Lynnfield 2.66 GHz is almost as fast as an i7 920. http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3570&p=2

What's more, the i5 chip will sell for under $200 ($196 to be precise). P55 motherboards shouldn't be as expensive as X58, and dual-channel DDR3 is cheaper anyway.


----------



## n-ster (May 30, 2009)

WHAT DO YOU GUYS NOT UNDERSTAND? i5 was and is supposed to replace Core 2 in general... of course "several of the higher end Core 2 Quads will be killed off soon as well" since all Core 2s will 



> saw this coming a mile away


 I doubt that


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 30, 2009)

btarunr said:


> There's reason to cheer (for those planning to buy an i7 setup). Anandtech found out that Lynnfield 2.66 GHz is almost as fast as an i7 920. http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3570&p=2
> 
> What's more, the i5 chip will sell for under $200 ($196 to be precise). P55 motherboards shouldn't be as expensive as X58, and dual-channel DDR3 is cheaper anyway.



But if you took the lead and bought an i7 your "screwed" for an upgrade path. Correct?

But honestly guys if I had bought an i7 I would be extremely happy still. Even if I lost an upgrade path. Why? Because the i7 is so damn fast by the time you NEED to upgrade it will be time for a whole new system anyway.

I wouldnt sweat this news. I rocked a 939 less than a year ago. It still runs great and runs every game on the market.........AMD FTW!


----------



## Binge (May 30, 2009)

Taiwanese motherboard guys talk about Intel making a drastic move.  I hope a lot of folks panic just because people other than Intel make a bold statement.  That article says enough to get people making decisions but not enough to validate this or lead me to believe Intel will discontinue the server/workstation (Xeon) i7 cpus.


----------



## dccmadams (May 30, 2009)

I think i7 was the test/beta  platform. The i7 will be the socket left out down the road.


----------



## soryuuha (May 30, 2009)

Will Core i5 mobo have SLI ?

Iianm the SLI license only for X58..


----------



## btarunr (May 30, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> But if you took the lead and bought an i7 your "screwed" for an upgrade path. Correct?



Incorrect. If you want to upgrade from a Core i7 920, you still have the $650 i7 950, and the Extreme Edition chips. The upgrade path for existing i7 920 users won't be affected a big deal.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 30, 2009)

btarunr said:


> Incorrect. If you want to upgrade from a Core i7 920, you still have the $650 i7 950, and the Extreme Edition chips. The upgrade path for existing i7 920 users won't be affected a big deal.



The i5 is a different socket?


----------



## btarunr (May 30, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> The i5 is a different socket?



i5 is going to be there, so are 'expensive' i7 chips.

Earlier you were going from your existing $280 i7 920 to a $550 i7 940 or the $1000 i7 965XE. Now the next upgrade will be to $650 (950), and the $1000 (975 XE), and beyond. So you see, the upgrade path isn't badly affected. 920 is awesome. If I already have a 920, I wouldn't spend another ~$400 moving to another chip that still has locked bus multiplier albeit a few notches higher. The elusive ~$1000 Extreme Edition is always there. If you want to go i7 and have already saved $270+, at least buy the chip and hoard it till you can buy memory and motherboard later. Otherwise, go Core i5. For $200, get nearly what i7 920 offers. The upgrade path however, ends at the 2.93 GHz ~$600 chip.


----------



## thebluebumblebee (May 30, 2009)

This i5/i7 foolery is exactly what a company in an almost monopoly position does.  Why not charge extra so that you can say that you run the very "best"?  This attitude has existed with Intel for some time and is the reason that they spend so much time in court.  What if it latter comes out that the i7 is really no better than i5?  Remember, the i5 chip that was tested was crippled.  Can you say class action lawsuit?  If you're going to change sockets, just do it.  i5 is going to have a cloud over it of "what am I limiting myself to?" while the i7 has a cloud over it of "am I just paying extra for entrance to the "club"?".  From an inventory stand point, having two platforms makes no sense.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 30, 2009)

btarunr said:


> i5 is going to be there, so are 'expensive' i7 chips.
> 
> Earlier you were going from your existing $280 i7 920 to a $550 i7 940. Now the next upgrade will be to $650 (950), and the $999 (975 XE), and beyond. So you see, the upgrade path isn't badly affected. 920 is awesome. If I already have a 920, I wouldn't spend another ~$400 moving to another chip that still has locked bus multiplier albeit a few notches higher. The elusive ~$1000 Extreme Edition is always there.



Then it does make sense. I'm not so sure I like the idea of multi-platforms but what you said isn't as bad as some have you believe. As always thanks for the education!


----------



## Soylent Joe (May 30, 2009)

Now I feel bad that I'm getting a C2D for my new gaming PC.


----------



## a_ump (May 30, 2009)

what puzzles me is that intel doesn't want i5 to be near i7, so they're simply removing the entry i7's. Yet with c2d E7500 and E7600 could usually overclock as much or more than the E8400, with performance right on it's ass or better if the oc was better yet the E75/76 are priced $20/30 cheaper. Guess i7 is important to not get it's territory disturbed by i5 so they just shorten their line up to the $600 and $1000 cpu. lol i7 sales good bye, but i bet i5 is gonna boom, esp the 2.66ghz one. If that chip performs with games and in general like it did in the cinemark benchmark that anandtech posted, intel is goin to make some nice cash, not to mention i thk it'll hurt AMD's PII sales


----------



## Binge (May 30, 2009)

Anybody bothered read the bit at the end about how the i7s OC in comparison to the Lynnfield?


----------



## btarunr (May 30, 2009)

Binge said:


> Anybody bothered read the bit at the end about how the i7s OC in comparison to the Lynnfield?



I did, and I will wait for people to actually buy and OC it. Before its release, the press wrote-off i7's OC capabilities the same way. If i5 sucked at overclocking, there would've been no way Gigabyte designed a 24-phase (redundant) motherboard, or some even designing boards with digital PWM. They would know before hand, and hence know what kinds of motherboards to design.


----------



## n-ster (May 30, 2009)

IMO the 200$ chip won't go over 4ghz easily


----------



## thebluebumblebee (May 30, 2009)

and if i5 doesn't overclock, they play right into AMD's hands, who is boasting about their overclocking.  If Intel is found to be artificially limiting the overclocking on the i5, it will make for bad press at the least and a law suit at the worst.  To the leader goes the spoils.  AMD sold the FX-60 for $1000 in it's day even as Intel caught up.


----------



## Kantastic (May 30, 2009)

Heh, looks like my dream of buying an i7 in 2 years when they become the dual cores of today are gone. ^_^ oh well!


----------



## mrw1986 (May 30, 2009)

Meh...I'm still getting an i7 920 for $129 next month. Check out this deal:

Big Deal Bundle #2 – $129 (USD)

    * Intel® Core™ i7 920 processor
    * Windows Vista Ultimate* (64-bit edition)
    * Upgrade voucher to receive Windows 7* (64-bit edition) upon its release

Or for $289 I can get this:

Big Deal Bundle #1 – $289 (USD)

    * Intel® Core™ i7 920 processor
    * Intel® Desktop Board DX58SO
    * Windows Vista Ultimate* (64-bit edition)
    * Upgrade voucher to receive Windows 7* (64-bit edition) upon its release


----------



## PCpraiser100 (May 30, 2009)

FYI translation:  F*ck You Intel


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 30, 2009)

PCpraiser100 said:


> FYI translation:  F*ck You Intel



In Soviet forum. Intel F*ck you.


----------



## n-ster (May 30, 2009)

mrw1986 said:


> Meh...I'm still getting an i7 920 for $129 next month. Check out this deal:
> 
> Big Deal Bundle #2 – $129 (USD)
> 
> ...



Get bundle # 2

Now tell me how and where do you get these deals


----------



## wiak (May 30, 2009)

go amd


----------



## mtosev (May 30, 2009)

wiak said:


> go amd



we went bankrupt click to continue to intel.com


----------



## n-ster (May 30, 2009)

Guys please be mature


----------



## surfsk8snow.jah (May 30, 2009)

mrw1986 said:


> Meh...I'm still getting an i7 920 for $129 next month. Check out this deal:
> 
> Big Deal Bundle #2 – $129 (USD)
> 
> ...



Woa. Yes please tell me where to get this deal?? I would snatch in a heartbeat, especially given this news.

Honestly, this really does smack of monopolization... We had great product #1 for a reasonable price. But now we have a lesser (cheaper) product #2 that we can sell at the same price, so lets jack up the prices on #1! 
I have been intel supporter for quite a long time, but this is a racket if I've ever seen one. And obviously they're in bed with mobo companies (see recent EU ruling against Intel), considering they keep changing sockets. Come on.


----------



## 3xploit (May 30, 2009)

mrw1986 said:


> Meh...I'm still getting an i7 920 for $129 next month. Check out this deal:
> 
> Big Deal Bundle #2 – $129 (USD)
> 
> ...



intel retailedge.http://retailedge.intel.com/login.aspx you gotta work at certain retail stores to qualify. hell i might apply for wal-mart just to get that bundle...$129 + $180-$200board + $77ram and you got a full i7 setup


----------



## lemonadesoda (May 30, 2009)

TBH, I think Intel is doing the right thing.  i7, QPI and tripple channel DDR3 is all overkill for a "consumer" computer... AND... provides a specification and bandwidth way beyond that i7-920 needs. 

So i5 *can* fill that performance gap for cheaper, and i7 should be kicked up to a higher level. They should move i7 to 6 core plus HTT, and use it for workstation and enthhusiast.  i5 is more than enough for the consumer and the gamer.

Remember, i7 isnt being killed off! Just at the lower end it is being substituted by the equally capable i5. And there will be better i7 processors available for that platform available soon.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 30, 2009)

HaZe303 said:


> This sux for us current i7 owners, what am I gonna do if my 920 breaks???


If it breaks under the three year warranty (30 days if you bought OEM), you'll probably get that 920 replaced by a 950.  If you overvolted it or something voiding the warranty, then yeah, you're screwed.


----------



## mtosev (May 30, 2009)

any ideas if i7 920 will still be available for parchase in September?


----------



## mabszy (May 30, 2009)

well, i think intel could not satisfy 2 distinct industries with the i7 core, 1. The extremes (Gamers,  3D app users and the links) 2. The Rest (industries, companies, schools etc.) with the core i7 being too expensive for The Rest.

Perhaps Intel sees the lower end i5, being a stripped and hopefully much cheaper model of the i7 will be dominant in most computers bought for "The Rest". I guess this was a market that Intel felt threatened should AMD release their affordable new chips.


----------



## steelkane (May 30, 2009)

Thats Intel for you,, rush the i7 out to beat AMD, then pull them & come out with less power for the same money. i5 should have came first.


----------



## mrw1986 (May 30, 2009)

mrw1986 said:


> Meh...I'm still getting an i7 920 for $129 next month. Check out this deal:
> 
> Big Deal Bundle #2 – $129 (USD)
> 
> ...



Yes, it is the Intel Retail Edge bundle. I haven't worked for a store in years that has supported it...but I have my ways. Oh, and stop PMing me. You can't have my bundle.


----------



## eidairaman1 (May 31, 2009)

steelkane said:


> Thats Intel for you,, rush the i7 out to beat AMD, then pull them & come out with less power for the same money. i5 should have came first.



thats what happens to all these companies they rush their top of the line first then release lower models that have been refined further to the point they are overall better with feature sets etc


----------



## OnBoard (May 31, 2009)

DrPepper said:


> It's not replacing. They are removing the 920 at its price point so they can use the i5's at that price.





Soylent Joe said:


> When the i5's hit the market, I wonder if all the C2D's and C2Q's will lower in price. If so, when are the i5's supposed to be coming out, because if it's soon, I might hold of on buying a CPU for my new build.



Now it all makes sense. Remove low end i7, bring out expensive i5 and no need to lower C2Q prices ever..

Intel sucks with their quad prices, I'd buy one if they were cheap, but couple years have passed and price hasn't changed. Unless you count Q6600 that's old and not made anymore or Q8xxx that are no use with their low multi.

Well they can keep their i5 too, I'll stay chep dual *shows tongue to Intel*


----------



## spacejunky (May 31, 2009)

Here's where I got mine for $229
http://www.microcenter.com/single_product_results.phtml?product_id=0302727


----------



## madrooster (May 31, 2009)

We still have yet to see any other news source confirm this...


----------



## TheLaughingMan (May 31, 2009)

*Doubt all you want*



n-ster said:


> WHAT DO YOU GUYS NOT UNDERSTAND? i5 was and is supposed to replace Core 2 in general... of course "several of the higher end Core 2 Quads will be killed off soon as well" since all Core 2s will
> 
> I doubt that



I knew they would kill off the 920 at the least because its price point is kill sales of the 940 and C2 Quads around $200.  Granted they make money with every sell, but they are make a bunch of processes as well they no one wants because they can get the 920.

I will admit that I didn't see the recent release of the refresh with the 950 and such, but this I knew.  Believe it or not, I do my homework and the 920 has had it coming for a while.  I figured the i5 was going to be the trigger man.

You are most definitely right about the Core 2 going the way side, but not without a fight.  The 775 sold too well.  The only way to push new people to buy the i5 is to kill competition from its C2 Quad brothers.  While they will all the way side eventually, I think the higher end C2 Quads will die off before the i5 is released.


----------



## Black Hades (May 31, 2009)

lemonadesoda said:


> TBH, I think Intel is doing the right thing.  i7, *QPI and tripple channel DDR3 is all overkill for a "consumer"* computer... AND... provides a specification and bandwidth way beyond that i7-920 needs.
> 
> So i5 *can* fill that performance gap for cheaper, and i7 should be kicked up to a higher level. They should move i7 to 6 core plus HTT, and use it for workstation and enthhusiast.  i5 is more than enough for the consumer and the gamer.
> {...}



Overkill for how long?
 It's not for the 920's sake that we want to see the i7 platform stay, maybe I do want a motherboard that I'll keep fo 3 processor upgrades. If they'd instead just keep the c2d for low end /mainstream things would be much better. As i7 sales theoretically increase ddr3 will be cheaper, triple channel would become standard, this is the way tech and the marked evolve.

This is involution. As a new better product appears it should push the older ones pricewise down and in popularity up.
I could also understand if they wanted to fill a *missing* price range gap (like we see in the GPU market) but they are effectively chopping their way into the market. Of course we need competition for all this to happen. 

I'll just stick to my wolfdale, let's face it...it's more than enough for even the most pretentious gamer provided you have a killer video card. Then when the market settles we'll see what's what.

If in 2 years time i5 will be an obsolete platform I'll laugh my hat off at all that bought it. Pun intended.


----------



## lococol (May 31, 2009)

in games i7 is not such a big improvement to justify an upgrade , i have even seen tables where the stock i7920 is a frame or 2 slower than the stock e8500 in some games, i have a core2duo e8500@4000Ghz and i have yet to find a game where this cpu struggles(haven't tried gta4 yet) crysis runs like a dream all maxed out ,thanks to my 4870x2, my point is a good dual core and a top graphics card are better for gaming, still , as most games are not cpu intensive


----------



## Hayder_Master (May 31, 2009)

i still say "pay 1$ for 1mhz cpu increase frequency" , pay 400$ over i7 to get 400mhz more


----------



## Deleted member 3 (May 31, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> i7/X58 is the new Skulltrail platform.  It is a multi-way architecture that doesn't take the FB-DIMM penalty that hurt the Xeon-based Skulltrail platform.  Just as the original Skulltrails were ridiculous, Core i7 is going there too.  I'm just happy there was a window where Core i7 wasn't ridiculous.  I highly doubt i7 will ever be cheap again.
> 
> I think Core i5 will be filling the Core 2 Duo/Quad void a few months after release.  It will intro more expensive but that is likely to change pretty quick.



You fail to see what Skulltrail is then. i7 is nothing more than the current generation high end desktop. Skulltrail is beyond that, high end workstation platform marketed as gaming platform. Skulltrail is far more exclusive and pointless than i7.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 31, 2009)

LGA1366 can handle both (DP Skulltrail/SP Extreme Edition).  The only difference is the number of QPI links (one per socket).


----------



## Deleted member 3 (May 31, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> LGA1366 can handle both (DP Skulltrail/SP Extreme Edition).  The only difference is the number of QPI links (one per socket).



The socket name can yes, the socket isn't pin compatible though and the chipset is different. So apart from having the same amount of pins (well, balls) they are not the same.


----------



## TAViX (May 31, 2009)

The question is, it will be better than any Core 2, either Quad or Duo, out there?! Somehow I doubt it...

My bet is that any Core 2 o.c. > 4Ghz is better. Maybe I'm wrong...


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 31, 2009)

The chipset has to be different in order to support the extra QPI link.  Additionally, the pins were made incompatible so idiots don't try to run a dual QPI link processor in a single QPI link board.

Regardless, we'll see when the Skulltrail board/processors come out.  Ditto for the two-way Xeons.


----------



## grunt_408 (May 31, 2009)

DrPepper said:


> Just buy a cpu and wait till you get a mobo



lol the thought did cross my mind at the time  And may consider doing this very soon.
I have my E8500 @3.8 GHz close enough to 4GHz and happy with its performance. I did build an I7 920 based rig for my dad and it feels a snappier machine but not by much.


----------



## DrPepper (May 31, 2009)

TAViX said:


> The question is, it will be better than any Core 2, either Quad or Duo, out there?! Somehow I doubt it...
> 
> My bet is that any Core 2 o.c. > 4Ghz is better. Maybe I'm wrong...



4ghz core 2 will be faster than a core i7 or i5 at stock but they can also reach 4ghz.


----------



## qwerty_lesh (May 31, 2009)

hah reach? if you get a well binned one with a very tolerant memory controller you can go well beyond the 4ghz mark with the 920. Plus with some D0 ones you can do that and you dont need to give it as much voltage to do so.


----------



## lemonadesoda (May 31, 2009)

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3570&p=1

Nice review of Lynnfield i5 on Anantech. Link is above.

Notice that clock-for-clock the i5 is *just as good* as the i7-920. Occasionally, it is slower but by not more than 5% and there is an argument that the ES tested is underperforming the release version of i5 that will have an impressive Turbo feature.

The anandtech benchmarks go to show that DDR3 dual channel and dropping QPI but putting 16 PCIe lanes onboard is more than sufficient bandwidth even for Nehalem.

It is becoming evidently clear that i7 architecture (QPI, tripple channel DDR3) is overkill for the i7-920 with *just* 4 cores+HTT.  This bandwidth probably DOES make sense for the 6 core edition to be released in 2010, and for the multi-socket Xeon Nehalems with 2 or more CPUs.  But for the one chip retail i7 something simpler is more than enough.

There is also an argument that *as a gaming rig*, i5 is better, due to the 16x on-CPU-die PCIe lanes.  Latency will be lower compared to being routed through a northbridge... and we all know that the GPU is the bottleneck with gaming... so every bit helps.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 31, 2009)

lemonadesoda said:


> There is also an argument that [B... faster. I wonder if the i5 will change this.


----------



## gumpty (May 31, 2009)

My vague plan (bank-manager allowing) was to wait till next year to go to an i7 platform, but this gives me pause because I would not have gone any further than the 920 processor. If they don't have a processor at that price then I wont do it. :shadedshu

However ... I will be watching those stock-levels of i7 920's very closely. If they start to drop rapidly I might just grab one. Then, once they're all out of stock, I can always sell a nice Intel Core i7 920 D0 retail-boxed processor on eBay for a small profit.


----------



## TAViX (May 31, 2009)

DrPepper said:


> 4ghz core 2 will be faster than a core i7 or i5 at stock but they can also reach 4ghz.



Hmm...The price here is the main isue. i7 is a good proc, but ridiculous priced.


----------



## bogie (May 31, 2009)

I still see no need to upgrade. Happy with my Core 2 Quad Q9650 @3.6Ghz and HD4870 X2.
i7 will not improve my game framerates.

i7 and i5 are waste of upgrade money. Will only be worth upgrading when 8 cores come out.


----------



## zAAm (May 31, 2009)

bogie said:


> I still see no need to upgrade. Happy with my Core 2 Quad Q9650 @3.6Ghz and HD4870 X2.
> i7 will not improve my game framerates.
> 
> i7 and i5 are waste of upgrade money. Will only be worth upgrading when 8 cores come out.



They are a waste of upgrade money for YOU. But for mainstream users who want more performance the i7 will give them that and more. It is expensive yes, but as they say, you get what you pay for.


----------



## Kitkat (May 31, 2009)

bogie said:


> I still see no need to upgrade. Happy with my Core 2 Quad Q9650 @3.6Ghz and HD4870 X2.
> i7 will not improve my game framerates.
> 
> i7 and i5 are waste of upgrade money. Will only be worth upgrading when 8 cores come out.



They are a waste of money all together.


----------



## btarunr (May 31, 2009)

lemonadesoda said:


> The anandtech benchmarks go to show that DDR3 dual channel *and dropping QPI* but putting 16 PCIe lanes onboard is more than sufficient bandwidth even for Nehalem.



QPI has gone nowhere. It is still the processor interconnect. It's what connects the CPU die to the northbridge die, inside the processor package. (if that's what you meant by "dropping"). Otherwise, they just dropped its multiplier (and probably rose its base clock). more


----------



## n-ster (May 31, 2009)

So that means i5 may have a chance to perform as well if not better than the i7?


----------



## kid41212003 (May 31, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> I know I'm beating a dead horse but the Phenom II is just as fast as an i7 when used as strictly a gaming platform. In some cases faster. I wonder if the i5 will change this.



Games don't need super fast cpu.


If you ask me why in same cases, sometime Phenom II is faster, then here are the answers:

-Vista/XP think 8 thread = 8 cores. So, if your game support 2 threads, that's mean it will run only on 1 core, or even worse 2 "not real" cores. But Windows 7 will fix this.
-The slowest Phenom II has higher frequency than the slowest Core i7 (disregard the prices, we're talking about performance here).
-Everyone knows this, put on a faster cpu when your CPU is already fast won't give you significant boost.
-Games don't run on 8 threads, or the needs for super high memory bandwidth (triple channels).

Core i5 is built for casual users and gamers (not workstation), take away things that not needed for games from an Core i7 and it will become and i5. And that's why there is no (or lil) different between them in benchmarks.

I'm really glad that I bought this Core i7 920, probably will last me until Intel/AMD release the 8 cores 22nm (2-3 years more), and I will have option to go CrossFire later in case AMD release something surprising.


----------



## DrPepper (May 31, 2009)

TAViX said:


> Hmm...The price here is the main isue. i7 is a good proc, but ridiculous priced.



£210 is not rediculous. There are still core 2's going for £500.


----------



## Nick89 (May 31, 2009)

This is why I dislike intel.


----------



## Wetbehindtheears (May 31, 2009)

That's true ... I remember paying more for an E8500 than I did for, my soon to arrive (I hope) D0 920.. ..


----------



## n-ster (May 31, 2009)

Is it really worth buying an i7 920 now though???


----------



## Wetbehindtheears (May 31, 2009)

Not sure, but I sure hope so... I ordered before all this came out!!


----------



## PaulieG (May 31, 2009)

TAViX said:


> Hmm...The price here is the main isue. i7 is a good proc, but ridiculous priced.



Really? Current i7  920 pricing is between $200-285 new, and the newly released Phenom II 955 is running $230-$250. Board prices have dropped too. A new x58 board can cost you as little as $165 new, very comparable to higher range AMD boards. As far as i5 goes, a comparable chip will cost $196 in 1000 units. Retail will be higher. The boards will also be just slightly cheaper than many of the x58 boards currently available. The price difference is much smaller than most people think.


----------



## Assassin48 (May 31, 2009)

I think intel is taking out the 920 because its much better chip for what you pay and they don't want the more expensive i5 to lose to a sub $280

So what are they going to do, cut they lowest i7 and jack up the price on the i5 that gives you almost same performance as the 920 

IMO I would get the 920 before they sell out


----------



## PaulieG (May 31, 2009)

Assassin48 said:


> I think intel is taking out the 920 because its much better chip for what you pay and they don't want the more expensive i5 to lose to a sub $280
> 
> So what are they going to do, cut they lowest i7 and jack up the price on the i5 that gives you almost same performance as the 920
> 
> IMO I would get the 920 before they sell out



This is the truth, as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## lemonadesoda (May 31, 2009)

btarunr said:


> QPI has gone nowhere. It is still the processor interconnect. It's what connects the CPU die to the northbridge die, inside the processor package. (if that's what you meant by "dropping"). Otherwise, they just dropped its multiplier (and probably rose its base clock). more



"dropping", as in, no longer an external point to point interface available to scale performance further.

QPI is no longer available to the "external" chipset to provide full-speed-full-bandwidth-low latency PCIe lanes, _additional_ processors, accelerators or memory controllers.  On x58, external QPI allowed vendors to build systems with multiple PCIe x16 lanes. On x55 this isnt possible. Only one set of x16 lanes is available directly off the CPU; if a vendor wanted more, they would have to put them on the DMI bus. But that would be slow and there would be latency issues. Therefore QUADFIRE/SLI is out, and crossfire/SLI is limited to 2x x8 lanes.


----------



## Assassin48 (Jun 1, 2009)

lemonadesoda said:


> "dropping", as in, no longer an external point to point interface available to scale performance further.
> 
> QPI is no longer available to the "external" chipset to provide full-speed-full-bandwidth-low latency PCIe lanes, _additional_ processors, accelerators or memory controllers.  On x58, external QPI allowed vendors to build systems with multiple PCIe x16 lanes. On x55 this isnt possible. Only one set of x16 lanes is available directly off the CPU; if a vendor wanted more, they would have to put them on the DMI bus. But that would be slow and there would be latency issues. Therefore QUADFIRE/SLI is out, and crossfire/SLI is limited to 2x x8 lanes.



so in reality core i5 will be under powered then i7 no matter what people say about i5 the i7 920 will be the better choice 

any prices on the i5 line up?

i think the most expensive i5 will barley compete with 920


----------



## btarunr (Jun 1, 2009)

lemonadesoda said:


> "dropping", as in, no longer an external point to point interface available to scale performance further.
> 
> QPI is no longer available to the "external" chipset to provide full-speed-full-bandwidth-low latency PCIe lanes, _additional_ processors, accelerators or memory controllers.  On x58, external QPI allowed vendors to build systems with multiple PCIe x16 lanes. On x55 this isnt possible. Only one set of x16 lanes is available directly off the CPU; if a vendor wanted more, they would have to put them on the DMI bus. But that would be slow and there would be latency issues. Therefore QUADFIRE/SLI is out, and crossfire/SLI is limited to 2x x8 lanes.



As long as it's a user-controllable parameter, it doesn't matter where it is located. On Core i7, all QPI does is connecting the processor to the X58 northbridge.  In Core i5, it's connecting the processor die to the northbridge die. So nothing much has changed except that the NB migrated to the processor package. The fact that the northbridge ends up providing only 16 PCI-E lanes for graphics, however, is a different issue. You may be right that since the NB is providing lesser number of PCI-E lanes, the QPI bandwidth may be lesser than the 4.8 or 6.4 GT/s for Core i7.


----------



## entropy13 (Jun 1, 2009)

kid41212003 said:


> Games don't need super fast cpu.
> 
> 
> If you ask me why in same cases, sometime Phenom II is faster, then here are the answers:
> ...



You're assuming though, that games will never take advantage of advances in the CPU, and will never be optimized for multi-core processors. It's not really Intel's fault that current games doesn't really need 4 cores + 4 threads.


----------



## hat (Jun 1, 2009)

Meh... still happy with my single core sempron


----------



## zAAm (Jun 1, 2009)

n-ster said:


> So that means i5 may have a chance to perform as well if not better than the i7?



Why on earth would you come to that conclusion? 
The i5 is 'n crippled i7 but crippled in a way that it's not THAT much slower than the i7 in games. That is what was said. I don't think it will perform as well as the i7 and definitely not better (per clock speed, not if you try comparing the 2.9GHz i5 with the 920). I don't think the latencies will make a huge difference in games. After all, how many frames do you get from switching to lower latency but the same frequency ram? Not many.


----------



## lemonadesoda (Jun 1, 2009)

It is important to rememeber this: if you are running *just one* GPU, even a superdooper-high-end one, then i5 isnt "crippled" in any way.

What is "lost" on i5 is that QPI is not available externally for setting up many more PCIe lanes (and other, workstation, type stuff). Rather, the interface is a DMI based one for peripherals. The DMI is just fine for SATA, USB, firewire, etc.

"Losing" QPI is just losing some feature-upgrade possibilities. But those arent relevant for the consumer or gamer, UNLESS, you are talking about extreme enthusiast running multi-socket CPU and/or Dual/Tri/Quad GPU setup.


----------



## zAAm (Jun 1, 2009)

lemonadesoda said:


> It is important to rememeber this: if you are running *just one* GPU, even a superdooper-high-end one, then i5 isnt "crippled" in any way.
> 
> What is "lost" on i5 is that QPI is not available externally for setting up many more PCIe lanes (and other, workstation, type stuff). Rather, the interface is a DMI based one for peripherals. The DMI is just fine for SATA, USB, firewire, etc.
> 
> "Losing" QPI is just losing some feature-upgrade possibilities. But those arent relevant for the consumer or gamer, UNLESS, you are talking about extreme enthusiast running multi-socket CPU and/or Dual/Tri/Quad GPU setup.



It IS crippled with only dual channel instead of triple channel memory. But like I said, it won't make a big difference in games since dual channel is enough in most circumstances unless you go to crazy resolutions which you can't do with a single GPU anyway... 
So you'll experience almost equal performance with single gpu's but if you move up to multi-gpu's you'll need the extra PCI-Express lanes and the triple channel memory.

And anyway, since the i7 was first and the i5 is based upon the i7 architecture (Nehalem) and since the i5 lost some of the i7's features (even though they aren't important for everyone), logic implies that the i5 must be a "crippled" i7


----------



## lemonadesoda (Jun 1, 2009)

zAAm said:


> It IS crippled with only dual channel instead of triple channel memory. And anyway, since the i7 was first and the i5 is based upon the i7 architecture (Nehalem) and since the i5 lost some of the i7's features (even though they aren't important for everyone), logic implies that the i5 must be a "crippled" i7



Whooaaah, tiger! I think you better do some background research rather than just *guesswork* when you make statements like that. Using the term "crippled" is very much misrepresenting the situation, and flies against benchmarks conducted by people who have tested i7 in dual channel and tripple channel mode.

Find me ONE benchmark that shows that i5 is going to be memory starved. You wont find it. 

Tripple channel is overkill for i5 and i7 single chip *at this time*. If you do any real world benchmark you might find a 1% performance difference. 1% is not "crippling".

Here is an interesting article for you: http://www.insidehw.com/Reviews/Mem...l-Channel-vs.-Triple-Channel-Memory-Mode.html and another http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/1..._analysis_can_dual_channel_cut_it/index7.html

The tripple channel is a design for future scaling ESPECIALLY Nehalem-EX where you have 4 or more CPUs and they are each passing data to and from each other.  The memory controller is therefore (potentially) feeding MORE THAN ONE processor at a time.


----------



## zAAm (Jun 1, 2009)

lemonadesoda said:


> Whooaaah, tiger! I think you better do some background research rather than just *guesswork* when you make statements like that. Using the term "crippled" is very much misrepresenting the situation, and flies against benchmarks conducted by people who have tested i7 in dual channel and tripple channel mode.
> 
> Find me ONE benchmark that shows that i5 is going to be memory starved. You wont find it.
> 
> ...



I'm not doing *quesswork*, I think we have different meanings for the word "cripple". I don't mean it in a sense that it'll be a lot slower. I mean it in the sense that they essentially (not literally now) take an i7 and remove a memory channel. 
It's like if you had 3 arms and I take away one. Then let's say the tasks you do daily doesn't take advantage of your 3rd arm. You'd probably be able to perform all your tasks fine with just 2 (heck 2 arms would probably be faster since the 3rd won't get in the way), but I'd still be "crippling" you by removing one i.e. even if you don't use it it's not there anymore if you need it. 

I'm actually not trying to prove you wrong with the performance statement, I'm just saying that i5 != i7. So I just don't agree with:


			
				lemonadesoda said:
			
		

> then i5 isnt "crippled" *in any way*.



So in the end, if I take your meaning of the word "cripple" then I agree with you, by removing the third channel the real-world performance isn't really affected. But you can't say there's no difference "in any way" because then your generalizing


----------



## Gzero (Jun 2, 2009)

Why???????????????? I might have 3 areas I want to scratch at the same time!

Still don't get why Intel can't release decent low end hardware.


----------



## DrPepper (Jun 4, 2009)

This would be a nice clever marketing stunt  Say its going to dissapear people buy then en masse and stockpile then say yeah it was a rumour its going to stay.


----------



## dr emulator (madmax) (Jun 4, 2009)

:shadedshu i had planned on getting a i7 940 
intel why don't you just come round my house and do this
why oh why do they do it :shadedshu
personaly ,although i'm not spreading rumors 
i think theirs something wrong with them

reason behind thought 
you don't create something then stop making it a few months down the line 
if there isn't something wrong 
come on intel prove me wrong


----------



## mudkip (Jun 4, 2009)

dr emulator (madmax) said:


> :shadedshu i had planned on getting a i7 940
> intel why don't you just come round my house and do this
> why oh why do they do it :shadedshu
> personaly ,although i'm not spreading rumors
> ...



Intel didn't spread the rumor , some other companies did


----------



## dr emulator (madmax) (Jun 4, 2009)

ah hm now who could that be some bugger who loves amd 
well i would have got 1 just i wanted a pentium for a change
i want something stable not overclocked 
and pentium screams quality not quantity

anyway are these newer processors going to fit in the older  i7 motherboards


----------



## DrPepper (Jun 4, 2009)

dr emulator (madmax) said:


> ah hm now who could that be some bugger who loves amd
> well i would have got 1 just i wanted a pentium for a change
> i want something stable not overclocked
> and pentium screams quality not quantity
> ...



You wanted a pentium  Your xp would have been faster than most of them I think. I'd rather get a core i7 it screams PERFORMANCE!!!!


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Jun 4, 2009)

*Repeat process*

Discontinue i7 920 and replace it with the i7 930.  Default clock of 2.83 Ghz, and increase price by $40 to make it $320.  That would follow this trend with the other i7.  It will also get it our of i5 current pricing target range of $75 to $280.  Once again, my thoughts and speculation base on past Intel releases and current news.  This could be one way they could go with this.


----------



## dr emulator (madmax) (Jun 4, 2009)

DrPepper said:


> You wanted a pentium  Your xp would have been faster than most of them I think. I'd rather get a core i7 it screams PERFORMANCE!!!!


whoops that sounded like i wanted a pentium what i meant was a intel


----------



## dr emulator (madmax) (Jun 4, 2009)

argh this pc really needs to go in the bin
everytime i try and edit,
 it gives me the old cannot display the page argh


----------



## DrPepper (Jun 4, 2009)

dr emulator (madmax) said:


> whoops that sounded like i wanted a pentium what i meant was a intel



I guessed that


----------



## dr emulator (madmax) (Jun 4, 2009)

hey you fired that one back before i had time to edit it
well if you look at my current specs you'll see oat is better that what i've got at the mo
i think even a laptop could p*** all over it


----------



## DrPepper (Jun 4, 2009)

Nope still better than my laptop.


----------



## CyberDruid (Jun 4, 2009)

Are yall aware that Intel has firmly contradicted this information? They say that the 950 is gone but the 920 and 940 are here to stay. No roadmap with timeline yet. I guess the backlash had Intel set their phasers to SPIN.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 5, 2009)

The reason for releasing the 950 was to get a larger clock spread between 920 and 940.  You'd think 920, 950, and 975 would stay and 940/965 would get the chopping block.  I would be very surprised if 920 didn't get axed.


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Jun 5, 2009)

How soon before this happens?


----------



## n-ster (Jun 5, 2009)

THIS WAS A RUMOR AND INTEL SAID THAT IT WAS FALSE! INTEL WILL KEEP DOING i7 920s!



mudkip said:


> *Intel Answers: The future of Core i7 920
> *
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## PaulieG (Jun 5, 2009)

n-ster said:


> THIS WAS A RUMOR AND INTEL SAID THAT IT WAS FALSE! INTEL WILL KEEP DOING i7 920s!



Calm down with the damn large bold type. Everyone here can read just fine.


----------



## Assassin48 (Jun 5, 2009)

wouldn't they want to say that tho?

so people don't get the 920 then just drop it and charge double for the "i5" for 920 performance?


----------



## DaveK (Jun 5, 2009)

Woot, Core i7 plans rise again! 920 here I come!


----------



## dr emulator (madmax) (Jun 5, 2009)

n-ster said:


> THIS WAS A RUMOR AND INTEL SAID THAT IT WAS FALSE! INTEL WILL KEEP DOING i7 920s!


ye ye this was a rumour .thing is it made me think 
of all the people on here who have overclocked there i7 920s
now obviously they won't be buying the 965 or 975 for the speed 
and at the current prices of 965/975 that's a huge loss to intel so i 
personally can't see either lasting long


----------



## btarunr (Jun 5, 2009)

n-ster said:


> THIS WAS A RUMOR AND INTEL SAID THAT IT WAS FALSE! INTEL WILL KEEP DOING i7 920s!



VERY GOOD, IT'S COMING FROM THE SAME SOURCE THAT STARTED THE RUMOR

And to think that making text any larger than this in posts (other than when making headings) isn't all that straight.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 5, 2009)

> First, the Core i7 920. Despite being told quite the opposite just last week, Intel vehemently reaffirmed the i7 920 will still exist for the foreseeable future. However, there was absolutely no commitment to a timescale.


Core i7 920 could still be gone by the end of 2009.  They'll probably wait to gauge Lynnfield sales to decide whether or not the 920 needs to go.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jun 5, 2009)

Yeesh, having text size that large hurts my eyes.


----------



## dr emulator (madmax) (Jun 5, 2009)

sorry guys /girls (if their is any) 
i just used the quote button 
(which by the way gave me small text ,plus the fact i don't remember anything about text size)
(and ,yes it hurts my eyes aswell )
oh well i'm getting 1 regardless pretty soon from my local store which still has the i7 940,
although i might do a poll on what memory i should get what do you lot think


----------



## dr emulator (madmax) (Jun 5, 2009)

ah the joys of being able to edit there you go everyone 
i just put the text size down to  4 on my old reply


----------



## n-ster (Jun 5, 2009)

It seemed like some people had missed it so I made sure everyone saw it  now that we've been quoting me to complain about size, I'm sure anyone who even takes a glance at the thread knows it was a rumor 

put the size down to 5 now 

oh and DR. em, I see double post!!! It's fine in the Gen. nonsense forum, but the mods won't appreciated here


----------



## Wetbehindtheears (Jun 5, 2009)

dr emulator look at thread : i7-2-GO, fit talks about the best RAM....


----------



## soryuuha (Jun 6, 2009)

n-ster said:


> ...



I hate ur font sizes ._.


----------



## Wetbehindtheears (Jun 6, 2009)

Not sure n-ster, I've just read this on another thread here:



Jakethesnake011 said:


> More bad new for us i7 owners Intel goes back on what they said yesterday.
> 
> COMPUTEX 2009: Despite telling us face to face yesterday that its Core i7 920 and 950 CPU's will be around for a little while yet, bit-tech has exclusively seen roadmaps and been given multiple confirmations that every-single-one of the X58 motherboard manufacturers is expecting: 920, 940, 950 and 965 will be end-of-life by early next year.
> 
> ...


----------



## hat (Jun 6, 2009)

Time tells all truths and no lies. We can only wait and see what will happen in the future. Rumors and FUD are no things to live by.


----------



## PaulieG (Jun 6, 2009)

Wetbehindtheears said:


> Not sure n-ster, I've just read this on another thread here:



Yeah, this came AFTER the statement from Intel that they were going to continue the lower i7 chips for some time. Really no cause for alarm though, since there will be Xeons to upgrade too, the extreme chips, and the upcoming 6 core chips. The i7 was meant to be a high end enthusiast platform, and if you look at the upgrading options, that is exactly what it is. The i7 was just an abomination. Considering the performance of the 920, it is a budget chip for a platform that was never meant to be budget in any way.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 6, 2009)

As I said earlier, LGA1366 was always intended to be the two-way/Skulltrail platform.  Intel just made it affordable until the LGA1156 processors debut so they could start recouping losses on developing Nehalem.


----------



## n-ster (Jun 6, 2009)

what is the difference between Xeon chips and i7's? say W3520 vs i7 920?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 6, 2009)

They have a much more extensive Quality Assurance program.


----------



## n-ster (Jun 6, 2009)

Isn't there something about the memory controller or something?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 6, 2009)

I don't think so.  Later Xeons will probably have FB-DIMM memory controllers instead of DIMM.  I would be surprised if the LGA1366 sees a FB-DIMM memory controller though.


----------



## n-ster (Jun 6, 2009)

Some are saying the uncore/mem is locked on the Xeon

I think it's something to do with Bios... maybe some boards just don't support Xeon chips completely? I heard Asus BIOS had problems with this...


----------



## PaulieG (Jun 6, 2009)

n-ster said:


> Some are saying the uncore/mem is locked on the Xeon
> 
> I think it's something to do with Bios... maybe some boards just don't support Xeon chips completely? I heard Asus BIOS had problems with this...



Possibly certain board may have problems on an early bios. The Xeon 1366 chips are the same as their i7 brothers, with more QA.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jun 7, 2009)

can you confirm on how they have Quality Assurance? I mean for all we know they could be evaluated exactly the same as the Core i7 Parts or even Core 2 Parts for that matter.


----------



## dr emulator (madmax) (Jun 7, 2009)

n-ster said:


> It seemed like some people had missed it so I made sure everyone saw it  now that we've been quoting me to complain about size, I'm sure anyone who even takes a glance at the thread knows it was a rumor
> 
> put the size down to 5 now
> 
> oh and DR. em, I see double post!!! It's fine in the Gen. nonsense forum, but the mods won't appreciated here



sorry n-ster i'm new to the net and dont understand what you mean by double posting 
i personaly thought d p was when you posted same message twice please explain


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jun 7, 2009)

what he means is when there are 2 posts in a row from same person without anyone posting between them, you can use the Multiple Quote function at the bottom of each topic so you can make a single post about multiple posts from other memembers.


----------



## dr emulator (madmax) (Jun 7, 2009)

ok ta 
sometimes i post then see someone else has said something so i add another bit 
also it seems the site is a bit empty /or i have to reply quicker 
or posts dont seem to match,  thanks for that i'll bear that in mind in future


----------

