# Intel Core i7 Processor Models and Pricing Revealed!



## AuDioFreaK39 (Sep 15, 2008)

http://translate.google.com/transla...wthread.php?t=2300&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&sl=el&tl=en

The news is finally here! According to HWBox, the new Intel Core i7 processors will be labeled and priced as follows:

*Core i7 965 Extreme Edition
Product Code: BX80601965*
3.20GHz
8MB L3 Cache
QPI Speed: 6.4GT/sec
MSRP (per 1000): $999

*Core i7 940
Product Code: BX80601940*
2.93GHz
8MB L3 Cache
QPI Speed: 4.8GT/sec
MSRP (per 1000): $562

*Core i7 920
Product Code: BX80601920*
2.66GHz
8MB L3 Cache
QPI Speed: 4.8GT/sec
MSRP (per 1000): $284


----------



## DrPepper (Sep 15, 2008)

holy crap i'd get the 920 if its really that cheap.


----------



## lemonadesoda (Sep 15, 2008)

They HAVE to do it that cheap otherwise (given that it isnt faster than a good Core 2), no one would take up s1366 but stick with s775.  Look at the QPI bandwidth on the EE edition. They are choking the regular, or it is limited to 2 channel not 3 channel DDR3, dispite what the memory controller info says.


----------



## AuDioFreaK39 (Sep 15, 2008)

DrPepper said:


> holy crap i'd get the 920 if its really that cheap.



You can expect the 2.66GHz 920 to be around $315 when it's released. More than reasonable - especially to all those who haven't caved for a Q9450 yet 


As for the other two, I have no idea. I just hope I won't be paying over $1100 for the Extreme Edition


----------



## wolf2009 (Sep 15, 2008)

AuDioFreaK39 said:


> You can expect the 2.66GHz 920 to be around $315 when it's released. More than reasonable - especially to all those who haven't caved for a Q9450 yet



I think you are referring to me, poor me


----------



## zCexVe (Sep 15, 2008)

Mmm,I love CPU wars..They get higher by performance,Lower by price


----------



## DrPepper (Sep 15, 2008)

I just hope the boards come cheap, and the budget cpu (920) clocks nicely and is very cheap.


----------



## zCexVe (Sep 15, 2008)

Well since Intel decided to bring the mem controller inside,It will be same as hard as AMD for Intel to OC now.Aint it?


----------



## freakshow (Sep 15, 2008)

oh i cant wait..........


----------



## Fastmix (Sep 15, 2008)

Considering that if you want to take full advantage of the technology you are going to have to use triple channel memory, it's not going to be cheap, ddr3 is still expensive.

But that is what I am waiting for to upgrade, so will see what happens.


----------



## mrw1986 (Sep 15, 2008)

i7 920 - me want


----------



## freakshow (Sep 15, 2008)

mrw1986 said:


> i7 920 - me want



same here

does anybody know when there going to be released?


----------



## PVTCaboose1337 (Sep 15, 2008)

That 920 is a winner for me.  I want it now.  Finally to replace my AGING single core.


----------



## johnnyfiive (Sep 15, 2008)

AuDioFreaK39 said:


> You can expect the 2.66GHz 920 to be around $315 when it's released. More than reasonable - especially to all those who haven't caved for a Q9450 yet
> 
> 
> As for the other two, I have no idea. *I just hope I won't be paying over $1100 for the Extreme Edition*



Isn't $1,100-$1,200 what they normal launch them at?


----------



## erocker (Sep 15, 2008)

I'm deffinitely waiting for reviews on finalized products.  Being a lab-rat on a new chipset can be a -


----------



## ShadowFold (Sep 15, 2008)

If they can OC and they show considerable gaming performance increase I might consider the 920 but right now I really dont see the need to upgrade my cpu.


----------



## DaMulta (Sep 15, 2008)

I hate how they killed high speed ddr3

no more ddr3 2000

I bet the next step is 2 add the chipset on the cpu.


----------



## cdawall (Sep 15, 2008)

everyone does understand this will limit intel oc's hugely right? so the 920 may look good buts its not going to oc for shit


----------



## DrPepper (Sep 15, 2008)

cdawall said:


> everyone does understand this will limit intel oc's hugely right? so the 920 may look good buts its not going to oc for shit



ruin our poor little hopes


----------



## cdawall (Sep 16, 2008)

DrPepper said:


> ruin our poor little hopes



your welcome  welcome to the 4ghz barrier of AMD


----------



## farlex85 (Sep 16, 2008)

cdawall said:


> everyone does understand this will limit intel oc's hugely right? so the 920 may look good buts its not going to oc for shit



This meaning what? Referring to the vdimm vcore link? I don't buy it. The verdict is still out on oc'ing. Hopefully we'll get some full tests soon, even though I won't be getting this for some time........


----------



## Fastmix (Sep 16, 2008)

cdawall said:


> everyone does understand this will limit intel oc's hugely right? so the 920 may look good buts its not going to oc for shit



Unless it comes with an unlocked multi.


----------



## farlex85 (Sep 16, 2008)

Fastmix said:


> Unless it comes with an unlocked multi.



It seems like that may have to be the case. From early reports qpi can't be taken above it's default 133 clock and remain stable. So, w/ a locked mulit, this would mean virtually no oc at all, and I don't think intel would be that dumb (although I guess I don't really know). Also, there seem to be other advantages of the extreme chip besides the multi this time, namely the faster bandwidth on the qpi. Also, turbo mode, in which one or more cores turn off to oc the others, would require some sort of multi changing I would think to derive higher clock speeds. So, this is going to be a little different methinks........


----------



## Damian^ (Sep 16, 2008)

I think i will pass on Nehalem or Icore7 and go with Deneb, just for the fact that I'm an AMD kinda guy


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Sep 16, 2008)

I'm just waiting for triple channel ddr3 ram kits to come along,bollocks to buying 2 pairs and having 1 stick doing nothing.


----------



## DrPepper (Sep 16, 2008)

Why not a pair of two and a single pack tig


----------



## blueskynis (Sep 16, 2008)

As far I know GT/s stands for gigatransfers per second but how much is this gigabytes per second?


----------



## farlex85 (Sep 16, 2008)

blueskynis said:


> As far I know GT/s stands for gigatransfers per second but how much is this gigabytes per second?



It's not really like that I don't think. The processor isn't moving bytes through qpi, but executing operations. It's more closely associated to Hz. According to wiki here, 6.4GT/s should be roughly around 3.2ghz clock operating speed.


----------



## Scrizz (Sep 16, 2008)

920 ftw!


----------



## blueskynis (Sep 16, 2008)

I understand it this way: 1 GT/s = 4 GB/s (1 transfer = 4 bytes of data), am I wrong? So, with 4.8GT/s we get 19.2 GB/s of QPI bandwith. :?


----------



## farlex85 (Sep 16, 2008)

blueskynis said:


> I understand it this way: 1 GT/s = 4 GB/s (1 transfer = 4 bytes of data), am I wrong? So, with 4.8GT/s we get 19.2 GB/s of QPI bandwith. :?



Where did you get that number from?


----------



## Scrizz (Sep 16, 2008)

lol


----------



## blueskynis (Sep 16, 2008)

OK, my bad. I looked at AMD site describing HTT bandwith in both directions here. 

The right answer is 1 transfer = 2 bytes of data, therefore 4,8GT/s is 9.6GB/s in each direction. 

Here is more info.


----------



## farlex85 (Sep 16, 2008)

blueskynis said:


> OK, my bad. I looked at AMD site describing HTT bandwith in both directions here.
> 
> The right answer is 1 transfer = 2 bytes of data, therefore 4,8GT/s is 9.6GB/s in each direction.
> 
> Here is more info.



Not quite. A transfer is a unit not really comparable to a bit, they are not equal. That's like saying the rotational speed of a wheel is equivalent to the speed of the car. They are related to one another, but are not equal and other factors (such as the size of the wheel, or architecture) can provide different results. It depends on the architecture as to how many bits apparently can be passed on in a transfer. This particular architecture (qpi) seems to be able to transfer 16 _bits_ (a bit is a part a tad different from a byte, a byte apparently being made up of bits) per transfer according to that article. However, this is theoretical as to exactly how much information can be transferred during the transfers. I understand what your saying though, and that's a good article.


----------



## PCpraiser100 (Sep 16, 2008)

Damn Intel, pricing the new tech CPUs so that they can get a running start for AMD, and this is supposed to be the next generation of computer processors who the consumer or the rich-bitch? Screw 1366! I'm gonna go AMD till Windows 7 and AM3 come out. That's just ridiculous pricing for a starting CPU technololgy.


----------



## hat (Sep 16, 2008)

I would be staying with my x2 5200+ anyway, but if Intel shits on overclocking than they're pretty much screwing themselves.


----------



## kid41212003 (Sep 16, 2008)

My next build will be Intel CPU, Core i7. I'm giving up on AMD Cpu.
Sayonara AMD Cpu.
4 cores, and 8 threads, delicious.


----------



## paybackdaman (Sep 16, 2008)

AuDioFreaK39 said:


> You can expect the 2.66GHz 920 to be around $315 when it's released. More than reasonable - especially to all those who haven't caved for a Q9450 yet
> 
> 
> As for the other two, I have no idea. I just hope I won't be paying over $1100 for the Extreme Edition






wolf2009 said:


> I think you are referring to me, poor me



Another one for that.


----------



## CDdude55 (Sep 16, 2008)

When they come out, hopefully the 65nm Core 2 Extremes will drop in price. I will get one of those then.

I have no need for Core i7 as a gamer.


----------



## PCpraiser100 (Sep 16, 2008)

CDdude55 said:


> I have no need for Core i7 as a gamer.



True, but if games specifically for i7 come out, we'll be in the exact same position as the P4 users were when Core 2 came out. You should keep your eyes on these i7 processors as they could drop by price and even get replaced by the upcoming 22nm CPUs being rumored for release in mid 09. As for AMD, if they keep the sales going for the HD 4000 and upcoming 5000 series, they could be stable enough to get interested in devs for Phenom or OpenCL optimization.


----------



## ShadowFold (Sep 16, 2008)

PCpraiser100 said:


> True, but if games specifically for i7 come out, we'll be in the exact same position as the P4 users were when Core 2 came out. You should keep your eyes on these i7 processors as they could drop by price and even get replaced by the upcoming 22nm CPUs being rumored for release in mid 09.



Exactly. Why buy these non-overclockable junk chips when 22nm is right around the corner? I personally am gonna wait till AMD gets a new socket out..


----------



## kid41212003 (Sep 16, 2008)

22mm? Are you serious? I thought it would be 32nm.


----------



## ShadowFold (Sep 16, 2008)

kid41212003 said:


> 22mm? Are you serious? I thought it would be 32nm.



Its either 22 or 32.. But thats the limit for silicon I'm pretty sure.


----------



## farlex85 (Sep 16, 2008)

CDdude55 said:


> When they come out, hopefully the 65nm Core 2 Extremes will drop in price. I will get one of those then.
> 
> I have no need for Core i7 as a gamer.




Why in the world would you need a core 2 extreme for gaming?? 




kid41212003 said:


> 22mm? Are you serious? I thought it would be 32nm.



It will be. Sandy Bridge (the successor to i7) is scheduled to do the 22nm drop in 2011.



ShadowFold said:


> Exactly. Why buy these non-overclockable junk chips when 22nm is right around the corner? I personally am gonna wait till AMD gets a new socket out..



Again, how do you know they won't overclock? We haven't seen any results. And why would the 22nm oc better if architecture is the problem, the basic core will be the same. That logic makes no sense.


----------



## ShadowFold (Sep 16, 2008)

I thought the memory and core voltage was linked? Or was that fud?


----------



## farlex85 (Sep 16, 2008)

ShadowFold said:


> I thought the memory and core voltage was linked? Or was that fud?



Pretty sure that was fud, it remains to be seen, but that little bit of info seemed to pop out of nowhere, and the article I saw wasn't even about that really, apparently that just came up but wasn't really news worthy . And when considering the voltages nehalem supposedly runs at and the voltages of ddr3, it just wouldn't make any sense at all for that to be the case (nehalem should run around 1v I thought, w/ ddr3 at its lowest around 1.5v, it just wouldn't work). Should get some verification soon, but seeing how that has never been mentioned before anywhere, I'm doubting that one. The QPI could present an oc problem if the multi is locked since one can't raise it, but intel seems to be trying some new stuff here, so it may yet work out.......


----------



## PCpraiser100 (Sep 16, 2008)

ShadowFold said:


> Its either 22 or 32.. But thats the limit for silicon I'm pretty sure.



22nm or 32nm, there is still a great result that will surprise anyone in both worlds, except for OEM users cause they can't OC worth $h*t on an XPS even. Speaking of silicon, I heard there is an uprising going on at the tech labs in Germany saying that this certain carbon found by a certain beetle in the world is known it have far better voltage conducting properties that can add more performance per watt, which can be duplicated (cloned in a naturist's point-of-view) and distributed to the world to replaced the non-renewable and polluting silicon. I think I saw this research being observed in an old article several months ago...Anyway, back to the subject. I know the i7 is going to be surprising but that will stress everyone right now if they got optimization plans for upcoming titles to scare the living $h*t out of people who just bought C2 Extremes, as well as AMD who tries to stay out of Intel's way in the name of company survival. Anyway, what I'm trying to say is that i7 is really needed right now, unless if there is another broken Crytek game about to put down PCs.


----------



## farlex85 (Sep 16, 2008)

PCpraiser100 said:


> 22nm or 32nm, there is still a great result that will surprise anyone in both worlds, except for OEM users cause they can't OC worth $h*t on an XPS even. Speaking of silicon, I heard there is an uprising going on at the tech labs in Germany saying that this certain carbon found by a certain beetle in the world is known it have far better voltage conducting properties that can add more performance per watt, which can be duplicated (cloned in a naturist's point-of-view) and distributed to the world to replaced the non-renewable and polluting silicon. I think I saw this research being observed in an old article several months ago...



Why are you expecting so much from a die shrink? The architecture will remain the same, just a little more efficient, cooler, and hopefully overclockable. Nothing dramatic though unless there's something special about westmere aside from the fact that its 32nm.

Yeah I saw that article too a while ago, although I can't remember exactly......


----------



## icon1 (Sep 16, 2008)

i7 on the line...

my Lian-LI PC V2010 is waiting for yah!!


----------



## CDdude55 (Sep 16, 2008)

farlex85 said:


> Why in the world would you need a core 2 extreme for gaming??
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Lots of Cache and its a very fast stock speed Quad Core.


----------



## blueskynis (Sep 16, 2008)

Aren't they running a little hotter than the rest of quads?


----------



## farlex85 (Sep 16, 2008)

CDdude55 said:


> Lots of Cache and its a very fast stock speed Quad Core.



K, but that's still not gonna make much difference in games. You'd still be better off w/ a e8400 @ $150, which you will probably never see a qx at. And even then, the difference is minimal, gpu is the important factor. And you know, the extremes are just more expensive brethren of the regular q's, which are clocked the same and have the same cache. Extremes are made specifically for overclocking, w/ their unlocked multi. And even with all of that, i7 is faster clock for clock than core 2. So, when the bechies come out, don't be surprised to see that, yes, i7 will likely be faster for gaming (although not by much). 




blueskynis said:


> Aren't they running a little hotter than the rest of quads?



Where's that info? I haven't read anything about that. They could be, but there really hasn't been anything one way or the other yet on that I don't think.


----------



## cdawall (Sep 16, 2008)

farlex85 said:


> This meaning what? Referring to the vdimm vcore link? I don't buy it. The verdict is still out on oc'ing. Hopefully we'll get some full tests soon, even though I won't be getting this for some time........



more along the lines of the same issues amd had with its 1st onboard controller remember s754 and clawhammer? massive limit on the ram speeds 240 max for 1:1 with the ram



Fastmix said:


> Unless it comes with an unlocked multi.



that will still be reserved for extreme chips if intel is still well intel



farlex85 said:


> It seems like that may have to be the case. From early reports qpi can't be taken above it's default 133 clock and remain stable. So, w/ a locked mulit, this would mean virtually no oc at all, and I don't think intel would be that dumb (although I guess I don't really know). Also, there seem to be other advantages of the extreme chip besides the multi this time, namely the faster bandwidth on the qpi. Also, turbo mode, in which one or more cores turn off to oc the others, would require some sort of multi changing I would think to derive higher clock speeds. So, this is going to be a little different methinks........



this is kinda what i meant how can you oc if the chip becomes unstable when you oc past 133? and if intel leaves the multi locked what can you oc?


----------



## farlex85 (Sep 16, 2008)

cdawall said:


> this is kinda what i meant how can you oc if the chip becomes unstable when you oc past 133? and if intel leaves the multi locked what can you oc?



Could be tough to oc, I was just saying we can't really know yet until we get some full reviews. You'd think intel would learn from those chipsets, but you never know. I was just reading some stuff over at anandtech, and again that turbo mode is really the only thing we've seen of oc'ing as of yet. It seems to imply the multi will be raised 1 or more do derive a 133mhz (or multiples of the bus clock) or more increase. This seems to indicate the multi is being raised. And this is a function on all i7's, so unless it's entirely automatic and not able to be manually controlled (which may well be the case), it leads me to believe they may have unlocked muliti's. Couldn't say for sure though, lots of info in that article.


----------



## cdawall (Sep 16, 2008)

farlex85 said:


> Could be tough to oc, I was just saying we can't really know yet until we get some full reviews. You'd think intel would learn from those chipsets, but you never know. I was just reading some stuff over at anandtech, and again that turbo mode is really the only thing we've seen of oc'ing as of yet. It seems to imply the multi will be raised 1 or more do derive a 133mhz (or multiples of the bus clock) or more increase. This seems to indicate the multi is being raised. And this is a function on all i7's, so unless it's entirely automatic and not able to be manually controlled (which may well be the case), it leads me to believe they may have unlocked muliti's. Couldn't say for sure though, lots of info in that article.



hmmm it does look like they are unlocked...but that brings up the question how far and like you said is it only automatic or is there some from of manual control


----------



## blueskynis (Sep 16, 2008)

farlex85 said:


> ...snip...
> Where's that info? I haven't read anything about that. They could be, but there really hasn't been anything one way or the other yet on that I don't think.



...I meant because of higher TDP, Q9650 has TDP of 95W and QX9650 has TDP of 130W.


----------



## farlex85 (Sep 16, 2008)

blueskynis said:


> ...I meant because of higher TDP, Q9650 has TDP of 95W and QX9650 has TDP of 130W.



Maybe. We'll have to see, they may be able to handle more heat too. Full reviews should answer that as well as the oc question.


----------



## Morgoth (Sep 16, 2008)

i7 TDP is 130watt
bloomfield 3.20ghz for me


----------



## aCid888* (Sep 16, 2008)

The fact that both the i7 920 and i7 940 have the same QuickPath Speed worries me, when the 940 is 270MHz higher clocked....yet the i7 965 also 270MHz higher clocked than the 940 and gets another 1600MT/s on top of the others 4800MT/s.

I can understand retarding the performance, but at least make it worth while to get the 940 over the 920 if you don't plan to OC (in that case you may be insane) and give the 940 some more powoarrrrrrrrrrrrrr apart from just 270MHz more for almost double (!!!!!!!! DOUBLE !!!!!!!!) the price of the 920.


----------



## Abu Assar (Sep 16, 2008)

huh !?!

Ci7 965 vs Ci7 920:
20% more mhz for 250% more the price !?

on the other hand , I'm waiting for AMD phenom deneb


----------



## farlex85 (Sep 16, 2008)

aCid888* said:


> The fact that both the i7 920 and i7 940 have the same QuickPath Speed worries me, when the 940 is 270MHz higher clocked....yet the i7 965 also 270MHz higher clocked than the 940 and gets another 1600MT/s on top of the others 4800MT/s.
> 
> I can understand retarding the performance, but at least make it worth while to get the 940 over the 920 if you don't plan to OC (in that case you may be insane) and give the 940 some more powoarrrrrrrrrrrrrr apart from just 270MHz more for almost double (!!!!!!!! DOUBLE !!!!!!!!) the price of the 920.





Abu Assar said:


> huh !?!
> 
> Ci7 965 vs Ci7 920:
> 20% more mhz for 250% more the price !?
> ...



That's intel for you. Nothing new there, their extremes are a rip-off.


----------



## CDdude55 (Sep 16, 2008)

farlex85 said:


> K, but that's still not gonna make much difference in games. You'd still be better off w/ a e8400 @ $150, which you will probably never see a qx at. And even then, the difference is minimal, gpu is the important factor. And you know, the extremes are just more expensive brethren of the regular q's, which are clocked the same and have the same cache. Extremes are made specifically for overclocking, w/ their unlocked multi. And even with all of that, i7 is faster clock for clock than core 2. So, when the bechies come out, don't be surprised to see that, yes, i7 will likely be faster for gaming (although not by much).
> 
> 
> 
> ...





I guess i should get a Q6600 then, but i dont OC.


----------



## CDdude55 (Sep 16, 2008)

Because the Core i7 is going to be very expensive. and i think most Core 2 Quad's can keep up with the Core i7. But for things that really use Quad then the core i7 will be betrtrer.


----------



## farlex85 (Sep 16, 2008)

CDdude55 said:


> I guess i should get a Q6600 then, but i dont OC.





CDdude55 said:


> Because the Core i7 is going to be very expensive. and i think most Core 2 Quad's can keep up with the Core i7. But for things that really use Quad then the core i7 will be betrtrer.



No since you have repeatedly stated you just play games and you don't oc, a high clocked wolfdale (e8x00) would be by far your best choice. No contest. A core 2 quad would be a waste, and nehalem, as you said, will be expensive. It depends on whether they can keep up, just watch for benchies and prices, maybe down the road i7 may look pretty good to you for games........


----------



## PCpraiser100 (Sep 16, 2008)

farlex85 said:


> No since you have repeatedly stated you just play games and you don't oc, a high clocked wolfdale (e8x00) would be by far your best choice. No contest. A core 2 quad would be a waste. It depends on whether they can keep up, just watch for benchies and prices.



not exactly, the Core 2 Duo 45nm CPUs works so much better than the Core 2 Quads, mainly because that there is two cores so less heat and more transistors and cache. I'm still waiting about the Phenom 22nm's development as dispite that it sounds almost crazy AMD could save itself because since AMD and Intel have been slowly descending their processes by 10nm, AMD wanted to go for gold for its customers by saying "f*ck it" to make a more dramatic difference in Phenoms next generation. On my previous mention about 22nm or 32nm satisfaction, I'm saying that because the overclocking would be for everyone if any user can afford it once Intel takes a chill pill over pricing. I'm not agreeing with i7's release just yet as I'm suspecting that revision will be made to lower that slightly overkill TDP.


----------



## erocker (Sep 16, 2008)

PCpraiser100 said:


> not exactly, the Core 2 Duo 45nm CPUs works so much better than the Core 2 Quads, mainly because that there is two cores so less heat and more transistors and cache. I'm still waiting about the Phenom 22nm's development as dispite that it sounds almost crazy AMD could save itself because since AMD and Intel have been slowly descending their processes by 10nm, AMD wanted to go for gold for its customers by saying "f*ck it" and going for gold to make a more dramatic difference in Phenoms next generation. On my previous mention about 22nm or 32nm satisfaction, I'm saying that because the overclocking would be for everyone of any user can afford it. I'm not agreeing with i7's release just yet as I'm suspecting that revision will be made to lower that slightly overkill TDP.



Intel 45nm chips run hotter.  For gaming, I agree the e8x00 series would be better for a non-oc'er due to higher stock clocks.   Then again, I don't understand why someone would go out and buy a premium (oc) motherboard, ram, etc... and not overclock it other than wanting to waste thier own money.


----------



## farlex85 (Sep 16, 2008)

PCpraiser100 said:


> not exactly, the Core 2 Duo 45nm CPUs works so much better than the Core 2 Quads, mainly because that there is two cores so less heat and more transistors and cache. I'm still waiting about the Phenom 22nm's development as dispite that it sounds almost crazy AMD could save itself because since AMD and Intel have been slowly descending their processes by 10nm, AMD wanted to go for gold for its customers by saying "f*ck it" to make a more dramatic difference in Phenoms next generation. On my previous mention about 22nm or 32nm satisfaction, I'm saying that because the overclocking would be for everyone if any user can afford it once Intel takes a chill pill over pricing. I'm not agreeing with i7's release just yet as I'm suspecting that revision will be made to lower that slightly overkill TDP.



45nm core 2 duos don't work better than core 2 quads, they are just generally capable of higher speeds. Since games don't effectively use 4 cores, the faster speeds on the duos are more practical if that is the only situation one is using their computer for. 


erocker said:


> Intel 45nm chips run hotter.  For gaming, I agree the e8x00 series would be better for a non-oc'er due to higher stock clocks.   Then again, I don't understand why someone would go out and buy a premium (oc) motherboard, ram, etc... and not overclock it other than wanting to waste thier own money.


 
Me neither, I don't really understand at all.........


----------



## PCpraiser100 (Sep 16, 2008)

I guess the 45nms were stuffed with too many transistors. As for the mobos, so true, unless if they want features. When I looked at the P5Q series, I found the features overkill when it came to hardrives or even USB. Anyway, before I get off topic, People buy x38 and x48s mobos because of better OC and of course the dramatic difference in performance when Xfire is enabled at a x16/x16 link instead of the crappy x8/x8 or x8/x4 links. That interests me a lot for the fact that it gave the HD 4850s an extre 10-15 frames on Crysis compared to the other mobo links. As for OC, looking for a motherboard with a hackable BIOs and a moddable arcitecture should fit the demands pretty well. As for quad-core support, it will be nice if they made games run for that so the Phenoms could take the title.


----------



## CDdude55 (Sep 16, 2008)

My board doesnt support 45nm tho, only the 65nm Quads, Extremes and Duos.


----------



## CDdude55 (Sep 16, 2008)

erocker said:


> Intel 45nm chips run hotter.  For gaming, I agree the e8x00 series would be better for a non-oc'er due to higher stock clocks.   Then again, I don't understand why someone would go out and buy a premium (oc) motherboard, ram, etc... and not overclock it other than wanting to waste thier own money.



Well that depends, you normally dont buy a board only because it OC's well(unless you really want to get the clock up there, or you just want a good stable board when OCed). Some people buy the higher end board for the better features, better stability and can support higher clocked  RAM.


----------



## CDdude55 (Sep 16, 2008)

I dont feel as if i got ripped off in anyway, and if people think so, then good for them i got what i wanted and it performed and had the features the way i wanted it to.


----------



## ZenZimZaliben (Sep 16, 2008)

Im betting the mobo's for the new i7's are going to be expensive, like real expensive. Having to triple path the DDR on the PCB is going to cost tons more to manufacture.


----------



## farlex85 (Sep 16, 2008)

CDdude55 said:


> My board doesnt support 45nm tho, only the 65nm Quads, Extremes and Duos.



Yes it does, we've been over that.........



CDdude55 said:


> Well that depends, you normally dont buy a board only because it OC's well(unless you really want to get the clock up there, or you just want a good stable board when OCed). Some people buy the higher end board for the better features, better stability and can support higher clocked  RAM.



There are many features you look for in a board, chief among them here will be overclock ability and ability to use multiple cards. That's almost entirely what goes into selecting chipsets, from there other features such as memory speed vary between boards and vendors w/ the same chipset.



CDdude55 said:


> I dont feel as if i got ripped off in anyway, and if people think so, then good for them i got what i wanted and it performed and had the features the way i wanted it to.



Ignorance is bliss. Although intentionally rejecting info is, well, that's something else all together. Please use the edit button to condense all posts into one rather than triple posting.


----------



## CDdude55 (Sep 16, 2008)

1Ya i forgot about that, but i recall i did say that i dont do BIOS updates either.


2. Ya i said most of that, but i understand that since TPU has mostly users that OC there system then the obvious pick would be a great OCing mobo. But need to realize that thats not what everyone does and that i am happy with a non OCed CPU, and yes that is taking in all of users opinions and facts of why OCing is  the better option and is a money saver in the end, i am in no way saying there wrong, but i am not going to just give in to OCing because everyone else on the forums is doing it or because they say it's the better option, Just because i feel like i got my moneys worth doesn't mean i am trying to not listen to what people are trying to say, trust me i have had tons of people bark at me about OCing here and on the Hardforums. And i take in all of there opinions with respect of what they like to do, i just like keeping my CPU at stock, it has yet to fail me, and has run my games properly without a hitch. . I just dont find that ignorant....sorry.


3.No need to get uppity, and i am sorry for the posts, i normally don't look at the edit button so i just do a post, i will be looking at the edit button a little more now..

Also, i respect all that you have to say, you have helped me times before.


----------



## farlex85 (Sep 17, 2008)

CDdude55 said:


> 1Ya i forgot about that, but i recall i did say that i dont do BIOS updates either.
> 
> 
> 2. Ya i said most of that, but i understand that since TPU has mostly users that OC there system then the obvious pick would be a great OCing mobo. But need to realize that thats not what everyone does and that i am happy with a non OCed CPU, and yes that is taking in all of users opinions and facts of why OCing is  the better option and is a money saver in the end, i am in no way saying there wrong, but i am not going to just give in to OCing because everyone else on the forums is doing it or because they say it's the better option, Just because i feel like i got my moneys worth doesn't mean i am trying to not listen to what people are trying to say, trust me i have had tons of people bark at me about OCing here and on the Hardforums. And i take in all of there opinions with respect of what they like to do, i just like keeping my CPU at stock, it has yet to fail me, and has run my games properly without a hitch. . I just dont find that ignorant....sorry.
> ...



It's all good man I'm sorry if I seemed uppity, that wasn't my intent. I know we've been over this before, I just can't help it, cause I really don't get it, but I didn't mean offense. It's up to you though most assuredly.


----------



## AuDioFreaK39 (Sep 17, 2008)

Abu Assar said:


> huh !?!
> 
> Ci7 965 vs Ci7 920:
> 20% more mhz for 250% more the price !?
> ...



You're paying a 250% price premium for an unlocked multiplier, as usual.  But in reality, I would use the analogy of comparing it to buying an HDTV rather than SD.  In my opinion, once I bought my first Extreme Edition, I knew there was no going back. There is SO much unthinkable potential with an unlocked multiplier that I hadn't realized...all I could do was watch the great liquid nitrogen stories on sites like these. But now that I've had one, there's just no going back.


----------



## Woody112 (Sep 17, 2008)

PCpraiser100 said:


> not exactly, the Core 2 Duo 45nm CPUs works so much better than the Core 2 Quads, mainly because that there is two cores so less heat and more transistors and cache. I'm still waiting about the Phenom 22nm's development as dispite that it sounds almost crazy AMD could save itself because since AMD and Intel have been slowly descending their processes by 10nm, AMD wanted to go for gold for its customers by saying "f*ck it" to make a more dramatic difference in Phenoms next generation. On my previous mention about 22nm or 32nm satisfaction, I'm saying that because the overclocking would be for everyone if any user can afford it once Intel takes a chill pill over pricing. I'm not agreeing with i7's release just yet as I'm suspecting that revision will be made to lower that slightly overkill TDP.



It's 32nm; intel and AMD have already produced trial versions and have been for awhile now. Which is why I'm going to skip Nehalem all together.

http://www.intel.com/technology/arc...m/index.htm?cid=cim:ggl|chips_us_32nm|kEA80|s

On the other hand AMD appears to be going for the gusto by skipping 45nm and going straight to 32nm with intels patented high-K technology, Or so I think it's patented, don't know for shure.
http://news.softpedia.com/news/AMD-...Aims-Directly-to-32-nm-Technology-73990.shtml

So this should stop the argument that Intel is using AMD's onboard memory technology since everyone knows AMD will now be using intels High-K gate technology. Sorry I had to throw that in there.

Not trying to start an Intel/AMD war here by the way.


----------



## cdawall (Sep 17, 2008)

AuDioFreaK39 said:


> You're paying a 250% price premium for an unlocked multiplier, as usual.  But in reality, I would use the analogy of comparing it to buying an HDTV rather than SD.  In my opinion, once I bought my first Extreme Edition, I knew there was no going back. There is SO much unthinkable potential with an unlocked multiplier that I hadn't realized...all I could do was watch the great liquid nitrogen stories on sites like these. But now that I've had one, there's just no going back.



only issue is not every EE chip has an unlocked multi one example would be the QX6700 G0 stepping is locked eventhough the QX6700 B3 was unlocked. also look around EE chips have never held the max oc records it was the P4 631 and celeron 347 for netburst and the E8600 for conroe now i admit there is no unlocked DC conroe based chip but you can shut down all but one core on your C2Q from most highend mobos.

i have used both on the AMD side and an unlocked multi isn't worth the money if you truely know what your doing hell my 5000BE clocked better on a lower multi than a high one  but 17x is fun i will admit


----------



## DrPepper (Sep 17, 2008)

How do you shut down other cores anyway cdawall


----------



## InnocentCriminal (Sep 17, 2008)

I only know how to do it for process affinities, how to completely disable a core, hmm... I'd go through the boot.ini or msconfig. That way you say how cores should be enabled.


----------



## DrPepper (Sep 17, 2008)

InnocentCriminal said:


> I only know how to do it for process affinities, how to completely disable a core, hmm... I'd go through the boot.ini or msconfig. That way you say how cores should be enabled.



I know about affinities but I did it by accident the other day  I made a mistake in the bios and it turned 3 cores off. It let me hit 3.9ghz instead of 3.8


----------



## PCpraiser100 (Sep 17, 2008)

Then I guess this should solve my friend's cooling problem on his overclocking Phenom, which cooks pancakes for him every morning. I admire the P4's overclocking abilities though, bit of a shame that the whole world wanted dual core.


----------



## cdawall (Sep 17, 2008)

DrPepper said:


> How do you shut down other cores anyway cdawall



well my 780i board has an option to just turn off cores its pretty easy two options on and off lol


----------



## blueskynis (Sep 17, 2008)

DrPepper said:


> How do you shut down other cores anyway cdawall



There is an option in BIOS to downcore a CPU.


----------

