# First Intel Clarkdale Core i3 Low-Voltage Overclocking Feat Yields 4 GHz at 0.832 V



## btarunr (Jul 21, 2009)

Intel's upcoming dual-core derivatives of the Nehalem/Westmere architecture, codenamed "Clarkdale" seems to have some interesting electrical characteristics. The CPU component of the chip is built on Intel's brand new 32 nanometre process that facilitates higher transistor densities, and in the process, intends to bring down TDP. An overclocking feat by Coolaler.com seems to suggest one of two things: either these chips have naturally low vCore voltages, or that the overlocking headroom at low-voltages is exceptional. Coolaler used a pre-release engineering sample of the Core i3 Clarkdale processor on a compatible platform, and achieved 4 GHz of clock speed with the vCore at 0.832 V. The frequency multiplier of the CPU was set at 25.0x, and a bus speed of 160 MHz used. Intel will be ready with these processors by the end of this year.



 



*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## Yukikaze (Jul 21, 2009)

Two words: Holy. Shit.


----------



## ZoneDymo (Jul 21, 2009)

one word: NICE


----------



## CarolinaKSU (Jul 21, 2009)

zero words:


----------



## afw (Jul 21, 2009)

low voltage == low temps


----------



## BazookaJoe (Jul 21, 2009)

Naaaaaaice


----------



## $ReaPeR$ (Jul 21, 2009)

very nice


----------



## phanbuey (Jul 21, 2009)

5 Ghz at 1.3v ?  I think sooo...  w/ 4 threads, dual is not dead yet .


----------



## 3870x2 (Jul 21, 2009)

those are very serious reports.  With that kind of headroom, and 5GHZ air is a possibility, these will be better for gaming, and I plan on getting one.


----------



## farlex85 (Jul 21, 2009)

Pretty nice. As always though 4ghz is meaningless w/o knowing how much it can do per clock cycle, which we really don't have any indication of yet other than it's nehalem. These are different beasts than i7 though.


----------



## LagunaX (Jul 21, 2009)

WTF time to sell everything!


----------



## phanbuey (Jul 21, 2009)

its the same architecture though... for sure the IPC is higher than c2d, and even a 4ghz c2d is a great performer - at 5ghz its a monster.  Anyways low voltage doesnt always mean a good high voltage clock no?


----------



## 3870x2 (Jul 21, 2009)

farlex85 said:


> Pretty nice. As always though 4ghz is meaningless w/o knowing how much it can do per clock cycle, which we really don't have any indication of yet other than it's nehalem. These are different beasts than i7 though.



We already know what it can do per clock cycle.  While it is not the exact architecture of nehalem, it will follow it's performance clock by clock, atleast.


----------



## Cheeseball (Jul 21, 2009)

Holy shit.


----------



## h3llb3nd4 (Jul 21, 2009)

now that can fit in a lappie!!
laptop O/Cing here we come!!


----------



## A Cheese Danish (Jul 21, 2009)

Wow! That is nice!


----------



## farlex85 (Jul 21, 2009)

3870x2 said:


> We already know what it can do per clock cycle.  While it is not the exact architecture of nehalem, it will follow it's performance clock by clock, atleast.



It has half the L3 cache of i7 and uses a different method of communication with the memory and rest of the system. It's a different socket. What makes you think b/c they call it nehalem it's the same?


----------



## niko084 (Jul 21, 2009)

***Waiting to see actual benchmarks***


----------



## Binge (Jul 21, 2009)

3870x2 said:


> We already know what it can do per clock cycle.  While it is not the exact architecture of nehalem, it will follow it's performance clock by clock, atleast.



-1



farlex85 said:


> It has half the L3 cache of i7 and uses a different method of communication with the memory and rest of the system. It's a different socket. What makes you think b/c they call it nehalem it's the same?



+1

That's an ES so who knows if the retail version will have such a high multi.


----------



## hat (Jul 21, 2009)

LagunaX said:


> WTF time to sell everything!



rofl


----------



## suraswami (Jul 21, 2009)

so the day is coming soon, ZERO WATT MONSTER.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 21, 2009)

What kind of cooling was used, I don't think that was mentioned anywhere(and I can't read whatever language the source site is in).  I mean, if he was using LN2, then that low of a voltage doesn't seem that great.  If it was air, then this is great.


----------



## btarunr (Jul 21, 2009)

newtekie1 said:


> What kind of cooling was used, I don't think that was mentioned anywhere(and I can't read whatever language the source site is in).  I mean, if he was using LN2, then that low of a voltage doesn't seem that great.  If it was air, then this is great.



http://img.techpowerup.org/090721/Capture031.jpg

The "terrible" is "terrific" btw 

He said he'll give out more details once he's back from vacation.


----------



## johnnyfiive (Jul 21, 2009)

/me SMILES.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 21, 2009)

Ah, thanks.  Then it is on air, that is amazing.


----------



## ShadowFold (Jul 21, 2009)

Anyone know the price? These would be AWESOME for crunching!


----------



## r9 (Jul 21, 2009)

Dual cores are not givingup easy.


----------



## Fx (Jul 21, 2009)

/golfclap


----------



## erocker (Jul 21, 2009)

This chip makes my E8600 4ghz 1.18v look like a hot Pentium!  I'd love a new Intel chip that I can put the overclocks on without investing in an large water cooling loop.


----------



## laszlo (Jul 21, 2009)

amd were are u?


----------



## h3llb3nd4 (Jul 21, 2009)

laszlo said:


> amd were are u?



at their HQs in the US


----------



## laszlo (Jul 21, 2009)

h3llb3nd4 said:


> at their HQs in the US



i know that but it seems they are far.. far away


----------



## ShadowFold (Jul 21, 2009)

h3llb3nd4 said:


> at their HQs in the US


I'm sure they got something cooking. But this isn't TOO exciting. Core 2 Duo's can already do similar, this just does it at lower voltage. The HT is cool, but if this is priced at around ~120$-150$ then AMD's 720 would be in direct competition as it's only at 120$ and has 1 more core and 1 one less thread.


----------



## phanbuey (Jul 21, 2009)

AMD is in Austin too.


----------



## ShadowFold (Jul 21, 2009)

phanbuey said:


> AMD is in Austin.



Bleh I was thinking of ATi...


----------



## erocker (Jul 21, 2009)

phanbuey said:


> AMD is in Austin too.



Sunnyvale, CA. Is their HQ.


----------



## phanbuey (Jul 21, 2009)

erocker said:


> Sunnyvale, CA. Is their HQ.



Yep... Austin is their research campus, my bad... I used to live next to it. 

Linked in is WRONG http://www.linkedin.com/companies/amd


----------



## MilkyWay (Jul 21, 2009)

suraswami said:


> so the day is coming soon, ZERO WATT MONSTER.



a cpu that runs on no power? impossible everything needs power even carts they need people or horses to push/pull them

or Erocker as its known Silicone Valley in California!


----------



## phanbuey (Jul 21, 2009)

Wait so 32nm... i remember that anything over 1.4v is no good for 45nm... I wonder what will be the max 32mn voltage - can't be much over 1.2/1.25.


----------



## DanishDevil (Jul 21, 2009)

I'm in love.


----------



## Scrizz (Jul 21, 2009)

niiiice


----------



## Sasqui (Jul 21, 2009)

I'm in lust!


----------



## 3870x2 (Jul 21, 2009)

farlex85 said:


> It has half the L3 cache of i7 and uses a different method of communication with the memory and rest of the system. It's a different socket. What makes you think b/c they call it nehalem it's the same?



It has half the cache because it has half the cores, i figured that was common sense.
It is the same, it is the same architecture as nehalem.  Why would they make 2 separate technologies when nehalem works? Clarkdale and nehalem are very, very similar.  Per core, cache is the same, so clock by clock, should be very similar.


----------



## suraswami (Jul 21, 2009)

MilkyWay said:


> a cpu that runs on no power? impossible everything needs power even carts they need people or horses to push/pull them
> 
> or Erocker as its known Silicone Valley in California!



hmm, how is a 'Zero' watt bulb possiple


----------



## btarunr (Jul 21, 2009)

suraswami said:


> hmm, how is a 'Zero' watt bulb possiple



By bluffing its "wattage".


----------



## suraswami (Jul 21, 2009)

btarunr said:


> By bluffing its "wattage".



he he I know, but its generally close to zero watt consumption.


----------



## Assimilator (Jul 21, 2009)

That horrible crunching sound you all just heard?

That was Intel breaking AMD's spine over its knee.


----------



## farlex85 (Jul 21, 2009)

3870x2 said:


> It has half the cache because it has half the cores, i figured that was common sense.
> It is the same, it is the same architecture as nehalem.  Why would they make 2 separate technologies when nehalem works? Clarkdale and nehalem are very, very similar.  Per core, cache is the same, so clock by clock, should be very similar.



More cache= more performance. A quad w/ 12mb of L2 will generally be a bit better clock for clock than a duo w/ 6mb. Perhaps you would be correct if it wasn't for the fact that the L3 is shared among cores, eliminating a per core comparison.

It probably is somewhat similar clock/clock performance, but your simply talking out of your ass. On paper they're actually pretty different, they make different technologies to fill different market segments. Clarkdale is nehalem, clarkdale is not bloomfield (i7).


----------



## btarunr (Jul 21, 2009)

suraswami said:


> he he I know, but its generally close to zero watt consumption.



Actually most of them you get here draw anywhere between 5~15 W. A CFL with the same wattage is a "100W bulb" if you know what I mean.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 21, 2009)

<<Noob question

Are these a different socket than the i7's?


----------



## btarunr (Jul 21, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> <<Noob question
> 
> Are these a different socket than the i7's?



Depending on which i7 you're referring to. Some i7s are LGA-1366, some of them will be LGA-1156.


----------



## farlex85 (Jul 21, 2009)

btarunr said:


> Depending on which i7 you're referring to. Some i7s are LGA-1366, some of them will be LGA-1156.



Depends on which clarkfields I think too, this looks like 1156 but I think some will use a different socket. It's all very confusing.......

Wait nvm I guess I'm getting clarkdale and clarkfield confused. So 1156 for these I guess.


----------



## btarunr (Jul 21, 2009)

farlex85 said:


> Depends on which clarkfields I think too, this looks like 1156 but I think some will use a different socket. It's all very confusing......



Clarksfield = quad-core mobile. It uses a mobile socket. There's a nice chart here: http://www.techpowerup.com/index.php?97604


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 21, 2009)

So Intel doesn't have a uniform socket for its desktop? FYI I'm not being a smart ass. I want to understand.


----------



## ShadowFold (Jul 21, 2009)

They have 2 sockets now. 1366 and 1156, 1366 has i7 and i9 with X58 and 1156 has i7, i5 and i3. 1156 is dual channel DDR3 and P55.


----------



## farlex85 (Jul 21, 2009)

ShadowFold said:


> They have 2 sockets now. 1366 and 1156, 1366 has i7 and i9 with X58 and 1156 has i7, i5 and i3. 1156 is dual channel DDR3 and P55.



That chart bta just posted also shows 1155.  Wiki shows that one too for Lynnfield. So 3 desktop variants? A p57 or q57 is apparently a lga 1156 and lga 1155 socket. That chart also apparently says i3 will be 775. It's all very confusing.......


----------



## phanbuey (Jul 21, 2009)

farlex85 said:


> That chart bta just posted also shows 1155.  Wiki shows that one too for Lynnfield. So 3 desktop variants? A p57 or q57 is apparently a lga 1156 and lga 1155 socket. That chart also apparently says i3 will be 775. It's all very confusing.......



It may be a typo?  maybe they meant 1156?


----------



## HalfAHertz (Jul 21, 2009)

The 1155 one will be  the SoC e.i. CPU+GPU, while the 1156 will be just CPU


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 21, 2009)

I really think Intel has shot themselves in the foot with the double socket crap.


----------



## farlex85 (Jul 21, 2009)

phanbuey said:


> It may be a typo?  maybe they meant 1156?



No I don't think so I saw that on Wiki too recently. I don't get the i3 thing either, as it says 775 is DMI. So P45s are just gonna stop shipping w/ FSB? I think at this point intel maybe doesn't even know WTF they are doing and are just slinging stuff all over the place.  By this time next year their master plan should be somewhat clear at least.



HalfAHertz said:


> The 1155 one will be  the SoC e.i. CPU+GPU, while the 1156 will be just CPU



So will both chips work in both sockets? Or when buying a P57 will one need to be careful to buy the right P57 or lose out on a critical feature?


----------



## Frick (Jul 21, 2009)

newtekie1 said:


> I really think Intel has shot themselves in the foot with the double socket crap.



It's like the old Athlon FX days.. Not too mention early P4!


----------



## HalfAHertz (Jul 21, 2009)

Why? The market is what, 80-90% OEM? Usually people who buy prebuilt machines just use it untill it breaks down and don't give a rat's azz about what's inside as long as it works and rarely upgrade. So Having alot of READY and AVAIBLE solutions that suit every uninformed individual's need > having a single solution that has to be reconfigured every time to fullfill the user's needs



newtekie1 said:


> I really think Intel has shot themselves in the foot with the double socket crap.


----------



## ShadowFold (Jul 21, 2009)

THREE sockets now? I didn't hear about 1155.. Source?


----------



## phanbuey (Jul 21, 2009)

If it has three sockets + an FSB-less lga 775 than this is just getting riF*(&cockulus.  Maybe their business plan is to confuse the crap out of all enthusiasts so that they have to buy 1366.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 21, 2009)

HalfAHertz said:


> Why? The market is what, 80-90% OEM? Usually people who buy prebuilt machines just use it untill it breaks down and don't give a rat's azz about what's inside as long as it works and rarely upgrade. So Having alot of READY and AVAIBLE solutions that suit every uninformed individual's need > having a single solution that has to be reconfigured every time to fullfill the user's needs



There is no reason that a single socket can't suit every uninformed desktop users needs.  775 did it perfectly for years.


----------



## HalfAHertz (Jul 21, 2009)

newtekie1 said:


> There is no reason that a single socket can't suit every uninformed desktop users needs.  775 did it perfectly for years.



Yes but things have moved on now. The newer technology has arrived and is going to take over. Intel tries to incorporate more and more stuff into the CPU die and reduce costs** and simplify the platform
How many solutions are there for LGA775? G31, G41, G43, P35, P45, X38, X48 etc. and that's just on intel's side... How many solutions are we going to have now? p55, p53, x58

**Intel knows that it cannot compete with all the motherboard manufacturers at once, so they are playing it smart. They are trying to incorporate more and more stuff into the CPU so that they could increase their control on the market, taking away production from the mobo manufacturers and making a greater profit


----------



## Bjorn_Of_Iceland (Jul 21, 2009)

mmm.. 5GHZ. good bye VC bottleneck


----------



## HalfAHertz (Jul 21, 2009)

ShadowFold said:


> THREE sockets now? I didn't hear about 1155.. Source?



just googled lga1155 dunno if this is legit
http://xtreview.com/addcomment-id-7780-view-intel-socket-H2-LGA-1155.html


----------



## Sasqui (Jul 21, 2009)

phanbuey said:


> If it has three sockets + an FSB-less lga 775 than this is just getting riF*(&cockulus.  Maybe their business plan is to confuse the crap out of all enthusiasts so that they have to buy 1366.



It is really disspointing.  I think in the end, they'll somehow increae sales of CPUs and chipsets because of it.  There has to be some sinister money making logic behind it.


----------



## phanbuey (Jul 21, 2009)

HalfAHertz said:


> Yes but things have moved on now. The newer technology has arrived and is going to take over. Intel tries to incorporate more and more stuff into the CPU die and reduce costs** and simplify the platform
> How many solutions are there for LGA775? G31, G41, G43, P35, P45, X38, X48 etc. and that's just on intel's side... How many solutions are we going to have now? p55, p53, x58
> 
> **Intel knows that it cannot compete with all the motherboard manufacturers at once, so they are playing it smart. They are trying to incorporate more and more stuff into the CPU so that they could increase their control on the market, taking away production from the mobo manufacturers and making a greater profit



Intel doesn't really have to compete with the motherboard manufacturers, as intel supplies them with the actual chipsets, southbridges, and licenses.  Intel is primarily a supplier to MB manufacturers rather than a competitor, it does manufacture MB's, but it is still primarily in a supplier relationship with MB manufacturers.  For intel, the more intel-compatible MBs are floating around the market, the better.

The only reason LGA 775 has so many chipsets is because its been around for a LONG time... wait 3 years for 1156,1155, and 1366, and they will have a ton too I mean you already have in the pipeline: p55, p57, h55, h57, q57 and x58


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 21, 2009)

Man I am confused. Why can't they do one socket per generation. AMD learned this lesson with the FX way back when. Hell if I know what to buy now.


----------



## btarunr (Jul 21, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Man I am confused.



Don't need to be. Roll the dice, pick a socket, stick to its upgrade path. It will be faster and/or offer more value than that of AMD at least in the foreseeable future.


----------



## HalfAHertz (Jul 21, 2009)

phanbuey said:


> Intel doesn't really have to compete with the motherboard manufacturers, as intel supplies them with the actual chipsets, southbridges, and licenses.  Intel is primarily a supplier to MB manufacturers rather than a competitor, it does manufacture MB's, but it is still primarily in a supplier relationship with MB manufacturers.  For intel, the more intel-compatible MBs are floating around the market, the better.
> 
> The only reason LGA 775 has so many chipsets is because its been around for a LONG time... wait 3 years for 1156,1155, and 1366, and they will have a ton too I mean you already have in the pipeline: p55, p57, h55, h57, q57 and x58



I'm pretty sure the NB and SB are produced by the MB vendors and just licenced by intel


----------



## phanbuey (Jul 21, 2009)

HalfAHertz said:


> I'm pretty sure the NB and SB are produced by the MB vendors and just licenced by intel



Nope - they order them:

http://www.emsnow.com/newsarchives/archivedetails.cfm?ID=10936

They fuse them to their boards, but Im pretty sure that the cores of the chipsets are intel made.  They give out the license and the design of the chipsets to MB partners like Gigabyte so that they can design the motherboards around them.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 21, 2009)

btarunr said:


> Don't need to be. Roll the dice, pick a socket, stick to its upgrade path. It will be faster and/or offer more value than that of AMD at least in the foreseeable future.



Man I couldnt do that. I need to know all the details before I buy anything.


----------



## btarunr (Jul 21, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Man I couldnt do that. I need to know all the details before I buy anything.



You will. Newegg will tell you what you're buying, while reviews on the internet will tell you it's faster.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 21, 2009)

btarunr said:


> You will. Newegg will tell you what you're buying, while reviews on the internet will tell you it's faster.



All of those sockets can't last. Which one has the longest longevity?


----------



## MoonPig (Jul 21, 2009)

Bit late on this one... But three words: My F***ing GOD!

F*** i7. Im going this route! lol


----------



## phanbuey (Jul 21, 2009)

MoonPig said:


> Bit late on this one... But three words: My F***ing GOD!
> 
> F*** i7. Im going this route! lol



LOL but this is 32nm... just wait till the 32nm i7's are out... it will be S E X


----------



## Flyordie (Jul 22, 2009)

Wheres the 3D06? Prime95? Is it stable?  

I am tired of the double standard when it comes to Intel vs AMD.  This is just a showoff for Intel... just as AMD did with the 7Ghz PII run.


----------



## Mussels (Jul 22, 2009)

.... that thit shits all over my xeon.


----------



## hungryburger (Jul 22, 2009)

so does this mean I shouldnt upgrade to an i7 yet?


----------



## wolf (Jul 22, 2009)

hungryburger said:


> so does this mean I shouldnt upgrade to an i7 yet?



you tell us. i7 still packs more power, thats for sure.


----------



## OnBoard (Jul 22, 2009)

I have a feeling it's not that impressive as it seems.

65nm's needed 1.6V to 4ghz, 45nm's need 1.2V to 4GHz -> same -0.4volts of and 32nm's need 0.8V to 4GHz.

If that 0.832V is stock voltage it has 1000MHz OC headroom in it (the ES), mine does 700MHz OC with stock voltage.

But still very nice  Now only problem is that low voltage Dual seems more interesting than current generation Quads. These will sell like crazy, if retails have same potential and quad core won't ever pick up in games. Unless it's indifferent to a game if it sees 4 threads or 4 cores performance wise.



phanbuey said:


> Wait so 32nm... i remember that anything over 1.4v is no good for 45nm... I wonder what will be the max 32mn voltage - can't be much over 1.2/1.25.



Most likely true, if not even lower limit. Bump up the voltage and they'll go heat crazy, so it's nice they run fast with low voltage.



Flyordie said:


> Wheres the 3D06? Prime95? Is it stable?



By the looks of it it's just XP stable  So no.


----------



## phanbuey (Jul 22, 2009)

OnBoard said:


> I have a feeling it's not that impressive as it seems.
> 
> 65nm's needed 1.6V to 4ghz, 45nm's need 1.2V to 4GHz -> same -0.4volts of and 32nm's need 0.8V to 4GHz.
> 
> ...



That is so true - in perspective the chips are not SO impressive, but at the same time, only a few 65nm's could hit 4ghz 24/7, almost all 45nm's can hit 4ghz 24/7, a few can hit 4.5 24/7 - now if that trend continues that means that this chip is virtually guaranteed to hit 4ghz, and that many can pull 4.5ghz+ 24/7 with a faster IPC than the current generation.

THAT is what is really impressive - Faster IPC+4.5Ghz 4 threaded nehalem madness for cheap (i3) that is pretty nuts.


----------



## a_ump (Jul 22, 2009)

i guess it's impressive, but it's kinda expected. as said voltage to reach 4ghz or so has decreased in increments it seems with die shrinks. I also think that the max voltage these 32nm chips will be able to handle will be aorund 1.2-.28v or so. 

As for the argument of it performing clock for clock like i7...i very much dout it. it may be based on nahalem like i7, but pentium dual-core is based on core2 architecture but its performance is a good bit different from an e8X00 isn't it.


----------



## phanbuey (Jul 22, 2009)

a_ump said:


> i guess it's impressive, but it's kinda expected. as said voltage to reach 4ghz or so has decreased in increments it seems with die shrinks. I also think that the max voltage these 32nm chips will be able to handle will be aorund 1.2-.28v or so.
> 
> As for the argument of it performing clock for clock like i7...i very much dout it. it may be based on nahalem like i7, but pentium dual-core is based on core2 architecture but its performance is a good bit different from an e8X00 isn't it.



so true... its like a 4.5ghz pentium dual to match a 4.0ghz e8x00... can't wait for the benchies of this monster.


----------



## Steevo (Jul 22, 2009)

Awsome good clocks, wonder what the voltage limit is on these.


----------



## Rey17 (Jul 22, 2009)

imagine that on a laptop... with 5ghz... the possibilities are endless....
and yeah, that voltage is pretty low even for 4ghz


----------



## wolf (Jul 22, 2009)

Rey17 said:


> imagine that on a laptop... with 5ghz... the possibilities are endless....
> and yeah, that voltage is pretty low even for 4ghz



show me someone who has had a lower stable vcore for 4ghz


----------



## Mussels (Jul 22, 2009)

wolf said:


> show me someone who has had a lower stable vcore for 4ghz



can i photoshop it?


Most people are :O over what my xeon can do, let alone something this low.

even if this is a rare chip, 1.0v for FOUR threads (dual core + HT + IMC) means one hell of a good deal.


----------



## a_ump (Jul 22, 2009)

though i'm very curious about performance. i mean core2duo cpus well overclocked and core 2 quads run pretty much right on i7's butt crack , so i can't really see these duals outperforming the current c2d/q as then they'd be real close to i7 performance as well and anyone looking to purchase a new system would go for those and use the saved money elseware in the system. So...i don't really see thses i3's being an upgrade for anyone with a solid core2 system. what do u all think?


----------



## Rey17 (Jul 22, 2009)

wolf said:


> show me someone who has had a lower stable vcore for 4ghz





Mussels said:


> can i photoshop it?
> 
> 
> Most people are :O over what my xeon can do, let alone something this low.
> ...



heres you answer


----------



## Parad0x (Jul 22, 2009)

more fresh pics


----------



## HalfAHertz (Jul 22, 2009)

Ehh, why is the DDR3 mem @240Mhz?  Everest reading it wrong or sth?

1,25v for 4Ghz bench stable for an unrefined ES still looks promising tho.


----------



## Easo (Jul 22, 2009)

AMD. Get the (sorry) fuck up! NOW!
Phenom's II cant hold forever!


----------



## HalfAHertz (Jul 22, 2009)

Easo said:


> AMD. Get the (sorry) fuck up! NOW!
> Phenom's II cant hold forever!



Yes, and in the cold winter night just as little Easo said these words praying for a miracle and looking at the falling star, Santa Claus came on his raindeer sled and with the use of his big magical wand to spray "fairy dust" on AMD. The little green dwarf kept growing and growing untill it was as tall as a mountain! The snow melted, the birds started singing and AMD went on a quest to bring happiness and smiles to every child in the world...

I don't hope for an AMD that can compete, just for an AMD that can survive this tough economical downtime. In a way live now so that you can fight another day, as they say.


----------



## vega22 (Jul 22, 2009)

it looks nice on paper but its only a 25% oc on what must be VID which most wolfdales will do....


----------



## OnBoard (Jul 22, 2009)

L2 Cache seems faaaast on that thing, almost double to what I get with my 3.2GHz clocks (and latency half).

edit: if someone has Wolfdale @ 4GHz on DDR3 board handy, would you mind running that EVEREST Cache & Memory Benchmark? Would be nice to compare.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 22, 2009)

HalfAHertz said:


> Yes, and in the cold winter night just as little Easo said these words praying for a miracle and looking at the falling star, Santa Claus came on his raindeer sled and with the use of his big magical wand to spray "fairy dust" on AMD. The little green dwarf kept growing and growing untill it was as tall as a mountain! The snow melted, the birds started singing and AMD went on a quest to bring happiness and smiles to every child in the world...
> 
> I don't hope for an AMD that can compete, just for an AMD that can survive this tough economical downtime. In a way live now so that you can fight another day, as they say.



The Phenom 2 not only competes with the i7 in gaming but in some cases beats it. As long at the program isnt designed to take advantage of the i7s extra threads the Phenom 2 is a strong competitor and a good deal. Turn the fan boy down just a little bit.

I want to see real world benchmarks from Intels new offering before I get all excited and sell my rig. What looks good on paper or 3D06 may not translate into a worthy CPU replacement.

People laughed at AMD when they announced the Athlon all those years ago. Man did they change the face of computing. My point is anything can happen.


----------



## Mussels (Jul 22, 2009)

marsey99 said:


> it looks nice on paper but its only a 25% oc on what must be VID which most wolfdales will do....



only the "good" wolfdales can do 4Ghz on 1.2v. Theres a lot of people on these forums who cant manage that stable, so its most definately not as common as you think. This can do it on ~ 0.85v, with an integrated memory controller (more power draw) AND two virtual cores.

Its doing it with a decent amount less voltage, despite the fact its got more hardware within it.


----------



## h3llb3nd4 (Jul 22, 2009)

sh*t!
I want to see benches with HT off...


----------



## filip007 (Jul 22, 2009)

They are trying to make low power and high GHz this is perfect for normal users, two core is just OK

4GHz is this retail speed or just some high speed prototype ?

5GHz or 6GHz dual core not bad you will get the same speed like 3GHz Quad core but with lower power consumption.


----------



## mdm-adph (Jul 22, 2009)

Waiting to see some benchmarks!  Still an impressive feat, though, however I think it has much more to do with the simple fact that it's only dual-core and 32nm.  Perhaps AMD's 32nm chips will run with similiar ability.  

However, when Intel makes an affordable true 8-core 32nm chip, and if AMD doesn't have anything close that'll match it, I'll buy one from Intel, just because it's neat.



newtekie1 said:


> I really think Intel has shot themselves in the foot with the double socket crap.



Nope -- I have a feeling it's all going according to plan.



newtekie1 said:


> There is no reason that a single socket can't suit every uninformed desktop users needs.  775 did it perfectly for years.



Because they were trying to regain the performance crown (you want to make it as easy for people to adopt/upgrade to sell as many chips as possible).



Sasqui said:


> It is really disspointing.  I think in the end, they'll somehow increae sales of CPUs and chipsets because of it.  There has to be some sinister money making logic behind it.



That's exactly it.



TheMailMan78 said:


> Man I am confused. Why can't they do one socket per generation. AMD learned this lesson with the FX way back when. Hell if I know what to buy now.



AMD did it when they were ahead, performance-wise, and now Intel is doing the same (forcing you to buy/choose from tons of sockets/chipsets).  It's a neverending circle.  When/if AMD gets back ahead, they'll start doing the same thing again, probably.


----------



## Mussels (Jul 22, 2009)

single socket was flawed anyway - as revisions came along, compatibility went to shit.

early 775 boards cant run pentium D, later ones cant run core 2 duo, then theres ones that cant take quads, and then theres still ones that couldnt take 45nm.
There was many, many revisions of 775 - how the hell is having two main desktop sockets different?
With an integrated memory controller CPU controls memory support, so it makes sense that if you want different memory, use different sockets. AM2 vs AM3, 1366 vs 1156

AMD has similar issues, although they only started with AM2. AM2, AM2+, high wattage chips that blew out average boards. It sure as hell got confusing for average joe who wanted to buy "the best"



1. socket 1366: Triple channel ram, high end CPU's. more cores, more threads speed comes before anything else, chipsets based around 2 video cards, or more.

2. Socket 1156: dual channel ram, midrange CPU's, dual to quad core (cool running, power efficient chips for the average user - efficiency over speed). Mobo chipsets designed for 1 video card, two at most.

3. There is another, lower socket. Its designed for ITX platforms and such, with integrated graphics. It'll be just like the atom, perhaps even a replacement. No one whines that atom isnt 775, do they?


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Jul 22, 2009)

I could stand the two socket bit a lot more if they just hadn't put an i7 on 1156. Doesn't feel right on multiple levels.


----------



## btarunr (Jul 22, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> All of those sockets can't last.



How not? They will last, and both offer better upgrade paths, and processors.


----------



## Mussels (Jul 22, 2009)

i3, i5, i7 and i9 are all about how many threads the CPU can do.

2, 4, 8, and 16 respectively.

They could have a native quad core be an i5, as well as a dual core with HT - i cant confirm it, but thats how it seems to be going.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 22, 2009)

HalfAHertz said:


> Yes but things have moved on now. The newer technology has arrived and is going to take over. Intel tries to incorporate more and more stuff into the CPU die and reduce costs** and simplify the platform
> How many solutions are there for LGA775? G31, G41, G43, P35, P45, X38, X48 etc. and that's just on intel's side... How many solutions are we going to have now? p55, p53, x58
> 
> **Intel knows that it cannot compete with all the motherboard manufacturers at once, so they are playing it smart. They are trying to incorporate more and more stuff into the CPU so that they could increase their control on the market, taking away production from the mobo manufacturers and making a greater profit



As someone already pointed out, we have just about as many platforms in the works for these two sockets.  And LGA775 was around for a long ass time, it started with the 900 series chipsets remember.

As these sockets progress through time, I can guarantee you there will be more chipsets developed.  You can't expect these to last anywhere near as long as 775 and stick stick with the original few chipsets that were released, it just isn't going to happen.



Mussels said:


> single socket was flawed anyway - as revisions came along, compatibility went to shit.
> 
> early 775 boards cant run pentium D, later ones cant run core 2 duo, then theres ones that cant take quads, and then theres still ones that couldnt take 45nm.
> There was many, many revisions of 775 - how the hell is having two main desktop sockets different?
> ...



Yes, but none of that is solved by a dual(or triple) socket system.  As new processors are released, having multiple sockets doesn't help guarantee that they will be compatible with older boards.  Most of the reasons older 775 boards were not compatible with newer processor either came down to the chipsets not supporting the processors, or the electrical specifications changing.  Having multiple sockets does not solve this issue, we can't say that the X58 or P55 chipset is going to support processors released 4 or 5 years down the road, and we also can't say that Intel isn't going to make an electrical change on newer processor rendering the current two sockets useless.

And of course no one whines that Atom isn't 775, just like they don't whine that the mobile processors use a different socket than the desktop processor.  People don't buy an Atom machine expecting to slap a core 2 in it.  However, you better believe there will be people buying an i7/i5/i3 system, and expecting to be able to put a better i7 in it, only to find out the best i7's they were looking to use won't work because they use a different socket...

How many topics a week do you think we will get on this?


----------



## Mussels (Jul 22, 2009)

as far as i care, only the dual socket matters. the third one is as irrelevant as atom.


It doesnt solve many problems, but it doesnt ADD any either - its no different to how AMD had socket 939 and socket 940, one being mainstream and one being server.

All intel have done, is made a second series which costs more money for the niche market of entuhsiasts and small business/home servers. as far as 90% of the world cares, 1366 may as well not exist - they'll never see it, and they'll never buy it. its like the intel extreme CPUs.


----------



## iStink (Jul 22, 2009)

Yukikaze said:


> Two words: Holy. Shit.



THATS EXACTLY WHAT I SAID!


lolololol


----------



## HalfAHertz (Jul 22, 2009)

newtekie1 said:


> ...As new processors are released, having multiple sockets doesn't help guarantee that they will be compatible with older boards.  Most of the reasons older 775 boards were not compatible with newer processor either came down to the chipsets not supporting the processors...



I think you hit the nail on the head. This seems to be their main reason - compatibility. The platform isn't limited by the chipset anymore because the chipset is in the cpu itself. You are right, the motherboard may be obsolete in 2 or 3 or even 5 years, but at least for the next one or two generations it is going to last.

So if I may, from what I understand the situation is something like this:

LGA775 -nada                           lowend i3

LGA1155 - Dual channel DDR3 memory controler, integrated graphics, (?) no pci-e controler                       lowend/middle  i5

LGA1156 - Dual channel DDR3 memory controler, pci-e controler                  middle/highend i5/i7     

LGA1366 - Tripple channel DDR3 memory controler, ...                    Ultra highend i7/i9

 This was a very wothwhile debate


----------



## Mussels (Jul 22, 2009)

HalfAHertz said:


> I think you hit the nail on the head. This seems to be their main reason - compatibility. The platform isn't limited by the chipset anymore because the chipset is in the cpu itself. You are right, the motherboard may be obsolete in 2 or 3 or even 5 years, but at least for the next one or two generations it is going to last.
> 
> So if I may, from what I understand the situation is something like this:
> 
> ...



yep thats pretty much it.

If they get chips at 1.0v or lower stock for 1155, we'll be seeing one hell of a leap in CPU power in the mobile arena. single core atom, pssh. lets go dual core w/ HT


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 22, 2009)

So Intel has 4 sockets?!


----------



## a_ump (Jul 22, 2009)

haha it cracks me up reading all your questions bout these sockets and the feeling of utter bewilderment. but yep looks that way. Honestly i personally think using different sockets is much easier to understand than 1 socket that may or may not be compatible with your CPU of choice(LGA 775). Though there is a difference, all CPU released for LGA 775 were compatible with the chipsets of their time, the only misunderstandings that occured were when you wanted to upgrade and your old chipset not supporting the new CPU in mind. I thk within the life time of these sockets, each one(1266, 1156, etc) will have just as many chipsets as LGA775 alone had.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 22, 2009)

Mussels said:


> It doesnt solve many problems, but it doesnt ADD any either - its no different to how AMD had socket 939 and socket 940, one being mainstream and one being server.
> 
> All intel have done, is made a second series which costs more money for the niche market of entuhsiasts and small business/home servers. as far as 90% of the world cares, 1366 may as well not exist - they'll never see it, and they'll never buy it. its like the intel extreme CPUs.



It doesn't solve any problems, and it certainly does add problems, I've already stated them.

Yes, the 1366 was a niche market, but only because Intel made it so.  If they didn't release 1156, and instead launched i5 and i3 processors for 1366, then it would be mainstream.

The problem now is that people are going to buy an i5 machine, and want to upgrade to i7 or i9 later, and find out they can't because it uses a different socket.  It is confusing and dumb.  It gets even more confusing when people with i7 processors go to upgrade to another i7 processor...and they can't!  Imagine that.  How idiotic would it be if someone bought a Core 2 desktop only to find out they couldn't upgrade to another Core 2?  Well that is exactly what Intel is doing...



HalfAHertz said:


> I think you hit the nail on the head. This seems to be their main reason - compatibility. The platform isn't limited by the chipset anymore because the chipset is in the cpu itself. You are right, the motherboard may be obsolete in 2 or 3 or even 5 years, but at least for the next one or two generations it is going to last.
> 
> So if I may, from what I understand the situation is something like this:
> 
> ...



The problem is, it doesn't help with compatibility.  Even though most of the chipset is on the processor, that doesn't guarantee compatibility.  Even in the 775 days, the main reason for the needing of a new motherboard was generally caused by changes to the power requirements of the processors, not the chipset itself.  The chipset supported the processor just fine, but the power setup on the board did not.  That is why Pentium D's were not compatible with certainly older boards, and why the 45nm Quads were not compatible with certain boards.  It might have even been a reason behind why the Core 2s required new boards also.  But take a chipset like the 965P...that goes way back...and it supports virtually every 775 processor in existance when on the right motherboard.

And while the northbridge is on the processor, the southbridge isn't, and it still has to maintain compatibility with the newer processors, which isn't guaranteed either.

And again, compatibility is hampered by dual sockets.  Having two different processor in the same generation, in the same series(Core i7) that won't work in the same motherboard doesn't sound like compatibility to me...


----------



## 3870x2 (Jul 22, 2009)

farlex85 said:


> More cache= more performance. A quad w/ 12mb of L2 will generally be a bit better clock for clock than a duo w/ 6mb. Perhaps you would be correct if it wasn't for the fact that the L3 is shared among cores, eliminating a per core comparison.
> 
> It probably is somewhat similar clock/clock performance, but your simply talking out of your ass. On paper they're actually pretty different, they make different technologies to fill different market segments. Clarkdale is nehalem, clarkdale is not bloomfield (i7).



Actually, we are both talking out of our "ass", because we are talking pure speculation.  Have some respect, don't talk to me like that.


> The problem is, it doesn't help with compatibility. Even though most of the chipset is on the processor, that doesn't guarantee compatibility. Even in the 775 days, the main reason for the needing of a new motherboard was generally caused by changes to the power requirements of the processors, not the chipset itself. The chipset supported the processor just fine, but the power setup on the board did not. That is why Pentium D's were not compatible with certainly older boards, and why the 45nm Quads were not compatible with certain boards. It might have even been a reason behind why the Core 2s required new boards also. But take a chipset like the 965P...that goes way back...and it supports virtually every 775 processor in existance when on the right motherboard.
> 
> And while the northbridge is on the processor, the southbridge isn't, and it still has to maintain compatibility with the newer processors, which isn't guaranteed either.
> 
> And again, compatibility is hampered by dual sockets. Having two different processor in the same generation, in the same series(Core i7) that won't work in the same motherboard doesn't sound like compatibility to me...


In a perfect world, where every processor would work with its intended socket (775/1155/1156/1366) this would be a great idea, where in 2 years newer corei7 processors would still work with the 1366 mainboards of today, this system would be absolutely wonderful.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 22, 2009)

Meh. I'm lost. Ill stick to my "slower" AMD rig for now I think. (kisses his rig gently).


----------



## 3870x2 (Jul 22, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Meh. I'm lost. Ill stick to my "slower" AMD rig for now I think. (kisses his rig gently).



There is absolutely nothing wrong with your rig.  My next step though, is to stick with dual and go to i3 from e8500.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 22, 2009)

3870x2 said:


> There is absolutely nothing wrong with your rig.  My next step though, is to stick with dual and go to i3 from e8500.



I know. But with Intel having no "clear" upgrade path I'm sticking with AMD for now. 4 sockets? WTF.


----------



## Meecrob (Jul 22, 2009)

People, IFB's mostly will say amd's had more sockets then intel over the years, I have more then once listed them all, but the fact is Intel has MORE SOCKETS over the years, you cant count 775 first gen and current as the same socket, because newer chips will not work  in older boards, many/most first gen 775 boards cant even take pentium-d's that are just 2 p4's on one socket, and NO pre core2 board can take a core2 cpu thats not an unlocked ES chip.

the core2 COULD HAVE WORKED IN NORMAL 775 BOARDS, thats what it was tested in, BUT intel wanted to sell more chipsets, so they SOFTWARE FUZED the cpu to give an error and refuse to boot if on a pre core2 board.

I have owned many an AMD rig, and have never had a problem finding upgrades even YEARS after the socket came out, 939 was a semi-dark spot, but i avoided 939 as it didnt offer much more perf then 754 and was a good bit more expensive( no 15% in synthetic benches and 7% at best in rare real world apps isnt enough to justify the diff in cost) 

I have no intrest in these chips/sockets, sure they will bench well, but fact is that im about 80% gamer, 10% video/audio encoder and 10% webhead, and AMD covers those bases VERY WELL.

slap in a current nvidia card and grab badaboom and you got better encode speed then any intel cpu can offer!!!


----------



## phanbuey (Jul 22, 2009)

Parad0x said:


> more fresh pics
> http://www.coolaler.com.tw/coolalercbb/32nm_corei5_306GHz/2.JPG
> http://www.coolaler.com.tw/coolalercbb/32nm_corei5_306GHz/1.gif
> http://www.coolaler.com.tw/coolalercbb/32nm_corei5_306GHz/2.gif
> ...



wow 10.5 at 4ghz... thats extra meh - thats only marginally faster than e8500 at 4Ghz with some decent ddr2 :/

then again, superpi = useless benchmark across platforms.


----------

