Intel to Cannibalize Core i7 920 / 940

[Assassin48]

"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]

"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]

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.

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]

Meh... still happy with my single core sempron

 

[zAAm]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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:

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]

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]

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)]

: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]

: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

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

 

[dr emulator (madmax)]

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]

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

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]

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)]

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)]

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]

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

I guessed that

 

[dr emulator (madmax)]

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]

Nope still better than my laptop.

 

[CyberDruid]

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]

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]

How soon before this happens?

 

[n-ster]

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

Intel Answers: The future of Core i7 920




Intel Answers: The future of Core i7 920

Intel makes the claim that the popular Core i7 920 won't be discontinued and what Lynnfield WON'T be called.
COMPUTEX 2009: Having breakfast while ogling over the prohibitively expensive and ludicrously fast Core i7 975 this morning, we nailed down some details about the supposed demise of Intel's Core i7 920 and future naming of its Lynnfield CPUs.

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.

Only the 940 will go, claimed Intel, as it will be replaced by the 950 – which we already know. Intel was adamant that a range of CPUs will remain available for the platform long after Lynnfield launches on September 1st.

Secondly, Intel said its Lynnfield processors would NOT be branded Core i5 like the rumours have suggested, but the spokesperson stopped short of what the name would be.

In fact, Intel stopped short on a lot of detail this morning – only that Lynnfield’s Turbo mode will be finer tuned and greater than that of Nehalem, which is certainly nice, but upon being probed for actual details like numerical values, Intel kept mum.

Will anyone from Intel go on record to give us a firm roadmap for the life of its i7 products and get us some numbers? You know how to get hold of us guys. For the rest of you, let us know your thoughts in the forums.



http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardware/2009/06/03/intel-answers-the-future-of-core-i7-920/1

Didn't I tell you?


Lol ... i hate hoaxes!