2011 Intel Core Processor Pricing and Launch Dates Surface

[LAN_deRf_HA]

I bet motherboard makers will figure out how to control the turbo multi, so even the standard chips should overclock.

 

[MikeX]

core i3 2390T 2/4 2.7/3.5ghz 3MB cache 35W
core i3 2120 2/4 3.3ghz 3MB cache 65W??
I don't understand -.-. I would just get the 35W version then?

 

[Fourstaff]

2120 $138, 2390T $195

Tell me again, why would you want to go for the 35w version? Although the power savings will be substantial if you are leaving your computer running 24/7.

 

[MikeX]

yes true, but the difference in watts is almost double. The lower priced- higher power consumption telling me that it is a lower quality chip?

Could it be the turbo? Not all cores would be running entirely at 3.5ghz... hmm

 

[Fourstaff]

yes true, but the difference in watts is almost double. The lower priced- higher power consumption telling me that it is a lower quality chip?

Max TDP of 65w does not mean that it consumes 65w, but 99% (or something like that) of all the chips consume less than that amount. And yes, Intel bins their better chips to 2390T, leaves the shittier ones to 2120. You can easily get a more powerful chip with $195 (for example, the i5 760) and downclock it, getting a nice and low power consumption chip.

 

[pjl321]

i5-2500T 'vs' i5-2500S

Love the Quad with only 45W power draw! Perfect for a folding farm!

That is really impressive to have 4 cores running at decent speeds and staying under 45w but you would be far better buying the next CPU up as its the same price and has a higher multiplier clock, if you want lower power then under-volt it and under-clock it, but if you want more power leave it as it is. But with the 45w version you will never be able to increase it's speed.

 

[MikeX]

That is really impressive to have 4 cores running at decent speeds and staying under 45w but you would be far better buying the next CPU up as its the same price and has a higher multiplier clock, if you want lower power then under-volt it and under-clock it, but if you want more power leave it as it is. But with the 45w version you will never be able to increase it's speed.

That's probably the turbo. Only one core will utilized to 100% turbo or 2 core for 80% something like that..
I have seen intel's demo video on this. My i7 on my laptop also only goes 100% on one core

 

[pjl321]

That's probably the turbo. Only one core will utilized to 100% turbo or 2 core for 80% something like that..
I have seen intel's demo video on this. My i7 on my laptop also only goes 100% on one core

No that is something different all together. The i5-2500T (45w) has a standard multiplier of x23 and turbo of x33. The i5-2500S (65w) has a standard multiplier of x27 and turbo of x37.

My point was that if they are both exactly the same price then you may as well buy the faster CPU and if you are very power conscience then under-clock and under-volt it. As this way will always leave you the option of having a fast chip if you wanted to, where as the other chip can never run faster than 2.3/3.3GHz.

 

[MikeX]

No that is something different all together. The i5-2500T (45w) has a standard multiplier of x23 and turbo of x33. The i5-2500S (65w) has a standard multiplier of x27 and turbo of x37.

My point was that if they are both exactly the same price then you may as well buy the faster CPU and if you are very power conscience then under-clock and under-volt it. As this way will always leave you the option of having a fast chip if you wanted to, where as the other chip can never run faster than 2.3/3.3GHz.

I like your idea. It is possible to turn the turbo off then overclock all the core all up to 3.3ghz at i3 2120 speed. Without the turbo the power consumption will be around 65watts aswell.

 

[pjl321]

That's probably the turbo. Only one core will utilized to 100% turbo or 2 core for 80% something like that..
I have seen intel's demo video on this. My i7 on my laptop also only goes 100% on one core

I like your idea. It is possible to turn the turbo off then overclock all the core all up to 3.3ghz at i3 2120 speed. Without the turbo the power consumption will be around 65watts aswell.

Is that right? I didn't know you could 'force' the turbo on all the cores. Would the balance energy profile in Windows still work so that you don't have to have them on 100% all the time? i.e. still have access to lower p-states while still have access to the higher forced turbo speed on all 4 cores?

 

[MikeX]

Is that right? I didn't know you could 'force' the turbo on all the cores. Would the balance energy profile in Windows still work so that you don't have to have them on 100% all the time? i.e. still have access to lower p-states while still have access to the higher forced turbo speed on all 4 cores?

no no. you can't. But you can change affinity of a running software to run to 2 cores on task manager. If that was a Game, yes you forced it to run on 2 core, and the chip will run turbo on the 2 cores. You cannot turboed all the core, that would break the power envelope that was design to be at xx watts. If it was 3/4 cores turbo the 3 cores would raised the multiplier by one or 2 will have the same xx watts to 2/4 cored that raised the multiplier by 4 or 5. I hope you gets it. So all 4 cores will never get 100% turbo

 

[pjl321]

no no. you can't. But you can change affinity of a running software to run to 2 cores on task manager. If that was a Game, yes you forced it to run on 2 core, and the chip will run turbo on the 2 cores

OK, so just to be clear. At the moment i have an AMD 620 X4, default of 2.6GHz, i have overclocked it to 3.8GHz. I run my PC in Balanced Mode so that 95% of the time it runs at 1.2GHz but as soon as my CPU gets stressed it boosts it to 3.8GHz which, for me, is a great balance of speed and efficiency.

Can you lock the new i series at their highest turbo mode speed but still have a balanced system profile?

 

[MikeX]

OK, so just to be clear. At the moment i have an AMD 620 X4, default of 2.6GHz, i have overclocked it to 3.8GHz. I run my PC in Balanced Mode so that 95% of the time it runs at 1.2GHz but as soon as my CPU gets stressed it boosts it to 3.8GHz which, for me, is a great balance of speed and efficiency.

Can you lock the new i series at their highest turbo mode speed but still have a balanced system profile?

Speed-step can be controlled, but you can never control turbo from windows. Hope that is the perfect answer. They are very similar; so I think turbo is just a gimmick advertising actualy saying one of the core goes 100% turbo or xx% turbo balance to the rest of the core with the same xx watts.

Turbo is a hardware thing, some motherboard can alther it in bios. You can still set core affinity for heavy application in task manager , ie 2 core or one to get your turbo 80-100% that way. Normally turbo tries to eliminate non-optimised application that runs on one core by rise specific core multiplier, thus old Intel chip getter bad performance like the core 2 quad

With multiplier, you can rise up and down as you want with windows profile, tools, and in the bios ofc. Multiplier affects all cores.


Can you lock the new i series at their highest turbo mode speed but still have a balanced system profile? You gotta to disable turbo in the bios and overclock all the cores. Yes you have to loose turbo

 

[MikeX]

ASUS P8H67 looks kinda cute
I wonder how high intel's IGP performance will go with that kind of speedy memory

 

[micropage7]

thought this was about the 2011 chip that will replace the 1366

yeah intel later act strange, how come they replace their own socket just in a moment? They think we have money tree to buy that if we talk about in the name of performance thats OK but in the name of flexibility of course not

 

[CDdude55]

Sounds great, later on down the line we should be seeing 6 core and even 8 core iterations of Sandy Bridge.

My 920 is more then enough for me though, as games these days can run on a toaster and i don't have much cash for upgrading my system anyways, unfortunately.

 

[Wile E]

Love the Quad with only 45W power draw! Perfect for a folding farm!

Or that quad with HT at only 65w. Not too shabby at all. Nice gains, imo. Sadly, it seems the Bclock lock is true. The clock gen is on the chip instead of on teh board. Some mobo makers might be able to get us a few Mhz, but probably not much, as the clock gen also effects things like PCIe and USB and such. I remember having to clock PCI locked mobos back in the s478 days, and could only get around 10% before it went to far out of spec. That saddens me a bit, despite reasonably priced unlocked cpus. I like being to clock whatever chip I have at the time.

But, while this is all well and good, I still just want to know about skt 2011. lol.

 

[KaelMaelstrom]

wow look at those power consumption.
CPU in the future will use less and less power
but GPU is the other way around

 

[LAN_deRf_HA]

Gpus will get better, we're just at a bad spot now cause of being stuck at 40nm. I'm not getting new card till the die shrinks hit and we actually get a power efficiency improvement.

 

[MikeX]

wow look at those power consumption.
CPU in the future will use less and less power
but GPU is the other way around

Lets Direct Compute everyone!
Let your Cuda, OPenCL, SIMd grapes run your kernel

 

[Yellow&Nerdy?]

Not too impressed. The power consumption on some is pretty nice, but that's it. Also it would be a bad decision to lock the Bclock, considering that most of the people who build their own systems have a certain level of knowledge about computers and would almost certainly like to overclock. So nobody would buy the high-end locked processors, because anyone using that kind of money on it will probably like to squeeze every last bit of performance out of it.

But if they manage to bring a 6-core with 95W TDP in Q3 or Q4, I'd be interested. Otherwise, right now, Bulldozer seems to be the more interesting architecture. Also, all benchmarks "leaked" now should be taken with a big grain of salt. Probably not true.

 

[LAN_deRf_HA]

I'd take another crack at it ^. A clock for clock advantage over 1366 and 5-5.5 Ghz air overclocks make this very impressive, truly excessive performance. The unlocked procs are priced right alongside their 1156 counterparts (760/860), which do not have that same overclocking potential. That plus I'm really confident MB makers will get us control of the turbo multi. If AMD can jump past the disparity between phenom and i7, all the way to sandybridge performance and overclocking ability then maybe I'd agree bulldozer is more interesting, maybe even miraculous, but realistically it seems highly improbable at the moment.

 

[meirb111]

Not too impressed. The power consumption on some is pretty nice, but that's it. Also it would be a bad decision to lock the Bclock, considering that most of the people who build their own systems have a certain level of knowledge about computers and would almost certainly like to overclock. So nobody would buy the high-end locked processors, because anyone using that kind of money on it will probably like to squeeze every last bit of performance out of it.

But if they manage to bring a 6-core with 95W TDP in Q3 or Q4, I'd be interested. Otherwise, right now, Bulldozer seems to be the more interesting architecture. Also, all benchmarks "leaked" now should be taken with a big grain of salt. Probably not true.

what we know about Bulldozers tdp is 95w-125w so nothing new there
lets hope for more performance .

 

[Yellow&Nerdy?]

I'd take another crack at it ^. A clock for clock advantage over 1366 and 5-5.5 Ghz air overclocks make this very impressive, truly excessive performance. The unlocked procs are priced right alongside their 1156 counterparts (760/860), which do not have that same overclocking potential. That plus I'm really confident MB makers will get us control of the turbo multi. If AMD can jump past the disparity between phenom and i7, all the way to sandybridge performance and overclocking ability then maybe I'd agree bulldozer is more interesting, maybe even miraculous, but realistically it seems highly improbable at the moment.

I guess that's true. But again, all info now is to be taken with a grain of salt. Bulldozer has a stock Turbo frequency up to 4.0 GHz, and looking at the current AMD 6-cores w/turbo, there is about 500-700 MHz overclocking potential above the stock Turbo frequency. That would put it close to 5 GHz, or maybe even at 5 GHz, because it is a new architecture. And I doubt it would have less overclocking potential than the older generation. Plus it supports DDR3-1866 default. About MB-makers being able to unlock the Bclk, I doubt it. Intel has a reason to lock it, and wouldn't just let MB-makers unlock it that easy.

That being said, I'm not a die-hard fanboy. If Sandy ends up wiping the floor with Bulldozer, Sandy will be the one I'd buy. Personally I don't hope that's the case, because tight competition benefits consumers by giving lower prices.

 

[dr emulator (madmax)]

well i was thinking of getting an i7 980 x , but it doesn't have EM64T,

thing is would i or do i need it?