View Full Version : Intel Core i7

11-03-2008, 06:13 PM
Well, Intel's Core 2 cpu is nearing history. A new Core i7 is being touted and gets rid of the FSB. The link below discusses the details and performance of the new chip. The chip design is all new and includes a new socket design that isn't compatible with the Core 2. This is exciting!


11-03-2008, 09:26 PM
I'm ready...sounds exciting!

11-03-2008, 09:53 PM
More good stuff on the Intel i7 is at this link:

The prices for the new chips aren't bad at all and start at less than $300 for a 2.66GHz. The only thing I'm confused about is whether the i7 will be available in a quad core version.

My bad, as I read the article it states the initial i7 chips will all be quad cores. This quote is taken from the article, "The only CPUs (http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2333767,00.asp#) using the Nehalem microarchitecture are the quad core lineup; dual-core CPUs using Nehalem's design, code named Havendale, won't be out until sometime in 2009." This is even more exciting to me as the new chip will be around $300 and a quad core!

11-04-2008, 07:26 AM
The ONLY thing is the 2.66 ghz speed - by now I would like to see some 4.x - 5.x speeds out there.

After all IF your still running 2.66 ghz even with the new cores your maxxing at MAYBE 4.xx (based on the cache/core sharing specs). Which is about where your at with the current quads. Heck we were at 3.2 + on the P-4 / Duo / Quads out now.

With 1666 mhz FSB (on the MOTHERBOARD - it will still use some type of tunnelling to get from the processor to the RAM) I am not seeing what I would like to see in launching programs like Quickbooks (which takes FOREVER!), Open Office, or scanning systems. Seems the faster the systems, the more bloated developers have let their programs get. So you get a laser fast system that dumbs down to a muzzle loader when you have to do something important.

11-04-2008, 09:13 AM
I hear ya, Dan. They do have faster cpu speeds for the more expensive chips, but the cost is prohibitive for the average user - for now. I expect the costs to come down and the speeds to ramp up. Intel is surely leaving AMD in the dust as these new Intel chips are one or two generations in front of AMD's current offerings. I do agree with you. My Core 2 Quad and the Core 2 laptop take more time than I'd like to open Adobe or even Firefox at times. I'd like to see the programs just pop up on the screen with no delay. I find video editing to be especially stressful on the cpu. I was thinking about doing a new build, but will wait now for the new i7 chips to mature and come down in price. I need to let the heavy hitters at this board do the experimenting and learn from it for my build.

11-05-2008, 09:29 AM

What I am saying is the ENTRY level processors should be at the "top" end of the previous releases.

Remember when we migrated from Pentium to Pentium III they didn't go "backwards" to middle range but started at the top. When P-4 was released they did the same thing. BUT when they did Core Duo they were the SAME speed as the P-4 start off, when Quads came out they started at that same level - what I want to see is Intel starting at the 3.4 / 3.6 level and migrating upwards as a new release. And where that processor ups the game - the next starts at that high end.

To get a new processor at the same level as the last 2 or 3 releases is not upping the game or making me "energized" to look at the flashing new "stuff".

11-06-2008, 07:56 PM

What I am saying is the ENTRY level processors should be at the "top" end of the previous releases.

Not sure you can do the same Apples to Apples comparison. There is so much code change and methodology change in the new i7

The bottom line i7 the 920 model at 2.66Ghz still matches even the Q9770 in most tests (not all tests though). When you compare at $285 CPU to a $1,400 CPU and it can whip or match it in most things I call that an improvement.
Using a "normal" non Extreme CPU in the Duo Core range like a $250 CPU then there is NO comparison the 920 smokes it.

For the things that I want to do like video and RAR the CPU can be 20 to 50% faster than the Q9770

Don't have the link but was reading where Intel was saying they're not too concerned with increasing the speed of the CPU as there are many other factors now days and they're spending more time now on making them more GREEN compliant.

11-07-2008, 09:34 AM

The price tag isn't really a consideration - the initial releases of all these processors have usually been in the high K $ expense. It is only after production streamlining are the prices reduced to a level us "common" mortals can stomach.

When the Quad(s) first came out I was looking at it but the $12xx.00 pricing was not in my budget - but in the $2xx level I can "justify" the purchase in my mind.

I still maintain that I would like to start at least at this time with new processors rating a 3.x (actually 4.x would be even more mouth watering) open offerring vs 2.x. per core.