Core i5 more details - and some pricing info

Jamin43

banned
I found this at the Tech Report

32nm Clarkdale specs, details begin to appear
by Cyril Kowaliski — 9:46 AM on August 11, 2009

Intel has seven processors based on its 32nm Clarkdale architecture up its sleeve, according to IT168. The Chinese website has posted a whole list of those processors with some of their purported specifications.

If these details are legit, we'll see a three-way split between four Core i5-branded models (clocked from 3.2 to 3.46GHz), two Core i3 models (clocked at 2.93 and 3.06GHz), and a Pentium G6950 running at 2.8GHz. An authentic-looking roadmap snapshot suggests the Core i5 variants will start at about the same price as the Core 2 Duo E8400—so, around $168.

There's something puzzling about this information, though. IT168 claims Core i5- and Core i3-branded Clarkdale processors will all have two cores, four threads, 4MB of cache, and support for DDR3-1333 memory. Only the lone Pentium will have fewer threads and less cache. Why the different names, then? The folks at Expreview have come up with an answer: the Core i3 range will lack Turbo Boost functionality, which can push individual cores above the CPU's rated clock speed depending on load and thermal limits.

Turbo Boost is present in current Core i7 chips, and Intel told us it will be much more potent in quad-core Lynnfield CPUs. Recent information suggests Lynnfield will debut next month under the Core i7 and Core i5 umbrellas—Core i7-branded models will have four cores and eight threads, while the Core i5-branded ones will have four cores and four threads. Apparently, only model numbers will differentiate Core i5-branded Clarkdale and Lynnfield CPUs.

http://techreport.com/discussions.x/17391
 
Looks like Taiwan is already selling them

Looks like Taiwan is selling the Core i5 - as well as the new Core i7 model - with pricing displays in the Taipe Market

in Taipei's computer market, where "literally all of the PC hardware shops" are already selling (or at least listing) Lynnfield-based Core i5 and Core i7 chips along with P55 motherboards.

The shops are apparently charging around
$200 for the Core i5-750,
$300 for the Core i7-860,
$600 for the Core i7-870.

TweakTown's Video
doesn't show any boxes for Lynnfield products themselves, but there are plenty of P55 mobo boxes to go around: we can spot packages for Gigabyte's P55-UD3P, P55-UD4P, and P55-UD6, not to mention Asus' P7P55D.

A member of a Taiwanese forum recently posted images of a retail-boxed Core i7-750 and a matching MSI P55-GD65 motherboard, which he followed with screenshots of the parts getting overclocked.

http://techreport.com/discussions.x/17413

Here are some Photos of the Core i5 MSI mobo and CPU unboxed.

Looks like the new Core i7's will have a $300.00 CPU to sell - looking forward to seeing Benchmarks come out.
 
Last edited:
so are these better or worse than teh i7?

Not "worse", but they are lower in the line.

Socket 1156 will only be Dual Channel DDR3, same as AMD AM3 sockets.

Basically similar i7 performance minus one channel of memory. Should still
smoke the AM3's. :D
 
so are these better or worse than teh i7?

Can't say for sure - til the Benchmarks come out. But the i5's will only run 4 threads with 4 cores - while the 8's will run 8 threads with 4 cores.

From the Video link I posted above - you can see that the core i7 860 is priced below the core i7 920 - so I'm " guessing " it's scaled down below the 920 in terms of performance - based on the pricing and the number 860 being lower than 920.

My best guess - is that Core i7 was technologically advanced enough from the AMD Phenom II's - that Intel feels their customer would pay a little more money for their i7 cpus. The 920 @ 279 was taking too much share from the higher 950 & 975. To me, this looks like a way that Intel is going to pull in a little more coin for their core i7 technology while AMD tries to bridge the gap on their premium CPU's. We'll have to wait for benchmark info to come in to draw a more definitive conclusion.

I think the Core i7 920 still looks like the most bang for your buck - for the near to mid term future. Especially if you can pick one up for $200 locally at a www.microcenter.com
 
Last edited:
But the i5's will only run 4 threads with 4 cores - while the 8's will run 8 threads with 4 cores.

From the Video link I posted above - you can see that the core i7 860 is priced below the core i7 920 - so I'm " guessing " it's scaled down below the 920 in terms of performance - based on the pricing and the number 860 being lower than 920.

Not sure what you mean by "the 8's".

Obviously the 860 will be cheaper because it's on the 1156 socket.

I still think the i5's will smoke the AM3's.
 
Not sure what you mean by "the 8's".

Obviously the 860 will be cheaper because it's on the 1156 socket.

Ahh, didn't know that.

I thought all the i7 CPU's would be on the 1366 socket. When I said 8's - just noting that 800's were a lower number than 900's. I missed the socket difference.

What Intel's doin with all their MOBO sockets can make your head spin. AMD's are much simpler to follow.
 
Ahh, ok, I see.

I agree, I'm not sure why they decided to put i7's onto the 1156.

Maybe for future upgradeability? It would make more sense for mainstream
users.

You could get a 1156 boar with an i5 to start and upgrade to a 860 later.? Idk
 
Not "worse", but they are lower in the line.

Socket 1156 will only be Dual Channel DDR3, same as AMD AM3 sockets.

Basically similar i7 performance minus one channel of memory. Should still
smoke the AM3's. :D

I still think the i5's will smoke the AM3's.

If you pay attention closely to benchmarks, the I7 smokes the AM3's because of 3 reasons. Hyperthreading technology, triple channel memory, and more L3 cache. The I5 will have none these functions, and half as much L3 cache. The I5 is a true quad core, and only dual channel memory like AMD. The AMD Phenom II 955 and 965's will probably out do the I5, but yes the I7 still owns all ;)
 
If you pay attention closely to benchmarks, the I7 smokes the AM3's because of 3 reasons. Hyperthreading technology, triple channel memory, and more L3 cache. ;)

The Core 2 core architecture was already faster clock for clock then AMD Phenoms. Add to that removing the FSB for Interconnect like AMD already did with Hypertransport. Moving the memory controller to the processor like AMD already had. Adding back H.T. And having tri channel memory. Those are the most reasons the i is even faster than the Core 2 much less the Phenom. It took away any advantage AMD had plus Intels core was already faster.

Having more L3 has less to do with it. The Phenom has twice the amount of L1 and L2. Full cache there is not much difference between them.

The biggest two factors are the i core is just flat out faster/ mostly shorter pipelines and adding the Tri Channel memory controller.

Really with the Phenom, the core is not that much different then the old Brisbane core (which is just really a 65nm. Windsor core). They just slapped 4 of them on a die and added L3 (called it the Phenom) Then just shrunk it to 45nm. added 6mb. of L3 (called it the Phenom II)

The only way AMD will catch Intel Clock for Clock is to redesign the core itself.
 
Last edited:
The Core 2 core architecture was already faster clock for clock then AMD Phenoms. Add to that removing the FSB for Interconnect like AMD already did with Hypertransport. Moving the memory controller to the processor like AMD already had. Adding back H.T. And having tri channel memory. Those are the most reasons the i is even faster than the Core 2 much less the Phenom. It took away any advantage AMD had plus Intels core was already faster.

Having more L3 has less to do with it. The Phenom has twice the amount of L1 and L2. Full cache there is not much difference between them.

The biggest two factors are the i core is just flat out faster/ mostly shorter pipelines and adding the Tri Channel memory controller.

Really with the Phenom, the core is not that much different then the old Brisbane core (which is just really a 65nm. Windsor core). They just slapped 4 of them on a die and added L3 (called it the Phenom) Then just shrunk it to 45nm. added 6mb. of L3 (called it the Phenom II)

The only way AMD will catch Intel Clock for Clock is to redesign the core itself.

Agreed.
 
Back
Top