Intel Lynnfield Core i5 and Core i7 Processors @ [H]

[thatsnasty2]

Random post. Everyone seems to be buying heat sinks like the Noctua and the TRUE-120 for their cpu's, or complaining about no bracket being available. I own the 1366 TRUE-120, but I would still buy this over anything on the market if I got a new cooler.

Coolermaster Hyper 212 Plus

It can be found here for Canadians:
http://ncix.com/products/?sku=41337&vpn=RR-B10-212P-GP&manufacture=COOLERMASTER

Here for Americans:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...RR-B10-212P-GP

It fits all sockets, including the 1156. It's ridiculously cheap and comes with all necessary gear to mount it.

Hardware Canucks has a review of it on a Q6600 and an I7 920 against all the main contenders (TRUE-120, Megahalems, Noctua, HDT-1283, OCZ Vendetta). It placed near the top on all of them and can be price matched for $25 Canadian.

I posted this in the heat sink round up, though no one seems to go there.

 

[Dan_D]

Reading this thread, I have started thinking:

A. Users who supported i7-920 early on seem to have been slightly shafted by Intel in my opinion. Because 920 was really the only option for "normal" level computer enthusiasm, right? It's like booking the cheapest room in a nice hotel, and the next morning finding an announcement on the door that your room is being demolished to make room for Presidential suites.

B. I wonder if the i9 deal is a realistic drop-in upgrade. Won't it bring with it (as mentioned) a shiny new chipset and tons of impressive new features? And with the 920 being abolished, will there ever be sub-$500 processors on the socket again? Because $500 is quite a drop-in! I mean, it's a great way to keep excitement in 1366, but I wonder if the "upgrade path" will be much more than hype in the end.

I made this post in another thread, but it seems to apply here as well:

What we do know at this time:

LGA1156

Intel says that no six core CPUs are planned for LGA1156 at present.

LGA1366

Gulftown is a 32nm die shrink of the Nehalem core. It will be drop in compatible with ALL X58 motherboards. (This is according to slides leaked/released by Intel.) Gulftown will feature six cores and be LGA1366 compatible.

What we DON'T know:

We do NOT know what Gulftown's price will be. We can only guess on this.
We do NOT know how many variants of this CPU will be released.

Comparison: Core i5 vs. Core i7

The Core i5 700 / Core i7 800 series CPUs are almost identical to the Core i7 900 series CPUs. Some Core i5 / Core i7 LGA1156 CPU models come with higher stock clock speeds. To the enthusiast, stock clocks are of little relevance. We'd all buy 800MHz chips gladly if they'd all hit 5.0GHz+ through overclocking. We wouldn't care if Intel had other models that had stock clocks of 1.13GHz or whatever. As long as their upper limit was similar, we'd all (or most all of us) go for the cheapest processor. The Core i7 900 series features triple-channel memory support. It is capable of reaching memory bandwidth levels BEYOND what Core i5 700 / Core i7 800 series CPUs can achieve. Clock for clock they are almost identical but in some circumstances with some applications (mostly workstation and server applications) the Core i7 900 series CPUs are the better performing processors. Comparing stock clocks the Core i7 920 doesn't look as good as the Core i5/Core i7 800 series processors do. Given the superior turbo mode and running slightly cooler I can see why some people would believe the Core i5 700 / Core i7 800 series CPUs to be the superior products. However it isn't that simple.

The Core i7 920 is rumored to be on the virge of being discontinued. If this happens it will most likely not be replaced by anything. The target market for the Core i7 900 series was/ never the mainstream computing segment anyway. The Core i7 900 series CPUs are essentially rebranded Xeons. They are designed for high end enthusiast machines, workstations, multi-processor workstations, single processor servers, and dual processor servers. No doubt a Xeon MP variant of the Nehalem core is coming as well. Do not forget that there is always the Xeon W35xx series CPUs which are identical to the Core i7's. The W3520 which is exactly the same thing as the Core i7 920 with ECC memory support. Though ECC memory isn't required. It will (hopefully) be around for some time. The Core i7 950 and Core i7 975 Extreme Editon are Intel's best performing parts currently for any non-Xeon branded CPUs. The Core i5 700 / Core i7 800 series doesn't quite match up to either one of them. It's close assuming the clock speeds are close. So again, Core i7 900 series, at the same clock speeds is faster than Core i5 700 / Core i7 800 series CPUs are. Or at the very least, Core i7 900 series CPUs have the potential to be faster than Core i5 700 / Core i7 800 series parts depending on the application. It certainly isn't slower than Core i5 700 / Core i7 800 series are. As to which is the better buy? It would depend on what you are looking for.

Assuming board features don't matter, you can get LGA1366 boards just as cheap if not cheaper than some LGA1156 boards. If you have a Microcenter near you, then the mighty $200.00 Core i7 920 is hard to pass up. That's cheaper than most of the LGA1156 processors right now. (If not all of them.) And when overclocked it will reach similar speeds but with three memory channels and HT, it's hard to beat for the price. As far as bang for your buck, they are similar. The price difference in a triple channel memory kit and a dual channel kit is relatively small as well. So right now, with careful shopping both are about the same price. I consider the LGA1366 option to be the better way for a few reasons.

Core i7 Advantages:

1.) Triple channel memory support
2.) Stronger upgrade path
3.) More processor choices
4.) Potentially better performance than Core i5 at the same clock speeds
5.) Hyperthreading on all models

Core i5 Advantages:

1.) Lower cost
2.) Better Turbo Mode (Doesn't matter much to the overclocker.)
3.) Runs slightly cooler
4.) Cheaper motherboards

There is no reason for any Core i7 owner to feel shafted in the wake of Core i5 and Core i7 800 series' launch. There is no reason to believe Core i5 / Core i7 (LGA1156) processors are somehow superior to their LGA1366 counterparts. There really isn't. They are slightly different and are intended for a slightly different market segment. LGA1156 is in some ways has a couple of advantages (Runs cooler, uses a bit less power, similar overclocking ceiling, similar performance), but LGA1366 has a stronger upgrade path and potentially stronger performance. (If only slightly.) There are more LGA1366 processors to choose from. (Core i7, Xeon W35xx, Xeon E55xx and Core i7 Extreme Edition.) And again, don't forget, Gulftown is coming for it. If you already have a Core i7 920, then you got yourself a great deal on a processor you've most likely enjoyed for some time now and you have a solid upgrade path for the next year. LGA1156 owners, or future buyers can enjoy what that platform has to offer and they'll spend a little bit less money. However their upgrade path is not assured.

Even when socket types stick around for a number of years newer motherboards and chipsets are often required to support new variants of existing CPU designs, or newer CPUs that still use the same socket. There are plenty of examples of this to reference. Despite the fact that both AMD and Intel have kept some sockets around for a number of years, constantly evolving CPU architectures and designs still often necessitated new motherboards and chipsets be designed to support them. Increases in FSB speeds and VRM specification changes are just two common reasons why this was the case. Newer boards were usually compatible with older CPUs but the reverse wasn't true. This was seen many times with socket 7, slot 1, slot 2, socket 370, socket 478, socket 603, socket 604 (backwards compatible with socket 603), LGA775, LGA771, slot A, socket A, socket AM2, etc. The list goes on and on and I'm sure I missed some. LGA775 probably had one of the longest life spans of all CPU sockets excluding socket 604. Introduced in 2002 it is still used in the Xeon MP family today. (I believe it is being replaced very soon if it hasn't been already.) LGA771 took over for Xeon / Xeon DP, but never took over for Xeon MP (S604). LGA775 took us all the way from the Pentium 4 / Pentium D to the Core 2 Quad. That covers about 4 years.

Socket 3, socket 5, socket 7, socket 8, slot 1, slot 2, socket PGA370 (probably the shortest lived socket of all time), FCPGA370, socket 423, and socket 478 all had a relatively short life spans. AMD has been a little better in regard to socket changes having introduced fewer sockets than Intel. Super 7, socket A, socket 939, socket 940, and socket AM2 only lasted about 2-3 years each at the most. And again many of those sockets still required new motherboards and chipsets in order to support new processor varaints or types despite the fact that those newer CPUs used the old socket design. Some sockets got the shaft getting zero or almost zero new processors launched for them until they were replaced. Socket 8 and socket 423 come to mind. Socket 754 had quite a few CPUs released for it, but still didn't last very long.

So whether or not they keep the same socket remains largely immaterial since new boards and chipsets are often required anyway. Add to that the fact that most people don't swap CPUs a whole hell of a lot. They'll keep the same CPU for the life of the system. When most people go to buy a new CPU, they buy a motherboard with it. Either because they are building a new system or because they need a new motherboard anyway, DESPITE the socket remaining "unchanged." I've come to realize that worrying about socket longevity is relatively pointless.

 

[witlzei]

Could you compare FSX performance with Core2 Q, i5, i7 and Phenom II processors? It´s a very cpu intensive program and I think many would be grateful for such a test.

 

[faugusztin]

Random post. Everyone seems to be buying heat sinks like the Noctua and the TRUE-120 for their cpu's, or complaining about no bracket being available. I own the 1366 TRUE-120, but I would still buy this over anything on the market if I got a new cooler...

Noctua has already mounting kit for S1156, i used it to mount NH-C12P for my S1156 board on release day :
http://www.noctua.at/main.php?show=productview&products_id=30&lng=en

Truth is, maybe you will have same problem with Noctua as we Europeans have with Thermalright - Noctua gets later to USA, Thermalright gets later to Europe (Thermalright have a mounting kit on their page too since 09.09.2009).

 

[jonneymendoza]

I made this post in another thread, but it seems to apply here as well:

Well fucking said mate. i have been happy with my 920 since day one and i possibly have a pc that can last over 3+years.

its nearly a year since the 920's was released and its still top dog. that is very impressive and the fact that i can simply drop in a 6 core cpu upgrade next year without having to buy a new mobo is a big plus sign too.

i have always said that is best to buy new tech when its just been released for future proofing.

 

[vengence]

There is no reason for any Core i7 owner to feel shafted in the wake of Core i5 and Core i7 800 series' launch

Especially since they have been enjoying them for nearly the past YEAR. Anyone feeling "shafted" on technology when it has been out for more than 9 months is an idiot.

 

[DarkStryke]

Yep, the $200 i7 920 is basically the best one to go with *if* you are in the few select areas of the US with a brick & mortar Microcenter store nearby. That's basically an anomaly tho, and why the i5 is as big a deal as it currently is.

I do think the P55 is just an interim chipset platform tho, as that 10Gb/s bi-directional DMI link is going to be stressed harder in the next year as USB 3 and Sata 6g devices appearing on the scene, along with PCI-E 2.0 growing.

 

[Dan_D]

Yeah I'm thinking about picking up a Core i7 920 D0 from Microcenter this weekend. I've hadn't planned on buying it this early, but in the wake of the Core i5's launch and the likely departure of the Core i7 920 from the market in the near future, I'll just go ahead and get it.

 

[ilkhan]

I made this post in another thread, but it seems to apply here as well: ...assured.

And I have the same problem with your post in this thread as (unspoken) in the other thread. The 920 isn't being discontinued.

 

[Dan_D]

And I have the same problem with your post in this thread as (unspoken) in the other thread. The 920 isn't being discontinued.

I didn't know it would be. Someone pointed out that it was absent from some of the slides in the lineup. Discontinued or not, aside from Microcenter, they are close to $300 now. They aren't quite as attractive as they were for $229.99. If they discontinue the Core i7 920, I won't be surprised. Especially considering the pricing structure of thier Lynnfield based lineup.

We'll see.

 

[thatsnasty2]

Noctua has already mounting kit for S1156, i used it to mount NH-C12P for my S1156 board on release day :
http://www.noctua.at/main.php?show=productview&products_id=30&lng=en

Truth is, maybe you will have same problem with Noctua as we Europeans have with Thermalright - Noctua gets later to USA, Thermalright gets later to Europe (Thermalright have a mounting kit on their page too since 09.09.2009).

Possibly, but even so, the price of the Coolermaster heat sink is rediculously cheap. I would buy it over almost anything at this price point.

 

[butterfliesrpretty]

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardware/2009/05/28/intel-to-discontinue-core-i7-920-940-cpus/1

not coming straight from Intel, but from the mobo manufacturers.

So I guess it's not set in stone the 920 will be gone, but more then likely it will be

 

[ilkhan]

Well the 940 was replaced by the 950 (and long ago at that) but its after sept 1 and the 920 is still on Intel's price list. That story may not be as accurate as it could be.

 

[stateofjermaine]

I made this post in another thread, but it seems to apply here as well:

What we do know at this time:

LGA1156

Intel says that no six core CPUs are planned for LGA1156 at present.

LGA1366

Gulftown is a 32nm die shrink of the Nehalem core. It will be drop in compatible with ALL X58 motherboards. (This is according to slides leaked/released by Intel.) Gulftown will feature six cores and be LGA1366 compatible.

What we DON'T know:

We do NOT know what Gulftown's price will be. We can only guess on this.
We do NOT know how many variants of this CPU will be released.

Comparison: Core i5 vs. Core i7

The Core i5 700 / Core i7 800 series CPUs are almost identical to the Core i7 900 series CPUs. Some Core i5 / Core i7 LGA1156 CPU models come with higher stock clock speeds. To the enthusiast, stock clocks are of little relevance. We'd all buy 800MHz chips gladly if they'd all hit 5.0GHz+ through overclocking. We wouldn't care if Intel had other models that had stock clocks of 1.13GHz or whatever. As long as their upper limit was similar, we'd all (or most all of us) go for the cheapest processor. The Core i7 900 series features triple-channel memory support. It is capable of reaching memory bandwidth levels BEYOND what Core i5 700 / Core i7 800 series CPUs can achieve. Clock for clock they are almost identical but in some circumstances with some applications (mostly workstation and server applications) the Core i7 900 series CPUs are the better performing processors. Comparing stock clocks the Core i7 920 doesn't look as good as the Core i5/Core i7 800 series processors do. Given the superior turbo mode and running slightly cooler I can see why some people would believe the Core i5 700 / Core i7 800 series CPUs to be the superior products. However it isn't that simple.

The Core i7 920 is being discontinued. It will not be replaced by anything. The target market for the Core i7 900 series was never the mainstream computing segment anyway. The Core i7 900 series CPUs are essentially rebranded Xeons. They are designed for high end enthusiast machines, workstations, multi-processor workstations, single processor servers, and dual processor servers. No doubt a Xeon MP variant of the Nehalem core is coming as well. Do not forget that there is always the Xeon W35xx series CPUs which are identical to the Core i7's. The W3520 which is exactly the same thing as the Core i7 920 with ECC memory support. Though ECC memory isn't required. It will (hopefully) be around for some time. The Core i7 950 and Core i7 975 Extreme Editon are Intel's best performing parts currently for any non-Xeon branded CPUs. The Core i5 700 / Core i7 800 series doesn't quite match up to either one of them. It's close assuming the clock speeds are close. So again, Core i7 900 series, at the same clock speeds is faster than Core i5 700 / Core i7 800 series CPUs are. Or at the very least, Core i7 900 series CPUs have the potential to be faster than Core i5 700 / Core i7 800 series parts depending on the application. It certainly isn't slower than Core i5 700 / Core i7 800 series are. As to which is the better buy? It would depend on what you are looking for.

Assuming board features don't matter, you can get LGA1366 boards just as cheap if not cheaper than some LGA1156 boards. If you have a Microcenter near you, then the mighty $200.00 Core i7 920 is hard to pass up. That's cheaper than most of the LGA1156 processors right now. (If not all of them.) And when overclocked it will reach similar speeds but with three memory channels and HT, it's hard to beat for the price. As far as bang for your buck, they are similar. The price difference in a triple channel memory kit and a dual channel kit is relatively small as well. So right now, with careful shopping both are about the same price. I consider the LGA1366 option to be the better way for a few reasons.

Core i7 Advantages:

1.) Triple channel memory support
2.) Stronger upgrade path
3.) More processor choices
4.) Potentially better performance than Core i5 at the same clock speeds
5.) Hyperthreading on all models

Core i5 Advantages:

1.) Lower cost
2.) Better Turbo Mode (Doesn't matter much to the overclocker.)
3.) Runs slightly cooler
4.) Cheaper motherboards

There is no reason for any Core i7 owner to feel shafted in the wake of Core i5 and Core i7 800 series' launch. There is no reason to believe Core i5 / Core i7 (LGA1156) processors are somehow superior to their LGA1366 counterparts. There really isn't. They are slightly different and are intended for a slightly different market segment. LGA1156 is in some ways has a couple of advantages (Runs cooler, uses a bit less power, similar overclocking ceiling, similar performance), but LGA1366 has a stronger upgrade path and potentially stronger performance. (If only slightly.) There are more LGA1366 processors to choose from. (Core i7, Xeon W35xx, Xeon E55xx and Core i7 Extreme Edition.) And again, don't forget, Gulftown is coming for it. If you already have a Core i7 920, then you got yourself a great deal on a processor you've most likely enjoyed for some time now and you have a solid upgrade path for the next year. LGA1156 owners, or future buyers can enjoy what that platform has to offer and they'll spend a little bit less money. However their upgrade path is not assured.

Heh, wow.

I think I may have been misunderstood. My analogy was not meant to tout any "superiority" of i5, or proclaim a preferable price point, or anything like that. It was a simple observation . . . an open-ended thought.

Certainly 1366 early adopters got themselves a great processor, and have enjoyed its power for a long time. Great. Those who waited for i5 will get a great value as well. Nothing to start flame wars about.

To my point, I was more or less referring to the manner in which I think Intel "pulled the rug out" from under early adopters who purchased the i7-920 at the (roughly) $250-$300 price point. From my perspective, had the 920 never been made, far fewer users might have adopted socket 1366. 920 was a much better value than the higher-end options, and encouraged many "middle-high-end" fencewalkers to take the plunge.

Now one of those other high-end options will (presumably) become the flagships of 1366. As many have stated, the socket seems to be transforming to a super-high-end socket, with approximately 0 processors in the "reasonable" 920 range. Given what 1366 is lining up to look like for this iteration (minus the 920), if this is to be the template for 1366, users may be in for a more expensive ride than they signed up for. That's all I was saying.

Believe me, I have no interest in discrediting the 920 or Intel. I have no interest in hyping Core i5. These were just some thoughts I had. I hope this will prevent any further need to "defend" i7 or 1366. [/RANT]

 

[stateofjermaine]

There is no reason for any Core i7 owner to feel shafted in the wake of Core i5 and Core i7 800 series' launch.

One last thing, here, as I think I just realized the confusion.

I wasn't clear on what I meant by the Presidential suites analogy. I was not referring to the Lynnfield release at all. In fact, Lynnfield is only indirectly related to what I was pondering. I meant that (assuming you accept this) with i7-920 looking to be on its way out, only much more expensive processors would be available on the 1366 socket (i.e. Presidential suites in the hotel). It has been mentioned that Bloomfield was always intended to be an enthusiast socket, and not mainstream . . . but I think most of us will agree that 920 sucked some users over the line who might normally shy from top-$helf platforms, because its price was so (relatively) reasonable.

The only "shaft" I was considering was the way in which crossover "mainthusiast" users were drawn onto an mega-high-end socket by a mainstream-priced part, only to have it removed a few months later. As many users anticipate i9, I do hope that the 6-core processors reintroduce a $300-or-so part to provide an easy drop-in for 1366 users, but by some accounts it seems unlikely. I hope this makes some more sense out of a wildly unclear post.

 

[jackknife]

I wouldn't call it a "coffin nailer" for AMD though, not by a long stretch. Most units are shifted in the budget sector, and this is where P2 comes in.
A good P2 mainboard can be had for around 60 Euros, the X4 Phenom II retail for a little over 100 Euros (remember, these prices include VAT over here!), and DDR2 memory is dirt cheap, around 10 Euros per gig.
So for 200 Euros you have a quad core system with 4gig of memory, or if you take a slightly faster P2 and more mem, you still stay below 300 Euros. Granted, the cheaper boards mostly have only one PCIe 16x slot, but if you build a budget machine, you will not need SLI or Crossfire.

The cheapest price I could find for the I5 750 was 170 Euros at the time of writing, you will also need a mainboard (cheapest ones go for around 80 Euros), and memory (Aeneon being the only company that can almost match the 10Euros/GB price point of DDR2, but they are out of stock almost everywhere).
So the difference could still amount to 100 Euros per build for the smallest CPU of the range, depending on the features you want from the board and the availability of cheap memory.

This gap will ofcourse narrow in the coming weeks. So if AMD stays on the move, releases a new CPU generation and drops the price for their older ones, they might survive this. Otherwise... hats off to Intel.

 

[Lorent02]

Kyle, I know this is an enthusiast site, but I use CAD, and REVIT, and I can tell you that the Bloomfield and tripple channel memory give both programs a responsiveness that is noticeable and having 12 Gigs of RAM is just wonderful!

Luke

 

[Makaveli@BETA]

i'm having a hard time understanding all the clowns bitching about low res benching. What is your mental defect? Its clearly been showing benching at 1920 higher for CPU benches will result in a flat line as you hit a GPU bottleneck. The whole point of the graphs are for you to see noticable difference between said products. Is it really helpful to you to see all the CPU's sitting at 90FPS locked on the graph?

That is how it is done on the site and will not change. The only thing your crying does is make you look like a retard to everyone on the site that understands you have to bench low to see RESULTS!

Thank you and good day!

 

[Dan_D]

To my point, I was more or less referring to the manner in which I think Intel "pulled the rug out" from under early adopters who purchased the i7-920 at the (roughly) $250-$300 price point. From my perspective, had the 920 never been made, far fewer users might have adopted socket 1366. 920 was a much better value than the higher-end options, and encouraged many "middle-high-end" fencewalkers to take the plunge.

Now one of those other high-end options will (presumably) become the flagships of 1366. As many have stated, the socket seems to be transforming to a super-high-end socket, with approximately 0 processors in the "reasonable" 920 range. Given what 1366 is lining up to look like for this iteration (minus the 920), if this is to be the template for 1366, users may be in for a more expensive ride than they signed up for. That's all I was saying.

I disagree. Intel didn't pull the rug out from under anyone. If anything, quite the opposite. As far as we know there will be no new LGA1366 processors released until Gulftown. That's a 32nm six-core CPU upgrade that only LGA1366 owners will get to enjoy. Right now anyone overclocking a Core i7 920 north of 3.8GHz has no compelling reason to upgrade to anything else in the near future. LGA1366 is also the Xeon socket. As they've sometimes done in the past, they have rebranded a server part for the high end enthusiast and workstation market. There are also plenty of Xeon W35xx series and E55xx series CPUs to choose from as well. I think the socket was always intended to be a high end solution and a workstation / server socket. They just happen to throw us a bone with the reasonable pricing we've enjoyed with the Core i7 920. Intel's lineup is changing with the introduction of the Core i5 and Core i7 LGA1156 processors, but if they remove the Core i7 920 from the lineup it will only be to segment their products for their intended markets.

I do agree that far fewer people would have adopted LGA1366 and X58 chipset based motherboards if Intel hadn't introduced the Core i7 920 at such a low price point. Still those people are in a better position for an upgrade than anyone else is so those people should count themselves lucky that the Core i7 920 existed at all.

 

[stateofjermaine]

I disagree. Intel didn't pull the rug out from under anyone. If anything, quite the opposite. As far as we know there will be no new LGA1366 processors released until Gulftown. That's a 32nm six-core CPU upgrade that only LGA1366 owners will get to enjoy. Right now anyone overclocking a Core i7 920 north of 3.8GHz has no compelling reason to upgrade to anything else in the near future. LGA1366 is also the Xeon socket. As they've sometimes done in the past, they have rebranded a server part for the high end enthusiast and workstation market. There are also plenty of Xeon W35xx series and E55xx series CPUs to choose from as well. I think the socket was always intended to be a high end solution and a workstation / server socket. They just happen to throw us a bone with the reasonable pricing we've enjoyed with the Core i7 920. Intel's lineup is changing with the introduction of the Core i5 and Core i7 LGA1156 processors, but if they remove the Core i7 920 from the lineup it will only be to segment their products for their intended markets.

I do agree that far fewer people would have adopted LGA1366 and X58 chipset based motherboards if Intel hadn't introduced the Core i7 920 at such a low price point. Still those people are in a better position for an upgrade than anyone else is so those people should count themselves lucky that the Core i7 920 existed at all.

Yes, I am aware of the 6-core "drop-in" upgrade available to 1366. I shared my thoughts in a previous post, so I will try to make this brief. One of two scenarios exists:

A. The 920 is so ridiculously powerful right now that no upgrade (to include a 6-core) even makes sense for at least a year or more. Hence, most current 920 owners will not need or want the Gulftown upgrade. Hence, the "6-core upgrade path" is a moot point.

B. The 920 is dwarfed in performance by the upcoming 6-core. Ergo, the Gulftown price is super-inflated (see the 975 and 950 for reference) and most 920 users do not think it worthwhile to upgrade. Hence, the "6-core upgrade path" is a moot point.

Bottom line for me, 1156 and 1366 users will all enjoy their motherboards and chipsets for the forseeable future. By the time it makes sense to upgrade, everyone will be looking for new motherboards with new features, 1156, 1366 or otherwise. I think the 920 and 750/860 are the closest the two sockets will be in price for a long time. Just look at the plans laid out thus far . . . i3 for 1156 and i9 for 1366. Price/performance motivates 1156. Prestige motivates 1366. They seem to be headed in opposite directions.

But at the end of the day . . . heh, who cares?

 

[uclajd]

Oh, great, another Intel socket already.

Is Intel trying to chase away people? So glad I didn't go 1366.

Any updates on the 1156B and 1156C rumors? (that 1156 will too be short-lived).

I miss the old days when sockets lasted a few years and you could go through 3 or 4 CPUs.

 

[Dan_D]

Oh, great, another Intel socket already.

Is Intel trying to chase away people? So glad I didn't go 1366.

Any updates on the 1156B and 1156C rumors? (that 1156 will too be short-lived).

I miss the old days when sockets lasted a few years and you could go through 3 or 4 CPUs.

Intel kept LGA775 around for a really long time. Newer boards were usually compatible with older CPUs but the reverse wasn't true. Still LGA775 probably had one of the longest life spans of all CPU sockets. The only other socket that was probably longer lived than LGA775 was socket 604. Introduced in 2002 it is still used in the Xeon MP family today. (I believe it is being replaced very soon if it hasn't been already.) I know that LGA771 took over for Xeon / Xeon DP, but never took over for Xeon MP. LGA775 took us all the way from the Pentium 4 to the Core 2 Quad. That covers about 4 years. Socket 3, socket 5, socket 7, socket 8, slot 1, slot 2, socket PGA370 (probably the shortest lived socket of all time), FCPGA370, socket 423, and socket 478 all had a relatively short life span. AMD has been a little better in regard to socket changes but even Slot A which was one of their longest lived sockets didn't last all that long really. Socket 7, socket A, socket 939, and socket AM2 only lasted about 3 years each. So again, that's not all that uncommon for socket changes to be relatively quick. It has always been this way with few exceptions.

Once you start thinking of LGA1366 as the Xeon's socket it starts to make more sense. We still have a potential processor refresh (32nm) coming for LGA1366 and LGA1156. The future of each socket seems like it may be short but we'll have to wait and see. If future CPUs based on another architecture remain mechanically compatible with LGA1366 or LGA1156 I suspect that those newer CPUs will still require a new motherboard. Some people still seem to act as though LGA1156 will replace or supplant LGA1366 when that's not remotely true. Different sockets for different markets. It is the same approach AMD used with the Athlon 64 and the Athlon FX series back in the day. One socket for mainstream computing and another socket for enthusiast/workstation/server systems.

Most people don't swap CPUs a whole hell of a lot. They'll keep the same CPU for the life of the system. When most people go to buy a new CPU, they buy a motherboard with it.

 

[stateofjermaine]

Intel kept LGA775 around for a really long time. Newer boards were usually compatible with older CPUs but the reverse wasn't true. Still LGA775 probably had one of the longest life spans of all CPU sockets. The only other socket that was probably longer lived than LGA775 was socket 604. Introduced in 2002 it is still used in the Xeon MP family today. (I believe it is being replaced very soon if it hasn't been already.) I know that LGA771 took over for Xeon / Xeon DP, but never took over for Xeon MP. LGA775 took us all the way from the Pentium 4 to the Core 2 Quad. That covers about 4 years. Socket 3, socket 5, socket 7, socket 8, slot 1, slot 2, socket PGA370 (probably the shortest lived socket of all time), FCPGA370, socket 423, and socket 478 all had a relatively short life span. AMD has been a little better in regard to socket changes but even Slot A which was one of their longest lived sockets didn't last all that long really. Socket 7, socket A, socket 939, and socket AM2 only lasted about 3 years each. So again, that's not all that uncommon for socket changes to be relatively quick. It has always been this way with few exceptions.

Once you start thinking of LGA1366 as the Xeon's socket it starts to make more sense. We still have a processor refresh coming for LGA1366 and LGA1156. The future of each socket seems like it may be short but we'll have to wait and see. If future CPUs based on another architecture remain mechanically compatible with LGA1366 or LGA1156 I suspect that those newer CPUs will still require a new motherboard. Some people still seem to act as though LGA1156 will replace or supplant LGA1366 when that's not remotely true. Different sockets for different markets. It is the same approach AMD used with the Athlon 64 and the Athlon FX series back in the day. One socket for mainstream computing and another socket for enthusiast/workstation/server systems.

Most people don't swap CPUs a whole hell of a lot. They'll keep the same CPU for the life of the system. When most people go to buy a new CPU, they buy a motherboard with it.

Hey, we agree!

 

[robble]

When most people go to buy a new CPU, they buy a motherboard with it.

That's the problem - you HAVE to buy a new motherboard by the time you upgrade your CPU =(

 

[Dan_D]

That's the problem - you HAVE to buy a new motherboard by the time you upgrade your CPU =(

Not always.

 

[Atl530i]

That's the problem - you HAVE to buy a new motherboard by the time you upgrade your CPU =(

Hmmm.... When I had my P965 board, I went thru 3 CPUs before I upgraded to a P35 because the P965 does not support 1333MHz FSB. The P35 lasted thru 2 CPUs. So I think I got my moneys worth.

 

[robble]

Hmmm.... When I had my P965 board, I went thru 3 CPUs before I upgraded to a P35 because the P965 does not support 1333MHz FSB. The P35 lasted thru 2 CPUs. So I think I got my moneys worth.

That's exactly what we want - the socket to stay around long enough to upgrade the CPU at least a couple times - and not just to get a faster mhz processor. Sure there have been some examples of that in the past but most of the time if you wait 2 or 3 years to upgrade the cpu, you will have to get a new MB and possibly new ram. There certainly isn't anywhere for me to go with my socket 939 MB now - and I'm using the same CPU I first put into it.

It just seems sometimes the only thing that changes is the socket and not any of the other features. It would be so nice if you could just spend a couple hundred dollars every 2-3 years and drop a new cpu in.

Imagine if video cards changed the type of slot they used every generation or even every other generation.

 

[Dan_D]

That's exactly what we want - the socket to stay around long enough to upgrade the CPU at least a couple times - and not just to get a faster mhz processor. Sure there have been some examples of that in the past but most of the time if you wait 2 or 3 years to upgrade the cpu, you will have to get a new MB and possibly new ram. There certainly isn't anywhere for me to go with my socket 939 MB now - and I'm using the same CPU I first put into it.

It just seems sometimes the only thing that changes is the socket and not any of the other features. It would be so nice if you could just spend a couple hundred dollars every 2-3 years and drop a new cpu in.

Imagine if video cards changed the type of slot they used every generation or even every other generation.

At a minimum a given CPU socket will remain in use for 2 years at least. Many of them have lasted for 3 years (some even more) but most of the time these upgraded CPUs required a new motherboard anyway even though the socket stayed the same. FSB's always got changed, electrical requirements changed, memory support changed. All these things led to so many motherboard and chipset changes over the years that couldn't have been avoided depsite the socket being carried over to the next generation of boards. All that gave us was backwards compatibility for new motherboards to use old CPUs. I don't see a ton of value in that generally speaking. So why worry about a socket sticking around for several years? It wouldn't do you any good even if it did.

The idea of keeping a board around for two or three years and being able to drop in a new CPU is appealing, but the reality is that these technologies seldom allow you that luxery. More often than not, they don't. For the enthusiast it's even less of an option as the newer CPUs might work in your board, but they'll overclock relatively poorly compared to newer motherboards. Or there will be new features on newer boards that you'll want anyway. In short there is more value in case and PSU compatibility with newer boards than there ever will be in CPU socket longevity.

 

[Main]

Anyways - if Intel had released i5 before i7 a bunch of enthusiasts would have been upgrading to i7, so the i5 release seems to me just to have been done to eat up AMD's niche... but Intel lost a lot of money on enthusists that would have upgraded from i5

Great review as always !

 

[OFaceSIG]

This is really bad news for AMD. I am an AMD fan but if I needed to build a brand new quad core system today I would choose i5 750 over the 965 BE. The pricing and performance is too much to ignore at this point. It's a sad time for AMD right now.

 

[stateofjermaine]

Anyways - if Intel had released i5 before i7 a bunch of enthusiasts would have been upgrading to i7, so the i5 release seems to me just to have been done to eat up AMD's niche... but Intel lost a lot of money on enthusists that would have upgraded from i5

Great review as always !

Hmm, really? When you say "the i5 release," are we talking about all of the 1156 processors (to include the i7's)? Because had they released the Lynnfield processors first, many enthusiasts most likely would have purchased the i7-860 or 870 . . . both of which perform quite favorably in comparison to the i7-920 and 950. This is not to say that 1156 is superior to 1366, just that difference likely would not have been worth the trouble.

I think many would have passed on the "upgrade".

 

[stateofjermaine]

This is really bad news for AMD. I am an AMD fan but if I needed to build a brand new quad core system today I would choose i5 750 over the 965 BE. The pricing and performance is too much to ignore at this point. It's a sad time for AMD right now.

Sad, and true.

 

[H3L73R5K3L73R]

I can't remember the last time I played a game at 640x480...

 

[Sprkslfly]

It woulda been nice to see a Core 2 Duo in the equation for shits and giggles. Owell, no love for the 775 socket already....

YMMV, but, it's become my opinion in the last few years that, if they don't include "recent" tech in the comparisons/shootouts/etc... that they're pushing stronger to the new tech for sales. (Read as: the resulting margin of performance of the upgrade isn't wide enough to justify it for most, and may scare off potential buyers!)

I'd venture a bet that for most e8400 and q8400 owners, it's only a marginal gain.
*shrugs* Who knows! (further input is appreciated)

Then again, it may've just been that I'm that far out of the loop. (as I've not had a ton of time to stay as abreast of all this racehorse shit in the last year...)

 

[Matrices]

I just put together the second rig in my sig and the mobo, CPU, and RAM cost me less than $200. With an i5 or i7, I'd be paying more like $450 to $600. The performance difference for gaming comes nowhere near justifying the price difference. The benchmarks I looked at showed the C2D as a bottleneck only at 25x16 with SLI in a couple games, or 19x12 in TriSLI. It will be interesting to see whether this changes when the upcoming ATI/nVidia cards launch. My guess is that the difference will still be marginal unless you are going SLI at high res, and that almost anything out there will run at 60FPS constant at 1080p with the new round of video cards with a C2D.

The problem isn't the tech. It's the games. With developers focused on consoles for their profits, no one is interested in pushing the envelope on the latest PC hardware because that's not where the money is. We will be seeing mostly DX9-based games until at least 2012, when the new consoles supposedly come out.

 

[Dan_D]

I just put together the second rig in my sig and the mobo, CPU, and RAM cost me less than $200. With an i5 or i7, I'd be paying more like $450 to $600. The performance difference for gaming comes nowhere near justifying the price difference. The benchmarks I looked at showed the C2D as a bottleneck only at 25x16 with SLI in a couple games, or 19x12 in TriSLI. It will be interesting to see whether this changes when the upcoming ATI/nVidia cards launch. My guess is that the difference will still be marginal unless you are going SLI at high res, and that almost anything out there will run at 60FPS constant at 1080p with the new round of video cards with a C2D.

The problem isn't the tech. It's the games. With developers focused on consoles for their profits, no one is interested in pushing the envelope on the latest PC hardware because that's not where the money is. We will be seeing mostly DX9-based games until at least 2012, when the new consoles supposedly come out.

The cost increase for Core i7 vs. Core 2 may not be be justifiable for most people but for me there is no question that it is. I was running dual QX9775's at 4.0GHz and it wasn't fast enough to run Crysis at 2560x1600 with 3 Geforce GTX 280 OC cards in 3-Way SLI. Now I am running a Core i7 920 @ 4.190GHz using the same video card setup I was using previously and the game is now playable at 2560x1600. So there is definitely something that can be gained in real world performance switching from Core 2 Quad to Core i7. Granted this was the only time I noticed such a pronounced difference but it was actually important to me as I actually like Crysis and Crysis Warhead.

 

[UncaMilty]

Oh, great, another Intel socket already.

Is Intel trying to chase away people?

The vast majority of people who will buy these CPUs will not even know what they bought or what socket it uses. They'll be buying a Dell or an HP or Gateway or whatever. Multiple sockets let Intel enforce changes within CPU families so that they can maintain pricing strata. Believe me, it's not done out of consideration for anyone but Intel.

 

[Matrices]

The cost increase for Core i7 vs. Core 2 may not be be justifiable for most people but for me...

Yeah, but that's kind of my point...you're an editor of [H], of course you're going to get one.

I was running dual QX9775's at 4.0GHz and it wasn't fast enough to run Crysis at 2560x1600 with 3 Geforce GTX 280 OC cards in 3-Way SLI

Eh, there's only so many times you can keep replaying the same two games to feel that shelling out hundreds of dollars on hardware was justified...for me, anyway. I played both at 19x12 with 2xAA on C2D and GTX280 SLI. I was happy with the performance for the most part. Once I got bored of the gameplay in a couple weeks, I resold one of the GTXs.

And have you seen the demo of the new ATI card, running WoW at 80FPS across 6 screens? I think it's a fair bet that you are going to get 60FPS constant out of almost any game out there with ATI's new high-end card regardless of whether you're running a C2D or an i7.

 

[Dan_D]

Yeah, but that's kind of my point...you're an editor of [H], of course you're going to get one.



Eh, there's only so many times you can keep replaying the same two games to feel that shelling out hundreds of dollars on hardware was justified...for me, anyway. I played both at 19x12 with 2xAA on C2D and GTX280 SLI. I was happy with the performance for the most part. Once I got bored of the gameplay in a couple weeks, I resold one of the GTXs.

And have you seen the demo of the new ATI card, running WoW at 80FPS across 6 screens? I think it's a fair bet that you are going to get 60FPS constant out of almost any game out there with ATI's new high-end card regardless of whether you're running a C2D or an i7.

I purchased my Core i7's. They weren't freebies or anything. I'm not really sure what you meant buy that. You might just be referring to how "hardcore" I am when it comes to hardware. I never said Crysis was the only reason why I upgraded to the Core i7. I said that it was where I noticed the most gains. I've noticed gains in other games as well where multi-GPU scaling had room to improve. Initially I planned to skip Core i7 in light of what I was running. Once I saw the massive GPU scaling improvements that could be gained with Core i7 I bought one immediately. And yes, I have seen the demo. What we've seen here more recently since the Core i7's introduction is the importance of having a powerful CPU to allow these uber-powerful GPUs to truly stretch their legs. This is even more important with higher the resolutions. I don't think what we saw with the Radeon 5870 demo diminishes the validity of this line of thinking, in fact it only serves to reinforce it.

 

[Matrices]

Yeah I can see how you could infer that, sorry. I didn't assume someone gifted it to you - I meant that as you help run a site dedicated to this kind of stuff, it kind of follows that you are into the latest and greatest regardless of priceerformance calculations.

No one can really say one way or the whether the new GPUs will bottleneck a C2D because no one has benchmarks yet. For my gaming purposes, however - 1080p at 2 or 4xAA - I would be very surprised if a C2D would impede the new GPUs from getting 60 FPS out of most titles. That can already be almost achieved for anything but Crysis with a C2D and a GTX 295. I also really doubt that Nvidia/AMD would make a new GPU that would only see any benefit with the latest CPU, as that would limit their sales volume.

Now, for your purposes - 2500x1600 at 8xMSAA or whatever - yes I can see the C2D being a bottleneck. But again, this comes down to you being an editor at [H]...even among the [H] userbase, how many people do you think run 30" monitors? I'm willing to bet not more than 20% - and that's already out of a niche group of PC users. Most people are on 22 or 24". Or like me, gaming on an HDTV, which maxes out at 1080p.

So in light of all that, I stand by my assertion that in all likelihood an i7/i5 is not a good value over a C2D/Q for purely gaming purposes.