Intel Core i7 Processor

Edit: When they produce a mobile version-->And with greater processing power and lower power consumption than Core Duo.
This will probably be Intel's mobile chip for notebooks the end of this year.
Price is around $300 for the 920, which is a 2.66 ghz processor with 8 mb cache.
Available models are the 920, 940 and the 960 Extreme.

http://www.intel.com/products/processor/corei7/index.htm

 

I neglected to mention the i7 is 20% faster than the fastest quad core.
Also, it doesn't have a Front Side Bus. NO FSB!

 

Core i7 blew away all the benchmarks when the first retail processors went live..... but it's a hefty upgrade at the moment.... core i7= new socket 1366 motherboard+ddr3 memory (2gbs at least)+the processor itself, which is definitely more than the cost of a decent dual core c2d pc

 

Need to check your facts again. Power consumption figures are not all they seem to be.

Core 2 Duo E8500 - 65W TDP

Core Duo T2700 - 31W TDP

Core i7-940 - 130W TDP

So while the Core i7 is certainly more powerful, it can consume twice as much power, and generates a great deal more heat. However, the i7 does toggle down during idle to consume less then - much less.

Tom's Hardware - Power Consumption--Higher Than Core 2

 

My Dell Studio XPS 435MT with an I7 920 gets very hot with an intermittent vacuum cleaner sounding fan that I'm finally getting used to - sorta . The fan only speeds up about 4 times for a very short duration in about 8 hours of high use in a cramped box.

I seriously doubt that the I7 as presented today will find its way into notebooks. Just my non-engineering degree opinion.

SourMilk out

 

No laptop version you say. Tsk Tsk.

What about this!

About the lower power consumption, their is an energy saving function built into the i7. What that is I don't know, probably some Mac rumor.
Also, the mobile version may be built on a 35nm process.
All of the above won't be available until late 2009 anyway. Start saving now.

 

As stated above, "I seriously doubt that the I7 as presented today will find its way into notebooks."

I believe IF I7 finds its way into notebooks of the future, it will be in a different form. A less heat generating mobile form. If not, I foresee the same fiasco Nvidia had with the 8600GT on board video chip found in some notebooks.

We'll see

SourMilk out

 

This is the most reasonable choice.

 

Disappointing. HT plus 1 core should give you a +10 to 30% performance margin.

Core i7 is HT with each of the 4 cores, right?

And just personal opinion; we should all buy AMD. Why? Because they got us here; their Athlons were kicking the Pentiums out of the house, motivating Intel to stop force feeding us the "more GHz the better" myth.

Who cares about the -1.4 seconds when it comes to compressing a file and the +10 FPS when it comes to a game?

 

Well thats just stuffing a desktop processor into a laptop. It will have to be plugged in all the time due to power consumption.

 

That's ridiculous. If you use that logic, you should buy Intel. Why? Because AMD was created to make Intel CPUs as IBM wanted a second source for their new PCs.

You buy Intel, or AMD, because they make the CPU that meets your needs - not because of some false idea that one entire line of CPUs was (as in past tense) was better than another.

 

In recent history, amd's been innovating, while Intel's just been riding on consumer faith.

 

Ummm, not on this planet. I am afraid you have it backwards, starting with the Core 2 Duo.

 

Till dual core and x64, AMD ruled and Intel had the useless P-IV HT and all it did was run hot even though it was rated at a whopping 3GHz, a dual core AMD running at 2.2GHz would beat it flat. Tables turned with Core2Duo and then the final nail in the coffin came with quad core. Now with i7, there is absolutely no hope for AMD, not a good news for us consumers as it might bring back Intel's day of mediocre costly CPUs a la P-III days.

 

That is incorrect. AMD excelled in many areas, including bang for the money, but Intel CPUs were still outstanding, very reliable processors that offered excellent performance for many applications, especially in the corporate and networking world. AMD excelled in games - because AMD catered to the gaming crowd. And that was great for consumers because gamers drove much of advancements in computer technologies (and self build opportunites).

That's not true either as this P4HT 3.06GHz system is still running strong after 7 years, 5 months now and currently sitting at 41°C with conventional (fan) cooling in a plain Antec tower. And since the HT is not a dual core, that's an invalid comparison anyway.

Here we agree, somewhat but I would still not say mediocre, for the old Intels, or for the new AMDs. Both are fine CPUs and would make a fine foundation for any computer. Both CPUs are reliable and promise years of fine performance.

I disagree about the nail in AMD's coffin. AMD will, like they did before, excel in the bang for the money category, and provide many offerings in all price break points. The best AMD may not beat the best Intel CPUs in terms of overall performance, but it would be hard to notice those performance differences in a proper side-by-side comparison for most normal tasks - especially now that so much of what we see on our monitors is graphics dependent.

I also note the i7 is a step backwards in terms of efficiency under load and heat generation. Not good when going green is in again.

AMD will continue making excellent CPUs (and GPUs). Many will cater to the budget conscious as they did in the beginning. They will continue to hold a match to Intel, who will not be embarrassed again. This is great for consumers because Intel will be forced to keep CPUs priced competitively, ensuring computer buyers in any budget category will have choices, each resulting in a fine computer that will meet their needs for years to come.

If comparing AMD to Intel, compare specific CPUs. You cannot, with any validity, declare the entire line of one brand is (or was) better than the entire line of another brand. It just is not true, and it was not true, not for all users, and not all computing tasks. That's just wrong on many fronts.

 

I must agree. I ran AMD for 5 years but Intel stole my business back with the C2D. Currently running a Q6600 @ 3.6 with 8GB RAM on a P45 chipset board. When AMD can compete with that they may get me back. The best product gets my money.

 

Intel just launched QuickPath with their i7 product line; while hypertransport has been around since 2001.

 

All variants of Intel P-IV benchmarked lower in every department compared to its AMD contemporary, be it gaming, encoding, office productivity etc. So bad was its performance that Intel was forced to go back to drawing board and re-design its CPU and then end result was Core2Duo which we all know is superior to AMD's offering. To say AMD catered to gaming is a gross mis-statement. AMD's FPU performance was far superior to Intel and therefore, some games like RPG ones based on Quake engines took full advantage of that. Intel's MMX has been the advantage in gaming as most game coders would optimize for it, AMD had an uphill task going up against Intel in that field but it managed so because of its superior dominating performance and good price. Also we have to thank AMD for our x64 machines, its because of them x64 came into light and now we have 8gb machines that are getting common. Also AMD started the built in memory controller technology so Intel even with quad pumped bus couldn't match the performance. What i7 is doing today, AMD has been there and done that already. Intel of course in the end won due to its superior clout, AMD is a much smaller company financially and can't match Intel's might or dominance but don't write it off, tables can turn soon, all it needs is a radical design and Intel will meet its match again, all the more good for us consumers.

To claim that AMD was just a good value CPU meant only for budet and gaming negates all their achievements and we have their achievements to thank for the superior C2D and QC CPUs coming from Intel today.

 

Exactly my point and don't forget x64.

 

AMD has an uphill battle to fight. Competing against Intel and NVIDIA won't be easy, especially with their current situation. Bad business decisions really cost them a lot trouble. Hopefully, they will be able to bounce back, but it'll take a while. The next couple of years will be dominated by Intel, and, possibly, by NVIDIA.

 

Yes x64 support has been with athlons for quite a while; they are future proof in that aspect, unlike Pentium IVs and even the Core Duos.

 

Core 2 Duos were the best invention of Intel, price performance genius.

 

Can anyone explain why a core 2 quad + HT on every core = i7 only = a 20% performance increase?

Even if HT yeilds a 10% performance increase (I've seen 30% reported); then shouldn't the performance increase be 40%? Where are the inefficencies?

 

Hyperthreading requires both hardware and software for it to function.
Maybe OS's are not yet taking full advantage of what's available in the technology.

 

A i7 at less cost benchmarks equal to or better in Linux compared to my dual quad core machine which cost me a small fortune, with HT enabled, OS sees 8 cores for both machines. Linux handles and distributes 8 core load far better than Windows, I have tried Vista 7 and XPx64, I don't know if Windows 2008 or 7 would handle it better but overall, the Linux apps use all 8 cores far more efficiently than Windows apps for now. In the end, hardware today is ready for multiple cores, question is are the OS and programs ready as well?