default header

Hardware

PC Processors

Moderator: JC Denton

PC Processors

Unread postby icycalm » 05 Jan 2010 21:00

Not much room for choice here: everyone seems to agree that Intel's i7 range is the fastest one around. AMD does not seem to be in the running at all at this point, but perhaps they'll make a comeback next year.

So, the i7. The older 860 and 870 models have been superceded by the 920, 950 and 960, which run on the new LGA 1366 socket (also known as Socket B). Out of these I picked the 920 (2.66 GHz) because the 950 costs twice as much without a corresponding performance increase to justify for me the increased price.

And there are of course the Extreme Edition versions, the 965 and 975, which go for over $800 for no good reason. All this extra money, it seems to me, is better spent on dual top-of-the-line graphics cards (and correct me if I am wrong -- all the above is what I've managed to distill from a couple of hours of browsing PC hardware review sites...)
Last edited by icycalm on 28 Jan 2010 20:10, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby Nybble » 06 Jan 2010 17:41

I just bought the i7 920 for my new computer. You are correct that it is probably the best value for your money right now; I was able to buy it for $200, while the next step up was >$600. I have also heard that it is very easy to overclock to 3.0 GHZ, but I find that right now I do not need any extra speed, as it rarely is using all 4 cores. It is a great selection.
Nybble
 
Joined: 06 Jan 2010 02:03

Unread postby icycalm » 26 Jan 2010 18:04

I decided to go for the 960 instead. I was looking up prices for the faster chips yesterday, just out of curiosity, and noticed that some stores are selling the 960 a mere 10 or so euros more than the 950 (7 euros in this German store). The price differential between the 950 and the 940 is also pretty small (in one Spanish store it is currently 1 euro, lol), so the next logical step up from the 920 is really the 960, in which case I don't really mind paying double the 920's price for it, since I'll be moving up three processor categories, so to speak: from 2.66 GHz per core to 3.20.

Much of Intel's desktop attention has been focused on launching and supporting the Lynnfield-based Core i5 and Core i7 chips, released at the start of September 2009.

Rather more quietly, the chip giant has bolstered the range-topping LGA1366 Core i7 line, known as Bloomfield, with the Core i7 960.

Coming in at the same 3.20GHz frequency as the Core i7 965 Extreme Edition, which has now made way for the 975 EE processor, the new chip will effectively replace the Core i7 950 as the middle LGA1366 CPU.

The introduction of the Core i7 960 casts further doubt on the relevance of the LGA1156 Core i7 870, and we should expect to see the latest 9-series chip in systems costing around £1,500.

Still too expensive to recommend to most enthusiasts, Intel's ability to charge £400-plus for a single chip is directly related to AMD's inefficacy to compete in the high-performance sector.


http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=20787

One thing I do not understand is how they can say that the 960 is the new "middle LGA1366 CPU". Excluding the 975 EE, which costs twice as much, it is Intel's fastest chip in production! Second-fastest, then, but in no way the "middle" chip.

In any case, here is a comparison between the 960 and the 975 EE (in German) which shows that they are almost indistinguishable in performance:

http://www.technic3d.com/article-975,1- ... n-haus.htm

Here's a summary: The difference between the 960 / 975 EE and the 920 is in many of the tests they performed small or even extremely small, but in others it is quite significant (3D Mark 2006 - CPU, 3DMark Vantage - CPU Performance Test, some of the synthetic tests, etc.) Gaming-wise the upgrade does not seem to be worth it at all with current-gen games, but this could perhaps change in the future, as new games start stressing the processor more. Or at least that's what I am telling myself to justify the extra 250 euros I'll be paying for it.

Now all I need is to find a (European) store that actually has the chip in stock.


P.S. And by the way, the 920 is also being phased out in favor of the 930, it seems:

Intel may be set to discontinue its excellent Core i7-920 chip within the next few months, but we've just heard confirmation that its replacement will arrive in Q1 2010.

It'll be called the Core i7-930.

At 2.88GHz it'll be a drop-in quad-core, eight thread upgrade for current LGA 1366 motherboards, although we're yet to find out whether this will be a 45nm or 32nm part.

We've also heard prices are likely to be comparable to the current Core i7-920 too, meaning that those LGA 1156 Core i7-860s and 870s will still have to drop in price considerably to become attractive for UK buyers. If you're planning an upgrade, we'd still advise LGA 1366 as the route to take.


http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardware/2 ... -q1-2010/1


So, to recap all of the above, the best deal on a performance gaming chip is and remains the 920, until the 930 rolls around. But if you have some extra cash to burn, like me, go for the 960 instead.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby icycalm » 26 Jan 2010 18:15

And now that I've summarized the current state-of-the-art, here's a look into the near future:

Reports have surfaced claiming that Intel may release its six-core Westmere as early as March 2010, to coincide with the CeBIT trade fair in Hannover, Germany.

Rumour has it the processor will also not adopt the name Core i9, as some in the media had previously speculated, but will continue the Core i7 lineup.

"Intel never mentioned anything about a Core i9, ever," an industry insider told HEXUS, saying the name had largely been an invention of the media. Our source also went on to say that Intel generally came out with an ‘Extreme Edition' of their processors, making it likely the upcoming six core would be somewhere along the lines of a Core i7-980X Extreme Edition.

"Whatever it's called, it will probably have awesome performance," our source told us.

Earlier reports in the tech press suggested Intel would only introduce its six-core wonder in June of 2010, but now it's thought the release could be as early as March.

"Plus or minus four weeks" our source told us when we asked them about the date, adding "well, not really minus." Right, so April 2010 at the latest.

A leaked - and seemingly authentic - Intel slide on Chinese language site PCOnline is also doing the online rounds, citing the Core i7-980X as being based on a 32 nm process, having 130 Watts TDP, 12 MiB L3, socket LGA1366 and the firm's Turbo Boost technology.

As is the case for most of Intel's Extreme Editions, pricing should be around the $1000 mark.

Intel declined to comment on rumour and speculation.


http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=21646

108131_corei7_980x.jpg
108131_corei7_980x.jpg (28.66 KiB) Viewed 2593 times
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby icycalm » 15 Feb 2010 13:23

Some news on the upcoming six-core chip, among others:

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/sh ... spx?i=3733

That’s six cores on a single die, but with 12MB of L3 cache. Remember that Nehalem/Lynnfield have 8MB and Clarkdale has 4MB. Nehalem’s chief architect, Ronak Singhal told me that he wanted to maintain at least 2MB of L3 per core on the die. A 6-core Westmere adheres to that policy.

The chip works in existing LGA-1366 sockets, so you still have three DDR3 memory channels. 6C Westmere does support both regular DDR3 (1.5V) as well as low voltage DDR3 (1.35V). This is particularly useful in servers where you’ve got a lot of memory present, power consumption should be noticeably lower.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby icycalm » 19 Apr 2010 13:29

Chip is out and here's a review:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/2960

It’s rare that anything we review has the longevity that Intel’s Core i7 Bloomfield platform has enjoyed. If you were one of the fortunate few to buy a Core i7 920, 940 or 965 back in November 2008, you’d still have one of the fastest desktop CPUs today in March 2010.


Now it’s finally time to take care of the folks who invested in Nehalem and Core i7 early on. In the coming weeks Intel will be shipping its first 6-core desktop processor, built using the same 32nm process used in the Clarkdale Core i3/i5 CPUs. It’s codenamed Gulftown but today we can call it the Core i7 980X. Did I mention that with a BIOS update it’s fully compatible with all X58 motherboards? That’s right, even if you bought a board in November 2008 - you can upgrade directly to Gulftown.


Intel’s Core i7 980X, running at 3.33GHz with 6 cores, 12 threads and a massive 12MB L3 cache all running on a motherboard that shipped a year and a half ago.


This isn’t the first time that the $999 price tag comes with some exclusive features. The first Pentium 4 Extreme Edition was the very first to wear the EE brand. While all regular Pentium 4s at the time had a 512KB L2, the Pentium 4 Extreme Edition added a 2MB L3 cache - a feature that never trickled down to the mainstream P4s.

Since then, most Extreme Edition parts have just been higher clocked CPUs. Despite that, they do sell well enough for Intel to continue the practice. Given that this time around, the Core i7 980X will not only give you clock speed but more cores and cache, Intel will probably end up selling more of these than they ever have.


In gaming performance overall, it seems to be slightly ahead of the 975, which isn't bad at all, also considering that both chips sell for about the same. On the other hand, all this is with current games, which do not tax the processor enough to see increased gains.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/2960/12

Gaming performance is a mixed bag with the Core i7 980X. In some cases it'll be a bit faster than the 975 due to its larger L3 cache, but in some cases it'll be slower because of the L3 cache's higher latency.


http://www.anandtech.com/show/2960/16

Final Words

I have to say that Intel's Core i7 980X is the first Extreme Edition CPU that I've ever gotten excited about. In the past you used to have to choose between more cores or high clock speeds. Thanks to power gating and Gulftown's PMU, those days are over. The 980X gives you its best regardless of what you throw at it. Lightly threaded apps benefit from the larger L3 cache and heavily threaded apps take advantage of the extra cores. The performance advantage you get at the low end ranges from 0 - 7%, and on the high end with well threaded code you're looking at an extra 20 - 50% over the Core i7 975. Even more if you compare to a pedestrian processor. There are a few cases where the 980X does lose out to the Core i7 975 thanks to its higher latency L3 cache, but for the most part it's smooth sailling for the 6-core beast.

The performance advantage comes at no extra power cost either. Enabling 6 cores on a 32nm process means that the die actually got smaller and power consumption remained mostly unchanged. It really is the best of both worlds, at least for a 130W chip. It's almost Conroe-like in its ability to dominate the charts without any technical limitations. If money were no object, the Core i7 980X is clearly the best you can get.

The only problem is price, as is always the case with these Extreme Edition processors. While I don't expect 6-core CPUs to trickle down to the mainstream, if we had a version priced at ~$500 it would be an amazingly easy sell. I wonder where Intel will price the Core i7 970, allegedly also a 6-core Gulftown derivative. We'll have to wait another quarter to find out.

Even taking into account price, if you do any significant amount of compute intensive 3D work, video encoding or Excel modeling, the Core i7 980X is worth it. If you're the type of user who always buys the Extreme Edition knowing that you can get better bang for your buck further down the lineup, this time you're actually getting your money's worth. On the desktop, the next 12 months are fairly stagnant in terms of CPU performance improvements. We'll see a clock bump to the 980X at the beginning of 2011, but it'll be even longer before we get a replacement.

There is of course the higher powered alternative. You could pick up a dual-socket Xeon board and a pair of quad-core Nehalem Xeons for a bit more than a X58 + 980X. You'd end up with more cores, albeit with a higher power budget and higher price tag. The Core i7 980X is such a difficult processor to recommend. It's something I'd personally never spend the money on. But if I needed more compute in a single chip, it's really the only thing that could scratch that itch.


So the 980X basically replaces the 975, and the best picks depending on your budget become:

930 (~$300), 960 (~$600), 980X (~$900)

The only thing which might upset these picks in the near future is the upcoming 970:

The next point of interest is the Core i7 970, which is apparently a cheaper Gulftown due out next quarter. It slots in above the Core i7 960 and 870, meaning it may be priced somewhere in the $600 - $900 range. The very first Extreme Edition carried a $740 price tag. I’d guess that we’d see a 3.2GHz default clock speed on that part.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby icycalm » 06 Jan 2012 01:03

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/Int ... ce_Review/

Jacob Vandy VanDerWerf wrote:Today marks the launch date for Intel’s Sandy Bridge-E line of processors, a new family of high-end Core i7 products based on the LGA 2011 platform. This new socket is poised to replace the existing LGA 1366 specification used by the more powerful Nehalem and Westmere parts from the past couple years, specifically Bloomfield and Gulftown, the Core i7-9xx+ line of CPUs.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby Joshua » 04 Sep 2013 14:50

http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/13/0 ... agship-cpu

MojoKid wrote:Low-power parts for hand-held devices may be all the rage right now, but today Intel is taking the wraps off a new high-end desktop processor with the official unveiling of its Ivy Bridge-E microarchitecture. The Core i7-4960X Extreme Edition processor is the flagship product in Intel's initial line-up of Ivy Bridge-E based CPUs. The chip is manufactured using Intel's 22nm process node and features roughly 1.86 billion transistors, with a die size of approximately 257mm square. That's about 410 million fewer transistors and a 41 percent smaller die than Intel's previous gen Sandy Bridge-E CPU. The Ivy Bridge-E microarchitecture features up to 6 active execution cores that can each process two threads simultaneously, for support of a total of 12 threads, and they're designed for Intel's LGA 2011 socket. Intel's Core i7-4960X Extreme Edition processor has a base clock frequency of 3.6GHz with a maximum Turbo frequency of 4GHz. It is easily the fastest desktop processor Intel has released to date when tasked with highly-threaded workloads or when its massive amount of cache comes into play in applications like 3D rendering, ray tracing, and gaming. However, assuming similar clock speeds, Intel's newer Haswell microarchitecture employed in the recently released Core i7-4770K (and other 4th Gen Core processors) offers somewhat better single-core performance.


Reviews:
http://hothardware.com/articles/Intel-C ... PU-Review/
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cor ... ,3557.html
User avatar
Joshua
 
Joined: 10 Mar 2011 17:55
Location: United States

Unread postby icycalm » 14 May 2017 13:15

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1373535

DonMigs85 wrote:Core i9 processors apparently coming very soon

http://techreport.com/news/31898/rumor- ... 66-in-june

If true, I'm actually surprised they never used the i9 designation for any older processor that had more than 4 cores and 8 threads.


Sounds ideal for new 4K rigs.
Image
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby icycalm » 30 May 2017 10:54

Intel Core i9 Announced: 18-core Skylake-X, Kaby Lake-X and X299
https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Processor ... X-and-X299

Ryan Shrout wrote:There is a lot to take in here. The most interesting points are that Intel plans to one-up AMD Threadripper by offering an 18-core processor but it also wants to change the perception of the X299-class platform by offering lower price, lower core count CPUs like the quad-core, non-HyperThreaded Core i5-7640X. We also see the first ever branding of Core i9.

Intel only provided detailed specifications up to the Core i9-7900X, a 10-core / 20-thread processor with a base clock of 3.3 GHz and a Turbo peak of 4.5 GHz using the new Turbo Boost Max Technology 3.0. It sports 13.75MB of cache thanks to an updated cache configuration, includes 44 lanes of PCIe 3.0, an increase of 4 lanes over Broadwell-E, quad-channel DDR4 memory up to 2666 MHz and a 140 watt TDP. The new LGA2066 socket will be utilized. Pricing for this CPU is set at $999, which is interesting for a couple of reasons. First, it is $700 less than the starting MSRP of the 10c/20t Core i7-6950X from one year ago; obviously a big plus. However, there is quite a ways UP the stack, with the 18c/36t Core i9-7980XE coming in at a cool $1999.


Prohibitively expensive for me. It's like an entire new product line of "Extreme"-only prices.

Maybe I could afford the $999 model at some point if it offered substantial improvement over the reigning $400-model of i7. I would classify substantial as anything above say 20%.

These processors should be great for streaming at 1080p60, if nothing else.
Image
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby icycalm » 04 Aug 2018 09:50

Intel Core i9-9900K, Core i7-9700K, Core i5-9600K CPUs Launching in October (leak)
https://www.neogaf.com/threads/intel-co ... k.1464308/
Image
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby recoil » 06 Mar 2019 18:41

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel ... 38754.html

Paul Alcorn wrote:Fujitsu Leaks Intel's Upcoming 9th Generation Lineup

Fujitsu has posted a comparability matrix for its solutions that seemingly lists the entire lineup for Intel's new 9th-Generation processors. Intel's initial announcement of the 9th Generation lineup occurred in October 2018 in a limited fashion: The company only introduced three models spanning its Core i5, i7 and i9 lines, with the expectation that more would come in the future. Intel later announced the Core i5-9400 at CES 2019, but it'd make sense for Intel to continue expanding the lineup.

Now, as spotted by TechPowerUp, Fujitsu has listed several new 9th-Gen processors in a compatibility document for its line of desktop motherboards. Many of these processors have already been known about, due to a steady cadence of leaks around Intel's new F-series processors that lack integrated graphics units.

The new listing apparently whips the covers off Intel's new line of T-series processors, which are variants that feature a lower 35W TDP rating for fanless and space-constrained systems. Other models, such as the new F-Series Pentiums, already leaked last month.

The document also lists several new Xeon E-Series processors, including the eight-core E-2288G and E-2278G, along with vague listings of E-22xxG and E-22xx models that land with either four or six cores.

Intel hasn't officially announced several of the new models, so a timeline for retail availability remains unknown. The company announced the Core i5-9400 and 9400F at CES 2019, but while the GPU-disabled Core i5-9400F is already available, we have yet to see the Core i5-9400 on retailers shelves.

The news comes as Intel is grappling with a shortage of 14nm CPUs amid record demand. Selling units with disabled integrated graphics would allow the company to ship dies that it would have otherwise been unable to sell, due to manufacturing defects.

Below is a table of Intel's current 9th-Generation processors, as well ones expected to be announced. Note that some specifications and models in this table are not confirmed by Intel.

Image
Image
User avatar
recoil
 
Joined: 26 Feb 2010 22:35
Location: California, USA

AMD Ryzen 5 3600 dominates Intel's i9-9900K in benchmarks

Unread postby Cray » 01 Jul 2019 22:57

AMD Ryzen 5 3600 Benchmark Leaked, Dominates Intel's i9 9900K in Single-threaded Performance
https://www.neogaf.com/threads/amd-ryze ... e.1490341/

Image

thelastword wrote:This leak comes via the official CPUBenchmark.net database, which lists the Ryzen 5 3600 clear as day leading every single other CPU on the market on the database’s single-threaded performance leaderboard, including Intel’s 5Ghz i9 9900K speed demon.

Remember, this is the entry level AMD Ryzen 3000 processor for $199


ElleryJamesRoberts wrote:Before people get overly hyped: No that does NOT mean that the Ryzen 5 3600 is faster than the 9900K in games. Almost assuredly it is slower.


Original source: https://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-5-3600-b ... rformance/

Khalid Moammer wrote:This is especially shocking because as of today the Ryzen 5 3600 is AMD’s entry level Ryzen 3000 series processor priced at a modest $199, and it’s giving Intel’s $489 i9 9900K — the highest clocked and fastest single-threaded performance Intel chip on the market — a run for its money.
User avatar
Cray
Insomnia Staff
 
Joined: 29 Jun 2019 03:45
Location: Seattle, WA


Return to Hardware