1. Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

Early Intel LGA-1156 Quad-Core SKUs Surface

Discussion in 'News' started by btarunr, Jul 14, 2009.

  1. btarunr

    btarunr Editor & Senior Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    Messages:
    30,530 (10.58/day)
    Thanks Received:
    14,794
    Location:
    Hyderabad, India
    Intel recently detailed its strategy with the Core brand, and its various brand-modifiers (namely i3, i5, i7, and i9). The move to give some LGA-1156 processors the Core i7 modifier, based on the performance level they offer, particularly sparked off several debates about if the move actually benefits the consumers as much as it does to Intel. Back then, Intel did not divulge much about a number scheme that characterizes LGA-1156 Core i7 processors from their LGA-1366 counterparts. Fresh information suggests that Intel may have one such number-scheme in place that will demystify its lineup.

    The LGA-1156 socket lineup will be spearheaded by quad-core desktop chips that will start selling from September 8, tentatively. These consist of a 2.66 GHz part, a 2.80 GHz part, and another 2.93 GHz one. Sources revealed much earlier that these could be priced US $194, $284, and $562, respectively. Among these three, the 2.66 GHz part lacks HyperThreading technology in its feature-set, and hence, will be placed in the Core i5 series. To further clarify the lineup, the following model numbers have been suggested:

    • Core i7 870 - 2.93 GHz, LGA-1156, 8 MB L3 cache, HTT
    • Core i7 860 - 2.80 GHz, LGA-1156, 8 MB L3 cache, HTT
    • Core i5 750 - 2.66 GHz, LGA-1156, 8 MB L3 cache, HTT not available
    Notice the Core i5 part to get the 700-series model number scheme, while the others, the 800-series. Currently the SKUs did not intrude into the Core i7 900 series, where Intel's Bloomfield-based LGA-1366 socket processors are positioned.

    All three models listed above have rated TDP at 95W. Intel is also planning low-power versions of these chips. The Core i7 860S will be clocked at 2.53 GHz (while retaining the feature-set of Core i7 800 series), and a certain model clocked at 2.40 GHz. Both these chips have slightly lower TDPs at 82W. There is no official word from Intel on these details.

    Sources: TechConnect Magazine, PC Watch
     
  2. alexp999

    alexp999 Staff

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2007
    Messages:
    8,045 (2.72/day)
    Thanks Received:
    862
    Location:
    Dorset, UK
    Core i7 8xx!

    Now that I did not expect, I would have thought core i7 would be exclusively LGA 1366.

    Way to go and confuse the shizzle out of everyone intel :rolleyes:
     
  3. FordGT90Concept

    FordGT90Concept "I go fast!1!11!1!"

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2008
    Messages:
    15,573 (6.19/day)
    Thanks Received:
    5,108
    Location:
    IA, USA
    Those are 32nm chips, no? And they only managed 95w from 130w? Pretty sad. I still think Intel has their head screwed on backwards.
     
    Crunching for Team TPU
  4. btarunr

    btarunr Editor & Senior Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    Messages:
    30,530 (10.58/day)
    Thanks Received:
    14,794
    Location:
    Hyderabad, India
    No, Lynnfield is 45 nm.
     
    FordGT90Concept says thanks.
  5. FordGT90Concept

    FordGT90Concept "I go fast!1!11!1!"

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2008
    Messages:
    15,573 (6.19/day)
    Thanks Received:
    5,108
    Location:
    IA, USA
    Oh. Well, then, where does the 35w of power savings come from especially considering the northbridge is included with those processors?
     
    Crunching for Team TPU
  6. btarunr

    btarunr Editor & Senior Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    Messages:
    30,530 (10.58/day)
    Thanks Received:
    14,794
    Location:
    Hyderabad, India
    That's your mystery of the month. It puzzles me, too. Just as Q9650 has its TDP at 95W, which goes all the way up to 130W with QX9770, with a 200 MHz bump in clock speeds, and a higher FSB speed (1600 MHz). Then we realise TDP is afterall a company rating.
     
  7. Weer New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2007
    Messages:
    1,417 (0.48/day)
    Thanks Received:
    94
    Location:
    New York / Israel
    So, I can upgrade my 750 to 860 and 870, but not 920 or 940? As in, Core i7 cannot be upgraded to Core i7. The 1156 Core i7's would have to be extremely cheap now that you can get 920 for 200$. I'm sorry, this whole thing seems stupid to me. If you want something marginally inferior to Core i7, get a Yorkfrield. Just like, if nVidia didn't stick G92 in new products, everyone who couldn't afford GTX 280, would be getting an 8800 GTS 512. But, at least Intel is basing their new, but equally performing products on superior architecture. As in, at least Intel is better than nVidia.. except that any nVidia card would work on any PCIe slot.
     
  8. hat

    hat Enthusiast

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2006
    Messages:
    17,300 (5.39/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,257
    Location:
    Ohio
    I can't decide who's worse... Nvidia with thier G80/G92 or Intel with it's i7.

    What's with "HTT not available" for i5? Going back in time to use FSB again? If so, AMD already has i5 beat. :/
     
    Crunching for Team TPU
  9. newtekie1

    newtekie1 Semi-Retired Folder

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2005
    Messages:
    21,602 (6.05/day)
    Thanks Received:
    7,498
    AMD HTT = Hyper Transport Technology
    Intel HTT = Hyper Threading Technology
     
    Crunching for Team TPU More than 25k PPD
  10. hat

    hat Enthusiast

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2006
    Messages:
    17,300 (5.39/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,257
    Location:
    Ohio
    I thought Intel's hyperthreding was supposed to be "HT" to prevent confusing situations just like this one :wtf:
     
    Crunching for Team TPU
  11. Intel HTT=QPI
     
  12. btarunr

    btarunr Editor & Senior Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    Messages:
    30,530 (10.58/day)
    Thanks Received:
    14,794
    Location:
    Hyderabad, India
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyper-threading
     
  13. FordGT90Concept

    FordGT90Concept "I go fast!1!11!1!"

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2008
    Messages:
    15,573 (6.19/day)
    Thanks Received:
    5,108
    Location:
    IA, USA
    Oooo, do these processors have turbo? The LGA1366 processors could have higher TDP to make sure there is room for turbo to operate.


    Since Lynnfield processors will appear on LGA1366, what about the northbridge? Will Lynnfield processors work in X58 boards? Will it use its internal northbridge or the northbridge on the motherboard? Will LGA1366 Lynnfield processors not have an internal northbridge like their LGA1156 counterparts?

    This is getting ridiculously confusing. :(
     
    Crunching for Team TPU
  14. btarunr

    btarunr Editor & Senior Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    Messages:
    30,530 (10.58/day)
    Thanks Received:
    14,794
    Location:
    Hyderabad, India
    No Lynnfield on LGA1366, mate.
     
  15. FordGT90Concept

    FordGT90Concept "I go fast!1!11!1!"

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2008
    Messages:
    15,573 (6.19/day)
    Thanks Received:
    5,108
    Location:
    IA, USA
    Bah! :(

    I guess that answers three questions then. :laugh:
     
    Crunching for Team TPU
  16. newtekie1

    newtekie1 Semi-Retired Folder

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2005
    Messages:
    21,602 (6.05/day)
    Thanks Received:
    7,498
    It has been confusing ever since HyperTransport came into use(was it with the 939 processors or 754?).

    Both technologies have gone under HT and HTT. Intel originaly called HyperThreading HT. But when AMD started using HyperTransport, they also called it HT. Intel added the Technology at the end, and started calling it HTT, and AMD did the same.
     
    Crunching for Team TPU More than 25k PPD
  17. AltecV1

    AltecV1 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2009
    Messages:
    1,290 (0.53/day)
    Thanks Received:
    173
    Location:
    Republic of Estonia
    ok intel has officialy joined my "not to buy club":shadedshu
     
  18. toyo

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2009
    Messages:
    229 (0.10/day)
    Thanks Received:
    32
    We need AMD to get its shit up and running and make Intel to be more polite with the consumer. Whenever they have the no.1 place in the market they get so goddamn uncivilized on us and think they can do everything they like. They need to be strangled by the balls to behave like a good citizen.
     
  19. mdbrotha03

    Joined:
    May 8, 2009
    Messages:
    137 (0.06/day)
    Thanks Received:
    35
    This isn't new news. I read about this naming scheme a few weeks ago. They needed to make the I7 cheaper. The result was the I5, but since there are 2 of them that perform "I7 like" they named them appropriately.

    They couldn't fit them all in the same socket. They had removed QPI and added PCI express. They are supporting both sockets so either way, there is no lost here. I went with the 920 with the hopes of upgrading to the i9.

    Edit: They still should have left all the 1156 processors as i5.
     
    Last edited: Jul 14, 2009
  20. buggalugs

    buggalugs

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2008
    Messages:
    1,031 (0.40/day)
    Thanks Received:
    185
    Location:
    Australia
    OMg thats the dumbest naming scheme ever.

    They should have just left i7 on socket 1366, with the new 6 core a i7 990

    i5 for socket 1156 (8XX Cpus) and i3 for rebadged socket 775

    There is a lot of marketing around for things like "i7 compatible triple channel memory" and i can see some noobs buying it (with a socket 1156 motherboard)and wondering why they cant get triple channel to work.

    It doesnt make any sense at all.
     
  21. newtekie1

    newtekie1 Semi-Retired Folder

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2005
    Messages:
    21,602 (6.05/day)
    Thanks Received:
    7,498
    Forget the naming scheme(it actually makes sense, i7 is high performance, i5 is mid, and i3 is low it doesn't relate to the socket used, but the performance).

    The multiple socket thing is the dumbest thing ever. Intel should have made all the processor work in the same socket, and all the motherboards capable of running every i-series processor.

    So we can buy a high end platform, a 1366 motherboard, but start off with lower end processor, and upgrade when we feel we need to.
     
    Crunching for Team TPU More than 25k PPD
  22. devguy

    devguy

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2007
    Messages:
    1,240 (0.40/day)
    Thanks Received:
    171
    Location:
    SoCal
    Yeah, basically don't consider the series (i7, i5, i3) when wondering what socket / board to pick. Basically, look at the memory support. If the processor support dual channel DDR3 ram, get an LGA1156 board. If it supports triple channel DDR3 ram, get an LGA1366 board.

    Simple as that. Although that only will work for the short term. Once the newer LGA1156 chips come out that have the complete northbridge in them (video included), then you also have to worry about the chipsets, as the newer LGA1156 ones probably won't work in P55 boards (I think they need H57, but don't quote me there).
     
    Last edited: Jul 14, 2009
  23. newtekie1

    newtekie1 Semi-Retired Folder

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2005
    Messages:
    21,602 (6.05/day)
    Thanks Received:
    7,498
    I thought when the new LGA1156 chips came out, they would still work on P55 boards, but the IGP would be disabled.
     
    Crunching for Team TPU More than 25k PPD
  24. madrooster New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2009
    Messages:
    33 (0.01/day)
    Thanks Received:
    4
    Yes, it's meant to disable the IGP as there won't be any link for the display interface from the IGP.

    It will be confusing for some though, those wanting to utilise the IGP will need to get an appropriate chipset (H55/H57).
     
  25. R_1

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2006
    Messages:
    449 (0.14/day)
    Thanks Received:
    39
    Bulldozer is coming. :rockout:
     

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guest)

Share This Page