- Status
keith_j_snyder2
Rising ApocalypsE
The time AMD released Dual Cores(X2 Athlon) & Intel was barely breathing, just before C2Duo!Sorry, when was the last time AMD countered anything done by Intel?
Hope its cheaper than i7. BTW thanks for the info
keith_j_snyder2
Rising ApocalypsE
It will be cheaper than i7!
IronManForever
IronMan; Ready to Roll...
Well, I KNOW that! But isnt it obvious they (read Intel) already had Core2 up their sleeves? Core had already been out in laptops. (Laptop's Market is all Intel's.. AMD is nowhere close).
MetalheadGautham
AFK
The Core i5 would be highly intresting IMO.
It has CHEAP written all over it.
Firstly, it has onboard PCIe 2.0 lanes, and supports ONLY 16x or 8x+8x configurations for GPUs.
It has 8 more lanes for other expansion cards.
This would make its mobo very cheap to manufacture, since it would lack QuickPath interface, and would propably only support CrossFire, again to keep costs down. This makes it CHEAP.
It would support only Dual Channel RAM, but considering the fact that a vast majority of applications can't make any use of Triple Channel, this shouldn't be an issue, but again, it cuts costs down - thus it becomes CHEAP again.
Mobos would thus have 2 or 4 memory slots, again cutting costs, making it CHEAP.
There is a BIG rumour doing rounds that Core i5 would be non-overclockable. It would atleast have SOME kind of restrictions on OCing. This effectively means that it would definitely be a non-enthusiast platform. For guys who like things CHEAP.
The OC-lock could also mean that the Core i5 needn't have a good amount of OC headroom the way CPUs like E2160 had. Meaning it may be manufactured using lower grade sillicon. It means CHEAP all over again.
Core i5 is said to be using only 95 watts of power at 2.13Ghz per core. This is indeed a great achievement. Low power once again means CHEAP.
At the end of the day, I seriously doubt Core i5, code named Lynnfield, is intended to replace Core i7 in most people's desktops.
I suspect the Havendale series, which are dual-core nehalems with an optional on-die GPU, would be Core i3, and the Nehalem version of Celeron would be Core i1, with a version number increased for the 32nm shrinks.
It has CHEAP written all over it.
Firstly, it has onboard PCIe 2.0 lanes, and supports ONLY 16x or 8x+8x configurations for GPUs.
It has 8 more lanes for other expansion cards.
This would make its mobo very cheap to manufacture, since it would lack QuickPath interface, and would propably only support CrossFire, again to keep costs down. This makes it CHEAP.
It would support only Dual Channel RAM, but considering the fact that a vast majority of applications can't make any use of Triple Channel, this shouldn't be an issue, but again, it cuts costs down - thus it becomes CHEAP again.
Mobos would thus have 2 or 4 memory slots, again cutting costs, making it CHEAP.
There is a BIG rumour doing rounds that Core i5 would be non-overclockable. It would atleast have SOME kind of restrictions on OCing. This effectively means that it would definitely be a non-enthusiast platform. For guys who like things CHEAP.
The OC-lock could also mean that the Core i5 needn't have a good amount of OC headroom the way CPUs like E2160 had. Meaning it may be manufactured using lower grade sillicon. It means CHEAP all over again.
Core i5 is said to be using only 95 watts of power at 2.13Ghz per core. This is indeed a great achievement. Low power once again means CHEAP.
At the end of the day, I seriously doubt Core i5, code named Lynnfield, is intended to replace Core i7 in most people's desktops.
I suspect the Havendale series, which are dual-core nehalems with an optional on-die GPU, would be Core i3, and the Nehalem version of Celeron would be Core i1, with a version number increased for the 32nm shrinks.
keith_j_snyder2
Rising ApocalypsE
That certainly called CHEAP but not VFM! If this will remain the scenario, i m sure AMD will still take a lead & becomes everyone's favorite. This "non-oc" thing might make low end or office/business category happy but absolutely not "US".
The older Conroe & Penryn core requires 65W TDP & AMD's EE processors were under 45W TDP.They were supposed to move upward technologically which means more Energy Efficient processors & since they are non-overclockable, it makes Intel more offensive. This isn't what atleast i was expecting from Intel.
Last edited:
SunnyChahal
...
CHEAPO!
[Offtopic]I wanna build a new gaming rig. Shall I wait for i5 or grab i7?[/Offtopic]
keith_j_snyder2
Rising ApocalypsE
Nothing can compare i7. If u have budget, then go for i7CHEAPO!
[Offtopic]I wanna build a new gaming rig. Shall I wait for i5 or grab i7?[/Offtopic]
MetalheadGautham
AFK
Duh... I am refering to Quad Core.
Only Phenom X4 9(1,3)50 have 65W TDP.
Rest are all 125W. Even Q8200.
But this 2.13GHz Nehalem has superb multimedia performance and great multithreading capability. Perfect for HTPCs which hate overclocking.
Vishal Patil
Linux all the way
nice a cheap Nehalem, good strategy for home users.
MetalheadGautham
AFK
Talking about TDP, it seems AMD is waaay ahead of Intel atleast when the CPUs are NOT overclocked.
AMD's XXXXe series of CPUs have amazingly low TDP. A 65W 2.0GHz Phenom Quad Core and a 45W 2.5GHz Athlon 64 dual core can't be matched by Intel, whose desktop dual core CPUs in the Pentium Dual Core range start at 65W.
but we be damned - they are NOT available in the only country where electricity consumption matters - INDIA
AMD's XXXXe series of CPUs have amazingly low TDP. A 65W 2.0GHz Phenom Quad Core and a 45W 2.5GHz Athlon 64 dual core can't be matched by Intel, whose desktop dual core CPUs in the Pentium Dual Core range start at 65W.
but we be damned - they are NOT available in the only country where electricity consumption matters - INDIA
comp@ddict
EXIT: DATA Junkyard
^^^But Intel is doing it's own to counter that.
They are launching three Core 2 Quads, one mainstream, one middie, and one high end(not price, but performance and specs like L2 cache) and they all will have 65W TDP, and they are 45nm whereas the Phenoms are 65nm.
The Intel proccs will have speeds as high as 2.66GHz +
They are launching three Core 2 Quads, one mainstream, one middie, and one high end(not price, but performance and specs like L2 cache) and they all will have 65W TDP, and they are 45nm whereas the Phenoms are 65nm.
The Intel proccs will have speeds as high as 2.66GHz +
MetalheadGautham
AFK
45nm or 65nm does not matter in AMD vs Intel wars as far as power consumption is concerned. AMD was always behind Intel since Athlon X2 Era, but power consumption is strangely similar to Intel.
- Status