Maximum PC nehalem RSS Feed

Intel to Offer Two-core Clarksdale "Microservers"

Paul Lilly — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 08:29:27 -0500

Low power consumption is the name of the game in the server market, and Intel thinks it has a winning hand with its upcoming two-core 'Clarksdale' processor. The low-power slice of silicon comes rated at just 30W and is being aimed at "microservers," a new form factor Intel began pushing at IDF.

"We're looking to define a new form factor that allows companies to come up with a uni-processor [machine] that's reasonably capable and cost-effective and easy to deploy," said Jason Waxman, General Manager in Intel's Server Platforms Group. "We want this to become a new building block for the types of applications where you have lots of Web servers or a hosting type of environment or something where you need many images of a server."

Initially, Clarksdale will come clocked at 2.26GHz and take advantage of Intel's Nehalem microarchitecture. This will replace the chip maker's current reference system consisting of hardback-sized PCBs running a 1.86GHz, 45W quad-core Lynnfield chip.

Looking longer-term, Intel will attempt to reduce the power consumption footprint down to just 25W when idle, and no more than 75W under a heavy load.

Image Credit: XbitLabs.com

2010 Technology Preview

The Maximum PC Staff — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 10:00:00 -0500

We've seen the future and it's full of new and exciting hardware for power users

So much in life is unknowable. Will the economy rebound? Hard to say. Will oil prices skyrocket? Maybe, maybe not. Will Brangelina add to their brood? Frankly, we don’t care. But one thing’s for sure: Technology is ever-changing and each year guarantees new advances for the PC user.

As we do every year around this time, we got on the horn with our industry contacts—experts in their respective fields—and pressed them for details about what new and exciting hardware power users can look forward to in 2010. Some of what we learned was expected (SATA speeds will double), some came from out of left field (six 30-inch panels on a single videocard?!), and some just plain make sense (like a Nehalem chip for the masses).

Read on to find out how your personal computing landscape stands to be altered in the year ahead.

Core i7 Goes Mainstream

Intel's latest troika of new CPUs brings Nehalem goodness to the masses

Nehalem for everyone! That simple sentence best explains Intel’s brand-new series of CPUs, which is sure to please budget users everywhere while confounding power users.

Why would a new CPU that gives you the best bang for the buck in town be greeted nervously? Because Intel’s new CPU brings with it a new socket as well as a new infrastructure. This new infrastructure is essentially a fork in the road that forces users to make a difficult choice: Save money today but get locked out of the high-end, or splurge today knowing that the budget CPU is damn near as good as the top-end part.

For the details on Intel’s new budget monster, savor our full report, consume the specs, and then digest the benchmarks to see just which path your next PC should take.

AMD Pins Hope on 32nm Parts

New Orochi core, based on Bulldozer, will see the light in 2011

Even before Intel released its first Core i7 last year, AMD didn’t really have a part that could compete in the high end. Now the company says it will get back in the ball game—but not before 2011.

That’s when its enthusiast Orochi chip is expected to begin shipping. Based on the new “Bulldozer” modular microarchitecture, Orochi will have four or more cores and 8MB of cache, and dump support for DDR2 in favor of DDR3. The company originally hoped to have Bulldozer out much sooner using its existing 45nm process, but has had to postpone the chip so it can be built on a 32nm process. AMD’s fab partner, Global Foundries, won’t actually have that up and running until next year.

For mainstream users, AMD plans to release a version dubbed Llano. Llano will have 4MB of cache and DDR3 support, and some versions will feature integrated graphics cores.

Until Orochi and Llano arrive, however, AMD will have to rely on its existing Deneb and Propos cores. The big question that’s up in the air is whether Orochi will introduce a new socket design or not. AMD isn’t saying and observers seem split on whether AMD can continue to use the AM3 socket for the redesigned chip. Reusing AM3 would make the loyalists happy, and AMD has been far more careful not to force its users to buy new motherboards, so AM3-compatibility wouldn’t surprise us.

Still, with a new budget Core i5 part already faster at far lower clocks, 2011 is a long time away for the AMD faithful.

PCI Express 3.0

New spec removes bottlenecks and improves throughput, but when will we see it?

PCI Express 3.0 will offer a substantial increase in both bandwidth and efficiency over the existing PCI-E 2.0. A good thing, as bandwidth requirements are being pushed ever higher by the increasing capability of graphics cards, with frame buffers now at two gigabytes on high-end cards; increasing graphics features in DirectX 11; and demands made by multiple GPUs on a single card.

PCI Express 3.0 pushes the peak bandwidth from five to eight gigatransfers per second. The new standard will also use 128- and 130-bit encoding, rather than the current 8/10-bit encoding, which should improve efficiency. Additional features include optimizations for improved signaling and better data integrity, while maintaining backward compatibility with PCI Express 1.0 and 2.0 hardware.

However, it’s an open question as to when we’ll actually see PCI Express 3.0–capable hardware. The PCI-SIG, the standards body responsible for PCI Express 3.0, has pushed back the final definition for the new version until mid-2010, with hardware availability pushed to mid-2011. The strong need to ensure backward compatibility as well as a high degree of reliability have been cited as the reasons for the delay.

Even the new generation of DirectX 11 graphics cards, due to hit the streets this fall, will only be PCI-E 2.0 cards. The recently announced Intel P55 motherboards are also built with PCI-E 2.0 slots. The good news is that bandwidth limits aren’t likely to hit a wall with the new generation of GPUs. So, while it’s disappointing to see PCI Express 3.0 pushed back, we won’t suffer performance bottlenecks in the near term.

Graphics

Hang onto your wallets—a new generation of videocards is about to arrive

The speculation about AMD's Direct3D 11 graphics card offering has come to an end. AMD's Radeon 5870 is the fastest single-GPU videocard we've ever tested, packing 2.15 billion transistors and 1600 shader units into an RV870 chip built on the 40nm process.

What about Nvidia? The company has been uncharacteristically quiet about consumer graphics, instead touting design wins with its Tegra and Ion mobile platforms. It's next-generation Fermi chip has a focus on compute functionality (given Nvidia's heavy bet on CUDA), and we've yet to see performance numbers in consumer products like PC games, let alone any definitive release timeframe for Fermi graphics cards outside of the workstation market. This means that AMD has a substantial lead in the push to the next GPU generation.

Trailing behind AMD has got to hurt Nvidia’s pride, and allows AMD to play the pricing game—charging a little more for cards early on, before the competition can ship an equivalent GPU.

Nvidia should be racing to get its new GPUs out because the 900-pound gorilla that is Intel is readying its own GPU, code-named Larrabee. Based on a modified, multicore version of the venerable x86 architecture, with significant vector extensions, Larrabee is unlikely to ship until late Q1 or Q2 of 2010.

In some respects, these new GPUs will actually bring PC graphics hardware just a little closer to game consoles, as DirectX 11 builds on and enhances the tessellation features built into the Xbox 360 GPU. Hardware tessellation is a substantial departure from previous generations of DirectX, which used triangles and vertices as key graphics primitives. Instead, patches are passed to the tessellation pipeline, which contain control points that define areas within which triangles can be automatically generated by the hardware. This is different than previous approaches, which required the application to generate the triangles passed to the GPU.

What this means is that geometry can be automatically generated where it’s needed, allowing smoother curved surfaces. Using hardware tessellation also reduces the number of steps required by game artists to create the artwork, since they only have to create one representation of an object, instead of multiple versions for different levels of detail.

DirectX 11’s other major feature is compute shaders. Using graphics processors for general computing tasks has become a hot topic in the graphics world. Applications like video transcoding, certain Photoshop filters, and scientific applications lend themselves well to the massively parallel floating-point engines built onto graphics chips.

While the main target for DirectX 11 will be Redmond’s newly minted Windows 7 operating system, the new API will run on Windows Vista, as well (but not on Windows XP). Full DirectX 11 support will require new hardware, but a few of the features—particularly multithreading—will run on existing DX10-, DX10.1-, and DX9-capable hardware. So, even owners of older GPUs may see some performance improvements once DirectX 11 actually ships, late in 2009.

USB 3.0

Like USB 2.0, but 10 times as fast

The maximum data transfer speed of USB 2.0 is 480Mb/s, which was fine when it was invented. Now that you have to fill dozens of gigabytes of apps, music, and movies on your cell phone or iPod, it seems kind of pokey. Enter USB 3.0, dubbed SuperSpeed USB (2.0 is officially Hi-Speed USB). The new spec boosts transfer speeds 10x to 4.8Gb/s, which means in the real world you might see transfer speeds up to around 400 megabytes per second. It also operates in full-duplex mode, meaning the USB host can send and receive data simultaneously. All previous USB specs are half-duplex.

SuperSpeed USB ports will be backward compatible with Hi-Speed USB—of course, you won’t get the additional speed. You’ll notice that the ports and cables used for SuperSpeed mode are a little different, though. The heads are a little longer, with the additional pins for the SuperSpeed mode data extending beyond the usual USB plug.

Other nice additions to the spec include new power management modes and an increase in the base power load, so charging your USB 3.0–compatible devices may be 50–80 percent faster than with USB 2.0. The best part? Motherboards with USB 3.0 ports should start rolling out by the end of this year—if we’re lucky.

DisplayPort

Smaller, simpler, faster

DisplayPort is not so much an “upcoming” technology as an “already here” one. AMD, Dell, and Apple already ship a few products with DisplayPort support, for instance. This new VESA digital display connection standard is essentially a replacement for DVI for external monitors and LVDS for internal connections to notebook displays.

What’s so special about it? Well, the connector is smaller, simpler, and doesn’t have those annoying thumb screws that catch onto every cable like a grappling hook, for starters. The cables are slimmer, and a DisplayPort-only monitor could itself be slimmer—and cheaper.

Primarily, DisplayPort provides more data per wire than DVI. You know how you need a dual-link DVI cable to use a monitor with a resolution over 1920x1200? A “single-link” DisplayPort cable should provide enough bandwidth for 2560x1600, or deeper color modes. There’s also an auxiliary 1Mb/s bidirectional data channel that could be used to carry touch-screen data, data for a built-in microphone, etc. The spec supports HDCP content protection, but don’t expect it to replace HDMI on consumer electronics. Each will serve its own market. DisplayPort might pick up traction fastest in notebooks to replace LVDS to drive the display with fewer wires. Hinge space is already at a premium and crammed with wires, so less is more.

Touch

It's not just for your cell phone anymore

It seems like touch-screen technology is everywhere these days. The resistive touch screens seen on old Windows Mobile devices and the Nintendo DS are quickly being replaced by more finger-friendly capacitive multitouch technology (iPhone, Zune HD). It seems like every smartphone in the world and half the portable media players these days are built around the idea that you’ll operate them entirely by smearing your grubby fingers all over the screen.

Touch might be poised to enter the main computing world, too. Sure, you can get an HP TouchSmart all-in-one or a Tablet PC today, but those aren’t exactly the norm. Microsoft is desperately interested in touch technology these days, and where Microsoft goes, the PC industry often follows. Witness the Surface computer and Windows 7. The latest OS out of Redmond incorporates native touch controls throughout and a multitouch API for developers. Windows 7 is clearly designed primarily for a mouse, but the seeds have been planted.

All we need now is a proliferation of touch-screen PC hardware. We need desktop monitors that are touch-enabled, and notebooks with touch screens (that aren’t necessarily Tablet PCs). Building this kind of support into devices is getting cheaper all the time, but the push these days is to lower-cost PCs, not premium features. Will touch for mainstream PCs and notebooks take off? It’s hard to say, but it’s definitely worth keeping an eye on.

Storage

Bigger, faster, solid-state-ier drives await in 2010

To say that in 2010, hard drives will get more capacious, faster, and cheaper is to state the obvious. Shelves have been stocked with 5,900rpm 2TB 3.5-inch drives for months, and Hitachi’s 7,200rpm 2TB drive comes out in September. But how will 2010 improve on that? Henry Fabian, executive director of marketing for Seagate, says, “We’ll see 3TB drives, probably even higher, as everyone’s vying in the areal density race.” But the more data you have, the harder it is to back up.

Three terabytes is way more storage than we estimate most desktop users will need—but then again, Maximum PC readers aren’t most users. Video editing takes up a lot of space, and those of us who back up our movies to hard drive will quickly find that 3TB holds only about 120 Blu-ray movies.

In the solid state market, expect capacity to go up quickly as prices come down—but maybe not as quickly. Troy Winslow, director of marketing at Intel’s NAND Solutions Group, says he expects solid state drives to double in capacity—at least. Already, we’re seeing lots of gaming PC vendors ship rigs with speedy SSDs for the OS and games, and terabyte-plus drives for storage; expect this to become even more mainstream as 2.5-inch SSDs approach 320GB—or even 500GB. But don’t expect them to match magnetic-drive prices any time soon.

We’ll also see widespread adoption of the TRIM command, which helps keep solid state drives performing at their fastest by informing the controller of empty blocks before a write cycle, so writing files to blocks containing deleted data goes faster. The command is implemented in Windows 7 and in the Linux kernel, and will be available in new drives as well as old drives (with a firmware update).

Is 2010 the year that solid state drives overtake standard hard drives in any sector?

It all depends who you ask. Troy Winslow says that in 2010 SSDs will “continue to displace high-rpm hard drives in enterprise applications, and standard HDDs in corporate and consumer laptops and enthusiast desktops.” But Henry Fabian doesn’t think so. “We don’t see flash today overtaking hard drives, in enterprise or anywhere else, until costs come down. Early adopters will have them, but they’re not ready for prime time,” says Fabian. He cites other concerns besides costs, saying solid state drives won’t replace magnetic enterprise drives until they can match the durability and reliability of enterprise drives. Intel and Hitachi, however, are betting that that happens in 2010, when they jointly release a line of SAS and fiber-channel SSDs.

What about magnetic hard drives with a large solid state cache? Several manufacturers released hybrid drives in 2007 and 2008, but the lines have been allowed to languish, leading many to wonder if the market segment is dead. We’d love to see terabyte-plus hard drives married to a few gigabytes of NAND for speed. Seagate’s Fabian wouldn’t tell us whether Seagate has any hybrid drives in the works, saying merely, “It’s a capacity game, so hybrids could definitely have a role. You get your capacity, with a little boost of speed. It makes perfect sense.”

6Gb/s SATA Will Give SSDs Some Growing Room

Expect 2010 to be the year of SATA 3.0, the 6Gb/s follow-up to the current 3Gb/s SATA spec. High-speed SSDs are already starting to bump up against the 3Gb/s ceiling with their read speeds, so SATA 3.0’s doubled speed gives SSDs some much-needed breathing room. SATA 3.0 also adds greater support for Native Command Queuing and better power management. Drives, motherboards, and adapters utilizing the new spec will appear before the end of 2009—expect announcements at the Intel Developer Forum in late September. We expect widespread adoption by the end of 2010.

Mobile Broadband

LMDS is dead, LTE and WiMax are coming

LMDS

Not too many years ago, it looked like LMDS (Local Multipoint Distribution Service) was going to solve the "last mile" problem and bring broadband to rural areas, while enabling urbanites to roam around with their laptops at broadband speeds anywhere they go. It never really caught on. There are a few providers, but in practice the technology never really sees the 8-mile range or 1.5Gb downstream, 200 Mb upstream connection rates it promised. In reality, this relatively expensive and high-power technology is limited to less than 2 miles and rarely achieves high bandwidth rates. It's going to be all but killed by WiMAX and LTE.

WiMAX

Intel spearheaded the development of WiMAX, now ratified by IEEE in the 802.16d and 802.16e specifications. With speeds of over 100 Mbit/s downlink and 30 Mbit/s uplink, WiMAX has been poised as both a "last mile" solution for bringing broadband to rural areas and a 4G solution for mobile phones and notebooks. Sprint has fallen way behind on their promised WiMAX rollout, and other carriers are opting for LTE as their 4G technology of choice. It's far from a dead technology, though, especially since it's so technically similar to LTE. Clearwire, which is mostly owned by Sprint, plans to roll out WiMAX service to quite a few major metropolitan areas over the next year.

LTE

The 3GPP Long Term Evolution or "LTE" technology looks very hot...on paper. As with WiMAX, this "4G" technology is an all-IP based, low latency network that could truly be called mobile broadband. With enough antennas, bandwidth should be 2-3x what WiMAX offers. Early devices won't show off the full speed, but you could still see notebooks and smartphones getting 10+ Mbit/s with low latencies. Best of all, it seems as if every cell company (save Sprint) has jumped on the LTE bandwagon for their 4G rollout. Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile, MetroPCS, Rogers Wireless and Telus in Canada, and many others around the world are all adopting LTE and rolling out service over the next year or two. Fortunately, the fundamental radio technology and communications protocols between LTE and WiMAX are so similar that some chipmakers are simply building one chip that can be configured to work with either standard.

Multiscreen Madness

If you think a 30-inch monitor insufficient, how about gaming on six?

Today’s graphics cards can barely handle one 30-inch monitor in gaming. Pushing around 2560x1600 pixels is a challenge for current-generation GPUs. While it’s true that each new generation of graphics cards can push performance, we weren’t quite prepared for the preview AMD gave us of its upcoming DirectX 11–capable graphics hardware.

AMD ushered us into its Sunnyvale, CA, test lab, where it had a high-end system set up with a single graphics card. AMD would only disclose that the card had a single GPU, and was one of the company’s upcoming DirectX 11–capable chips—nothing about the amount of video RAM, clock speeds, or anything else. This particular graphics card also sported six DisplayPort connectors. Attached to each DisplayPort connector was a 30-inch Dell display. The whole affair was configured as a single, 7680x3200 monitor. That's 24.6 megapixels!

Sure, you say, you can hook up six monitors and run Windows… but can it do 3D?

The short answer: yes, in spades. We witnessed the flight sim XPlane 9 running at full resolution, as well as Far Cry 2. Also shown was the flying ship scene from 3DMark 2006, running at a full 7680x3200, at between 12 and 20 frames per second. Dubbed Eyefinity, the tech demo was an amazing tour de force, and we can’t wait to get our hands on one of those cards.

Intel Reveals Updated Stock Cooler Design for Gulftown CPU

Jason Barry — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 17:04:09 -0500

More cool things coming out of the Intel Developers Forum. Intel showed off an upgraded stock cooler for its upcoming six-core Nehalem processor, codenamed Gulftown. Generally speaking, stock coolers are barely more than adequate when it comes to noise, cooling power, and overclockability.

However, Intel’s latest cooler takes steps to change some of that. It features an updated tower design, additional fins on the heatsink and four copper heatpipes. Obviously, overclocking enthusiasts will seek out after-market solutions, but this should be a nice change for those looking to save a buck.

Intel’s i9 six-core processor was expected to be released in the fourth quarter of this year, but has since been delayed until early of next year.

Intel's Core i5 Analyzed and Tested (150+ Benchmarks)

Gordon Mah Ung — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 10:00:00 -0500

Intel’s latest troika of new CPUs brings Nehalem goodness to the masses

Nehalem for everyone! That simple sentence best explains Intel’s brand-new series of CPUs, which is sure to please budget users everywhere while confounding power users.

For the details on Intel’s new budget monster, savor our full report, consume the specs, and then digest the benchmarks to see just which path your next PC should take.

Meet Lynnfield

We normally don’t use a CPU’s code-name once its real name is known, but to help keep your head from popping off over Intel’s confusing naming scheme we’re going to rely on some code-names here for clarity.

Intel’s newest CPU family is code-named Lynnfield. The lineup includes the 2.93GHz Core i7-870, the 2.83GHz Core i7-860, and the 2.66GHz Core i5-750. Lynnfield chips use essentially the same microarchitecture as Intel’s original Core i7 CPUs, which were code-named Bloomfield, but the new CPUs are incompatible with existing Core i7 motherboards. That’s right, you could walk into a store and buy a Core i7 CPU that will not work with the Core i7 motherboard you just bought. Likewise, the Core i7 heatsink cooler you bought may not work with a new Core i7, either.

Despite its smaller size, Intel’s new Lynnfield Core i7/Core i5 CPU (right) actually features an increased transistor count of 774 million and a larger die size of 296 square millimeters, compared with the 731-million-tranny Bloomfield Core i7 (left) and its 263 square-millimeter die.

Socket Switcheroo

The most notable difference in this new crop of Core i7s is the socket. For Lynnfield, Intel is introducing the LGA1156 socket. This socket is, as stated, incompatible with the current LGA1366 motherboards and CPUs. To irk you even more, even the heatsink cooler mounting holes are incompatible, so you probably couldn’t use an LGA1366 cooler, even if you happened to have one. And even more annoying to enthusiasts, LGA775 coolers are also incompatible. Earlier this year, Intel execs told Maximum PC that LGA775 cooler compatibility was being considered for the new chip, but obviously the company has since ruled that out. To break it down: LGA1366 uses a 12cm gap, LGA1156 uses an 11cm gap, and LGA775 uses a 10cm gap. Yes, one centimeter difference and you have to dustbin your pricey high-rise cooler even though it’s capable of handling the thermals of the new chip.

We asked Intel if it was doing this just to piss people off and the company said no, it did it for legitimate engineering reasons. Intel actually lowered the height of the new direct socket load mechanism that clamps the CPU in place, which required moving the mounting holes out. Existing heatsinks capable of the thermal load should work, Intel said, so long as consumers obtain updated mounting brackets from the cooler maker. We have to also note that very new high-end coolers are coming with mounts for LGA1156 too. Still, make sure that if the box says Core i7, support for LGA1156 is included.

Although Intel wouldn’t confirm this, we’ve been told by high-end system builders that certain LGA1366 motherboards and coolers would flex enough to create a gap between cooler and CPU. The new design presumably fixes that problem.

Sockets Compared

Lynnfield Socket

Bloomfield Socket

The new budget Core i5/Core i7 CPUs use a new LGA1156 socket design (top image), which is incompatible with existing LGA1366 Core i7 motherboards and coolers (bottom image). The design eliminates traces for the third memory controller, but builds in wires that will accommodate forthcoming CPUs with integrated graphics cores.

Memory Loss

Enthusiasts will also question the move from tri-channel DDR3 to dual-channel DDR3—why go back if wider is better? Intel’s decision is based on pragmatism and cost. The tri-channel circuitry in the CPU doesn’t add much cost to the processor, but it’s not cheap to implement when building a motherboard. Those added traces from the socket to the RAM slots mean more layers and pricier boards. That’s one of the contributing factors to excessively priced X58 boards this past year.

Should you be concerned about shifting down to dual-channel? Generally, no. For the most part, only the most memory-bandwidth-intensive apps will actually see any performance hit. The fantastic latency and overall bandwidth capacity of the Nehalem design is more than adequate for today’s applications. This doesn’t mean it’s a non-issue. The vast majority of Lynnfield motherboards we’ve seen are opting for four-DIMM slots. That means a maximum of 8GB using affordable 2GB DIMMs (4GB DIMMs are currently cost-prohibitive). The only board we’ve seen with more DIMM slots is Gigabyte’s GA-P55-UD6, which features six, for a total of 12GB, using 2GB DIMMs. The memory controller in Lynnfield tops out at 16GB, while Bloomfield maxes out at 24GB. Realistically, 24GB of RAM is way overkill for 99 percent of us. Our experience has shown us that most apps do not consume that much RAM; 4GB to 6GB is the sweet spot today.

PCI-E at the Core

Another significant change for Lynnfield is that PCI-E comes directly off the CPU core. In X58/Bloomfield, X48/Core 2 Quad, and 790FX/Phenom II, PCI Express is external to the CPU, residing in the north-bridge chipset. Data is pumped out to the chipset where it must then be directed to the PCI-E slots that connect to the GPUs. As you can imagine, the extra hop creates a latency issue—that’s eliminated with Lynnfield. Lower latency is better, right? Yes and no. While latency is better on Lynnfield, the CPUs feature but a single x16 PCI-E 2.0 lane in the chip. That’s fine for a single GPU, but multi-GPU configurations will have to split the bandwidth. That means an SLI or CrossFire X rig will run both cards in x8 mode. Remember, however, that we’re talking x8 at PCI-E 2.0 speeds, which is 8GB/s for each card. From what we’ve seen and from what vendors have told us, only at the highest resolutions with antialiasing do you see any impact.

But, you say, what about tri-SLI? That, too, can be theoretically supported. Even though Lynn-field supports but a single x16 PCI-E 2.0 lane, additional PCI-E lanes are added through the P55 chipset—at the cost of latency. Previous designs that had PCI-E plumbed from both the north bridge and south bridge were dinged for doing just this. Some vendors are working around the lack of bandwidth by adding Nvidia’s nForce 200 chip to their boards. The nForce 200 doesn’t magically add bandwidth but it does manage the available bandwidth across multiple slots. Thus, a board vendor could add three or even four x16 PCI-E slots and have the nForce 200 chip manage the load for multi-GPU configurations. This would eliminate the need to have the GPUs feed off of the higher-latency connection in the chipset.

CrossFire X support is a given in the vast majority of P55 motherboards. And SLI will be as well for the board vendors who pay Nvidia to “certify” that their boards are SLI-ready. Fortunately, the big names are already onboard with that, including Asus, Gigabyte, MSI, EVGA, and even Intel.

If you’re wondering why Intel doesn’t just fix the lack of bandwidth by adding additional PCI-E lanes in the CPU, consider this: Intel would have to add additional traces from the CPU and the socket, and even Intel is loathe to introduce yet another new socket standard so soon. The company also doesn’t think it’s worth it as anyone who truly wants full dual-x16 GPU support should really be buying X58: Remember, folks, Lynnfield and P55 are for the “mainstream.”

The Lynnfield LGA1156 again rejiggers the design of the modern CPU. With the Athlon 64 and the Core i7, the memory controller was moved from the north bridge directly into the CPU core. With Lynnfield, the PCI-Express ports are now handled directly by the CPU as well. Furthermore, relatively low-speed data from the hard drives and USB ports flows though a single DMI link at 2GB/s with Lynnfield.

P55: Downsizing the Chipset

In the old days, new core-logic chipsets were almost as exciting as a new CPU. Not so today. With X58 and Bloomfield, the chipset got fired from its job of managing the memory controller. With Lynnfield, it even loses its responsibilities for managing PCI-E, as both features are now integral to the CPU itself. Today, the chipset is nothing more than a glorified south bridge, managing USB, SATA, PCI, PS/2, and other decidedly unsexy items. The P55 might have been sexier if it had USB 3.0 or SATA 6 functionality, but that won’t appear until next year. And even if it had those features, it’s pretty clear where the P55 stands: Its desk has been moved to the basement and its red Swingline stapler has been confiscated.

Tweakability

There was some initial confusion when Bloomfield was introduced. Early reports had it that the memory multipliers were unlocked on the high-end Extreme versions of the CPU, but locked on the lower-end versions. It turned out that was only the case for samples first sent to the press and system vendors. Retail versions of the lower-end Bloomfields were unlocked as well, making it possible for users to set the RAM at speeds higher than the rated DDR3/1066. This time around, there’s no such confusion. All three new Lynnfields feature unlocked memory multipliers and the chips are actually officially rated for operation at DDR3/1333, with higher speeds obtainable through “overclocking.” Of course, the chips are upwardly clock-locked, so you can’t simply set your $200 Core i5 to run at 4GHz by changing the multiplier.

Though open about memory locks, Intel has been cagier about Turbo mode. With Bloomfield, Intel never revealed to consumers the top clock speeds the CPUs could hit under Turbo mode, but with Lynnfield, it’s now publicizing the top speed that a single core can hit. The Core i7-870, for example, can top out at 3.6GHz by overclocking individual cores based on the thermals and power consumption of the chip. That’s actually far greater than the Bloomfield modes can top out at on default. The take-away is that, with the months it has had to tinker with Lynnfield, Intel has improved Turbo mode (now officially Turbo Boost). However, the feature is locked. Only on the Extreme parts will users be able to tinker with Turbo beyond the default caps.

The Big Decision

All this techno-speak is meaningless if the processor doesn’t perform as expected. We don’t want to give away everything here but let’s just say we’re not disappointed. Lynnfield is everything you’d expect of a new iteration of Nehalem and Intel’s now-very-mature 45m process. As such, overclocking, is also fruitful. By simply boosting the base clock of the cheapie $200 Core i5-750, we were able to take it from 2.66GHz to a very stable 3.5GHz without any additional voltage on our very first attempt using a Gigabyte GA-P55-UD6 board.

System builders have been equally impressed with these budget parts and have achieved overclocking results every bit as good as, if not better than, the most expensive Core i7-975 Extreme Edition parts.

That brings us to the main question: Why even build a Bloomfield LGA1366 at this point if building a Lynnfield system will save you at least $100 on the board and a little on the RAM, and even more money if you opt for the ultra-budget Core i5-750?

Here’s that fork in the road: Lynnfield is cheaper and gets you 90 percent the performance of a Bloomfield system, but early next year Intel will introduce a CPU code-named Gulftown, aka Core i9. Core i9 adds two more physical cores to the CPU and will likely be the first consumer hexacore CPU. With Hyper-Threading, that’s 12 threads available to the OS and enough to make the most jaded enthusiast perk up. Core i9, however, will only be available on the Bloomfield/LGA1366 platform. If you were to build a Lynnfield LGA1156 box there’d be no six-core for you! At least, not at this point. Intel said it has no plans for an LGA1156 hexacore. You see the dilemma. Save money now and build a really kick-ass LGA1156 or spend the extra $200 to build an LGA1366 that has an easy upgrade path to six cores with Hyper-Threading. It’s not an easy choice to make under normal circumstances, but in this economic climate, it’s even harder—that $200 goes a long way toward a better GPU, better PSU, more RAM, or a bigger hard drive. The choice, however, is up to you.

Next, the CPU buyers guide and benchmarks!

CPU Buyers Guide

What’s the best budget chip available today for those interested in getting good performance on the cheap? We’ll walk you through the top five chips and tell you which one to buy.

CPU Specs

CPU	Core i7-920	Core i7-870	Core i7-860	Core i5-750	Core 2 Quad Q9550/Q9550s	Phenom II X4 965 BE
Socket	LGA1366	LGA1156	LGA1156	LGA1156	LGA775	AM3
Price (Volume)	$284	$562	$284	$196	$266 / $320	$245
Price (Street)	$280	N/A	N/A	N/A	$220 / $350	$245
TDP	130Watts	95Watts	95Watts	95Watts	95Watts / 65Watts	140Watts
Codename	Bloomfield	Lynnfield	Lynnfield	Lynnfield	Yorkfield	Deneb
QPI/HT	4.8GT/s	4.8GT/s	4.8GT/s	4.8GT/s	N/A	4GHz
Core Clock	2.66GHz	2.93GHz	2.8GHz	2.66GHz	2.83GHz	3.4GHz
Turbo Boost (Max 1 Core)	2.93GHz	3.6GHz	3.46GHz	3.2GHz	N/A	N/A
HyperThreading?	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	N/A
Cores/Threads	4/8	4/8	4/8	4/4	4/4	4/4
L1 Cache	256KB	256KB	256KB	256KB	256KB	512KB
L2 Cache	1MB	1MB	1MB	1MB	12MB	2MB
L3 Cache	8MB	8MB	8MB	8MB	N/A	6MB
Die Size (mm^2)	263	296	296	296	214	258
Transistor Count (million)	731	774	774	771	820	758
Process (nm)	45	45	45	45	45	45

AMD 3.4GHz Phenom II X4 965 BE

It’s bad news for AMD’s recently released quad-core. Its best and brightest could never compete with the Core i7-920 in performance, but it certainly outgunned it in price. Now with Intel’s LGA1156 Lynnfields here, it can’t even compete on price. As of this writing, the Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition had a list price of $245. The Core i5-750 has a list price of $200 and it mercilessly punts the Phenom II X4 965 BE up and down the field. Only in the mostly-single threaded Photoshop CS3 and POV Ray 3.7 did the Phenom’s 700MHz advantage put it over the top. Against the Hyper-Threaded Core i7’s though, the virtual cores vaulted the Nehalems over the Phenom II X4 965 everywhere. The good news for the Phenom II X4 965 is that it isn’t dead ass last. That falls to its old nemesis, the 2.83GHz Core 2 Quad Q9550. There, the Phenom II X4 965 BE serves space-cold revenge to the only chip here not to sport an on-die memory controller. Yeah, so you Intel fan boys say so what? Core 2 is an end of life CPU big whoop, but you gotta take your victories as you can get them.

The real bad news for AMD is that it’s not expected to get its next-generation Bulldozer core out now until 2011 so it can build it on a 32nm process. With Core i5 pushing the $200 range and Core i3 around the corner and expected to push into the ultra-budget range, there’s going to be very little maneuvering room for AMD’s rather dated design.

Still, there is place for the Phenom II X4 965 BE: existing upgrades. The processor will drop into a large assortment of existing AM2+ boards (you should check your mobo maker’s web site first for support) and even though it’s slower than a Core i5/i7, it’s a hell of a lot cheaper and easier to remove your current Athlon 64 X2 part and drop in the Phenom II X4 965 BE. Once you do that, you can thumb your nose at the Intel boys who have to replace their LGA775 boards and likely do an OS reinstall to upgrade to Core i5 and Core i7. Heck, there’s even rumors of a six-core AM3 part which would likely drop into modern AM2+ board so there’s some solace for AMD fans even if the performance isn’t there.

Intel 2.83GHz Core 2 Quad Q9550

We’ve said for months that Core 2 was a lame duck and it gets even lamer with the introduction of the LGA1156 parts. The Core 2 can’t compete with its Nehalem brethren on any front. Even the lowly – and cheaper Core i5-750 – gives the Core 2 Quad Q9550 such a bad beat down, that AMD would likely feel bad for it. And as we said, even the Phenom II X4 965 BE mostly smokes the Core 2 Quad. Sure, the Core 2 Quad surprisingly outperforms the Phenom II X4 965 BE in a couple of places, but it’s still the loser. We could have reached for the highest bin Core 2 Quad, the 3GHz Q9650, but at $319 on the street and list, it makes no sense.

Hell, even at the street price of $220, it’s hard to justify the Core 2 Quad Q9550 over a new Core i5 rig. Even AMD’s Phenom II has a better roadmap as the company will support it through at least through 2010 with newer, faster CPUs. The same can’t be said of Intel which is unlikely to introduce faster Core 2 parts. There is still a place for Core 2 though: If your box is rolling a dual-core and the LGA775 board supports 45nm quads, it would be dumb not to get one more upgrade out of it. Outside of that, it’s clear Core 2’s glory days are long, long gone.

Intel 2.66GHz Core i5-750

Of the troika of new chips, Intel’s Core i5-750 is likely to be the big hit. With wholesale prices of $200, the average joe or jane can now build a Nehalem-based system for almost as much as a Core 2 or Phenom II box. The key price differentiator is the motherboards. Board’s we’ve seen will likely top out about $225 but many will dip into the $150 range. That makes it significantly different from when Intel’s Core i7-920 launched. Sure it was only $280 (and still a year later) but the boards for the processor all pushed the $300 mark. Even today, it’s hard to get an LGA1366 board for $250.

In performance, the lower clocked Core i5 schools Core 2 Quad Q9550 as well as the Phenom II X4 BE. The Phenom II X4’s massive clock difference actually gets close to the Core i5 in a few benchmarks and surpasses it in two but the cheap Lynnfield is clearly the winner. Against the Core i7, as expected, the Core i5 loses but for many, giving up 10 percent to 25 percent in performance is worth it to save, oh, $300 over the price of the top-end Core i7-870. The performance delta between the i5 and i7 is the greatest in multi-threaded apps. In gaming and apps not optimized for quad cores, they’re a lot closer.

In the final analysis, the Core i5 falls right where Intel’s bewildering branding scheme puts it: faster than Core 2 and Phenom II but slower than i7 and really damned cheap to boot too. Buy this chip is the vast majority of your applications are not optimized for quad-core or more. If, however, your work counts on an increased amount of cores, go the extra mileage for a Core i7 with Hyper-Threading.

Intel 2.8GHz Core i7-860

If you use the Goldilocks formula, this new quad-core, Hyper-Threaded CPU is “just right.” It’s just the right blend of performance to price. At $266 for a 2.83GHz, its most natural enemy is the Core i7-920 in LGA1366. The 920’s primary advantage is increased bandwidth thanks to its tri-channel DDR3 support. But since the vast majority of apps really don’t need that much bandwidth, the 860 is generally faster by five percent thanks to its 5 percent clock advantage. That’s pretty much what we saw in our tests too – about five percent difference in the vast majority of the tests in favor of the 2.8GHz 860. And of course, the 860 also gets a boost from its increased Turbo Boost clocks. A stock 920 will only Turbo as high as 2.93GHz under some loads. The 860 will max out at 3.46GHz under some loads. Why is the Turbo higher on the 860? The 920 was a first generation Nehalem processor and Intel played it very conservatively with the Turbo. With the 860, the company feels more comfortable pushing it higher.

So what should you buy? Both procs are priced the same at $266, but each has its strengths. The 920 has true dual x16 PCI-E 2.0 support thanks to the X58 chipset and discrete PCI-E as well as tri-channel DDR3. Frankly, we think both of those features are pretty minor reasons to choose 920. The main reason to pick a 920 is the upgrade path. In a few months, Intel will introduce a 32nm-based six-coire processor codenamed Gulftown. With Hyper-Threading, you get 12 threads as well as any goodness Intel can squeeze out of the new 32nm process (both the 860 and 920 are 45nm parts). A rig built on 860 will also not see Gulftown and probably will not see a six-core part for quite some time if ever. Again, Intel intends for LGA1156 to be for the mainstream and the 99 percent of mainstream users don’t need 12-threads for their apps nor will they pay out $1,000 for a Gulftown CPU.

That takes us back to the Core i7-860 part. If you save possibly $150 to $200 by building an 860 rig, that can be put toward a faster GPU, a bigger hard driver or a larger monitor. In this economic climate, that’s pretty appealing and really the pick of the litter if you ask us.

Intel 2.93GHz Core i7-870

In this comparison of five CPUs, the 870 was head and shoulders the fastest CPU. Generally, we saw a 5 percent advantage in the 870 – just what you would expect from a 5 percent clock advantage. We did see some interesting results though. The multi-threaded Cinebench 10 actually saw the 870 with a 13 percent higher score. World in Conflict also saw the 870 run away with a 24 percent higher frame rate than the 860. So here’s the real question: Would you pay nearly 100 percent more for that? For most folks, probably not. At $555 for the Core i7-870 and $266 for the Core i7-860, it just makes a hell of a lot sense to give up some of that performance to put towards something else in your machine. And if you really are into being on the ragged edge of performance, it makes a lot more sense to jump in with both feet for an LGA1366 platform and the promise of a six-core upgrade in a few month. So we’re a little ambivalent about the Core i7-870. But make no bones about it, the Core i7-870 is the king of the CPUs that battled today, it’s just not really a “budget” CPU is it?

Intel 2.66GHz Core i7-920

If you haven’t figured it out by now, Intel’s 920 is the chip all three LGA1156 Lynnfield’s were gunning for. A huge hit among the performance budget shoppers, it overclocked well and got you into the Core i7 club without paying through the nose.

With its three new siblings here, the 920 is mostly pushed to the back in performance and pricing competitiveness. The other chips run at higher clocks, automatically Turbo Boost to higher levels and can save you from $150 to $200 in associated building costs. So why bother with the 920? There is still some magic to this old favorite. In this roundup, the 920 was generally in third or second place in the vast majority of the tests. And in some benches, the 920 interestingly bubbled up to the top. Even though its superior tri-channel doesn’t always pay off, it apparently does in Photoshop CS3 where the 920 took top honors and we suspect its superior bandwidth helps keep it in hunt elsewhere too. We had heard early rumors that Intel would axe the 920 once the LGA1156 procs were out but the company has since told us it had no plans to discontinue 920 right now. That’s a good decision too. While LGA1136 is definitely an exclusive club, there’s no reason for Intel to make it even harder to get in. If your only choice to getting an LGA1366 platform was to shell out $500 for a Core i7-950 or $1,000 for a Core i7-975 Extreme Edition, very few people would choose that route.

Of course, the biggest reason to buy 920 is for the path to the Core i9 “Gulftown” CPU that Intel will introduce in a few months. Ideally, you could build a 920 box and use it for a year or so until the Gulftown derivatives drop down enough to become “budget” chips themselves.

The Benchmarks

To run our test, we tried to balance each particular CPU’s platform as closely as possible but given the differences in each chip’s requirements that’s almost impossible. We used the same make and model Western Digital Raptor 150GB drive for all four builds, the same 64-bit Windows Vista Home Premium SP2 build, the same make/model/clocked EVGA GeForce GTX280 and the same drivers. Windows 7 was available at the time of our reviews but we felt it would be best to use Vista as drivers were readily available for it.

The only real differences, of course, were the motherboards and RAM configurations. Although the Core i7-920 does unofficially support higher clocked RAM, we stuck with the official DDR3/1066, but 6GB of it. For the dual-channel Phenom II X4 and Core i5/i7, we used 4GB of DDR3/1333. For the dual-channel Core 2 Quad, we used the far more common DDR2/1066 as the vast majority of Core 2 Quad folks are running DDR2. For motherboards, we used three Gigabyte boards: the new GA-P55-UD6 for the LGA1156 procs, a GA-EX58-UDR3 for the LGA1136, and a GA-MA790GPT-UD3H for the Phenom II. For the Core 2, we relied on an Asus Maximus II Formula.

Benchmark Test Setup

CPU	Core i7-920	Core i7-870	Core i7-860	Core i5-750	Core 2 Quad Q9550/Q9550s	Phenom II X4 965 BE
RAM Mode	Triple	Dual	Dual	Dual	Dual	Dual Unganged
RAM Size	6GB	4GB	4GB	4GB	4GB	4GB
RAM Speed	DDR3/1066	DDR3/1333	DDR3/1333	DDR3/1333	DDR2/1066	DDR3/1333
RAM Latency	7-7-7-20-1T	9-9-9-24-1T	9-9-9-24-1T	9-9-9-24-1T	5-5-5-18-2T	9-9-9-25-1T
Hard Drive	WD 150 Raptor	WD 150 Raptor	WD 150 Raptor	WD 150 Raptor	WD 150 Raptor	WD 150 Raptor
OS	Vista HP 64-bit SP2	Vista HP 64-bit SP2	Vista HP 64-bit SP2	Vista HP 64-bit SP2	Vista HP 64-bit SP2	Vista HP 64-bit SP2
GPU	Geforce GTX 295	Geforce GTX 295	Geforce GTX 295	Geforce GTX 295	Geforce GTX 295	Geforce GTX 295
GPU Clocks 3D	670/1458 /1215	670/1458 /1215	670/1458 /1215	670/1458 /1215	670/1458 /1215	670/1458 /1215
Motherboard	Gigabyte GA-MA790 FXT-UD5P	Gigabyte GA-P55 -UD3	Gigabyte GA-P55 -UD3	Gigabyte GA-P55 -UD3	Asus Maximum II Formula	Gigabyte GA-EX58 -UD3R

BENCHMARKS

CPU	Core i7-920	Core i7-870	Core i7-860	Core i5-750	Core 2 Quad Q9550/Q9550s	Phenom II X4 965 BE
MainConcept Reference 1.0	1235	1115	1170	1337	1644	1388
MainConcept Refernece 1.0 Pro AVC	696	635	664	769	986	840
Premiere Pro CS3	671	610	630	620	741	733
Cinebench 10 64-bit	16140	18275	16085	14442	12280	14083
Handbrake iPod Classic	994	939	993	1198	1366	1220
PCMark Vantage 64-bit Overall	6929	7536	7299	7208	6241	6824
POV Ray 3.7	3470	3888	3702	2773	2669	3045
Photoshop CS3	116	119	126	128	132	123
ProShow Producer	636	640	617	700	862	911
Everest 5.0 RAM Read (MB/s)	14387	12997	13641	12867	7807	8154
Everest 5.0 RAM Write (MB/s)	11639	10811	10992	9881	7085	6794
Everest 5.0 RAM Copy (MB/s)	15790	15414	15393	14684	7455	10246
Everest 5.0 RAM Latency (ns)	61	53	52	31	64	54.3
Sandra RAM Bandwidth (GB/s)	22.4	16.7	17.2	16.8	7.2	12.7
Fritz Chess Benchmark	21.4	23.94	22.38	17.38	16.97	17.04
3DMark Vantage Overall	15008	15002	14985	14947	14681	14544
3DMark Vantage GPU	12306	12231	12247	12249	12013	11978
3DMark Vantage CPU	44002	46815	45525	44066	40644	40679
Valve Particle Test	143	159	151	124	99	95
Valve Map Compilation	146	128	133	121	129	125
Crysis	146	156	150	147	119	104
Resident Evil 5 Fixed DX9	114	115	118	109	85	89
Resident Evil 5 Fixed DX10	117.7	106.5	119.7	109.4	83.8	89.2
Resident Evil 5 Variable DX9	145.8	155.9	147.2	155.4	133.7	140.3
Resident Evil 5 Variable DX10	150.4	155	157.8	160	133.9	140.2
World in Conflict	221	282	227	266	159	160
WinRar 3.20	581	588	594	706	868	805

Best scores in bold.

Next, our detailed benchmark analysis.

Benchmark Analysis

Sisoft Sandra RAM

(higher is better)

Sisoftware’s Sandra RAM benchmark lets the Core i7-920 strut its tri-channel DDR3 stuff. Keep in mind, we tested the Core i7-920 at its officially rated speed of DDR3/1066 vs. DDR3/1333 for the five other parts here. That extra bandwidth of the 920, in fact, may help it keep pace with the newer processors despite a general clock deficit. Still, as we’ve said, the vast majority of folks just don’t need that bandwidth.

WinRar 3.20

(lower is better)

Now that we’ve said don’t pay attention to bandwidth, here’s a test that does actually show how much it can help. We used WinRar 3.20 to compress a folder of RAW files shot with a Canon EOS 5D. The files, pretty much, are near uncompressible so we thought it would be a good way to stretch the processors. The Core i7-920 just edges out the Core i7-870 despite a 266MHz gap between the two chips.

World in Conflict

(higher is better)

We ran World In Conflict at low resolutions to take the GPU out of the equation for performance. Some have questioned this but it tells you what you would get if you had the fastest GPU in ze vorld. The results were a bit odd but we saws the Core i7-870 up front and then the budget Core i5-750 next in line. Huh? Why would the results be so whacky? We have two theories: Turbo Boost can play havoc with unpredictability. Afterall, it automatically overclocks individual cores for a given thermal load and power consumption load so it’s possible the Turbo Boost for the 750 just kicked up into high gear in the most single-threaded game. Our other theory is that the oddly super low latency that the 750 exhibitied may have contributed to its scores. The other conclusion you can draw from this is that the Phenom II and Core 2 Quad should have just stayed off the field.

Crysis

(higher is better)

We used the same low quality and low resolution mode for our Crysis runs to show you just what kind of frame rates you’ll get in four years when the newest GPUs finally make Crysis its bitch. If you happened to still be running the same rig in 2013, here’s how your CPU would shape up. Unlike some of the multi-threaded benchmarks, we actually saw very predictable results with the most expensive 870 on top, the budget builder’s favorite, the 860, in second, and the 750 and 920 pretty even.

Valve Particle Test

(higher is better)

Valve’s Particle Test is a quad-core optimized test that measures CPU performance. Here, our results were predictable with the Lynnfields seemingly scaling with clock speeds. The surprise again is how well the 920 does which can only be attributed to its third-channel of DDR3.

Proshow Producer

(lower is better)

Our Proshow Producer benchmark hammers all cores available and again, there’s that pesky Turbo Boost messing with us. The Core i7-870 should have been the fastest, but the Core i7-860 just edges past all contenders. If you’ve wondered if Hyper-Threading pays off? Yes. Notice the roughly 10 percent gain the 2.66GHz 920 has against the 2.66GHz 750. That’s generally what we’ve seen from Hyper-Threading in other benchmarks. One other conclusion: Core 2 Quad and Phenom II X4, why are you here again?

Microsoft, Intel Demonstrate Longer Battery Life with Windows 7

Pulkit Chandna — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 20:18:53 -0500

In a public display of their legendary camaraderie and combined muscle, Intel and Microsoft tried to convince a gathering of reporters in San Francisco yesterday that new Wintel PCs - featuring Intel’s yet-to-be-launched Westmere processors (32nm) and running Windows 7 - will offer vast improvements in the way of faster performance and greater power efficiency.

They demonstrated Windows 7’s frugal power management by running a DVD on two identically configured ThinkPad T400s. The T400 running Windows 7 only consumed 15.4 watts, while its Vista-toting twin hogged 20.2 watts. The executives claimed that this translates into an additional battery life of 1.4 hours.

The impressive power efficiency on offer can be imputed to a technology called Windows timer coalescing, which “helps improve the energy efficiency of periodic software activity by expiring multiple distinct software timers at the same time to increase the average processor idle period."

Image Credit: Cnet

Rumor: Intel to Release Six Core Nehalem in 2009

Paul Lilly — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 09:00:22 -0500

File this one under unconfirmed, but word on the web is that Intel plans to release a six-core Nehalem chip before the end of the year. Citing "sources close to Intel," Bit-tech says existing X58 motherboard owners should be able to drop the new chip into their motherboard with only a BIOS update, giving current Core i7 owners a tantalizing upgrade path to look forward to.

Not much else is known about the supposed six-core Nehalem, however those same sources did say the new chip won't fall into the Core i7 naming scheme. The name is still being worked out

Should this come to fruition, Intel would be the first to market with a six-core consumer desktop CPU. AMD earlier this month released a six-core part well ahead of schedule, but it's a server chip and not a desktop part. Intel also has an existing six-core processor in Xeon form, also intended for servers.

Intel: Last Call for Conroe and Wolfdale Based Xeons

Paul Lilly — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 09:50:36 -0500

Call it spring cleaning or just the natural progression of things. Either way, it's out with the old and in with the new, says Intel, who updated its product portfolio this week. To make room for its Nehalem core-based Xeons, the chip maker informed its customers it is phasing out both 65nm Xeon processors built around Conroe, and its newer 45nm chips with a Wolfdale core.

Specifically, the company is taking its axe to the Xeon 3085, 3075, 3065, X3350, and X3320. Final shipments for these chips will take place in January 2010, with final orders being accepted up until October 9, 2009.

By getting rid of the its Core 2-based Xeons, Intel is making room for Nehalem-based Xeon chips, the first of which was introduced last week, 17 new chips in all.

Image Credit: Intel

Lenovo Becomes First PC Maker to Announce Nehalem Workstations (Apple Doesn't Count)

Paul Lilly — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 10:50:22 -0500

Apple earlier this month began taking orders for its new Mac Pro workstations with Intel's Xeon 3500 and 5500 quad-core processors, so technically, Lenovo isn't the first major PC maker to announce Nehalem-based workstations. Unless, like us, you demand a real PC (oh burn!).

Due for release next week, Lenovo's ThinkStation D20 and S20 workstation will also come configured with Intel's Xeon 3500 and 5500 dual- and quad-core processors. Intel is expected to launch the new CPUs next week as well.

The lower-end S20, which will start out at $1,070, is a single-socket system with support for up to 12GB of memory. The higher-end D20, which will start out at $1,550, comes with two sockets and ups and ante with support for up to 96GB of memory. Both systems will offer up to 1TB of storage.

End-users will be able to choose between Windows Vista Business and Red Hat Enterprise Linux for the OS, and an Nvidia Quadro or ATI FirePro workstation videocard for graphics chores.

Both models are expected to be available before April.

(Image Credit: Lenovo via Engadget)