intel core i5 · DIGIT-ARC

Well here it is and some benchmarks...Due to arrive at the earliest at april or may..mostly june-july though

5? i5! Core i5 would be the brand name Intel's mainstream desktop derivatives of the Nehalem architecture based on the Lynnfield core would carry. It is similar to its big brother, the Core i7 for the most of the part except for a few differences:
A current generation Direct Media Interface (DMI) Interconnect as chipset interface
A 128-bit wide DDR3 memory interface (Dual Channel) instead of triple-channel
Some more machinery from the northbridge migrated to the CPU, such as the PCI-Express root complex
The newer LGA 1160 socket

see benchmarks here *www.techpowerup.com/78383/Preliminary_Tests_on_Intel_Core_i5_Conducted.html

Keep in mind its still a sample.

Will this be the main competetitor in the budget section along with P55?
The super pi score at 2.1Ghz seems faster than than the 3.4Ghz deneb engineering sample....

So is this the stripped down budget version of i7?

^I guess it is...But there are many rumors going around that it cant be OC'd much...well thats obvious otherwise the i5s would match the higher end i7s...The i7s at 133 BCLK can be Ocd do around 180-200BCLK max...this particular i5 HAS a 133 BCLK and if it can go to 190 with a multiplier of 16x then you will see a clock speed of 3Ghz...So you should xpect those OC's from the i5's

Hmmm... great move indeed

Let's wait for them to come out and then reviews will speak.

Not a real great move IMO. A socket diffent from that of Nehalem, thats whats they did wrong. I would like a more mainstream Nehalem than the current i7-920. This aint close enough. And the slightly different architecture, a new socket are bound to create more confusion. :neutral:

IronManForever said:
Not a real great move IMO. A socket diffent from that of Nehalem, thats whats they did wrong. I would like a more mainstream Nehalem than the current i7-920. This aint close enough. And the slightly different architecture, a new socket are bound to create more confusion.

The only difference between i5 & i7 lies in the uncore part. the pci-ex controller moves from the chipset to the die and the the processor talks directly to the I/O HUB. i5 was targeted only for the midrange mainstream user who doesnt bother too much about overclocking. i feel its going to do pretty well in the notebook market.

^If they are faster then the denebs (they probably are) and at the same price or just a tad more xpensive it would seem like a great buy........Another difference in the i5 is that it has a dual channel memory controller so you will probably see 4 RAM slots instead of 6.

wow.. thanks for the info dude.. hope it will be cheaper than i7..

amitash said:
^If they are faster then the denebs (they probably are) and at the same price or just a tad more xpensive it would seem like a great buy........Another difference in the i5 is that it has a dual channel memory controller so you will probably see 4 RAM slots instead of 6.

Aye. That and it has support for only a single x16 or 2x8 pci-ex lanes. May not go down well with the enthusiast gamer but we can just as well get used to that.

*images.anandtech.com/reviews/cpu/intel/nehalem/part3/lynnfield.png

An interesting read on lynnfield - *www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=3461&p=2

Wish they hurry up with P55 and Corei5.
It's reported that Corei5 2.133GHz beats 3.2GHz C2D E6400.

I am looking for improvements over wolfdale in gaming. Small L2 cache is very bad for gaming. Extra cores are no use. DDR3 costs lot more than ddr2 and provides insignificant performance increase. That money would be much better spent on gfx card. HT was bad for gaming in p4 era. I hope that doesn't start processing other threads when games are running.

adithyagenius said:
I am looking for improvements over wolfdale in gaming. Small L2 cache is very bad for gaming. Extra cores are no use. DDR3 costs lot more than ddr2 and provides insignificant performance increase. That money would be much better spent on gfx card. HT was bad for gaming in p4 era. I hope that doesn't start processing other threads when games are running.

hum.. right.. gamers should spend more money on GFX card rather than CPU..

Aye. That and it has support for only a single x16 or 2x8 pci-ex lanes. May not go down well with the enthusiast gamer but we can just as well get used to that.

"enthusiast" gamers will get the i7...Its got support for tri-SLI and TRI-cfx

amitash said:
"enthusiast" gamers will get the i7...Its got support for tri-SLI and TRI-cfx

AFAIK, support for tri-SLI/tri-CFx is dependant on the chipset, not processor.

forever said:
The only difference between i5 & i7 lies in the uncore part. the pci-ex controller moves from the chipset to the die and the the processor talks directly to the I/O HUB. i5 was targeted only for the midrange mainstream user who doesnt bother too much about overclocking. i feel its going to do pretty well in the notebook market.

My only concern was the difference in socket from Nehalem's LGA 1366.
For those midrangers, we already have a fleet of excellent LGA 775 Core2's and pretty good chipsets to go with it, and they wont be obsolete anytime soon.
And I do NOT think this is gonna go well with notebook market, I doubt its power usage, TDP to be favourable for Notebook scenario.

AFAIK, support for tri-SLI/tri-CFx is dependant on the chipset, not processor.

Thats true but since the i5 will not have x58 there will be no support for three card configs

AMD will launch Athlon X4 to counter this I guess

hum... may be..

AMD will launch Athlon X4 to counter this I guess

Sorry, when was the last time AMD countered anything done by Intel? :lol:

Ahem, I aint any Intel Fanboi. Just Joking..

IronManForever said:
Sorry, when was the last time AMD countered anything done by Intel?
Ahem, I aint any Intel Fanboi. Just Joking..

It would be a Deneb without L3 cache and we've seen already that Deneb is a decent performer

The core i5 has 8mb L3 cache

4T7 said:
AMD will launch Athlon X4 to counter this I guess

Yeah, propous.
Here's some info on PROPOUS:
*www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=10961&Itemid=1

IronManForever said:
Sorry, when was the last time AMD countered anything done by Intel?

The time AMD released Dual Cores(X2 Athlon) & Intel was barely breathing, just before C2Duo!

Hope its cheaper than i7. BTW thanks for the info

It will be cheaper than i7!

^thats obvious as this is the budget processor....will not work on x58 though

The time AMD released Dual Cores(X2 Athlon) & Intel was barely breathing, just before C2Duo!

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).

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.

MetalheadGautham said:
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.

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".

MetalheadGautham said:
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.

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.

S

MetalheadGautham said:
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.

CHEAPO!

[Offtopic]I wanna build a new gaming rig. Shall I wait for i5 or grab i7?[/Offtopic]

Sunny1211993 said:
CHEAPO!

[Offtopic]I wanna build a new gaming rig. Shall I wait for i5 or grab i7?[/Offtopic]

Nothing can compare i7. If u have budget, then go for i7

keith_j_snyder2 said:
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.

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.

V

nice a cheap Nehalem, good strategy for home users.

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

^^^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 +

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.