32 nm i7 in new Mac which one is it?

[DiggyDuggy]

Hi there,

I'm trying to figure out what features the new iMac supports. Specifically virtualization. So I go poking around on http://ark.intel.com for i7 CPUs running at 2.93GHz. This yields the 870 and 875K processors. Ok so maybe it's either one of those and out of the two probably the newer one right?

Well Apple's performance page (http://www.apple.com/imac/performance.html) say's this:

"Faster processors.
New processor architecture.
Now all iMac models come standard with Intel Core processors built on a new architecture. Based on Intel’s 32-nanometer process technology, these processors set new benchmarks for iMac performance."

So based on this either apple is lying or erroneously marketing the wrong information or there is a new i7 based on 32 nm that is 4 cores, HT enabled and with 8 MB cache that doesn't show up on ark.intel.com.

Thoughts on this?

Anand is a detailed review coming up for the new top end iMac?

 

[khon]

There are 32nm i7s, but those are dualcore mobile parts.

And there will be quadcore 32nm i7 desktop parts, but those are sandy bridge models that haven't been released yet.

So in short they're wrong, no such parts exist at the moment.

The processors they actually have are the i3-540, i3-550, i5-680, i5-760 and i7-870.

 

[DiggyDuggy]

I've read the roadmaps too and understand your post - re sandy bridge.

So you've managed to confirm that Intel hasn't done a process shrink for the 870 or 875k? Isn't that a possibility?

 

[khon]

So you've managed to confirm that Intel hasn't done a process shrink for the 870 or 875k? Isn't that a possibility?

Not really. I mean its technically possible, but I don't see how they'd manage to keep it secret if they had, or why they'd even want to.

Vastly more likely is the possibility that the iMac description is wrong. It's not even that incorrect either, as 3 of the 5 processors availiable are 32nm, so all they really did was neglect to mention that the last 2 aren't.

 

[ElFenix]

intel has done special things for apple before, so it could be xeon parts. though currently they don't clock that fast.

 

[aigomorla]

Hi there,

I'm trying to figure out what features the new iMac supports. Specifically virtualization. So I go poking around on http://ark.intel.com for i7 CPUs running at 2.93GHz.

Those would probably be 1156's however none of those minus dualcores will come in 32nm as khon posted above.

 

[khon]

actually i dont think mac's use 1156 as far as i know.

They are based off 1366 like all of intel's servers parts are.

2.93ghz i7 is the 940.
http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=37148

If you look at the memory available it's pretty clear that they use a dual channel setup, which makes it the 1156 not the 1366.

 

[aigomorla]

yeah i changed my post.. khon i should of clicked on the mac link.
refresh the page. LOL..

 

[DiggyDuggy]

intel has done special things for apple before, so it could be xeon parts. though currently they don't clock that fast.

Well if by special you mean first and exclusive access to new parts than yes I agree. My understanding is that's all Apple ever negotiated with Intel.

That said, this could be a case where Apple has exclusive access to a new SKU for perhaps 3 months or so.

When this happened last time, I'm thinking Nehalem launch on the MacPro a couple years back did the CPU show up on ark.intel.com? Did ark.intel.com even exist back then?

It does certainly seem most likely that this is marketing doublespeak on Apple's part. How do you interpret standard on all iMacs? Perhaps their interpretation is that the "standard" configuration is equal to the default configuration. If this is the case the the i3 and i5 cpus that are the default configuration across all 4 models are indeed 32nm.

If true, this still leaves me wondering if i7 is the 870 or 875k.

 

[aigomorla]

Well if by special you mean first and exclusive access to new parts than yes I agree. My understanding is that's all Apple ever negotiated with Intel.

That said, this could be a case where Apple has exclusive access to a new SKU for perhaps 3 months or so.

Intel made no 32nm quadcore for 1156.

Intel doesnt even have a 32nm quadcore for consumers on 1366.
You need to jump to the xeon side.

Your asking for a cpu in which intel never planned nore intended to build because it was gonna be replaced by sandy bridge.

Khon is correct in his statement.

There is no 32nm Quadcore for 1156, nor does intel intend on doing so.
We consumers even might get lucky to see an "i7" as a 32nm b4 they force us to go on 2011.

Apples thoughts are if you need something more powerful, you would get a MacPro.
http://www.apple.com/macpro/

Which uses Intel Xeon Parts. And in august will get 32nm as a Hexcore.

 

[DiggyDuggy]

Intel made no 32nm quadcore for 1156.

Intel doesnt even have a 32nm quadcore for consumers on 1366.
You need to jump to the xeon side.

Your asking for a cpu in which intel never planned nore intended to build because it was gonna be replaced by sandy bridge.

I'm not secretly hoping it's 32nm, I was just trying to reconcile statement on the performance page that says iMacs now come standard with 32nm cpus...I concede that the Apple marketing folks would weasle their way around the fact that the i7 isn't 32nm and state that it's not a standard configuration, thus the statement is still true.

*Wild speculation* If you're intel though, you'd have to ask yourself what the push is for Sandy Bridge given the state of competition from AMD. Perhaps it's more cost effective to simply increase their profitability on a part that already commands the performance lead? Going to 32nm with a stable design is a way of doing that. I know, I know, it's completely out of character and against everything they've ever said in a roadmap...

32nm wouldn't give me anything other than lower power consumption assuming all features and characteristics are the same. I'm not much for wasting energy heating my room, but I'm not such a hippie that I care that much about ~35% better TDP.

Either way, Apple already has my money and the new box should arrive soon enough. When I finally get it I'll see if I can figure out if it's a 870 or 875k. And post an update to the thread.

Cheers.

 

[aigomorla]

i dont represent anyone.

Not intel, not amd, not nvidia, not ati.

I am just a enthusiast who got extremely lucky and made all the right connections.

And your looking at this statement:
Processor and memory

* 21.5-inch models, one of the following:
o 3.06GHz Intel Core i3 processor with 4MB level 3 cache; supports Hyper-Threading
o 3.2GHz Intel Core i3 processor with 4MB level 3 cache; supports Hyper-Threading
o 3.6GHz Intel Core i5 processor with 4MB level 3 cache; supports Hyper-Threading and Turbo Boost
* 27-inch models, one of the following:
o 3.2GHz Intel Core i3 processor with 4MB level 3 cache; supports Hyper-Threading
o 3.6GHz Intel Core i5 processor with 4MB level 3 cache; supports Hyper-Threading and Turbo Boost
o 2.8GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i5 processor with 8MB level 3 cache; supports Turbo Boost
o 2.93GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7 processor with 8MB level 3 cache; supports Hyper-Threading and Turbo Boost


Its says based off it, cuz the floor model which is an i3.

That is a 32nm.

But as you go up the chain, those become 45nm.

Actually i take this back... there might be a ULV 32nm quadcore i7 for 1156, now that i look at the sheet.
But thats NOT in the spec's on apple's website anywhere.
And that would be more of a laptop cpu, clocked @ 2.26ghz or arround there i believe.

EDIT: nope its a dualcore with HT labeled as an i7.. lol... just emailed my friend and got laughed at.

 

[richierich1212]

EDIT: nope its a dualcore with HT labeled as an i7.. lol... just emailed my friend and got laughed at.

Isn't that one of the "i7" mobile cpus?

 

[aigomorla]

Isn't that one of the "i7" mobile cpus?

yup.

i saw a i7 on the sheet, which said 32nm followed by a ULV code.

LOL..

I had to ask my friend for more info, and he laughed saying it was a 2/4t.
But got an i7 label because of the ULV code.

 

[khon]

When I finally get it I'll see if I can figure out if it's a 870 or 875k. And post an update to the thread.

I can tell you that right now, it's the 870.

To reach that conclusion just ask yourself, would Apple included a more expensive CPU whose only adantage is overclocking, in a highly integrated system that must already be struggling to get rid of heat ? I think not.

I mean just look at the iMac design, its got only one small vent along the top, and it already has components adding up to maybe 200W at full load. Not exactly the best starting point if you were looking to overclock, and that's without even considering the fact that the power supply is probably not designed for the additional power you'd need.

 

[DiggyDuggy]

I can tell you that right now, it's the 870.

And the winner is...870. Just confirmed.

Thanks.