Front page core i7 860 article

[NoStateofMind]

In the front page article (i7 860 review), on the last page Anand mentions that 1156 socket CPU's aren't a flop but they just aren't selling as well as hoped. He mentioned that the reason was price, do you think so? The price IMO is pretty competitive.

 

[Jumpem]

The price difference between s1156 i7 860 and s1366 i7 920 is negligible really.

 

[Wuzup101]

I probably won't be buying one for some time. Honestly, there are too many good sub 200 processors at the moment. Too expensive for the performance... that's debatable... the performance is there... problem is... I really don't need any more performance than the C2Q processors offer (just bought a q9550 for my brother b/c I already had a spare P45 mobo to use). I would expect that q9550 to be able to run pretty much anything that comes out for a while.

 

[drizek]

I think most people who want/need a quad core bought one already, and lynnfield doesn't really provide much of an advantage for real world scenarios(ie. gaming and general application performance). The only quad cores that are less than stellar are the lower end Phenom Is, but all those people would just upgrade to Athlon II or Phenom II due to socket compatibility.

If you have a Core 2 Quad, you are probably best off waiting for the 32nm Quads.

I really don't see the market for Lynnfield TBH. The people who want the absolute greatest performance would have already bought Bloomfield, the people on the rung below them can stick it out with Phenom II/C2Q until 32nm quads come out, and mainstream users who don't need all that power are better off waiting for Clarkdale.

 

[Jumpem]

Originally posted by: drizek
I think most people who want/need a quad core bought one already, and lynnfield doesn't really provide much of an advantage for real world scenarios(ie. gaming and general application performance). The only quad cores that are less than stellar are the lower end Phenom Is, but all those people would just upgrade to Athlon II or Phenom II due to socket compatibility.

If you have a Core 2 Quad, you are probably best off waiting for the 32nm Quads.

I really don't see the market for Lynnfield TBH. The people who want the absolute greatest performance would have already bought Bloomfield, the people on the rung below them can stick it out with Phenom II/C2Q until 32nm quads come out, and mainstream users who don't need all that power are better off waiting for Clarkdale.

People like me coming from a C2D e6600.

 

[nyker96]

I said this in other thread, 1156 right now only makes sense for people who want a cut down i7 line like the i5-750 or i3s. the i7 860 dont make too much sense costing as much as the real thing. that means all you get is the cost saving in the board nothing else. that might now be reason enough to go 1156 since 1366 also can support 6core and future 8cores from intel while 1156 is just it, going up to a 4core 32nm is all. like i said, only for people buying i5s i3s cpus.

 

[Idontcare]

Too expensive.

Intel wants the masses to be motivated to buy $300 cpus but AMD offers more than enough processing power below that pricepoint.

Unfortunately for Intel they relegated the lowest end SKU's to be their penryn/yorkfield chips so the choices people see at Best Buy are (1) Intel's latest and greatest for >$280 minimum, (2) AMD's latest and greatest topping out at $300 and getting cheaper, or (3) last-years Intel cpu's for <$300.

My parents don't know AMD from Intel when it comes to performance, but they do make the assumption that old stuff is slower than new stuff, so when they compare AMD's new stuff to Intel's new stuff they just conclude Intel's new stuff is waaaaay over-priced but they sure as hell ain't going to buy the old stuff from Intel if they can get the new stuff from AMD for the same price.

(I'm not kidding, I just recently had the upgrade to new desktop discussion with my dad, and his conclusion? ditch the desktop and get two $400 laptops, one for him and one for mom)

Just what percentage of the consumer market needs more than 4C/4T and more than 3GHz?

 

[Jumpem]

Originally posted by: nyker96
I said this in other thread, 1156 right now only makes sense for people who want a cut down i7 line like the i5-750 or i3s. the i7 860 dont make too much sense costing as much as the real thing. that means all you get is the cost saving in the board nothing else. that might now be reason enough to go 1156 since 1366 also can support 6core and future 8cores from intel while 1156 is just it, going up to a 4core 32nm is all. like i said, only for people buying i5s i3s cpus.

I want the faster option for gaming. Which is the i7 860, not the i7 920. I don't want to rely on overclocking.

 

[LoneNinja]

Personally I voted that they are too expensive. This socket is suppose to be mainsteam, well I don't call >$200 processors with >$100 motherboards mainstream either. Personally I've never spent over $150 for either a processor or a motherboard.

 

[jjmIII]

I think the price will come down some more...still new. Soon OEMs will make them mainstream.

 

[MODEL3]

It's too soon (2 weeks only since the launch) to say if Lynnfields will sell or not according to the expecations.
We had the same 775 socket for 5 years.
Every time a new processor came, out there were already motherboards to the market to take advatage of the new processor. (new PC or upgrade)

Now we have a new socket.
It is very probable some vendors/retailers to have 775 mobos in stock. (I guess for this sector (Motherboards) , usually stock rotation is 1 month for mobos, probably fastest case scenario 0,5 month, i am talking when buying from asia source directly)

We have to wait one month before to start to count the sales of 1156 in order to have valid view regarding sales.

Also in the past 5 years many people that wanted to buy a new PC or upgrade their CPU had a new 775 CPU choice.
Now if someone (Intel user) wants to upgrade only the CPU, must stick to 775.

And because of the recession, i guess more people now will think to upgrade only their CPU (if it makes sense for their situation) in relation with what was happening in the past.

The Core i5 750 price ($196) is fine (more than fine...) and i think traditionally this is one of the best price levels regarding volume.
Q3 2006 launch 6300 183$ 6400 223$ or before that in 2005 530 at 183$ or 540 at 217$

For me, this situation will last 1 month or 2 months tops, it is just the socket change...

EDIT*
In january Intel will launch the Clarks. I suppose AMD will launch new models then (Phenoms II & Athlons II) and lower the prices of the older models:
Let's see the $200-$100 models:

Core i5 660 3,33GHz/3,6GHz turbo 2C/4T 4MB cache +IGP at $196
Core i5 650 3,2GHz/3,46GHz turbo 2C/4T 4MB cache +IGP at $176
Core i3 540 3,06GHz/no turbo 2C/4T 4MB cache +IGP at $143
Core i3 530 2,93GHz/no turbo 2C/4T 4MB cache +IGP at $123

And after some time will launch also:
45nm Core i5 760 2,8GHz/3,33GHz turbo 4C/4T 8MB cache at $196

I suppose AMD will have then (january 2010):

Phenom II X4 965 3.4GHz 4C/4T 2+6MB cache at $189 street price
Phenom II X4 955 3.2GHz 4C/4T 2+6MB cache at $169 street price
Athlon II X4 640 3.0GHz 4C/4T 2MB cache at $122
Athlon II X4 630 2.8GHz 4C/4T 2MB cache at $99

I like the Core i3 530. (for my needs...)

 

[lopri]

It's price-competitive, but it lacks some oomph for those who have been waiting for it. And there are a couple of monkey wrenches thrown at those who have put off upgrading to 920/X58 in anticipation of Lynnfield. Lower prices would have helped with this crowd.

I still like its power/heat characteristics and believe it is the platform to go for at the high-end of spectrum, but it is very understandable a potential buyer might give a second thought at i7-920.

 

[Shmee]

Probably price, and the not so good OC's compared to the 920 D0's. Many motherboard makers try to market them as extreme gaming and OC platforms, but for that pupose x58 or even P45 platforms are better.

 

[alyarb]

Originally posted by: Idontcare
Too expensive.

Intel wants the masses to be motivated to buy $300 cpus but AMD offers more than enough processing power below that pricepoint.

Unfortunately for Intel they relegated the lowest end SKU's to be their penryn/yorkfield chips so the choices people see at Best Buy are (1) Intel's latest and greatest for >$280 minimum, (2) AMD's latest and greatest topping out at $300 and getting cheaper, or (3) last-years Intel cpu's for <$300.

My parents don't know AMD from Intel when it comes to performance, but they do make the assumption that old stuff is slower than new stuff, so when they compare AMD's new stuff to Intel's new stuff they just conclude Intel's new stuff is waaaaay over-priced but they sure as hell ain't going to buy the old stuff from Intel if they can get the new stuff from AMD for the same price.

(I'm not kidding, I just recently had the upgrade to new desktop discussion with my dad, and his conclusion? ditch the desktop and get two $400 laptops, one for him and one for mom)

Just what percentage of the consumer market needs more than 4C/4T and more than 3GHz?

how old are your parents? what resolution were the laptops? 1280x800?

 

[SmCaudata]

It seems to me that the problem is not with the CPU prices but with the motherboard prices. You can get a well featured C2D board for much, much less than the P55 boards. The integrated memory controller and PCI express was supposed to make things less expensive.

I think if the motherboards were on par with the p45 boards, things would be viewed differently. As it stands now the ASRock x58 extreme is $169 which is not much more than a full ATX P55 board. The ASRock P55 extreme is $149 at the egg. You can reduce cost with the microATX boards but then you give up something in doing that. IMO the baseline full ATX boards need to be in the $100 range (33% less) to be competitive.

X58
+Full x16 PCIe for up to three cards on some boards, two on the ASRock.
+Three channel memory kits that are not much more than a dual. 6GB should be more than enough for most users where some may want to go to 8GB on a P55.
+Crazy overclockability in the 920.

X55
+Power Savings
+Turbo Mode making them the best gaming chips out there when you don't overclock and use only one video card.

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: MODEL3
It's too soon (2 weeks only since the launch) to say if Lynnfields will sell or not according to the expecations.
We had the same 775 socket for 5 years.
Every time a new processor came, out there were already motherboards to the market to take advatage of the new processor. (new PC or upgrade)

Now we have a new socket.
It is very probable some vendors/retailers to have 775 mobos in stock. (I guess for this sector (Motherboards) , usually stock rotation is 1 month for mobos, probably fastest case scenario 0,5 month, i am talking when buying from asia source directly)

We have to wait one month before to start to count the sales of 1156 in order to have valid view regarding sales.

Also in the past 5 years many people that wanted to buy a new PC or upgrade their CPU had a new 775 CPU choice.
Now if someone (Intel user) wants to upgrade only the CPU, must stick to 775.

And because of the recession, i guess more people now will think to upgrade only their CPU (if it makes sense for their situation) in relation with what was happening in the past.

The Core i5 750 price ($196) is fine (more than fine...) and i think traditionally this is one of the best price levels regarding volume.
Q3 2006 launch 6300 183$ 6400 223$ or before that in 2005 530 at 183$ or 540 at 217$

For me, this situation will last 1 month or 2 months tops, it is just the socket change...

EDIT*
In january Intel will launch the Clarks. I suppose AMD will launch new models then (Phenoms II & Athlons II) and lower the prices of the older models:
Let's see the $200-$100 models:

Core i5 660 3,33GHz/3,6GHz turbo 2C/4T 4MB cache +IGP at $196
Core i5 650 3,2GHz/3,46GHz turbo 2C/4T 4MB cache +IGP at $176
Core i3 540 3,06GHz/no turbo 2C/4T 4MB cache +IGP at $143
Core i3 530 2,93GHz/no turbo 2C/4T 4MB cache +IGP at $123

And after some time will launch also:
45nm Core i5 760 2,8GHz/3,33GHz turbo 4C/4T 8MB cache at $196

I suppose AMD will have then (january 2010):

Phenom II X4 965 3.4GHz 4C/4T 2+6MB cache at $189 street price
Phenom II X4 955 3.2GHz 4C/4T 2+6MB cache at $169 street price
Athlon II X4 640 3.0GHz 4C/4T 2MB cache at $122
Athlon II X4 630 2.8GHz 4C/4T 2MB cache at $99

I like the Core i3 530. (for my needs...)

If you look at that Core i3 for $123, then compare it to todays price of $126 for both the Athlon II X2 245 (2.9 Ghz, 65w) AND a Gigabyte GA-MA785GM-US2H (785G graphics with all the bells and whistles), I don't see the reason for the i3 at that level. A few percentage points of speed aren't going to matter on a system like that...certainly not for the price difference.

 

[MODEL3]

Originally posted by: Viditor

Originally posted by: MODEL3
It's too soon (2 weeks only since the launch) to say if Lynnfields will sell or not according to the expecations.
We had the same 775 socket for 5 years.
Every time a new processor came, out there were already motherboards to the market to take advatage of the new processor. (new PC or upgrade)

Now we have a new socket.
It is very probable some vendors/retailers to have 775 mobos in stock. (I guess for this sector (Motherboards) , usually stock rotation is 1 month for mobos, probably fastest case scenario 0,5 month, i am talking when buying from asia source directly)

We have to wait one month before to start to count the sales of 1156 in order to have valid view regarding sales.

Also in the past 5 years many people that wanted to buy a new PC or upgrade their CPU had a new 775 CPU choice.
Now if someone (Intel user) wants to upgrade only the CPU, must stick to 775.

And because of the recession, i guess more people now will think to upgrade only their CPU (if it makes sense for their situation) in relation with what was happening in the past.

The Core i5 750 price ($196) is fine (more than fine...) and i think traditionally this is one of the best price levels regarding volume.
Q3 2006 launch 6300 183$ 6400 223$ or before that in 2005 530 at 183$ or 540 at 217$

For me, this situation will last 1 month or 2 months tops, it is just the socket change...

EDIT*
In january Intel will launch the Clarks. I suppose AMD will launch new models then (Phenoms II & Athlons II) and lower the prices of the older models:
Let's see the $200-$100 models:

Core i5 660 3,33GHz/3,6GHz turbo 2C/4T 4MB cache +IGP at $196
Core i5 650 3,2GHz/3,46GHz turbo 2C/4T 4MB cache +IGP at $176
Core i3 540 3,06GHz/no turbo 2C/4T 4MB cache +IGP at $143
Core i3 530 2,93GHz/no turbo 2C/4T 4MB cache +IGP at $123

And after some time will launch also:
45nm Core i5 760 2,8GHz/3,33GHz turbo 4C/4T 8MB cache at $196

I suppose AMD will have then (january 2010):

Phenom II X4 965 3.4GHz 4C/4T 2+6MB cache at $189 street price
Phenom II X4 955 3.2GHz 4C/4T 2+6MB cache at $169 street price
Athlon II X4 640 3.0GHz 4C/4T 2MB cache at $122
Athlon II X4 630 2.8GHz 4C/4T 2MB cache at $99

I like the Core i3 530. (for my needs...)

If you look at that Core i3 for $123, then compare it to todays price of $126 for both the Athlon II X2 245 (2.9 Ghz, 65w) AND a Gigabyte GA-MA785GM-US2H (785G graphics with all the bells and whistles), I don't see the reason for the i3 at that level. A few percentage points of speed aren't going to matter on a system like that...certainly not for the price difference.

Well, the deal for the AMD platform (CPU+Mobo) is extremely good right now.
I was talking theoritically (i am not in an upgrade phase)

But the difference is not a few percentage imo.
If you check the reviews on the web, 45nm Nehalem is 4/3x - 1,5x (average) faster clock for clock in relation to PhenomII.
Let's suppose that the 32nm updated core is not faster than the 45nm core.
Athlon II is -10% slower (average) in relation with Phenom II clock for clock.

So Core i3 530 2,93GHz=4,4GHz Phenom II=4,9GHz Athlon II
Add the hyper threading and you can say that in many cases the Core i3 530 will be twice as fast as a Athlon II X2 245. (1,5X - 2,25X)

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: MODEL3

But the difference is not a few percentage imo.
If you check the reviews on the web, 45nm Nehalem is 4/3x - 1,5x (average) faster clock for clock in relation to PhenomII.
Let's suppose that the 32nm updated core is not faster than the 45nm core.
Athlon II is -10% slower (average) in relation with Phenom II clock for clock.

So Core i3 530 2,93GHz=4,4GHz Phenom II=4,9GHz Athlon II
Add the hyper threading and you can say that in many cases the Core i3 530 will be twice as fast as a Athlon II X2 245. (1,5X - 2,25X)

?
i7 975 vs AMD 965 = 20% faster in productivity, 30% faster in Photoshop, and in games they're about equal...and for people who are buying systems at that low a price range, they won't see a bit of difference (in fact at that price range, I don't think ANYONE would see a difference).
Remember that those systems will not be playing Crysis or running databases...

 

[ShawnD1]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
In the front page article (i7 860 review), on the last page Anand mentions that 1156 socket CPU's aren't a flop but they just aren't selling as well as hoped. He mentioned that the reason was price, do you think so? The price IMO is pretty competitive.

The platform as a whole is prohibitively expensive. Cheapest 1156 motherboard on newegg is $100, but I can get a good-enough 775 board for $43. The cheapest 1156 CPU is $200, but 775 starts at $40 and ends $320.

1156 focuses on an incredibly small part of the market. These are not the kind of computers you would buy in bulk for a school or office and they're not the kind of computer you see in Best Buy that include a free printer or some other gimmick. The cost is high enough that I would not recommend a socket 1156 system to anyone unless they were gaming or something equivalent.

 

[Griswold]

Originally posted by: ShawnD1

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
In the front page article (i7 860 review), on the last page Anand mentions that 1156 socket CPU's aren't a flop but they just aren't selling as well as hoped. He mentioned that the reason was price, do you think so? The price IMO is pretty competitive.

The platform as a whole is prohibitively expensive. Cheapest 1156 motherboard on newegg is $100, but I can get a good-enough 775 board for $43. The cheapest 1156 CPU is $200, but 775 starts at $40 and ends $320.

1156 focuses on an incredibly small part of the market. These are not the kind of computers you would buy in bulk for a school or office and they're not the kind of computer you see in Best Buy that include a free printer or some other gimmick. The cost is high enough that I would not recommend a socket 1156 system to anyone unless they were gaming or something equivalent.

You're making the mistake of compareing products that are being phased out to products that just entered the market. There has to be a discrepancy. If anything, you'd have to compare it to AMDs lineup - not that it would look that much better, though... still, prices will come down. If these parts sell as bad as Anand claims, that is.

 

[faxon]

Originally posted by: ShawnD1

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
In the front page article (i7 860 review), on the last page Anand mentions that 1156 socket CPU's aren't a flop but they just aren't selling as well as hoped. He mentioned that the reason was price, do you think so? The price IMO is pretty competitive.

The platform as a whole is prohibitively expensive. Cheapest 1156 motherboard on newegg is $100, but I can get a good-enough 775 board for $43. The cheapest 1156 CPU is $200, but 775 starts at $40 and ends $320.

1156 focuses on an incredibly small part of the market. These are not the kind of computers you would buy in bulk for a school or office and they're not the kind of computer you see in Best Buy that include a free printer or some other gimmick. The cost is high enough that I would not recommend a socket 1156 system to anyone unless they were gaming or something equivalent.

yea they really need to get the i3 chips out on the market and phase out C2Q before we see mass adoption, especially at the prices you can get in some areas of the US for these things. if you are near a microcenter, the difference in cost between the 920 there vs @ newegg is the difference between getting an EVGA X58 and being within tossing distance of the classified if you buy it online, or the difference between a 275 and a 285 if you put it toward the graphics card. also, if you are an overclocker you are probably spending for a TRUE or a Megahalems + push/pull fans, and for $80 extra (160 total) you could get a swiftech MCR220, D5 pump, and an enxotech sapphire CPU block. fittings and tubing is like $15 for that small of a loop, and yate loons are cheap as hell as well. it makes it really hard as a salesman knowing this, selling the 920s to newb overclockers every day for $280, knowing full well what they could build if they went elsewhere lmao


http://www.petrastechshop.com/swmcqposerab3.html
http://www.petrastechshop.com/lad5smcin12v.html
http://www.newegg.com/Product/..._-35-708-019-_-Product

 

[Shmee]

lol Cases & Cooling is =======>



JK.
I totally agree about shopping around to find the best prices, and saving money for some upgrade elsewhere.

I kinda wish I had waited with the i7 jump, so that I wouldnt have lost money buying and selling a C0, instead I could have probably gotten the new 4x classified board(instead of teh UD5) and a D0 first time they were both available.

My costs:
UD5 = $280
C0 = $280
Super talent 6 GB 1333 MHz RAM = $90
D0 = $218

sold C0 = -$120
------------------
$748 net total

Should have done
EVGA classified 762 (4 way) = $450
920 D0 = $218
6 GB Gskill trident 2 GHz = $155
---------------------------------
$823 total

of course I see now that the new classified still isnt out yet, so I would be waiting longer. Could also save money on this(about $40) by getting the ~ $120 DDR3 1600 kit.
though I suppose I might need a bigger case to make use of the classified....IDK doesn't matter now....will XL ATX fit in a CM 690 or an El diablo?

I suppose I should have at least waited on the D0 chips, so I wouldn't bother with the C0. Would save about $160 that way, and the UD5 and good RAM would be cheaper too. Don't need the classified, though it is awesome.

I can still do 3x SLI with my UD5 if I want, 4 way seems silly, just thinking now about 2 way with another 260, :. only reason to get the new classfied would be overall awesomeness and the extreme OC capabilities and higher BCLK max.

 

[MODEL3]

Originally posted by: Viditor
?
i7 975 vs AMD 965 = 20% faster in productivity, 30% faster in Photoshop, and in games they're about equal...and for people who are buying systems at that low a price range, they won't see a bit of difference (in fact at that price range, I don't think ANYONE would see a difference).
Remember that those systems will not be playing Crysis or running databases...

But wait, in my post i said:

Originally posted by: MODEL3
I like the Core i3 530. (for my needs...)

and then you replied:

Originally posted by: Viditor
for people who are buying systems at that low a price range, they won't see a bit of difference (in fact at that price range, I don't think ANYONE would see a difference).
Remember that those systems will not be playing Crysis or running databases...

Do you know myself better than me? lol

Just kidding!

Yeah, i agree that a large portion of the consumers will not notice the difference.


Then you say about Core i3 530/Athlon II X2 245:

Originally posted by: Viditor
A few percentage points of speed aren't going to matter on a system like that...certainly not for the price difference

Now, let me see, on one hand we have the truth and on the other hand we have that AMD must survive in order for us to have healthy competition,
Oh, i see your point i was wrong about it!


But i remember your article about Sewell (now in Apple?), i suppose the reason that you telling this is not that:

Originally posted by: Viditor
the big part of the announcement (for those of us buying and selling stocks) is more that Bruce Sewell is gone

and

Originally posted by: Viditor
To be fair though, AMD stock is trading up 60% over the last month...that ain't too bad.

Just kidding.

My post is Tongue-in-cheek, not taken seriously...

 

[drizek]

The cost is high enough that I would not recommend a socket 1156 system to anyone unless they were gaming or something equivalent.

I think Phenom II or even Athlon II is particularly compelling for gamers, especially if they are on any sort of budget. It is the one area where the performance difference between AMD and Intel is a wash. If you assume a $100+ price difference between AMD and Intel CPUs offering similar gaming performance, having an extra $100 to spend on your video card can give you a huge performance boost.

CPUs these days are just plain ridiculously fast, to the point where most non-niche users don't need to even worry about it. Get something half-decent and save your money for a better video card or an SSD. I think those are the two most cost-effective upgrades that owners of relatively modern multicore systems can make.

 

[Ayah]

I'm waiting/looking for an LGA1156 that's cheap, quad core and HT. (hopefully I'm not waiting for the impossible)