New Intel chips out

Newegg has some new i7-800 and i5-700 chips, and boards. New socket, screw
compatibility. Looks like only four max SIMMs not six like i7-900 series, and no
L2 cache size shown in specs, just L3 and some market babble about advanced
voodoo memory and power allocation.

Only interesting feature is that one core can run like hell if the others are
idle, makes it nice for single threaded loads.

Intel has a two part manual out, in which I found nada on the L2 question.

On Sep 10, 12:31*am, Bill Davidsen <david...@tmr.com> wrote:
> Newegg has some new i7-800 and i5-700 chips, and boards. New socket, screw
> compatibility. Looks like only four max SIMMs not six like i7-900 series,and no
> L2 cache size shown in specs, just L3 and some market babble about advanced
> voodoo memory and power allocation.
>
> Only interesting feature is that one core can run like hell if the othersare
> idle, makes it nice for single threaded loads.
>
> Intel has a two part manual out, in which I found nada on the L2 question..

Three memory channels have become two, new motherboards come with four
dimm slots instead of six. Onward and upward. Core i7 920
systems are still a bargain.

Robert.

Robert Myers wrote:
> On Sep 10, 12:31 am, Bill Davidsen <david...@tmr.com> wrote:
>> Newegg has some new i7-800 and i5-700 chips, and boards. New socket, screw
>> compatibility. Looks like only four max SIMMs not six like i7-900 series, and no
>> L2 cache size shown in specs, just L3 and some market babble about advanced
>> voodoo memory and power allocation.
>>
>> Only interesting feature is that one core can run like hell if the others are
>> idle, makes it nice for single threaded loads.
>>
>> Intel has a two part manual out, in which I found nada on the L2 question.
>
> Three memory channels have become two, new motherboards come with four
> dimm slots instead of six. Onward and upward. Core i7 920
> systems are still a bargain.
>
I don't know how you measure 'bargain' in your terms, by performance/$ or
performance/watt it looks as if the newer chip win. The 920 is a bargain by
those measures only when compared to other 900 series chips. From memory the i5
part has 64-bit but not virtualization, that's an issue for many uses, since VM
is becoming common. I looked at an i7-920 system and didn't think it was cost
effective. When the 35nm parts come out the 920 will drop in price and I will
probably build a small system around that, drop in 12GB of ram and move more VMs
there. I just built a small 3TB RAID box with eSATA, so I'm ready to go when
that happens.

On Sep 18, 5:19*pm, Bill Davidsen <david...@tmr.com> wrote:
> Robert Myers wrote:
> > On Sep 10, 12:31 am, Bill Davidsen <david...@tmr.com> wrote:
> >> Newegg has some new i7-800 and i5-700 chips, and boards. New socket, screw
> >> compatibility. Looks like only four max SIMMs not six like i7-900 series, and no
> >> L2 cache size shown in specs, just L3 and some market babble about advanced
> >> voodoo memory and power allocation.
>
> >> Only interesting feature is that one core can run like hell if the others are
> >> idle, makes it nice for single threaded loads.
>
> >> Intel has a two part manual out, in which I found nada on the L2 question.
>
> > Three memory channels have become two, new motherboards come with four
> > dimm slots instead of six. *Onward and upward. *Core i7 920
> > systems are still a bargain.
>
> I don't know how you measure 'bargain' in your terms, by performance/$ or
> performance/watt it looks as if the newer chip win. The 920 is a bargain by
> those measures only when compared to other 900 series chips. From memory the i5
> part has 64-bit but not virtualization, that's an issue for many uses, since VM
> is becoming common. I looked at an i7-920 system and didn't think it was cost
> effective. When the 35nm parts come out the 920 will drop in price and I will
> probably build a small system around that, drop in 12GB of ram and move more VMs
> there. I just built a small 3TB RAID box with eSATA, so I'm ready to go when
> that happens.

If you don't need virtualization and don't care about the loss of a
memory channel and dimm slots, sure, an i5 system might save you a
hundred dollars. It was my impression that production of the three-
channel systems would not be continued in the long run.

Robert Myers.

Robert Myers wrote:
> On Sep 18, 5:19 pm, Bill Davidsen <david...@tmr.com> wrote:
>> Robert Myers wrote:
>>> On Sep 10, 12:31 am, Bill Davidsen <david...@tmr.com> wrote:
>>>> Newegg has some new i7-800 and i5-700 chips, and boards. New socket, screw
>>>> compatibility. Looks like only four max SIMMs not six like i7-900 series, and no
>>>> L2 cache size shown in specs, just L3 and some market babble about advanced
>>>> voodoo memory and power allocation.
>>>> Only interesting feature is that one core can run like hell if the others are
>>>> idle, makes it nice for single threaded loads.
>>>> Intel has a two part manual out, in which I found nada on the L2 question.
>>> Three memory channels have become two, new motherboards come with four
>>> dimm slots instead of six. Onward and upward. Core i7 920
>>> systems are still a bargain.
>> I don't know how you measure 'bargain' in your terms, by performance/$ or
>> performance/watt it looks as if the newer chip win. The 920 is a bargain by
>> those measures only when compared to other 900 series chips. From memory the i5
>> part has 64-bit but not virtualization, that's an issue for many uses, since VM
>> is becoming common. I looked at an i7-920 system and didn't think it was cost
>> effective. When the 35nm parts come out the 920 will drop in price and I will
>> probably build a small system around that, drop in 12GB of ram and move more VMs
>> there. I just built a small 3TB RAID box with eSATA, so I'm ready to go when
>> that happens.
>
> If you don't need virtualization and don't care about the loss of a
> memory channel and dimm slots, sure, an i5 system might save you a
> hundred dollars. It was my impression that production of the three-
> channel systems would not be continued in the long run.
>
I'm sure there are a lot of people in that position, and frankly I bet 90% of
them don't benefit from 64 bit capability either. The average person hears that
and thinks it will be twice as fast, when the truth is it will use slightly more
memory for the same small program, and that's about it. People running the
address space intensive applications will get some benefit, but otherwise not so
much. An application using less than 2GB memory is unlikely to run any better as
64 bit than 32 bit.

I doubt that more than 10% of all desktop users would benefit at all from 64
bit, although that doesn't stop them from demanding it.

shut the F U C K up

On Sep 21, 4:01*pm, Bill Davidsen <david...@tmr.com> wrote:
>
> > If you don't need virtualization and don't care about the loss of a
> > memory channel and dimm slots, sure, an i5 system might save you a
> > hundred dollars. *It was my impression that production of the three-
> > channel systems would not be continued in the long run.
>
> I'm sure there are a lot of people in that position, and frankly I bet 90% of
> them don't benefit from 64 bit capability either. The average person hears that
> and thinks it will be twice as fast, when the truth is it will use slightly more
> memory for the same small program, and that's about it. People running the
> address space intensive applications will get some benefit, but otherwisenot so
> much. An application using less than 2GB memory is unlikely to run any better as
> 64 bit than 32 bit.
>
> I doubt that more than 10% of all desktop users would benefit at all from64
> bit, although that doesn't stop them from demanding it.

To be honest, I have no idea what Intel was thinking when it put all
that bandwidth out there, but I like it, even if it's useless to
everyone else. I mean, what are we going to do with all that power
has been the running joke since forever on some forums.

*No one* seems to be making 4gb non-ecc ddr3 dimms at a reasonable
price. Maybe the 4 (as opposed to 6) memory slot boards will change
that.

Robert.

Robert.

Robert Myers <> wrote:
> If you don't need virtualization and don't care about the loss of a
> memory channel and dimm slots, sure, an i5 system might save you a
> hundred dollars. It was my impression that production of the three-
> channel systems would not be continued in the long run.

i7 920 is already being phased out, although as far as I know the higher-end
9xx models are all on the roadmap for a while longer.

AFAIK, the 8-core chips will be socket 1366 and triple-channel memory, and
the additional bandwidth may well be a bigger deal for those. I'm not sure
if a desktop 8-core is in the short term cards though (at least as an
Extreme Edition) or if it will only be sold as Xeons to begin with.

--
Nate Edel http://www.cubiclehermit.com/
preferred email |
is "nate" at the | "I do have a cause, though. It's obscenity. I'm
posting domain | for it."

Bill Davidsen <> wrote:
> L2 cache size shown in specs, just L3 and some market babble about advanced
> voodoo memory and power allocation.
<...>
> Intel has a two part manual out, in which I found nada on the L2 question.

L2 on the i7 9xx is 256kb per core. i7 8xx and i5 750 are also the same.

--
Nate Edel http://www.cubiclehermit.com/
preferred email |
is "nate" at the | "I do have a cause, though. It's obscenity. I'm
posting domain | for it."

On Sep 27, 3:14*am, archm...@sfchat.org (Nate Edel) wrote:

> i7 920 is already being phased out, although as far as I know the higher-end
> 9xx models are all on the roadmap for a while longer.

I thought it was 940 that was disappearing right away. More
confusion.

Vendors seem less desperate to sell 920 systems cheap, for whatever
that says.

> AFAIK, the 8-core chips will be socket 1366 and triple-channel memory, and
> the additional bandwidth may well be a bigger deal for those. *I'm not sure
> if a desktop 8-core is in the short term cards though (at least as an
> Extreme Edition) or if it will only be sold as Xeons to begin with.

Depends on who you are. 9xx surprised me. Intel for once stopped
scrimping on memory bandwidth. Guess they decided that was a mistake.

Robert.