Intel's new Core i7, Core i5 desktop chips bring faster CPUs to the mainstream
Update: Individual chip reviews are up around the Web, and the consensus seems to be universal admiration for the new Core i7's, and Core i5 especially, in terms of performance, value, and power efficiency. Scroll down to the bottom of this post for links to coverage from some of our favorite enthusiast sites.
Intel put itself far ahead of AMD technically last year with its Core i7 desktop CPUs, but the high-end prices for the Core i7 900 series made Intel's most advanced chip architecture more of a luxury than an industry standard. Monday's announcement of Intel's new, more affordable Core i7 800 series chips, as well as an even cheaper Core i5 CPU, will likely lead to Intel's most advanced chip penetrating the mainstream retail market.
Intel has three new chips to announce, as well as the new Intel P55 Express motherboard chipset to support them. The new Core i7's include the $562 2.93GHz Core i7 870, the $284 Core i7 860 at 2.8GHz, as well as the $196 2.6GHz Core i5 750 chip. Each is essentially a stripped-down version of its counterpart from the Core i7 900 series, the most affordable of which, the 2.66GHz Core i7 920, starts at about $280.
The technical sacrifices in the new chips are relatively minor. The new Core i7's have a double-channel memory interface, as opposed to triple-channel RAM in the Core i7 900's. That means new Core i7-based PC owners won't have quite as much RAM throughput, but they also save money by only having to buy two sticks of DDR3 at a time, as opposed to three with Core i7 900.
(Credit:
Intel)
The sole Core i5 chip has the same two-channel memory limit, and Intel has also stripped out the Hyperthreading capability. Hyperthreading is an Intel technique that effectively doubles the number of processing threads (adding four virtual threads to the four physical CPU cores) depending on the workload. Heavy multitaskers and those who use multithreaded software will feel the loss here, although Intel's current mainstream Core 2 Quad family, which the Core i5 may replace, has no Hyperthreading either.
To build a desktop PC around either new chip, you'll also need a new motherboard using Intel's P55 Express chipset. We've already mentioned the change to the memory interface. The next most significant change has to do with the graphics bandwidth.
Like the old Core i7-compatible Intel X58-chipset motherboards, the P55 Express boards support multiple graphics cards via Nvidia's SLI and AMD's CrossFireX technologies. The difference with P55 is that you only get half the graphics data bandwidth as with X58. You still get full 16x PCI Express throughput if you use a single card on P55 Express, but install two cards and the graphics slots become two 8x slots, as opposed to full dual-16x on X58.
PC gamers on the cusp of purchasing a mainstream or a higher-end gaming PC may face a conundrum because of the graphics bandwidth limit. But for most price-sensitive gamers, one decent midrange 3D card will provide a more than adequate gaming experience, so the graphics bandwidth limit isn't a major loss for the new chipset's intended market.
So how fast are these new CPUs? We tested a PC from Falcon Northwest Talon with a Core i7 860 overclocked from 2.8GHz to 3.39GHz and found that it competed well against Core i7 920-based PCs that cost about $500 more. You can read the full review here. We also have a $1,300 Core i7 860-based system from Velocity Micro on deck for later this week.
For standalone chip reviews, PC Games Hardware found the Core i7 860 as fast or faster than either the Core i7 920, or AMD's Phenom II X4 965 on most of its benchmarks. The Core i5 even squeezed out a few wins of its own. The other enthusiasts sites haven't posted their coverage yet, and we'll add the appropriate links as other reviews come online, but the early results indicate that the new Core i7 and Core i5 will achieve Intel's goal of bringing its latest architecture available to mainstream consumers in a competitive package.
Enthusiast review links:
Rich Brown reviews desktops and various other components and peripherals for CNET. E-mail Rich. 

Intel put itself far ahead in performance, yes. But, technically? AMD already had integrated memory controller and high speed direct connect bus.
Arab Micro Devices is a one hit wonder. They ONLY once had better cpu architecture than Intel. How long are they
going to brag about it??
Dude, their technology or invention or whatever is ancient!
And because Intel and AMD both hold patents to different elements of chip architectures and designs, both companies are tied to each other. The only possible way to remove that restriction would be in some form of a buyout, unless of course AMD falls apart. Intel could always attempt to merge with them, but then Intel would effectively become the monopoly of the industry that they're already known to be. With AMD and ATI under Intel's wing, NVIDIA would probably suffer directly, and computer/component prices would increase. Not so good for the consumer.
My advice? Respect both companies. I've enjoyed great performance from systems built off of multiple chips from the two brands. Intel quad-core chips are a force to be reckoned with, but two years ago I used some high-end dual-core AMD rigs (at the time mind you) at a LAN shop that were pretty amazing. One friend of mine has built a new machine off of one of the new Phenom chips and loves it. No reason to hate one or the other.
-BMF
@slickuser, The only reason you're are even taking sides in this is because Apple uses Intel chips. This tiresome banter from fanatical Apple zealots who blindly take the Apple-centric side is the only thing thats really ancient.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9818987-7.html
and in 2009 they pumped another 8.5 billion into AMD. Without the money from Abu Dhabi, AMD would have either out right failed or sold its name and what was left of it very cheaply to IBM or some other company interested in it.
I dont agree with his comment, but technically its correct and speaks to the real trouble AMD is/was in. I am not sure that AMD has made in money in several years now. I wonder how long that country will continue to back them.
@ odubtaig "Less than subtle racism."
Got any proof to throw out a "RACIST!@#!" claim? AMD got a lot of cash to stay alive from Duabi, so making a plan on words by changing the "A" to Arab isn't racist. Unless you feel the term "Arab" is negative, in which case look in the mirror before crying racism.
I'll start this conclusion with what AMD must do in response to Lynnfield. The Core i5 750 is a great processor at $196, in fact, it's the best quad-core CPU you can buy at that price today. In nearly every case it's faster than AMD's Phenom II X4 965 BE, despite the AMD processor costing almost another $50. Granted you can probably save some money on an integrated 785G motherboard, but if you're comparing ~$120 motherboards the AMD CPU is simply overpriced.
AMD will return soon though, Phenom II is beat this round but just like PIII vs Athlon, AMD will get its act together and come back. Or else we as consumers will get it up the you know what because Intel won't have competitive forces to be motivated to make Conroe/Bloomfield/Lynnfield etc.
The laptop equivalent to these chip should hit the market at the end of the year, and be included in laptops hereafter. Apple for one, is expected to incorporate these chips in their babies. Core i7+ Snow Leopard= we're talking serious computing power here.
first was Sont by announced the ps3 slim microsoft with prices drop down apple with the new upgrade -just 28$- now here is intel with its new powerful desktop chips
Rob for <a href="http://www.atlantarealestateinfo.com/">Atlanta Real Estate</a>
P.S. Israel also wanted to go to war with nuclear Iran but we shut down that plan.
p.s. isralies are people too!
Just wondering, because in 1999, Sega and Hitachi developed the SH-4 CPU, which is actually 128-bit.
Also, why are we still stuck below 3 GHz? According to Moore's Law, we should be out running at around 2048-bit CPUs at near 10 GHz.
Anyways, while I welcome new CPUs to the market, and hope to combine a few of these into a motherboard, I still think we're way behind the times.
what does your sh-4 comment have to do with anything relating to the article. transmeta developed and sold a 256-bit processor a few years ago, if you want more information that doesn't apply to the article at all. and that's actually more relevant since it could process both the x86 and x64 instruction set.
you apparently do not understand moore's law. it has nothing to do with a cpu bit depth or frequency.
What Moore's Law is: # of transistors doubles on an integrated circuit every 2 years.
What it isn't: Anything about bit processing or speed.
When Palestenians kill Israelis, they cowardly have women and children do the killing for them. They strap bombs on children and mentally disabled people and remote detonate from a safe hidden distance.
That being said, I've traded in vista for win 7 rc, and I like it alot better than vista. The performance difference on my desktop is negligible (core 2 quad, 4gb ram), but it is huge on my netbook (it runs as well as xp does). However, I highly prefer win 7 because of its much improved features: The new task bar + aero is just navigation bliss (compared to xp, vista and osx), and it's driver support is incredible (I haven't had to manually install a driver on anything with an internet connection since I started using it). There are some other nice things about it that I can't think of right now. But anyway, it's what vista should've been. I think it's time you upgraded from XP to the release candidate version (which is good until March, and win 7 is supposed to be out in a month or so I believe)
i think u mean Hyper Transport.
Also, I don't know where you get the idea that AMD processors are better bang for the buck on the lower end - core 2 duos pretty much held that for a long time, beat out briefly by the phenom II x4s (which were good - unlike the original phenoms), but now it seems that they've been beat out by the under $200 core i5 (it beats out the $250 phenom II x4 in the majority of the benchmarks)
Not that I dislike AMD or anything - before building a computer, I always objectively evaluate who is giving me more bang for the buck at the price I want (for both cpus and video cards), and it's just been intel for a while now. If AMD comes out with a better processor for the price, I would happily buy that (if it's when I'm buying).
- by QA_Tester September 8, 2009 8:00 PM PDT
- So far I see a bunch of comments from trolls. At the core of the AMD is Intel architecture. yeah AMD might have some advantages, but Intel has deeper pockets and better brand thanks to their marketing. A buddy of mine used to work for Compaq and he refuses to touch AMD. If AMD is so great why is it loosing money so frequently? yeah it's tough to make money in this business but it's innovation and good marketing that make the business profitable. Obviously AMD doesn't have that combo dialed in right.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (60 Comments)