The “Break it Down” Blog

Thanks goes out to Grant Gochnauer for sending in some links about the new Intel Core i7 “Nehalem” launch. While not quite the “50-100% faster” claims that Intel was making… or even the “50% faster across the board” claims they made, Nehalem is still looking like a nice upgrade over the current Core 2 architecture.

Just so you don’t have to go through the 900 reviews and links for it, here’s the gist of the new chip:

Overall a pretty impressive release. In highly paralized pieces of software (like archiving or encoding/decoding software) Nehalem blows the doors of even it’s fastest predecessors (QX9770). Unsurprisngly, in software that is mostly single threaded (like some games), a speed boost isn’t as noticable. Early systems built with these processors, memory and motherboards will be a bit expensive, so we’d suggest waiting until next year late either for the refresh, or for the cost of parts to fall.

And here’s a quick breakdown of all the hot points to take away from the reviews:

• 3.2GHz Core i7 is:
  • 25% faster than the Intel Core 2 QX9770
  • 165% faster than the AMD Phenom X4 9950
• Re-introduction of Hyperthreading, on average, provides a 6% boost in performance for current-gen software (games and applications). For example, WinRAR was 14.8% faster with Hyperthreading enabled on the Core i7.
• In highly parallized applications, the Core i7 wrecks the competition:
  • AVS & WinRAR
  • DivX & XviD (Damn!)
• The new on-die DDR3-based memory controller can actually combine up to 3 sticks of memory into a tri-channel array (as opposed to the long-lived dual-channel functionality that we’ve seen for years). This is a lot like an even faster RAID-0 configuration for your RAM.
• DDR3 offers huge boosts in bandwidth with Read/Write performance almost double what DDR2 ram offers, and comes with a much lower latency in the Nehalem platform than the Core 2 platform offering a nice boost for memory-intensive apps. (http://www.breakitdownblog.com/ddr2-800-vs-ddr3-1333-does-speed-matter/)
  • Expect to start seeing 3-packs of memory sticks when i7 platforms start shipping more mainstream.
• New X58 chipset will launch with the i7, known as “Tylersburg”
  • This is the highest-end chipset for the i7 platform, with motherboards costing more than the processors they are paired with… ouch for early adopters.
    
• Overclocking is done by adjusting the power consumption of the chip, not the clock speed.
  • Available overhead for overclocking is determined by how much the CPU draws at it’s default speed in relation to it’s maximum spec’ed level, which is 130 watts for all i7 processors. So if you get a cool-running 70 watt CPU, that will have more overclocking potential than a hot-running 110 watt CPU. Odd-sounding because we’ve never done it this way, but with the chips being certified to run at certain temperatures stably, which is ultimately all we care about, it sorta makes sense.
• Core i7 draws more power than the Core 2 platform.

Pricing – Core i7 CPUs

Pricing – X58 Motherboards

Conclusion

It looks like an entry-level Core i7 system at launch will run you $750 for the i7 CPU, X58 Motherboard and 4GB of RAM. Now assuming you need to build a whole machine, want the fastest CPU, faster RAM or a different motherboard, get ready to build yourself a $4k monster.

The Core i7 is bringing to the table a significant performance update to the table to entice people to upgrade. Unfortunately for overclockers there seems to be some fundamental design decisions on Intel’s part to stop folks from using cheaper CPUs and overclocking them to impressive levels… no more Q6600 of yester-year outperforming a newly announced CPU with the i7, that’s for sure.

For those of us that like building desktops for the golden $1500 mark (give or take), we will be well advised to wait for the 2009 refresh of the i7 die, which will include the shrink as well as an introduction of a series of lower-cost, lower-powered Core i7-based CPUs to choose from; including potentially less expensive motherboards and most definitely less expensive DDR3 solutions.

We are impressed, but reserved. There isn’t anything here that would cause us to break out into a cold sweats and want to drop $4k. Now if Intel wanted to do that, all they’d have to do is crawl into their R&D labs and release stuff slated for 2012 early… I’d drop 4k on a machine that gave me a 400% speed increase