Intel Core i7-975 Extreme Edition

Where has the time gone? It feels like (to me, at least), that Intel just dropped their Core i7 launch processors, but in reality, it happened a full seven months ago. That's a long time in CPU years, so what about a follow-up? Don't fret... Intel is delivering just that today, although exact availability is yet to be seen.

To quickly recap, in November of 2008, Intel kick-started their i7 line-up with the mainstream i7-920 ($284), the mid-range i7-940 ($562) and also the high-end i7-965 Extreme Edition. Since then, nothing else Core i7 has launched, although a few Core 2 Quad's have, such as the S series (power-efficient) and also some budget Quad-Core.

Intel today launches two models that are set to replace two already launched. The main focus from the company is the i7-975, an Extreme Edition, which boosts the i7-965's clock speed from 3.2GHz to 3.33GHz. It's a sure thing that the i7-975 will eventually replace the i7-965 wholly, but when that will happen is unknown.

Also new is the i7-950, a 3.06GHz part that bumps the clock speeds of the i7-940 from 2.93. Like the i7-975, this model is likely to entirely replace the i7-940. It's important to note that speculated pricing for these two new models put them a little more expensive than the previous parts, but it's highly doubtful that they will stay at such prices for long.

Closer Look at Intel's Brand-New i7's

The i7-950 and i7-975 are more evolutionary than revolutionary, or as many like to call them... "speed bumps", meaning that the architecture is the same, but the clocks experience a boost. Although Intel hasn't been entirely open about any other changes made, it's been rumored that minor changes have also been made to the chip to help improve overclocking, but we'll have to wait and see what overclockers can accomplish before we settle on that.

As you can see in the chart below, Intel currently has a huge line-up of CPUs (excluding Dual-Core), with five Core i7 total. Core i5 will soon be added to this list, but not until around late August/early September when the chips start to flow to the market. As it stands though, the top two models are the only to use a 6.4GT/s QPI, while the others use 4.8GT/s, although the real-world differences between the two are difficult to pinpoint.

Quad-Core CPU Name	Cores	Clock	Cache	QPI/FSB	TDP	1Ku Price
Intel Core i7-975 Extreme Edition	4	3.33GHz	8MB	3200MHz	150W	$999
Intel Core i7-965 Extreme Edition	4	3.20GHz	8MB	3200MHz	150W	$999
Intel Core i7-950	4	3.06GHz	8MB	2400MHz	130W	$???
Intel Core i7-940	4	2.93GHz	8MB	2400MHz	130W	$562
Intel Core i7-920	4	2.66GHz	8MB	2400MHz	130W	$284
Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9775	4	3.20GHz	2 x 6MB	1600MHz	150W	$1,499
Intel Core 2 Extreme Q9650	4	3.00GHz	2 x 6MB	1333MHz	130W	$316
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550S	4	2.83GHz	2 x 6MB	1333MHz	65W	$369
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550	4	2.83GHz	2 x 6MB	1333MHz	95W	$266
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9400S	4	2.66GHz	2 x 3MB	1333MHz	65W	$320
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9400	4	2.66GHz	2 x 3MB	1333MHz	95W	$213
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9300	4	2.50GHz	2 x 3MB	1333MHz	95W	$266
Intel Core 2 Quad Q8400S	4	2.66GHz	2 x 2MB	1333MHz	65W	$245
Intel Core 2 Quad Q8400	4	2.66GHz	2 x 2MB	1333MHz	95W	$183
Intel Core 2 Quad Q8300	4	2.50GHz	2 x 2MB	1333MHz	95W	$183
Intel Core 2 Quad Q8200S	4	2.33GHz	2 x 2MB	1333MHz	65W	$245
Intel Core 2 Quad Q8200	4	2.33GHz	2 x 2MB	1333MHz	95W	$163

While we don't have an i7-950 on-hand, we do have an i7-975 Extreme Edition. So, let's see how it compares to our entire line-up of processors, including its predecessor, the i7-965.

Why the Core i7 is awesome, Light Peak, and syncing computers

The Intel Developer Forum looks to be an excuse for Intel to show off all the cool stuff they’ve been cooking up and let PC makers show off some of their products. Of course there’s a multitude of technical sessions each day, though those probably won’t interest many people outside developers and engineers. Today we have two new announcements from Intel: a formal announcement of new processors and a new optical cable technology as well as an interesting syncing technology.

Why the Core i7 Mobile is a big deal

The first announcement comes in form of the official announcement of the Intel Core i7 Mobile Processor. We’ve already seen laptops that use the Core i7 Mobile and now Intel is showing it off. According to Intel, the Core i7 Mobile will bring the power of a desktop PC to a laptop, allowing for much more complex tasks like audio mixing, multiple camera video editing, and high-end gaming. Having seen the difference a Core i7 in a desktop can make, Intel’s claims should be more or less true. Now all we need is for more companies to put these into laptops, a MacBook Pro with a Core i7 Mobile would be fantastic.

Light Peak to replace wires

The second announcement is Intel’s new Light Peak, a new way of connecting devices. Those devices can include anything from peripherals, computer, hard drives, displays, and docking stations among others. It’s all done through optical wires about the width of a human hair, which can replace any sort of wire and can even connect through current connections like USB. Light Peak can transfer data at 10Gb/s when it will be released in 2010 and will be scalable to 100Gb/s over the next decade, which should be able to handle just about any size file with amazing speeds.

Sync computers regardless of OS

In terms of non-Intel announcements, we have Syncables which is showing off its cross-platform syncing application. Syncables Desktop is truly cross-platform, working on Linux as well as Windows and Mac, and allows you to fully sync multiple machines. This includes media, bookmarks, email and any other documents you want to sync. The application also has Facebook and YouTube integration for easy uploading of media. The company is showcasing NetworkSync at IDF, which allows for easy collaboration and streaming through any network.

Intel Core i7-870 & i5-750 - Nehalem for the Mainstream

Welcome to Lynnfield, also known as the worst-kept secret in history. Where technology is concerned, it's not uncommon to see details released (rather, leaked) about a product long before its launch, but with Lynnfield, the months leading up to this day have been something else. The question lately hasn't been so much, "What do we know?", but rather, "What don't we know?"

I have to admit, that because of this, publishing this article that we put so much time and effort into doesn't feel quite as rewarding as it should. This is thanks in part not only to the flood of leaks of month's past, but more because certain e-tailers don't seem to mind breaking embargo by actually selling Lynnfield processors and P55 motherboards long before the launch.

While I wish some of the above events never occurred, the fact that Lynnfield was such an exciting product to test pretty-well overshadows them. Yes, I'm going to jump into the conclusion early... Lynnfield is amazing, and in many ways, I consider this launch to be much more important than Nehalem's last fall. Why? As Intel puts it, this is "Core i for the mainstream".

That quote is spot-on, because that's just what Lynnfield is. When Nehalem launched last fall, Intel introduced a brand-new processor architecture that instantly became the best we'd ever seen. The processors were faster than the previous Penryn models, and with the addition of HyperThreading, a triple-channel memory controller and L3 Cache, Nehalem didn't just push the bar higher, it jumped while doing it.

But, there were a few sizable caveats that prevented as much adoption as there could have been. First was the pricing, with the least-expensive model, the Core i7-920, selling for near $300. That of course would have been easy to stomach if the motherboards didn't start out at $250. Couple those factors along with the limited availability of LGA1366 CPU coolers and (at the time) expensive DDR3 triple-channel kits, and the rough economy... it's no wonder most consumers decided to settle for Core 2.

Welcome to Intel's LynnfieldThe good news is that Lynnfield is different in almost all regards. With the introduction of the Core i5-750, we finally have a ~$200 option. We're avoiding ultra-expensive motherboards this time around also, as companies such as ASUS and Gigabyte are prepping to release boards that range anywhere from $140 - $300. And because Lynnfield drops us back to a dual-channel memory controller, memory kits are plentiful, and affordable.

During the Nehalem launch, one major complaint I had was that it was near impossible to find a Core i7 CPU cooler at launch. There just weren't any. I'm not sure who's fault that was, but it doesn't matter, because this is another bad situation that we're avoiding. For the past six months, companies have boasted their LGA1156 CPU coolers and mounts, so you can expect a wide-variety of models to become immediately available.

One reason for the lack of delay from the CPU cooler vendors is seen below:

Core i5-750 (Left) & Core 2 Extreme QX9770 (Right)

That's right... compared to the Core 2 Quad of old, the IHS and chip as a whole is almost exactly the same size. The mounts themselves are different, though, so don't expect much luck with trying to use an LGA775 mount on a P55 motherboard.

Like Nehalem, there are many more contacts on the back thanks to all that's bundled under the hood, so Intel has used its creativity in laying them out. Rather than simple circles, they're oval, and placed at an angle. Of course, none of that really matters in the end, but it does result in the CPU remaining a modest size, so that's important.

But what about the die itself? That comes in at 296mm^2 (compared to 107mm^2 of recent Core 2 Quads and 263mm^2 of Nehalem Core i7's). That's right. It might be a scaled-back version of Nehalem, but the die itself is larger thanks to the introduction of other components. The new Lynnfield chips cram 774 million transistors under the hood, while Nehalem Core i7's have 731 million.

Core i5-750 (Left) & Core 2 Extreme QX9770 (Right)

Each time a new processor model is launched, the first question on everyone's mind regards price drops. To clear the air, there will be no immediate price drops on either the Core i or Core 2 line-up - at least, not right now. Because of this, the Core i5-750 takes the crown for being the best value for the buck, as it retails for only ~$200 and manages to beat out the entire Core 2 Quad line-up in all of our tests.

Quad-Core CPU Name	Cores	Threads	Clock	Cache	QPI/FSB	TDP	1Ku Price
Intel Core i7-975 Extreme Edition	4	8	3.33GHz	1 + 8MB	3200MHz	130W	$999
Intel Core i7-950	4	8	3.06GHz	1 + 8MB	2400MHz	130W	$562
Intel Core i7-920	4	8	2.66GHz	1 + 8MB	2400MHz	130W	$284
Intel Core i7-870	4	8	2.93GHz	1 + 8MB	2400MHz	95W	$555
Intel Core i7-860	4	8	2.66GHz	1 + 8MB	2400MHz	95W	$285
Intel Core i5-750	4	4	2.66GHz	1 + 8MB	2400MHz	95W	$199
Intel Core 2 Q9650	4	4	3.00GHz	2 x 6MB	1333MHz	130W	$316
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550S	4	4	2.83GHz	2 x 6MB	1333MHz	65W	$320
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550	4	4	2.83GHz	2 x 6MB	1333MHz	95W	$266
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9400S	4	4	2.66GHz	2 x 3MB	1333MHz	65W	$245
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9400	4	4	2.66GHz	2 x 3MB	1333MHz	95W	$183
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9300	4	4	2.50GHz	2 x 3MB	1333MHz	95W	$183
Intel Core 2 Quad Q8400S	4	4	2.66GHz	2 x 2MB	1333MHz	65W	$213
Intel Core 2 Quad Q8400	4	4	2.66GHz	2 x 2MB	1333MHz	95W	$163
Intel Core 2 Quad Q8300	4	4	2.50GHz	2 x 2MB	1333MHz	95W	$163
Intel Core 2 Quad Q8200S	4	4	2.33GHz	2 x 2MB	1333MHz	65W	$213
Intel Core 2 Quad Q8200	4	4	2.33GHz	2 x 2MB	1333MHz	95W	$163

Yes, this list really is Intel's current line-up, even though many of the models seem a little redundant (and overpriced, given the circumstances). You can bet in the coming months this list will thin out fast, especially as more Core i models are released to replace the remaining Core 2 line-up.

Overclocking Intel's Core i5-750 & i7-870

For a lot of people, one of the best parts of getting a new CPU to upgrade or to build a new PC is to overclock the heck out of it. It's a hobby that's existed for about as long as computers, and why not? As computing enthusiasts, it's in our blood to always expect more performance from our PC's components. It doesn't even have to matter if we need that extra power. It all comes down to knowing that we're getting as much performance out of our dollar as possible.

But that's not to say that overclocking doesn't have a real purpose, either. As long as you achieve what could be considered a 100% stable clock speed, most everything you do is going to get done faster. Depending on the size of the job, you may shave seconds off an encode time, or hours off of a render time. Overclocking isn't always about creating bragging rights, but making sure whatever you need to get done, gets done as fast as possible.

One other benefit of overclocking is the value proposition, as mentioned above. When the choice comes between two processor models, and one is 10% faster but 50% higher in price, it's hard to resist picking up the lesser-expensive part and overclocking it. Once again, depending on your situation and what you need to get done on your PC, overclocking essentially boils down to one thing: free performance.

With the launch of their Core 2 series in the summer of 2006, Intel blew the doors open to mainstream overclocking. Prior to that, overclocking was considered tedious, and too sketchy, and it resulted in only tech enthusiasts who paid any attention to it. Core 2, whether Intel planned it to be or not, felt like it was made for overclocking. Even if you didn't know anything about the process of overclocking, it took no more than a few minutes to figure it out, and 10% clock boosts or higher would be possible with minimal effort.

Since that processor architecture's launch, Intel has enjoyed an arguable domination where overclocking is concerned. It's not that AMD's chips don't overclock well, because they do, but Intel's chips weren't just easier to overclock, but the top-end overclocks were much more impressive. That's changed a bit since AMD's Phenom II launch, as we've seen evidenced with extreme overclocking.

Overclocking Intel's Lynnfield Processors

When Intel launched their Nehalem processors last fall (Core i7-920, i7-940 & i7-965 Extreme Edition), the process of overclocking became a little more complicated than what we were used to. Rather than worry about a Front-Side Bus (FSB) and CPU/Northbridge voltages, we all of a sudden had to take things like Uncore, QPI Link speeds and additional voltages - not to mention extra multipliers - into consideration.

But in a way, we're moving backwards (not a bad thing) with Lynnfield. There isn't as much to stress over in the BIOS, and whether this is ultimately a good thing or not will depend on how serious of an overclocker you are. Compared to X58 motherboards, we lose a bit of control with regards to voltages primarily on P55, but again, this will matter only to those who plan on achieving extreme overclocks - aka: unstable under regular conditions.

Unlike the Core 2 series before it, Lynnfield has another factor at play: Turbo. Simply put, Turbo is a technology that allows a processor to boost its performance beyond its rated speed. In the case here, if a processor has a multiplier of say, 20x (meaning, Host Clock (133MHz) * 20x), Turbo might push one core with a 22x multiplier, meaning that when active, the frequency would be Host Clock * 22x.

For a more robust explanation of what Turbo is and exactly how it works, please refer to a page we dedicated to the feature in our recent launch article. Turbo, though it may not seem it at first, is very important to achieving higher overclocks. Because we're able to go a multiplier beyond the CPU's maximum, it means we likewise reach a higher frequency. So, for more than one reason, we can thank Intel for this feature.

Another nice aspect of Lynnfield overclocking, is that unlike the X58 launch last fall, there are many motherboards that fall well under the $200 price point. The board we used for all of our testing is actually a bit above $200, at ~$220, but we're confident that the overclocks we're about to show you will be achievable on almost any launch motherboard. You might not get away with as low voltage values as we did, but it sure wouldn't take much to match or surpass what we've achieved.

Here's a shot of the motherboard we used for all of our testing and overclocking, Gigabyte's P55-UD5:

Judging by what I've experienced over the course of the past few weeks, I'd heartily recommend this board to anyone looking for a feature-robust and affordable offering. It wasn't only a pleasure to use, but made overclocking a straight-forward affair, and that's a major plus. If the price tag is a little bit higher than what you'd like to pay, Gigabyte offers many variants of their P55 series at different price-points - one as low as $140.

So how about we move right into our overclocks then, huh? Well, first, please take a moment to review our test PC specs, and also our blurb below which explains what we consider to be a stable and worthwhile overclock.

Component	Intel LGA1156 Test System
Processors	Intel Core i7-870 - Quad-Core, 2.93GHz, ~1.25v Intel Core i5-750 - Quad-Core, 2.66GHz, ~1.25v
Motherboard	Gigabyte P55-UD5 - P55-based, F3 BIOS (08/01/09)
Memory	Corsair XMS3 DHX 2x2GB - DDR3-1333 7-7-7-20-2T, 1.65v
Graphics	ATI Radeon HD 4870 512MB (Catalyst 8.11)
Audio	On-Board Audio
Storage	Intel X-25M 80GB SSD Seagate Barracuda 500GB 7200.11
Power Supply	Corsair HX1000W
Chassis	SilverStone TJ10 Full-Tower
Display	Gateway XHD3000 30"
Cooling	Thermalright MUX-120
Et cetera	Windows Vista Ultimate 64-bit

As I've mentioned in past content, I'm not as interested in finding the highest overclock possible as much as I am interested in finding the highest stable overclock. To me, if an overclock crashes the computer after a few minutes of running a stress-test, it has little value except for competition.

How we declare an overclock stable is simple... we stress it as hard as possible for a certain period of time, both with CPU-related tests and also GPU-related, to conclude on what we'll be confident is 100% stability throughout all possible computing scenarios.

For the sake of CPU stress-testing, we use LinX. Compared to other popular CPU stress-testers, LinX's tests are far more gruelling, and proof of that is seen by the fact that it manages to heat the CPU up to 20°C hotter than competing applications, like SP2004. Generally, if the CPU survives the first half-hour of this stress, there's a good chance that it's mostly stable, but I strive for a 12 hour stress as long as time permits.

If the CPU stress passes without error, then GPU stress-testing begins, in order to assure a system-wide stable overclock. To test for this, 3DMark Vantage's Extreme test is used, with the increased resolution of 2560x1600, looped nine times. If this passes, some time is dedicated to real-world game testing, to make sure that gaming is just as stable as it would be if the CPU were at stock. If both these CPU and GPU tests pass without issue, we can confidently declare a stable overclock.

Core i7 (Nehalem) Based MacBook Pros Possible in Q4 2009?

MacRumors is reporting that it is highly probable Apple will use Core i7 mobile processors in MacBooks and MacBook Pros by Q4 2009. The new 32nm Arrandale Core i7s will still be dual core, but able to process 4 threads—saving more power thanks to the smaller fabrication process plus optimised processor features.

Apple’s MacBook line was recently updated in October 2008 with 45nm Penryn processors, so the next update being prior to the release of Arrandale Core i7 processors would make sense. The 32nm processor size means a die-shrink over the existing 45nm chips, too. It is almost certain that the next line of MacBooks will be based on these new processors.

Intel are expected to also switch their desktop processors to the new 32nm design during the 4th quarter of 2009. However, Apple has never used Intel’s desktop processors in their computers. Apple’s consumer desktops, the Mac Mini and the iMac, both use mobile processors, and the professional desktops use Intel’s server processors.

Meet Intel Wolfdale: Core 2 Duo E8500, E8400 and E8200 Processors Review

Not so long ago we thought that in early 2008 we will be focusing on comparing the new AMD Phenom processors against the refreshed Intel Penryn manufactured with 45nm technological process. However, these expectations didn’t come true, and both – AMD and Intel – should be blamed for that.

It is true, at this time AMD cannot deliver mass quad-core processors working at competitive frequencies. The currently available Phenom models lose even to previous generation quad-core Intel processors, not to mention the more advanced CPUs. It is quite logical that Intel doesn’t have any significant stimulus to refresh their quad-core processor line-up, because there are simply no worthy competitors to the pretty successful Core 2 Quad on old 65nm cores these days. That is why the launch of new Core 2 Quad processors known as Yorkfield has been postponed for an indefinite period of time, at least until February or March 2008. And although Intel has found an excuse – an alleged problem in the upcoming processors caused by EMI in 1333MHz front side bus when these CPUs are used in hypothetical mainboards with 4-layer PCB design – it doesn’t sound convincing at all.

As for us, we have to state to our disappointment that it doesn’t make sense to compare Phenom against Penryn, because the former is uncompetitive, and the latter is still illusive and remains only an upcoming solution for the time being.

Nevertheless, there are more than enough interesting topics for discussion in the today’s processor market. Although Intel decided to postpone the launch of their quad-core processors on 45nm cores, the Core 2 Duo processor lineup will be refreshed with a few new models. They are going to announce three new processor models with Wolfdale codename within the next few days. They will be Core 2 Duo E8500, E8400 and E8200. These CPUs are based on the revised core manufactured with 45nm process and belong to the same Penryn family as the postponed Yorkfield CPUs. We certainly can’t disregard the arrival of mass Wolfdale processors, which promise to raise the performance bar for Intel’s dual-core solutions to a totally new qualitative level. They feature higher clock speeds, larger L2 cache and a number of other improvements. And the most pleasing thing about them is their cost, set at the same level as that of older Core 2 Duo solutions.

So, in the second half of January 2008 Intel is going to massively update their dual-core processor lineup in $160-$260 price range. This particular event became the main topic of our today’s article that will dwell on the new promising Intel processors and the changes they will bring to the mainstream desktop market.

Intel sees the bottom

Intel has sounded a note of hope that the PC market may have finally bottomed out.

Speaking on an analyst conference call after the release of Intel's Q1 results, Paul Ottellini, CEO went where no other CEO or commentator has been of late, with the statement: "I believe the worst is now behind us".

Intel's results would seem to support this, with a net profit of $647 million during the first quarter, up on a dreadful Q4, but still 55% down on the same quarter last year. Things are moving upwards, but they've fallen a long way it would seem.

Intel's official statements were guarded though, and in addition to refusing to give revenue predictions for the next quarter, the company had one big warning - enterprises still aren't spending.

Most Intel's recovery has come in the consumer space, and in consumer desktops at that. Enterprises may be struggling with desktops and notebooks that are reaching the three years plus mark, but they are choosing to struggle on with these, rather than go for a hardware refresh.

The situation is further compounded by the fact that, yes, those pesky netbooks, are still gaining popularity, maybe even with corporates, meaning that even stronger consumer sales won't mean huge revenue. While its good to hear a leader like Intel and Ottellini sounding hopeful, its still only a little bit of hope.

Intel’s latest troika of new CPUs brings Nehalem goodness to the masses

Nehalem for everyone! That simple sentence best explains Intel’s brand-new series of CPUs, which is sure to please budget users everywhere while confounding power users.

Why would a new CPU that gives you the best bang for the buck in town be greeted nervously? Because Intel’s new CPU brings with it a new socket as well as a new infrastructure. This new infrastructure is essentially a fork in the road that forces users to make a difficult choice: Save money today but get locked out of the high-end, or splurge today knowing that the budget CPU is damn near as good as the top-end part.

For the details on Intel’s new budget monster, savor our full report, consume the specs, and then digest the benchmarks to see just which path your next PC should take.

Meet Lynnfield

We normally don’t use a CPU’s code-name once its real name is known, but to help keep your head from popping off over Intel’s confusing naming scheme we’re going to rely on some code-names here for clarity.

Intel’s newest CPU family is code-named Lynnfield. The lineup includes the 2.93GHz Core i7-870, the 2.83GHz Core i7-860, and the 2.66GHz Core i5-750. Lynnfield chips use essentially the same microarchitecture as Intel’s original Core i7 CPUs, which were code-named Bloomfield, but the new CPUs are incompatible with existing Core i7 motherboards. That’s right, you could walk into a store and buy a Core i7 CPU that will not work with the Core i7 motherboard you just bought. Likewise, the Core i7 heatsink cooler you bought may not work with a new Core i7, either.

Despite its smaller size, Intel’s new Lynnfield Core i7/Core i5 CPU (right) actually features an increased transistor count of 774 million and a larger die size of 296 square millimeters, compared with the 731-million-tranny Bloomfield Core i7 (left) and its 263 square-millimeter die.

Socket Switcheroo

The most notable difference in this new crop of Core i7s is the socket. For Lynnfield, Intel is introducing the LGA1156 socket. This socket is, as stated, incompatible with the current LGA1366 motherboards and CPUs. To irk you even more, even the heatsink cooler mounting holes are incompatible, so you probably couldn’t use an LGA1366 cooler, even if you happened to have one. And even more annoying to enthusiasts, LGA775 coolers are also incompatible. Earlier this year, Intel execs told Maximum PC that LGA775 cooler compatibility was being considered for the new chip, but obviously the company has since ruled that out. To break it down: LGA1366 uses a 12cm gap, LGA1156 uses an 11cm gap, and LGA775 uses a 10cm gap. Yes, one centimeter difference and you have to dustbin your pricey high-rise cooler even though it’s capable of handling the thermals of the new chip.

We asked Intel if it was doing this just to piss people off and the company said no, it did it for legitimate engineering reasons. Intel actually lowered the height of the new direct socket load mechanism that clamps the CPU in place, which required moving the mounting holes out. Existing heatsinks capable of the thermal load should work, Intel said, so long as consumers obtain updated mounting brackets from the cooler maker. We have to also note that very new high-end coolers are coming with mounts for LGA1156 too. Still, make sure that if the box says Core i7, support for LGA1156 is included.

Although Intel wouldn’t confirm this, we’ve been told by high-end system builders that certain LGA1366 motherboards and coolers would flex enough to create a gap between cooler and CPU. The new design presumably fixes that problem.

Sockets Compared

Lynnfield Socket

Bloomfield Socket

The new budget Core i5/Core i7 CPUs use a new LGA1156 socket design (top image), which is incompatible with existing LGA1366 Core i7 motherboards and coolers (bottom image). The design eliminates traces for the third memory controller, but builds in wires that will accommodate forthcoming CPUs with integrated graphics cores.

Intel Core i7 920 and 965 review

Product:	Intel Core i7 920 and 965 Extreme processor
Manufacturer:	Intel
SKU code:	TBA
Information:	Intel
Street price:	Core i7 920 (284 USD) Core i7 965 (999 USD)

Aaah yes, my dear apprentices ... the force is strong today. Hey everybody and welcome to another Guru3D.com review. Intel’s code-named Nehalem processors have been discussed for years now, it's been pending for a long time and Intel's' marketing machine has been spinning for for a while. Today is the day that Intel is lifting the embargo on these consumer desktop processors that you guys all have known to learn as the "Nehalem" processors. The processors will become available this month, and they should be fast, they should be flexible and also, reasonably priced. What's not to like, eh?

So today Intel launches these Nehalem based puppies on the new name Core i7 as in their 7th architectural generation. A name that will catch on quickly and you'll get used to it just as quickly as well. No less then three processors are announced today and Guru3D.com will take a look at two of them. We'll do more though, later this week a couple of x58 motherboard reviews but today we'll also post an extensive Multi-GPU article to see what kind of effect Core i7 processors have on the hottest gaming gear.

But surely we start off with the processors themselves.

Nehalem (familily) processors code-named Bloomfield (Core i7) have four physical processor cores and a triple-channel DDR3 memory controller.

A new processor deserves a new motherboard, so a new chipset is announced today as well; the x58 chipset. We'll cover that mainboard in several other articles this week as well, but we really wanted a review dedicated to the new architecture first.

Speaking of architecture, what we'll do today is to have a deeper look inside the Core i7 processor, the technology, the architecture, a nice little photo-shoot and obviously a decent benchmark session to see where this product establishes itself performance wise. All in all we got a lot to cover, so hover onward to the next page where I'll show you what specifically is being launched today.

Good times, let's rock. Next page please.

Intel to eliminate toxic lead from its microprocessor chips

Intel Corp. has announced plans to stop using lead as a soldering agent in its microprocessors. Lead is a chemical element with widespread industrial use. It is particularly useful as a semiconductor, due to its specific electrical and mechanical properties. The element, however, is a highly potent toxin known to cause blood and nervous system disorders, including mental dysfunction, especially in children.

Intel began phasing out the use of lead in its products in 2002, with the introduction of a tin-silver-copper soldering alloy. This alloy had replaced lead as a soldering agent in nearly all Intel chip sets and processors by 2004, with the exception of 0.02 grams of lead that continued to be used inside each chip.

This lead will now be eliminated in favor of the tin-silver-copper alloy, beginning with the Penryn line of processors. The company plans to have its microprocessors be lead-free by the end of the year, and to phase out lead in its 65-nanometer-process chips in 2008.

The use of toxic metals in electronics manufacture has become a serious health problem worldwide. High rates of obsolescence have contributed to a global "electronic waste" problem, in which vast quantities of electronics have been ending up as garbage, particularly in Third World countries that are paid to dispose of First World waste.

Unregulated disposal of this waste, whether by landfilling, burning or even disassembly for parts, exposes local workers, residents and ecosystems to a heavy toxic payload. Lead in particular is known for its ability to contaminate soil and groundwater.

According to Solving the E-waste Problem, a United-Nations-led alliance between three U.N. agencies, 16 businesses and several government agencies and universities, electronic waste is one of the fastest-growing types of trash in the world, with levels rapidly approaching 40 million metric tons per year.