Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Intel Upgrades Hardware

Intel Lynnfield CPU Bests Nehalem In Performance/Watt 173

Posted by timothy
from the when-ndas-expire dept.
Vigile writes "Not many people have debated that Intel's Nehalem architecture is the fastest available for consumer desktop computers since it was released last year, but quite a few have complained about the cost of the platform. Intel just released new Lynnfield-based processors under both the Core i7 and Core i5 names and tests are showing the new CPUs beating Nehalem in both performance-per-watt and performance-per-dollar tests to a startling degree. And while raw performance probably still goes to the Nehalem-based Core i7 CPUs, the lower prices of motherboards and memory for Lynnfield processors will likely more than make up for it." Update: 09/08 14:03 GMT by T : There are more eye-wateringly exhaustive examinations of the new chips all over the Web; here's HotHardware's version, and Tom's Hardware's.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Intel Lynnfield CPU Bests Nehalem In Performance/Watt

Comments Filter:
  • by themysteryman73 (771100) on Tuesday September 08, 2009 @09:17AM (#29350083)
    Perhaps it's nearly time to upgrade my aging Athlon X2 5600+...

    One thing that I find interesting about this is that Intel decided to still call it "i7" when it apparently doesn't fit into the Nehalem-based i7 motherboards. As the article correctly pointed out - why not call it "i6" to prevent consumer confusion?
  • Re:Lack of focus (Score:5, Insightful)

    by afidel (530433) on Tuesday September 08, 2009 @09:24AM (#29350169)
    It's called binning and price discrimination. One is a technical/economic tool to maximize profits based on the non-perfect nature of chip manufacture, the other is the capitalists favorite tool to extract the maximum profit possible out of the consumer.
  • Re:Lack of focus (Score:5, Insightful)

    by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Tuesday September 08, 2009 @09:29AM (#29350213) Journal
    One wonders if this is a lack of focus, or if they aren't hugely interested in having the whole picture be understood(at least by end users).

    If, for instance, they are assuming that the first line of selection will be done by the (presumably informed and competent) OEM, the amount of choice the customer has to deal with is considerably reduced. You pretty much just choose the device you want, and then pick from a very limited set of chips available in that device. Server configuration is still a bit complex; but so are server applications, so server customers can suck it up.

    Aside from enthusiasts who just like following the stuff, the relevant picture isn't all that complex. If you want a netbook, you get Atom, game over. If you want an ultralight, you get some cut-down ULV version of the core2. If you get a laptop or a normal desktop, you get a core2. If you get an enthusiast model or workstation, you get a quad core. Within each device type, there are only really a few clock speed/cache size options to choose from(and, unless you are doing Serious Computing or gaming, it hardly matters which one you choose).
  • Re:Lack of focus (Score:5, Insightful)

    by afidel (530433) on Tuesday September 08, 2009 @09:38AM (#29350327)
    Wow, how is explaining the market dynamics of chip manufacturing a troll?!? Was it the use of the word capitalist? You do know that it's a perfectly valid economics term, right?
  • Re:arm (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Sockatume (732728) on Tuesday September 08, 2009 @09:40AM (#29350345)

    How is a raven like a writing desk? They're entirely different kinds of products. They're not even the same kind of computer (RISC versus CISC), but even setting that aside, you'd be better off comparing an ARM CPU to one of Intel's low-end Atom offerings.

  • Obvious (Score:1, Insightful)

    by leromarinvit (1462031) on Tuesday September 08, 2009 @09:45AM (#29350397)

    Translation: High end CPU sucks power and is expensive. News at 11.

  • by remmelt (837671) on Tuesday September 08, 2009 @09:50AM (#29350449) Homepage

    Bang for the price-of-admittance buck or bang for the total-cost-of-ownership buck?

    See, not only server farms need to pay their electricity bills. A modest system can be built in the under 50W range, where gamer systems don't have the 1000W PSU for nothing. There is a huge difference at the end of the month.

  • by nyctopterus (717502) on Tuesday September 08, 2009 @09:52AM (#29350487) Homepage

    I think it has to do with the marketing idea that you concentrate on your primary brand--in this case "Intel". You de-emphasise your sub-brands by giving them dull generic sounding names. I suspect this was the idea behind Apple changing the Powerbook and iBook brands to MacBook Pro and MacBook respectively. Emphasise the "Mac" umbrella brand.

    I think it's dumb, but there you go.

  • Re:Lack of focus (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Kjella (173770) on Tuesday September 08, 2009 @09:58AM (#29350571) Homepage

    They have to keep up the idea that there's competition by having many different brands offering many different options. Truth is that in many markets it's now a grand choice of Intel, Intel and Intel. Then you usually make more money keeping your customers confused and selling outdated or low-end processors to high-end prices than making it all very obvious. AMD is struggling badly to carve out any sort of niche where they can get a premium, delivering value processors isn't making them enough money to do what's necessary neither in R&D nor in process development. Intel on the other hand is pounding away at systems-on-a-chip, SSDs, higher-end graphics and really moving towards the Intel computer with your choice of Dell, HP or Compaq sticker. You can tell nVidia fears that future too.

  • Re:arm (Score:4, Insightful)

    by afidel (530433) on Tuesday September 08, 2009 @09:59AM (#29350575)
    More like a diesel locomotive, more absolute power burned but significantly better MIPS/Watt. If the ARM architecture gave better MIPS/Watt then you'd see supercomputers based on it, you don't.
  • Re:arm (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 08, 2009 @10:03AM (#29350625)

    They're entirely different kinds of products.

    They're both Von Neumann architectures. If my application is parallelizable and not written in assembly, I can easily switch it from running on n Lynnfield CPUs to running on m ARM CPUs. In that case, only performance-per-watt and performance-per-dollar matter.

  • Re:arm (Score:4, Insightful)

    by TheLink (130905) on Tuesday September 08, 2009 @10:33AM (#29351017) Journal
    > They're both Von Neumann architectures.

    And an alien will find there's little difference between you and a rat. Come back to planet earth sometime.

    Heck both are not even made of dark matter- that would be the most interesting point if the alien is made of dark matter (which apparently makes up >90% of the matter in the known universe, according to many scientists).
  • by baka_vic (769186) on Tuesday September 08, 2009 @10:46AM (#29351243)

    The later Pentium 4 procs were just pushing higher and higher speeds with no regards to the incredible TDP they were now producing - basically it was the epitome of a hot and expensive processor which lost to AMD at that time. The Itanium sinking also doesn't help.

    The Core stuff is from a different architecture lineage, and I guess they want to tell people that these processors were something different from the hot P4s.

    But you're right, the Core naming is retarded - Core and Core 2, are different families, the solo, duo and quad, are the number of cores...people get confused as to what the '2' means - "is it 2 cores?" etc.

  • Re:Lack of focus (Score:3, Insightful)

    by MadKeithV (102058) on Tuesday September 08, 2009 @10:52AM (#29351329)
    The only people confused are the tech-savvy people who care. The rest of the consumers are just happy with the performance of the computer / laptop they bought at the price-point they could afford, blissfully ignorant of the differences in power, cores, and battery / energy use.
    I have an Atom-based netbook. I didn't know it was an atom when I bought it. I knew it was only â199 for an ultraportable that would allow me to read PDFs, read and write office documents (in OpenOffice), and surf the web.
  • Re:arm (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Kjella (173770) on Tuesday September 08, 2009 @11:21AM (#29351779) Homepage

    What is it now, the secret Linux on ARM "this will crush Intel any day now" idiot brigade doing the modding? I guess I'm in for another dose of negative karma on this post, but wtf.... we're talking about 2-500$ quad-core CPUs with a 95W TDP. There's not an ARM processor in sight that is even remotely competing in this class. Maybe if this was about some low-end Atoms the question could have made a little bit of sense, but now it's just to laugh at. And the ARM fanbois with no humor I guess.

  • Re:arm (Score:5, Insightful)

    by GauteL (29207) on Tuesday September 08, 2009 @01:00PM (#29353271)

    Could someone please stop modding this down? It really is not a troll and the post is essentially true.

    Comparing a quad core high-performance desktop processor with a lightweight low power mobile/embedded processor would be completely pointless. An argument which the parent actually made with a little bit of humour.

    The quad core desktop processor would absolutely trash the ARM in performance, but would result in a phone that would (literally) burn a whole in your pocket for 5 minutes until it ran out of battery.

    It really is like comparing apples to oranges. Both types of processors are completely unsuitable for the main uses of the other.

    Besides I can think of at least one use for a female flyweight newbie for which I'd never consider a male heavyweight champion.

Remember the good old days, when CPU was singular?

Working...