![]() | This is the
talk page of a
redirect that has been
merged and now targets the page: • Intel Core Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at: • Talk:Intel Core Merged page edit history is maintained in order to preserve attributions. |
![]() | Intel Core i7 received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
I think there is an error, the 2 basic models (800/900) officially only support DDR3 up to 1066 MHz, and the Extreme Edition will support up to 1333 MHz memory, check the table here: http://www.techarp.com/showarticle.aspx?artno=556&pgno=2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.180.238.44 ( talk) 19:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
In the infobox, it says "FSB speed: 4.8 GT/s", this is a mistake, i7 will discontinue the use of FSB. I think we should come up with a new infobox. Greetings -- 201.212.140.93 ( talk) 04:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I tried to edit it to QPI, but now it won't display, I guess it's predefined info box. Still, I am not changing it back, no info is better than wrong info as i7 has no FSB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.35.10.117 ( talk) 13:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Don't wory, I have created a new infobox - CPU QPI. It displays, but unfortunately I believe I broke something, as GHz and GT/s won't link. If anyone can fix this, please go right ahead. Nintendo 07 ( talk) 00:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Even chips without a front side bus still have a system bus and a multiplier. I'm currently trying to figure out what they are for these chips. They should be in the same approximate range as Intel's others, though. 2933 is not evenly divisible by 333 or 400, so I figure that it must run on a 266mhz bus with a multiplier of 11. The lower-clocked chip is not likely to run on a faster bus, so it's probably 266mhz x10. The 3.2ghz part is harder to pin down, as it could be 266mhz x12 or 400mhz x8, but the smart money is on the former. I sincerely doubt that Intel would skip straight to a 533mhz bus without going through 466mhz first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.124.70.221 ( talk) 01:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
This website reports different pricing than what is shown here. 69.115.150.3 ( talk) 01:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I notice that website's source is Hardspell. If you follow the link, the Hardspelll website only has prices in Euros. Neoseeker has seemed to just convert euros to US$. This is probably a flawed way to go about it: it is likely the European prices are more than the American. 219.90.147.95 ( talk) 10:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
There are two dollar amounts given for each CPU - what's the difference? -- Vossanova o< 14:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Looks like they're out, but they're priced a bit differently than on the page. Newegg has them at $319.99, $599.99 and $1069.99. Not sure how you cite prices that can vary from place to place. - RandomEngy ( talk) 23:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
I've changed the processor order to go from lowest to highest to match all the other "list of processor" articles. -- 24.82.242.132 ( talk) 08:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Collegues: There are a flurry of new reviews: more than twenty new articles in the last few hours. We need to avoid chaos in our editing. Any thoughts on how to do this? I think we need to remove the older review refrences and then pick two or three of the most reliable of the new ones. Thre is also a chance that Intel will make some official announcements or even actually release the product. I slapped a "current event" header on the article. I also re-insteded the "future chip" header until we see an official announcement. - Arch dude ( talk) 11:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
This was removed by someone (not me) because there didn't seem to be a flurry of edits. I agree with the removal. -- XaXXon ( talk) 20:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
A new editor added the lack of ECC support as a drawback, but we need a better cite if this is indeed the case. I removed the statement as a WP:SYNTH. Please discuss here. - Arch dude ( talk) 04:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Are these really drawbacks considering, today is Nov 14, and the chip comes out on the 17th? is it a drawback on the chip if its something that WILL be corrected with time? Is it really a drawback for the architecture if in 10 years none of it will be true? By then, the chip will be dead, and presumably there will have been ecc. Also can the natural pricing of new technology being more expensive than the previous generation be considered a drawback? Why not list the chips own base price as a drawback then? -- 67.241.177.245 ( talk) 07:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
The spec sheets for ASUS bloomfield motherboards http://au.asus.com/products.aspx?l1=3&l2=179&l3=815&l4=0&model=2588&modelmenu=2. I'll try to collect all authentic ones from the manufactuers
They are releasing i7 based xeons soon, and ECC is basically a requirement with regards to servers, so there must be the ability for it. Maybe intel will add it in later revisions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.36.92.18 ( talk) 12:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
I think that the i7 has ECC capability, just disabled as market segmentation. They will likely sell you a Xeon at twice the price, identical in every way except that the ECC is enabled if you have a top-end motherboard from supermicro. Moscito ( talk) 02:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Intel said in their FAQ on the I7 that "typically ECC memory is used on servers and workstations rather than on desktop platforms.” However Microsoft published a report in 2007 rumored to say that single-bit error rates in DRAM may be among the top ten causes of systems failures, suggesting Windows users may need ECC: ‘Microsoft says PCs may need DRAM upgrade', http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=199601761 72.73.92.130 ( talk) 06:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I talked with a PogoLinux representative on April 25/2009 and he said that they ship workstations with ECC-supported Core i7 configurations. For example, here's their Core i7 standard system page: http://www.pogolinux.com/quotes/editsys?sys_id=28712 70.68.70.186 ( talk) 19:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
My 3 cents: (1) Nehalem integrates the memory controller on the die, so I don't see how the presence or absence of ECC support can be affected by mobo design or chipset selection; (2) I've studied Intel's website and have been unable to determine whether i7 or Xeons consistently do or don't support ECC; (3) The current Features section is garbled because it lists "No ECC support" as one of the "features" of the Nehalem architecture (clearly wrong because at least some Xeons support ECC) and also lists it as one of the differences from Core 2, which makes no sense because ECC support for Core 2 depends on the memory controller (which is part of the chipset) rather than the processor.
A related point re. the Features section: I don't understand how a triple-channel memory controller, each channel of which "can support one or two DDR3 DIMMs", can handle 9 memory slots. I'd think (3 x 2 =) 6 would be the max. Therealdp ( talk) 18:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
The DDR3 price "drawback" is silly, but it is asserted multiple times in the trade press, so I guess we must keep it. The actual situation is that DRAM production follows a boom-and-bust cycle, with periods of massive overproduction causing market gluts and consequent price collapses. We are currently in a market glut. During a glut, slower speed grades and older technology inventory is sold below cost, and even newer stuff is sold a break-even. Manufacturers eventually cut production and balence is restored, followed by a DRAM drought and a price spike, and the cycle repeats. In the current situation, You can buy three 1GB DDR3 DIMMs for a total of about $110 US: that's less than half the price of the cheapest processor. This objection is therefore silly. - Arch dude ( talk) 08:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Question to arch dude: given that people don't just buy 1GBx3 -- i almost never set up a workstation without 4GB of RAM (I run Linux, many people now run 64-bit versions of vista), and that if DDR3 1333 2GBx3 is about as much money as DDR2-800 2GBx4 ECC, shouldn't we consider the difference to be non-trivial? (This are both Kingston branded memory in downtown Taipei.)
Hey, I agree with some of your point, certainly for some of people it may be miniscule but if you measure it like that, then I say wow, Arch Dude, that's the price diff between a Q9650 and a Q9550. And I would venture a guess that most people who have high-end processors also tend to have more RAM. Moscito ( talk) 03:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
DDR3 can be gotten for $30 Canadian a Gigabyte. At this point it's not expensive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.230.86.52 ( talk) 20:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
The clock speed increases offered by the turbo mode are quoted as "133-266MHz" in one section and as "400MHz" in another. I've amended these to show that the step size is 133 MHz with no fixed maximum and provided a link to the Intel white paper on the technology. Juux 16:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Juux ( talk • contribs)
I can't seem to access the cited source, but the article says "In the single-threaded Super PI Template:UnsignedIP -->
There must be some kind of typo or miscalculation in the Super PI results cited in the article at the time of this comment [QX9770, 3.2GHz, 14.42s; i7 920, 2.66GHz, 11.54s]. The conclusion that this indicates a 20% advantage per clock cycle for the i7 is wrong; it should be 50%. If, however, the time for the i7 should be 15.36s, as in the anonymous comment by 12.31.231.168 above, that would represent a 13% advantage for the i7 (which is a little easier to believe). I can't seem to access the website referenced in the footnote either, or I'd find the correct times myself. If yobeta.com is kaput anyway, perhaps a completely different study should take its place in the article. — SaxicolousOne ( talk) 06:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
We need to state how much L1 cache each core has. NSK Nikolaos S. Karastathis ( talk) 03:43, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
I haven't seen any mention of the temperature range that this processor runs in. I'm referring specifically to the processor temperature not the environment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.230.86.52 ( talk) 20:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Is there noone out there who bought an i7 and could make a High-Res, free image? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.52.132.128 ( talk) 17:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be an image of the logo? Jffner ( talk) 09:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
The drawbacks section contains this statement: "Core i7's are healthy for your motherboard (mainboard)." Really doesn't make sense to me. Spam? Errantkid ( talk) 14:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Under the drawbacks section is says:
more recent testing done on all clock rates of official hardware with final drivers and BIOS revisions show that Core i7 at the very least beats Yorkfield clock-for-clock...
How on earth can a driver (who is run by the processor) make the processor perform better?! A CPU have a number of instruction it can run pr clock and a good driver will maybe use fewer instructions so that you can run more code pr clock. So indeed we can get a performance increase by writing better software but the CPU itself is NOT able to execute more instructions pr clock (perhaps unless a microcode update is performed).
So my point is : with smarter tuned software you are able to do more stuff in a set timeslice but the processor itself can't execute more instructions pr clock than what it was designed for! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.213.182.76 ( talk) 09:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
A request has been made at the comptuer project to assess this article, however briefly looking ove rhte article suggest to me it is B class maybe GA class, if it meets B class but might meet GA clas si will have ot decline to review it and oyu will have ot submit it for a GA review-- Andy ( talk - contrib) 00:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
B1=no (source number 5 and 6 and 8 and 14 fails relible sources as it is a blog/forum)
B2=yes
B3=yes
B4=no (i say nop because it use a lot of bullet poitns it should be written in essay format)
B5=yes
B6=yes
the articel faiols on the above for b assessment fix them and as arch dude said update the aritcle as it is out of date-- Andy ( talk - contrib) 15:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Fellow editors, we are in the early stages of a real mess.
The processor described on this page is the consumer version of the LGA 1366 "Bloomfield" device. Intel named the family "Core i7" starting in mid-2008 an dreleased it in November 2008. Processors within the family are distinguished by the number (e.g. the "Core i7 920",) and the numbers are in the 900s.
Rumor has it the Intel will release three new consumer families based on the LGA 1152 "Lynnfield" device. The entry level family will be the "Core i3", the mid-range family will be the "Core i5", and, in a naming fiasco reminiscent of The Importance of Being Earnest, the high-end Lynnfield family will be called the Core i7. All three Lynnfield families can use the same motherboards and have the same basic architecture. The Lynnfield devices cannot use the same motherboards as the Bloomfield Core i7, and in particular the Lynnfield Core i7 cannot use same motherboard as our beloved Bloomfield Core i7, nor does it have the same system architecture. The Lynnfield Core i7 family will have numbers in the 800 range (e.g., Core i7 865.)
We are already getting edits to our article that refer to the Lynnfield Core i7.
Proposal: We should rename this article to "Intel Core i7 900 series" and then use the "Intel Core i7" name for an article that discusses Intel's use of the Core i7 name and that points to this article and to another article called "Intel Core i7 800 series."
Unless I hear dissenting opinions (with alternative proposals) I will make the changes within a week. If we get a lot more Lynnfield activity, I will act sooner. Please discuss. I'm not particularly happy with my proposal, but I feel that it is the least bad response to Intel's madness.
Thanks, all. - Arch dude ( talk) 19:36, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
General information | |
---|---|
Launched | From 2008 |
Architecture and classification | |
Technology node | 45 nm |
Microarchitecture | Nehalem |
Instruction set | x86, x86-64, MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2 |
Physical specifications | |
Cores |
|
Socket |
|
Products, models, variants | |
Brand names |
Is the Core i7 a 64 bit processor? Although this is implied by the use of the number 64 in a couple of places, the opening paragraphs of the article should state this explicitly if it is true, because people who are not knowledgeable about processor chips might need to know. (For example, Microsoft's hardware compatibility list requires one to enter that information.) Palmpilot900 ( talk) 17:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
It read like a blatant shill advert. Jamsta ( talk) 13:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
There's a dead link where it says µPGA-989. My suggestion is to use intel.com to find info on this subject or contact Intel? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrK4 ( talk • contribs) 16:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm curious about the i7 technology - how it is distinguished from other processors out there, cost/performance, good use cases etc.
But the article doesn't address that and spends most of its time on the branding, listing different names, etc. Can more info on the technology and use cases be added? Or if it really just a brand with little relationship to technology, can that be clarified and the various versions of it be compared in functional performance in prose? Thanks. -- NealMcB ( talk) 20:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Fellow editors:
This article started when there was really only one instance of the Core i7 brand. We now have many instances covering three microarchitectures and at least two sockets in each microarchitecture. I feel that it is time to restructure the article. In particular, we need to remove all material the is specific to the original Bloomfield. The most obvious change will be the removal of the infobox. The infobox is intended for articles about specific processors. We have (or should have) a seaprate article about each Intel processor that is used with a Core i7 brand, and each of those articles has an infobox. The Core i7 article should not have a processor infobox. By analogy, the Xeon article does not have a processor infobox.
We may need to create an "Intel Brand" Infobox.
If there are no objections, I will attempt to restructure the article starting on Saturday, 15 January. - Arch dude ( talk) 00:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Colleagues, we need to distinguish between:
Wikipedia has, and needs, articles in each of these categories. It might be reasonable to consolidate processors into the microarchitecture article in certain circumstances. It is not in general reasonable to consolidate processors into brands, because the same processor is usually used in different brands. - Arch dude ( talk) 16:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
The lead in says:
Intel Core i7 is an Intel brand name for several families of desktop and laptop 64-bit x86-64 processors using the Nehalem, Westmere, and Sandy Bridge microarchitectures and manufactured in Costa Rica and Malaysia.
But also says, " Core i7, first assembled in Costa Rica,[10] was officially launched on November 17, 2008[11] and is manufactured in Arizona, New Mexico and Oregon, ... "
Otherwise, it states it is manufactured in Costa Rica and Malaysia. The later claims it is manufactured in a wholly different Hemisphere. Is it both? Is it past then present? Clarification needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.99.79 ( talk) 20:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
The first citation was from an essay mill ( http://bestcustompapers.com). That can't possibly be acceptable. I removed it and replaced it with a cite needed template.-- SPhilbrick T 15:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
It says "Sandy Bridge is the second generation Intel Core i7 series processor". How does it compare with the first generation? Is it any better? A quick look at the Specifications table shows it has less cores and less L3 Cache memory. So is it any better? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alphachap ( talk • contribs) 16:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This is the
talk page of a
redirect that has been
merged and now targets the page: • Intel Core Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at: • Talk:Intel Core Merged page edit history is maintained in order to preserve attributions. |
![]() | Intel Core i7 received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
I think there is an error, the 2 basic models (800/900) officially only support DDR3 up to 1066 MHz, and the Extreme Edition will support up to 1333 MHz memory, check the table here: http://www.techarp.com/showarticle.aspx?artno=556&pgno=2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.180.238.44 ( talk) 19:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
In the infobox, it says "FSB speed: 4.8 GT/s", this is a mistake, i7 will discontinue the use of FSB. I think we should come up with a new infobox. Greetings -- 201.212.140.93 ( talk) 04:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I tried to edit it to QPI, but now it won't display, I guess it's predefined info box. Still, I am not changing it back, no info is better than wrong info as i7 has no FSB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.35.10.117 ( talk) 13:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Don't wory, I have created a new infobox - CPU QPI. It displays, but unfortunately I believe I broke something, as GHz and GT/s won't link. If anyone can fix this, please go right ahead. Nintendo 07 ( talk) 00:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Even chips without a front side bus still have a system bus and a multiplier. I'm currently trying to figure out what they are for these chips. They should be in the same approximate range as Intel's others, though. 2933 is not evenly divisible by 333 or 400, so I figure that it must run on a 266mhz bus with a multiplier of 11. The lower-clocked chip is not likely to run on a faster bus, so it's probably 266mhz x10. The 3.2ghz part is harder to pin down, as it could be 266mhz x12 or 400mhz x8, but the smart money is on the former. I sincerely doubt that Intel would skip straight to a 533mhz bus without going through 466mhz first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.124.70.221 ( talk) 01:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
This website reports different pricing than what is shown here. 69.115.150.3 ( talk) 01:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I notice that website's source is Hardspell. If you follow the link, the Hardspelll website only has prices in Euros. Neoseeker has seemed to just convert euros to US$. This is probably a flawed way to go about it: it is likely the European prices are more than the American. 219.90.147.95 ( talk) 10:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
There are two dollar amounts given for each CPU - what's the difference? -- Vossanova o< 14:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Looks like they're out, but they're priced a bit differently than on the page. Newegg has them at $319.99, $599.99 and $1069.99. Not sure how you cite prices that can vary from place to place. - RandomEngy ( talk) 23:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
I've changed the processor order to go from lowest to highest to match all the other "list of processor" articles. -- 24.82.242.132 ( talk) 08:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Collegues: There are a flurry of new reviews: more than twenty new articles in the last few hours. We need to avoid chaos in our editing. Any thoughts on how to do this? I think we need to remove the older review refrences and then pick two or three of the most reliable of the new ones. Thre is also a chance that Intel will make some official announcements or even actually release the product. I slapped a "current event" header on the article. I also re-insteded the "future chip" header until we see an official announcement. - Arch dude ( talk) 11:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
This was removed by someone (not me) because there didn't seem to be a flurry of edits. I agree with the removal. -- XaXXon ( talk) 20:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
A new editor added the lack of ECC support as a drawback, but we need a better cite if this is indeed the case. I removed the statement as a WP:SYNTH. Please discuss here. - Arch dude ( talk) 04:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Are these really drawbacks considering, today is Nov 14, and the chip comes out on the 17th? is it a drawback on the chip if its something that WILL be corrected with time? Is it really a drawback for the architecture if in 10 years none of it will be true? By then, the chip will be dead, and presumably there will have been ecc. Also can the natural pricing of new technology being more expensive than the previous generation be considered a drawback? Why not list the chips own base price as a drawback then? -- 67.241.177.245 ( talk) 07:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
The spec sheets for ASUS bloomfield motherboards http://au.asus.com/products.aspx?l1=3&l2=179&l3=815&l4=0&model=2588&modelmenu=2. I'll try to collect all authentic ones from the manufactuers
They are releasing i7 based xeons soon, and ECC is basically a requirement with regards to servers, so there must be the ability for it. Maybe intel will add it in later revisions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.36.92.18 ( talk) 12:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
I think that the i7 has ECC capability, just disabled as market segmentation. They will likely sell you a Xeon at twice the price, identical in every way except that the ECC is enabled if you have a top-end motherboard from supermicro. Moscito ( talk) 02:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Intel said in their FAQ on the I7 that "typically ECC memory is used on servers and workstations rather than on desktop platforms.” However Microsoft published a report in 2007 rumored to say that single-bit error rates in DRAM may be among the top ten causes of systems failures, suggesting Windows users may need ECC: ‘Microsoft says PCs may need DRAM upgrade', http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=199601761 72.73.92.130 ( talk) 06:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I talked with a PogoLinux representative on April 25/2009 and he said that they ship workstations with ECC-supported Core i7 configurations. For example, here's their Core i7 standard system page: http://www.pogolinux.com/quotes/editsys?sys_id=28712 70.68.70.186 ( talk) 19:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
My 3 cents: (1) Nehalem integrates the memory controller on the die, so I don't see how the presence or absence of ECC support can be affected by mobo design or chipset selection; (2) I've studied Intel's website and have been unable to determine whether i7 or Xeons consistently do or don't support ECC; (3) The current Features section is garbled because it lists "No ECC support" as one of the "features" of the Nehalem architecture (clearly wrong because at least some Xeons support ECC) and also lists it as one of the differences from Core 2, which makes no sense because ECC support for Core 2 depends on the memory controller (which is part of the chipset) rather than the processor.
A related point re. the Features section: I don't understand how a triple-channel memory controller, each channel of which "can support one or two DDR3 DIMMs", can handle 9 memory slots. I'd think (3 x 2 =) 6 would be the max. Therealdp ( talk) 18:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
The DDR3 price "drawback" is silly, but it is asserted multiple times in the trade press, so I guess we must keep it. The actual situation is that DRAM production follows a boom-and-bust cycle, with periods of massive overproduction causing market gluts and consequent price collapses. We are currently in a market glut. During a glut, slower speed grades and older technology inventory is sold below cost, and even newer stuff is sold a break-even. Manufacturers eventually cut production and balence is restored, followed by a DRAM drought and a price spike, and the cycle repeats. In the current situation, You can buy three 1GB DDR3 DIMMs for a total of about $110 US: that's less than half the price of the cheapest processor. This objection is therefore silly. - Arch dude ( talk) 08:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Question to arch dude: given that people don't just buy 1GBx3 -- i almost never set up a workstation without 4GB of RAM (I run Linux, many people now run 64-bit versions of vista), and that if DDR3 1333 2GBx3 is about as much money as DDR2-800 2GBx4 ECC, shouldn't we consider the difference to be non-trivial? (This are both Kingston branded memory in downtown Taipei.)
Hey, I agree with some of your point, certainly for some of people it may be miniscule but if you measure it like that, then I say wow, Arch Dude, that's the price diff between a Q9650 and a Q9550. And I would venture a guess that most people who have high-end processors also tend to have more RAM. Moscito ( talk) 03:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
DDR3 can be gotten for $30 Canadian a Gigabyte. At this point it's not expensive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.230.86.52 ( talk) 20:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
The clock speed increases offered by the turbo mode are quoted as "133-266MHz" in one section and as "400MHz" in another. I've amended these to show that the step size is 133 MHz with no fixed maximum and provided a link to the Intel white paper on the technology. Juux 16:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Juux ( talk • contribs)
I can't seem to access the cited source, but the article says "In the single-threaded Super PI Template:UnsignedIP -->
There must be some kind of typo or miscalculation in the Super PI results cited in the article at the time of this comment [QX9770, 3.2GHz, 14.42s; i7 920, 2.66GHz, 11.54s]. The conclusion that this indicates a 20% advantage per clock cycle for the i7 is wrong; it should be 50%. If, however, the time for the i7 should be 15.36s, as in the anonymous comment by 12.31.231.168 above, that would represent a 13% advantage for the i7 (which is a little easier to believe). I can't seem to access the website referenced in the footnote either, or I'd find the correct times myself. If yobeta.com is kaput anyway, perhaps a completely different study should take its place in the article. — SaxicolousOne ( talk) 06:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
We need to state how much L1 cache each core has. NSK Nikolaos S. Karastathis ( talk) 03:43, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
I haven't seen any mention of the temperature range that this processor runs in. I'm referring specifically to the processor temperature not the environment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.230.86.52 ( talk) 20:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Is there noone out there who bought an i7 and could make a High-Res, free image? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.52.132.128 ( talk) 17:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be an image of the logo? Jffner ( talk) 09:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
The drawbacks section contains this statement: "Core i7's are healthy for your motherboard (mainboard)." Really doesn't make sense to me. Spam? Errantkid ( talk) 14:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Under the drawbacks section is says:
more recent testing done on all clock rates of official hardware with final drivers and BIOS revisions show that Core i7 at the very least beats Yorkfield clock-for-clock...
How on earth can a driver (who is run by the processor) make the processor perform better?! A CPU have a number of instruction it can run pr clock and a good driver will maybe use fewer instructions so that you can run more code pr clock. So indeed we can get a performance increase by writing better software but the CPU itself is NOT able to execute more instructions pr clock (perhaps unless a microcode update is performed).
So my point is : with smarter tuned software you are able to do more stuff in a set timeslice but the processor itself can't execute more instructions pr clock than what it was designed for! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.213.182.76 ( talk) 09:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
A request has been made at the comptuer project to assess this article, however briefly looking ove rhte article suggest to me it is B class maybe GA class, if it meets B class but might meet GA clas si will have ot decline to review it and oyu will have ot submit it for a GA review-- Andy ( talk - contrib) 00:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
B1=no (source number 5 and 6 and 8 and 14 fails relible sources as it is a blog/forum)
B2=yes
B3=yes
B4=no (i say nop because it use a lot of bullet poitns it should be written in essay format)
B5=yes
B6=yes
the articel faiols on the above for b assessment fix them and as arch dude said update the aritcle as it is out of date-- Andy ( talk - contrib) 15:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Fellow editors, we are in the early stages of a real mess.
The processor described on this page is the consumer version of the LGA 1366 "Bloomfield" device. Intel named the family "Core i7" starting in mid-2008 an dreleased it in November 2008. Processors within the family are distinguished by the number (e.g. the "Core i7 920",) and the numbers are in the 900s.
Rumor has it the Intel will release three new consumer families based on the LGA 1152 "Lynnfield" device. The entry level family will be the "Core i3", the mid-range family will be the "Core i5", and, in a naming fiasco reminiscent of The Importance of Being Earnest, the high-end Lynnfield family will be called the Core i7. All three Lynnfield families can use the same motherboards and have the same basic architecture. The Lynnfield devices cannot use the same motherboards as the Bloomfield Core i7, and in particular the Lynnfield Core i7 cannot use same motherboard as our beloved Bloomfield Core i7, nor does it have the same system architecture. The Lynnfield Core i7 family will have numbers in the 800 range (e.g., Core i7 865.)
We are already getting edits to our article that refer to the Lynnfield Core i7.
Proposal: We should rename this article to "Intel Core i7 900 series" and then use the "Intel Core i7" name for an article that discusses Intel's use of the Core i7 name and that points to this article and to another article called "Intel Core i7 800 series."
Unless I hear dissenting opinions (with alternative proposals) I will make the changes within a week. If we get a lot more Lynnfield activity, I will act sooner. Please discuss. I'm not particularly happy with my proposal, but I feel that it is the least bad response to Intel's madness.
Thanks, all. - Arch dude ( talk) 19:36, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
General information | |
---|---|
Launched | From 2008 |
Architecture and classification | |
Technology node | 45 nm |
Microarchitecture | Nehalem |
Instruction set | x86, x86-64, MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2 |
Physical specifications | |
Cores |
|
Socket |
|
Products, models, variants | |
Brand names |
Is the Core i7 a 64 bit processor? Although this is implied by the use of the number 64 in a couple of places, the opening paragraphs of the article should state this explicitly if it is true, because people who are not knowledgeable about processor chips might need to know. (For example, Microsoft's hardware compatibility list requires one to enter that information.) Palmpilot900 ( talk) 17:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
It read like a blatant shill advert. Jamsta ( talk) 13:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
There's a dead link where it says µPGA-989. My suggestion is to use intel.com to find info on this subject or contact Intel? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrK4 ( talk • contribs) 16:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm curious about the i7 technology - how it is distinguished from other processors out there, cost/performance, good use cases etc.
But the article doesn't address that and spends most of its time on the branding, listing different names, etc. Can more info on the technology and use cases be added? Or if it really just a brand with little relationship to technology, can that be clarified and the various versions of it be compared in functional performance in prose? Thanks. -- NealMcB ( talk) 20:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Fellow editors:
This article started when there was really only one instance of the Core i7 brand. We now have many instances covering three microarchitectures and at least two sockets in each microarchitecture. I feel that it is time to restructure the article. In particular, we need to remove all material the is specific to the original Bloomfield. The most obvious change will be the removal of the infobox. The infobox is intended for articles about specific processors. We have (or should have) a seaprate article about each Intel processor that is used with a Core i7 brand, and each of those articles has an infobox. The Core i7 article should not have a processor infobox. By analogy, the Xeon article does not have a processor infobox.
We may need to create an "Intel Brand" Infobox.
If there are no objections, I will attempt to restructure the article starting on Saturday, 15 January. - Arch dude ( talk) 00:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Colleagues, we need to distinguish between:
Wikipedia has, and needs, articles in each of these categories. It might be reasonable to consolidate processors into the microarchitecture article in certain circumstances. It is not in general reasonable to consolidate processors into brands, because the same processor is usually used in different brands. - Arch dude ( talk) 16:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
The lead in says:
Intel Core i7 is an Intel brand name for several families of desktop and laptop 64-bit x86-64 processors using the Nehalem, Westmere, and Sandy Bridge microarchitectures and manufactured in Costa Rica and Malaysia.
But also says, " Core i7, first assembled in Costa Rica,[10] was officially launched on November 17, 2008[11] and is manufactured in Arizona, New Mexico and Oregon, ... "
Otherwise, it states it is manufactured in Costa Rica and Malaysia. The later claims it is manufactured in a wholly different Hemisphere. Is it both? Is it past then present? Clarification needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.99.79 ( talk) 20:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
The first citation was from an essay mill ( http://bestcustompapers.com). That can't possibly be acceptable. I removed it and replaced it with a cite needed template.-- SPhilbrick T 15:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
It says "Sandy Bridge is the second generation Intel Core i7 series processor". How does it compare with the first generation? Is it any better? A quick look at the Specifications table shows it has less cores and less L3 Cache memory. So is it any better? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alphachap ( talk • contribs) 16:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)