text:
5TB 3.5" Enterprise HDD from Toshiba Announcedby Ian Cutress on 2/15/2014 10:25 AM EST
42 Comments
Back to Article
repoman27 - Saturday, February 15, 2014 - linkI believe PMR is a TLA for "Perpendicular Magnetic Recording" not "ParaMagnetic Recording".
That video is the nerdiest thing I have ever seen though... Amazing! Reply
dananski - Saturday, February 15, 2014 - linkNerdiest thing ever? You've obviously not seen "A Capella Science - Bohemian Gravity". Reply
edcarver - Thursday, October 09, 2014 - linkThis HDDS is trying to be something that it's not... /Ed from http://www.consumertop.com/best-computer-storage-g... Reply
Serialcrusher17 - Saturday, February 15, 2014 - linkMy vendor already seems to have the HGST He6.. 7 platter design.. SATA or SAS ~$850 Reply
jjj - Saturday, February 15, 2014 - linkToshiba said they will be sampling in february.
And ofc Segate said they'll ship 6TB, 6 platter enterprise drives early in the second quarter.
But i wouldn't expect anyone to be in a hurry to ship in consumer,they need to control the pricing decline to maximize profits and with only 3 players it's not very likely for anyone to try to gain share.Going forward,new tech requires investments so that's another aspect that will slow them down,not because they can't do it but because they have no reason to .The limitations are less about the tech and more about financial aspects.The lack of competition is unlikely to change, might even get worse since WD has been forced by China regulators to run Hitachi as a separate company but very soon they'll try to get rid of that.So expect price/GB to decline very slowly and capacity to go up only to allow them to stay in line with demand at an ideal cost.
PS:Since some replies might start bashing the HDD makers for the lack of competition i got to mention that it's far from ideal but on the other hand others have way higher margins. Seagate and WD have gross margins bellow 30% while Intel for example has more than twice that so things are far worse in many other places (the much higher margins are partially offset by the fact that Intel does invest more, in %, in R&D). So go ahead and decry the situation in the HDD market but don't forget that it's sometimes much worse elsewhere. Reply
Brutalizer - Saturday, February 15, 2014 - linkWhat competition? There is an oligopoly right now, that is the reason the hard disk prices dont fall. Before the Thailand floodings, there were four vendors. The fourth bought the third vendor, and the prices stopped falling. The Thailand floodings were just an excuse to uphold prices. During the floodings, MORE disks were shipped than the year before - so there were no shortage. The reason these 5TB and 6TB disks arrive, is because they are afraid of SSD disks. Without the SSD vendors, we would still be paying up through our nose for 1-2TB disks. Read about market manipulation here:
Without SSD competition, the HDD vendors would still be screwing us today. There are soon 1TB SSD disks, we see 480GB SSD disks. What is 3-4TB HDDs in comparison to 1TB SSD disk? Nothing. In the HDD labs, I bet they have 8-10TB disks ready to be released when they feel threatened by SSD disks. Today we should all be using 6-7TB disks for the price of a normal 3TB disks - but there is an oligopoly. :( Reply
name99 - Saturday, February 15, 2014 - linkPrices have fallen and fallen substantially. To claim otherwise is ridiculous.
I'm no fan of the HD companies --- see my large post below --- but this is precisely the problem. The prices HAVE fallen so much that there is no money in the business to do research. Reply
Dentons - Saturday, February 15, 2014 - linkThe poster is clearly referring to the past 2.5 years. In that time, hard drive prices have not fallen. That you suggest otherwise is ridiculous.
In mid 2011, ostensibly due to the Thai floods, prices greatly increased. As others have noted, the flood excuse didn't begin to hold up. The industry shipped more drives in 2011 than they had in 2010. By Q1 of 2012, all of the impacted factories were either reopened or relocated, yet prices remained high.
Since mid 2011, prices have fallen somewhat, but have still not reached the 2011 rates. A full retail priced 2TB drive in 2011 was cheaper than today's retail pricing. Such pricing trends are nearly unheard of in the technology industry.
That this anomaly has lasted over 2.5 years clearly suggests tacit price fixing, perhaps even active collusion among the few remaining hard drive manufacturers. Tacit price fixing is often not actionable, but collusion is. For most of the past year, have been rumors of government price fixing investigations into the hard driver industry.
Hard drive prices still show no signs reverting to natural price trends. Lack of price drops over such long periods of time only happen there is overwhelming demand, supply shortages, or price fixing. Since first two can easily be ruled out, the last possibility, price fixing, is the most likely.
Were there still a major 4th player in the market, available sizes would very likely be larger and prices would almost certainly be lower. There isn't, so customers are beholden to stagnant products, at stagnant prices. Absent a price fixing action by the governments, this awful status quo seems destined to persist. Reply
Solandri - Sunday, February 16, 2014 - linkIt wasn't price fixing and it wasn't collusion. The HDD industry was simply too competitive. Margins prior to the flooding were razor thin, unhealthily so (I heard about 5%, with some HDD companies going below 3% - this is the reason IBM bailed out of the industry). They had the slimmest margins in the computer industry (aside from memory when there's a glut).
The lack of significant price drop in the last 2.5 years is simply the margins increasing to healthy levels. Manufacturing costs dropped, but retail prices did not, thus increasing the margins.
As for the consolidation in the HDD industry, unfortunately it happened in the middle of a recession and at a time when SSDs began making significant inroads into the desktop market. Consequently I think we ended up over-consolidating. 4 manufacturers was probably a healthy number, but the economic conditions at the time dropped it down to 3. (And technically we consolidated all the way down to just 2.5 HDD manufacturers. Toshiba only made 2.5" HDDs. One of the conditions placed on WD for acquiring Hitachi Storage was that it sell off some of its 3.5" HDD manufacturing to Toshiba, to make it a full 3 HDD manufacturers.) Reply
sonicmerlin - Saturday, February 22, 2014 - linkWhat dropped it down to 3 was incompetent and business worshipping "regulators". Reply
name99 - Sunday, February 16, 2014 - linkOK, let's look at the graph.
Seagate 4TB internal drive.
WD external 4TB drive:
Travelstar 1TB 2.5" drive.
They all follow the same pattern.
For a more aggregate view look at
Everything shows the same pattern. Prices fell relentlessly. Floods in Thailand led to a bounce in prices. THEN around early 2013, we reverted to pattern, with prices again falling. The Backblaze price history of 4TB drives is particularly clear on this point because it's not confused by the Thai floods. Reply
Dentons - Monday, February 17, 2014 - linkThat you avoid using 2TB drives in your example is telling. Doing so would prove just how inaccurate your contention is. 2TB was perhaps the most common size, both then and now. 4TB drives were not available in 2011, or barely so.
There has been price fixing in the hard drive market. There is no question of this. The only question is whether it has been tacit price fixing or active collusion.
It's difficult to understand why anyone would give Seagate and WD a pass on this, unless perhaps they work for one of those companies, Reply
Fallen Kell - Monday, February 17, 2014 - linkI have to say you are picking and choosing to get those results. As Dentons pointed out, you did not look at drives that were on the market prior to the floods:
Those show a pretty clear result that prices have been stagnant since the flood. Reply
sonicmerlin - Tuesday, February 10, 2015 - linkPosting 1 year later, a look at those links shows prices have stayed exactly the same. If this isn't price fixing I don't know what is. Reply
sonicmerlin - Saturday, February 22, 2014 - linkLol wow 1 TB and 4 TB. Did you really think no one would call you out? Reply
zodiacfml - Sunday, February 16, 2014 - linkless profit? i highly doubt it. they could have been making more money these days due to selling to enterprises and data centers. there is only less incentive for them to provide the consumer market with larger drives. Reply
fteoath64 - Sunday, February 16, 2014 - link" they could have been making more money these days due to selling to enterprises and data centers". Too right. A captive market of repeating customers for sure. Look at the growth of data centres everywhere. They all rely primarily on HDD as their storage mediums. in fact, many are using consumer drives so they can replicate plenty of storage in order to handle data redundancy issue.
I hope Toshiba keep making 2.5 inch drives of higher capacity and power saving ones for laptops. Also 1 inch drives of low power for future tablets. Due to the fixed lifespan of those drives, there is continued business so it can be sustainable for a top grade manufacturer serious about storage. The existing ones are just squeezing every cent from existing process without innovating much as SSDs takes over the low-capacity storage devices. Reply
Gigaplex - Saturday, February 15, 2014 - linkSoon? We've had 1TB SSDs for quite a while now. Reply
name99 - Saturday, February 15, 2014 - link"I must confess that at this point in the HDD cycle we might have 6TB 3.5" drives in the consumer market, but the recent focus on SSD consistency and a combination of overcoming physical limitations via new methods might be causes for the delay."
I don't think this is a correct analysis. The companies (and individuals) working on better SSDs are not the HD companies.
I think a better explanation is that commoditization has destroyed the HD business. Competition has sent the price of drives so low that there is no profit left over to fund the R&D necessary to improve them. For a while IBM did the heavy R&D necessary (GMR, PRML, etc) to keep things going, but we've hit the limits of those techniques and no-one with deep pockets is around to do more than minor tweaks of existing tech that allow a reduction in price by a few cents.
This is basically the same process that killed the PC industry. (Intel kept up it's R&D, so CPUs kept improving; MS, for reasons unrelated to commoditization, screwed up its part of the R&D/improvement process; and the vendors, from Dell to HP to Lenovo, did nothing to improve their product over five years. Every "improvement" they did make was geared towards a cheaper device, not a better one.)
This is not COMPLETELY the vendors fault (PC or HD). Markets are not as perfect as your libertarian friends would have you believe, and one place they fail is precisely this sort of situation. In the absence of a benevolent more-or-less monopolist; once ATT, once IBM, currently (but maybe not for much longer) Intel, currently Apple and Google; competition to survive today means that fundamental R&D which benefits the entire industry does not get done.
The situation becomes unsustainable when commoditization is complete, when all I care about is buying a PC (not a Dell or an HP) or a drive (not a Seagate or a WD).
Apple has avoided it so far because people actually care that they get a Mac or an iPhone and are willing to pay substantially more for that.
Likewise Google so far delivers a superior enough product that people care that they are getting Google search not generic internet search.
Intel are headed for danger because there are few people who care that they actually have "Intel Inside", what they care about is "fast CPU, low power" inside and Intel is safe only as long as they deliver that more than the ARM competition...
But the HD vendors ARE to blame for the fact that every last one of them acted like a complete and utter retard in the face of SSDs. Rather than viewing their product as "persistent storage" and asking how they could use flash to improve that product, they insisted that what they were selling was "spinning metal" and that nothing could ever compete with that.
Even now, as they deliver too little too late, they insist on acting like idiots. For example WD sells, in the Black2, a product that is PERFECT for Macheads because it works so well with Apple's Fusion technology. And Macheads are the one segment of the market that are actually willing to spend money. How does WD exploit this opportunity? By conspicuously telling Apple fans "fsck you and all your lovely money, we're going to pretend it's still 1998 and sell a product that deliberately won't work well on your computers, even though all it would take to fix this is to provide a small app that automatically exposed our two drives and ran Core Storage Fusion on them."
So to summarize:
- drives suck because their no pot of money subsidizing their improvement
- this is 80% commoditization and 20% stupidity of the management at the drive companies. Reply
purerice - Saturday, February 15, 2014 - linkNobody can deny that you have done your research but your argument has a problem. For the longest time Apple insisted that "Mac" was not a "PC". PC vendors did try to differentiate themselves ("Dude, you're getting a Dell").
HDD vendors to some extent do too, at least in my market. Yet flaming WD as an example for saying this Toshiba announcement is meaningless does not compute with me.
Then you attack libertarian thinking because you don't see more innovation in the HDD market. Really? 9 years ago I got a 250GB external drive for $200 that was wall-powered and weighed 1 pound. 4 years ago I got a 750GB external drive for $100, bus powered, weighing 0.6lb.
Last year I got a 1TB external drive for $90, bus powered, weighing 0.5lb.
This year for $90 you can get a 1.5TB external drive weighing 0.4lb.
So in 1 year there is a 50% increase in capacity and 20% reduction in weight at the same price point.
Does that not suggest the market is providing constant improvement in customer value?
Would not commoditization if it were happening, also mean improvement in customer value? Reply
name99 - Saturday, February 15, 2014 - linkI'm not interested in religious wars. I'll just comment on two things.
(a) A Mac is NOT a PC, in the sense that a Mac is not a member of the PC commodity. That's precisely my point. Apple HAS avoided becoming a commodity. The PC vendors have tried to avoid that fate, but have been unsuccessful. There WAS a time when PC brands were to some extent differentiated --- Compaq in particular really meant something as brand. But not for the past five years.
The PC vendors, like the HD vendors, are aware of the problem. But they have both waited too long to try to deal with it, and simply don't have the resources for meaningful differentiation. The difference between PC vendors is in what crap they ship pre-installed. The difference between HD vendors is likewise in useless crap they ship on the drive. These are NOT differentiators that persuade a buyer to pay more for a product; unlike the differentiation that Apple has achieved.
(b) You would have to be deluded to claim that the rate of innovation in HDs today is the same as it was.
2007 1st 1TB HD
2009 1st 2TB HD
2010 1st 3TB HD
2011 1st 4TB HD
2012 nothing
2013 nothing
2014 An extremely expensive 6GB HD and a (who knows the price) 5TB HD. (Yeah, yeah, the 6GB was announced in 2013. Let me know when it ships...)
To me this is a dramatic slowing down. We've gone from essentially exponential growth in capacity (doubling in size every two years or so) to sub-linear growth in capacity.
We've seen slow improvements in the 2.5TB form factor over that time. While 3.5 capacity has largely stood still, 2.5TB has grown from about 750GB to 2TB. But 3.5 strikes me as the canary in the coal mine. That's where the research will appear first. Instead all we have is that standing still while 2.5" repurposes 3.5" ideas from a few years ago. Reply
MrSpadge - Sunday, February 16, 2014 - linkThere are technical reasons for the slow-down. We're used to rapid progress in HDD technology because there were quite some low-hanging fruit to be had. Look at what they're doing now: shingled recording, helium filling, laser assisted recording or putting more platters into the same form factor than ever before. Any of these is significantly more complex and often expensive (for them to research and produce) than previous HDD technologies. Rest assured they're not using this just for fun - if they could continue business as ussual (but slower) they'd just do so and maximize profits. Reply
Flunk - Saturday, February 15, 2014 - linkI think the bigger issue right now is that software companies haven't come up with a compelling reason to need all that storage space. People would buy larger hard drives if they had any need of them. Reply
Kevin G - Saturday, February 15, 2014 - linkThere are plenty of reasons for larger drives but they tend to be either enterprise scale (virtual machines) or content (HD video).
For the majority of consumers, the 1 TB class of hard drives is more than enough for applications, their personal data and local content. Of course there are end user exceptions but scaling to 4 TB drives decreases that niche and then various RAID implementations resolves the rest.
Streaming and cloud storage (which does merit large capacity drives on the backend) has eased the pressure for larger local storage. Stepping down to a 250 GB or 500 GB class SSD is sufficient for most consumers in terms of capacity, not to mention the massive performance benefits.
In short, the consumer demand for more storage simply isn't there except in very specific niches. Reply
cjb110 - Monday, February 17, 2014 - linkI'd agree, larger drives have become less of a requirement as people's storage either moves into the 'cloud', and as things like NAS becomes more prevalent and cheaper. A single 5/6tb drive is a shed load of data on a single point of failure, and shouldn't be shipping on any consumer based device (unless its the aforementioned NAS device).
Possibly when 4k content becomes more common, there will be more cases for larger drives for consumers. Reply
flyingpants1 - Tuesday, February 18, 2014 - linkThe WD Black2 is alright. It's $250 on Amazon, compared to Crucial 480GB SSD for $260 and 960GB for $450. I think on a laptop you'd usually just get the 480GB SSD and buy a 1TB external. Reply
ruzveh - Saturday, February 15, 2014 - linkI want to ask Anandtech and HDD manufacturer one simple question. Why cant internal HDD go beyond the usual size of 3.5" to more inorder to launch 10 to 100TB HDD? I wouldnt mind buying one. Its better then buying 10 pc of 2TB or more HDD. Are you listening? Reply
brshoemak - Saturday, February 15, 2014 - linkThey can and have before (look up Quantum Bigfoot - the scariest sounding drive ever) but at such a high density level you will most likely run into issues where the heads and arms travel are the limiting factor in terms of accuracy. I think there are some physics involved that make it not viable from a cost/performance standpoint. Reply
Kevin G - Saturday, February 15, 2014 - linkI've personally owned 5.25" full heigh hard drives in the past and seen a 8" unit. With the emphasis on mobile technology and increasing density killed off the 5.25" drives in the mid-90's (the shift to 3.5" hard drives started in the late 80's). In the early 2000's the rise of the laptop saw a further shift from 3.5" to 2.5" as focal point for hard drive manufactures. 3.5" has become form factor for external storage, the incredibly shrinking desktop space and enterprise servers who need storage capacity.
That of course doesn't prevent a HD manufacturer from bucking the trend and releasing a 5.25" today, other than it being a very niche product. Going back to the mid-90's 5.25" drives, they had several issues. The motors to spin the platters consumed more power and energy efficiency has become a major factor in computing today. Latencies of 5.25" hard drives were typically lower than their 3.5" counter parts (spindle speeds played a factor as a high RPM 5.25" could have a lower latency than a low RPM 3.5" drive). Then there was the noise factor. 5.25" drives were loud, very LOUD. Imagine living in an apartment and you're backing up to data to a coupe of bare 5.25" and you get a knock on the door. Police have been called to answer a noise compliant about a small motor running inside the residence.* I'd have to look at the data sheets but I've been under the impress that 5.25" drives were more susceptible to vibration and had lower reliability rates.
20 years of technological improvements could negate/reduce many of the disadvantages. However, at current 1 TB/3.5" platter densities the raw capacity gains would be roughly 2.4 TB/5.25" platter. Other ideas like increasing the number of platters. An eight platter 5.25" drive would equate to roughly a 19 TB drive. Costs increases wouldn't be linear but under that false assumption such a drive would retail for roughly $1,000 USD. Honestly, I'd be more comfortable running five 4 TB drives in RAID5/RAIDZ than the single hypothetical 19 TB unit.
*Second hand story but having owned some 5.25" units, I find this believable if they were particularly loud, high RPM units. Reply
MrSpadge - Sunday, February 16, 2014 - linkI like this idea, too, but there are quite a few points against this:
- at the same rpm (angular velocity) the outer regions of the platters move much faster in a 5.25" drive compared to 3.5" -> vibration and platter flattering become much worse
-> you need to lower rpm and probably areal density (sicne with more flattering the read/write head can't get as close to the platter)
- at larger diameters access times become worse, es the heads have to travel further
- together with lower rpm this makes for a slow drive (just like the Bigfoot was)
- there's no infrastructure for producing such platters any more -> higher prices due to limited volume
- the motor would have to be significantly stronger and idle power consumption would be significantly higher than 3.5" HDDs (power per capacity might not be too bad, though)
- redundancy: if you run more smaller drives it doesn't hurt as much if one of them fails (you could argue that this won't matter of you ned pretty much infinite disk space)
- big super-expensive drives won't sell in the same quantity as the current disks -> economy of scale won't work as well to drive price down Reply
cjb110 - Monday, February 17, 2014 - linkReally? You want that much data on something that can die with a complete loss of everything that was on it? Reply
Concillian - Wednesday, February 19, 2014 - linkTooling for making / processing larger platters no longer exists. As much as anyone wants it, it's not going to happen. Reply
Gnarr - Saturday, February 15, 2014 - linkHGST already has a 6TB drive.
http://www.hgst.com/hard-drives/enterprise-hard-dr... Reply
flyingpants1 - Tuesday, February 18, 2014 - linkIt says it's the world's first hermetically sealed drive, because they've replaced the air with helium. Reply
BroderLund - Saturday, February 15, 2014 - linkLaCie, which I belive are owned by Seagate, already have 5TB drive for sale. In stock in some shops:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1024100-REG/... Reply
name99 - Saturday, February 15, 2014 - linkI don't think this is genuinely for sale yet. My guess is that, in spite of what Amazon and the other shop say, if you actually order you'll be waiting for a while. La Cie, for example, advertise but say that it's out of stock (not that it's ever been in stock).
It will ship the same time Seagate's shingled 5TB drives ship. Which is presumably some time soon this year, but who knows... Reply
BroderLund - Wednesday, February 19, 2014 - linkMay be, but as far as I have seen the stock on Amazon has droped from 19 (few days ago) to 5 (when I'm writhing this).
Fake maybe, but I dough it. Still waiting for the drives to be avalible near me, Norway. The shops in Norway are expecting shipment in early March. Time will tell. Reply
Alientech - Sunday, April 06, 2014 - linkSeagate's already shipping shingled 3TB drives. They are painfully slow and can not even be used as backup drives. When you are tying to copy 1TB of data and it says 1 day left to finish, that is just too long. It used to take like 5 hours before which itself was slow. I wonder how reliable the new disk is compared to the old one. Using this shingles should not affaet the write speeds this much. But they seem to be go in a U type bit density in a zone so the speeds vary it each zone itself unlike before where each zone was the same speed and the speeds slowed down the inner you got to the center. If WD eants to take market share all they need to do is use some other techonology that does not slow down the drive so much during writes. But heating would also slow down writes since it has to heat the path before it can write to it. Reply
Jalek99 - Sunday, February 16, 2014 - linkToshiba? *looks at case of dead standard and AV-specific drives* No, just no. Reply
ethebubbeth - Sunday, February 16, 2014 - linkI just spent a ton redoing my personal NAS with 24x 3tb drives. People have the need for the storage. Reply
Navvie - Sunday, February 16, 2014 - linkThat first sentence is a mess. I had to read it several times to understand the intended meaning. Reply
zimanodenea - Wednesday, February 19, 2014 - linkAll this talk of why on earth would people want to so much data on a single drive. Personally, I like a single large capacity hard drive as my backup destination. At the moment I use a 3TB drive to back up all the data from multiple computers. As soon as an affordable 6TB drive arrives I'll be able to use my current 3TB backup drive in my computer and have space to backup everything to my 6TB drive.
I'm aware that I could buy an external enclosure (fine until you damage the USB3 connector) which has 2 x 3TB drives or buy a NAS. I like being able to just remove my single drive from my system (is in an internal caddy) and store in another room somewhere. Reply


text:
Lone Star Candle Supply, Inc.
5800 Park Vista Circle
Keller, TX 76248
Ph: (817) 741-0876 Fax: (817) 741-0879
|Product Name: Cinnamon Buns Fragrance Oil
|Product Code: SCENT-0340, SCENT-0340B, SCENT-0340S
|Date Prepared: 11/2/2000
|Prepared By: Lone Star Candle Supply, Inc.
|The specific chemical identities of the ingredients of this
mixture are considered by Lone Star Candle Supply, Inc. to be trade
secrets and are withheld in accordance with the provisions of 1910.1200
Title 29 of The Code of Federal Regulations.
Hazardous Ingredients:
This proprietary material contains the following toxic chemical(s) subject to the reporting requirements of Section 313 of Title III of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 CFR Part 372.
|Boiling Point (F) : N/A
|Specific Gravity (H20=1) : ~ 1.066
|Vapor Density : N/A
|Evaporation Rate : N/A
|Vapor Pressure (mm Hg) : N/A
|Solubility in Water : Insoluble
|Phys. Appearance & Odor : A CLEAR YELLOW MOBILE LIQUID WITH A SWEET CINNAMON TYPE ODOR.
|Flash Point (F) : >200
|Method : TCC
|Flammable Limits in Air by Volume - LOWER : N/A UPPER : N/A
|Extinguishing Media : Use Foam, Carbon Dioxide, Dry Chemical
|Special Firefighting Procedures : Self-contained apparatus & protective clothing should be worn when fighting fires involving chemicals. Cool exposed containers with water spray after extinguishing fire.
|Unusual Fire & Explosion Hazards : Closed containers may build pressure when exposed to heat or fire.
|Stability : Stable
|Conditions to Avoid : Excessive Heat
|Incompatibility (Materials to Avoid) : Strong Oxidizing Agents
|Hazardous Decomposition or Byproducts : Carbon Dioxide, Carbon Monoxide, Fumes
|Hazardous Polymerization : Will not occur
|Symptoms of Overexposure : Irritation to the eyes, mouth, nose, throat, skin, or respiratory system.
|Health Hazards (Acute and Chronic) : This product has not been tested as a whole.
|Carcinogenicity - NTP Carcinogen : N/A IARC Monographs : N/A OSHA : N/A
|Medical Conditions Generally Aggravated by Exposure : None known to Lone Star Candle Supply, Inc.
|1. Inhalation : Seek fresh air immediately, if breathing is difficult, see physician.
|2. Eyes : Flush immediately with clean water for at least 15 minutes. Contact physician as necessary.
|3. Skin : Remove contaminated clothing. Wash affected areas with soap and water thoroughly.
|4. Ingestion: Rinse mouth with water. Give water or milk to dilute. Contact physician immediately.
|Steps to be taken in case material is released or spilled : Eliminate all ignition sources. Ventilate area. Absorb with suitable absorbent material. Use of self-contained breathing apparatus in recommended for major spills. Report major spills to appropriate authorities in required.
|Waste Disposal Method : Place material & absorbent into a sealed container & dispose of in accordance with current applicable laws & regulations.
|Precautions to be taken in handling and storing : Usual precautions for combustible liquids.
|Other Precautions : Good manufacturing practices dictate that an eyewash fountain and/or safety shower should be available in the work area.
|Respiratory Protection : None generally required. If desired, use NIOSH approved respirator.
|Ventilation : Adequate Ventilation Required
|Protective Gloves : Chemical resistant gloves
|Eye Protection : Use splash goggles or face shield when eye contact may occur.
|Other protective clothing or equipment : N/A
|Work/Hygienic Practices : Good personal practices should be used. Wash after any contact. Contaminated clothing and shoes should be cleaned before reuse.
|The information in this Material Safety Data Sheet was obtained from current and reliable sources however, the data is provided without any warranty, express or implied, regarding its correctness or accuracy. Since the conditions for use, handling, storage, and disposal of this product are beyond Lone Star Candle Supply, Inc.'s control, it is the responsibility of the user both to determine safe conditions for use of this product and to assume liability for loss, damage, or expense arising out of this product's improper use. Various federal, state, or provincial agencies may have specific regulations concerning the transportation, handling, storage, use, or disposal of this product which may not be reflected in this MSDS. The user shall review these regulations to ensure full compliance. No warranty express or implied regarding the product described herein shall be created by or inferred from any statement or omission in this Material Safety Data Sheet.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
ED Magedson – Founder
Ripoff Report
Smart PC FixerInternet United States of America
Does your business have a bad reputation?
Fix it the right way.
Corporate Advocacy Program™
Set the record straight:
Arbitration Program
This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 01/14/2013 07:41 PM and is a permanent record located here: http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/smart-pc-fixer/internet/smart-pc-fixer-smart-pc-fixer-is-a-ripoff-internet-996926. The posting time indicated is Arizona local time. Arizona does not observe daylight savings so the post time may be Mountain or Pacific depending on the time of year.
Ripoff Report has an exclusive license to this report. It may not be copied without the written permission of Ripoff Report. READ: Foreign websites steal our content
Click Here to read other Ripoff Reports on Smart PC Fixer
If you would like to see more Rip-off Reports on this company/individual, search here:Search Tips
In order to assure the best results in your search:
Advertisers above have met our
strict standards for business conduct.


text:
cool W.P.
Order KEYone: UK: Carphone Warehouse
Switching Clouds
Let us know!
Bye Bye iMessage
42.213.679 Readers per month
Copyright © 2017 Mobile Nations ® • Terms and Conditions • Privacy Policy
You could call us biased, and you wouldn't be wrong, because at CrackBerry we love BlackBerry and think you should own a BlackBerry Smartphone! We also work as a community support and marketing partner with BlackBerry and BlackBerry Mobile. Our immense passion and knowledge of BlackBerry by our editors and community members make this the best resource for BlackBerry you'll find anywhere!


text:
Phonophone II
This phonophone uses no power or batteries or the like - just a special design that uses the sound coming out of your headphones and amplifies it for your listening pleasure. It's not loud enough for a party, but it will work on your desk, by your bed, or in the bathroom just fine. A great and wire free way to enjoy your tunes.


text:
Nude on stage 9:07
Wife nude 3:08
Baby dancing nude 11:50
Nude women wrestling 2:31
Nude aerobics 29:54
Nude women wrestling 1:51
Japanese all nude 9:56
Nude in the park 2:50
Nude boxing 1:58
Nude stage 5:04
Anna Richardson nude 0:55
Traci Bingham Nude 0:45
Nude in public cheyenne 33:31
Nude girls in public 9:42
Nikki Hunter Nude Beach 15:50
Denise Austin Non Nude 19:24
Demi Moore Nude Scene 10:09
Aerobics TOTTALY nude 53:01
Nude sport at home 27:35
Nudes a poppin part 2 15:00
Best Porn Collections
Nude Celebrity Videos Nude celebs have always been a source of great lust and with the popularization of celebrity sex tapes it's easier than ever to watch your favorites have sex. Celebrity 25 videos | Popularity: 22419 | pornmagnat
Nude women collection The best nude women collection where you can easily reach to thousands of naked sporty babes when performing in hot XXX videos. Real nudity and amazing dolls, all moody for kinky stuff while exposing their gorgeous nude assets in spicy manners.Watch them working out naked and delight with their share beauty! Nude 12 videos | Popularity: 14140 | pornmagnat
Female choice porno video collection Gorgeous collection of porn videos to provide nude porn girls when enjoying heavy inches of dicks up their tiny holes and also, nude solo shows with them completely naked and aroused. A superb category of videos with plenty of high rated adult content to provide mind blowing moments of female porn action. Female choice, For women 30 videos | Popularity: 5424 | alfonso
Amateur model nude A fascinating collection of amateur model nude clips with real life amateur beauties presenting themselves in solo scenes. Some girls appear in sexy lingerie while gently undulating and stripping, others directly nude, masturbating and cracking their tight love holes in premium solo XXX scenes. Amateur, Model, Nude 4 videos | Popularity: 5119 | sexyman


text:
Energy and the Environment
Democrats are committed to reducing the cost of gas at the pump now, while investing in the next generation of clean energy jobs and reducing our dependence on foreign oil. To ease the pain at the pump, Democrats are advocating for increasing drilling safely and responsibly and have offered legislation to strongly encourage oil and gas companies to produce on the drilling leases they already have.
Democrats also remain committed to investing in our nation's clean energy future, while reducing the pollution that causes global warming. By investing in renewable sources of energy and funding research on the next clean technology breakthroughs, Democrats are fighting to not only increase our national security by reducing our dependence on foreign oil, but create jobs right here in America.
That is why Democrats are advancing the Make It In America agenda, which includes among other clean energy jobs initiatives a bill to establish a Clean Energy Technology Manufacturing and Export Assistance Fund. This legislation will help American clean energy technology firms compete and create clean energy jobs.
Democratic Whip Issue Reports
Democratic Whip Press
- 1 of 77
- ››


text:
Reigning ICC Intercontinental Cup champions Afghanistan takes on hosts Canada in the third match of the new season starting tomorrow (Tuesday 2 August 2011) in Toronto.
Afghanistan won the final of the competition last year after beating Scotland and the side will be hoping for a strong performance away from home to begin the competition on the right foot and walk away with full points.
Having never won the tournament, Canada will want to make sure it starts positively and begin this year's season with a victory on home soil.
Afghanistan fast bowler Hamid Hassan, who was the leading wicket-taker in the last tournament with 43 scalps, is confident ahead of the team's first four-day fixture of the season.
"We've played some domestic three-day games in Pakistan and also in Sri Lanka ahead of this first fixture and we've been very focused so I hope we take what we've learnt with us to Canada for our first match of this competition.
"When we first started playing four-day cricket it took us time to embrace it but now we enjoy it a lot, especially in the last tournament, so hopefully we can enjoy it again this time.
"I've never been Canada but we've been told the weather will be good and hopefully the wickets will seam around so I'm able to be effective with the ball," concluded Hamid.
Meanwhile, Canada's side features some young blood, joining the old guard, with new captain Jimmy Hansra at the helm, who has taken over from fellow squad member Ashish Bagai, who recently relinquished the captaincy that he had held for two years.
The team features a number of young players, including Hiral Patel, while newly appointed skipper Hansra is confident his side can do well: "We're a fairly young team and we're going to be taking what we learnt at the 50-over ICC Cricket World Cup and try to translate that into the four-day competition we're about to start playing.
"It's good that we've got a three year window for this tournament and it's good for us to start against the current champions, Afghanistan.
"It's nice to have a stronger team upfront as it will help us know where we stand and it should help us to prepare for the tournament and the youngsters are ready to go and we're ready to put up a good show.
"Hiral Patel and Ruvindu Gunasekera are two good youngsters coming in from our domestic cricket, who also featured at the World Cup, and we've good bowlers who will need to help us for this tournament.
"Afghanistan is an experienced side whereas we're young and we're trying to bring the passion for Canada and cricket together for this tournament but I feel with a three-year window to play these fixtures we will continue to improve no matter what happens with this first game," added Hansra.


text:
Sorry, we couldn't find any search results for "subreport". You can try.
- 1. See if you can find what you need from the Downpanda.com homepage
- 2. Check your spelling and try your search again.
- 3. Change another keyword replace.
Popular KeyWords: download limewire free |ares galaxy |tvants download |windows live messenger 7 |limewire free download |limewire.com free download |download ethereal |download limewire basic |ulead photo express |orbit downloader
Copyright Downpanda.com © 2007 - 2014 All rights reserved.


text:
The Lynnfield Preview: Rumblings of Revengeby Anand Lal Shimpi on 5/29/2009 1:00 PM EST
- Posted in
- CPUs
95 Comments
Back to Article
fpaat - Tuesday, August 04, 2009 - linkCheap as*es who keep buying these lower spec broken underclocked BS parts contribute to the decline of PC gaming.
There is exactly zero reasons to release so many different chips, except for crap manufacturing.
Buy an i7, be done. i5 = celeron = piss off Intel. ATI and NVIDIA can piss off as well for release 10 different versions of video cards per generation. Reply
fpaat - Tuesday, August 04, 2009 - linkI LoL at people who still buy the "celeron" equivalent of computer parts.
It's fine if your a teenager on a budget, but if you're an adult still buying gimp'd parts because you can't afford proper components, well, fail. Reply
grimpr - Thursday, July 16, 2009 - linkSmart users would simply buy a fast SSD disk and a Windows 7 Home premium 64bit pack. Anand may glorify to heavens Lynnfield i5 but there is not a single excuse for dumping perfectly good hardware from 2006 upward for Intels new mainstream platform. Best upgrade would be in 2011 with a brand new platform from AMD, new CPU's from both companys that carry the AVX instruction sets, cheap low latency and fast DDR3-1600 ram as a standard, mature,cheap and fast DX11 cards, PCI-EX 3.0 and many more things. Reply
Hrel - Saturday, June 06, 2009 - linkI HATE their stupid price fixing screw the consumer crap. CPU's over 200 dollars are useless, that's simply too much for a CPU. They won't give us dual cores based on nahaylem cause they'd have to charge 190 and less; OH NO! Greedy bastards. I REALLY want AMD to get back on top so prices get driven down again.
It's INFINETELY infuriating that the ONLY way that intel charges fair prices is if someone else MAKES them. Reply
Hrel - Saturday, June 06, 2009 - linkSeriously??? E8400 anyone? I REALLY don't care about having 8 threads, like even you said in this article, doesn't really help consumers. I'm far more interested in highly clocked dual cores, and wish Intel would release dual core CPU's based on the new architexture, throw HT onto a solid dual core and I can't see any games in the near future even fully utilize it.I'd MUCH rather see a 4GHz dual core cpu with HT than some more stupid quad cores at sub 3GHZ clock speeds. This is 2009, we need to leave the sub-3GHz range in the history books. Reply
HexiumVII - Tuesday, June 02, 2009 - linkLynnfield looks mighty good. Unfortunetly USB3 and SATA3 are looming. Since they won't be integrated into mobos for a while, high bandwidth on the PCIe slots for add-in cards will be crucial for the transition. I don't know about you buys, but USB3.0 will be the most exciting upgrade we had in a while. Reply
MasterShogo - Monday, June 01, 2009 - linkI'm not really sure if this has been talked about at all, but it seems to me that the option for an Nvidia-supplied chipset providing integrated graphics, and it still be good, isn't completely lost.
I think you have to ask, why does a person want Nvidia integrated graphics in the first place? I see two reasons. For one, to provide a "business-like" or super-simple PC that has adequate graphics performance for normal stuff and simple games, but with a powerful processor. For this use, Nvidia could just make a chip that uses 8 of the PCIe lanes coming out of the CPU socket and leave the other 8 for the user/vendor to optionally provide a faster video card. Sure, that slot wouldn't have the awesomeness of a 16x PCIe slot, but it would be perfectly fine for this machine. Plus, the added video card could still use hybrid SLI or something similar for power-saving purposes...
Which leads me to the other reason people (like me) might want it. Power savings via hybrid-SLI. I would personally want all 16 lanes coming out of the CPU socket for my SLI setup or just one monster card. But in this case, I think it would be perfectly fine to have a 3rd party P55-like chip provide hybrid-SLI video for power savings. I wouldn't care about the starved DMI link, because I would never expect that video chip to do anything difficult, that's what I have the other video cards for! This is assuming the drivers work well enough to switch over very seamlessly when it needs to happen.
In other words, I think there is still enough input/output throughput for Nvidia to sell chips that use integrated graphics, but it is just going to be more spread over the board now, making their electrical design more difficult. Possibly requiring two different chips to provide for the two different scenarios. I don't see why they couldn't do it, though.
Or even better, make a 3rd party chip that can accept, as an interface, both the DMI and the PCI links coming out of the socket, but only using what is available in the particular board you are manufacturing at the moment. Maybe that would be too expensive, though. Any thoughts on how feasible that may be?
In any case, I don't need the three memory channels. It's not that I don't WANT them, it's that they don't help me at all. It's not like I'm running a major database server in my bedroom or anything. But having a direct PCI connection to the CPU would be cool, and I think this processor is just super-duper for a variety of reasons. Reply
Kreed - Monday, June 01, 2009 - linkIn terms of Photoshop CS4 performance, would a 2.8GHz i5 outperform 2.66GHz i7 920?
Beno - Sunday, May 31, 2009 - linkif you test the i7 920 with HT off, lynfield will lose number 1 in those gaming benchmarks
why didnt you bench it without HT? Reply
genkk - Sunday, May 31, 2009 - linkis there any new mobos like the dragon platform to bench, anad is even using an old catalyst driver......
... your 65% chipzilla and 35% chimpzilla Reply
Seramics - Sunday, May 31, 2009 - linkWhy is it that in test that demand intensive multi threading, the lynnfield loses out to bloomfield while in less intensive multithreaded or single threaded test, the lynnfield can equal bloomfield? Could it be that in intensive multithreading processing that work up more than 4 threads (thereby requiring the use of HT for better performance), it is able to use the extra memory bandwith provided by triple channel in the bloomfield platform? Maybe in situation where the software can really demand mutlple threading processing intensively, the bloomfield extra memory bandwith provide an edge. An easy way to test this is increasing the memory bandwith of lynnfield and/or decreasing memory bandwith of bloomfield n see wht happens in intensive multithreaded test. Im suspicious of this. Let me know wht u guys thinks. Reply
IntelUser2000 - Sunday, May 31, 2009 - linkThe Turbo Modes for revealed for Lynnfield way before even Core i7's release.
1 core: +5(+4 for non-HT version)
2 core: +3
4 core: +1
It may or may not be coincidence, but the Turbo speed of the highest clock Lynnfield is equal to the Turbo speed of the highest Core i7. The point is, I think since people will overclock the "enthusiast" i7's anyway, the Turbo doesn't need to be so high.
According to Intel, the benefits will be GREATER on smaller form factors, which means laptops will have even HIGHER increases. Reply
RagingDragon - Sunday, May 31, 2009 - linkHmmm... I'm not sure how much sense Lynnfield will make in the long term - at the high end you'll have Bloomfield on LGA-1366, and at the low end Clarkdale/Arrandale on LGA-1156. I'm not sure if there's enough room between them for Lynnfield, though I guess it does provide an easy upgrade option for inexpensive OEM systems which need to support Clarkdale. Reply
brightstar - Sunday, May 31, 2009 - linkI'll wait and see how this pans out, but as of right now the I5 sounds like the new Celery proc to me Reply
JS - Saturday, May 30, 2009 - link"...to protect the innocent"
I guess you really wanted to say "to protect my sources". I'm guessing they are not innocent at all, unless you actually stole the stuff from them. ;o) Reply
mybook4 - Saturday, May 30, 2009 - linkThe article mentions that Lynnfield will have a new turbo mode that clocks much higher. I was thinking of reasons why intel might put this feature into the mainstream i5 rather than making the feature exclusive to the i7. Then I remembered that the PCIe controller was integrated into the core.
To overclock a multiplier locked i5, you would have to increase the base clock. Not sure, but I believe this would also overclock the PCIe controller (something which may not be as tolerant of overclocking).
This might explain why the new high end turbo mode would be included in the i5. You lose high overclocking potential (which would attract overclockers to i7), but in exchange, the i5 does decent overclocking for you. Reply
pyn - Saturday, May 30, 2009 - linkis it possible that we will see turbo modes similar to lynnfield in gulftown? also, is intel going to release any 8 core / 16 thread nehalem processors targeted towards desktop systems or is the nehalem-ex likely to be the only 8 core nehalem we will see? Reply
mmpalmeira - Saturday, May 30, 2009 - linkWhy did you use the Lynnfield in a 2.66Ghz configuration with HT on if there wont be models like that in the market? Reply
Anand Lal Shimpi - Saturday, May 30, 2009 - linkI did that to show what sort of performance having HT enabled is responsible for. Intel isn't making a 2.13GHz HT enabled Lynnfield either, but I ran those tests because they're interesting to look at :)
Take care,
Anand Reply
Drazick - Saturday, May 30, 2009 - linkWill the P55 support USB 3, SATA 3, UEFI?
When will we see all those features in the chipsets, which for me, are much more important than the i5 by itself.
What about the new Chiopsets, are they SSD optimized? Reply
Anand Lal Shimpi - Saturday, May 30, 2009 - linkP55 essentially has the same ICH feature set as P45. You get support for six SATA 3.0Gb/s ports, 12 USB 2.0 and PCIe 2.0.
Intel's chipsets are actually what I use for all of my SSD tests and they work quite well. I wouldn't expect any different out of P55.
Remember that P55 is only the first Lynnfield chipsets, next year we'll see more. This chart speculates on some of the features of those (it also lists 14 USB instead of 12, I'm not sure which one is right):
Take care,
Anand Reply
Drazick - Saturday, May 30, 2009 - linkI thought so...
I hope someone will adopt the changes quickly.
It's about time to get rid of the BIOS and make room for speed improvements int the Flash chips (Both via the SATA 3 and USB 3).
Do you see in the horizon how long will it take before will see those features?
Thank you for the response. Reply
Krogoth255 - Saturday, May 30, 2009 - linkI find it very funny when people make a huge fuss over a 2-10% difference in performance (i5 versus i7). It is sad that even budget CPUs are bloody overkill for majority of computer users.
The bottom line is that i5 is going to be Intel's next big winner. It is the perfect Phenom II killer and an excellent successor to the Core 2 parts that it is replacing. I7 makes very little sense unless time is $$$$$.
PrinceGaz - Sunday, May 31, 2009 - linkExactly. My nearly four-year old S939 Athlon 64 X2 still performs everything I do (with one exception) more than fast enough so the difference between the i5 and i7 would be irrelevant. I still think I'm at least a year or two from doing a new build (the only thing of any value at all in my current box I could reuse would be the graphics-card, a 640MB 8800GTS; most of the drives are parallel ATA, and the memory is of course DDR).
Given that the one app where my current rig struggles is PCSX2 (a Playstation 2 emulator), it seems kind of silly to spend upwards of £500 for a new box simply to play PS2 console games, when I could probably buy a new PS2 console for under £100. Therefore debates over the relative merits of i5 and i7 which are both much faster are rather moot for me at the moment, and the vast majority of the PC buying public. It is nice to know how they compare though, and what their pros and cons are (the main con I see being the price of X58 mobos), so I'm thankful for this informative article on AT. Reply
just4U - Saturday, May 30, 2009 - linkI don't quite understand why X58 boards are so expensive. At first we were complaining about ddr3 prices.. but they've come down to a managable point. While cheaper X58 solutions are starting to crop up it's still extremely high and I don't quite get why that is.
With the memory controller integrated into the chip you'd think that the cost of the boards would be cheaper overall. That was one of Amd's main selling points (if I remember right) but for the i7 not the case.. the boards are priced incredibly high.
Anand Lal Shimpi - Saturday, May 30, 2009 - linkIt's artificial. The boards are priced so high because Intel charges quite a bit of money for the X58 chipset. It's the cost of competition; if AMD had a true answer to i7 we'd have much more affordable i7 platforms all of the sudden :)
Take care,
Anand Reply
jmurbank - Sunday, May 31, 2009 - linkChipset and processor prices are two different things. Neither are related to each other. Like all products, prices of chipsets is related to other chipsets competing at the same level. Since the X58 does not have any competitor, people have to pay a high premium for a complete i7 system. If nVidia is allowed to make a chipset for the i7 processor, we will see these high premium prices decrease. Since the i7 processor is designated as enthusiast setup, prices will still be at enthusiast pricing.
just4U - Saturday, May 30, 2009 - linkYou've had them on your test beds so you'd know better then I. Hell I haven't even gotten any hands on with the i7 since people here keep opting for the PII. Not that that's a bad thing, I am rather impressed with those overall just..
Im beginning to realize the only way Im going to get my grubby little paws on a I7 is if I go out and build it for myself. Even I balk a little bit at the price tag of some of those boards but there are a few coming down the pipeline that look a little bit more reasonably priced.
Jabbernyx - Saturday, May 30, 2009 - linkEX58-UD3R = $150 from eWiz ;) Reply
goinginstyle - Saturday, May 30, 2009 - linkIt is $185.99 at eWiz with a $15 rebate that will take two months to get for an end price of $170.99. Reply
Jabbernyx - Monday, June 01, 2009 - linkYou're forgetting the $10 off promo code and 5% Live cashback ;) Reply
Randomblame - Friday, May 29, 2009 - linkAnyone else irritated that when this launches intel will have 5 sockets going?
Shall we count em?
lga 775 core 2
lga 1366 i7
lga 1160 lynfield
lga 771 xeon penryn
lga 611 itanium
Did I miss any?
Anonymous Freak - Sunday, May 31, 2009 - linkIf you're going to include Itanium; you might as well include the mobile sockets as well.
Last October, Intel had one desktop, three server, and two mobile sockets:
LGA775 on the desktop was it.
LGA771 for dual Xeon, PGA-604 for quad-plus Xeon. (And LGA775 for single-socket servers, where the processors were just Core 2 series processors slapped with a "Xeon" name on them, so I'm keeping that with 'desktop'.) PAC-611 is Itanium.
Socket M is the slightly older mobile socket, Socket P is the newer. One could say that Socket M was already dead in October.
Early next year, we will have three desktop, two server, and two mobile sockets.
LGA 775 will be the low-end Core 2 socket, LGA 1366 for i7, and LGA 1156 for Lynnfield. Lynnfield should overtake Core 2 very quickly, especially after the integrated-graphics chips come out, and drop to two desktop sockets, though.
LGA 1366 doubles as the single and dual server socket; and the new "Nehalem EX" will in all likelihood have a new socket shared with the new Itanium (from reasonable guesses, anyway.)
Mobile will have just Socket P until the mobile Nehalems launch, when a new mobile Nehalem socket will be out.
Sorry, but LGA 771 is already dead. Its processors are completely obsolete at this point, by Nehalem-EP. And PGA-604 (which you missed,) as well as PAC-611, will be obsoleted by the Nehalem-EX socket. (Again, just guessing. The entire point of QPI was to make Xeon and Itanium share resources, so I would imagine they would use the same socket. Especially with Xeons now at higher power draw than even the highest draw Itanium; there is no reason for Itanium's goofy socket-with-power-pod arrangement any more. Reply
Drazick - Friday, May 29, 2009 - linkThough the system looks good.
I really liked the one chip Idea (Chipset).
I hope Intel eventually let nVidia develop chipsets for this platform.
Why don't you think the regular PCIE X16 lane in this system is enough for GPGPU? It might not be the best but for Encoding some movies and Accelerating Matlab it should be enough, no? Reply
Anand Lal Shimpi - Saturday, May 30, 2009 - linkI didn't mean to imply that 16 PCIe 2.0 lanes aren't enough for GPGPU. But if you're doing a *lot* of compute over the PCIe bus, perhaps over multiple very high end GPUs, then you'll probably want QPI. This is more of a HPC or head-in-the-clouds-desktop scenario though.
It should be more than enough for GPU based video encode or math.
Take care,
Anand Reply
ssj4Gogeta - Friday, May 29, 2009 - linkEven if Intel allows Nvidia, they can't make integrated graphics for i5 because the chip is connected to the chipset via 2 GB/s DMI, which will bottleneck it. Reply
Doormat - Friday, May 29, 2009 - linkUntil the price of 4GB DDR3 sticks come down (and I could put 16GB of RAM on the board), I think the i7 is where its at. At least with i7, I can go with 12GB now and then upgrade to 24GB later (12GB I need, 24GB I don't know...). Reply
A5 - Friday, May 29, 2009 - linkIf you NEED 12GB, then Lynnfield isn't going to be for you. Intel would much rather you use Xeons for that kind of workload anyway :P Reply
ltcommanderdata - Friday, May 29, 2009 - linkSo with mainstream Nehalems not having any QPI links and high-end Nehalems with QPI not needing them, are third-party IGPs dead? It seems that even if nVidia can win their legal issues with Intel, the technical challenges of being limited to DMI seem to make the Intel chipset business unprofitable. Higher priced chipsets with IGPs would be bandwidth limited over DMI and just making southbridges doesn't seem very glamourous or profitable. Reply
Anand Lal Shimpi - Saturday, May 30, 2009 - linkNVIDIA claims to have DMI based IGPs in development for LGA-1156 platforms. We'll see how good they are and if they do end up coming to market despite the legal issues.
In the long run I don't expect the 3rd party chipset business to survive on either platform (AMD or Intel). Unless either company is horribly deficient at some basic platform need I'd expect desktop and mobile AMD CPUs to use AMD chipsets and for desktop and mobile Intel CPUs to use Intel chipsets. It may take a couple of years to get there but I think the end result is inevitable.
I believe that's why we're seeing such a strong push from NVIDIA lately with things like Ion. Attempting to stay put when we know what the tide is about to do is a difficult task.
Take care,
Anand Reply
rmlarsen - Friday, May 29, 2009 - linkThis is my concern too. While I suppose I should give the Westmere IGP the benefit of the doubt, I do not have high hopes that it will be anywhere near the performance of the ATI and NVIDIA IGPs we see today.
And Intel is of course pulling the same stunt with the new Atom chipset. Reply
ssj4Gogeta - Friday, May 29, 2009 - linkI really hope they have a decent graphics core for Westmere. Otherwise the consumers are going to be really annoyed. I read at the INQ that it's going to be much better than current Intel IGP's. Let's hope that's true.
Maybe they want to eventually replace it with a couple of Larrabee cores in the future. Reply
TA152H - Friday, May 29, 2009 - linkI'm reading this, and I'm really surprised at how slow the Lynnfield is compared to the Core i7. Yet, Anand keeps saying how good it is. What am I missing? It's the same processor, but with modified memory access, and it gets run over by the i7 by up to 5% on many benchmarks.
This sounds like a brain-damaged chip that should not be made. Sure, they can do turbo-mode better, but they can do that on the i7 as well, and may very well do that with the next revision. It seems the trade-offs have a very significant impact on performance.
They should name it the Celeron - which also is performs pretty well, but is brain-damaged enough it's not really competitive with Intel's really good CPUs.
It's still a really good CPU, outside of the context that the i7 is much better. But, if the prices don't overlap, it's still more than good enough to beat anything AMD puts out, and even the Penryn. Still, I'm really surprised at the low performance. I figured it would be close, because dual channel should have better latency than three channel, and the throughput rate wouldn't make so much of a difference. Oh well. At least I know not to wait.
Great article, Anand. I do not really agree with your assessment of it, although I agree it's still a very attractive processor for many, it was very informative and helps me decide what and when to buy now. Thanks! Reply
mesiah - Saturday, May 30, 2009 - linkI think you are overlooking one important factor here. One reason Anand is so excited about the numbers that the lynnfield posted is because it is a crippled pre-production proccessor. With all of the limitations put on this sample chip it still performs admirably, and the actual production samples almost always outperform these early sample chips. Reply
TemjinGold - Friday, May 29, 2009 - linkYou do realize Lynnfield is meant to be the MAINSTREAM part while Bloomfield is the ENTHUSIAST part, right? It was never meant to beat the i7 just as nVidia's GTX260 Core 216 isn't meant to beat the GTX280. That's why it's so much cheaper. By your logic, AMD's entire lineup "shouldn't be made" as all of their chips get creamed by the i7. Reply
TA152H - Friday, May 29, 2009 - linkIf Intel were making the Phenom II, I would say there's no reason for the chips at all. They are expensive and slow. But, AMD really has no choice, since they don't have a better design available.
Your logic is weak. i7 is a LINE of processors, with very expensive ones, and ones that are not so expensive. It's much broader than the GTX280.
The reality is, it's not that much more expensive for Intel to make the i7. It's more of a marketing segmentation situation, just like they compromise lower end processors now. In this case, the loss of performance is really dramatic, and it's not like they're able to use chips they wouldn't be able to use otherwise, by disabling cache, or that the Lynnfield is going to be a lot smaller.
We'll see when Anand gets the actual size, but I'd be shocked if you see a substantial difference in size. Probably the Lynnfield will be bigger, since some logic is on the processor now.
I don't think it's a great tradeoff to lose so much performance, for the limited cost savings. I'd rather have seen them bring the i7 at lower clock speeds down to better prices, instead of artificially inflating the x58 price. Reply
Anand Lal Shimpi - Saturday, May 30, 2009 - linkYou are correct, Lynnfield shouldn't be any smaller than Bloomfield (current i7). Remember that this is not only an early chip but it's on a mostly untuned motherboard. I've heard up to a 10% increase in performance for final shipping platforms. That may be more aggressive than I'd say but I think Jarred is on point here; I'd be surprised if we saw an appreciable difference between the i7-920 and the 2.66GHz Lynnfield in apps that spawn 4 or fewer CPU intensive threads.
It's totally an artificial separation from a silicon standpoint. Intel could just as easily make everything a LGA-1366 processor and forget entirely about 1156. I'm assuming that 1366 boards would inherently be a bit more expensive as routing the QPI link requires a bit more effort than DMI. The main thing is that 1366 does not provide for on-die PCIe, which is necessary given the direction that Intel is going with mainstream graphics.
I think in the long run 1366 will be reserved for very thread heavy work; the Skulltrail successor will only use 1366 sockets. Enthusiast overclockers may also flock to 1366 but I believe the majority of the market will be served just fine by 1156.
Take care,
Anand Reply
red77star - Wednesday, September 09, 2009 - linkI think you're wrong. The only reason Intel released LGA1156 was to 'kill' AMD. It seems to me that Intel doesn't want AMD to be able to compete. Honestly, LGA-1156 has no single value in it. There will never be 6-core CPU for this platform therefore it's absolutely 'future' useless. I own LGA1366 and i realized that i did good purchase. i920 is too good for $279 that Intel wants to kill it. i920 can be overclocked over 1000Mhz, probably not reachable for any of LGA1156 variant. We are talking about 1000Mhz overclock on air cooler and even higher. C0 revision will run 3.8Ghz fine, and D0 over 4.0Ghz meaning it will outperform anything out there. I don't think LGA1366 is only server reserved, wait for 1H 2010 and 6 core release. As soon as AMD pushes 6-core AM3 CPU for the price of newest crippled i7, existence of LGA1156 will lose any point.
In my book Intel should had released cheaper version of x58 with less features (like less SATA ports, single PCIEx16 etc, dual channel memory), and what they did with LGA1156 CPUs, they could do same in LGA1366 package (by crippling i920) so everything is compatible across the platform and of course kill LGA775.
Now we have LGA775, LGA1156, LGA1366 - it's called bullshit. Reply
esgreat - Saturday, May 30, 2009 - linkIf you want performance, definitely i7 is the way to go...and yes, it does look like a purposeful marketing segmentation.
It also boils down to price, not really to the end users but the bill of materials (BOM) cost to the manufacturers. A one chip 'chipset' solution will bring about significantly fewer components (capacitors, resistors), and also enable smaller form factors
This would also mean that as the boards are released, the prices have much more room to drop compared to x58. And the fact that this is the volume mainstream part, economies of scale would ensure significant drops in prices.
This would make great platforms for the majority of the computers sold by Dell, HP, etc (did I mention that P55 is a 'mainstream' chipset?). Large boards like the X58 isn't suitable for all applications. Imagine trying to stuff a huge X58 motherboard into a mini-chassis business desktop.
And hey, the fact that you're an enthusiast and performance-conscious user, all your logical explanations concluded choosing the 'performance' platform, i7...exactly how Intel wanted you to do.
Essentially you choose the performance you want depending on how much you have in your wallet. There's a potential $100-$200 cost savings for Lynnfield which I don't think is 'little'.
The only question I ask is why you think Lynnfield is not going to be smaller than i7? I thought Anand showed photographs comparing their sizes. Reply
MrRuckus - Friday, May 29, 2009 - link"and it gets run over by the i7 by up to 5% on many benchmarks."
Did you really say that? So if 5% is such a large amount, what would you consider to be close??
Running on an intentionally crippled memory controller and only being 5% away from an i7, I would say thats outstanding. Reply
TA152H - Friday, May 29, 2009 - linkOK, Ruckus, think about this instead of making your own crazy remarks.
This is an identical processor in every way, except the memory controller, right? It's got the same functional units, same architecture, even the same cache system.
So the only time it matters, is when it's reading memory from outside itself.
So, the instruction has to be a read, and then has to miss the L1 cache, L2 cache, and L3 cache. This should be under 1% for most workloads, and certainly a very low number for almost all. So, it's not like we're reading memory outside of the processor that often, but it's still considerably slower. It's not 5% slower for reads, it's 5% slower for the entire application. So, it's very surprising to see this. If the cache architecture were different, I could see it, but it's really not. That's why I'm so surprised just the memory subsystem being brain-damaged has such a huge impact.
Take a look at different memory speeds, and despite dramatic differences in clock speeds, you don't really see these types of differences. So, it's alarming to me that using the same memory, you see some significant differences in performance. You'd be better off getting an i7 and getting slower memory in most cases, because you can always buy faster memory later, but you won't be able to fix the Lynnfield's incompetent memory controller.
Maybe it's as the other guy said, early silicon. I sure hope so. Otherwise, they've made a bad trade-off. Reply
ssj4Gogeta - Friday, May 29, 2009 - linkAlso, you're comparing an early engineering sample CPU on an early engineering sample mobo with a retail part. Reply
TA152H - Friday, May 29, 2009 - linkI'll agree there's a real possibility that this is one of the issues. Let's hope you're right. I really don't understand how it can be so slow compared to the i7, so, you probably have something here. Reply
ssj4Gogeta - Friday, May 29, 2009 - link"This sounds like a brain-damaged chip that should not be made."
Why don't you consider the price? You're getting performance almost equal to i7 920 for $200 less (price difference in mobo + CPU). Or you can get better performance than 920 for $100 less (CPU price same, but mobo is cheaper) from a 2.80 GHz Lynnfield. Of course you may like to buy high-end chips, but many people want budget systems. I don't think this chip should "not be made". Reply
mmpalmeira - Friday, May 29, 2009 - linkThe performance of a 2.8Ghz Lynnfield will probably match the 920's. Like it was said the 2.66 Ci5 is 5~7% slower them the 920. On the other hand MSI has just announced a U$165,00 I doubt that a Ci5 board will sell for less them U$100~110 at very best. Probably there won't be even a U$50,00 difference. Reply
TA152H - Friday, May 29, 2009 - linkI think you're saying the same thing I am, that the i7 is the way to go.
The 2.8 GHz Lynnfield should underperform the i7. It's not going to make up more than it's clock speed ratio improvement, and there are some benchmarks where the i7 is 10% faster. Clearly, the Lynnfield will not scale well, since the memory performance is relatively poor compared to the i7. As you go to higher clock speeds, you should see them diverge more.
Also, turbo mode on the Lynnfield was boosting by 166 MHz, not the 133 MHz for the i7. This gave it an advantage it probably will not enjoy in real life. It makes no sense the i7 doesn't get the same boost from turbo mode, so I'd expect Intel to deal with that when they come out with new revisions. It's hard to imagine Intel giving the low end Lynnfield a big advantage over it's higher end brother. Since they're not selling Lynnfield now, leaving the low-end i7s turbo mode isn't problematic, and helps differentiate it from the higher end one. But, it's very doubtful it will be inferior to the crippled Lynnfield in this area. Reply
TA152H - Friday, May 29, 2009 - linkWhere are you getting this data from? Are you just making it up, because you have a feeling???
The 2.8 GHz Lynnfield probably will underperform the 2.66 i7, while costing the same. It's about 5% faster, and processors do not scale linearly with clock speed, as you hopefully know. Plus, it's relatively easy to bump up the clock speed, there's a word for this "overclocking", which I hope you've heard of. Try changing the memory controller on the i5.
The price of the x58 seems artificially inflated. Compared to the x48, it should be significantly cheaper, since there's no memory controller on it. But, it's not.
I'd rather see Intel stop inflating the prices for the i7, rather than create a brain-damaged processor and make people buy it. The costs of making both platforms is probably not nearly what you're saying. Again, look at the x48. Why should the Nehalem motherboards be so much more expensive? It's not like they're so much more complicated.
We'll know more when we see the sizes of these chips. But, I really believe Intel is bumping up the prices a lot on these chipsets. I don't blame them entirely, because they can, and they have a responsibility to their stockholders. But, for us, it would be better to have reasonably priced i7s, than brain-damaged i5s. Reply
ssj4Gogeta - Friday, May 29, 2009 - linkThey're a business after all, and they sell CPU's to make money. Why do you expect them to price their products according to their manufacturing price instead of according to their performance?
Of course i7 is a better alternative for enthusiasts, who know how to overclock. But there are MANY others who don't, and they'd rather save those $50 (or whatever difference it will be) because they can't justify it. I'm not saying i5 makes sense for people like us, but it certainly isn't a part which should not be made.
And better turbo mode on i5 DOES make sense - people who don't know how to overclock can benefit from that extra headroom. You're overclocking i7 to its limits anyways, so a bigger turbo doesn't really make much sense.
I'm going to buy an i7 anyways and wait for Gulftown. :D Reply
aeternitas - Sunday, June 07, 2009 - linkIt sounds like TA152H recently spent alot on an i7 system only to read all of this. I can understand that sort of frustration. Spending 200$+ on 5% and bandwidth one may never use in terms of whats in the PCI/e slots.
However this isnt the place to grasp at straws. Reply
JarredWalton - Friday, May 29, 2009 - linkI don't think Lynnfield is "brain damaged" any more than tri-core Phenom or dual-core Core 2 are "brain damaged". It's like saying Core i7 parts are stupid and shouldn't be made because they're not Xeons - or that Intel and AMD should stop making budget CPUs like the Pentium Dual-Core and Athlon X2 stuff. Tri-channel memory has very little impact on most desktop users, so removing that feature and going with dual-channel is perfectly reasonable.
On the other hand, I do agree that having separate platforms for mainstream and high-end parts is not doing consumers any favors. Now you can lock yourself into either LGA-1366 or LGA-1156, and that means you might eventually hit a dead-end. Hopefully we don't see anything like AMD's old socket 940 "enthusiast" platform where users are abandoned after a few CPU updates. I'd prefer Intel to focus on 1366 and let economies of scale take care of the rest. But then they'd need to charge less for some high-end parts. :p Reply
TA152H - Saturday, May 30, 2009 - linkActually, Jarrod, your logic is flawed.
AMD does that triple core and dual core so they can salvage processors that would be thrown out. Also, dual core can be faster than quad, since you can generally clock higher, since you have less heat and your limit is only the slowest of two cores, not four. But, in any event, there are a lot of instances where going to four cores is not going to help much. The Lynnfield is slower in a lot more things.
You're also confused about dual-channel and tri-channel. I never said dual-channel was bad, I said Lynnfield was. The i7 with dual channel performs better than the Lynnfield, so don't get the two confused.
The difference in performance between the i7 and Lynnfield is dramatic considering they are the same except for the memory controller. Anyone here who buys a Lynnfield is probably making a mistake, since it's easy to overclock the i7, and you can't fix the brain-damaged Lynnfield.
What your saying is what I have been. Stick with the i7 and let it go down in price, instead of crippling it and selling that as the lower cost part. Where I disagree with you is, I don't think the i7 platform is going to be much less expensive to make. Maybe you have the sizes for all the parts, but I don't think you'll see a significant difference in the costs. A lower end chipset without so many PCIe lanes for the i7 could have brought the system costs a lot closer, and you wouldn't have to castrate the processor.
Also, because now you have more functions on the processor, it's very possible it will not clock as high. It will, after all, generate more heat, presumably, since it's got more on it.
I don't think Intel made a good compromise with this. To lose so much performance with just a memory controller change is shocking to me. Maybe it's new silicon, and maybe that's most of the performance loss, but it doesn't make sense to me. It's not the same as a smaller L2 cache that makes the processor a lot smaller. Or salvaging processors that would otherwise be thrown out, where there is a very meaningful cost difference. This seems more like a market segment type of thing.
JarredWalton - Saturday, May 30, 2009 - linkI think you're putting WAY too much emphasis on these early benchmarks. I expect final Lynnfield to perform faster than the i7-920 in most cases (outside of heavily threaded workloads like 3D rendering). There are tons of people that:
A) Never do 3D rendering
B) Never do video encoding/transcoding
C) Never overclock
For those users, the enhanced Turbo on Lynnfield combined with lower costs makes perfect sense. We are after all looking at a platform cost that will be about $150 less than Core i7 + mobo, plus you buy RAM in pairs instead of triplets.
We'll have to see how Lynnfield clocks with final CPUs before making any judgments; I certainly don't think the sample Anand has is representative of final chips in performance, clocking, or various other areas. As he mentions, the motherboard BIOS releases still look like they're not ready for the public, and that can make up for the "huge" 5% performance gap.
For people looking at faster dual-core chips for gaming (i.e. Core 2 Duo E8500/E8600), I suspect that the Lynnfield will outperform them across the board, with or without overclocking. They'll be about the same price too, all told. Reply
GeorgeH - Friday, May 29, 2009 - linkWhen the "real" test comes out, I'd be very curious to hear your thoughts on the USB, SATA, and PCIe 3.0 standards, as all three have been rumored to be out in late 2009 or early 2010. With PCIe 2.0 integrated onto the CPU and USB/SATA 2.0 being locked in on the motherboard (ignoring add-on cards) it seems as if first gen systems could end up being a major loser in terms of longevity and upgradeability. Reply
jmke - Friday, May 29, 2009 - linkWhen I got to the last page and started reading the Why would anyone want a LGA-1366 system then? , I got a nasty flashback. S939 vs S754: we all knew S754 was a dead end, right from the start; why o why is Intel taking this same decisions? Build one platform, let it scale all the way up and down; why force people to upgrade motherboard to upgrade their CPU :-/ Reply
philosofool - Saturday, May 30, 2009 - linkBecause you and I, the DIY system builders, represent about 0.3% of the market for computers. Socket decisions are driven entirely by the needs of Intel, Dell, HP and the rest of the network of manufactures. Those people want an inexpensive successor to LGA 775, which 1366 was not. I'm not sure why intel wanted a performance socket, but I don't think 1366 is leaving the scene. It will just be part of the "high end" market. LGA 1156 will include mainstream parts eventually. However, looking at the cost of Core i5, I have to say that I'm probably not canceling my plan to upgrade to a Phenom X3 720. Reply
Depeche - Friday, May 29, 2009 - linkIf it wasn't for AMD Intel would just price their processors whatever they want it to be. AMD is out there so that Intel drops their prices :) Reply
lopri - Friday, May 29, 2009 - linkis what Intel wants, obviously. And it is succeeding. More sockets, more patents, more incompatibility... and We're going back to $200, $500, $1,000 tiers in CPU prices. I'm surprised that you have no complaint, Anand. Well, actually you think the opposite! (Page 2: Making Nehalem Affordable??) Wow!
no additional ICH is necessary as all of that functionality is embedded in the PCH.
Umm..? I thought PCH was just a new name for ICH. Is there any other functionality in PCH that does not exist in ICH?
Apparently Intel saw the danger of 3rd party PCBs for Lynfield CPUs, and that is why these CPUs are priced so high despite being designated as "Mainstream". (Though I am certain Intel will do anything it can to prevent 3rd party to develop motherboards for these CPUs - at least until DOJ threatens it with anti-trust investigations)
Forgetting all the dirty business stuff, Lynfield is no doubt an admirable piece of silicon. It is a fine engineering that no one else has achieved yet. I'm anxious to get my hands on it when it's out. I have an i7 920 sitting in a box for nearly two weeks now because I can't seem to find a board that suits my needs/wants. I hope we'll see variety of creative motherboards for Lynfield CPUs now that these CPUs aren't (presumably) shackled to QPI BS. Reply
Anand Lal Shimpi - Friday, May 29, 2009 - linkNote that these are performance desktop parts. They are mainstream for quad-core CPUs but not designed for the sub-$500 system market. You will see 32nm Westmere derivatives in the $100 - $200 range and eventually even lower.
Third party motherboard makers already have P55 boards in development for Lynnfield, the majority of P55 boards for Lynnfield won't be made by Intel.
Take care,
Anand Reply
Kary - Friday, May 29, 2009 - linkI think this was more a reference to third party CHIPSETS
Like Nvidia's ION upset Intel
Different manufactures using the same chipset don't really make that different of boards (compared to completely different chipsets made into boards by different manufacturers) Reply
Anand Lal Shimpi - Friday, May 29, 2009 - linkThe chipset honestly doesn't do much these days. It acts as a PCIe switch and delivers basic standards: USB, SATA, GigE, etc... Long term I think we'll see that AMD makes AMD chipsets and Intel makes Intel chipsets, I don't see much room for someone like NVIDIA there.
Where NV does add value is in graphics, and there's nothing preventing NVIDIA from continuing to deliver graphics to both Intel and AMD platforms. I don't believe we'll see much of a future in 3rd party integrated graphics chipsets on either AMD or Intel platforms, both manufacturers will be bringing graphics on-package.
At this point I view NVIDIA's platform strengths as being predominantly in mobile applications (think MIDs, smartphones, notebooks) and unfulfilled niches like Atom + Ion. On the graphics side, NVIDIA is quite strong, it's just the platform strength that has eroded over time.
Take care,
Anand Reply
ssj4Gogeta - Friday, May 29, 2009 - linkThere's always the dual-core Nehalem Clarkdale for the mainstream market. And I think they'll launch lower clock Lynnfields too, like Anand said.
I think Intel did a good job by separating its high-end processors from the mainstream ones and launching them as a different series. So now instead of having one $1200 extreme part, we have 3 high-end parts, with the lowest priced one a very affordable option for geeks who are on a budget. Reply
ssj4Gogeta - Friday, May 29, 2009 - linkCongratulations Intel, you've created a beast.
What is AMD going to do now? I don't think they have any new cores ready for launch this year. If Lynnfield offers the same performance as i7 920 for Phenom II prices, AMD will either have to bump up their clock speeds ridiculously, or lower their prices yet again. Things aren't looking good for AMD. Lynnfield turns out to be better than I expected.
And I HATE Intel and their tick-tock. Actually I can't decided whether to hate or like it. It's good that they're advancing our planet's technology at a really fast pace so we'll be prepared when aliens attack. But which damn processor do I buy??? They launch a new series every year, and a new stepping every few months. Which one to buy? WHEN to buy??? My parents won't buy me processors every 6 months! Reply
MadMan007 - Friday, May 29, 2009 - linkYou could always do what people did back in the day - upgrade when your current hardware no longer does what you need it to do. I know, crazy right!? Reply
Griswold - Friday, May 29, 2009 - linkIts only a crazy concept if daddy is paying for those upgrades all the time - you and the rest of us know its the right thing to do. :] Reply
Jaramin - Friday, May 29, 2009 - linkLooking at AMD's roadmap, I fear this is going to hurt a lot :( If the pricing is good, it could confine AMD into the lower mainstream segment. Reply
Hyperion1400 - Friday, May 29, 2009 - linkThat remains to be seen. Don't Istanbul heading for market at around the same time as Core-i5. There has been little information leaked about Istanbul and no performance numbers have come to light. So, as of now, it is impossible to predict how competitive AMD's offerings will be. Not to mention we have Magny Cours to look forward too in 1H 2010. Reply
ssj4Gogeta - Friday, May 29, 2009 - linkBut Istanbul is just a 6-core Opteron. In other words, a server chip. Reply
Hyperion1400 - Saturday, May 30, 2009 - linkAs was Barcelona and Shanghai. But, that didn't seem to stop them from releasing them on the main stream market. Reply
Spoelie - Saturday, May 30, 2009 - linkbut costs would be too prohibitive
PhII is already similar in die size as bloomfield, and is forced to be priced lower for competitive reasons.
You think AMD won't be hurting if it sells an even larger die to compete with a smaller-than-bloomfield die, in a market where having more than 6 cores is questionable value at best?
No, only thing amd can do is crank up clock speeds, try to get 3.4 and 3.6ghz models out the door Reply
Spoelie - Saturday, May 30, 2009 - linkOh and up the uncore clock on them as well, preferably 2.4ghz, but might make them look worse in power consumption comparisons Reply
Hyperion1400 - Friday, May 29, 2009 - link*Presses imaginary edit button*
"Don't forget, Istanbul is heading..." Reply
MadMan007 - Friday, May 29, 2009 - linkAwesome preview, too bad about HT.
I think there's an error with the labelling for the first pass x264 encoding test on pg 7. Reply
dwade123 - Friday, May 29, 2009 - linki5 is perfect for ITX motherboard compared to i7. Can't wait!!! Reply
nubie - Friday, May 29, 2009 - link+1 they need to get an ITX motherboard for these immediately, if not sooner!
One chip motherboard with integrated PCI-e x16 is perfect for ITX gaming system, should drive the cost of them way way down :)
Dual x8 PCI-e 2.0 is fine for Crossfire or SLi (not that I would ever plan to run them)
Is there any chance of an nVidia 9800/GTS250 integrated ITX motherboard? I would just about die if you could get one of those for around $200 ;) Reply
Mr Perfect - Friday, May 29, 2009 - linkAbsolutely! Can you imagine all that horsepower in such a small FF? Hopefully Zotac makes another mini-ITX with a x16 slot on it. Reply
Depeche - Friday, May 29, 2009 - linkBy the time I got the i7 the i5 comes out and when I finally get the i5 some other series comes out. I can't keep up :)
Get these CPUs in the Bench Beta :P Reply
A5 - Friday, May 29, 2009 - linkThis kind of thing (and the motherboard round-ups that used to be here) were the reasons I came to AT. If this pans out, I'm definitely building a Lynnfield system to replace my aging Socket-939 rig. Reply
philosofool - Monday, August 03, 2009 - linkAs a bonus, if you buy into LGA 1156 now, you will probably be able to get a considerable upgrade in 2 years just by replacing the CPU. The LGA 1156 socket should last awhile, at least as long as LGA 775, but maybe longer, because the memory controller was the big reason for a new socket. Reply
nuudles - Monday, June 01, 2009 - linkI agree, great article!
I also have only an an old s939 rig (opteron 150 - so i am still in the single-core world), and I also suspect this is the one I have been waiting for:)
I initially thought I would wait a bit longer till the 32nm parts come out (damn Intel for their tick-tock), but since the first 32nm parts will be more mainstream (2C/4T) where the Lynnfields are high-end mainstream (or whatever its called) I think the 2.8 Lynnfield would suit me nicely for the next 3-4 years.
faxon - Monday, June 01, 2009 - linkyea i would wait man. i upgraded from my 939 rig to an e5200 and now i have a Q9650 @ 4GHz @ 1.296vcore. given the performance benchmarks, even a 3.7ghz lynnfield will probably outperform my 4GHZ quad in games Reply
Depeche - Friday, May 29, 2009 - linkMan thats ancient ... ya I would defiantly wait for the Core i5s. To get a Core i7 just doesn't seem worth it now with the Core i5's coming out. Reply
Samus - Friday, May 29, 2009 - linki7 still makes sense if you plan on
a) SLI/CF
b) dual-CPU
c) memory bandwidth intensive tasks (seeding torrents, folding@home, etc) where triple channel makes some sense
d) the need for 6 memory slots
e) something currently purchasable
I also suspect the release of "i5" chips will drive down prices of i7, specifically the i7-920, the most desirable i7. Keeping in mind the i7-920's overclocking ability, it is still much more capable than the "i5" even if you assume the "i5" overclocks as well, because the i7 has Jackson technology active across its entire lineup. Reply
DJMiggy - Monday, June 01, 2009 - linkI swear I read that the i7 doesn't support dual CPUs. Maybe that has changed with xeons though or I might just be insane. Probably the latter. Reply
wifiwolf - Sunday, May 31, 2009 - linki7 system is too expensive, cpu is also expensive but system is too overpriced. Reply
Jabbernyx - Friday, May 29, 2009 - link^ This, although for me personally (b) isn't important and I've effectively nerfed (d) by using an EX58-UD3R :P Reply