Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Intel Core i7 for $1075.95 ?

E

enVisionGTR

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Nov 13, 2007
17
0
Found this on engadget:

http://www.engadget.com/2008/11/02/intels-core-i7-purchased-overclocked-benchmarked/

intel-corei7-motherboard-600.jpg


"Looking for the latest in CPU spice to keep your gaming rig flowing? You'd better go find your wallet/purse and head to your local computer shop for a fresh Core i7 (née Nehalem), because they are apparently available for sale right now -- before most of the major sites have even received theirs. User gooddog over at the Overclock.net forums has flaunted posted this picture of his recently purchased 3.2GHz Core i7 Extreme 965 CPU. Paired with an Asus P6T motherboard and running at the stock clock rate it scored a 5,606 in 3DMark06, in-line with what earlier testers found. O/C'ed up to 3.8GHz it delivered a tidy 6,608, a mark that surely gives it control of all benchmarks and, thus, the PC universe."

Can't wait to see the new Mac Pro numbers.
 
To bad apple does not use desktop chips in any of their products.

Have to wait for Xeon version for the
Mac pro.
 
I hope apple comes out with the core i7 for the mbp before mid aug. The performence gain from this series is supp to be crazy
 
Aea said:
This iteration will have a very short lifespan, Intel are releasing it in another slot type within months, all signs point to waiting for that to happen.
Click to expand...

You're right, Q3 2009 is a few months. :D

Would not complain I guess. I couldn't care less about laptops. You're always at most a block away from the internet and a computer. Just have a flash drive (Or an SD card that doubles as my cell phone memory) and do whatever you need to do.

Also, as someone who thinks portability has 0 value because of the above, it's hard to imagine paying the same amount for something that fails more on average, has more expensive problems on average, and has lower performance numbers. Call me crazy.
 
How come we have to wait for the Xeon variant? Can't Apple stick in two of the quad-core version of these babies in their Mac Pros?
 
raymondu999 said:
How come we have to wait for the Xeon variant? Can't Apple stick in two of the quad-core version of these babies in their Mac Pros?
Click to expand...

Because Intel in all its wisdom decided that if you're going to need more then two processors you're going to pay more since they'll be in a different slot factor, thus releasing the MP compatible Xeon line. I'm sure there are also some architecture differences that don't really warrant the premium cost, although Xeon chips are supposed to be more stable due to more stringent quality control.
 
raymondu999 said:
How come we have to wait for the Xeon variant? Can't Apple stick in two of the quad-core version of these babies in their Mac Pros?
Click to expand...

No. Apple doesn't use desktop processors. They won't work in current models because

1. The socket is different.
2. The memory is different.
3. It couldn't work, anyway.

We have to wait for Gainestown at the minimum.

Beckton at most. If they use Beckton, say goodbye to a sub $3,000 Mac Pro.
 
Tallest Skil said:
No. Apple doesn't use desktop processors. They won't work in current models because

1. The socket is different.
2. The memory is different.
3. It couldn't work, anyway.

We have to wait for Gainestown at the minimum.

Beckton at most. If they use Beckton, say goodbye to a sub $3,000 Mac Pro.
Click to expand...
Well..X58 does come in a dual socket configuration but it is the Skulltrail successor and not Xeon.
 
theoretically, between 2 of the desktop quad-core variant, and 2 of the Xeon variant, which would have more performance?
 
Tallest Skil said:
No. Apple doesn't use desktop processors. They won't work in current models because

1. The socket is different.
2. The memory is different.
3. It couldn't work, anyway.

We have to wait for Gainestown at the minimum.

Beckton at most. If they use Beckton, say goodbye to a sub $3,000 Mac Pro.
Click to expand...

Well, considering if you were to get two of the processors in the baseline $2800 MP you'd need to spend $1500, I'm sure that Apple gets a rather substantial discount from Intel somewhere down the line. I remember at one point you would need to spend over $2000 to get just the CPUs for the baseline MPs. I'm sure Apple could find a way to use premium hardware without a hike in prices.
 
raymondu999 said:
theoretically, between 2 of the desktop quad-core variant, and 2 of the Xeon variant, which would have more performance?
Click to expand...
The same except there's an additional QPI for the second processor. Expect ECC on the Xeon as well.

You know there are MSRP $266 Core i7 processors as well. It's launch so expect inflated prices.
 
Eidorian said:
The same except there's an additional QPI for the second processor. Expect ECC on the Xeon as well.

You know there are MSRP $266 Core i7 processors as well. It's launch so expect inflated prices.
Click to expand...
MSRP?

The amounts on the Intel Price List(s) are typically for quantity purchasers (Q=1000 usually). I hadn't seen retail stated anywhere on the lists, so I'm hesitant to think this will be what end users can get them for. :(

It would certainly be nice though. ;) :D
 
nanofrog said:
MSRP?

The amounts on the Intel Price List(s) are typically for quantity purchasers (Q=1000 usually). I hadn't seen retail stated anywhere on the lists, so I'm hesitant to think this will be what end users can get them for. :(

It would certainly be nice though. ;) :D
Click to expand...
Price per 1000 slipped my mind at the time.
 
Aea said:
Because Intel in all its wisdom decided that if you're going to need more then two processors you're going to pay more since they'll be in a different slot factor, thus releasing the MP compatible Xeon line. I'm sure there are also some architecture differences that don't really warrant the premium cost, although Xeon chips are supposed to be more stable due to more stringent quality control.
Click to expand...

It's really because they can and the target markets are those using computers as a tool not an entertainment device who can pay the extra costs.

Tallest Skil said:
Beckton at most. If they use Beckton, say goodbye to a sub $3,000 Mac Pro.
Click to expand...

You're not back on the Beckton thing again are you? Or just hedging your bets? :D There is a 0% chance Apple will use Beckton. Gainstown X and W processors with Tylersburg 36-D single or dual chipsets are for DP Workstations and what Apple will be using.
 
Umbongo said:
You're not back on the Beckton thing again are you? Or just hedging your bets? :D There is a 0% chance Apple will use Beckton. Gainstown X and W processors with Tylersburg 36-D single or dual chipsets are for DP Workstations and what Apple will be using.
Click to expand...

I certainly don't want to be; we don't need a four-socket, $3,000 base model, thanks.

I only bring it up because Apple has done stupid things in the past and we don't REALLY know what they'll be using.
 
Tallest Skil said:
I certainly don't want to be; we don't need a four-socket, $3,000 base model, thanks.

I only bring it up because Apple has done stupid things in the past and we don't REALLY know what they'll be using.
Click to expand...

I understand where you are comming from, but Apple have had the same ideology with the Power Macs and Mac Pros for a long time now. Intel have a workstation platform and processors intended for it so it's safe to say that is what Apple will use.
 
That's really expensive! Intel makes lots of money from the high end desktop processors.
 
tonyl said:
That's really expensive! Intel makes lots of money from the high end desktop processors.
Click to expand...
Beckton is a multi-processor server part, so you can get 16 cores with 4 of them. Definitely not cheap.

Smaller production quantities though, so costs go up. Then they add profit. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back