Intel Core i7 920, 940 and 965 Extreme Edition

Introducing the new Core i7

Today marks the release of Intel's latest and greatest processor architecture to date.

For the past two years Intel has dominated the CPU market with their Core 2 processors, reaping havoc on AMD's Athlon and Phenom products. Yet despite of this significant dominance, Intel will be pushing the Core 2 aside and make room for the new Core i7 processor series.

When you consider that the Pentium 4 lived on for roughly four years, it'd seem almost criminal to be axing the Core 2’s lead so early, especially considering the success that the Core 2 has been. While the Pentium 4 often played second best to AMD's Athlon64 range, today AMD is finding itself in hot water, and we can't even begin to imagine what will happen now with the Core i7 introduction taking place today.

It's becoming quite evident that Intel is enjoying being on top of their game, and the Core i7 should ensure that they stay this way for some time to come.

Today we will be introducing you to three new Core i7 processors based on the new Intel Nehalem microarchitecture, each featuring 4-cores and operating in the 2.66 to 3.20GHz range. Like the Core 2 family, these new processors feature model numbers, designed to keep things simple.

Initially Intel is releasing just three processors, one of which is an Extreme Edition version.

The Core i7 965 Extreme Edition runs at 3.20GHz and features a QPI (QuickPath Interface) throughput of 6.4GT/s, which is the key difference here. The mainstream versions of the processor include the Core i7 920 and 940, clocked at 2.66GHz and 2.93GHz, respectively. These more affordable processors feature a QPI throughput of just 4.8GT/s, so it will be interesting to discover what kind of impact this has on performance.

As we move along, we will detail some interesting new concepts introduced on the Core i7's Nehalem architecture, talk about the future of this platform, how it performs today (a.k.a. the benchmark galore), only to close up with some preliminary overclocking findings and initial pricing.

A closer look to the Core i7 and Nehalem

The revamped architecture used on the new Core i7 is a whole new ball game, and as you are about to find out, much has changed.

Possibly the largest architectural change involves the QuickPath Interface (QPI) which we mentioned earlier. The QPI has been developed to replace the aging FSB (Front Side Bus), offering a lightning fast interface between the CPU and the chipset. Of course, the chipset must support QPI technology and therefore the X48 has been replaced by the new X58 chipset.

Now, because components no longer run off a universal FSB which is then multiplied to get an intended frequency, Intel has introduced a single 133.33MHz base clock. Each component uses its own unique multiplier to reach a specified frequency. Take the Core i7 940 processor, which operates at 2.93GHz using a 22x multiplier (22 x 133 = 2926MHz).

However unlike conventional processors, which use a single multiplier, the Core i7 965 Extreme Edition for example offers a feature called “Turbo Mode”. When enabled, this allows the user to designate an individual multiplier to each of the four processor cores. This means that when overclocking it is possible to push only the first core to the extreme as this is the most heavily used core. As a result you can reduce the heat output if only the core(s) in demand are running at their peak capacity, rather than all four.

The memory also works in a similar fashion, using a multiplier off the base 133.33MHz clock to achieve a certain frequency. For example, by default the Core i7 platform uses DDR3-1066 memory and to reach this frequency an 8x multiplier is required. This really simplifies overclocking and allows the user to either adjust the 133.33MHz base clock to overclock everything at once, or individually overclock components using their multiplier.

This simplified overclocking potential along with greater bandwidth between the processor and chipset are impressive enhancements, but there was something else the FSB was holding back. That is of course memory performance, and to solve this problem Intel has finally done what AMD did years ago, move the memory controller onto the CPU. The new on-die memory controller of the “Bloomfield” Core i7 processors supports triple-channel DDR3 memory.

Previously the 333MHz FSB of the high-end Core 2 processors limited them to a peak memory bandwidth of 10.6GB/s, while DDR2-1066 memory working in dual-channel mode had a peak bandwidth of 17GB/s. In order to move forward Intel had to remove the need for the FSB, and since AMD already had the answer, Intel just had to follow.

That's not to say Intel didn't think beyond, so they went all out developing a triple-channel DDR3 memory controller.

When paired with low-end DDR3-1066 memory this controller will have a peak bandwidth of 25.5GB/s, while DDR3-1333 will exceed 31GB/s! While the speed is impressive, also keep in mind this controller supports three channels and allows for two DIMMs per channel. This means that motherboards can have three or six DIMM slots instead of the usual two or four.

It should be pointed out as well that the Core i7 processors can only support DDR3 memory. The Core i7 is a single-die processor, meaning all four cores, the memory controller, and all cache are on a single die. The three processors that we are looking at today feature an on-die shared 8MB L3 cache, while each of the four cores have its own 256KB L2 cache. In total, each processor boasts an impressive 731M transistors and a thermal design process of 130W.

As the icing on the cake, hyper-threading technology makes a comeback on the Core i7, making these quad-core processors capable of handling a total of eight threads. This is the same feature that was present in the older Netburst Pentium 4 processors, but was dropped for the Core 2 line-up. Indeed, your OS will see eight cores.

Future Core i7 plans

As mentioned before, this next generation Intel microarchitecture goes by the code-name 'Nehalem', a name many of you have probably seen floating around for quite some time now.

Nehalem will come in variants for desktops, servers and notebooks. The first series under the Core i7 brand goes by the codename 'Bloomfield' which are 45nm processors featuring 4-cores with Hyper-threading.

Also in the works we know of Westmere, Clarkdale, Beckton, Gainestown, Lynnfield, Clarksfield, Havendale, and Auburndale. Quite the mouthful, huh?

We know Beckton will be a four-socket server CPU, while Gainestown is the dual-socket version. As for the desktop, we expect that eventually the Bloomfield processors that we are reviewing today will be replaced by Westmere cores that will bring a number of enhancements.

High-end processors based on the Westmere core will feature 6-cores (12 threads) and will be built using the 32nm design process. The cores will feature a 12 MB shared L3 cache and will also be able to use a further improved quad-channel DDR3 memory and a 4x QuickPath bus interface. All of this is not expected until late 2009 or perhaps the first half of 2010.

Today's Bloomfield processors, as well as their Westmere future successors, are designed to use the new LGA1366 socket which is not compatible with previous LGA775 processors.

Other future desktop cores like Lynnfield and Havendale will not use the same LGA1366 socket. Rather they will require motherboards using a smaller LGA1156 socket. The fact that we are once again foreseeing two different CPU sockets from Intel is interesting (but certainly not encouraged). When Lynnfield and Havendale come out in late 2009, they are expected to only support dual-channel DDR3 memory and therefore become a value solution for consumers.

Inevitably, a mobile version of Nehalem is also expected to arrive but not until late 2009. The performance mobile processors (Clarksfield) will be very similar to the Lynnfield desktop core, meaning they are quad-core parts featuring an 8MB L3 cache and carrying support for dual-channel DDR3 memory.

Another very exciting upcoming mobile chip is called 'Auburndale'. Although these are mainstream dual-core processors with 4MB of L3 cache, they will incorporate an on-die GPU (Ironlake). This is expected to be Intel’s first GPU on CPU design.

Test System Specs & Futuremark

Core i7 Test System Specs

- Intel Core i7 965 Extreme Edition (LGA1366)

- Intel Core i7 940 (LGA1366)

- Intel Core i7 920 (LGA1366)

- x3 1GB DDR3-1066 Samsung (CAS 7-7-7-20)

- Intel DX58SO (Intel X58) Pre-Production

- OCZ GameXStream (700 watt)

- Seagate 500GB 7200-RPM (Serial ATA300)

- ASUS GeForce GTX 280 (1GB)

Software

- Microsoft Windows Vista Ultimate SP1 (64-bit)

- Nvidia Forceware 180.43 Beta

Core 2 Test System Specs

- Intel Core 2 Quad Q9650 (LGA775)

- Intel Core 2 Duo E8600 (LGA775)

- Intel Core 2 Duo E6700 (LGA775)

- x2 Kingston HyperX 2GB DDR3-1333 (CAS 7-7-7-20)

- ASUS Rampage Extreme (Intel X48)

- OCZ GameXStream (700 watt)

- Seagate 500GB 7200-RPM (Serial ATA300)

- ASUS GeForce GTX 280 (1GB)

Software

- Microsoft Windows Vista Ultimate SP1 (64-bit)

- Nvidia Forceware 180.43 Beta

Phenom X4 Test System Specs

- AMD Phenom X4 9950 (AM2+)

- x2 Kingston HyperX 2GB DDR2-1066 (CAS 5-5-5-15)

- ASUS M3A79-T Deluxe (AMD 790FX)

- OCZ GameXStream (700 watt)

- Seagate 500GB 7200-RPM (Serial ATA300)

- ASUS GeForce GTX 280 (1GB)

Software

- Microsoft Windows Vista Ultimate SP1 (64-bit)

- Nvidia Forceware 180.43 Beta

Right away we see a healthy 7.5% performance increase in the 3Dmark Vantage CPU test when comparing the new Core i7 920 (2.66GHz) processor to the Core 2 Quad Q9650 (3.00GHz), which is obviously very impressive. The Core i7 940 (2.93GHz) processor was 10% faster, while the Core i7 965 Extreme Edition with Turbo Mode disabled was 15% faster. By enabling Turbo Mode the Core i7 965 Extreme Edition extends its lead over the Core 2 Quad Q9650, delivering 19.5% more performance.

However, the real story is in the overclocked Core i7 965 Extreme Edition configuration, which was working at 3.88GHz and delivered 30% more performance when compared to the heavily armed Core 2 Quad Q9650. Furthermore, the Core i7 920, which is clocked only slightly higher than the Phenom X4 9950, was able to deliver 25% more performance. The Core 2 Duo E6700, which was once the flagship Core 2 Duo processor, was 40% slower than the Core i7 920.

Now we are testing with PCmark Vantage, where we will be focusing on the “Gaming” scores of each configuration. As you can see, the Core i7 920 almost delivered 40% more performance than the Core 2 Quad Q9650, despite being less aggressively clocked.

The Core i7 940 provided another 6.5% increase in performance, while the Core i7 965 Extreme Edition was another 13% faster with Turbo Mode enabled. Overclocking the Core i7 965 Extreme Edition to 3.88GHz made it 75% faster than the Core 2 Quad Q9650, which is quite incredible really.

The PCmark communications test is not quite as generous but still the Core i7 920 was able to put away the Core 2 Quad Q9650 by a small margin.

The Phenom X4 9950 performed very poorly in this test and failed to outperform the old Core 2 Duo E6700. The Core i7 965 Extreme Edition processor using the Turbo Mode feature was 20% faster than the Core 2 Quad Q9650.

Benchmarks: SiSoftware Sandra

Clearly moving to an on-die memory controller has paid dividends as the Core i7 920 squeezed out a memory bandwidth of 17GB/s in SiSoftware Sandra using nothing more than DDR3 memory running at 1066MHz. Running three of these modules in triple-channel mode has huge performance benefits, as we have just witnessed. The slightly higher clocked Core i7 940 provided another gigabyte per second of memory bandwidth, matching the Core i7 965 Extreme Edition processor.

Overclocking the Core i7 965 EE along with the DDR3 memory allowed for a memory bandwidth of 21GB/s, which is very impressive. When compared to the Core 2 Quad Q9650 running dual-channel DDR3-1333 memory, the Core i7 920 delivered well over twice the memory bandwidth. Although the Phenom X4 9950 also features an on-die memory controller, it is limited by the front side bus and therefore maxes out at around 10GB/s.

Looking at the Sandra processor arithmetic performance we see that again the Core i7 920 is easily able to waste the Core 2 Quad Q9650. Here the Core i7 920 delivered 60% more performance in the whetstone test, and 24% more performance in the dhrystone test. After this point the Core i7 processors just continued to become faster as the clock speed was increased.

In the Sandra multi-media test we see the Core i7 processors offer significant performance advantages over both the Core 2 and Phenom X4 processors. The Core i7 920 was 17% faster than the Phenom X4 9950 in the multi-media float test, and 21% faster in the multi-media int test. Again the performance increased steadily with the processor's frequency, and overclocking the Core i7 965 Extreme Edition had a huge impact on performance. The 3.88GHz overclocked Extreme Edition processor was 38% faster than the Core i7 920.

This benchmark is specifically designed to measure the efficiency of the different multi-core processors with their different architectures. This benchmark does not test how fast the cores of the processors are, but rather how fast the connection between them is. Not all multi-core processors are made equally as their architectures differ greatly. When looking at multi-core efficiency it is clear that the Core i7 is going to bring multi-core processing to a whole new level.

According to SiSoftware the Phenom X4 9950 has extremely poor multi-core efficiency, providing just 3GB/s of bandwidth between the cores. The Core 2 Quad Q9650 sees a more impressive 18GB/s of bandwidth between the cores. Well, this would seem impressive if the Core i7 920 did not deliver 82% more bandwidth at 32.6GB/s, which is again amazing. The Core i7 940 is even faster and so is the Core i7 965 Extreme Edition.

However, the most impressive result is seen when overclocking the Core i7 965 Extreme Edition processor to 3.88GHz, where the bandwidth between the cores reaches an insane 45GB/s! At this point scalability would seem to be a rather tangible improvement of the Nehalem architecture.

Benchmarks: EVEREST, SuperPI, WinRAR

EVEREST Ultimate Edition reports lower memory bandwidths than before and the performance trends also seem to change. The Phenom X4 9950 no longer looks impressive when compared to the Core 2 processors, delivering a similar memory bandwidth to that of the Core 2 Quad Q9650. What did remain consistent was the dominating performance of the Core i7 processors, which overwhelmed both the Core 2 Quad Q9650 and Phenom X4 9950.

Super PI is an old favorite and the 32MB calculation generally takes quite some time to complete, though that is assuming you are not using a new Intel Core i7 processor. The Core 2 Duo E8600 was slightly faster than the Core 2 Quad Q9650 in this test thanks to its slight clock speed advantage. The Core i7 920 made the same calculation in just 13 minutes and 22 seconds, effectively shaving off over 2 minutes. By the time we reached 3.88GHz on the Core i7 965 Extreme Edition we were almost making the 32MB calculation within 10 minutes.

Despite being clocked 670MHz per core slower than the Core 2 Duo E8600, the Core i7 920 was actually 100KB/s faster in the single thread test. When looking at the multi-thread performance the Phenom X4 9950 was able to defeat the Core 2 Quad Q9650 with a throughput of 1567KB/s. This figure would be trumped by the Core i7 920, which delivered 76% more performance. Then the Core i7 940 was another 10.5% faster than the Core i7 920.

Benchmarks: ScienceMark, AutoMKV

The Core i7 processors didn't appear to have the kind of performance advantage seen in many of the previous tests in ScienceMark. For example, the aggressively clocked Core 2 Duo E8600 processor defeated the Core i7 920 and Core i7 940. The Core i7 965 Extreme Edition was faster with either the Turbo Mode enabled or disabled. Overclocking the Core i7 965 Extreme Edition processor to 3.88GHz had a significant impact on performance, allowing for an impressive score of 2406 pts.

AutoMKV is an application aiming for easy media conversion between various media formats using various third party codecs. With AutoMKV and the x264 codec, a freeware H.264 encoder, users can easily create media files, for example.

We really see the Core i7 processor shine in this test, delivering exceptional performance that blows the Phenom X4 and Core 2 competition out of the water. While the Phenom X4 9950 encoded the file in 18:01 minutes, and the Core 2 Quad Q9650 in 15:05 minutes, the Core i7 920 did it in just 11:31 minutes.

Benchmarks: CINEBENCH

CINEBENCH uses a wide set of commands and CPU instructions to run the tests. Therefore the benchmark results are a good indicator not only for CINEMA 4D users looking for a powerful computer, but for anyone who is looking for a system running all kinds of CPU and graphics card intense tasks.

First up we take a look at the multi-CPU rendering results, and as you can see above, the Core i7 processors fair very well here. The Core i7 920 was 28% faster than the Core 2 Quad Q9650 and 48% faster than the Phenom X4 9950.

The Core i7 940 was 7% faster than the Core i7 920, while the Core i7 965 EE upped the 940 by a 14% margin. Overclocking the Core i7 965 Extreme Edition processor to 3.88GHz again had a profound impact on the results, boosting performance by 14%.

The Core i7 processors also helped to improve the GPU OpenGL rendering performance. Although the Core i7 920 was slightly slower than the Core 2 Quad Q9650 here, the Core i7 940 was able to overcome the older quad-core part. The Core i7 965 EE raced ahead, delivering 18% more performance when compared to the Q9650.

Benchmarks: Adobe Software

Adobe Premiere Pro CS3 is a widely used video production program that relies heavily on the CPU and benefited greatly from the added power of the new Core i7 processors.

The Core 2 Duo E6700 took 60 seconds to render the video file we used, while the Phenom X4 9950 was a fraction faster, doing it in 58 seconds. The E8600 took 49 seconds, while the Q9650 was more impressive at just 29 seconds. The Core i7 920 and 940 knocked it over in 24 seconds.

Overclocking the Extreme Edition processor further reduced the time to just 18 seconds. The standard Core i7 965 Extreme Edition processor proved to be 24% faster at rendering in Adobe Premiere Pro CS3 when compared to the Core 2 Quad Q9650.

Adobe After Effects CS3 also appears to make good use of the power being offered by the Core i7 processors. The Core 2 Quad Q9650 is again the fastest non-Core i7 processor tested. Despite this, the Q9650 took over a minute more to render the media when compared to the Core i7 920.

Further marginal improvements were seen as clock speed increased on the Core i7.

Benchmarks: Microsoft Excel

This Excel workload test consists on executing approximately 28,000 sets of calculations using the most commonly used calculations and functions in Microsoft Excel 2007. These include common arithmetic operations like addition, subtraction, division, rounding, and square root. It also includes common statistical analysis functions such as Max, Min, Median, and Average. The input file is a 6.2 MB spreadsheet.

The Phenom X4 9950 and Core 2 Duo E6700 processors struggled with this task taking over 10 seconds to make the calculations. The Core 2 Duo E8600 took roughly 10 seconds, while the Core 2 Quad Q9650 was far more impressive at 5.226 seconds. Nevertheless, as impressive as this was, the Core i7 920 was still faster shaving 8% off the time required to make the calculation. The Core i7 940 was another 4% faster, while the Core i7 965 Extreme Edition did it in just 4.234 seconds. Overclocking the Core i7 965 Extreme Edition to 3.88GHz allowed this processor to make the calculations in just 3.562 seconds.

This other workload executes approximately 300,000 iterations of Monte Carlo simulation using the Black-Scholes basic option pricing formula in Microsoft Excel 2007. In addition, the workload uses Excel lookup functions to compare the put price from the model with the historical market price for 50,000 rows to understand the convergence. The input file is a 70.1 MB spreadsheet.

The Phenom X4 9950 took 42 seconds to make the needed calculations, making it the slowest processor tested. The Core 2 Duo E8600 was able to do it in 32 seconds, and the Core 2 Quad Q9650 was again impressive, taking just 18 seconds.

Still the Core i7 920 was faster, completing the task in just under 15 seconds. The Core i7 965 Extreme Edition with Turbo Mode enabled reached 13 seconds, while the overclocked configuration did it in just 11 seconds.

Benchmarks: Gaming (High Quality)

Our gaming tests were performed using a single GeForce GTX 280 graphics card which is almost maxed out at 100% of its capacity when coupled with the Core 2 Quad Q9650 or Core 2 Duo E8600 and running the latest games at 1920x1200 and best visual in-game settings.

With this in mind, we are not expecting the Core i7 processors to perform any miracles here but display the more substantial gains CPU vs. CPU in our low-quality gaming settings tests (see next page) where the GPU doesn't present itself as the performance bottleneck.

It is impressive to note that when we first tested the Core 2 Duo E6700 in games a little over 2 years ago it blew everything else out of the water. Now in a high-end processor line-up the E6700 looks dated and underpowered. The Phenom X4 9950 delivered 12% more performance in Unreal Tournament 3 than the E6700, and the newer Core 2 Duo E8600 superseded the Phenom X4 9950 by some 6%.

The Core 2 Quad Q9650 managed to edge out the Core i7 920 and Core i7 940 processors in this test though just marginally. The Core i7 965 EE remained on top averaging 151fps, which was still just 4% faster than the Q9650. Overclocking allowed for a little more performance for a mere 3fps gain.

It appears that the GeForce GTX 280 had run out of legs in F.E.A.R Perseus Mandate at 1920x1200 using its maximum visual settings. Interestingly, the Core 2 Duo E8600 produced the best result here, beating the Core i7 965 EE by a single frame per second, and the slowest processor by just 3fps.

The Core i7 processors provide a slight performance advantage in Crysis Warhead as the Core i7 940 and Core i7 965 EE processors reached an average of 39fps.

Despite the GeForce GTX 280 being somewhat of a bottleneck in the previous games, it would seem that Far Cry 2 is in need of some more processing performance. Although the Core i7 920 was found to be the slowest processor tested, the Core i7 940 was able to match the performance of the Core 2 Duo E8600 and Core 2 Quad Q9650 processors. The Core i7 965 Extreme Edition, on the other hand, raced ahead averaging an impressive 62fps or 13% faster than the Core 2 Quad Q9650.

Benchmarks: Gaming (Low Quality)

1111

The GeForce GTX 280 was clearly a limitation in the previous gaming tests, so we have run through all the same games again at a low resolution using low quality visuals. Although no one will ever play these games using these settings with this much computing power, the test removes the GPU bottleneck, which should give you some idea where these processors may stand when tested with future more powerful graphics cards.

As you can see, the Core i7 processors are now clearly faster in Unreal Tournament with the Core i7 920 beating the Core 2 Quad Q9650 by a small margin. The Core i7 940 delivers another 3.5% more performance, while the Core i7 965 EE is another 8% faster again. The overclocked Core i7 965 EE seems to hit a brick wall at around 320fps.

The Core i7 are again the superior processors as the Core i7 920 delivered 7% more performance than the Core 2 Quad Q9650. The Core i7 940 was only a fraction faster. The Core i7 965 EE remained strong on top but overclocking had a more generous impact, making it 28% faster than the Q9650.

Again the Core i7 processors are able to edge out the competition starting with the Core i7 920 and the rest of the pack improving as the frequency of the Core i7 processors increased.

As we saw when testing Far Cry 2 using high visual quality settings, this game seems to rely more heavily on processing power to deliver the best performance. While the Core i7 processors are considerably faster than the competition, they are not too much faster than each other.

The Core i7 965 EE was 24% faster than the Core 2 Quad Q9650, but just 7% faster than the Core i7 920.

Power Consumption

Notice that the processors above have been listed in order according to their load result, but the idle results are often quite different and paint a different overall picture in power consumption.

Although the overclocked Core i7 965 Extreme Edition CPU was the most power hungry processor when under load, it used less power at idle than the Phenom X4 9950, Core 2 Quad Q9650, Core 2 Duo E8600, and E6700 processors. In fact, at idle the Core i7 processors were very efficient, while under load the standard Core i7 965 EE configuration used roughly the same amount of power as the Phenom X4 9950.

The conclusion we take out of this is rather evident. Despite of consuming a lot of power when fully used, at idle the Core i7 processors can throttle down and become very efficient.

Overclocking

There were a few concerns with the Core i7/Nehalem architecture originally as early reports didn't show favorable gaming performance or overclocking abilities.

This was a big concern considering these were two things that the Core 2 did unlike most other processors in history. The Core 2 Duo processors in particular were notorious for reaching overclocks in excess of 1GHz with very little effort.Furthermore, when they were first introduced, processors such as the Core 2 Duo E6700 were able to blow away high-end Pentium D and Athlon64 X2 processors in games with ease.

There are loads of reports floating around the web that claim the Core i7 processors will be difficult or almost impossible to overclock. Based on what we have found this simply is not true, and if anything the Core i7 processors are just as easy to overclock as the Core 2 processors.

This was made evident throughout our tests that included results for the Core i7 965 Extreme Edition processor (clocked at 3.33GHz by default) running at 3.88GHz without much effort. Given more time and understanding of the platform, we believe 4GHz is a very realistic target.

As time permits and we can test more motherboards using the X58 platform, we will follow up with an article dedicated to overclocking the Core i7 in the coming weeks.

Pricing and Final Thoughts

There is no doubt in our minds that the Core i7 is a worthy successor of what was one of Intel’s greatest processor series yet. Already the Core i7 has proven to be extremely powerful, as it easily put away the Core 2 Quad Q9650 in almost every test we ran.

The Core i7 processors were simply stunning when encoding with AutoMKV, making otherwise impressive processors such as the Phenom X4 9950 look a decade old. The same level of outstanding performance was displayed in Adobe Premier and After Effects, while those that rely on Microsoft Excel for forecasting and complex calculations will also enjoy what the Core i7 has to offer.

We were pleased to see that the slowest processor in the Core i7 range (920) was able to defeat over and over the Core 2 Quad Q9650 which runs at a higher clock speed (3GHz) and before this day was one of the best CPUs money could buy.

Helping to make all this amazing performance possible is the on-die memory controller, along with Intel’s new QPI technology. While we have been unable to test the triple-channel performance of DDR3-1333 or faster memory, this is certainly something we are very keen to test in the near future.

Initially building a new Core i7 system is not going to be a cheap affair, though the Core i7 920 processor itself should only cost around $284 (quoted batch price per 1000 units). Still, if this is the case, the Core i7 920 will be coming in cheaper than the Core 2 Duo E6600 when it was first released. The Core i7 940 is expected to cost considerably more at $562, while the Core i7 965 Extreme Edition will set you back a smooth $999, which was the release price of the Core 2 Extreme X6800.

While the Core i7 920 might not be too bad with its sub-$300 price tag, we don't expect X58-based motherboards to be all that affordable. DDR3 pricing has fallen considerably over the past few months, and we expect triple-channel kits to come in at around $100. So all up it should be possible to buy the guts of a Core i7 920 system for around $600, which is quite good given the insane level of performance it offers.

Overall the new Core i7 architecture has certainly impressed us, living up to all expectations. The future continues to look bright for Intel as we expect many more processors based on the Bloomfield core to be released, while the prospect of 32nm Westmere processors by 2010 has got us licking our lips. If we can make one prediction is that you won't regret investing money in the new Intel LGA1366 platform.