Power Consumption
The Core i7 860's power consumption at idle is nice and low, as expected thanks to power gating and low TDP of Lynnfield.
Overclocking
Gary actually handled the overclocking of the 860 before it got into my hands, thankfully this sample seemed to fare better than our first i7 860.
First, our stock voltage overclock with the retail cooler, 3.33GHz:
Four cores under load, turbo enabled, stock voltage, retail cooler
Next, max overclock with turbo enabled again using the retail cooler, 3.53GHz (four cores active):
Max overclock, four cores under load, turbo enabled, retail cooler
And finally the max overclock with no turbo. Once more, using the retail cooler:
Max overclock, single core load, no turbo
The rule of thumb with Lynnfield appears to be 3 - 3.3GHz overclocks at stock voltage, 3.8GHz+ is possible with additional voltage.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
121 Comments
View All Comments
Griswold - Saturday, September 19, 2009 - link
Well, you didnt go away either...coolkev99 - Monday, September 21, 2009 - link
In the zorro's world, processors can only be a fixed speed. Since Intel's newest dynamically changes he thinks it's somehow cheating.I wonder if the zorro thinks mobile CPU power saving features are cheating when they throttle down to save energy?
Just because a CPU can now change thier speed based on needs does not mean it's cheating. Better get used to it as this is the future of multicore CPUs.
vol7ron - Saturday, September 19, 2009 - link
You already made a similar comment in the other article. It's not overclocked, you're a moron. It's the same as saying that it underclocks as it uses more cores. That's the stock speed, which varies. Overclocking occurs when users modify the speeds beyond the specifications.Get over yourself AMD fanboi.
Nich0 - Saturday, September 19, 2009 - link
I don't be too much of a PITA, but surely the 'real' overclocking frequencies for the 860 should be of the 21*BCLK variety, no? Because it's stock rated speed is 21*133, its overclocked-at-stock-voltage-with-turbo speed should be 21*150 instead of 22*150. Looks to me as there's some kind of turbo going on on the CPUZ screenshots. Or am I missing something?iwodo - Saturday, September 19, 2009 - link
It is hardly surprising they are not selling well.Because, Nehalem didn't make as Big Jump as C2D in performance.
It is expensive, not only the chip itself. But the platform. Pentium 4 to C2D doesn't require new memory. And in some cases doesn't require new Motherboard as well.
Athlon Quad Core is Cheap. Consumers cares about Cores, not threads.
Economy doesn't allow to spend money upgrading on what is already working perfectly.
SSD offer much better value for money in terms of upgrade and investment.
No Integrated Graphics for Nehalem yet. ( Money need to spend on Graphics. )
Personally i am waiting for Sandy Bridge ( or even Ivy Bridge for FMA )
zero2dash - Tuesday, September 22, 2009 - link
It doesn't?My socket 478 P4 3.0C would like to disagree with you, considering that it used DDR ram. Practically all of the later P4's were s775, using DDR2 boards.
I wanted to upgrade - I bought a new board and new ram to go along with it.
zero2dash - Tuesday, September 22, 2009 - link
Ack, frickin' quote didn't work.[quote]Pentium 4 to C2D doesn't require new memory.[/quote]
afkrotch - Tuesday, September 22, 2009 - link
The move from P4 to C2D can be huge or small.1. new proc
2. new mobo
3. new memory
4. new gpu
5. new psu
You were required to pick up 1-5 new parts. When I upgraded, I needed all 5.
Stating about saving money, then saying an SSD offers much better value for money in terms of upgrade and investment. WTF. As of right now, it's probably the worst choice, unless you already have the best parts available.
Dobs - Sunday, September 20, 2009 - link
I think P55 may be the problem - without USB 3.0, PCIe 3.0 SATA 6gbsIf all were included it would be a must have - even 1 of the 3 would make it very tempting.
Perhaps they could release them like "Draft n"... That may get sales moving.
Griswold - Saturday, September 19, 2009 - link
I'm not so sure this is fact. Other rumors say, Intel aims for 1 million shipped chips by the end of 2009. Thats not exactly shabby, bad or "not so good". Intel, historically, has a pretty good grasp of what is possible due to their very close ties with their partners.http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20090916PD219.html">http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20090916PD219.html
Then again, this could also be just a rumor without much truth to it. We'll have to see whos right.
But I already know that you're right with some of what you said. I was not impressed with i7 (LGA1366). I was waiting for i5/i7 (LGA1156). And while I think it can be a good product for a relatively fair price (depending on which model you take), I cant justify ditching my Q6600 for it just yet. The best reason would be power consumption and turbo.
Instead, I went with a SSD and got more improvement out of that than any other upgrade could possibly deliver.
The 32nm parts may be interesting again. If not, I'll just wait for sandy bridge. Or maybe even AMDs bulldozer. My current system will take me there easily...