Leaked Intel Core i9 chip makes its way to eBay?

17 12 2009

Would you pay $1,200 for an as-of-yet unreleased Intel Core i9 chip? Hard to say if the transaction actually occurred, but an auction recently ended from a Taiwanese eBay user who claims to be selling a six-core, 2.4GHz Xeon Westmere Gulftown processor. We can’t vouch for the validity of the listing, but those are some pretty convincing pictures being tossed around — ones that aren’t blurred, which might give Intel an advantage in snooping out the leak. That’s not all, though — Nordic Hardware (via Tom’s Hardware) also reports that the OCTeamDenmark forums had it listed for on sale for $850. The 32nm fella had some promising benchmarks released recently, although its release isn’t slated until at best sometime early 2010. Sure, it’s great to be first, but with early adopter prices like that, we don’t mind waiting until it goes official.


Clock for Clock: Core i5, Core i7, Core 2 Quad and Phenom II X4

17 12 2009

This is a head to head comparison for the latest high-end processor. Interested?

Just look the graphic below 🙂

Memory Bandwidth Performance 

@2,8 GHz


Synthetic Application Performance


Initially this article started off as a clock for clock comparison between the Core i5 750 and Core i7 860 processors. Then we decided to throw in the Core i7 920 for comparison purposes, and that was followed by the Phenom II X4 965. However if we were going to have a Phenom II X4 processor we really needed to include a Core 2 Quad processor, so the Q6600 was added.
The more powerful alternative would have been the Q9650 with its larger L2 cache and higher FSB. However since we are overclocking these processors the FSB is somewhat irrelevant, while the L2 cache does not exactly make for huge performance gains. In the end we chose the Q6600 over the Q9650 for the simple reason that far more of you actually own a Q6600 processor. In a sense the Core i5 750 is the new Q6600, and therefore the comparison makes more sense in our opinion.

For the most part comparing the Core 2 Quad Q6600 and the Core i5 750 is like comparing chalk and cheese, the Lynnfield architecture is just so much more refined when compared to Kentsfield. Clocking both processors at 3.60GHz showed huge performance gains in favor of the Core i5 750 when testing with software such as WinRAR, Excel and Photoshop. Furthermore, when it came time for gaming performance, the Core i5 750 was just as impressive, leaving the Q6600 well behind.

That said, there would be no mad rush for Core 2 Quad Q6600 owners to upgrade to the Core i5 750, as they still have a very capable processor, particularly if they are overclocking it to 3.0GHz or beyond. However, for those building a new system, it is safe to say that you can forget that the LGA775 platform and all its processors even exist.

Perhaps a more important comparison is between the Core i5 750 and the Phenom II X4 processors. Again when clocked at either 2.80GHz or 3.60GHz the Core i5 750 smashed the Phenom II X4 965. While the Phenom II X4 965 was able to dispatch of the Q6600, the new Core i5 750 proved to be far too much. Regardless of whether you plan to overclock a Phenom II X4 processor or not, it has little chance against the Core i5 750 on a clock for clock basis.

The most surprising match up was between the Core i5 750 and Core i7 860, which I mentioned was our original intention for this article. When clocked at the same frequency there is little difference between these two processors, and when pushing them as high as 3.60GHz there really is no difference. Of course the only difference between the two is the Hyper-Threading support of the Core i7 860, which really failed to help it in the majority of our tests.

The Core i7 920 was slightly faster than the Core i7 860 and Core i5 750 processors when comparing clock for clock performance, and honestly if I really wanted Hyper-Threading support this is the path I would choose to get it. The Core i7 920 consistently delivered the best performance, even in our gaming tests.

Of course, while the gaming performance that you saw was very playable on any of the five tested processors, it does give us an indication of how things will turn out in the future, particularly as games become too demanding for older processors such as the Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600. Here the Core i5 750 proved that at just $200 US it can hang with the more powerful Core i7 (LGA1366) processors regardless of clock frequency, whether that be 2.80GHz or 3.60GHz for example.

In the end these results further cement our beliefs that the Core i5 750 is the best value quad-core processor available at the moment, with no exception. They also provide us with evidence that overclockers need not bother with the Core i7 8xx series, as there is nothing to be gained when pushing them to 3.60GHz and beyond.


Walton S. Clock for Clock: Core i5, Core i7, Core 2 Quad and Phenom II X4 Performance http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=857&p=0