Core i7 to have deliberately crippled overclocking potential

[divine]

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/Intel-...iew-31404.html

Intel's Core i7: Blazing Fast, But Crippled O/C : Eight Virtual Cores Through Hyper-Threading
Unlike the Core 2 Quads, which still consisted of two dual-core CPUs, the Core i7 is a native quad-core processor. On the whole, the new processors are more efficient, although the system does draw more power at the platform level than the previous generation.

The performance comparison with long-time rival AMD’s offerings is nothing short of painful. The fastest Core i7, the 965 Extreme, is more than 2.6 times as fast as AMD’s current flagship CPU, the Phenom X4 9950 BE. Across our benchmark suite, the AMD processors never placed better than towards the lower middle of the field, tending instead to fill the lower spots.

However, Intel has also created some competition for itself, because the Core i7 is clearly superior to the Core 2 CPUs where performance is concerned. Surprisingly, the reintroduction of Hyper-Threading technology has no small part in this performance leap.

Apparently, Intel is not so happy that buyers are purchasing inexpensive yet highly overclockable CPUs instead of the higher priced and faster models. To put a stop to the practice, Intel has ensured that only the $1,000 high-end model will operate beyond the TDP barrier of 130 W (110 A). The less expensive Core i7 versions—the 920 and 940—will begin throttling back their clock speeds once they reach this threshold. Sadly, it looks like the days in which a $150 CPU is able to reach the performance of a $1,000 processor are over—at least for now. While small tweaks are still possible, major performance increases through overclocking are no longer an option.

How very interesting.

However, performance for gaming looks to be somewhat of a moot point currently still;

Crysis (1680 x 1050):
Core i7 965 - 167.7 FPS
QX9770 - 143 FPS
E8600 - 139.1 FPS
Core i7 920 - 140.9 FPS

UT3:
Core i7 965 - 154.5 FPS
QX9770 - 150.4 FPS
E8600 - 137.7 FPS
Core i7 920 - 136.9 FPS

WiC (1680 x 1050):
Core i7 965 - 218 FPS
QX9770 - 157 FPS
E8600 - 153 FPS
Core i7 920 - 172 FPS

Supreme Commander:
Core i7 965 - 35.20 FPS
QX9770 - 33.85 FPS
E8600 - 29.35 FPS
Core i7 920 - 32.55 FPS

...only really a significant boost in one game but one that's hardly unplayable on current tech.

[Garp]

It doesn't hugely surprise me, the chip really is aimed more at the server market than the home market. The benefits of the i7 over the current ranges are minimal at best for gamers and your average home users. Server admins and the like should see some good boosts. The i7 is the 'Tock' end of the tick-tock development cycle IIRC, re-arcitecturing the chip on the smaller die that the last Tick cycle brought in. The next chip should be the refinement and die shrink based on the i7 architecture, so might be a bit more of a performance increase.

[Streeteh]

A logical step for intel, while it's lovely picking up a £60 processor and clocking the hell out of it, it's doing them no favors. On the gaming front, i personally think CPUs have outstripped the CPU requirements for games long ago, the only limitation these days (and imo, for a while to come) is GPU.

[Mark]

8 virtual cores isn't going to help the gamer when the vast majority of games are only just about getting to grips with two cores, so those scores aren't surprising. Writing software that can use multiple cores well isn't easy, but now that at least two cores has become mainstream it's more likely to happen in new games.

Intel are obviously trying to push the Extreme chips, and why not? The market segment is very much a niche play - the chips don't fit well with either the mainstream domestic or server markets (the former don't care about overclocking, the latter want the Xeon derivatives and don't care about overclocking either), so that just leaves the enthusiast and niche OEM market, and they're the ones who know how to overclock the **** off the cheap chips - just what Intel doesn't want. Manufacturer attempts at limiting overclocking options are certainly nothing new either.

[Garp]

/me remembers with fondness the use of graphite pencils on the old Athlon chips.