Microsoft is keeping a tight lid on Project Natal, its forthcoming controler-less gaming interface for the Xbox.
No one knows when the system will be released, what it will cost, or how it will look. But the futuristic interface - Natal will use sensors to track users' movements - has generated a lot of buzz, which is obviously good news for Microsoft.
The competing goals of secrecy and good press can lead to some odd results. Consider, for instance, this video, via Joystiq, which demos Project Natal while adhering to the company's ban on showing any screen shots of the system in action:
Release Date: October 22nd 2009
Qualifying OS’s For Upgrade: Windows 2000, XP, Vista
Qualifying OS For In-Place Upgrade: Vista
Upgrade Editions: Home Premium, Professional, Ultimate
System Requirements:
• 1GHz or faster 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor
• 1GB RAM (32-bit) / 2GB RAM (64-bit)
• 16GB available disk space (32-bit) / 20GB (64-bit)
• DirectX 9 graphics processor with WDDM 1.0 or higher driver
Yes, but there’s a catch. Only Windows Vista users will be able to do an in-place upgrade. This means that Windows XP or 2000 users will be forced to do a clean install. Maximum PC readers are generally technical enough to know that this is a good idea anyway, but if your planning on upgrading PCs for friends and family, bring a USB hard drive and be prepared to stay awhile.
All retail editions of Windows 7 will ship with both the 32 & 64 bit DVDs. This is a huge improvement over Vista where users would need to order additional disks manually from Microsoft. Users who purchase Windows 7 digitally through the Microsoft store will be allowed to choose which version they want prior to starting the download.
Download and run GRC’s SecurAble processor testing application. The download is only about 100k, and like everything from GRC, doesn’t require an install. SecurAble will quickly tell you if your processor supports 64 Bit instructions, and if you will be able to use the coveted XP Mode found in Windows 7 professional. Just make sure it says Yes in the Hardware Virtualization field, and your good to go!
No. Since you are only given one CD key, you can only activate a single version at a time. The good news here is that your CD Key is interchangeable. This means that you can start out with the 32 bit edition if that’s all you need, knowing that you can easily format and change over to 64 bit later on if your requirements change.
Some home users coming from XP might be hoping to cheat the system by calling Microsoft for manual activations on additional machines, but I’m afraid it won’t work this time. Windows is constantly checking in with Microsoft for various reasons (most of which you agreed to in the EULA), and as with Vista, multiple activations are often caught, kicking both copies into non genuine mode. Even though this isn’t as serious as it used to be, it’s still not a good idea, and it’s defiantly illegal.
Your only option in this scenario will be to perform a clean install. Upgrading a 32 bit edition to 64 bit or downgrading a 64 bit install to 32 bit using the in-place approach is not supported.
If you're using Windows 7 RC right now (as many of us are), you'll have to back up all your personal data and perform a clean install of the retail version of Windows 7. After installation, you'll need to restore your data and reinstall your apps. As stated in the Windows 7 RC download page, Microsoft doesn't recommend that you install RC on a personal or "production" machine. Their stance has always been for users to update beta and RC builds by formatting and reinstalling.
The full upgrade process still hasn’t been finalized, but here is what we do know. Windows XP upgrade editions were pretty painless. The installer would prompt you to insert a copy of a previous OS for disk verification, and that was pretty much it. Assuming you passed this stage, XP would then prompt you to drop the original install disk back in the tray, and it would push ahead with a clean install.
This approach changed with Windows Vista, and not necessarily for the better. If you followed the official Microsoft approach, you were stuck installing Windows XP each time you wanted to format your PC. Once it verified that a qualifying OS was installed, only then could then upgrade to Vista. This hokey double install process was a terrible waste of time, and seemed like a pointless exercise.
A known workaround now exists that will allow you to bypass this step, and it’s easier than you might think. Simply insert your upgrade DVD, boot into the installer, and when prompted to enter your product key, simply refuse to do so. After you click through all the warnings and pick the version you purchased, it would push ahead with the install. Your product key could then be easily entered later on once you were booted into the OS, and you could then activate using the normal process.
It is still unclear which of the two verification methods Microsoft will choose for Windows 7, but they haven’t given us indication that the newer Vista style approach would be changing. If that’s true, you might want to keep the workaround mentioned in the previous question in mind as it will most likely work in Windows 7 as well. It’s also worth noting that in Vista, the clean install work around also saved your Product Key, allowing thousands of users who were unhappy with Vista to downgrade back to XP.
Based on the terms as they are laid out in the EULA, no. Users who buy and install Windows 7 using the upgrade media should expect to lose access to the product key from their previous OS. While technically this has always been true with Windows upgrades, before XP, this worked on the honor system. With the debuted of product activations in XP, it is now a simple matter for Microsoft to enforce. During a Vista upgrade, the installer would collect your old product key, and send off a cancellation request to the activation server. Simply put, don’t bother upgrading a version of Windows that you will ever need to install somewhere else in the future (this includes dual boots). If you are hoping to make a multi-boot system, you will need to buy the full retail version of Windows 7, or find another spare copy to sacrifice to Redmond.
As mentioned in the previous step, many Vista users were able to use a workaround to get past this restriction by using the upgrade CD to perform a clean install without XP present. Legally you still aren’t allowed to use this version of Windows anymore, but if you ever chose to go back to the older OS instead, at least you would have that option. This is just one more reason (among many) to take the clean install approach.
Online retailers will often sell heavily discounted versions of Windows bearing the OEM badge on the outside of the jewel case. What most people don’t realize, are the restrictions that come along with the discount. OEM editions are permanently tied to the first PC it is activated on, often using unique information gathered from the systems motherboard as an anchor.
Maximum PC readers who like to upgrade often will most likely find this restriction painful to live with, and in the long run, many end up finding it to be more of a hassle than it’s worth. Many Pulitzer Prize worthy stories have been spun in an attempt to get Microsoft to manually activate OEM editions on new hardware, but trust me, they’ve heard them all. In most cases if you simply reassure them it’s only installed on one PC, they will grant your request, but you shouldn’t count on that.
The good news here is that I’ve had no problem moving upgrade versions of Vista to new PCs when using Windows XP OEM product keys. Activations went through without a call to Microsoft, and if the same holds true for Windows 7, you might have finally found a use for an abandoned OEM edition.
As long as you have a copy of Windows 2000, XP, or Vista, you can buy any upgrade edition you want. It’s important to note however that on the Vista side, this could impact your ability to perform in-place upgrades. For example, don’t expect to be able to do an in-place upgrade of Windows Vista Business to Home Premium, a clean install may be required. You can also upgrade a lower version such as XP Home to Windows 7 Ultimate. The price difference is covered in the upgrade cost.
Every copy of Windows 7 will have the ability to upgrade electronically to any higher edition. You could start with Home Premium for example, and move up to Professional or Ultimate at any point if you feel the need. The upgrade between versions doesn’t require any reinstall, and in many cases, is instantaneous.
Microsoft has not announced pricing yet on the upgrades, but you should expect to pay a premium on the retail price difference between the edition you purchased, and the one you wish to upgrade to.
Windows Vista has matured into a very capable, and reliable OS that unfortunately, will not go down favorably in the history books. For those of you out there who resisted the urge to switch, but are at least a tiny bit curious, did you know if you plan on upgrading to Windows 7 anyway, you can try out the Vista Edition of your choice for around $10? This price tag assumes you missed out on the Windows 7 promotional pricing, which expires on July 11th. Between now and January 2009, any retail copy of Vista purchased from Microsoft will qualify for a free upgrade.
This is an excellent deal to consider if you are in need of a new copy of Windows, but aren’t comfortable with running a pre-release version of Windows 7. You might actually find it’s not all that bad, and the box will make for a great collector's item!
If it worked in Windows Vista, it will probably work in Windows 7. Many Beta and RC testers of Windows 7 have praised the new OS for its compatibility, but the truth is, if this were being released back in 2007 when Vista debuted, it would have the same problems. With almost 3 years of driver development behind us, Windows 7 will be born into a vastly improved driver ecosystem, and newer hardware will work just fine.
If you’re still not quite sure, feel free to run the Windows 7 Upgrade Advisor. It will let you know if it detects any incompatible hardware or software that might be a problem in the future.
I Just bought 3 Copies of Windows 7 Home Premium Upgrade and Now Family Packs Get Revealed? I Got Ripped Off!For the Windows faithful, it’s been a tough eight years. With the launch of Windows XP in 2001, we thought we were poised on a brink of a new world of NT-based goodness—but two years and uncountable exploits later, the future of Windows was grim. Facing a never-ending torrent of new ‘sploits, worms, and trojans, Microsoft fired back with the single greatest operating system update of all time—Service Pack 2. In the single fell swoop of SP2, Windows XP went from Swiss cheese to secure, and once again we were poised to enter the promised land with… (wait for it)… Vista.
Of course, we all know how Vista turned out. Haunted by poor performance in everything from games to disk access to networking, Vista is widely considered to be Microsoft’s biggest failure. Nonetheless, Vista laid the groundwork for a host of new technologies, all absolutely vital to pushing Windows into the 21st century. Vista’s new, modern driver architecture was designed to move core functionality from the kernel (where any instability can bring down the whole system) to user space—an absolutely necessary development. Likewise, Vista’s proper enforcement of permissions for both users and applications enhanced security, even though UAC remains very annoying. And once vendors fixed their driver flaws and Microsoft squashed some underlying bugs, Vista morphed into an entirely workable operating system, even if we still wouldn’t describe it as “good.”
So, as 2009 draws to a close, we find ourselves testing another new Microsoft OS: Windows 7. Building on the now-mature technologies introduced with Vista, but with a renewed focus on performance and ease-of-use, Windows 7 seems poised to succeed where Vista couldn’t. We’ve finally received a final build of Win7, and have run it through the wringer in both the Lab and in the real-world. Here’s what we found.
While support for new hardware and improved security are perfectly valid reasons to upgrade your OS, the sexiest benefits of an operating system upgrade are all the new features. Indeed, from a completely revamped user interface to brand-new features designed to make organizing and sharing your files easier, Windows 7 delivers much more than some new wallpaper and a different color Taskbar. (Though there are lots of new wallpapers.)
The most obvious changes from previous versions of Windows to Windows 7 can be found in a redesigned user interface. Sure, much of the interface remains the same, but Microsoft has completely overhauled key elements, starting with the Taskbar.
After 14 years of nothing more than cosmetic changes, Microsoft’s redesign of the Taskbar combines the pure window organizing power of the classic Taskbar with the application-launching, multi-purpose convenience of Mac OS X’s Dock. In addition to showing the applications that you currently have open, the new Windows 7 Taskbar also hosts shortcuts to your most commonly used applications. Click a shortcut when the app is running, and it brings the most recently used window to the foreground. Click the same shortcut when the app is closed, and it will launch the app.
But that’s not all. Drag a file onto a shortcut in the Taskbar, and Windows will open the file using that app. Hover your mouse over a running application’s icon, and it expands to show live thumbnail previews of all of that app’s windows, floating just above the Taskbar. Mouse over a thumbnail, and Windows will bring that particular window to the foreground. You can even close individual windows from the thumbnail previews.
For anyone who regularly finds himself with more than 10 windows open, the new Taskbar is a dream come true.
Another core enhancement to the OS comes in the form of Jump Lists. In short, Jump Lists put frequently used files in a convenient menu that’s a simple click away from the shortcut icon on the Taskbar or on the Start Menu. Apps that support Jump Lists will display the list when you right click on the shortcut, or when you left-click and drag the mouse up away from the Taskbar. Additionally, some apps will automatically populate their Jump List with files you recently opened.
Along with the redesigned UI elements comes a whole new world of user-interface shortcuts. There are really too many to get into here, but the best of the new shortcuts allow you to maximize a window by dragging it to the top of the screen, minimize it by dragging it to the bottom, maximize to half your screen by dragging it to either edge, or (our favorite) minimizing all other windows by shaking the one you want to focus on. Furthermore, enhancements to alt+tab let you immediately find lost windows, and you can use the Windows key and numbers 1 through 0 to launch the first ten shortcuts on your Taskbar. And when those apps are already open, you can cycle through multiple windows by pressing the app’s keyboard shortcut again.
Windows Explorer also receives some much-needed love. The changes since Vista are relatively minor, but they serve to make the left-column of Explorer the quickest way to navigate to any folder on your hard drive, network, or even in the cloud. Furthermore, you can arrange the different categories in any way you want, quickly add special folders to the Favorites section, and even hide sections you don’t use.
The other main place to access the file browser is the shortcut bar on the right column of the Start Menu. In Windows 7, there are more folders that you can choose to display there, including Downloads and Recorded TV. However, you still can’t place any folder you choose in one of those precious slots.
Only you can decide on that one, but check out our handy Buyer’s Guide more information on which edition is right for you.
Here's an excerpt:
There are three Windows 7 editions that will be sold at retail in the US market:
If you tried out Windows 7 in its public Beta or RC versions, you used a pre-release of the Ultimate edition, although it's possible to tweak the installation process to install other editions. So, what are the major "core" features of these editions of Windows 7?
According to Microsoft's "Which One Is Right for You?" page, here are the common features (many of which we will cover in current or upcoming Feature Focus articles):
Microsoft's list leaves out some significant core features, though, including:
Hopefully this guide provided you all the information you will need when it comes to selecting a Windows 7 upgrade edition, but assuming you have a version of Vista capable of doing an in-place upgrade, should you? The answer to this is complicated, but it really depends on the user. Maximum PC readers will probably want to do a clean install for their top performing machines, but what about friends and family? The danger of doing a clean install here is that files, settings, applications, and even customizations they forgot they made are easily wiped out, leaving you to support them.
The good news here is that the upgrade process, based on my testing, works exactly as you would expect. Sidebar gadgets will still be on the desktop, applications and browsers will retain their settings, start menu icons will still be present, etc. You will also find that documents, pictures, and music will be properly tagged, and moved to the appropriate location. The only personalization settings you lose are the desktop wallpaper, quick launch settings, and in some cases, the odd application may need to be re-installed.
All things considered, the in-place upgrade works fairly well, but make sure you know the history of the machine before you proceed. If it was upgraded from Windows 98, to ME, to XP, to Vista, and now 7, your pushing your luck. Are you planning on upgrading? If so let us know what your setup is.
.
Tick tock? More like ding-dong, mutha—shut your mouth. What baby? We’re talkin’ about Core i7.
Our apologies to Isaac Hayes, but if he were alive, we’re almost certain he would have been tapped to hammer out a theme song for Intel’s most significant CPU launch in, well, ever.
Why is this CPU more significant than the 8088, Pentium, or Pentium M? As the second new chip produced after a series of embarrassing losses to archrival AMD, the Core i7 will answer for the world whether Intel is prepared to ride the momentum of its Core 2 launch with another winning chip or if it’s content to rest on its laurels, as it did with the Pentium 4.
Core i7 also represents a major new direction for Intel, which has stubbornly clung to the ancient front-side-bus architecture and discrete memory controller for years. Indeed, with its triple-channel integrated DDR3 memory controller and chip-to-chip interconnect, the block map of a Core i7 looks more like an Athlon 64 than a Core 2 chip.
Intel actually has three quad-core Core i7 CPUs ready: the top-end 3.2GHz Core i7-965 Extreme Edition, the performance-oriented 2.93GHz Core i7-940, and the midrange 2.66GHz Core i7-920. For the most part, all three are exactly the same except for clock speeds, multiplier locking (only the Extreme is unlocked), and QuickPath Interconnect speed. See the chart on page 42 for details.
The bigger issue is how Core i7 performs. To find out, we ran the Extreme 965 against AMD’s fastest proc as well as Intel’s previous top gun in a gauntlet of benchmarks. Read on for the results.
As a buttoned-down company, Intel rarely likes to make sweeping changes, but its upcoming Core i7 CPU is a major break from the past. Gone is the ancient front-side bus that connects all of the current-gen CPU cores. Instead, cores will communicate via a high-speed crossbar switch, and different CPUs will communicate via a high-speed interconnect.
Also on the outs is the need for an external memory controller. Intel, which has relied on gluing two dual-core chips together under the heat spreader to make its quad-core CPUs, is now placing all four cores on a single die.
Even overclocking, which was once verboten to even talk about within 10 miles of Intel’s HQ, is now automatically supported. Intrigued? You should be. Intel’s Core i7 is the most radical new design the company has taken in decades.
One of Core i7’s most significant changes is the inclusion of an integrated memory controller. Instead of memory accesses going from the CPU across a relatively slow front-side bus to the motherboard chipset and finally to the RAM, an IMC will eliminate the need for a front-side bus and external memory controller. The result is dramatically lower latency than was found in the Core 2 and Pentium 4 CPUs.
Why can’t the memory controller on the motherboard simply be pushed to higher speeds to match an IMC? Remember, when you’re talking about a memory controller residing directly in the core, the signals have to travel mere millimeters across silicon that’s running at several gigahertz. With an external design, the signals have to travel out of the CPU to a memory controller in the chipset an inch or so away. It’s not just distance, either—the data is traveling across a PCB at far, far slower speeds than it would if it were within the CPU. In essence, it’s like having to go from an interstate to an unpaved, bumpy road.
Of course, if you’re an AMD loyalist, you’re probably bristling at the thought of Intel calling an IMC an innovation. After all, AMD did it first. So doesn’t that make AMD the pioneer? We asked Intel the same question. The company’s response: One: An IMC isn’t an AMD invention and, in fact, Intel had both an IMC and graphics core planned for its never-released Timna CPU years before the Athlon 64. Two: If AMD’s IMC design is so great, why does the Core 2 so thoroughly trash it with an external controller design? In short, Intel’s message to the AMD fanboys is nyah, nyah!
Naturally, you’re probably wondering why Intel thinks it needs an IMC now. Intel says the more efficient, faster execution engine of the Core i7 chip benefits from the internal controller more than previous designs. The new design demands boatloads of bandwidth and low latency to keep it from starving as it waits for data.
The Core i7 CPU is designed to be a very wide chip capable of executing instructions with far more parallelism than previous designs. But keeping the chip fed requires tons of bandwidth. To achieve that goal, the top-end Core i7 CPUs will feature an integrated tri-channel DDR3 controller. Just as you had to populate both independent channels in a dual-channel motherboard, you’ll have to run three sticks of memory to give the chip the most bandwidth possible. This does present some problems for board vendors though, as standard consumer mobos have limited real estate.
Most performance boards will feature six memory slots jammed onto the PCB, but some will feature only four. On these four-slot boards, you’ll plug in three sticks of RAM and use the fourth only if you absolutely have to, as populating the last slot will actually reduce the bandwidth of the system. Intel, in fact, recommends the fourth slot only for people who need more RAM than bandwidth. With three 2GB DIMMs, though, most enthusiast systems will feature 6GB of RAM as standard.
Although it may change, Core i7 will support DDR3/1066, with higher unofficial speeds supported through overclocking. Folks hoping to reuse DDR2 RAM with Intel’s budget chips next year can forget about it. Intel has no plans to support DDR2 with a Core i7 chip at this point, and with DDR3 prices getting far friendlier to the wallet, we don’t expect the company to change its mind.
A CPU core can execute only one instruction thread at a time. Since that thread will touch on only some portions of the CPU, resources that are not used sit idle. To address that, Intel introduced consumers to Hyper-Threading with its 3.06GHz Pentium 4 chip. Hyper-Threading, more commonly called simultaneous multi-threading, partitioned the CPU’s resources so that multiple threads could be executed simultaneously. In essence, a single-core Pentium 4 appeared as two CPUs to the OS. Because it was actually just one core dividing its resources, you didn’t get the same performance boost you would receive from adding a second core, but Hyper-Threading did generally smooth out multitasking, and in applications that were optimized for multi-threading, you would see a modest performance advantage.
The 45nm-based Core i7 will pack all four cores on a single die. The cores will communicate via a high-speed crossbar switch. An integrated memory controller and Quick Path Interconnect links to other CPUs also make the Core i7 very AMD-like.
The problem was that very few applications were coded for Hyper-Threading when it was released and performance could actually be hindered. Hyper-Threading went away with the Core 2 series of CPUs, but Intel has dusted off the concept for the new Core i7 series because the transistor cost is minimal and the performance benefits stand to be far better than what the Pentium 4 could ever achieve.
Intel toyed with the idea of redubbing the feature Hyper-Threading 2 but decided against it, as the essential technology is unchanged. So why should we expect Hyper-Threading to be more successful this go around? Intel says it’s due to Core i7’s huge advantage over the Pentium 4 in bandwidth, parallelism, cache sizes, and performance. Depending on the application, the company says you can expect from 10 to 30 percent more performance with Hyper-Threading enabled. Still, Intel doesn’t force it down your throat because it knows many people still have mixed feelings about the feature. The company recommends that you give it a spin with your apps. If you don’t like it, you can just switch it off in the BIOS. Intel’s pretty confident, however, that you’ll leave it on.Enthusiasts will also question the move from tri-channel DDR3 to dual-channel DDR3—why go back if wider is better? Intel’s decision is based on pragmatism and cost. The tri-channel circuitry in the CPU doesn’t add much cost to the processor, but it’s not cheap to implement when building a motherboard. Those added traces from the socket to the RAM slots mean more layers and pricier boards. That’s one of the contributing factors to excessively priced X58 boards this past year.
Should you be concerned about shifting down to dual-channel? Generally, no. For the most part, only the most memory-bandwidth-intensive apps will actually see any performance hit. The fantastic latency and overall bandwidth capacity of the Nehalem design is more than adequate for today’s applications. This doesn’t mean it’s a non-issue. The vast majority of Lynnfield motherboards we’ve seen are opting for four-DIMM slots. That means a maximum of 8GB using affordable 2GB DIMMs (4GB DIMMs are currently cost-prohibitive). The only board we’ve seen with more DIMM slots is Gigabyte’s GA-P55-UD6, which features six, for a total of 12GB, using 2GB DIMMs. The memory controller in Lynnfield tops out at 16GB, while Bloomfield maxes out at 24GB. Realistically, 24GB of RAM is way overkill for 99 percent of us. Our experience has shown us that most apps do not consume that much RAM; 4GB to 6GB is the sweet spot today.
Another significant change for Lynnfield is that PCI-E comes directly off the CPU core. In X58/Bloomfield, X48/Core 2 Quad, and 790FX/Phenom II, PCI Express is external to the CPU, residing in the north-bridge chipset. Data is pumped out to the chipset where it must then be directed to the PCI-E slots that connect to the GPUs. As you can imagine, the extra hop creates a latency issue—that’s eliminated with Lynnfield. Lower latency is better, right? Yes and no. While latency is better on Lynnfield, the CPUs feature but a single x16 PCI-E 2.0 lane in the chip. That’s fine for a single GPU, but multi-GPU configurations will have to split the bandwidth. That means an SLI or CrossFire X rig will run both cards in x8 mode. Remember, however, that we’re talking x8 at PCI-E 2.0 speeds, which is 8GB/s for each card. From what we’ve seen and from what vendors have told us, only at the highest resolutions with antialiasing do you see any impact.
But, you say, what about tri-SLI? That, too, can be theoretically supported. Even though Lynn-field supports but a single x16 PCI-E 2.0 lane, additional PCI-E lanes are added through the P55 chipset—at the cost of latency. Previous designs that had PCI-E plumbed from both the north bridge and south bridge were dinged for doing just this. Some vendors are working around the lack of bandwidth by adding Nvidia’s nForce 200 chip to their boards. The nForce 200 doesn’t magically add bandwidth but it does manage the available bandwidth across multiple slots. Thus, a board vendor could add three or even four x16 PCI-E slots and have the nForce 200 chip manage the load for multi-GPU configurations. This would eliminate the need to have the GPUs feed off of the higher-latency connection in the chipset.
CrossFire X support is a given in the vast majority of P55 motherboards. And SLI will be as well for the board vendors who pay Nvidia to “certify” that their boards are SLI-ready. Fortunately, the big names are already onboard with that, including Asus, Gigabyte, MSI, EVGA, and even Intel.
If you’re wondering why Intel doesn’t just fix the lack of bandwidth by adding additional PCI-E lanes in the CPU, consider this: Intel would have to add additional traces from the CPU and the socket, and even Intel is loathe to introduce yet another new socket standard so soon. The company also doesn’t think it’s worth it as anyone who truly wants full dual-x16 GPU support should really be buying X58: Remember, folks, Lynnfield and P55 are for the “mainstream.”
The Lynnfield LGA1156 again rejiggers the design of the modern CPU. With the Athlon 64 and the Core i7, the memory controller was moved from the north bridge directly into the CPU core. With Lynnfield, the PCI-Express ports are now handled directly by the CPU as well. Furthermore, relatively low-speed data from the hard drives and USB ports flows though a single DMI link at 2GB/s with Lynnfield.
In the old days, new core-logic chipsets were almost as exciting as a new CPU. Not so today. With X58 and Bloomfield, the chipset got fired from its job of managing the memory controller. With Lynnfield, it even loses its responsibilities for managing PCI-E, as both features are now integral to the CPU itself. Today, the chipset is nothing more than a glorified south bridge, managing USB, SATA, PCI, PS/2, and other decidedly unsexy items. The P55 might have been sexier if it had USB 3.0 or SATA 6 functionality, but that won’t appear until next year. And even if it had those features, it’s pretty clear where the P55 stands: Its desk has been moved to the basement and its red Swingline stapler has been confiscated.
Why would a new CPU that gives you the best bang for the buck in town be greeted nervously? Because Intel’s new CPU brings with it a new socket as well as a new infrastructure. This new infrastructure is essentially a fork in the road that forces users to make a difficult choice: Save money today but get locked out of the high-end, or splurge today knowing that the budget CPU is damn near as good as the top-end part.
For the details on Intel’s new budget monster, savor our full report, consume the specs, and then digest the benchmarks to see just which path your next PC should take.
We normally don’t use a CPU’s code-name once its real name is known, but to help keep your head from popping off over Intel’s confusing naming scheme we’re going to rely on some code-names here for clarity.
Intel’s newest CPU family is code-named Lynnfield. The lineup includes the 2.93GHz Core i7-870, the 2.83GHz Core i7-860, and the 2.66GHz Core i5-750. Lynnfield chips use essentially the same microarchitecture as Intel’s original Core i7 CPUs, which were code-named Bloomfield, but the new CPUs are incompatible with existing Core i7 motherboards. That’s right, you could walk into a store and buy a Core i7 CPU that will not work with the Core i7 motherboard you just bought. Likewise, the Core i7 heatsink cooler you bought may not work with a new Core i7, either.
Despite its smaller size, Intel’s new Lynnfield Core i7/Core i5 CPU (right) actually features an increased transistor count of 774 million and a larger die size of 296 square millimeters, compared with the 731-million-tranny Bloomfield Core i7 (left) and its 263 square-millimeter die.
The most notable difference in this new crop of Core i7s is the socket. For Lynnfield, Intel is introducing the LGA1156 socket. This socket is, as stated, incompatible with the current LGA1366 motherboards and CPUs. To irk you even more, even the heatsink cooler mounting holes are incompatible, so you probably couldn’t use an LGA1366 cooler, even if you happened to have one. And even more annoying to enthusiasts, LGA775 coolers are also incompatible. Earlier this year, Intel execs told Maximum PC that LGA775 cooler compatibility was being considered for the new chip, but obviously the company has since ruled that out. To break it down: LGA1366 uses a 12cm gap, LGA1156 uses an 11cm gap, and LGA775 uses a 10cm gap. Yes, one centimeter difference and you have to dustbin your pricey high-rise cooler even though it’s capable of handling the thermals of the new chip.
We asked Intel if it was doing this just to piss people off and the company said no, it did it for legitimate engineering reasons. Intel actually lowered the height of the new direct socket load mechanism that clamps the CPU in place, which required moving the mounting holes out. Existing heatsinks capable of the thermal load should work, Intel said, so long as consumers obtain updated mounting brackets from the cooler maker. We have to also note that very new high-end coolers are coming with mounts for LGA1156 too. Still, make sure that if the box says Core i7, support for LGA1156 is included.
Although Intel wouldn’t confirm this, we’ve been told by high-end system builders that certain LGA1366 motherboards and coolers would flex enough to create a gap between cooler and CPU. The new design presumably fixes that problem.
The new budget Core i5/Core i7 CPUs use a new LGA1156 socket design (top image), which is incompatible with existing LGA1366 Core i7 motherboards and coolers (bottom image). The design eliminates traces for the third memory controller, but builds in wires that will accommodate forthcoming CPUs with integrated graphics cores.
| |
