Hardcore:
Core i7 Extreme-900XM – 45nm Clarksfield, quad core with HTT, 2.00-2.13GHz, 8MB L3 cache, 2500MHz DMI, Turbo @ 2/2/8/9, DDR3 1333MHz, 55W TDP

Performance:
Core i7-800QM – 45nm Clarksfield, quad core with HTT, 1.73 - 1.86GHz, 8MB L3 cache, 2500MHz DMI, Turbo @ 2/2/8/10, DDR3 1333MHz, 45W TDP
Core i7-700QM – 45nm Clarksfield, quad core with HTT, 1.60 - 1.73GHz, 6MB L3 cache, 2500MHz DMI, Turbo @ 1/1/6/9, DDR3 1333MHz, 45W TDP
Core i7-600M – 32nm Arrandale, dual core wit HTT, 2.66GHz, 4MB L3 cache, 2500MHz DMI, Turbo @ 3.30GHz, GPU @ 766MHz, DDR3 1066MHz, 35W TDP

Mainstream:
Core i5-500M – 32nm Arrandale, dual core with HTT, 2.40-2.53GHz, 3MB L3 cache, 2500MHz DMI, Turbo @ 2.93-3.06GHz, GPU @ 766MHz, DDR3 1066MHz, 35W TDP
Core i5-400M – 32nm Arrandale, dual core with HTT, 2.26GHz, 3MB L3 cache, 2500MHz DMI, Turbo @ 2.53GHz, GPU @ 766MHz, DDR3 1066MHz, 35W TDP

Value:
Core i3-300M – 32nm Arrandale, dual core with HTT, 2.13-2.26GHz, 3MB L3 cache, 2500MHz DMI, GPU @ 667MHz, DDR3 1066MHz, 35W TDP
Pentium P6000 - 32nm Arrandale, dual core, 1.86 GHz, 3MB L3 cache, 4.8GT/s DMI, GPU @ 667MHz, DDR3 1066MHz, 35W TDP
Celeron P4000 – 32nm Arrandale, dual core, 1.86GHz, 2MB L3 cache, 2500MHz DMI, GPU @ 667MHz, DDR3 1066MHz, 35W TDP


Low Voltage:
Core i7-600LM – 32nm Arrandale, dual core with HTT, 2.00-2.13GHz, 4MB L3 cache, 2500MHz DMI, Turbo @ 2.80-2.93GHz, GPU @ 566MHz, 25W TDP

Ultra-low Vlotage:
Core i7-600UM – 32nm Arrandale, dual core with HTT, 1.06 - 1.33GHz, 4MB L3 cache, 2500MHz DMI, Turbo @ 2.40GHz, GPU @ 500MHz, DDR3 800MHz, 18W TDP
Core i5-500UM - 32nm Arrandale, dual core with HTT, 1.20GHz, 3MB L3 cache, 2500MHz DMI, Turbo @ 2.20GHz, GPU @ 500MHz, DDR3 800MHz, 18W TDP
Core i5-400UM - 32nm Arrandale, dual core with HTT, 1.20GHz, 3MB L3 cache, 2500MHz DMI, Turbo @ 1.73GHz, GPU @ 500MHz, DDR3 800MHz, 18W TDP
Core i3-300UM - 32nm Arrandale, dual core with HTT, 1.20GHz, 3MB L3 cache, 2500MHz DMI, GPU @ 500MHz, DDR3 800MHz, 18W TDP
Pentium U5000 - 32nm Arrandale, dual core, 1.20GHz, 3MB L3 cache, 2500MHz DMI, GPU @ 500MHz, DDR3 800MHz, 18W TDP
Celeron U3000 - 32nm Arrandale, dual core, 1.06GHz, 2MB L3 cache, 2500MHz DMI, GPU @ 500MHz, DDR3 800MHz, 18W TDP

Netbook:
Atom N405 – 45nm Pineview, single core with HTT, 1.66-1.83GHz, 512KB L2 cache, 2500MHz DMI, GPU @ 200MHz, DDR3 800MHz, 5.5-6.5WW TDP
Atom N400 – 45nm Pineview, single core with HTT, 1.66-1.83GHz, 512KB L2 cache, 2500MHz DMI, GPU @ 200MHz, DDR2 800MHz, 5.5-6.5WW TDP

Note:
1. GREY indicates upcoming product/s
2. STRIKEOFF = EOL-ed product (means no longer in production, but u will probably still find them in the market)



Hardcore:
Phenom II Quad Core Black Edition X900 – 45nm Champlain, quad core, 2.30GHz, 4x 512KB L2 cache, 3600MHz HT, 45W TDP
Phenom II Dual Core Black Edition X600 – 45nm Champlain, dual core, 3.10GHz, 2x 512KB L2 cache, 36000MHz HT, 45W TDP

Performance:
Phenom II Quad Core N900 – 45nm Champlain, quad core, 2.00GHz, 4x 512KB L2 cache, 3600MHz HT, 35W TDP
Phenom II Quad Core P900 – 45nm Champlain, quad core, 1.60GHz, 4x 512KB L2 cache, 3600MHz HT, 25W TDP
Phenom II Triple Core N800 – 45nm Champlain, tri core, 2.10GHz, 3x 512KB L2 cache, 3600MHz HT, 35W TDP
Phenom II Triple Core P800 – 45nm Champlain, tri core, 1.80GHz, 3x 512KB L2 cache, 3600MHz HT, 25W TDP
Phenom II Dual Core P600 – 45nm Champlain, dual core, 2.80GHz, 2x 512KB L2 cache, 3600MHz HT, 35W TDP

Mainstream:
Turion II Dual Core N500 – 45nm Champlain, dual core, 2.50GHz, 2x 1MB L2 cache, 3600MHz HT, 35W TDP
Turion II Dual Core P500 – 45nm Champlain, dual core, 2.30GHz, 2x 1MB L2 cache, 3600MHz HT, 25W TDP

Value:
Athlon II Dual Core N300 – 45nm Champlain, dual core, 2.30GHz, 2x 512KB L2 cache, 3600MHz HT, 35W TDP
Athlon II Dual Core P300 – 45nm Champlain, dual core, 2.10GHz, 2x 512KB L2 cache, 3600MHz HT, 25W TDP
V-series V100 – 45nm Champlain, single core, 1.20-2.20GHz, 512KB L2 cache, 3600MHz HT, 25W TDP

Ultra-thin:
Zacate dual core - 40nm Ontario, dual core, DX11, 24W TDP
Zacate single core - 40nm Ontario, single core, DX11, 18W TDP
Turion II Neo Dual Core K600 - 45nm Geneva, dual core, 1.50-1.70GHz, 2x 1MB L2 cache, 3200MHz HT, 15W TDP
Athlon II Neo Dual Core K300 - 45nm Geneva, dual core, 1.30GHz, 2x 1MB L2 cache, 2000MHz HT, 15W TDP
Athlon II Neo K100 - 45nm Geneva, single core, 1.70GHz, 1MB L2 cache, 2000MHz HT, 12W TDP
V-series V100 - 45nm Geneva, single core, 1.20GHz, 512KB L2 cache, 2000MHz HT, 9W TDP

Note:
1. GREY indicates upcoming product/s
2. STRIKEOFF = EOL-ed product (means no longer in production, but u will probably still find them in the market)
3. Italic = announced future product


This post has been edited by astria: Sep 13 2010, 02:30 PM

So by means that Core i7 is perfect for ultra-multitasking jobs like video rendering/editing or maybe doing multimedia type of jobs...

but not recommended for those hardcore gamers??

yup, that would be the case...

let me quote Intel (for the third time, or maybe fourth) again: Core i7 is not designed for gamers...

gamers go Core i5... hardcore gamers fo Phenom II...

Just like the same case back then with P4 HT.

It doesnt really give much performance boost to gamers,except games that is optimised for it.

Thinking back to that time,how many games were optimised for HT?

as far as i know, RE5 only.

I mean the games back then,in 2004 or 2005?

Isnt the current HT technology in i7 similar to the ones back in P4?

nah... they are different...

previously it was called SMP (Simultaneous Multi-thread sth??? can't really remember...), it only shortly before Core i7 launch last year that Intel decided to call it Hyper Threading as well for simplicity sake...

now want buy a laptop, better buy i7 spec laptop if don't want outdated later on.

This post has been edited by stlkelvin: Oct 12 2009, 08:36 PM

this i beg to differ...

Core i7 is juz totally overkill for many people...

rather, i would suggest wait for Core i5, which is better suited for gamers (at least), and cheaper as well...

^ +1.
agree

assuming i want to do video editing and rendering on a laptop (yes, yes, get a desktop blablabla, am a student, need the portability)

will i7 be better or should i wait for i5 as well?

i do play games but not a whole lot, i7 cant be that bad for games right?

the keyword again is optimization...

check and see if the software that u re going to use and see if they are optimized for HT...

Core i7 itself is a quad core proc with HT, so it doesnt make that much of a differences if any software or games are not optimized for it.

performance will drop if the software is not optimized... iirc, game performance dropped by as much as 20% when HT is enabled... u re better off without HT in cases like this...

it's different from the case where u run a dual core optimized software on a quad core...

Doesnt make much of a difference i7 HT enabled and i5 non HT. The higher end model would compensate the HT performance drop with its higher speed/cache/qpi architecture.

i7 and i5 are basically the same stuff, so cache and QPI are basically the same...

as for speed, imho i5 will probably be able to match wat i7 can run at... since disabling HT will result in lower power consumption, and thus the speed can be pushed further...

a very rough assumption...

i7 at 2GHz running a non-HT optimized software, is as good as i5 running at 1.6-1.8GHz...

so basically u re paying more money for the same performance, and a feature that u re not going to use...

They are basically the same, but QPI speeds are diff bro. Dont forget the Turbo Boost feature also as the max speed achievable differs between those i5 and i7.

I was under the impression that the mobile i7 uses DMI instead of QPI. Am I wrong?

yup, Clarksfield uses DMI juz like Lynnfield...

lets say core i7 and Phenom2 X4 955... what is the disadvantage that AMD have?.. but i see all proc works all the same.... loadlng.. gaming etc.. some advice from the guru's pls ^^

My QX9300 the best for it....... http://forum.lowyat.net/topic/1109389/+760
what i do also vry fast.......

QX9300[PM/GM 45] is good processor and the price more that US 1K...... now i using X9000[PM/GM 965] for my asus laptop.

X9000 is too hot d.....

very interested to change from Q9000 to QX9300.

just wait during my annual holiday, gonna pawn u Putochip123. haha

so far not problem wif me. coz for PM965 mainboard, the high end processor only is X9000, so buy it LOL....
and for PM45 mainboard, the high end processor is QX9300.

thx for the infor, i'll choose it by money wise then. lol.

Yeah thats pretty much clear up the confusion...
Nice explanation, thats very helpful

which is better to get a Q9000 laptop or a i7-720QM laptop when it comes to gaming

Q9000

+1 for Q9000 because it have higher clock.

plus, there is only one game that optimized HT from i7, that is RE5 so far. maybe we gotta wait for a year or two for the HT optimized games to conquers the market. just like C2D vs C2Q era.

i doubt HT will really be popular among games...

dun forget, at least for desktop market, only Core i7 and low end Core i5 has it...

for the rest (high end Core i5, Core i3, Pentium G) dun ve such thing...

AMD dun even bother with it..

so if u re the game developer, u will be spending extra resources juz to cater for, say 10% of the computer users, and out of that, probably less than 50% will buy ur games...

i see.
thanks for the info.

so we can conclude the best type of processor starting from next year is Quad? or some exception for high end C2D?

i would say tri-core is at the sweet spot now...

it's cheaper than quads, but still offer decent multi-core performance...

juz look at Phenom II x3... it's super cheap, and yet can hold against C2Q Q9000 and Q8000...

are you talking about Desktop processor?
if yes, what about laptop? do tri-core is available in laptop?

well, for laptops, no...

but for laptops, i would say dual core is good enuf even for now, since they seldom need to process heavy applications...

yea but since lots of games that optimized Quad will be release by next year, better stick with Quad.
just as investment for future. i am really looking forward to experience Crytek 3 Engine

problem with mobile quad is that they consume another 10W more than the dual cores...

considering the amount of heatsink needed for cooling and battery life, it's not really mobile friendly...

imho, dual core will still make up the majority for at least 1 more yr when comes to laptops...

On the flip-side, I doubt anyone getting a quad core in their notebook is thinking about mobility in the first place.

well, that y majority would still be dual... Turion II, Arrandale are the so called next-gen mainstream CPU...

unless quads can go below 40W TDP, i dun see them making up most of the market... probably next yr with 32nm Sandy Bridge would be the day... but by then, AMD would be going for Fusion instead...

+ 1. Performance come first.
bit what Astria said is true. power consumption and the weight of the heatsink will reduce its mobility

now u believe me liao hor..

is d@mn hot

hahaha... dude.. if u get mobile i7 920.. then u can.. or else.. keep ur money in bank more better.

changed my mind.
just keep those money for GTX300 Series.
i think my Q9000 is already sufficient

yeah...

imagine GTX300 with SLi configuration. phews!

hello i need some guide ?? coz i planned to get a lappie with core i7 mainly for doing autocad and some time will go for high end game is that suitable for me ??

I just need autocad, no high end gaming..haha..i7 for me?

yes, that would be beneficial for ur work...

but it depends on how heavy ur work is... for normal ones, C2D is good enuf...

but the weird thing is, gamming laptop like alienware n sager all come out with their new i7 laptop series, why do they do so??

people like new things.
it is great indeed but basically, it totally depend on your usage.

everytime i use my M15x, there is few thread is remain idle.... even though i run Autocad, photo shop, convert movie or other thing, not all core utilize, Core i7 sucks....

how about RE5?

RE5 do improve alot in game... without anti-ali, about 40-50FPS.... but who will play that game? that game story line not nice at all

i did finished that game

no, what i mean is who about all 8 cores. did it run perfectly? and what is the clock for each cores?

for 4 core all use it, it will clock to 1.7Ghz++

just 4 cores or 8??

core i7 is 4core can run 8 treads ....... where got 8 core ???

It isn't wrong, per se. The Clarksfield line of CPUs all have four physical cores and with Hyper Threading enabled, it gives them a total of eight logical cores. So, what Mr.Docter said is right, technically speaking.

well 1.7 ghz still slow if 4core used ....

lol i was forgotten. bot about the cores, but about the threads

that probably means 8 threads is overkill.. .

ya, is kinda overkill, My desktop, no matter what application i run, the CPU usage wont over 10%..... it will remain 10% only....

well it is overkill

that sounds good isnt it?

Refering to the autocad question, seriously i7 for autocad? not necessary. c2d is more than sufficient. unless you're talking 3d rendering, that's abit different

from my experience while using dell sxps16 with i7...it is not that good on gaming while compare with my previous dell sxps16 with core 2 duo...so as i can conclude that i7 is NOT suitable for gaming even your gc is high...

This post has been edited by adrian7386: Nov 27 2009, 12:03 AM

YUP, U R RIGHT, EVEN PLAY War craft also lag.
SDO anybody heard before? this game is not supported for core i7, sure u will lag

now that's bad.. and I think this will make people avoid Core i7 .. even Warcraft Lag? .. Come on.. an old application wont work well on new tech.. now that's really bad..

In that case i7 isn't necessary for a whole host of functions. C2D can run 'em all. It is just a matter of how fast your work will get done.

On a more positive note, I've finally had the chance to see Clarksfield in action first hand. It does wonders for AutoCAD, C#, C++, you name it, it does it.

Warcraft as in Warcraft III and its TFT expansion, or WoW? Because I've run TFT on a Celeron, no problem.

This post has been edited by Loki[D.d.G]: Nov 27 2009, 02:11 AM

if the i7 up to min 2.0Ghz and with HT will it suitable for gaming ??
look like i7 suit me well bcoz i dont gaming but doing entertainment thing ^^

I don't get the first part. Which one are you referring to? The i7 720QM, i7 820QM or i7 920XM?

frozen throne....

Hmm now that isn't something I expected. Especially with the GPU you are using. Mind posting a FRAPS run?

all i7 in the market for laptop ~

I think he means, if the future i7 comes with at least 2.0GHz each core, will it be suitable for gaming?

still, utilization is the keyword.
if engines cannot utilize it, why don't just use normal Quad?

i7 920XM vs QX9300 gaming benchmarks here

bro do u know how much Core i7 920XM cost?

Intel is selling US$1054 for every 1k unit ordered...

Which is roughly the same price as the current i7 975 EE and the future projected RRP of Gulftown

phews!

so i7 920XM still slightly better than QX9300 ??

---

Added on November 27, 2009, 5:03 pmi5 is 35nm tech with i7 45nm ??

This post has been edited by Dackson: Nov 27 2009, 05:03 PM

i5 also 45nm...

i3 and new Pentium are 32nm...

so many 'i' series

from the info i have gathered around the Internet lately, the highly anticipated mainstream mobile Core i5 is NOT a quad core... rather, it will be based on Arrandale instead of Clarksfield...

from Wikipedia, the Core i5 is a dual core with integrated GMA HD graphic... there will be 2 lines, the 500M series and 400M series... both lines will have the graphic controller clocked at 733MHz, but the 400M series will not have HTT...

there's also the Core i3 300M series, which has both HTT and Turbo Boost disabled, and graphic is clocked at 667MHz only as well...

and to make it even more complicated, there's also the Core i7 600M series, which looks no different from a Core i5 500M on paper, besides having the highest clock in the Arrandale family...

the rated TDP of all the above CPU are 35W... a pretty big improvement over Core 2 Duo (35W TDP for T series), considering it has 2 cores, a graphic controller and memory controller built into a chip...

compared to the desktop version, here's a table for ur convenience (comparison in terms of spec)

Desktop vs Mobile
Core i5 600 - Core i5 500M, Core i7 600M
Core i3 500 - Core i5 400M
Pentium G6000 - Core i3 300M

This post has been edited by astria: Nov 30 2009, 10:15 PM

i really need time to digest that

simply say...

Core i7-900XM (quad Extreme Edition, 8MB L3 cache, HTT and Turbo Boost, >45W)
Core i7-800QM (quad, 8MB L3 cache, HTT and Turbo Boost, 45W)
Core i7-700QM (quad, 6MB L3 cache, HTT and Turbo Boost, 45W)
Core i7-600M (dual with 766MHz graphic, 4MB L3 cache, HTT and Turbo Boost, 35W)
Core i7-600LM (dual with 533MHz graphic, 4MB L3 cache, HTT and Turbo Boost, 25W) - aka Low Voltage
Core i7-600UM (dual with 500MHz graphic, 4MB L3 cache, HTT and Turbo Boost, 18W) - aka Ultra Low Voltage
Core i5-500M (dual with 766MHz graphic, 3MB L3 cache, HTT and Turbo Boost, 35W)
Core i5-400M (dual with 766MHz graphic, 3MB L3 cache, , no HTT, Turbo Boost only, 35W)
Core i3-300M (dual with 667MHz graphic, 3MB L3 cache, no HTT, no Turbo Boost. 35W)

these are wat will be available for the new Core family...

as for mobo, the quads are using PM55 now, while the duals should be HM55...

---

Added on December 1, 2009, 1:58 ami am sort of surprised by the lack of Pentium in the whole product line...

This post has been edited by astria: Dec 1 2009, 01:58 AM

Interesting preliminary prices have emerged for three Arrandale processors. Fudzilla has the details.

huh ...
waiting i7 become cheap and command ^^

only 1.7Ghz ? when 4 core running ? i still don understand how it boost till 2.8Ghz ?
any 1 reach 2.8Ghz b4 ? with wat program ?

that HT in i7 can turn off ?

2.8GHz only when all the other 3 cores are closed and only 1 core is running...

ic... is that mean i can take full control of 4 core ?
if use 2 core = 2.8Ghz/2 = roughly 1.4Ghz per core ?

You cant equate a processor's clockspeed like that. If you could, a OCed i7 920 at 4.0GHz will have an effective clockspeed of 16GHz on one core

VBy the way, I posted an answer to your original question before;

OIC... i did read your post b4 just don understand !

when running single core izzit something like Pentium M 2.8Ghz with better FSB n cache ? i mean in performance / equal to ?

So does an Intel Core 2 Duo P9700 2.8GHz proc perform better than the Core i7-720QM 1.6GHz in GTA4?