Any new 32nm parts soon?

[P2Mc28]

I'm looking around to build myself a new i# Core system, and, if I'm not mistaken, the only 32nm parts around are the Lynnfield, which are more entry-level, unless I'm mistaken, and the Gulftown which is the bleeding-edge-way-out-of-my-league-level.

I've always liked the "tick" updates - but... is the chip I'm looking for even going to exist before Sandybridge? Is there something I've overlooked?


And I felt I should add I'm looking in the $300 price range.

 

[Sp12]

What you're looking for is the XEON 5620. 32nm quadcore.

It retails for 350, but I've seen deals for 320.

 

[Acanthus]

We pretty much have to sit on our hands until this winter.

I almost bit on the E5620 but i decided against it.

I've been leaning hard toward AMD lately with cheap hexes.

 

[DrMrLordX]

I'm looking around to build myself a new i# Core system, and, if I'm not mistaken, the only 32nm parts around are the Lynnfield, which are more entry-level, unless I'm mistaken, and the Gulftown which is the bleeding-edge-way-out-of-my-league-level.

Lynnfield is the 45nm quadcore for LGA1156. You're thinking of Clarksdale which is the 32nm dualcore for LGA1156 with a 45nm memory controller.

 

[P2Mc28]

Lynnfield is the 45nm quadcore for LGA1156. You're thinking of Clarksdale which is the 32nm dualcore for LGA1156 with a 45nm memory controller.

Blah, oops. Right.

I think I might jump on that Xeon, if after doing a bit of research I find it's actually is the chip I want -- and I see it drop closer to my price range (~$380 on NewEgg atm).

I'd really prefer an actual chip meant for what I plan to do with it (gaming) but I can't really wait until winter, because I really need to replace an aging system (P4@2.8GHz with a jet turbine for a heatsink fan, >_< lol). I'm not entirely sure the thing will last the summer...

PS - I'm replacing the ancient system with my current one, and building myself a new machine, hence the massive difference. Just in case anyone wondered why I'd need to go from P4->Westmere.

 

[WhiteFireDragon]

like one other guy said before, lynnfield is 45nm still. the clarkdale i3 and i5's are 32nm though. there are some 32nm gulftown and xeon chips, but none of those are mainstream prices. since it's a gaming computer, best value is to just get an i3 and clock it to an easy 4ghz. use that savings on the processor to invest in a SSD or a good GPU

 

[beginner99]

Are you planing a multi-gpu setup?

If not, p55 (=lga 1156 lynnfield) is imho the way to go. if you are sure you want multi-gpu, then go with X58. lynnfield is nice because of the turbo modes. I would certainly go quad-core because new games mostly use at least 2 cores and the other cores caneb used for OS, Anti-Virus, othe rbackground apps without impacting game performance.

 

[Spikesoldier]

i3 when overclocked can become a very capable and affordable gaming platform.

 

[P2Mc28]

Are you planing a multi-gpu setup?

If not, p55 (=lga 1156 lynnfield) is imho the way to go. if you are sure you want multi-gpu, then go with X58. lynnfield is nice because of the turbo modes. I would certainly go quad-core because new games mostly use at least 2 cores and the other cores caneb used for OS, Anti-Virus, othe rbackground apps without impacting game performance.

That's what I was thinking about Quad vs Dual - not to mention, I generally go 2-3 years between upgrades and I like to future proof to a degree. In addition, when I do replace my machines, I always hand down my old one to my family, so I do like them to last.

Also, no mutli-GPU for me. I prefer the powerful single card solutions. Which is kinda crap in this situation - I want a quad, but the Lynnfield is only dual, and is technically the superior single-GPU solution? Which is why I'm currently considering the Xeon idea.

 

[P2Mc28]

i3 when overclocked can become a very capable and affordable gaming platform.

Yes, definitely. Which is the route I was originally going to take (since I'm building my computer literally so my old one can replace an aging one). I was going super-affordable, and realized a cheap i3 overclocked was probably better than my e8400.

Another question; 3.8GHz Conroe w/ 4870 HD (slightly OC'd as well) is what I'm upgrading from. I recently read several random posts (around late '09) that were stating a... I think i7 920? wasn't really a gaming upgrade from a 4GHz Conroe.

Am I going to be better off simply replacing the old machine with a supercheap system (and picking up a Cypress/Fermi) vs building a new one right now to last a couple years? Or was that old stuff I read simply outdated info?

If I'm really not going to see much improvement from an i7ish quad... I suppose I could do this a lot cheaper (and in turn quicker) taking the i3 or AMD route.

 

[Supersonic64]

NO! STOP!

You DO NOT WANT a Core i3 chip for gaming. Some newer games already make heavy use of multiple cores (Bad Company 2) and the number will only increase from here on out. You can get an i3 or any dual-core chip and overclock to 4.0GHz, but don't expect to max out newer games from here on out. At minimum you want an quad-core chip, i3 is out of the question for gaming.

 

[Spikesoldier]

NO! STOP!

You DO NOT WANT a Core i3 chip for gaming. Some newer games already make heavy use of multiple cores (Bad Company 2) and the number will only increase from here on out. You can get an i3 or any dual-core chip and overclock to 4.0GHz, but don't expect to max out newer games from here on out. At minimum you want an quad-core chip, i3 is out of the question for gaming.

or just get the i3 and oc right now knowing that later you can get a cheap drop in replacement i5 or i7 down the road. use the money you would save towards a better gpu, it should improve performance even more.

thats what i did - when you get north of 4.0 which is a breeze, the i3 does have some zip to it including in bc2.

 

[Supersonic64]

or just get the i3 and oc right now knowing that later you can get a cheap drop in replacement i5 or i7 down the road. use the money you would save towards a better gpu, it should improve performance even more.

thats what i did - when you get north of 4.0 which is a breeze, the i3 does have some zip to it including in bc2.

That's a stupid idea. You could just invest the money outright for a quad-core i5-750 which is $200 vs. some dual-core i3-xxx which is $150 and performance will suck in newer multithreaded games even if you have a 5870 or GTX480 because the CPU won't be able to keep up with the GPU.

DUAL-CORE CHIPS DO NOT CUT IT FOR GAMING ANY MORE.

 

[Spikesoldier]

That's a stupid idea. You could just invest the money outright for a quad-core i5-750 which is $200 vs. some dual-core i3-xxx which is $150 and performance will suck in newer multithreaded games even if you have a 5870 or GTX480 because the CPU won't be able to keep up with the GPU.

DUAL-CORE CHIPS DO NOT CUT IT FOR GAMING ANY MORE.

i was thinking more of the ~100 i3 530 for right now. anything other than the i3's like the dual core i5's are a bad idea yes. if i could do it over again, i would get the i3 540 with the 1x higher multiplier to make OC's closing in on 5GHz easier.

but if i3 530 @ 2933 beats a e8400 @ 3000, something tells me that when i crank up the i3 to 4500 or more with HT enabled, im creeping up on lower-end quads especially in games.

remember what i said in the original post, capable, and affordable platform.

if OP's budget is large, then of course he can afford better parts like a lga1366 based platform to power his multi gpu's. the i5 750 is also a great gaming chip for those budget minded, occupying the ~200 slot.

for a ~300 chip, the 875K or 930 looks very promising, but id rather pick up the 750.

 

[P2Mc28]

Whoa whoa, sorry for the confusion there.

I originally came here looking for some sort of mysterious ~$300 range 32nm quad core for gaming, hoping there was some sort of Gulftown variant in the pipeline soon.

My point about a potential i3 system was this; I have two machines. My e8400 machine that I currently use for gaming, and the old, old P4 machine that is the actual system taking a hike. I'm either rebuilding MINE and replacing the P4 with my e8400, or, if my e8400 could just use a new videocard and be fine for several more months (until Sandybridge or something?), then I'd build a cheap i3 or quad AMD system to replace the P4.

The i3 thing was more of "am I really going to see much gaming improvement going from e8400@3.8GHz -> i5/i7? "

 

[aigomorla]

Whoa whoa, sorry for the confusion there.

I originally came here looking for some sort of mysterious ~$300 range 32nm quad core for gaming, hoping there was some sort of Gulftown variant in the pipeline soon.

300 dollar gulftown variant would RAPE AMD.

Are you mad?

I do not want AMD out of business.
Intel would never bring out a 300 dollar gulftown.
No kidding that would really make AMD cry.

i7 970X is rumored to be around 600-700. Dont know if its locked or unlocked seeing how intel is going K with things.
You can get 32nm Xeons that will work in X58 boards right now tho.

 

[RussianSensation]

There will be little performance benefit upgrading from E8400 to Core i3 in games. If you want to upgrade the CPU, go Core i5 750 or 1055T at least. Alternatively, just wait for the Sandy Bridge in Q1 2011. A fast dual core is not going to be as fast as the quad core (esp GTAiv, Dragon Age Origins, Resident Evil 5, Battlefield Bad Company 2). However, the videocard will still be the bottleneck 90&#37; of the time.

How many CPU cores do you need?
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2010/07/05/how-many-cpu-cores-do-games-need/1

If you were buying right now, I can't recommend ANY dual core. However, since you already have an E8400, it should last you until socket 1155 since the only 2 really intensive games coming out in 2010 will be Medal of Honor and Crysis 2.

What is your videocard anyway? You may want to upgrade that instead.

 

[P2Mc28]

I'm currently running a 4870 HD, slightly OC'd, running dual 2048x1152 monitors. I imagine the monitors are why I'm getting lower-than-expected results (I can't play SCII on Ultra without getting "You are slowing down the game" messages, for instance)

I think I am going to favor the approach of - get a new videocard, build a separate cheap system to replace the old machine.

 

[Spikesoldier]

consider adding a second 4870 for cheap.

ive been looking at used 4890's ive seen them as low as 125 shipped

 

[Arkaign]

consider adding a second 4870 for cheap.

ive been looking at used 4890's ive seen them as low as 125 shipped

Yep, with a nicely overclocked C2D already, more gains will be seen in most games (there are a handful that really benefit from quad > dual, but they're still not super common) with GPU upgrade. For more of a full system speed upgrade, a decent SSD will be a lot more noticeable. And of course the SSD and the GPU will transfer easily to a newer system.

I'm not entirely sure I'd spend $ on a 4870/4890 at this point though. Perhaps sell 4870 and hunt a deal on a 5850.

 

[P2Mc28]

Thanks everyone, gave me a lot of info I needed to decide what to do. Unfortunately, while I do have 2 PCI-E 16x slots, the second slot is only x4? (http://www.newegg.com/product/produc...82E16813128087)

Either way, I know what I want to do now; upgrade my video card, build cheap 2nd computer, wait for Sandybridge before I replace my personal system.

Thanks again!

 

[Spikesoldier]

yeah looks like cf is out of the picture for you for now, p35 has pcie v1.1 so the second slot at 4x v1.1 hurts.

sounds like riding out that system until sandy bridge seems like the smart thing to do.

 

[WhiteFireDragon]

That's a stupid idea. You could just invest the money outright for a quad-core i5-750 which is $200 vs. some dual-core i3-xxx which is $150 and performance will suck in newer multithreaded games even if you have a 5870 or GTX480 because the CPU won't be able to keep up with the GPU.

DUAL-CORE CHIPS DO NOT CUT IT FOR GAMING ANY MORE.

lol talking a bit in absolutes aren't you? almost all games out now will see almost no difference between a dual vs quad core. are you trying to pick one of the more expensive dual to compare price with the cheapest new quad? you can get an i3-530 for $100... not $150. and it's still faster than the i5-750 at stock and overclocked speed in most games. yes, he can invest the money for a quad and gain almost nothing, OR he can skip this generation CPU's and get sandybridge when it comes out. use that money saved to buy a better GPU, where almost all gaming performance is.

btw, no need to all anyone's idea's stupid. they did have very valid points. i could have very well called your idea stupid too, but i didn't

 

[Sp12]

Frankly, there is no 32nm quad for 1156. There is no ugprade path unless you mean buying that i5-750 that made so much sense for 50$ more than your dual core.

I do not see the i3s as viable gaming chips anymore, especially moving forward.

 

[IntelUser2000]

The "multi-threading" capability of games all suck. They must be hard to split up and parallelize. Duals were definitely an advantage over single, and I can say that to a lesser extend to a quad.

Of course, the current Clarkdales use a significantly slower memory controller, which adds to the difference from Lynnfield, and is nothing due to quad core.