• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

early Intel Nehalem i7 benchmarks

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.
Last edited:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/Intel-Core-i7-Nehalem,2057.html

what is this about crippled/no ocing!? i thought those were rumors! someone please explain!

As with all non-EE intel chips (and AMD non-BE chips) there is a locked multiplier.

So you just push your BCLK (Base Clock, think of it as the new FSB) up and adjust all your other multipliers accordingly.

edit: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=205688



According to Toms it does look like Intel has attempted to limit OCing on the non-EE CPUs. Using power consumption to lock instead of multis. I really hope this isn't true...:(

Tomshardware said:
Overclocking--130 Watt Speed Limit
Overclocking Made Difficult

Overclocking is very different on the Core i7. Unlike the Core 2 or Pentium D processors, the Core i7 CPU can monitor the current it draws as well as its power consumption—if it exceeds a certain level, the processor automatically reduces its clock speed. Intel calls this feature "Overspeed Protection." The limits hard-wired into the core are 100 A and 130 watts. Only the Extreme Edition allows the user to increase these values as they like, effectively circumventing the protection mechanism altogether.

Thermal power loss rises especially quickly when the core voltage is increased. Thus, it is entirely possible that a lower model Core i7 may offer excellent overclocking potential, but it will be constrained by the Overspeed Protection feature when its power dissipation triggers it. Obviously, Intel wants to prevent customers from buying an inexpensive processor and then overclocking it to very high or even extreme levels. Apparently, Intel has realized that the good overclocking potential of its processors has led ambitious users to choose less expensive models, relegating the faster (and more expensive) CPUs to the sidelines.

Companies selling water-cooling solutions may also be affected as an unintended consequence of this design. After all, water cooling solutions tend to be the method of choice in scenarios where a conventional air cooler is no longer able to handle a CPU’s heat dissipation. The normal, non-Extreme Edition Core i7 processors will hit a hard limit at 130 watts, which means a large percentage of users who previously chose a liquid cooling solution may suddenly disappear. Instead, the target group for such pricier cooling solutions would automatically shift to buyers of Extreme Edition processors and users building silent PCs.
Buying the Right CPU? Luck of the Draw

Intel’s thermal design power (TDP) rating is meant to specify the maximum amount of power a certain CPU will draw under full load when running at its default clock speed and using its stock voltage. As mentioned above, all current Core i7 models have a maximum TDP of 130 watts. It is entirely possible that a given Core i7 940 or 920 may actually only consume 70, 90 or perhaps 110 watts. If you are lucky enough to find yourself with a 70 watt version, that gives you an overhead of about 50+ watts for overclocking, and you’ll be able to increase the core voltage enough to see some good results. Conversely, if you end up taking a 110 watt model home, you’ll only have 20 watts of overclocking headroom before the CPU begins to throttle its clock speed. In this case, the same model of a CPU will offer much lower overclocking potential due to the Overspeed Protection feature.

A highly efficient cooling solution may give you a little more room to maneuver by reducing thermal power loss. Still, this will only let you eke out a few more megahertz. Our thermal dissipation measurements on the 45 nm Core 2 CPUs have shown that the power consumption can vary greatly from one model to another; the Core i7 models will be the same.
 
i hope it isn't true too! that is terrible. i guess intel is saying "the jig is up, we know you're getting the most for your money!" i think that it is a slap in the face to the enthusiasts that can't afford their crazy prices for their extreme editions.

i hope that their is a way to get around the wattage limit. better yet, intel provides some sort of update or something to erase the wattage limit on the procs that ship with it, and then they revise the procs... that is really upsetting...
 
There is no confirmation that there is a wattage limit.

If there is a wattage limit we don't know how this will limit overclocks (3.5ghz? 4ghz? 4.5ghz?)

There is more then one person who has pushed a 920 to ~4ghz using a decent board.

At least one other review site has hinted that there is an Overspeed Protection feature based on temperature. Which to me would make more sense.
 
Add the x58 mobo and RAM, then say it's a low price. You can't just pop it in your board and go.

DDR3 memory is relatively cheap compared to where prices used to be. Plus no one is putting a $1400+ processor on a $79 value mobo. QX with a $180 mobo and 4 Gb of DDR2-1066 will still be way more expensive than a 920 and a $300 x58 mobo with DDR3.

Upgrading your current rig may not be cheap, but building a new system will be. Besides at those prices it would be cheaper to build a new rig than upgrade your current one.
 
Last edited:
well, i hope that the wattage limit turns out to be a farce.

tomshardware is pretty reliable on the review front, in my opinion, so i am markedly nervous...
 
DDR3 memory is relatively cheap compared to where prices used to be. Plus no one is putting a $1400+ processor on a $79 value mobo. QX with a $180 mobo and 4 Gb of DDR2-1066 will still be way more expensive than a 920 and a $300 x58 mobo with DDR3.

Upgrading your current rig may not be cheap, but building a new system will be. Besides at those prices it would be cheaper to build a new rig than upgrade your current one.

Why QX? Q9650 would be a way cheaper, and probably faster. Or you could get an E8400 E0 for $150-160...way cheaper, and plenty of performance.

Wait at least a few months on i7. No need to jump in quick unless you have money to burn.
 
Another, with more reasonable voltages: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?p=3394714#post3394714

Nearly to 4.2 here: http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=440058

edit: more - http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?p=3402474#post3402474

edit2:
Overclockers Club said:
To keep the CPU from throttling under load you can increase the "current limit" override as well as the "power limit" override in the DX58 Smackover motherboard BIOS
http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/intel_core_i7/4.htm

So it is BIOS controlled - different manufacturers should be able to implement it in different ways (or defeat it).
 
Last edited:
it seems like they made that adjustment on the 965 which is the extreme edition, which doesn't have the imposed wattage limit (i hope that you're right and motherboard manufacturers can choose whether or not to impose the wattage limit)...
 
There is no confirmation that there is a wattage limit.

If there is a wattage limit we don't know how this will limit overclocks (3.5ghz? 4ghz? 4.5ghz?)

There is more then one person who has pushed a 920 to ~4ghz using a decent board.

At least one other review site has hinted that there is an Overspeed Protection feature based on temperature. Which to me would make more sense.

Yea, and the 920's (I believe that is what it was) needed a ton of voltage to get there.
Than again, if this is true than this gives AMD to get back into the enthusiast's favour and possibly a comeback. :shrug: who knows?
 

Hey, I know a few people who will switch back to AMD, also if they can match penryn in gaming, than they basically have matched neha (Unless things have changed)
Anyway, that isn't what this thread is about. Glad to hear you can disable the feature. Sounds like Toms is just overblowing the feature just to get attention.
 
Back