Talk:List of Intel Core i7 processors

Tables
This page started out with 3 items in 2 tables, which I thought was kind of odd.

Please keep in mind that tables are really useful for making comparisons and sorting data. Thus I've combined the old table of 3 with the recently added table of 2 to make a table of all 5 processors. Simonsarris (talk) 15:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The tables should remain split out by product, as with every other Intel List article. There are currently two i7 products: i7 and i7 Extreme Edition (or Extreme Edition i7, whichever). One should be able to shift one's eyes the extra inch or two up/down to make the comparison.  --Vossanova o&lt; 19:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

900 series multipliers
the multipliers aren't 19.5x for i7-920, 21.5x for i7-940, 22.5x for i7-950 and 24.5x for i7-975

instead, they're 20x, 22x, 23x, and 25x respectively.

it's on intel's processor spec. finder http://processorfinder.intel.com/ Satrianneh (talk) 09:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

VT-d
VT-d support should be added to the CPU's lists of codesets, and a new lemma created for it! --188.4.95.154 (talk) 22:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Listing error
"Core i7-2675QM do not support TXT and Intel VT-d,"

But following the specific link to the manufacturer's website does list this processor as supporting VT-d

24.222.113.194 (talk) 14:10, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Not according to Ark. Where did you find the information? Arndbergmann (talk) 14:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems that now ARK says it's supported! Anon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.50.98.156 (talk) 07:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Release Price
I notice that at least one (i7-870) of the "Release Price" amounts was changed to reflect current prices. Should those be changed? I would think "Release Price" would indicate the price of the product at the time of its original release, not what the current (reduced) price is? If the current price is to be indicated in the table, shouldn't there be some mention that the price has changed, or the table heading changed from "Release Price" to something else? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.177.179.53 (talk) 20:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

It's definitely the release price as in all the other tables, the edits should be reverted. -- Arndbergmann (talk) 09:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Uh..I'm pretty sure the 870 as well as the 950 weren't released around the $300 mark. The intel website reflects current MSRP and not the price at the time of release. I believe both the 870 and the 950 were released at approximately $550-600. The intel website reflects current MSRP and not the price at the time of release. I believe both the 870 and the 950 were released at approximately $550-600. Here is proof http://www.anandtech.com/show/2832 for the 860 and http://www.anandtech.com/show/2777 for the 950. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.126.150.17 (talk) 01:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Sandy Bridge Series
This article needs an update since the release of the Sandy Bridge Processors. Irazmus (talk) 10:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Missing Processors
I noticed that these processors are missing i7-2630QM i7-2635QM please add them

Note that as this is the most comprehensive 4th generation i7 page in Wikipedia, as others miss the i7-4850HQ & i7-4950HQ that are so important because of the Iris Graphics 5200 (like in the i7-4800MQ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.119.99.166 (talk) 22:15, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

i7-2630QM/2635QM AES-NI
the website reference 7 (# ^ Core i7-2630QM, Core i7-2635QM does not support TXT and Intel VT-d) links to says these processors support AES-NI, VT-d is not supported — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.23.31.107 (talk) 09:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

There appear to be multiple laptop vendors shipping configurations of the i7-2635QM with AES-NI disabled (Lenovo, Asus). So far reasons are unknown, however it is an undocumented feature that the instruction set can be disabled by the BIOS (through a MSR) and not be reported to the operating system. Having spoken to an Intel technical support representative, they've confirmed the presence of AES-NI on the model but it being disabled a matter for laptop manufacturers. 203.206.207.51 (talk) 07:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Proof: http://i.imgur.com/viyVB.png 203.206.207.51 (talk) 01:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Mythical i7-995
Pretty sure these weren't actually released (can't find them in the ARK anyway) but I see them rather often on distributed computing projects. They're basically a 990 with a x27 multiplier (133.33 * 27 = 3.599 ~ 3.6Ghz) by default, but since they're not multiplier locked that's just academic.

Here's an example of an ES chip, also with the impression that Intel was planning to release it. But apparently didn't. http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/showthread.php?t=143504

I didn't know if policy was to only have released processors in articles. However it shows up enough on ebay and other weird places that people might be looking here to figure out what it is. The smoking gun would be to find a CPU-Z screenshot of a 995 that does NOT report itself as an ES.139.67.71.26 (talk) 01:02, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Haswell
Is anyone adding data on the new Haswell line of i7's? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.89.242.62 (talk) 07:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I've noticed that Vossanova changed the "Crystal Well" processors to "Haswell with Crystal Well", citing that "Crystal Well" is the name for the additional eDRAM; however ARK lists the processors as Formerly Crystal Well, which implies they should be under their own distinct codename of "Crystal Well".Extec286 (talk) 20:36, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Haswell classification
It is very interesting to divide Haswell-based cpu in this way: "Haswell" with "Crystalwell" (22 nm) and "Haswell" (quad-core, 22 nm). Intel divides haswell by package: pga (m-series) and bga (h-series). Low-end version of h-series (4700hq & 4702hq) - it is a opportunity to oems to make cheaper configurations of bga-based notebooks. Moreover, 4700eq is embedded version of 4700hq, not 4700mq. Furthermore, there are Haswell-MB, Haswell-H and Haswell-ULT, etc so no need to invent new names like "Haswell with Crystalwell"

Release date format
The release dates should use the more standard and compact ISO format (e.g., "2010-09" instead of "September 2010"), as is typical with other Wikipedia technical tables. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.102.200.246 (talk) 06:00, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Source for die sizes
For more recent CPUs ark.intel.com does not include data for die sizes, yet this list and many tech sites list detailed die sizes. Is there an official source from intel (specifically for Ivy-Bridge-E and Haswell)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beisenherg (talk • contribs) 06:22, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Ivy Bridge section is hopelessly incorrect.
All the processors listed as 'standard power' in the Ivy Bridge quad core section are actually all mobile processors. The QM suffix signifies 'mobile', the XM suffix signifies 'mobile extreme'. That's why they all have a TDP of less than 60W and processor speed of 3GHz or less.

The actual standard power desktop processors (none of which are listed at all) include the i7-3770S (power optimised desktop model), i7-3770 (standard desktop model), and i7-3770K (unlocked). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.173.80.1 (talk) 15:07, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Why no Hyper Threading for Mobile i7 4 Cores in 7th gen ?
have a look at here:

https://ark.intel.com/products/family/95544/7th-Generation-Intel-Core-i7-Processors#@Mobile

4 cores and 8 Threads. In the article there is no Hyper Threading for i7 4 cores in 7th gen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:120B:2C6F:9B80:1D3D:FFB6:E3BD:C880 (talk) 12:34, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Broadwell-E & Turbo Boost
I am not too sure if the given steps are correct. I don't find any resource from intel or 3rd party hardware tests that lists the clock rates when all cores are boosted simultaneously. The given values (for all cores) could be correct, but there's no source given. The steps value for 1-2 cores on the 6800K is definitely wrong, because it has a 3.4 base frequency, +0.2 max turbo and another +0.2 Turbo Boost 3.0 - it should be so/me/th/ing/2/2 instead of 1/1/1/1/4/4. It fits for the 6850K, 6900K & 6950X, so I wonder where the editor read this info. I didn't want to edit until clarification. - SMESH (talk) 20:17, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Decipher the numbers please, for example Core i7-8086K 3/4/4/5/6/10 what's the formula? what do they mean? Gendalv (talk) 07:05, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

The numbers are the turbo boost 'bins', based on cores in use, each number is a 100MHz boost, so for the Core i7-8086K for example, with 6 cores in use, the maximum boost is 3x100MHz or 300MHz (so 4.0GHz + 0.3GHz = 4.3GHz), with 4 or 5 cores in use, the maximum boost is 4x100MHz or 400MHz (so 4.4GHz), with 3 cores in use it'd be 4.5GHz, with 2 cores in use it'd be 4.6GHz, and with only a single core in use, it'd be 5.0GHz (which is the maximum turbo boost listed by Intel).&#32;- Extec286 (talk) 19:14, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

ARK Links?
Is there a specific/practical reason all ARK links were redirected to compare? &#32;- Extec286 (talk) 20:57, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

locked or unlocked multiplier ?
This is semantics, but I think the article should talk about a locked multiplier instead of an unlocked multiplier. Overclocking: i7-4950HQ comes with an unlocked multiplier, allowing users to set the multiplier value higher than shipped value, to facilitate better overclocking.

Instead of unlocked multiplier, I see most of these processors come with a locked multipliers, disallowing users to the multiplier value higher than shipped value. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anttir717 (talk • contribs) 23:56, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:List of Intel Core processors: post-merge table redesign
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of Intel Core processors § Table redesign. &#x0020;I am intending to redesign the tables to remove less relevant info like part numbers, as well as merge same cells, remove segmentation rows, etc. — AP 499D25  (talk)  05:13, 8 May 2023 (UTC)


 * So now that you've taken over the lists of Intel processors, could you please keep them up-to-date? The 14th Gen processors were released on October 17th, it is now November 15th and they have not yet been added to any of the Intel processor lists. &#32;- Extec286 (talk) 00:33, 16 November 2023 (UTC)