Gigabyte invited us to their P55/Lynnfield press event in Los Angeles. I hadn’t been to LA since 2005. Gigabyte’s invitation provided me with an opportunity to rectify that.

We find ourselves in an interesting situation with Lynnfield. Processors have been trickling out but motherboards aren’t available in North America. We know what the model numbers are, what the price points are and even what the processor boxes look like.

For most of the past month we’ve been doing pictorial previews of the P55 motherboards that will be supporting Lynnfield. This is going to be a strong launch with wide availability.

We previewed Lynnfield’s performance a couple months ago, but what will be shipping in September will be faster than that thanks to a very potent set of turbo modes. We’ll provide final performance next month.

Lynnfield, as we all know, is a dual-channel platform. While Gigabyte’s high end P55 motherboard (the GA-P55-UD6) will have six DIMM slots, most P55 boards will have four slots. This means that the triple-channel kits we saw for the Bloomfield Core i7 parts will be replaced augmented by dual-channel Lynnfield kits.

The same voltage sensitivities apply. While pre-i7 DDR3 memory kits operated well above 1.65V, with Lynnfield the max safe voltage is 1.65V. Stock JEDEC spec DDR3 memory kits will run at 1.5V, while the lower latency/higher bandwidth DDR3-1600, 1800 and 2133 kits will run at 1.65V.

Kingston outlined its entire Lynnfield lineup for us, including a new part number decoder to make identifying kits easier:

The P55 Motherboards

The most expensive P55 motherboard I’ve heard of will retail for around $349, while the cheapest will be just under $100 (micro-ATX). It looks like you’ll have some good options around $139 - $149. This time around a few manufacturers are taking micro-ATX seriously. MSI’s X58M proved that you can easily fit a high end motherboard into a micro-ATX form factor, so we may see more of that going forward as there’s an increased focus on making desktops sexy.

We’ve done a lot of previews on P55 already so I’m just going to link to what we’ve already done here:

ASRock P55 Deluxe

EVGA P55 FTW

Gallery: EVGA P55 FTW

Gigabyte GA-P55-UD6

Gallery: MSI P55-GD80

Gigabyte GA-P55M-UD4

Out of those that we’ve previewed I’m most excited about the Gigabyte P55M-UD4. While I think Gigabyte needs to change its model numbering system, the idea of a fully functional micro-ATX Lynnfield board is quite delicious.

NVIDIA and P55
POST A COMMENT

60 Comments

View All Comments

  • TA152H - Thursday, August 20, 2009 - link

    What are you basing this on? A dream you had last night?

    The processors are slower, and the prices are kind of high. I don't know where this quality shows for the motherboards, since you've probably never seen one, and probably wouldn't know how to judge the quality anyway (I wouldn't either, so don't take it the wrong way).

    Reply
  • Interitus - Friday, August 21, 2009 - link

    For crying out loud, stop the 1156 bashing. Sure the naming scheme is stupid, but beyond that there's nothing wrong with 1156.

    #1: Not everyone wants a space heater for a PC. Just because you want triple SLI and a high TDP processor, don't assume everyone does. Some people value efficiency, eco-friendliness, and cost of ownership. A 95w TDP quad core fits nicely here. A system running cool and quiet is a realistic demand for many people.

    #2: The $350 board they're speaking about is more than likely the EVGA FTW board. The "Classified" of P55. It's absurdly expensive and not aimed at anyone but the extremists, yet still $100 cheaper than its 1366 counterpart. So your argument for the $350 board being ridiculous is pointless in terms of 1366 vs. 1156 reference. P55 will still be cheaper than X58, and I'm sure the "budget" versions of both chipsets will see a difference margin of around $100. For a single component, that's significant.

    #3: All new parts are inflated in price when they hit the shelves for the first time. 1366 was absolutely stupid expensive when it came out. Look at the current prices for 1366 CPU's. There's one for ~$200 and then it goes through the roof after that. And it's been a long time since release. Of course p55 is going to be overpriced at launch, and all the manufacturers know people hate waiting and will throw down extra cash because of it. That aside there's always people that want to play with new products.

    #4: The mainstream user doesn't care if there's another CPU out there that offers a tad better performance for the same price if it means they have to double their board cost. The performance of the 1156 platform is close enough to 1366 (sans SLI) that it's negligible in real-world situations. Really, the only reason I could see going to 1366 other than SLI is for future i9 support, but as always there's no guarantees there either. Triple channel RAM for most people isn't worth it right now.

    #5: The quality he's referring to in the boards is plainly visible in the pictorial reviews here on AT. Look at them yourself. Sounds to me like you're the one who hasn't ever seen them. I can tell you right now I paid $200 for my P35 board, and it doesn't have half the luxuries that some of these P55 boards do. It's not a hardware generation gap causing the difference either. For $125 you're probably going to get a very full featured board with good cooling and tons of peripheral options. Not rocket science here. Sure we don't know how good they perform, but quality applies to more than how a board performs. I'd take a 5% less benchmark score any day if it meant upgraded cooling, extra I/O and better layout for a similar price.

    Pretty much every 1366 mongering argument you have here can be negated by just whispering these words to yourself a few thousand times...

    "The hardware world doesn't revolve around me"
    Reply
  • JustPassing - Saturday, August 22, 2009 - link

    1156 platform also supports SLI (sorry, I posted this later in the thread, whereas I should have posted here) Reply
  • ClagMaster - Friday, August 21, 2009 - link

    To Interitus

    Thank you

    I couldn't agree with you more with your excellent 5 point rebuttal.

    The Lynnfield/P55 release is going to almost as great as the Conroe/P965 release 3 years ago. I can hardly wait to see how these new products perform. Barring a major BIOS snaffu with the new P55 boards, I strongly suspect we are not going to be disappointed with this release.

    Intel wants to compete with AMD in the mainstream segment. A blind man can see Intel developed Lynnfield/P55 because truly understood the Bloomfield/X58 is ridiculously expensive for the mainstream user -- like me -- on a restricted budget.

    In addition to aquisition costs, I also care about operating expenses and the 95W TDP has great appeal to me. At 130W, the Bloomfield i7 is the same sort of spaceheater the Pentium-D was once ridiculed. I want a quiet thermal solution for my rig and I also want to use my existing 500W power supply. I can do better with Lynnfield where I get the same performance at 95W.

    Mr Shimpi's early test and assessment of Lynnfield/P55 contained in the competent article "The Lynnfield Preview: Rumblings of Revenge" has convinced me the Lynnfield/P55 is the way to go. Most of my applications are single threaded and the more aggressive turbo mode will be most useful. The $200 2.66 Ghz Quad i5 is all I really need for my computing.

    I plan on buying my Lynnfield/P55/DDR3-1600 upgrade in July/August 2010 when prices are their lowest, and Intel has likely released revised steppings to fix the errata.

    Again, thanks. I really appreciate your comments.
    Reply
  • TA152H - Friday, August 21, 2009 - link

    1. Then you get a Penryn, which is more power efficient, and much smaller. Especially the S models. For the cost of the Lynnfield, you can get a very nice Penryn system.

    2. You're obviously not bright enough to realize no extremist should get a x55. What an absurd statement. The people that need real performance will get the x58. Do you really not understand that? So why the $350 x55 motherboard?

    3. Again, another really stupid remark. You pay a lot for new parts when they are BETTER than is out there. The x58 qualifies for that. The x55 doesn't. When the new part performs worse than what is out there, you run into the problem where you get the same cost in many platforms, and worse performance. That's where my problem is with this platform. It's a Celeron, but the price isn't where it should be.

    4. When this product is priced as a mainstream part, I'd agree. Mainstream users could get a i7 920, and under $200 motherboard and be better off. They have a stronger platform, and better options in the future. If the Lynnfield were significantly cheaper, I'd say it's in a different segment, but the problem is, it's really not different enough. Also, with the degraded performance, you're running into the Penryn for some gaming benchmarks. That's a lot cheaper, and with the money spent on a video card, could easily be the better platform. Again, my problem is this crippled processor is just not priced right to make a lot of sense.

    5. If you think you can tell the quality of a motherboard by looking at pictures, you're clearly an idiot. There's no way to tell how reliable they are from that. Do Supermicro pictures look so different from other manufacturers? Of all your remarks, that's clearly the dumbest, and that's saying something.

    Your pro x55 arguments could be negated by just whispering the words "I'm really stupid, and don't understand a lot besides I want something new", to yourself.

    Also, I have said I think the platform will settle down to make sense, but the initial costs are crazy, and the market segment it is trying to get are disconnected from the price.

    Especially for gamers, I think it makes no sense at the current costs. A Penryn with a better video card should be better for most games, for the mainstream buyer, and the real i7 is for the people that have too much money to know what to do with it. When the costs come down, the argument favoring the Penryn will go away, but, the costs do have to come down.
    Reply
  • Interitus - Friday, August 21, 2009 - link

    Wow.

    1. How bout I get an i5 which in some cases beats your beloved 1366 i7 at less power draw and TDP instead?

    2. You're obviously not bright enough to realize that the FTW boards are made for sub-zero temperatures. Or you're not bright enough to realize that even enthusiasts overclock Celerons to the extreme just for giggles or to see what they can do. By your logic, nobody should bother to OC an AMD because it's slower than an i7.

    3. You are the reason motherboard manufacturers laugh all day. Again, try to squeeze into your little head the simple fact that i5 can keep up with an i7 920. Just try to imagine what an 1156 i7 would do? Mind boggling. I know.

    4. Again, it's high right now because it just came out. It will drop just like the 920 did, just like the 950 eventually will, and just like every 1366 board has to some extent.

    5. Quality isn't just about performance. Sure it's a big part, but it's not all of it. Features, board layout, cooling: all components that determine quality in a board that you can see without ever firing it up. I never said that the pictures were the end-all determinant of a board's quality. But it's not hard to tell when time, innovation, and effort have been put into a design when you're staring at it.

    I'm not saying X58 sucks. That's more what you're doing. Saying how bad P55 sucks, and you're just flat out wrong. It doesn't suck, it isn't a waste of money, and it's damn close if not edging over your X58 in performance without SLI for a hell of a lot cheaper even with inflated prices.

    You can sit here and argue all day that I'm some idiot, it won't bother me. I'm sure 90% of the people here know what I'm saying. Maybe I am kinda dumb for even bothering to type this. Obviously you've made up your mind already, and I don't care if you hate P55. Just don't make it out to be garbage for people who come to this site for information when it's clearly not.

    By the way, check Newegg. The E8600 is still $269. Just short of an i7. Will people still buy them knowing this? Yes. Why? Because $269 is less than the $280+$280 it would cost just for an i7 and a compatible board. That's not even including RAM. Same goes for i5 only it's even more attractive because an i5 is just as fast as that $280 i7 920. You've got around $350 for a board and i5 CPU, or $450 for a board and i7 920 CPU. That's $100 difference. Both perform about the same. If you don't plan to SLI, why bother with 1366 in that situation?
    Reply
  • JustPassing - Saturday, August 22, 2009 - link

    1156 platform also supports SLI. Reply
  • Interitus - Saturday, August 22, 2009 - link

    Meant Tri-SLI, sorry. Reply
  • Natfly - Friday, August 21, 2009 - link

    1. Sure you could buy a penryn if you cared about power draw and nothing else. But nehalem has higher performance per watt and better upgrade possibilities. Why go with a dead architecture.

    2. The P55 chipset straight from Intel costs less than the X58, P55 boards will be cheaper than x58 boards on average. Nobody is forcing you to buy a $350 P55 board just like no one is forcing you to buy a $450 x58 board.

    3-4. The 920 is ~$280, a similarly clocked i5 will retail for ~200. You can get a decent x58 board for $200 or a P55 board for $140. $480 vs $340, seems pretty substantial to me, especially for similar performance.

    You can keep thinking that the 1156 procs are celerons and keep posting it whenever you see a blurb on Anandtech that mentions anything related to Intel, but that won't make you right.

    Bottom line, 1156: processors are cheaper, chipsets are cheaper, on average the boards are cheaper, performance is slightly worse. It fits.
    Reply
  • TA152H - Friday, August 21, 2009 - link

    You're typical of moving the numbers slightly, and thereby losing the value.

    The low end p55 ATX motherboards are around $130. Low end ATX x58 motherboards are $170. $40 isn't worth it. Do we really know the price of the processors yet? Speculation isn't fact.

    Really, this is a perfect example of a Celeron, in a classic sense. Damaged cache, and/or memory speeds are how Intel would marginalize them. What's different with this?
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now