As Lindsay pointed out Intel has not yet integrated the graphics. From what I recall the first package they have planned with CPU and GFX has a 32nm CPU part and a 45nm GPU part bundled together. It will be quite some time until they are both part of the same Die. None of the products above have GPUs.

"Scheduled for release this Autumn are three quad-core Clarksfield processors, the i7-720QM, i7-820QM and i7-920XM, clocked at 1.6GHz, 1.73GHz and 2GHz respectively. The top two CPUs will carry 8MB of cache. Prices will start at around $340 for the 1.6GHz model and there will be iterations that pull less than 45W TDP."

I find this paragraph really funny. Three processors are named and clock speed is given. Cache is listed for the top two but not the other one. Prices is listed for the cheapest of the 3 models. Then the power consumption value for a processor not even included in the above list is mentioned.

It is really nice to see core i7 processors with less then 130 watts TDP. I am guessing the listed parts would be in the 65 to 90 watt range. However, 340$ for the cheapest one? Is that in units of 1000? Honestly if they think they can price like this they are going to be eaten alive by AMD. This September they (AMD) are releasing a 65 watt 2.8 GHz quad that should cost < 100$ in units of 1000.

The really low power consumption on the dual core chips looks promising particularly for net books.

On final comment. The head Intel engineer who designed the i7 clearly stated that any such chips should have at least 8 MB of cache. Obviously because the performance of these chips must be extremely cache dependent. So I would expect a large drop in performance when looking at the lower end chips. The lower end quad's will likely have 4MB cache, while the dual core chips mentioned in the article will likely be 2MB or less. Combined with the large reduction in clock speed, performance should go down the toilet.

Of course I know about SoC's. But I'm talking about the desktop and notebook space. SoC's are fine for low power smart phones and MID's (and even netbooks) but making SoC's for desktops and notebooks is a bad idea as it will decrease the amount of customization you can do. Currently you can get a mobo with whatever feature set you like according to your needs, RAM, audio, number of ports, etc. all according to your needs. That won't be possible with SoC's.

@Lindsay: er, I'm talking about the on-chip Arrandale and Clarkdale graphics.

"They've already integrated the graphics"

...que?

Of course there will be more integration. Haven't you heard of SOC ? Besides, they don't make much money on chipset sales. The whole point of having an Intel chipset, is to enable more CPU sales. If the whole system is on one chip, you don't need a southbridge, to help sell more CPU's.

There are still the network and mass storage facilities to be integrated. No point integrating the low speed stuff, though.

But there will always be gains through replication, more cores, more memory controllers, more graphics controllers, more inter-processor links.

What's left now? They've already integrated the graphics, memory controller and PCIexpress controller on the CPU package, so that's the whole northbridge. I don't think they'll be interested in integrating the southbridge, as it will not have any benefits, it will only destroy their chipset business.

The 2GHz Clarkfield can turbo up to 3.2GHz?? That's a massive boost. So I guess Anand was right when he said the next gen turbo will increase clocks by up to 6 speed bins. So now even noobs can have some benefits of OC'ing. That's great.