Santa Clara (CA) – I have to admit, this one has caught me by surprise. Intel is still rolling out its Nehalem processors, there are just three i7 desktop CPUs available, the Xeon 5500 was launched just a few weeks ago and we haven’t seen any mobile or true mainstream Nehalems yet. However, Intel thinks, it is time to retire one of its i7 processors already.

The company notified its partners that the 2.93 GHz Core i7-940 CPU is being phased out. Final shipments of tray and boxed versions are planned for November 5, 2010 and December 4, 2009. The chips will be officially “unavailable” after the final order date - September 4, 2009. The last non-cancelable i7-940 orders will be taken by Intel on July 10.   

The company did not provide any reasons why this processor is being phased out. However, the timing of the announcement is somewhat unusual, as the CPU has not been on the market for even just one year and Intel is far from having rolled out mainstream Nehalem processors yet.

The 940 was introduced along the 920 and Extreme 965 models late last year. The CPu is currently sold for a tray price of $562.

My take on the 'Why'

May 06, 2009 12:17     

The 920 is almost half the price and can OC to 3 Ghz on air with a simple B-clock tweak. May be the 940's just don't sell.
HyLite report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +1

Limitations?

May 06, 2009 12:20     

The Core i5s are the only new processors expected out this year, and none of them will likely compete with i7 940. So I think the limiting factor here is price. No one wants to buy a 2.93GHz processor at $560 US when they can buy the i7 920 for significantly less and overclock it to the same speed. However, I'm betting that Intel can't get a good enough profit out of the i7 940 at a reduced price, making the processor no longer feasible to manufacture.

Aaron report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

VT?

May 06, 2009 13:59     

It must not have Intel's Virtualization Technology. I for one am sick of getting stuck with processors, that don't support this and that.
Sweet Baby James report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

Just a thought:

May 06, 2009 15:27     

Either something is in the works or people buying an i7 system OC the 920 or outright buy the 965. The value of the 920 is the ability to OC, the 965, bragging rights. There is not as much 'street' value in the 940, so why waste time with it?
Jer report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

940 was a marketing gimmick

May 06, 2009 18:37     

It does absolutely nothing that the 920 doesn't do for 1/3rd the price. The 965 is a questionable value as well, as the 920 can be overclocked with most modern choice mother boards to match the 965. The difference in price between the 2 is absurd. (the 965 has some memory bus improvement, but it is not likely a benefit to any but a very few special situations) I under clocked my 920 so the case fan doesn't have to run at all. It still screams for my most intense applications. I can't get CPU useage to go above 25%.

jpm report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

ummm... new models?

May 06, 2009 22:08     

They have the new i7 950 and i7 975 coming out very soon. they will keep the currenty 920 in the lowend of the i7's... duh
Eric report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

AHAHA

May 06, 2009 22:21     

HAHAHAHA
Mr. Intel report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

Sales figures?

May 06, 2009 22:26     

It wouldn't surprise me if that processor wasn't selling very well in the middle of the pack. The 920 seems to be the chip of choice for people looking to build an i7 system. It can be overclocked to the same speed as the 965. The 965 wouldn't have been selling well either, but as it's the top-of-the-range processor it's useful for providing to magazines in benchmarks that compare Intel with AMD. That leaves the 940, which isn't useful as an Intel vs AMD benchmark, and is too expensive to sell well.

Chris Lees report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

Why?

May 06, 2009 22:30     

This is very strange. I was planning on using this processor in my next build. Hopefully something even better is going to replace it.
T. Miller report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

simple

May 06, 2009 22:38     

people didn't want the underclocked expensive cpu nor the slightly overclocked at a crazy high price. sounds like a no brainer, intel needs a new line (name) anyway and some marketing to go with that.
Mikeednj report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

Pretty simple...

May 06, 2009 23:45     

the 940 i7 model doesn't allow unlocked multiplier overclocking, yet is double the price of the 920. The Extreme 965 makes sense for enthusiasts with an unlocked multiplier. The 920 makes sense for your average power user, as it is half the cost, without a significant performance difference. The 940's price just doesn't justify the performance difference over the must more cost-effective 920
Rich report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

I would guess low demand?

May 07, 2009 02:20     

I would guess low demand could be the cause and that they are not recouping their manufacturing costs on the CPU. I suspect that people are getting the 920 and overclocking it to make it faster than the 940 or getting the 965 for maximum performance and even more headroom for overclocking. Maybe OEM's also can not figure out a method to differentiate the 940's so they stick with the Core 2 Quads instead since the platforms come out cheaper.

raf report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

first

May 07, 2009 03:32     

first
ermi report abuse vote down vote up Votes: -8

No reason to buy the 940- the 920 easily overclocks...

May 07, 2009 09:28     

No reason to buy the 940- the 920 easily overclocks to outperform the 965 extreme. Basically everyone buys 920 or 965.
asd report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

It's Not Rocket Surgery

May 07, 2009 10:21     

Who in their right might would buy intel at their price premium? AMD Phenom II 955 Quad Core 3.2GHz 6MB multi & FSB unlocked $245.00 Intel i7 920 Quad Core 2.66GHz 8MB multi & FSB LOCKED $279.00 The performance is identical in gaming, not to mention the amd platform costs less also.
Matt report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0