Anybody else DISAPPOINTED by i7?

[roid450]

Originally posted by: Phynaz
I'm disapointed that a 600HP Corvette ZR1 will not get me to work any faster than a 110HP Cobalt.

Could be that driving to work isn't an "application" that will benefit from 600HP.

Just like games are not an application that will benefit from i7.

X2

as said above, games benefit more from a video card. unfortunately my DFI board and socket 939 Opteron were not pushing it for my GTX260 hence i upgraded everything.

but I plan on keeping this rig for 2+ years and just upgrading video card maybe once more in those 2 years.

 

[ericlp]

I think some are missing the whole point.

You have to remember that this is a new line and this new chip is at it's infancy stage.

Just like any other line, I'm sure the prices will come down and by the end of next year they will be pushing 8 and 16 core CPU's.

Tho, sometimes this crap backfires, and they figure out a way or develop a radical new design that came out of the i7 core. Evolution works in mysterious ways so no one knows what the real potential is of this line.

Given I just purchased a Q9550, I probably won't be buying a new chip anytime soon unless AMD comes up with something that just blows Intel off the map, and we get into a big stomping war where everyone racing to make the next huge thing. One thing I think will happen is Dell, Gateway and others will be coming out with cheap versions and DDR3 and the i7 cpu and motherboards will all be going mainstream and by the end of next year you'll be buying 100.00 motherboards and cheap 100 dollar flavors of the i7. So you almost have to give a new line at least a year before you can realize it's true potential.

 

[Dadofamunky]

Originally posted by: eternalone
This will be a bigger upgrade for AMD that intel this time around. Core i7 I agree is worth passing over if your a frugal computer type like myself till maybe the prices come down substantially. A core 2 8400 or above should hold you over past i7 till about 2011. But I know people and they wont wait that long.

I know I won't. I'll probably be able to get through 2009 with what I have (maybe with a Q9550 or 9650 as an easy upgrade). I think you're also right about AMD; Phenom was such a flop that it almost killed them. I just visited the premier computer store left in Silicon Valley (other than Fry's which I don't count) and their AMD CPU section is utterly ignored and minimized. I doubt ANYONE walks out with an AMD setup from that place right now. I suspect that may change somewhat when their new chippage comes out. I hope so.

Originally posted by: Phynaz
I'm disapointed that a 600HP Corvette ZR1 will not get me to work any faster than a 110HP Cobalt.

Could be that driving to work isn't an "application" that will benefit from 600HP.

Just like games are not an application that will benefit from i7.

That's one for the Pantheon! LMAO

Just for the thread, I'm not disappointed at all. It does look like i7 is a real advance and that Intel has not lost their game one little bit. In fact they're stepping on the accelerator. I'm waiting for Westmere/32nm before I consider a major upgrade cycle. (which is sick given what I have now is already stupid fast.) But right now I feel that a 920/DDR3/mobo combination of $800 or so isn't really that bad. I remember spending that much just for the damn MOBO. Heck, if I was doing a new build I'd even consider the Extreme version. The early reviews of all three chips on NewEgg are 5's across the board - just glowing. They're fun to read by themselves.

I was advising some folks to hold off on i7 and get a nice Penryn with DDR2. Seeing what's going on, I'm starting to reconsider that view.

One thing's for sure - next time I'm sucking it up and doing a mid-tower build again.

 

[aigomorla]

ROFL...

This is why i didnt post anything with i7.

Ive been quietly building waterblocks for a new platform...

http://i125.photobucket.com/al...aigomorla/DSC00485.jpg

http://i125.photobucket.com/al...aigomorla/DSC00483.jpg


Personally, i like it.
Its new, has new rules with overclocking, and is a bit more picky with crap.

 

[TidusZ]

Originally posted by: marsrunner
Why the need to exaggerate the cost? You can get the ASUS P6T Deluxe, the i7-920 and 6GB of DDR3-1333 G.Skill RAM for $790.70. Is that a lot of money? Perhaps, but its also 21% less than the OP's statement.
And honestly, if you are going to drop $800 on motherboard/cpu/memory, why would you only buy 1 card? The performance increase in gaming comes when you SLI them anyway.
Personally, I bought the above setup because I want to do some heavy-duty home video editing/encoding with my new Canon HG20 HD camcorder. And there's definitely an increase there.
Plus, I threw two XFX GFX 260 Black Editions in there, so it fairly screams in gaming.

I live in Canada, was talking about Canadian prices off Ncix.com. Our dollar sucks a lot right now.

 

[imported_mike2h]

My first post so apologies for any off-topic bits. Having recently retired and am getting a kick out of non-web multimedia apps and exploring the byzantine labyrinths of over-clocking.

The following list ( thanks to ExarKun333) looks like the set-up I would like to go for using Vista 64-bit -.

i7 920 C0 @ 3600 (20*180) 1.2925v
Asus P6T Deluxe X58 0804 BIOS
3 x 2GB Corsair XMS3 @ 1443mhz 8-8-8-24 1.54v
EVGA GTX260 G92 650/1249
PC Power & Cooling 750 Silencer
2 x 74GB Raptor
Asus Xonar DX 7.1
Dell 2408wfp

My main 'heavy' applications are image/audio/ video editing/rendering - 3D apps, Photoshop CS4 etc

My idea, subject to not being overtaken by innovation, is:

that if the I7 chip goes well upgrade to the faster versions or more powerful alternative processors for the mobo when prices fall

if the DDR3 memory price falls upgrade the ASUS P62 to 12 gb Ram

Basically the learning curve benefits from early adopting offset the higher cost premium - esp for those of advancing years.

PS If CS4 Adobe main software - any suggestions on/or changes to the above rig list would be appreciated.

 

[Tempered81]

Originally posted by: TidusZ

Originally posted by: tim924
Meaningless thread started by OP,if he did a little bit research about what kind of improvements he would get with i7,he shouldnt be dissapointed at all,however if he knew nothing about it,and just bought it to play games(with a single gpu most likely),and now starts complaining just because he's getting nearly the same frame rates like his c2q or c2d did,I can only say that sorry bro you didnt do your homework before hand to understand what you are getting,if you were looking plainly for gaming performance,you shouldnt bother with i7(yet),since at this point,it's the software programming bottlenecking
i7's potenial to fully show its capability,but anyways even if you are a gamer,try to play with some sli/crossfire set-up ,it will definitely show you the improvements then,if not it's rather you are not utililizing its potenial,cause it's gpu bottleneck there.

The thing is I have done my homework and I haven't bought an i7. My main usage is for gaming, I don't do 3d rendering or encoding. There's been some good comments here and I mean, if I was working for a render farm or something I'd be singing the i7's praises, but I'm just a hardcore gamer who mostly plays rts.

I'm going to have to skip on i7 for now, its just not worth it, and that disappoints me that my options right now for upgrading from my e4300 @3.15 aren't as great as I had hoped they'd be. I may just wait another 6 or even 12 months, since getting a wolfdale isn't really a big enough upgrade to me at this point either (close though).

Q9650, Qx9650, E8500, E8600 are all extremely faster than your cpu at their stock speeds

 

[taltamir]

the biggest baddest most interesting feature on i7 is that it can shut off individual cores for power saving... which would never ever come close to paying for the extremely high premium they are asking for it.

With overclocking being harder on the sucker, ram being more expensive, and requiring a new socket, the whole thing is very disappointing.
Intel was saying that this would be to C2D what Core was to netburst... liars.

 

[wwswimming]

i have a rendering running in the background right now, on a system with a
Q9550. started about 12 hours ago, it's on frame 419 of 667 frames. playing
around with (aka studying) volume lighting effects.

looking at the chart, the mid-Nehalem is about 33% faster than the Q9550
(16 vs. 12 on the 3DS Max composite). unless the spec composite is wrong,
the rendering would be on about frame 550, if i had the mid-Nehalem chip.

i thought the Nehalem would be twice as fast. but still, it's a great incremental
increase in performance. i figure if Shuttle can fit 4 DDR RAM slots in one of
their computers, then someone will find a way to fit 6 DDR slots in a micro-ATX
form factor.

 

[MChim]

I'm happy with my Core i7 920 rig I just made and the ridiculous overclockability on a great cooler. $1570 minus $90 in rebates = $1480

Core i7 920 @ 3.8ghz (1.35V)
Noctua NH-U12P SE 1366
Patriot Viper DDR3 1600 (1524mhz @ 1.64V)
MSI GeForce GTX 260 OC
Asus P6T Deluxe
Razer Lachesis
Razer Lycosa
Raidmax Smilodon
Antec True Power Trio 650W

 

[AdamK47]

Originally posted by: taltamir
the biggest baddest most interesting feature on i7 is that it can shut off individual cores for power saving... which would never ever come close to paying for the extremely high premium they are asking for it.

With overclocking being harder on the sucker, ram being more expensive, and requiring a new socket, the whole thing is very disappointing.
Intel was saying that this would be to C2D what Core was to netburst... liars.

The ability to shut off cores is the most interesting feature? You would put that above say... the integrated memory controller? How about it being a native quad core? Shared Level 3 cache? Triple channel DDR3 maybe? Heck, I'd put Hyperthreading over that. There are a ton of features I would put above the ability to shut off unused cores.

 

[exar333]

Originally posted by: taltamir
the biggest baddest most interesting feature on i7 is that it can shut off individual cores for power saving... which would never ever come close to paying for the extremely high premium they are asking for it.

With overclocking being harder on the sucker, ram being more expensive, and requiring a new socket, the whole thing is very disappointing.
Intel was saying that this would be to C2D what Core was to netburst... liars.

What a completely uninformed post. Harder to OC? That's like saying C2D was an EPIC FAIL becuse it was harder to OC than the P4. "FSB strap!!!??? What is that...it's soooo confusing....C2D sucks!!! I'm going back to my trusty Netburst..."

Come on...OCing i7 is no more omplicated than OCing a A64. If anyone thinks that is overly hard, they either need to learn more about OCing or just give up and buy a Dell.

Give me a break. The new RAM (which many were already buying anyways) and MB are more expensive, but how often can you get a state of the art CPU for less than $300 that is equivalent to the BEST C2D at stock speeds? Thats a great deal IMHO.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Well, the Duck has to throw a few cents in here, as friends are now suffering from campaign-year-hangover and turning their attentions to the Nehalem, even as the entire economy has started sliding into the toilet.

My friend in New Mexico -- a clever lad (of six decades) who might actually have had a good year in dollars as my own went south -- built an E6300 system a couple years ago, and he's all animated now about I7 prospects.

But we're both looking at that 130W TDP spec and exchanging links for everything from aquarium chillers to TEC and 2-kilogram copper TRUEs.

I've seen some customer reviews on the 920 and 940, and it doesn't look all that bad -- with the voltage requirements for OC'ing that may be well within the spec.

And those ASUS X58 motherboards -- Wow!

But consider the obsolete INtel Presler. First, there was a stepping with 130W TDP (correct me if I'm wrong). Later versions knocked that down to about 95W.

Sooner or later, I'm gonna jump into the Nehalem hot-tub, but sooner means late 2009 or early 2010.

For the comet-tail of the Bush economy, I'm looking at cost-effectiveness. There are all sorts of things I can do with the existing Conroe and Penryn surplus I hold. I also remember what a kick in the pants it was as a toddler to make "telephones" from a piece of string and two spinach cans.

 

[Rob61]

If I may ask a few quick questions of this extraordinary brain trust...

I currently have a dual core 6600 overclocked to about 3.1 GHz running XP SP2. This computer is mostly used for multi-track audio work running a 2 yr old program Nuendo V3 which can utilize at least dual core. I was thinking of building a new system using an i7 2.4 GHz which I've read can be overclocked nicely to over 3 GHz. However, now I'm wondering :

1. Would I notice much difference with the 2 yr old version of Nuendo which was designed before the i7 concept (although it is supposed to utilitze more than one core)
2. Would i7 work correctly under XP 32 bit? Can XP use i7 or does it require Vista? Would I benefit to run Vista 64 bit?
3. Does i7 under Vista offer some sort of emulation mode (to XP stats) in case there are compatibility problems? I don't want to have to upgrade another $10,000 in software to use an i7
4. In order to keep using the software libraries that I currently use, is there a better upgrade to my 6600 2.4 GHz overclocked system that would be more compatible?

Thanks to all who can offer advice.

 

[exar333]

Originally posted by: Rob61
If I may ask a few quick questions of this extraordinary brain trust...

I currently have a dual core 6600 overclocked to about 3.1 GHz running XP SP2. This computer is mostly used for multi-track audio work running a 2 yr old program Nuendo V3 which can utilize at least dual core. I was thinking of building a new system using an i7 2.4 GHz which I've read can be overclocked nicely to over 3 GHz. However, now I'm wondering :

1. Would I notice much difference with the 2 yr old version of Nuendo which was designed before the i7 concept (although it is supposed to utilitze more than one core) Not sure about this one
2. Would i7 work correctly under XP 32 bit? Yes Can XP use i7 or does it require Vista? XP will use i7 just fine Would I benefit to run Vista 64 bit? Somewhat; most people would state that the Vista scheduler is more advanced than XP and better utilized multi-core processors
3. Does i7 under Vista offer some sort of emulation mode (to XP stats) in case there are compatibility problems? I don't want to have to upgrade another $10,000 in software to use an i7 I am not aware of any Vista issues related to the i7
4. In order to keep using the software libraries that I currently use, is there a better upgrade to my 6600 2.4 GHz overclocked system that would be more compatible? You wouldn't need to change software to run a i7 unless you switched to Vista and the program has issues running with Vista specifically (not i7-related)

Thanks to all who can offer advice.

See above:

 

[Tempered81]

Originally posted by: Rob61
is there a better upgrade to my 6600 2.4 GHz overclocked system that would be more compatible?

If your mobo supports 45nm Penryn, q9650/e8600

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Originally posted by: jaredpace

Originally posted by: Rob61
is there a better upgrade to my 6600 2.4 GHz overclocked system that would be more compatible?

If your mobo supports 45nm Penryn, q9650/e8600

That's the big question. Rob61 should tell us. If it uses an Intel chipset, I'd say "Penryn-capable from the git-go" without more information. Similarly for a 780i chipset.

 

[HOOfan 1]

Originally posted by: Phynaz
I'm disapointed that a 600HP Corvette ZR1 will not get me to work any faster than a 110HP Cobalt.

Could be that driving to work isn't an "application" that will benefit from 600HP.

Just like games are not an application that will benefit from i7.

Make that a 638HP Corvette and make it being disappointed that a Corvette with 115 more horsepower and 1 pound less per HP only translates into 3 tenths of a second faster from 0-60 and only 6 MPH faster top speed over the Z06....all this for only $30,000 more.

 

[Rob61]

Originally posted by: BonzaiDuck

Originally posted by: jaredpace

Originally posted by: Rob61
is there a better upgrade to my 6600 2.4 GHz overclocked system that would be more compatible?

If your mobo supports 45nm Penryn, q9650/e8600

That's the big question. Rob61 should tell us. If it uses an Intel chipset, I'd say "Penryn-capable from the git-go" without more information. Similarly for a 780i chipset.

One system uses the Asus P5W DH Deluxe which uses the Intel 975x chipset. This is the system I was wanting to upgrade first.

The other system uses the Asus P5B-E motherboard which is based on the Intel P965 chipset. Both use the 6600 overclocked to just over 3 GHz.

Would either of these be upgraded with just a CPU swap? I was thinking I'd just build a new one using the i7 and a new motherboard. But if I can get most of the performance upgrade by just swapping the CPU that would be great.

 

[Dadofamunky]

Originally posted by: Rob61
If I may ask a few quick questions of this extraordinary brain trust...

I currently have a dual core 6600 overclocked to about 3.1 GHz running XP SP2. This computer is mostly used for multi-track audio work running a 2 yr old program Nuendo V3 which can utilize at least dual core. I was thinking of building a new system using an i7 2.4 GHz which I've read can be overclocked nicely to over 3 GHz. However, now I'm wondering :

1. Would I notice much difference with the 2 yr old version of Nuendo which was designed before the i7 concept (although it is supposed to utilitze more than one core)
2. Would i7 work correctly under XP 32 bit? Can XP use i7 or does it require Vista? Would I benefit to run Vista 64 bit?
3. Does i7 under Vista offer some sort of emulation mode (to XP stats) in case there are compatibility problems? I don't want to have to upgrade another $10,000 in software to use an i7
4. In order to keep using the software libraries that I currently use, is there a better upgrade to my 6600 2.4 GHz overclocked system that would be more compatible?

Thanks to all who can offer advice.

I'd get an E8500 or E8600, or try out a quad Q9550 first. You might need a BIOS upgrade. (Fact, both your boards are pretty old, so they almost definitely will - check the Web site to see if they're even available.) But it's a drop-in upgrade and you can quickly determine whether your audio apps (I'm a musician, so I know exactly what you're talking about) can benefit from more than two cores. There's no need for you to rip everything out and start over when excellent quad-core CPUs are easily within your reach.

If I were doing a new build, I'd probably think differently now, but the musical software platforms can be very touchy and can take a long time to update to new platforms (and cost a mint too).

 

[Rob61]

I'd get an E8500 or E8600, or try out a quad Q9550 first. You might need a BIOS upgrade. (Fact, both your boards are pretty old, so they almost definitely will - check the Web site to see if they're even available.) But it's a drop-in upgrade and you can quickly determine whether your audio apps (I'm a musician, so I know exactly what you're talking about) can benefit from more than two cores. There's no need for you to rip everything out and start over when excellent quad-core CPUs are easily within your reach.

If I were doing a new build, I'd probably think differently now, but the musical software platforms can be very touchy and can take a long time to update to new platforms (and cost a mint too).

Thanks for your help. Do you happen to know, if I did build a new system, and used the latest i7 with a new motherboard, would I be able to run the i7 and its quad cores using XP Pro SP2? Or would XP Pro SP2 not even utilize the quad core? I'm thinking if I build a new system (older one is starting to give me some intermittent issues and I'm suspecting the motherboard) and keep running the same OS (XP SP2) at least I know all my audio/video apps and plug ins will run and have the proper drivers.

If I build a new system using i7 or other quad core with a new motherboard, would XP Pro SP2 utilize this archtecture even if my current apps do not? Would there be system benefits of a quad core under XP SP2 even if my media apps don't?

Is there any specific quad core (i7 or otherwise) CPU and motherboard combos that really seem to excel for system performance under XP Pro SP2? jaredpace recommeded q9650/e8600. What new motherboard would be good for those?

For some reason, I was thinking that there was a limit of 2 cores for XP Pro (multi-processor), and that if you had 4 it only used two. But I don't really recall what I read or if it was accurate. this is what has me doubting the value of a new motheroard and CPU while still keeping XP Pro SP2. But I would probably need that for the time being to assure driver compatibility of all the software and hardware for media work.

Thanks!

 

[Acanthus]

I was fairly disappointed.

Im now sitting on my hands for 32nm Nehalems and cheaper high performance SSDs.

 

[JMapleton]

Originally posted by: Acanthus
I was fairly disappointed.

Im now sitting on my hands for 32nm Nehalems and cheaper high performance SSDs.

I am as well. 32nm will be Westmere. I've still got a Prescott but because I do not game there is no need to upgrade yet.

 

[edplayer]

Originally posted by: Phynaz
I'm disapointed that a 600HP Corvette ZR1 will not get me to work any faster than a 110HP Cobalt.

Of course you can, its all in teh e-brake design

I design e-brakes so I know about realistic expectations. If you want to make your i7 faster here is how. Remember the turbo button? Since Intel now has enough bandwidth (they have lasers you know) they can make a "dual channel" turbo design? Twin turbo. That could double your fps.

Don't nobody try to copy my idea!

 

[Rubycon]

Motherboard choice is not the greatest and prices ridiculously high. DDR3 memory still very high compared to DDR2. Of course it will drop. I'm waiting for SMP versions and chipsets/boards with 256GB+ Ram support.