C2Q clockspeed to beat an i7

[ochadd]

Mainly gaming performance with single card solutions or maybe two card midrange SLI setups. 1920x1200. What do you have to hit to be faster than a Core i7 965?

If anyone has experience in transcoding video comparisons between the two where a C2Q wins. I'd like to know.

Will a C2Q @ 3.4-3.6ghz beat a stock i7 965 in FPS?

 

[RaptureMe]

A Q9650 @4.2Ghz - 4.5Ghz will rape a I7 extreme @4.Ghz anyday of the week!!
Core I7 is not for gaming its for multi-tasking in which Q9650 just cant contend with any core I7 in multi-tasking not even a low end 920 model at stock speed because of the 8 vs 4 thread.
But clock vs clock in compression via WinRAR and Nero vision recode encoding an entire HD movie my q9650 at 4.2Ghz is about 7 mins faster then my core I7 920 at 3.6Ghz if that helps.
I would not waist my time or money with Core I7 if I were you and well if you are trying to talk your self into buying one forget it.
Q9650 is at the right price now so I would take advantage of the large 12MB cach they provide instead of the ladder core i7 8MB..

 

[Smartazz]

I was wondering the same thing ochadd. Thanks for the response RaptureMe.

 

[aigomorla]

yeah but my 4.1ghz 965 will beat my 4.2ghz QX9650.

And the i7 handles ram better at 8gigs or more.

And does a better job on my GPU sector cuz im running top tier.

Cpu upgrade? Get the Yorkfield.

Complete upgrade? Dont waste money on yorkfield.

 

[Tempered81]

Originally posted by: aigomorla


Cpu upgrade? Get the Yorkfield.

Complete upgrade? Dont waste money on yorkfield.

Yah this is pretty good advice. ^


I'd take a q9650 over an entire i7 platform upgrade. I mostly game, though.

 

[ochadd]

Been trying to talk myself into buying into i7 since it came out. Those 8 threads wouldn't provide me anything tangible but it would make me

Two upgrades in a row stolen from the under dog. Are you still an AMD fanboy if you haven't owned a product for 4 years? Damn you Intel and your tick tock.

I've been looking more at the 9550 over the 9650. Both can reasonably be expected to do 4ish it seems? I'm not looking to push up the volts for the last 100-200mhz. Moving from a 3.4 dual to a 4.0 quad is an upgrade I could live with. If my upgrade couldn't do 4ghz, buyers remorse might get the better of me.

 

[tommo123]

i'm sticking with my lowly Q6600 @ 3.4 with 8gigs ram till 8-core chips come out and arent stupidly expensive like i7 at the mo. at least by that point, DDR3 should be really cheap. who knows, maybe 24gigs of ram? all of windows in RAM?

 

[RaptureMe]

Originally posted by: ochadd
Been trying to talk myself into buying into i7 since it came out. Those 8 threads wouldn't provide me anything tangible but it would make me

Two upgrades in a row stolen from the under dog. Are you still an AMD fanboy if you haven't owned a product for 4 years? Damn you Intel and your tick tock.

I've been looking more at the 9550 over the 9650. Both can reasonably be expected to do 4ish it seems? I'm not looking to push up the volts for the last 100-200mhz. Moving from a 3.4 dual to a 4.0 quad is an upgrade I could live with. If my upgrade couldn't do 4ghz, buyers remorse might get the better of me.

Your going to have to get very lucky to get to 4Ghz with a q9550 unless your planing on using a q9550s 65w version.
Using any q9650 you are guaranteed 4Ghz..

 

[aigomorla]

well to answer your topic thread.

If we look at 100% utilization.

the i7 is 55-75% faster then a C2Q when utilizing all 8 threads.

 

[RaptureMe]

Originally posted by: aigomorla
well to answer your topic thread.

If we look at 100% utilization.

the i7 is 55-75% faster then a C2Q when utilizing all 8 threads.

Since when?? I have both and the core i7 isnt even close to 50% faster at any thing..
If anything at all the Q9650 is 50% fast then the core i7.
The only thing I noticed that the core i7 does better is multi tasking without freezing one program while opening another..
Can you show me some benches or something to prove me wrong??
I can show you screenies where apps I use say nero and winrar are up to 7 mins faster using q9650 vs the core i7 920..

 

[PCTC2]

Originally posted by: RaptureMe

Originally posted by: aigomorla
well to answer your topic thread.

If we look at 100% utilization.

the i7 is 55-75% faster then a C2Q when utilizing all 8 threads.

Since when?? I have both and the core i7 isnt even close to 50% faster at any thing..
If anything at all the Q9650 is 50% fast then the core i7.
The only thing I noticed that the core i7 does better is multi tasking without freezing one program while opening another..
Can you show me some benches or something to prove me wrong??
I can show you screenies where apps I use say nero and winrar are up to 7 mins faster using q9650 vs the core i7 920..

Remember, this is at 100% utilization. 100% utilization on a C2Q is like 80% utilization of a HT-enabled i7 because with the architecture, on some clock cycles on the C2Q execution units sit idle. With SMT (HT), the two simultaneous threads keep the execution units at 100% utilization @ 100% observed utilization. Then, with memory-intensive programs, the IMC beats out the old design for the memory controller on the NB. Single threaded apps at the same clock speed, they should be fairly equal, but we're talking about 100% utilization here.

 

[Jessica69]

PCTC2, you have to also consider that RaptureMe most likely has HT turned off......from what I've seen and read, to achieve a 4.0GHz overclock on the i7 920, HT invariably has to be turned off to get it stable, which is why his processor, even at that speed, is being beaten by his slower C2Q cpu. If he'd slow it down a tad, to like 3.6GHz, enable HT, he'd really see it mop up the C2Q cpu he has, esp. in real, full use, like encoding.

But he'd probably more enjoy bleating about how his new i7 cpu is so slow and how he wasted his money........misery makes some people happy, even when it's self-inflicted.

 

[IntelUser2000]

Originally posted by: RaptureMe

Originally posted by: aigomorla
well to answer your topic thread.

If we look at 100% utilization.

the i7 is 55-75% faster then a C2Q when utilizing all 8 threads.

Since when?? I have both and the core i7 isnt even close to 50% faster at any thing..
If anything at all the Q9650 is 50% fast then the core i7.
The only thing I noticed that the core i7 does better is multi tasking without freezing one program while opening another..
Can you show me some benches or something to prove me wrong??
I can show you screenies where apps I use say nero and winrar are up to 7 mins faster using q9650 vs the core i7 920..

What's this?? Why is this BS being spouted here??

Core i7 is equal or faster than Core 2 Quad. Sure your "experience" might be different but benchmarks show it otherwise.

Core i7 without HT is faster in both single thread and multi-thread apps. Multi-thread more, because it has more bandwidth and its scales better with quad core than Core 2 Quad does.

Single thread should be minorly faster on PURE single thread apps with HT off which makes your point even more invalid.

See until you are putting two fair systems where the only variable is the CPU/chipset/memory, your point is moot.

Possibly your cheap G.Skill SSD is making it worse.

 

[zagood]

Originally posted by: IntelUser2000
Possibly your cheap G.Skill SSD is making it worse.

hahahaaa...ouch.

*nothing to contribute but being entertained*

 

[nerp]

Core i7 may be faster of course but the impression I get from reading many threads is that the average person would never notice that performance benefit in real world usage, especially someone who just does "normal" stuff with their computer.

 

[aigomorla]

its 8 vs 4.

i said 100% utilization.

u dont need to be a phd in math to figure out 8 > 4

 

[Idontcare]

I enjoyed Anand's article pointing out that even if i7 has lower performance for a given app than say an equally clocked C2Q, the power savings is so good that the performance/watt heavily favors the i7 in all cases.

This was true for gaming for instance, where he showed even when the i7 system just matches the fps of a C2Q system, the fps/watt for the i7 is pretty impressive (IIRC 30% better for i7).

So it tended to be one of the situations where with i7 at worst you got equivalent performance but with markedly reduced power consumption and at best you got markedly superior performance and still reduced power consumption.

It continues to be relevant to continue to say that the right system for any given person depends entirely on what apps they intend to use. No different than was the case when dual-cores were first introduced, no different than when quad-cores were introduced.

And yes I fully anticipate having to repeat this message in future "is 16 core CPU XYZ better than 8 core CPU ABC when both are clocked at 15GHz?" threads.

 

[imported_kennyb]

Originally posted by: nerp
Core i7 may be faster of course but the impression I get from reading many threads is that the average person would never notice that performance benefit in real world usage, especially someone who just does "normal" stuff with their computer.

But we're not normal

I'm about to start my i7-920 build. Finally, all new parts, save the PSU (yet)!

Originally posted by: RaptureMe
The only thing I noticed that the core i7 does better is multi tasking without freezing one program while opening another..

Exactly what I wanted to hear. Thanks for the info.

 

[Shmee]

I mostly game, but I got the i7 for several reasons: OC's better than my Q6600, especially on my x58 UD5 vs my 780i. And it is a bit faster, clock for clock. I turn off HT, for better OC, and I just don't need it. Also, I like getting 6 GB ram for 90 bucks. And my UD5 has awesome features, such as 10 Sata ports, 6 on ICH10R, good passive cooling, and it does SLI without the nforce chipset, something which means my other board wont oc my quad as well. Also, the ICH10R seems very powerful, my 2xSpinpoint F1 750's get about twice the read speed as my previous array, on the nvidia controller, though it may be b/c my 160 GB seagate drives are just not as fast. Got them from work, they were the ones designed for video storage.

so for gaming pros:
-oc's well
-faster clock per clock a bit, so I have heard
-Great mobo features, such as SLI on Intel boards, as well as X fire, also some have others like on board SAS, many others
-6 GB ram getting cheaper
-CPU is cheaper than a 9650, not much more than the 9550

Cons:
-HT may be less than useless for gaming, hinders OC (so turn it off =D)
-Mobo's and ram usually more expensive
-Seems to be more power hungry

so if you are building a new system and have the money, I would say get an i7. If upgrading from a system with an older dualie or even an older quad, Get an E0 9550 or 9650. Though I have both an i7 920 and a Q6600, I will probably keep the C2Q but just try to oc higher, mb With a better board, since I already have the i7, dont see the point in getting a yorkfield to replace the kentsfield.

 

[Provenone]

Originally posted by: IntelUser2000

Originally posted by: RaptureMe

Originally posted by: aigomorla
well to answer your topic thread.

If we look at 100% utilization.

the i7 is 55-75% faster then a C2Q when utilizing all 8 threads.

Since when?? I have both and the core i7 isnt even close to 50% faster at any thing..
If anything at all the Q9650 is 50% fast then the core i7.
The only thing I noticed that the core i7 does better is multi tasking without freezing one program while opening another..
Can you show me some benches or something to prove me wrong??
I can show you screenies where apps I use say nero and winrar are up to 7 mins faster using q9650 vs the core i7 920..

What's this?? Why is this BS being spouted here??

Core i7 is equal or faster than Core 2 Quad. Sure your "experience" might be different but benchmarks show it otherwise.

Core i7 without HT is faster in both single thread and multi-thread apps. Multi-thread more, because it has more bandwidth and its scales better with quad core than Core 2 Quad does.

Single thread should be minorly faster on PURE single thread apps with HT off which makes your point even more invalid.

See until you are putting two fair systems where the only variable is the CPU/chipset/memory, your point is moot.

Possibly your cheap G.Skill SSD is making it worse.

OP is asking for gaming, not necessarily heavy multitasking. remember this please ^.^

 

[ArchAngel777]

Originally posted by: Provenone

Originally posted by: IntelUser2000

Originally posted by: RaptureMe

Originally posted by: aigomorla
well to answer your topic thread.

If we look at 100% utilization.

the i7 is 55-75% faster then a C2Q when utilizing all 8 threads.

Since when?? I have both and the core i7 isnt even close to 50% faster at any thing..
If anything at all the Q9650 is 50% fast then the core i7.
The only thing I noticed that the core i7 does better is multi tasking without freezing one program while opening another..
Can you show me some benches or something to prove me wrong??
I can show you screenies where apps I use say nero and winrar are up to 7 mins faster using q9650 vs the core i7 920..

What's this?? Why is this BS being spouted here??

Core i7 is equal or faster than Core 2 Quad. Sure your "experience" might be different but benchmarks show it otherwise.

Core i7 without HT is faster in both single thread and multi-thread apps. Multi-thread more, because it has more bandwidth and its scales better with quad core than Core 2 Quad does.

Single thread should be minorly faster on PURE single thread apps with HT off which makes your point even more invalid.

See until you are putting two fair systems where the only variable is the CPU/chipset/memory, your point is moot.

Possibly your cheap G.Skill SSD is making it worse.

OP is asking for gaming, not necessarily heavy multitasking. remember this please ^.^

Please remember that he was responding to another user, not the OP, and he is quite correct. If you are throwing out a term like the bolded, then you better be prepared to defend it. Lost Planet (incredable engine, BTW) is a good example of what Nehalem is capable of. Lost Planet CPU Benchmark 120 versus 188 for the 3.2Ghz parts. That is a 57% performance increase. (HardOCP failed at math it looks like). This mimics the results at 105 versus 165 which translates again, into a 57% performance increase clock for clock.

If an application can utilize 8+ threads, the Core i7 will dominate. Now that was just an example of a 'game' engine that did it. But run Cinebench, POV Ray, Encoding, etc.. and you see the core i7 just dominate the Core 2.

However, with that said, none of these CPU's appears to be bottleneck graphics performance. It is possible that a Tri-Sli 285 setup would start to see performance level off, but that is by no means a 'bottleneck'. Besides, crank up AA, buy a pair of 3D Glasses, etc...

The Core 2 Duo's and Quads are no slouches. There is very little reason for most people to upgrade from a Core 2 Quad to a Core i7. I think that is a given. But if you are currently on a X2, or the even older, I'd skip the Core 2 family and head straight for Core i7, especially since you *should* be able to drop in a Gulftown (32nm 1366 varient) sometime next year.

 

[IntelUser2000]

However, with that said, none of these CPU's appears to be bottleneck graphics performance. It is possible that a Tri-Sli 285 setup would start to see performance level off, but that is by no means a 'bottleneck'. Besides, crank up AA, buy a pair of 3D Glasses, etc... The Core 2 Duo's and Quads are no slouches. There is very little reason for most people to upgrade from a Core 2 Quad to a Core i7. I think that is a given. But if you are currently on a X2, or the even older, I'd skip the Core 2 family and head straight for Core i7, especially since you *should* be able to drop in a Gulftown (32nm 1366 varient) sometime next year.

Regarding Nehalem and gaming, look at the following scenarios:

Single GPU
-Low resolution
-High Resolution

Multi GPU
-high resolution

You'll see that Nehalem outperforms gaming performance in Single GPU low resolution and multi GPU high resolutions. Without a doubt, when the GPU isn't the bottleneck, the CPU performs better than Core 2 by decent amounts.

Now one of the reasons that Single GPU high resolution performs less on Core i7 was because it becomes GPU dominant and there is something on the platform that makes it not so good GPU performance. Extra hop between PCI-Express controller and MC was one speculation.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777

Originally posted by: Provenone

Originally posted by: IntelUser2000

Originally posted by: RaptureMe

Originally posted by: aigomorla
well to answer your topic thread.

If we look at 100% utilization.

the i7 is 55-75% faster then a C2Q when utilizing all 8 threads.

Since when?? I have both and the core i7 isnt even close to 50% faster at any thing..
If anything at all the Q9650 is 50% fast then the core i7.
The only thing I noticed that the core i7 does better is multi tasking without freezing one program while opening another..
Can you show me some benches or something to prove me wrong??
I can show you screenies where apps I use say nero and winrar are up to 7 mins faster using q9650 vs the core i7 920..

What's this?? Why is this BS being spouted here??

Core i7 is equal or faster than Core 2 Quad. Sure your "experience" might be different but benchmarks show it otherwise.

Core i7 without HT is faster in both single thread and multi-thread apps. Multi-thread more, because it has more bandwidth and its scales better with quad core than Core 2 Quad does.

Single thread should be minorly faster on PURE single thread apps with HT off which makes your point even more invalid.

See until you are putting two fair systems where the only variable is the CPU/chipset/memory, your point is moot.

Possibly your cheap G.Skill SSD is making it worse.

OP is asking for gaming, not necessarily heavy multitasking. remember this please ^.^

Please remember that he was responding to another user, not the OP, and he is quite correct. If you are throwing out a term like the bolded, then you better be prepared to defend it. Lost Planet (incredable engine, BTW) is a good example of what Nehalem is capable of. Lost Planet CPU Benchmark 120 versus 188 for the 3.2Ghz parts. That is a 57% performance increase. (HardOCP failed at math it looks like). This mimics the results at 105 versus 165 which translates again, into a 57% performance increase clock for clock.

If an application can utilize 8+ threads, the Core i7 will dominate. Now that was just an example of a 'game' engine that did it. But run Cinebench, POV Ray, Encoding, etc.. and you see the core i7 just dominate the Core 2.

However, with that said, none of these CPU's appears to be bottleneck graphics performance. It is possible that a Tri-Sli 285 setup would start to see performance level off, but that is by no means a 'bottleneck'. Besides, crank up AA, buy a pair of 3D Glasses, etc...

The Core 2 Duo's and Quads are no slouches. There is very little reason for most people to upgrade from a Core 2 Quad to a Core i7. I think that is a given. But if you are currently on a X2, or the even older, I'd skip the Core 2 family and head straight for Core i7, especially since you *should* be able to drop in a Gulftown (32nm 1366 varient) sometime next year.

Who cares about gaming at 640x480 ?


i7 better do better than that to get me to buy one

and don't show me FC2 with Tri sli either

 

[dust]

NM

 

[ArchAngel777]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777

Originally posted by: Provenone

Originally posted by: IntelUser2000

Originally posted by: RaptureMe

Originally posted by: aigomorla
well to answer your topic thread.

If we look at 100% utilization.

the i7 is 55-75% faster then a C2Q when utilizing all 8 threads.

Since when?? I have both and the core i7 isnt even close to 50% faster at any thing..
If anything at all the Q9650 is 50% fast then the core i7.
The only thing I noticed that the core i7 does better is multi tasking without freezing one program while opening another..
Can you show me some benches or something to prove me wrong??
I can show you screenies where apps I use say nero and winrar are up to 7 mins faster using q9650 vs the core i7 920..

What's this?? Why is this BS being spouted here??

Core i7 is equal or faster than Core 2 Quad. Sure your "experience" might be different but benchmarks show it otherwise.

Core i7 without HT is faster in both single thread and multi-thread apps. Multi-thread more, because it has more bandwidth and its scales better with quad core than Core 2 Quad does.

Single thread should be minorly faster on PURE single thread apps with HT off which makes your point even more invalid.

See until you are putting two fair systems where the only variable is the CPU/chipset/memory, your point is moot.

Possibly your cheap G.Skill SSD is making it worse.

OP is asking for gaming, not necessarily heavy multitasking. remember this please ^.^

Please remember that he was responding to another user, not the OP, and he is quite correct. If you are throwing out a term like the bolded, then you better be prepared to defend it. Lost Planet (incredable engine, BTW) is a good example of what Nehalem is capable of. Lost Planet CPU Benchmark 120 versus 188 for the 3.2Ghz parts. That is a 57% performance increase. (HardOCP failed at math it looks like). This mimics the results at 105 versus 165 which translates again, into a 57% performance increase clock for clock.

If an application can utilize 8+ threads, the Core i7 will dominate. Now that was just an example of a 'game' engine that did it. But run Cinebench, POV Ray, Encoding, etc.. and you see the core i7 just dominate the Core 2.

However, with that said, none of these CPU's appears to be bottleneck graphics performance. It is possible that a Tri-Sli 285 setup would start to see performance level off, but that is by no means a 'bottleneck'. Besides, crank up AA, buy a pair of 3D Glasses, etc...

The Core 2 Duo's and Quads are no slouches. There is very little reason for most people to upgrade from a Core 2 Quad to a Core i7. I think that is a given. But if you are currently on a X2, or the even older, I'd skip the Core 2 family and head straight for Core i7, especially since you *should* be able to drop in a Gulftown (32nm 1366 varient) sometime next year.

Who cares about gaming at 640x480 ?


i7 better do better than that to get me to buy one

and don't show me FC2 with Tri sli either

No one cares about gaming at 640x480. But that isn't the point. The reasoning behind it is quite clear: to show the power of the CPU. Lets face it, with a single GPU Setup, you don't even need much better than a Core 2 Duo @ 3.2Ghz. Heck, even most games will play just fine on a X2 and will be very enjoyable - but that isn't the point.

If I were to only buy a CPU to match my GPU's power right now, I'd have to upgrade them BOTH when it came time to pop in my new GT300. If you buy a faster CPU, you can get by with a few GPU upgrades before you need to overhaul the main system.

Example - I purchased a Q6600 and run it at 3.6Ghz. Overkill for the 8800GTS 640MB I had, way overkill. Then I plopped in a nice 8800GTS 512MB. Still have plenty of CPU power. I then plopped in a 280TX, which is still the bottleneck in my system. I was able to get (so far) three GPU upgrades out of my system so far and I expect to get a 4th before I need to do a system overhaul. If I simply adopted the the mindset you are proposing I would have had to overhaul my system at least once so far, or pop in another CPU.