Comparing old i7 to new i?

[BarkingGhostar]

Trying to compare like performances for systems where everything else is the same. This means comparing a 1st Gen Core i7 with four cores to the unlikeliest 4th Gen Core iX processor.

While the amount of RAM and OS will be the same, I have to wonder for applications limited to M$ Office, Thunderbird email and Chrome/Firefox browsing, these activities might be done via VM.

Something tells me the Haswell i5 dictates the only comparison since it would have the same number of cores.

 

[Tuna-Fish]

I'm not quite sure what your question there is, but would this help: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/108?vs=837 ?

 

[Techhog]

Something tells me the Haswell i5 dictates the only comparison since it would have the same number of cores.

Haswell i7s are still quad-core. They'd be a better comparison since i5s are nort hyperthreaded.

 

[FalseChristian]

I'd go with an i7-4770K. It blows your CPU out of the water. Hell, even mine does.

 

[Mand]

I'm not quite sure what your question there is, but would this help: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/108?vs=837 ?

...how did I never find this before? That's an amazingly useful thing. Really drives home how outdated my 4-year-old rig is though, heh. The videocard comparison for what I'd get now is literally a 3x difference, and the CPU a 2x difference. i7 860 vs i7 4770k is just depressing.

 

[*kjm]

Trying to compare like performances for systems where everything else is the same. This means comparing a 1st Gen Core i7 with four cores to the unlikeliest 4th Gen Core iX processor.

While the amount of RAM and OS will be the same, I have to wonder for applications limited to M$ Office, Thunderbird email and Chrome/Firefox browsing, these activities might be done via VM.

Something tells me the Haswell i5 dictates the only comparison since it would have the same number of cores.

For the programs your running I'm not sure you’re going to see a world of difference. With using VM's do you want VT-d.... if you do and you upgrade you may want to look at the I7-4771.

http://ark.intel.com/compare/77656,41315,75123

I just upgraded my i7-860 last week to a I7-4770k just for gaming/video editing but in the programs you listed without benchmarks I can't feel the difference.

 

[dac7nco]

It really depends on what you're doing. For web browsing, my friend's Athlon-II from 2009 with an Intel G2 SSD is as fast as my main rig (which is very fast). A 4770K, stock, is faster than ANY overclocked quad-core Nehalem CPU. Hell; an AMD 8350 is faster than an i7 920 cooled with liquid nitrogen.

People have been bashing Intel for 5-10% IPC gains since Sandy Bridge. Sandy Bridge was so fast it should've killed AMD forever (not in my best interest either; my folding ruig is an Opteron). I have the gut feeling Skylake/Skymont will be a big deal but keep this in mind: A good analogy would be buying a 2008 Honda, which got 33MPG @ 75MPH, versus a 2013 Honda @ 200MPG/150MPH.

The most notable difference to you will be disc I/O. Z87 tops-out at aroun 1.5GB per second. Want a photoshop cache? Stripe three SSDs. Done. A photographer friend uses software RAID on his Haswell Xeon (an ECC-aware i7): Take ten 24MP shots (~200MB) from an AFT card reader, process, evaluate and rename them... my old i7 920 would do that in about 20 minutes, and I had a scratch disk - his is three junk SSDs, and it takes 102 seconds.

However, my Mom and Uncle get my hand-me-down computers... my Uncle's stock Q8300/8GB/SSD/GTX-260 will likely last him until something fries/when the zombies come.

You're not in danger of being overtaken by a phone..... yet.

Rambling.

Daimon

 

[BarkingGhostar]

Thanks all for those two links. I am surprised how well the 1st Gen i7 is holding up. I also used those link resources to compare some other processors and was stunned by how well one of my 1st Gen i3 processors holds up against the current i5.

In most, it seems that there really isn't a difference in performance for my intended applications. I guess they are either mundane (simple activities) or not represented (VMs) in the benchmarking.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Thanks all for those two links. I am surprised how well the 1st Gen i7 is holding up. I also used those link resources to compare some other processors and was stunned by how well one of my 1st Gen i3 processors holds up against the current i5.

In most, it seems that there really isn't a difference in performance for my intended applications. I guess they are either mundane (simple activities) or not represented (VMs) in the benchmarking.

Truth be told, it does seem to do that. The comparison pits the older core at 2.8 to the newer core at ~3.5. I ran the same comparison analysis on my i7-2600K: the sliver of extra performance between the Sandy and the Haswell could almost be explained by the 100Mhz difference in speed settings -- 3.4 against the Haswell's 3.5.

But my disciplined and modest 4.6Ghz SB overclock is probably better than what I'd be comfortable with using the 4670K without a de-lidding mod.

Interesting -- how you (I) might get the itch to build another system after 2 years, think about all the trouble of how you want to do it, and contemplate the ongoing blessing of what you've got.

Maybe I should compare my SB to an i7 Haswell. I run the SB with HT.

. . . Yeah . . . just a little worse than the other comparison -- not much . . . Only a couple glaring differences. No telling how a decent overclock would affect that . . . too . . .

 

[mikeymikec]

Trying to compare like performances for systems where everything else is the same. This means comparing a 1st Gen Core i7 with four cores to the unlikeliest 4th Gen Core iX processor.

While the amount of RAM and OS will be the same, I have to wonder for applications limited to M$ Office, Thunderbird email and Chrome/Firefox browsing, these activities might be done via VM.

Are you thinking about replacing this Core i7 first-gen system? Because for those apps I would have thought that your i7 would be more than completely fine for the job. Even a first-gen i3 would be fine, IMO.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Are you thinking about replacing this Core i7 first-gen system? Because for those apps I would have thought that your i7 would be more than completely fine for the job. Even a first-gen i3 would be fine, IMO.

This has always been a relevant trade-off on this forum. We always wanted to wring the most out of processors that were limited. OS's were limited, even so! It just seems now, at some point, two or three generations of cores may be more than satisfactory for intensive tasks like "rendering" or hacking Verizon so you can keep tabs on the meta-data for millions of subscribers.

All the video, graphics and other possibilities of my machine seem to be unlimited. If you have to wait an extra minute or two for some intensive task, it's only a cost to ego and hardly an inconvenience.

Whaddya want?! Whaddya need?! Or do you simply feel a compulsion to keep up with a "need for speed" defined by newer processors? The newer processors have thermal limits to OC'ing without the builder doing extra work, and the newer processors seem to be designed for economy of power usage. I doubt that going from Sandy to Haswell -- or Nehalem to Haswell -- will make the difference in annual power bills so that you can buy filet mignon instead of chuck-steak. Anyway, if you tenderize, season and BBQ just right, the chuck-steak has more flavor . . .

 

[BarkingGhostar]

A little explanation may be in order. I am not looking to replace the existing system, which is actually the wife's 2011 purchased 27" iMac. She came to me around Xmas with a project for the new year that essentially replicates her current environment but on a separate computer--be it an Apple product or custom build.

Earlier this year I had some terrific Hackintosh build experience and thought about what minimums I should look at (component level) and how to best implement her needs. This new computer in the home also replaces a very aging XP Pro system running Office.

So, aside from the hardware to produce similar 'user experiences', I had to consider how I would replicate her OS X lifestyle (email, surfing, etc.) and her Windows lifestyle (Office) all under one roof.

I could buy a license to get Office on OS X, but in a Hackintosh system I am not sure what that would mean in order to reduce the replication environment down to one OS. Conversely, replicating Thunderbird profiles from OS X to W7 seems even more a burden than I wish to task myself with (and she has ~50 mailboxes on host domains).

I then considered VMs and wondered about what kind of enhancement to the original hardware minimums would be needed. Then I remember I need a better distraction and go watch movies for four hours.

 

[ChaiBabbaChai]

I'm running an i7 920 @ 3.4GHz and the only time it ever gets maxed out is when I run intel burn test.... and I run 2 monitors with about 9GB of applications loaded into RAM including games. I don't have ANY reason to upgrade until my system fries.

 

[Makaveli]

I'm running an i7 920 @ 3.4GHz and the only time it ever gets maxed out is when I run intel burn test.... and I run 2 monitors with about 9GB of applications loaded into RAM including games. I don't have ANY reason to upgrade until my system fries.

I think when the IPC gap starts getting close to 50% above gen 1 i7 you will reconsider that. It will happen before your system "fries"

It really depends on what you're doing. For web browsing, my friend's Athlon-II from 2009 with an Intel G2 SSD is as fast as my main rig (which is very fast). A 4770K, stock, is faster than ANY overclocked quad-core Nehalem CPU. Hell; an AMD 8350 is faster than an i7 920 cooled with liquid nitrogen.

While I agree with the 4770k being better its new and has more IPC but stock faster than any overclocked nehalem I don't know about that. If there is a 1000mhz gap i'm not thinking you will see as big a lead as you think.

and 8350 is not faster than a overclocked i7 920.

Any 920 At 4Ghz or above will be faster than a 8350 stock or overclocked the only area the 8350 comes close would be encoding video.

 

[Maximilian]

Yeah I think people are really underestimating nehalem here. An i7 920 is only 2.66ghz stock... thats why it sometimes looks crap in benches, there is a hell of a lot of safe overclocking room on that chip.

 

[EightySix Four]

Yeah I think people are really underestimating nehalem here. An i7 920 is only 2.66ghz stock... thats why it sometimes looks crap in benches, there is a hell of a lot of safe overclocking room on that chip.

Not on an iMac like the OP said he has...

 

[Makaveli]

Not on an iMac like the OP said he has...

well then if we are talking stock clocks vs stock clocks its a no brainer to go haswell!

I just wanted to point out what the other guys posted wasn't actually 100% correct.

 

[dac7nco]

The 920 was bad, no doubt, but so was Thuban. An AMD 1090 couldn't kill an early i7... and the six-core Thuban was basically a 150% C2Q9650 in general use. The 4770K is FAST. In Handbrake a Xeon 1230v3 (slower than a 4770) is faster than my 930 was @4Ghz.

 

[Makaveli]

The 920 was bad, no doubt, but so was Thuban. An AMD 1090 couldn't kill an early i7... and the six-core Thuban was basically a 150% C2Q9650 in general use. The 4770K is FAST. In Handbrake a Xeon 1230v3 (slower than a 4770) is faster than my 930 was @4Ghz.

Agreed and with encoding you will see a large gap because it hits the cpu hard. But for most other task you wouldn't be able to tell the difference without looking at benchmarks.

all comes down to the apps in question and usage.

 

[BTRY B 529th FA BN]

The real question is what is faster, an overclocked L5639 @ 3.2Ghz or a stock i7 970!?

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Yeah I think people are really underestimating nehalem here. An i7 920 is only 2.66ghz stock... thats why it sometimes looks crap in benches, there is a hell of a lot of safe overclocking room on that chip.

I think for a good many features, some of the earlier i7 generations are serving us well. My OC'd Sandy seems still competitive with an i7-4770K for some of the Cinebench R15 test results posted on the other thread. I was shy about posting, but the results were a comfort. I don't see myself cashing in the Sandy for a new build this year -- unless I win a scratch-lottery.

 

[Makaveli]

The real question is what is faster, an overclocked L5639 @ 3.2Ghz or a stock i7 970!?

My guess would be the overclocked L5639 because to the the higher BLK vs the stock 970.

However the 970 has more overclocking headroom because it has more multipliers available.

Also I think you will have to stress the Xeon more on those overclock because its default clock speed is much lower. The jump to 4Ghz is only 800mhz on the 970 since its default clock speed is 3.2. The Xeon default clock is 2.13

And of course your mileage will vary chip to chip.

 

[dac7nco]

I think for a good many features, some of the earlier i7 generations are serving us well. My OC'd Sandy seems still competitive with an i7-4770K for some of the Cinebench R15 test results posted on the other thread. I was shy about posting, but the results were a comfort. I don't see myself cashing in the Sandy for a new build this year -- unless I win a scratch-lottery.

I would love a super high-clocked multi-core machine like your Sandy; this thing rarely hits 3.6, which it's supposed to do more often than not. I'd have no problem with her doing 5GHz @ 400-watts on 12-cores. As it is, this is easily twice as fast as my OCd 980X was, with 3-times the memory, scratch SSDs and 10Gb ethernet. She is, however, expensive. I'd never spent over $800 on a CPU before, so spending nearly twice that on RAM was scary. I expect this system to last as long as your SB, but I'm fooling myself, lurking AT for Haswell-E and Skylake.

The reason we're on Anandtech is nothing will ever be good enough. AdamK47 doesn't have 6TB of games on striped SSDs because he needs to, Aigo doesn't have a wall of fans and tubes because he's sane and IDC doesn't perform surgery on a CPU because he's all there.

We're addicts. I loved my Amiga 4000 more than I loved my Grandma.

Daimon

 

[BonzaiDuck]

I would love a super high-clocked multi-core machine like your Sandy; this thing rarely hits 3.6, which it's supposed to do more often than not. I'd have no problem with her doing 5GHz @ 400-watts on 12-cores. As it is, this is easily twice as fast as my OCd 980X was, with 3-times the memory, scratch SSDs and 10Gb ethernet. She is, however, expensive. I'd never spent over $800 on a CPU before, so spending nearly twice that on RAM was scary. I expect this system to last as long as your SB, but I'm fooling myself, lurking AT for Haswell-E and Skylake.

The reason we're on Anandtech is nothing will ever be good enough. AdamK47 doesn't have 6TB of games on striped SSDs because he needs to, Aigo doesn't have a wall of fans and tubes because he's sane and IDC doesn't perform surgery on a CPU because he's all there.

We're addicts. I loved my Amiga 4000 more than I loved my Grandma.

Daimon

It helps me control myself if I think of it like surfing: catch the wave for the right prices and release-dates. Or, it's a micro-economic trade-off of indifference curves hovering over my Quicken files . . .

JUst as footnote, though . . . the IB cores came in [when-wuzzit?] -- 2012? This thing about the IHS and TIM has forced us to do an end-run around simply tweaking voltages and multipliers. With the de-lidding, you can probably OC an IB or Haswell to the same level on air, but -- what a major hassle!

Anyone have more detail about whether Intel is going to fix this for Haswell at least? Or are they committed to a future vision of mobile devices?

UPDATE: Here's a more pessimistic assessment of our obsession:

http://www.extremetech.com/computing/129300-physics-ivy-bridge-and-the-slow-death-of-overclocking