Core i7 Reviews

[NoStateofMind]

Well its almost launch time and at least one review site has posted their Core i7 benchmarks.

Anandtech + Everything You Need to Know about Intel's New Architecture

Benchmark Reviews

Tweak town

Legion Hardware

Overclockers

Guru3D + Guru3D Multi-GPU Benchmarks

PC Perspective

Hexus

T Break

Trusted Reviews

Tech Gage

Toms Hardware

HardOCP

Madshrimps

Xbit

OC Aholic (Googlenglish)

Golem (Googlenglish)

IT Examiner

Planet X64

Hot Hardware

APC

Au Ja (Googlenglish)

Driver Heaven

TechSpot

Lost Circuite

Custom PC

Tech Radar

Canard PC

PC Inpact

Extreme Tech

Hartware (Googlenglish)

Matbe (Googlenglish)

Tweakers.net (Googlenglish)

Bit Tech

Revioo (Googlenglish)

Hardware.fr (Googlenglish)

Neoseeker

OCAU

HCW

Frosty Tech

CRN

B3D i7 965

B3D i7 940

B3D i7 920


Thanks harpoon84, Cheesetogo.

Added more
Markfw900 Anandtech Moderator

 

[sunnn]

12 pages and only 2 games tested - both at high resolution hmmm. i dont think i seen power consumption test.
edit:br

 

[harpoon84]

http://www.tweaktown.com/revie...fsb_departs/index.html

http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=786

http://www.guru3d.com/article/...i7-920-and-965-review/

OCAU review is now up:
http://www.overclockers.com.au...icle.php?id=726776&P=1

Summary page for clock for clock comparison with Core 2:
http://www.overclockers.com.au...les/726776/summary.jpg

 

[faxon]

so is the NDA officially up then? its still nov 2 where i am and across most of the USA, so im guessing anandtech wont be posting until a few hours from now

 

[dmens]

NDA is lifted today. please post the reviews... i dont want to waste time searching for them tomorrow at work. thanks.

 

[Cheesetogo]

I would imagine that the NDA is up at 12:00 AM EST.

 

[Cheesetogo]

HardOCP

 

[AdamK47]

Originally posted by: harpoon84
http://www.tweaktown.com/revie...fsb_departs/index.html

http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=786

I quite like the LH review. I guess Anand's isn't up yet?

OCAU review is now up:
http://www.overclockers.com.au...icle.php?id=726776&P=1

Summary page for clock for clock comparison with Core 2:
http://www.overclockers.com.au...les/726776/summary.jpg

I agree. The Legion Hardware review seems best so far. They show the difference in games from high res to low res. The low res results are what I was concerned about the most. It takes the video card away as the bottleneck and allows the CPUs to stretch their legs.

 

[faxon]

yea the LH review was great. i only looked at the benchmarks but since i already knew most of the other stuff the reviews covered thats really all i needed to see. one thing i didnt check for though was overclockability of the 920 and 940. whats the status on this? i remember reading the thread about OCing via the board clock but i want to see a review on how this is done exactly!

 

[harpoon84]

A few more for PC Surgeon to add to the OP:
http://www.guru3d.com/article/...i7-920-and-965-review/
http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=634
http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=16187
http://techreport.com/articles.x/15816 (X58 mobo comparison)
http://www.tbreak.com/articles...965-EE-CPUs/Page1.html
http://www.trustedreviews.com/...chitecture-Overview/p1
http://www.guru3d.com/article/...me-performance-review/ (multi GPU gaming)
http://techgage.com/article/in...7_performance_preview/

 

[soonerproud]

<------ Must resist urge to go deep into debt to buy a i7 920. Must resist!

 

[Cogman]

Hmm, I must say that I'm not as impressed as I though I would be. 10% increases on average are good and all, but I thought we where going to see 20% averages. In some places it didn't even manage a 10% increase. Somewhat disappointing IMO.

It looks like a good chip all in all, but it doesn't like like a "Does to Core 2 what Core 2 did to Pentium 4" type chip.

The x264 speed increase is interesting though, 36% boost. Pricing will be key here.

( I should clarify, as a gamer, this chip is somewhat of a step up, not a leap. if I was only a gamer then I wouldn't see a big reason to upgrade. If you are and encoder/work with media. Then this chip is worth it.)

 

[harpoon84]

Originally posted by: Cogman
Hmm, I must say that I'm not as impressed as I though I would be. 10% increases on average are good and all, but I thought we where going to see 20% averages. In some places it didn't even manage a 10% increase. Somewhat disappointing IMO.

It looks like a good chip all in all, but it doesn't like like a "Does to Core 2 what Core 2 did to Pentium 4" type chip.

The x264 speed increase is interesting though, 36% boost. Pricing will be key here.

( I should clarify, as a gamer, this chip is somewhat of a step up, not a leap. if I was only a gamer then I wouldn't see a big reason to upgrade. If you are and encoder/work with media. Then this chip is worth it.)

Actually in application performance (not including gaming) performance increases are around the 20% mark, if not more:

http://www.overclockers.com.au...les/726776/summary.jpg

 

[dguy6789]

I must say I am seriously impressed with the Tom's Hardware review. They have come an extremely long way in quality over the years.

 

[faxon]

Originally posted by: dguy6789
I must say I am seriously impressed with the Tom's Hardware review. They have come an extremely long way in quality over the years.

yea i decided to give it a full read in the quest for more info on overclocking and i have to say it was pretty good. i have never really liked TH reviews as much, but it is worth a read. i just hope the AT review bodes better on the OCing news front than the TH review did

 

[sunnn]

why most of game benchmarks are shown in high resolution of which most/majority of results clearly show they are gpu limited.

ok LH:far cry2 and crisis warhead (newer games) @800x600
-clearly not much difference in fps between 920 and 965, even 965@3.8 (not worth the ~$700 difference).
-also why not test at 1024x768 so it can be compared with older tests?
-i've seen weird resolutions used across all tests in different benchmarks by different sites. very hard to compare.

 

[Ichigo]

Originally posted by: sunnn
why most of game benchmarks are shown in high resolution of which most/majority of results clearly show they are gpu limited.

ok LH:far cry2 and crisis warhead (newer games) @800x600
-clearly not much difference in fps between 920 and 965, even 965@3.8 (not worth the ~$700 difference).
-also why not test at 1024x768 so it can be compared with older tests?
-i've seen weird resolutions used across all tests in different benchmarks by different sites. very hard to compare.

Text

That is all.

 

[sunnn]

Originally posted by: Cogman
Hmm, I must say that I'm not as impressed as I though I would be. 10% increases on average are good and all, but I thought we where going to see 20% averages. In some places it didn't even manage a 10% increase. Somewhat disappointing IMO.

It looks like a good chip all in all, but it doesn't like like a "Does to Core 2 what Core 2 did to Pentium 4" type chip.

The x264 speed increase is interesting though, 36% boost. Pricing will be key here.

( I should clarify, as a gamer, this chip is somewhat of a step up, not a leap. if I was only a gamer then I wouldn't see a big reason to upgrade. If you are and encoder/work with media. Then this chip is worth it.)

clearly, comparing to c2q's size and power consumption (and prolly oclocakability), and cost to migrate to new platform, i7 has underachieve. clearly the chip is not for gamers, except prolly the hardcorest (if there's even a word) of the hardcores.

if deneb can come up to 90-95pct of penryn with significant low power consumption compared to old phenom, with the right pricing, i think it has a fair chance.

 

[Ichigo]

Okay, let us ditch the subtlety of my previous post.

Check out Guru3d's multi-GPU benchmarks. Core i7 is *ridiculous* in games using Crossfire/SLI.

 

[sunnn]

Originally posted by: Ichigo

Originally posted by: sunnn
why most of game benchmarks are shown in high resolution of which most/majority of results clearly show they are gpu limited.

ok LH:far cry2 and crisis warhead (newer games) @800x600
-clearly not much difference in fps between 920 and 965, even 965@3.8 (not worth the ~$700 difference).
-also why not test at 1024x768 so it can be compared with older tests?
-i've seen weird resolutions used across all tests in different benchmarks by different sites. very hard to compare.

Text

That is all.

this is what i said in my other comment. maybe i7 is for the extremest of extremes of a gamer, where you need 3xsli for it to shine.

also, it was only compared to 1 cpu. what if the e8400 is overclocked? would it not achieved the same fps the 965 did?

and 2560x1600, at resolution people play with this kind of setup, not much difference in fps . how much is e8400 and how much is 965?
clearly not worth the upgrade afa as gaming is concerned.

btw, the graph doesnt show 920 and 940, i wonder why.

 

[harpoon84]

Originally posted by: sunnn
this is what i said in my other comment. maybe i7 is for the extremest of extremes of a gamer, where you need 3xsli for it to shine.

Actually, it starts at 4870CF, or essentially a 4870X2. More powerful CF/SLI setups will see bigger gains, but even at the 4870X2 level there is a distinct difference.

also, it was only compared to 1 cpu. what if the e8400 is overclocked? would it not achieved the same fps the 965 did?

No, it wouldn't have. In the newer games the i7 965 is getting roughly double the performance of the E8400, how far can you overclock an E8400 anyway? From 3GHz to 4GHz perhaps, thats a 33% overclock, it won't come close to bridging the gap in say Far Cry 2 or Crysis Warhead.

and 2560x1600, at resolution people play with this kind of setup, not much difference in fps. how much is e8400 and how much is 965? clearly not worth the upgrade afa as gaming is concerned.

Thats called GPU limitations, and in tests that aren't framebuffer limited (like the 4870s) there is still a difference. As for price, do you think people with high end CF/SLI setups really care that much about price? Seriously, if I could afford a 280GTX tri-SLI setup I'd obviously be loaded and wouldn't blink twice at an i7 965 over an E8400.

btw, the graph doesnt show 920 and 940, i wonder why.

To spite you?

 

[dmens]

Originally posted by: sunnn
clearly, comparing to c2q's size and power consumption (and prolly oclocakability), and cost to migrate to new platform, i7 has underachieve. clearly the chip is not for gamers, except prolly the hardcorest (if there's even a word) of the hardcores.

if deneb can come up to 90-95pct of penryn with significant low power consumption compared to old phenom, with the right pricing, i think it has a fair chance.

clearly you didn't look at the power numbers... at default stock voltage the nehalems draw less power at load and stress than equivalently clocked penryns. dumbass.

 

[sunnn]

Originally posted by: Ichigo
Okay, let us ditch the subtlety of my previous post.

Check out Guru3d's multi-GPU benchmarks. Core i7 is *ridiculous* in games using Crossfire/SLI.

ok ill try to list down my thoughts on nehalem based on initial review, on which i based my conclusion:
1. @ low res: newer games (fc2, cw: legion)
-not much difference in fps.
-older games, they are more than 200 fps already (some are in 600's). means older games do not present enough to challenge to new cpus.
2. @ high res (2560x1600- resolution that people actually play with crossfire and sli): older and newer games, again not much difference.
3. power consumption is higher at load.
4. cost - moving to a new platform (plus possibly additional cards, for those with single cards, plus possibly new case and/or ps to handle the new cards. this means almost entirely building a new rig and for how much of an improvement?
5. oclockability - so far we've seen only the extremes are shown up to ~3.8. this is where i7's problem lies. if a cheap quad core can be overclocked more than an i7 can be oclock, to a point where it can negate i7's increase in ipc clock-for-clock, i dont think anyone would ditch their cheap quad core anytime soon.
6. tri-channel memory- insignificant impact.

i think that these reviews, test results are indicative of some people's observation, that nehalem really is a server chip whose intended improvements are for server applications but marketed (at least for now) as an enthusiast chip.

also, i hope to see more test on newer games at low resolutions. this should give us better grasp of how really nehalem perform afa gaming is concerned.
btw, on synthetic benches, like superpi, its a beast.

and deneb, lets see what it got.

 

[faxon]

Originally posted by: dmens

Originally posted by: sunnn
clearly, comparing to c2q's size and power consumption (and prolly oclocakability), and cost to migrate to new platform, i7 has underachieve. clearly the chip is not for gamers, except prolly the hardcorest (if there's even a word) of the hardcores.

if deneb can come up to 90-95pct of penryn with significant low power consumption compared to old phenom, with the right pricing, i think it has a fair chance.

clearly you didn't look at the power numbers... at default stock voltage the nehalems draw less power at load and stress than equivalently clocked penryns. dumbass.

posts like this (personal attacks) can get you banned just FYI. try to keep it civil here yo.

 

[cusideabelincoln]

Sunn: Read Guru3D's multiGPU tests. They provide results between the 965 and E8400 at all different resolutions and different video cards.

After reading the Legionhardware and Guru3D reviews, I must say I am impressed right now with Core i7's raw performance, and its performance for future video cards and gaming. I think Guru3D nailed the analysis by saying that games today are limited by software and 3D hardware. There is just no way Core i7 was going to deliver significant performance improvement when it is paired with any single video card, because even today's Core 2 processors are able to let a video card like an HD4870 or GTX280 deliver maximum performance at the most commonly played resolutions. Those multi-GPU results did blow my mind, and I hope everyone has a chance to look at them and read Guru3D's article.

In short: It's not Core i7's fault that it can't improve performance in today's games at today's commonly used resolutions using today's popular video card setups.

Now, off to read some more reviews!

Edit: To those worrying about overclocking: Reviews seem to show that a Core i7 @ 3.2 is plenty fast for even the 3-way SLI GTX 280s, so I imagine many people will be able to take an i7 920 up to 3.2 GHz and have a pretty damn fast system for not as costly as some of you are making it out to be, since a 3.2 GHz i7 does provide a noticeable performance improvement over a Core 2 Duo. I do wish, though, that Guru3D threw in a Q9650 for good measure.