Core i7 Reviews

[Borealis7]

Originally posted by: jaredpace

Originally posted by: Borealis7
are there any reviews with tests with SMT on and off?
"8 core" vs quad penryn, 4 core vs quad penryn and "8 core" vs 4 core.

http://www.pcgameshardware.com..._CPUs_reviewed/?page=4

Thanks jaredpace.

Well, all i can say is "Thanks, but no thanks" to Core i7. i dont ever plan on getting a multi-GPU setup, and if i ever need a CPU upgrade, i'll go Quad Penryn when their cheap enough.
switching to a whole new platform just seems unreasonable for these kind of gains.

nevertheless, good job Intel! :thumbsup:

now give us Larrabee.

 

[Tempered81]

4.2ghz core i7 vs. 4.2ghz qx9650 with stock GTX280OC in Crysis & FEAR:

http://www.sx-team.com/testovi...=view&limit=1&start=18

edit: also using 4 vs. 8 threads SMT

 

[Kingbee13]

after reading all morning about the I7 I have to say I am smiling

Not because of the I7 performance, but because I just built a rig based on E7200

I wa a bit nervous the I7 would blow core 2 out of the water, but to me it didnt unless your doing encoding or rendering, which I am not.

I've always been a bang for your buck builder, spending about 400 on my cpu ram and mobo, these x58 boards alone are going to cost that much, not to mention trichannel DDR3 and the CPU itself.

the jury is still out on gaming performance IMO if its true that SLI CF setups have a huge gain under I7 system costs and power usage go even higher, maybe I'm being cheap but to me building a core I7 system at this time with a 965 and tri sli or dual 4970x2s goes from being an enthusiast rig to an extremist rig

to sum my thoguhts, nice, not yet, maybe next build in ~6 months

 

[aigomorla]

i would give u guys a review but still waiting for a board.

So i decided to tease you guys.

Im looking for creative things to plug my cpu's in so my sponsors get the point i need a board asap.

So my i7 sunglasses:
http://i125.photobucket.com/al...aigomorla/IMG_0086.jpg

Then theres my i7 picture frame:
http://i125.photobucket.com/al...aigomorla/IMG_0088.jpg

My magic i7 crystal ball that tells me how well there gonna overclock:
http://i125.photobucket.com/al...aigomorla/IMG_0090.jpg

:rofl:

Order NOW in the next 30 min and you get... uhh nothing.. but i wanted to sound like an infomercial for once.



Sorry guys.. Im waiting for a board.

 

[n7]

aigomorla, you've been talking about how awesome i7 is for months now but how you cannot talk about it, but you don't have a mobo yet?

How does that work?!


Anyway, looks like i'll hang onto my Q9550 for a little while...as the most intensive thing i do is gaming, i won't be seeing huge improvements.

 

[JPB]

Lets hope Core i7 pushes down the prices of the Core 2 Quads. If so...that would be perfect.

 

[AdamK47]

The question that has to be asked... When and where can I get one?

 

[Spectator]

:beer:

so After posting on I7 review. i though id try to consolidate in here.

Firstly I/we want to know how the temp sensor works with phase change temps. and also can you get round the 130watt gimpness in the cpu.

That lead me to speculate about the pin contacts on the top of the cpu. amd stylee break out the lead pencil..

but after more consideration. I would like to ask the more technical ppls. To consider they are perhaps a way to program a sdram section of the processor with relevant details to stock the cpu at xxx classification.

I personally think that makes total sence. Intel know there is overclocking potencial in their manufacturing process; and seem to be cutting OUR options down. How much more bisiness sence does it make to be able to "re-program" any existing stock to meet current demand if you make only 1-2 processors.

So you tech ppls. go ask questions and consider possibility of being able to change cpu settings on the processor. Also; consider that intel are not dumb and would anticipate this eventuall knowledge and build in a "simple" method to change/protect your tampering

Spectator.

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: n7
aigomorla, you've been talking about how awesome i7 is for months now but how you cannot talk about it, but you don't have a mobo yet?

How does that work?!


Anyway, looks like i'll hang onto my Q9550 for a little while...as the most intensive thing i do is gaming, i won't be seeing huge improvements.

truthfully my sample board was fubard from the getgo.

so i had to return it, waiting on a new one, however the release for X58 is just around the corner.

So im actually thinkn of picking up a retail one, and not having to mess with a beta sample.

 

[sunnn]

Originally posted by: aigomorla

Originally posted by: n7
aigomorla, you've been talking about how awesome i7 is for months now but how you cannot talk about it, but you don't have a mobo yet?

How does that work?!


Anyway, looks like i'll hang onto my Q9550 for a little while...as the most intensive thing i do is gaming, i won't be seeing huge improvements.

truthfully my sample board was fubard from the getgo.

so i had to return it, waiting on a new one, however the release for X58 is just around the corner.

So im actually thinkn of picking up a retail one, and not having to mess with a beta sample.

hmm, so how you know its performance if you had a bad board from the start?

btw, i came accross this, maybe first guy ever to buy nehalem. its like a soap opera or a suspense thriller hahahha.
http://www.overclock.net/intel...06091-i7-out-wild.html

 

[error8]

Originally posted by: JPB
Lets hope Core i7 pushes down the prices of the Core 2 Quads. If so...that would be perfect.

Yeah, this is what I'm hoping for, to jump on a sexy, cheap Penryn quad. :laugh:

 

[phexac]

It's just as I suspected. Unless you do hardcore 3d rendering or video encoding, those with good dual core chips out there will have to wait a long time before there is a practical reason to upgrade their CPU.

Also, it is of course interesting to see how chips stack up in gaming, but those benchmarks on low resolutions and low details don't really matter. Most enthusiasts (90% of people who will ever see those benchmarks) will never game at that resolution. So what do those numbers matter. At the resultions and detail settings we play at, games are all GPU-limited, and there is virtually no difference between processors.

 

[OCGuy]

If the damn software could catch up to the hardware, (games) I would be all over this!

 

[Anubis]

Originally posted by: phexac
It's just as I suspected. Unless you do hardcore 3d rendering or video encoding, those with good dual core chips out there will have to wait a long time before there is a practical reason to upgrade their CPU.

Also, it is of course interesting to see how chips stack up in gaming, but those benchmarks on low resolutions and low details don't really matter. Most enthusiasts (90% of people who will ever see those benchmarks) will never game at that resolution. So what do those numbers matter. At the resultions and detail settings we play at, games are all GPU-limited, and there is virtually no difference between processors.

the only real difference is that a 280$ CPU preforms the same way as a 1400$ one

even after a new mobo and ram it will be cheaper then the 1400$ QX9770 even being GPU bound if you are building a compleatly new system going with a i7 really isnat a bad idea, unless the I7 release pushes down the prices of the QX9770 by say 1000$

 

[tynopik]

any virtualization benchmarks out yet?

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: sunnn

Originally posted by: aigomorla

Originally posted by: n7
aigomorla, you've been talking about how awesome i7 is for months now but how you cannot talk about it, but you don't have a mobo yet?

How does that work?!


Anyway, looks like i'll hang onto my Q9550 for a little while...as the most intensive thing i do is gaming, i won't be seeing huge improvements.

truthfully my sample board was fubard from the getgo.

so i had to return it, waiting on a new one, however the release for X58 is just around the corner.

So im actually thinkn of picking up a retail one, and not having to mess with a beta sample.

hmm, so how you know its performance if you had a bad board from the start?

btw, i came accross this, maybe first guy ever to buy nehalem. its like a soap opera or a suspense thriller hahahha.
http://www.overclock.net/intel...06091-i7-out-wild.html

Because when it worked, it would work at stock.
And when it didnt work, nothing worked.

It was a floating bug that kept reappearing. But i was able to see what it could do at stock performance for a very long time.

Also a few of my friends had overclocked i7 setups, and i was able to track there results b4 you guys even saw.

 

[JAG87]

Pffft.

This architecture smells like Prescott all over again. Nehalem is to Penryn exactly what Prescott was to Northwood. More transistors, hyper threading, different cache architecture, ends up slower in games.

Nehalem steals all the good things from Penryn (just like Prescott did to Northwood), adds useless shit like HT to gives people the bogus idea that it's actually faster when it's not. History repeats itself.

It also seems to take a lot more voltage then penryn/yorkfield to achieve the same clocks, it seems to produce more heat, and returns with 30-40% improvement in multi threadead applications thanks to it's fake 8 threads. Total fail imho.

And all of this comes at the cost of replacing sockets, motherboards, and buying retartedly expensive DDR3. This is no where near at the top of my shopping list. I would much rather give my money to nvidia for two brand new GPUs that give me hours of play time, or even better a new-gen SSD thats so fast it saturates SATA2. That's the stuff that arouses me.

But that's just my uncopyrighted and unbiased opinion.

 

[gramboh]

Hmm I'm happy with AT's review. As suspected, there is no real benefit to gamers using single GPU solutions such as myself. I upgraded to Q6700 from E6600 this summer (same OC speed) just to "have a quad" and because it only cost me $60, looks like I'll keep my system as is for another year or so and maybe consider upgrade then if it will make a difference for casual gaming.

 

[nyker96]

so when will we see them in retail? I assume intel will be smart to do it before Xmas.

 

[Anubis]

Originally posted by: JAG87
Pffft.

This architecture smells like Prescott all over again. Nehalem is to Penryn exactly what Prescott was to Northwood. More transistors, hyper threading, different cache architecture, ends up slower in games.

Nehalem steals all the good things from Penryn (just like Prescott did to Northwood), adds useless shit like HT to gives people the bogus idea that it's actually faster when it's not. History repeats itself.

It also seems to take a lot more voltage then penryn/yorkfield to achieve the same clocks, it seems to produce more heat, and returns with 30-40% improvement in multi threadead applications thanks to it's fake 8 threads. Total fail imho.

And all of this comes at the cost of replacing sockets, motherboards, and buying retartedly expensive DDR3. This is no where near at the top of my shopping list. I would much rather give my money to nvidia for two brand new GPUs that give me hours of play time, or even better a new-gen SSD thats so fast it saturates SATA2. That's the stuff that arouses me.

But that's just my uncopyrighted and unbiased opinion.

I7 uses less transistors, just thought id point that out

 

[dmens]

Originally posted by: JAG87
Pffft.

This architecture smells like Prescott all over again. Nehalem is to Penryn exactly what Prescott was to Northwood. More transistors, hyper threading, different cache architecture, ends up slower in games.

Nehalem steals all the good things from Penryn (just like Prescott did to Northwood), adds useless shit like HT to gives people the bogus idea that it's actually faster when it's not. History repeats itself.

It also seems to take a lot more voltage then penryn/yorkfield to achieve the same clocks, it seems to produce more heat, and returns with 30-40% improvement in multi threadead applications thanks to it's fake 8 threads. Total fail imho.

And all of this comes at the cost of replacing sockets, motherboards, and buying retartedly expensive DDR3. This is no where near at the top of my shopping list. I would much rather give my money to nvidia for two brand new GPUs that give me hours of play time, or even better a new-gen SSD thats so fast it saturates SATA2. That's the stuff that arouses me.

But that's just my uncopyrighted and unbiased opinion.

games: http://www.guru3d.com/article/...me-performance-review/

lulz because you think HT is "useless" because it does not yield gains for every single app. also lulz because you have no idea what the difference is between nehalem and penryn, or prescott and northwood for that matter.

 

[sunnn]

okay check this out, this is based from anand's review:
based on 5 games tested, phenom 9950be is roughly 20pct off compared to q9450 (hardly a news i supposed) and some ~28% off nehalem. so if deneb can come up with 20pct improvement......
now comes the interesting part, at ~2.6Ghz, nehalem is faster by 7.3% but the improvement diminishes as the clock goes higher - only 6.2% @3.2Ghz. so its not hard to imagine that at some point, a well oclock penryn can match nehalem clock for clock. which can also be said for deneb, assuming it oclocks well.
i hope i make sense

age of conan:
920 108.2 26.7% 10.9%
9450 97.6 14.3%
9950be 85.4

race driver grid:
920 93.1 12.8% -2.9%
9450 95.9 16.2%
9950be 82.5

crysis:
920 33.2 35% -2.4%
9450 34.0 38.2%
9950 24.6

far cy2:
920 109.2 50.4% 15.5%
9450 94.5 30.2%
9950be 72.6

fall out3:
920 78.6 16.6% 15.4%
9450 68.1 1%
9950be 67.4

ave 19.5% 28.3 7.3%


age of conan:
940 119.3 18.2% 965 123 14%
9650 100.9 9770 107.9

race driver grid:
940 98.7 0% 965 102.9 -.1%
9650 98.7 9770 103

crysis:
940 37.3 -.8% 965 40.5 -2.9%
9650 37.6 9770 41.7

far cy2:
940 111.3 13% 965 115.1 12.2%
9650 98.5 9770 102.6

fall out3:
940 80.7 5.4% 965 83.2 7.8%
9650 76.6 9770 77.2

ave 6.7% 6.2%

edit: ok i have a hard time aligning these figures, i hope you get the idea.

 

[JACKDRUID]

Originally posted by: JAG87
Pffft.

This architecture smells like Prescott all over again. Nehalem is to Penryn exactly what Prescott was to Northwood. More transistors, hyper threading, different cache architecture, ends up slower in games.

Nehalem steals all the good things from Penryn (just like Prescott did to Northwood), adds useless shit like HT to gives people the bogus idea that it's actually faster when it's not. History repeats itself.

It also seems to take a lot more voltage then penryn/yorkfield to achieve the same clocks, it seems to produce more heat, and returns with 30-40% improvement in multi threadead applications thanks to it's fake 8 threads. Total fail imho.

And all of this comes at the cost of replacing sockets, motherboards, and buying retartedly expensive DDR3. This is no where near at the top of my shopping list. I would much rather give my money to nvidia for two brand new GPUs that give me hours of play time, or even better a new-gen SSD thats so fast it saturates SATA2. That's the stuff that arouses me.

But that's just my uncopyrighted and unbiased opinion.

only this time there is no competitive chip from AMD for force price down... ppl are goiing to be force to pay premium for extreme editiions...

 

[dmens]

Originally posted by: sunnn
okay check this out, this is based from anand's review:
based on 5 games tested, phenom 9950be is roughly 20pct off compared to q9450 (hardly a news i supposed) and some ~28% off nehalem. so if deneb can come up with 20pct improvement......
now comes the interesting part, at ~2.6Ghz, nehalem is faster by 7.3% but the improvement diminishes as the clock goes higher. so its not hard to imagine that at some point, an well oclock penryn can match nehalem clock for clock. which can also be said for deneb, assuming it oclocks well.
i hope i make sense

maybe you ought to stop creating averages by mish-mashing CPU and GPU benchmarks (far cry and crysis are GPU benchmarks at high resolution, pure and simple).

 

[JAG87]

Originally posted by: dmens

Originally posted by: JAG87
Pffft.

This architecture smells like Prescott all over again. Nehalem is to Penryn exactly what Prescott was to Northwood. More transistors, hyper threading, different cache architecture, ends up slower in games.

Nehalem steals all the good things from Penryn (just like Prescott did to Northwood), adds useless shit like HT to gives people the bogus idea that it's actually faster when it's not. History repeats itself.

It also seems to take a lot more voltage then penryn/yorkfield to achieve the same clocks, it seems to produce more heat, and returns with 30-40% improvement in multi threadead applications thanks to it's fake 8 threads. Total fail imho.

And all of this comes at the cost of replacing sockets, motherboards, and buying retartedly expensive DDR3. This is no where near at the top of my shopping list. I would much rather give my money to nvidia for two brand new GPUs that give me hours of play time, or even better a new-gen SSD thats so fast it saturates SATA2. That's the stuff that arouses me.

But that's just my uncopyrighted and unbiased opinion.

games: http://www.guru3d.com/article/...me-performance-review/

lulz because you think HT is "useless" because it does not yield gains for every single app. also lulz because you have no idea what the difference is between nehalem and penryn, or prescott and northwood for that matter.

first of all lulz at you, I read that review at 8.30 this morning, and it doesn't impress me.

First of all I'm not demented to get three graphics cards just to feel better about blowing all that cash on X58 and DDR3.

Second of all, where do they get off comparing a 3.0 ghz dual to a 3.2 ghz 8-logical core processor? And where does that nerd Hilbert get off comparing a 3-way SLI bandwith hungry setup using an X58 pci-e 2.0 board against a pci-e 1.1 680i?

Seriously, if you are going to make a proper comparison, at least don't handicap the previous gen. A fair comparison would have been QX9770 + 790i + the same RAM they used on the X58. I guarantee you would not see those 3-way SLI discrepancies.

And I know what the diff is between those architectures, I know it was not a perfect comparison since there are a lot more differences between Nehalem and Penryn then there are between Northwood and Prescott (merely a shrink). But that architecture step-up is what this reminds me of. Northwood, awesome overclocker, runs cool, everyone loves it (supposing AMD didnt exist), and then Prescott... Its exactly the same feeling.

PS.
Anubis, thx for pointing that out, I didn't even look at the transistor count, i just blurred it out.