Core i7 Reviews

[sunnn]

Originally posted by: 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).

fc2 and crysis were tested at 1024x768 so?

 

[dmens]

Originally posted by: JAG87
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.

the review is about the numbers, not your bank account or your mental state.

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.

those aren't discrepancies. he is comparing CPU's by maxing out the graphics systems. those 3-way SLI numbers up to 1600x1200 are not glitches at all, that is the nehalem being faster than the c2d. using a quad c2d wouldn't have made a difference since those games cannot use of the other cores. using a dual instead of a quad is better for games with a c2d.

in regards to the c2d frequency, if he used a 3.2ghz c2d it would've been the same result. i can guarantee that.

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..

no you have no idea what the differences are. the design approaches for prescott and nehalem are night and day. and where'd you get the idea nehalem doesn't run cool and overclocks well? did you even read the reviews at all?

 

[Keysplayr]

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 - 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.

Excuse me, but this is a Core i7 thread. You're the only one mentioning Deneb, and have done so three times up to this quote of yours. If you wish to talk Deneb, start your own thread, but keep it out of here.

 

[JackyP]

Originally posted by: sunnn

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

No, you don't. I don't believe Nehalem has worse clock scaling than the other architectures, I think I've even seen tests showing the opposite.
That small difference can be explained by a. variability (there's a lot with nehalem, HT and turbo is quite dynamic and the boost may be different depending on temperature, model or other random variables - and it's a new platform after all) b. margin of error c. are you sure you're not comparing a nehalem to a 333 and 400mhz fsb penryn? (I'm too lazy to look up if you did).
Even if nehalem really loses 1% (!) clock for clock performance for a 600mhz change in clock it wouldn't necessarily lose another percent for the next 600mhz, and going by that number the penryn would need to clock very, very well, about 6800mhz to match nehalem.

You cannot base any meaningful extrapolation on such a small difference.

 

[thilanliyan]

I could swallow the cost of the CPU for around $350 but $350+ for a motherboard? Screw that. Too bad this version will be limited to LGA1366.

 

[Keysplayr]

Mobo prices have really gotten out of hand the past few years. And the cost of this 1366 platform is just out there. Salt in the wound.

 

[JPB]

Here are more reviews


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

Madshrimps

Xbit

 

[aigomorla]

JAG your a buddy of mine.

So i'll tell you this nicely and straight up.

Yorkfield lost, and it lost bad.

Without getting into full specifics, the overclocking % on i7, is about the same as an E0 yorkfield. DrWho says its the special high K gates.

Anyhow, JAG a lot of boards will also support dual platforms, so you can sli on a X58 board.

300 dollars on the ASUS P6T-Deluxe Palm eddition is not bad. Considering your 790i costed that much.

You will need new ram, because your DDR3 is probably raited for 1.7-1.8V

So in short, no, if you can get your i7 to 4ghz, then nothing on this planet will catch up to you unless its another i7.

Well, pray you dont get paired up against hera.

 

[exar333]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Mobo prices have really gotten out of hand the past few years. And the cost of this 1366 platform is just out there. Salt in the wound.

$300.00 for lga1366 buys you great hardware plus CF/SLI. Not too bad to me. That's less than many 790i boards right now...

 

[Tempered81]

Originally posted by: JAG87


first of all lulz at you... 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.

AT did this in their review, and the 790i is faster or equal to the x58 in SLi. It was only 2-way sli though. I'm still waiting to see that comparison done on 3-way sli, even though I'll never afford that.... heheh

 

[Acanthus]

$300 motherboard (X)
$284 processor
$320 memory (Rambus #2 anyone? 4x the price of DDR2 with no performance benefit)

All for a -2% to 15% increase?

Intel has launched Prescott 2.0 in my eyes.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: ExarKun333

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Mobo prices have really gotten out of hand the past few years. And the cost of this 1366 platform is just out there. Salt in the wound.

$300.00 for lga1366 buys you great hardware plus CF/SLI. Not too bad to me. That's less than many 790i boards right now...

But you don't need a 790i to run a QX9xxx extreme edition. You could buy a much cheaper full featured board. With the 1366 plat. you need to spend that cash to get a board that runs it, no?
Otherwise, we are stuck with the lesser pin model. 11xx pins, and without on die memory controller?

Dmens, Aigo, in the event I am talking out of my nether region, set me straight here.

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: jaredpace

Originally posted by: JAG87


first of all lulz at you... 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.

AT did this in their review, and the 790i is faster or equal to the x58 in SLi. It was only 2-way sli though. I'm still waiting to see that comparison done on 3-way sli, even though I'll never afford that.... heheh

didnt want to also say this, but the X58 needs 3 ram for tri channel.

The board was designed for tri channel, and having 3 sticks in a dual channel board is a serious no no.

So you cant do a equal comparison.

 

[BTRY B 529th FA BN]

Even AT is calling the new Nehalem a "Native" quad core: "Nehalem is Intel's first "native" quad-core design, meaning that all four cores are a part of one large, monolithic die"

i remember a while ago an argument on this subject

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: ExarKun333

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Mobo prices have really gotten out of hand the past few years. And the cost of this 1366 platform is just out there. Salt in the wound.

$300.00 for lga1366 buys you great hardware plus CF/SLI. Not too bad to me. That's less than many 790i boards right now...

But you don't need a 790i to run a QX9xxx extreme edition. You could buy a much cheaper full featured board. With the 1366 plat. you need to spend that cash to get a board that runs it, no?
Otherwise, we are stuck with the lesser pin model. 11xx pins, and without on die memory controller?

Dmens, Aigo, in the event I am talking out of my nether region, set me straight here.

I thought that the 11xx socket was simply dual channel, but with on-die memory controller.

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: Acanthus
$300 motherboard (X)
$284 processor
$320 memory (Rambus #2 anyone? 4x the price of DDR2 with no performance benefit)

All for a -2% to 15% increase?

Intel has launched Prescott 2.0 in my eyes.

From what I read, its 12% to 40% depending on the app. If you need the power, its worth it. If you don't then stay with C2Q for now. And the budget i7 boards and chips are coming later, and the price of DDR3 has come down a lot, and will contimue to come down, now that we have a chip that requires it.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: Markfw900

Originally posted by: Acanthus
$300 motherboard (X)
$284 processor
$320 memory (Rambus #2 anyone? 4x the price of DDR2 with no performance benefit)

All for a -2% to 15% increase?

Intel has launched Prescott 2.0 in my eyes.

From what I read, its 12% to 40% depending on the app. If you need the power, its worth it. If you don't then stay with C2Q for now. And the budget i7 boards and chips are coming later, and the price of DDR3 has come down a lot, and will contimue to come down, now that we have a chip that requires it.

I should have specified i was limiting the number to applications i use.

Synthetics and obscure programs arent included in my arsenal of things i throw at my computer daily.

I do however use Nero Recode which was the only thing the platform showed a "noticable" gain for me. Otherwise id have to spend hundreds on what looks to me would be a cosmetic upgrade.

It's actually good news for me as I can just upgrade graphics cards this cycle and be happy.

 

[Markfw]

They did say encoding was one of the biggies, getting 40% increase in performance. I think rendering was the other ?

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: Markfw900
They did say encoding was one of the biggies, getting 40% increase in performance. I think rendering was the other ?

I didnt see 40% on ATs reviews for encoding.

I dont do rendering, but thats a :thumbsup: for people that do.

For what i use it for, the gains are too small to justify the price. (hell, most people dont encode either beyond ripping CDs in itunes)

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: Markfw900
They did say encoding was one of the biggies, getting 40% increase in performance. I think rendering was the other ?

I didnt see 40% on ATs reviews for encoding.

I dont do rendering, but thats a :thumbsup: for people that do.

For what i use it for, the gains are too small to justify the price. (hell, most people dont encode either beyond ripping CDs in itunes)

From the article in the conclusions:

Where Nehalem really succeeds however is in anything involving video encoding or 3D rendering, the performance gains there are easily in the 20 - 40% range.

3D rendering ? like maybe render farms ? Can you say new farm anyone ?

 

[phexac]

I agree with mark. For casual users and gamers, the new chip has very little to order. If you building a new computer, yes you will likely use Nehalem. But if you have a Q6600 or E8400 (like I do) or even some weaker processors, there simply no reason to upgrade. Of course for people who do 3d rendering or video encoding all the time, this chips is awesome, but those people are in a minority even on a techy forum such as this one.

In regular applications that we use, and for 1920x1200+ high IQ gaming, the new chip has very little to offer, especially when you consider the cost involved in upgrading.

 

[Idontcare]

In conclusion: meh.

 

[JAG87]

Originally posted by: dmens

Originally posted by: JAG87
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.

the review is about the numbers, not your bank account or your mental state.

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.

those aren't discrepancies. he is comparing CPU's by maxing out the graphics systems. those 3-way SLI numbers up to 1600x1200 are not glitches at all, that is the nehalem being faster than the c2d. using a quad c2d wouldn't have made a difference since those games cannot use of the other cores. using a dual instead of a quad is better for games with a c2d.

in regards to the c2d frequency, if he used a 3.2ghz c2d it would've been the same result. i can guarantee that.

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..

no you have no idea what the differences are. the design approaches for prescott and nehalem are night and day. and where'd you get the idea nehalem doesn't run cool and overclocks well? did you even read the reviews at all?

k, this is the last time im quoting you, cause its a waste of time.

he is comparing a DUAL core 3.0 ghz cpu with 2GB of DUAL channel DDR2-1066, on an nvidia 680i platform with pci-e 1.1

against

an OCTO logical cores 3.2 ghz cpu with 3GB of TRIPLE channel DDR3-2000 on an X58 platform with pci 2.0


and to make things even more unfair, he is running Vista (which penalizes the 2GB C2D platform even more). If you are still not convinced how piss poor that article is, you are just a stubborn intel fanboy.


don't tell me I have no idea what the difference is between northwood>prescott and penryn>nehalem. I bet you didn't even own half of these cpus, I owned every single one of them (minus nehalem). Just in the Core 2 generation I went through Conroe, Kentsfield and Yorkfield, to give you an example. My statement was not literal, it's obvious that the nehalem architecture is nothing like prescott, what I said is that it reminds me of prescott, because compared to its previous gen (in that case northwood, in this case wolf/york) it brings nothing to the table. from what I see, it has higher voltage requirements to reach the same clocks, it runs quite a bit hotter (because of the extra voltage), and the performance improvement even in multithreaded apps is typical of hyper threading. 30-40% as opposed to linear 100% scaling.

Originally posted by: aigomorla
JAG your a buddy of mine.

So i'll tell you this nicely and straight up.

Yorkfield lost, and it lost bad.

Without getting into full specifics, the overclocking % on i7, is about the same as an E0 yorkfield. DrWho says its the special high K gates.

Anyhow, JAG a lot of boards will also support dual platforms, so you can sli on a X58 board.

300 dollars on the ASUS P6T-Deluxe Palm eddition is not bad. Considering your 790i costed that much.

You will need new ram, because your DDR3 is probably raited for 1.7-1.8V

So in short, no, if you can get your i7 to 4ghz, then nothing on this planet will catch up to you unless its another i7.

Well, pray you dont get paired up against hera.

No Aigo. I disagree.

Yorkfield is king, and will stay like that for a while. At least until i7 prices level out.

i7 doesn't overclock nearly as well as E0 (heck it doesn't even overclock as well as my C0 QX9650). Show me a 4 ghz i7 with less then 1.3v like most E8600 and Q9650s are achieving. Wont happen.

Considering my 790i costed that much? I don't even have that board bro. I wasn't gonna pay a kidney for DDR3 to see zero improvement.

I will need new ram? No sorry once again, I am not an early adopting idiot. You know me and you know I have the balls to early adopt, but only when you show me performance that makes my eyes dry cause I cant blink.

Originally posted by: jaredpace

Originally posted by: JAG87


first of all lulz at you... 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.

AT did this in their review, and the 790i is faster or equal to the x58 in SLi. It was only 2-way sli though. I'm still waiting to see that comparison done on 3-way sli, even though I'll never afford that.... heheh

Exactly, thank you. And that's pretty much all we should be concerned about. 3-way SLI doesn't scale well enough to be considered a viable solution for more graphics power, just like 4870X2 CrossfireX. It just doesn't work with enough titles, its just for benchmarking.

Originally posted by: Acanthus
$300 motherboard (X)
$284 processor
$320 memory (Rambus #2 anyone? 4x the price of DDR2 with no performance benefit)

All for a -2% to 15% increase?

Intel has launched Prescott 2.0 in my eyes.

I have never agreed with you more than right now. I totally concur.

Originally posted by: Markfw900
From what I read, its 12% to 40% depending on the app. If you need the power, its worth it. If you don't then stay with C2Q for now. And the budget i7 boards and chips are coming later, and the price of DDR3 has come down a lot, and will contimue to come down, now that we have a chip that requires it.

No Mark, that is Fail with a capital F. If the damn architecture can barely beat Core 2 the way it is now, you think that the budget i7s are going to be anymore appetizing? With Core 2 being so cheap and easy to overclock, P35/P45 boards being so cheap, and DDR2 being ultra cheap, which makes more sense?

 

[Markfw]

If the damn architecture can barely beat Core 2 the way it is now,

And how is 12-40% BARELY beating core2 ?

 

[JAG87]

Originally posted by: Markfw900

If the damn architecture can barely beat Core 2 the way it is now,

And how is 12-40% BARELY beating core2 ?

I dont think the user who is looking at the budget platform will be using it to do video encoding or 3d rendering, which are the apps where that 40% shows. Those users are savvy enough to know they need to buy a Bloomfield platform to see gains.

The user looking at the budget platform will most likely be using it for internet/email/music/gaming. The typical household pc. So how is nehalem more appealing? Oh ya I forgot, the big words like EIGHT threads and TRIPPPPPLE channel DDR3-2000. Fantastic!