PCOnline - Intel Core i7 870 Tested
Translated
Printable View
Thanks onethreehill :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by onethreehill
No deeplinking allowed, apparently - pics aren't working.
There were really many graphs with exact same figure curve as FarCry 2 graph, prolly like 10 so at least results were quite consistent. :p:
Power consumption was a nice suprise tho, 34W less load for 870 and 750 53W less than 920, so ~27% lower at same clock.
Doesn't seem to do any wonders for overclocking though, if I understood it right this with this poor automatic translation this sample needed like 1.42v for 4GHz and other ES results have shown similiar figures 1.4 - 1.42v or so, ie. pretty much same as Bloomfield.
Not quite correct to compare 920 with 870, if 870's gonna cost twice more tbh...
This is pretty good, yep. Not really a surprise for me, though. Maybe we'll see some decent DTR notebooks with Lynnfields.Quote:
Originally Posted by RPGWiZaRD
Well, I guess those are early sampes / batches, if you check the early i7 920 and 965 reviews, they barely ever make it past 4 Ghz there.Quote:
Originally Posted by RPGWiZaRD
On the other hand, somehow I'm not expecting much from Lynnfield OCing. I may be wrong ofc, just cannot see any possible breakthrough.
My favourite graph:
http://xs142.xs.to/xs142/09321/b560.jpg
The measly sub 200$ Core i5 750 "clubbing" the 920 in GTA4. Granted it's just this one benchmark but at the price it's going for I think it nicely demonstrates how common users might benefit from expanded turbo mode over SMT.
The 870 generally left the 920 in a cloud of dust except in synthetic memory benchmarks (well duh!). Too bad that it comes with capped multis. Imagine the implications of Intel releasing an unlocked CPU at ~500$ (it will cost near 500$ within months eventhough it may launch @ ~560$, or at least it will in euros:p:). Eventhough it's basically still robbery people would be all over it. I know I would.
Very interesting graph indeed.
wow as far as i can tell it need 2.9Ghz to compete against a i7 920 2.66Ghz successfully.... If you look at the Core i5 750 2.66Ghz its near to 9550's performance than i7 920's.
AMD can compete against the 750 with either 945/955 quite successfully but the i7 920/870 would be kings of synthetic benches for the time being. Even the 965 maybe a closer match for the i7 920 than the i7 870.
PS:- When is the i7 920 suppose to go EOL, as the i7 870 has almost arrived??
Nice find. Can't wait for some i7 860 review leaks.:D
That GTA4 graph shows that the video card has become the bottleneck of the system for the Core iX. I bet that even if they oc the 920 to the 870 frequency that the 920 would also get 64.3fps.
there's something odd about the 920 versus 750 scores as the memory frequency was exactly the same. I presume the 3D performance went up because of the integrated PCI-e controller?
The 870 will not replace the 920. They are two completely different products. The 920 is an i7 socket 1366 aimed at enthusiast while the 870 will be an i5 mainstream product for socket 1156.Quote:
Originally Posted by ajaidev
My guess is turbo on the 750 goes up higher then 920.Quote:
Originally Posted by massman
Well, here are all of their tests. I edited the graphs a bit for an easier look.
http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/k..._i7_870/01.jpg
http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/k..._i7_870/10.jpg
Conventional Software
http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/k..._i7_870/27.jpg
Phenom II 955 3.2G: 10089
11064
http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/k..._i7_870/18.jpg
Phenom II 955 3.2G: 8934
6740
10781
http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/k..._i7_870/19.jpg
Phenom II 955 3.2G: 10497
2916
http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/k..._i7_870/15.jpg
Phenom II 955 3.2G: 21.608
(lower is better)
http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/k..._i7_870/16.jpg
Phenom II 955 3.2G: 7875
http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/k..._i7_870/17.jpg
Phenom II 955 3.2G: 2421
http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/k..._i7_870/20.jpg
Phenom II 955 3.2G: 69
(lower is better)
Games
http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/k..._i7_870/21.jpg
Phenom II 955 3.2G: 77.8
http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/k..._i7_870/22.jpg
Phenom II 955 3.2G: 53
http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/k..._i7_870/28.jpg
Phenom II 955 3.2G: 60
http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/k..._i7_870/29.jpg
Phenom II 955 3.2G: 63.5
Power Consumption
http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/k..._i7_870/24.jpg
Phenom II 955 3.2G: 138
224
(lower is better)
Summary: Core i7-870 beat Core i7-920 in every test, except the Memory Benchmark ones while consumed less power than Core 2 Quad Q9550.
The power consumption graph is interesting. Even though the 870 is clocked higher it still consumed less power then the 920.
no, i bet it is because Turbo mode was ON, 750 has much higher Turbo mode clocks then 920 ...Quote:
Originally Posted by massman
Higher Turbo Boost and no HT: perfect for games.Quote:
Originally Posted by massman
Ahhh the 955 @ 3.2Ghz eats less power than a i7 920 @ 2.66Ghz... i7 920 is different arc than the i7 870... also there were rumors that the i7 920 is going EOL after 870's arrival!!Quote:
Originally Posted by qurious63ss
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/a...4837/18914.png
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/a...4837/18913.png
Also does the higher stock speed and higher turbo mean bad for OCing??
Thanks :)Quote:
Originally Posted by OBR
hmmmm 750 is interesting
I've been hearing the i7 920 EOL for long now, but recently updated roadmaps shows it won't happen this year up to H2 next year. And if there'll be a S1156 i7 to cause EOL on i7 920 then it would be i7 860, because it is clocked higher than 920 and at the same price-level.Quote:
also there were rumors that the i7 920 is going EOL after 870's arrival!!
plus since when its it even worth discussing performance difference when the difference is smaller then +/-1fps, its within the margin of error. :p:
According to your graphs 955 consumes more then Q9550 which consumes more then i7-870...Quote:
Originally Posted by ajaidev
Also 955 barely faster (if at all..) then Q9550 which pats 955 in a weak position against the i5-750.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...px?i=3551&p=14
Actually, in an other review, they also tested the Phenom II X4 955 (along with i5-750, i7-920 and Q9550) with exactly the same setup.
I will add the Phenom II results. :)
lol, you guys miss the point...
the 1156 cpus dont consume less power, the platform does.
1366 has an IOH, x58, while 1156 doesnt.
x58 is at least 25W, at least...
so yeah power consumption for 1156 systems will be lower, cpu power consumption eventually as well, but the latter will be minimal.
and overall looking at those graph, the advantage of 1156 over 1366 is a 50-75$ cheaper entry level cpu and 75$ cheaper boards with less features and slighlty less performance. 150$ at most... was it worth to wait for 1156 for 1 year? not really... everybody who gets an 1156 system soon and likes it, well, welcome to yesterday, you could have had this 1 year ago already :P
comparing those 1156 numbers with 775, i really dont see a reason to upgrade for normal end users and even frequent gamers...
what for? to go from 60fps to 70fps? and for that you need a new board and new cpu and hew heatsink and possibly new memory... nah, not worth it...
i think 775 will live on for a long time if intel doesnt kill it off actively, cause price perf wise its faring very very well.
In average of all tests with Everest memtest excluded 860 (which is ~10.2% higher clocked than 920) was like 6.7% faster than 920, that would mean Lynnfield at around 2.74GHz equals to Bloomfield at 2.66GHz in these tests theoretically but knowing how especially the games benchmark are heavily GPU performance bottlenecked so the difference gets ofc lower here, it means Lynnfield & P55 is pretty much as fast as Bloomfield & X58 clock for clock.
EDIT: Forgot about the higher turbo clocks for Lynnfield, would be nice to know whatever turbo was used and how it worked for the apps in question, turbo should definitely be turned off on both bloomfield and lynnfield so we can see how they compare like clock for clock.
about consuption - exactly, platform consume less not CPU
Core i7 800/Core i5 700 is not today upgrade fo Core 2 Q users, but great platform for good money for new customers ... Core i5 750 cost here 195 dolars its like Q8200, if i will decide between P55+Ci5 750 and P45+Q8200 for the same money, i will take P55+Ci5 750 ...
Some will still be happy that S1156 is aimed at experiencing i7 other than using the much expensive S1366. It won't be a bad rip-off when the price is significantly lower than the other way around;). Intel needs S1156 more than the consumers.Quote:
Originally Posted by saaya
*BTW, the BI part, sooo sig'ed.:D
Thanks Vozer ;)
:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by saaya
99% of people who purchase a new computer aren't "enthusiasts" ..! The LGA1156 (p55/57) will be faster than the X58 for alot less, because thats what it's designed to do.
Only 1% of us can tweak a BIOS and unlock the true nature of the X58.
As it stands, dollar for dollar... the LGA1156 is a knockout platform.. thats real easy to get into for the majority of the people moving to Windows7.
Not everything is Xtreme.... don't over-shoot the topic.
i5 beats old 2 Quads like it's nothing.
yeah, totally agree... but you can actually get a c2d platform for less thatll do really well for a gaming and normal desktop pc right now and for the next 2 years and probably more.Quote:
Originally Posted by OBR
hows 1366 so expensive? 95% of the people who went 1366 are probably on a 920, which is 250$... and there are good 1366 boards out there for less than 200$, some will probably even drop to 150$ or lower when 1156 comes out.Quote:
Originally Posted by labs23
yeah intel needs 1156, not the consumers, totally agree...
there are two ways for intel to push 1156, low pricing or killing off 775 alternatives, unfortunately i have a feeling itll be more of the latter :/
what does being an enthusiast have to do with this? even at stock speed 1156 isnt notably faster than 1366 or 775...Quote:
Originally Posted by Xoulz
and no, thats not what 1156 is designed for, lol, its not designed to be fast, its designed to be cheap!
what are you talking about? theres nothing magic or secret to unlock...Quote:
Originally Posted by Xoulz
knockout platform? why would people upgrade for windows7? lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Xoulz
Welcome to yesterday to put it in your own words. There's never much of a point to update from one generation to another if you want cost-effective performance. It's called "iteration" and "evolution" for a reason. I don't think even the (r)evolutionary conroe release was any different, was there really a sudden need to upgrade from a solid K8 platform? Hardly.Quote:
Originally Posted by saaya
TurboMode magic... that's why pointing out frequency of any of those CPUs is pointless... remember playing with 920 when it came out... it has basically always run over nominal 2.66 GHz, regardless of the core loadQuote:
Originally Posted by clayton
Couldn't agree more. It would cost me well over $1000 to go i7 and other than media encoding, I wouldn't gain much. The fact that there is still no USB3 and SATA III support makes it even more pointless. The only reason I could justify the upgrade for myself is if I was using a quad gpu system as the gains are substantial.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacky
I still don't see how these graphs show such a major improvement over 775 quads honestly.
Besides synthetic benchmarks, I don't see a need for 1366. For the first time since I got into building PCs (1997 in junior high) that "next gen" for nearly any program ( I don't do Photoshop or any "professional" work).
That said, i5 looks like a cool platform and should donwell for general users who go on myspace and eBay, lol.
On a serious note, this will be a good cheap platformfor gamers on a budget.
Hopefully they ll have a review with turbo off, and all cpu's at 2.93.. clock for clock so we can gauge it a bit better, because lets be honest, who here is going to run anything at 2.66ghz ? ^^
Nice to know the power consumption is less than the C2Q, not that i will be upgrading to i5 or i7 anytime soon. Going C2D back then was the way to go, with an 8800GT or better K8 became a bottleneck.
Great news!!! :)
These results are suspiciously consistent. The conclusion is pretty obvious, too obvious.
comparing cpu at 2.93 and 2.66ghz and claiming one is better than the other doesn't work in my book
i7 870 (2.93 GHz) should be compared to i7 950 (3.06 GHz)Quote:
Originally Posted by mk-ultra
I'd much rather see a Lynnfield vs Bloomfield clock for clock (2.66 or 2.93GHz or 4.0GHz, clock doesn't matter as long as running at same bclock & CPU multi) and Turbo off. But what it looks like Lynnfield + P55 vs Bloomfield + X58 are pretty much identical clock for clock (with various mobos difference is still prolly within 3%).
For non-overclockers I'd agree i7 870 vs i7 950 review would make more sense cuz price isn't that much different.
thats not true, i upgraded from a cheap athlonxp system to a cheap 754 system and the performance boost was quite noticeable... and going from 939 to c2d was quite a boost as well...Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacky
going from p3 to athlon or p4 was a big boost
going from athlon to athlonxp was a minor boost
going from athlon xp to k8 was a big boost
going from k8 to k10 was a minor boost
going from k10 to k10.5 was a minor boost
going from core2 to corei7 was a minor boost
lately the perf boosts by new cpus are smaller and smaller... cause they push for more and more cores which dont help in most scenarios, and most software is now written for mainstream, to run on as many systems as possible, even 5 year old ones... i guess those are the reasons...
there was a notable performance boost in my experience...Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacky
but yes, its not like you ever needed the latest gen cpu to really do something you couldnt do before...
yeah but what will sata3 and usb3 be good for i ask you... running several ssds in raid maybe, but who does that? and will it really make a notable diference?Quote:
Originally Posted by Chickenfeed
and usb3... faster external hdds, but do we really need that?
Single core K8 to dual core K8 was an enormous boost.
Quote:
Originally Posted by saaya
Is it? Mine runs at 1,9-2,0GHz most of the time when i work the usual stuff on desktop. When i hit it with encoding or games, it goes to 3,4GHz...Quote:
Originally Posted by Nedjo
Worrying about USB 3.0 and SATA3 is just pointless. There will be little or no USB 3.0 devices in the upcoming 3 or more years. Companies will try to push but just look how long it took for USB 2.0 standard to become widely used.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chickenfeed
SATA 3.0 is also not going anywhere unless they'll show us SSD drives for 200 bucks that can do 500MB/s in both ways. For HDD's and casual SSD's, not even SATA2 is fully used.
Can someone clear this up for me maybe, the 870 is faster and more $$ than the 920 but why is it numbered lower?
^ You mean the i7 870 numbering? Maybe its because of the fact that while its i7, its for S1156 which is lower than S1366. I mean don't put the i7s for S1156 together with i7s that are currently for S1366 on the naming. Intel confused you.:D
People still comparing 3ghz cpu?
who runs a 3ghz cpu here?
4ghz+ and anything else is for the sister forum averagejoe.com
we get a dimishing return on cpu upgrade, that isnt new.
and p5 is kinda 2008.
This is absolutely stupid. I am not going to be one bit surprised to see i7 get chopped. Q9550 and Q9650 which can perform almost as good as their high end i7's it just seems like they are fighting against themselves not to mention pricing. Now adding a 3rd socket into the mix.Quote:
Originally Posted by labs23
Who's the brains behind this one? Hey I got an idea! lets create a line of overpriced niche cpu's that perform about as well as our highend affordable ones! But just wait it gets better! Now lets add a 3rd socket which is between the two already and make that one perform as good if not better than the high end overpriced niche ones too!
Anyone ever see Robin Williams how golf got created standup? This comes to mind.
Who cares if 870 beats 920 when both are running in default speed?
They should overclock both CPU's to max and then compare, and overclock both CPU's to the same speed and compare clock for clock.
That third socket = reduction in power usage, and overall platform efficiency increases... which for any threaded applications beat out the core2 by a decent margin, only in gaming are things close, and that is either a gpu bottleneck or lack of threaded coding that keeps things close. :/ They are not really niche items, they are a methodical tick tock progression..Quote:
Originally Posted by Glow9
So doesn't that make the highend well not so high end? Why dish out $600 for an i7? Too much Inventory = bad. Seems odd to me I guess why they just didn't change architecture instead of put out new socket. Seems like a step backwards? I guess I'm overall just really confused by their strategy here.Quote:
Originally Posted by villa1n
moar :banana::banana::banana::banana::banana:ing and moaning pls... can't get enough every time socket switches (don't matters which manufacturor)... :rolleyes:
920 is faster for C2C.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackbird_CaD_
I still wonder why Intel wanted to name 870 to i7 series.
Quote:
Originally Posted by saaya
LOL... define "boost" :rolleyes:
saaya, you always seem to be jaded and argue from a max/max point of view, instead of the more logical and generalized min/max aspect.
Bro.... it's gets old. If we are talking strictly about PERFORMANCE, then yes. But we are not. We are looking at the whole package and there is nothing shameful or wrong with the P55/57 platform. Dollar for Dollar, it out performs the X58.
But again, thats all before you touch the bios.... (again) which 99% of the people have no idea what that is.
I just don't understand your arguments against the LGA1156. Look at some of the benches... the i7 850 performs!
And yes, it's cheaper... so what?
The i7 is still highend, and for absolute performance it still reigns king. When has price and performance ever scaled linearly?..ever? lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by Glow9
i think his point was... the same setup was available last year for like $150 more. not that there is something wrong with p55/i5.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xoulz
So anyone who doesn't have a watercooled i7 920 should leave, lol whut?Quote:
Originally Posted by flopper
Don't need to watercool i7 to get to 4 Ghz.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kingcarcas
+1 :)Quote:
Originally Posted by zalbard
I got my hands on one of these today:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2522/...e159c6571f.jpg
Not a bad little CPU, but the mounting holes are a pain, almost half way between 775 and 1366 holes so the only cooler I could get to fit was an OEM 5-pipe core contact HPC. I should be able to get a bracket from XSPC for their Delta V3 block fairly quickly. The HPC cooler did a decent job, keeping it to 52C (32 idle) while running Prime95, i7 920 on the same cooler runs at 65-70C on P6T-SE so it is either underutilised by not having HT or it is a more efficient architecture. The board is on a pre-release BIOS (version 9999!) and there are none posted on ASUS site yet (anyone got a different BIOS?). I couldn't get it to OC yet and I had stability problems at stock settings. I'll be shooting for 3.6GHz to compare it to Ph2, C2Q & i7. Results to follow NDA dependent.
The voltage section of the BIOS is laid out like the CrosshairIII with voltage readings under each voltage setting and the rest of it looks very similar to the P6T series and OC Profile has been revamped to be like the MxA series and CrosshairIII with a number of slots for different profiles. I like this board already!
^
Which SKU is that? Only the i5 750 lacks HT. The drop in temps could also result from the lack of QPI and dual vs triple channel IMC.
True, it's an i5 750Quote:
Originally Posted by sholvaco
It's the first one. Thats the main purpose of HT, to increase the utilisation of the execution untis. Disable HT and see how temps drop, usually around 10°C.Quote:
Originally Posted by initialised
i5 750 price is closer to Q9400 ($183)Quote:
Originally Posted by OBR
http://files.shareholder.com/downloa..._1ku_Price.pdf
there is still qpi actually :DQuote:
Originally Posted by sholvaco
its connecting the pciE block with the uncore block... weird huh? :D
I got the clock up to 3.6GHz without much hassle and only gained ~9C on the hottest core (peaked at 61C). With that I'm thinking this could be the ideal CPU for a powerful media centre or modest quad core gaming rig.
Intra-core QPI? Why? :(Quote:
Originally Posted by saaya
air? and is 4ghz possible? *easily*Quote:
Originally Posted by initialised
Should be, will give it a go.Quote:
Originally Posted by geo
This is a test of lynnfield with anno 1404 :) enjoy
http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,6...overy/Reviews/
Quote:
Originally Posted by initialised
Think OC limits are similar as Nehalems CPUs, right? Or a bit whorse? Thx ,-)
Retail Core i5-750 OC Test at the different clocks (3.6, 3.8 and 4Ghz)....
(Source: playwares.com)Quote:
Game Test with 6 different CPUs at the same clock (3.6Ghz)
(Source: playwares.com)Quote:
Intel Core i7-920 (3.6Ghz @ 1.176v)
http://www.abload.de/thumb/i7-920lrhw.png
Intel Core i5-750 (3.6Ghz @ 1.296v)
http://www.abload.de/thumb/i5-750ksie.png
Intel C2Q Q9550 (3.6Ghz @ 1.192v)
http://www.abload.de/thumb/q95505p4r.png
Intel C2D E8400 (3.6Ghz @ 1.192v)
http://www.abload.de/thumb/e8400buoq.png
AMD Phenom II X4 955 (3.6Ghz @ 1.408v)
http://www.abload.de/thumb/pii-955dorhx.png
AMD Phenom II X2 550 (3.6Ghz @ 1.392v)
http://www.abload.de/thumb/pii-5504ulj.png
A.V.A
http://www.abload.de/thumb/ava-1giof.jpg http://www.abload.de/thumb/ava-2wh0q.jpg
Biohazard
http://www.abload.de/thumb/biohazard-1gght.jpg http://www.abload.de/thumb/biohazard-2hes0.jpg
Call of Juraz
http://www.abload.de/thumb/callofjuraz-1jeuu.jpg http://www.abload.de/thumb/callofjuraz-2xix4.jpg
Crysis
http://www.abload.de/thumb/crysis-1xh81.jpg http://www.abload.de/thumb/crysis-25gk2.jpg
FarCry 2
http://www.abload.de/thumb/farcry-1sdi5.jpg http://www.abload.de/thumb/farcry-2cfw8.jpg
Grid
http://www.abload.de/thumb/grid-1ie2f.jpg http://www.abload.de/thumb/grid-2zhfy.jpg
H.A.W.X
http://www.abload.de/thumb/hawx-1jdsx.jpg http://www.abload.de/thumb/hawx-2gh2u.jpg
Prototype
http://www.abload.de/thumb/prototype-1rewd.jpg http://www.abload.de/thumb/prototype-26fff.jpg
3DMark Vantage
http://www.abload.de/thumb/vantage-1yikq.jpg http://www.abload.de/thumb/vantage-2qfzp.jpg
Thanks. Using 295GTX perfectly illustrates why faster CPUs are required for today's games.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chri$ch
4GHz is just about there, working out some stability problems but temps are OK (70C) on air.
Now that's what I call a useful test of i750's. :o Average vcore for 4GHz out of those 10 samples is 1.4v, pretty much same as i7 920 and OC ratio is pretty much the same too. A good sample may allow for 4.2GHz overclocks and the worse ones tops out at around 4GHz on air if we're sticking to somewhat reasonable voltages (1.45v).Quote:
Originally Posted by Chri$ch
Yep,quite useful test. What's also interesting is the fact how well Yorkfield and Deneb performed at 3.6Ghz(compared to Lynnfield @ 3.6Ghz) in games with high end gfxcard.Quote:
Originally Posted by RPGWiZaRD
It is also why AMD could be in a spot of bother when new gen video cards come out in a few months and games like Far Cry 2 etc, won't be as GPU limited as they currently are.Quote:
Originally Posted by kl0012
W00t, finally new CPU's, and its even slower than last year stuff!
Remember it's i750 though, I bet a i7 8xx CPU would be quite neck and neck with the i920 at same clock.Quote:
Originally Posted by ownage
wow, look at that i5 beat the crap out of the high end c2q's, thats rediculous
Bit sad with the temps... but ok i guess have to wait for 32nm quad for lower temps around 4Ghz
thats why i hate deep pipelines. damn you prescott!Quote:
Originally Posted by ajaidev
I wouldn't have expected such a high power consumption difference for the two platforms. 60W in real world at the same clocks is quite a bit, could it be exacerbated by HT?
for the same price no doubt.Quote:
Originally Posted by saaya
ow wait; no of course not.
let's fix this for you then? :)
point here is not the performance; but upgrade from S775, mainstream platform.Quote:
Originally Posted by saaya
Well personally I see i7 860 as a perfect upgrade from 775 dual core users like me. I'm not really seeing quad core CPU really useful yet but personally I just want some new hardware to play with and get away from my micron D9GKX RAM killing platform (2 kits died in less than a half year at 2.15v). :rolleyes:
1.8% is hardly a cloud of dust. That's well within the margin of error.Quote:
Originally Posted by sholvaco
I'm disappointed that they don't do a real "apples-to-apples" comparison, especially as these lower-end chips are likely going to see 40% higher-than-tray prices for the opening month or even quarter. It took a long time for i7 prices to stabilize even.Quote:
Originally Posted by BulldogPO
WTF? That makes no sense. People upgrade for performance.Quote:
Originally Posted by jmke
If the point is not performance, why upgrade to anything? S775 cpus are cheaper, run cooler, and use less power.
You're not fixing anything in that "repaired" quote. You are just adding your delusions into the mix.
And you could not have i7 performance 2 years ago. You have to understand that not all people only play games.
all I see was : GG AMD
with the performance and targeted market, AMD really need to earn much less even with their Phenom II X4 955BE and everything below.
P3 and Athlon were neck-to-neck most of the time, LOL! Fastest Athlons were usually ahead of the P3 by about 50Mhz, beating it to 1GHz in April, 2000. When Athlon was first released, it came in 550, 600, and 650 Mhz variants, to counter Intel's 550Mhz P3. :ROTF:Quote:
Originally Posted by saaya
Just some good ol' nostalgia!
It all depends on what matters to you the most. What defines the biggest boost for you? Some boosts are "feature" boosts, like PCI-E over AGP, SATA over IDE, DDR2 over DDR, etc.. Some are sheer speed boosts, like going from a 500MHz P3 to a 2GHz AthlonXP, to a 3GHz AthlonX2, finally to a 4GHz Corei7. Some of us do not need those boosts, but some upgrade because those boosts are needed so badly, even if it's only for 1 favorite game.
SATA3 will be the "feature boost" next year, while USB3.0 will probably come the year after, in 2012, given the snail-pace progress of finalizing and approving specifications + delays.. and PCI-3.0 might come out sooner than that. We'll just be seeing 6-core 32nm processors or Clarkdale+IGP, etc.. I find the IGP part interesting as it might eventually lead to a new standard for 2D/low-3D hybrid graphics, mainly for power-saving features while the add-on GPU cards sit idle. The next "speed boost" for me would be at least 5GHz on air, using 12 threads while consuming less than 150W or so for the CPU. Right now, when most of us overclock our i7's to 4GHz, our CPU's eat around 200W under load, which is well over the 110-135W TDP. Add in 4GB sticks of 2500MHz 7-7-7 DDR3 that will eventually become cheap in 18 months or so. Everything's gonna be focused on SSD's anyways, like the shift from CRT's to expensive LCD's, from single AGP video card to expensive SLI, etc..
What last year stuff are faster than these new CPUs?Quote:
Originally Posted by ownage
i5-750 vs i7-920
http://namegt.tistory.com/224
The i5-720 seems somewhat uninspiring. :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by onethreehill
+1 Thats the only thing that matters for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackbird_CaD_
The real competition comes when comparing a max stable clocked i7 920 vs 870.
I think the 920 is indeed the champion, atleast in the beginning.
You cant compare the 920 vs 870 in that way of reaching a max stable clocked. The 870 has a higher stock clock, obviously that it will reach a higher max stable clockQuote:
Originally Posted by WeeMaan
Also from the prints that i have been looking the P55 has better overclocking capability than X58. And it uses dual channel instead of trichannel wich makes more easy to overclock because it stresses less the NB
We should wait for more reviews and compare:
Core i7 870, 2.93 GHz /Core i7 950, 3.06 GHz - same price - $562
Core i7 860, 2.80 GHz /Core i7 920, 2.66 GHz - same price - $284
Yeah, I guess we will just have to wait and see.Quote:
Originally Posted by LinkinParkBoy
920 is a pretty darn good clocker, I don't belive it's that obvious, but I do agree it is likely that 870 gets a little higher.
Quite frankly speaking I'm not impressed by the results. :shrug:
That way I will just stick to the (IMHO) best price / performance AMD Phenom II 955 and stay with socket AM3. When AMD brings Istanbul to desktop then ill consider an CPU upgrade.
On a side note I wonder how Intel will screw everyone with all these new sockets. Its going to be amusing to watch all these "upgrades", where users find their motherboards incompatible. :clap:
AMD has been better price / performance wise for a while. If you want the best performance, you go i7, pretty simple. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadov