LGA 1156 Core i7s & Core i5s Reviews

[Hornet331]

and about the 32x configuration you can see from the link you posted that performance drop of x58 it much much more then x48 or 680i when you increase resolution

Uhm again i already have said its not 2nd lvl cache alone, i guess you ignored the impact that HT has on game completely.

Also the huge drop you see is the gpu limitation that kicks in, there simply not enough power, even on sli, to get decent performance out of 2560x1600.

If they run into gpu limitaion they have the exact same framerate as any other system.

[ajaidev]

X4 955 vs i5 750 vs Q9550 vs i7 920
http://diy.pconline.com.cn/cpu/revie...7/1702311.html

i7 870 vs i5 750 vs Q9550 vs i7 920
http://diy.pconline.com.cn/cpu/revie...7/1717513.html

pconline is a bit unfair... there is a difference of 700-800 points more in Cinibench R10 as compared to INPAI and also the score for the 955 in both remains unchanged "Almost"

[Chri$ch]

pconline is a bit unfair...

your screens were not unfair?

AMD System = ATI HD4890 & 1440x960 res.
Intel System = NV GTX280 & 1600x1200 res.

you can´t compare 2 total different systems

[STaRGaZeR]

yes and thats exactly my point, nehalem as cpu itself dont consumes much, but people always transfered platform energy consumption to cpu consumption. Even at the beginin you easly could show this when you pited the DX58SO against the rampage 2 (~15W less).

Or do you want to me to belive that a S1156 CPU is a complet different CPU then a S1336 one?

We're talking about platforms here, whatever mobo you choose will behave very similar. Core i7 9xx means x58, triple channel, QPI, etc. This means ultra high PC for what it does, and don't even talk about OC. x58 is a failure as a desktop platform. Lynnfield just confirms it, same perfomance (except in bandwidth synchtetic test because of dual channel), way lower PC, lower cost, way higher turbo mode...

At the core level, both CPUs are the same except maybe ultra minor tweaks on the s1156 side.

[JumpingJack]

try comparing the gaming tests with non gaming tests.

You are confusing chipset performance with GPU limited results and other interactions of GPU/CPU stalling. Though I disagree with you that the x58 is the worst chipset intel ever made, you do have an argument that Intel's overall PCIe implementation is not as good as AMD or nVidia's.

Jack

[kromosto]

Uhm again i already have said its not 2nd lvl cache alone, i guess you ignored the impact that HT has on game completely.

Also the huge drop you see is the gpu limitation that kicks in, there simply not enough power, even on sli, to get decent performance out of 2560x1600.

If they run into gpu limitaion they have the exact same framerate as any other system.

ok some extreme cases may not fit but lets get it from the beginning with out any names just thinking generally for brainstorming

with single threaded applications and tests we know XXX cpu is better then YYY cpu. Also we know the capacity of GGG gpu by tests. In gaming tests we see that XXX is better then YYY cpu in less gpu dependent (low resolution low detail etc.) but more cpu dependent benchmarks. But when we increase gpu dependency with increasing details or resolution or etc YYY begins to perform better then XXX.

Now we cant say just YYY cpu is better then XXX in gaming (because of its ghz or its level 2 cache or anything) because we know that in gaming when it is more cpu dependent XXX performs better. The performance drop in XXX platform happens while gaming is more gpu dependent. So can we say it is because of GGG gpu no because we use the same GGG gpu in both XXX platform and YYY platform with same driver. So this is not about gpu limitation.

We know that it is not cpu or it is not gpu but there is something causing this performance drop in XXX platform.

My guess is it is CCC chipset (it might not be the pci-e controller) but as i said this is a guess. Any component in the XXX platform except cpu and gpu may doing this but my guess is CCC

At last work is over and i am at home

[Rammsteiner]

Trying to make the Nehalem platform look like not to be power sucking is kinda... weird. It uses quite some energy, it depends on what you prefer, more energy for a bit more power or simply not. But declining it, no way.

Not like I care about energy, wtf ever

[ajaidev]

your screens were not unfair?

AMD System = ATI HD4890 & 1440x960 res.
Intel System = NV GTX280 & 1600x1200 res.

you can´t compare 2 total different systems

I was quite sure i deleted the Crysis and farcry 2 bench's... Ohh well did it now as far as i know GPU has quite a less impact on the CB R10 and the other one...

[gallag]

Trying to make the Nehalem platform look like not to be power sucking is kinda... weird. It uses quite some energy, it depends on what you prefer, more energy for a bit more power or simply not. But declining it, no way.

Not like I care about energy, wtf ever

i-7 IS pretty good on the old power, Try comparing a i7-920 vs a ph2-965 on performance per watt.

[Fafeifa]

We're talking about platforms here, whatever mobo you choose will behave very similar. Core i7 9xx means x58, triple channel, QPI, etc. This means ultra high PC for what it does, and don't even talk about OC. x58 is a failure as a desktop platform. Lynnfield just confirms it, same perfomance (except in bandwidth synchtetic test because of dual channel), way lower PC, lower cost, way higher turbo mode...

At the core level, both CPUs are the same except maybe ultra minor tweaks on the s1156 side.

Oh the X58 only failed because it cost so much, although much of the hate and sour comments comes from people who are on the fence but can't because of price issues.

Yeah Ferrari cars are a failure because they fail to meet the user's demands. Get over it. Most of the people who upgraded last yr are perfectly happy and are not missing any of the features that the i5 has to offer. Welcome to yesterday if u looking to upgrade to i5 because is just another i7 with missing features.

If you consider the i7 as a FAIL because is not selling like 775 or phII systems do then so be it but it is still the most powerful platform in the desktop market even after the i5 is released. If we had to go by your rule then any high end hardware is a failure.

[STaRGaZeR]

Oh man, how about a rant without first understanding what you're ranting about, my post in this case...

The only i7 9xx processor Intel is selling right now in volume is the i7 920. Compared to an i7 860 it has two disavantages: less PCIe lanes and dual channel memory. None of them will affect the segment both are targeted on. Maybe some people will whine for a 1% perfomance decrease because of the lack of dual 16x lanes for CF/SLi configurations, and that's all.

Two radically different platforms aimed at the exact same price segment is a FAIL. Even more when you consider that the i7 860 has higher stock frequency, WAY higher turbo mode, probably (unconfirmed) more overclocking potential, less heat, less power consumption and you can buy it for the same price. Not to mention the other components will cost you less money too. Spending money for perfomance is OK. When you can get more perfomance for less money and you don't do it, it's insane.

i9 is the salvation of s1366 on the desktop.

[bfar]

Oh the X58 only failed because it cost so much, although much of the hate and sour comments comes from people who are on the fence but can't because of price issues.

Yeah Ferrari cars are a failure because they fail to meet the user's demands. Get over it. Most of the people who upgraded last yr are perfectly happy and are not missing any of the features that the i5 has to offer. Welcome to yesterday if u looking to upgrade to i5 because is just another i7 with missing features.

If you consider the i7 as a FAIL because is not selling like 775 or phII systems do then so be it but it is still the most powerful platform in the desktop market even after the i5 is released. If we had to go by your rule then any high end hardware is a failure.

That's a bit harsh!

OK fair enough, failure is a bit of a harsh criticism, but there's no getting away from the fact that the platform as a whole was far too expensive from the outset. Even high-end Joe doesn't need Tri Channel ram in his home PC, that's madcap!

The fault lies with our old friend Intel. There should have been completely distinct home and server platforms for nehalam from the beginning. You can only sell products in volume if they are suitable for you're customers' needs at the right price point. i7 has not sold particularly well outside the business world, and I think Intel recognize that.

I've had the cash pretty much all along, but I've never been taken in by i7 as a good upgrade path until now.

To sum up, if you already have an s1633 platform, then you're already on a winner (or at least you can't loose).

But if you have €600 saved and ready (woohoo), then the obvious choice would be to look at the cheaper lga1156 platforms that are only 3 weeks away.

[TheCarLessDriven]

I dont get it, what happened to socket 1366?? Why a core i7 on 1156 now?

[Kingcarcas]

Should have included i7-860, i wonder if it's worth it for crunching or anything else...

[flippin_waffles]

I dont get it, what happened to socket 1366?? Why a core i7 on 1156 now?

Yeah, nothing like bending you over huh. Something Intel is good at, they can gouge you with more board sales this way. But hey, as long as people are willing to bend over, Intel would be more than happy to ram it into ya. lol

[tdream]

I dont get it, what happened to socket 1366?? Why a core i7 on 1156 now?

It's being rebranded to i9

[Hornet331]

Oh man, how about a rant without first understanding what you're ranting about, my post in this case...

The only i7 9xx processor Intel is selling right now in volume is the i7 920. Compared to an i7 860 it has two disavantages: less PCIe lanes and dual channel memory. None of them will affect the segment both are targeted on. Maybe some people will whine for a 1% perfomance decrease because of the lack of dual 16x lanes for CF/SLi configurations, and that's all.

Two radically different platforms aimed at the exact same price segment is a FAIL. Even more when you consider that the i7 860 has higher stock frequency, WAY higher turbo mode, probably (unconfirmed) more overclocking potential, less heat, less power consumption and you can buy it for the same price. Not to mention the other components will cost you less money too. Spending money for perfomance is OK. When you can get more perfomance for less money and you don't do it, it's insane.

i9 is the salvation of s1366 on the desktop.

Just to words -> time frame

What you get now, other already got for 10 months. Everyone who jumped on s1366 right on the beginn lost nothing, and that gulftown is a nice bonus. -> again you get it way before "all others"

Just reminds me of the people who always about the people who buy EE. But now they about the platform...

[RPGWiZaRD]

Yeh timeframe's like the only really big advantage 9xx have but I don't think Gulftown will be that interesting other than only for a little crowd which it's very welcomed for, crunchers with a huge budget.

That being said I personally didn't wait for Lynnfield because I'd think it had something better to offer or cuz of the lower cost, but because I didn't need to upgrade at the time socket 1366 was introduced. But I planned doing it yet this 2H of this year and looking what's gonna be offered now, then P55 + i7-860 looks more attempting than X58 + i7-920 mainy because:

1) Cost/performance ratio.

2) I never intend to use Crossfire/SLI.

3) I like the extra RAM OC capability dual channel P55 system seems to offer.

[STaRGaZeR]

Just to words -> time frame

What you get now, other already got for 10 months. Everyone who jumped on s1366 right on the beginn lost nothing, and that gulftown is a nice bonus. -> again you get it way before "all others"

Just reminds me of the people who always about the people who buy EE. But now they about the platform...

So now the argument is time frame?

Yep, people sure love being locked to 2 different CPUs: i7 920 and the future affordable i9 (if it even exist). Still you miss the point: i7 has been since the beginning a server platform offered to desktop users. If you're that 1% that benefits from server machines and you're proud of your e-peen having your super hot CPU 10 months earlier than the rest, you should be very happy now. Nobody here is saying the x58 platform is a failure by itself. It's a failure where Intel has put it. Anyway, s1156 is not going to last either. Sandy Bridge uses a new socket and it's 1 year away or less.

[bfar]

Anyway, s1156 is not going to last either. Sandy Bridge uses a new socket and it's 1 year away or less.

Bingo.

In which case x58 and p55 will both allow at least one more drop in cpu upgrade before we look at the next big thing.

Since I'm looking to upgrade now, I'm inclined to look at the cheaper option.

Just as a matter of interest tho, what kind of memory is sandybridge (or even bulldozer for that matter) to be paired with? If it's tri-channel then that makes s1366 a little more interesting as the memory could be reused in the next platform.

[Fafeifa]

Oh man, how about a rant without first understanding what you're ranting about, my post in this case...

The only i7 9xx processor Intel is selling right now in volume is the i7 920. Compared to an i7 860 it has two disavantages: less PCIe lanes and dual channel memory. None of them will affect the segment both are targeted on. Maybe some people will whine for a 1% perfomance decrease because of the lack of dual 16x lanes for CF/SLi configurations, and that's all.

Two radically different platforms aimed at the exact same price segment is a FAIL. Even more when you consider that the i7 860 has higher stock frequency, WAY higher turbo mode, probably (unconfirmed) more overclocking potential, less heat, less power consumption and you can buy it for the same price. Not to mention the other components will cost you less money too. Spending money for perfomance is OK. When you can get more perfomance for less money and you don't do it, it's insane.

i9 is the salvation of s1366 on the desktop.

Well tell me what was available from intel 10 or 11 months ago that rivaled the i7. Your whole point of comparing the i5 with i7 now after a yr is pretty pointless. Why don't you compare that PH2 beats the C2D while at it.

[Hornet331]

So now the argument is time frame?

No not now, it was the argument form the begin.

Everyone and dog here on the forum knew that i5 was coming and would offer the same architecture (and for that matter, the same performance) on a cheaper platform.

I never understood all the complaining about i7 and the platform. Intel never has hidden the fact that it is the server platform that would be sold here and comes with additional costs and is targeted normaly at another audience.

I upgrade my stuff once or twice a year, and depending on what is available at that time and offers a reasonable increase in performance over the stuff I own gets my money.

Ci7 already saved me days, if not week, of time for my work at the university. I was quite happy that i got it, else some of my work would have been draged out quite a bit.

What do you have to say about all the extreme editions? Remember the QX6700? A few months after it was released you could get the Q6700 that was basically the same for a cheaper price. Same for the QX9650 etc. The important thing here was again time. You could get top performance quite a time before it was availablefor mainstream. Its the exact same game for S1336 vs S1156.

[onethreehill]

i5 750 vs i7 920
http://en.expreview.com/2009/08/19/t...html#more-4834

[RPGWiZaRD]

Just a thought, why is that we get so much i5 love and so little of i7 860/870, I'm not interested in 750! xD They are meant to be released at same time, should be as huge focus on that or do they have stricter NDA or something. We even get Clarksdale reviews already but barely no 860/870.

[saaya]

for my opinion x58 is the worst chipset intel did.

totally agree... all it does is add loads of heat and limit the bclock overclocking... well its really a server chipset and i guess for servers it does well...