Intel Core i7 Review Thread

[Metroid]

Well in terms of price the Q9450 = I7 920, X48 = X58 + 50. You pay some extra $100 to get 10% more performance and also let's not forget the price gouging around. Now look at my case, going E6600 to Q9450 gives me = 10% and going Q9450 to I7 920 gives me another 10% which will at the end mean 30%.

So I7 920 is the best option I have right now for an upgrade. Who disagrees?

[Clairvoyant129]

I see that "some people" are eating up the news that Core i7 performs only a little better than Core 2 at games (even though there are huge increases in multi-GPU scenarios).

Suddenly game benchmarks are all that matters.

Well, I know what I'm upgrading to next month, and it definitely isn't an AMD platform.

[DilTech]

Looks like I can chill with my friend the Q6600 for awhile. Not too unexpected, as these chips are made 100% around multi-threaded code. Ah well, it'll be nice to keep this system around for awhile!

[Kashii]

Instead of going for a Q9550 to replace my 3700+ (lmao) it seems that the i7 920 is a much better choice. Just hope the boards are going to drop a bit :|

[gOJDO]

Well in terms of price the Q9450 = I7 920, X48 = X58 + 50. You pay some extra $100 to get 10% more performance and also let's not forget the price gouging around.

X58 + i7 920 + 6GB DDR3 is more than twice expensive than P35 + Q6700 + 6GB DDR2; almost twice expensive than P45 + Q9450 + 6GB DDR2.

Now look at my case, going E6600 to Q9450 gives me = 10% and going Q9450 to I7 920 gives me another 10% which will at the end mean 30%.

So I7 920 is the best option I have right now for an upgrade. Who disagrees?

You will have to sell your old stuff and you'll have to pay more than the 10% you for the upgrade you are talking about. Another question is do you really need faster PC?

What about OC-ing?


I'll wait while DDR3 is more expensive than DDR2.

[Aberration]

Dont expect DDR3 prices to come down much. The price of DDR2 is hurting the memory manufacturers. DDR3 is actually at a good price, not far from what DDR2 was when DDR3 came out.

[ap4lifetn]

now the debate begins, cost effective q9550 or beastly i920??!! DDR2 or DDR3?!!

[[XC] hipno650]

all i can say i just wow lots of people are getting caught up in the gaming benchmarks. "oh man Corei7 is the suckzors cuz it loses by 2FPS at normal gaming setting with a single GPU". personally i though Corei7 was going to worse at gaming than it is but look a the Mulit-GPU benches all on beta drivers and whatnot. we have never seen performance this high on Tri SLI. and not to mention the non-gaming benches they are just ridiculous for example it beats out a 3.2ghz skulltrail system most of the time.... what more do you have to say? simply impressive!

[gojirasan]

omgwtfbbq@ the overclocking protection. Yikes. Those of us who pointed out this possibility were ridiculed, and now it turns out we were right (in at least considering the possibility) after all. Built right into the chip. Damn. However, even with the overclocking protection it looks like the new design beats Core2 most of the time. This sort of came out of nowhere. No leaks on the overclocking limits. Looks like Intel is doing a pretty good job with leak control these days. It's really too bad that Intel is going back to being antagonistic to overclockers. Maybe AMD will take advantage of this if they can ever close the huge gap in performance. Although it won't help them financially since overclockers represent only the tiniest fraction of the market. Our loss won't even be a blip on their financial reports.

[Metroid]

X58 + i7 920 + 6GB DDR3 is more than twice expensive than P35 + Q6700 + 6GB DDR2; almost twice expensive than P45 + Q9450 + 6GB DDR2.

I do consider P45 better than X48. It is only the motherboard that has a dual or triple pay here, CPU on pair, DDR3 buy some cheap dual channel modules for $100 for the time being.

You will have to sell your old stuff and you'll have to pay more than the 10% you for the upgrade you are talking about. Another question is do you really need faster PC?

What about OC-ing?


I'll wait while DDR3 is more expensive than DDR2.

First yes it is overclocked to 3.4 and I do need this machine for the simple reason it has 8 threads which will increase the productivity other than that we come at the end of this with something like this.

CPU: Q9450 $325
Mobo: MSI Platinum $219

CPU: I7 920 $320
Mobo: $400 MSI Eclipse
Memory: $105 crucial 7.7.7.20 1.65

So only the motherboard got a + price. What do you think about it? Is that worth?

By the way 775 can not be used to upgrade future processors, with this motherboard premium price I can go with 32nm Westmere if I feel like. So it is not that much for such a system when compared to the previous generation.

[Caveman787]

If your upgrading to i7 you need the low voltage memory the stuff you linked has 1.8 noted.

Also 4gb is better for gaming, so that wouldn't be as good.

Furthermore, you don't know of possible issues with the new tech yet because it hasn't been tested much.

Besides the q9450 has been taking off the market I'm pretty sure so you'd have to get the q9550.

Personally to me the q6600 is still king because it's a lot cheaper, with a cheaper motherboard, cheap ddr2 all overclocked you can be just as fast as the core i7 for a lot of tasks much cheaper.

[RaZz!]

http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/h...treme_edition/

wondering why the nehalem lose to the penryns in the game benchmarks though.

but it's funny to see how 3-way sli with the gtx 280s scales with core7. kinda impressive results

[Metroid]

If your upgrading to i7 you need the low voltage memory the stuff you linked has 1.8 noted.

Also 4gb is better for gaming, so that wouldn't be as good.

Furthermore, you don't know of possible issues with the new tech yet because it hasn't been tested much.

Besides the q9450 has been taking off the market I'm pretty sure so you'd have to get the q9550.

Personally to me the q6600 is still king because it's a lot cheaper, with a cheaper motherboard, cheap ddr2 all overclocked you can be just as fast as the core i7 for a lot of tasks much cheaper.

First yes it is rated at 1.8 at CL6 which if you increase the latency to CL 7 and lower the voltages to 1.65 it is pretty much possible and tested by many.

Second I do know how much memory I need and I can say no more than 3 GB is needed as I check time to time my memory usage and how much memory programs need to work at 100%, other than that the 4GB need is a pure marketing gimmick as long you administrate your memory usage well nothing will ever need more than 3Gb to date, unless you run the bloated vista as I would never touch it. It is simple monitor all the processes and you are good to go.

Nehalem got its validation so pretty much, the problems would be minor if that comes to happen.

2GB DDR3 is more than enough for me. Any other suggestions?

[jaredpace]

2GB DDR3 is more than enough for me. Any other suggestions?

3x1GB triple channel 1.5v for $149 at newegg.

Start building !

[Shintai]

http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/h...treme_edition/

wondering why the nehalem lose to the penryns in the game benchmarks though.

They test with a 9800GTX card...

[RaZz!]

They test with a 9800GTX card...

yeah, that's true, but what does this prove? that nehalems are slower with a midrange card than penryns? i don't see your argument here. if the 9800gtx+ was bottlenecking the benchmarks the nehalems should atleast be equal to the penryns.
i would expect new processors to improve gaming performance on my "not-ultra-highend" card as well - and not worsen it

[afX]

I know what I want for Christmas, lol, yeah... like I'm gonna get that as a gift. Whatever I'll just pretend I'm getting it for Christmas. I hope that socket change rumor is all BS tho.

[Jacky]

omgwtfbbq@ the overclocking protection. Yikes. Those of us who pointed out this possibility were ridiculed, and now it turns out we were right (in at least considering the possibility) after all. Built right into the chip. Damn. However, even with the overclocking protection it looks like the new design beats Core2 most of the time. This sort of came out of nowhere. No leaks on the overclocking limits. Looks like Intel is doing a pretty good job with leak control these days. It's really too bad that Intel is going back to being antagonistic to overclockers. Maybe AMD will take advantage of this if they can ever close the huge gap in performance. Although it won't help them financially since overclockers represent only the tiniest fraction of the market. Our loss won't even be a blip on their financial reports.

There is no overclocking protection! There were lots of overclocks leaked prior to launch btw. You simply did not pay attention and based your conclusion on what.. tom's review?
I skimmed like 10 reviews and there is not a single word of any "overclocking protection". There was something mentioned about downclocking depending on temperature, which is fine, Intel does not want you to fry your CPU.
The 940 and 920 i7 does not overclock a lot because of the multi, if you want to call that overclocking protection...
Maybe I missed it, but the i7 940 can be overclocked to 4ghz ?!

X58 + i7 920 + 6GB DDR3 is more than twice expensive than P35 + Q6700 + 6GB DDR2; almost twice expensive than P45 + Q9450 + 6GB DDR2.

You will have to sell your old stuff and you'll have to pay more than the 10% you for the upgrade you are talking about. Another question is do you really need faster PC?

Most reviews conclude that tri-channel provides close to zero benefits, is there a reason why people still think they need tri-channel?

[gallag]

There is no overclocking protection! There were lots of overclocks leaked prior to launch btw. You simply did not pay attention and based your conclusion on what.. tom's review?
I skimmed like 10 reviews and there is not a single word of any "overclocking protection". There was something mentioned about downclocking depending on temperature, which is fine, Intel does not want you to fry your CPU.
The 940 and 920 i7 does not overclock a lot because of the multi, if you want to call that overclocking protection...
Maybe I missed it, but the i7 940 can be overclocked to 4ghz ?!


Most reviews conclude that tri-channel provides close to zero benefits, is there a reason why people still think they need tri-channel?

.

[The Warlock]

Yeez, where would technology be if we could do with the q6600,no,going with the core i7 920 to start.
And, read the best review out so far http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=206572
Think Movieman nailed it for me, its ALL about crunching power

[initialised]

Takes the top spot in CustomPC's Leaderboard (Above several 5GHz+ C2Qs on LN2, Refrigerant and Chillers) http://www.custompc.co.uk/benchmarks

Full Reviews of Ci7, P6T: http://www.custompc.co.uk/reviews

[villa1n]

There is no overclocking protection! There were lots of overclocks leaked prior to launch btw. You simply did not pay attention and based your conclusion on what.. tom's review?
I skimmed like 10 reviews and there is not a single word of any "overclocking protection". There was something mentioned about downclocking depending on temperature, which is fine, Intel does not want you to fry your CPU.
The 940 and 920 i7 does not overclock a lot because of the multi, if you want to call that overclocking protection...
Maybe I missed it, but the i7 940 can be overclocked to 4ghz ?!


Most reviews conclude that tri-channel provides close to zero benefits, is there a reason why people still think they need tri-channel?

Overclocking is very different on the Core i7. Unlike the Core 2 or Pentium D processors, the Core i7 CPU can monitor the current it draws as well as its power consumption—if it exceeds a certain level, the processor automatically reduces its clock speed. Intel calls this feature "Overspeed Protection." The limits hard-wired into the core are 100 A and 130 watts. Only the Extreme Edition allows the user to increase these values as they like, effectively circumventing the protection mechanism altogether.

Thermal power loss rises especially quickly when the core voltage is increased. Thus, it is entirely possible that a lower model Core i7 may offer excellent overclocking potential, but it will be constrained by the Overspeed Protection feature when its power dissipation triggers it. Obviously, Intel wants to prevent customers from buying an inexpensive processor and then overclocking it to very high or even extreme levels. Apparently, Intel has realized that the good overclocking potential of its processors has led ambitious users to choose less expensive models, relegating the faster (and more expensive) CPUs to the sidelines.

toms link.

It is not temp downclocking. You can see these options in the bios screenshots as well, on the EE edition you can override them.
What is hardwired into the chip, is it is limited to powerdraw as well, not only temp. So if you buy a i920, and you luck out, like i did with my q6600 and your tdp is way down lets say 72 watts for arguements sake, you ve got massive headroom and the volts would probably get to high before you reach that wall. However, there is a spread , like in all processors, so if you get an i920 that has 110W tdp at default volts you wont get very far before that wall comes into play. Since the i920 i would assume is the lower bins, the luck of getting a low TDP chip is not on your side, and this will otherwise limit oc'ing for a chip, that might have to be pushed harder than another.
The benefit or protection element doesnt make sense to me. If you have temp based down clocking.. i dont see the necessity for this, as you void your rma abilities if you go beyond spec anyways... so either they found a high inciedence in fried chips.. meaning this can't handle volts well (which i doubt) or they wanted to stop budget chips from getting up to 4 - 4.5 on air... it makes perfect business sense, just hoops us budget oc'rs who cant drop 1k on an EE chip.

[Jacky]

I know Tom's article mentions that, but I'm not sure this is entirely true, as Anand has overclocked an i7 920 using an ungodly amount of voltage up to 3.8ghz, which has been pointed out in their comments. http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/int...px?i=3448&p=15
THG is not the most credible site IIRC, so there's still hope.
If the limit is 3.8-4.0ghz for budget chips, then it's not much of a protection anyway.. Anyone with some first hand knowledge?

[Glow9]

Well in terms of price the Q9450 = I7 920, X48 = X58 + 50. You pay some extra $100 to get 10% more performance and also let's not forget the price gouging around. Now look at my case, going E6600 to Q9450 gives me = 10% and going Q9450 to I7 920 gives me another 10% which will at the end mean 30%.

So I7 920 is the best option I have right now for an upgrade. Who disagrees?

Personally only thing that I like about all this new tech is X58 being able to xfire or SLI what you want. DDR3 blaaah, i7 meh too pricey. Just sucks they cant do like a X50 or something that runs 775 and DDR2 but allows you the xfire/sli chip stuff. I'd buy one.

[Helmore]

Personally only thing that I like about all this new tech is X58 being able to xfire or SLI what you want. DDR3 blaaah, i7 meh too pricey. Just sucks they cant do like a X50 or something that runs 775 and DDR2 but allows you the xfire/sli chip stuff. I'd buy one.

You will have to ask NVIDIA really really really nicely if you want to see that happening. There is nothing in the X48 that makes it impossible to implement SLI on it, NVIDIA just wont allow it. BTW, not all X58 boards are SLI certified, I'll just quote The TechReport:

Like previous Intel chipsets, the X58 Express has full support for AMD's CrossFire multi-GPU scheme, including three- and four-way configs. SLI will also be supported—a first for Intel platforms (not including uber-expensive Skulltrail systems). However, actual SLI certification will be done at the motherboard level rather than being tied to the chipset. Certified motherboards will have a special key embedded in their BIOS that Nvidia's graphics drivers will check prior to enabling SLI. To date, Asus, DFI, ECS, EVGA, Foxconn, Gigabyte, and MSI have licensed SLI for their X58 boards. Intel is conspicuously missing from that list, though. When asked whether its X58 board would support SLI, Intel said it and Nvidia had "not found mutually acceptable business terms for certification."

http://techreport.com/articles.x/15816