Core I7 review

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Why are people saying it performs badly in games, It is the fastest cpu in the world, Even for gaming, Its just not 20% faster than the next best.
 
It looks like Nehalem will be a better CPU for multi-GPU setup though. Otherwise I agree: ditching Yorkfield and Kentsfield for Nehalem just for gaming purpose is pointless.
 
But that's exactly the problem. The main point is that a lot of people are going to buying it for gaming computer. Not everyone. But they don't realise how useless this chip is for that.

I'm not saying buy the AMD or check the Deneb, because they fall within their price range. They don't compete with Intel now. But one day they will again, just like in the past.

The i7 is a great chip, when used for the right reasons. Server, perfect chip, multithreaded applications, good too. But standard desktop system for word, excel and internet or gaming, it's better to buy a cheaper E8400/8500 system. Until it all catches up again, you pay the same amount for a better computer and the system you just bought with E8400/8500 as you pay now, the premium price, for a system you don't need.

DDR3, x58 and i7 are too expansive for the average joe now. But in time, everyone will move, new cheaper i7's will be available, DDR3 will drop in prices and the other chipsets will release that are better affordable for the average joe. If you need the i7 now, buy it, because it's worth it, but if you don't need it, don't waste your money.
 
One thing I found odd in these reviews, is that the same benchmark between different sites seems to have different results.

My guess is that certain settings, bios settings, memory config, etc.. may have a significant impact on performance.

Example - OCAU vs THG for "World in Conflict".
THG shows big gain while OCAU does not show a significant change.

But I'm very excited to get my hands on one.
I'm guessing another 6-9 months based on my upgrade cycle.
But since I do a lot of Multi-Core/VM work, its gonna rock my world.
 
Apparently Techreport got a very different result.

http://techreport.com/articles.x/15818/6
farcry2.gif
 
I won't consider one until you can buy a $100 mobo for one of these things.

Also, I don't care about Far Cry 2 at all, and I have the game, but I digress. . .

I'm still rocking my e6750 at stock and probably will continue to do so for a while.
 
The Extreme post 1 more fps than the 940, both at stock. Pathetic for $1000, unlocked or not.

Im kind of glad these chips dont post big gains in gaming, because now I wont have to blow my income tax return.
 
yomama, its also showing the Phenom beating the Q6600 . Im just wondering if turbo is kicking in, when it is, and when its not. This is way too complicated, and yet unknown at thisstage. Im going to wait awile before I can actually determine whats going on here.

It does look as tho multi gpu setups are fiinally being used with these gpus, bout time they caught up
 

yeah, that guru3d article sure was something :pt1cable: :lol:
 
looks like the i7 would be sweet for a multi-gpu setup. maybe this summer after the price trails off or AMD brings something to the table. good CPU but im not awe-struck by it.
 
One thing I found odd in these reviews, is that the same benchmark between different sites seems to have different results.

My guess is that certain settings, bios settings, memory config, etc.. may have a significant impact on performance.

Example - OCAU vs THG for "World in Conflict".
THG shows big gain while OCAU does not show a significant change.
I'm finding oddities in the gaming tests at OCAU, too. On the game you mentioned:

OCAU setup: QX9770 or i7 965, GTX280, 1280x1024 0xAA 0xAF
FPS range: 110-114

THG setup: QX9770 or i7 965, GTX280 (light OC), 1680x1050
FPS range: 157-218

It's almost as if OCAU used a much older GPU, or a far higher resolution than stated, or used a different test or settings that expose a GPU bottleneck, despite the reasonably low resolution - fps hardly changes as i7 scales from low to high frequency, so you know it's not a problem with i7 core architecture. OCAU also specified a newer graphics driver, but that wouldn't explain such a drop in frames.
 

They probably ran each benchmark with different IQ and didn't tell us. That's [H] for you.
 
I think its best to wait and see whos got the best boards/bios/setups, and people actually know what theyre doing as to benching the newer i7's. As for the discrepancies seen on the Q9xxx's, not sure about that
 


Doubt you'll ever see any motherboards in that range for the Bloomfield Core i7 processors given that they're the enthusiast platform. The boards costing $300-$400 now should drop into the $250 range in a few months though. The Lynfield Core i7's should have some budget boards though when they come out in another 6 months or so.
 
For me the only reason to consider upgrade to i7 (@least in the following 6-9 months) would be the X58 chipset (multi-GPU support for both SLI & CF)...
Since my home (desctop) computer is mainly for gamming, I personally find very attractive having motherboard that supports both SLI & CF...