Intel Core i7-975 Extreme And i7-950 Reviewed

[DjEaZy]

... it's a waste of money...

 

[Guest]

Who really cares about a couple of seconds these days.
AMD has the BIG advantage of price especially in Australia.
i7 CPU start at approx $500.00 compared to Phenom II at $220.00
Intel Motherboard to suit i& - $320 to $500 AMD MB $200 - $300
Spending $1890.00 AU for an Intel i7-965 Core i7 CPU, 3.20 GHz compared to a Phenom II X4 Quad Core 955 Black Edition CPU, 3.2GHz $418.00 AU
End of day performance difference - ah heck all! I'll save the $$$

 

[sublifer]

I'd like to know if these new chips overclock any better... I know the others are available in D0 as well but if you're buying a 920 to get a D0 and don't... well, maybe it would have been better to buy the 950 (I sure wouldn't) but is overclocking the D0 950 going to be much better than overclocking the older stepping 920?

 

[cal8949]

i cant believe you got the 975 only to 4.2ghz. thats how fast im running my 920 d0 without turbo on a lower voltage. i actuly got it in windows at 4.6ghz temps were fine but it was not stable.

 

[2shea]

Its stupid comparing this to a Phenom II when the Phenom II isnt priced anywhere near the same as the Intel part - the Core i5's will address this whole area and "compete" with with the Phenom II's etc as a mainstream part and as the Core 2 replacement.

with what exactly would you want to compare it to then? The fact that the price is lower doesn't mean it should not be compared. It is the fastest amd cpu there is stock and that means it will be compared to the fastest that intel can produce. Simple as that. So quit your fanboy whining about amd getting beaten and just not ready to take the crown.
THAT doesn't change the fact that most gamers will choose a 920 or an phenomII based system to play with and spend more on the graphics department, as you can see that has a lot more going for in fps then a fast cpu these days.
That brings me to the question that these tests don't mean a lot if not tested with something that will make the cpu's work harder.

 

[Kill@dor]

I won't rule out Intel any day soon even if their technology is advancing far to quickly. Soon the i7's will mature...its just a matter of time.

 

[Pei-chen]

I think i7's revision will have the same turbo steps as i5 comes November. i7 for the $250 and up while i5 for the $250 and down.

 

[thearm]

It is VERY common for people to hype up AMD because they are the under dog. You rarely hear them say that AMD is better (Because most people know they are not) but there are people out there that will. Since AMD is down, AMD fanboys hype up power consumption of AMD and the ease of overclocking and totally ignore performance. People everywhere and not just in technology love the underdog. I could never understand why. The numbers that benefit me are what matters IMO. I purchsed and AMD XP processor years ago and I'll never go back. I'm Intel all the way. They know what they are doing.

 

[TripGun]

AMD is not trying to take the performance crown as the people who use or need it only account for 1-2% of sales. All you really need is what? Encode a movie in under a minute? So what if it took an hour? We're you really waiting or were you off doing something else... I own an overclocked I7 920 and I am saying that it don't matter. I use my desktop system less now than I use to, I find myself on my AMD powered laptop more because it's all I need. The I7 is very fast, but I don't use it to it's potential, it's kind of like driving a Indy car back and forth to work, if I still go 30-55mph I won't notice a difference in speed from my junk car. When you build a system for someone the first thing you ask them is what are you going to be using it for? Gaming? Encoding? Web browsing? Fast to you is just that "fast to you" and gaming 40-50fps won't be much different than 400-500fps, so who cares...

 

[ta152h]

OK, so all you AMD folks that keep saying AMD is not trying to match performance, let me ask you a simple question.

Do you think AMD is making a large, slow processor on purpose? I mean, you do know it's as large as the i7, right? So, it's by design they want it slower? They want to have no processors with competitive performance that can get very high margin sales, but just want one that is costly enough to build for the segment? I would understand your point if it were a lot smaller and less expensive to produce, but it is not.

Here's a reality check for you. It's a bad design, and AMD is stuck with it, for now. They would love to compete with Intel on the high end, but they can not, and have no illusions about it. Again, if they made very small, low-cost (to produce) chips, I'd find some logic in these remarks, but this is not the case.

It's completely natural he compares the best AMD with the best Intel. The fact people are complaining about it demonstrates just how much people like the war between the two companies. Also, they are about the same size, so you get a real indication of the difference in design efficiency, which is startling and worth seeing. We are all smart enough to make decisions based on price and data points, and do not need these data points withheld because people who strangely love a computer processor company do not like to see their company look bad. My advice would be to give your love to something living, not a computer company, and stop trying to prevent people from seeing information because you do not like to see it.

 

[stan116]

I find that article hard to believe, I guess it would depend on which board they were using. I have the X58 Bloodrage with the 965 Extreme and two GTX295s, and have no problem with graphics, same goes with my X58 Classified build, that systems running the 940, and two GTX280s. Both systems are @4 GHz and are cooled with 12 Tec boreas chillers.

 

[judeh101]

hopefully Intel will release the 32nm processors and drop the price of the 45nm core i7s.

 

[razzb3d]

[citation][nom]SpadeM[/nom]I know that by now I sound like a broken record but u guys make the conspiracy possible. I mean look at the gaming benchmarks between Phenom 2 and i7 and Core... at first glance one would think "damn didn't know AMD was that fast" but that is a false impression. You guys made an article a couple of weeks ago stating that the i7+X58 doesn't play nice with Nvidia graphics, and you proved it. But despite that you keep on using a geforce 260 knowing it will perform lower when pair with the i7 (that is why on the LGA quad and Phenom 2 things look much better)And so you fuel the AMD vs Intel flame war that's going on. Please, make it clear once and for all, do a special article or something, write it with BIG LETTERS: 2 systems, i7 + nvidia and then a ati offering and a phenom system + nvidia and a ati offering.[/citation]

I have yet to see Intel CPU tests done on this sites using an AMD (ATi) GPU solution. These interest me most. I use ATi graphics because of sevaral reasons. One of witch is the fact that my GT295 sample reaches over 90 degrees celsius under load as opposed to dual 4890 crossfire or 4870x2 witch do not cross over 75 degrees in my 200$ Thermaltake Shark case.

 

[dragonsprayer]

First off the multipler has nothing to do with it -- the first core 2 had a sweet spot of 9 that went to 11 with the final verssions.

The sweet spot is 20-21 at 1600 fsb or 4-4.3ghz, every single 920 run it we built!

If you get your build just right we run 3.8-3.9ghz at 67-72c per core, after 48 hours of prime 95, plus stablity test - withe HT off!!!!!

You can run 5 anti spy/ virus, 3dmark and stree programs all day long at 4ghz! 1.33v

have fun!!!

 

[WheelsOfConfusion]

[citation][nom]ta152h[/nom]It's a bad design, and AMD is stuck with it, for now. [/citation]
The Phenom II is a bad design? What?
It's a excellent design. It's neck-and-neck with the Core 2's best offerings and priced competitively against them. Is the Core 2 a "bad design?" The problem is that this came about a year too late, after the original Phenom's massive let-down, and now has to be seen as competing with Intel's newest top-of-the-line chips, even if they're priced into a completely different league. But that tends to happen when you're the smaller, debt-plagued company on the verge of bankruptcy while your competition is a massive industrial juggernaut who brings in twice your revenue every year. Intel's greater RnD budget/personnel and lesser pressure from investors to turn a profit affords them a better ability to generate new designs in shorter order.

I don't own any AMD processors, but I'm impressed with their ability to design and manufacture this caliber of CPU even on the brink of the company's collapse. I'd never call it "a bad design" just because Intel came up with something better.

 

[scryer_360]

Given that we obviously hit some serious GPU bottlenecks, I think this test needs revisited.

Give the test setups in this article two GTX 295 cards, and then lets see where we are. The Phenom II X4 955 BEAT the Intel Core i7 975 in some game tests, or was so close that the several hundred dollar difference in price easily made it the winner. This has never happened before, in all tests prior we see the i7 as the superior chip.

And even old Core 2 Quad QX9770 shook a stick at i7 this time, and in the past many tests said that wasn't happening.

 

[Computer_Lots]

The only really CPU taxing thing I do on my PC is gaming. My old P4 3.0Ghz ran all of my other apps with no problem. I don't do any heavy media encoding or use any kind of CAD. I just need to check my email, work with MS Office, upload my youtube videos and burn the occasional DVD.

All that being said, the AMD PhenomII 955 is almost exactly equal to the Core i7 when it comes to gaming performance for much less money. I just did a quick price using the cheapest MOBO, RAM, CPU from Newegg. The AMD 955 system is about $140 cheaper than the Core i7 920 system and that's using a 3GB mem kit for the core i7 and a 4GB kit for the AMD. Add another $50 for the 6GB kit. I can use that extra $140 to get a better video card which will make a much bigger gaming difference than the CPU.

I don't really care if converting song in iTunes take a few extra seconds with the AMD.

 

[Computer_Lots]

I just realized that my spelling on that last comment was a bad as an ECS motherboard manual. If you read it out loud, I sound like Tonto

 

[megamanx00]

This review is GPU limited, obviously. I think that in order to take advantage of the number of threads on the i7 for multi-GPUs, single GeForce cards are limited. I do think it would have been better to do this review with a more powerful GPU solution, like a GTX285 or 4870X2.

 

[ta152h]

[citation][nom]WheelsOfConfusion[/nom]The Phenom II is a bad design? What? It's a excellent design. It's neck-and-neck with the Core 2's best offerings and priced competitively against them. Is the Core 2 a "bad design?" The problem is that this came about a year too late, after the original Phenom's massive let-down, and now has to be seen as competing with Intel's newest top-of-the-line chips, even if they're priced into a completely different league. But that tends to happen when you're the smaller, debt-plagued company on the verge of bankruptcy while your competition is a massive industrial juggernaut who brings in twice your revenue every year. Intel's greater RnD budget/personnel and lesser pressure from investors to turn a profit affords them a better ability to generate new designs in shorter order. I don't own any AMD processors, but I'm impressed with their ability to design and manufacture this caliber of CPU even on the brink of the company's collapse. I'd never call it "a bad design" just because Intel came up with something better.[/citation]

Wheels, bad is always a relative term. The Phenom II is junk, let's face it, compared to the i7. It's not any smaller, or power efficient, it's flat out inferior by a good margin. It's not because of their manufacturing technology, it's because they have a bad design.

The problems you bring up with them being debt ridden is because they have been making bad processors for a while. The K8 was a huge disappointment, and the fact they are still using a K7 derivative that is not much changed, is really plaguing them. The K8 was viewed as good because the Pentium 4 was so bad, but compared to Intel's mobile chips never really looked very good. The reality is, the processor is still too much like the K7, and has not been reinvented the way Intel has with the P6 based Core 2/Nehalem line. They can't keep slapping lipstick on this pig, they need to change it more significantly.

The Core 2 is an excellent design, by the way. It's a lot smaller, and easily outperforms the Phenom II on most benchmarks, clock normalized. On top of that, the Core 2 can reach slightly higher clock speeds. Oh, and it's a lot smaller, and cheaper to make.

What AMD charges has nothing to do with how good the design is. What it costs them to make is. I'll grant you, AMD processors can be price competitive, but only because they have to price them so low to even sell them. They're big and expensive to make. It's really a bad design, and they need to get Bulldozer out as quickly as possible, or it will be too late. If this is just another K7 iteration, without serious modifications, I'll be very, very disappointed and will write them off. They need to get Bulldozer right.

 

[fadirocks]

[citation][nom]cruiseoveride[/nom]Doesn't make any difference with games[/citation]
exactly!
so it's better to save up on the processor & memory, and I'll spend it on a better video card!

 

[MotorMouth]

I can't justify the price increase of the 970 or the other two. I built my system back in early February, then 1333 was way cheaper than 1600 memory and that's the only reason why I don't have 1600. I have been running this O/C since I built the system. Below are my specs.

Processor:...i7 920 @ 2.67GHz Quad-core, Overclocked to 4.2GHz Liquid cooled
Memory:...Patriot Viper DDR3 1333 6GB triple Channel Memory Running at 1611MHz with 9-9-9-24 timings
Motherboard:... ASUS P6T LGA 1366 Intel X58

Here are the MoBo Settings.
Ai O/C Tuner: Manual
CPU Ratio Setting: 21
Bclk: 201
DRAM Freq: DDR3-1611MHz
CPU Voltage: 1.4
DRAM Bus Voltage: 1.66

 

[razzb3d]

[citation][nom]ta152h[/nom]Wheels, bad is always a relative term. The Phenom II is junk, let's face it, compared to the i7. It's not any smaller, or power efficient, it's flat out inferior by a good margin. It's not because of their manufacturing technology, it's because they have a bad design.The problems you bring up with them being debt ridden is because they have been making bad processors for a while. The K8 was a huge disappointment, and the fact they are still using a K7 derivative that is not much changed, is really plaguing them. The K8 was viewed as good because the Pentium 4 was so bad, but compared to Intel's mobile chips never really looked very good. The reality is, the processor is still too much like the K7, and has not been reinvented the way Intel has with the P6 based Core 2/Nehalem line. They can't keep slapping lipstick on this pig, they need to change it more significantly. The Core 2 is an excellent design, by the way. It's a lot smaller, and easily outperforms the Phenom II on most benchmarks, clock normalized. On top of that, the Core 2 can reach slightly higher clock speeds. Oh, and it's a lot smaller, and cheaper to make. What AMD charges has nothing to do with how good the design is. What it costs them to make is. I'll grant you, AMD processors can be price competitive, but only because they have to price them so low to even sell them. They're big and expensive to make. It's really a bad design, and they need to get Bulldozer out as quickly as possible, or it will be too late. If this is just another K7 iteration, without serious modifications, I'll be very, very disappointed and will write them off. They need to get Bulldozer right.[/citation]


Are you by any chance BLIND!!?? For your information, the PII 955 i have in my shop kicks ass in anything game-related. It outperfoms the i7 920 i have at home. If you belive sandra tests (crappy synthetic benchmarks that favore intel arhitecture)then you can keep your opinions to yourself. Stop talking nonsense.

AGAIN:

- The i7 exels @ video encoding, rendering and heavy multi threaded parallel tasks. Mostly due to hyper threading. It is this hyper threading that kills it in games.

- The PII 955 with my mushkin 1833mhz DDR3 memory kills my i7 in games like Crysis and Stalker. It excels at this stuff. I use for testing my game mods.

Again. I have a hardware store. I own both these CPUs and more. I know what i'm talking about. If all ypu do with a PC is game, you will end up better with a PII 955 or a Q9650 on a DDR3 platform. Forking out the extra cache for a i7 is a waste of money. The platform is just not built for gaming.

My i7 rig kills in 3DS Max rendering, but is avarage in games.

 

[Guest]

Phhh... peoples here seems to forget that the 260 is quite a mainstream card that sell well. So if anyone is not willing to spend over 600$ over a graphic card, the only choice you can do for a gaming rig is AMD.

The best of all, your wallet will be thanking you.

By the way ta152h, the x4 955 is more power efficient than all the new i7 core... if there is one test you can trust in that article it's probably this one.

 

[The Third Level]

Also people seem to forget that Phenom II is not a direct challenger to the i7 anyway.