Intel's Core i7: Blazing Fast, But Crippled O/C

[Duncan NZ]

[citation][nom]AcaClone[/nom]Nero 8 Recode -129.0%Impressive!! So, the Nehalem must finish Nero already before it is even started. That is really impressive, but puts some doubts about the validity on all you bench markings!![/citation]
He's right you know. You can only be 100% slower before you're going backwards. I knew phenoms weren't as good as Intels line-up, but they're not that bad. I think you need to recalculate and apologize. I also really can't see Premiere Pro CS3 HDTV -98.9% being true... that would suggest Corei7 is 9090% faster in this app.

 

[zodiacfml]

hehe, amd/ati fans. yeah,its not as fast, just cheaper.
i knew you're going to do that article regarding SLI's and Crossfires for core i7, but it won't show big difference since games depend on clockspeed.
for the article, i think intel gave all they got in this architecture for reasons:
1. vastly improve server/workstation chips against amd
2. clock speed limitations

i'm sure that chips can't go faster anymore and future improvements will be adding more cores from this architecture, which, as the article said the nehalem is designed to accomodate.

 

[enforcer22]

[citation][nom]macer1[/nom]Chris don't feed us with excuses, it might be difficult but it is "someones" job. these excuses are a main reason i don't read articles from www.tomshardware.com with any intent of a purposeful read. Its more like the national inquirer, no wait they have real editors.[/citation]


Yes becuase that missing period totaly voids out the whole artical..... all i can say is BFD. this is why i dont read comments on articals much anymore. because its always some anal retentive idiot making a big deal about a comma being in the wrong place just to stroke his ego thinking anyone will care.

 

[Lost Nick]

I could be wrong, but I believe that the "-38.2%" on page 2 is referring to a Phenom 9950. Although the title at the top of the chart lists the "i7 940," the bold title of the section states that the comparison is between the 920 (base score) 9950 and the QX9770.

Again, I could be wrong, but that is the only way it seems to work.

On page 11, the title and chart show i7 as 20% faster than Core 2, then lists it as 25% faster in the body of the article. Is the 25% a result of hyperthreading being turned on, or is it a typo?

 

[slomo4sho]

I look forward to your follow-up article. I hope there is a comparison with overclocked market cores to the new i7 cores.

Since the limitations in overclocking present in the low end i7s, I really would like to see how the i7 920 holds up vs a overclocked E8600 and Q9650.

 

[breakz]

Intel will obviously have the performance crown but this time round AMD's Deneb @2.8-3GHz will probably beat the Corei7 920 according to Fudzilla [http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=9580&Itemid=66] especially considering it will be multiplier unlocked. Making the i7 920,945 non-overclockable was a bad move. Since you will have to buy a completely new platform AMD is at an advantage. Most people are looking for midrange priced stuff & an AMD 790FX + 3.0GHz Deneb + DDR2 combo will turn out cheaper than any i7 + X58 motherboard + DDR3 combo, will offer better graphics, be overclockable & be faster. Later you can look forward to faster AMD DDR3 supporting processors. Don't get me wrong, I think Intel's new processors are incredible in terms of performance but when it come to marketing & pricing they suck. I mean, what about the QX9770? Its going to end up much cheaper now. When you overclock it, it will probably approach or beat the performance of an i7 920. Meaning use you old motherboard, pop in an a faster quad core processor, overclock it & get better performance. Locked processors...Smart move Intel...

 

[spiralsun1]

AMD is still my choice for moral reasons -- Intel has a FAB in Israel! Jews are destroying our country with their undue influence in many sectors, and their control of our foreign policy (see the Walt and Mearsheimer book "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy"
, and Professor Kevin MacDonald's book "The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements (Paperback)" for all the DIRECT evidence). Jews are not victims. They are more like ultimate predators. We should not support them.

 

[ivaroeines]

I think the focus on overclocking by reviewers is missguided with these cpu's, todays cpus( Core i7 and core 2 quad in particular ) are so fast that overclocking them will not have any noticable performance gains for normal users. The only real effect overclocking will have is a negative enviormental impact. Whats the point of running a game at more than 60 fps, noone will notice the increase, of course there is a few people that can gain( realworld gain ) from overclocking, but these are very few and they usually dont use normal platforms.

 

[cryogenic]

[citation][nom]joseph85[/nom][/citation]

Well, I just wanted and apples to apples comparison, my bad it seems. (OC Nehalems compared to OC Penryns), but anyway, guess in the eyes of fanboys this is the right thing to do, mix and match OC cpus of newer generation with non OC older ones, makes those graphs "look more dramatic", and it's all about looks and first impression isn't it?

Seems to few people want a fair fight, instead they want to see some butchery, that makes them feel good. Next time someone comes to me saying that Nehalem is 3 times as fast as X, i'll ask are you talking about Extreme Edition Nehalem OC at 3.8 Ghz vs a factory clocked X?

 

[jaragon13]

So this is a complete Intel fanboy orgy or what?

 

[Slobogob]

Nice article.

The table on page 12 (second from top) has it's descriptors wrong though. The text above mentions the Phenom but in the table it suddenly is the Core I7 940.

 

[cryogenic]

[nom]jaragon13[/nom]So this is a complete Intel fanboy orgy or what?[/citation]

No, not really, just a slight desire for sensationalism, and the illusion of a wrestling match (you can easily make those graphs have an dramatic impact). Some people might like this, while some prefer apples 2 apples comparisons, and are only interested in the facts, not this kind technology entertainment. Depends what are you looking for.

 

[Guest]

I'd be very interested in knowing the performance boost with Flight Simulator X compared to the Core2 extremes, considering that is a very CPU demanding game that is largely bottlenecked by the CPU (generally to the point of unplayability). Can an i7 extreme run FSX at proper speeds?

 

[jitpublisher]

Good, good article.
And to jaragon13, "Intel fanboy orgy".....I have been an AMD fan for years. More than 12 years to be exact. But in todays race, I am sorry but AMD is falling so far behind they cannot even brought into discussion with processors of this caliber. AMD does have a place in the market, but if you are bringing up AMD in this disussion it's like you are at an NHRA event bringing up Chrysler K-cars. "It is better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt"

 

[arkadi]

Grate article, put things in prospective, i just hope 2 see how cpus like q9550 and e8600 over clocked do ageist overcooked core i7's. Rig with 920 will cost 500usd more than nice q9550 with ddr2 rig, i am not sure that it really worth it at this point, i am talking about gaming rig. And that before price on core2 changed.

 

[gamerk316]

With the exception of WiC (the only game that really takes advantage of more cores), I still don't see the point of upgrading from a decent Quad...

 

[Pei-chen]

[citation][nom]breakz[/nom]Intel will obviously have the performance crown but this time round AMD's Deneb @2.8-3GHz will probably beat the Corei7 920 according to Fudzilla [http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=9580&Itemid=66] especially considering it will be multiplier unlocked. Making the i7 920,945 non-overclockable was a bad move. Since you will have to buy a completely new platform AMD is at an advantage. Most people are looking for midrange priced stuff & an AMD 790FX + 3.0GHz Deneb + DDR2 combo will turn out cheaper than any i7 + X58 motherboard + DDR3 combo, will offer better graphics, be overclockable & be faster. Later you can look forward to faster AMD DDR3 supporting processors. Don't get me wrong, I think Intel's new processors are incredible in terms of performance but when it come to marketing & pricing they suck. I mean, what about the QX9770? Its going to end up much cheaper now. When you overclock it, it will probably approach or beat the performance of an i7 920. Meaning use you old motherboard, pop in an a faster quad core processor, overclock it & get better performance. Locked processors...Smart move Intel...[/citation]
Don't expect much. According to HardSpell (http://en.hardspell.com/doc/showcont.asp?news_id=3858), 45nm Phenom is about 15% faster than 65nm Phenom. So that's about 65nm C2Q clock-for-clock. Core i7 is about what, 30% faster clock-for-clock compares with 65nm C2Q? If that's the case, a 3.0GHz Deneb is equal to 2.3GHz Core i7.

 

[Pei-chen]

[citation][nom]spiralsun1[/nom]AMD is still my choice for moral reasons -- Intel has a FAB in Israel! Jews are destroying our country with their undue influence in many sectors, and their control of our foreign policy (see the Walt and Mearsheimer book "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy", and Professor Kevin MacDonald's book "The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements (Paperback)" for all the DIRECT evidence). Jews are not victims. They are more like ultimate predators. We should not support them.[/citation]
AMD is owned by Abu Dhabi, guess where it is.

 

[scooterlibby]

Wow, locking the non-Extreme models is utter BS. Definitely made my choice easy for building a system this year: E8600 all the way. I will never, ever, spend a grand on a processor so I can have the privilege of overclocking it.

 

[gorbag]

At least for the time being, the introduction of QuickPath Interconnect will also have a downside for buyers, since the Core i7 processor will only work with new chipsets. Until Intel launches a mid-range chipset, enthusiasts interested in the inexpensive Core i7 920 will still have to pay through the nose to buy boards based on the costly X58 high-end chipset. Absurdly, these boards will cost more than the processors they will be paired with!

"Absurdly"??!! Unusually maybe, but prices of boards, connectors, supporting chips, etc. are not tied to processors. I recall a time when MBs were routinely more expensive than processors.

 

[Farrwalker]

Very good article. This is the type of article that I like to see.

I am left a little puzzled for the point of view of an overclocker.
Quote from page seven: "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."

Does that mean that the I7 920 and 940 have a default amperage of 100 amps? Is the amperage always 100? If not, under what circumstances does the amperage change and who much?

The article had a CPU-Z that showed the 920 at 1.113v and the clock at 2670MHz. If the amperage is 100 then the watts would equal (Volts times Amps equals Watts) 111.3 Watts. Assuming the amperage remains constant then the 920 could have its voltage raised to 1.30v. A 0.187v increase could lead to modest overclocking gains over the possible gains that could be achieved at default voltage, depending on the actual chip. The article showed a 400MHz increase in clock speed on the Extreme 965 with a 0.200v increase. Perhaps some of the 920 will overclock to 3.0GHz with voltage set to 1.3v. The 920 at $284 seems a nice value compared to nearly $1000 for the Extreme 965 at 3.2GHz at default and 3.8GHz overclocked.

I agree with the article's conclusion that overclocking does depend in some degree on luck as to the chip that the individual overclocker gets in hand and that chip's inherent ability to be overclocked. Some chips get significant gains in clock speed at default voltages, some need more voltage to achieve the same clock speed.

So my question is what is the amperage of each chip? Are they all 100 amps no matter what the voltage is? Also, what is the default voltage of the 940 chip?

 

[frozenlead]

Does anyone feel a historical repeat coming on? Intel is getting awfully cocky (like in the p3 & 4 days) by limiting the OC. Then the Athlon came.
Same with nvidia. Got cocky over the 8000 series, then the 4000 series came from ATI. I hope that AMD has got something good in store - I don't want to be forced to buy $1000 processors just to overclock.

ATI was awfully quiet about the 4000 series, and they were explosive at launch. This makes me think AMD will do the same.

The only question is...do they have an explosive product in secret?
For my wallet's sake, I hope so. But I think the OC limit is a bad sign if both company's trends continue.

 

[breakz]

[citation][nom]Pei-chen[/nom][/citation]

That review is too old to be considered especially as its an (old stepping) engineering sample...Again, the Core i7 920 will not overclock well & the AMD Deneb will be a Black edition stock at 3GHz & will EASILY go over 4GHz. According to Fudo, it will probably overclock really well -(http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=10259&Itemid=1).Chances are it will BEAT an i7 940 stock when pushed over 4GHz. I guess we're jus gona hav to wait till Dec...

 

[jckrieger]

You guys talking about the i7 being locked are idiots. Toms, you guys need to overclock the lesser models so people can get over the power consumption limit. I run a decent air cooler on my Q6600 and I can say I went from 2.4ghz to 3.0ghz with no voltage increase. With that said, it should be possible to overclock the i7 from say, 2.6ghz to over 3ghz without even thinking about hitting the current/power limit. Intel implemented the power limit so people wouldn't fry the poor cpu's from excessive voltage increases and poor cooling.

 

[the last resort]

I honestly think that it is a little too early to say that AMD has been completely beaten. This article compared the i7 to the Phenom 9950. The Phenoms are old and really weren't that great. What really matters is what AMD's Denebs have in store for us. I think that AMD really isn't as far behind as most people think. I think that it is still a little to early to call a winner when AMD has released VERY little information.