i7 940 Benchmarks

G

Guest

Guest
once again proving my point core i7 isn't needed... its even worse than the q9770 in some games...

core i7 is just a transition processor for them... they are transitioning from having separate stuff... to integrated stuff like memory controller... hopefully westmere will actually bring noticeable improvement in architecture - besides the notable improvement in integration and native quad core stuff...
 

cliffro

Distinguished
Aug 30, 2007
1,282
1
19,660
From a "Gamer" standpoint its not an improvement....or atleast not worth the cost to upgrade to i7. I'm sure it shines in other areas....just not in gaming.

For me I built my computers with gaming in mind....everything else is an afterthought.

I will say that Havendale and AMD's equivalent are really great ideas....It means you can build a computer for some one and use a much better motherboard without an IGP then if its not to their liking(performance wise) they can just throw in a cheap discrete card ala 8400gs/9400gt.
because alot of the boards with IGPs really are lacking the extras like extra PCI slots etc....
 

spathotan

Distinguished
Nov 16, 2007
2,390
0
19,780
Those world in conflict results are laughable at best.

In terms of gaming and gaming alone, the first phrase that comes to mind when purchasing an i7 chip is "jumping the shark" on your wallet and sanity.
 
To me, and this wont go down well, clock for clock, this release of Intels true Quad with IMC, its shows worse than AMDs transition from their duals to Phenom. Sure, the MT capabilities are there, but the gaming performance clock for clock just dont exist, whereas for AMD, clock for clock, the Phenom showed improvements in gaming. To me as a consumer, and was looking forwards to this cpu, Im a bit let down. Flame all you want at what Im saying, but so far from what Ive seen, and as a gamer, thats my opinion. Add in all the extra costs vs whats already here, and its a no win for me, and thats whats important to me as a gamer
 
G

Guest

Guest
bad trip stop being so defensive... most people here are not people who use their computers professionally who need very competent hardware... and the few that do... know how to ignore posts like mine and can decide what they need for themselves...

generally this forum is oriented around gaming... thats why i say its useless... and even from a desktop standpoint core 2 is still "adequate"
 

epsilon84

Distinguished
Oct 24, 2006
1,689
0
19,780


Yes, because your argument is flawed. Look at the bigger picture. Phenom is faster per clock, but it also ran at far lower clockspeeds than X2s. In terms of overall performance, it was not enough to overcome the massive clockspeed deficit to K8. At launch Phenom was actually slower than the existing X2 6400+ in most gaming benchmarks: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/spider-weaves-web,1728-21.html In fact even to this day Phenom has yet to truly exceed the gaming performance of the X2 6400+. If you wanna talk 'let down' then its staring you right in the face, but hey, keep spinning it with the clock for clock talk...

At least gaming performance is not going down with the i7 launch. Talk about clock for clock all you want, but in terms of actual performance there is no net reduction with the Core 2 -> i7 transition, unlike X2 -> Phenom.

By your logic, if Nehalem was 25% faster per clock in gaming but clocked at 2GHz only, making it slower than Core 2 overall, you'd still be impressed because 'clock for clock' its faster...
 

spuddyt

Distinguished
Jul 21, 2007
2,114
0
19,780

errrr... does the phrase "Quad core" mean anything to you? because of course the K10 quads weren't going to reach the same clockspeeds as the K8 duals....
 
Ummm, lessee, doesnt Phenom hit 3Ghz? Is it better than K8? Better clock for clock? Yes, yes and yes. You can argue all you want, Im speaking now, and Im speaking facts. It has nothing to do with how fast either i7 or Phenom will finally be, but clock for clock. The walls been hit as far as how faster, Im talking IPC. Yes, Phenom was better by alot in IPC, and i7 doesnt do much there, as far as gaming goes, so yes, Phenom did more coming out than i7 did, as far as gaming. Some people just cant stand anything positive about AMD, or even worse, that AMD has done better regarding their own cpus than Intel has, again, as far as gaming. I know, people will say anything, to me its crazy. i7 just doesnt do it for gaming, wasnt a upgrade for gaming, isnt an upgrade for gaming, tho, for AMD users Phenom is. And Deneb even looks better, again for AMD users, than i7 does as far as overall increases goes, again, as far as gaming. Why this is controversial or shocking or anything else is crazy, because its true. Show me, clock for clock how much better i9 is for gaming than Penryn? Ill show you better results with Phenom clock for clock over K8.
 

krazyk12

Distinguished
Oct 26, 2007
87
0
18,630
^ no it doesnt

what about the fact, that these games, are not coded to support quad core.

as soon as games start to do so, you will only see more increases

as much as you might like to. you cannot deny it
 
We may see 10% or so better performance using MT in gaming, or thats what it seems at this point, like in UT3, which is known for its MT usage. Believe me, 10% isnt a big deal. Going from single to dual produces real nice increases in gaming, but beyond that, we havnt seen alot using more than 2 cores. At least, what youre seeing in these synthetic benches/apps as nice increases, we will NEVER see in MT games. IPC and better speeds are way more important
 

epsilon84

Distinguished
Oct 24, 2006
1,689
0
19,780


Right, because the K10 duals are doing much better at 2.3GHz... oh wait, K10 duals are clocked lower than quads! :sarcastic:

Meanwhile Nehalem will be launched at the same clockspeed as C2Ds...

 
G

Guest

Guest
ok as soon as a game is coded for quad cores... a core 2 quad would see the same benefits because it also has those extra cores...

use your brain... stop thinking core i7 is all that when it CLEARLY isn't...
 
That only may be so unless Deneb comes in at a high clock. If Deneb comes in at 3Ghz, youll see more than a few "older" Intel cpus get a revamp and have higher clocks. Id say its more of Intel sandbagging than anything, to Intels credit. But, at the same time, a dual will oc better than a quad
 
This thing was touted by the fanboys as being so damned fast you would need help making sure the CPU didn't fly away when you took it out of the box to seat it in the mobo.

Some fanboys probably looked into radiation shields too ... lol.

Too much expectation.

It is clearly a modular designed cpu for the server market.

I don't see where Intle made any claims it would do anything it doesn't ... so you can't blame them for the hype.

I imagine the multi threaded apps will really fly running this thing tho ...

Plus Intel's process will ensure the silicon runs fast.

Expect the second iteration of any new processor to show the most improvement in design ...

 
I hope so, because as a gamer faster+better. Im not buying the hype that MT in gaming will be all that, because once its done, its done, and no more increases there, maybe some tweaking in coding, but not alot.

Its like this, once we saw the nice improvements going from single to dual, it was done, over with, and since then weve mostly seen better clocks and better IPC for the improvements in gaming
 

epsilon84

Distinguished
Oct 24, 2006
1,689
0
19,780


So what you're saying is that you're more concerned about IPC than actual performance. The fact that the now 2 year old 90nm based X2 6400+ can still beat any Phenom in gaming has absolutely no relevance to you, because the Phenom has higher IPC... thats OK, whatever floats your boat.
 

krazyk12

Distinguished
Oct 26, 2007
87
0
18,630
ok as soon as a game is coded for quad cores... a core 2 quad would see the same benefits because it also has those extra cores...

use your brain... stop thinking core i7 is all that when it CLEARLY isn't...


but in real world apps, like photoshop, winrar things like that, clock for clock, it shows big gains, so while not as big, of course, the nahalems will see larger gains that any c2q or c2e in gaming if coded for quad (correctly).

:non:

so... how about you use YOUR brain ^^


and clearly at the price point its gonna cost to build one of these machines, it isnt made for the cheapies.

the nahalem has added power you cant deny that. and with that comes the ability to run even more powerful gpus, tri sli gtx 280's, dual 9800gx2's and next gen cards that will be coming out, with out bottlenecking, and without the need to OC to get rid of an bottle
 
G

Guest

Guest
I did use my brain... Core i7 has benefits... but in MOST real world apps you will see little to no gain...

not all you... but a lot of people lately have been "OMG CORE i7 IS TOTALLY AWESOME!!!"... its not... thats a fact... for professionals who need things like winrar and multi threading... thats nice... but for the average joe who just buys an expensive under powered computer from dell... he/she will not need the core i7 experience...

and for even hardware enthusiasts its a waste of cash ATM

I'll wait to see what they do with westmere... but I want another architecture upgrade... not just more cores and some other multi-threading stuff... I want a REAL jump in processor power not some just tacked on cores... I mean really... how hard can it be to just tack on more cores... thats all gpus have been doing... (not exactly correct but close enough to make my point... what that is i don't know :D)