Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

i7 940 Benchmarks

Last response: in CPUs
Share
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
October 18, 2008 7:02:54 PM

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...
a b à CPUs
October 18, 2008 7:11:15 PM

So all the other improvements arent needed? From what you say all computers are just for gaming.
Related resources
a b à CPUs
October 18, 2008 7:34:32 PM

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....
October 18, 2008 7:44:35 PM

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.
October 18, 2008 7:44:55 PM

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
October 18, 2008 7:47:05 PM

^+1

As a gamer this chip is borderline worthless. Definetly better off waiting for the 2nd wave of chips next year.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
October 18, 2008 7:54:09 PM

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"
October 18, 2008 9:06:53 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
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


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,1... 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...
October 18, 2008 10:26:27 PM

epsilon84 said:
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,1... 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...

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....
October 18, 2008 11:21:48 PM

Lets not forget these are ES and the final product could be different. Chipset drivers might not be optimized yet.

Its time to wait and see, what the retail chips can do.
October 19, 2008 2:19:39 AM

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.
October 19, 2008 2:34:09 AM

ouch company of heroes seems to suffer alot under core i7...i wonder why this is?
October 19, 2008 2:38:42 AM

^ 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
October 19, 2008 2:49:16 AM

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
October 19, 2008 2:55:14 AM

spuddyt said:
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....


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...

Anonymous
a b à CPUs
October 19, 2008 2:59:17 AM

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...
October 19, 2008 3:00:37 AM

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
a b à CPUs
October 19, 2008 3:07:25 AM

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 ...

October 19, 2008 3:13:58 AM

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
October 19, 2008 3:20:05 AM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
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.


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.
October 19, 2008 3:27:16 AM

Quote:
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
October 19, 2008 3:35:03 AM

Lets not forget that SSE4 is totally worthless :( 
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
October 19, 2008 3:46:29 AM

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 )
a b à CPUs
October 19, 2008 3:49:13 AM

wait till they bolt 4 or these together ... that's when you will see wht Nehalem is meant to do.

I imagine it going into many of the Supercomputers to come ...

But I am not worthy to calculate .... you get the drift?
October 19, 2008 3:52:29 AM

Quote:
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...

use your brain. Single core applications should run faster on newer chips than older chips, clock for clock.

That's the entire point of newer chips.
October 19, 2008 3:54:07 AM

Occasionally people will use winrar etc, some people need their pcs to do work. But thats not very many here, or in overall usage. I dont see any winrar parites coming soon, or folding championships either, but hey, I love LAN parties. These "extras" are nice to a smaller few than people are willing to admit, as for when it comes to gaming, most people do
October 19, 2008 3:58:38 AM

descendency said:
use your brain. Single core applications should run faster on newer chips than older chips, clock for clock.

That's the entire point of newer chips.


But thats the problem, theres not alot of improvement with i7 in single core apps. From what weve seen in Deneb leaks, theyre just as high, and its only a refresh/shrink, not a complete overhaul. If AMDS next arch is as bad in improvements, this is going to be trouble for us gamers
October 19, 2008 4:55:46 AM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
http://www.pcgameshardware.com/&menu=browser&image_id=8... http://www.pcgameshardware.com/&menu=browser&image_id=8...
You have links? I mean do you really have links that prove this? Because, looking at my links, IPC equals about 400Mhz or so , and no, the current cpu used/K8 isnt faster than Phenom


http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/spider-weaves-web,1...



At launch Phenom 9600 was ~12% slower than the X2 6400+ in gaming. Nearly a year later, even the 9950BE can't really beat an X2 6400+ in these games, seeing its only clocked 13% faster than the 9600 and gaming performance doesn't increase linearly with CPU clocks unless the game is extremely CPU bound.

But keep on tooting that IPC horn... it doesn't matter if its actually slower, as long as it has higher IPC! :kaola: 
a b à CPUs
October 19, 2008 5:12:41 AM

Those benchmarks don't look bad to me - roughly even with a 9770 in gaming, and absolute slaughter in everything else. I wouldn't look at that as bad at all, especially as I use my computer for other CPU intensive tasks than just gaming.
a b à CPUs
October 19, 2008 8:56:49 AM

So let me get this right? Now just about everybody on these forums is a hard core gamer. Or builds there machines for gaming or whatnot. So most the people on here are very knowlegdable about gaming rigs and gaming performance.

So why is it that everything I have seen in this thread is how i7 sucks at gaming? You guys are the same guys that time after time say after 3ghz or around that speed on the CD2 and X2s you dont see much improvement in games. And its all about the graphics cards. That the cpu is not the bottleneck at those speeds and at the resulution that all of you gamers play at. Its not a frigging GPU folks.

And on the AMD side. I know all of you gamers have looked at all the CD2 benchies on cpus with different amount of cache. And have seen the effects of having more or less cache. Even though the AMD cpus have had a IMC for a while I still expected there new cpus coming out to peform better in games because they will have alot more cache than the current Phenoms.

I admit I am no gamer by any means. But I do follow the progress in gaming peformance. But honestly most of the stuff I have seen in this thread is just basically stupid.

Basically, If your main use of your machine is gaming. Then why in the world where you even waiting for i7 or expecting improvements in gaming like the improvements in other apps. As I said before with the Denabs, I could see a gamer looking forward to them. Why? Cause they should clock to around 3ghz or more. Which seems to be sweet spot for all your games. It will have more cache. Which games seem to love(yeah I know its different archs and fsb vs the IMC).

I wish I had a time machine and went ten years into the future and got the top of line cpus(assuming its still just a cpu and cpu/gpu hybrid) from AMD and Intel. Then paired them with the same graphics cards and test we have today. I dont think there would a big jump in performance except in games that cpu intensive like fligh simulator.

But hey, I could have it all wrong
October 19, 2008 9:29:05 AM

Someguy, you certainly have a point. After a certain point ( and 3Ghz seems like a magical number ), returns diminish rapidly when it comes to gaming. If a person is strictly gaming with their PC and owns a good, relatively new chip, they probably shouldn't be too excited about the next big thing in that department. Playing Crysis at 1920x1200 with all the eye candy on a 3 Ghz Core 2 Duo will probably be nearly identical to doing the same on an i7 extreme. The graphics card is the limiting factor.

I think that the majority of us tend to forget some of what we know about the technology and get caught in the hype when we're anticipating a major release. It happens to the best of us.

I'm interested in Nehalem and Deneb because my gaming PC is also my workhorse and multitasking is king. The more processes I can run smoothly at any given time, the better because there's always so much to be done.
October 19, 2008 9:47:58 AM

Ummm, its not so much as diminishing returns after 3Ghz, that was about as fast as the LAST gen of GPUs could get anything otu of them, and the gpu would be the bottleneck. Thats not true anymore, and its alot of those guys, not me saying with each faster gen of gpus, the cpus need to clock higher to brings out the best in a gpu, and already, theres proof of over 4.5Ghz still benefitting Crysis with the right gpus. And next gen itll be even higher. So, even tho a game COULD require a gpu to go flat out, at sokme point the cpu wont keep up, so unless something eventually changes, and thats within the next 2 years, we will start seeing diminishin returns on slower cpus, no matter what, if they arent also alot better than they are today, and seeing as i7 shows no real improvements, this is a concern.

Other people think 3Ghz is fine, and for most part it is, but a few NEWER games really benefit from higher clocks. I just want to differentiate myself from all those "other guys" youve mentioned. By May of next year, gpus will be 20-40% faster and maybe more, but if the cpu cant keep up, it wont matter. Imagine if it were the other way around? Multitasking was becoming more and more demanding, say 20-40% more by May, and yet i7 didnt show any improvements? Lets put this in perspective?
a c 127 à CPUs
October 19, 2008 10:35:53 AM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
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.


Problem is that Phenoms don't come stock 3GHz and not all of them do OC to 3GHz unless paired with a SB750 mobo and even thats not a 100% gurantee it will OC at all. Considering a lot of ppl who bought Phenoms did so because their current mobo supported them you wont see as many at 3GHz. Once Deneb comes in and should be at 3GHz stock (although from what I read that will be the FX chip maybe) then it will be more comparable. Its great that they can keep up but without the ability to at least OC or reach stock 3GHz its useless.

skittle said:
Lets not forget that SSE4 is totally worthless :( 


Thats because no one has written support for it much. I think it will be better once it gets fully utilized.

someguy7 said:
So let me get this right? Now just about everybody on these forums is a hard core gamer. Or builds there machines for gaming or whatnot. So most the people on here are very knowlegdable about gaming rigs and gaming performance.

So why is it that everything I have seen in this thread is how i7 sucks at gaming? You guys are the same guys that time after time say after 3ghz or around that speed on the CD2 and X2s you dont see much improvement in games. And its all about the graphics cards. That the cpu is not the bottleneck at those speeds and at the resulution that all of you gamers play at. Its not a frigging GPU folks.

And on the AMD side. I know all of you gamers have looked at all the CD2 benchies on cpus with different amount of cache. And have seen the effects of having more or less cache. Even though the AMD cpus have had a IMC for a while I still expected there new cpus coming out to peform better in games because they will have alot more cache than the current Phenoms.

I admit I am no gamer by any means. But I do follow the progress in gaming peformance. But honestly most of the stuff I have seen in this thread is just basically stupid.

Basically, If your main use of your machine is gaming. Then why in the world where you even waiting for i7 or expecting improvements in gaming like the improvements in other apps. As I said before with the Denabs, I could see a gamer looking forward to them. Why? Cause they should clock to around 3ghz or more. Which seems to be sweet spot for all your games. It will have more cache. Which games seem to love(yeah I know its different archs and fsb vs the IMC).

I wish I had a time machine and went ten years into the future and got the top of line cpus(assuming its still just a cpu and cpu/gpu hybrid) from AMD and Intel. Then paired them with the same graphics cards and test we have today. I dont think there would a big jump in performance except in games that cpu intensive like fligh simulator.

But hey, I could have it all wrong


Which is why I am glad that the games I play are very CPU dependant. All of VALVes games are Source based which is very CPU dependant. A great example is TF2. Someone with a low end X2 wont do as well as someone with a low end C2D or even worse than a C2Q even with the same GPU at high res. Hopefully Nehalem will bring some improvements to Source performance wise if so thats reason enough for me, even as a gamer, to buy it. Plus the encoding will be faster with it as well since I like to rip videos and DVDs.

But most other games at such high res as 1920x1200 will see little or no benefit from anything. Its all GPU based there. And even though a faster CPU will benefit you better average FPS because it helps the lower FPS it wont be as much a benefit as a faster GPU would be.

Other than that Nehalem is still living up to its promise in non gaming apps. Most everything synthetic or real world sees huge gains and some are up in the relm of 40% +. I think it will be even better in the server market because of its 192bit IMC and the servers will have quad DDR3 as well as 3x QPI which means they will have even larger gains than we will see.
a b à CPUs
October 19, 2008 12:22:38 PM

Lunkwill and Fook probably designed the i7.

Majikthise and Vroomfondel obviously designed Phenom.


a b à CPUs
October 19, 2008 12:30:38 PM

And you corrected my spelling error too ... thanks.

Wow ... Intel caught lying ... that's er ... unusual.

Now the Intel fanboys here harped on and on about AMD lying about Barcelona's performance ... oh ... I wonder how they will spin this one??

Comments from the spits please??
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
October 19, 2008 2:39:27 PM

Exactly... For the average consumer... who isn't a professional... Core i7 is a failure. Period. It brings absolutely no performance to the user who just uses his computer for school work and games... Fact.

Theres no point in getting a grossly more expensive line-up of processors... when the "old" previous gen does everything almost just as well...


To me this Core i7 is a failure in everyday use... As a professional i'd think its an amazing step up as it has more multi threading support. I still believe this chip is not designed at consumers, but rather very large corporations and the professionals who need it. I'm waiting for a processor that changes the game at a consumer level, not a corporate level.
October 19, 2008 3:46:49 PM

It gives no benefit in games. But it's an upgrade for winrar, 3dmark vantage, superpi(12.8 vs. 14.4), cinebench and most other non gaming applications. It's a great CPU if gaming isn't your main thing and you can afford the high cost.

"To me this Core i7 is a failure in everyday use... As a professional i'd think its an amazing step up as it has more multi threading support. I still believe this chip is not designed at consumers, but rather very large corporations and the professionals who need it. I'm waiting for a processor that changes the game at a consumer level, not a corporate level."


Intel aimed at the market that would yield the most profit. The professional market is much bigger than the gamers market so it was logical Intel went that route. I did hear the shrink to 32nm will help it in every market, mostly due to higher clocks.
October 19, 2008 3:49:42 PM

if the price of i7 would be huge compared to c2d (motherboard and ddr3 comparison) how long would i be fit with a c2Q 6600 or 9550? a new socket is a big thing, isn't it?
October 19, 2008 4:08:37 PM

I7 isnt gonna be much more then a higend core 2 duo system.

DDR3 Ram rated @ 1.5v is like $80- $90 for 2 gigs. Not much more then DDR2

x48 motherboards are close to the $400 range and up depending where you get them.

Q9550 is $319+
Q9650 is $549+

The I7 920 is $289 in tray quantitys, so I expect it to be $320- $350.

I assume motherboards will be $400-$550 on launch, and expect some to come out $200 or less soon after.

If any of my assumptions are correct the I7 isnt any more then $200 -$300 more then a highend Q9550 rig.
October 19, 2008 6:16:14 PM

thanks! made my knowledge bigger!
October 19, 2008 6:34:08 PM

Here's the way I see it. It's time for me to upgrade..Nehalem or not. No if I'm upgrading anyway, why would I not go for Nehalem. It's not going to be worse than current gen CPU's in gaming. It has the potential to be more future proof for gaming when they start coding games to utilize MT. And it also gives a big increase in the other work I do like Video editing and 3d modeling,, rendering and what not. If I'm gonna be laying out big bucks to build a new machine, I mine as well spend a little more right.

Saying nehalem sucks is pretty stupid Just cause it doesn't give you a big increase in gaming performance. It gives you at least the same gaming performance as the best quad cores on the market today...so how can it suck. I could see saying it sucked if it's performance noticeably decreased.
October 19, 2008 7:10:39 PM

NewLCD123 said:
It gives no benefit in games. But it's an upgrade for winrar, 3dmark vantage, superpi(12.8 vs. 14.4), cinebench and most other non gaming applications. It's a great CPU if gaming isn't your main thing and you can afford the high cost.


It will be fun to watch the forum spin on this issue for the next few months.

Didn't anybody predict these results months ago? (HINT: Yes but they were ridiculed because it was too ludicrous to even consider.)
October 19, 2008 7:44:59 PM

The actual problem with Intel is, it releases its cpus from top first then on down. At the top, we see no or very very little gaming performance for i7. Now, AMD releases their cpus from maybe mid to low end first, and later increases their clocks. So, in reality, Phenom DOES do better in gaming than K8, which had how many years to perfect itself? So, the current top end Phenom IS better than K8. Spin away as you wish, but Intels i7, their best of their best isnt any better than their old gen in gaming, while AMDs best has improved that immensely. Thats just the way it is, and no excuses, spins twists or wishful thinking will change it

Ill add, looking at the Toms findings, going up just 100Mhz brings 4% difference between the two cpus, so going to 300Mhz? Its obviously better. The faster Phenom goes, the better it does in many ways. I admit, it isnt 52% better, but better IS better, tho cant really say that about i9, where we see it losing in some games
a c 127 à CPUs
October 19, 2008 7:55:14 PM

roadrunner197069 said:
I7 isnt gonna be much more then a higend core 2 duo system.

DDR3 Ram rated @ 1.5v is like $80- $90 for 2 gigs. Not much more then DDR2

x48 motherboards are close to the $400 range and up depending where you get them.

Q9550 is $319+
Q9650 is $549+

The I7 920 is $289 in tray quantitys, so I expect it to be $320- $350.

I assume motherboards will be $400-$550 on launch, and expect some to come out $200 or less soon after.

If any of my assumptions are correct the I7 isnt any more then $200 -$300 more then a highend Q9550 rig.


Intels first i7 mobo is $300. I am sure the Asus "Includes the kitchen sink" model will come at $350-400.
a c 127 à CPUs
October 19, 2008 7:56:18 PM

keithlm said:
It will be fun to watch the forum spin on this issue for the next few months.

Didn't anybody predict these results months ago? (HINT: Yes but they were ridiculed because it was too ludicrous to even consider.)


No you predicted that Core i7 wouldn't do any better than current gen Core 2s in anything. You never specified gaming.
October 19, 2008 8:07:39 PM

Well, we could always thow a Pi party? or maybe a winrar party? Lets all get together and play Vantage, shall we?
a c 127 à CPUs
October 19, 2008 8:57:17 PM

^Considering that Winrar is the most universally used compressing typr next to Zip and 7-Zip I would think performance there matters.

What you need to do is realize that the world doesn't revolve around PC gaming. I love PC gaming but do a lot of other stuff to that would benefit from the boost Core i7 can give.

As for the claims of 52% gaiming performance increase I think that was on Lost Planet which is supposed to be multithreaded.
!