Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

i7 does 5.28Ghz!! Super super Pi !!!

Last response: in CPUs
Share
November 2, 2008 11:00:49 PM

Look here http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=AnbMomZiCws

Its doing Super Pi in under 8 seconds! Nice!

More about : 28ghz super super

a c 127 à CPUs
November 2, 2008 11:04:19 PM

Huh. Says 5.28GHz but the CPU-Z was showing 5.36GHz. And 7.797s..... wow.

Thats not a half bad OC for a quad either. I can't wait to see what coolier does with it :o 
November 2, 2008 11:19:38 PM

Yea I did, but this is sub 8 in super pi, and faster yet. Coolaler will have a tough time beating this one
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
November 2, 2008 11:44:32 PM

People with too much free time and money... :whistle: 
November 2, 2008 11:48:06 PM

Good thing it was done in 8 seconds.....
The CPU likely melted in 10.................
November 2, 2008 11:57:12 PM

Thats just sic!

Best,

3Ball
November 3, 2008 12:01:44 AM

Like Ive been saying about Deneb, if these cpus oc well, its a good reason for upgrades. This looks kick@R$3!! Hopefully, all renditions of i7 will go nice like this
November 3, 2008 1:48:25 AM

High numbers alone dont make a good reason to upgrade. If what you already have gets the job done, aka OCed Q6600, OCed Q9xxx, OCed E8xxx.....

Impressive regardless, but unfortunately Super Pi does not replace my video card and dosent run games for me.
November 3, 2008 1:54:16 AM

spathotan said:
High numbers alone dont make a good reason to upgrade. If want you already have gets the job done, aka OCed Q6600, OCed Q9xxx, OCed E8xxx.....

Impressive regardless, but unfortunately Super Pi does not replace my video card and dosent run games for me.


Yep, i7's gaming performance is rather poor, according to early benchmark. For everything else, it does far more work per cycle, but stayed the same just for gaming. Boogers... :p 
November 3, 2008 2:01:29 AM

Great overclock, but as usual accomplished with an elaborate cooling system that no desktop for everyday use would ever employ. Yawn.....
November 3, 2008 2:06:22 AM

err dagger.. dont you mean i7's performance increase over this generation is negligible... it's not poor
a c 127 à CPUs
November 3, 2008 7:50:15 AM

They did a test with Source based games with i7. It was about a 1% gain. I am waiting though for Left 4 Dead (pre ordered YAY!!!). Because it will include multicore support.

Since most of the games I play 90% of the time are Source based that means this will benefit me if Core i7 does better. But I will wait till the price is right (All rights to Bob Barker).

As for the OC, I have yet to see anything above 4.5GHz on air (even then the heat was crazy). I don't expect i7 to do much more than current 45nm based C2Qs. But the fact that a quad can hit the 4GHz mark on air easily means that it can easily compete with the duals that OC so nicely.
November 3, 2008 8:04:06 AM

I was hoping for a 10% higher oc, plus the nudge in gaming perf woulda made this imcredible, but who knows yet? If it gets around 20%, including possibly higher running clocks, itll still look good. Some people dont oc, and having the turbo could make the difference
a c 127 à CPUs
November 3, 2008 8:12:32 AM

Jay, this is for you. This was from tweaktown. Its the Crysis benchmark. I know it doesn't speak for all of them but they tested it at 2 res. 1024x780 for CPU bottlenecking and 1600x1200 since thats pretty much the most common amongst gamers:



http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/1642/14/intel_core_i7_...

Now what I find interesting is that it shows that in this test a QX9770 (3.2GHz) vs a i7 965 (3.2GHz) and the Ci7 beats it at 1600x1200 Very High quality by about 35% (10.11FPS more). And at the same res and quality the Core i7 920 is only a mere 1.09FPS less. Thats only about a 4% difference with a clock speed disadvantage of 540MHz =/- a few MHz. Thats a lot better than the early reports stated.

They all used a 9800GX2 so same GPU so that couldn't be whats changing it.
a c 127 à CPUs
November 3, 2008 8:17:18 AM

Also you may want to check this site out:

http://antaresdigital.com/customer/product.php?producti...

$185 for orders of 5 Core i7 965XEs. Thats a total of about just under $1K for 5. If I had the extra money I would so buy 5 of them, sell 4 and then pay off some stuff and buy the mobo, GPU and memory.
November 3, 2008 8:23:25 AM

jimmysmitty said:
Jay, this is for you. This was from tweaktown. Its the Crysis benchmark. I know it doesn't speak for all of them but they tested it at 2 res. 1024x780 for CPU bottlenecking and 1600x1200 since thats pretty much the most common amongst gamers:

http://images.tweaktown.com/imagebank/ici7_test15.gif

http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/1642/14/intel_core_i7_...

.

and this test to Far cry 2 @ 1024X768
http://www.pcper.com/images/reviews/634/farcry2.jpg
Shown the Core i7-920 can beat Core 2 QX9770 :D 

source
http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=634

November 3, 2008 8:30:35 AM

Its looking like the 920 is the big winner in gaming!! And its the cheapest too!! Ive been reading all the benches, and it seems, tho theres alot of differences in their findings from site to site, one mainly consistant one is the lower end i7's doing very well
a c 127 à CPUs
November 3, 2008 10:23:04 AM

Yea it does. Especially since the 920 iss $300 bucks and the QX9770 is still $1500ish.
November 3, 2008 1:12:59 PM

eklipz330 said:
err dagger.. dont you mean i7's performance increase over this generation is negligible... it's not poor


Since oc is locked for non-extreme models, and work per cycle for gaming is around the same, it's a rather big downgrade from, say, a q6600@3.6ghz. That'd qualify as "poor." :p 
November 3, 2008 1:40:16 PM

8 seconds in an utterly useless super PI benchmark
November 3, 2008 2:10:55 PM

the 199.00 price is obviously a misprint. Its for five extreme editionsat 199.00. Yeh, i'll take 5 too!
a b à CPUs
November 3, 2008 6:19:11 PM

cjl said:
That's odd - the review I saw said it was an absolutely awesome gaming CPU, you just need enough graphics power to take advantage of it.

http://www.guru3d.com/article/core-i7-multigpu-sli-cros...




Well all i can say that the new Intel chip is making me incontinent..

The only problem is Im so excited ( pun ) that I cant work out if I am crapping or peeing myself !!!!


Intel, stay a while, stay forevaaaaa !
November 3, 2008 8:04:13 PM

Whats happening here is that finally, i7 is fast enough to take advantage of the higher gpu setups, as seen by most multi gpu setups shown or benched. Like Ive been saying for awhile, and gotten alot of crap about it,
1. i7 seems limited to ocing except the EE midels
2. The overall gaming improvements arent that great
3. Unless you have at ;\least 3Ghz, you wont see much improvements in gaming at all, which means youll have to shell out some serious monies for an upgrade here
4. Until now, weve seen limited results from previous cpus regarding the best gpu solutions out, and fiiiinally the cpus are catching up, but will only last til next gpu gen, and then we will be cpu bottlenecked again, and then itll only get worse. Unless gaming goes MT, or hopefully multi cored gpus work , or continue to work with i7 in this manor, then its time to make larger res, cause cpus have lost the speed battle, and the only way to max out future gens of gpus will be higher res


Having said all that, its good to see that i7's MT approach is being used by multi gpu setups, and hopefully, thatll include even larger multi gpu setups in the future, as theres been rumors of possibly having 4 gpu/cores on 1 card, and maybe i7 can work with them
November 3, 2008 10:12:34 PM

cjl said:
That's odd - the review I saw said it was an absolutely awesome gaming CPU, you just need enough graphics power to take advantage of it.

http://www.guru3d.com/article/core-i7-multigpu-sli-cros...


That compares an extreme edition i7 965 ($1k+) against a $170 dual core cpu instead of a quad, using dual and quad gpus, tested on a handpicked couple of highly multithreaded games. Dual/quad gpus bottleneck on dual core cpus, not to mention dual core cpu is at a clear disadvantage in highly multithreaded/quad optimized games.

Here are real comparisons, of i7 with other quad cores. They show clock rate of each, and demonstrates the performance/clock ratio in games.
http://techgage.com/article/intel_core_i7_performance_p...
http://www.techspot.com/review/124-intel-core-i7-920-94...

Note how i7 absolutely dominates in 3dmark. Too bad we have to play real games instead of 3dmark. :p 
November 4, 2008 12:08:42 AM

dagger, thanks for pointing that out, as I glanced over the benches. So this proves nothing really, as anyone knows a multi card setup requires a quadcore. Until maybe next gen gpus, then well just need faster cpus
!