Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Any i7 adopters out there?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
November 23, 2008 12:38:37 PM

I'm curious, because I was about to upgrade, and am wondering if anyone has adopted, and thinks these cpus/mobos are worth it. Your personal experience is sought for advice! Are you basically happy with your purchase? Were there any major problems with your build or installation? Any and all thoughts by those who have adopted. thx

More about : adopters

November 23, 2008 12:45:05 PM

although I haven't bought one from everything I've heard and seen they are worth it if you want the fastest current processor.
November 23, 2008 12:48:10 PM

I'm really more interested in actual user's experience. Not to be rude, but actual issues that are problems are what I'm interested in.
Related resources
November 23, 2008 1:46:55 PM

Let's put it this way. There is a person that use to be here, in which he doesn't come here anymore for reasons I don't know of and aren't going to speculate, who has just put together a I7 965 system and he is very impressed with it. He is putting it thru a number of benchmarks on it and it performs very well. You can PM me if you want to look at the site he's on to find out more info.
November 23, 2008 2:21:42 PM

Yeah I built one and absolutely no problems. Anyway, if you are building now you may want to go i7 incase you need/want to upgrade again anytime soon. Going with a 775 quad or dual will leave you with obsolete components in a year or two.
November 23, 2008 2:43:54 PM

a lot of the reason I'm thinking of going the route of i7 is just to have the socket for my upgrade path.
November 23, 2008 2:49:42 PM

I got the i7 920 and couldnt be happier. It didnt cost any more then someone buying a q9550 with a 790i or x48 motherboard, with ddr3.

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/258117-31-roadrunners...

3.8 on stock cooler, and it has been 4.0 but was to hot on prime95 on stock cooling at 4.0. Hopefully next week I will have a aftermarket heatsink.

November 23, 2008 2:56:55 PM

The aftermarket heatsinks aren't really appearing, though I know some hsf makers have made attachment devices for the socket.
November 23, 2008 2:57:34 PM

Nice looking setup there, roadrunner.
Me=envious.
a b à CPUs
November 23, 2008 3:05:27 PM

jeteryankees22 said:
Yeah I built one and absolutely no problems. Anyway, if you are building now you may want to go i7 incase you need/want to upgrade again anytime soon. Going with a 775 quad or dual will leave you with obsolete components in a year or two.


:lol:  I am sure that your new system is one that dreams are made of, congrats on that, but you do not think that your i7 that you just dropped a wad on will not be obsolete in a year or two? :lol: 
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
November 23, 2008 3:40:14 PM

The problem with saying it doesn't cost anymore than a q9550 w/ a x48 with ddr3... is the fact that most people with a q9550 don't own that....

I own a 150$ p45 board (there are cheaper p45 boards out there as well) and 50$ ram.... right there i took off almost 300 $ compared to your core i7 build... sure i have 2 GB less ram, and I don't have the capability to do uber multi card setups... but for much less I am very close to your performance...
a c 159 à CPUs
November 23, 2008 4:13:49 PM

I use an e4300 overclocked with copper tape; I'd love to get a core i7, but for surfing the net, it makes no sense. It all depends on what you use your system for, and your budget.
November 23, 2008 4:19:47 PM

Quote:
The problem with saying it doesn't cost anymore than a q9550 w/ a x48 with ddr3... is the fact that most people with a q9550 don't own that....

I own a 150$ p45 board (there are cheaper p45 boards out there as well) and 50$ ram.... right there i took off almost 300 $ compared to your core i7 build... sure i have 2 GB less ram, and I don't have the capability to do uber multi card setups... but for much less I am very close to your performance...




Come on now dont be a hater.

I said 790i/ x48 with ddr3, not p45. The vast majority of players that want 2 cards go for 790i and 48x. If you want 2x Nvidia you cant use x48, so ya theres plenty of q9550s on x48 and x58.

As far as being close to my performance. Keep on dreaming.

I got a p45 with a 4.0 e8400 and 4g ram. My i7 blows it away on anything I throw at them.

I have both, you dont!!! Until you have experienced both first hand, dont talk about something you know nothing about.

Also, I can run sli, or xfire, thats as good as having 2 motherboards if you like to change gpu everytime something better comes out.


There is some x58 boards right around $200 and 4g ddr3 for $115, and if you have a q9550 you could of had a $200 x58 and 4g of ddr3 and a i7 920 for $95 more. $95 more for the performance benifits and the upgrade options is well worth the money. Any one that says different is a jealous hater.
November 23, 2008 4:23:24 PM

the i7 and x58 are squarely aimed at the high end, not midrange. why do people keep dragging the p45 into it lol
November 23, 2008 4:35:17 PM

jitpublisher said:
:lol:  I am sure that your new system is one that dreams are made of, congrats on that, but you do not think that your i7 that you just dropped a wad on will not be obsolete in a year or two? :lol: 


No I know it will, but most likely I will be able to upgrade using same board and memory, unlike a 775..you know?
November 23, 2008 4:52:48 PM

"... obsolete in a year or two?"

May I ask what you are fantasizing about? Do I need heavy drugs to see this?

The only thing I can imagine now is a system that makes it possible to use ray tracing in games, but that is going to be 3+ years off.
November 23, 2008 5:01:37 PM

Most people in the market for a PC today will say wow i7 is expensive and I can get good performance for less.

These same people will be seeing significant price drops in 1 year, and apps that are using the new technology to its fullest. AKA (Windows 7) around this time next year, amongst other mulithreaded apps games.

These people will be like, oh I better get i7 cause now I need it. They will need a entirely new platform.

Long story short, if your building now and you dont want to upgrade for 2-3 years, get the i7 now. If your gonna want i7 next year, get it now.

Last time I checked a new system now and another one in a year, will cost more then doing it right the first time.

Also expect to see some socket 1366 mobos for the budget croud as well very soon, I've seen rumors on another i7 board with a different socket name that will use DDR2, however this is a rumor as far as I know.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
November 23, 2008 5:19:32 PM

I'm a hater :D 

Anyway Hopefully Windows 7 will truly be multi-threaded BUT... it won't matter as we have yet to see any VISTA stuff be integrated into software... is there a single TRULY DX 10 game out there? I have yet to see one that is really DX 10 and not just DX 9 with some DX 10 stuff thrown in

Take the adoption time of DX 10 and then you can get an idea of possible adoption time of DX 11, hopefully people will just migrate to DX 11 over DX 10, but its unlikely cause businesses like holding onto what works over moving onto something newer... that is possibly better
November 23, 2008 5:22:46 PM

As far as aftermarket coolers go, arent the existing ones with the adapters for LGA 1366 inadequate? What I mean by that is, i7 is a significantly larger chip, with an obviously larger IHS. Wouldnt the existing heatsinks not have enough base to cover the whole IHS on i7, or at least be cutting way to close?
November 23, 2008 5:24:55 PM

Xbit Labs

"Although Intel Corp.’s initial Core i7 lineup includes a central processing unit that sells below $300, the new microprocessor family may never become mainstream, at least, based on Intel’s plans. Apparently, the quad-core Core i7 will have a tiny share among Intel’s desktop shipments even in three quarters from now.

According to Intel’s plans that X-bit labs has learnt, Intel pushes its highest-performing Core i7 chips based on Nehalem micro-architecture only into personal computers aimed at consumers. But even on that market Intel has no plans to be really aggressive with promotion of the new platform or flood the market with processors, while reducing the supplies of existing Intel Core 2 Quad central processing units (CPUs).

The share of Intel Core i7 chips is expected to be below 1% of all microprocessors that Intel will ship in Q4 2008, slides from certain product planning documents claim. Moreover, the proportion of Core i7 chips will hardly rise above 3% even in Q2 2009. In fact, even in the third quarter of next year, when Intel releases the first mainstream market-oriented Nehalem-based quad-core chip code-named Lynnfield, the share of Core i7-based platforms is projected to be below 5% of all CPUs sold by Intel.

The comparatively slow adoption rate of a new microprocessor design may be easily explained by the fact that Intel Core i7 chips require a completely new infrastructure: new core-logic sets, new mainboards, new sockets, cooling systems and so on, which is why system integrators might not demand rapid transition. In fact, since Lynnfield will use different infrastructure and code-named Ibex Peak core-logic compared to currently-shipping Core i7/Bloomfield (which is supported by Intel X58-based mainboards), its adoption rate may also not be fast.

Transitions to new micro-architectures along with new infrastructures have never been rapid neither for Intel nor its smaller rival Advanced Micro Devices. This time is not an exception, but gloomy economic outlook may further slowdown adoption of Intel’s Nehalem.

Officials from Intel did not comment on the news-story."


Legion Hardware.

As of November the 17th, Intel’s Core i7 920 is on sale for $320 US, while the slightly faster Core i7 940 which comes clocked just 270MHz faster, costs $600 US. Then we have the Intel Core i7 965 Extreme Edition which features an unlocked multiplier, for a whopping $1070 US. Already there is a handful of Intel X58 motherboards on sale, none of which are cheap, with the average asking price being $300 US.

Therefore consumers are looking at almost $1000 US to pair an Intel Core i7 940 processor with a new X58 motherboard. Then on top of this, a triple-channel DDR3 memory kit is required, adding another few hundred dollars to the total. However, the good news is those in the know will be able to build a high-end Core i7 system for a fraction of the price.

As we have found, it will be feasible to purchase the Core i7 920 processor along with the ASUS P6T Deluxe motherboard for roughly $600 US. If you are prepared to overclock, what you will have effectively done by taking the cheapest possible route, is to have built one of the most powerful computer configurations possible.

Using nothing more than an air-cooler, we were quite easily able to push the Core i7 920 from its default frequency of 2.66GHz to an incredible 3.80GHz, where it was found to be lightning fast. The ultra expensive Core i7 965 Extreme Edition with its unlocked multiplier and the same cooler, started to run into problems when passing the 4.0GHz barrier. Therefore, it was only able to better the much cheaper Core i7 920 by 200MHz, which as we found did not equate to much in the way of additional performance.

While increased heat output is often a problem when overclocking, we also found that the Core i7 processors tend to use significantly more power when overclocked. The Core i7 920 for example, consumed up to 49% more power when overclocked. This does however make sense when you consider that we were applying a 42% overclock, while also increasing voltages of both the processor and memory.

The ASUS P6T Deluxe motherboard really did impress us with its overclocking prowess, as it was able to overclock both Core i7 processors with ease. For example, in order to push the Core i7 920 to 3.80GHz we were required to alter just six settings in the BIOS, and it was the same case when pushing the Core i7 965 Extreme Edition to 4.0GHz!

For now at least, the Core i7 920 looks to be the processor of choice, as it is just as fast as the 940 and 965 Extreme Edition processors at the same clock frequency, and as we have found it overclocks pretty much just as well. Finally, at half the price of the Core i7 940 processor, we see no reason why anyone would not just invest in Intel’s cheapest Core i7 processor. Of course, Intel would rather you spent big on their more expensive models, but take it from us there is no need to.


a c 315 à CPUs
November 23, 2008 5:57:37 PM

I am an early adopter, and I must say that things are going well.
I wanted a quad to update my sig(E8400)
I bought an i7 920, asus P6T, and 6gb of patriot 1600ram.
Memtest ran fine, right away.
I could not find my copy of vista home premium-64 with which I had planned on a fresh install.
While a replacement was on the way, I put in a raptor drive from my backup machine and booted it.
Amazingly, Vista had no problems figuring things out, and only asked me to load the driver disc which came in the P6T package.
Prime95 ran well with no problems.
I am relatively inexperienced with overclocking, so I just changed the base clock from 133 to 160 and everything ran fine at 3.2 going up to 3.3 with turbo. The vcore went up only slightly, and vdimm stayed at 1.5v. Prime95 was stable. Temperatures went up to 62-64c.
I used a thermalright ultra 120 extreme with the 1366 adapter. While waiting for delivery, I lapped the cooler because I had a convex surface on it. I think that helped.
I don't think I need more than an overclock of 3.2 because I think that will drive any single vga card to it's limits. I have ordered a a EVGA GTX260-216 superclocked for $245; I could not resist the bargain. I suspect that I will have no need to "step-up" when the 55nm parts come out, but the option is there.

The net is that if one is looking at a quad in the $300 range, the i7 920 is a very good way to go.
I don't see the need for anything more in the next few years, so far as a cpu is concerned.
No doubt, there will be better vga cards coming, and the games that use them.
Most likely, changing the hard drive to an INTEL ssd will be my next step, not cpu.
November 23, 2008 5:58:08 PM

Quote:
The problem with saying it doesn't cost anymore than a q9550 w/ a x48 with ddr3... is the fact that most people with a q9550 don't own that....

I own a 150$ p45 board (there are cheaper p45 boards out there as well) and 50$ ram.... right there i took off almost 300 $ compared to your core i7 build... sure i have 2 GB less ram, and I don't have the capability to do uber multi card setups... but for much less I am very close to your performance...

One of the other big reasons I'm thinking of buying one, is the SLI and Crossfire support. In addition to the socket and having that for my upgrade path.
November 23, 2008 6:02:28 PM

core i7 is really different in terms of performance.
it's like pentium4 to core2.
i agree getting a core i7 now if you use the computer sometimes outside gaming. encoding, rendering.
but, using core i7 just for gaming is overkill unless you love Crysis with a dual card setup.

it will be a long time before core i7 performance becomes obsolete, probably when there are games using more than 4 cores. the way to add performance in the future is to only add more cores, not clock speeds anymore. 4GHz has become a barrier and it will become even lower by 32nm process.
November 23, 2008 6:51:37 PM

Quote:
The problem with saying it doesn't cost anymore than a q9550 w/ a x48 with ddr3... is the fact that most people with a q9550 don't own that....

I own a 150$ p45 board (there are cheaper p45 boards out there as well) and 50$ ram.... right there i took off almost 300 $ compared to your core i7 build... sure i have 2 GB less ram, and I don't have the capability to do uber multi card setups... but for much less I am very close to your performance...


That $300 not only cost you 2gb ram,tri-sli/crossfire,it also cost you performance consider i7 920 is on par with qx9770 in the benchmark reviews,and yet you are totally missing out the upgradability which everyone knows by now LGA775 is a dead-end socket as i7 comes to the market.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
November 23, 2008 7:08:59 PM

i'd rather save 300

have 4 GB, instead of 6....

Overclock the processor to well over 3 ghz...

get ONE card that does what you need instead of paying HUNDREDS for multi-card setups...

and not have to wait for prices to go down to get better deals and rebates...

So yeah, save a 1000 $ system for 3 years... or save a 1300$ system for 3 years... have BASICALLY THE EXACT SAME PERFORMANCE... which would you buy? I'd buy 1000$ one not the one I don't need with Sli/tri sli/ crossfire which i don't need, have fun paying for stuff you don't need, have fun having way more "potential" that might not EVER get used... have fun wasting 300 $
November 23, 2008 7:17:32 PM

Along the gaming front and cost ratios, heres what Id like to know, and if Im right, its a cheaper solution going i7. What effects going dual channel, elimating the extra cost of another stick of ram, and possibly getting the same performance? Id also mention this. Having 40nm in gpus will significantly increase their output, so a single card solution today compared to a single at 40nm may equal a sli/cf solution today, comparatively, then of course doubling or tripling that.... you end up with something thats more than 4 cards today in a tri sli setup, and thisll probably be here in May or June, and possibly earleir
November 23, 2008 7:18:13 PM

That's exactly what people do to justify themselve when they are sitting tight on a budget and give excuse to themselves so they dont feel bad having a slower system for saving couple of bucks :) 
After all it's all down to how big one's wallet is,not which one is the better buy in this case.
November 23, 2008 7:19:34 PM

perhaps to you it is a waste thogrom. if someone is willing to make a significant investment in computer hardware then 300 may not seem like a disparity. there is no right or wrong here. some people will pay 300+ for a case alone while some wont spend more than 75 dollars. if gaming and time on your computer is a hobby you invest alot of time in then it is no different to me than someone spending a ton of money building a muscle car in their garage.
November 23, 2008 7:25:34 PM

Exactly what I was pointing out,it's up to your financial status or your desire for it after all,simply put if you have that extra $300 within your budget,i7 is the way to go,if it doesnt fit your wallet size at the moment Q9550 or the like is the right choice for you.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
November 23, 2008 7:27:31 PM

But i don't have a bad computer...

Tell me my 1000$

Q9550 @ 3.85 ghz

P5Q mobo

4 GB of ram

and a 4870

doesn't out perform or come extremely close to


a core i7 920 @ 3.85 ghz....

P6T

6 GB

and a 4870...

In actuality... in todays games mine would perform better... take a look at Daggers benchmarks for example... core i7 is behind the core 2 quad at the same speed... And since I, like most people do not have Multi-card setups... I don't need core i7


What reason is there for me to have a core i7 920? I'm saying its a waste for MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE :na: 

But for others with multi-card setups its not... but since a 3.85 ghz quad core probably won't bottleneck a SLI or crossfire setup... I don't think there is any reason for me to upgrade until something totally new completely changes the market... for me, i want something that drastically increases performance, aka single-threaded performance... at least one last time before the race to just tack on more cores happens
November 23, 2008 7:30:21 PM

nice system thogrom!
November 23, 2008 7:33:23 PM

To me, this is like "should I get a quad for my gaming rig, or a faster dual?" type question. The gains we see in gaming may not give the average buyer/gamer the extra to make it worth it, and the savings could be applied to a better gpu/ However, it all depends on the wants of the buyer. If they want the uber best, i7 looks to be the way to go ATM, putting costs aside. But 1 thing IS certain, all those people banging the quad mantra will have to stop recommending the older quad solutuions, being used for other things where quads will benefit, as the i7 will eat those old quads for lunch
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
November 23, 2008 7:36:32 PM

as soon as core i7 drops below the 300 mark, and there are mainstream mobos, and ddr3 ram is not 50$ a gig... lga 775 socket will die, until then i see the market for lga 775 cpus to be very strong
November 23, 2008 7:37:50 PM

See,you are talking as a gamer's view,we are talking about about a more "macro" view where the computer is not only for gaming only,that includes video editing,rendering and benchmarking...etc.Notice not everyone
use their computer for gaming/or only for gaming,so lets put it this way,i7 is ideally the better option for overall purpose including upgrability if it's not out of your budget.
Just to add one more point to your bottlenecking statement,you argue Q9550 will not bottle sli/crossfire set-ups,same can be true for those who bought E8500/E8600 vs your Q9550,i dont think those 2 duos will
bottleneck any set-ups that your q9550 is capable of at the moement either,so if plainly for the purpose of saving,you could simply save aother $150 or so by going E8500.
November 23, 2008 7:38:07 PM

Thogrom has a good point with his last post. But on the flip side killing LGA775 might be a bad idea as their are so many options available for it.
November 23, 2008 7:38:48 PM

honestly, from the benchmark PoV, a 19650 @ 4.5ghz vs an i7 965EE @ 4ghz, it's pretty much equal. If you went the C2Q/P45 route, you saved about 750$ which will be worth even more once comes the time to upgrade again. Intel knows it, I know it, you should know it too. Don't game on a i7 if you value your money.
November 23, 2008 7:40:25 PM

Quote:
But i don't have a bad computer...

Tell me my 1000$

Q9550 @ 3.85 ghz

P5Q mobo

4 GB of ram

and a 4870

doesn't out perform or come extremely close to


a core i7 920 @ 3.85 ghz....

P6T

6 GB

and a 4870...

In actuality... in todays games mine would perform better... take a look at Daggers benchmarks for example... core i7 is behind the core 2 quad at the same speed... And since I, like most people do not have Multi-card setups... I don't need core i7


What reason is there for me to have a core i7 920? I'm saying its a waste for MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE :na: 

But for others with multi-card setups its not... but since a 3.85 ghz quad core probably won't bottleneck a SLI or crossfire setup... I don't think there is any reason for me to upgrade until something totally new completely changes the market... for me, i want something that drastically increases performance, aka single-threaded performance... at least one last time before the race to just tack on more cores happens





You didnt save $300 you saved $95. For $95 you could of got alot better of a system.

Your system doesnt suck, but it dont come close to i7.

The only time i7 a 9550 are close in games is when the GPU is the bottleneck. I have also seen a overclocked quad get worse FPS the a stock on when the GPU was the bottleneck.

You throw in a GPU that can use all the info and the i7 will blow you out of the water, again only ($95) more then yours.

If your so confident on your just as good or better, run some benches and I will do the same, then we will see whats up. You will loose!!!! Lets do it.
November 23, 2008 7:44:09 PM

Very true roadrunner. The benchmarks featuring SLi/Crossfire setups soundly prove that theory. i7 really lets multiple card setups run loose.
November 23, 2008 7:44:14 PM

the lga1366 will never be mainstream. it was never intended to be. the mainstream will be the1156 i believe
November 23, 2008 7:47:14 PM

From a gamers perspective tho, and that only, the even low 95$ can be put into a better card, tho I know what youre saying, its not as bad as some are saying, tho Im thinking overseas, it may not be so cheap
November 23, 2008 7:52:04 PM

Yea,LGA1336 is supposedly the high end for quite some time from now,mainstream at this point is the Q9xxx series or E8xxx series,so price-wise high-end will not compete with Q9xxx of course,but performance-wise it's the opposite,unless one's world only revolves around gaming then the $299 or $399 PS3 or Xbox maybe the better option yet comes with bigger saving then a $1000 desktop system,so now you could even invest the $700 price difference for all the games you like within the next few years :) 
November 23, 2008 7:56:21 PM

Thing is, theres alot more gamers than "others" out there, where theyll only find the HT etc capabilities of i7 as perks, and doesnt hold the wow factor for them.
November 23, 2008 8:02:41 PM

the wow factor comes in if you run multi-gpu solution and all of a sudden you have a board that you put on it what you want. considering there are some who will buy new cards with every release, this gives a level of flexibility that they never knew.
November 23, 2008 8:07:56 PM

True, Im also wondering how good the i7's will perform for the next gen gpus? They may make a nice difference
November 23, 2008 8:12:00 PM

True even considering gaming I dont see a thing i7 isnt equal to/better than core 2,providing the immediate sli/crossfire advantage,it all comes down to one's wallet size as I said before instead of a technical problem.
November 23, 2008 8:39:22 PM

Fast CPU's apparently, but pricey to build such a system. I'm sure prices will tumble on Core I7, but for now Core2 CPU's will remain the best bang for buck.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
November 23, 2008 10:15:13 PM

95 dollars? wtf?

where do you get 95 dollars?

6 GB of ram is atleast 200 $... while 4 GB is like 50 $... actually... thats what I paid for my ram... so right there that is 250 $... plus I spent a 150 on the mobo.... p6t is at LEAST 200 so thats 50 $ more... The processor itself,

Well, now prices have dropped a bit since release... but when YOU bought it stuff was a bit more, so it was closer to 300, now its around 200 $, so now it's starting to get into the... whats the point of arguing part =(

EDIT: about benchmarking, whats the highest stable OC you can achieve? Just so we can get equivalent processor speeds, also what card do you have, AND, this will affect results, which OS do you have? I have XP currently so I can't test with Vista so right there I doubt any of our benchmarks would be able to be compared but i'm still up for it

First time i've ever had a benchmark competition :D 

Also, any encoding and stuff I already defer to core i7, as its not what i'm arguing, and its clear you'd win so i'm talking strictly games,

EDIT2: just saw Tims post up a little bit higher up, yes I'm talking about games, i'm a teenager and don't care about the world yet :na: 
And about saving that 150$, I know, I didn't "need" a quad core, but I wanted it... and that however goes against my argument saying you don't "need" core i7, but you know... teenager contradictory stuff ftw!!!
!