Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

I5 vs i7 Feeling ripped off?

Last response: in CPUs
Share

Will this make you feel like its a ripoff?

Total: 526 votes (170 blank votes)

  • Dont have a i7, wont be getting i5 either
  • 24 %
  • Dont have a i7, looking at i5s tho
  • 35 %
  • Have a i7, and am happy
  • 20 %
  • Have a i7, i5 doesnt do a thing for me
  • 8 %
  • Have a i7, and if i5 is better....
  • 6 %
  • Moneys not a problem
  • 4 %
  • Ive already got my monies worth
  • 5 %
March 24, 2009 12:31:06 PM

Heres something Ive been thinking about lately. If when the i5s come out, and theyre found to be much cheaper, perform the same as the i7, how will i7 owners feel. Getting cutting edge sometimes means that edge does most of the cutting, and it could happen here. Your thoughts?

More about : feeling ripped

March 24, 2009 12:48:43 PM

Obviously the i7 owners, myself included, would be pissed off.

You said " If when the i5s come out, and theyre found to be much cheaper, perform the same as the i7, how will i7 owners feel."

As much as people would like that, reality is harsh, and that would never happen. The i5s might perform close to i7's standards, but never on par. The i7s would still remain Intel's flagship processor until something else comes along. Notice how the i5s are named #5 and not #7. Plus, even if the i5s perform close to the i7's performance, the i7 would do better SLI/Crossfire while the i5s would go more towards the mainstream single gfx card.

My 5 cents. :D 
March 24, 2009 12:54:26 PM

Undoubtably, the cf/sli situation is set, and cant be denied, and in this way Intel has set a 2 tier scenario, which is also part of this, I guess. But, from what everything Im hearing, i5 will be pretty much on par with i7, just cheaper, and much much cooler, and lower power needs as well.
Dont take this as a hate thread. As SS pointed out, and also in my poll, cutting edge sometimes cuts both ways. Just wanting a general feeling, as Im more used to gpus, and how fast they move, while the cpu market is much slower, and the intro of i5 is rather a quick follow up, and if this all turns out to be so, how owners/potential buyers feel about it
Related resources
March 24, 2009 1:15:49 PM

I never really took an interest to the i5 as I already own the i7, but prior to my previous post, I didn't really know much about the i5 vs. i7. It seems that somebody has set their i7 to mimick the i5 specs and the i5 proved victorious. Personally I don't have much to say, unless somebody with an i5 goes up to my face and just rubs it in my face. I still don't regret my purchase, and for the potential i5 buyers, I am guessing the experts would wait at least 3-5 months, when the socket is "mainstream'd" and the variety/range of parts have become much like the range of parts we see for the i7 today.
March 24, 2009 1:35:20 PM

That's kinda what you have to expect when you're an early adopter.

I strongly doubt that an i5 will perform as well as an i7 though. That would pretty much defeat the purpose of having two different sockets and Intel would be cannibalizing it's own market.
a b à CPUs
March 24, 2009 1:35:25 PM

Cheese-kun said:
Obviously the i7 owners, myself included, would be pissed off.

You said " If when the i5s come out, and theyre found to be much cheaper, perform the same as the i7, how will i7 owners feel."

As much as people would like that, reality is harsh, and that would never happen. The i5s might perform close to i7's standards, but never on par. The i7s would still remain Intel's flagship processor until something else comes along. Notice how the i5s are named #5 and not #7. Plus, even if the i5s perform close to the i7's performance, the i7 would do better SLI/Crossfire while the i5s would go more towards the mainstream single gfx card.

My 5 cents. :D 



to think Intels 'flagship' CPU will not be the i5 because of a number scheme is stupid. its not always about speed, but technological breakthrough and innovation. i would be surprised if the i5 was not the best of the best in terms of technology.
March 24, 2009 1:40:52 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Heres something Ive been thinking about lately. If when the i5s come out, and theyre found to be much cheaper, perform the same as the i7, how will i7 owners feel. Getting cutting edge sometimes means that edge does most of the cutting, and it could happen here. Your thoughts?


I will look at i5s, but unless they offer a decent advantage for the price as compared to AMD...I won't buy it.

And I think i7 owners would be pissed. It's like buying the Bugati for $400,000 and the next week going back to the same dealer and seeing a tweaked, more fuel efficient version of the same model for $275,000. I'd pee my pants too.

But, that is why I never buy "cutting edge". I always stay a step or two back. That way, things I buy are tried and tested and (if needed) revised.
March 24, 2009 1:54:54 PM

Regardless if Intel cannabalizes itself or not, they did create this 2 tiered scenario, and whether its good business or not will be seen soon.
I know buying gpus, most people know theyll have a short time at the top. From what Ive read, i5 has everything i7 does pertaining ro destop, other than the already mentioned pci capacity, and tri channel, which has NO impact on DT. The mobos wont require all the layers i7 does, thus theyll be much cheaper, as will be the i5 overall. Itll be interesting, as I know even in the faster paced gpu market, alot of people feel the heat of buying top end, and then seeing it soon topped or equaled
a b à CPUs
March 24, 2009 2:34:34 PM

Jay - I need to ask...

Why is it that Intel would make their customers pissed off by introducing a dual core version of their CPU's... Whereas the exact same, time proven move is applauded from AMD with their Triple?? How is Intel cannibalizing themselves, and somehow AMD are not?


Help me to understand that, because I have to say that the level headed realist in me has heartburn with the supposition that it's OK for one company to do, but not OK with the other.
March 24, 2009 2:51:12 PM

I dunno either. I was responding to turbo?
i5 is a totally different cpu, not sure how you got these thoughts?
Not saying anything is wrong here at all, as nVidia and ATI do this all the time, just more a curiosity, and how it effects people perceptions, as Intel set up it 2 tier scenario. Whether this is a good move, time will tell. Now, I have to ask, what are you talking about? Hows 1 thing good, another not? Whats AMD have to do with this? Like I said, is this good business practice? If you want me to respond about AMDs tri core, it seems its working, as their new tris show promise.
Thats not what Im talking about here, and since i5 isnt out yet, we wont know til later on if Intel did the pooch on this move or not, just like your mention of tris, where we see the 720 looking like its making it.
Another thing, since you brought this up, its also on another skt, unlike AMD, so Im not sure where your comparisons are coming from here, since Ive not mentioned them til now? Also, until the release of the 720, I saw no use for tri cores, IMHO, but the 720 has changed my mind recently
March 24, 2009 3:05:36 PM

Scotteq said:

Why is it that Intel would make their customers pissed off by introducing a dual core version of their CPU's... Whereas the exact same, time proven move is applauded from AMD with their Triple?? How is Intel cannibalizing themselves, and somehow AMD are not?


There will be quad core i5s, that's what everyone is concerned about, not the dual cores.

If Intel makes i5 faster and cheaper than i7 then they are rendering i7 completely obsolete for no real reason. Which is why I doubt it will happen, i5 will probably be just a stripped down i7 with lower clocks, lower price and cheaper mobos. Intel already has a death grip on the high end market so why would they decide to charge less for it?
a b à CPUs
March 24, 2009 3:08:11 PM

Well... I guess you can see where my confusion comes from: Variations of PhII don't seem to spawn threads about AMD Cannibalizing themselves and pissing off their customers. But when Intel does it....

You bring up the Tri's 'making it' - Why wouldn't the I5 do so, and for the same reason: Cheaper version of the flagship for those who don't need the full monty.

You'll pardon me, but the entire premise smells like FUD because we have the appearance of a drastically uneven application of logic.
March 24, 2009 3:26:00 PM

OK, if i5 isnt anything more than a C2Q, I agree, but if it has the things i7 has for the most part, and performs similarly, then like Ive been saying, itll be interesting. Ummm, also, theres been tons of the uselessness, smirking, etc about the triplecripple, so it has been done already, but again, this isnt what this threads about. Just things Ive heard on perf, and things on price, power etc on i5, and how itll stack up against i7.
I think the problem with the tri cores were, AMDs quads werent given any respect to begin with, so the tris were a joke, and not considered ok by any means, so Im not sure what you mean by claiming a double standard here.
Like I said, time will tell
a b à CPUs
March 24, 2009 3:37:33 PM

Quote:
AMDs quads werent given any respect to begin with, so the tris were a joke,



Seems you're mixing Ph and PhII in order to justify the position. Therefore, I'm withdrawing from this thread since it's clear further discussion will only result in an ever~widening rehash of the last two years worth of "AMD vs Intel" drama.
March 24, 2009 3:55:45 PM

I cant believe you bring this up to me, probably the single most proponent for P2, and let me tell you, P2 got NO respect at first, and yes, it was considered a much lessor, not to be bothered with solution at the time, which wasnt that long ago, and its you bringing in AMD here, not me. If what Im hearing is true about i5, Ill be a strong supporter of this cpu, and if what Ive heard is true, validates this thread, so again, not sure where youre trying to go with this, as this is my thread, its not about AMD, not about tri cores etc
a b à CPUs
March 24, 2009 4:25:52 PM

I very rarely respond to useless, baited post. I'll make an exception
(1) Crying over spilled milk, so out of date
(2) If your “Pissed”, then it should be aimed at yourself as you made a personal decision.
(3) Look at early purchases of Memory – I paid 4x what replacement memory cost.
(4) Want to cry in your milk – Buy a NEW car and 6 months later you total it. The insurance hands you a check for several thousand LESS than what you still Owe!!
(5) Look at the current BestBuy lawsuit (NY) over their 30 day lower price guarantee.

People Buy what they can afford (or think what they can afford) knowing full well the short term outlook. Be that AMD, or Intel.

AND NO I didn’t vote.
March 24, 2009 4:33:14 PM

I agree chief. Cutting edge is always a risk, and hopefully, even those whove bought their i7s can/will see this, as Ive said, it happens all the time with gpus.
And no, this isnt a baited post, but may be somewhat a reality down the line
March 24, 2009 4:33:19 PM

Ive already got my monies worth
March 24, 2009 4:38:57 PM

If anything, this is a preimptive strike against those feelings/thoughts. If this does come about, its a change brought about by Intel in their direction, and thus could be blamed on them...BUT, it was the buyers of i7 who made their choice, tho like I said, if it happens, it will be a change, and the reliable direction of Intel will have changed, and if so, it will change mindset. But no one made anyone buy their cpu of choice, in the end, it was their decision
March 24, 2009 4:40:37 PM

Somewhat OT, the D0 stepping will be here 4/1
March 24, 2009 4:48:39 PM

it seems as though intel is getting a bit angry in the fact that theyare somewhat losing the budget cpu range of buyers as more people are finding the 720 and 940 are enough for them and are happy with the prices of compatible hardware so intel seems to be firing back with the i5 as a lower performing i7 using only dual channel memory and a new socket, so no i5s will be dropping into existing 1366 lga boards, but rather a new socket 1160 lga. not to completely sure if this is 100% valid but if these are legit pictures then we will see. http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,669873/First-benchmarks-of-Intels-Core-i5-Lynnfieldx/News/
a b à CPUs
March 24, 2009 5:10:03 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
I cant believe you bring this up to me, probably the single most proponent for P2, and let me tell you, P2 got NO respect at first, and yes, it was considered a much lessor, not to be bothered with solution at the time, which wasnt that long ago, and its you bringing in AMD here, not me. If what Im hearing is true about i5, Ill be a strong supporter of this cpu, and if what Ive heard is true, validates this thread, so again, not sure where youre trying to go with this, as this is my thread, its not about AMD, not about tri cores etc



I prefer PhII, since I'm more than old enough to remember when the P in P2 meant "Pentium" instead of "Phenom".

Secondly - Save the indignation, please. It's not flattering to anyone, and we both deserve better. I've done no more (and no less) than be perfectly straight with you. While I understand my original question - which remains unanswered, BTW - has put you on the spot to a certain extent, I'd appreciate courtesy of a straight answer in return.

You know very well the original Phenoms didn't perform up to expectation/hype, and at least deserved the more level headed criticisms it did receive. History being what it is, therefore the PhII started with a bad rep which needed to be disproven. Which to my mind, has clearly been successfully accomplished. Also, I have made exactly ZERO comments about Triple~Cripple, or whatever other fanboy nonsense which at times passes for "Dialogue" here.

I simply asked: If AMD can issue different versions of their premier chip and not be perceived as somehow screwing over their customer base, then why can't Intel?

And to whoever: Thank you for the Rate Down. Nice to know differing opinions aren't penalized here.

March 24, 2009 5:14:17 PM

-1 for arguing. :lol: 

(i'm a peace-loving type :D  )
March 24, 2009 5:22:22 PM

This thread is done completely on the premise that i5 is more or less equal to i7, without qpi, tri channel etc, but performs similarly equal on DT. Now, going from there, where is it relevent in your AMD comparisons? All lessor cpus by AMD are just that, lessor, and if the premise is correct, and the things missing on i5 that are on i7 bring no lessoning of performance on DT, then yes, I think it can be perceived as somewhat of a ripoff, but as Ive already stated, it was the buyers choice to go cutting edge anyways, but, even so, it could make Intel out to be not as reliable as it has been lately, and by that I mean I too remember those P years
March 24, 2009 5:22:51 PM

I knew going in that i5 was going to be real close in clock to clock performance. The big question is how high will they clock.

There are a few people with good 17 920s that are held back from the multi and not being able to have a bclock high enough to max out their cpu. I would guess that will probably be what will limit the clocks on the i5s.

Even still I have or will have no regrets, I had to build when I did and i5 was not an option, even tho I could of put together something cheap to hold me over but to me that would of just been a waste.
March 24, 2009 5:28:46 PM

oh god.. here we go with these kind of flame bait thread again..

i7 is worth it if you do have a need to use it (video encoding for instance). Otherwise any dual core can run games fine.
March 24, 2009 5:36:07 PM

Scotteq said:
I prefer PhII, since I'm more than old enough to remember when the P in P2 meant "Pentium" instead of "Phenom".

Secondly - Save the indignation, please. It's not flattering to anyone, and we both deserve better. I've done no more (and no less) than be perfectly straight with you. While I understand my original question - which remains unanswered, BTW - has put you on the spot to a certain extent, I'd appreciate courtesy of a straight answer in return.

You know very well the original Phenoms didn't perform up to expectation/hype, and at least deserved the more level headed criticisms it did receive. History being what it is, therefore the PhII started with a bad rep which needed to be disproven. Which to my mind, has clearly been successfully accomplished. Also, I have made exactly ZERO comments about Triple~Cripple, or whatever other fanboy nonsense which at times passes for "Dialogue" here.

I simply asked: If AMD can issue different versions of their premier chip and not be perceived as somehow screwing over their customer base, then why can't Intel?

And to whoever: Thank you for the Rate Down. Nice to know differing opinions aren't penalized here.


Well i believe i can take a crack at giving you a straight answer here. AMD isn't producing top of the line high performance chips. They are simply making the best they can at this point, and by having 4 core chips with a single defective core and not neccesarilly being in the financial position to throw out said chips, it was a rather smart move to market these chips as fully functional triple cores and some what save their butts. However i don't personally believe that the i5 will come out with performance in the same range as the i7 or the latter top performing core 2 quads, so therefore i wouldn't see intel as releasing the i5 to replace, or compete in performance with the i7 rather as a mid range, budget offering for intel lovers, I somewhat see this as intels way of competing with amd's 720 and 940.
a b à CPUs
March 24, 2009 5:37:22 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
This thread is done completely on the premise that i5 is more or less equal to i7, without qpi, tri channel etc, but performs similarly equal on DT. Now, going from there, where is it relevent in your AMD comparisons? All lessor cpus by AMD are just that, lessor, and if the premise is correct, and the things missing on i5 that are on i7 bring no lessoning of performance on DT, then yes, I think it can be perceived as somewhat of a ripoff, but as Ive already stated, it was the buyers choice to go cutting edge anyways, but, even so, it could make Intel out to be not as reliable as it has been lately, and by that I mean I too remember those P years





Ah - We start with an unproven assertion/supposition/premise that the I5 performs equally to the I7, and somehow does so without Tri Channel memory and and therefore that's worthy of a survey asking whether people feel ripped off by a processor that hasn't been released yet?


And the comparison to AMD is valid - Last year we didn't see threads asking if people feel ripped off because some yet to be released triple performs near equally to the Quad. The reason why is pretty obvious: Whoever posted that would have been laughed at.



To rephrase the question which remains unanswered: Why do you feel your premise is justified in it's application to Intel, when a thread doing the same to AMD would be worthy of ridicule?

You've shown nothing to back your assertion that an I5 is as good as an I7, yet that's the basis of the entire question. All I've done is attempt to show you the asininity of it all by substituting company names. Why is it valid in one direction, but not in the other?
a b à CPUs
March 24, 2009 5:42:29 PM

JaredAudiophileGamer said:
Well i believe i can take a crack at giving you a straight answer here. AMD isn't producing top of the line high performance chips. They are simply making the best they can at this point, and by having 4 core chips with a single defective core and not neccesarilly being in the financial position to throw out said chips, it was a rather smart move to market these chips as fully functional triple cores and some what save their butts. However i don't personally believe that the i5 will come out with performance in the same range as the i7 or the latter top performing core 2 quads, so therefore i wouldn't see intel as releasing the i5 to replace, or compete in performance with the i7 rather as a mid range, budget offering for intel lovers, I somewhat see this as intels way of competing with amd's 720 and 940.





Jared - Thank you for the straight answer. I also don't believe that the I5 will be quite in the same performance range as the I7. Close? Ok, Yah... And certainly in a context where absolute performance isn't the absolute goal. But not equal. Hence my questioning the basis for the OP's survey.
March 24, 2009 5:53:43 PM

well you can choose to see this as the op trying to gather opinions of i7 owners on the i5, or you can see it as trying to rattle a hornets nest. who knows?
March 24, 2009 5:59:33 PM

This thread is idiotic to say the least. Those who bought i7 were fully aware of what they got themselves into when they made that purchase, knowing the i5 was 2 quarters out. Despite having the same core, there are some features you don't get on i5.

For example:
1. The support of both SLI AND Xfire (the reason I bought i7)
2. HPC
3. Media decoding / encoding

Those who felt got ripped off shouldn't be complaining at all, because they didn't do their homework before purchase. And this is supposed to be Intel's fault?

On the other hand, those who purchased Phenom X4 9950 was fully aware that Deneb was right around the corner. Should they feel being ripped off too? Nonesense.
a b à CPUs
March 24, 2009 6:21:21 PM

I have an i7, and am perfectly satisfied. I run some programs that are memory bandwidth limited, so the triple channel does help, and I needed a new computer relatively quickly, so waiting a half year extra wouldn't have been worth it.
March 24, 2009 6:38:23 PM

OK, heres a question. Just where will i5 compete then? If it supposedly doesnt have the superior rendering we see on i7, then whats it good for? I havnt heard that before, if theres links please post. As for the sli, its already been said, as has the AM3 p2 thing. If the IPC is the same, what exactly will lower clocks mean in all this? Higher ocees? from stock? Again, to = i7 perf. Itll either = i7 in most apps per clock, or vie against C2Q, and again, thats a precarious position itself.
Having its own skt is another thing altogether, and not alot of mention for an upgrade path either.
So, if i5 isnt just a better for DT i7, then what is it going to be? I think going on the premise itll be very close to i7 perf where i7 rules the day is much more likely than what others are presenting here, and thus this thread is worthy
March 24, 2009 6:41:04 PM

This is stupid. Regardless of when you build or buy a new PC, new hardware will be released and the prices will drop for the hardware you bought.

DDR3 memory has dropped a lot in the past few months alone. A 6GB kit is below $100 now. Do you feel ripped off if you spent $200 on the same memory 4 months ago?

The same goes for video cards.

So, only a complete idiot would build a new PC and fell resentment over what happens in the future. It ain't an investment!
March 24, 2009 6:56:03 PM

Exactly, and just as cjl posted. As well as a few here have. Theres nothing mystical here, Intel or AMD isnt a savior, but defining ones purchase, and what it means to the buyer can get tricky. Ive read about people that had a bad experience with a 5 gen old ATI card, and wont ever buy ATI again because of that. This isnt about making a emo decision here, its about reliability and choice. Reliability regarding Intel, and the buyers choice, and whether he/she feels confident in buying Intel down the road.
Its funny how people supposedly unattached has strong feelings isnt it? This is what this threads about, and some cant see past their own emotions, which some are based strictly on a loyalty of brand which has satisfied in the past, and assume itll never change
a b à CPUs
March 24, 2009 7:00:16 PM

Where will the I5 fit then? Why not replace the C2Q/C2D in the midrange? Seriously. The process is nearing it's EOL, not to mention the entire socket/chipset is going away. Then the performance doesn't need to be the same as the i7, nor the IPC. Not having Tri Channel or QPI wouldn't hurt it, sinceit's the midrange. And that would preserve the differentiators between the 5 and the 7.

Seems perfectly reasonable, no?

of course, at that point then the premise for this entire thread is rendered pointless since those things which the OP theorizes would apparently make i7 owners feel they've been ripped off won't exist.

March 24, 2009 7:10:16 PM

So, qpi and tri channel help DT how? Its (i5) everything i7 except what you dont need in DT. But cheaper, cooler etc. So, these things wont make a spit of difference, other than ...the cost
a b à CPUs
March 24, 2009 7:23:04 PM

Tell you what - Prove to me your premise for this thread is justified: That the i5 performs equally or better than the i7. Show me evidence that "If when the i5s come out, and theyre found to be much cheaper, perform the same as the i7..."


Do that, and both sides are answered. Because, quite frankly, it's your thread and your premise, and therefore the burden of proof is on you to show justification. I've been asking you to do that from the beginning.
March 24, 2009 7:23:46 PM

Intel's product line is beginning to sound like the cereal section at Safeway.

WAY more different products than i will ever need.

i thought a good step down from the i7 920 is, for example, the Q9650.

why would Intel want something in between ?

i'd rather see them put their energy into the dual-proc version of the CPU. & maybe some low power versions of i7- though i guess when i say that, that's what i5 might be.
a b à CPUs
March 24, 2009 7:43:40 PM

So.. You're referring me to a post on a *FORUM*, as the justification why an i5 performs equally to an i7. Which refers to an article on Dual Channel versus triple channel *ONLY ON AN i7* system!?!?

There isnt' even an i5 mentioned in the source article.


Thank you for proving your entire premise is Asinine.
March 24, 2009 7:51:15 PM

This is but an example, theres more. If i5 were to replace C2Q, then C2Q qould have a faster eol wouldnt it? Ive heard several people here saying itll be around for quite awhile. Its 1 way or the other. And thats to prove your premise. If it stays, it competes directly with i5, if it goes i5 takes over, which is it? If i5 competes with i7, and Intels numbers for i7 in production are true as theyve shown them to be, i7 is more niche, and i5 mainstream. Going by that alone shows i5 as seen as the cpu of choice, not i7. To me, this makes sense, and having a lessor cpu doesnt
March 24, 2009 7:56:46 PM

"Again, I agree with you, IMC and tri-channel on i7 is not really needed, but it's not there as a selling point although marketing people need to use it that way. It is there to make the platform work using the server chips that require Tylersburg as a hub. We will really see the benefit in lower power and lower platform complexity on i5. The fact that there's no longer a NB does help a lot.
"
From my previous link here http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?p=37...
Now, this person should know about this in particular
a b à CPUs
March 24, 2009 8:04:14 PM

I'm happy with what I've got now.
a b à CPUs
March 24, 2009 8:05:14 PM


John - There is no information about an i5 anywhere in the source docs.

Therefore there is no basis for comparison between an i5 and an i7.

Therefore there is no basis for your premise.
a b à CPUs
March 24, 2009 8:06:29 PM

beisdes, I don't think the i5 will replace core. We know which is cheaper to make.
March 24, 2009 8:12:34 PM

My point is, paying for things you dont need on DT going i7 could cause some backlash/bad feelings towards Intel. And saying i5 wont be as good as i7 hasnt been proven either way, and to me, reading a few things, and just overall commonsense, tells me, i5 will shine, and only play second fiddle to i7 in things not seen on DT. Yes, you can and have argued this is simply not true, I on the other hand are of differing opinion. There has to be a place for i5, and since c2Q is square in its way by your reasoning, I offer my opinion, which is as valid as yours. Ive included if, and may etc. i5s arent out yet, so we truly dont know for sure, but to submarine this thread with nothng more than an opinion on an opinion doesnt get us anywhere. Time will tell as always, and if this is the way it plays out, it wont be the first thread about it either
March 24, 2009 8:28:04 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
OK, heres a question. Just where will i5 compete then? If it supposedly doesnt have the superior rendering we see on i7, then whats it good for? I havnt heard that before, if theres links please post. As for the sli, its already been said, as has the AM3 p2 thing. If the IPC is the same, what exactly will lower clocks mean in all this? Higher ocees? from stock? Again, to = i7 perf. Itll either = i7 in most apps per clock, or vie against C2Q, and again, thats a precarious position itself.


i5 was designed to replace the Q9xxx series CPUs. To be more precise, the ix family was designed to move consumers to DDR3 platforms. Since i5 is still months from launch, don't you think its too early to make any speculations? Oh wait, I guess that's what you're really good at, then later being proven wrong.

There's not an AMD board out there that supports both SLI AND Crossfire. If you do, please provide a link. This is all not to mention that i5 is not an ideal platform for multi-GPU setup, having two x8 lanes. Therefore putting i5 on the same level as i7 is moronic at best. They have distinctive two different markets.


Having its own skt is another thing altogether, and not alot of mention for an upgrade path either.
So, if i5 isnt just a better for DT i7, then what is it going to be? I think going on the premise itll be very close to i7 perf where i7 rules the day is much more likely than what others are presenting here, and thus this thread is worthy said:
Having its own skt is another thing altogether, and not alot of mention for an upgrade path either.
So, if i5 isnt just a better for DT i7, then what is it going to be? I think going on the premise itll be very close to i7 perf where i7 rules the day is much more likely than what others are presenting here, and thus this thread is worthy


What is it going to be? Its going to be a mainstream product, replacing Q9xxx series for the mass. i7 is reserved for the high end, for those users who are willing to pay more for top performance.
March 24, 2009 8:38:28 PM

"What is it going to be? Its going to be a mainstream product, replacing Q9xxx series for the mass. i7 is reserved for the high end, for those users who are willing to pay more for top performance. "
And thats the hook isnt it? Perf on what? Exactly what does i7 bring to DT that i5 wont? Dont say tri channel, as thats useless, and multi gpu setups arent for everyone anyways, actually about Intels numbers for i7, 1-5%. So whats i7 to bring that i5 wont? This really needs to be clarified, and yes, I could be wrong here, but Ive seen no mproofs otherwise.
If you have links to show i5 will underperform compared to i7 for DT, show me. Other than multi card setups, thats the only thing rtegarding perf or capability Ive seen , regarding DT.
March 24, 2009 8:44:55 PM

According to my quote from my link, it just may be that i5 will outperform i7 in single card setups, as i5 will have less latency between cpu to gpu. Now, is this also going to cause some discomfort as well? Or are you going to qustion that as well?
    • 1 / 7
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
    • More pages
    • Next
    • Newest
!