7.1 ghz??? how come the ph2 955 can reach that high and not the i7?

AMD has managed to eliminate the "cold bug" meaning that you can run the processor very cold, i.e. liquid helium at just over a degree Kelvin above Absolute Zero. Intel's Core i7 IS a better technology for performance; just because the AMD can overclock farther than the Intel i7 does not meant that the i7 is bad. In fact, IMO the Intel could probably beat that 7.1 GHz without being clocked nearly that high.

Its just that AMD has managed to design and build a processor that overclocks VERY well, and does provide a good amount of performance.

Try to think of the I7 as a part time 8 core processor thanks to HyperThreading. While no doubt 7.1Ghz is fast it isn't practical because you have to use some pretty nasty *** to get it to run that fast.

BTW - At 3.7Ghz the I7 is up to 50% faster in everything but games compared to the X4.

These are only synthetics but look at how the I7 performs at 4.2Ghz

It probably just overclocks better and thats just about it.

"!=" is a programming code for "not" for anyone that didn't understand his equation.

well i believe AMD has geared their processors to that end, while intel has not

That's because, like most people have already said, Core i7 has a much more complicated architecture than Phenom II. Not only that, Intel chose a different approach when designing the transistors, which results in lower heat output at stock voltage.

As for clockings, Pentium 4 has been seen operating well in the 8Ghz range.

Because when you use extreme cooling methods you can OC a lot of things to a quite high level. There is a CPU-Z record for a Pentium 4 running at 8GHz.

But the thing is that most Phenom IIs, even the 955, only OC to 3.8GHz on air and after that require either a ultra large heatsink or water cooling.

Core i7 was the same until the recent D0 stepping where a Core i7 920 is able to reach 4.3GHz on air.

Intels Core i5 32nm quads can reach 3.6GHz on air within the same thermal envelope meaning that possibly OCing them will be better and easier without having to resort to exotic cooling (peltier, water or compressed air).

Besides, we all know that these results are useless on normal Desktops. They are just for people who like to OC the bejebus out of things. One guy was able to take a HD2900XT and OC its core to 1.6GHz+ from the stock 700MHz. But he did that just to get the 3DMark06 record.

How did this become a clock for clock thing?

All the op asked was how come the pII hit a higher max overclock than the i7. Not about the performance or anything. Just WHY one cpu can go clock higher with extreme cooling than the other. So much for non flame war.

And on another note. The highest possible GHZ either cpu can reach is pointless. Its just for bragging rights. Where it does come into play for 99 percent of the overclockers are how far it will go on water/air.

As for why the amd can get a higher extreme overclock...I'm also ponder how the AMD can hit higher then the Intel. And not in a who is better type of thing. As far as I know both cpus are made with similar goals. (4 cores, IPC. Thermals-clockspeed) so I do wonder how one gets further under extreme temps then the other. Pack in the p4 days we all knew Intel had made the p4 for high clockspeeds but that it just didnt work for them because of the thermals.

Besides having the wider arch, until AMD uses HKMG, we cant eliminate it as a possible oc limiter, as the fine tuning using HKMG could limit it in a particular thermal window, or, SOI is slightly better than bulk at these processes.
I think its a combination. HKMG lowers v, but also allows for higher thermal creation outside its design, thus limiting oc. SOI vs bulk, well unless its the 45nm process, bulk has always held its own, tho, going to a native quad may have limited Intel also.
We really need 1 more gen to actually see how this all pans out.

I think the i7 may not overclock so well as it's prefetch and cache are very tightly tuned to increase IPC and the transistors in the cache have a higher idle current.

The Phenom II cpu's have much looser cache timings and so the processor overclocks very well.

Still, you and I are not going to play a decent game for very long running on LN2 ... I don't like the prospect of the burns topping up the canister every 5 minutes and it is going to get very expensive on the nitrogen ... as it is an open loop cooling system.

Theres less tie downs regarding i5, so less to have to control during oc. i5 may hit a tad lighter, but its going to be a killer chip.

I thought that i5 was going to be base locked aswell as multiplier locked for the lower end versions.

Maybe I'm wrong but I could've sworn I read that somewhere.

Anandtech pushed an I7 920 to 5.2ghz on the EVGA classified... pretty impressive for a locked Multi CPU

" Much to our surprise the CPU was capable of booting on the Classified at a brutally cold -160C, and being benchmarked all the way down to -190C during peak CPU loads; that's an instant 35C gain over the ASUS board. In the world of extreme overclocking, this is a big deal. The following picture pretty much says it all, with the CPU test of 3DMark06 running in the background with a pot temperature of -186C "

http://images.anandtech.com/review [...] 06-248.png


INtel are just better at OC ... i can run my Q9550 with only 1.275 Vcore @ 4.08ghz ... an AMD 940 need more @ stock speed ...

"BTW - At 3.7Ghz the I7 is up to 50% faster in everything but games compared to the X4. "

Ugh games is what matters here mostly. My 955 runs just fine at 4.2 ghz stable and I play everything maxed settings 1920 x 1200. I wouldnt have a i7 at this point.

nice i want new Computer i will buy i7 920 and 2 275gtx and asus rampage lol i cant wait

Exactly, AMD is almost desgined like Netburst to handle higher clocks...

Problem is, who has a 975? How many 920s can you buy for that 1 chip? How many vid cards? How much more ram? Maybe have 2 rigs? When someone comes in with a 975 here, and shows their 5+Ghz oc, I'll still say it cost too much for so little. Some say using LN2 isnt for everyone, and I agree, but neither is the 975, or any 1000$ cpu. So, fact(or) in all that cost as well

hehe, some people are just plain
hehe, some people are just
hehe, some people are
hehe, some people
hehe, some
hehe

I need a holiday.

Thats just too broad of a statement. What res? Which games? Almost all top GFX cards are NOT bottlenecked @ 16x10, and alot of games arent even at 19x12, so, whatre you saying?

From anandtech I7 920 @ 5.0+ghz on a EVGA classified.

"CPU was capable of booting on the Classified at a brutally cold -160C, and being benchmarked all the way down to -190C"

I think thats not bad at all ........................ INTEL FTW

LOLLL badtrip !

A 45nm Core2Quad beats the Phenom II for gaming ... plus it overclocks as well, and draws less power at idle.

Why bother with the i7 when a core2Quad is cheap and so are the LGA775 mobos?

Spintel wins on most of the games so I think your being a bit optimistic there.

Just posting to put things into perspective ... and I have an AMD shrine so don't call me an Intel fanboi either.

Consider this:

The i7, Phenom II, and Core 2 Quad are all basically identical in most gaming situations. With ridiculous GPU setups, such as quadfire, tri-sli, or quad-sli, the i7 pulls ahead. Every time. That doesn't seem like AMD is better in gaming to me...

(Not that AMD is bad at gaming - their current lineup is about the best they've had relative to Intel since the Core 2 came out, but you can't honestly think they beat the i7 in anything).