Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

I5/i7 Launch, A Less Technical View

Last response: in CPUs
Share
a b à CPUs
September 9, 2009 5:53:35 AM

I had fun reading the "other" thread, though there's more sniping and trash talk than real illumination. So maybe another thread from, say, semi-informed consumers' points of view. Some seed thoughts:

1) There's nothing in i5/i7 vs my Games/Software to make me upgrade from my QXs running comfortably at 3.2/3.6 GHz. Not yet. How about you?

2) If I *were* in the market for a 965BE, I am no longer a buyer. Whether the price comes down to match or not . . . whether the i750 is significantly faster or just a tad faster . . . why buy the top of the AMD line when you can buy the bottom of the (current) "i" line?

3) From a mass-marketing point of view, Turbo Mode is powerful. Any consumer wondering "Would I really use 4 cores?" can now buy a PC that goes faster when (s)he doesn't. No software, no buttons, no worries . . . it just does it. Is it difficult to counter that argument . . . even *WITH* facts, should they appear.

4) Should the i920 be written off before we see gaming benchmarks (Intel & AMD processors, of course) using 1 x 5XXX and 2 x 5XXX?

More about : launch technical view

September 9, 2009 6:02:54 AM

Twoboxer said:
There's nothing in i5/i7 vs my Games/Software to make me upgrade from my QXs running comfortably at 3.2/3.6 GHz. Not yet.


I would hope not, that's already probably faster than 90% of the PCs on the planet!

Quote:
If I *were* in the market for a 965BE, I am no longer a buyer.


Similar here: I was thinking of buying a Phenom II 905e to upgrade my 24/7 MythTV server from the Atom which currently runs it (needs more CPU power for video compression) and from the reviews it's starting to look like an underclocked i5 would be a better choice for performance per watt.

Quote:
Should the i920 be written off before we see gaming benchmarks (Intel & AMD processors, of course) using 1 x 5XXX and 2 x 5XXX?


Probably not, but I suspect that the new i7s will generally be faster than the old ones in gaming because of the higher clock speeds and Turbo mode; I'm sure that's one of the reasons why Intel have configured it this way.
September 9, 2009 7:14:40 AM

same here, with the new i5 launch the only phenom i would be looking at is the 945 at 170, but still i5 kinda rocks if you have a microcenter near you =(
Related resources
September 9, 2009 7:57:19 AM

Meh... Big ado about nothing. My i7 works just fine for me, thank you. Next upgrade (maybe) will be an ATI 58xx GPU. But for most things, my 4870 still does just fine, so there has to be some big price / performance differences to get money out of my very tight pockets!

Next possible upgrade would be the i9 @32 NM, but again as above.
a b à CPUs
September 9, 2009 1:02:04 PM

Problem is I can't work out whether it's an AMD or Intel fanboy post. Maybe it's neither!

*reminds self that there is no such thing as an unbiased post at product launches*
a b à CPUs
September 10, 2009 2:40:18 AM

when i saw the early reviews yesterday, i felt really sad, i5 750 at 2.66 holding its own against a 3.6 ghz quad for $50 less, and my only arguement, that x8 x8 would not be sufficient bandwith was trounced by this

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-i5-lynnfield,2...

a trully sad day indeed, but , i can still say, my team released a stock clocked quad at 3.4 ghz, 3.6 ghz soon to come.
September 10, 2009 2:50:43 AM

Quote:
Mod's, please nominate this as a contender for the dumbest babbling fanboy post of the year award.


'You not talkin to me right?'
a b à CPUs
September 10, 2009 3:00:25 AM

xaira said:
when i saw the early reviews yesterday, i felt really sad, i5 750 at 2.66 holding its own against a 3.6 ghz quad for $50 less, and my only arguement, that x8 x8 would not be sufficient bandwith was trounced by this

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-i5-lynnfield,2...

a trully sad day indeed, but , i can still say, my team released a stock clocked quad at 3.4 ghz, 3.6 ghz soon to come.

x8 + x8 will not provide sufficient bandwidth (probably). [:mousemonkey]
a b à CPUs
September 10, 2009 3:10:06 AM

heres hoping
a b à CPUs
September 10, 2009 3:17:15 AM

As far as i5 is concerned, I don't like the crippled third memory controller but the requirement of DDR3 that and the x8 + x8 means that i5 is off my shopping list, so where's that six core AMD were mumbling about?
a b à CPUs
September 10, 2009 7:12:09 AM

croc said:
'You not talkin to me right?'

I assumed he meant the OP.
a b à CPUs
September 10, 2009 8:36:56 AM

I have it on good authority that the OP was just trying to look at this as a slightly tech savvy consumer - or lower life form - might view this announcement. They buy most of the chips.

The fanboys - and some truly savvy - are duking it out in the other thread. Or at least they were.
!