I5 worth the wait?

So i'm planning on getting/building a new computer, under $800 (exclude monitor) after using my Barton 2600+ for like 5 years. I started picking out parts weeks ago and i stumbled upon the upcoming i5. although i haven't seen much benchmarks for the CPU, I have heard alot of people saying it's fast since it's based on the Nehalm arctitechture and cheaper since its a mainstream CPU. But i did read at AnandTech http://www.anandtech.com/guides/sh [...] i=3610&p=8 that the i5 might not be that much worth of the wait and that if your choosing to buy a system now, get it now and not wait. They have mentioned how there may be bugs/errors with the new socket and it will take alot of time of it to mature.

Anyways, i was planning to get the AMD 720 BE or the E8400; maybe even the Q9550 for my new build. My dad wants me to build the comp before school starts so if i do wait, the earliest i could build an i5 system would be in Christmas.

Also, i was wondering if prices would drop for Intel's C2D and C2Q when the i5 comes out since retailers would want to get rid of them ASAP to make room for i5s right?

Hope someone can shed some light; i want a new computer badly, but knowing that this doesn't happen much to me, i want this computer to last yet be on budget.

If you need any more info about the thread, i gladly give it out

I don't think so, it's worth the wait.

If he could keep that computer for this long, he shouldn't have a problem waiting for i5 or i3 even. Personally, I am going to go with whatever offer the best overall performance for the price without skimping out too much.

Early benchmarks show that the new i3 dual core does 4 ghz on stock .832v and hsf. Impressive enough to consider waiting if you ask me.

I know it's really stupid of them to make a new socket for i3/i5, but with the chips performing like it does, it really doesn't matter all too much. Most people are either dual or quad anyway. They could even get away with making a socket for each new processor. Wouldn't really matter, I'd just get the chip that performs good enough without paying a stupid price for nothing on it.

i7 lacks that edge that the i3/i5 platform is going to have. Not to mention at a good price. I anticipate that i9 is going to be something most people want but can't have or they really can't find a good enough reason to get it. Basically, put like this, my e5200 is fine at 3.5 ghz, 3.8 normally, do most people really need more than that? Not really...

And i3 .832v 4ghz at stock voltage easily isn't enough hype for you? i5 is probably going to better. Let me guess, you have a quad core. LOL!

Define dumbed down...

I would say in anticipation that your comment would be inaccurate but you'd have to explain what you mean by that.

...And you somehow have specs on a CPU that isn't even in the first spin yet??? Initial spins of the i5 look good, but I'd not wait for them to mature at this point if I were the OP. The OP's plan of using a 720 BE should last a few years and will easily fit within his proposed budget.

wait i thought i5's wont have any HT and the lynfields that do are the i7 8XX series

^ it depends what you do with your pc

@outlander_04, they have a QPI, but it isn't the same as the i7's.

@croc

Perhaps, but didn't I call it hype? Duh...

And when that cpu becomes the new thing and is better than previous offerings at a better price, what are you going to say then? I also anticipated these cpu's before it was even on Intel's roadmap, I got the same assuming ignorant answer that most people would post.

@Outlander_04

Yeah cause we all know those features have shown a tremendous amount of gain so far and not the platform overall. Nah...

Also, benchmarks didn't show there was minimal performance gains or anything like that...

@Shortstuff_mt

Your the reason why some people are stuck with a Pentium D wanting a core duo. 32nm isn't a reason to wait for the new i3/i5 dual cores? Nobody had trouble discussing early benchmarks on the core duo. Let me guess, you people are a bunch of those ummm "quad" users, correct? There is a time to wait for the next best thing, and there is a time where you shouldn't. Basically it takes one step up from "dumbass" to figure it out.

Because these people would hate to have to explain their purchase on a previous or recent quad core that's why...

Especially when they have early benchmarks showing that more cores over two isn't really all the beneficial when the rest of the stats are the same. They are going to have to put a limit on those i3/i5 dual cores if they want to keep a performance chart that makes any sense.

@shortstuff_mt

I said it was a guess and more a joke really obviously. But then a person that has been proven wrong with such confidence put in their post I guess I'd be a little upset also. Oh, I'm sorry, the proper word was "corrected".

Mindless babbling?

So, your saying getting what's available at any time is the best choice?

@hunter

It was sort of like a joke, you know, which is why I worded it like that... I guess I must be correct somewhat if people are getting upset about it. Have you seen the benchmarks between the 6 core and quad? They had the same features and overall specifications. What's the difference? A few numbers here and there while these scores are based on like thousand point scores. Multi core beyond dual is quite impressive when at the same specifications... *sarcasm

My grand father told me to never argue with an idiot

all that happens is that they drag you down to their level and win by experience

You're right. It's pretty obvious who the knowledgeable people are on the forums and who the trolls are. I just don't take kindly to being directly called out by such a blatant troll. I'll have to try harder not to feed the trolls.

How many bugs and errors did you see when Intel released the very first Nehalem CPU and the LGA 1366 socket? None? How many do you expect from from an architecture that's been around for almost 1 year? You have think about what you read sometimes and not believe everything they tell you. Intel didn't get to be such a big company by selling faulty chips. The last time there was a big problem with a part was back in 1994 with the Pentium processor.

Now let's get you a bit more informed about upcoming CPUs, because clearly, most of these people aren't doing a good job of helping you.

First of all, you have to look at the prices and how much you want to spend.

Wrong. Intel will sell the CPUs for these prices:

Core i7-870, 4 cores, 2.93 GHz, Hyperthreading - $562
Core i7-860, 4 cores, 2.8 GHz, Hyperthreading - $284
Core i5-750, 4 cores, 2.66 GHz, No Hyperthreading - $196

You can expect stores to sell them for a bit more than that. The Core i5-750 with probably cost ~$220

And your right, there are no reputable reviews yet. Maybe that is because Intel doesn't let sites post reviews until closed to the launch date, which is September 6th for those 3 CPUs. They have told us that they can perform at levels of the far more expensive Core i7-9xx series chips, which I would say is quite good for a pre-release chip on a motherboard that isn't finished yet. I'm not sure if you've ever read performance numbers of parts before products are released, but they are always lower than the performance numbers for released chips because Intel and mobo manufacturers have time to optimize performance and work out kinks in their products.

I just posted this yesterday is you are interested. It has benchmark numbers for the Core i7-870 from MSI, a reputable source.

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/ [...] ld-benches

No QPI is dumbed down? The last time I checked, reducing latency by integrating the entire northbridge onto the CPU was a good thing. There is no QPI because QPI was made to connect the CPU with the northbridge. The northbridge connects to the southbridge and PCI-E slots for graphics cards. The Lynnfield CPUs will connect directly to the southbridge and GPUs, eliminating the need for QPI. reduces power needed by the motherbard and CPU, and reduces latency. That's not dumbed down. It looks like you are the one making wrong guesses. Do your research next time you try to give advice.

From AnandTech:

Except you have to look at the Pace that technology evolves. You can buy now and get a nice 45nm part with the Core architecture that's been around for more that a year, or you could wait less than a month and get a brand new platform.

I bought a Pentium D about a month before the Core 2 Duos launch. Let me tell you from experience: It's worth the wait for a new part. You may want a new build now, but in less than a month you be reading reviews about how the new parts crush the Core 2 CPUs. One month is not a long time. You will definitely regret having outdated parts if you buy now. It doesn't hurt to be patient.

Now I've told you the prices. The Core i5-750 look like it would fit into a build with your budget. I'm not sure when school starts where you live, but September 6th is the release date. You could get a new build then.

The Core 2 Quads will definitely see a prices drop when these are released. I dont think the Core 2 duos will see as much of a drop, since these new chips are targets a more expensive market segment. You will see AMD drop prices to stay competitive.

I hope this helps your decision. You could try talking to your dad about the time frame, because from a value point of view, you are getting way more value for your hard earned money in you wait until September.

Ouch...

The thumbs are again missing, but I'd give the ups to shortstuff and the downs to habittrail; I think the latter's hamster may have gotten loose.
Build with a 720BE X3 now. You could buy or wait for faster, but you're more likely to regret the added expense (or the wait) more than you'll regret the lack of performance. Choose a decent AM3 board, then if you need more, you'll have an upgrade path to a X4.
Background:
My primary system is a Q9450 OC'ed to 3.2GHz with a HD4850. I've lately been testing my games and apps on a stock 720BE using a HD4670. I don't play any current shooters, but with the games and apps I do run, I can see very little difference (at 1680x1050). Bigger and/or faster may be "better," but "good enough" makes a lot more economic sense.

actually the advantage of QPI is the ability to run dual processor systems . i7 is in many ways a server architecture . Its not relevant to many consumer uses but I happy to stand by my comment that removing QPI is dumbing down the potential of the cpu

Maybe you also need to do a little more research before you give advice

I obviously know the other uses of QPI.

As you said yourself, it's not relevant to many consumers, including him. He's not looking at getting a server. He wants an $800 build. For a single CPU build with one or two GPUs, the Lynnfield core is superior to the Bloomfield core.

And while QPI links connect multiple processors together, they also connect every processor to the northbridge, which I was talking about. I only compared i5 to i7 because of your comment:

I didn't see the name Xeon in there.

Something dumbed down doesn't reduce cost, power consumption, and latency.

It wasn't my objective to take a cheap shot at you. I'm only trying to inform the OP so he can make an informed decision.

I don't know what store you're looking at, but the 920 is $280 at newegg.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] 6819115202

You would also need a more expensive motherboard and triple channel memory. The Lynnfield platform is much cheaper overall and will have a price comparable to a Core 2 Quad with performance comparable to a Core i7.

Well, if your definition of "dumbed down" doesn't really mean that performance is going with it then what are you trying to get at? Which is why I asked what you meant by this.

Your probably just upset he totally shut you down with well informed facts and thoughts about it.

But please do explain your reasoning if you may.

Thanks for the advice, really appreciate it. I live in Canada, so the prices here are higher than in the states. So since you said $210 (i'm assuming you live in the states), retailers will probably sell it here at $240 (which is still cheaper than a i7 920 or a Q9550); And yes, im not looking for anything extreme like a server computer. Its just going to be used for homework (includs. light video editing tasks) and gaming. I like to run apps simutaneously so having the i5 with 4 cores, that is cheaper than the q9550 would really help

Thanks again for everyone's thoughts

From Anandtech Gary Key blog
"Final pricing is not yet available but based on chipset pricing and market conditions, expect to see P55 boards starting at $120 and topping out around $239 at launch."

So it looks like i was $30 high on the low end and $11 high on the high end. Still just rumors though, nothing is out yet.

Funny how everybody calls reference to early pricing bs and it's almost always somewhat correct. Only AMD can't be taken seriously when reading early reviews. They tend to keep it to themselves until right before it's released. Intel reviews are usually correct.

oh my god !

intellectuals are joining the debate

Does this remind anyone else of the "I know you are, but what am I" fights from elementary school?

Yup, and the fact that you're still here calling people names says a lot for you.

I'll consider myself wrong just the very minute theres a verified i5 benchmark that shows habitat87's expectations to be correct

Get back to me when you've got one to publish .