Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Why bother with i7-975 when X4 965 is much less expensive?

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • Gaming
  • Desktops
  • Intel i7
  • Intel
  • Processors
  • Product
Last response: in CPUs
Share
March 1, 2010 6:11:00 AM

Why would anyone building/upgrading a desktop gaming PC even bother with a Intel Core i7-975 when a AMD Phenom II X4 965 is about $800 less expensive on newegg.com? I would guess the two processors are about equal in gaming performance. The i7-975 seems like a total rip-off.

I have read that the newest Intel processors are better for laptops because of less battery use, but for desktops they seem way overpriced and pointless.

Opinions?

More about : bother 975 965 expensive

a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
March 1, 2010 6:15:21 AM

For pure gaming, you wouldn't. Believe it or not though, some people use their computer for things other than gaming, and in true, CPU limited, multithreaded apps, the i7s absolutely and utterly flatten the Phenom II.

Oh, and the way you worded that question, you make it sound like those are the only two choices. You could also get the i5-750 or i7-860 or i7-930, all of which are also about the same in gaming performance when compared to the i7-975 or PhII 965 BE.
m
0
l
March 1, 2010 6:22:14 AM

cjl said:
For pure gaming, you wouldn't. Believe it or not though, some people use their computer for things other than gaming, and in true, CPU limited, multithreaded apps, the i7s absolutely and utterly flatten the Phenom II.

Oh, and the way you worded that question, you make it sound like those are the only two choices. You could also get the i5-750 or i7-860 or i7-930, all of which are also about the same in gaming performance when compared to the i7-975 or PhII 965 BE.


Games are usually by far the most CPU intensive applications for home users. And even in other equally or more CPU intensive applications (not sure what those would be), how much faster really is the i7-975? Like .0000000000000001 nanoseconds faster or something pointless?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
March 1, 2010 6:29:38 AM

Another AMD fanboy?

Speak as if i7-975 is the only Intel CPU out there.

You can always get i5-750 that is only a bit more expensive than PII-965 and beat the 965 to the pulp when OCed to 3.6GHz which is immensely easy to be achieved on i5-750!
m
0
l
March 1, 2010 6:38:41 AM

Games are not the most CPU intensive tasks at all. Things like video encoding is much more stressful than gaming. Also a cjl already stated CPU limited and multithreaded apps are where i7's shine. i7's are alot faster in cpu limited apps anywhere from a couple of seconds to a couple of minutes depending on the app and what you're doing in the app. Also no one really buys the i7 975 as a i7 920 or 930 can easily be overclocked to that level.
m
0
l
March 1, 2010 6:45:57 AM

Mustang5521 said:
Games are usually by far the most CPU intensive applications for home users. And even in other equally or more CPU intensive applications (not sure what those would be), how much faster really is the i7-975? Like .0000000000000001 nanoseconds faster or something pointless?



Yes, the i7 architecture is faster:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/quad-core-cpu,2499-...

You are right, most home users does not need the extra performance. But then again, the i7 975 is not aimed towards home users.
m
0
l
a c 87 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
March 1, 2010 6:47:59 AM

Games is the most CPU demanding thing I run on a normal basis. But that doesn't mean its the only thing. I also spend "some" time transcoding video. It used to take me 3 hours to do my usual task with my single core K8, but only 1.5hours (including 4x burn to DVD) with my C2D. Totally worth it, and I'm considering a quad to drop the times even farther. I'm also wanting to get into video editing, which could also use the boost in speed/cores. Just because your or I don't do a lot of CPU tasks doesn't mean others don't.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
March 1, 2010 7:02:33 AM

Mustang5521 said:
Games are usually by far the most CPU intensive applications for home users. And even in other equally or more CPU intensive applications (not sure what those would be), how much faster really is the i7-975? Like .0000000000000001 nanoseconds faster or something pointless?


In processor intensive, multithreaded tasks, the i7-975 is usually a tremendous amount faster than the Phenom II 965.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/default.aspx?p=99&p2=102... (note that in some benchmarks, the shorter bar is faster)
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
March 1, 2010 7:09:39 AM

My backup PC, an X4 965BE with 8Gb of memory, takes about 4 to 4 1/2 hours to transcode a ripped bluray movie to x264. My Q9650 OC'd to 3.6GHz could do it in about 3 to 3 1/4 hours. My i7 920 OC'd to 3.6GHz can do it in about an hour and a half. HUGE difference having the faster processor and the extra 4 hyper-threaded cores. And, like anonymous said, no one buys the 975 when you can buy a 920 for 1/5 of the price and overclock it to far more than the 3.33GHz a 975 will get you.

If you're just playing games and doing what 99% of people do on a regular day to day basis on their computer...buy AMD. The 965BE is a GREAT processor for $175. I got my i7 920 for $199 from Microcenter, though, and it blows the 965BE completely out of the water on quite a few things I do. Unfortunately, while the processors can be found for close to the same price, the x58 motherboard and triple channel memory costs will make the overall cost quite a bit more than a good AMD system.
m
0
l
March 1, 2010 7:56:10 AM

Mustang5521 said:
Why would anyone building/upgrading a desktop gaming PC even bother with a Intel Core i7-975 when a AMD Phenom II X4 965 is about $800 less expensive on newegg.com? I would guess the two processors are about equal in gaming performance. The i7-975 seems like a total rip-off.

I have read that the newest Intel processors are better for laptops because of less battery use, but for desktops they seem way overpriced and pointless.

Opinions?


Mustang5521 said:
Games are usually by far the most CPU intensive applications for home users. And even in other equally or more CPU intensive applications (not sure what those would be), how much faster really is the i7-975? Like .0000000000000001 nanoseconds faster or something pointless?


I sense a certain amount of trolling going on here - why even bother to ask the question when you answer it (incorrectly) in a subsequent post.

Your point of error is that with a few notable exceptions, most games are mostly limited by GPU, and most do not take full advantage of multithreading. In terms of CPU predicting performance, i would say the clock speed is the most important factor (obviously you cant compare between generations like a P4 to an i7 or anything daft) but multithreading and core-count will become increasingly important.

From my personal experience, the i7 line of processors look (on paper) and feel (in use) a generation ahead of anything AMD currently produce - the general response in the OS feels so snappy its unreal and out and out multithreading performance is unrivalled for the time being.

However i'm sure AMD will have their day once again in out and out performace, but for now i reckon their happy enough occupying the gaming price/performance sweetspot.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
March 1, 2010 2:51:22 PM

For gaming, especially with a single GPU, a Phenom II 965 is more than sufficient, especially if you're only considering both CPUs at their stock speed. The performance is a bit different when you take into account overclocking. The i7-975 is significantly faster tho at things like video encoding and certain other computational tasks even at it's stock speeds.

LGA1366 is currently the socket of choice for the highest performance, but really I would rather get an i7 920 and overclock the crap out of it rather than getting an i7 975. Even so, AMD remains competitive in the low to mid range systems. Recent history suggests you are more likely to be able to upgrade going with AMD. Heck AM3 chips still work with some AM2 boards provided the manufacturer has a BIOS update for it.

On the other hand early LGA 775 boards are hardly compatible with more recent C2Duos. Those that are can only do so by overclocking the north bridge and I believe that only applies to a few models from ASUS. That leads me to believe that X58 boards will have a short life but I believe that Intel will at least stick to their promise that their upcoming 6-core chips will work in current X58 boards. As for the more mainstream LGA1156 boards and CPUs they most certainly make the case for mid to high end systems, tho I am believe that current P55 boards will also have a short life as Intel is likely to introduce it's next gen of CPUs with a new chipset and not bother much to ensure that P55 boards will accept such chips.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
March 1, 2010 3:06:35 PM

@ megamanx00:

Quote:
andy5174 Wrote:

Never consider future proof for PC parts as the future proved products will become one of the worst ones when all of their potential can be utilized and cheaper&better products will be released by then!

For example, the Q6600 which was an expensive future proved product released in 2006/2007. Its full potential is never utilized until recent days where there is already some games can utilize four cores and now i5-750 is much better than it with much cheaper price.

That's why I hate hearing people keep whining about how future proved LGA1366 is.

i7-980X is future proved, but it is expensive($999) and there will be much better and much cheaper products when the full potential of 980X can be utilized.
m
0
l
!