- Email |
- Print |
- Comments (88) |
- Share
The Core i7 vital stats you already know apply here, just as they have since the architecture launched last year. Manufactured on Intel’s now-mature 45nm process, a single Core i7 die populates 263 square millimeters.
Natively quad-core in that the processor doesn’t consist of two dual-core die on a single multi-chip module (like Core 2 Quad), Core i7 also includes Hyper-Threading technology. The result is a micro-architecture with four physical execution cores able to concurrently work on eight threads. As a result of the efforts expended by software developers to better-optimize relevant code for parallelism, this results in a performance win more often now than it did back when Hyper-Threading first emerged in the Pentium 4 days.
Cache sizes remain the same (32 KB L1 I/32 KB L1 D and 256 KB L2 per core, plus 8 MB shared L3), and the integrated triple-channel memory controller is still officially limited to DDR3-1066. But of course, as we’ve discovered, retail CPUs support the multipliers necessary to reach as far as DDR3-2133. We have heard from one memory vendor that the controller itself has been improved, but without any additional information from Intel regarding how it might have been tweaked, we can’t confirm those rumors at this time. We can say that DDR3-2133 is now within reach, though it takes some serious tuning to stabilize at that data rate.
As with the i7-965 Extreme, the 975 boasts a 6.4 GT/s QPI link, while the i7-950 employs a 4.8 GT/s link. Of course, if you’re running a retail processor (and not an engineering sample, like the one used in our original Core i7 launch coverage), you should be able to manually tune QPI speed up to 6.4 GT/s in your motherboard’s BIOS.
| Core i7-975 Extreme | Core i7-965 Extreme | Core i7-950 | Core 2 Extreme QX9770 | Phenom II X4 955 BE | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Core | Bloomfield | Bloomfield | Bloomfield | Yorkfield XE | Deneb |
| Manufacturing Process | 45 nm | 45 nm | 45 nm | 45 nm | 45 nm |
| Frequency | 3.33 GHz | 3.2 GHz | 3.06 GHz | 3.2 GHz | 3.2 GHz |
| L1 Cache (I / D) | 32 KB / 32 KB | 32 KB / 32 KB | 32 KB / 32 KB | 32 KB / 32 KB | 64 KB / 64 KB |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB/Core | 256 KB/Core | 256 KB/Core | 6 MB/Two Cores (12 MB total) | 512 KB/Core |
| L3 Cache | 8 MB Shared | 8 MB Shared | 8 MB Shared | N/A | 6 MB Shared |
| TDP (W) | 130W | 130W | 130W | 136W | 125W |
| QPI/HT/FSB | 6,400 MT/s | 6,400 MT/s | 4,800 MT/s | 1,600 MT/s | 4,000 MT/s |
| Price | $999 | $999 | $562 | No longer listed | $245 |
We asked Intel about the i7-975's Turbo bin configuration and were told that it is exactly the same as the i7-965 before it. That is to say, when 1, 2, 3, or 4 cores are active, you get 2, 1, 1, and 1 available bin (a bin being 133 MHz). Curious as to how much time our 975 Extreme would spend at 3.6 GHz, we ran a single thread of Prime95 to tax an individual core. Interestingly enough, you spend a lot of time waiting for that 27x multiplier to kick in (up from 25x), and it doesn't last very long. You see, there's always something else going on in the background, and if there isn't a significant load being applied to at least one thread, SpeedStep is throttling you back the other way. Expect most of your load time to be spent at 3.46 GHz with Turbo mode enabled. Otherwise, turn the feature off completely and overclock manually.
As a result, we have to wonder how much benefit upcoming architectures will see from Turbo with a single core active.
- Overclocked Core i7 975 (on air) [Overclocking]
- What's the average core i7 975/965 Overclock? [Overclocking]
- New Gaming build Core i7 975 Extreme edition feedback please [Homebuilt Systems]
- Latest Core i7 975 review [CPU & Components]
- Push Core i7 975 XE OC to the Limit? [Bestofmedia's Site Feedback]
Questions? Ask Tom's community!
- 1 / 5
- Next
-
Sponsored links
Related forums topics
- CPU Buyers' Guide (updated 10 May 2008)
- Core i7 975
- I7 920 to be discontinued...
- I5 delay?
- Latest Core i7 975 review
- Looking for Safe I7 920 OC Help - ASUS P6T
- Multi-Core+CrossfireX OC
- Core i7 questions
- Real Temp Question
- What is considered too hot for a CPU?
- New to computer building
- First time builder... Motherboard help.
- Big step to the future,Gigabyte EX58 Extreme with Intel I7 Extreme 965
- DDR2 800 only getting 400 out of it? This is weird! HELP!
Related articles
-
Intel Core i7-975 Extreme And i7-950 Reviewed
Today Intel launches two high-end processors that take the place of its i7-965 and i7-940 CPUs. More speed? Same price points? We’ll take it! But are the new chips compelling enough to warrant spending more than you would on an i7-920?
-
500 MHz FSB? Core 2 Duo Overtakes Core 2 Extreme
Many users have reported great success overclocking the Core 2 Duo entry-level model E6300. We drove the 1.86 GHz processor to 3.4 GHz, but despite that, this model still isn't our first choice for overclocking any more.
-
Eat this, Quad FX: Here's an 8-core desktop!
You didn't think that Intel would leave all that dual-socket fame for itself, did you? At CES, Intel showed off an 8-core desktop system build on a 2P workstation board with two quad-core processors. Intel claims that the system trumps AMD's fastest...
Partners
The Games selection
violent :
Interactive Buddy
Unwind on your interactive buddy: Do anything you want to him, it will earn you money, and you can buy other stuff to torture him with.
|
crazy :
Interactive Boogy
Pick one of the 3 songs, hit on the correct keys matching this boy's dance moves.
|
I've never seen anyone saying that the Phenom II is faster than any Core i7...
Doesn't make any difference with games
The i7's disadvantage in Far Cry 2 is well-known. That it gets beat in HAWX is something we only discovered this time around. In everything else, it's the faster CPU.
Are we going to see a price reduction in the 940 or the 965 that gives me any reason to purchase them over the 920?
Not enough to warrant spending an extra $200 or more, in my opinion.
Good thing I didn't shell out for the 965 yesterday.
Oh wait, I don't have unlimited cash, so I won't be shelling out for the 975 any time soon either . . .
Those game results look like you ran into serious GPU limits. As a result I think you may have been showing a difference in motherboards rather than processors on some of those tests. That does make it an interesting result in other ways though. It looks like the i7 boards have room to mature a little bit more relative to the older tech.
Who said that AMD holds the crown in performance? I think any half witted enthusiast who hasn't been hiding underneath a rock for the past year knows that the i7 (and even the core 2 duo in some test) is king. I would hope that people who visit tomshardware or rather any tech website knows that in terms of highend power, AMD doesn't come close to Intel at all.
Those game results look like you ran into serious GPU limits. As a result I think you may have been showing a difference in motherboards rather than processors on some of those tests. That does make it an interesting result in other ways though. It looks like the i7 boards have room to mature a little bit more relative to the older tech.
Likely, yes. If you look back to this doozy of a benchmark-fest, you'll see it isn't under you add a second or third GTX 280 that i7 starts putting on some distance. Up until then, though, it's worth noting that the other two platforms (Core 2 and Phenom) are actually faster!
Really, any of the i7 processors besides the 920 seems like a waste because of the marginal performance increases for exponential price hikes. I was especially alarmed by the DDR3 memory results. There is the synthetic benchmark advantage of higher bandwidth at higher speeds but absolutely no difference across the board ranging from 1066 to 2133 in real world encoding or what not.
Pretty absurd, I think I'd just stick with the 920 @ 3.8GHz and some affordable DDR3 1600MHz memory.
Do these higher end chips have higher overclock ability than the 920?
Who said that AMD holds the crown in performance? I think any half witted enthusiast who hasn't been hiding underneath a rock for the past year knows that the i7 (and even the core 2 duo in some test) is king. I would hope that people who visit tomshardware or rather any tech website knows that in terms of highend power, AMD doesn't come close to Intel at all.
king to what ? a few nutcases that for 1 more fps will go and pay 700+ more $ ? even in the Video editing business let`s say .. nobody will go and buy those CPUs they don`t add to the $ and given the current crysis situation there won`t bee to many studios willing to throw out the window the price of a fully working station just to get a new CPU. For me now the Kings still are Intel`s i7 920 and AMD`s PII 955.
WTF?
I have yet to see anyone make such a claim and definitely not in mass.
I have seen AMD Phenom II x3 720 dubbed the price to performance champion.
Do these higher end chips have higher overclock ability than the 920?
The 965 and 975 have an unlocked multiplier, so yes. By how much? I'm not sure.
Is it going to be worth the $1000 price tag.
Lol, this 975 only clocks 120mhz fast than my 920 D0 with no volts and it is much cooler at 60degrees at load
The 965 and 975 have an unlocked multiplier, so yes. By how much? I'm not sure.Is it going to be worth the $1000 price tag.
that`s what i was trying to point out in my previous comment but somebody out there instead of getting 3 x i7 920 they rather spend it all on only 1 cpu
WTF?I have yet to see anyone make such a claim and definitely not in mass.I have seen AMD Phenom II x3 720 dubbed the price to performance champion.
I'm being facetious about the performance. But look at the comments in the most recent SBM. Three separate authors independently pick Intel platforms and suddenly there's a conspiracy going on ;-)
its stupid comparing this to a Phenom II when the Phenom II isnt priced anywhere near the same as the Intel part - the Core i5's will address this whole area and "compete" with with the Phenom II's etc as a mainstream part and as the Core 2 replacement.
It would be nice to know what Toms can crank the i7 875 up to with a decent water cooling setup. I just read an article on another site were a guy reached 2200+ ddr3 successfully and 4.6GHZ on a D0 i7 920.
Some of us like to see what the limits are.
If the possible overclock gains are ignorable, if at all existent, I think the 920 will hopefully be my next baby if not a i5. The money saved on getting a 920 D0 over a 975 would pay for a sweet liquid cooling setup. Or maybe I should get a job again...
I'm being facetious about the performance. But look at the comments in the most recent SBM. Three separate authors independently pick Intel platforms and suddenly there's a conspiracy going on ;-)
I know that by now I sound like a broken record but u guys make the conspiracy possible. I mean look at the gaming benchmarks between Phenom 2 and i7 and Core... at first glance one would think "damn didn't know AMD was that fast" but that is a false impression. You guys made an article a couple of weeks ago stating that the i7+X58 doesn't play nice with Nvidia graphics, and you proved it. But despite that you keep on using a geforce 260 knowing it will perform lower when pair with the i7 (that is why on the LGA quad and Phenom 2 things look much better)
And so you fuel the AMD vs Intel flame war that's going on. Please, make it clear once and for all, do a special article or something, write it with BIG LETTERS: 2 systems, i7 + nvidia and then a ati offering and a phenom system + nvidia and a ati offering.