Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Test Setup And Benchmarks

Intel Core i7-975 Extreme And i7-950 Reviewed
By
Test Hardware
Processors
Intel Core i7-975 Extreme (Bloomfield) 3.33 GHz, LGA 1366, 6.4 GT/s QPI, 8 MB L3, Power-savings enabled

Intel Core i7-965 Extreme (Bloomfield) 3.2 GHz, LGA 1366, 6.4 GT/s QPI, 8 MB L3, Power-savings enabled

Intel Core i7-950 (Bloomfield) 3.06 GHz, LGA 1366, 4.8 GT/s QPI, 8 MB L3, Power-savings enabled

Intel Core i7-920 (Bloomfield) 2.66 GHz, LGA 1366, 4.8 GT/s QPI, 8 MB L3, Power-savings enabled

Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9770 (Yorkfield) 3.2 GHz, LGA 775, 1,600 MHz FSB, 12 MB L2, Power-savings enabled

AMD Phenom II X4 955 (Deneb) 3.2 GHz, Socket AM3, 4 GT/s HyperTransport, 6 MB L3, Power-savings enabled
Motherboards
Asus P6T (LGA 1366) X58/ICH10R, BIOS 0603

Intel DX48BT2 (LGA 775) X48/ICH10R, BIOS 1902

Asus M4A79T Deluxe (AM3) 790FX/SB750, BIOS 1103
Memory
Corsair 4 GB (2 x 2 GB) DDR3-1600 8-8-8-24 @ DDR3-1333

Corsair 6 GB (3 x 2 GB) DDR3-1600 8-8-8-24 @ DDR3-1333
Hard Drive
Western Digital VelociRaptor WD3000GLFS 300 GB 10,000 RPM SATA 3 Gb/s
Graphics
Zotac GeForce GTX 260 Core 216 896 MB
Power Supply
Cooler Master UCP 1100W
System Software And Drivers
Operating System
Windows Vista Ultimate Edition x64, Service Pack 1
DirectX
DirectX 10
Platform Driver
Catalyst 9.5

Intel INF Chipset Update Utility 9.1.0.1012
Graphics Driver
GeForce 185.85

Benchmarks and Settings

3D Games

Stalker: Clear Sky

Quality settings set to high, 1920x1200/1680x1050, Benchmark tool, average of all four scenarios

Far Cry 2

Quality settings set to high, 1920x1200/1680x1050, latest Steam version, in-game benchmark (Ranch medium).

Left 4 Dead

Quality settings set to max, 1920x1200/1680x1050, latest Steam version, timed demo.

H.A.W.X.

High Quality Setting, vsync off, 1680x1050/1920x1200, DirectX 10, Ambient Occlusion: High, Patch 1.2

Grand Theft Auto 4
Quality settings set to high, Anisotropic filtering: "High," 1920x1200/1680x1050, Patch 1.3, Built-in benchmark.

Audio Encoding

iTunes

Version: 8.1.0.52, Audio CD ("Terminator II" SE), 53 min., Default format AAC

Lame MP3

Version: 3.98 (64-bit), Audio CD ""Terminator II" SE, 53 min, wave to MP3, 160 Kb/s

Video Encoding

TMPEG 4.6

Version: 4.5.1.254, Import File: "Terminator II" SE DVD (5 Minutes), Resolution: 720x576 (PAL) 16:9

DivX 6.8.5

Encoding mode: Insane Quality, Enhanced Multi-Threading, Enabled using SSE4, Quarter-pixel search

XviD 1.2.1

Display encoding status=off

Mainconcept Reference 1.6.1

MPEG2 to MPEG2 (H.264), MainConcept H.264/AVC Codec, 28 sec HDTV 1920x1080 (MPEG2), Audio: MPEG2 (44.1 KHz, 2 Channel, 16-Bit, 224 Kb/s), Mode: PAL (25 FPS), Profile: Tom’s Hardware Settings for Qct-Core

Applications

Autodesk 3ds Max 2009 (64-bit)

Version: 2009, Rendering Dragon Image at 1920x1080 (HDTV)

WinRAR 3.90 Beta 1

Version 3.90 Beta 1, Benchmark: THG-Workload (334 MB)

WinZip 12

Version 12, Compression=Best, Benchmark: THG-Workload (334 MB)

Synthetic Benchmarks and Settings

3DMark Vantage

Version: 1.02, GPU and CPU scores

PCMark Vantage

Version: 1.00, System, Memory, Hard Disk Drive benchmarks, Windows Media Player 10.00.00.3646

SiSoftware Sandra 2009 SP3

CPU Test=CPU Arithmetic/MultiMedia, Memory Test=Bandwidth Benchmark

Display all 87 comments.
This thread is closed for comments
Top Comments
  • 22 Hide
    burnley14 , June 3, 2009 4:32 AM
    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 . . .
  • 18 Hide
    smithereen , June 3, 2009 4:15 AM
    I've never seen anyone saying that the Phenom II is faster than any Core i7...
  • 15 Hide
    cruiseoveride , June 3, 2009 4:28 AM
    Doesn't make any difference with games
Other Comments
  • 18 Hide
    smithereen , June 3, 2009 4:15 AM
    I've never seen anyone saying that the Phenom II is faster than any Core i7...
  • 15 Hide
    cruiseoveride , June 3, 2009 4:28 AM
    Doesn't make any difference with games
  • 0 Hide
    cangelini , June 3, 2009 4:29 AM
    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.
  • 5 Hide
    Tindytim , June 3, 2009 4:29 AM
    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?
  • 10 Hide
    cangelini , June 3, 2009 4:31 AM
    Not enough to warrant spending an extra $200 or more, in my opinion.
  • 22 Hide
    burnley14 , June 3, 2009 4:32 AM
    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 . . .
  • 4 Hide
    Dustpuppy , June 3, 2009 4:40 AM
    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.
  • 3 Hide
    Summer Leigh Castle , June 3, 2009 4:43 AM
    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.
  • 3 Hide
    cangelini , June 3, 2009 4:54 AM
    DustpuppyThose 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!
  • 8 Hide
    doomtomb , June 3, 2009 4:56 AM
    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.
  • -1 Hide
    cadder , June 3, 2009 5:43 AM
    Do these higher end chips have higher overclock ability than the 920?
  • 4 Hide
    ohim , June 3, 2009 6:03 AM
    Summer Leigh CastleWho 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.
  • 6 Hide
    ravenware , June 3, 2009 6:31 AM
    Quote:
    If you spend enough time in our comments section, then you’re probably under the impression that AMD currently holds the performance crown and can do no wrong. I get it; AMD is the underdog and it’s hip to applaud competition. I'm certainly in favor of faster hardware, lower prices, and fair capitalism; those things benefit us all.


    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.
  • -1 Hide
    Tindytim , June 3, 2009 6:33 AM
    cadderDo 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.
  • -1 Hide
    Sinj , June 3, 2009 6:36 AM
    Lol, this 975 only clocks 120mhz fast than my 920 D0 with no volts and it is much cooler at 60degrees at load
  • 0 Hide
    ohim , June 3, 2009 6:42 AM
    TindytimThe 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 :)  so i put the question again king to what ? i rather have 3 computers powered by i7 920 than having only one i7 975, for an editing studio that means 3 ppl working at the same time doing 3 times much more work than 1 guy :)  These CPUs are not only for show an marketing to throw at ppl that they can realy crush AMD(but not in the games section where`s no logical reason to buy those) but very few ... too few will actualy buy those in the near future, and btw encoding is done with the guy afk from the pc you don`t sit at the PC ... i rather spend 700$ less and enjoy 2 more beers till my encoding is done ... at least this is how i see it.
  • -1 Hide
    cangelini , June 3, 2009 6:53 AM
    ravenwareWTF?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 ;-)
  • -1 Hide
    apache_lives , June 3, 2009 7:42 AM
    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.
  • 0 Hide
    anamaniac , June 3, 2009 8:05 AM
    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...
  • 2 Hide
    SpadeM , June 3, 2009 8:17 AM
    cangeliniI'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.
Display more comments