So now we have Core i7-800s on LGA 1156 and Core i7-900s on LGA 1366. Confusing, yes. But I’ve tried to make it clear here, at least, that what makes an i7 an i7 is its inclusion of Hyper-Threading technology. Indeed, Intel also uses clock rate as a differentiator, and at least in theory you should get more Turbo Boost from an i7-800-series CPU than an i5 as well.
As you probably already know, Hyper-Threading is Intel’s simultaneous multi-threading technology that presents each physical core as two logical cores to an operating system. Thus, when you open the Task Manager on a Hyper-Threading-enabled Nehalem-based CPU, you see eight threads. This doesn’t mean you suddenly have the equivalent of an eight-core processor. Instead, Intel duplicates certain resources in each physical core to make the technology available; it’s better to think of Hyper-Threading as allowing the execution resources on a quad-core i7 to be better-utilized in threaded workloads.

We know that MainConcept Reference, for example, is well-threaded. By simply turning Hyper-Threading on, our transcoding workload falls from 1:48 to 1:26.

Similarly, the latest version of AVG’s anti-virus software realizes a massive gain thanks to Hyper-Threading. Less-optimized or simply multi-tasked environments will yield less-pronounced results, but there certainly seems to be a reason to at least consider a Core i7 if you’re able to benefit from what Hyper-Threading offers.
- Introduction
- What’s In A Name?
- QPI, Integrated Memory, PCI Express, And LGA 1156
- Intel’s Turbo Boost: Lynnfield Gets Afterburners
- Hyper-Threading: Differentiating Core i7
- Memory Architecture: Does Losing One Channel Hurt?
- P55: The Chipset’s Responsibilities Dwindle
- Windows 7: Microsoft Listens To Intel, Finally
- Test Setup And Benchmarks
- Benchmark Results: Synthetics
- Benchmark Results: Media Apps
- Benchmark Results: Productivity
- Power Consumption
- Conclusion
There is sooo much to learn and there is so much information here.... I feel confused!!
Since when has the I7-920 become an extreme?
Now the i5 750 on the other hand is great performance at a great price, and would certainly be the budget gamers new weapon of choice.
I currently have an i7-920 setup which is my main rig and am very happy with it and not at all upset to the see the 870 outperform it (since the 870 would cost me twice as much). I also have had an i5 750 setup now for over a week (the 1156 processors and motherboards have been available here in Australia for nearly 2 weeks now) and it is an amazing processor for the price of it.
So what am I trying to say? 1366 is still a good platform for the top end of the market. The i5 are fantastic new processors for their price, and the 1156 i7's are just confusing and I'm not really sure who they are going to appeal to? I could understand it if Intel launched the 1156 i7's in 6months time when alot of users are already using the 1156 platform and are looking to upgrade their CPU without a new mobo. But to anyone looking at getting a 870, just get an 920 and use the extra cash on the mobo and ram to go with it.
I would prefer a bench with HD4890. They scale better in CF.
There is sooo much to learn and there is so much information here.... I feel confused!!
This will also compel AMD to bring some more value to the market. Nice article.
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/3/1794507/Turbo.zip
It uses the method that Intel recommends in their November 2008 Turbo White Paper.
Since when has the I7-920 become an extreme?
The power readings are for the whole system, not just the CPU. And their readings are a bit higher than yours because their video cards are almost certainly more power-hungry than yours, and they have a quad-core cpu, running significantly faster than your dual-core (4 cores at ~3Ghz vs. 2 at ~2Ghz, which SHOULD use more power?)
hey guys some tests done at the same cpu speed would be helpfull! thx!
Who was "worried"? It would've been AWESOME (although not to expect of Intel) if the lower-price platform would've outperformed the high-end item.
Typo--thanks for the catch evolve. Pulled that table from a previous review and missed the Extreme!
When you set up an i7 system you turn off the HT and turn up the speed! Turning off a core might even be an upgrade for some. But i agree, the i5 is really a good plateform the mid-mid high level people and at a lower price.
above - too long for intel? for main stream? you could buy a 8400 and run it 3.8 in any system and it rocks.
people have to learn that overclocking is not what it once was, intel does not build all that into the procesor and chipset for nothing so use it! core 2 is still a good main steam system, abit, no upgrading
Great read, by the way
All the mixed rumors were really misleading
http://bit.ly/Lynnfield
And a side-by-side comparison with all the key stats are here:
http://bit.ly/LFDcomparison
AMD is feature packed, Intel is feature lacked.
Intel make good chipsets yes, Intel make good reliable boards (proper intel boards) yes, intel make good CPU's yes.
But Intel have worthless motherboard line ups.... I am happily an AMD fan, I will take my Phenom II with the slower speed for the quality of board I can buy to run it.
Intel & Motherboards = Fail.
Until they improve there, numbers mean zero to me. Why pay more when you get less?
PS. We used to sell all Intel at my work, we now sell 99% AMD. Price, value as a packaged. If Intel had better feature motherboards things might change until then. AMD builds a platform not just a CPU.