Intel’s decision to reintroduce Hyper-Threading in the Core i7 was a good one. Today’s applications can often take advantage of more than four CPU cores, and thus utilize the CPU much better via HT technology. Video encoding sees gains of up to 23%, while 3D rendering gets a boost of as much as 10%.
Swipe to scroll horizontally
Benchmark
Hyper-Threading
Crysis
-0.1%
Unreal Tournament 3
-2.1%
World in Conflict
-2.7%
Supreme Commander
0.3%
AVG Anti-Virus 8
6.6%
Winrar 3.80
14.8%
Winzip 11
-1.0%
Acrobat 9 Professional
-1.0%
Photoshop CS 3
-1.1%
iTunes
0.0%
Lame MP3
0.0%
Studio 12
-1.9%
DivX
18.9%
XviD
0.7%
MainConcept H.264
18.3%
Premiere Pro CS3 HDTV
7.8%
Cinema 4D Release 10
8.5%
3D Studio Max 9
10.3%
Fritz 11
23.8%
Nero 8 Recode
23.2%
Overall:
6.2%
Stay On the Cutting Edge: Get the Tom's Hardware Newsletter
Get Tom's Hardware's best news and in-depth reviews, straight to your inbox.
hmm, question. once this nehalems come out. will we ever see a dieshrunk c2q again after the penryns? im expecting the price of this procs along with the mobo and ram to be too far off from my budget. or
One of the first side effects of Intel's domination of the CPU market is beginning to show. Since they don't have to compete with AMD in any market segment the i7 occupies, they have limited (significant) overclocking to only extreme models.
RIP AMD.
May Abu Dhabi restore you to life soon so we don't have to suffer through more Intel ripoffs.
"The fastest Core i7, the 965 Extreme, is more than 2.6 times as fast as AMD’s current flagship CPU, the Phenom X4 9550 BE."
This seems like an editing mistake maybe it should be 9950BE.
Core i7 is a great CPU, the article is not. I can't believe after all this time you still stack overclocked CPUs with unoverclocked ones. It's great to find out the overclocking potential of Nehalem but, at least include some overclocked Penryns in there too, to see how overclocked Nehalem stacks agains OTHER overclocked CPUs, because it's fairly evident that and overclocked new gen CPU will stack well with older non overclocked ones.
CryogenicCore i7 is a great CPU, the article is not. I can't believe after all this time you still stack overclocked CPUs with unoverclocked ones. It's great to find out the overclocking potential of Nehalem but, at least include some overclocked Penryns in there too, to see how overclocked Nehalem stacks agains OTHER overclocked CPUs, because it's fairly evident that and overclocked new gen CPU will stack well with older non overclocked ones.If it's evident then who cares?
skywalker9952One of the first side effects of Intel's domination of the CPU market is beginning to show. Since they don't have to compete with AMD in any market segment the i7 occupies, they have limited (significant) overclocking http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overclocking to only extreme models.RIP AMD. May Abu Dhabi restore you to life soon so we don't have to suffer through more Intel ripoffs.
My thoughts exactly... I wonder if there will be some sort of resistance to this sort of thing... It's like buying a car, you can do whatever you want to it (within the limits of the law) to make it as fast as you want. Sure, you may void your factory warranty, but it's your deal. You don't see car companies making it impossible for you to do what you want to their cars so you have to buy their expensive high end just to get your kicks... (not a perfect comparison, but it works)
I dunno, it's just pretty weak. And they are just taking advantage of the situation...
sonar610"The fastest Core i7, the 965 Extreme, is more than 2.6 times as fast as AMD’s current flagship CPU, the Phenom X4 9550 BE." This seems like an editing mistake maybe it should be 9950BE.
Fixed, thanks!
Aside from the all too prevalent and potentially misleading typos, which someone needed to get a handle on as of months ago, I must say that the overall quality of this article is MUCH better than pretty much anything I can remember of the last few months. It's actually informative and thought out, rather than being a mess of assumptions that many people reading already know better than.
Keep it up, and maybe I'll pay attention to this site like I used to.
But just for the record, I don't believe that it's particularly appropriate to use the overall average performance percentages as a basis for comparison between the "speed" of Core 2 vs. Core i7. Obviously, most people are going to be interested in the difference with games, where it's likely to be pretty minimal. But here and there, you have something like the 55% WinRAR difference pretty much skewing what otherwise would have been an accurate depiction of average expectations across the board.