UPDATE: Core i7: Blazing Fast, O/C Changes

By Bert Toepelt
published

The Hardware

Testing Systems

Our two testbed systems for the AMD and the Intel platforms.

Image 1 of 2

Motherboards

The selection of components we use for the CPU charts has been brought up to date. For AMD processors we now use an Asus board based on the AMD 790 FX chipset, while Intel CPUs are tested on a Gigabyte board with an Intel X48 chipset.

Image 1 of 2

Memory

All AMD processors are tested with DDR2-1066 memory from A-DATA, with CL 4.0-4-4-12 timings. The Intel platform uses DDR3-1333 memory set to CL 7.0-7-7-21. Depending on the processors’ bus speeds, the memory may run at lower speeds—this is a limitation of the various chipsets.

Image 1 of 2

Graphics Card

To ensure that the processor will be the deciding factor in our gaming benchmarks, we use MSI’s powerful N280GTX-T2D1G-OC card, which is equipped with Nvidia’s G200 chip.

Hard Drives and USB Thumb Drive

Each of our testbed systems is equipped with two 320 GB Western Digital hard drives. The WD 3200AAKS uses only a single platter, resulting in low power consumption while simultaneously allowing it to get by without additional cooling. The Linux system is run exclusively from a Corsair Flash Voyager USB thumb drive. However, our Linux benchmark suite refused to run on the Nehalem system, which is why we can’t provide any Linux results in this article.

Image 1 of 2

Blu-ray Drive and Sound Card

We use Pioneer’s BDC-202BK drive for our Blu-ray benchmark. In order to keep processor load from audio playback as low as possible during gaming benchmarks, we equip our testbed system with an audio card : the X-Fi Xtreme Gamer has its own dedicated audio processor.

Image 1 of 2

Power Supply and CPU Cooler

An 850 watt Cooler Master power supply provides each of our systems with necessary power.

Both the AMD and Intel processors are cooled by CNPS 9700 LED coolers made by Zalman.

Image 1 of 2
Bert Toepelt
156 Comments Comment from the forums
  • joseph85
    Good article, and may I say Keep up the good work.
    Reply
  • pullmyfoot
    AMD’s HyperTransport protocol can transmit up to 25.6 GB/s at 3.20 GHz.
    You mean Intel don't you? Other than that little mistake, good article
    Reply
  • wh3resmycar
    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
    Reply
  • skywalker9952
    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.
    Reply
  • 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.
    Reply
  • cryogenic
    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.

    Reply
  • joseph85
    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?
    Reply
  • fender22
    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...
    Reply
  • cangelini
    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!
    Reply
  • onearmedscissorb
    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.
    Reply