Skip to main content

Intel Core i7-975 Extreme And i7-950 Reviewed

Benchmark Results: Far Cry 2 And Stalker: Clear Sky

With no anti-aliasing applied, the Core 2 Quad and Phenom II put quantifiable leads over the Core i7 lineup (by almost 10 fps at 1680x1050). Though the gap closes a bit at 1920x1200, it’s still clear that both older micro-architectures outclass Intel’s latest in certain gaming environments.

Even with anti-aliasing turned on (and a more intensive graphics workload applied to our reference GeForce GTX 260 Core 216 cards), the Phenom II and Core 2 Extreme maintain their faster frame rates at both benchmarked resolutions.

The Stalker: Clear Sky benchmark is incredibly demanding. We see the Core i7s eke out a small advantage at 1680x1050, which then shrinks as you step up to 1920x1200.

Add anti-aliasing to what was already an intensive test and you end up with two things: first, unplayable frame rates, and second, parity between all of the benchmarked processors. It’d take a heck of a lot more graphics muscle to uncover any difference between these CPUs under Stalker.

  • smithereen
    I've never seen anyone saying that the Phenom II is faster than any Core i7...
    Reply
  • cruiseoveride
    Doesn't make any difference with games
    Reply
  • cangelini
    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.
    Reply
  • Tindytim
    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?
    Reply
  • cangelini
    Not enough to warrant spending an extra $200 or more, in my opinion.
    Reply
  • burnley14
    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 . . .
    Reply
  • Dustpuppy
    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.
    Reply
  • Summer Leigh Castle
    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.
    Reply
  • cangelini
    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!
    Reply
  • doomtomb
    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.
    Reply