• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

I7-965 My Early Thoughts

Is it too much of a mission to plug your monitor into it then?

Just that the really big question that seems to be kicking around here is the possible benefits of the i7 set up for gaming at a decent res. You would appear to be in the position to do a proper 'back to back' test.

I'm sure the forum would be really grateful! :p
 
wolvers69 said:
Is it too much of a mission to plug your monitor into it then?

Just that the really big question that seems to be kicking around here is the possible benefits of the i7 set up for gaming at a decent res. You would appear to be in the position to do a proper 'back to back' test.

I'm sure the forum would be really grateful! :p
Click to expand...
Too much trouble mate I do not have a 10ft long DVI to HDMI cable and cannot be bothered to swap PCs around right now as cable management is time consuming to undo.

But what I will do is run the tests on the Q9450 @ 1920x1080 as thats close enough to see the FPS difference.
 
Pointless me posting some of the latest Crysis results @ 1920x1080 as the Q9450 & I7-965 are almost identical for max FPS. Min FPS is around 10% faster on I7-965. Could not try Warhead as some **** has guessed my serial number via a keygen so have to wait for EA to give me a new one!

Tried Devil May Cry4 benchmark and the difference was actually too close to call. Q9450 ahead by 2-3 FPS in benchmark 1 but then falls behind by up to 50FPS in the other 3 benchmarks.

Think that unless a game uses Multicore well (Crysis & Warhead apparently do not care for more than 4 cores) or you have a multigpu setup the difference in most current games will not be huge at all.

I7 would appear to be for people who want the best and are not worried about cost or hardcore gamers who have highend multigpu setups. Will not be doing anymore benchies for now as very time consuming and obvious that I7 will not show massive gains over Core2 unless the game can utilise all 8 cores or you have a highend multigpu setup.
 
And thats when alan wake comes into the field where i7 users will be laughing at core 2 lads unable to run the game properly no matter what card they throw at it
 
AWPC said:
Tried Devil May Cry4 benchmark and the difference was actually too close to call. Q9450 ahead by 2-3 FPS in benchmark 1 but then falls behind by up to 50FPS in the other 3 benchmarks.
Click to expand...

Thanks AWPC, some good info. What's with the massive increase in those DMC4 benchmarks then?
 
GTA-IV Benchies

As this game uses multicore well, all 1920x1200. As you can see CPU useage is pretty low:eek:
This game really needs 1.6GB VRam for maximum everything:eek:
But TBH it looks stunning on Medium Texture Quality (the Texture quality setting makes the biggest FPS difference ingame) with everything else maxed out. Biggest mistake R* made is that the game auto configures settings based on your resolution so low resolution with a high spec card gives indifferent results.

High Quality textures:
Statistics
Average FPS: 45.49
Duration: 36.98 sec
CPU Usage: 29%
System memory usage: 65%
Video memory usage: 75%

Graphics Settings
Video Mode: 1920 x 1200 (60 Hz)
Texture Quality: High
Render Quality: Highest
View Distance: 19
Detail Distance: 100

Hardware
Microsoft® Windows Vista" Home Premium
Service Pack 1
Video Adapter: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260
Video Driver version: 180.48
Audio Adapter: Speakers (Realtek High Definition Audio)
Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU 965 @ 3.20GHz

File ID: Benchmark.cli


Medium Quality textures:
Statistics
Average FPS: 41.96
Duration: 37.54 sec
CPU Usage: 28%
System memory usage: 64%
Video memory usage: 75%

Graphics Settings
Video Mode: 1920 x 1200 (60 Hz)
Texture Quality: Medium
Render Quality: Highest
View Distance: 100
Detail Distance: 100

Hardware
Microsoft® Windows Vista" Home Premium
Service Pack 1
Video Adapter: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260
Video Driver version: 180.48
Audio Adapter: Speakers (Realtek High Definition Audio)
Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU 965 @ 3.20GHz

File ID: benchmark.cli


Low Quality textures:
Statistics
Average FPS: 43.00
Duration: 37.14 sec
CPU Usage: 30%
System memory usage: 67%
Video memory usage: 76%

Graphics Settings
Video Mode: 1920 x 1200 (60 Hz)
Texture Quality: Low
Render Quality: Highest
View Distance: 100
Detail Distance: 100

Hardware
Microsoft® Windows Vista" Home Premium
Service Pack 1
Video Adapter: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260
Video Driver version: 180.48
Audio Adapter: Speakers (Realtek High Definition Audio)
Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU 965 @ 3.20GHz

File ID: Benchmark.cli
 
beh* said:
awpc: Any more results with regards to overclocking?
Click to expand...
Not bothering for now as its way too fast at stock & I have no need to push it for anything plus not looking to pay £60-65 for a decent HSF as the Intel stock model is awesome for my needs right now with AS5. Check out: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=56

There are plenty of guys on there pushing it. Most of the 965s are capable of around 4.5-4.8Ghz on air only!! With extreme cooling they are going well into the 5-5.7Ghz+ range:eek: With I7 every 133Mhz clock speed gain gives a big boost to overall performance.
 
dirtydog said:
I would be interested for someone with an i7 chip to run the built-in WinRAR benchmark (from the Tools menu). From 3.6 onwards it is optimised for multi-core systems.

On a Q6600 @ 3.1 I got 1,959.

(if someone could run the bench with an i7 at the same clock speed as me, it would be interesting to see the clock for clock performance difference)
Click to expand...

My i7-920 @ 3.8Ghz...

Rarbench.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom