• 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.

Is i7 better for ...

TheBrooder

TheBrooder

TheBrooder

Soldato
Joined
8 Jan 2007
Posts
3,317
Location
Cognac, France
... heavy multitasking within word/excel, lots of folders open, unzipping, emailing, using translation software, 2 firefox windows with 10+ tabs in each and generally dealing with (lots of opening/closing) image heavy multi-lingual word/trados/memoq/dejavu files.

I generally have lots of files open at any one time and I constantly flick between them while performing wordcounts, spellchecks etc.

Would the i7 perform better than a Phenom 955 under this workload?
 
Yup, i7s were really designed for a server environment so they multitask like nothing else. See what prices are like tomorrow and get a socket 1366 920 or a socket 1156 8 series.
 
TheBrooder said:
... heavy multitasking within word/excel, lots of folders open, unzipping, emailing, using translation software, 2 firefox windows with 10+ tabs in each and generally dealing with (lots of opening/closing) image heavy multi-lingual word/trados/memoq/dejavu files
Click to expand...
Hi TheBrooder,

that's all really lightweight stuff your doing there, no need for a Core i7 to deal with that :confused:

Even an Intel E6300 would slap though that with ease, just make sure you have enough system memory and a fast disk! :cool:
 
Beaten to it, that isn't heavy multitasking. A reasonable dual core would be just fine. A good dual core would be indistinguishable from an i7.


I wonder what the consensus on heavy multitasking is, any definitions I can come up with involve virtual machines and preferably running multiple thin clients.
 
lettuce said:
Why not 920?
Click to expand...

Benchies put it below the 8**s at stock, and i can't imagine they're going to be worse overclockers since they're basically the same chip but with a lower power output. And history tells us that generally P*5 chipsets are better than X*8 chipsets for overclocking.
 
What? It's a rough pattern we've seen. X38 v P35? P35 wins. X48 x P45? P45 wins. Besides, there have been no overclocking benchmarks as far as i know yet, how could you possibly know?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom