Now i know that the i7's are the newest tech, but what in layman's terms makes these chips better than the current C2D crop. They seem to be a lot more expensive than C2D chips (almost double), and the speeds are noway near as fast as the top end C2D chips, they seem to run hotter than the wolfdale chips too. So whats all the fuss about?
-
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.
So what does make the, i7's better than the current C2D CPUS??
- Thread starter lettuce
- Start date
Clock speed is not a good comparison.
The I7 does more work per clock cycle and has an integrated memory controller allowing far higher memory bandwidth than having to share memory and systems data over a single FSB link.
For video coding and other CPU tasks the I7 can be up to twice as fast
AD
The I7 does more work per clock cycle and has an integrated memory controller allowing far higher memory bandwidth than having to share memory and systems data over a single FSB link.
For video coding and other CPU tasks the I7 can be up to twice as fast
AD
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 Apr 2004
- Posts
- 13,497
Improvement here or there, worth the money is debatable.
For me its the single core turbo boost feature (as im not overclocking!)
2.93 --> 3.33Ghz in Single core mode AFAIK.
For me its the single core turbo boost feature (as im not overclocking!)
2.93 --> 3.33Ghz in Single core mode AFAIK.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Feb 2009
- Posts
- 3,462
- Location
- Sheffield
Clock-for-clock, the i7 performs about 40% better than a Q9650, and that was June 08, before the i7 was released and the clock speed was locked. Now, with overclocking, the i7 gains much more performance than any C2Q, I think. I think the only chip that compares to the i7 920 is the QX9770, and then the 940 and 965 are even better.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Feb 2009
- Posts
- 3,462
- Location
- Sheffield
In raw performance, yes, I believe so. Depending on the application and whether it supports hyperthreading may affect it, but I think an i7 920 matches a C2Q Extreme.
It's not that the clock speed is misleading, that is the true clock speed, it's just that like decto said, the i7 manages more work per clock cycle.
Plus, the i7s seem to be great at overclocking. From what I can find, a QX9770 seems to O/C to around 4-4.3GHz on water, whereas bit-tech managed to get their 920 to 4GHz on air (4.3GHz managed post, but BSOD'd under load). Of course this depends on the chip you get, but with a good chip vs a good chip, the 920 wins. Plus the fact that the i7 920 is cheaper than the C2Q Extreme CPU's.
In my opinion, if you are thinking of building a new rig with a Q9XXX CPU, don't. Get an i7. If, however, you have a high end quad already, don't bother upgrading.
Last edited:
Yeah, just the same as the jump from Pentium D to Core 2 Duo - a Core 2 @ 1.6ghz could best a Pentium D @ 3.0ghz. This is why Intel switched from using clock speed as a differentiator for their CPUs a few years back, and moved to using model numbers - although obviously clock speed is still relevant.