bit-tech.net

Intel's Core i7 920, 940 & 965 processors

Comments 1 to 25 of 70

Reply
yakyb 3rd November 2008, 08:46 Quote
Load power seems exceptionally high for a smaller node

cant understand far cry 2 results could this be patched or is this going to be a prmanent problem

i for one like many people out there will not be upgrading anytime soon my q6600 is fine for me

a quick price up for cheapest components came in at £600 for CPU , Mobo and ram you can get a whole system based on q6600 for that i can see sales of this arch being very poor

however when the revision comes along i may buy then
Denis_iii 3rd November 2008, 08:54 Quote
fingers crossed E8400/Q9300 get a hefty price cut though think M/B pricing will be stable as X58 isn't in competition with anything else
Xtrafresh 3rd November 2008, 08:57 Quote
excellent coverage guys, fantastic read this!
[PUNK] crompers 3rd November 2008, 09:20 Quote
hmm interesting, far cry 2 performance is worrying if that is to be the way many new games will be written.

i'll watch from the sideline until at least the second wave of products
p3n 3rd November 2008, 09:27 Quote
holy smokes!

forgive my ignorance, but why not overclocking? :) (I recall reading they won't overlock "too well" or similar?!)
Xtrafresh 3rd November 2008, 09:29 Quote
i'm guessing (hoping?) that we will soon se another article that covers overclocking these babies.
Tim S 3rd November 2008, 09:30 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by p3n
holy smokes!

forgive my ignorance, but why not overclocking? :) (I recall reading they won't overlock "too well" or similar?!)

The embargo was bought forwards by a significant amount of time (being more specific than that would reveal the date, which Intel doesn't want us to do right now), despite the best efforts of Intel's local PR team to fight against the change because it would compromise coverage. This meant we couldn't get absolutely EVERY article we wanted to in time for the launch. It's coming this week and there'll be plenty more Nehalem coverage before the 'official' release date.
Bindibadgi 3rd November 2008, 09:46 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xtrafresh
i'm guessing (hoping?) that we will soon se another article that covers overclocking these babies.

Yea yea, in depth.

I must apologise also - I screwed up the Q6600 OC numbers and used the wrong multiplier :(:( They will be retested and added when we overclock the Core i7 920. :)
DougEdey 3rd November 2008, 10:04 Quote
Superb article, definitely want to upgrade soon to a 920!
Xtrafresh 3rd November 2008, 10:10 Quote
one quick look around the net reveals something strange. Your friend at Anandtech finds that Far Cry 2 actually favours the i7. :?

He does find several games that do not benefit however, amongst which is {drumroll} Crysis!
How on earth can your results be completely opposite?

PS: i was gunna link to the images here, but i don't want to confuse people too much, and i'd probably be breaking too many rules
Tim S 3rd November 2008, 10:14 Quote
The Far Cry 2 numbers were low when we ran them initially and then when we ran them on Saturday, they were still low. We updated the driver yesterday and ran again with the same results. At worst you could say at least our results were consistent even if they don't match what else is out there. :)
Xtrafresh 3rd November 2008, 10:22 Quote
Lol, sometimes i can't imagine your job being anything other then frustrating. That's your punishment though for getting to play with all those goodies for free!

Anyway, the only big difference i can see between is and your tests is that he drop the screen resolution all the way down to make it CPU-bound. It's strange that this would produce opposite results though.
Bindibadgi 3rd November 2008, 10:23 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xtrafresh
one quick look around the net reveals something strange. Your friend at Anandtech finds that Far Cry 2 actually favours the i7. :?

He does find several games that do not benefit however, amongst which is {drumroll} Crysis!
How on earth can your results be completely opposite?

PS: i was gunna link to the images here, but i don't want to confuse people too much, and i'd probably be breaking too many rules

Check the settings - Anandtech ran their numbers at 1024x768 with medium settings, while we ran it at 1680x1050 with high settings. Both have merit - at low resolution the CPU is more prevalent, but it's very unlikely you'll buy a $999 CPU to run at 15" TFT resolution.

Again, FarCry 2 - medium graphics but all the CPU gubbins set to very high at 1024. It takes out the graphics equation focusing on CPU more, but at the same time doesn't wholly represent the real world and what you'll see when you play.

I think Nvidia's drivers might be the problem then if we're seeing such a difference. It's certainly interesting to put the two articles side by side :)
BentAnat 3rd November 2008, 10:25 Quote
Hm... i can't wait for this to be benched against some AMD's... would be interesting to see if intel managed of open the metaphorical can-o-whoop that they did when Core 2 initially launched...
naokaji 3rd November 2008, 10:29 Quote
The Uk is getting worse and worse... seriously, something needs to happen on the pc etailer front, you cant even buy nehalem here yet.

What is a new cpu good for if you cant buy it? same bs as with the 45nm C2Q's again.

Nice review though.
Tim S 3rd November 2008, 10:31 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by naokaji
The Uk is getting worse and worse... seriously, something needs to happen on the pc etailer front, you cant even buy nehalem here yet.

What is a new cpu good for if you cant buy it? same bs as with the 45nm C2Q's again.

Nice review though.

The CPUs aren't officially 'released' until later this month. The embargo was brought forwards :)
Tyrmot 3rd November 2008, 10:47 Quote
Interesting read indeed.... Particularly those Far Cry 2 results. However, this just serves to reassure me that waiting for Westmere before upgrading is probably the way to go...
Adnoctum 3rd November 2008, 11:15 Quote
I must be getting seriously jaded.
I saw this, looked at all the benchmarks, and thought "meh".
It's not the advance I was expecting (or rather the advance Intel and their stooges were hyping).

We all have our different needs, but I look at this platform, and it doesn't give me the required x% performance increase for $y ratio I need to get me excited.

I was really excited about the A64, Core 2 and HD48xx launches, probably because I thought they were going to change everything. As soon as these were released I wanted to upgrade (and did for the HD48xx), but I'm thinking "I'm good to go for now. I'll revisit in 6-12 months and see what's happened".
K.I.T.T. 3rd November 2008, 11:36 Quote
Good article, nice work.

I was expecting the performance gains in the memory bandwidth to be on the galactic scale as they are but for saying i can't really see it translating to much real world performance gain...maybe we don't have the code to take advantage of such huge memory I/O yet or then again it may just be me.
Stickeh 3rd November 2008, 11:40 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bindibadgi
Yea yea, in depth.

I must apologise also - I screwed up the Q6600 OC numbers and used the wrong multiplier :(:( They will be retested and added when we overclock the Core i7 920. :)

I was about to ask, the Q6600 was in the CPU table, but not the CPU price table nor in the test results, was this omitted because of your errors?

Or did i miss where it was said that it was not in the benchmarks?
Bindibadgi 3rd November 2008, 11:49 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stickeh
I was about to ask, the Q6600 was in the CPU table, but not the CPU price table nor in the test results, was this omitted because of your errors?

Or did i miss where it was said that it was not in the benchmarks?

>:( I edited that CPU table first thing this morning!! WTF

I've changed it again :)
Stickeh 3rd November 2008, 11:51 Quote
So we wont be seeing how the q6600 held up?? :(:( I have one clocked at 3.2 and would love to see where that put it! :D
Journeyer 3rd November 2008, 11:57 Quote
Hm, not too shabby, but I'll not leave the AMD camp any time soon. Hell, someone has to support them, right?
But yes, it'll be interesting to see if AMD are able to pull something amazing out of their collective hats (or a$$es if you find that more fitting). Still, seems like Intel has raised the bar, and I just hope AMD are able to follow up on the challenge.
Tim S 3rd November 2008, 12:14 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stickeh
So we wont be seeing how the q6600 held up?? :(:( I have one clocked at 3.2 and would love to see where that put it! :D

There were a couple of bumps along the way with the Q6600 (both stock and OC), but we're working on them and will add them in as soon as we're done.
cosmic 3rd November 2008, 12:18 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stickeh
So we wont be seeing how the q6600 held up?? :(:( I have one clocked at 3.2 and would love to see where that put it! :D

Yes - I would love to see that as well. I think there are quite a few of us with Q6600 clocked at 3.2 Ghz wondering what the benefits of an upgrade will be.

Good article, would have liked a bit more info on overclocking capabilities even if no supporting benchmarks. I suppose a lot is going to come down to the motherboard capabilities on this one.
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums