Intel's Core i7 920, 940 & 965 processors

Cosmic: Overclocking information will follow well before you can buy the CPUs - it's coming later this week in fact. :)

It's been a stretch to get this done for today following the decision to bring the embargo forwards by a not insignificant amount of time. We'd got between four and six articles (depending on timing) planned for the original launch, but that all had to be scrapped when we got gimped by the embargo change. It sucks for you because there's lots you want to know and it sucks for us because there's lots more we want to tell you but unfortunately haven't had the hours in the day to get the answers.

NIce article, I can't imagine the time involving doing all of that.

Every time something new comes out I see that its a nice improvement (unless its an amd cpu, teh hee) but it seems to be such a small increase each time and its so bloody often.

I would like to see them go away for 18 months/2 years and come back with something 4 times faster and used half the power, not 50% faster every 6 months. It just tempts me to upgrade so much and I don't have the funds, it also serves to confuse the market and those who aren't up to date with the news will have no idea what is going on.

Oh come on, everyone knows CPU means diddly squat for games. At 1920x1200 or even 1680x1050 you might as well use an AMD dual-core and not be the wiser.

Anyways, how about some overclocking tests?

Originally Posted by bowman
Anyways, how about some overclocking tests?

Core i7 920 @ 3.6GHz suit you?

The norwegian site hardware.no have managed to run an i7 920 stable @ 4.0 GHz :D Got a 3DMark06 score of 6539 with an 8800GTX

Nice article guys. Even if I don't upgrade I greatly enjoy the read; I'm looking forward to your coming articles.

Originally Posted by [- pio -]
The norwegian site hardware.no have managed to run an i7 920 stable @ 4.0 GHz :D Got a 3DMark06 score of 6539 with an 8800GTX

http://forums.bit-tech.net/showthread.php?t=159789

;)

Meh. It's a step forward, yeah, but a small one. Good article, but I fail to get impressed by the results. With all the new-super-mega technology costing several hundred percent more, one could expect performance to increase accordingly. Time to look for what AMD will offer next.

For those of you craving overclocking data:

http://www.custompc.co.uk/reviews/605115/intel-core-i7.html

4.1 is definitely achievable.

4.1!!

Right, that's it!! I'm not letting CPC get the better of me! >_< Challenge is oooooooooon!

i'll wait for the DFI board then i'll sell my kidneys and get me the 920.......................

but yeah, running on Q6600@ 3.6 here... need to know how big the difference is with a 3.6 920 :) or maybe with a 3.2 965, really.... if the Q6600 can still beat it in gaming, then its not worth upgrading......

...but if a 3.2 i7 can beat a 3.6 penryn... :D

/me watches bindi write 45MEGAHURTZ in MsPaint on a screenshot :P

I've been debating about doing a complete upgrade (current kit is an x2) and I think the i7 overclocking performance has sealed the deal, If I can drop the extra 100-200 I would need to spend over a core 2 quad system

Originally Posted by Redbeaver
i'll wait for the DFI board then i'll sell my kidneys and get me the 920.......................

but yeah, running on Q6600@ 3.6 here... need to know how big the difference is with a 3.6 920 :) or maybe with a 3.2 965, really.... if the Q6600 can still beat it in gaming, then its not worth upgrading......

...but if a 3.2 i7 can beat a 3.6 penryn... :D

I've got numbers for a Q6700 @ 3.33GHz if you like.

I've also got to get a-hold of a Q6600 and set it to 3.0GHz - that was the usual oc (266-333FSB).

Some of those figures are unreal. I wants me a 4Ghz 920!

Nice article, although the gaming benchmarks weren't as impressive as i thought they would be. Intel's main problem will be selling another upgrade to those already happy with their current dual/quad core systems.

Originally Posted by frontline
Nice article, although the gaming benchmarks weren't as impressive as i thought they would be. Intel's main problem will be selling another upgrade to those already happy with their current dual/quad core systems.

That was exactly my point - how many of us find our current CPUs limiting? I find it hard to justify the price.

If I was video rendering, video encoding, serious business image or file compression or workstation/server stuff, it would be a no brainer upgrade, but for power users and enthusiasts who have a tighter budget, it's not so clean cut.

I fear that Havendale won't be any better than Penryn, unless it overclocks a LOT and the CPUs are cheap. The good news is that dual channel is close to triple in quite a few tests, and clocked up to 1,600-2,000MHz should make up the difference.

It's looking good, I've been waiting ages to up-grade my pc, and when I do I want it to be fairly future proof, so the 920 is looking very promising.

well from what I can see, if your a gamer then right now its not worth wasting your money on an I7 rig for as little gains as you get but if your into everything else then ya go for it.

Originally Posted by HourBeforeDawn
well from what I can see, if your a gamer then right now its not worth wasting your money on an I7 rig for as little gains as you get but if your into everything else then ya go for it.

But, at the same time, buying old hardware is a no-no. Thus I see that if I'm building from scratch the i7s would be top choice. However, upgrading from the Core 2 generation seems a bit of a waste. Hopefully Intel won't botch the release of the rest of the line.

I dont know about that when the I7 do come out the C2D stuff will probably see a nice price cut so you could get probably one of the highest end c2d for less then an i7 and actually see better performance at least on the gaming side of things.

I have to say I'm impressed but then again, is there anything my C2D E6600 @ 3.6 GHz can't do fast enough for me? Don't think so. I'd be nice to get one of those but I honestly think my next upgrade will be a new graphics card (4870 most likely).

Another interesting review though. Nice work guys!

3dguru actually has a nice article about it. He's using the i7 on 3-way SLI and quad CF rigs, and they benchmark off the charts.

So actually there are now viable rigs that can power that matrox triplehead with 2x 22" screens that will not get brutally CPU-limited after adding that third GTX280. Ofcourse you need a nuclear powerplant to keep it all going, but who cares? :p

Originally Posted by HourBeforeDawn
well from what I can see, if your a gamer then right now its not worth wasting your money on an I7 rig for as little gains as you get but if your into everything else then ya go for it.

If you're a gamer you go for graphics.

If you're an encoder, you go for CPU (unless you can GPGPU it)

RDST - If I was on a budget though, I'd get a Q66 or E8600 and spend more on a graphics card and memory, then wait to see the prices of Havendale next year. Current Penryn's certainly are not slow!

Originally Posted by Bindibadgi
4.1!!

Right, that's it!! I'm not letting CPC get the better of me! >_< Challenge is oooooooooon!

4.27 now on air

http://www.custompc.co.uk/news/605127/core-i7-breaks-all-cpc-benchmark-records-on-air.html