bit-tech.net | Intel Core i7 CPU and Platform Value

naokaji 12th November 2008, 08:27

In short, if you play games, it's either a oc'd C2D or C2Q, if you don't play games, it's I7.

but the limitation in gaming performance doesnt really matter since current tft's limit you yo 60fps anyway, so if you get 90 fps with a oc'd Q6600 or 78 with a I7, the result is the same.

Cupboard 12th November 2008, 10:49

Thanks, unsurprising that the i7s dominated in the really CPU limited test but were less convincing elsewhere but its nice to have some numbers :)

Interesting that there are three or four distinct levels in the GPU tests, for example with Crysis you have [Core 2 Duo E8400 OC to Core 2 Duo E8500] then [AMD Phenom X4 9950 BE to Core 2 Duo E8500 ] then [Core i7 940 to Core i7 965] etc.

chambochae 12th November 2008, 12:34

I agree with Obiwan, upgrade paths can definitely add and subtract from overall value. Does anyone know how long 775 is going to be around for?

I think the i7s should get a value bonus simply because you're buying into new technology. Of course quantifying that bonus is near impossible.

metarinka 13th November 2008, 03:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by chambochae
I agree with Obiwan, upgrade paths can definitely add and subtract from overall value. Does anyone know how long 775 is going to be around for?

I think the i7s should get a value bonus simply because you're buying into new technology. Of course quantifying that bonus is near impossible.

I think 775 is done in terms of processors releases save for the 8600? everything now will be on the new socket. The if you bought more expensive ddr 3 now you could make a switch over to i7 with just a mobo and cpu. That being said personally I've never upgraded a cpu on the same platform I've always held onto hardware long enough to make a "golden 3" jump

ou7blaze 13th November 2008, 08:11

http://images.bit-tech.net/content_images/2008/11/intel-core-i7-cpu-value/7x3.jpg

Am I the only one that has noticed that one day we won't have enough space for these power hungry beasts that require a HUGE heat sink.

naokaji 13th November 2008, 08:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by ou7blaze
http://images.bit-tech.net/content_images/2008/11/intel-core-i7-cpu-value/7x3.jpg

Am I the only one that has noticed that one day we won't have enough space for these power hungry beasts that require a HUGE heat sink.

I've run into that problem long ago, besides, such oversize heatsinks are a pain to mount, so I went with Watercooling.

Bindibadgi 13th November 2008, 10:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jediron
Am i the only one to notice your calculations are flawed ? In the first example, you take the $ 200,- to calculate the difference, in the second example you take the $ 100,- piece to calculate the difference. Why is this the wrong approach ?
In the first example you don't take the baseline CPU to calculate the difference, in the second example you do take the baseline CPU to calculate the difference. This way, you don't get the rite numbers.
Always take the same approach to calculate; in this example: the baseline CPU.

That way, you get very different results; i think, the only valid results!
Example one: the difference is not -50%, the $ 200,- is 100% more expensive!
Example two: the $100,- cost is only 25% of the $ 400,- part; so it is 75% cheaper!

the second example shows the same result, basicly. The first one is wrong. This way you get very strange, and invalid resluts.

I get what you're saying now - have one variable (performance) rather than two (price and performance) in calculating a baseline. Each test is correct because there is only a single variable within the test, it's just the average-average at the end which is incorrect. Thank you!

Redbeaver 13th November 2008, 18:05

ROFL!! nice article! i think i'll wait for i7's 45nm (deneb or somethin?) before i upgrade...

yea im sticking with my Q6600.... gaming is where it matters for me and it aint exactly a slouch doing other stuff anyway....

and who said 3.6Ghz is over the top? if u have a G0 chip and a half-decent mobo 3.6 is definitely not over the top. i built at least 5 G0 DDR2 systems for my buddies and at least 4 of them hits 3.6 on stock heatsink. of course it runs a wee too hot for my taste so i put most on 3.2 (drop 1 multi), which is still more than enough anyway. 4 on Asus board, 1 on DFI, another on MSI board, all OCZ ddr800 ram, stock speed.

heh i should show them this article :)

Bindibadgi 13th November 2008, 18:35

We've changed the last page graphs and first conclusion to correctly ascertain relative performance to absolute $USD ratio.

Here the Q6600 clearly comes up trumps, as does the AMD platforms and Core i7 920 OC in value too.

-Acid- 14th November 2008, 20:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bindibadgi
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aterius Gmork
I don't think you really can tell by this comparison. Don't you think, 3.6Ghz on a Q6600 is a bit over the top guys? I certainly wouldn't push my CPU this far, because it might be possible but probably not ideal for extensive daily use for a few years?

I had someone complaining 3.6GHz was too slow and he ran his at 4Gs all day. Others thought 3.2 is too slow.. I just found the stable maximum for our CPU - you can never make a set of results to suit everyone, we try to build a platform for everyone.

Bindibadgi that was me sorry, I relise that i,m in a small niche being phase cooled 24/7 and at 4.31ghz, Would it be possible that I could run your tests at 4ghz and forward them to yourselves.

Thanks again for the the time and effort that went into the write up, i understand that you cannot please everyone, but we forums members would like to help out when we can.

-Acid-

Hamish 15th November 2008, 00:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim S
Supreme Commander in skirmish mode loved the cores

whilst not actually limited by cpu i did notice FarCry2 seemed to use up to 60% cpu on my core2quad @ 3.5ghz
i felt GoW also used an inordinate amount of cpu, must be something to do with xbox ports

edit: nice to see phenoms up the list too :D

Bindibadgi 15th November 2008, 10:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by -Acid-
Bindibadgi that was me sorry, I relise that i,m in a small niche being phase cooled 24/7 and at 4.31ghz, Would it be possible that I could run your tests at 4ghz and forward them to yourselves.

Thanks again for the the time and effort that went into the write up, i understand that you cannot please everyone, but we forums members would like to help out when we can.

-Acid-

:):):)

We can't use outside results sorry - the whole point of having one platform, one hard drive type, one power supply and a single motherboard/BIOS revision is to keep it as scientifically consistent and accurate as possible. I'd love to see a £35 phase change unit for sale and everyone buying one - I'd sure as hell get one and review it at 4GHz then! :p I'd review the Phenom at 4GHz too and the Core i7 at 5! :p :)

Log in

Intel Core i7 CPU and Platform Value

Comments 26 to 37 of 37