Posted - 2008.11.20 21:09:00 - [2]

 

Edited by: Zurtur on 20/11/2008 21:11:16

Originally by: Fink Angel

---

Wow, this looks like it flies along. 60% faster on an x264 encode than the best Core 2 available!

http://www.pcanswers.co.uk/node/5789
http://www.intel.com/Consumer/Learn/Desktop/corei7-extreme-detail.htm

---

Performance in encoding is something that is not really a good measure. Its got 8 cores and sse4.2, which help a lot if supported by the encoding programs. What really is shocking is the 20% increase in PER CLOCK performance, while maintaing the power consumption in the "normal" range.

There is quite a few people using i7's on OC forms, and it is indeed a damn nice CPU. BUT, the price is not worth upgrading for from any Core 2 Duo or Core 2 Quad. I personally am more then happy with my q9450.

If i was buying a whole new PC and upgrading from a P4 or something, its the only way to go

Z

Posted - 2008.11.20 21:49:00 - [4]

 

RIP AMD.

This heralds in the age of Intel's legal monopoly on the market...

Kickass processors, though.

Posted - 2008.11.20 21:56:00 - [6]

 

Originally by: Atomos Darksun

---

RIP AMD.

This heralds in the age of Intel's legal monopoly on the market...

Kickass processors, though.

---

At least AMd can survive on their GPUs for a while

Posted - 2008.11.20 22:06:00 - [8]

 

Originally by: ReaperOfSly

---

At least AMd can survive on their GPUs for a while

---

Would have been disastrous had ATI not made the bag of awesome that is the 48xx series.

As for the hyperthreading, it doesn't mean a damn thing. Once again, until software is written to utilize it, it isn't possible for all of your cores to be TRULY effectively used on one program.

Posted - 2008.11.20 22:14:00 - [10]

 

This thread needs more mains, tbh.

Posted - 2008.11.20 22:43:00 - [12]

 

Well, given I have a pad of paper with my dream machine I want to build when I can afford, I may slap one of these down on the list.

I wonder how much you could get out of VSC cooling on that thing...

Posted - 2008.11.20 22:55:00 - [14]

 

No way in hell am I buying the i7 anytime soon, I'm more than happy with my q6600, besides, I want to see what AMD comes out with eventually.

Posted - 2008.11.21 00:15:00 - [16]

 

Edited by: Zurtur on 21/11/2008 00:19:39

Originally by: ReaperOfSly

---

Zurtur, it doesn't have 8 cores. It has 4 cores with two threads each. How that affects real applications is yet to be seen.

---

Yes, let me rephrase, "it has virtually 8 cores". There is already a bunch of benchmarks out for i7, just look in the right places :) As i said, about 20% increase in per clock. There will be 8 core versions out soon enough as well.

Originally by: ReaperOfSly

---

As for the hyperthreading, it doesn't mean a damn thing. Once again, until software is written to utilize it, it isn't possible for all of your cores to be TRULY effectively used on one program.

---

Manual process-to-core assigning 4tw?

Posted - 2008.11.21 05:37:00 - [18]

 

I'm more interested in the apparent synergy between the i7 and the tri-channel ram addressing capability for the i7. I've seen some results which seemed to indicate high-rez gaming will benefit greatly with the higher bandwidth afforded by moving the memory on-die and increasing the channels for ram access.

Right now though, it's a nice cpu, but hardly a paradigm shift in the tech for the industry. It's a shame we don't have most things multi-threaded: right now my 3ghz C2duo performs nearly the same in almost all applications I commonly use (including games) and it's a year old. Hardly compelling an upgrade, particularly with the attendant lack of hardware carryover.

Actually, I'd love to take these specs back to the Intel PR guys who were trying to market Prescott's. "You see, you buggers? On die memory controllers and high IPC trump Mhz. Now go fry an egg on your p.o.s. chip!"