Discussion in 'General Hardware' started by bombfirst885, Dec 17, 2009.
So I guess the universal conclusion is you can't go wrong either way
Amen to that.
Wow, this thread grew. lol
So what is the main difference between the i5 and i7 other than power? i5 doesn't have hyperthreading, correct?
i7 has a QuickPath Interconnect link while i5 doesn't (it does, but it is strictly under the processor cap). Both have hyperthreading and turbo. i7 also supports tri-channel memory while the rest are dual channel.
For what it is worth, the i7 920 takes the majority of gaming benchmarks (even with slower cards) in comparison to the 955.
true enough its been said in multi gpu that i7 wins but in the games same with single card
but you will notice as the graphics settings are turned up and AA is turned up its still limited by the gpu so while i7 gives more frames the fact remains that the phenom dosent really lose anything as both run games well and with a decent gpu any game will be playable and even with multi gpus in alot of games at higher resolution where multi gpu makes sense
to be honest if i had the money id go i7 but ive never had good luck with intel cpus
but even so i7 dominance is undisputed but i5 when overclocked closes the gap with i7 and i5 is the more easy to digest finacially platforms so to speak from intell
again if u got the money go i5 or i7 if u want perfromance on the cheap go AMD
that article u linked said it best most games show an advantage with i7 but in terms of real world playability all systems are delivering high frame rates in all titles
That just makes you a tree-hugging hippy pansy.
At any rate, I'd go i7 920. Not as much for the performance difference, but because of greater flexibility of the platform, and the better upgrade potential.
Has anyone found a benchmark running 8 threads on Phenom II 955 and Core i7 920? That would tell you if hyperthreading/extra power consumption is worth it or not.
If no one has seen such a benchmark, maybe we should make one.
Ive seen a bunch with video encoding. Supreme Commander would be a great bench for gaming and multi-threading but no one seems to give a rats ass about it.
What would be the best (cheapest) motherboard for the i7?
well mailman i know for a fact with 2 5850s and my 940be at stock 8000 units on screen i still peg 60fps with vsync on using core optimizer which forces the game to use up to 32 cores as it works for both sup com and sup com fa
Cpu - Intel core i7-860 (2.8Ghz with turbo boost to 3.46ghz with 4 core/8threads )
Mobo - Gigabyte P55 UD3R
You have Micheal Jackson in your avatar. You cannot be trusted with computer advice or small boys.
Naw, we'd need something that can specify how many threads to create (to make sure it always creates 8, regardless of how many processors are detected) and it must be CPU/RAM intensive in order to keep the hard drive out of it as much as possible. It must also be identical in how it operates no matter the system.
I do have an app that meets all those requirements but it is a computational light weight but, if someone has a 965 or 955 at stock and would like to try it, it would at least be something.
I got a 955 at stock. PM me the details. In the meantime look at this Dirt2 bench.....
You got PM...
Dirt2 benchmark? It's only 1680x1050 at 1x AA and the sole 920 in there is overclocked. The benchmark looks like it is clearly GPU limited seeing as most of the benchmarks on the higher end CPUs are in a statistical tie.
I honestly doubt you'll notice a difference between the two, but the Core i7 920 is faster, especially in multi-threaded applications.
Preliminary tests are very interesting. In a simple task such as int and decimal addition, 4 threads is actually faster than 8 by quite a broad margin (2388193212.75 to 2876328473.25 and 1499773664.25 to 1545510125.25). I'm waiting for MailMan though...
your avatar is very good...
You cannot be trusted with computer advice or small boys
Cpu - Intel core i7-860 +
Mobo - Gigabyte P55 UD3R
is a nice combination .....
The testing is done and it yielded some very interesting results.
Basically, the application just adds either 1 + 1 or 1.0 + 1.0 for one second and repeats this 10 times.
1) It starts 8 threads which just add in an endless loop.
2) Once all threads have been started, it zeros all their count from 0 to 8.
3) It does nothing for one second while the threads count.
4) It reads the value of each thread, 0 to 8, and zeros it.
5) It repeats step 2-4 nine times for a total count of 10.
6) It adds up all those scores producing the cumulative score ("[C]") and averages the value for each test ("" through "").
7) Repeat steps 1-6 for doubles (1.0)
8) Repeat steps 1-6 for ulongs (1) but only 4 threads.
9) Repeat steps 1-6 for doubles (1.0) with 4 threads.
The app is a light weight in that the mathematical operations it completes are stupefyingly simple; however, it will load your CPU to 100% with those stupefyingly simple calculations. It's kind of like putting a race horse on a treadmill to see how much distance it can cover in a given time (approximately 10 seconds in our case).
What Do We Learn From This
1) Does hyperthreading help? Without a doubt. The Core i7 is a lame duck without it's hyperthreading even in the 4-threaded tests that should have matched in both tests. Disabling Hyperthreading, even when you need the capability to run just four threads, is a bad idea.
2) How does the higher clockspeed of the 955/965 stack up to the lower clockspeed of the 920 in sheer counting prowess? Not well. Core i7 920, with or without hyperthreading, is clearly faster clock for clock. The Phenom II 955 has the lowest counts/clockspeed ratio of those tested.
3) How does the actual work output compare to the power consumption? This is a guesstimate based on TDP which Intel and AMD measure differently so take with a significant portion of salt. Core i7 920 w/ Hyperthreading is the most efficient with the dual Xeons being last. The Phenom II 955 makes a relatively strong showing here.
4) How does the 955/965 fair compared to the 920 at running 8 vs 4 threads? First, it is surprising to note that all platforms tested did worse with 8 threads versus 4, even a dual Xeon quad core platform. This discovery baffles me. Even then, as expected, the dual Xeons had the least decline in performance going from 4 threads to eight while the Phenom II pulls up the rear. The Core i7 takes a huge loss in this department with Hyperthreading disabled.
In this simple test, Core i7 920 w/ Hyperthreading enabled sweeps the floor of all other processors tested except in comparing 8 threads to 4 threads (dual Xeon saw the smallest loss). If you have a Core i# with Hyperthreading, do not disable it.
Hyperthreading should only be disabled for compatibility purposes, but TBH users should be able to enable and disable the ability on the fly.
Core i series was designed for HT to be enabled compared to the Pentium 4.
yes, the extra money for the i7 920 IS worth it, in my opinion.
hec I use so little of it's power, but its just really nice knowing it's there if you want to tap it.
majority feel the same way with the slower processors too.
Thats probably because the majority buy slower processors, which stands to reason. The OP asked;
My opinion says hell yeah it is.
The 920 at 1.6ghz still runs all todays games at good fps.
I have never encountered a problem with compatibility. I haven't heard of any reports of problems either.
It would be nice if Hyperthreading could be enabled and disabled as necessary but I think that wouldn't be easy to achieve and may come with pretty severe penalties especially in terms of threads getting cut off entirely. Since people should leave it enabled, I think it is fine to leave it an option in the BIOS.
Separate names with a comma.