Anybody else DISAPPOINTED by i7?

[Tempered81]

Originally posted by: taltamir
correct arkaign, nehalem is for servers, pure and simple.

Yes the disappointed ones are those who purchased it for playing games.

 

[taltamir]

i didn't purchase it for playing games, I WANTED to purchase it to play games, and i expected it to rock in that regard thanks to all the hype, but then i found its geared towards servers and wouldn't do me much good.

If intel named this a xeon i wouldn't have had such an expectation.

kinda like the phenom, the phenom does not suck, it is an awesome server chip... it just sucks when you try to put it in a home system and use it for gaming and media for which it was not designed.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: taltamir
i didn't purchase it for playing games, I WANTED to purchase it to play games, and i expected it to rock in that regard thanks to all the hype, but then i found its geared towards servers and wouldn't do me much good.

Really? What games would suffer with an i7?

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: taltamir
i didn't purchase it for playing games, I WANTED to purchase it to play games, and i expected it to rock in that regard thanks to all the hype, but then i found its geared towards servers and wouldn't do me much good.

Really? What games would suffer with an i7?

Crysis

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuch...owdoc.aspx?i=3448&p=19

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: taltamir
i didn't purchase it for playing games, I WANTED to purchase it to play games, and i expected it to rock in that regard thanks to all the hype, but then i found its geared towards servers and wouldn't do me much good.

Really? What games would suffer with an i7?

Crysis

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuch...owdoc.aspx?i=3448&p=19

I think our definitions of "suffer" may be a little different.


"Overall in gaming tests the situations where Nehalem was faster than Penryn outnumbered those where it didn't, but upgrading to Nehalem for faster gaming performance doesn't make sense. We were entirely too GPU bound in all of these titles, if you want Nehalem it should be because of its performance elsewhere."

So while going Penryn------> i7 for games doesnt make sense for most people, i7 is still the fastest chip on the market. How is that "suffering" ?

 

[taltamir]

So while going Penryn------> i7 for games doesnt make sense for most people, i7 is still the fastest chip on the market. How is that "suffering" ?

look again, clock for clock penryn is faster then i7 in crysis (And slightly faster in other games), it also overclocks less.
well, it does perform lower... anyways, the games are slightly faster overall, somtimes slower... but the price is so much higher and the improvement overall so slim... Worthwhile for servers though.
It wouldn't do me much good as an UPGRADE... spending all that money to UPGRADE TO i7 would yeild practically no improvements for a lot of money. I expected a large improvements for a lot of money (and secretly wished for a large improvement for little money)

Even on a new system, i would not recommend anyone to buy an i7 gaming / home system over a penryn.

 

[Tempered81]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: taltamir
i didn't purchase it for playing games, I WANTED to purchase it to play games, and i expected it to rock in that regard thanks to all the hype, but then i found its geared towards servers and wouldn't do me much good.

Really? What games would suffer with an i7?

Crysis

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuch...owdoc.aspx?i=3448&p=19

So while going Penryn------> i7 for games doesnt make sense for most people, i7 is still the fastest chip on the market. How is that "suffering" ?

I think the Penryn is faster than the i7 in the crysis benchmark he's referencing. "why pay more for less performance" is the point - i believe. I don't think those scores are anywhere close to your 4.3ghz cpu anyway.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: taltamir

So while going Penryn------> i7 for games doesnt make sense for most people, i7 is still the fastest chip on the market. How is that "suffering" ?

look again, clock for clock penryn is faster then i7 in crysis (And slightly faster in other games), it also overclocks less.
well, it does perform lower... anyways, the games are slightly faster overall, somtimes slower... but the price is so much higher and the improvement overall so slim... Worthwhile for servers though.
It wouldn't do me much good as an UPGRADE... spending all that money to UPGRADE TO i7 would yeild practically no improvements for a lot of money. I expected a large improvements for a lot of money (and secretly wished for a large improvement for little money)

Even on a new system, i would not recommend anyone to buy an i7 gaming / home system over a penryn.

Crysis isn't the end-all be-all. Thats why they tested a multitude of games. If I was sitting with a Q6600, i7 would be an option for me. However with 45nm, I see absolutely none.

As soon as 3X2GB DDR3 and X58 prices comes down, there will be no reason *NOT* to get an i7 as a new system.

Just like as of right now if you have a Penryn and only game/surf/email, there is *NOT* a reason to upgrade to i7.

Personally i'm waiting it out until Westmere.

 

[uclaLabrat]

I just bought an i7 system, the main reason being that I don't upgrade often (going from a 939 3700+ at 2.8G to a quad) and I didn't want to be stuck on a socket (775) that may be EOL'd soon. That's pretty much where I was stuck with the AMD, not being able to upgrade anything.

 

[taltamir]

so you spent an extra 150$ on a mobo (more then a new mobo of "future socket X") as well as an extra 150$ (over the 50$ base cost) of ram... and some hundreds on a CPU... to be able to "upgrade" better later?

If I buy a socket 775 system with 2x2GB of DDR2 ram and a core2. Put the money i saved in the bank, and throw the core2 system in the trash and buy all new components in a year or two, I would end up spending less money overall then buying the "futureproof" i7 system today.

Buy things for current performance.

 

[Tempered81]

yah the current i7 socket is about to change anyway...

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: jaredpace
yah the current i7 socket is about to change anyway...

The current i7 socket (LGA1366) is not about to change.

The upcoming new SKU's from Intel relating to LGA1156 are not going to be i7's and they do not displace nor replace the i7 platform.

The only thing that would cause the LGA1366 socket to EOL anytime soon is if Westmere is not socket compatible with LGA1366.

 

[Tempered81]

If they aren't i7's what are they?

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

I think our definitions of "suffer" may be a little different.

Totally agree with you

so getting 1.2fps less is considering suffering?

Originally posted by: jaredpace
yah the current i7 socket is about to change anyway...

No, the mainstream platform is getting released. LGA1366 is not getting EOL.

The LGA1366 platform will be around for a while... do you know why? because Neha-EP hasnt even been realesed yet and its LGA1366.

The LGA1156 is the mainstream version of neha. Lower budgeted orientated, and built in IGP.


This is NOT a i7 REPLACEMENT. What you guys are looking for is the TOCK version of i7, which will be in 32nm.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: jaredpace
If they aren't i7's what are they?

i6's would be my guess.

Intel has said all along that i7 is the product name for bloomfield nehalems. Just as XEON is the product name for server x86 chips and celeron is the name for budget chips.

Whatever they call the LGA1156 chips it will be their mainstream product brand, but not i7 based on what Intel has stated to date.

 

[Tempered81]

first 1156 chips are Nehalem derivatives according to Anand:
"At the same time, Intel just released its 2009 roadmap which outlined some of the lesser known details of the mainstream LGA-1156 Nehalem derivatives."
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuch...el/showdoc.aspx?i=3461

1156 = Lynnfield & Havendale
1366 = Bloomfield & Westmere
1567 = ??

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: taltamir
i didn't purchase it for playing games, I WANTED to purchase it to play games, and i expected it to rock in that regard thanks to all the hype, but then i found its geared towards servers and wouldn't do me much good.

Really? What games would suffer with an i7?

Crysis

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuch...owdoc.aspx?i=3448&p=19

I think our definitions of "suffer" may be a little different.


"Overall in gaming tests the situations where Nehalem was faster than Penryn outnumbered those where it didn't, but upgrading to Nehalem for faster gaming performance doesn't make sense. We were entirely too GPU bound in all of these titles, if you want Nehalem it should be because of its performance elsewhere."

So while going Penryn------> i7 for games doesnt make sense for most people, i7 is still the fastest chip on the market. How is that "suffering" ?

Agreed in all meaningful ways. The important facts are these :

Buying an i7 for games now is senseless, as Penryn is much more affordable, performs almost identically for games (+ or - a few % here and there), and better i7 releases will be available when the pricing comes down to where it makes sense.

The biggest gains for Nehalem will be for non-desktop configurations obviously.

When the pricing comes down, yes, Nehalem will be no-brainer (Penryn will be EOL anyway, history repeats itself as usual).

 

[Seggybop]

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: jaredpace
If they aren't i7's what are they?

i6's would be my guess.

Intel has said all along that i7 is the product name for bloomfield nehalems. Just as XEON is the product name for server x86 chips and celeron is the name for budget chips.

Whatever they call the LGA1156 chips it will be their mainstream product brand, but not i7 based on what Intel has stated to date.

They chose "i7" purely because of its appearance (the vertical line section of the i and the upper horizontal section of the 7 both pointing to the dot of the i, with the angled section of the 7 closing it off makes a nice icon). If they don't call lga1156 Core i7, I don't think it'll be any other number like that.

 

[AdamK47]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: taltamir
i didn't purchase it for playing games, I WANTED to purchase it to play games, and i expected it to rock in that regard thanks to all the hype, but then i found its geared towards servers and wouldn't do me much good.

Really? What games would suffer with an i7?

Crysis

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuch...owdoc.aspx?i=3448&p=19

Crysis

http://www.tomshardware.com/re...7-Nehalem,2057-25.html

Crysis

http://hothardware.com/Article...-Have-Arrived/?page=12

Crysis

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardwa...7-920-945-965-review/4

And those are just a few.

 

[taltamir]

really? I guessed it was a leetfied IT (for the IT departments buying those for their servers)

although honestly, "it looks cool" is as good a method of making up random names as any.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: AdamK47

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: taltamir
i didn't purchase it for playing games, I WANTED to purchase it to play games, and i expected it to rock in that regard thanks to all the hype, but then i found its geared towards servers and wouldn't do me much good.

Really? What games would suffer with an i7?

Crysis

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuch...owdoc.aspx?i=3448&p=19

Crysis

http://www.tomshardware.com/re...7-Nehalem,2057-25.html

Crysis

http://hothardware.com/Article...-Have-Arrived/?page=12

Crysis

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardwa...7-920-945-965-review/4

And those are just a few.

Umm...those show i7 clearly faster than Yorkie in Crysis. What was wrong with anand's test?

 

[taltamir]

anand was medium settings, those tests are all high settings.

 

[AdamK47]

Originally posted by: taltamir
anand was medium settings, those tests are all high settings.

Toms Hardware and Hot Hardware use low settings. Bit-Tech used high settings. All sites used an X48 for their C2Q test systems. All used a GTX 280. Hot Hardware did use high settings with SLI here which shows an even greater lead over a Core 2 Quad. I use 2X SLI in my X58 and love it!

 

[VI3L]

I think I7 is plenty beefy I couldn't be happier!

 

[IntelUser2000]

Toms Hardware and Hot Hardware use low settings. Bit-Tech used high settings. All sites used an X48 for their C2Q test systems. All used a GTX 280. Hot Hardware did use high settings with SLI here which shows an even greater lead over a Core 2 Quad. I use 2X SLI in my X58 and love it!

It could be because the i7s are actually superior in processing whatever its processing in gaming(surprise!) but the higher settings don't show it because something greater is limiting it, like possibly the graphics driver, or the BIOS/chipset isn't mature etc. That's why TH and HH shows better scores since its a CPU-oriented low settings and Anand shows worse score since its a medium score.