Anybody else DISAPPOINTED by i7?

[Tempered81]

Originally posted by: AdamK47

Originally posted by: taltamir

Originally posted by: jzodda

Originally posted by: Gikaseixas
i like I7, far from a disappointment IMO

It depends on what your expecting out of it. Especially in these trying economic times is it better to save money or fork out top dollar? A core2 like an E8400 or an E0 Quad can overclock like crazy for gaming.

If you can save many hundreds of dollars and build a system that plays all the games out now and for the foreseeable future (assuming you get a good GPU) then i7 is a waste. Not a disappointment because its performance is good, but a waste of money.

At some point next year when the prices come down by a good deal then it becomes the right option imo with regards to a gaming machine, but not today.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

I guess if you ignore SLI benchmarks then perhaps. You people really need to acknowledge this aspect. Really... do it... now. Sure it's expensive, but it makes sense if someone wanted to build an SLI system from the ground up.

That's true, two and three way sli is fastest on nehalem platforms, but that's the main exception.

 

[JMapleton]

Originally posted by: Idontcare
Who wouldn't want that? Less heat and noise.

With cool and quiet systems already, most systems are almost silent. I don't think heat is an issue to anyone except an overclocker.

 

[Vee]

Core i7 sofar looks like an extraordinarily good processor.
If you're disappointed, my take is that your perception of different performance envelopes is unrealistic.

That is to say: you are comparing 'desktop' -benchmarking results for Core 2 and Core i7.
I often have the impression that many think such benchmarking represents the 'general' level of performance for a cpu. That is not true.

'Desktop' benchmarks, the type that is almost exclusively published in magazines and websites like this, basically only measures one single aspect of performance. It doesn't matter how many different such benchmarks you read, they still don't represent general performance or performance on all things. They weigh (and for good reasons) one single thing so heavily, that it can well be said that they measure only one thing: Code which make light demands on frontend performance and contain massive amounts of vectorized computing.
And this very thing is what Core 2 excels at! (And for quite tangible reasons, it's got four pipes and 128 bit wide vector hardware, compared to AMD's three pipes and in the case of the Athlon, only 64 bit wide vector hardware.)

Core i7 is different. It's built more like an AMD processor. But much better. It's fast all over. At everything.

So when you're disappointed, my take is that you are comparing only what Core 2 does best. Not 'general' level of performance.

That doesn't mean I'm saying you should all go out and buy Core i7.
No.
Desktop benchmarks are made the way they are for one other reason than making Intel look good. And a good reason. They well represents the most performance significant workloads on the computer for most users. That is, the big time-consuming tasks in various media software are made up of exactly that kind of code. So Intel had their performance emphasis exactly right with the Core 2. And AMD had it wrong. AMD were more concerned with performance as a server CPU. In its early life, Core i7 is primarily intended to stomp all over AMD in the server/workstation area. My take is that Core 2 will remain excellent value on the desktop.

So yes, if you expected early Core i7 to replace Core 2, you have the right to be disappointed. But greater vector performance is underway. (I would also gather that benchmarks that will favor Core i7 more, are also underway.) The reason not much happens right now with emerging CPU generations, is that both Intel and AMD are pursuing new technologies for vectorized computing.

But if you're looking for a 'poor man's Core i7' (for complex loads) there might be a different option, Phenom II. I can't really say for now though.

 

[Zstream]

Core i7 = Server market

We are lucky it did not decrease FPS on most desktop benchmarks. Intel now has a good base for over taking the server market but with the US economy the way it is I do not see i7 taking off as much as Intel would have liked to have seen. This gives AMD 6-12 more months to overtake i7 both in server and desktop applications. I doubt this will happen, wishful thinking

 

[AdamK47]

Right... server market.

 

[shempf]

To summarize, if you think the i7 is disappointing then you don't understand the i7.
However, the thread topic appears to be focused on 'gaming' only....too vague questions/statements usually means too vague understanding, from my experience.

Also, it appears the price stated for mem. was blown out of proportion, to put it lightly.

FYI: Don't have one yet, buy I will soon.

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: aigomorla
Not having those extra 2 cores means the die is smaller and generates less heat/power.

But that's the beauty of the PCU right? If you don't use the cores then they are shutdown anyways. No heat from them till you actually use them to do something, and when that moment comes if you didn't have the extra cores then you'd for sure be doing whatever you are doing at a slower pace. Just in time cpu power.

yeah but the differences in cpu die size alone idc...



Remember me showing these pictures?
http://i125.photobucket.com/al...aigomorla/IMG_0092.jpg

 

[dmens]

Originally posted by: aigomorla
yeah but the differences in cpu die size alone idc...



Remember me showing these pictures?
http://i125.photobucket.com/al...aigomorla/IMG_0092.jpg

the packages are larger due to pin count, the nehalem die size is only about 30mm2 larger than a 45nm C2Q.

also, the larger IHS means the heat will dissipate faster on a nehalem.

 

[StinkyPinky]

Yes, it was overhyped. I'm glad I bought my system 6 months ago and didn't wait for it. Just not worth the cost premium at the moment.

 

[piesquared]

Shanghai/Deneb individual cores are much smaller than Nehalem. When AMD starts to scale them down, they will have a significant advantage in die size. They also have the option of cutting L3 cache blocks, and triple core chips.

Intel won't have that option, as they've said in the past they prefer to produce chips with all cores functioning. Unless of course they eat those very words.

 

[JMapleton]

Originally posted by: AdamK47
Right... server market.

In a way that might benefit games played on servers?

 

[Martimus]

Originally posted by: piesquared
Shanghai/Deneb individual cores are much smaller than Nehalem. When AMD starts to scale them down, they will have a significant advantage in die size. They also have the option of cutting L3 cache blocks, and triple core chips.

Intel won't have that option, as they've said in the past they prefer to produce chips with all cores functioning. Unless of course they eat those very words.

That is true. The logical core of Shanghai/Deneb is approximately 1/2 the size of the logical core for Nehalem. The difference is that the cache size difference between the two is immense (Also Hypertransport takes up a lot more room than QPI) Shanghai/Nehalem comparison photo

 

[TidusZ]

I have a lan planned for january 9/10/11, I would like to upgrade before then to say, an E8400 @4ghz and geforce 260, but at this point deneb is looking really promising, so I think I may just wait it out. The E4300/8800GT lives on, damn this thing is a champ.

As for i7, not really gonna think about it anymore for a while, probably will never own one.

 

[Tempered81]

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.

i5 is 45nm lynnfield:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com...99969_99e650a686_o.jpg

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: jaredpace

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.

i5 is 45nm lynnfield:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com...99969_99e650a686_o.jpg

Cool, good to know!

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: dmens

also, the larger IHS means the heat will dissipate faster on a nehalem.

:X

ummmm not necessarily true...

larger ihs means gaurentee'd 100% ihs is touching the die, however, if your statement larger the IHS = better....

then on waterblocks things like stepping = failure...

but there not.



You think larger the ihs = better cooling because more heat storage, but its not.

you only need a cooling head large enough to cover the die only. You covering your entire ihs is entirely pointless.

 

[thilanliyan]

Originally posted by: aigomorla
you only need a cooling head large enough to cover the die only. You covering your entire ihs is entirely pointless.

It's not completely pointless I don't think. Heat conducts in all directions if there's a sufficient thermal gradient so theoretically if the waterblock/HSF covers the whole IHS then more heat is removed since some of the heat will conduct to the edges of the IHS. Granted most of the heat conduction will be around the area of the die (largest gradient would be there) but there will still be some away from the die. This assumes that the heat is conducting fast enough (ie. you're not cooling limited).

 

[AzN]

I7 doesn't impress me a bit. It's good for OEM though for the latest and greatest. Let me know when they reach around 5 or 6ghz.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: Azn
I7 doesn't impress me a bit. It's good for OEM though for the latest and greatest. Let me know when they reach around 5 or 6ghz.

It isnt a ghz war anymore. The only clock speed I care about is on air-cooling within voltage spec.

i7 or PII could go to 9ghz on dice or phase I wouldnt give a sh*t. It is all about what is reasonable and stable.

 

[AzN]

Never said it was a ghz war. higher frequency still give better performance on the same architecture and only way I'm going to upgrade to I7 is when it reaches around 5 or 6ghz or change up the architecture to give better performance. Currently it's not much better than Core 2 architecture other than encoding and such. I was also talking about stock clock speeds not overclocking on exotic cooling either.

 

[AmongthechosenX]

delete