Athlon XP still legit?

[toyota]

When i7 came out, the lowest i7 beat the fastest & most expensive Core 2 Quads as well. THEN there was the excellent overclocking potential of Nehalem on top of that. What's changed?

I agree, I wouldn't call them the good overclockers. Impossible to keep the damned things cool, even with semi-decent solutions. Nevertheless netburst architecture still holds the world 'mhz' record.

NO. when the $180 1.86 Core 2 was released it matched or beat the $1000 3.73 Pentium D 965 EE. the i7 is not that much faster than Core 2. for it to have been the same improvement the i7 would have needed to be at 1.6, cost 180 bucks and then match the performance of the 3.2 QX9750. not to mention that the Core 2 cpus can oc just as high or higher than i7. really even at stock speeds the fastest i7 is not much faster in gaming than a Core 2 Quad so NO the jump in performance wasnt remotely the same. why cant you get through your head that the Core 2 was a massive improvement over the Pentium D??? you are the only one that doesnt seem to get that.

 

[grimpr]

+1

A simple CPU compare at Anands Bench suite, between the Pentium 4 955 Extreme Edition and any 50$ CPU will suffice.

 

[formulav8]

+1

A simple CPU compare at Anands Bench suite, between the Pentium 4 955 Extreme Edition and any 50$ CPU will suffice.

Yuk Yuk Yuk

 

[Oxaqata]

Edit

 

[MrK6]

Of course Core 2 was a massive improvement over Pentium D. However, the 1.86GHz E6300 mentioned in the original question was not. It was just another slight step in performance (hence my i7 920 vs 9? series C2Q comparison).

Your comparison is inaccurate. The impact that Pentium D -> C2D was much more substantial than the impact of C2D -> i7. Any enthusiast with a Pentium D received a substantial upgrade across the board by dropping in even an E6300, this was not the case with i7 and C2D/C2Q, and hence why the Q6600 still lives on.

 

[Oxaqata]

Edit