Hardware Intel's Core i7 920, 940 & 965 processors

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2008/11/03/intel-core-i7-920-945-965-review/1

From top to bottom we review and compare the latest processors in Intel's performance line-up and stack all three up against the previous generation from both Intel and AMD to find out where exactly the improvements lie and if they are worth your money.



Please Digg to share - thank you for your support!

 

Load power seems exceptionally high for a smaller node

cant understand far cry 2 results could this be patched or is this going to be a prmanent problem

i for one like many people out there will not be upgrading anytime soon my q6600 is fine for me

a quick price up for cheapest components came in at £600 for CPU , Mobo and ram you can get a whole system based on q6600 for that i can see sales of this arch being very poor

however when the revision comes along i may buy then

 

fingers crossed E8400/Q9300 get a hefty price cut though think M/B pricing will be stable as X58 isn't in competition with anything else

 

excellent coverage guys, fantastic read this!

 

hmm interesting, far cry 2 performance is worrying if that is to be the way many new games will be written.

i'll watch from the sideline until at least the second wave of products

 

holy smokes!

forgive my ignorance, but why not overclocking? (I recall reading they won't overlock "too well" or similar?!)

 

i'm guessing (hoping?) that we will soon se another article that covers overclocking these babies.

 

The embargo was bought forwards by a significant amount of time (being more specific than that would reveal the date, which Intel doesn't want us to do right now), despite the best efforts of Intel's local PR team to fight against the change because it would compromise coverage. This meant we couldn't get absolutely EVERY article we wanted to in time for the launch. It's coming this week and there'll be plenty more Nehalem coverage before the 'official' release date.

 

Yea yea, in depth.

I must apologise also - I screwed up the Q6600 OC numbers and used the wrong multiplier They will be retested and added when we overclock the Core i7 920.

 

Superb article, definitely want to upgrade soon to a 920!

 

one quick look around the net reveals something strange. Your friend at Anandtech finds that Far Cry 2 actually favours the i7.

He does find several games that do not benefit however, amongst which is {drumroll} Crysis!
How on earth can your results be completely opposite?

PS: i was gunna link to the images here, but i don't want to confuse people too much, and i'd probably be breaking too many rules

 

The Far Cry 2 numbers were low when we ran them initially and then when we ran them on Saturday, they were still low. We updated the driver yesterday and ran again with the same results. At worst you could say at least our results were consistent even if they don't match what else is out there.

 

Lol, sometimes i can't imagine your job being anything other then frustrating. That's your punishment though for getting to play with all those goodies for free!

Anyway, the only big difference i can see between is and your tests is that he drop the screen resolution all the way down to make it CPU-bound. It's strange that this would produce opposite results though.

 

Check the settings - Anandtech ran their numbers at 1024x768 with medium settings, while we ran it at 1680x1050 with high settings. Both have merit - at low resolution the CPU is more prevalent, but it's very unlikely you'll buy a $999 CPU to run at 15" TFT resolution.

Again, FarCry 2 - medium graphics but all the CPU gubbins set to very high at 1024. It takes out the graphics equation focusing on CPU more, but at the same time doesn't wholly represent the real world and what you'll see when you play.

I think Nvidia's drivers might be the problem then if we're seeing such a difference. It's certainly interesting to put the two articles side by side

 

Hm... i can't wait for this to be benched against some AMD's... would be interesting to see if intel managed of open the metaphorical can-o-whoop that they did when Core 2 initially launched...

 

The Uk is getting worse and worse... seriously, something needs to happen on the pc etailer front, you cant even buy nehalem here yet.

What is a new cpu good for if you cant buy it? same bs as with the 45nm C2Q's again.

Nice review though.

 

The CPUs aren't officially 'released' until later this month. The embargo was brought forwards

 

Interesting read indeed.... Particularly those Far Cry 2 results. However, this just serves to reassure me that waiting for Westmere before upgrading is probably the way to go...

 

I must be getting seriously jaded.
I saw this, looked at all the benchmarks, and thought "meh".
It's not the advance I was expecting (or rather the advance Intel and their stooges were hyping).

We all have our different needs, but I look at this platform, and it doesn't give me the required x% performance increase for $y ratio I need to get me excited.

I was really excited about the A64, Core 2 and HD48xx launches, probably because I thought they were going to change everything. As soon as these were released I wanted to upgrade (and did for the HD48xx), but I'm thinking "I'm good to go for now. I'll revisit in 6-12 months and see what's happened".

 

Good article, nice work.

I was expecting the performance gains in the memory bandwidth to be on the galactic scale as they are but for saying i can't really see it translating to much real world performance gain...maybe we don't have the code to take advantage of such huge memory I/O yet or then again it may just be me.