Intel Core i7 benchmarks make Core 2 Extreme look like a washed-up has-been

Presumably in an (utterly futile) attempt to bring down the power grid all around the Mediterranean, print magazine PC World Greece benchmarked three powerful Nehalem desktop processors -- the Core i7 Extreme Edition 965, and the apparently non-extreme Core i7 920 and 940. Names aside, performance from all three was extreme compared to most stuff currently on the market. The data for number nerds: in 3DMark06 the 920 finished ever-so-slightly behind the Core 2 Extreme QX9770's 4,922 marks with 4,818 while the 940 and the 965 both opened a can of you-know-what at 5,282 and 5,716 respectively. More titillating figures await enthusiasts through the read link, but for you normal folk only concerned that Nehalem wouldn't be fast enough to justify an upgrade (and you weren't), rest assured that it triumphed in this no-holds-barred CPU cage match.

[Via techPowerUp! Forums, thanks sk]

[Abuzar Baloach @ Oct 31st 2008 7:46PM]

Engadget, just so you know no one gives a rats ass about 3DMark 06 CPU score numbers...

[Techie @ Oct 31st 2008 7:52PM]

Why do I have a feeling you will get a lowly rated rating?

[Abuzar Baloach @ Oct 31st 2008 7:55PM]

Because 3Dmark CPU score is not that reliable. I would rather they quote the other benchmarks.

[Jon Doe. @ Oct 31st 2008 7:56PM]

Umm from the standpoint of what this processor can put out. The hell people don't.

[Abuzar Baloach @ Oct 31st 2008 8:01PM]

It's just that 3DMark is not a realistic benchmark. Synthetic benchmarks tend not to be.

[brighenne @ Nov 1st 2008 1:56AM]

But really, 3dmark is a terrible way to compare cpus/gpus.

[Abuzar Baloach @ Nov 1st 2008 6:26AM]

That's what I have been saying.

These people just are so caught up in their numbers...

[Ghen @ Nov 1st 2008 4:12PM]

I just enjoy hitting the minus sign.. What were we talking about?

[lost..civantares @ Oct 31st 2008 7:49PM]

Sometimes, you just gotta feel bad for amd....

[Sam Zebian @ Oct 31st 2008 8:03PM]

Well yeah, AMD is up against a giant monster. I remember when they were so successful like 3 or 4 years ago, and now they're considered shit (because they pretty much are) They had so many fanboys rooting for them back then and by now most of them have switched to Intel because they pretty much had to so that they can actually have an "upgrade", rather than an excuse for one. I, along with many of my friends, used to won AMD's, and pretty much all of us upgraded to Intel, (which sucks 'cause you've got to get a new board and sometimes new RAM, which is almost a new pc).

If AMD doesn't pick up the pace somewhere, they're going to just keep going down. Unless this bad economy we're about to have (it's only getting started people) will allow for them to gain some new traction in the cheap PC sector. Maybe an Intel atom competitor??? We'll see.

[Beastage @ Nov 1st 2008 10:17AM]

How is 3dmark a bad way to compare?! it is the only way to compare! synthetic benchmarks are the default choice because games and applications are always different in their coding, some programs and games are co developed with specific hardware makers and obviously run best on their hardware.

In the end 3dmark and it likes are always accurate when you summarize things.

[bhtooefr @ Nov 2nd 2008 9:24AM]

Maybe they could do a die shrink of K8, and get an ultra-low-power, low cost CPU?

Then again, the 65nm 1GHz 9 watt Sempron 2100+ is over $80... nowhere near Atom.

They've also got the Geode family up their sleeve, but that architecture is from the 486 era, and probably can't scale to compete with Atom on the high end. (It uses less power than Atom on the very low end, though...)

[Jon Doe. @ Oct 31st 2008 7:52PM]

Goodbye AMD. It was nice knowing you.

[Macca @ Oct 31st 2008 10:26PM]

Dont know what it is, I just hate comments like this...

[Jon Doe. @ Oct 31st 2008 11:43PM]

*shrugs* The truth is the truth. AMD has had years to put out something before Intel came out with an integrated memory controller that everyone knew would kick performance ***. Instead AMD has done absolutely dick.

[Reader @ Nov 1st 2008 1:58AM]

AMD will be around for a while I'm sure, probably hang out in the low end market. Maybe they'll surprise us with a jesus processor sometime.

[Ordeith @ Nov 1st 2008 2:12AM]

I sure hope not. I don't want to see the days where the average price of a consumer targeted Intel Processor is in the $500+ range again.

That is what happens to Intel without competition.

[Jake @ Nov 1st 2008 1:41PM]

@Macca:

I can tell you what it is you dislike about posts like that because it's the same thing I, and every other person who high marked you dislike: they're trite and glib and fanboy-istic.

-jp

[offroadering @ Oct 31st 2008 7:56PM]

so... are you saying its time to get rid of that P4 with HT??

[bram @ Oct 31st 2008 7:57PM]

I will also buy a new pc with i7, still stuck with P4 640... :$ *shame*
And the HDD fails :S

[Sam Zebian @ Oct 31st 2008 7:59PM]

No, when core 2 Duo came out they were basically saying that. If you've never had a dual or quad core, you're missing out.

So yeah, definitely get an I7 upgrade, you'll probably be more blown away at the sheer speed alone because you don't have a dual core right now (well I'm assuming this, since you want to get rid of a P4)

Just get an I7.

[futurepastnow @ Oct 31st 2008 11:24PM]

As a person who is still on a Pentium 4 with hyperthreading (don't laugh at me... I have a newer laptop), I'm personally hoping the introduction of this thing drives the Q6600 down to $150 or so.

Call me crazy (or poor, which is more accurate), but I'm a previous-gen-tech kinda guy.

[BobTurbo @ Nov 1st 2008 1:13AM]

I think I will upgrade my computer too. I had to press the turbo button just to handle the load of this website. I am now blazing at 40mhz.

[Jeff @ Nov 1st 2008 2:35PM]

This appears to be the thread for posting if you want to be High Ranked. C'mon everybody!

[milton359 @ Nov 1st 2008 4:50PM]

I just got rid of my P4 for a Q9550 and DAMN was there a difference.

That said though, I think Nehalem is going to fetch a good premium for the next yr (motherboard, ddr3 etc) before it becomes economical for most.

[gad get @ Oct 31st 2008 8:04PM]

So, what's with the 7s, anyway? Windows 7, Core i7... I guess that's pretty much it. But still...

[bram @ Oct 31st 2008 8:09PM]

Windows Mobile 7 =D

*damn, i'm a geek* xD

[Alex @ Oct 31st 2008 8:41PM]

Hahah... wow, Windows 7 AND Core i7! Two things with sevens!

[El Taco @ Oct 31st 2008 9:10PM]

3 months ago was august...

the 7th month of the year!!! Whoa, even August is 7!

[El Taco @ Oct 31st 2008 9:11PM]

o wait, August is 8

ME=FAIL

[THizzle7XU @ Oct 31st 2008 9:21PM]

What calendar are you looking at El Taco?

[buu700 @ Nov 1st 2008 1:16AM]

Linux 2.6.2*7*

[Daza @ Nov 1st 2008 7:08AM]

Don't forget Athlon XP and Windows XP.

[_||_ @ Nov 1st 2008 4:22PM]

I know that Intel might be calling it i7 because it's essentially "i786", like the Core micro-architecture was "i686", and there was also i386, 486 and so on. But, I think it's really cool that in an odd sort of way it relates to both Apple & Microsoft. The i for Apple, and the 7 for Microsoft. I really love that the x86-64 instruction set is now common for Windows, OS X & Linux. Really helps compatibility/portability.

I like AMD and VIA because they compete with Intel, and help keep the price low, and bring advances like Nehalem around. I hope they stick around, so I can use better Intel products.

The 7 thing is weird: e.g. the ubiquity of the number 7 in Harry Potter, and how the fans hoped for a 07/07/07 release last year. God, they years go by so fast.

[Connor @ Oct 31st 2008 8:04PM]

@Sam Zebian
It's "i7" not "I7"
Lower case i's are way more controversial.
:P

[BB Sting @ Oct 31st 2008 8:05PM]

It's time the government starts regulating energy efficiency standards in computers the same way it does for refrigerators and air-conditioners.

[offroadering @ Oct 31st 2008 8:18PM]

aaaand.... i really hope they don't!


please

[why not the LS2LS7? @ Oct 31st 2008 8:37PM]

The government should get involved, there should be some kind of sticker on machines explaining how efficient they are so you can comparison shop.

But this chip is actually pretty efficienct, it's just that it's very fast. No matter how efficient the chip, if you buy twice the CPU power as you need, you're gonna use twice the power you need to.

[futurepastnow @ Oct 31st 2008 11:29PM]

They have that, it's called Energy Star. Believe it or not, there are Energy Star computers.

[James @ Nov 1st 2008 12:54AM]

Its not like they want to use a lot of energy to power processors/gpu's/ect. More power consumption = more heat and heat is bad for computer hardware.

[why not the LS2LS7? @ Nov 1st 2008 2:15AM]

Energy Star on computers only seems to cover off and standby power, not efficiency during operation.

[Ordeith @ Nov 1st 2008 2:18AM]

I am curious what you have found the government to have ever done right to warrant your call for more interference from them.

[why not the LS2LS7? @ Nov 1st 2008 2:24AM]

Give me a break. I didn't call for interference, I called for ratings and labels. Just like when you buy a fridge or a water heater. There's a sticker on the front indicating how efficient it is compared to competing models so you can comparison shop. There is nothing stopping you from buying the least efficient model if you want, so there's no interference.

I swear, some people put ridiculous blinders on. I never said anything about the government telling people what to do, but since that's one of your pet peeves, you read that in and then rail against it. Is there any point in trying to even have a discussion with a person who bends reality to their beliefs in this way?

[dotAaron @ Oct 31st 2008 8:05PM]

Wouldn't like to be in AMD's shoes right now o_O

They need some epic miracle to match this, damn :(

[thedesolate1 @ Oct 31st 2008 8:52PM]

It also has this feature where it sends all the power to a single core to speed up single core applications sort of an "overclock" boost. AMD hath forsaken us. :(

[Senor_Tom @ Oct 31st 2008 8:08PM]

Wowza, i'd like to see one of them in a rig to see how it handles some real world apps.

[nzo @ Oct 31st 2008 8:12PM]

Sooo, this is still going to suck berrys for gaming right? I kind of want to get a new setup soon and as far as I can tell c2d is still the way to go for a gaming machine, no?

[why not the LS2LS7? @ Oct 31st 2008 8:19PM]

Suck berries?

Don't know where you got that idea. There are some indications it's down a little bit (like 10%) clock for clock against Core 2 Duo on some benchmarks.

On the other hand, this has 4 cores and Core 2 Duo has 2. So any of these 3 shown will do far better than the fastest Core 2 Duo.

[nzo @ Oct 31st 2008 9:19PM]

Yea of course computationally it will be faster than a c2d but I'm asking about gaming performance. If the games arent programmed to use all 4 cores whats the point of spending the extra few hundred on the chip alone, not to mention expensive mobo and at least 3 sticks of ddr3, if youre not going to get any real performance gains out of it?

[Ridgecity @ Oct 31st 2008 9:46PM]

you answered you own question right there.

Games are still mostly working the video card and will be for the next 5 years or if Windows makes something new that splits the code among the cores. I will get one for Maya once prices start falling by december 2009 or early 2010... =0(