Next Generation Emulation banner
1 - 20 of 37 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
436 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Intel's Core i5-750 and Core i7-870 processors - The Tech Report - Page 6

The i5 750 is priced at 199, a lot lower than the high end Phenom II X4 965. The Phenom II 965 is AMDs strongest chip on the market, it is clocked at 3.4GHz, and it is still getting whipped, AMD will need to lower their prices a lot to stay competitive. Or they will have to release something stronger fast.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
436 Posts
Discussion Starter · #2 ·
Also, notice how high clocked dual cores like the extremely overpriced and underperforming e8600 are now starting to fall behind in the gaming benchmarks. They are losing against much lower clocked quad cores. Dual cores are now officially dead.
 

·
The Hunter
Joined
·
15,879 Posts
There's an edit button, use it wisely my son ;)

It's interesting to see how it makes AMD's options almost obsolete. Perhaps it can still compete on the total package (if you want to go cheap with DDR2 and a probably cheaper or even old motherboard you still had) but otherwise it's kinda clear where the future lies right now.
 

·
Pilgrim
Joined
·
9,687 Posts
I'm reading a very detailed article on anandtech.




All I can say is...

Damn, that's some nice results.

There is no reason not to buy this new processors when building a new pc.
 

·
From Love and Limerence
Joined
·
6,574 Posts
Also, notice how high clocked dual cores like the extremely overpriced and underperforming e8600 are now starting to fall behind in the gaming benchmarks. They are losing against much lower clocked quad cores. Dual cores are now officially dead.
They're "officially" dead? No. When something is officially dead, it means that it's A) not available on the market, and B) that it's not performance sufficient. Oh, no, my CPU sure isn't performance sufficient. Yeah, right.

The Core 2 Duos haven't had a price drop in forever (the latest ones haven't ever), and the Core i7 doesn't have any dual cores. What you're describing, that the Core 2 Duos have a worse price/performance ratio than the Core i7s, and that modern OSes/games/drivers are finally starting to use more than two cores to net a few extra FPS on more than two cores, only just now, is really a surprise to nobody. I hope you didn't just now figure this out. The E8600 didn't even have a good price to performance ratio at it's own launch, so why would it now, when faster CPUs are being released for cheaper, and with more cores? It doesn't make them dead, full stop. It's just a step towards that phasing out.

As I've said before. Dual cores are being phased out more by the hardware side of things than the software side. We're still only seeing minimal percent increase in more than two cores. It's only because they're cheaper and faster that they're the obvious decision now. That is what will kill dual core CPUs, but performance-wise, for now, they're still just as good. Optimization from more than two cores, from the looks of things, is only now, these how many years after they came out, actually starting.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
436 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
They're "officially" dead? No. When something is officially dead, it means that it's A) not available on the market, and B) that it's not performance sufficient. Oh, no, my CPU sure isn't performance sufficient. Yeah, right.

The Core 2 Duos haven't had a price drop in forever (the latest ones haven't ever), and the Core i7 doesn't have any dual cores. What you're describing, that the Core 2 Duos have a worse price/performance ratio than the Core i7s, and that modern OSes/games/drivers are finally starting to use more than two cores to net a few extra FPS on more than two cores, only just now, is really a surprise to nobody. I hope you didn't just now figure this out. The E8600 didn't even have a good price to performance ratio at it's own launch, so why would it now, when faster CPUs are being released for cheaper, and with more cores? It doesn't make them dead, full stop. It's just a step towards that phasing out.

As I've said before. Dual cores are being phased out more by the hardware side of things than the software side. We're still only seeing minimal percent increase in more than two cores. It's only because they're cheaper and faster that they're the obvious decision now. That is what will kill dual core CPUs, but performance-wise, for now, they're still just as good. Optimization from more than two cores, from the looks of things, is only now, these how many years after they came out, actually starting.
Okay, maybe I was a little sensationalist with that, but it is kinda true. The Athlon II X4 is like 110 dollars and it is clocked at 2.6GHz, and can overclock to 3.6GHz possibly higher. Plus it has unlockable L3 cache as well. The phenom II X4 series are simply whipping the fan favorite Core 2 Duo e8400 and e8500s in the same price range.

also, it wasn't just now that quads are being used effieciently. It's only just now for games. even running vista on a quad is noticeably more stable than on a dual core. And multi tasking has always been better, video encoders winrar and all types of other things have been using quads. It's just the games that have been slow to adapt and GTA 4 is the only game that shows huge benefits with using more than 2 cores.
 

·
┐( ̄ー ̄)┌
Joined
·
2,058 Posts
After reading some other benchmarks it appear that in real life, difference between the new Nehalem lineup and Phenom II isn't that far. For High res gaming (above 1024x768 as seen from techreport) Phenom II still fare well
But yeah AMD need to readjust their price with this maneuver from Intel, in the end the winner is us :D
 

·
Curiously Cheddar
Joined
·
2,077 Posts
I'm really liking how the processor market is moving forward. My only grudge is the fact that Intel are splitting their Corei* lines onto 2 sockets.

I can't help but worry that, while Lynnfield makes most sense now, the LGA1156 socket will be phased out in a year or two, with LGA1366 moving into mainstream, and some other new socket flling in the high end. Ultimately making the premium of LGA1366 worth it right now, and the LGA1156 an overly short-lived platform.

Right now, the only real reason to go AMD is a very tight budget, or platform stability. AM3 isn't going anywhere anytime soon.
 

·
From Love and Limerence
Joined
·
6,574 Posts
Crysis doesn't really use four cores. There was a big thing on that a while back on how it was pitched by Crytek as being that way, but initial benchmarks proved otherwise.
Okay, maybe I was a little sensationalist with that, but it is kinda true. The Athlon II X4 is like 110 dollars and it is clocked at 2.6GHz, and can overclock to 3.6GHz possibly higher. Plus it has unlockable L3 cache as well. The phenom II X4 series are simply whipping the fan favorite Core 2 Duo e8400 and e8500s in the same price range.

also, it wasn't just now that quads are being used effieciently. It's only just now for games. even running vista on a quad is noticeably more stable than on a dual core. And multi tasking has always been better, video encoders winrar and all types of other things have been using quads. It's just the games that have been slow to adapt and GTA 4 is the only game that shows huge benefits with using more than 2 cores.
No, it's not just games. It's the basic everyday stuff too. True, most of that doesn't use two cores either, but dual core CPUs still got a near immediate boost just for having the extra core for the extra resources. That may sound contradicting, because quad core CPUs have that over dual cores, but the reason that doesn't apply there is because not enough stuff uses enough cores to tax the CPU to that point. Sure, that statement isn't fully true, and is getting less true by the day, but my point is, it's not false enough to where you can dual core CPUs are dead. Most of the stuff that demands multiple cores is stuff like games and so on. WinRAR? Wow. Video encoding? That's a niche market. The big thing will be when more games start taking better use of four cores, and when more everyday stuff starts using more than one, then we'll see the switch. With this article stating the OS is doing it's job, and with the hardware side phasing them out anyway, it'll happen either way. Just don't expect the same kind of boost you saw going from a single core CPU to a dual core CPU. Anyone who's went from a single core to a dual core, and then a dual core to a quad core will most likely tell you the first was more dramatic.

I guess what I'm saying is, I agree with your underlying details, but you're really overdoing the big picture based on it.

Also, I'd like to see some reference to your claim that Windows Vista is less stable on dual core CPUs/more stable on quad core CPUs.

Personally, depending on my needs (or should I say wants, this setup will be fine for a while yet), come 2010, I may consider the upcoming 32nm Core i5/Core i7. I have to share Cheesus' concerns on the multiple socket types though. There will likely come a time where the extra pins will be needed, at least for the newer/better CPUs. I'll worry about that when it comes time, but if not then, I'll surely get Sandy Bridge. Since I doubt that will use LGA1156, but won't know if it will, or even if it'll use LGA1366, despite Core i7 finally starting to look better, I may just skip it for Sandy bridge as I initially planned.

P.S. Does anyone find it confusing that some of these new CPUs are called Core i7, and some are called Core i5, despite them being the same as one another, and different to the older Core i7s? Oh, I'm sure there's differences, but it's confusing nonetheless.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
436 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
Crysis doesn't really use four cores. There was a big thing on that a while back on how it was pitched by Crytek as being that way, but initial benchmarks proved otherwise.No, it's not just games. It's the basic everyday stuff too. True, most of that doesn't use two cores either, but dual core CPUs still got a near immediate boost just for having the extra core for the extra resources. That may sound contradicting, because quad core CPUs have that over dual cores, but the reason that doesn't apply there is because not enough stuff uses enough cores to tax the CPU to that point. Sure, that statement isn't fully true, and is getting less true by the day, but my point is, it's not false enough to where you can dual core CPUs are dead. Most of the stuff that demands multiple cores is stuff like games and so on. WinRAR? Wow. Video encoding? That's a niche market. The big thing will be when more games start taking better use of four cores, and when more everyday stuff starts using more than one, then we'll see the switch. With this article stating the OS is doing it's job, and with the hardware side phasing them out anyway, it'll happen either way. Just don't expect the same kind of boost you saw going from a single core CPU to a dual core CPU. Anyone who's went from a single core to a dual core, and then a dual core to a quad core will most likely tell you the first was more dramatic.
Basic everyday stuff works perfectly fine on even single cores so they don't really matter much in the first place. The only difference is that if a program just happens to have his 100% cpu usage spike, it won't lock up the system on a dual threaded system like it does on a single threaded.

The main thing is that with a quad core multitasking is a lot better than a dual core, I experimented by forcing my self into using my i7 in dual core mode for a week. Now of course typical things like web browsing wasn't effected of course, but it was annoying using my system. If an antivirus would happen to start it's daily scan, I'd have to either cancel the anti virus if I wanted to do something like play a game, or something, while normally I barely even notice that their is are anti virus programs running and... Well, Really that is the main thing to be honest, other than the random moments where I'd normally run two games at once where I'm just not able to on a dual core.

It really seems like strong processors are simply not needed unless you are doing gaming or something. Everyday programs would probably be good on even a 1ghz single core.
 

·
Heroes Might& Magic Champ
Joined
·
4,713 Posts
Pure performance wise, this doesn't appear to offer much more performance to overclockers over the previous i7.

There's an edit button, use it wisely my son ;)
Be trepid in using those words Cid, that is my line. Ask Vinit, Naix, [email protected] or Bobrocks. Many a fake fathers have fallen before the wrath of my pointy PCXL magazine corners for mimicking me :p
 

·
From Love and Limerence
Joined
·
6,574 Posts
Well, I don't use anti-virus, so I can't speak for that, but is it not true that if the anti-virus is thrashing the hard drive, that any loading would also be affected? I never knew anti-virus scans used two whole CPU cores, and that they were CPU limited and not hard disk limited. I was pretty sure they were/are hard disk limited.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
436 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 · (Edited)
Anti viruses use cpu and hdd, the thing is, I'm able to run GTA 4 decently on my i7 while running an anti virus, but if I shut off hyperthreading and leave it at just a normal quad, even then the performance loss is absolutely amazing. A lot of anti viruses are threaded to use multiple cores to speed up the process. Most games got a massive hit once I used it on dual core. Anti Viruses are real thourough with their checks, they don't simply scan a file, they go deep into the file and they use heuristics to see what the program does and if it's patterns resemble what a lot of viruses do. They also go deep into archives like zip, rar etc. archives and they even go into exes, so if you have an installer exe it will have to go into that and scan every single file that the installer installs. It can suck up performance on real weak systems depending on the anti virus program.

also, they dont use the maximum power for the two cores, but they do use up a decent amount to make a big difference for me.
 

·
From Love and Limerence
Joined
·
6,574 Posts
It seems like anti-viruses are the hogs they have the reputation to be then. I remember briefly trying the free version Kaspersky offered when Windows 7 Beta launched, but I only tried it for a small bit, and it never scanned long or took a big performance hit from my PC (though I never played a game when doing it, only using multi-media like Winamp and maybe Youtube, and browsing the internet or my PC). I also don't recall it starting itself while I was playing a game, but if it did, I never noticed.
 
1 - 20 of 37 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top