• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

i7 advantages

G

glen

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Messages
230
Built my last system 1.5 years ago. Just looking at i7 speeds I don't understand why one would invest in them. Built it on an abit MB which was the thing to get at the time but I think it is full of bug. I get crashes, lock up, iE exploer issues etc.

What are the advantages over a quad 775 ?


All I do is surf the internet, download music, move music from one harddrive to another, and occasionally encode/decode music.
 
Quickly:

Clock for clock, i7s are up to ~20% better performing across a single thread of execution (here, assuming a Penryn at the given i7 speed) and you're also getting the ability to execute 4 more threads of execution in parallel with Hyperthreading. QPI, support for triple channel DDR3 memory, as well as an immediate upgrade path to the 6 core Gulftown are also nice benefits.

Since I don't know what kind of setup you have, I can't say much about how you'd benefit by migrating.
 
Last edited:
I doubt you would need the extra horsepower by looking at what you do, but it can't hurt to have it can it?

The advantages are really in video encoding. I had a couple of comparable Q6600 rigs that were taking 10 minutes to encode a video in ConvertXtoDVD. I replaced them with i7 rigs that do those videos in about 7-8 minutes.
 
glen said:
Does the i7 allow to run more memory in xP ?
Click to expand...

No, to access more memory you need a 64-bit version of windows.

As far as i7 advantages, well I upgraded from a dual core, so it was a big deal for me, and I'm lovin' the performance and insane amounts of multitasking I can do. Going from a quad 775 on the other hand, probably not a big deal, I would wait for 6-core gulftown (or 8-core sandy bridge) if I were in that situation.
 
I have an old dual core also. But I can't imagine doing much more multitasking without more memory, I've maxed out xP on memory. I can't do 64bit because I have a specialiazed audio setup.
 
crazyassazian said:
I doubt you would need the extra horsepower by looking at what you do, but it can't hurt to have it can it?

The advantages are really in video encoding. I had a couple of comparable Q6600 rigs that were taking 10 minutes to encode a video in ConvertXtoDVD. I replaced them with i7 rigs that do those videos in about 7-8 minutes.
Click to expand...


I would consider ConvertXtoDVD a single threaded program, it use 2 threads, but the second thread is miniscule...a true multithreaded encoder would give much better results.
 
Seems that best to wade thru a 64 bit conversion prior to i7. Have any of the incompatabilities been fixed, can a 64 bit Windows emulate ?
 
If I were you, I'd wait for Core i5 to show up. It's going to have dual-channel integrated memory controller (i7 has triple-channel, but comparing dual vs triple on X58, only 5% of performance is gained). What is more, i5 will have integrated PCI-E controller, so it should beat Core i7 in some gaming cases (have seen that in early i5's reviews).
 
Last edited:
i7 doesn't seem to suit you that well. one of my favorite traits of the x58 chipset is the ability to run sli or xfire. seeing that you are not a gamer, no real payoff for you. at least from a value standpoint.
 
I agree no gamining here, just music. Would like more memory but so many of my programs are open source with no 64 bit versions I think I'll just find a good Asus MB and a quadcor LGA775.
 
The i7 is nice but as far as gaming goes, you really will not see a difference.. I have been running a Core 2 Duo for a while now and Im going to upgrade to the Q9550 just for the newer games that will be coming out that will support Quad CPU's.. Funny thing is, my 6420 @3ghz has been screaming fast in win7.. I mean I really dont need to upgrade but I just think it will be nice to be able to multitask a bit faster.. The Core 2 Quad still has alot left in her.. I have been reading the benchmarks as far as Core 2 Quad vs i7 and I really am not seeing a big difference at all.. For the apps that will use HT, there will be a huge difference but since I just game, and use my PC for avg stuff, I really think the best thing for me is a Core 2 Quad rather then buying a new mobo, ram, and cpu just so I can get a higher bench, cuz as far as seeing the difference, you will not really see it at all.. There has been alot of people mad about this it seems.. I mean I have been reading alot of forums and there are people just pure pissed off at this fact.. I think it has to due to the e-peen factor more then anything but still, its just funny how bad people want the i7 to be much faster then it really is..

But like I said, I am going from a Core 2 Duo over to a Core 2 Quad so that alone will be a nice upgrade for me.. as for video, I already have a nice new HD 4870 1GB (I went with it due to price) that way I can upgrade to a nice DX11 card when they come out.. anyway imo, if you are a hardcore video editor and time is money, I would say the i7 might be worth it but if not then stick to the Core 2 Quad.. and if you a gamer, Core 2 Quad all the way, since there really are not any games that even use it to its fullest yet..
 
Battl3fr0nt said:
The i7 is nice but as far as gaming goes, you really will not see a difference.. I have been running a Core 2 Duo for a while now and Im going to upgrade to the Q9550 just for the newer games that will be coming out that will support Quad CPU's.. Funny thing is, my 6420 @3ghz has been screaming fast in win7.. I mean I really dont need to upgrade but I just think it will be nice to be able to multitask a bit faster.. The Core 2 Quad still has alot left in her.. I have been reading the benchmarks as far as Core 2 Quad vs i7 and I really am not seeing a big difference at all.. For the apps that will use HT, there will be a huge difference but since I just game, and use my PC for avg stuff, I really think the best thing for me is a Core 2 Quad rather then buying a new mobo, ram, and cpu just so I can get a higher bench, cuz as far as seeing the difference, you will not really see it at all.. There has been alot of people mad about this it seems.. I mean I have been reading alot of forums and there are people just pure pissed off at this fact.. I think it has to due to the e-peen factor more then anything but still, its just funny how bad people want the i7 to be much faster then it really is..

But like I said, I am going from a Core 2 Duo over to a Core 2 Quad so that alone will be a nice upgrade for me.. as for video, I already have a nice new HD 4870 1GB (I went with it due to price) that way I can upgrade to a nice DX11 card when they come out.. anyway imo, if you are a hardcore video editor and time is money, I would say the i7 might be worth it but if not then stick to the Core 2 Quad.. and if you a gamer, Core 2 Quad all the way, since there really are not any games that even use it to its fullest yet..
Click to expand...

Depends on the game...ARMA2 run a hell of a lot better on my i7 than my Q6600...even if I swap the GPU.
 
The fact i overclocked my i7 920 to 4.0GHZ was nice, idle is at 38C and load in the 70 - 75 range. At 4Ghz, whether the applicatication is multithreaded or not the i7 gives a nice boost to what ever you are doing. However, if all ur gonna do is browse the web and game periodically, id get a core 2 duo and bring it to like 4.4Ghz, that would be close to a 4.0GHz i7 in single threaded apps. Some games like prototype when using a q6600 get like 39 fps and when a 17 is introduced it goes to almost 80fps with the same set-up and i would venture a guess that more games will follow suit,
 
Battl3fr0nt said:
The i7 is nice but as far as gaming goes, you really will not see a difference.. I have been running a Core 2 Duo for a while now and Im going to upgrade to the Q9550 just for the newer games that will be coming out that will support Quad CPU's.. Funny thing is, my 6420 @3ghz has been screaming fast in win7.. I mean I really dont need to upgrade but I just think it will be nice to be able to multitask a bit faster.. The Core 2 Quad still has alot left in her.. I have been reading the benchmarks as far as Core 2 Quad vs i7 and I really am not seeing a big difference at all.. For the apps that will use HT, there will be a huge difference but since I just game, and use my PC for avg stuff, I really think the best thing for me is a Core 2 Quad rather then buying a new mobo, ram, and cpu just so I can get a higher bench, cuz as far as seeing the difference, you will not really see it at all.. There has been alot of people mad about this it seems.. I mean I have been reading alot of forums and there are people just pure pissed off at this fact.. I think it has to due to the e-peen factor more then anything but still, its just funny how bad people want the i7 to be much faster then it really is..

But like I said, I am going from a Core 2 Duo over to a Core 2 Quad so that alone will be a nice upgrade for me.. as for video, I already have a nice new HD 4870 1GB (I went with it due to price) that way I can upgrade to a nice DX11 card when they come out.. anyway imo, if you are a hardcore video editor and time is money, I would say the i7 might be worth it but if not then stick to the Core 2 Quad.. and if you a gamer, Core 2 Quad all the way, since there really are not any games that even use it to its fullest yet..
Click to expand...

Um, ok.

It sure as hell runs everything I throw at it much better than a Q6600. Games, apps etc. :rolleyes:
 
glen said:
I have an old dual core also. But I can't imagine doing much more multitasking without more memory, I've maxed out xP on memory. I can't do 64bit because I have a specialiazed audio setup.
Click to expand...
If you're happy with the performance, stick with what you have. Don't buy an upgrade just because more is available, even if you don't need it. The longer you wait, the cheaper it will be. Maybe in a year the audio setup you have can run on 64 bit and you can jump on a new system then.
 
bigdogchris said:
If you're happy with the performance, stick with what you have. Don't buy an upgrade just because more is available, even if you don't need it. The longer you wait, the cheaper it will be. Maybe in a year the audio setup you have can run on 64 bit and you can jump on a new system then.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I tend to get suckered in to periodic upgrading rather than major upgrading. I find that I usually regret it from the standpoint of money/performance increase ratios, but I enjoy it nonetheless as a hobbylike activity. Tweaking, reading and experimenting with a setup is always a nice diversion for me.
 
glen said:
I have an old dual core also. But I can't imagine doing much more multitasking without more memory, I've maxed out xP on memory. I can't do 64bit because I have a specialiazed audio setup.
Click to expand...

I have software that's an issue with 64 bit as well, however, I just run XP in a virtual machine to take care of that nonsense.

Works like a charm, and the i7 kills it,.... IE, I can run 6+ VMs @ one time with no slowdown.
 
krameriffic said:
Yeah, I tend to get suckered in to periodic upgrading rather than major upgrading. I find that I usually regret it from the standpoint of money/performance increase ratios, but I enjoy it nonetheless as a hobbylike activity. Tweaking, reading and experimenting with a setup is always a nice diversion for me.
Click to expand...

me too. :)
 
the issue is this 1.5 year old top of the line at the time Abit MB isn't as stable as I like (like an ASUS). Hence looking at an upgrade. Stability in a MB is a top need for me.
 
krameriffic said:
Yeah, I tend to get suckered in to periodic upgrading rather than major upgrading. I find that I usually regret it from the standpoint of money/performance increase ratios, but I enjoy it nonetheless as a hobbylike activity. Tweaking, reading and experimenting with a setup is always a nice diversion for me.
Click to expand...
An expensive hobby ;)
 
Glen, what audio apps do you use? You know 64-bit windows still runs 32-bit apps? The only thing that NEEDS to be 64bit in win64 is the drivers. Do you have any specialized audio hardware? Honestly I would bet that there already are 64bit drivers out anyways. Don't be afraid of 64-bit :)
 
Use what suits you. Why buy some expensive ass I7 because some stiff on hardforum (no offense .... lawls!) has one? Use what you need. I'm on a Q6600 @ 3.5 and it's more than enough for what I need.
 
i may go i7 to have the 3 pci-e full bandwidth slots. i have some slowdown on one of my triple monitor setups due to i think the 2400pro only having 4x bandwidth on my x48. or maybe its just that windows sucks :p
 
glen said:
the issue is this 1.5 year old top of the line at the time Abit MB isn't as stable as I like (like an ASUS). Hence looking at an upgrade. Stability in a MB is a top need for me.
Click to expand...

an Abit mobo should be perfectly stable.
I'd guess you have ram timing issues or some sort of software/driver issue.

Getting to the bottom of yoru stability issue "shouldn't" require replacing your mobo, although it might, I'd do a great deal of testing before coming to the conclusion that it's the mobo's fault.
 
I changed from a Q6600 to i7 and it has been great, I render with 3ds MAx and vray and it is a lot faster, its actually keeping up with the dual quad xeon i have at work
 
Are there any other games besides ARMA 2 that see any signifigant improvements from a C2Q -> i7 upgrade? I read somewhere the improvement was around 20% in ARMA 2, which is quite good, but the game is not fun for me... will games in the future likely benefit from the upgrade as much, or more?
 
napalm588 said:
Are there any other games besides ARMA 2 that see any signifigant improvements from a C2Q -> i7 upgrade? I read somewhere the improvement was around 20% in ARMA 2, which is quite good, but the game is not fun for me... will games in the future likely benefit from the upgrade as much, or more?
Click to expand...

Every computer and every game end up being either CPU limited or GPU limited. Obviously on the same computer one game can be cpu bound while the next is GPU bound. Or you could build something like a 3x SLI rig that uses a core 1 solo that would nearly always be cpu limited.

So if the question is about moving from 2 cores to 4 cores, you maybe right that some games won't benefit. But a core i7 is the fastest processor clock for clock, doesn't matter single core, dual core, quad core.

But is it worth upgrading from a C2Q? That's a question that is completely relative.
 
My css framerate went from 340 on the built in benchmark to 533, going from a dual core at 3.6 to an i7 at 4.2

That was enough to make it worth it in my eyes. The game runs smoother when I'm pubbing just because of the massive amount of ppl on screen.
 
Pastyface said:
My css framerate went from 340 on the built in benchmark to 533, going from a dual core at 3.6 to an i7 at 4.2

That was enough to make it worth it in my eyes. The game runs smoother when I'm pubbing just because of the massive amount of ppl on screen.
Click to expand...

ROFL
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top