Core i7 makes its debut.

Thx skyR

bench marks are against a q9770 so who wants to pay $1100 on a quad for 1 fps less? when they can spend $800 and get at-least 1 fps more

also thats just one game, the 20 to 40 fps more in other games I guess don't matter, some people want to judge i7 only on one thing.

also the chart gamerk2 has posted is not from the same place that skyR has posted, which has a different results then the one gamerk2 has posted.

also according to gamerk2's screenshot in crysis i7 is only 1 fps higher, where as if you look at skyR's screenshot you will see the i7 with the turbo off has actually 13 fps more then qx9770


also the site gamerk2 used the screenshot from, used a 1066MHz memory,


you get that? they used a 1066MHz ram with a chip that has no FSB so you can use a higher ram, but no, it was 1066, one of the chips biggest changes is that it no longer uses FSB so you can use higher ram, and we are suppose to judge i7's performance based on 1066MHz ram.

I don't think so, skrR's test was done with 1333MHz ram and even that does not show how well i7 can do, the true test is to use a qx9770 with highest ram it can handle and i7 with the highest ram it can handle then you would see the true difference.

so if you want to know one difference of why skyR's shows a different fps then the one gamerk2 has listed is because gamerk2's site, in order to make them look closer did not use the full potential of i7's ability by using ddr3 1066MHz ram, vs skyR's site that used 1333MHz ram, now imagine what could have happened if they used a 2000MHz ram with i7 which is something that is the i7 can easily use and is build for.

anybody wants to know what the difference is, untill you see an i7 with 2000MHz ram and its own mombo and itw own ram put next to qx9770 with 2000MHz ram, you are not seeing the true difference.

until then take all of these reports with a grain of salt. cause so far none of them show the true potential of i7.

I also like to point out that I'm not saying that gamerk2 did anything wrong here, my problems is with the site he pointed out and not him all, he is just posting results, so my comments are not directed at gamerk2 himself at all, they are pointed at the site he is pointing to.

Edited by DST4ME - 03 Nov 2008 at 2:24pm

If the 965 can get too 5.5ghz.
I wonder if the 940 can get too 5ghz

If not i wonder how high it can get. Im hoping for 5ghz.

Nope, it will down-clock itself, automatically.

Edited by Nomak - 03 Nov 2008 at 2:26pm

When is DS releasing their i7 findings?  on Nov 17 we begin waiting for 32nm technology. The cycle never ends. When will we get the 80 core cpu that intel showboated in 2007?

Edited by XpubuX - 03 Nov 2008 at 2:44pm

Originally posted by PatrickB If the 965 can get too 5.5ghz.I wonder if the 940 can get too 5ghzIf not i wonder how high it can get. Im hoping for 5ghz.

Not possible. The 965 has an unlocked multiplier and unlocked TDP.

Both the 920 and 940 have a locked multiplier of 20 and 22 a long with a TDP lock of 130W.

I've seen a 920 @ 200 * 20 but I doubt that is going to be very common...

Originally posted by skyR Originally posted by PatrickB If the 965 can get too 5.5ghz.I wonder if the 940 can get too 5ghzIf not i wonder how high it can get. Im hoping for 5ghz. Not possible. The 965 has an unlocked multiplier and unlocked TDP. Both the 920 and 940 have a locked multiplier of 20 and 22 a long with a TDP lock of 130W. I've seen a 920 @ 200 * 20 but I doubt that is going to be very common...

Im not sure how the whole multiplier works. Someone care to please explain?

Originally posted by PatrickB Im not sure how the whole multiplier works. Someone care to please explain?

In simple terms, the multiplier determines the speed of a component. Each component has it's own multiplier.

In this case, a Core i7 920 has a reference clock speed of 133MHz and a multiplier of 20 (133 * 20 = 2.66GHz) while the DDR3 ram has it's own multiplier which might be 8 (8 * 133MHz = 1066MHz).



Edited by skyR - 03 Nov 2008 at 6:44pm

Originally posted by skyR Originally posted by PatrickB Im not sure how the whole multiplier works. Someone care to please explain? In simple terms, the multiplier determines the speed of a component. Each component has it's own multiplier. In this case, a Core i7 920 has a reference clock speed of 133MHz and a multiplier of 20 (133 * 20 = 2.66GHz) while the DDR3 ram has it's own multiplier which might be 8 (8 * 133MHz = 1066MHz).

Oh ok i see now.

I see its max mp at 20, thats as high as you can go on that chip. Dunno what youre asking about.

The point?

The point is Intel wants you to buy an expensive chip if you want to OC. They dont want you to buy a cheap CPU and overclock it to have it match the performance of more expensive chips out there.

So the days of buying a 200$ CPU, overclocking it and increasing its performance to match CPUs in 700$ range are gone. (Example)


Edited by Nomak - 03 Nov 2008 at 7:04pm

Its a turbo-boost, in other words.

Originally posted by PatrickB No not that im talking about, CPU VR Current Limit OverrideWhats the point of putting in a max Watt limit when you can just override it?Thats if im understanding what that does exactly.

Those might be engineering samples or some reviewers are misinformed.

But what it does is if the 920 or 940 hits the 130W wall, it'll start to throttle it's speed.

only extreme chips are unlocked, thats always how its been

I'd put my money on that the most common overclock for the 940 will be no higher than ~170*22 (3.7GHz).

same for the q9650 on air, but then common OC is not what most people do, also lets wait and see what it can do. I have a feeling it will oc higher.

but it costs less then q9650

Edited by DST4ME - 03 Nov 2008 at 8:06pm

not sure I follow you? what do you mean not the mombo and ram? do you mean in price?