Intel’s Core i7-975 & 950: Preparing for Lynnfield
by Anand Lal Shimpi on June 3, 2009 12:00 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Final Words
There's really not much to say here. Intel's Core i7 975 is the absolute fastest processor you can buy regardless of workload. Its single threaded results are particularly impressive because we have a CPU that behaves as a 3.6GHz single-core processor when it needs to, and as such it delivers extremely powerful single-threaded performance. If anything I would like to see Intel bring some of the Xeon's Turbo Modes to the Core i7; a two-bin boost when two cores are active would be a nice addition, but perhaps the desktop i7's TDP is still too high at this point.
Our major issue with the i7-975 is the same problem we have with all Extreme parts: price. At $999 the added benefit over the $562 Core i7-950 or even the $266 i7-920 does not nearly justify its price. If performance is all that matters, then by all means go for it - there's no faster alternative. Enthusiasts will much prefer going with an i7-920 or 950 or even a Xeon W3540 and overclocking it, easily reaching stock or overclocked 975 speeds. More patient users may even end up waiting for Lynnfield.
AMD doesn't really compete in this space so there's not much to be said for competition to the i7-975 or the 950; outside of Intel, there is none. Nehalem's biggest competitors are itself and the upcoming Lynnfield processors right now.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
44 Comments
View All Comments
silver250 - Friday, June 5, 2009 - link
Maybe I missed it but last time I saw a review with the Phenom II CPU's they ran better with DDR3, all the boards for AMD listed are only DDR2 boards.So whats the deal? Or did I just miss a reason somewhere in other reviews?
Tunnah - Thursday, June 4, 2009 - link
would it be possible at all to get the power usage stats of the overclocked version ? A while ago I was reading an article (not sure if here or elsewhere) and it gave the power usage per overclock step and was a great way of working out where to find the balance of power usage vs overclocking amount. Also I'd love to see the power this beast sucks up at 4.6ghz hatygrus - Thursday, June 4, 2009 - link
Are you able to measure the CPU clock freq while running the benchmarks to see the affect of the Turbo mode. Labelling as 3.2GHz when it could actually be 3.46GHz.Can we also see results with the Intel Turbo On & Off ?
Does Intel use core activity to determine Turbo limits or does the on-die temperature sensor allow using higher speeds at any time ?
Intel claimed a bit of both, but it seems very pre-set (1core max, 2core max, 4core max). Can it be overridden ?
How hot can the case temp be before the CPU is prevented from using higher speeds ?
How much activity on other cores will prevent the fastest setting of single core task ?
Hrel - Wednesday, June 3, 2009 - link
This article is kind of pointless beyond page 1 just cause you don't include ANY of the processors that used to be the best bang for the buck. Where's the E6600? the E8400? E6420?? the E7650??? Q6600? Seriously, showing us performance for new CPU's is pointless if you're not going to include the processors that sold the best in the past. I mean seriously, the E8400 is STILL the best bang for the buck around for many people and you didn't even include that... sad, just sad.Gary Key - Wednesday, June 3, 2009 - link
You can compare any of those processors to the 975 using our Bench tool - http://www.anandtech.com/bench/default.aspx?b=2">http://www.anandtech.com/bench/default.aspx?b=2 . :)lpcap - Wednesday, June 3, 2009 - link
I think for the world's most powerful laptop with the Core i7 975 go to:http://www.lpc-digital.com/store/3302695/product/c...">http://www.lpc-digital.com/store/3302695/product/c...
aigomorla - Wednesday, June 3, 2009 - link
:)I dont have anything bad to say about it.
Monster overclocker, im doing about 4.4ghz with 1.35vcore with full stability.
When i showed the 975 off a couple of months ago on the cpu and overclocking section, i told everyone the D0's were gonna be HOT.
Fulle - Wednesday, June 3, 2009 - link
Interesting... most 920s only can OC to about 4GHz at that voltage... even with the D0 stepping. Either you got lucky with your chip, or the 975 isn't as bad as I thought.Fulle - Wednesday, June 3, 2009 - link
Its fortunate for AMD that the vast majority of the games out there are NOT multithreaded, like FarCry 2... and for the majority of games out currently, they don't even scale with CPUs beyond 3 cores... which is evident if you look at the Phenom II X3 720's performance in Anand's benchies.It cracks me up to see some enthusiasts bashing Lynnfield. All things considered, the Lynnfield 2.8GHz CPU with HT will be the one to have for the best gaming frame rates. It has excellent 2 core performance with turbo mode, which will allow for top FPS in most games, and for those that are highly threaded, Graphics bottlenecks considered, it'll hang in pretty darn close to the i7s. Its almost as if Intel designed the chip specifically for hardcore gamers.
This 975/950 business seems lazy, however. Intel doesn't even try when AMD falls too far behind.
lifeblood - Wednesday, June 3, 2009 - link
"Intel really has no other external motivation to push for higher frequency parts, so we only see a bare minimum increase in specs here."If AMD fails the we will very quickly return to the days of overpriced and underpowered Pentium trash. When Intel has no competition they quit trying.