Intel: Core i7 to Be Up to 52% Faster Compared to Core 2 Quad

[Boeing 787]

Intel Corp. expects its forthcoming Intel Core i7 processors to be much more powerful compared to existing central processing units, according to documents reportedly seen by the media. If the information turns to be precise enough, then Intel has all chances to keep processor performance crown even after smaller rival Advanced Micro Devices launches its new chips.

Documents from Intel Corp. allegedly seen by Expreview web-site reportedly mention that Intel Core i7 processor delivers 52% speed improvement in 3D games, 41% higher performance in media encoding and editing applications as well as 38% greater 3D rendering speed when compared to Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9770.

Intel Core i7 965 is a premium class Nehalem-micro-architecture microprocessor for desktops that operates at 3.20GHz. The Core 2 Extreme QX9770 is Intel's top-of-the-range CPU at the moment at that also works at 3.20GHz. If the information regarding performance improvements is correct, then it means that the new micro-architecture in its first implementation provides roughly 52% more performance at the same clock-speed compared to currently used Core 2 micro-architecture.

Advanced Micro Devices recently said that its forthcoming quad-core processors powered by improved K10 micro-architecture will be roughly 35% more powerful than its existing chips at the same clock-speed.

Intel did not comment on the news-story.

Source: http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/2...ore_2_Quad.html

[Bryan000]

I'm saving already!

[darren89]

thanks for sharing with us.

but its going to be hell expensive. :s

[obiwong]

Documents from Intel Corp. allegedly seen by Expreview web-site reportedly mention that Intel Core i7 processor delivers 52% speed improvement in 3D games

i'll believe it when i see it

[clx]

Sounds interesting, but until there is independent verification on these figures i remain unconvinced... but interested

[White Cuban]

theres no such thing, it requires comparison, if its in Vid Encoding, i might buy that, but games i doubt any improvement, cache size is tiny bah.

BUT, im still waiting to buy new computer because of this, gotta give em the benefit of the doubt, right?

[Argi]

Definately true that we'll have to see it ourselves first. I'm hoping that there'll be differnet price points, rather than a range they place above the Core 2 Quads.

[torrentthief]

yawn, we need some benchmarks from actual tests, all companies exagerate the performance and actual tests always show the exagerations.

I wanna see how much faster they are at encoding x264.

[TruckWEB]

i'll believe it when i see it

Same here. What games did they use? What setting? With what kind of GPU setup?

Those are just numbers with no meaning.

[sundayx Veteran]

^The meaning is, lol@amd.

[TruckWEB]

^The meaning is, lol@amd.

Because you saw the meaningless numbers for the next AMD CPU?

We should wait for real benchmark of Core i7 and the next AMD CPU before LOL'ing.

My guess is that AMD will be slower, but by how much? And if it cost less, should be a good deal for casual gamers.

[Ricardo Gil]

theres no such thing, it requires comparison, if its in Vid Encoding, i might buy that, but games i doubt any improvement, cache size is tiny bah.

9MB ain't enough for you? :p

[White Cuban]

9MB ain't enough for you? :p

what? 9MB? aren't the cores got like 256KB ea in L3?

[lalalawawawa]

yawn, we need some benchmarks from actual tests, all companies exagerate the performance and actual tests always show the exagerations.

I wanna see how much faster they are at encoding x264.

Well that is not always the case. They could be correct theoretically but in practice many times its a different story. It also depends on the operating system and the applications.

[The Teej]

I expect it to be at the very least 52% faster considering the damn price of the thing. Hell, I expect it to make me tea and toast in the morning and fetch me my newspaper. Perhaps even do the dishes when it's overclocked.

$1000. $1000.

[White Cuban]

thats like the total cost of my new planned computer xD

(without screen and prep's though, maybe little more, 1200$, but still 1000 flooding dollars)

[Ricardo Gil]

what? 9MB? aren't the cores got like 256KB ea in L3?

It's 256KB of level 2 cache per core + 8MB of shared level 3 cache.

[ViZioN]

Eek $1000, guess I'll be waiting for a bit before doing a new system build :p

[Digitalx]

hopefully be out before christmas :)

[Raa]

I'll be grabbing one of these the moment they land!

My X6800 is starting to get a bit too much dust on it, hehehe!

(It cost $1000 [RRP] too, so stop whining :p)

[wellofsouls]

Documents from Intel Corp. allegedly seen by Expreview web-site reportedly mention that Intel Core i7 processor delivers 52% speed improvement in 3D games

LOL, with that line, it lost all credibility for me. Even cavemen should know by now that 3D games depend most on graphics card rather than CPU :laugh:

or maybe it means 3D games in software rendering mode? bah. it's useless figures either way, guess it can play Crysis at 640x480 at 3 fps instead of 2fps in C2Q :D

[Ayepecks]

Funny, all the previews I've seen says it's not a big improvement for gaming, yet this article is claiming a 52% improvement?

I smell something fishy :p

[Smigit]

Documents from Intel Corp. allegedly seen by Expreview web-site reportedly mention that Intel Core i7 processor delivers 52% speed improvement in 3D games

When I see something like that I interpret it as 52% CPU processing power, not as a 52% overall performance of FPS. Obviously the overall game won't be boosted by 52%, that goes without saying given most are GPU not CPU dependent. I personally think some people are misinterpreting that 52% figure as meaning FPS.

Even 52 is likely a tall order in relation to pure CPU grunt, but I would expect a fairly considerable improvement.

[Jason S. Global Moderator]

do you all forget that this same thing happened when intel was comparing the Core 2 to the Pentium 4? no one believed that Core 2 was SO much faster, but it was true. i firmly believe that i7 will be 45% faster on average. initial benchmarks have shown incredible results.

the 965 may be $999, but the other 2 they are releasing will be $5xx and $28x at launch.

[wellofsouls]

When I see something like that I interpret it as 52% CPU processing power, not as a 52% overall performance of FPS. Obviously the overall game won't be boosted by 52%, that goes without saying given most are GPU not CPU dependent. I personally think some people are misinterpreting that 52% figure as meaning FPS.

Even 52 is likely a tall order in relation to pure CPU grunt, but I would expect a fairly considerable improvement.

So how do you interpret the "52% increase in CPU processing power in 3D gaming", considering it's a constantly shifting balance between the CPU and GPU under different environments, resolutions, and effects settings, for different games and game levels? It doesn't make any sense at all in that case :D

It actually makes much more sense if it means playing 3D games in software rendering mode, like those Red Mars CPU benchmarks in 3DMark 06 :laugh: