Slashdot Mirror
Intel Quad-Core Price and Performance Showdown
ThinSkin writes "The folks over at ExtremeTech have had enough time on their hands to benchmark Intel's entire quad-core lineup to determine which has the best performance for the dollar. While prices range from $183 to $1399, the real bargain is with Intel's latest Core i7 architecture which outpaced many other more expensive processors. For comparison's sake, Intel's fastest dual-core CPU was thrown into the mix and was, at times, not even competitive, which suggests that we're beginning to see more and more multi-threaded applications take advantage of four cores."
One of those multipage reviews again.
Anyone have a summary?
http://www.extremetech.com/print_article2/0,1217,a%253D235027,00.asp
If going with the i7-920 is it better to go with 1066MHz ram or 1300Mhz? I plan to overclock the chip since lots of people have had great success with air cooling.
Full print article should anyone not want to deal with the multipage click-through: http://www.extremetech.com/print_article2/0,1217,a%253D235027,00.asp
Informatus Technologicus
I just don't understand why there aren't more consumer boards with a lot more sockets, using FB-DIMM or registered DDR. You have to go to server boards for that ($$$).
Last I checked, DDR3, which i7 requires, still had quite the premium over DDR2. Also, the motherboards, last I checked, started from about $300, while Core 2 motherboards can be obtained of course much cheaper.
And the benchmarks are a bit silly. How many people spend most of their time encoding video and running photoshop plugins? Gaming, OK, but other than that more realistic benchmarks for the average user would be more appreciated. Not just benchmarks that are designed to showcase multi-core processors.
Went to website. A video advert popped up, WITH AUDIO ON. Half of the article text was paid-for sponsorship links - often with pop up video, with AUDIO ON.
Found the print article. Not one graph showing the elbow of performance. Nothing quality like Tech Report's articles.
Fuck off Extremetech. Learn to respect your users, and maybe we will visit you.
For Canadian prices, add $40-140 (wtf, man)
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Its a bit stupid to do a price performance without any consideration to anything else. Someone else mentioned DDR2 VS DDR3 and price and availability, also if anyone does one whit of looking you will see that you can have a nice dual-core or quad-core motherboard for like 150-200$. I looked a few weeks ago for the 7's and the cheapest was like 350-375$, most seemed to be over 400$. Which to me, is simply nuts.
Anyway like a good slashdotter I didn't RTFA, so it may be that the 7's are the bees knees. However I would caution anyone from basing their decision on a benchmark and a price tag, as there is more involved that that. Anyway my two cents...
What benchmarks would you like to see? Because off the top of my head, media encoding, photoshop stuff and games are exactly the sort of things that home users would be doing to require that kind of CPU oomph.
Sure, there are plenty of other things people spend lots of time doing, but most of those (at least as far as home apps go) would run just fine on practically any reasonable new processor.
"I Know You Are But What Am I?"
Average users spend most time with their CPUs idling.
Heck, I'm an advanced user and most of the time the CPU is idling. But, when I do use it 100%, I'm usually wanting for it to finish quickly (reencoding, compiling, and some data processing too long to describe).
Speeding up 'normal' operations like resizing a window or dragging an icon around is a software issue, and many programmers have to figure that out (java people, that's for you!).
At 2x the price, Core i7 was not a consideration for me at this time.
The choice between the E8400 and the Q6600 was a tough one. I could have gone either way. Quad-core is great for threaded applications like media encoding. But the E8400 outperforms the Q6600 for the majority of what I do (including Photoshop CS3). I am not convinced that threading will be widespread enough during my 3-year upgrade cycle. A common argument on the forums is that the Q6600 can be overclocked to 3GHz such that single-threaded is the same as the E8400. While I do not overclock, the E8400 supposedly can easily get to 4GHz on air.
So the new CPU is faster than the one before it. Big news.
Now we talk about price/performance ratio comparing apples to oranges. Let's remember that a computer isn't just a CPU, shall we?
A typical quad core computer would have a q9xxx cpu, 2-4gig of ram (on 2-4 sticks) based on DDR2 and a P45 motherboard.
A typical i7 computer will have an i7 9xx cpu, 3-6gig of ram (on 3 sticks) based on DDR3 and a x58 motherboard.
going for an equally performing machine, let's compare the prices of a q9650 and a i7 940 (similar clocks, similar performances in games).
p45 vs x58 = the x58 boards are in the 375$CAD range while the p45 are found as low as 155$CAD.
i7 940 vs q9650 = the q9650 is 650$CAD, the 940 is 710$CAD.
4gig ddr2 vs 6gig ddr3 = 100$CAD vs 370$CAD. Even 3gb is around 210$.
that's 1455$ vs 905$. the quads overclock slightly easier and farther than the i7, making them either even in performance or slightly better for the i7.
There's no way that the i7 can be considered a mainstream option at this point in time. Even intel knows that (they released information regarding expected sales figures and even when the next die shrink launches in a year, i7 isn't expected to be at more than 5% market share).
The benchmarks in that review were also not very well presented. Not only that but the claims that ddr3 kits can be found for 120$ is a bit silly, at least for Canadians. Also, from multiple user reports on forums (which I follow), there seems to be VERY little gain in real world applications from switching to a more expensive i7 system, especially in games. There are very few applications which can truly fill 8 cores at the same time out there.
I'd like to see a 64 bit processor tested with 64 bit stuff - like an operating system.
Some of us use these quads to run multiple virtual PCs - that would be interesting to comparative test.
http://www.extremetech.com/image_popup/0,,iid=223387&aID=235027&sID=27866,00.asp
This would mean that my Geforce2 256 is better at games than my ATI 4870, which does not seem quite right.
The answer is "Who gives a damn." The overclocking capability of Intel's modern CPUs makes their stock lineup irrelevant.
For the vast majority of people (even if you don't overclock period), the best processor is the 3Ghz Core 2 Duo E8400. It uses little power, it's extremely fast, and you can overclock the shit out of it easily if you need it to be faster. You don't need a quad core for anything but rendering, or MAYBE video encoding.
If you want quad core, get the cheapest 45nm one, the Q9300. I have one. It's 2.5Ghz stock, but making it run at 3Ghz stably is a procedure of absolute simplicity to the average slashdotter: change the FSB speed to 400Mhz, which is a natively supported speed on modern motherboards. Set the memory:fsb ratio to 2 and then you've got your bog standard 800Mhz DDR2 running happily. Run the Intel Burn Test on it for 30 minutes straight to test stability; if it crashes increase the core voltage by 0.04 volts. The end, congratulations you just saved 500 dollars.
What is the responsiveness of the system under load? Openssl speed? bonnie++?
"...which suggests that we're beginning to see more and more multi-threaded applications take advantage of four cores"
Which suggests to me we're beginning to see more an more writers being paid to promote products.
Yeah a lot of people are still running 32 bit OS's, but almost all desktop hardware now being shipped is 64 bit-- we're in something like the tail end of the Windows 3.x era. I think most serious users will run 64 bit OS's pretty soon. The Mac Pro uses FB-DIMM and has 8 sockets (wish it had 16) and for a big class of data crunching tasks, what matters most is the amount of ram you can throw at it. The recent collapse in ram prices has been amazing. If enough sockets were available we could fit out $5000 boxes (think of a fully loaded Dell Precision or Mac Pro, not exactly a mass market consumer pc, but not a high end Sun server either) with 128GB or maybe even 256GB. That really extends the range of problems you can attack. But, the bottleneck even in server boards seems to always be ram sockets.
Um, I'm sorry but isn't Xeon still an Intel brand? There are quite a few offerings in the Xeon line that are quad core. In fact, I'm building a Socket 771 machine now with dual Xeon procs, and was interested to see how the Xeon quad 2.5GHz was going to stack up, (what I can afford) but no. Fail.
Raging in an online forum won't do anything for the world around you. To see change, you must take action.
I've averaged 13% CPU utilization this week. That's on an Athlon XP 1600+....
Enlightenment is the elimination of that which is unnecessary.
You do NOT want to use 4GB ram for an i7. It has to be in multiples of 3GB since the i7 uses a triple channel ddr3. Some mobos have 4 slots (eg Intel DX58SO), however populating that last slot will sacrifice triple channel with single channel performance.
Tut, unless you need virtualization, the E5200 is the real sweet sport for dual-cores. While it's got less cache than an E8400 it'll clock to 3.6ghz easily, and I'll bet if people pinmodded them, for the FSB timings they'll run 5 ghz easy.
That's just my 2 cents though.
How do you "turn off" electromigration?
Shai Schticks:"You don't make peace with friends, you make peace with enemies"
Modern reviews need to start taking power use into consideration. These newer CPU's may be slightly faster, but if they exact a 50% boost in energy use for a 25% boost in performance, then for ME they are not necessarily worth it.
If I want to build a fast, but silent and cool running desktop box, I'd love to know which CPUs to consider. This review has not provided that for me.
The choice between the E8400 and the Q6600 was a tough one. I could have gone either way. Quad-core is great for threaded applications like media encoding. But the E8400 outperforms the Q6600 for the majority of what I do (including Photoshop CS3). I am not convinced that threading will be widespread enough during my 3-year upgrade cycle. A common argument on the forums is that the Q6600 can be overclocked to 3GHz such that single-threaded is the same as the E8400. While I do not overclock, the E8400 supposedly can easily get to 4GHz on air. Photoshop CS3 is multithreaded now, and theres even a CUDA version coming out. http://developer.download.nvidia.com/compute/cuda/Photoshop/CUDAFilters4.pdf
New slashdot layout sucks.
I have no doubt that CS3 is multithreaded. However numerous benchmarking sites have shown the E8400 outperforming the Q6600 in Photoshop CS3. Obviously this will depend on what aspects of CS3 were exercised during the benchmark. All multithreaded codes have serial portions, and I suspect that a substantial portion of CS3 is still serialized.
CUDA filters will work the same regardless if you are dual- or quad-core (well, there is some CPU overhead for transferring data to/from the GPU, so maybe this would benefit from an additional thread).
You are correct. You can overclock an E8400 on most P35, P45, and nvidia 7X0 mainboards to around 4.0ghz with ease. I have mine clocked at 4.0ghz for every day use, and on a cool morning, can clock it at 4.4ghz on air with a 780i mobo for benchmarking. The reality, is that there are still few things that take advantage of more than 2 threads at a time. Short of some games ( crysis and supreme commander ) and VMs, there really isn't anything out there that is going to require 4 cores ( or even 8 ) unless you are a super power user. I think that right now, the best option if you are playing most games, is a speedy dual core with a good video card and DDR2 memory. If you are doing encoding or video work, Get a quad core or better, and still get DDR2 memory, unless getting a i7. The biggest detraction of the i7 is that every board is over 200 dollars, closer to 400 if you want a good one, and then you have to by that high latency DDR3.
Why is this idiot getting modded up? Widespread ignorance is fun! Listen up mods. Nothing this guy said is true; literally nothing. What the guy described is a fantasy that NEVER happens, he is simply an imbecile with outdated preconceptions. People don't tend to read about things they don't like, and he seems to be following this trend quite nicely with an opinion on overclocking straight from 1994.
I'm sure it was perfectly valid back then, but in no way does it apply to the modern Intel chips we are actually talking about.
There's absolutely no reason NOT to overclock Core2s. The small investment required to avoid cut-rate bare-bones parts gives you faster clock at stock/lower voltage with lower temperatures and much higher reliability.
For goodness sake, you're using a CPU that has to perform reliably in machines cobbled together by *OEM* suppliers who have to slash their costs to the bone and use the cheapest possible components in order to not go immediately out of business. There's enough headroom in the designed ratings to massacre rated performance levels. Have you ever looked inside a Dell?
Thus, my design philosophy is twofold: Excellent performance at a reasonable price with high reliability. For these reasons, I'm already going to spend more than a bare-bones system, so overclocking potential is a freebie!
In my view, the most critical components for reliability in a system are, in order:
Motherboard: Proven, tested, highly-rated enthusiast-quality mobo from a top-notch manufacturer. Abit IP35 Pro, +$80 over barebones.
Power Supply: Well-reviewed supply from a top-notch manufacturer, with at least 100w headroom over expected use. Antec TruePower Trio650, $40 over barebones.
RAM: Quality manufacturer, rated for where you expect to overclock to. - 4GB OCZ Platinum DDR2, say +$20, RAM is cheap.
Case: Antec 900. No reason to get anything else from a performance standpoint, they're on sale regularly for sub-$100.
Oh, and $15ish for a no-frills CPU fan that doesn't suck.
So, $200-ish over a barebones system for massively higher reliability. What did that get me, a YEAR ago?
Core2 E6750 OC'd 27% to 3.4GHz, 100% stable at stock voltage, running much cooler than the stock cooler did at 2.66GHz.
I'll take that any day.
"We have to go forth and crush every world view that doesn't believe in tolerance and free speech." - David Brin
I have no problem filling up 8 gb of memory. I run several virtual machines on different sides of my compiz cube in Ubuntu.
But I'm a fucking weirdo. I doubt very much that anyone else is using that much ram that often. :)
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
The choice between the E8400 and the Q6600 was a tough one. I could have gone either way. Quad-core is great for threaded applications like media encoding. But the E8400 outperforms the Q6600 for the majority of what I do (including Photoshop CS3).
Totally off-topic, but how hot does your E8400 run? In a cool environment, my non-overclocked CPU ran at 49C idle and 63C active with the stock cooler. I bought an Arctic Cooling Freezer 7 Pro (my first and only foray into non-stock cooling) and saw that drop to 40C idle to 49C active.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
If you're concerned about money but still want a screamer, I'd recommend the Xeon 3550 (the exact same as the Q9450, except reputed to run at lower temps, taken from better batches, etc). When I purchased one, it was the same price as the Q9450.
Pair this with decent DDR2 RAM (not DDR3, it's still expensive and not worth the gains) and you'll save a bunch o' money. In my case, the system overclocks reliably to 3.6GHz.
So if you want something better than the cheapest option, but don't want to spend bazillions - this is a decent way to go.
Cuban Music MP3's - cuband.com
100% stable at stock voltage
Queue some petulant twat whinging about how it might, maybe, undetectably, subliminally, possibly, almost be unstable in 0.0000001% of circumstances (maybe) and therefore you should never ever use it oh my god you're overclocking, dear GOD!!!
Well it will sacrifice that *last* slot with single channel. The remaining three sticks should still be running in triple channel.
Unless you placed them as 2-2-0, which would mean dual channel for all.
however populating that last slot will sacrifice triple channel with single channel performance.
/good idea/.
No, it won't. For some time now, Intel's RAM controllers have had some way of interleaving that buys you most of the performance of the 'correct' X-way setup, even with mismatched bank sizes.
That said, Intel have lost the plot if they think that encouraging this sort of thing is a
You're doing it wrong.
There's absolutely no reason NOT to overclock Core2s.
What if I want a quiet-to-silent system that can run with minimal cooling and use as little power as possible to do its job?
Give a man fire, and you warm him for the night. Set a man on fire, and you warm him for the rest of his life.
I wish I had never made a choice at all. I had high hopes when I got a quad core system, but the current state has disgusted me.
It turns out I still can't run matlab, watch a flash app, and move the mouse all at the same time in Vista on my Core2Quad HP box. Maybe if I'm running 3 instances of matlab maybe I'll see an improvement the quad core over say my dual core laptop, but based on everyday uses the upgrade in systems was an infuriating waste of money.
Sometimes the quad core system can't even handle updating the mouse position! I'm keeping my f***'ing P3 plugged in for now.
Then UNDER-clocking might be your thing =)
Ha! You thought this was binary : to overclock or not to overclock, well sonny, I've got news for you, there's a new guy in town !
My friend's been having this 1GHz PIII running on 750MHz for over 6 months now, and it's AB-SO-LU-TE-LY 100% stable !
(ps: genuinely true story : the BIOS battery-connection is broken somehow and the thing boots by default on 750MHz. Although I explained how to set the right values in the BIOS, he simply got tired of it and claims "it's just as fast".)
If there is one thing to be learned on slashdot, it has to be sarcasm.
All of which is a perfectly reasonable thing for people to run on a quad-core box; indeed practically tailor made for it.
But that's a webserver, not a desktop app or game like the article is talking about.
"I Know You Are But What Am I?"
Q: Where were these memory chunks before and why won't they stay there?