Intel Core i7 Hands-On Preview

Intel has been unchallenged on the desktop and laptop front since launching the Core architecture in 2006. The Core architecture trounced AMD at the high-end, forcing the Phenom manufacturer to fight back with aggressive value pricing. For the better part of two years, AMD has struggled to compete...

Intel has been unchallenged on the desktop and laptop front since launching the Core architecture in 2006. The Core architecture trounced AMD at the high-end, forcing the Phenom manufacturer to fight back with aggressive value pricing. For the better part of two years, AMD has struggled to compete with Intel's mainstream processors, leaving the performance and extreme categories completely unchallenged for Intel. Now with the release of Intel's newest Core i7 CPU and the Express X58 chipset, the gap widens ever further.

Intel Core i7

The Core i7 CPU lineup will be released in three flavors: Core i7-965 Extreme Edition, Core i7-940, and Core i7-920. All of the processors will arrive with four CPU cores, Hyper-Threading, 8MB of L3 cache, and they will be built on Intel's 45nm manufacturing process. All of the processors will run on a 1066MHz front-side bus. The 965 Extreme Edition will run at 3.2GHz, and like other Extreme Edition processors, it will come with an unlocked multiplier that allows for easier overclocking. Intel's Core i7-940 and Core i7-920 will run at 2.93GHz and 2.66GHz, respectively. The new CPU architecture brings with it a new LGA 1366 socket; older LGA775 motherboards that supported the Core 2 CPUs won't be compatible with the Core i7.

Like the other Extreme Edition processors before it, the Core i7-965 will cost $1,000. The Core i7-940 and Core i7-920 will cost $562 and $284, respectively.

The return of Hyper-Threading might be a surprise to some. We haven't seen Hyper-Threading on a CPU since the Pentium 4 days. Intel left the feature out of the original Core architecture but decided to bring it back in the Core i7. Similar to the original technology, Hyper-Threading in i7 gives each core a second executable thread, which gives the operating system the impression that it has a total of eight processing cores.

The biggest features to come with the new CPU architecture and chipset, aside from Hyper-Threading, are the Quick Path Interconnect (QPI) and an integrated memory controller. AMD has had an integrated memory controller for ages, and now Intel has finally gotten around to adopting it. The Core i7 CPUs will come with an on-die three-channel memory controller. The built-in memory controller reduces latency and adds a tremendous amount of memory bandwidth that allows the Core i7 to better feed its cores.

The QPI is basically the interface that the CPU uses to communicate with the motherboard chipset; a rough equivalent would be AMD's HyperTransport. QPI will function at 6.4GT/s on the Core i7-940 and at 4.8GT/s on both the Core i7-940 and Core i7-920.

Other features of note include new SSE4.2 instructions, better branch prediction, improved loop streaming, additional caching hierarchy, faster virtualization, deep buffers, and improved lock support. Combined, the improvements lead to more efficient performance on a clock-for-clock and per-watt basis.

Intel's Express X58 chipset, and the accompanying DX58SO motherboard that uses the chipset, comes with numerous improvements. The board comes with six SATA ports, two eSATA ports, two 1394a ports, 12 USB 2.0 ports, onboard Intel High Definition Audio, and dual PCI Express slots capable of ATI CrossFire. The motherboard supports three channels of DDR3-1333 memory but comes with four slots for RAM. To make the best use of the motherboard, we recommend populating three of the slots and keeping the fourth empty.

We decided to test the Core i7 against Intel's eight-core dual CPU Skulltrail setup. The matchup is about as close as we can get to a competitor for the Core i7. Skulltrail should have an advantage with its eight real cores, but we found that the Core i7-965 beat on our old high-end setup mercilessly in our head-to-head tests.

core i7

The Core i7-965wins Valve's particle test by a wide margin, and even the slower 2.66GHz Core i7-920 manages to outperform the dual-CPU 3.2GHz Skulltrail. The fact that a $300 CPU comes close to outperforming two former flagship processors that once cost a combined $2000 reminds us of how much we love the pace of innovation in the microprocessor market. Lost Planet's Cave Test further demonstrates the superiority of the Core i7, as both of the new CPUs leave Skulltrail behind by forty and sixty frames per second. In our custom simultaneous video encode and Crysis test, the Core i7-965 finished the encode almost a full minute ahead of the Skulltrail and managed to get an extra 10 frames per second on Crysis. The slower Core i7-920 didn't quite keep up with Skulltrail, but it came close.

Intel's done a marvelous job with the Core i7, a feat made even more impressive by the fact that the company is largely competing with itself. The Core i7 CPUs provide outstanding performance gains over processors based on the original Core architecture. Be on the lookout for the new CPUs later this November.

System Setup: Intel Core i7-965, Intel Core i7-920, Intel DX58SO, 3GB Qimonda DDR3 RAM, Intel SATA SSD X25-M 80GB. Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9775, Intel D5400XS, 4GB FB-DIMM (2x2GB), 3GB Corsair XMS Memory (1GBx2)(2x512MB), 750GB Seagate 7200.10 SATA Hard Disk Drive. Windows Vista 32-bit. GeForce GTX 280. Video card driver: beta Forceware 180.42.

234 Comments

  • walugee

    Posted Jun 16, 2010 7:47 am PT

    the price tag is a killer

  • consigliere94

    Posted May 29, 2010 10:18 am PT

    this is for hardcore die hard players. it's not even recommended or even a minimun requirement for most games nowadays.

  • lightworior

    Posted May 5, 2010 12:15 am PT

    ok very nice... and inpressive nunbers ... i´m thot, can´t imagine an cell processor most powerful then a ps3 core? and one in pc hadwere? sorry i can´t si any surprise on this i holpe sony and parthers criate one monster processor for changing this nunbres to diference like a monter to a litle rat kkkkk

  • badge07

    Posted Apr 26, 2010 2:49 pm PT

    I wunt bother buying this for now cos technology is moving that fast that in about a year and a half this CPU will probaly be the same price as todays single core CPUs. Its a never ending circle that many people cant keep up with.

  • Exia2004

    Posted Apr 3, 2010 10:21 am PT

    i got Phenom II X4 2.8Ghz and im happy no need to waste money 1000€ on an cpu

  • demonshreder

    Posted Mar 17, 2010 2:50 am PT

    Just get a decent CPU,a good graphics card(like geforce 100 series or similar) and about 2GB ram is enough, for gaming for the next 2 years. After about 5 years , you will have to change your whole computer if you want to keep up with the latest gaming.

  • adam6_mvp

    Posted Mar 12, 2010 8:26 am PT

    AMD Phenom II x3 720 black edition is 2.8ghz

  • ThePlumpPenguin

    Posted Feb 10, 2010 5:55 pm PT

    AMD Phenom II x4 965 Black Edition is 3.4Ghz

  • Shinkada

    Posted Feb 4, 2010 6:18 am PT

    The people slamming this are idiots. $300 for something that destroys a $2000 setup is something absolutely nobody should pass up.

  • Pisces4ever

    Posted Jan 31, 2010 7:01 am PT

    we r gamers so we need good GPU and normal CPU and lot of RAM....this core 17 thing is just for show off...........buy a normal pentium D 3.2 or core2duo it works just fine for coming 4 years...dont waste mony for this i7 thningy...if u r richie rich then buy it...

  • Charlie901

    Posted Feb 2, 2009 9:13 am PT

    IF your into High Fidelity Flight Sims like FSX and Black Shark it pays to invest in this model processor...

    A good GPU will never get you very far FPS wise in the aforementioned games.

  • plainelmo

    Posted Jan 9, 2009 8:01 pm PT

    I got nothing on the processors, but the mobo's the part I'm reluctant to fork out on.

  • DeLukse

    Posted Jan 8, 2009 6:49 am PT

    uhmm error on the "QPI" part "QPI will function at 6.4GT/s on the Core i7-940 and at 4.8GT/s on both the Core i7-940 and Core i7-920. " i think the first of the Core i7-940 you mention is supposed to be a Core i7-965... so.. just wanted to mention it

  • ernzu1

    Posted Dec 18, 2008 2:05 am PT

    who said that it is only for gaming? IDIOTS! multimedia artists can make good use of that processing power.

  • Man4life

    Posted Dec 14, 2008 2:42 pm PT

    Wow
    A processor that costs $1000
    Do you really need like 13.5 ghz of processing power?
    the answer is
    no

  • uberjannie

    Posted Dec 4, 2008 9:47 pm PT

    The funny thing is that a 940 is a really expensive overclocked 920 xD

  • spike5051

    Posted Dec 4, 2008 11:20 am PT

    Listen to me Intel. I clicked on an advertisement when i was visiting a game site. Your website is quite misleading when it comes to game benchmarks. You run your benchmarks at 1280x1024. How about running a test at a higher resolution say like 1680x1050 wich is standard for 22in widescreen monitors. If people are looking into the extream cpus they willl not be running any games on old monitors or old resolutions. I was also not able to find what video card was being used or what settings were used on the games. Everyone knows that you will see huge gains in performance on behalf of the cpu if the graphics are turned down, a low or midrange video card is being used, or if you are running the game at a lower resolution. I like your products i own a e7400 and my video card is an ati hd4870. I have an intel 38bt mobo. I just wish you would be more mindfull about just how much a cpu relates to a game in relation to video cards. Video cards are very limeted so the cpu only shows performance under low settings. Why pay $1000 on a cpu when one that costs $200 will work the same under heavy video game stress given that both computers have a high end video card. I love how people are that stupid to go out and spent upwards of $1000 on an intel extream series cpu. IDIOTS. Spend 300 to 500 on a video card and you will have no regrets even if the rest of your system is quite modest.

  • division_9

    Posted Dec 4, 2008 2:25 am PT

    Windows 7?, I'll stick to my stone age operating system, XP!!!!.

  • zako94

    Posted Dec 3, 2008 11:05 am PT

    i will not buy it because i now there will be soon new CPU and hardware thats will work with windows 7

  • joevit

    Posted Dec 3, 2008 5:27 am PT

    Wast of money. It will take years for software to us it and by that time we will be at 200 or more cores.

  • Stevewins1

    Posted Nov 27, 2008 12:36 pm PT

    I really need a new video card...

  • terps90

    Posted Nov 25, 2008 6:47 pm PT

    when will the intel core i7 come out for a labtop because I thinking about gettin one and don't know if I should wait

  • Extreme124

    Posted Nov 24, 2008 6:38 pm PT

    I got this with my computer that I bought and I can't wait to try it out on my Vista 64bit OS and 6GB ram

  • shani_boy101

    Posted Nov 22, 2008 12:42 am PT

    well i didn't understand most of what is written above, but if it runs Crysis with ease, its gonna be in my computer.

  • RAven83

    Posted Nov 21, 2008 7:04 am PT

    Well, atleast now i know where the Christmas bonus is going... xD

  • djedi_master

    Posted Nov 20, 2008 6:07 am PT

    and what?? intel is something... lol

  • bongsyas_23

    Posted Nov 20, 2008 12:52 am PT

    The people who bought the Skulltrail must be kicking their heads right about now!

  • Kevinmaxtor

    Posted Nov 19, 2008 7:44 pm PT

    damn something that can kill the core 2

  • Jean_rainier

    Posted Nov 19, 2008 3:18 pm PT

    im a lite PC gamer.. i wont need this lol

  • 123zxcv

    Posted Nov 19, 2008 10:38 am PT

    Finally something I can use to do my 3d animation and renders with. I can't wait til it is avaliable.

  • tuppenny

    Posted Nov 19, 2008 5:16 am PT

    I've a xeon 3110 w/ a 8800 gts (g92) I'll be waiting til the top of the line current quads dive down (a q95550 intel is my goal ) and then I'll upgrade to the top of the line I can afford . I'm currently scoring 12.6k plus on 3d06 . Afterwards I'll wait til either the best bang can be had from nvidia or ati 280/4870x2 .cost vs performance i'm a shopper and have owned both brands of cards but truly have no brand loyalty .

  • mew182

    Posted Nov 19, 2008 2:21 am PT

    Nice to see some Progress and INterlect from INtel -- as they finaly followed AMDs lead an went to a integrated memory controller. i might finaly get Intel some time in the Future but for now "i7" is not worth the money at all.

    And now to realy point some thing out... ok "ABCHUNG" your a silly person... or you cant read... you want to buy this CPU for Games also Over clocking...

    if you dont have Quad all ready i understand the games side as games finaly making use of Quad... if not and you have a QUAD atm just buy a new GPU advising the new ATI x4000 serise which is doing realy well.

    then WTF..... you want it to Overclocking, fair enuf every one wants more GHz for there money... BUT you dont buy Intel if you intend to O.C. (aka there new chips no access is given maybe 0.5GHz hear or there... there old chips aka Q6600 2.40GHz are ok and very energy efficiant i have one of these at 3.4GHz not problems not even a hikup ---- but i would advise the AMD 9950 2.60GHz black edition just as i have another rig running one, that is O.C. and holding steady at 4.6. secondly in the review they stated the "i7" is not usfull for O.C. and they may relese a futur verson of the CPU to give more le-way on O.C. but i would advise you to keep your money and wait a few more monthes for the new "i7" to come on the market.

  • Glen1958

    Posted Nov 19, 2008 12:53 am PT

    A few Technical points that some have missed, Frequency is hovering at 3-4 GHz because of physical limitations, going higher a LOT will cost a LOT more, I work with RF stuff and the step from 26 GHz to 50 is phenomenally expensive and that is moving through the air!
    I base my PC Purchase on what I CAN afford, just upgraded to a new system, motherboard not top shelf Quad Core, best Video Card I could afford and Max RAM, nice to have leading edge if you can afford it, but thet ain't many of us.

    A Realist!

  • Glenv

    Posted Nov 19, 2008 12:01 am PT

    Awesome. I've always loved Intel...and while AMD hasn't burnt holes in my pocket in the past when I did try them it sure did burn holes into my motherboard.

    Sad truth of it is that regardless of what people say the processor still plays big role in a sweet rig...and if you're going to blow excessive cash on a motherboard and/or graphics card then you may as well get an Intel processor to go with it.

  • Akuthegreat

    Posted Nov 18, 2008 10:05 pm PT

    it's all about money dude.....

  • saalocin

    Posted Nov 18, 2008 9:58 pm PT

    I think its really awesome, no matter how ppl say "but we dont need it for games.." blah blah blah. Now we can play games run more stuff in background and minimize game without waiting 5 mins. I am getting one asap

  • klasco

    Posted Nov 18, 2008 7:42 pm PT

    i think my current system is still good, I'll wait for a game in the future that may need me to get a better processor but my current graphics card (280 GTX) is taking alot of load of the CPU.

  • Game-mind

    Posted Nov 18, 2008 7:41 pm PT

    ABC vedio gaming.. want a better game.. get a better vedio card.. cut this crap!

  • jp-gnr

    Posted Nov 18, 2008 7:38 pm PT

    In today games , graphic performance stands for graphics processing power that means the fact of not seeing a lot of performance changes in certain games with midhigh or high-end processors as the difference resides in your gpu , the only way you colud "need" an extreme i7 series is if you do heavy real time rendering or you multitask with different power demanding applications. Also in response of some pointless opinions lets say chaosmage72 or byrdcjb100, guys please investigate a little more instead of making all of us laugh.

  • chaosmage72 posted Nov 18, 2008 5:16 pm PT (does not meet display criteria. sign in to show)

    chaosmage72

    Posted Nov 18, 2008 5:16 pm PT (hide)

    hmm i think i'll w8 till they come out with a processor that runs at 4.0 GHz come on... we've been stuck on 3 even with 4 cores =.= stop going higher on the processors and start increasing the GHz!

  • Mazam1212

    Posted Nov 18, 2008 5:04 pm PT

    i have 2.4Ghz AMD processor and it runs great

  • axlstyle

    Posted Nov 18, 2008 3:18 pm PT

    hmm...i mightm upgrade in a year or two. my 1 year old quad core does the job for the moment, and for no reason i run it nicely at 3.2ghz (2,4 stock).....i'd really like a total upgrade in like 2 years like i said, but there's much to come ..solid state drives, new lga, bluray will go cheap

  • Kenji_Masamune

    Posted Nov 18, 2008 10:19 am PT

    Intel processors = $$$$, AMD processors while might not reach the level of intel = $$. If I was really concerned about top end preformance and had a bottomless wallet, I'd go with a Mac Pro. AMD >> INTEL in price because who seriously wants to crank out almost $1k for a freakin CPU? I've got more graphically important stuff to buy.. you know, like a graphics card.

  • luigidibaldo

    Posted Nov 18, 2008 12:16 am PT

    In dont know if this new CPU will really improve our game experience..maybe is better to upgrade our GPU and wait for CPU !!!

  • byrdcjb100 posted Nov 17, 2008 2:24 pm PT (does not meet display criteria. sign in to show)

    byrdcjb100

    Posted Nov 17, 2008 2:24 pm PT (hide)

    Well my AMD gets the job done with 2.4ghz

  • SadisticSid

    Posted Nov 17, 2008 12:16 pm PT

    williambrodie

    Posted Nov 16, 2008 10:55 am GMT Im sorry to say, but the person who wrote this is a complete douche..... ITS TRI CORE, TRI=THREE, IT IS NOT 4-Core!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    O RLY? Even crappy-ass wikipedia could have told you how much of an ignorant halfwit you are. The i7 has a triple channel memory architecture, not a triple core architecture. But you're right about the author being a douche... 'a feat made even more impressive by the fact that the company is largely competing with itself' - what a load of tripe from the same vein as all of Gamespot's hardware 'reviews'.

  • Treifla

    Posted Nov 16, 2008 4:56 pm PT

    actually I'll agree with you on this one Patric, my CRT is AMAZING, cheaper then an LCD, special image viewing mode for gaming and graphic design, no ghosting etc. the only thing LCD's have up on CRT is profile, CRT's need a lot more space. other then that i couldn't be happier with my image quality

  • redneckdouglas

    Posted Nov 16, 2008 4:45 pm PT

    First off, I7 have it's place. For those that never own a quad CPU but planned to someday, this is a great replacement. No point getting old quad cores when these outperform everything on it's main purpose... multi-tasking. Which means faster decoding, faster in multi-threaded games, fast fast fast... For those that jumped too early on quadcore, oh well... still good though. New standard is, Dual core or I7 quad. Why jump on Q6600 when E8400 is there. Why get Q9550 when you can get 920.

  • DIZsof2

    Posted Nov 16, 2008 11:00 am PT

    Just buy a Quad core 2.6 for a few hundred bucks and overclock it to 3.2 everyone was a noob at one point even myself. Gone are the days where i spent 1,000 for extreme cpu's

advertisement

Hot Stories

Newsmakers

Featured Stories

Submit News

Got tips? Send them in!