# socket 775 better then I7?



## ronster667

why is everyone freaking out about the I7's, i found a regular socket 775 cpu thats about the same for half the price


Intel Core 2 Quad Q9650 3.0GHz 12MB L2 Cache LGA 775 95W Quad-Core Processor
compared to 
Intel Core i7 Extreme Edition 965 Nehalem 3.2GHz 4 x 256KB L2 Cache 8MB L3 Cache LGA 1366 130W Quad-Core Processor

both quads
3.0 to 3.2 i7 beat it
12mb to 8 mb, core2quad wins
both 45m
same voltage
core 2 quad uses less wattage
both comes with fan and heatsink

so yeah, i would rather have the core 2 quad overclocked 200mhz, insted of spending 500 more dollors on the i7, which has 4 mb less of l3 cache

and this was a compareison of the best socket 775, and 1366
so that means this socket 775 is better then the two cheaper ones to

if im wrong someone please explain why


----------



## Cromewell

Nehalem is the successor to Core. It has many different features (ie onboard memory controller, quickpath connect, etc). You can read about it here http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=3448

These tables don't copy realy well but you can find them on page 9.
Performance POV-Ray 3.7  Cinebench XCPU x264 HD Crysis 
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9450 (Penryn - 2.66GHz) 2238 PPS 11502 CBMarks 61.5 fps 34.0 fps 
Intel Core i7-920 (Nehalem - 2.66GHz) 3528 PPS 16211 CBMarks 74.8 fps 33.2 fps 
Nehalem Performance Advantage 57.6% 40.9% 21.6% -2% 

 Power Consumption POV-Ray 3.7  Cinebench XCPU x264 HD Crysis 
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9450 (Penryn - 2.66GHz) 168.1W 175.2W 167.5W 220.8W 
Intel Core i7-920 (Nehalem - 2.66GHz) 202.2W 208.6W 176.6W 230.8W 
Nehalem Power Disadvantage +34.1W +33.4W +9.1W +10W


----------



## Twist86

Price vs Performance I7 is not worth it. 

End of 09 is when I7 will be affordable. Q6600 is more then enough power for my needs atm.

I7 is suppose to be like 20% faster clock for clock however....small FPS gains...I would wait at least till the Deneb gets released next year to grab a I7 rig.


----------



## Karlos1981

E7&8**** series duel cores still bench = with thosenerw gen quads in games.

Id save money then buy next year when price comes down.


----------



## just a noob

im pretty sure a core i7 940 at stock clock beats a q9650 out, but if you really want to compare platforms, you have to compare the qx9650/9770 to the core i7 965, you pay for an unlocked multiplier on extreme edition cpu's, not just clockspeed


----------



## Geoff

ronster667 said:


> why is everyone freaking out about the I7's, i found a regular socket 775 cpu thats about the same for half the price
> 
> 
> Intel Core 2 Quad Q9650 3.0GHz 12MB L2 Cache LGA 775 95W Quad-Core Processor
> compared to
> Intel Core i7 Extreme Edition 965 Nehalem 3.2GHz 4 x 256KB L2 Cache 8MB L3 Cache LGA 1366 130W Quad-Core Processor
> 
> both quads
> 3.0 to 3.2 i7 beat it
> 12mb to 8 mb, core2quad wins
> both 45m
> same voltage
> core 2 quad uses less wattage
> both comes with fan and heatsink
> 
> so yeah, i would rather have the core 2 quad overclocked 200mhz, insted of spending 500 more dollors on the i7, which has 4 mb less of l3 cache
> 
> and this was a compareison of the best socket 775, and 1366
> so that means this socket 775 is better then the two cheaper ones to
> 
> if im wrong someone please explain why


You are kidding right?  That's not a fair comparison as the 965 is the extreme edition.  A fair comparison would be the i7 Extreme 965 to the QX9650 which retails for $1,000.

Also, you obviously haven't researched the i7's.  You can't compare the specs alone, as a lower clocked i7 outperforms a C2Q in virtually all benchmarks, applications, and games.


----------



## Ramodkk

Not to mention i7 has Hyper-Threading


----------



## just a noob

also, the core2 has no l3, and core i7 has 8mb of l3 cache, with 512mb of cache of l2, l3 is faster than l2


----------



## Shadowhunter

just a noob said:


> also, the core2 has no l3, and core i7 has 8mb of l3 cache, with 512mb of cache of l2, l3 is faster than l2



Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't L2 faster than L3 and L1 faster than L2?


----------



## just a noob

it might be that way, i read something in cpu that had something to do with l1 l2 and l3, but it doesn't matter that much with i7 because of the integrated memory controller, i7 can have much higher bandwidth in terms of ram


----------



## N3crosis

If I had the money I'd go with one, sadly I'll probably be stuck with a Q6600 until X-mas next year. Well that's not that bad... I could always overclock it....right....?


----------



## Scubie67

Supposedly the I7/x58  scale better in Sli/Crossfire setups than the current core 2 duals and quads we have now if that is considered


----------



## StrangleHold

L1 is the fastest, then L2 with L3 the slowest.


----------



## shempf

If you think the i7 isn't good, then you don't understand its function.

Apparently we are only looking at the gaming aspect, which should be stated clearly before a logical comparison could be attempted. 

i7 is a winner if you use it like it's 'designed'.


----------



## smoothjk

Wow, the logic by the OP was so flawed. But I think it's been cleared up by now?


----------



## FatalityTech

Im hoping to get a i7 soon.


----------



## ronster667

wow this got flammed


----------



## Geoff

ronster667 said:


> wow this got flammed



It's because you were basing your comparison on specs alone, when that doesn't make all the difference.  Also your two CPU comparisons were not even close, one was an extreme version which has an unlocked multiplier and costs about twice as much.


----------

