It's no doubt Intel spared no expense to claim the top gun prize over AMD with the hyper-i7's; but at what hyper-expense? In this economic environment Intel has got to be taking a beating with these expensive hyper-i7's, and in no way can they lower the price without an earnings beating. netbooks, low end comp's are further clipping at their margins. The game plan now , if they hope to show positive earnings, is to (do as they promised Microsoft) upgrade corporate comp's with their chips and Microsoft 7. Hence the i5's (I hear no hyper),a strip down affortable version of the i7's chocked full-o-features (WHAT no hyper?), reasonably priced for this ecconomic environment, I believe that's why the hush hush.
I might add that this is all speculation on my part, but it's logical.
asH
Buddy, you need a reality check. GO check the earning of the 2 companies. Intel is beating forecasts and making fat profits, in the billions actually, at the same time AMD is bleeding cash like crasy (by the billions as well). I7s sells great as it is also, and I don't see how that is going to change any time soon, and the only competition it will get will be released from Intel, and it will be appropriately priced.
If you want to worry about someones margins - worry about AMD, because a few more quarters in the red and they will go belly up, and then you and I will pay double for Intel. Those chips AMD is designing were never designed to be sold so cheap, but due to their inferior performance they have no choice.
I see good to big in all quarters other the last, when the Europeans fined them 1.2 bln. Deduct that from expenses and u end up with a profit there too.
Now lets see AMD's net income for the last few quarter from the same source. Hmmm. Red Red Red. It's a small company, how much longer do u think they can stay on red?
Do u really think that of the two companies Intel is the one in financial trouble? Amd is forced to sell their products with a significantly lower out-the-door price so they compensate for performance difference. Do u think they have the technology to produce them cheaper?
No dude quarterly earnings not financial problems.
Intel is 50X the market cap of AMD and should never encounter any problems relative to AMD; but they do. Intel owns the CISC world, vendors bow down and kiss Intel's ring hand, they are the kings; but yet this little nothing of a company AMD is always in the conversation, as well as thought of as Intel's competition. Intel's CPU's use SSE4.1, AMD's dont, Intel has major software vendor support & optimization with SSE4.1, AMD does'nt (which should account for good part of these benchmark #'s, and probably why AMD has to market their CPU's towards multimedia and games. Yeah AMD has/are developing plugins for major programs like Photoshop to compensate for the extentions not included, as a stop gap measure.
below is the reordered benchmark test, in order of i7 965 vs Phenom BE-highest to lowest percentage.
The first column= benchmark test( Excel), l=low (low score is best),965vs920= percentage i7 965 over i7 920, i7 965=test score, 920=test score, 965vsPhn=% 965 vs Phn in test, 920vsPhn= %920 vs Pn, Pn= Phenom test score.
example:
first line- Excel= the benchmark test, .17=the test percentage of 965 vs 920, 12.7= i7 965 test score, 15.3= 920 test score, .466=i7 965 is 46.6% over Phenom's test result, .357= 920 is 35.7% over Phen test result, 32.8 = Phenom benchmark test score
Farcry (28%) and CS3 (28%) are optomized for SSE4.1
anyone know if Excel is optomized for Intel CPUs? Windows 7 is. How bout these other programs above 20%, are they optimized too, DivX6.8.5 ? howbout WinRAR?. Lets see that's Hyperthreading, 'perhaps' vendor optomized programs, and Turboboost .They covered all their bases to insure a healthy AMD (desktop)beat down. Intel cant lose.. or can they?
oh, and as for the 1.2 b, it wasnt enough if you ask me and it belongs as a line item.
6000 layoffs 4 plant closings , all hail the king
bench....hi/lo..965vs920...965.....920....965vsPhn%..920vsPn Phn
Excel l 0.170 12.7 15.3 0.466 0.357 23.8
x264HD h 0.155 31.6 26.7 0.358 0.240 20.3
POV-Ray h 0.160 4202 3528 0.356 0.233 2706
3dsmax 9 h 0.131 17.6 15.3 0.324 0.222 11.9
Blender l 0.125 47.8 54.6 0.312 0.214 69.5
Soren5 l 0.121 94.3 107.3 0.299 0.203 134.6
Sony l 0.151 168.2 198 0.293 0.168 238
CS3 l 0.138 15 17.4 0.289 0.175 21.1
Far Cry h 0.077 73.7 68 0.281 0.221 53
WinRAR l 0.074 77.9 84.1 0.263 0.204 105.7
CineMT h 0.138 18810 16211 0.255 0.136 14012
DataRec l 0.016 24.8 25.2 0.244 0.232 32.8
DivX685 l 0.178 32.3 39.3 0.240 0.075 42.5
SysPro h 0.081 234 215 0.175 0.102 193
Sys3D h 0.105 239 214 0.155 0.056 202
E Learn h 0.096 208 188 0.144 0.053 178
WinMedi l 0.172 24 29 0.143 -0.036 28
Sys 2007 h 0.101 238 214 0.139 0.042 205
CineB ST h 0.141 4475 3846 0.119 -0.025 3941
x264HD h 0.128 85.8 74.8 0.094 -0.039 77.7
SysVid h 0.126 277 242 0.076 -0.058 256
Crysis h 86.8 81.7 0.062 0.004 81.4
LeftDead h 0.061 127.5 119.7 0.011 -0.053 126.1
Fallout h 0.034 87 84 -0.008 -0.044 87.7
It's no doubt Intel spared no expense to claim the top gun prize over AMD with the hyper-i7's; but at what hyper-expense? In this economic environment Intel has got to be taking a beating with these expensive hyper-i7's, and in no way can they lower the price without an earnings beating. netbooks, low end comp's are further clipping at their margins. The game plan now , if they hope to show positive earnings, is to (do as they promised Microsoft) upgrade corporate comp's with their chips and Microsoft 7. Hence the i5's (I hear no hyper),a strip down affortable version of the i7's chocked full-o-features (WHAT no hyper?), reasonably priced for this ecconomic environment, I believe that's why the hush hush.
I might add that this is all speculation on my part, but it's logical.
Of course, if we put things in perspective, i7 should be less expensive to manufacture than Phenom II - or at least the same price.
Personally, I'm doing find with my Core 2 Quad systems from a couple years back. I have no real need to upgrade, and there doesn't appear to be much on the horizon to force my hand. Sure, 3D rendering and video encoding can benefit, but I don't do that stuff all that often.
Anand's reviews are very well written and clearly undestandable to the millions of non native english speakers that read this site, i believe that he certainly has a positive bias towards Intel and he shows this through clever use of words and phrases in his writings and by being "polite" to AMD teaching the "wrongs","donts" and showcasing the"faults", by doing this he transpires the mind of the average reader of whos is the real boss and thats Intel.
Understandable, since Intel owns the Gaming/Enthusiast/Overclocking segment since some time and this site entertains this crowd.
Anand, why dont you try "teaching" in your own special subtle way, Intels faults and mistakes, like the buggy firmwares in SSD's, the ICH9R problems, the immense CPU rootkit and many many others that go silently unnoticed by the non geek crowd, instead of constantly "teaching" AMD its faults?
Seems if you want a cheap setup AMD is good to go. If you need something that can do Crossfire/SLI in the future (which is the apples to apples comparison) then you are looking at the MSI combo for $354 or the MSI i7 at $450. Memory price isn't an issue at apples to apples either, you can use 2 stick dual channel in either.
The question then becomes can the MSI i7 overclock enough over the MSI PII to justify it's costs (30% faster?), either with stock or aftermarket (whatever you're into.) Plus it depends on your thoughts on future upgrades, the i7 board probably will be upgradable longer, but I don't know that for sure. Plus the game of GPU bottlenecks and future game balance.
Irony is, I can go to Microcenter right now and pick up a I7-920 for $199, there everyday price is $229. Plus there are some X58 boards in the $200 range for example the 1 I have which is a Gigabyte EX58-UD3R rev 1.6
"Irony is, I can go to Microcenter right now and pick up a I7-920 for $199, there everyday price is $229. Plus there are some X58 boards in the $200 range"
Bingo. But that argument was brought up in another article here and AT did not mention that MicroCenter option because not everyone has access to one of their stores, and you can't mail order from them.
But it is interesting to read the fanboism here accusing AT of Intel bias. I'd rather spend $400-$450 on a system that will still rock for several years vs. some has-been technology for $300-$350. Anand clearly said that the AMD system was still a cheaper buy, but the AMD fantards were so narrow-visioned drooling and looking for bias they obviously missed his comment - which he came here and clarified above.
"System that will rock for several year"??? Huh? You are comparing two "competitive" systems, and one will "rock you for several years" while the other won't?
And this, considering that upgrading Intel platform normally means new MB + CPU, often RAM, while with AMD you can stick to CPU only upgrade?
The i7 is faster, the Phenom II is cheaper. As I mentioned above it's silly to try to build an entry-level i7 system at this point given what's just around the corner. Allow me to quote from my 965 review:
"As a gaming CPU, it's actually competitive with the i7s."
"Overall application performance is very good from the 965's perspective. It's only in a handful of 3D or well threaded apps where we see the i7 really pull away. The 965 BE is competitive, just not faster."
"When it comes down to it, between the 965 BE and an i7 920, I still opt for the 920. The 965BE does have a lower total cost of ownership so the real question is how well does it stack up against the Lynnfield chips. "
Intel combo = AMD combo + $150
Intel combo = 50% more than AMD combo!!
Wow that is soooooooo difficult, my brain is fried.
Despite the price premium, what does anand say? "When it comes down to it, between the 965 BE and an i7 920, I still opt for the 920." Yeah and I think you need to put down the crack pipe man... How much is intel paying you?
Not only is the intel combo more expensive, but you also have to buy a third memory stick. For what? an extra 5% performance boost.
Perhaps I should have qualified that statement. From a purely performance perspective and if I'm looking at the longevity of my build, the i7 920 is what I'd be shooting for. Obviously the AMD system is much lower priced, which is why I also said:
"There's simply no way the i7 920 can compete with the cheapest Phenom II X4 965 BE configuration"
Not to mention that building an i7 920 today seems a bit silly, which I also mentioned:
"However, unless you had to buy today, I wouldn't worry too much about trying to build a cheap 920"
if you call microcenter in texas they will ship without tax for $206 #1-713-940-8500 tell them your out of state took 3 days to recieve it was a DO stepping what a bargain . called 4 location before i got lucky with houstin branch.
Sigh... while shaking my head at these 2 dullards and their futile attempts to argue with logic and lack of reading comprehension skills—I would like to put a positive spin on this:
Here we have 2 people, who are clearly in error in thought, but we also have the CEO of the website taking his own valuable time to reply. HOW OFTEN do you get that kind of reciprocation, even when it is CLEAR that both of them were being not only hostile and malicious, but down right rude. Even still, Anand replied: calmly, and in a civil manner.
This is an example of POSITIVE CUSTOMER RELATIONS, people! When THE BOSS even takes time to address this kind of trifle, it shows a good sign to me. Let this be a LESSON to all of you out there aspiring to be "somebody!" THIS is how you conduct yourself in the face of mindless-opposition. (I'm one to talk about conduct at times haha!)
Let's also not forget the overclocking perspective. Sure, the X4 965 can hit 3.8GHz easily, and with a bit of tweaking you get about 3.95GHz (unless you don't run a 64-bit OS, in which case you might hit 4.2 GHz on air-cooling).
At stock 2.66GHz speed, the i7-920 is generally faster than a 3.4GHz Phenom II 965. If we overclock the 965 16% to just under 4GHz and we overclock the i7-920 to 4GHz as well (a relatively easy task with the latest i7 steppings), the 50% boost in i7 performance is going to really separate the two systems.
Finally, comparing cost of systems you need to factor in the whole enchilada. It's $505 for the ASUS P6T + i7-920 compared to $413 for the ASUS M4A79T Deluxe + Phenom II 965. We do need to keep motherboard options relatively similar, after all, so both ASUS boards are good choices for their respective platforms. That's 22% more for the i7-920 platform, and we need to add in RAM.
Now we're looking at $591 vs. $484, or still a 22% price premium (but with 50% more RAM) for the i7-920. Add in the rest of your typical computer setup for a decent midrange computer, however, and it's not quite so big a gap.
In our http://www.anandtech.com/guides/showdoc.aspx?i=361...">last midrange guide, the base midrange system used $750 for all the other components (outside CPU, mobo, and RAM) -- though $380 was for speakers, OS, keyboard/mouse, and LCD. Now we're looking at $1341 for a complete i7-920 setup vs. $1234 for a complete Phenom II 965 setup - a cost difference of 8.7%. Even if we drop the peripherals, we're still looking at $961 vs. $854, or a 12.5% difference. That's at the lower end of the midrange spectrum.
Bump to the http://www.anandtech.com/guides/showdoc.aspx?i=361...">high-end midrange systems and you'd kick the full system price to $1776 for i7-920 ($1946 for a CrossFire setup), compared to $1669 ($1839 for a CrossFire setup). That would be a difference of 6.4% or 5.8% with CrossFire.
Putting everything in perspective, then, it depends what you're after. For overclocking, I don't think anyone would try to make the argument that AMD can compete against the i7-920. If you're buying a completely new system right now, and you're looking at $1000 vs. $850 (roughly), it's a tougher call. I'm with Anand at that point and would go for the socket 1366 platform, but then I'd also be overclocking so maybe I'm not a good sample audience. For a complete higher-end setup, saving 5-7% while losing up to 30% performance (though you also gain a few percent in a couple tasks)? I'd definitely go with the i7-920.
You do need to keep your intended use in mind as well. If you never do 3D rendering (I don't), and you don't do a lot of video encoding, the gaming situation is essentially GPU limited on these systems. Elsewhere both systems are so fast that it just doesn't matter much. :-)
You can see that the 6GB kit has higher price per module!
PQI is in general a lower priced brand in relation with Crucial!
Newegg doesn't have on stock right now 4GB PQI kits, but this doesn't play a role in general, because maybe they had stock before 1 week or maybe they will have stock in a week from now!
Also maybe Newegg is trying to press QPI to lower their price, or QPI didn't have stock at the time!
Generally, although the memory kit manufacturer can give -1/2$ discount for the 3 module kit in relation with a 2 module kit (if the 2 module kit cost 70$, instead of costing 105$ the 3 module kit can go to 103$)
the reality is, that the 2 module kits are for big volume market, with a lot of competition so the price is more compressed (the market and the kind of people that buys 3 module kits are not going to care much for 4-5$ price cuts)
Of cource if the manufacturer made a bad forecast regarding production/sales ratio, and has much stock on 3 module kits,
or if some competitor made this mistake and lowered the price in the market, then it can sell with lower price per module, the 3 module kits in relation with the 2 module kits!
The same can be applied on the e-tailer level (it is possible to make a bad forecast, so they have to lower the price for the 3 module kits in order to make them more attractive to the customer and clear their bad stock!)
But all the above are artificial!
The memory can have wild price differencies depending on many factors!
In general when a product is aiming for higher-end systems (like 3 module kits) the profit is higher relative with products aiming for mainstream! (like 2 module kits)!
I meant no disrespect in any way, i just disagree with your comment!
If you want to get technical, yes, the 3x2GB Crucial kit goes for (slightly) more money. As we've shown in our http://www.anandtech.com/memory/showdoc.aspx?i=358...">memory articles, brand really isn't a factor. Most of these are using identical RAM chips, so I just chose to grab the least expensive kits off Newegg. If you shop around, you can find 2x2GB DDR3-1333 kits for less money than at Newegg, and the same goes for 3x2GB kits. Personally, I have no problem with using PQI memory, provided you're not looking to overclock it.
mmpalmeira : Thanks for the heads-up man! Prolly will try first with a Phenom II X4 945, with 95W TDP, noting that your M2N32-SLI (NV590)was compatible with the Phenom II X3 720 then inch up from there when possible.
I noticed beginning of the article stated that PII x4 965 is more competitive to C2Q 9550/9650 so I was wondering why i7's combo prices were compared to instead of the C2Q's? Q9550 for instance, is $219 on 'egg if you pair it with a P45 (with BioStar) you can get the job done with $312. Bump it up to $365 if you want a x48 chipset (ASUS). or even a 790i at $375 if that's your cup of tea. I honestly don't think that if you try to stay away from putting Q9550 price against 965 would defeat the point of the article. AMD has newer, (and I would also say) better chipset. also their price drops faster (e.g. 955 now $199) than Intel which is certainly a plus for me if not all chip consumers. So I would say, even compared to competitive pricing from Q9550, PII 965 takes the cake with more to offer.
I didn't make the Q9550 comparison because it seemed to be the obvious and unnecessary one. Motherboard prices are roughly the same for LGA-775 and AM2+/AM3 and we know what the CPU prices are.
The 920 is the next logical step up - the question is then how much does it cost to get to the i7. The answer? Still looks like a lot, relatively speaking.
Yeah, look at it this way: if we're hearing the truth about Core i5 750, that's going to cost $325, or $15 more than the least expensive 965 BE rig. What does $15 get you? Well, we don't know for sure yet, but early rumors suggest that it gets you very nearly i7 920 performance. AMD isn't really competing in the high-end market right now for people in the market for a whole new computer.
On the other hand, if you already have a board that supports Phenom II x4, this processor is a much more senisble upgrade than a switch to intel, unless you're rolling around in a bucket of gold coins.
When the i5 come out next month, it's gonna cause lots of confusion. Only 2 chips with the i5 moniker will be quad-cored. The rest, with the i3, are only dual-cored. It's gonna be tough to do a comparison with the P2.
it MAYBE confusing. but maybe not. i cant remeber how many chips are launching right off, but i thought intel was offering a line top to bottom from the start. 2 quads yes,but some of the duals will have smt which will make them preform like a tri-core(though windows will see them as a quad). if that works out, then they will be very competitive clock for clock and for the price.
note-http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Core-i3-i5-i7-Pri...">http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Core-i3-i5-i7-Pri...
When doing a price comparison, you always compare it to the product that is one level higher than you, not at same level or a level lower. If the product above you costs only a few dollars more, it makes sense to pony up the extra dollars to get a better product.
It's just like if you are looking to buy a Toyota, you'd never price compare it to a Chevy or Saturn. You would compare the Toyota to a Mercedes to see what the prioe difference is.
When I compare, I mainly compare because things are close. Close in budget, features, performance, style, etc. Then I add in things above and below after to widen my comparison to see if the main comparison range is a good choice.
That means, comparing Toyota Prius to Honda Hybrid. Adding a Tesla Roadster would be rather silly. Compare a Toyota Corolla to Honda Civic or VW Jetta. If I wasn't dead set on the performance level and wanted to see what happens if I wanted to be more conservative I'd throw in the Hyundai Elantra. I'll add Honda Fit if I wanted something hip. I'd add the BMW 3 series, Camry, or Accord if I wanted to see if I wanted something at a level higher.
q9550 is, as the article says, left in the dust for the same price.
and even 9650 which is far more expensive struggles.
So the question is whether i7 920 is a better deal or just waiting for i5.
I was thinking of just purchasing a PhII but since intel is releasing an i5, I'll first check if it's worth my money more than PhII.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
40 Comments
Back to Article
- Friday, August 14, 2009 - link
It's no doubt Intel spared no expense to claim the top gun prize over AMD with the hyper-i7's; but at what hyper-expense? In this economic environment Intel has got to be taking a beating with these expensive hyper-i7's, and in no way can they lower the price without an earnings beating. netbooks, low end comp's are further clipping at their margins. The game plan now , if they hope to show positive earnings, is to (do as they promised Microsoft) upgrade corporate comp's with their chips and Microsoft 7. Hence the i5's (I hear no hyper),a strip down affortable version of the i7's chocked full-o-features (WHAT no hyper?), reasonably priced for this ecconomic environment, I believe that's why the hush hush.I might add that this is all speculation on my part, but it's logical.
asH
ravaneli - Monday, August 17, 2009 - link
Buddy, you need a reality check. GO check the earning of the 2 companies. Intel is beating forecasts and making fat profits, in the billions actually, at the same time AMD is bleeding cash like crasy (by the billions as well). I7s sells great as it is also, and I don't see how that is going to change any time soon, and the only competition it will get will be released from Intel, and it will be appropriately priced.If you want to worry about someones margins - worry about AMD, because a few more quarters in the red and they will go belly up, and then you and I will pay double for Intel. Those chips AMD is designing were never designed to be sold so cheap, but due to their inferior performance they have no choice.
- Monday, August 17, 2009 - link
http://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ:INTC&fs...">http://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ:INTC&fs...http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=INTC">http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=INTC
ravaneli - Tuesday, August 18, 2009 - link
I see good to big in all quarters other the last, when the Europeans fined them 1.2 bln. Deduct that from expenses and u end up with a profit there too.Now lets see AMD's net income for the last few quarter from the same source. Hmmm. Red Red Red. It's a small company, how much longer do u think they can stay on red?
Do u really think that of the two companies Intel is the one in financial trouble? Amd is forced to sell their products with a significantly lower out-the-door price so they compensate for performance difference. Do u think they have the technology to produce them cheaper?
- Tuesday, August 18, 2009 - link
No dude quarterly earnings not financial problems.Intel is 50X the market cap of AMD and should never encounter any problems relative to AMD; but they do. Intel owns the CISC world, vendors bow down and kiss Intel's ring hand, they are the kings; but yet this little nothing of a company AMD is always in the conversation, as well as thought of as Intel's competition. Intel's CPU's use SSE4.1, AMD's dont, Intel has major software vendor support & optimization with SSE4.1, AMD does'nt (which should account for good part of these benchmark #'s, and probably why AMD has to market their CPU's towards multimedia and games. Yeah AMD has/are developing plugins for major programs like Photoshop to compensate for the extentions not included, as a stop gap measure.
below is the reordered benchmark test, in order of i7 965 vs Phenom BE-highest to lowest percentage.
The first column= benchmark test( Excel), l=low (low score is best),965vs920= percentage i7 965 over i7 920, i7 965=test score, 920=test score, 965vsPhn=% 965 vs Phn in test, 920vsPhn= %920 vs Pn, Pn= Phenom test score.
example:
first line- Excel= the benchmark test, .17=the test percentage of 965 vs 920, 12.7= i7 965 test score, 15.3= 920 test score, .466=i7 965 is 46.6% over Phenom's test result, .357= 920 is 35.7% over Phen test result, 32.8 = Phenom benchmark test score
Farcry (28%) and CS3 (28%) are optomized for SSE4.1
anyone know if Excel is optomized for Intel CPUs? Windows 7 is. How bout these other programs above 20%, are they optimized too, DivX6.8.5 ? howbout WinRAR?. Lets see that's Hyperthreading, 'perhaps' vendor optomized programs, and Turboboost .They covered all their bases to insure a healthy AMD (desktop)beat down. Intel cant lose.. or can they?
oh, and as for the 1.2 b, it wasnt enough if you ask me and it belongs as a line item.
6000 layoffs 4 plant closings , all hail the king
bench....hi/lo..965vs920...965.....920....965vsPhn%..920vsPn Phn
Excel l 0.170 12.7 15.3 0.466 0.357 23.8
x264HD h 0.155 31.6 26.7 0.358 0.240 20.3
POV-Ray h 0.160 4202 3528 0.356 0.233 2706
3dsmax 9 h 0.131 17.6 15.3 0.324 0.222 11.9
Blender l 0.125 47.8 54.6 0.312 0.214 69.5
Soren5 l 0.121 94.3 107.3 0.299 0.203 134.6
Sony l 0.151 168.2 198 0.293 0.168 238
CS3 l 0.138 15 17.4 0.289 0.175 21.1
Far Cry h 0.077 73.7 68 0.281 0.221 53
WinRAR l 0.074 77.9 84.1 0.263 0.204 105.7
CineMT h 0.138 18810 16211 0.255 0.136 14012
DataRec l 0.016 24.8 25.2 0.244 0.232 32.8
DivX685 l 0.178 32.3 39.3 0.240 0.075 42.5
SysPro h 0.081 234 215 0.175 0.102 193
Sys3D h 0.105 239 214 0.155 0.056 202
E Learn h 0.096 208 188 0.144 0.053 178
WinMedi l 0.172 24 29 0.143 -0.036 28
Sys 2007 h 0.101 238 214 0.139 0.042 205
CineB ST h 0.141 4475 3846 0.119 -0.025 3941
x264HD h 0.128 85.8 74.8 0.094 -0.039 77.7
SysVid h 0.126 277 242 0.076 -0.058 256
Crysis h 86.8 81.7 0.062 0.004 81.4
LeftDead h 0.061 127.5 119.7 0.011 -0.053 126.1
Fallout h 0.034 87 84 -0.008 -0.044 87.7
- Tuesday, August 18, 2009 - link
lost formatting-reformat to columns and rows in Excel.copy paste into Excel ->data->text to columns->delimited->space->finish
may have to adjust 5 rows
- Sunday, August 16, 2009 - link
i5's, no hyperthreading , and half the cache- someone's getting ripped off, even for that price.Model
Cores/ Threads Clock (GHz) Turbo-boost Cache (MB) QPI (GT/s)
Socket (LGA) Price ($) Price (£)
Core i7-975 4/8 3.33 Yes 8 6.4 1366 970 591
Core i7-960 4/8 3.20 Yes 8 4.8 1366 545 332
Core i7-950 4/8 3.06 Yes 8 4.8 1366 545 332
Core i7-920 4/8 2.66 Yes 8 4.8 1366 275 168
Core i7-870 4/8 2.93 Yes 8 TBD 1156 545 332
Core i7-860 4/8 2.80 Yes 8 TBD 1156 275 168
Core i5-750 4/4 2.66 Yes 4 TBD 1156 192 117
Core i5-670* 2/4 3.46 Yes 4 n/a 1156 275 168
Core i5-661 2/4 3.33 Yes 4 n/a 1156 192 117
Core i5-660* 2/4 3.33 Yes 4 n/a 1156 192 117
Core i5-650* 2/4 3.20 Yes 4 n/a 1156 172 105
Core i3-540 2/4 3.06 No 4 n/a 1156 139 85
Core i3-530 2/4 2.93 No 4 n/a 1156 119 73
- Friday, August 14, 2009 - link
It's no doubt Intel spared no expense to claim the top gun prize over AMD with the hyper-i7's; but at what hyper-expense? In this economic environment Intel has got to be taking a beating with these expensive hyper-i7's, and in no way can they lower the price without an earnings beating. netbooks, low end comp's are further clipping at their margins. The game plan now , if they hope to show positive earnings, is to (do as they promised Microsoft) upgrade corporate comp's with their chips and Microsoft 7. Hence the i5's (I hear no hyper),a strip down affortable version of the i7's chocked full-o-features (WHAT no hyper?), reasonably priced for this ecconomic environment, I believe that's why the hush hush.I might add that this is all speculation on my part, but it's logical.
JarredWalton - Saturday, August 15, 2009 - link
Of course, if we put things in perspective, i7 should be less expensive to manufacture than Phenom II - or at least the same price.Personally, I'm doing find with my Core 2 Quad systems from a couple years back. I have no real need to upgrade, and there doesn't appear to be much on the horizon to force my hand. Sure, 3D rendering and video encoding can benefit, but I don't do that stuff all that often.
grimpr - Friday, August 14, 2009 - link
Anand's reviews are very well written and clearly undestandable to the millions of non native english speakers that read this site, i believe that he certainly has a positive bias towards Intel and he shows this through clever use of words and phrases in his writings and by being "polite" to AMD teaching the "wrongs","donts" and showcasing the"faults", by doing this he transpires the mind of the average reader of whos is the real boss and thats Intel.Understandable, since Intel owns the Gaming/Enthusiast/Overclocking segment since some time and this site entertains this crowd.
Anand, why dont you try "teaching" in your own special subtle way, Intels faults and mistakes, like the buggy firmwares in SSD's, the ICH9R problems, the immense CPU rootkit and many many others that go silently unnoticed by the non geek crowd, instead of constantly "teaching" AMD its faults?
bh192012 - Friday, August 14, 2009 - link
Seems if you want a cheap setup AMD is good to go. If you need something that can do Crossfire/SLI in the future (which is the apples to apples comparison) then you are looking at the MSI combo for $354 or the MSI i7 at $450. Memory price isn't an issue at apples to apples either, you can use 2 stick dual channel in either.The question then becomes can the MSI i7 overclock enough over the MSI PII to justify it's costs (30% faster?), either with stock or aftermarket (whatever you're into.) Plus it depends on your thoughts on future upgrades, the i7 board probably will be upgradable longer, but I don't know that for sure. Plus the game of GPU bottlenecks and future game balance.
kg4icg - Friday, August 14, 2009 - link
Irony is, I can go to Microcenter right now and pick up a I7-920 for $199, there everyday price is $229. Plus there are some X58 boards in the $200 range for example the 1 I have which is a Gigabyte EX58-UD3R rev 1.6Nfarce - Friday, August 14, 2009 - link
"Irony is, I can go to Microcenter right now and pick up a I7-920 for $199, there everyday price is $229. Plus there are some X58 boards in the $200 range"Bingo. But that argument was brought up in another article here and AT did not mention that MicroCenter option because not everyone has access to one of their stores, and you can't mail order from them.
But it is interesting to read the fanboism here accusing AT of Intel bias. I'd rather spend $400-$450 on a system that will still rock for several years vs. some has-been technology for $300-$350. Anand clearly said that the AMD system was still a cheaper buy, but the AMD fantards were so narrow-visioned drooling and looking for bias they obviously missed his comment - which he came here and clarified above.
medi01 - Monday, August 17, 2009 - link
"System that will rock for several year"??? Huh? You are comparing two "competitive" systems, and one will "rock you for several years" while the other won't?And this, considering that upgrading Intel platform normally means new MB + CPU, often RAM, while with AMD you can stick to CPU only upgrade?
snakeoil - Friday, August 14, 2009 - link
anandtech is in intel's payroll.250 difference between phenom2 and core i7 setups and they say they still prefer intel.
annandtech thinks that their readers are stupid
tacoburrito - Friday, August 14, 2009 - link
If it is readers like you, then yes, they are stupid.You totally failed at reading comprehension.
strikeback03 - Friday, August 14, 2009 - link
The comments sections of these articles could really use a block function, so we can all ignore the trolls such as snakeoil and SiliconDoc.Anand Lal Shimpi - Friday, August 14, 2009 - link
The i7 is faster, the Phenom II is cheaper. As I mentioned above it's silly to try to build an entry-level i7 system at this point given what's just around the corner. Allow me to quote from my 965 review:"As a gaming CPU, it's actually competitive with the i7s."
"Overall application performance is very good from the 965's perspective. It's only in a handful of 3D or well threaded apps where we see the i7 really pull away. The 965 BE is competitive, just not faster."
"When it comes down to it, between the 965 BE and an i7 920, I still opt for the 920. The 965BE does have a lower total cost of ownership so the real question is how well does it stack up against the Lynnfield chips. "
And no, we're not in or on anyone's payroll :)
Take care,
Anand
Shadowmaster625 - Friday, August 14, 2009 - link
Ok kids lets do some simple math:AMD combo = $300
Intel combo = $450
Intel combo = AMD combo + $150
Intel combo = 50% more than AMD combo!!
Wow that is soooooooo difficult, my brain is fried.
Despite the price premium, what does anand say? "When it comes down to it, between the 965 BE and an i7 920, I still opt for the 920." Yeah and I think you need to put down the crack pipe man... How much is intel paying you?
Not only is the intel combo more expensive, but you also have to buy a third memory stick. For what? an extra 5% performance boost.
Anand Lal Shimpi - Friday, August 14, 2009 - link
Perhaps I should have qualified that statement. From a purely performance perspective and if I'm looking at the longevity of my build, the i7 920 is what I'd be shooting for. Obviously the AMD system is much lower priced, which is why I also said:"There's simply no way the i7 920 can compete with the cheapest Phenom II X4 965 BE configuration"
Not to mention that building an i7 920 today seems a bit silly, which I also mentioned:
"However, unless you had to buy today, I wouldn't worry too much about trying to build a cheap 920"
Take care,
Anand
turr - Friday, August 14, 2009 - link
Not to mention that building an i7 920 today seems a bit silly, which I also mentioned:"However, unless you had to buy today, I wouldn't worry too much about trying to build a cheap 920"
Mr Anand could you explain better this point. why is silly building a 920?
Thank you
cheapo - Friday, October 9, 2009 - link
if you call microcenter in texas they will ship without tax for $206 #1-713-940-8500 tell them your out of state took 3 days to recieve it was a DO stepping what a bargain . called 4 location before i got lucky with houstin branch.first build for me so i'am new
v12v12 - Friday, August 14, 2009 - link
Sigh... while shaking my head at these 2 dullards and their futile attempts to argue with logic and lack of reading comprehension skills—I would like to put a positive spin on this:Here we have 2 people, who are clearly in error in thought, but we also have the CEO of the website taking his own valuable time to reply. HOW OFTEN do you get that kind of reciprocation, even when it is CLEAR that both of them were being not only hostile and malicious, but down right rude. Even still, Anand replied: calmly, and in a civil manner.
This is an example of POSITIVE CUSTOMER RELATIONS, people! When THE BOSS even takes time to address this kind of trifle, it shows a good sign to me. Let this be a LESSON to all of you out there aspiring to be "somebody!" THIS is how you conduct yourself in the face of mindless-opposition. (I'm one to talk about conduct at times haha!)
Anyhow, thanks for the clarification Anand. ;-)
TGIF
MrSpadge - Friday, August 14, 2009 - link
Nicely said, mate!MrS
JarredWalton - Friday, August 14, 2009 - link
Let's also not forget the overclocking perspective. Sure, the X4 965 can hit 3.8GHz easily, and with a bit of tweaking you get about 3.95GHz (unless you don't run a 64-bit OS, in which case you might hit 4.2 GHz on air-cooling).At stock 2.66GHz speed, the i7-920 is generally faster than a 3.4GHz Phenom II 965. If we overclock the 965 16% to just under 4GHz and we overclock the i7-920 to 4GHz as well (a relatively easy task with the latest i7 steppings), the 50% boost in i7 performance is going to really separate the two systems.
Finally, comparing cost of systems you need to factor in the whole enchilada. It's $505 for the ASUS P6T + i7-920 compared to $413 for the ASUS M4A79T Deluxe + Phenom II 965. We do need to keep motherboard options relatively similar, after all, so both ASUS boards are good choices for their respective platforms. That's 22% more for the i7-920 platform, and we need to add in RAM.
3x2GB DDR3 = http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8...">$86, give or take
2x2GB DDR3 = http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8...">$71, plus or minus (Yes, you spend more per GB relatively speaking if you get 2x2GB DDR3 instead of 3x2GB DDR3.)
Now we're looking at $591 vs. $484, or still a 22% price premium (but with 50% more RAM) for the i7-920. Add in the rest of your typical computer setup for a decent midrange computer, however, and it's not quite so big a gap.
In our http://www.anandtech.com/guides/showdoc.aspx?i=361...">last midrange guide, the base midrange system used $750 for all the other components (outside CPU, mobo, and RAM) -- though $380 was for speakers, OS, keyboard/mouse, and LCD. Now we're looking at $1341 for a complete i7-920 setup vs. $1234 for a complete Phenom II 965 setup - a cost difference of 8.7%. Even if we drop the peripherals, we're still looking at $961 vs. $854, or a 12.5% difference. That's at the lower end of the midrange spectrum.
Bump to the http://www.anandtech.com/guides/showdoc.aspx?i=361...">high-end midrange systems and you'd kick the full system price to $1776 for i7-920 ($1946 for a CrossFire setup), compared to $1669 ($1839 for a CrossFire setup). That would be a difference of 6.4% or 5.8% with CrossFire.
Putting everything in perspective, then, it depends what you're after. For overclocking, I don't think anyone would try to make the argument that AMD can compete against the i7-920. If you're buying a completely new system right now, and you're looking at $1000 vs. $850 (roughly), it's a tougher call. I'm with Anand at that point and would go for the socket 1366 platform, but then I'd also be overclocking so maybe I'm not a good sample audience. For a complete higher-end setup, saving 5-7% while losing up to 30% performance (though you also gain a few percent in a couple tasks)? I'd definitely go with the i7-920.
You do need to keep your intended use in mind as well. If you never do 3D rendering (I don't), and you don't do a lot of video encoding, the gaming situation is essentially GPU limited on these systems. Elsewhere both systems are so fast that it just doesn't matter much. :-)
MODEL3 - Friday, August 14, 2009 - link
A little nitpicking regarding your comment:"Yes, you spend more per GB relatively speaking if you get 2x2GB DDR3 instead of 3x2GB DDR3"
This is not true in general!
You took a:
Crucial 4GB (2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1333 (PC3 10600) Dual Channel Kit Desktop Memory Model CT2KIT25664BA1339 - Retail at 71$
and you compared it with a:
PQI 6GB (3 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1333 Desktop Memory Model MFC46GUOE-X3 - Retail at 86$
If you compare it with the exact same 6GB Crucial kit:
Crucial 6GB (3 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1333 (PC3 10600) Triple Channel Kit Desktop Memory - Retail at 110$
You can see that the 6GB kit has higher price per module!
PQI is in general a lower priced brand in relation with Crucial!
Newegg doesn't have on stock right now 4GB PQI kits, but this doesn't play a role in general, because maybe they had stock before 1 week or maybe they will have stock in a week from now!
Also maybe Newegg is trying to press QPI to lower their price, or QPI didn't have stock at the time!
Generally, although the memory kit manufacturer can give -1/2$ discount for the 3 module kit in relation with a 2 module kit (if the 2 module kit cost 70$, instead of costing 105$ the 3 module kit can go to 103$)
the reality is, that the 2 module kits are for big volume market, with a lot of competition so the price is more compressed (the market and the kind of people that buys 3 module kits are not going to care much for 4-5$ price cuts)
Of cource if the manufacturer made a bad forecast regarding production/sales ratio, and has much stock on 3 module kits,
or if some competitor made this mistake and lowered the price in the market, then it can sell with lower price per module, the 3 module kits in relation with the 2 module kits!
The same can be applied on the e-tailer level (it is possible to make a bad forecast, so they have to lower the price for the 3 module kits in order to make them more attractive to the customer and clear their bad stock!)
But all the above are artificial!
The memory can have wild price differencies depending on many factors!
In general when a product is aiming for higher-end systems (like 3 module kits) the profit is higher relative with products aiming for mainstream! (like 2 module kits)!
I meant no disrespect in any way, i just disagree with your comment!
JarredWalton - Friday, August 14, 2009 - link
If you want to get technical, yes, the 3x2GB Crucial kit goes for (slightly) more money. As we've shown in our http://www.anandtech.com/memory/showdoc.aspx?i=358...">memory articles, brand really isn't a factor. Most of these are using identical RAM chips, so I just chose to grab the least expensive kits off Newegg. If you shop around, you can find 2x2GB DDR3-1333 kits for less money than at Newegg, and the same goes for 3x2GB kits. Personally, I have no problem with using PQI memory, provided you're not looking to overclock it.steelicon - Friday, August 14, 2009 - link
Amen. Well said. Now to find out if any AMD PII X4 is compatible with AsuS Crosshair NV590-SLI AM2. Anyone willing to test or have tested? :-)mmpalmeira - Friday, August 14, 2009 - link
My PII X3 720 was compatible with a M2N32-SLI (NV590). It will probably work as an unknow CPU but will work.steelicon - Saturday, August 15, 2009 - link
mmpalmeira : Thanks for the heads-up man! Prolly will try first with a Phenom II X4 945, with 95W TDP, noting that your M2N32-SLI (NV590)was compatible with the Phenom II X3 720 then inch up from there when possible.Thanks much!
gaiden2k7 - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link
I noticed beginning of the article stated that PII x4 965 is more competitive to C2Q 9550/9650 so I was wondering why i7's combo prices were compared to instead of the C2Q's? Q9550 for instance, is $219 on 'egg if you pair it with a P45 (with BioStar) you can get the job done with $312. Bump it up to $365 if you want a x48 chipset (ASUS). or even a 790i at $375 if that's your cup of tea. I honestly don't think that if you try to stay away from putting Q9550 price against 965 would defeat the point of the article. AMD has newer, (and I would also say) better chipset. also their price drops faster (e.g. 955 now $199) than Intel which is certainly a plus for me if not all chip consumers. So I would say, even compared to competitive pricing from Q9550, PII 965 takes the cake with more to offer.Anand Lal Shimpi - Friday, August 14, 2009 - link
I didn't make the Q9550 comparison because it seemed to be the obvious and unnecessary one. Motherboard prices are roughly the same for LGA-775 and AM2+/AM3 and we know what the CPU prices are.The 920 is the next logical step up - the question is then how much does it cost to get to the i7. The answer? Still looks like a lot, relatively speaking.
Take care,
Anand
lopri - Friday, August 14, 2009 - link
Anand doesn't see anything wrong with it.philosofool - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link
Yeah, look at it this way: if we're hearing the truth about Core i5 750, that's going to cost $325, or $15 more than the least expensive 965 BE rig. What does $15 get you? Well, we don't know for sure yet, but early rumors suggest that it gets you very nearly i7 920 performance. AMD isn't really competing in the high-end market right now for people in the market for a whole new computer.On the other hand, if you already have a board that supports Phenom II x4, this processor is a much more senisble upgrade than a switch to intel, unless you're rolling around in a bucket of gold coins.
tacoburrito - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link
When the i5 come out next month, it's gonna cause lots of confusion. Only 2 chips with the i5 moniker will be quad-cored. The rest, with the i3, are only dual-cored. It's gonna be tough to do a comparison with the P2.rnssr71 - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link
it MAYBE confusing. but maybe not. i cant remeber how many chips are launching right off, but i thought intel was offering a line top to bottom from the start. 2 quads yes,but some of the duals will have smt which will make them preform like a tri-core(though windows will see them as a quad). if that works out, then they will be very competitive clock for clock and for the price.note-http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Core-i3-i5-i7-Pri...">http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Core-i3-i5-i7-Pri...
tacoburrito - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link
When doing a price comparison, you always compare it to the product that is one level higher than you, not at same level or a level lower. If the product above you costs only a few dollars more, it makes sense to pony up the extra dollars to get a better product.It's just like if you are looking to buy a Toyota, you'd never price compare it to a Chevy or Saturn. You would compare the Toyota to a Mercedes to see what the prioe difference is.
Varaxis - Thursday, August 20, 2009 - link
I love falling for the trolls...When I compare, I mainly compare because things are close. Close in budget, features, performance, style, etc. Then I add in things above and below after to widen my comparison to see if the main comparison range is a good choice.
That means, comparing Toyota Prius to Honda Hybrid. Adding a Tesla Roadster would be rather silly. Compare a Toyota Corolla to Honda Civic or VW Jetta. If I wasn't dead set on the performance level and wanted to see what happens if I wanted to be more conservative I'd throw in the Hyundai Elantra. I'll add Honda Fit if I wanted something hip. I'd add the BMW 3 series, Camry, or Accord if I wanted to see if I wanted something at a level higher.
ZoZo - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link
So... you don't find useful to compare prices of similar products, to know which one is the better deal?wifiwolf - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link
q9550 is, as the article says, left in the dust for the same price.and even 9650 which is far more expensive struggles.
So the question is whether i7 920 is a better deal or just waiting for i5.
I was thinking of just purchasing a PhII but since intel is releasing an i5, I'll first check if it's worth my money more than PhII.