Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Conclusion

Intel Core i7-975 Extreme And i7-950 Reviewed
By

If you spend enough time in our comments section, then you’re probably under the impression that AMD currently holds the performance crown and can do no wrong. I get it; AMD is the underdog and it’s hip to applaud competition. I'm certainly in favor of faster hardware, lower prices, and fair capitalism; those things benefit us all.

But don’t let the fanboys fool you—Intel’s Core i7 is the fastest CPU out there, which is why, even after giving our readers a chance to weigh in and guide the direction of our System Builder Marathon series, two of the three builds ended up based on Core i7-920 CPUs. The processor tears up our A/V and productivity tests. Plus it competes well-enough in gaming environments to trade blows with the competing Phenom II and older Core 2 architectures.

It’d seem to be all good news, then, that Intel is launching the Core i7-975 Extreme and Core i7-950, running at 3.33 GHz and 3.06 GHz respectively, at the same prices the company was asking for its Core i7-965 Extreme and i7-940, right? After all, you’re getting 133 MHz  in both cases without spending a penny more than you would have otherwise.

For the folks who buy tier-one boxes and have no interest in touching their nuts and bolts, the appeal of these new chips is clear. But that isn’t me, and it’s probably not you either. There’s a reason we keep revisiting the Core i7-920. Despite its 2.66 GHz stock clock (and the fact that everyone’s overclocking experience is going to differ), we haven’t seen a single sample that had a problem exceeding the speed of Intel’s thousand-dollar flagship, plus some.

I don’t have any problem recommending Core i7 over Phenom II right now—even if it costs an extra $100 (this was my conclusion back when AMD launched the X4 955, and it hasn’t changed). But that recommendation only extends as far as the Core i7-920. At $562 and $999, the 950 and 975 Extreme launching today don’t warrant the step up if you’re an enthusiast undeterred by the thought of Bclk-based overclocking.

Kudos to Intel for raising the bar and enabling extra performance, even when both of the products being replaced were uncontested. But we’ll leave those premium bins to the folks who don’t mind spending extra money on peace of mind. At least for the time being, and given the frequencies we already hit with it, the i7-920 is too sweet a deal to ignore at $280.

Display all 18 comments.
  • 0 Hide
    mi1ez , 3 June 2009 16:06
    "If you spend enough time in our comments section, then you’re probably under the impression that AMD currently holds the performance crown and can do no wrong. I get it; AMD is the underdog and it’s hip to applaud competition. I'm certainly in favor of faster hardware, lower prices, and fair capitalism; those things benefit us all.

    But don’t let the fanboys fool you—Intel’s Core i7 is the fastest CPU out there, which is why, even after giving our readers a chance to weigh in and guide the direction of our System Builder Marathon series, two of the three builds ended up based on Core i7-920 CPUs."

    What comments sections have you been reading?! Everything I've read give pretty much even credit to Intel and AMD.
  • 0 Hide
    mi1ez , 3 June 2009 16:08
    "I don’t have any problem recommending Core i7 over Phenom II right now—even if it costs an extra $100"

    And you bemoan the AMD fanboys?

    It's a question of the situation you find yourself in.
  • 0 Hide
    LePhuronn , 3 June 2009 22:03
    I'm still waiting for the review that explicitly states the advantage running QPI at 6.4GT/s has over 4.2GT/s - that's the only thing in my mind about the worth of an EE over a standard chip.

    If a faster QPI has real-world benefits then there's still a reason to consider an EE, even though (unlocked multipliers or not) the silicon seems unable in most cases to go much past 4.2GHz (hence the 920 dumping over everything other i7).

    With all the talk about the 920 being phased out, I'd like to see some 950-based overclocking to see if she can do the same - Intel can dump the cheaper chips to maintain the EE's supposed dominance, but if a 950 can do what the 920 did then it's an exercise in futility.

    Looks like I better get my 920 now before they vanish!
  • 0 Hide
    LePhuronn , 3 June 2009 22:05
    "Of course, if you’re running a retail processor...you should be able to manually tune QPI speed up to 6.4 GT/s in your motherboard’s BIOS"

    You can do that? Is there any reason to get an EE at all then? The 920 can outclock the 965 and 975 and the QPI can bump up to EE levels in the BIOS all for about a grand less!
  • 2 Hide
    papalarge123 , 4 June 2009 04:55
    from what i have seen in all of the benchies from the past 6+ months, is that if u have an overclocked Core 2 Quad @ 3.6+, and u are mainly using the system for gaming, then i can not see the reason to upgrade to the i7 at this precise moment.

    i agree that if u r due an upgrade from an old x2 on an obsolete 939 board or an intel 775 board that doesnt support quads, then the i7 is a tasty bit of kit, but if u have an am2+ board or even an intel board that can take the latest quads in the core 2 range and mainly play games, then the i7 is a waste of money no matter how cheap and powerfull the lowest 920 is.
  • 0 Hide
    LePhuronn , 4 June 2009 05:12
    @papalarge123:

    There's more to PCs than gaming, and that's where the attractiveness of the i7 is right now. Yes, if you're gaming then no need to spend the money, although I'd like to see some comparisons between a C2Q and i7 running quad-aware games like GTAIV.

    Media and production-wise the i7 will pound anything. A colleague of mine just built a 920 OCed to 3.8GHz with 12GB RAM and a Quadro CX and DEAR GOD Adobe CS4 runs like a wet dream.
  • 0 Hide
    jwoollis , 4 June 2009 15:54
    Please publish the exact details on how to overclock each CPU on any available motherboard so that we can attempt to replicate these tests for ourselves
  • -1 Hide
    Anonymous , 4 June 2009 17:56
    eh can someone tell me wat is aa and af and how to turn them on
  • 1 Hide
    Reynod , 5 June 2009 17:48
    You can't spin this anyway other than down.

    It is a hugely overpriced and underperforming dog of a chip that has to be cooked a few millivolts higher just to run under load.

    It runs hotter (at idle and under load), and actually performs less than a 965 under most benchmarks.

    Why ??

    I think it is lower quality silicon that has been repackaged so that Intel can extract the maximum bang for the buck - it might be D0 but it is certainly not the best silicon ... or it would run at comparable or lower voltage than the 965.

    A wise purchase for an gamer would be to get a core2quad or phenom II, or possibly an i7920 and overclock them.

    Only an idiot would buy a 975.

    Check the other reviews.

    Obviously i7 does not scale as well as core2 or Phenom II ... certainly the case for gaming.

    130 Watts my ar$e ... more like 140 Watts.

    Shame on you Spintel for thinking you can rip us off !!

  • 0 Hide
    Anonymous , 5 June 2009 23:29
    Surely if you're testing CPU's for gaming you want the most powerful graphics card possible, so as to avoid the very graphics bottlenecks that show up in your games tests. I appreciate a 4870 X2 probably would have handed an advantage to the i7's, but anyone who is buying an "extreme" processor probably isn't short of money to burn.
  • 0 Hide
    Anonymous , 6 June 2009 20:48
    WTF Over at Firingsquad the Core I7 smokes all CPU's in FarCry2...but over here it loses? Who the hell buys a $1000 CPU and pairs it with a Nvidia Geforce 260? Come on use it with at least the 295!!
  • 0 Hide
    wild9 , 10 June 2009 06:42
    My God, look at the price differences between the i7 and Phenom II..the i7 may have a comfortable lead in core performance but value?? Hmm.
  • 0 Hide
    wild9 , 10 June 2009 07:13
    Quote:
    Then again, consider that the cheapest Intel chip represented here, the i7-920, is still $30 more expensive than AMD’s flagship.


    Motherboards and RAM would significantly add to that difference.
  • 0 Hide
    wild9 , 10 June 2009 07:40
    For buying new that i-720 looks very attractive (yep, I commended Intel!). But do most people want to spend that much?

    This is the difference between AMD and Intel; you need a whole new board, new memory just to run the i7, so the initial outlay is misleading. Conversely, if you're sitting there with a dual-core AMD and want some more punch then you just update your BIOS, drop the Phenom II in and away you go. The case against the i7 becomes even stronger when one considers that most people just use their machines for basic tasks. Most of the clients I build PC's for want upgrades or low-cost/high-performance HTPC systems. They just won't pay for the overheads associated with going the i7 route..
  • 0 Hide
    AGTDenton , 12 June 2009 18:30
    I made the biggest mistake buying into the Phenoms. Wish I could turn back the clock. I've had 3 so far and each one has been a dissappointment. Wont be buying another Phenom and wont be buying another AMD based system for an extremely long time, they have really P'd me off. The Spider and Dragon platforms are a waste of time.
  • 0 Hide
    wild9 , 12 June 2009 22:12
    Which particular model(s) did you purchase?
  • 0 Hide
    Anonymous , 26 June 2009 21:50
    I cannot believe someone can buy 3 Phenons, seriously you need to step back here and stop expecting 12 months of processor progress to deliver a totally new experience. Its the same with graphics cards too, just because a card is 20% faster doesn't mean that its worth scrapping your old one just to get it, you'll be hard pressed most days just to notice that level of performance.

    Got to admit I seem to be a bit of a AMD fanboi these days, although even then I'm amazed by the performance of the I7 for productivity stuff, Intel do have a scary lead there. In games though I'd just not bother with it (only Everquest2 I know of uses the CPU heavily and even that is changing) since a good graphics card makes way more difference. Hence I'm picking a PhenonII 955 (actually overkill, but what the heck), a stop gap 4870 graphics card (until DX11 comes out) and going to sit back and enjoy.
  • 0 Hide
    krenar41 , 4 December 2009 22:11
    core i7 are expensive and not necessary.AMD platforms are the best cheap and fast enough
React To This Article