Core i7-975 Extreme Details
The Core i7 vital stats you already know apply here, just as they have since the architecture launched last year. Manufactured on Intel’s now-mature 45nm process, a single Core i7 die populates 263 square millimeters.
Natively quad-core in that the processor doesn’t consist of two dual-core die on a single multi-chip module (like Core 2 Quad), Core i7 also includes Hyper-Threading technology. The result is a micro-architecture with four physical execution cores able to concurrently work on eight threads. As a result of the efforts expended by software developers to better-optimize relevant code for parallelism, this results in a performance win more often now than it did back when Hyper-Threading first emerged in the Pentium 4 days.
Cache sizes remain the same (32 KB L1 I/32 KB L1 D and 256 KB L2 per core, plus 8 MB shared L3), and the integrated triple-channel memory controller is still officially limited to DDR3-1066. But of course, as we’ve discovered, retail CPUs support the multipliers necessary to reach as far as DDR3-2133. We have heard from one memory vendor that the controller itself has been improved, but without any additional information from Intel regarding how it might have been tweaked, we can’t confirm those rumors at this time. We can say that DDR3-2133 is now within reach, though it takes some serious tuning to stabilize at that data rate.
As with the i7-965 Extreme, the 975 boasts a 6.4 GT/s QPI link, while the i7-950 employs a 4.8 GT/s link. Of course, if you’re running a retail processor (and not an engineering sample, like the one used in our original Core i7 launch coverage), you should be able to manually tune QPI speed up to 6.4 GT/s in your motherboard’s BIOS.
| Core i7-975 Extreme | Core i7-965 Extreme | Core i7-950 | Core 2 Extreme QX9770 | Phenom II X4 955 BE | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Core | Bloomfield | Bloomfield | Bloomfield | Yorkfield XE | Deneb |
| Manufacturing Process | 45 nm | 45 nm | 45 nm | 45 nm | 45 nm |
| Frequency | 3.33 GHz | 3.2 GHz | 3.06 GHz | 3.2 GHz | 3.2 GHz |
| L1 Cache (I / D) | 32 KB / 32 KB | 32 KB / 32 KB | 32 KB / 32 KB | 32 KB / 32 KB | 64 KB / 64 KB |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB/Core | 256 KB/Core | 256 KB/Core | 6 MB/Two Cores (12 MB total) | 512 KB/Core |
| L3 Cache | 8 MB Shared | 8 MB Shared | 8 MB Shared | N/A | 6 MB Shared |
| TDP (W) | 130W | 130W | 130W | 136W | 125W |
| QPI/HT/FSB | 6,400 MT/s | 6,400 MT/s | 4,800 MT/s | 1,600 MT/s | 4,000 MT/s |
| Price | $999 | $999 | $562 | No longer listed | $245 |
We asked Intel about the i7-975's Turbo bin configuration and were told that it is exactly the same as the i7-965 before it. That is to say, when 1, 2, 3, or 4 cores are active, you get 2, 1, 1, and 1 available bin (a bin being 133 MHz). Curious as to how much time our 975 Extreme would spend at 3.6 GHz, we ran a single thread of Prime95 to tax an individual core. Interestingly enough, you spend a lot of time waiting for that 27x multiplier to kick in (up from 25x), and it doesn't last very long. You see, there's always something else going on in the background, and if there isn't a significant load being applied to at least one thread, SpeedStep is throttling you back the other way. Expect most of your load time to be spent at 3.46 GHz with Turbo mode enabled. Otherwise, turn the feature off completely and overclock manually.
As a result, we have to wonder how much benefit upcoming architectures will see from Turbo with a single core active.
"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.
"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.
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!
"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!
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.
@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.
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
eh can someone tell me wat is aa and af and how to turn them on
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 !!
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.
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!!
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.
Motherboards and RAM would significantly add to that difference.
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..
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.
Which particular model(s) did you purchase?
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.
core i7 are expensive and not necessary.AMD platforms are the best cheap and fast enough