Advertisment
Advertisment
Promo

Intel Core i7 CPU tested

To put the Core i7-965 Extreme Edition in perspective, we compared it with the year-old Core 2 Extreme QX9650. The Core i7 boasts a faster clock speed and an L3 cache shared by the four cores that's four times larger than that of the older chip. With the integrated RAM controller on Core i7 replacing the need for a front side bus, the platforms are quite different from each other, so the specs don't tell the whole story. The performance results speak more clearly.

 

Multimedia multitasking test (in seconds)
(Shorter bars indicate better performance)
Intel Core i7-965 Extreme Edition
95 
Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9650
109 

Apple iTunes encoding test (in seconds)
(Shorter bars indicate better performance)
Intel Core i7-965 Extreme Edition
117 
Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9650
122 

Adobe Photoshop CS3 test (in seconds)
(Shorter bars indicate better performance)
Intel Core i7-965 Extreme Edition
74 
Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9650
84 

CineBench 10
(Longer bars indicate faster performance)
Rendering multiple CPUs  
Rendering single CPU  
Intel Core i7-965 Extreme Edition
19,434 
4,443 
Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9650
13,192 
3,707 

CPU-limited Far Cry 2
(1,024x768, low-quality, no AA/AF)
Intel Core i7-965 Extreme Edition
176 
Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9650
154 

Power consumption (in watts)
(Shorter bars indicate faster performance)
Load  
Idle  
Intel Core i7-965 Extreme Edition
328 
201 
Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9650
335 
201 

The Core i7 chip is faster than the QX9650 on every test, but we were most impressed by the CineBench multicore test and the Far Cry 2 benchmark, where Intel's new CPU established a sizable performance advantage. Gamers and digital-media editors may well have assumed that Core i7 is worth their attention. As we can see from our testing, any such assumption is clearly justified.

We should add that the Core 2 Extreme QX9650 was actually surpassed earlier by the Core 2 Extreme QX9770, a £1,000 CPU that uses Intel's X48 chipset. Time constraints prevented us from testing that CPU as well, but based on early results from PC World Greece (via Engadget), it appears that Core i7 trounces that chip as well.

Power consumption

You'll note from our power-consumption tests that the Core i7 consumes almost the exact same amount of energy both at idle and while under load. We didn't expect major gains here, as each chip uses the same 45-nanometer process, runs at a similar clock speed, and with roughly the same number of transistors.

Typically Intel gains power efficiency with chips introduced in a 'tock' year, which involves a more efficient design of the chips from a 'tick' year such as these. The Core i7-965 Extreme may have improved its relative power usage, in that it uses fewer transistors to do more work and at faster clock speeds than the older Core 2 Extreme chips. But anyone building a system with this new processor should expect to need an equivalently beefy power supply, especially if you intend to add multiple graphics cards and hard drives.

Source: Intel Core i7-965 Extreme Edition review on CNET.com

Anonymous User Avatar

Your email address must be entered but will not be displayed

Copy the letters and numbers to prove you're a human being. If you can't read this image, get another one. If you don't want to do this each time, register.

Random characters

All submitted content becomes the sole property of CBS Interactive and may be used, edited or rejected at CBS Interactive's sole discretion. You acknowledge that you, not CBS Interactive, are responsible for the contents of your submission. -- see Terms of Use