Jump to content


 


Register a free account to unlock additional features at BleepingComputer.com
Welcome to BleepingComputer, a free community where people like yourself come together to discuss and learn how to use their computers. Using the site is easy and fun. As a guest, you can browse and view the various discussions in the forums, but can not create a new topic or reply to an existing one unless you are logged in. Other benefits of registering an account are subscribing to topics and forums, creating a blog, and having no ads shown anywhere on the site.


Click here to Register a free account now! or read our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Photo

Intel Core i7 vs. Core 2 Quad vs. Core 2 Duo


  • Please log in to reply
5 replies to this topic

#1 bryguy894

bryguy894

  • Members
  • 9 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:09:33 PM

Posted 17 June 2009 - 07:55 PM

:flowers: I'm getting ready to pick parts and build a PC, so I've done a lot of researching over the last couple of days and learned a few of the basic differences between these guys. I'm no pro, so I wanted to get everyone else's opinions on these three processors. I'm an Intel fan so I'm not worried about how they rank against the Phenom, etc.

Correct me if I'm wrong: The Duo will overclock better, pound for pound, than the Quad, but the Quad has the extra threading (useful in vista and up, right?)...then the i7 is just godmode...over 4GHz when overclocked...

How soon do you think price will drop for the i7?
What impacts will come with the i5?
Do you think AMD's competition will force a price drop in the next couple months? I know they have a new 6 core "Istanbul"

Anyhow, after all the threads I've read regarding comparisons of Intel's leading processors, I always seem to come across mixed opinions. I know that the type of usage you plan on matters, but it's still a bit clouded.

Share your thoughts :thumbsup:

BC AdBot (Login to Remove)

 


#2 fairjoeblue

fairjoeblue

  • Members
  • 1,594 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA
  • Local time:11:33 PM

Posted 18 June 2009 - 12:27 AM

From what I have read the "i5" will be a "budget" version of the i7.
Basically a "Celeron" wit5hout the stigma of the actual Celeron name.


As for all the "cores" , CPU's are getting like early 1900's airplanes.
If 1 wing is good, 2 must be better & 10 must be GREAT !

The fact is , the hardware manufacturers are LIGHT YEARS ahead of the software manufacturers.
As it is not many programs are encoded to take full advantage of 2 cores , let alone 4 or more.

With all of that being said,

If I were going to build a new unit, & didn't intend to run XP I would go for the highest end i7 I could afford.

BTW, I personally think it's going to be awhile before there is any real noticable drop in i7 prices.

The reason I would go i7 is Windows 7 should be out shortly & I'd want maximum horse power to run it [if I were going to use it]

[When XP dies I will switch to Linux full time.
MS has become WAY too intrusive for me.
I don't want a OS that constantly monitors my use & "phones home" regularly.
I Don't need a MS nanny]

Edited by fairjoeblue, 18 June 2009 - 07:29 AM.

OCZ StealthXstream 700W,Gigabyte GA-EP45-UD3R , E8500, Arctic Freezer Pro 7, 3GB G.Skill PC8500,Gigabyte Radeon HD 4850 OC [1GB ], Seagate 250GB SATA II X2 in RAID 0, Samsung SATA DVD burner.

#3 starcraftmaster

starcraftmaster

  • Members
  • 1,109 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:australia
  • Local time:03:33 PM

Posted 18 June 2009 - 12:48 AM

[When XP dies I will switch to Linux full time.
MS has become WAY too intrusive for me.
I don't want a OS that constantly monitors my use & "phones home" regularly.
I Don't need a NS nanny]


yer i am gonna do the same mabye
boot daul booting
win 9x ubuntu and xp :thumbsup: hope i will do it soon

any way what are you gonna use the comp for ????

#4 bryguy894

bryguy894
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 9 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:09:33 PM

Posted 18 June 2009 - 04:13 AM

hmm i guess you could say gaming. i dont think im ready to overclock (its my first self-build) but I want to do the best I can with a $1000 budget...which is why im on the fence about processors. cyberpower.com had some good looking builds with the i7 but ive heard some shady things about them- and i want to do this myself anyhow. just using them as a price gauge.

#5 dpunisher

dpunisher

  • BC Advisor
  • 2,234 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South TX
  • Local time:11:33 PM

Posted 18 June 2009 - 06:01 AM

If you are going for a pure gaming rig, it might be worthwhile to wait for the i5/Lynnfield to hit the market. They match almost clock for clock with i7s in benchmarks (gaming), even beating i7s at times. The turbo mode has been ramped up (I think up to 3 bins) and the PCI-E controller is built into the CPU. Anand did a very good writeup on it. Only drawback of i5s is that there are no big CPU changes planned like the i7 platform (6 cores etc). Not much concern to mainstream users.

Socket 775 is dead. Core 2 was (still is actually) a great CPU series but time marches on.

I am a retired Ford tech. Next to Fords, any computer is a piece of cake. (The cake, its not a lie)

3770K @4.5, Corsair H100, GTX780, 16gig Samsung, Obsidian 700 (yes there is a 700)


#6 Dev Mgr

Dev Mgr

  • Members
  • 24 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:11:33 PM

Posted 18 June 2009 - 10:54 AM

My XP x64 system has a Q9650 and uses all 4 cores just fine when converting DVDs to mkv files using Handbrake. It performs more than twice as fast than my Vista64 system that has an E8400 (basically half the Q9650).

I'm not sure why Vista would be better capable of using multiple cores than XP. Maybe the OS itself is multithreaded where XP may not be, but the OS is generally only a small part of the processor's load (after the system has finished booting and compared to the real applications you'll be running).




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users