Intel BX80601920 Core i7-920 2.66GHz CPU

Free shipping on $100 [Exp 12/15]

Amazon Intel Dual Core E5200 Wolfdale 2.5GHz CPU $43 Discuss (3)

Newegg ASUS M4A785TD-M ATX AMD Motherboard $70 Discuss (1)

Newegg AMD Athlon II X2 2.9GHz Socket AM3 + Motherboard $123 Discuss (1)

Newegg MSI X58M Micro ATX Intel Motherboard $140 Discuss (1)

BTW Toms HW has a review of core2 boards for less than $100, if you want to build something in the meantime.

#16

What exactly did a you benchmark? A game?

I doubt that would have even affected 4 cores barely.

The 920 is the sweet spot for price vs. performance.

If you call cinebench a useful tool then this is actually a good processor. Thus far, I am very unconvinced with how "amazing" this processor is.

#11, HT is useful for some scenarios. My old single core P4 work machine had HT enabled. When some single threaded app tried to hog the CPU the machine would still be responsive due to HT. I agree that for performance benchmarks HT sucked.

besides bragging rights, who is actually buying this? For the money (cpu, mobo, ram, and maybe a new psu), I would think for gaming, folks should be getting a 280gtx or 4870x2 with a 24+" lcd instead.

8 threads is overkill for most people. I've only seen practical benefits from a quad core when I run 4 cpu-intensive single-threaded programs at once for work reasons, which is rare. Many processor intensive apps are also memory and hard drive intensive as well, which more cores can't help. For home/leisure reasons, I am happy with an E8400, which wastes less power.

Well #16 it is not all processor, you have to look at everything on the board and the software being used. The whole suck experince could be do to many things.

Gateway has a gaming machine built on this thing that was $1250, although I have a feeling you will be able to get it much cheaper over the next few days. Review at www.computershopper.com says these things kick major a$$

No a bad deal, but I am going to wait until I can get the i7 965.

Intel Core i7 965 3.2GHz LGA 1366 Socket 8MB Cache CPU 6.4GT/Sec Soket LGA 1366.

Just my 2 cents.

Is it worth?

I'm just glad these things are starting to drop. Maybe next spring/summer will bring it (along with memory/mobo) down to a more affordable price.

Still, if you had the money to build a new machine, why not just go with the i7?

#22 I used INTEL's binaries called linpack provided by INTEL which is designed to measure the CPU and memory performance.. Now please come back and make some smart comments on above..

The processor is great when it comes to performance.. but that is without HT enabled.. I agree that if the OS/apps can make use of HT it is worth it..

Completely new design/generation of i86 processor, Intel goes "tick-tock" with their upgrades and this was a "tock". However, this price is about the same as the 1,000 unit price that this proc was released at (which was ridiculously low), if you don't factor in the PayPal additional discount. There are two higher-end processors in the initial release line, but this one runs rings around the 9550, the current generation Intel processor closest in price.

Running multiple threads in a single core is like running multiple processes on a single core. The only difference is that they shares the same adddress space. This can help speed things up a bit.

It is NOT the same as having double the cores.

Oink

#33

I believe HT is best in multi-tasking environment. Not in multi-threaded single programs that demands maximum performance from all the cores thus probably slowing down the overall performance of the CPU due to simultaneous use of shared execution units.

Now if you were running multiple programs that would not be using all the execution units (for example multiple cpu-intensive programs getting swapped around), then you would get the performance boost of maintaining the maximum load on the execution units.

The numbers I heard when Intel released HT for the original P4 was that only a 1/3rd of the computational resources were being utilized. In the LINPACK benchmark case I'm betting that a significantly large portion of the CPU's resources are being utilized thus adding performances as the CPU tries to switch between the logical and real cores. However most programs are compiled as well as Intel's and will not use most of the execution units.

That is the case I"m trying make for HT being a useful feature. Its not the best in all situations but I'm betting its good for MOST.

@ HT comments - I had the pleasure of going to a seminar of Intel's about the original P4 HyperThreading. They provided us with some real-time benchmarks that simply cannot be refuted, especially by anyone trying to say that HT provides no benefit.

Now, as a computer service technician, I can vouch for HT causing interference with certain applications and causing a net loss of performance, but the for all of the 99% rest of our other clients it was not an issue.

HyperThreading increases the efficiency of the process core, resulting in faster processing. I hope that the previous comments about HT do not deter anyone from purchasing one of the new core i7 processors now or in the future. The technology has improved greatly over the last 7 years since the introduction of HyperThreading, and all of the review sites have nothing but outstanding performance results of these little champs.

To post comments, please Sign In or Register.       Forgot Password?

Registration takes seconds! Once registered you'll have members only access to a Favorites bookmark list, a fully customizable User Profile, and the ability to instantly add your thoughts to each discussion topic.