ccokeman Posted November 6, 2008 Posted November 6, 2008 It depends on the benchmark you want to use for the comparison! At stock clocks the results are close on the gaming because of a lack of multithreaded games. I'll try and post cinebench numbers at at 3.9 so you can compare the I7 to that. A pure CPU benchmark that is multithreaded. Hang tight Heres Cinbench run at 4.0GHZ It took 1 minute to complete vs. 47 seconds with the I7 at 3.97. Almost a 25% improvement with the processors clocked almost identically. The 9770 4 GB of memory at 480 5-5-5-12 The I7 3gb of memory at 753MHz 9-8-8-20 . The I7 is quicker with less and slower cache. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Compxpert Posted November 6, 2008 Posted November 6, 2008 Idk if anyone has posted or said it yet... Its in news section but says nov 17/18... Its confirmed for the 17th.... http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/arti...lem_nov_17.html Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fogel Posted November 6, 2008 Posted November 6, 2008 To make the gaming comparison even the 9770,9450 and 8400 were re tested with an HD4850. I made a mistake and linked to the wrong card. It happens sometimes. Just to clarify all results from all of the shown processors were run with the HD4850. Right on - I should have guessed by looking at the numbers. Any idea when AMD releases their new architecture? ('09 Q1, Q2, etc. is fine - I can deal with a rough estimate) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccokeman Posted November 7, 2008 Posted November 7, 2008 Not sure yet. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
airman Posted November 7, 2008 Posted November 7, 2008 what, no superpi benchmarks? excellent review otherwise =D Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
r3d c0m3t Posted November 8, 2008 Posted November 8, 2008 I'm curious in knowing what made Intel return to Presler numbering schemes, and if such a thing is to continue. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhenKittensATK Posted November 8, 2008 Posted November 8, 2008 (edited) Found a benchmark chart of encoding 2.5 hr movie with x264 http://www.techarp.com/x264_Benchmark/sd/results.htm My weak X2 3800+ @ 2.5 ghz is rated around 5h encoding time (matter of fact transcoding one right now. passed 3 hours already and still not done), while the Quad Core Xenons and Extremes are near the top @ 1hr - 1hr20m. A Q6600 would be a huge upgrade for me @ 3.6ghz 1h30m. I hope someone can test this with the i7 platform. EDIT: For around $300 between an i7 920 and Q9550, the former will be about 12 percent faster in an encode whereas the clock for clock performance of the Q9450, the Core i7 920 is 18 percent faster. http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2008/11/0...45-965-review/7 Guessing that would add up to 45m-1hr encode for a HD movie with the i7 920. Double EDIT: 6h46m55s is my total time spent on just one HD movie. Mkv 2 Vob, with hardcoding subtitles. Feel my pain. Edited November 9, 2008 by Krazyxazn Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts