Core i7

[Glow of fire]

My Core i7 barely ever hits 25% usage and I clocked it to 4.1 Ghz... That means it only puts out 4.1 Ghz total.

 

Why is this so special? My Brother's P4 Prescott used to(and still can) go to 6.5 and and used to hit 100% usage, meaning that it put out all 6.5 Ghz, and it cost him $150 less than I paid for my i7.

 

And that was in 2004...Why did the processors get worse? and that one was 90 nanometres and this one is 45. So am I only getting half of the processor that he did? or am I getting twice as much?

[Bizzlenitch]

My Core i7 barely ever hits 25% usage and I clocked it to 4.1 Ghz... That means it only puts out 4.1 Ghz total.

 

Why is this so special? My Brother's P4 Prescott used to(and still can) go to 6.5 and and used to hit 100% usage, meaning that it put out all 6.5 Ghz, and it cost him $150 less than I paid for my i7.

 

And that was in 2004...Why did the processors get worse? and that one was 90 nanometres and this one is 45. So am I only getting half of the processor that he did? or am I getting twice as much?

 

I think, my friend, that you might benefit from reading up on current microprocessor technology. Your brother's P4 Prescott is far and away an inferior chip when compared to your Core i7. In all honesty, your i7 has an absolutely incredible and, generally, untapped amount of processing power. Few programs today will fully utilize your chip. But perhaps in a few years...

 

All this is good for your as you have a fairly future proof chip. I envy you. Enjoy.

Edited May 11, 2009 by Bizzlenitch

[Glow of fire]

Your brother's P4 Prescott is far and away an inferior chip when compared to your Core i7.

 

How?

 

Few programs today will fully utilize your chip

 

So, basically, I have a bunch of power which I can't use? And my brother has a bunch of power he can use? I'm confused as to why I'm supposed to be better off!

 

All this is good for your as you have a fairly future proof chip.

 

But wouldn't it have been better to buy a chip for the future in the future, when they are better and cheaper?

[Crazy_Nate]

While you may not be using all of your processor at the moment, you can always do more...whereas your brother can't do anything beyond what maxes out the CPU usage. More programs are becoming multithreaded. The number will only increase in the future.

 

Your last question is one that plagues everyone building a computer. Do you build now and use it, or do you wait and build a better computer with the same money?

[Zertz]

Clock for clock, Core i7 is WAY faster than any P4. You can't compare GHz. When a processor hits 100% load it essentially means it cannot keep up with the work, so your i7 only hitting 25% means he get's the job done much faster.

 

Prescott's had 125 million transistors. i7 has 731 million. The process may be only twice as small but you have nearly 6 times more transistors and the processor is more than 6 times faster in multithreaded loads.

[Glow of fire]

When a processor hits 100% load it essentially means it cannot keep up with the work, so your i7 only hitting 25% means he get's the job done much faster.

 

My i7 has one or two cores hitting full usage(100%), and the other 6 at 0. These 6 are different each time, and it hops often, but the P4 is always being used to the fullest.

 

Most of the stuff thats out isn't multi-threaded, and my problem is just that. And the i7 would need to be 58% faster than the P4 clock for clock, which would be tough, since i7s don't have FMA or anything like that which would increase efficiency of how much of the CPU is utilized, and clock cycles are just sine waves which should be the same(except the period is smaller on the P4). So why is the i7 faster?

 

I'm not really a CPU know-it-all, but I was just wondering why this CPU(which is apparently a good one) seems(at least superficially) inferior to an almost 5 year old CPU which was cheaper.

Edited May 11, 2009 by Glow of fire

[Bizzlenitch]

I'm not really a CPU know-it-all, but I was just wondering why this CPU(which is apparently a good one) seems(at least superficially) inferior to an almost 5 year old CPU which was cheaper.

 

What exactly do you mean by this? The measure of percentage of CPU usage is not a benchmark denoting performance, better or worse. The fact that you're computer is barely loading your CPU is a testament to the tremendous amount of data it can process. On the other hand, your brother's CPU, as you said, is at 100% usage, meaning it is effectively at it's limits. And doing it slower than your processor, might I add. For the most part...

[Kash]

I'm not really a CPU know-it-all, but I was just wondering why this CPU(which is apparently a good one) seems(at least superficially) inferior to an almost 5 year old CPU which was cheaper.

 

You answered your own question. You're looking at it superficially. Comparing GHz to GHz is not a good method to properly assess the performance difference between two architecture types.

 

Once you start looking beyond the GHz, you'll see that the i7 is a far superior processor in many ways.

[Glow of fire]

You answered your own question. You're looking at it superficially. Comparing GHz to GHz is not a good method to properly assess the performance difference between two architecture types.

 

As I explained, Neither has FMA, both have HT, both have out of order execution... what else is there to compare except Ghz?

 

Once you start looking beyond the GHz, you'll see that the i7 is a far superior processor in many ways.

 

How? Why? I don't see anything except the IMC/Cache, which is generally not hit with the current progs anyway.a program that uses all 4 cores would probably make use of a big amount of the cache, but none of current programs(except select few) fully utilize the extra cores. I'm unsure about what I can compare except the Ghz?

[Praz]

Depends on the programs you use. When I'm encoding all 8 cores are loaded between 80% and 83% and rendering in 3dMax loads them at 100%.

[Glow of fire]

Depends on the programs you use. When I'm encoding all 8 cores are loaded between 80% and 83% and rendering in 3dMax loads them at 100%.

 

But I have no need to encode. I have all my video on DVD's or on my NAS if it is family videos. And rendering for me is basically just games(not generally the most graphics intensive either, I'm more of a Wii>PS3 guy). I don't do any of those things.

 

I'm sure I could concoct a scenario where an I7 would help me a bit using all 4 cores, but that is sadly a task for software of the future. What benefits is my i7 giving me NOW(vs a p4 clocked 60% higher)

[Kash]

So if you don't use programs that utilize the processor to its fullest potential, then what's the problem?

 

Our mantra is to buy the hardware that meets your needs. If a P4 accomplishes that, then so be it. No need to waste money on an i7 if you don't need it. It's like buying a car with a twelve cylinder engine when you only drive a minute to work each way and a four cylinder car will do you just fine, and at a fraction of the cost.