Viewing page 7 of 7 pages.
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
FINAL THOUGHTS
There was never any doubt that the Core i7 would be the new
fastest processor family for the desktop. With all the changes in
the new architecture, it's somewhat surprising that the
increase in performance is evolutionary, not revolutionary. For
more extensive performance benchmarks, check out the reviews at
The Tech Report, Anandtech, and X-bit Labs. They concur that Core i7
is the new king of desktops, garnering about 20% more performance
than equivalently clocked Core 2's (Turbo mode aside).
However, the best gains are experienced with professional level
applications written to take advantage of the Core i7's new
feature and instruction set.
The improvements to the core, namely the integrated memory
controller and QPI, will allow Nehalem processors to scale very
well as more cores are added and clock speed increased, and
reduce overhead in multi-processor environments like servers. For
the average desktop user, Core i7 isn't going to provided
dramatic improvements. Part of the problem may be that Core 2 was
such a huge improvement over Pentium 4 and Pentium D, that we are
somewhat spoiled — we expect a leap in performance with
every a new generation of processors, and Core 2 is pretty darn
fast to begin with. The changes made were necessary, however, for
a base from which Intel can improve further.
In terms of power efficiency, Core i7 is at least equal to its
predecessor for typical desktop applications. The extra
performance it delivers more or less justifies the increased
power usage. The new power management system however may not work
exactly as intended — it's hard to tell exactly what is
going on with each core. There's little question that Core
i7's idle power consumption is equal to Core 2, regardless of
how that's achieveed.
The higher peak power consumption is probably what prompted
Intel to increase the size of the heatsink mounting pattern, to
accommodate larger coolers. The default installation method still
involves push-pins. This is too bad — the last thing we
need is bigger, heavier heatsinks that mount with push-pins. The
inclusion of a metal back plate for the CPU is welcome, however,
somewhat mitigating the push-pins: You won't have to worry
about the PCB bending, only the push-pins completely failing and
popping off.
Bloomfield delivers better performance than Yorkfield, but it
is not enough to offset the additional costs involved in a
platform change for most desktop users. DDR3 memory is twice the
price of DDR2 and X58 is the only compatible chipset. The DX58SO
will debut at around $300, and even the cheapest of the i7s, the
920, will probably retail for at least $300. Until memory prices
drop and cheaper, mainstream chipsets are released, it's a
lot to pay unless the absolute highest level of performance is
required and/or money is no object. As usual early adopters will
pay a heavy tax for the latest and greatest — especially
for the $1,000 3.2Ghz version.
For silent computing enthusiasts, the Core i7 isn't really
a step forward, what with the promise of higher performance at
the price of higher thermals, which may cost a decibel or two.
But it's not a step back, either, as the lessons learned by
silencers during the era of overheating P4s remain, and the
thermal design of the new platform appears good enough to allow
quiet cooling as with today's top socket 775 systems. In
short, the increased socket size and heatsink area are mostly
benefits, especially for lower TDP Core i7 processors that will
surely come down the pipeline. Most of us will wait for the
technology to flow down to those ranks — or be content with
Core 2, which will likely remain in production for some time to
come.
Our thanks to Intel, QiMonda, and
Thermalright for the various samples.
* * *
Articles of Related Interest
Core i7 News
Intel Developers
Forum, Fall 2008
Desktop CPU Power
Survey, April 2006
* * *
Discuss this article in the SPCR
forums.
