Intel Core i7 Performance Analysis Comments

It's curious to see such a small advantage from having triple channel memory, and the occasional test where it does worse than the regular EE i7 (POV ray 3d being one).

Curiously on both the WinRAR single threaded tests the Core i7 965 with triple channel memory did worse than the same processor with single channel, and yet was better when multithreaded. More suspiciously it got exactly the same score on the single threaded test as did the i7 920. Is there a reason for this drop in triple-channel performance, other than getting the figures mixed up?

An interesting read, but benchmarks rarely translate into real-world, everyday performance advantages. Most p-c users aren't even taking advantage of dual-core chips, so the advantage of the core 7's extra processing power is ultimately meaningless to the hoi polloi.

nice review. I didnt realise that i7 was not compatable with current mobo's as i thought it was the "tock" so current architecture would apply. I currently have a q6600 and cant see me needing anything new soon. would like an i7 if i had money coming out of my ears!

Good stuff. Just in regards to the video editing section can you let me know how large video files were that were encoded? As I use my aged pc (Athlon X2 4400) alot for this particular process and am looking for an upgrade in the near future.

"Most p-c users aren't even taking advantage of dual-core chips, so the advantage of the core 7's extra processing power is ultimately meaningless to the hoi polloi."
Further to eyepopper's remark above, would I be agreeing with him if I said "yes, but", the "but" being that the benefit of multi-cored CPUs is still largely latent, awaiting the future attentions of software engineers, and that as the software dvelops to fully exploit multi-core, multi threadded CPUs we will realise the full benefit of our machines? That, anyway, is why I plumped for a quad core instead of the supposedly faster dual core alternative.

i can see hyper threading being used properly. it certainly improved my old pentium 4. i remember trying my pc (loaded with rubbish, mind) without hyper transport... painful...

@Ed, judging by some of the follow-up remarks, I seem to have got my point across.

As a once keen overclocker (my first effort was a P75 oc to 90Mhz!!! wow) I'm well past the faster is better mindset. My Q6600 will oc easily to 3.6Ghz with a little extra juice but I actually run it at 1.6Ghz @ 0.9800v as part of my silent rig setup. It handles amything I throw at it effortlessly and if I do any video encoding I can turn it up to 3.6Ghz if I want. Mostly I don't bother. I let it carry on in the background whilst I carry on with other things and when its done its done.

The slowest Athlon X2 has more than enough grunt for Joe Average so this is of interest really for fanboys and those who simply must have the latest and greatest.

with multicore processers if you run say 2 single core processes does it use 2 of the cores or just one of them?