Core2 or i7[?]

istari · Post by **istari** » Mon Mar 30, 2009 8:14 pm

Hi All,

Hopefully I picked the right forum.

I am designing a system to buy in the near future and uncertain whether to go with the i7 option, or with the trusty Core 2. The purpose of this thread is discuss heat and noise associated with both options, and predominately in regard to motherboard options.

My needs? Noise, performance, and home theatre. I have seen the powerhouse and gaming systems on endpcnoise but thought I'd get some further opinions.

FYI my plans so far are: (feedback is encouraged)
Case: Antec P182 (I chose against a HTPC as my theatre is in my bedroom)
PSU: Zalman ZM500-HP or Corsair HX-520
CPU: i7920 or Q9550 [reason for post]
Mbd: ? [reason for post]
Graph: Undecided. Mid-High range. Home media & some gaming [suggestions?]

Input is much appreciated - and thanked in advance.

merlin · Post by **merlin** » Mon Mar 30, 2009 10:09 pm

I don't see the point of a Core i7 right now unless you're doing some extremely high end computing tasks. None of that seems to apply to your situation. A Core 2 Duo/Quad is generally lower power and easier to keep silent and there's a much greater variety of available motherboards and coolers. That is a much better option right now.

pcy · Post by **pcy** » Tue Mar 31, 2009 1:16 am

Hi,

merlin wrote:I don't see the point of a Core i7 right now unless you're doing some extremely high end computing tasks. None of that seems to apply to your situation. A Core 2 Duo/Quad is generally lower power and easier to keep silent and there's a much greater variety of available motherboards and coolers. That is a much better option right now.

I agree. I build quiet Digital Audio Workstations, using i7, because musicians have an insatiable appitite for CPU poer, and RAM, and HD storage...

They are awesome: like merlin says - I don't see that you need it.

But if you do:

The i7 CPU had a TDP od 135W, and from my tests I can say that it does indeed kick out that much heat.

In tems of price, by the time you are up to the faster Q9xxx CPUs - the Q9650, say - the price difference is negligable: ther is no doubt that if you need anything faster than a Q9400 you should go i7. At the same pricepoint (total system cost) you'll get 25% more CPU power, and three times the memory bandwidth.

The X58 chipset itself seems pretty solid, and all the boards I've seen are fanless. I'm using the GigaByte GA-EX58-UD4 and UD4P, with no problems so far. i7 has a tripple memory controller, so I would not even consider any board unless it has 6 DRAM slots (most do).

I've designed a new (5U) version of the PaQ case for i7. The older model was 4U and you couldn't fit the modern tower coolers in. You need those to cool an i7 CPU quietly in a hot room (30C +) at 100% load.

Overall, cooling i7 quietely is just the same as cooling any other PC. The only difference is that the CPU kicks out a bit more heat, it boils down to how you cool the CPU:

It's important to ensure that the hot air coming off the CPU exhausts straight out of teh back of the case, and is not allowed to recirculate. Provided you achive this, total heat contibuting to case internal temperature is un-affected by CPU heat output, so the entier cooling setup apart from the CPU cooler really is the same for an i7 vs a Q9xxx machine.

In terms of the CPU cooler, the best solution I've so far come up with is a Xigmatek S1284 (not D1284) with two 140mm fans one either side of the cooler in push-me pull-you configuration. The S1284 is a four double heatpipe version of the S1283 with wider cooling fins. When I tried the two fan approach, the airflow through the cooler increased by 60% at the same fan speed, with no nasty noises that might be caused by interaction between the fans apparant. With the room temparature at 30C and CPU fans running at aboput 725rpm, I was getting CPU temps in the low 60s at 100% CPU load.

Hope this helps.

Peter

istari · Post by **istari** » Tue Mar 31, 2009 3:48 am

Thanks Merlin and Peter, much appreciated.

I did forget to mention it will be used most days as windows pc and during 'work' days as an app server for developing Apache/Jboss sites and J2EE; though not in the near future. It will just be test server so speed wont be important - debugging code will be but I expect Core 2 to be quick enough for that.

Pliskin · Post by **Pliskin** » Tue Mar 31, 2009 6:25 am

I know i might get flamed for this, but the new AMD Phenom II's are really good processors. And you will probably be able to get a system for cheaper with comparable performance. They also run pretty darn cool. My tri-core is overclocked 500mhz to 3.3ghz on stock voltage and it runs 22-25 idle and never goes above 35 load, with a Reeven RCCT that is slightly less effective than the s1283. They are also coming out with a new quad this month with 3ghz and ddr3 support, and possible a 3.2ghz chip as well. Plus, its a new socket so there is upgrade potential down the road, where as the Core2 Socket is pretty much EOL. Anyways, not trying to convert you or anything, just might be worth your while to take a quick peek at some AMD stuff.

Also, anandtech recently did a game test comparing an AMD system to a Q9550 system and found that the AMD system ran smoother. Its here: http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=3533&p=9 if you want to check it out.

Moon GT · Post by **Moon GT** » Wed Apr 01, 2009 11:15 am

For gaming it appears the i7 gets beaten by its own predecessor, somehow. It does very well in all the synthetic benchmarks (the oldest trick in Intel's book), but in anything real it looks like a bit of a disappointment. I put this down to the hyperthreading. Great for raw throughput, but seriously, who runs eight threads at once?

DDR3 barely makes a difference, either. Go for an AM3 socket Phenom II in an AM2+ socket motherboard, and upgrade to AM3/DDR3 when it makes sense. i.e. when it isn't double the price for a 5-10% performance increase.

~El~Jefe~ · Post by **~El~Jefe~** » Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:53 am

beyond question, i7.

the max tpd?? no. that makes absolutely no difference. the i7 idles fine and dandy compared to the old quad cores.

if you look at total joulles /watts consumed for an i7 compared to a regular quad core, the i7 is more efficient at doing the same task.

the question should be:

If a new system, high clocked wolfdale? or i7?

quad core core2 duo is just an upgrade for people who have a 1333 bus core2 platform.

I cant imagine anyone suggesting otherwise. Unless... a quad is for video editing only, no gaming, and has to be silent, then the 4 cores are wanted more than its speed or technology. I would fit this bill myself. I still wont quad until I find an i7 board for 129 dollars and cpu waterblock has an attachment for it.

~El~Jefe~ · Post by **~El~Jefe~** » Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:55 am

Moon GT wrote:For gaming it appears the i7 gets beaten by its own predecessor, somehow. It does very well in all the synthetic benchmarks (the oldest trick in Intel's book), but in anything real it looks like a bit of a disappointment. I put this down to the hyperthreading. Great for raw throughput, but seriously, who runs eight threads at once?

DDR3 barely makes a difference, either. Go for an AM3 socket Phenom II in an AM2+ socket motherboard, and upgrade to AM3/DDR3 when it makes sense. i.e. when it isn't double the price for a 5-10% performance increase.

yeah, the truth is price wise, a phenom quad and am2+ platform gets the job done for cheaper and is still really powerful. Also, amd boards are just 29000x better featured and optioned than intel. If i waited 2 more months, I wouldnt have gotten my e8400 and 4 gigs ram, i would have gotten blk edition x3 720 and am2+.

lurpitus · Post by **lurpitus** » Sun Jul 26, 2009 3:19 am

istari wrote: I am designing a system to buy in the near future and uncertain whether to go with the i7 option, or with the trusty Core 2. The purpose of this thread is discuss heat and noise associated with both options, and predominately in regard to motherboard options.

I have the same situation. I'm building file server which will be idle 90% of the time. The same server is also used for x264 encoding, downloading files etc.

Since I'm going to use Intel's CPU (I'll upgrade all the machines in the house to use same type of hardware) my current choice is dual core E8400/E8500 (E7xxx does not support VT). But since the i7 offers some clever methods to reduce the power consumption when idle I'm also considering i7 920.

First Look at Nehalem Microarchitecture @ xbitlabs
Namely, PCU may disable inactive cores and put them in deep sleep state where their power consumption will be close to 0

Unfortunately I haven't found any evidence of the "deep sleep" state. In every review that mentions anything about power saving in idel mode they say that cores are underclocked to 1.6GHz. When does this deep sleep kick in?

Intel Core i7 Processors: Nehalem and X58 Have Arrived @ hothardware, page 16
In terms of idle power consumption, the new Core i7 processors are right in line with their Yorkfield-based Core 2 predecessors; only a few watts separates the different platforms...... So, while peak power consumption may be somewhat higher, the Core i7 platform is just as, if not more, power efficient than the Core 2.

Intel Core i7 920, 940 and 965 Extreme Edition review @ techspot, page 13

Power consumption (idle/load)
E6700 system 156/202
E8600 system 197/236
i7 920 system 140/249

Intel Core i7-965 XE & Core i7-920 Review @ sharkyextreme, page 11

Power consumption (idle/load)
E8500 112/160
i7 920 128/219

So if your system is idle for the most part then i7 920 is not such a bad choice.

Shamgar · Post by **Shamgar** » Sun Jul 26, 2009 9:44 am

Core2 or i7? It is a question many upgraders are asking themselves and their peers at the moment. You may also ask, Core2 or i5?

The plus side of going with C2D is that it is a well known, relatively affordable now, and proven platform. It will do the majority of computer tasks very well, even over and above what is really necessary for most people.
The downside is that it is somewhat "ageing" in terms of technology lifespan, and a new platform with many proposed performance benefits is soon to replace it.
With C2D you still pay a high premium (assuming you want Virtualization Technology, which is recommended) as you have to start with E8400. So you have to ask yourself whether you want to take the hit now or save the money and invest it towards a newer platform.

Core i5 and i7 will bring significant performance benefits to those who really need it, especially those who work with multi-threaded applications like semi/professional video editing and animation. You have to ask youself whether you are one of those who will likely benefit, or are you a performance for performance's sake type of person?

If you are not desperate to upgrade now, I would wait and see the rollout of the new platform i5. But if you are, you can go with the trusty Core 2 Duo, for which there are many affordable and good motherboards available. If you want to save even more money, a Pentium Dual Core series processor is another option. And if in future you do end up going for an i5/7 platform, you can always use the Pentium Dual Core for a secondary/tertiary/backup PC.

smilingcrow · Post by **smilingcrow** » Sun Jul 26, 2009 10:13 am

Shamgar wrote:With C2D you still pay a high premium (assuming you want Virtualization Technology, which is recommended) as you have to start with E8400.

If you want to save even more money, a Pentium Dual Core series processor is another option.

With Windows 7 Pro requiring hardware virtualisation support to run XP mode Intel are releasing cheaper CPUs that support Virtualization. One is the inexpensive Pentium Dual Core E6300. 2.8GHz, 1.066 FSB, 2MB cache, 45nm.

Shamgar · Post by **Shamgar** » Sun Jul 26, 2009 10:32 am

Yes, that's correct. I deliberately left that one out as the discussion here seems to be "performance" oriented. People who are set on high performance generally don't like being "downgraded" from what I perceive. Not that E6300 is a slouch by any means for the majority of computer users. If I needed an Intel system now, that is what I would get for myself: E6300 + P43/45 chipset.
I also heard that Intel are going to stop playing games with people's money when it comes to VT and they are including it on all their future processors, even Celerons. I don't know if this can be verified but if it is true, it is a welcome move and perhaps forced on them by Microsoft because of Win7 and XP Mode support.

Thanks for bringing up E6300. I personally think it is one of the best budget CPUs at the moment. It is beyond me why anyone would consider E5200 without VT when for a few dollars more they can get E6300 with VT. E5200 has somewhat of a "hero status" because of overclocking potential and cheap price. But I would gladly take good stock performance and VT over OC anyday, considering the insignificant price difference.

thejamppa · Post by **thejamppa** » Sun Jul 26, 2009 11:14 am

I agree with Shamgar. E6300 is one of the best Intel CPU's there is and the best one in Intel's that price range. That is in terms of price/performance/features.

Athlon II X2's are pretty even with E5x00 series performance and have VT included. X2 240/245 beats in gaming E5400 almost every game while in real life appllication's its pretty much tie.

But it is unfortunate that most peoples choose CPU because of OC potentially not because of VT. I think VT is much more important and useful than OC potential.

It would be great if Intel would include VT support now on from every CPU.

Shamgar · Post by **Shamgar** » Sun Jul 26, 2009 11:54 am

Comparing Intel E6300 to AMD's new CPUs in similar price range, AMD wins out in most benchmarks and maybe real world performance also. So if you are not a fanboy either way, AMD gives better performance for price if you spend a few more dollars over E6300. Not to mention, all Athlon 64s have VT included which makes even budget models suitable for multiple virtual machines. Something that Intel left out on budget models to make people pay more for E8xxx series. But E6300 is now available, so we can hate them a little less for being greedy.

I think speculation over i7 platform and anticipation of i5 is due to performance benefits over Core2 generation, but at the moment, it is still early stages and needs time to mature. If going for i7/i5, the system needs to be carefully considered, given high price and higher cooling requirements than current generation. But if performance in multi-threading really is necessary for the user, then price should not be a major restriction if their work and business can improve with the new technology.

Core2 or i7[?]

Core2 or i7[?]

Re: Core2 or i7[?]