New Intel Core i7

sauce: http://www.alienware.com/products/area-51-x58-desktop.aspx?SysCode=PC-A51-X58&SubCode=SKU-DEFAULT

now wiki says it's a quad core, but alienware says it's an octo core..... can anyone confirm?

or is it just a quad core that performs like 8 due to hyper-threading?

if octo core, O GAWD

 

Octo itself sound pretty bad ass itself ^^
However Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9775 are still better during tests

*Just check out that desktop... roflmao
12GB ram and too much storage space...
2GB ATI Graphic Card.. w00t w00t

I wish they have these into laptop, and I'll definately get those one..

 

It's not really 8 physical cores; it's 4 cores with Hyper-Threading.

Back in the Pentium 4 HT days, Windows recognizes the single core processor as 2 cores. Now, with the i7 with HT, the 4 physical cores will be recognized as 8 cores in Windows.

Personally, I think Alienware desktops are over-rated. Their main selling point is the case design, which hasn't changed in years.

 

*Face palm*

Read the article, young padiwan.

 

forget that, ill stick to my duel core and ill buy a 3ghz+ quad CPU when they are cheap enough

 

Just stick with the dual core. I have a quad and it's completely pointless.

 

i still have the p4 ht and it's definitely not as good as even a lower clocked laptop dual core, so ht doesn't help that much i don't think.

 

Well, you have to give HT technology some slack. It's much older than dual core technology. A fair comparison would be to match a standard P4 and a P4 with HT technology.

 

the base level i7's are like 300 some dollars, but apparently perform very close to the 9775 extremes, which cost 1800 dollars.

still, 300 bucks for an entry level processor is alot of money, id wait till summer until the prices start coming down if you're planning an upgrade.

you'd also need a new mobo, which cost another 300 bucks iirc

 

e8400 is where it's at atm...

 

yaaa i know, i checked the comparisons with my 3.16ghz DC vs quads and in most cases it was the same of duel was better as most programs dont use quad.

thats why i choose DC, ill get quad when they are cheaper and more relevant.

 

now i think thats just a little overdoing it. no software out now even supports it. wait about 5 years

 

is a quad-core with hyperthreading, so it shows as 8 cores under windows task manager BUT this cpu will be expandable to 8 cores with HT (aka 16 cores in windows)

not really that expensive, i got my Q6600 for $480 when everyone or retail sells it for $600 and the board to support it cost $300 elsewhere (i paide $150 for it) ... so when comparing for $300 for the base model of the i7, this is a lot cheaper than my Q6600 already. but i think i will move onto dual Xeon quad system for my next system...(i upgrade every 18-24 months)

 

I think the i7 is going to be faster then any other processors out now anyways and thats enough

 

10-30% faster

 

i'd too much rather have a server level processor for my next machine. i'm lookin at the opterons since i do more VM ware and the xenon's just aren't really made to do too much virtualization.

in my opinion unless your doing high level process applications like 3d modeling and cad operations a quad core processor is purely over kill....barely any application would use it to its full capabilites. its just like 64bit os. its there and people have it but no really applications can truely take full advantage of its abilities cept for adobe's new CS4 suite.

 

Not exactly true. Everyone can benefit from i7's because of Intel's new turbo mode which is a good part of what makes even the entry level i7 so powerful. See video here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llOXMPXH2VA

 

The I7 core is cool and faster, but on the expensive side for me I'll just stick to a DC or QC for now since the price between them aint much of a difference, The I7 difference is that motherboard runs on a different slot which cost around the same price for the chip so buying i7 would put a hole in my wallet.