Final Words
The Intel Core i7 processor currently owns the high end of the market, which is the reason the CPU prices remain high relative to Intel Core 2 Quad and the AMD Phenom II. The cheapest Core i7 920 CPU is around $300, with two more models going for $600 and $1000. In addition, the Core i7 uses a new socket 1366 and supports the first triple-channel DDR3 memory configuration. That means new Core i7 buyers will be shopping for a number of new and unique components as they move to Core i7.
Despite the high cost of the CPU and the uniqueness of some components, we have shown that it is possible to build a complete high performance Core i7 system for as little as $1450. That price is for a system with 1TB hard drive, Blu-ray player/DVD burner, a Radeon HD 4870 1GB video card, 1920x1080 monitor, keyboard/mouse, and even Windows Vista Home Premium. If you have some components that are compatible with a Core i7 build, you can reduce the cost even further. Just be sure you will not be leaving performance behind with the components you are considering moving over to a new Core i7 build.
We also showed an extremely flexible Core i7 overclocking system build with components selected to support overclocks to 4.0GHz with the Core i7 920 processor. While the cost was just a bit over $2000 for the complete system, the overclocking i7 system should carry you considerably higher than the current top-line Core i7 965 which runs at 3.2GHz. The OC system was pushed toward value overclocking but the $1010 965 CPU is unlocked and it could be the basis of a "highest performance at any cost" Core i7 overclocking system.
Finally, our Core i7 Dream system used all the best performing parts we could assemble in a $5000 "performance king" system built around a 30" S-IPS panel LCD driven by an NVIDIA GTX 295 dual GPU video card. The Dream Core i7 includes the superb Silverstone "positive pressure" aluminum case and the similarly excellent Corsair 1000HX modular power supply driving a $1010 Core i7 965 and 6GB of fast Mushkin DDR3-1600 triple channel memory. We could have carried the "dream" even further with items like RAID 5 storage, a boot SSD RAID, quad SLI with two GTX 295, or a GTX 285 triple SLI setup - supported by the ASUS motherboard used in the dream system. We went as far as $5000 would take us and paused, but there could definitely be more.
The point of all this is that while the Core i7 CPU is the most expensive processor family in today's CPU market, there are still many options. You can build a complete i7 system for less than $1500, use the Core i7 as the heart of an overclocking computer for around $2000 that has incredible performance potential, or use the top $1000 Core i7 965 as the basis for a luxury system with extreme performance for gaming, photo editing, or graphics. The Core i7 is that flexible and is at home in a wide variety of computer configurations. Of course, if all you do is surf the Internet, write email, and work in Microsoft Office, you should save your money and get a more reasonable system - there are plenty of people that simply have no need for eight logical processing cores.
We hope these three systems with widely different goals and prices have given some ideas of where you might like to take a Core i7 build. Wherever you take it, you will be extremely pleased with the Core i7 performance. Core i7 owns the top of the current CPU market because it delivers the best performance in the market today. There is definitely a price premium but you get the best performance you can buy in today's desktop market with an Intel Core i7 system.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
106 Comments
View All Comments
greyscale - Thursday, February 5, 2009 - link
"In voltage distribution, we don't see really much difference between the Revolution 85+ and many of the competing units tested this year. The Corsair HX1000W has a very good regulation as well, so the Enermax unit has no advantage in this regard. However, when it comes to efficiency there's not much to compare -- after all, we already said the Revolution 85+ is the most efficient power supply we have tested to date. The HX1000W achieves up to 86% and the Cooler Master UCP is close with up to 89% efficiency."When you factor in the price of the Enermax, it is clearly an inferior product. I feel sorry for people running them.
j@cko - Thursday, February 5, 2009 - link
I feel sorry for you because you are probably too cheap to buy one of those Enermax Revolutions. Money should be no concern for Dream System buyers to begin with. Without regard for cost, Enermax clearly is a better PSU.greyscale - Thursday, February 5, 2009 - link
I actually used to run the Enermax. I swapped it out for the Corsair and I got like, 7 extra FPS in Crysis. It's science, don't shoot the messenger.Corsair > Enermax
j@cko - Thursday, February 5, 2009 - link
LoL... Science? Read the empirically backup benchmarks.whatthehey - Thursday, February 5, 2009 - link
"I actually used to run the Enermax. I swapped it out for the Corsair and I got like, 7 extra FPS in Crysis. It's science, don't shoot the messenger."WTF!? Are you just a complete moron, merely a troll from a competing web site, or are you paid by Corsair? Okay, sure, Anandtech selected the Corsair PSU and it seems liek a fine choice, but seriously, don't give us any bullshit about your PSU making a game run faster.
Since you're just spewing out random garbage with little to no factual evidence, let me join in for a second. I when by greyscale's home and discovered that he is still running an old Athlon XP system in his mother's basement. He hasn't seen any hardware released in the past three years in person (except at a store), and he certainly has never owned, tested, or used a modern Enermax or Corsair PSU.
For that matter, he can't come up with anything other than the old "we need benchmarks for a buyer's guide" comment that we've all seen in the past. RTFW (read the fraggin' website) and you would have a good idea of how the various CPUs perform. There was an article just a week or two back showing overclocked Core i7 performance, but clearly your attention span didn't last that long without a graph.
Would it be nice to see some benchmarks of the systems in this guide? Sure it would. I don't think I've ever seen a buyers guide bother to try and assemble and test the systems, though. That's pretty much putting two or more articles in one, which just means we get less content. I for one enjoy the articles, and the selections look good for what they are - though I wouldn't even think of spending over $2000 on a new system.
"I too can sit around and spec systems on Newegg... You owe me ten minutes."
Great. Let's see your guide, and then we can bitch about it. My bet is it takes more like 10 to 20 hours to research a quality buyers guide, and all you can do is whine about ten minutes. But you know... I read pretty fast and it took me at least 20-30 minutes to actually READ this whole guide. 10 minutes means you probably looked at the tables and then started complaining. Internet anonymity is a godsend, isn't it?
Go back to Tom's (a.k.a. complete sellouts) - we other readers don't want you cluttering up the comments.
7Enigma - Friday, February 6, 2009 - link
Nope, pretty sure there was dry sarcasm there.j@cko - Thursday, February 5, 2009 - link
Well said.whatthehey - Thursday, February 5, 2009 - link
Thanks. Just to point something else out, the motherboard reviews have pretty much shown time and again that the only real difference these days is in BIOS quality, features, and overclocking. A cheaper motherboard might overclock well or it might not... I don't test motherboards, so I'm certainly not qualified to say which is the best. Considering the rant posted here a while back about the state of motherboard releases (http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=3279)">http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=3279), I'm inclined to go along with what Anandtech/Gary recommends. I find it interesting that some of the boards that have had major BIOS problems often end up being praised at places like HardOCP and Tom's. It's almost like they purchased a review and editor's choice award - say it isn't so!What was the board a month or so back where the reviewer at HardOCP complained about all sorts of problems and then Kyle came in and said, "it's a great board - here's a silver award!" Must have needed to get more advertising revenue or something. Anyway, I haven't seen anything at Anandtech to make me suspicious of their editorial content. Let's hope it stays that way.
Oh, and don't get me started on the Intel, NVIDIA, etc. bias crap. I've been reading Anandtech for years, and when the Athlon 64 beat the tar out of Intel we read all about it here. When Intel surpassed them, we read all about that as well. Smae goes for NVIDIA and ATI: praise for the 9800 Pro/XT back in the day, slamming the 5800 FX, praising the 6600 GT, complaining about SLI and Crossfire drivers... it all goes in cycles. ATI is doing well with their GPUs, but I would be wary of running more than one ATI GPU in a system. AMD is also doing better with Phenom II, but it's more like catching up with Core 2 Quad than actually beating Intel in any meaningful way.
j@cko - Thursday, February 5, 2009 - link
I was wondering, how come Anandtech did not recommend Enermax Revolution as the PSU for the Dream System? It's got the highest rating among its class everywhere. Thanks.garydale - Thursday, February 5, 2009 - link
OK, so you have to use something to measure value against, but let's face it, these are game machines. That dictated the choice of the OS - Vista - when for other applications you may want Linux, OpenSolaris or something else.I do some video editing, DTP and web development so for me, Linux would make a lot more sense. I get a pure 64-bit OS and 64-bit applications to really take advantage of what the CPU can do. This isn't a huge concern for games which push the GPU more than the CPU, but other applications use the CPU more.
Next, for better disk performance, how about a 3 or 4 disk software RAID array (no need for a hardware RAID adaptor with today's CPUs)? Add some hot-swap adaptors if the case doesn't have them. Just watch read performance go through the roof!
For me, RAID isn't usually a nice-to-have. Video takes up too much space to keep backups of everything. I need the safety of RAID to guard against the inevitable disk failures. And the extra performance is a real bonus.
With respect to speaker, surround sound is great if you are a gamer or trying to challenge Hollywood, but some people prefer stereo for music or just to not have to run wires everywhere. So how about some stereo speaker recommendations?
OK, they're minor quibbles. But there's more to high performance than games.