Winner
Intel Core i7 975
CPUBoss recommends the Intel Core i7 975 based on its performance.
See full details Intel Core i7 975 vs 920 |
Released June, 2009
Intel Core i7 975
- 3.33 GHz
- Quad core
- Unlocked
7.9 Out of 10
Reasons to buy the Intel Core i7 975
 | Significantly higher turbo clock speed 3.6 GHz | | Is unlocked Yes |
| | Higher clock speed 3.33 GHz | | Much better SysMark 2007 overall score 251 |
by Legit Reviews (Jun, 2009)Running the POV-Ray Real-Time Raytracing benchmark at nearly 30FPS is amazing as I remember the first time we ran this benchmark and got under 4FPS!
VS
Released October, 2008
Intel Core i7 920
- 2.66 GHz
- Quad core
7.3 Out of 10
Reasons to buy the 920
| | Much lower idle power consumption 81.7W | | Much lower typical power consumption 135.63W |
| | Significantly lower peak power consumption 153.6W | | Much lower annual home energy cost 48.38 $/year |
by kairi_zeroblade (Dec, 2011)Pros: You can get a 50% Overclock instantly,Great processing Bandwidth,Nice HUGE heatsink,L3 Cache size.
CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 975 vs 920
Performance | |
Benchmark performance using all cores | |
| 3DMark06 (CPU), Cinebench R11.5, Cinebench R10 32-bit, Passmark and 2 more | |
Single-core Performance | |
Individual core benchmark performance | |
| Cinebench R11.5 (1-core), Cinebench R10 32-bit (1-core) and 1 more | |
Overclocking | |
How much speed can you get out of the processor? | |
| Unlocked, Maximum Overclocked Clock Speed (Air) and 2 more | |
Value | |
Are you paying a premium for performance? | |
| Performance Per Dollar | |
CPUBoss Score | |
Performance, Single-core Performance, Overclocking and Value | |
 | Winner |
Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?
VS
Intel Core i7 975CPUBoss Winner |  | |
Differences What are the advantages of each
| |||||||
| Significantly higher turbo clock speed | 3.6 GHz | vs | 2.93 GHz | Around 25% higher turbo clock speed | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Is unlocked | Yes | vs | No | Somewhat common; An unlocked multiplier allows for easier overclocking | |||
| Higher clock speed | 3.33 GHz | vs | 2.66 GHz | More than 25% higher clock speed | |||
| Much better SysMark 2007 overall score | 251 | vs | 214 | More than 15% better SysMark 2007 overall score | |||
| Much better SysMark 2007 video creation score | 282 | vs | 242 | More than 15% better SysMark 2007 video creation score | |||
| Significantly better SysMark 2007 3D score | 255 | vs | 214 | Around 20% better SysMark 2007 3D score | |||
| Significantly better cinebench r11.5 (1-core) score | 1.23 | vs | 0.98 | More than 25% better cinebench r11.5 (1-core) score | |||
| Significantly better SysMark 2007 productivity score | 242 | vs | 215 | Around 15% better SysMark 2007 productivity score | |||
| Better PassMark (Single core) score | 1,465 | vs | 1,158 | More than 25% better PassMark (Single core) score | |||
| Better 3DMark06 CPU score | 5,836.5 | vs | 4,727.5 | Around 25% better 3DMark06 CPU score | |||
| Better geekbench (64-bit) score | 11,512 | vs | 7,774 | Around 50% better geekbench (64-bit) score | |||
| Better PassMark score | 6,286 | vs | 5,004 | More than 25% better PassMark score | |||
| Better 3DMark11 physics score | 6,880 | vs | 5,590 | Around 25% better 3DMark11 physics score | |||
| Better cinebench r10 32Bit score | 20,407 | vs | 16,211 | More than 25% better cinebench r10 32Bit score | |||
| Slightly better overclocked clock speed (Air) | 4.47 GHz | vs | 4.24 GHz | More than 5% better overclocked clock speed (Air) | |||
| Marginally newer | Jun, 2009 | vs | Oct, 2008 | Release date 8 months later | |||
| |||||||
| Much lower idle power consumption | 81.7W | vs | 154W | More than 45% lower idle power consumption | |||
| Much lower typical power consumption | 135.63W | vs | 212W | More than 35% lower typical power consumption | |||
| Significantly lower peak power consumption | 153.6W | vs | 241W | More than 35% lower peak power consumption | |||
| Much lower annual home energy cost | 48.38 $/year | vs | 82.69 $/year | More than 40% lower annual home energy cost | |||
| Much lower annual commercial energy cost | 134.55 $/year | vs | 211.12 $/year | More than 35% lower annual commercial energy cost | |||
| Better performance per dollar | 2.22 pt/$ | vs | 1.66 pt/$ | Around 35% better performance per dollar | |||
Report a correction
Benchmarks Real world tests of Core i7 975 vs 920
GeekBench (32-bit)
3D Mark 11 (Physics)
Core i7 975 | by Legit Reviews (Jun, 2009)Benchmark Results: The 3DMark 2006 CPU test showed the Intel Core i7-975 processor trailed just the Skulltrail platform.
Cinebench R11.5
Cinebench R11.5 (Single Core)
sysmark 2007 (overall)
Passmark
Specifications Full list of technical specs
summary | Core i7 975 | vs | 920 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clock speed | 3.33 GHz | 2.66 GHz | |
| Turbo clock speed | 3.6 GHz | 2.93 GHz | |
| Cores | Quad core | Quad core | |
| Socket type | |||
| LGA 1366 | |||
| Is unlocked | Yes | No | |
| Is hyperthreaded | Yes | Yes | |
features | |||
| Has a NX bit | Yes | Yes | |
| Supports trusted computing | No | No | |
| Has vitualization support | Yes | Yes | |
| Instruction-set-extensions | |||
| MMX | |||
| SSE | |||
| SSE4.2 | |||
| SSE3 | |||
| SSE2 | |||
| Supplemental SSE3 | |||
| SSE4.1 | |||
| Supports dynamic frequency scaling | Yes | Yes | |
gpu | |||
| GPU | None | None | |
| Label | N/A | N/A | |
| Latest DirectX | N/A | N/A | |
| Number of displays supported | N/A | N/A | |
| GPU clock speed | N/A | N/A | |
| Turbo clock speed | N/A | N/A | |
| 3DMark06 | N/A | N/A | |
memory controller | |||
| Memory controller | Built-in | Built-in | |
| Memory type | |||
| DDR3-1066 | |||
| DDR3-800 | |||
| Channels | Triple Channel | Triple Channel | |
| Supports ECC | No | No | |
| Maximum bandwidth | 25,599.99 MB/s | 25,599.99 MB/s | |
details | Core i7 975 | vs | 920 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Architecture | x86-64 | x86-64 | |
| Threads | 8 | 8 | |
| L2 cache | 1 MB | 1 MB | |
| L2 cache per core | 0.25 MB/core | 0.25 MB/core | |
| L3 cache | 8 MB | 8 MB | |
| L3 cache per core | 2 MB/core | 2 MB/core | |
| Manufacture process | 45 nms | 45 nms | |
| Transistor count | 731,000,000 | 731,000,000 | |
| Max CPUs | 1 | 1 | |
| Clock multiplier | 25 | 20 | |
| Voltage range | 0.8 - 1.38V | 0.8 - 1.38V | |
| Operating temperature | 5 - 67.9°C | Unknown - 67.9°C | |
overclocking | |||
| Overclock popularity | 8 | 491 | |
| Overclocked clock speed | 4.47 GHz | 4.24 GHz | |
| Overclocked clock speed (Water) | 4.6 GHz | 4.42 GHz | |
| Overclocked clock speed (Air) | 4.47 GHz | 4.24 GHz | |
power consumption | |||
| TDP | 130W | 130W | |
| Annual home energy cost | 82.69 $/year | 48.38 $/year | |
| Annual commercial energy cost | 211.12 $/year | 134.55 $/year | |
| Performance per watt | 3.43 pt/W | 4.41 pt/W | |
| Idle power consumption | 154W | 81.7W | |
| Peak power consumption | 241W | 153.6W | |
| Typical power consumption | 212W | 135.63W | |
bus | |||
| Architecture | QPI | QPI | |
| Number of links | 1 | 1 | |
| Data rate | 25,600 MB/s | 19,200 MB/s | |
| Transfer rate | 6,400 MT/s | 4,800 MT/s | |
| Clock speed | 3,200 MHz | 2,400 MHz | |
 Intel Core i7 975  Report a correction |  Intel Core i7 920 Report a correction |
Follow us
Compare
Related Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| $305 | $313 | |
| 920 vs 4770K | ||
| | VS |  |
| $305 | $250 | |
| 920 vs W3520 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $305 | $120 | |
| 920 vs 6300 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $305 | $180 | |
| 920 vs 8350 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $305 | $340 | |
| 920 vs 4790K | ||
| | VS |  |
| $305 | $200 | |
| 920 vs 965 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $305 | $281 | |
| 920 vs 2500K | ||
Popular Comparisons
| | VS |  |
| $313 | $334 | |
| 4770K vs 9590 | ||
| | VS | |
| $313 | $340 | |
| 4770K vs 4790K | ||
| | VS |  |
| $313 | $195 | |
| 4770K vs 4790 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $378 | ||
| 5750M vs 4700MQ | ||
| | VS |  |
| $180 | $235 | |
| 8350 vs 4670K | ||
 | VS |  |
| $281 | $393 | |
| 4200U vs 4500U | ||
| | VS |  |
| $281 | $225 | |
| 4200U vs 4200M | ||
