Core i7 - a very bad investment for most people

Printable View

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

11-03-2008, 07:34 AM
Katzenschleuder

Core i7 - a very bad investment for most people

With the benchmark results now available, it becomes -yet again- evident that the CPU performance that is relevant to most end users is struggling to increase to justify the price.

That Core i7 delivers significant performance gains for work loads which can be efficiently multi-threaded is of course something significant.
But are end users really benefiting of this?

I highly doubt that most people encode video/music or compress gigantic archives in a frequent manner and I doubt that you really do care if it takes 10 or 15 minutes to do this once a week.

What most end users care about in the high-end market is performance in games.
Nearly all games available on the market do not show any relevant performance gain by Core i7 at typical real life settings.
It is no news that the GPU is by far the most significant bottleneck for games.

Buying a new Core i7 system would cost you a huge pile of money.
Most people would see a much greater performance if this money is being spend into an additional GPU and/or a fast SSD instead.

Yes, this is no groundbreaking new finding, but I just thought that it is worthy to discuss about.
11-03-2008, 07:40 AM
Katzenschleuder

Btw.:

Here is a good review that shows the minimum frame rate for games.
You can clearly see the lack of performance improvement with Core i7 in games, even though the tests were made at low screen resolutions.
11-03-2008, 07:40 AM
inCore

Of course, I agree with everything you say. The problem is just that you can't, in most cases, get any faster than a single 4870X2 at the moment. Core i7 is pretty much the only way to get any added performance, even if it's only a little. Furthermore, here on XS a lot of people well get a Core i7 "just because".

Buying new computer hardware has never been a rational decision, just like buying an expensive car.

In the end, it's a step forwards, not backwards, and that's what really matters.
11-03-2008, 07:40 AM
Striph

Gamewise its about even, some improvements on newer games, but if you look at the other performance its a win win, no reason not to buy an i7 today over any other cpu. AT has a great review up, I skimmed over Toms and stopped reading after their first paragraph so i'd look around for some better reviews if thats where you were seeing your numbers.
11-03-2008, 07:46 AM
anubis

Actually, i encode about 1-2hrs of video every month (currently still SD, but soon HD). For me every minute gained from the encoding time is a minute won. I was the happiest when i changed from E2160 (oc 3,2ghz) to Q6600 (oc 3,3Ghz), wich was in a different league. If i can get a i7 920 to 3400+ mhz i think ill be a happy camper.
11-03-2008, 07:49 AM
Katzenschleuder

Quote:

Originally Posted by inCore

Of course, I agree with everything you say. The problem is just that you can't, in most cases, get any faster than a single 4870X2 at the moment. Core i7 is pretty much the only way to get any added performance, even if it's only a little. Furthermore, here on XS a lot of people well get a Core i7 "just because".

Buying new computer hardware has never been a rational decision, just like buying an expensive car.

For example Nvidia is going to offer their new cards with two GPUs pretty soon, which will offer new performance grounds.
Also the new SLC SSDs from Intel, Micron and FusionIO deliver huge performance gains for many work loads.

So there is definitely a lot of new stuff to invest into that really matters.

Quote:

In the end, it's a step forwards, not backwards, and that's what really matters.

Unfortunately Core i7 IS as step back in performance for quite a list of games.
11-03-2008, 07:51 AM
AgentGOD

Quote:

Originally Posted by Striph

Gamewise its about even, some improvements on newer games, but if you look at the other performance its a win win, no reason not to buy an i7 today over any other cpu. AT has a great review up, I skimmed over Toms and stopped reading after their first paragraph so i'd look around for some better reviews if thats where you were seeing your numbers.

Except motherboards costing an arm and a leg? And expensive memory? And expensive CPU?
11-03-2008, 07:54 AM
Katzenschleuder

Quote:

Originally Posted by anubis

Actually, i encode about 1-2hrs of video every month (currently still SD, but soon HD). For me every minute gained from the encoding time is a minute won. I was the happiest when i changed from E2160 (oc 3,2ghz) to Q6600 (oc 3,3Ghz), wich was in a different league. If i can get a i7 920 to 3400+ mhz i think ill be a happy camper.

So you are paying over a thousand dollars just to not wait a few minutes on a video encoding process to finish once a month?

I rather invest into another GPU, so I will have a ~80% higher frame rate in nearly all games - all the time.
11-03-2008, 07:56 AM
SNiiPE_DoGG

Quote:

Originally Posted by Katzenschleuder

Unfortunately Core i7 IS as step back in performance for quite a list of games.

only the 920 @ stock is a step back and only by a tiny bit over a 3.2 ghz core2quad
11-03-2008, 07:56 AM
anubis

The ones switchin right after realease are always the ones paying an-arm-or-leg for hardware. In six months the prices of memory and motherboards will come down, so if you can wait - wait. If you cant - pay :) Its always the same...
11-03-2008, 07:59 AM
SNiiPE_DoGG

Quote:

Originally Posted by anubis

The ones switchin right after realease are always the ones paying an-arm-or-leg for hardware. In six months the prices of memory and motherboards will come down, so if you can wait - wait. If you cant - pay :) Its always the same...

the only problem with that is that the only motherboards that any of us here are interested in are the very expensive x58, I dont think they will decrease in porice very much, $100 tops... there will be no budget p55 thats a beast for overclocking :\
11-03-2008, 08:00 AM
anubis

Quote:

Originally Posted by Katzenschleuder

So you are paying over a thousand dollars just to not wait a few minutes on a video encoding process to finish once a month?

I rather invest into another GPU, so I will have a ~80% higher frame rate in nearly all games - all the time.

I dont think im EVER gonna pay 1000$ for HW. If i buy a new CPU/MoBo/RAM in 6 months I wont pay more than 600$ for it.

And you can always get used HW for lot less $$$

And i dont game :)
11-03-2008, 08:00 AM
Katzenschleuder

Quote:

Originally Posted by SNiiPE_DoGG

only the 920 @ stock is a step back and only by a tiny bit over a 3.2 ghz core2quad

Not that I can see.
Please read the review I have linked in my second post. You should focus on the minimum frame rate.
Even the fastest Core i7 is often slower than the E8600 at many games.
11-03-2008, 08:01 AM
truehighroller

Quote:

Originally Posted by Striph

blah blah blah, no reason not to buy an i7 today over any other cpu. blah blah blah.

They are overclock disabled based on how much power they are pulling 130Watts and the chip starts to throttle it self back "that was from Tom's FYI". This is why, NOT get it.
11-03-2008, 08:10 AM
Ghigo

It trottle back only on intel mb ;)

Power Consumption gains are huge if you one use pc 24/7 on

http://www.lostcircuits.com/mambo//i...1&limitstart=8
11-03-2008, 08:23 AM
Katzenschleuder

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ghigo

Power Consumption gains are huge if you one use pc 24/7 on

http://www.lostcircuits.com/mambo//i...1&limitstart=8

This test can't be right.
These results greatly contradict all other tests as far as I can see.
11-03-2008, 08:24 AM
BenchZowner

Quote:

Originally Posted by Katzenschleuder

Unfortunately Core i7 IS as step back in performance for quite a list of games.

Can we please not misinform people ?
In real-life scenarios ( obviously no-one with a Core i7 will have such a pity-full graphics card and monitor to game at 1024x768 / 1280x1024 NoAA NoAF and with the game set at medium to low details ).
In real-life scenarios, like 1680x1050 2xAA 4xAF Full Details ( a mainstream resolution and detail settings for today's PCs and gamers ) there's no difference between a Core i7 and a Core 2 Duo/Quad.

Quote:

Originally Posted by truehighroller

They are overclock disabled based on how much power they are pulling 130Watts and the chip starts to throttle it self back "that was from Tom's FYI". This is why, NOT get it.

They're not overclocking disabled as you say.
Actually they overclock pretty well, even on air, even with the stock heatsink.
They do throttle when operating at 75C+... but you have to supply them with some crazy high Voltages and stock or even worse than stock cooling.
11-03-2008, 08:31 AM
ownage

I like the I7 cpu's from what I've seen so far. I wasn't expecting much more gaming performance since s775 cpu's have no problem handling modern games.
I don't even think the CPU prices are bad, but I just don't like the expensive x58 boards. When conroe came on the market, I was one of the first to order one.
For me at that time there was no good motherboard I would have been pleased with, so I just bought a 50 euro Asrock board to hold out for a few months till the "real" motherboards came available (130 - 160 euro). We know there won't be cheaper chipsets for s1366, so screw this expensive BS.
11-03-2008, 08:35 AM
jaredpace

Quote:

Originally Posted by BenchZowner

In real-life scenarios, like 1680x1050 2xAA 4xAF Full Details ( a mainstream resolution and detail settings for today's PCs and gamers ) there's no difference between a Core i7 and a Core 2 Duo/Quad.

:mad:

P4 --> C2D was more nioticable here
11-03-2008, 08:37 AM
Katzenschleuder

Quote:

Originally Posted by BenchZowner

Can we please not misinform people ?
In real-life scenarios ( obviously no-one with a Core i7 will have such a pity-full graphics card and monitor to game at 1024x768 / 1280x1024 NoAA NoAF and with the game set at medium to low details ).
In real-life scenarios, like 1680x1050 2xAA 4xAF Full Details ( a mainstream resolution and detail settings for today's PCs and gamers ) there's no difference between a Core i7 and a Core 2 Duo/Quad.

That is what I have actually said.
All I have said in addition to that is that Core i7 is also sometimes slower, which has been proven by tests.

That the performance differences with Core i7 do not matter with practical gaming is the whole point of my thread.
11-03-2008, 08:38 AM
truehighroller

[QUOTE=

They're not overclocking disabled as you say.
Actually they overclock pretty well, even on air, even with the stock heatsink.
They do throttle when operating at 75C+... but you have to supply them with some crazy high Voltages and stock or even worse than stock cooling.[/QUOTE]

Sorry if I said that wrong. Tom's states that the chips them selves are hard wired,,,, to not go over 130Watts without throttling them selves back apparently, on the extreme chips you can change the limit to whatever you want but all other chips,, 130Watts.. It says nothing about on Intel Mother Boards only..
11-03-2008, 08:38 AM
Wiggy McShades

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...px?i=3448&p=19

looks like far cry 2, fallout 3, and age of connan like core i7 better.
11-03-2008, 08:38 AM
ownage

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaredpace

:mad:

P4 --> C2D was more nioticable here

P4 sucked.
Back then we moved from a "suck" platform to a "monster" platform.
Now Intel goes from a "monster" platform to an even better platform.
11-03-2008, 08:43 AM
Katzenschleuder

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wiggy McShades

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...px?i=3448&p=19

looks like far cry 2, fallout 3, and age of connan like core i7 better.

Do you play at 1024*768 medium quality NoAA or 1280*1024 medium quality noAA and would buy a Core i7 for that?
11-03-2008, 08:43 AM
jaredpace

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wiggy McShades

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...px?i=3448&p=19

looks like far cry 2, fallout 3, and age of connan like core i7 better.

yah 8% - 10% better for 300% more ca$h :p:

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:16 AM.

XtremeSystems