Sure but nVIdia's statement is real stupid since almost NO ONE uses their computers for gaming 100% of the time, even Gamers LOL!:rofl::ROTF:Quote:
Originally Posted by damtachoa
Printable View
Sure but nVIdia's statement is real stupid since almost NO ONE uses their computers for gaming 100% of the time, even Gamers LOL!:rofl::ROTF:Quote:
Originally Posted by damtachoa
I agree, stupid statement indeed.
Even i7 will be a obsolete throw away rig in the same sense within two years of its life cycle due to Intels current tick tock design cycle.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xoulz
What do people typically do with their computers that is more CPU intensive than games? Media transcoding is the only thing that comes to mind that would be of general applicability and GPUs are muscling into that scene too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
Its pretty stupid, considering eVGA "Classified" mobo with NF200. :D
looking at the sigs of the people who think nV is right makes me laugh. It's the same old :banana::banana::banana::banana: as usual.
Anyone want to buy two GTX285's? Because they suck balls in this rig lol.
sell them overpriced :banana::banana::banana::banana:ty oc'ing :banana::banana::banana::banana::banana:es and go 4890 CF, make a few bux too :p
Actually I was thinking of adding a 3rd one :PQuote:
Originally Posted by Rattle
You message is lost in all of that foul mouthed biased waste of post space.
whats lost the fact they they are overpriced or that they OC like crap :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by ReverendMaynard
You trying to start something you can't finish noob?:cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by Rattle
Let me guess, you look at my sig and think that is max? please lol
you must have got lucky all the vanilla ones i seen or had didnt clock well.
Apart from benches the only thing I have seen max out all 4 cores on my rig was the CoD4 mod tools.Quote:
Originally Posted by trinibwoy
Well i call 2 years quite a liftime for one platform, it has been quite some time since intel had on platform for 2 generations of cpus (bloomfield and gulftown share the same socket/chipset).Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
The 'ones' you had weren't a waste of money or is that just other people who buy them?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rattle
Yeah, that's the same dilemma I'm facing. There's just no software justification for the big iron out there right now. And I don't think it's simply a case of developers being lazy or incompetent. It's just that it's easier to scale "nice to have" GPU stuff like resolution or shadow quality or AA than it is to scale the stuff that runs on CPUs. It's not like you can make the AI dumber just because someone's CPU isn't fast enough.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Easybeat
I would never let influence my opinion by any brand.
At this point I7 is a waste of money for gamers, but in the future with heavier games it will smash teh phenomenal and c2q bigtime.
Besides looking to the future, XS is not a gaming community, and most of us to more than playing games. Right now If I would want to buy something really new I would have to buy I7.
Phenom2 is nothing new because the performance difference between phII and C2Q is to small.
no they were thats why i sold them :down:Quote:
Originally Posted by ReverendMaynard
nice cards though performance wise.
Robson have been out for ages. And its a laptop technology. SSDs makes Robson absolete.Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
New HDMI...you mean display port? That got nothing to do with LGA1366 or the mobo.
PCIe 3.0 is FAR away. And the need for PCIe 3.0 even further away. I doubt you can even see a difference today on a x8 vs x16 slot on GFX cards. Besides X2/GX2 styles maybe.
USB 3.0? I dont think thats something you are in dire need of. Even if you are, buy a PCIe x1 USB 3.0 card.
SATA 3.0? Its a nice progress. But not exactly something that will make your platform worthless anytime soon. Also you only have to replace the southbridge to get SATA3 and USB3.
I´m not saying LGA1366 will last forever. But you just post BS to support your endless whining over the i7 that was above you.
what about i5, different pin layout to i7, so no upgrade to i7 later on. That's pretty lame. If you're worried about upgradability then AMD is the clear cut winner in that regard, no plans to move away from the am3 layout for quite a while.
Most gamers use their PC's for browsing, listening to music, watching movies and MS office, and none of those need tri channel memory or 8 cores. i7 is overpriced overkill for most users.
well, the extra processing power certainly helps SLI and CF, especially 3 and 4 gpu configs..
doesn't quite scale well with higher resolutions.Quote:
Originally Posted by revenant
XS forums seems like the last place you would find a discusion about a CPU being to powerfull. :shrug: I didnt think there was a such thing.
S771-> S1336Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldon
S775-> S1156
S604-> S1567
nuff said, make your own conclusion about that, cause im tired of explaining people the difference between the different platforms. :p:
Intel has confirmed that Westmere will work on Socket 1366, so your statement is not true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldon
It's kinda true, but here in Xtremesystems, buying the latest and greatest is our hobbies.
will there be a s1156 32nm cpu?
According to certain people here, we are idiots for doing so. :ROTF:Quote:
Originally Posted by clayton
Clarkdale is a 32nm dualcore that will be released somewhere 2H 09, don't know about 32 quadcores but it seems likely. Thought they will be released later for S1156 (maybe end of 2010).Quote:
Originally Posted by adamsleath
How is it kinda true? :shakes:Quote:
Originally Posted by clayton
AM3 offers less of an upgrade path than Socket 1366.
:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by highoctane
Tick-tock designs does not mean a new pion-out or motherboard..! (lol) Nehalam is new! It refers to the internal architecture within the chip and the manufacturing process of steppings and shrinkage of the chip..!
LGA1366 will be a viable platform for a 12 core, i7 CPU in 2012 ..!
@ Donnie
Those are extensions of standards. Nothing NEW is comming in terms of standards. (IE: moving from AGP<PCI<PCI-Express)
Well, which one of these two would you rather buy if you wanted a new CPU at this price?
E8600 - http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showpr...d=6&subcat=793
I7 920 D0 - http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showpr...=6&subcat=1272
But you also need to buy a new motherboard right?
This one is only slightly more expensive then most X48's - http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showpr...=5&subcat=1283
So if you got those two, it is hardly that much of a waste of money over LGA 775 for a more up to date PC.
Need some decent 1600 MHZ Memory? Its £80 for 6 GB now.
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showpr...=8&subcat=1389
The G. Skill and Patriot versions are available for around £85-90 as well. 1600 MHZ is the sweet spot right now, its nice and cheap for what you get, and allows decent overclocking.
The price difference if you want a whole new PC between I7 and C2D isnt really that much for the extra performance and lastability you get.
I shouldnt have ever built a C2D PC, my previous one would have lasted me untill now, and I were advised at the time that my S939 PC was good enough and I should wait for I7. I were somewhat regretting building the new I7 build, but I realised that instead, I should regret having built the C2D build, because I didnt need that either, S939 with a 4400+ and decent graphics cards would still be enough right?
Now I wipe my memory clean of my C2D duo build and all those upgrades I did on it, and keep my new PC for 2-3 years like I had my S939 for 3 years :)
Allot of things are viable, possible and probable, we can all speculate and arm chair quarterback obviously...Quote:
Originally Posted by Xoulz
With a new architecture(tock) its just as viable that there may or may not be a new socket, chipset, chipset revision that would make current harware obsolete to the bleeding edge mindset within two years. The end of the year we should get the tick with Westmere followed by the tock Sandy Bridge about a year later.
I'm not going to go out and tell my buds gaming on core2's that their rigs are obsolete simply because something newer is out that will deliver basically the same gaming performance, thats just stupid.
LGA1156 and LGA1366 should last ~4 years. Nehalem, Westmere, Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge. After that we will get a new socket again I bet. By then I do hope we get 128 or 256bit memory modules. So we dont need 3 and 4 DIMMs like for LGA1366, LGA1567 and AMDs G34.
Oh no he did'n':rofl: Sure, just like your endless Fanboy worship of Intel incessant negative whining about AMD, but who the hell cares? Are you trying to create all of these Pot/Kettle incidences?Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
Not you, I or anyone else here knows if Intel will switch sockets and when they'll do it! Socket 775 is still the most numerous socket on the planet and will remain that way for a few more years. i7 is GREAT but little more than a Novelty right now! It could last 10 years or could be dumped in 2!
i7 + Single GPU indeed its a waste of money, multi-gpu configs is where i7 shines in my opinion~
The i7 920 sells for less than $300US.Quote:
Originally Posted by CandymanCan
Donnie I think your comments are about 3 or more months out of date, with the price reductions of DDR3 and x58 motherboard choices(which whilst still dearer than I would like to see, are a big improvement over the first few months), then getting an i7 system becomes far more viable than it initially was.Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
I wouldn't say that it has reached the stage where it is a no brainer or anything like that, but at least it is no longer the extravagant stroke your e-peen choice.
Actually I would say the worst "value for money" systems from my perspective right now are those new systems based around C2Q(your purchase of a Quad was different because you already had the rest of the system).
This of course assumes one wants a good quality motherboard and not just a dirt cheap one.
With Intel confirming that Westmere will work on existing x58 motherboards, then a Socket 1366 motherboard of today will be viable for more than 2 years, obviously not 10 years though.Quote:
It could last 10 years or could be dumped in 2!
Actually, the funny part is NVIDIA never made much with chipsets (because there isn't that much to be made), so not much is lost there. The only reason to do it is to have the platform. Aside from that, Intel gives deep discounts on the chipsets because they know that buying their motherboard means you have to buy their fat profit CPU.Quote:
Originally Posted by CandymanCan
So competing with Intel in the chipset space isn't all that profitable anyway (outside of the realm of a few enthusiasts buying huge margin overclocking motherboards), even if you have the best and most popular motherboard/chipset. I really don't get why everyone makes such a big deal out of "just" having GPUs. I guess some see larrabee as an offensive move, and believe that Intel is just going to dominate NVIDIA and AMD in GPUs (lol) while others see it for what it is: defensive.
See you with my 8-core Oorochi in 2011.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chad Boga
Do you have a link that states it is both for Socket AM3 and for the desktop?(I looked and couldn't find anything)Quote:
Originally Posted by Macadamia
Or will it be targetting a section of the server market like "Tigerton" ?
DDR3 price is perfectly ok today, at least on the site I've been looking at here in Europe, it's roughly on the same level as DDR2 now (must be the fastest drop in price for a new series ever) and especially the 3 and 6GB 1.65v kits. 100~110 EUR for 6GB DDR3-1600 CL7 or CL8 is not exactly expensive IMO for 3 sticks. :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by CandymanCan
It's just motherboard costs that are ridiculous, CPU is so-so but hasn't dropped in price since launch really, if it wasn't for the recession 920 had prolly been at a normal price of around $250 USD now though.
Whilst one couldn't call them cheap, I don't think the cost of either the ASUS P6T or the Gigabyte EX58-UD3R is that problematic.Quote:
Originally Posted by RPGWiZaRD
Yea I have the same feeling as well, a shame mine's such a bad batch C0, it's from the launch of Penryn and don't really wanna go past 4.0GHz and 1.36v is needed for that (altho 500fsb), 4.1GHz won't even get stable at 1.41~1.42v, so I figured it wasn't worth it going further.Quote:
Originally Posted by CandymanCan
I really wonder if Nvidia's idea would change if suddenly Intel gave them permission to produce chipsets for Core i7. I believe Nvidia would do anything to expand the life cycle of Core2Duo to sell their chipsets, though this seems highly unlikely.
As mentioned above, in a year or two, when the mainstream and even low spec computers switch to nehalem, Nvidia will be in real trouble for chipset business. So this makes me believe that some of VIA rumors might be true after all.
3 main benefits I can see with i7 core as opposed to P45 Chipset.
- SLI can be used on X58, cannot on any other Intel Chipset.
- The use of Hyperthreading on X58, if not using then their is virtually no difference to P45 chipset at present.
- Triple Channel, with current 12GB (could double when new ram) available on X58, 8GB on P45 Chipset.
Now here is the daft thing, I just basically play games, one GTX 295 on a 24" TFT - some people buy hardware because they enjoy having the latest tech.
Yes it costs a considerable amount more but does it really? thats all down to each indivudual - some people have better jobs than others, some people blow £50 to £150+ going out etc, so sometimes the enjoyment of having something new to play with is more important than actual cost v performance.
If everyone did the same thing in life, it would be pretty boring woudnt it. :)
So all in all anyone saying blah blah it's a waste of money, it maybe to you, but not to others who have more money than you or don't mind the expenditure. :)
Wait a minute Chad, I just got through talking about how reasonable DDR3 was priced, did you miss those posts since it was more than on one occasion?Quote:
Originally Posted by Chad Boga
I'm NOT talking about Cheap Motherboards from day one I was talking about more options, flexibility, and not some Cookie cutter line of boards that reeks of backroom collusion.
What if I only wanted that Power Nehalem and 6GB business purposed, Video work and etc... I was just saying that where there hell are the ONE or TWO PCI-E X58? All Enthusiasts aren't Gamers, just as All gamers aren't enthusiasts. We can go in one thread and say nVidia made a stupid comment and that no one Games on their computer 100% of the time. Yet, here we have a motherboard built that seems to think we do! I think it is silly on both their parts, not one or the other.
So Intel says F off to Nvidia leaving customers (if they listened to Intel) to buy what brand GPU? ATI. ATI = AMD. AMD is Intel's only rival in their main market. Hmmm. Intel will not have their own viable GPU for a good while so this is relevant. Of course there is more to this stuff than you see at the surface level. I have had Nvidia supply me with AMD-based platforms for projects and had ATI consider me using Intel platforms for their projects. Vendors can do funny things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vozer
I'm not trying to take a cheap shot here, but because your grammar in that paragraph isn't at the level you usually write at, I can't work out what you are saying. :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
i dont find i7 waste of money but its just more like a overkill processor for gamers
i find the core 2 line is kind of crap know since amd's new proccessors new athlons x4 x3 x2 and phenom x4 x3 x2 should be better then the core line but only the core 2 quad q9xxx series would match amd new processors
core 2 quad arent even quads for a fact thats why i hate them and thats why amd new phenom x4s should be much better
DB i dont see intel's wierd named gpu's to be good because there no spec's
this post is pages back, but i really agree with this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
while i agree i7 doesn't have any major gaming upgrades, nvidia has a lot of nerve to make comments like this.
Wonder if Jen-Hsun Huang's momma ever taught him anything about throwing stones in glasses houses.....:rolleyes:
i7 can easily run 24GB and 48GB for that matter. I have tested a box with it. Plus also a DP server with 144GB.Quote:
Originally Posted by CandymanCan
I have seen the issues with P45. 8GB works fine in the cases I have seen. but I have seen 3 Series lowend chipsets with 8GB issues. Because all the modules are double sided. P45 supports doubled sided in all 4 slots.
Do anyone think is this a tactic from Nvidia to sell more LGA775 chipset? If so, is it a reasonable way to do that? I mean the increase in volume of chipsets they sell with this method must be very tiny. Am I wrong?
yep pretty much is marketing =)Quote:
Originally Posted by corey
and not very reasonable tbh but oh well we can't do anything about it apart from know better then some lies :)
I don't know about anyone else, but alt-tabbing out of a game on my machine is near instantaneous as well, and I'm on a Core 2 Quad system..Quote:
Originally Posted by Xoulz
Alt-tabbing speed depends heavily on memory capacity, more than speed I'd say.
I don't think anyone disputes that Core i7 is the better performer for games. The real question is, is whether performance is appreciable enough to justify upgrading to a Core i7 rig specifically for gaming?Quote:
Intel has more power savings features within their Core i7 and watt for watt, it has better performance for gaming than the Core 2 Quad.
The answer to that is no, unless you're using more than 2 GPU cores..
If you're upgrading from anything less than a Core 2 Quad, then I'd recommend going the Core i7 route..Quote:
Simply because building a LGA775 rig means in 3 years, it's basically throw away as a gaming rig, while a LGA1366 has just begun it's life cycle.
But if you're upgrading from a Core 2 Quad system to a Core i7 for gaming purposes, I wouldn't recommend it, unless you're pushing more than 2 GPU cores...
Don't you mean 33 GB/S :confused:Quote:
Did I mention 33MB per second of memory bandwidth..? :shocked:
Hate to tell you, but despite being non monolithic, the Core 2 Quad still outperforms the new Phenom x4s in gaming, encoding etc on a clock for clock basis....Quote:
Originally Posted by ILikeCosmosS
i believe nvad speaks the truth
http://cpu.smart-cam-mv.com/index.ph...view&sort=core
anyways..
http://cpu.smart-cam-mv.com/index.ph...iew&sort=speed
This may shed a little light on the issue. http://www.brightsideofnews.com/news...s-a-cgpu!.aspx
@highoctaneQuote:
Originally Posted by highoctane
@Carfax
Thats nice! :yepp:
And solid advice, but that is not what I was discussing. My premise HERE, was that IF you are building a new rig now. The would be no reason not to start with a LGA1366 standard. As the LGA775 is obsolete and has no future upgrade path intended.
If you already own a Core 2 Duo or Core 2 Quad, my comments don't apply.... obvisouly!
Cost?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xoulz
That presumes an LGA1366 build today will survive past the obsolescence of LGA775. Or in other words, it may be more prudent to save money by purchasing a powerful yet cheap LGA775 system today and upgrade in 2-3 years to a powerful yet cheap LGA1366 system. Of course, it completely depends on your usage patterns. I only use CPUs heavily when gaming so the former option would make more sense to me as I am nowhere near CPU limitations at this point (30" monitor).Quote:
As the LGA775 is obsolete and has no future upgrade path intended.
The Core i7 is an amazing feat from Intel and to consider it anything else is stupid and ignorant. However its a totally different thing to say that the Core i7 makes all the other CPU's out there worthless no matter what you do with it. I don't buy Nvidia's argument from a "building a new system" standpoint, but I do agree with it on the whole, if you have a C2D and a 7950GTX, a new video card makes more since then a new CPU, however to throw a bit of a wrench in Nvidia's argument, I feel that most informed people would replace that 7950 with a ATI card, not a Nvidia card, so the green team still loses out.
I have a Core i7 system which I use for Media and 3D rendering, as well as working on Mods and Maps for Men of War, and I love it. Its faster then any computer I have ever used when doing tasks that really use all 8 threads, HOWEVER my everyday system is a AMD Ph2 X4 system and when playing games the difference between the two systems is extremely hard to see, and normally comes down to load times and one or two FPS.
When it comes to costs however, the Ph2 X4 will save you about 200USD, maybe more depending DDR3 costs at any givin moment, yet the funny part to be is it has nothing to do with the cost of the CPU and everything to do with the cost of the MB. A top of the line AM3 board, like the MSI 790FX-GD70 I use will run you around 180USD, and has 4 PCI-E 16x slots, great board design and some of the best overclocking I have seen, in comparison the EVGA 132-BL-E758-A1 that I run in my Core i7, cost me a bit over 300USD when I got it, and though I love the board, it just does not feel as polished as the MSI AM3 board, but maybe I am wrong there. Ignoreing the cost of DDR3 as I had 4gigs from a old X48 system, the Core i7 build cost me 120USD more then my Ph2 system, and that may not seem like much, however throw the money saved with the CPU and ram, and that 200USD is extremely close to the cost of a shiny new ATI 4890. I also still can't really say the Core i7 was worth the price increase. The AM3 system as been more fun to work with, as I love the unlocked multiplier. more stable and just as fast as the Core i7 in gaming. The main reason to get a Core i7 over a Ph2 X4 for gaming is that you can use SLI, but Nivida has done a lot to make that less worthwhile then it use to be.
If a friend asks me today what kind of a system to build, starting out with nothing, I would probably say Core i7, IF you do more then just gaming, if you only game, Grab a P2 X4, 2 4890's, using the money saved over a Core i7 to pick up the second GPU, and call it a day. However if that friend has a C2D, and a old video card, I would agree with Nivida and tell him to get a new video card before getting a new CPU.
What Intel did with 775 (and AMD with AM2+) worked well since incremental upgrades could often be done effectively, I pretty much followed this path for the last couple of years. Whether this will also apply to 1366 and AM3 remains to be seen. However, 775 Dual > 1366 Quad is more of a step change in performance than AM2 Dual < AM3 Quad. You could get an AM3 CPU and run it in an AM2+ board before and hold out for cheaper DDR3 and AM3 boards, you can't do this with an i7.Quote:
Originally Posted by CadESin
If you can significantly upgrade your CPU (e.g. Dual<Quad) or GPU (e.g. DX9<DX10.1, extra GPU) without a MB (P975) change then i7 makes little sense since the cost to change is CPU + MB + RAM.
But, if you are building a new system with a £1200+ budget then anything less than i7 is a waste IMHO. I did a quick check on our configurators and i7+3GB+2x4890 is ~£11.50 more than 945+4GB+2x4890 or Q9550+4GB+2x4890 with the same case, PSU, HDD etc... which would you prefer?
Here's some test data from the three CPUs in question all OC'd to3.6GHz
3D Mark 06 was used at 1280x1024, 8xAA, 16xAF, Force Full Precision with a 4870x2 @ 775/950.
i7:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3344/...fa11788c_o.jpg
Ph2:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3414/...bc4ccef1_o.jpg
C2Q:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3649/...2e8ddb21_o.jpg
Given the small price difference between the platforms I see no reason not to go for the i7 system except for overclocking potential. Despite the Ph2 system having DDR3 at 1600MHz it cannot compete with the Q9650.
I definitely agree with if buying/building a new rig for myself the little bit extra for i7 is definitely worth it, at least in my eyes. However if I where building a gaming rig for say my nephew on the cheap I would definitely consider cheaper alternatives as gaming would be the most intense thing he ever does and a i7 platform would be overkill.
I don't think anybody on this entire board will dispute the performance potential of i7 but in general gaming isn't a particular area where i7 can really showcase its full potential.
The whole issue lies in the quote from the article below, not that i7 sucks.
"In the presentation, Nvidia’s technical marketing director Tom Petersen said “I have a copy of Intel’s latest deck that they share with press and customers, and on there they have a slide that is called The Intel Core i7 920 Processor, where they claim that gaming performance goes up by 80 percent when you use a Core i7. Now, I was impressed by that claim, and I was trying to figure out how they could possibly say such a thing, and it turns out that Intel is basing that claim on only 3DMark Vantage’s CPU test.”"
Yeah, I could have done vantage instead, but it scales similarly, if slightly better on the CPU score, and I prefer 06 because it can be set to loop indefinitely. For reference I ran the same test on a stock i7/4870x2 system and came out with ~18k so Intel's claim that overclocking an i7 is as good as adding a GPU is a little overstated as well (single 4870 1GB gets ~12k on i7 920).Quote:
Originally Posted by highoctane
Obviously a new build is balancing act trading off oc capability, CPU, RAM speed, quantity and capacity against shader grunt to a budget but nVidia's statement is untrue due to the marked enhancements that the i7 platform offers to multi-GPU solutions and the current price parity of i7 920 with Phenom II and Q9x50. For nVidia perhaps i7 SLi compatibility was a waste of money because so few boards exist with their PCI-E bridge chip.
Obvisouly..! But that isn't what we were talking about!Quote:
Originally Posted by highoctane
Heck, I can build an awsome LGA775 gaming rig for $550 bucks. We are discussing new technology that's purchasable today, that die hard gamers will want. Nvidia seems to forget about memory bandwidth of the i7 and the fact that new engines will start using these extra cores within their framework.
I want a rig that can jam out (up and coming) games like Battlefield 1943 @ 70fps and handle other upcoming games with ease. Even if some of those use 4g of memory! No serious gamer is looking to build a rig to handle current games or last year's hits..!
There's a rumor floated on VR-Zone that AMD is going to make the same move Intel did and disallow chipsets from nVidia at a certain point. I think part of all of this is that nVidia feels very threatened.Quote:
Originally Posted by lkiller123
No chipsets for Intel flagship products, Intel is entering the GPU market, and both Intel and AMD are talking single chip CPU-GPU fused beasts which leave nVidia out in the cold.
I still recommand to put a graphic card in your PC if you plan to play games ;-)
come on, let's all be nice!
Francois
The I7 series as a sum of Intel's R&D beats the living CR** out of renaming G92 chips for 2 years. Nvidia would have a leg to stand on if they actually had anything new to show for all the money they've spent. But they love churning out garbage for years, then pointing a finger at a competitor and saying they are doing the customer a disservice.
Nvidia, you've been smoking your own crack way too long...
thanks for being honest! :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Drwho?
everyone who is advocating starting with an i7 system is forgetting one minor detail for most gamers: cost. let's face it, there is a significant cost difference between 775 and 1356. on a component level, the differences are small but when building a complete system those pennies add up fast. plus, everyone has to pay the microsoft tax, and that can really cut into your hardware decisions when on a budget. however, i think CadESin is right, people that are looking to upgrade their graphics subsystem right now are probably not looking at nvidia (hd4770:D).
3x GT300 is whats in my next build. Enless ATi releases a better GPU.
Even after Larrabee is released? Sorry couldn't resist when I saw who posted that. :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by Drwho?
Oh come now gentlemen.
This is just Nvidia crying and whining before Larrabee hits the market. When that happens, we'll have two companies with their own propietary CPUs, GPUs, chipets and motherboard platforms and Nvidia squeezed in between.
This is why Nvidia is hard at work pushing it's workstation Tesla platform so that it can diversify its product lines enough to reduce the effect of Larrabee and Intel and AMD's integrated CPU+GPU solutions coming in 2010/2011.
Perkam
And its name's LRB? Are you happy about its performance? ;-)Quote:
Originally Posted by Drwho?
alot of the guys here sounds like Core i7 is necessary for gaming well its not..
Core i7 is an awesome CPU really fast and i would love to get one :yepp:
But today games don't really benefit alot from Multithreading there all about hertz and GPU power.
look at this OLD review
As for SLI yes Core i7 is better and it opens the bottle neck as of Guru3D review showed us But comon how much better is i7 then 4ghz Quad core?
what i mean Core i7 is better but not necessary.
of course Nvidia shouldn't of said that :shakes: but there Big mouth will back fire a can of whoopass from intel.
i think there just very scared from Intel New GPU that's why they are talking to much :banana::banana::banana::banana: to intel.
At high resolutions / quality settings the GPU becomes the perfomance limit, so it's to be expected that I7 is a waste as a C2D will be fast enough.
Maybe Nvidia should go back to developing new and better gpus instead of rebranding old ones so I7 could actually start to show it's true power.:p:
:welcome:Quote:
Originally Posted by C.Ron7aldo
Let's all be nice with NV, they are under a little stress right now, let's take the high road, it is good to have a challenging competitor like NV, it brings the best out of us, and more they speak, more it focus us.
At the end, the best technology wins, they should not worry much if they can do better.
Again, let s all be nice, and see how do they do under real competition. :up: :yepp: :yepp: :yepp:
Perkham you speak the truth - and thus we should probably just let Nv have their "whine" and let it be at that.
We still need GPU's in our systems and at high resolutions there is "less" dramatic differences between CPU's. Upgraders have a plethora of Core 2 quads to choose from, and those replacing enough components to be effectively building from the ground up can go with either platform and be "ok". And Nv will be "ok" too since folks are still going to put some kind of GPU in their system, and high end folks often put two or three cards in.
Up is still up and down is still down and the world turns as it has before.
Good strategy. They have nothing to lose.
Will this stop people from buying Core i7? Let us look at some facts.. who is adopting Core i7?
A quick look at Dell's lineup reveals two desktops using Core i7, with the rest completely dominated by "old technology".
It should tell you something: that unless you:
1. Have a lot of money to burn
2. Know what you are getting for fun/reviewing/testing/research
3. A devote intel dog
4. You think that the number 920 has magical properties
You will not be upgrading to i7.
Nvidia is speaking the truth
instead of core i7 we should buy C2Q 9550, P45 board, and two HD 4770 :up:
nvidia is speaking the truth
i had no improvements at all (FPS wise) when going from my Q9650 to the xeon W3520, that's why i returned the ram+board (actually both were broken and had some issues), sold the Xeon with a 30€ loss and went back to AMD
now i'm on my old opteron 170 and i have to say that the difference between this CPU and my E6600 was WAY bigger than the Q9650 -> w3520 step
if all you do is some minor video + MP3 encoding and gaming a low cost AMD or Intel sys is a much better choice than i7 (FPS with the X3 @ 36.-4.0 ghz may be 5%-10% lower than the i7 but the i7 costs 100% more and consumes much more energy...
my next setup will be bulldozer or the competing intel platform :)
But that would make nVidia lie, not that they are telling the truth:rofl: They were saying get an E5200 or AMD 7xxx with two GTX275's a few months ago. There was a thread here about it. That's why I said only if you Game 100% of the time. Gamers don't game 100% of the time so nVidia is FOS.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frananta
Even from the Ground up Q9550 makes good buy and P45 can work with 6 or 8GB of RAM. I've set up least 7 and use 6GB on my main system. Ran 8GB of mixed RAM on the Gigabyte, two 2GB GsKill and two 2GB Mushkin DDR2 800. The board didn't like the 1066MHz setting:shrug: Given a do-over, I'd buy Q9550 again and that was an upgrade fron an 8400 dual core. I do more video, audio than Games! I even noticed difference just booting up. My start up is teaked the same way.
nvidia clearly gotten brain damage
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
While that is true, if you have a MicroCenter anywhere nearby, it almost makes sense to do a Core i7 920 build, esp. since MicroCenter is routinely selling the i7 920 for $230.
True, an X58 motherboard is not cheap, but given that an acceptable board, the Gigabyte X58 UDR3, is only around $185, something akin to a more upper range P45 board (a price range not uncommon for enthusiasts to purchase within), and that 6GB of DDR3 RAM is now at $67 after rebate (Patriot Viper DDR3-1600 at Newegg), the differences in price are almost too little to consider a P45 direction these days. This is especially true if you want longevity from your system.....as LGA775 is going away and very doubtful if any more LGA775 cpu's will ever be released.
Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed. The ability to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power of the Core i7.
Darth V.
lol
Just got a rebate that made the one of the last DDR3 I bought $74.95 and IMHO for 6GB of RAM that's great! No, I don't have a Microcenter or even a Frys anywhere near me. i7 920 for $230 and a X58 based board for $159 and I'm on it like a fat hungry man on a Ham. Meanwhile, for $86 and free shipping I got 8GB of DDR2 without a MIR. Motherboard? I already had a P45 laying there un-used.Quote:
Originally Posted by Humminn55
i5 proved X58 is hoax! So now i5 moves from it planned mainstream, to High-end as well. The first road map showed i920 as mainstream and hell-f&^%ing-no 200 US isn't mainstream or at least it wasn't until recently! Thank all of the folks who ran out an bought boards like the Rampage and etc...:rolleyes: Most of the manufacters only see Dollar signs and Suckers!
Edit:
Mobo Foxconn P45A-S $87, 6GB of Mushkin PC-800 DDR2 $79, Q9550 $267. That's without any rebates.
Even after rebates, the i7 System's parts I looked was a $100 more. Please note, I already had about 16GB in either 2 or 4GB match pairs and got the motherboard for building some one a system.
:sofa:Quote:
Originally Posted by Drwho?
for me it was:
X3 720 BE - 120€
DFI Lanparty DK AM3 - 130€
8 gb of DDR3 ram (D9JNL) - 80€
Total: 330€
i7 920 - 260€
Lanparty DK x58 - 200@
6gb Ram - 60€
total: 520€
gaming Experience with a HD 4870 = The same
i don't see why anyone without SLI or CF wants to go for i7 if gaming + office is the only thing you do is gaming
nvidia IS right
for gamers without the money to buy high end SLI + CF systems i7 is a complete waste, with the 190€ you safe you can go out and buy a second 4870 which would result in a much bigger improvement than the i7...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
Thats nice Donnie, but October of 2010 when you feel your system getting sluggish, you won't b able to plop a 6 (or 8) core LGA775 CPU in that $100 cheaper rig. Nor will you be able to take advantage of increased performance (and lower cost) of something like better memory (IE:DDR3 2200MHz Cas 7), either..!
So, that extra $100 bucks defiantly gives you 1-3 years more on that LGA1366 platform, than if you would build a LGA775. Lets not also forget than the Core i7 920 is the bottom rung, can you imagine what will be out for that platform in just 14 months..??? (AMD just announced a 12-core CPU by around xmass. Intel's lga1366 will have to compete)
My old AMD 939 platform, went threw 3 different CPUs in 3.5 years... the motherboard (chassis) is more important than the actual chip you buy, because next year the i7 965 will be $165 bucks and some wild and crazy 8-core design will be $290. How do you upgrade a LGA775 to 8 cores for $300 bucks..???
You don't... ever!
zzzzzzzz
We knew this already, much in the same way that quad core was a waste for gamers for the first year or more after they hit the market core i7 is going to be a waste until developers start to write solid parallel code.
Personally, I use my i7 for other analysis work - it just happens to be blistering fast when I want to play games.
edit: I'm just waiting for the counter volley from Intel: "GTX295 a waste of money for gamers, says Intel" .. lawl
I've already said, I'll worry about 2010 in 2010 because something is ALWAYS new and then old in about 6 months. I went with something to tide me over until April 2010, I didn't build my computer with Longevity in mind, that just wastes money! What if i5 overclocks rings around i7? Then theres a mass move away from i7 and a wasted motherboard. I'd rather waste an $87 motherboard than one of the $275 ones on average that many have bought.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xoulz
My old Sc-939 wasn't worth upgrading and my wife took it over. Why? AMD waited too long to cut the X2 prices so my upgrade was to an E6600 that provided a big jump over the 3500+. It didn't matter if it was games, Audio or video apps. Even with the same X1850 Video card LOL!
The key to that upgrade was the $287 processor, but that DDR2 was $160(better than average price at that time), remember it was 2006 and the motherboard was $110 not anything like X58. If it was, I'd have stuck with AMD:up: I build my PC's and only expect to have them for about 18 months MAX before I buy a new one. I overhaul about every 6 months.
What nVidia is saying is stupid! I don't personally know ANYONE who'd buy rig strictly for gaming. Might be some one here doing that, but I don't know them. I use my computer enough that i7 would have been great on something like a P58 or i5 + P55 with a socket 1156, I don't like X58 as it is and still wouldn't buy it!
So they want us to sli on a 780i/790i?
Nvidia Sli motherboards are a joke. People myself upgraded not just because of the cpu, but for actual stability.
I'm certain Nvidia's dismissal of Intel's I7 is motivated by the current disagreement over chip-set licensing for that very same platform. That said It does ring kinda true.
At the risk of displaying my ignorance, what game requires more CPU than my trusty old A64 dual core at 3GHz?. Since I play at 1920x1200 I generally find my GPU to be the limiting factor. Perhaps some of you guys with money to burn could educate me on the gaming benefits of uber-powerfull CPUs.
NVM, answered my own question with some research, Crysis and Supreme commander. No wonder my CPU seems fast enough since I don't play those titles.
you forgot a few more :p: (every UT3 engien based game, GTA4, HL2 (especial TF2) and every other upcoming game. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightstar
UT3 and HL2(including TF2) run like the wind on my venerable CPU. I don't think mine is particularly special so I can only assume it's the same for everyone else...
I do understand that GTA4 humbles all PCs much like Crysis. Since it seems to run fine on the X-box I'll postpone a CPU upgrade to compensate for shoddy programming.
Seriously Demigod (supcom engine) is the only title that makes my CPU slow down at all, and my experiments indicate that it's due to some sort of bug or leak. When I start Demigod sim-speed is at 9-10. After 2+ hours of play it slows to 0 -1. Restarting the game doesn't change the unacceptable sim speed, but a reboot fixes all. So clearly not a CPU issue.
So the list becomes a little shorter once again ;)
Nightstar you have a good CPU and a good point.
For the games you play, i think that you have an optimal computer.
I have played SC, Demigod, and i didn't noticed any slow down. Maybe in SC when there are dozens of units, there is a glitch but in general it works fine. In my opinion SC is not so good optimized for multicore platform.
Coming back to GTA4, i think is the only game where a quad-core is really needed, i wouldnt blame bad programming.
But if you dont play GTA4, your CPU is very good for present games.
as an owner of a 4.2GHZ E8400 and 2.8GHZ 3800X2 i can tell u that Both GTA4 and Fallout 3 suffers badly @ 1440X900 + i have to close and CPU consuming applications running @ background and after ur windows gets old i need to restart the systems before playing games like burnout paradise and grid while the E8400 can run burnout even when priming at low priorityQuote:
Originally Posted by Nightstar
If a game has a multi CPU footprint it will benefit. I mainly play Left4Dead and saw a massive improvement (~+30fps to minimum) going from a dual to quad compared to going 4870 512 to 4870x2 (boosted max but not min).Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightstar
+1 on the motivationQuote:
Originally Posted by Nightstar
for "uber" cpu's the performance benefits go beyond gaming, but if that is the sole purpose of your computers existence the a duel or triple will suffice. your computer configuration simply a matter of personal choice, this whole argument is a bit ridiculous.
-1 on missing or not understanding what the argument is about.Quote:
Originally Posted by 570091D
No one is fully disagreeing that Discrete Video cards are important to computer games. nVidia's rant though makes it seem as if Gamers only play games and do nothing else CPU intensive. Why else would they advocate not using the fastest processor on the planet? If that's the case, then every gamer is wasting money on ANY computer hardware. That includes nVidia Video cards. Why? Just save yourself a lot of money and buy a XBox or one of the other Consoles. Never mind the computer, compare the price of only any better Video card vs the XBox 360? A Gamer and a Power User are two different Animals, this is a power user forum, not the GameSpot or etc........