Printable View
Maybe because in the real world people don't have unlimited budgets? Any money "wasted" on unnecessary CPU power is money not going toward an Nvidia GPU.Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
Not really sure what a power user is supposed to be but that's not who Nvidia is talking to. As evidenced in this thread, "power users" already know that what they're claiming is true.Quote:
A Gamer and a Power User are two different Animals, this is a power user forum, not the GameSpot or etc........
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
Gotchya :up:
You build your systems in a vacuum..! I honestly think the AM3 platform is looking tempting.
I have wondered for some time if i7 will turn out to be intels socket 754.
I'll hold out a little longer to see if something better comes along.
It' certainly is nowhere near as tempting as core2 was when it hit the street.
Almost Xoulz, my choice was to buy;Quote:
Originally Posted by Xoulz
DDR3 + i7 + X58 or
AM2+ + X4 940 or
only a Q9550 for a drop in upgrade!
I already had a bunch of DDR2 RAM.
IMHO X4 940 offers the best bang for the computing buck:up:! It's followed closely by the Q9550 that's slightly faster but also more expensive. I was very close to going AM2+ + X4-940.:up: I don't have a lot confidence in X58 living past next year and I'm not about to wait however long on i5. If going with Q9550 was 100%, X4-940 was 97% and due to X58, i7 was down in the fifties:rofl:.
I even went with a cooler running OCZ Stealth Stream 700W PSU:up: with left over money. Might even add a second 4850.
Edit, Meant AM2+ since I was talking about DD2 LOL, not DDR3 sheesh! I do mean X4 940 and NOT X4 945.
@Donnie27
Good for you that you've picked that C2Q 9550 because AM3 + X4-940 is wrong: 940 doesn't work on AM3 platform, so you just saved yourself from a big stupid mistake.
In my opinion NVIDIA said that Nehalem is a very good CPU for any type of usage, but for games is a bit too expensive like any other quad-core because actual games are not "developed" for the full potential of a quad-core system. A cheap 3Ghz+ dual-core should do the job, and gamers should invest more in better graphic cards(very true).
For future games that will be developed with opencl, i think the quad-core CPUs will become more and more fitted in a gaming rig.
Core i7 goes faster than Yorkfield for sure, if you use an AMD/ATI card ...
Francois
Intel real world folks limited budgets don't spend $220 to $500 on video cards to play games no matter what their computers costs. I don't see post here with folks here down playing video cards for gaming.Quote:
Originally Posted by trinibwoy
Sure you know what the hell a power user is, if you didn't you wouldn't be posting on xtremesystems.org.Quote:
Originally Posted by trinibwoy
nVidia must not be sure what Power users are. Your Ying contradicts your Yang BTW! My disagreement was very simple. nVidia's trying to downplay the CPU in saying that i7 is a waste of money when it comes to games is flat out DUMB. What do you don't get about NO ONE, EVEN Gamers uses their computers for ONLY Games? I didn't get an i7 but the reason I didn't buy an i7 had ZERO to do with Games. Yes, nVidia's comments makes perfect sense to that .00001% of computer users who have nothing but games installed on their computers. For folks who fit into that .00001% what nVidia saying makes perfect sense! So according to nVidia, overclocking the CPU is a waste of time and money as well.:rolleyes:
nVidia's comments comes straight from the school of General U.S. Grant, "If you can't dazzle em' with fancy footwork, baffle them with fancy Bu11 $#it!"
Why Thank you for the advice LOL!!Quote:
Originally Posted by nr4
The other big stupid mistake is not getting XBox if all you do is play games!
When is the 8-core CPU comming out for the LGA1366.? That might help me decide when to buy! :cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by Drwho?
If not, I might start leaning towards the AM3 platform.
The 8 core is for LGA1567. There is a 6core for LGA1366 in Q1 2010.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xoulz
LGA1567 quad-channel allready? everything happens so fast...
Maybe they are preparing for bulldozer :rofl:
They really dont want AMD to beat them into some sort of synthetic benchmark.
LGA1567 was planned for ages. Its for quadsocket+Quote:
Originally Posted by nr4
Because video cards actually increase performance in games.Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
What do you not get about the simple concept that hardly anyone does anything CPU intensive? Your proposed 0.000001% of gamers is still more than the number of people who would find use for a faster CPU. In either case, it's not like Nvidia said nobody should buy an I7 product, if there's a valid reason to do so then so be it. But the fundamental point is that a lot fewer people need more CPU performance than they do GPU performance. Unless you can come up with a more common CPU intensive task than gaming.....Quote:
What do you don't get about NO ONE, EVEN Gamers uses their computers for ONLY Games?
And CPU increases everything else after you're finished gaming.Quote:
Originally Posted by trinibwoy
If anyone doesn't get something here it's you! One last time! i7 is a waste of money for Games only if all you do on your computer is game! If you use it for Audio, Video, Photo, and etc..... listening to nVidia is Stupid. I only said that if all you do is game on your computer is game, nVidia is right!Quote:
Originally Posted by trinibwoy
Same thing I'm wondering.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xoulz
For anyone with a 45nm Wolfdale@4.0ghz there is no real reason to upgrade for gaming unless you have an unlimited pocketbook. Not to mention that this Quad craze that has hit hardware has not hit Software. We all know how long it took for dual core to be implemented (Source games are still single threaded native) and I decided to stick with top end dual core for this very reason. I know that the Quad core Software rise will eventually arrive, but by then I'll definitely be on a 6/8 Core CPU. (Also after reading some GTX 295 + CPU comparisons which showed less than 10% gain for i7 between 4ghz Wolfdale, hell in some benches the Wolfdale beat out the i7 920)
(Also because I won my motherboard in a G92 Overclocking Competition and it prefers Duals)
I figure I'll ride out this 4.0ghz Wolfdale until the 8 Cores hit and then I'll make the plunge into DDR3/SSD/DX11 etc; for now I have a DX10 dual core gaming beast :D
Donnie27
The ones who use the system for Audio, Video, Photo, etc is something like 100000 times less than the ones who play games. And this is for personal computers.
And also Audio, Video, Photo is done in multiple ways: novice, medium, advanced.
So even less people need on their personal computer Nehalem.
And also NVIDIA talked about GAMERS and guess what GAMERS like to play games in 90% of their time, and in 10% they listen to music, watch movies, or mirc.
If you just use your computer for Audio, Video, Photo editing, you are not a GAMER even you spend some time in games.
nvidia may have talked to "gamers" about this and they do make a decent point for FPS games but many gamers play other things besides FPS games. i am really big into RTS games. most notably supreme commander foraged alliance that has been modded to hell and back. the game looks pretty good but only needs a 8800gt to max out on most resolutions. however the CPU is a different story. at first i thought my 3.8GHZ Core 2 Quad was the fastest SupCom rig of my buddies. then 2 of them upgraded to i7. the catch is they are running bone stock Core i7 920's no overclocking what so ever. there rigs are able to run at a faster game simulation speed than mine is when we LAN. thus they have a faster processor. yet i have a 1.2GHZ clock advantage. Sure i7 is only a little faster in some games but if you play RTS games then i7 is a no brainer. an absolute beast! i would take i7 single GPU over a core 2 dual machine SLI machine any day of the week. it just makes more sense. people still don't realize that if your on a 22inch monitor that a 8800gtx still plays 90% of games maxed out without AA and many with AA as well.
That's BS! I'm a Gamer, and I'd NOT forsake my whole system for Video Games. Most folks I know who even like Games also want something that has more ump than an average Gaming CPU, look at the sigs around here? Then ask some of these folks what they do after they get through Gaming? I guess you're saying they don't need to overclock as well uh?Quote:
Originally Posted by nr4
[XC] hipno650
I play Supreme Commander too + Forged Alliance.
I have a Phenom X4 9650 (quad-core), but in Forged Alliance only one core is loaded. it doesn't use my entire CPU. I also tested on Intel and is the same story.
Supreme Commander (not FA) is scaling better, but also is not using all 4 cores.
Are there any updates so it will use all 4 cores?
Can you please point me to these CPU intensive audio, video and photo applications that everybody uses? You are carrying on about something that applies to a miniscule number of people....far less than the number of people who play games. Sure, let the guy who rips all his DVD's and re-encodes them get an I7. Nobody's stopping him. You have completely missed the point Nvidia is making.Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
Building high end rigs is like getting into rc cars and planes, drag racing your daily driver, etc, its not for everyone and not everybody gives a rats bum about computing power nor do most people need allot. I would wager most folks here could even get by just fine for their daily use on a rig a fraction of a cost of the one they actually built and use but what fun is that.
Most folks buy and use a computer as they would a TV, DVD player or toaster, its simply an appliance they use and as long as it works they are satisfied.
Even with audio or video encoding, it runs in the background for one, it can run a long time as in hd encodes so whats the big deal in the difference of 5 hours to encode or say 6-7 hours for a lesser rig, the world will still turn.
Link to me saying most folks here don't play games?Quote:
Originally Posted by trinibwoy
Meaning I'd not spend a lot of money on a video card to play games and end up with less performance everywhere else other than games. I was AGAINST X58 because I thought it was too Gamer centric!Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
I didn't buy an i7 myself. I said I didn't buy an i7 but it had NOTHING to do with i7 being a waste of money for Games. Just running any Audio, Video, and etc. app/s of your choice two or three at a time is CPU intensive. Nobody isn't stopping YOU from not doing like I did and NOT buying an i7 either LOL!
Ripping a DVD? How about Making DVD's from Home movies? That with Windows Movies maker, DivX, and tons of others. I already mentioned compressing Audio and etc......some at the same time.
If you think that only a minuscule amount of folks fit into that category ( you discribe), no wonder you're confused! Again, if what you're saying is valid, then overclocking is a waste of time as well! No one's or only a few folks need powerful CPUs for anything LOL! Guys, stop overclocking it is a waste of money as well!:rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
Now I don't mean to give offense Donnie, but I don't really understand what your on about here. The thread is "Colre I7 a wase of money for gamers, says Nvidia".
This is true unles: You already have the fastest 3d video card that money can buy and the game you want to play can leverage more performance from a faster CPU. The end.
As for audio, video, photo applications. No A/V playback stresses a cpu which is better than say... my AA1s Atom 270 (which btw I tend to use for mp3 and low res video playback in fact I'm typing on it now) it seems Hi-Res HD video playback is dramatically enhanced by a decent GPU. An Acer Revo is a great example of an anemic CPU with great multimedia playback capabilities.
I'll concede that A/V creation can be a CPU intensive task and one that can definitely benefit from the Core I7. However GPUs are making inroads in the area of video compression/decompression as well(Badaboom), and a fast HW raid controller would be money better spent if you already have a decent CPU.
As for a dedicated gaming PC being a waste of money compared to an X-box... Have you compared the range of titles and quality of games between these two platforms? Seriously you can't really believe that an X-box is at all comparable to even a 5 year old gaming rig.
I'd wager most "gamers" give not a :banana::banana::banana::banana: about how quickly their gaming rig compresses video.
Oh BTW for DemiGod players or SupCom players. I solved my performance degradation issues by disabling Nvidias Driver helper. :D Buttery smooth play on me old Athlon.
If this was the only thing nVidia had said, I'd not have posted. I said if all you do is Games, YES it IS A WASTE OF MONEY. I asked who in the hell only plays games on their computers?Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightstar
Still didn't get my question answered, is overlocking waste of time since CPUs seem over rated?
Filtered to the point!
Quote:
Can you please point me to these CPU intensive audio, video and photo applications
Quote:
I would wager most folks here could even get by just fine for their daily use on a rig a fraction of a cost of the one they actually built and use but what fun is that.
Quote:
The ones who use the system for Audio, Video, Photo, etc is something like 100000 times less than the ones who play games.
Quote:
Maybe because in the real world people don't have unlimited budgets? Any money "wasted" on unnecessary CPU power is money not going toward an Nvidia GPU.
Here's what has me posting so much!Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
http://www.brightsideofnews.com/news...or-gamers.aspx
Quote:
Originally Posted by brightsideofnews
First, I don't like nVidia's crappy motherboards so I'm NOT going to go with SLI.
Second If I want to, I have a Second PCI-E and can Crossfire my 4850.
Third I just upgraded from an E8400 and saw speed ups with just a single 4850 in Far Cray 2 and Brothers In Arms Hell's Highway. Hell, even iTunes speeded up:rofl: Then when I'm through playing, just about everything else is faster. CoD WAW is next up for me. I'd go for Quad Core first, and then another video card later! I would update the CPU again if given a do over. If Foxconn had releasted the Flaming Blade sooner, I'd have an i7 920.
Still don't get it?
Waste for gamers except for those who love playing Crysis.. umm how many actually love playing Crysis?!?:wierd::fight:
You've got this the wrong way round. Overclocking saves money by making lesser hardware run as fast as more costly gear.Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
I for one love my DFI NF4 Ultra-D, I can't speak for the latest crop of Nvidia boards as I don't own any. Neither do I favor Multi-card VGA arrays be they Nvidia or ATI based. Double the money, double the power, double the heat for perhaps 150% performance. That's well beyond my cutoff for diminishing returns.Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
Oh, I get it. 1 You don't play at 1920x1200. 2 You love your quad core CPU. 3 You like to play games that I don't. 4 You prefer Sean Kalinich's impassioned rhetoric to that of Tom Petersen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
That you actually noticed a speed-up in I-tunes with a CPU "upgrade" blows me away. Now, I uninstalled that Apple malware immediately after trying it but I can't say it seemed slow with my then A64 3000+ single core @2.4Ghz. If I-tunes doesn't run acceptably fast on a quad core CPU you should inform Apple so they can fix the bug. Millions of people running I-tunes on netbooks would thank you for your selfless efforts on their behalf.
Nightstar I'm pretty sure he was joking about the OCing being a waste of money.
Im sure your right. I should have denoted my intent with /sarcasm. Still he did request a response.
yah, unless your computer is infected with viruses or you are doing lots of encoding in the background or I don't see how upgrading to an 9550 from a 8400 bring general performance up, getting a ssd drive otherwise will certainly improve performance.
It speeded up everything because of the way I use it. Though I'm not a heavy multitasker, or Megataster as AMD called, I do it enough to easily see a difference between an 8400 and a Q9550. Yes, an SSD would be nice and I'll have one as soon as they mature enough to have a more mainstream price.Quote:
Originally Posted by Krizby87
Unlike what the other guy implied, I DON'T have an unlimited budget?
Yo man it was sarcasm, no biggie bro. I was joking that some are wanting to eat their cake and have it too. I'm glad I got the Q9550 and my only regret is that I didn't get a Q9650. I thought I made it clear that if all anyone does is play games, then nVidia is RIGHT! But for most folks here, they're NOT! Oh and most of my games are played at 1600 X 1050 my 22" LCD's native resolution. I switch over to my 19" Sony CRT for online play (1280 X 1068). Just click the switch default monitor setting in the CCC.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightstar
Not a joke, thank you for your common sense reply!