Printable View
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.