Printable View
http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardwar...-says-nvidia/1Quote:
Intel’s Nehalem architecture might have generated a lot of excitement and rave reviews, but it turns out that Nvidia isn’t that impressed with its impact on gaming performance. In fact, yesterday the company described Intel’s claims about Core i7's gaming performance as “disingenuous” in a presentation to introduce Nvidia’s concept of an optimised gaming PC.
Thats interesting, but I suppose until game developers really utilize all cores for multiple functions these remarks will fall to the wayside.
hrm, they got some ballz.
lol there goes another cat fight
I dont understand this argument, without Intel; Nvidia's stuff wouldn't work to begin with... why do they care what people buy in terms of processors? Its not like its pulling from Nvidia's market.
If game developers learned how to do multi threading properly, it would not be a waste of money.
I'd rather have E8400+GTX260 SLI than i920+GTX285
I think it is, esp. when you consider it consumes more power than C2Q and C2D.
There is a lot of truth in that. You are better off with a higher clocked and more energy efficient E8600 than a Core i7 920. Hell, even the AMD Phenom II X3 720BE is a better deal for most people.
Hope Nvidia's scorched earth policy works out for them.
Not surprising for a company that says GPU will overtake the CPU.
if I7 is a Hummer and C2D is a Beamer, than what would PHII be?
A Mercedes. Damn close to a beamer, just a bit heavier :DQuote:
Originally Posted by G0ldBr1ck
I sense a company thats angry over some chipsets they dont have for that platform....
I can't believe I agree with NV. Seriously.
isn't that because most games still rely on core speed mostly ?
it would be nice it they could code for better use for each cpu's advantage instead of jut one thing.
In other news, Nvidia claims buying a motherboard is also irrelevant, and GT 300 customers will be able to connect their GPUs straight to their monitors, all powered by a hamster in a small box for a psu :stick:
The Nehalem platform is an amazing evolutionary step that has stepped up the competition in ways neither AMD nor Nvidia could have imagined, especially in multi-gpu and 2d/3d rendering applications.
What's interesting is that with the integration of the AMD CPU and ATI GPU platforms, a lot of Intel users have been using Nvidia cards so it boggles my mind how they can come up with something so oblivious.
Perkam
Maybe GT300 is turning out to be good if they're as brave as attacking Intel like this, well it better be. It's not good to attack a giant without a useful weapon. Especially due to those SLI-licenses... :p:
But then again NV's gonna sell their topend GT300 card probably for $600 or so, that's not exactly cheap either when you still have to have a decent CPU to get most out of it as well. ^^
I don't disagree with Nvidia's claim here, and Intel's 80% claim IS pretty lame. But those are still some big words for a company that's probably selling an unprecedented number of second GPU's, thanks to most X58 boards being licensed to use SLI.
Of course they say its waste, because then you won't be able to buy nvidia chipsets :shrug:
It's a little odd, being as SLI performs better with the increased bandwidth of i7. Their entire point is presumably "Buy our graphics cards" however, in the traditional "spend your money on the GPU rather than CPU for better graphics" line of reasoning. This is less about ego than it is about cash flowing into the company.
you would think the company behind cuda would realize the pc is used for more than just gaming.
Its more like: Buy a Core 2+nVidia SLI chipset+nVidia GPU(s). Instead of i7+X58+nVidia GPU(s).Quote:
Originally Posted by xVeinx
nVidia is a desperate company and its goodwill is about used up. nVidia used to be able to bully anyone around to do their bidding. Now they have nothing.
My thoughts exactly.Quote:
Originally Posted by grimREEFER
If you use the computer for playing only (or for playing and non-CPU intensive tasks), then moving to i7 is going to yield very little return.
However, unless you move from a QX9770 to an i7-920, you're not going to notice a performance decrease either, and the resale value of your current hardware is likely to decrease over time, to the point that, once you seriously consider and upgrade, you might want to give it away because no one is going to pay for it.
As usual, there are infinite shades of grey between nVidia's black and Intel's white.
But that is why they said it's a waste of money to most gamers. They didn't say anything about people who encode media 24/7, or people running a 3d rendering app:welcome:Quote:
Originally Posted by grimREEFER
Hmmm.. they say that they got the 80% number from Vantage CPU.... I seem to remember that "Marketing Benchmark" to have in small print at the bottom of the bar graph text that mentioned that it was in the POV-ray benchmark.
Either way, neither of which is actual gaming performance/experience.
Nvidia - Waste of money for gamers.
I have to agree here. This is the perception I got from it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
I didnt upgrade from an E8400 to an I7 for gaming, I upgraded because I was bored and wanted to build again.
I used to strongly oppose quad cores as well, however, my E8400 was borked and no longer running stable over 3.8 GHZ. I wanted to upgrade to an E8600, but -
E8600 = £220
I7 920 D0 = £250?
Ok, so I needed a new expensive motherboard and ram, but dual cores are currently horribly overpriced, which makes quads more appealing.
The problem with Quad cores is that game developers are not currently utilizing all of the cores. But this was also the case when SLI was first released - support for multiple GPUs at first was rubbish.
Hopefully over the next few years, game developers will begin to take advantage of quad cores and begin to implement multi threading into their games.
But I do agree that if all you use a PC for is games, the E8400 is the finest CPU on the market.
yeah waste of money, more like gtx 285's are a waste of money for $650 in SLI, when $400 for a couple of 4890's keeps up and go past them.
i dunno about anyone else but when I first gamed on my i7 rig stock out of the box I was blown away by the smoothness.
Plus the fact that multi GPU solutions work better with 8 effective CPUs and oodles of bandwidth.Quote:
Originally Posted by madgravity34
Hm, "don't spend your money upgrading CPU, spend it on GPU". "We've got a plethora of options to choose from 8800GT, 9600GT, 9800GT, 9800GTX+, GTS 250, GTS 250+, GTS 250 Super Super Duper clocked FTW Edition. Any of them will do...the same"
I agree with this
For a normal home PC and gaming PC i still fail to see how you could go wrong with an E8400 chip and a decent GFX card from green or red team
benching is fair enough. intel has some amazing products but spending extra on a new platform for gaming or to make yourself feel good about what you are running makes no sense.
I dont think anyone uses their computer for gaming exclusively though. I dont use it for gaming at all almost and the odd video edit etc that i like i know ill probably go faster on i7 but who are we kidding. How many home users are professional artists. Who cares if we have to wait for extra 2 hours on a final encoding job on a large project. If you encode :banana::banana::banana::banana: every day you are not a home user but a pro and its clearly justified to spend if you make a living out of it otherwise it just does not make sense
AMD has some cheap options now and for those that have followed intel and have a motherboard that supports dual core 775 CPUs i'd just stick to a GPU upgrade or a hard drive upgrade to SSD instead :shrug:
<--- "isn’t that impressed" with the nf200 performance rofl
I cant say im surprised they said that...
http://img2.imageshack.us/img2/8264/ballsh.jpg
can some one tell me why are they making Intel main enemy?
I disagree, quad GPU does not work well on a dual CPU. Quad R770/GT200 on 4GHz C2D performs worse than dual R770/GT200 on a 3.5GHz C2Q (or i7). For top performance a 3x or 4x gpu system needs a quad CPU as a minimum. I've seen enough under performing multi GPU systems since Tri SLI and 3870x2 launched to back this up. As for gaming that depends on what your target resolution is. Since the LCD took precedence over the (more adaptable CRT) it is important to game at native resolution. For HD (1080p+) gaming on recent releases a dual GPU solution is almost a necessity. And to run that effectively you need a fast quad core CPU.Quote:
Originally Posted by dinos22
Extra GPU's add very little if your CPU(s) can't keep up and as more game engines go multi core this effect will increase. My recomendation is ideally two effective CPUs per GPU or at least one CPU per GPU.
:up:Quote:
Originally Posted by madgravity34
initialised
cheap fix just get a cheap 775 quad core chip
and you're done :D
lame even though i hate both companies i think nvidia is just doing this to make the guilable believe that and buy a core2 with there chipset
I like my i7. *shrugs*
They have a point though. Intel claimed that the i7 would have an 80% boost in games over Core 2, and they based that claim on the Vantage CPU test... that is pretty shady.Quote:
Originally Posted by ownage
this is another thing, the fact is that gaming performance isn't improving much from C2D to Nehalem.Quote:
Originally Posted by GAR
well to me buyin an nvidia videocard is a waste cause i wont be buyin no crap nvidia chipset and wont be goin i7
after usin nvidia cards for almost 10 years i went to ati
i just bought another ati card n goin crossfire i woulda stuk with nvidia but they bein such :banana::banana::banana::banana::banana:s not worth my loyalty
Quote:
Originally Posted by dinos22
well said. But there are lots of people DO care how many seconds their CPU takes to finish 1M SuperPI and a few seconds lesser in loading or extracting an archive. They believe this few seconds gonna change their life forever...lolz
Sure, i7 sux, thats why I bought it and my FPS doubled or tripled somewhere. :D Poor and stupid nVidia. Btw. runing tri-SLi without some good quad to feed it, is near useless..
Yeah, so don't buy an i7 to replace your Prescott 3.8GHz, replace your 5900 Ultra with a GTX295 instead.
I admit though, it hasn't been a huge leap from QX9770 to an i7 965, but it has been noticable in my everyday tasks including shuffling tracks in Foobar2000. :D
Remember this is the same company that bought 3dfx to create an at the time monopoly and told the legacy customers to **** off. The management of this company has a history of being emotionally driven, for better or worse.
That isn't the point here though.Quote:
Originally Posted by haylui
Two years ago Nvidia could have been saying this about Intel's new Quad cores and how they don't offer much in terms of gaming performance compared to Core 2 duo's.
The fact of the matter is that the Core i7 is the next evolutionary step in Intel's CPU design (and irrespective of being a monopoly, it is the KING of cpu design) and with time and economies of scale, prices will come down.
I don't need to hear Nvidia whine about how a 32nm westmere at $500 will offer nominal performance differences over a 45nm Nehalem a year from now because it is a step forward at the end of the day and companies cannot stop innovating because they outdid themselves the last time around. I'm not a big fan of Intel prices at all, but to say that the Core i7 is useless is irresponsible.
In addition, I find such commentary laughable from a company which would sooner have branded the QX9650 a core i7 and have had no shame over it than to innovate at the rate Intel does.
Perkam
i agree with your point, that enough bandwidth must be provided to properly run multi-gpu set ups. but i think that one cpu per gpu is overdoing it. i can't remember where i saw it (perhaps someone does remember this and can provide a link), but i once read a review comparing crossfire performance between the phenom II x3 and x4. the difference between the two was about 5fps. but then you really can't take those findings and compare them to an intel c2d because of the memory config differences. we can argue the pro's and cons forever.Quote:
Originally Posted by initialised
really, these decisions are up to the consumer, if little billy wants a pentium and two gtx295's he can have it. it's his money to waste.
/exactly!Quote:
Originally Posted by G0ldBr1ck
WTF is nVidia talking about, we just witnessed a demo of the Unreal engine and 2,000 physic objects getting tossed all around a room, running on ancillary cores.
Tri-channel DDR3 with never before seen bandwidth and a new OS coming down the pipe with Direct 11.0 that will make better use of Intel's architecture.
What has Nvidia done? Where is the 4-core GPU's ..?
You got to be joking!... :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by Luka_Aveiro
I7 is by far the best ever platform for multi-GPU system (SLI/CF), and games never did benefit of such bandwith/power as today.
For now I have to agree with Nvidia. I want i7, but not for games. For photo editing apps.
GPUs don't work like that. But technically, the GT200 has 240 cores.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xoulz
funny thing about GFX biz is that GFX cards from both camps havent got anything really decent to offer
my bro in law got a new 46"LCD TV with 1920x res and wants to play an occasional car racing game like NFS and asked me what to get to replace the 7600 he has
i told him to go find a cheap 8800GT
freaking 2 year old card is still a perfectly good recommendation
the whole industry is going downhill a little :shakes:
The fact is that with lots of the 775 chips and a decient video card you can play most games.
Start maxing out the settings and that is when you need the horsepower.
Also from intel's roadmap and also the timeframe for next gen video cards.
Getting an I7 you can rock and roll for a long time to come, so it's a great
platform that you will have time to grow into and tweek to perfection. Intel
is going after the middle of the range chips with their next releases the i5, so for a
i7 owner, it's a non event. So who cares what anyone says, look at it positioning and
it spot on a winner for a long time to come...
Quoted for absolute truth!Quote:
Originally Posted by MrToad
Agree!Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
If C2D is a Beamer, i7 would be at least a Porshe (in terms of performance).Quote:
Originally Posted by G0ldBr1ck
PH2 would be a VW.
Gee, I wonder if this guy /\ is an Intel Fan. :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by shiznit93
lets see, I went from intel 386, to pentium1 166, to celeron 300a, amd athlon thunderbird 1300, amd barton 3200 m, amd a64 venice, amd a64 x2 512kb, opteron 170, q6600, and now e8400.Quote:
Originally Posted by G0ldBr1ck
I'm a fan of whatever is best for me at a given time sir.
i7 is better than c2d, yes the difference is marginal at times, but it's still better (hence the bwm to porsche comparison, ie M3 to 911). And cd2 is still mostly better than ph2 (hence the bwm to vw comparison, ie 3 series (or 1) to GTI/Scirocco).
Maybe the Phenom II would be an Audi?Quote:
Originally Posted by G0ldBr1ck
audi is arguably on par with BMW, ph2 is still slower than penryn clock for clock.Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
Snip!Quote:
Originally Posted by shiznit93
2 faced then really :D
i said it before and i'll say it again, Nvidia is working on their own cpu secretly :yepp:
Maybe an Audi A4 compared to a BMW 7 series!? I didn't mean equal lines from each company. The point being, there are no night and day differences, sure the Intel processors are faster. I do get what you saying about the certain Volks Wagons as well:up:Quote:
Originally Posted by shiznit93
Sure, but it better not be X86.Quote:
Originally Posted by jtdigital
they're actually right in this case. i7 is fairly overpriced; and gaming (as long as you're not gaming at 640x480) is mostly GPU-bound anyway. you'd be much better off (financially) with a cheap Wolfdale than an i7, and not really notice a huge difference. In fact, you could even invest the money you save one the CPU+platform on a more powerful video card.
because they have it out for Intel the way Charlie Demerjian has it out for them, extreme stupid driven hate.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChaosMinionX
Yeah I don't understand Nvidia and their silly statements either, the i7 is probably the best thing to happen to them, and vice versa, combined they compliment eachother to make a beast rig.
I actually drove a VW Phaeton once, 450hp and (sadly) limited to 250km/h (I'm from germany). The car looks like a normal VW Passat but is filled up with all the high tech available. That was fun. Kind of like a PH2 @ 6GHz ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by shiznit93
I'm not so sure Nvidia is speaking to guys who visit forums and build their own rigs. They have been fighting for a bigger slice of the OEM budget for years now. It really is crazy how many prebuilt PC's come with souped up CPUs and $50 graphics cards. That's what they're trying to change and I can't blame them. Because a lot of those configs are horribly underpowered in the GPU department and there is no doubt that shifting some of the budget to the GPU would result in an all-round faster machine.
My Q6600 @3.6 is still kicking til this day. Sometimes I get the mod bug that makes me want to unload on a new i7 rig, then the other side of me just says to just upgrade by GPU.Quote:
Originally Posted by iddqd
-Nvidia makes bad chipsets.Quote:
Originally Posted by C.Ron7aldo
-Intel knows that and say "no-no for our Core i7 platform".
-Nvidia cries.
Before launch of Core i7 Intel and Nvidia had a tense negotiation about it. Intel totally refused Nvidia chipsets on their motherboards(for obvious reasons), but Nvidia wanted Intels motherboards to use their NF200 chipset in order to make SLI work.
Intel still said no, so an agreement was made, 5dollars for every single x58 motherboard with SLI support, goes to Nvidia.
Intel also claims that since Core i7 uses QPI(thank god for that) and no longer FSB(someone said slow?), their agreement with Nvidia isn't legitimate anymore, thus Nvidia can't make a motherboard with chipsets for Core i7, meening replacing x58(the very expensive) with Nvidias own chipset. The reason for this is:
-Intel wants to sell their own chipsets.
-Nvidia can't make Chipsets for Core i7.
-Core i7 chipset market is Intels alone and they can price its chipsets without any competition what-so-ever.
So yeah, Nvidia is left to make chipsets for AMD platforms, and locked away from Intels. Before some smart*ss comes and opens hes mouth about s775, thats a dying platform.
Say hello to cpu bottleneck in most games. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Luka_Aveiro
A E8400 would be such a waste on a SLI ring.... meh, but i guess some people prefer to waste money linke that and give NV moeny for free. :p:
If Nvidia hate Intel, why not go with AMD?
Cause AMD already puts out GPU's...?
Why I am up grading to Core i7 is. I like doing SLI or CF and the X58 lets me do this. I like to change gfx's cards the x58 lets me do this on the same board if so whoever I choose.
If I like ATI cards on their next release I'll get CrossfireX if I like Nvidia's next offer of cards I can do SLI. All the time on the same board.
I know the performance is not really greater then the X48 or the 790i but tell me besides a custom bios or Hacked something can you get Crossfire on a 790i rig or Sli on a x48?
Quote:
Originally Posted by trinibwoy
That's a every good point & i fully agree. But i think the problem is the way NV is going about it.
agreed...can't tell when exactly, but not so long ago, I read an interview from John Carmack (ID Software) saying it was just "too difficult" to make use of all cores & multithreading in gamesQuote:
Originally Posted by GAR
just found (back in 2007): http://www.dailytech.com/John+Carmac...rticle5665.htm
(but there's been a longer speech about it; can't find it)
Quote:
Then on to the topic of multi-core gaming systems. Carmack has expressed his dislike for multi-cores, but with the two high-powered new generation consoles both making use of multiple cores, it may be something he just has to deal with. He says of the Xbox 360: “Microsoft has made some pretty nice tools that show you what you can make on the Xbox 360 [with the multi-cores] … but the fundamental problem is that it’s still hard to do. If you want to utilize all of that unused performance, it’s going to become more of a risk to you and bring pain and suffering to the programming side,” he laments. “So we’re dealing with it, but it’s an aspect of the landscape that obviously would have been better if we would have been able to get more gigahertz in a processor core. But life didn’t turn out like that, and we have to just take the best advantage with it.”
because they'd rather go with the currently better technology :D (they first went AMD btw, when they launched SLI)Quote:
Originally Posted by lkiller123
Think a little bit harder about that. If you have a fixed amount of money to spend on a PC, let's call it the average "PC budget", that means there is only so much to go around on all components. If more of that amount goes to the GPU and less to the CPU, it's good for them. That combined with the fact that for gaming it's absolutely a valid criticism makes it a strong marketing point.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChaosMinionX
Let's be realistic here. It's not about GPU sales volume, becuase that doesn't come from SLI on X58 lol. Of the few nehalems that are sold right now, only a fraction of those get multi-gpu.. according to steam survey it's about 2% of gamers using SLI/CF. Do you really think they'd give up so much for a fraction of a fraction's worth of sales? 2% of some small percentage?Quote:
Originally Posted by MpG
No. They did it for stature, to keep ATI from being seen as superior on the Intel platform. Think mindshare/halo effect. Here in enthusiast forums SLI/CF are far overrepresented, so much so that many here seem to think this is really a significant part of AMD and NVIDIAs business lol.
Because so many every day applications grandma uses see massive speedups with 8 threads on 4 cores?Quote:
Originally Posted by grimREEFER
This. Seriously. Deadly accurate as usual.Quote:
Originally Posted by trinibwoy
nvidia is all about making the masses feel better about their older hardware... first with the 8800GT->9800GT->GTS250. Now C2Q > i7? well... I feel better about my hardware decisions :lol:
well lets see my buddy upgraded his old 939 4000+ x2 / 7800gt rig with a 4870, in it, that upgrade allowed him to pay most newer games. Upgrading to i7 with a 7800gt wouldn't have had the same effect. Okay that was a silly argument, but it leads to the next points:
Lets say i have a nice 45nm 775 quadcore, and a gtx285, what would upgrading to i7 get me?! Just a large hole in my wallet and maybe a few fps here and there, but nothing major. Upgrading to a gtx295 will get me more a performance boost at less cost.
How many gamers run multi-gpu setups? probably around 1~3%, the majority of gamers are running games @ 1280 / 1680 resolutions. Having intel running around telling people to upgrade their 775 systems to i7 for this major boost in performance is BS. In the majority of cases a better video card will be the wiser choice. Not to mention game performance from c2q to i7 was relatively unchanged (in some cases worse). They are way too many of you complaining about CPU bottlenecks and TRI-SLI and blah blah blah, so what game REQUIRES an i7 and a tri-sli setup to be playable? Anyone?
Given the choice between an e8400 with a gtx285 or an i7 920 with a gtx260 (similarly priced systems) -> which would you take?
What nvidia is trying to same is rather than upgrade to an i7 and keep your 9800gtx and then :banana::banana::banana::banana::banana: about bad performance, rather get a gtx280 for less money, and get a real performance boost, obviously consider you're not running a prescott or amd64...
My next upgrade is a 45nm quad, I'm not going to even bother with i7, there is absolutely no benefit in me spending that insane amount of money (especially at the prices here - around $600 for 6gb of ddr3 ram ). There isn't a single game my "mid-range" rig cant handle at the moment, and if there was a CPU upgrade wouldn't fix it.
Also for everyone saying how developers must learn to use all the cores, i think those people should learn to program first, then read up concurrency then open their big dumb mouths. Not every algorithm can be parallelized, most cant, and even then separating physics/other subsystems to run on different cores brings in a ton of synchronization problems. If one core lags behind all the cores have to halt to catch up, otherwise, you're gonna have very weird behavior, imagine if your physics lags behind and you don't wait for it, it'll be busy processing the physics for the room you just came from/battle you just fought while you're in a new physics-less room/battle.
Most of the time you'll see multiple cores in use when a game runs, don't assume that the game is multithreaded, it might be the OS is doing a bit of intelligent scheduling, across the cores to balance the system load.
Having 8/16 cores isnt going to do anything for you except add a few inches to your e-penis, what the point of having 8 cores, when 6 of them will be idling most of the time. Now if you're not gaming, and are doing CAD/3D rendering/Database/AV work on your machine then i7 is a really good choice, a choice I'll recommend enthusiastically, but if you're just a gamer, don't waste your money. If you feel the upgrade itch, just get a beefier vid card / 775 quad (if you're already on 775) or go the PII route since game wise its on par with i7 in most cases.
Nvidia and Intel don't like each other. Too bad for Nvidia that they can't tell Intel to f**k off, but Intel can.
I love my i7 rigs but definitely not worth the upgrade costs over s775 for gaming or general use, especially for single gpu gaming. Personally I gained nothing performance wise that made my game time any better.
However outside of gaming i7 is an absolute animal with any crunching tasks.
i love my i7, speed up for CFD simulations was form 3,8x times to nearly 7 times faster then singel thread. :eek:
Then you need to find another place to shop. I got 6GB of 1600 for 105 and even ordered some one else a 3 X 2Gb of 1333 for $87.98, they had it for $79.99 and 6.99 shipping IIRC. I didn't go with the i7 either but RAM wasn't the reason except that I already had plenty DDR2 1066 laying around:up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldon
Damn right, It worked for me, I picked up my Q6600 for £100 after realising that my E4500 @ 3.4GHz was bottle necking my 4870x2.Quote:
Originally Posted by dinos22
6MB of triple-channel DDR3 is so damn cheap now. The prices have dropped like a brick in the past few months!!! OCZ has a 1600MHz CAS8 kit for only $73 after $20 rebate: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820227388 damn cheap, huh? An amazingly fast CAS7 kit is only $89 AR!
Well, I guess that the best deal is still Core2 with DDR3 instead of Corei7, but if you have an SLI setup, the i7 brings noticeably better results when using SLI. Nvidia should be using the i7 as a reference for SLI performance because it's a lot faster than on their own Core2 chipsets.
Try running Quad gpus on a C2D.Quote:
Originally Posted by haylui
How many folks running Quad GPU is only 2% of gamers are running 2? How many using more than 2, .001%? Most of us do more than play games with our Tools, erum rigs! :up: nVidia is without shame;)Quote:
Originally Posted by initialised
I have to agree with nvidia :P, in gaming performance i7 isn't amazing, Phenom II X4 940 performs about the same if not better on high res benchmarks.. the only time u see i7 outperform Phenom II is on low res benchmarks/gaming, but realisticly nobody is gonna run a game at 800X600, these days its 1680X1050 or higher.. anyway, not saying i7 sucks, but if your going to game, better off with AMD right now, if your going to encode or do renders then i7 Ftw i guess ;p
But yeah Im not an nvidia fan either, just because they are pretty expensive, ATI/AMD FTW! I bought my AMD Dragon PC a couple months ago, very happy with it, upgraded from Core 2 Duo ..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldon
3 words: Triple channel memory
The Core i7 brings with it new technology and if you are building a new system today, using the LGA775 platform would be stupid, because you are building on obsolete hardware.
Not just for gaming, but for upgradability in the future, etc. We are already seeing 33mb/s throughput with i7 on memory bandwidth. Windows 7 is coming and handles multi-threading a little more efficiently than Vista and we know DirectX 11.0 is coming as well.
Part of owning a fast gaming rig, is having a smooth running SYSTEM. When alt-tabbing out of a game, is near instantaneous with a Core i7, under a Core 2 Duo/Quad... it's slower.
What you get with the Intel Core i7 is an excellent BASE for building a rig that will last years... 3~4, while just dropping in a better GPU every 14 months.
While everyone is trying to dismiss parallel coding and put barriers in the way of multi-threaded gaming, it is coming regardless. MHz isn't the only thing that drives video games, specially if you have many apps running in the background (IE: virus, iPhone software, keyboard software, joystick software, OS, etc..)
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 only reason to build anything other than an Intel Core i7 system, would be due to available money. A Core i7 costs less, but the price is more! 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.
Faster memory and CPU in three years time, puts your rig right at the top tier again, with minimal cost. So, jumping on a new platform is an intelligent choice to protect your gaming rig from becoming obsolete...
Did I mention 33MB per second of memory bandwidth..? :shocked:
Doesn't VW own Porsche?Quote:
Originally Posted by shiznit93
i7 isn't assured anything BTW! Socket 1366 doesn't have a solid granite life span either. NOTHING in THIS market is meant for long term and many folks waste money thinking they can cheat or change that fact:shakes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Xoulz
There's too much in the pipe to even consider long term viability. Products soon to come; USB 3.0, PCI-E 3, SATA 3, New HDMI replacement cable, Robson Cache Technology, smaller cooler chips on the mobo and yada yada!
nV constantly craps where they eat. People who would have never otherwise bought three of nV's most expensive cards wouldn't have if it wasn't for the X58 so nV should shut their mouths and be grateful Intel made that possible. I know I would have never ran Sli if it wasn't for the x58 due to the fact that nV chipsets, like the 790, 780 and 680i's blew.
Core i7 a waste of money for gamers
Actually, 100% true. I agree with that.
Other way around, Porsche owns VW.Quote:
Originally Posted by trans am