1. Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

Do gaming PCs really need an i7 over a q6600

Discussion in 'General Hardware' started by BloodTotal, Dec 7, 2008.

  1. BloodTotal

    BloodTotal New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2007
    Messages:
    836 (0.34/day)
    Thanks Received:
    48
    Location:
    Canadia
    If you are just going to game. You are not going to do any media related extracting or whatsoever, is it cost effective to get a lets say a i7 920 over a q6600. Especially because the q6600 can OC so high. And the i7 would need some ddr3 Ram, which is expensive.
     
  2. JrRacinFan

    JrRacinFan Served 5k and counting ...

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2007
    Messages:
    19,414 (7.08/day)
    Thanks Received:
    4,483
    Location:
    Youngstown, OH
    Hello again BloodTotal! In reality with the current games, in reality all that is needed is a dual core capable of hitting 2.4Ghz IMO.

    PS: my expectations of everything is low and I am a midrange kinda guy.
     
    MKmods and BloodTotal say thanks.
  3. Black Panther

    Black Panther Senior Moderator™ Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2007
    Messages:
    8,574 (3.21/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,924
    Getting a more powerful processor is always the best for gaming.
    But well, as regards today's games, my desktop with E4300 @ 3.0Ghz and 8800GT still makes them fly all maxed out. The worst one being Crysis giving me 25< fps at the least.
     
    BloodTotal says thanks.
  4. Darren

    Darren New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2005
    Messages:
    1,936 (0.55/day)
    Thanks Received:
    345
    You don't need a i7 920 to game, likewise you don't need a Q6600 to game, high end processors will not give you any advantage when gaming. The difference between a high end processor such as the Q6600 in comparison to a super high end CPU such as the I7 920 is only going to give you an extra few frames per second.

    I don't get this notation that you need to spend hundreds of dollars/pounds for a CPU for a dedicated gaming rig, its a bad misconception. Likewise a GTX260 isn't required for a dedicated gaming rig, I'd avoid taking advise from anyone that makes you spend a stupid amount of money for a small gain.

    PS. If gaming is your priority you'd be better of getting an E8000 series dual core, they are slightly faster for games (a few FPS difference) however the Q6600 might have longevity and be better for encoding, Photoshop, media related tasks etc - activities you said you are not interested in.

    Edit:

    Indeed, even an E4300 can handle todays games perfectly well - we are in a climate where the CPU makes very little difference

    Edit 2:

    Is it worth paying for an i7 920 for 100 FPS when you could buy a cheaper CPU such as a core 2 series and achieve and achieve 80 FPS on the same detail/resolution, both FPS are above 60 FPS.

    Also not everone wants to OC their processor after paying hundreds of dollars/pounds for it :)

    Edit 3:

    Indeed!
     
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2008
    BloodTotal says thanks.
  5. xubidoo New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2007
    Messages:
    882 (0.35/day)
    Thanks Received:
    69
    Location:
    Lancs,UK
    ill probably be sticking with my current Q6600 for at least another 12 months ,no reason to upgrade tbh,since ive had this Quad ive gone through 3 diff gfx cards ,8800gts 320mb ,9800gtx and current gtx260 ,and the quad is still more than enough imo for current and future games.

    the only game ive had that really pushes my quad is GTA4 which is making it hit around 75%-80% usage.
    maybe in a years time ill think of upgrading to i7.
     
    BloodTotal and Darren say thanks.
  6. 3870x2

    3870x2

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2008
    Messages:
    4,875 (2.04/day)
    Thanks Received:
    689
    Location:
    Joplin, Mo
    actually, a faster processor is much better for gaming, primarily when overclocked. core i7 is a great example of that.
     
    BloodTotal says thanks.
  7. BloodTotal

    BloodTotal New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2007
    Messages:
    836 (0.34/day)
    Thanks Received:
    48
    Location:
    Canadia
    Thanks guys for the input.
     
  8. BloodTotal

    BloodTotal New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2007
    Messages:
    836 (0.34/day)
    Thanks Received:
    48
    Location:
    Canadia
    Darren says thanks.
  9. newconroer

    newconroer

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2007
    Messages:
    3,067 (1.16/day)
    Thanks Received:
    308
    While I am in agreeance, that moving up a few notches in the CPU hierarchy is only going to produce a few to several frames improvement, moving to a different architecture altogether, can reap noticeable benefits.

    The most obvious example has to be from P4(and older chips), to Duo core.
    And now from Duo core, to native quad core with Quickpath.

    The real key here is data through-put/bandwith, latency, and overhead threading performance.
    There have already been some released tests, of retail i7 920s, that at stock frequencies, provide a considerable bonus over something like an overclocked Q6600.

    Gaining ten maximum frames isn't going to be surprising; and the opportunity to reduce stutter, increase through-put, and maximise/limit minimum frame rate, should be the number one priority for gaming machines in regards to CPU horsepower.



    I wouldn't run right out and buy a whole new system just yet, but five months from now, I'd expect to see plenty of people with Nehalem setups.
     
    Darknova and BloodTotal say thanks.
  10. CDdude55

    CDdude55 Crazy 4 TPU!!!

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2007
    Messages:
    8,179 (3.12/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,277
    Location:
    Virginia
    No not really.

    Multi-threaded games aren't fully out yet and once they are out with full force the Q6600 will still be capable of doing some damage.
     
    BloodTotal says thanks.
  11. LittleLizard

    LittleLizard New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2008
    Messages:
    3,775 (1.78/day)
    Thanks Received:
    575
    Location:
    Latin America, Uruguay
    the problem is that most games now are optimized for just 2 cores, so in gaming is always better have a fast dual core that can oc a lot rather than a quad
     
    BloodTotal says thanks.
  12. DaMulta

    DaMulta My stars went supernova

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2006
    Messages:
    16,119 (5.43/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,454
    Location:
    Oklahoma T-Town
    ddr3 is cheap. cheaper than ddr2 was during it's prime time.

    ddr3 is cheap I dont know why everyone thinks its high dollar anymore.

    depends on how long your going to keep what u have and do what your going to do. i7 has hypertherading and can make lots of programs run way way faster than a q6600.



    Everyone said the same thing about dual cores at first too. How many games use more than one core. Went that way for a while.
     
    BloodTotal says thanks.
  13. BloodTotal

    BloodTotal New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2007
    Messages:
    836 (0.34/day)
    Thanks Received:
    48
    Location:
    Canadia
    Nehalm is still quad core, so its not a more core dilemma anymore.

    And for the DDR3 being cheap, I just picked up some Patriot vipers (2x2048DDR2800) for about 39.99 with MIR, and the cheapest DDR3 would be about 142.99 in Canada for 1066

    $100 price difference for a couple of max fps
     
  14. DaMulta

    DaMulta My stars went supernova

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2006
    Messages:
    16,119 (5.43/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,454
    Location:
    Oklahoma T-Town
    BloodTotal says thanks.
  15. LittleLizard

    LittleLizard New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2008
    Messages:
    3,775 (1.78/day)
    Thanks Received:
    575
    Location:
    Latin America, Uruguay
    BloodTotal says thanks.
  16. Binge

    Binge Overclocking Surrealism

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    6,982 (3.18/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,752
    Location:
    PA, USA
    I've got to disagree with just about everyone in this thread because if it wasn't for my transition to quad cores I wouldn't enjoy gaming as much.

    I dedicate X cores to the OS and X cores to the gaming software. For some reason people tell me I'm full of shit when I say this improves the experience. Screw them! I ran my Q9550 @ 3.4GHz and got the same if not better (less hanging/load times) in games than my E8600 @ 4.4GHz. The i7? It overclocks like a beast and can handle the load of high end graphics cards, but that's not to say the quads could not. Just don't game at anything below 3.4ghz on a quad.
     
    BloodTotal says thanks.
  17. DaMulta

    DaMulta My stars went supernova

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2006
    Messages:
    16,119 (5.43/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,454
    Location:
    Oklahoma T-Town
    ddr2 1066 or ddr2 800 for the good stuff.
     
    BloodTotal says thanks.
  18. Homeless

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2005
    Messages:
    1,025 (0.31/day)
    Thanks Received:
    109
    Location:
    USA
    I actually just bought the q6600 equivalent a couple weeks ago which may make my opinion biased, but I don't feel there's a need for i7 at this point
     
    BloodTotal says thanks.
  19. LittleLizard

    LittleLizard New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2008
    Messages:
    3,775 (1.78/day)
    Thanks Received:
    575
    Location:
    Latin America, Uruguay
    it could improve load times and you can have lees times where it hangs for a sec and then returns but A PROCESSOR ITS MORE LIKELY TO DO THAT AND NOT IMPROVE FRAMERATE, FOR THAT ARE HIGH END GRAPHICS CARD.
     
    BloodTotal says thanks.
  20. Steevo

    Steevo

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    8,284 (2.56/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,176
    Gta 4
     
    BloodTotal says thanks.
    10 Million points folded for TPU
  21. BloodTotal

    BloodTotal New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2007
    Messages:
    836 (0.34/day)
    Thanks Received:
    48
    Location:
    Canadia
    Da Multa, my 4 gb of ddr2 800 cost me $45 and the cheapest ddr3 on Newegg.ca is over $100
     
  22. Binge

    Binge Overclocking Surrealism

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    6,982 (3.18/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,752
    Location:
    PA, USA
    Isn't that the point of a processor? Not to improve framerates but to make sure the hardware can give you those frame rates without interruption?
     
    BloodTotal says thanks.
  23. Darren

    Darren New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2005
    Messages:
    1,936 (0.55/day)
    Thanks Received:
    345
    LittleLizard, don't shout.

    The Q-series quad cores would be better overall as you've expressed in multi-tasking and load times, not sure what you meant by "hang times". But either way in measurement of frames per second the difference should be insignificant.

    ----


    Guys notice how in most games the current quad cores (Q9650) are competing with the i7 (i7 920). I would hate to pay an extra £200 for 5 extra FPS.

    http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2333776,00.asp

    In either event all CPUs were able to achieve a frame rate of between 50-250 FPS as long as your are above 25-30 FPS you can no visibly see any change, so what benefit would replacing a one CPU that gives you 120 FPS for another that gives 130 FPS when you can't see beyond 30 FPS anyways.

    Edit:

    CDdude55, one reason I'm not going Intel is because I can not afford DDR3 prices, rather keep my OCZ PC6400 for as long as possible.
     
    BloodTotal says thanks.
  24. CDdude55

    CDdude55 Crazy 4 TPU!!!

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2007
    Messages:
    8,179 (3.12/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,277
    Location:
    Virginia
    DDR3 is still on the high side, but its cheaper then when it was first released.

    All DDR2 800 is definitely cheaper then DDR3, maybe some of the value non gaming DDR3 RAM is pretty cheap but it won't get you anywhere, overall DDR2 is still way cheaper then DDR3.
     
    BloodTotal says thanks.
  25. Damian^

    Damian^ New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2008
    Messages:
    552 (0.25/day)
    Thanks Received:
    48
    Location:
    Texas
    A Core I7 965 Extreme Overclocked gets the same FPS in crysis to a non overclocked Intel E8400, at resolutions of 1680X1050 and 1920X1200, in lower resolutions the fps margin is either 3 or equal.

    Knights of the Sea
    Higher resolutions
    Core I7 extreme overclocked - 44
    Intel E8400 stock - 42

    In the Bioshock the Core I7 shows some strength and has about a 17FPS difference, although the Q9450 stock has 2 FPS more then the Core I7 extreme overclocked :rolleyes:

    In newer games like Farcry 2
    The Core I7 Extreme Overclocked gets 44FPS
    Intel "stock" E8400 gets 44 FPS as well
    This is at 1680X1050, at 1920X1200 the E8400 gets 1FPS more then the Core I7

    So at higher resolutions the E8400 and the highest priced, top of the line Core I7 EXTREME overclocked share about the same FPS in most games. Games such as Bioshock and Call of duty 4 are the only ones where the Overclocked Core I7 beat the E8400, then again a stock Intel Q9450 beats the Core I7 overclocked by an 1FPS or two in those games.


    source:
    http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/intel_core_i7/9.htm


    This was pretty much expected long ago, the internet was filled with sources stating taht the Core I7 would not be much of an improvement over current LGA775 45nm processors in gaming, but in terms of real world performance, they are beastly.
     
    BloodTotal and Darren say thanks.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guest)

Share This Page