Discussion in 'General Hardware' started by BloodTotal, Dec 7, 2008.
As stated before the video card plays the bigger role in gaming.
I am a bang for the buck person myself and have always been happy as one. Had a P4 1.6ghz, AMD64 4200+, E2200, E7200 and plan on getting an AMD Phenom II X3 because I know they will provide the best bang for the buck. And if your a gamer on a budget.. Spending 1 grand on a cpu is not the best way to go.. I would rather have a E8400 and a HD 4870 rather than a QX9650 and a HD 4670.. And its usually the mid range stuff that OC's the best too with out paying an arm and a limb for xtreme editions
Untill the new seris of cards.
The ATI 4XXX series scale with CPU performance very well. I am playing GTA 4 at High settings and can get 40 draw distance and it is very playable, plus forcing AF in drivers.
True, its always good to have a nice CPU paired with a good GPU.
Expecally games like Alan Wake and what not that are suppose to be utilizing more of the CPU power.
dual cores have always been good for gaming...where have you been?
My E6750 at 3.7ghz is still fine,seems to be a good match for my 4850 512mb at 750/1200.I have looked into a Q6xxx/E8xxx but my chips still seems fine.I will probs hold on for a few more months,and look again.
my bad i read your post wrong, I thought you meant since the Core I7 is pronounced "faster" its better then current duel cores.
i7 is great product but it is not that big of a jump let say from PentiumD to C2D that was must have. I`m bet with every one who is saying that can fill in game difference between last generation quads and i7.
I don`t like the math of i7 300$ mobo 300$(cheapest i7) and 300$ RAM 900$ I don`t think so. I would stay with Q6600 100%. 900$ for what for placebo I don`t thinks so.
If I was filthy rich I would definitely go i7 that is the only reason that I would go for i7.
You guys know what's a good overclockin mobi for the q6600?
P5Q pro from what I`m hearing great overclocker and you can keep you home .
The 920s are worthless in gaming, it only uses two cores in most games and they barely have enough bandwidth to outperform the QX9770. Despite that people may think I sound mad about that, you can get there by just overclocking a Q9450 with a decent cooler and your there! Besides, the 920 is a horrid overclocker anyway.
+1 I agree. Also for a lot of the tests mentioned above I know for a fact they don't dedicate cores to specific processes which completely defeats the concept of adding more cores.
As for what are "hang-times". This would be an instance in a gaming situation, for example, that your PC has been processing for a while and trips for a fraction of a second due to a memory leak or something happening in the background of the OS. Those actually make me furious! That doesn't mean that dual cores suck and quads rock. I loved my E8600 but I do a ton of crap while I game and really stick it to my system. I'd have to say my q9550 was just as good.
The i7 core for core is JUST as powerful as a dual core in gaming with respect to how strong the cores are. I don't want people to take away my optimism with quads as a reason to splurge, but honestly I wouldn't buy a C2Q over an i7. The i7 also shouldn't be bought on a budget, and the prices will drop. C2D E8600 holds the crown for gaming but that isn't to say other, less expensive chips, are any worse for gaming! I just ran at 4.4ghz+ and compared to dual cores at 3.Xghz clocks it ran a lot better. You just gotta push duals more than quads to get the same results, and you gotta push your pocket even harder to get quads.
I hope I'm making sense with all this rambling. Let the truth shine! The ideal i7 platform (for me) starts at $690 retail without Aftermarket cooling, HDD, graphics, case, monitor, peripherals, or drives. If that is too much then don't go for it! Get what works
You want to take this outside?
Don't say that. I'm running 4.2ghz @ 33C-38C under load at 1.33v and I average 60fps in Crysis with custom settings and the lowest setting I have is no motion blur, the rest is all at High or Very High with VSync 1680x1050.
There's a guy Jupiter ono tpu who hit 4.0ghz at 1.28v
Yes, i agree i always hear these are great boards for OCing.
Should be able to push his CPU pretty far.
lord . . . there's been quite a lot of dribble here
my take on it - i7 allows for more simultaneous threads . . . is this better for gaming than a quad that only allows for a total of 4 threads?
depends on the game.
Some games don't have a thread cap, some work with only 2 or 3 threads. Average is 2, ATM. Will we see more and more games that support more CPU threads? yes, that's a definite.
But, as much as has been pointed out, a new CPU architecture can lead to drastic differences over current tech - not so much in FPS, but more in how quick the whole system runs . . . this will reduce load times (read: less stuttering), will reduce avearage min FPS, increase average max FPS, and can also eliminate background OS processes (because, really, as much as it's a smart idea to disable all AV software, and other unnecessary OS processes for gaming - how many do? Also, how many processes that are unnecessary for gaming are critical for OS operation? Plus, it's a hassel to kill these services at times).
Secondly - for as many reviews that are out there already - games that are heavily GPU dependant will show very little, to no increase with a new, better, CPU. Falling into this category: Crysis, CoD4, FC2, STALKER: CS, etc . . . why these games are used for benchmarking a new CPU is beyond me, as, IMO, it's pointless. You'll see a bigger performance increase by switching to a new GPU for these games, than you would a new CPU. But, all the review junkies and hardware-kiddies are all about these games, so I doubt we'll see those removed from the benchmark suites any time soon . . .
DDR3? Well, sure the run-o-tha-mill DDR2 is dirt cheap, but if you intend to do any OCing . . . you know better. DDR3 has come down drastically in price over the year, and there are still many sweet deals out there, too - besides, DDR3 performs as well, if not better, than a lot of upper-end DDR2 does.
I made the switch to DDR3 early this year, and personally, I don't intend to go back. Even at it's stock speeds - the bandwidth it's capable of has speed up overall system times immensly - programs open and run quicker, there is less stuttering in games, reduced waiting on SYS intensive programs, etc. For some reason, this arguement rarley comes up when people start debating DDR2 vs DDR3.
As to the OP - no, ATM it's not worth switching over to an i7. Boards will be expensive, the new CPU is expensive . . . if you don't already have DDR3, that's another expense - possibly another PSU needed . . .
and there still might be some issues with first production CPUs as well - wait a while, not only for overall hardware prices to come down, but for hardware manufacturers to iron out the quirks and kinks in the new CPU architecture, the new X58 chipset, their motherboards and BIOS control, heat issues, etc.
Damn nice post! Very helpful
Since I can play all new games on 2048x1536 in combination with a Q6600 on 3.6Ghz and a 1GB 4870 card from ATI, I would say "Nope".
Becides, I'm going back to AMD when they launch the Phenom 2 and I am probably going to stick with AMD. Since CPU-technology evolves faster then the game requirements, I'm pretty sure I'll be able to play all the latest games if I buy a new ( cheap ) AMD pc every year.
Separate names with a comma.