Do gaming PCs really need an i7 over a q6600

[BloodTotal]

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.

 

[JrRacinFan]

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.

 

[Black Panther]

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.

 

[Darren]

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:

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.

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

Edit 2:

actually, a faster processor is much better for gaming, primarily when overclocked. core i7 is a great example of that.

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:

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

not too much of an increase

Indeed!

 

[xu^]

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.

 

[3870x2]

actually, a faster processor is much better for gaming, primarily when overclocked. core i7 is a great example of that.

 

[BloodTotal]

Thanks guys for the input.

 

[BloodTotal]

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

not too much of an increase

 

[newconroer]

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.

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.

 

[CDdude55]

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.

 

[LittleLizard]

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

 

[DaMulta]

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.

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

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]

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

 

[DaMulta]

http://www.newegg.ca/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=2010170147 1052129233&bop=And&Order=PRICE

say again? It's high dollar? Also link not us it's CA


I paid 200 usd for 2GB of DDR2 last year.....

 

[LittleLizard]

http://www.newegg.ca/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=2010170147 1052129233&bop=And&Order=PRICE

say again? It's high dollar? Also link not us it's CA


I paid 200 usd for 2GB of DDR2 last year.....

yeah, what ddr2, 1200 mhz or wtf?

also what i said about games is true, most games play way better on dual cores because they are faster than quads, that can change in times to come but that is the true now

 

[Binge]

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.

 

[DaMulta]

ddr2 1066 or ddr2 800 for the good stuff.

 

[Homeless]

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

 

[LittleLizard]

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.

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.

 

[Steevo]

Gta 4

 

[BloodTotal]

Da Multa, my 4 gb of ddr2 800 cost me $45 and the cheapest ddr3 on Newegg.ca is over $100

 

[Binge]

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.

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?

 

[Darren]

LittleLizard, don't shout.

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.

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.

 

[CDdude55]

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.

 

[Damian^]

actually, a faster processor is much better for gaming, primarily when overclocked. core i7 is a great example of that.

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

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.