Anybody else DISAPPOINTED by i7?

[AdamK47]

Originally posted by: IntelUser2000

Toms Hardware and Hot Hardware use low settings. Bit-Tech used high settings. All sites used an X48 for their C2Q test systems. All used a GTX 280. Hot Hardware did use high settings with SLI here which shows an even greater lead over a Core 2 Quad. I use 2X SLI in my X58 and love it!

It could be because the i7s are actually superior in processing whatever its processing in gaming(surprise!) but the higher settings don't show it because something greater is limiting it, like possibly the graphics driver, or the BIOS/chipset isn't mature etc. That's why TH and HH shows better scores since its a CPU-oriented low settings and Anand shows worse score since its a medium score.

Bit-Tech used high settings and showed the i7 ahead of a Q2Q. Also Toms Hardware did SLI testing with i7/X58 here. It shows how much better Core i7 can be over a Core 2 Quad system.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: IntelUser2000

Toms Hardware and Hot Hardware use low settings. Bit-Tech used high settings. All sites used an X48 for their C2Q test systems. All used a GTX 280. Hot Hardware did use high settings with SLI here which shows an even greater lead over a Core 2 Quad. I use 2X SLI in my X58 and love it!

It could be because the i7s are actually superior in processing whatever its processing in gaming(surprise!) but the higher settings don't show it because something greater is limiting it, like possibly the graphics driver, or the BIOS/chipset isn't mature etc. That's why TH and HH shows better scores since its a CPU-oriented low settings and Anand shows worse score since its a medium score.

I heard this is what is secretly holding back Phenom's benchmark scores too :laugh: It's really doing things twice as fast as yorkfield but we just can see it.

 

[Martimus]

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: IntelUser2000

Toms Hardware and Hot Hardware use low settings. Bit-Tech used high settings. All sites used an X48 for their C2Q test systems. All used a GTX 280. Hot Hardware did use high settings with SLI here which shows an even greater lead over a Core 2 Quad. I use 2X SLI in my X58 and love it!

It could be because the i7s are actually superior in processing whatever its processing in gaming(surprise!) but the higher settings don't show it because something greater is limiting it, like possibly the graphics driver, or the BIOS/chipset isn't mature etc. That's why TH and HH shows better scores since its a CPU-oriented low settings and Anand shows worse score since its a medium score.

I heard this is what is secretly holding back Phenom's benchmark scores too :laugh: It's really doing things twice as fast as yorkfield but we just can see it.

Because of the massive physics in Crysis, I usually notice more of a CPU bottleneck in Crysis at higher settings than GPU. Anadtech did a review about 6 months ago that showed this too.

 

[taltamir]

there are many games that are CPU bound instead of GPU, people just don't want to admit it... and while 2x the price gives you a almost 2x the speed in GPU, while 2x the price gives a you at most 10% in CPU. The thing is, you cannot lower the CPU setting in games. You can only lower GPU requirements, meaning that if your CPU is too slow its SOL

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: taltamir
there are many games that are CPU bound instead of GPU, people just don't want to admit it... and while 2x the price gives you a almost 2x the speed in GPU, while 2x the price gives a you at most 10% in CPU. The thing is, you cannot lower the CPU setting in games. You can only lower GPU requirements, meaning that if your CPU is too slow its SOL

You can always OC

I'd rather spend more on a video card, and overclock an already great chip like a Q6600 or Q9450 into the mid 3Ghz range, than blow nutty $$ on an i7 at this point. Hopefully before long the Nehalem stuff will get affordable, but right now it only makes sense for people with loads of cash to spare.

 

[jzodda]

i7 is a complete waste of time for somebody looking to build/buy a gaming system. So cheap to build a system based of the 45nm cpu's we already have and OC the hell out of it.

Eventually the prices of the i7 boards and DDR3 and the CPU's will come down, and then it will be very attractive for people building a new rig. Once a refresh hits I would bet those newer i7 cpu's will be very OC friendly as well and by then i7 will be the way to go in almost all cases.

 

[Denithor]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Just like as of right now if you have a Penryn and only game/surf/email, there is *NOT* a reason to upgrade to i7.

Personally i'm waiting it out until Westmere.

Exactly my thoughts, on both counts. My e8400 and e3110 are plenty of muscle for what I do right now with my pc. Add to that the cool temps and lower power consumption and I'm not anywhere close to ready to toss in a 130W chip, my spare bedroom is hot enough already, thanks very much.

Now, when Westmere launches, especially if they bump the L2 cache to 4x512kb...then we'll talk upgrade.

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: taltamir
there are many games that are CPU bound instead of GPU, people just don't want to admit it... and while 2x the price gives you a almost 2x the speed in GPU, while 2x the price gives a you at most 10% in CPU. The thing is, you cannot lower the CPU setting in games. You can only lower GPU requirements, meaning that if your CPU is too slow its SOL

You can always OC

I do... when an OCed CPU is no longer enough, it needs upgrading, when a GPU is no longer enough, I can lower settings... BUT. the price goes down so fast, I also would rather not spend too much on it. Right now a Q6600 OC is good enough, and will be for a little longer.

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: jzodda
i7 is a complete waste of time for somebody looking to build/buy a gaming system. So cheap to build a system based of the 45nm cpu's we already have and OC the hell out of it.

Eventually the prices of the i7 boards and DDR3 and the CPU's will come down, and then it will be very attractive for people building a new rig. Once a refresh hits I would bet those newer i7 cpu's will be very OC friendly as well and by then i7 will be the way to go in almost all cases.

i agree, and the LGA-1156 based nehalem with 2xDDR3 sounds might nice.

 

[gramboh]

Originally posted by: taltamir
there are many games that are CPU bound instead of GPU, people just don't want to admit it... and while 2x the price gives you a almost 2x the speed in GPU, while 2x the price gives a you at most 10% in CPU. The thing is, you cannot lower the CPU setting in games. You can only lower GPU requirements, meaning that if your CPU is too slow its SOL

Can you provide a list? Not flaming you, just wondering what games are CPU limited versus GPU limited, specifically at high res/detail (say 1920x1200 max details) on a single GPU setup. For my system, Q6700 @ 3.3GHz, single GTX280, 1920x1200 and I play games maxed out, I don't think a CPU upgrade would make much of a difference, maybe 5% if I could get a quad core running >4GHz, but really it's GPU power that matters in games these days.

 

[Munky]

There are plenty of games with adjustable CPU loads, with things like physics modeling, special effects detail, etc.

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: munky
There are plenty of games with adjustable CPU loads, with things like physics modeling, special effects detail, etc.

calling those rare is an understatement, the only one i can think of is city of heroes and that one isn't all that hungry.
(and turn based games allow you to do so too, but what is the point?)

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: gramboh

Originally posted by: taltamir
there are many games that are CPU bound instead of GPU, people just don't want to admit it... and while 2x the price gives you a almost 2x the speed in GPU, while 2x the price gives a you at most 10% in CPU. The thing is, you cannot lower the CPU setting in games. You can only lower GPU requirements, meaning that if your CPU is too slow its SOL

Can you provide a list? Not flaming you, just wondering what games are CPU limited versus GPU limited, specifically at high res/detail (say 1920x1200 max details) on a single GPU setup. For my system, Q6700 @ 3.3GHz, single GTX280, 1920x1200 and I play games maxed out, I don't think a CPU upgrade would make much of a difference, maybe 5% if I could get a quad core running >4GHz, but really it's GPU power that matters in games these days.

off the top of my head... flight sim X, oblivion, supreme commander, mass effect... and a few others.
When I say plenty I mean in absolute amounts, not relative. I'd say only a small percent of games today have problems with a C2D, but they do exist. And that will become a larger problem in the future as games become more CPU and GPU intensive (because, again, most games don't allow you to reduce the CPU load).

The thing about CPU limitation, it suffers the same regardless of the res... i took mass effect down to.. i thin it was 740x460 resolution, it didn't matter, sure the max FPS shot through the roof, by there was still microstutter (and measured by having the occasional 40+ ms to render a single frame).

 

[IntelUser2000]

I heard this is what is secretly holding back Phenom's benchmark scores too It's really doing things twice as fast as yorkfield but we just can see it.

But they do have advantages when looking at special setups like 2x or 3x SLI setups. Something is making it inconsistent.

Remember when Core 2s first came out and on the absolute highest settings where difference between Core 2 and Pentium D would be within 10%?? And the Athlons would be actually ahead by 2-3% over the Core 2's. Some review sites showed that.

 

[themisfit610]

Yeah... the i7 is amazing. Absolutely amazing. Not for gaming, mind you, but for x264 encoding, it's a godsend. 40% improvement per clock? Pls thx.. All the reviews with x264 benchmarks weren't even using current code. The new code is fully optimized for i7 and it's REALLY fast.

~MiSfit

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: taltamir

Originally posted by: munky
There are plenty of games with adjustable CPU loads, with things like physics modeling, special effects detail, etc.

calling those rare is an understatement, the only one i can think of is city of heroes and that one isn't all that hungry.
(and turn based games allow you to do so too, but what is the point?)

Then you must only be thinking of the obvious cpu-heavy features, like AI. Options like explosion debris, the amount of corpses, object geometry detail, vision distance... these affected by the cpu as well as the gpu.

 

[Idontcare]

I thought i7 delivered superior performance/watt though even if the absolute performance is on par with Penryn.

I remember crunching some numbers a while ago, converting the fps data into fps/Watt for the tests Anand did and as I recall the i7 platform delivered some 25-30% better performance/watt.

Who wouldn't want that? Less heat and noise.

 

[Gikaseixas]

i like I7, far from a disappointment IMO

 

[jzodda]

Originally posted by: Gikaseixas
i like I7, far from a disappointment IMO

It depends on what your expecting out of it. Especially in these trying economic times is it better to save money or fork out top dollar? A core2 like an E8400 or an E0 Quad can overclock like crazy for gaming.

If you can save many hundreds of dollars and build a system that plays all the games out now and for the foreseeable future (assuming you get a good GPU) then i7 is a waste. Not a disappointment because its performance is good, but a waste of money.

At some point next year when the prices come down by a good deal then it becomes the right option imo with regards to a gaming machine, but not today.

 

[Gikaseixas]

i know what you mean and i agree but if money isn't an issue it makes sense IMO.

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Who wouldn't want that? Less heat and noise.

totally dependant on your application.

if your just a gamer / skype user, you really dont need the extra 2 cores unless your game uses it.

Not having those extra 2 cores means the die is smaller and generates less heat/power.


IF your a SQL/DB or cruncher, then no competition.

Im itching to see what 2 of these puppys will do on a single board with 2xqpi enabled. :T

 

[Roy2001]

Firstly, MB price would get down, and DDR3 price would get down. CPU price is not high at all.

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: jzodda

Originally posted by: Gikaseixas
i like I7, far from a disappointment IMO

It depends on what your expecting out of it. Especially in these trying economic times is it better to save money or fork out top dollar? A core2 like an E8400 or an E0 Quad can overclock like crazy for gaming.

If you can save many hundreds of dollars and build a system that plays all the games out now and for the foreseeable future (assuming you get a good GPU) then i7 is a waste. Not a disappointment because its performance is good, but a waste of money.

At some point next year when the prices come down by a good deal then it becomes the right option imo with regards to a gaming machine, but not today.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[AdamK47]

Originally posted by: taltamir

Originally posted by: jzodda

Originally posted by: Gikaseixas
i like I7, far from a disappointment IMO

It depends on what your expecting out of it. Especially in these trying economic times is it better to save money or fork out top dollar? A core2 like an E8400 or an E0 Quad can overclock like crazy for gaming.

If you can save many hundreds of dollars and build a system that plays all the games out now and for the foreseeable future (assuming you get a good GPU) then i7 is a waste. Not a disappointment because its performance is good, but a waste of money.

At some point next year when the prices come down by a good deal then it becomes the right option imo with regards to a gaming machine, but not today.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

I guess if you ignore SLI benchmarks then perhaps. You people really need to acknowledge this aspect. Really... do it... now. Sure it's expensive, but it makes sense if someone wanted to build an SLI system from the ground up.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: aigomorla
Not having those extra 2 cores means the die is smaller and generates less heat/power.

But that's the beauty of the PCU right? If you don't use the cores then they are shutdown anyways. No heat from them till you actually use them to do something, and when that moment comes if you didn't have the extra cores then you'd for sure be doing whatever you are doing at a slower pace. Just in time cpu power.