Deciding between a 2.66ghz I7 and a 3.33ghz core duo

IBMer

Golden Member
Jul 7, 2000
1,137
0
76
Which would be the better option for just gaming right now?

I am not concered about mother board price but strickly performance right now.
 

IBMer

Golden Member
Jul 7, 2000
1,137
0
76
So sorry for some reason I had it in my head that the review only covered the 3.2 ghz one. Thank you.

Edit:

Actually in looking at that review it does not have the 3.33 ghz Core Duo, do you know of any reviews that do?
 

Anubis

No Lifer
Aug 31, 2001
78,712
427
126
tbqhwy.com
the preformance diff between a 3.2Ghz and a 3.33 Ghz C2D arent gonna be much at all, 5 or so FPS in a benchmark maybe.
 

nerp

Diamond Member
Dec 31, 2005
9,865
105
106
When I close my eyes and try to come up with a zenlike decision as to what you should do, I say. Core duo now.

If your choice is between those two processors, the deciding factor in game performance is your GPU, not the cpu.

I'm ignoring money considerations.
 

Martimus

Diamond Member
Apr 24, 2007
4,490
157
106
Originally posted by: IBMer
So sorry for some reason I had it in my head that the review only covered the 3.2 ghz one. Thank you.

Edit:

Actually in looking at that review it does not have the 3.33 ghz Core Duo, do you know of any reviews that do?

I haven't seen that comparison. Probably since the i7 is a quad core processor, and the E8600 is a dual core processor. Either way, it is only a 4% increase in clock speed over the 3.2GHz Quad core, so at maximum it could only have a 4% increase in performance.
 

error8

Diamond Member
Nov 28, 2007
3,204
0
76
I would get an i7 only if:

1) I am very rich and I want to have the latest and the greatest hardware possible (not that is something wrong with this );

2) I am gaming with a tri SLI GTX 280 or a quad cross fire with 2X4870x2 and I want to squeeze every last drop of performance out of them;

Except these two, I can't find other reason to buy the Nehalem platform. For the moment, with a single card configuration, an E8600 overclocked or not, is the smartest way to go. Games will eventually start using four cores at some moment, but for a couple of titles that are doing this now, it doesn't worth paying a premium for an i7 or even getting a C2Q.
 

cmdrdredd

Lifer
Dec 12, 2001
27,052
357
126
Well, here's a question, are you overclocking? If so then the i7 after 3Ghz would be better. I say this because a quad is better IMO than a dual. games are starting to use multicore, and other stuff you do can benefit from multicore CPUs as well.
 

JTsyo

Lifer
Nov 18, 2007
12,012
1,125
126
Originally posted by: error8
I would get an i7 only if:

1) I am very rich and I want to have the latest and the greatest hardware possible (not that is something wrong with this );

2) I am gaming with a tri SLI GTX 280 or a quad cross fire with 2X4870x2 and I want to squeeze every last drop of performance out of them;

Except these two, I can't find other reason to buy the Nehalem platform. For the moment, with a single card configuration, an E8600 overclocked or not, is the smartest way to go. Games will eventually start using four cores at some moment, but for a couple of titles that are doing this now, it doesn't worth paying a premium for an i7 or even getting a C2Q.

3) You only upgrade every few years and want to futureproof.
 

betasub

Platinum Member
Mar 22, 2006
2,677
0
0
Originally posted by: JTsyo
3) You only upgrade every few years and want to futureproof.

4) You believe there is such a thing as "futureproof" in the hardware market.
 

BigDH01

Golden Member
Jul 8, 2005
1,631
88
91
Originally posted by: error8
I would get an i7 only if:

1) I am very rich and I want to have the latest and the greatest hardware possible (not that is something wrong with this );

2) I am gaming with a tri SLI GTX 280 or a quad cross fire with 2X4870x2 and I want to squeeze every last drop of performance out of them;

Except these two, I can't find other reason to buy the Nehalem platform. For the moment, with a single card configuration, an E8600 overclocked or not, is the smartest way to go. Games will eventually start using four cores at some moment, but for a couple of titles that are doing this now, it doesn't worth paying a premium for an i7 or even getting a C2Q.

Or you are trying to rip and encode (with x264) your collection of 350 DVDs ;).

What difference does it make when it comes to gaming? If you are playing at high quality and high resolution settings you probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the two. I would rather have the CPU that is also very fast at completing other tasks and other tasks simultaneously as long as cost was not a factor.
 

aigomorla

CPU, Cases&Cooling Mod PC Gaming Mod Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 28, 2005
21,035
3,518
126
Originally posted by: jaredpace
3.16ghz dual core vs. 3.2ghz core i7:

http://www.xtremesystems.org/f...?p=3366380&postcount=1

For single graphics cards, the wolfdale setup will perform the same, or faster than the corei7, plus it overclocks higher - giving even more. If you're using SLI, you will see bigger gains from X58, NV200, and Corei7.

LOL..

jared theres a hugh cost difference between the two tho. :p