i5 750 vs i7 920 for gaming (not overclocking)

[cbn]

I seriously doubt there is enough liklihood of correctly predicting the future of pcs over 4 or 5 years to base a buying decision on now.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=29325800&postcount=10

Here is a good post.

This is another good reason to consider LGA 1366 or High end AMD chipsets over LGA 1156 if longevity is desired.

 

[BTRY B 529th FA BN]

I am guessing that if I put a 5870 in my Q9550 'old' game rig, it would do just fine. My point is after all these platform upgrades, I have a strong feeling that my Q9550 machine with a 5870 will do just as good as my new rig for the games I play.

 

[toyota]

Yeah, but we are talking a computer for games in this thread.

Gaming development is slower progression than other types of CPU programs right?

In fact, In some ways I would rather have the high end AMD board (that can handle dual x16) than the mainstream Intel LGA 1156 socket even though the Phenom II processsor is weaker.

5 years ago a single core cpu would deliver the best experience in most games. now we have already reached a point that 4 cores is mandatory for a higher end build if you want to fully utilize it. not to mention that the i5/i7 already offers improvements over the previous Core 2 quad core cpus. same goes for the Phenom 2 X4 over the original Phenom X4. whatever cpu is purchased today will be a joke in 2015 for a gaming system.

 

[BTRY B 529th FA BN]

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=29325800&postcount=10

Here is a good post.

This is another good reason to consider LGA 1366 or High end AMD chipsets over LGA 1156 if longevity is desired.

didn't i hear 1155 in a year?

 

[cbn]

5 years ago a single core cpu would deliver the best experience in most games. now we have already reached a point that 4 cores is mandatory for a higher end build if you want to fully utilize it. not to mention that the i5/i7 already offers improvements over the previous quad core cpus. same goes for the Phenom 2s over the original Phenom. whatever cpu is purchased today will be a joke in 2015 for a gaming system.

I am not so sure we can use analogies from 5 years ago. Although I am positive the CPUs released in 2015 will be much better than the ones released in 2010 (or 2008/2009 with respect to Core i7/Core i5)

1. Back then there was a lot of Competition between Intel and AMD spurring CPU development (Conroe was just as big a jump over AMD 939 as AMD 939 was over Pentium IV). Now things are different.

2. CPU core scaling "speed-up" is moving at a lot slower pace in games than the architectural changes you are thinking in the old days.

 

[toyota]

I am not so sure we can use analogies from 5 years ago. Although I am positive the CPUs released in 2015 will be much better than the ones released in 2010 (or 2008/2009 with respect to Core i7/Core i5)

1. Back then there was a lot of Competition between Intel and AMD spurring CPU development (Conroe was just as big a jump over AMD 939 as AMD 939 was over Pentium IV). Now things are different.

2. CPU core scaling "speed-up" is moving at lot slower pace in games than the architectural changes you are thinking in the old days.

where are getting that from? more and more games are becoming more cpu intensive and multi threaded. 5 years from now your comments will look so silly as an i5 user is wondering what low end video card wont bottleneck his system lol.

 

[cbn]

where are getting that from? more and more games are becoming more cpu intensive and multi threaded. 5 years from now your comments will look so silly as an i5 user is wondering what low end video card wont bottleneck his system lol.

Quad core was released at the end of 2006 right?

Here we are in 2010 and only Dragon Age scales 75% with four cores. After that game we are talking 50% speed up with quad core (at best).

Speaking of CPU development, look at the progress made between now and 2008. Not much has happend. In fact, Sandy Bridge for 2011 will still be a dual core and quad core for the mainstream Intel socket.

Unless AMD makes a real breakthrough on the CPU front maybe we should be focused on the importance of other technologies? Intel seems to think their R&D money is better spent in those areas as well.

 

[Munky]

Yeah, but we are talking a computer for games in this thread.

Gaming development is slower progression than other types of CPU programs right?

In fact, In some ways I would rather have the high end AMD board (that can handle dual x16) than the mainstream Intel LGA 1156 socket even though the Phenom II processsor is weaker.

Dual x16 slots are only of importance to someone planning to use sli/crossfire. You're making a big deal out SATA3/USB3 like people are actually gonna get boards for that, but I can comfortably predict that most people will not be getting add in boards for those, and instead just upgrade their whole system down the road.

That's kinda like buying a car based on top speed because one day you think you'll take it to the race track. Not only will 99.9% of car owners never take their car to the track, but even those that do should know that top speed in no way guarantees you'll win over competitors with slower top speed.

 

[toyota]

Quad core was released at the end of 2006 right?

Here we are in 2010 and only Dragon Age scales 75% with four cores. After that game we are talking 50% speed up with quad core (at best).

Speaking of CPU development, look at the progress made between now and 2008. Not much has happend. In fact, Sandy Bridge for 2011 will still be a dual core and quad core for the mainstream Intel socket.

Unless AMD makes a real breakthrough on the CPU front maybe we should be focused on the importance of other technologies. Intel seems to think their R&D money is better spent in those areas as well.

again go play your games on a 5 year old cpu and tell me how that goes. we will be saying the same thing in 5 years from now too. people always argue this stuff and then down the road they look foolish. people always argue about how much vram, system ram, gpu power, and cpu power is needed now and for the future. funny how those needs ALWAYS increase. you are wrong here and the future will prove that. just revisit this thread in five years and have a good laugh at your comments. lol

 

[cbn]

Dual x16 slots are only of importance to someone planning to use sli/crossfire. You're making a big deal out SATA3/USB3 like people are actually gonna get boards for that, but I can comfortably predict that most people will not be getting add in boards for those, and instead just upgrade their whole system down the road.

Yeah sure upgrading a system every two years gets around the need for AIBs.

But that doesn't mean the OP wants to upgrade every 2 years. In fact, in the opening post he said he wanted to keep the system 4-5 years.

 

[cbn]

again go play your games on a 5 year old cpu and tell me how that goes.

How does using a CPU comparison from 5 years ago have anything to do with comparing CPUs five years into the future?

Core scaling is different and we need to take into account differences in competition between AMD/Intel. This is probably the most important thing to consider.

 

[Munky]

Yeah sure upgrading a system every two years gets around the need for AIBs.

But that doesn't mean the OP wants to upgrade every 2 years. In fact, in the opening post he said he wanted to keep the system 4-5 years.

And in that case, if he doesn't care about upgrading to a newer cpu 2 years from now, he's even less likely to care about upgrading to a faster hard drive or peripherals.

 

[toyota]

Yeah sure upgrading a system every two years gets around the need for AIBs.

But that doesn't mean the OP wants to upgrade every 2 years. In fact, in the opening post he said he wanted to keep the system 4-5 years.

thats because the OPs thinking is flawed. its always cheaper to do a midrange system every 2-3 years then to try and spend more now to provide for the future. a $3000 pc from 2005 is no better than a $1000 pc from 2005 as they both would suck for current games.

 

[cbn]

people always argue this stuff and then down the road they look foolish. people always argue about how much vram, system ram, gpu power, and cpu power is needed now and for the future. funny how those needs ALWAYS increase.you are wrong here and the future will prove that. just revisit this thread in five years and have a good laugh at your comments. lol

I am certain CPU requirements will increase, but I don't think they will keep pace with other techs such as SSD and Video card.

In fact, Intel clearly believes this themselves. Otherwise they wouldn't have been so focused on Larabee and their SSDs.

I think the only way we will see huge jumps in CPU tech (like we did back in 2006 and the era you talking about) is if AMD makes huge CPU improvements. Even if that happens it still doesn't change the R&D developments Intel has invested in other non-CPU technologies.

 

[toyota]

How does using a CPU comparison from 5 years ago have anything to do with comparing CPUs five years into the future?

Core scaling is different and we need to take into account differences in competition between AMD/Intel. This is probably the most important thing to consider.

cpus like almost everything else technology wise WILL get faster and improve. for the tenth time whatever platform you buy today WILL be relatively slow in five years.

 

[cbn]

cpus like almost everything else technology wise WILL get faster and improve. for the tenth time whatever platform you buy today WILL be relatively slow in five years.

I think the major point I am trying to make is that the rate of "CPU speed-up" for gaming is slowing down.

The fastest progression that I remember was from 1996 to maybe 2004 (although I am not sure of the exact dates). In that time span CPUs went from 200 Mhz to ~3 Ghz and the "speed-up" was at least a linear increase.

With the advent of "multi-core" the rate of "speed up" slowed down.

Now with competition between Intel and AMD decreasing, I suspect the 5 year progression could be even slower still.

 

[jlee]

I think the major point I am trying to make is that the rate of "CPU speed-up" for gaming is slowing down.

The fastest progression that I remember was from 1996 to maybe 2004 (although I am not sure of the exact dates). In that time span CPUs went from 200 Mhz to ~3 Ghz and the "speed-up" was at least a linear increase.

With the advent of "multi-core" the rate of "speed up" slowed down.

Now with competition between Intel and AMD decreasing, I suspect the 5 year progression could be even slower still.

Pure clock speed hasn't gone up much, yes - but it's not really fair comparison considering a Pentium 4 3Ghz can't touch a modern notebook processor running much "slower."

 

[Makaveli]

Just buy what you can afford now, building a machine to play games 5 years from now is futile at best.

Even if you spend $5,000 on a computer now. A $2,500 computer that is build 3 years in the future will still be faster.

If it was me and the price of the whole build is close I would choose the 920 over the 750.

 

[cbn]

Pure clock speed hasn't gone up much, yes - but it's not really fair comparison considering a Pentium 4 3Ghz can't touch a modern notebook processor running much "slower."

I know the new CPUs have better IPC (see post #30) but folks on these boards have been saying Intel and AMD are running out of room for making cores wider. Take a look at the AMD Bulldozer thread to see what I am talking about--->http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2023051&highlight=amd+bulldozer

When Core frequency and IPC improvements are close to being maxed out it sounds like the only practical way to increase "Speed-up" is to go "multi-core".

However, Going multicore will never be as good as methods used in the past (IPC/frequency) barring some breakthrough in game programming.

This is the major reason I don't think we will see the same increases in gaming performance from future processors that we saw over the last 10-15 years.