i7 really worth it?

[richierich1212]

Computer Bottleneck, please quit drinking the i3 Koolaid. Thank you.

 

[cbn]

Did u even look at the graphs? Core i5 @ 2ghz was getting shit all over.

I don't care about anything past the Resident Evil 5 benchmark because all those other games don't need anything beyond a dual core (even Borderlands doesn't use much in the way of CPU believe it or not).

Resident Evil 5 is a newer game and even at 4x AA increasing CPU speed from 2 Ghz to 4Ghz didn't do much. This type pf GPU bottleneck is less likely to happen with older games (the major exception being Crysis)

The take away message is that if a game is so new that it might be "quad optimized" it also runs the chance of being very demanding in the graphics department also.

 

[cbn]

i5 all the way

Not really.

 

[Kantastic]

I do exactly what you do on the computer and went i7, a month later (now) I sold all my parts and am waiting for my AM3 parts to arrive.

 

[Demo24]

Alright guys, chill out. I didn't ask about the i3 as I have no interest in the i3. I want a quad core chip and nothing lower than an i5. A large reason gaming isn't higher on the list right now is because I'm on a 3800+ 939 with a video card that doesn't support the latest shader models. So I'm mostly stuck with valve games.

The reason I asked is because I haven't really used an Intel system since the P4 days, and then HT had noticeable benefits. Now it seems not so much unless I'm a power user. Which clearly I am not. Besides gaming only on occasion would I do something stressing such as virtual boxes, or some minor video encoding. However I think a quad core chip of this level of performance will still more than meet those demands.

 

[Markfw]

Not really.

Yes, all the way, and as another said, Please quit drinking the I3 koolaid, its really getting annoying. There aren't even any benchmarks available.

Note what the user said also, which is commonplace today:

I want a quad core chip and nothing lower than an i5.

 

[exar333]

Bigger but fewer cores with hyperthreading vs. Higher core count, Turbo mode, and hyperthreading (Intel's current strategy)?

I think whatever consistently makes it to the smaller nodes first will win. (That is just my newbie opinion)

Fixed.

 

[cbn]

The reason I asked is because I haven't really used an Intel system since the P4 days, and then HT had noticeable benefits.

HT can work but since current games only contain between 1-4 threads you won't notice any benefit from that on a quad core like i7.

 

[Markfw]

HT can work but since current games only contain between 1-4 threads you won't notice any benefit from that on a quad core like i7.

I don't think that everbody with a quad only games... Encoding uses HT big time, and many other apps. Most people use a computer for more than one thing.

 

[aigomorla]

you guys are missing the biggest cut point in a gamer on the i7.

Hey op, how many videocards are you intending to run on your system?

1? then stick with an i5 or an i3.

SLI or Xfire? i7 wins all the way.

So its ultimately on what type of monitor you intend to run in the future, or your running now.

Usually if its 24inches or higher, you will require SLI or Xfire to play games maxed out and have decient FPS over 60 ranges.

Also how greedy are you with technology?
The i7 platform has a 32nm Quadcore thats coming out soon. 12 meg cache, quadcore.

I just saw the part squ the other day on the sheet.

So the i5 really has no advantage over cost.

OP is 80 dollars ultimate something that can break your back?
Is what i should be asking you.

i7 920 = i5 860 > i5 750 = i3

Do u want to start at the middle, or go for goal at the go, with a 80 dollar premium?

 

[Demo24]

I have a u2410. Completely maxing out is fun, but not necessary. Eitherway I can't afford the highest end video card so thats a mute point. Also on seeing some benchmarks it doesn't seem like x58 offers a whole lot more performance in multi-gpu cases than p55. Sure, it's there and in the future it might be greater but at the moment I don't think it's worth the minor performance increase for a larger increase in price. I am doing this on a budget, but I don't want to buy the cheapest thing available.

It's possible I might do crossfire in the future, but it wouldn't be at least for a year down the road. So, that's not a big concern for me.

 

[cbn]

Also how greedy are you with technology?
The i7 platform has a 32nm Quadcore thats coming out soon. 12 meg cache, quadcore.

I just saw the part squ the other day on the sheet.

That sounds encouraging. This for LGA 1366 and not for LGA 1156?

 

[lothar]

you guys are missing the biggest cut point in a gamer on the i7.

Hey op, how many videocards are you intending to run on your system?

1? then stick with an i5 or an i3.

SLI or Xfire? i7 wins all the way.

So its ultimately on what type of monitor you intend to run in the future, or your running now.

Usually if its 24inches or higher, you will require SLI or Xfire to play games maxed out and have decient FPS over 60 ranges.

Also how greedy are you with technology?
The i7 platform has a 32nm Quadcore thats coming out soon. 12 meg cache, quadcore.

I just saw the part squ the other day on the sheet.

So the i5 really has no advantage over cost.

OP is 80 dollars ultimate something that can break your back?
Is what i should be asking you.

i7 920 = i7 860 > i5 750 > i3

Do u want to start at the middle, or go for goal at the go, with a 80 dollar premium?

Fixed.

 

[nyker96]

You are talking about a quad core with L3 cache (Phenom II) vs a Core 2 duo that doesn't have L3 cache or hyperthreading.

Core i3 would scale better in that game. It would probably OC a lot better than 3.5 too.

yes my e7200 has more cache than the x4 620 but still it goes much smoother on the x4. and when I check cpu load, all 4 cores are loaded during this game. anyhow I'm sure there are some games the larger cache will prevail, but from the look of things the trend is toward more core counts now. check out Dirt2, it's also quite threaded, so for the newer games, extra core or two probably make up for the lack of cache somewhat and in heavily threaded games will more than make up.

as for i3 we will see how that turns out when the actual product arrive. HT is great but I have doubts it can make up for lack of physical cores on all occasions. and from how well i7 clocks I will say it can get to 4,2-4,5.

I think it depends on the dual.

My E8600 @ 4.32GHz holds it's own against my Q6600 @ 3.2GHz for >2 core threaded apps, and blows it away at apps that are <=2 threads.

your q6600 is suffering a bit from the low OC and old architecture in comparison to the e8xxx. if you compare say a q9xxx series@3,6 vs E8xxx@4,32 will probably give the quad an advantage in most threaded apps but yield to the e8xxx on non threaded apps/games. but the general tread of new apps is toward more threads which is understandable considering intel/amd are preping 6,8,12 or more core for the future, apps gotta go that direction instead of relying on high clocks. not to say e8xxx is not a good cpu, it's great for today's lower threaded apps.

 

[lothar]

The i7 platform has a 32nm Quadcore thats coming out soon. 12 meg cache, quadcore.
I just saw the part squ the other day on the sheet.

Interesting...That's not on Intel's roadmap.
Any idea of release time frame? I'd guess Q3 2010?

I can image if it's going to have 12MB cache, then it's not going to be cheap(the sweet spot of the current 920 and 860 setup) because that would completely disrupt the "leaked" Clarksdale prices shown here.
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2027242

Regardless of whatever the price it may be, I never pay more than $300 for a CPU and $200 for a motherboard.

 

[cbn]

I can image if it's going to have 12MB cache, then it's not going to be cheap(the sweet spot of the current 920 and 860 setup) because that would completely disrupt the "leaked" Clarksdale prices shown here.
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2027242

That 32nm quad core (based on Gulftown) won't compete with Clarkdale on the same socket.

Hopefully it will be out April 2009.

 

[SRoode]

your q6600 is suffering a bit from the low OC and old architecture in comparison to the e8xxx.

Low overclock, how dare you sir!!!! I think a 33% overclock on a quad is a nice overclock anyday!

I do agree with you that newer apps are starting to take advantage of the multiple cores, but owning both a dual and a quad I can honestly say I'd take the dual at 4.32 vs. the quad at 3.2 today. This will change over the next couple of years though.

 

[cbn]

I'd take the dual at 4.32 vs. the quad at 3.2 today. This will change over the next couple of years though.

Even though it will change....it will never be complete. Faster (but fewer) cores will always have their place in the scheme of things.

 

[lothar]

That 32nm quad core (based on Gulftown) won't compete with Clarkdale on the same socket.

Hopefully it will be out April 2009.

Any other source about this mysterious 32nm Quad?

 

[SanDiegoPC]

I'm currently planning out a build for early next year. The problem is I'm having trouble deciding between i5 750 and the i7 860. Now obviously the i7 model has a slight ghz increase but also the addition of HT. Is that really enough to justify the $80 price increase? I intend to overclock the chips up into the 3+gz range, so that takes out that i7 advantage.

I use my comp mostly for school work, browsing net, watching movies, and then gaming. It's rare for me to do anything more stressful than that.

However, I do tend to keep my comps for quite awhile. My current one is nearing 5 years.

Also I do like the i5's price.

So, basically in short. Is HT really worth me spending 80 bucks for?

Then no.

I thnk TuxDave made too rash a decision there, without asking about WHAT KIND OF GAMING?

Are you playing Hearts or a 3D First Person Shootemup game? Big difference!

 

[cbn]

Any other source about this mysterious 32nm Quad?

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=240252

I found some information here. I just hope the availability is better than I think it will be. I'm also a little worried it will be an expensive part.

 

[Piano Man]

Demo, whats your budget gonna be?

 

[Munky]

You are talking about a quad core with L3 cache (Phenom II) vs a Core 2 duo that doesn't have L3 cache or hyperthreading.

Core i3 would scale better in that game. It would probably OC a lot better than 3.5 too.

A Core2 duo has a shared L2 cache, there's no need for L3 cache with only 2 cores. I don't get why you're pushing the i3 so much. As a cheap cpu I'm sure it will be good, but to suggest it's better for gaming than a comparable quad or triple core is just nonsense.

 

[Markfw]

A Core2 duo has a shared L2 cache, there's no need for L3 cache with only 2 cores. I don't get why you're pushing the i3 so much. As a cheap cpu I'm sure it will be good, but to suggest it's better for gaming than a comparable quad or triple core is just nonsense.

I agree. I have been saying this for a week or so. Its so annoying that every post he has, he brings this up as the best chip ever for any solution.

 

[cbn]

I agree. I have been saying this for a week or so. Its so annoying that every post he has, he brings this up as the best chip ever for any solution.

I don't believe Core i3 is the best chip for any situation. It is just a nice little low heat chip that may or may not OC well.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=29030760&postcount=12

With some programs (like games) it can be faster than a quad. We have seen benchmarks of this already.

But for other more serious tasks truly requiring four cores I don't think this will hold true.