i7 really worth it?

[lopri]

Aren't you guys get tired of these? I just skimped through the posts because, frankly, I knew what the discussions would reduced to: GTA.. Miniumum FPS.. New Games.. Newer Enginess.. Repeat and rinse to your hearts' contents.

It'd be a waste of my time to delve into this discussions, so I'll just say I'm very happy campper playing all my games @3560x1600 with abslute fluidity.

I don't have an i7 sysgem yet, but I'm very content at where I am. :whiste:

 

[nyker96]

A stock E6600 is still fine for most casual gamers, and my E8400 @ 3.6Ghz still absolutely crushes every game I toss at it. Great chip.

I hear people talking about how great Dragon Age is with quad-cores, but I run it at 1920x1080 with max settings, vsync on, and 8xAA and it's buttery smooth throughout. Not sure the exact fps but it "feels" like 60fps constant. Again, vsync is enabled so nothing above 60fps is of any consequence.

And yet, anyone buying a new cpu today would do well to grab an i5. There's no reason not to. My next cpu will absolutely be quad core (duh!) but I'm in no extreme rush since my E8400 is still performing so insanely well in games and everything else I use the computer for.

yes play DA myself on a x4 620 which is much smoother than my older system E7xxx@3,5. I don't benchmark but I can feel the occasional delay gone, smoother than with the dual core. I did see the benchmark showing this game run much better on quads. I guess if you getting 60+ fps already you won't feel any difference at all.

 

[cbn]

30fps average is NOT a minimum FPS for smooth gameplay in pretty much any action title, because that entails the minimums dropping into the 20s or even teens.

http://www.guru3d.com/article/overclock-radeon-5970-guide/4

A game's frames per second (FPS) is a measured average of a series of tests. That test often is a time demo, a recorded part of the game which is a 1:1 representation of the actual game and its gameplay experience. After forcing the same image quality settings; this time-demo is then used for all graphics cards so that the actual measuring is as objective as can be.

* So if a graphics card barely manages less than 30 FPS, then the game is not very playable, we want to avoid that at all cost.
* With 30 FPS up-to roughly 40 FPS you'll be very able to play the game with perhaps a tiny stutter at certain graphically intensive parts. Overall a very enjoyable experience. Match the best possible resolution to this result and you'll have the best possible rendering quality versus resolution, hey you want both of them to be as high as possible.
* When a graphics card is doing 60 FPS on average or higher then you can rest assured that the game will likely play extremely smoothly at every point in the game, turn on every possible in-game IQ setting.
* Over 100 FPS? You have either a MONSTER graphics card or a very old game.

 

[cbn]

please dont be ridiculous. it does NOT play well on 2005 pc tech and you know that.

That is why people buy consoles.

I personally like the idea of PCs though (which is a much more educational platform. Too bad I didn't get started in them earlier).

 

[cbn]

Yes, I as well am sick of the I3, and "dual-core is all you need" postings. That game plays much better on a quad, and I linked benches showing that.

And I linked benches showing the opposite. (Granted they were preliminary benchmarks from a review site based in Taiwan).

P.S. I do, however, realize Core i3 530 will get spanked by Core i5 750 in any stock speed comparison in any game.

 

[Arkaign]

Aren't you guys get tired of these? I just skimped through the posts because, frankly, I knew what the discussions would reduced to: GTA.. Miniumum FPS.. New Games.. Newer Enginess.. Repeat and rinse to your hearts' contents.

It'd be a waste of my time to delve into this discussions, so I'll just say I'm very happy campper playing all my games @3560x1600 with abslute fluidity.

I don't have an i7 sysgem yet, but I'm very content at where I am. :whiste:

Your 'play' system is a very nice quad already

 

[Arkaign]

http://www.guru3d.com/article/overclock-radeon-5970-guide/4

A game's frames per second (FPS) is a measured average of a series of tests. That test often is a time demo, a recorded part of the game which is a 1:1 representation of the actual game and its gameplay experience. After forcing the same image quality settings; this time-demo is then used for all graphics cards so that the actual measuring is as objective as can be.

* So if a graphics card barely manages less than 30 FPS, then the game is not very playable, we want to avoid that at all cost.
* With 30 FPS up-to roughly 40 FPS you'll be very able to play the game with perhaps a tiny stutter at certain graphically intensive parts. Overall a very enjoyable experience. Match the best possible resolution to this result and you'll have the best possible rendering quality versus resolution, hey you want both of them to be as high as possible.
* When a graphics card is doing 60 FPS on average or higher then you can rest assured that the game will likely play extremely smoothly at every point in the game, turn on every possible in-game IQ setting.
* Over 100 FPS? You have either a MONSTER graphics card or a very old game.

That line doesn't exactly equal what you said, as '30fps average' is not equal to 'averaging between 30 to 40fps'. As anyone can tell you, averaging 30fps means you're gonna have unacceptable minimums, as well as a decent bit of probable 40fps+ sections as well when not as much is going on. This is particularly true of action games where occasionally a lot starts happening at certain points (boss fight, lots of enemies ambush, whatever).

The guide above is certainly not on par with AT standards, although it is loosely accurate. Some things in there are a bit stupid though, like the '60 FPS average' = 'turn on every possible in-game IQ setting'. Well that can take a game from a 60fps average into the toilet pretty quick, depending on how much effect the settings have on performance. Huge amounts of AA/AF can sometimes do that, or texture sizes that suddenly exceed the recommended limit for your GPU's on-board memory.

 

[cbn]

That line doesn't exactly equal what you said, as '30fps average' is not equal to 'averaging between 30 to 40fps'.

According to Guru of 3d, gameplay only becomes unacceptable when average FPS drops below 30. Read it again if you don't believe me.

As anyone can tell you, averaging 30fps means you're gonna have unacceptable minimums, as well as a decent bit of probable 40fps+ sections as well when not as much is going on.

The test demo already takes this into account according to the link I provided.

 

[lopri]

Your 'play' system is a very nice quad already

The biggest reason I have the 955 BE is because it runs VMs very well. I've dumped many C2Q's and kept the E8400 (which I love).

 

[Arkaign]

According to Guru of 3d, gameplay only becomes unacceptable when average FPS drops below 30. Read it again if you don't believe me.

I read it, I just don't agree, and I don't think you'll find many PC gamers here on AT that will agree with it either. Average FPS of 30 means that the minimums are gonna be south of there, and peak FPS will be a bit north. Sections that chug along in the low 20s or high teens are just not going to be satisfying or fun, period.

 

[cbn]

I read it, I just don't agree, and I don't think you'll find many PC gamers here on AT that will agree with it either. Average FPS of 30 means that the minimums are gonna be south of there, and peak FPS will be a bit north. Sections that chug along in the low 20s or high teens are just not going to be satisfying or fun, period.

The Guru of 3D guide makes a lot of sense to me. I don't notice the "slide show effect" till I am in the "teens" as far as frame rate dips go.

 

[Chaosknight]

I guess im going to jump into the fray here and ask the knowledgable AT's if you had a 2K DPA account (Dell) and you wanted a PC that would last at least 2-3 years and have room for upgradability to maybe push it out to 4 years.

What PC would you buy from Dell to make the most of the 2K budget, and get most bang for your buck and also hit those targets mentioned?. I do alot of gaming, some encoding and alot of multitasking as my activities. I have a Syncmaster 2333SW so I game at 1920x1080. My current PC is a X2 6000+ 3.0ghz 4GB Ram 2 HDD's 75GB and 250GB and a ATI 4850.

 

[Munky]

It does "play well" on 2005 tech. Xbox 360 was released November of that year.

This is why I don't care about that game.

The xbox360 has a triple-core cpu with each core capable of running 2 simultaneous threads. Not to mention the cpu doesn't have to run hundreds of Windows threads while running the game. The PS3 also has the Cell cpu with 7 cores. The 2005 console argument really doesn't support your theory of "2 cores ought to be enough for anyone"

 

[Arkaign]

The xbox360 has a triple-core cpu with each core capable of running 2 simultaneous threads. Not to mention the cpu doesn't have to run hundreds of Windows threads while running the game. The PS3 also has the Cell cpu with 7 cores. The 2005 console argument really doesn't support your theory of "2 cores ought to be enough for anyone"

lol truth

No real mutipurpose OS overhead = lots more available power for an app by % of total resources.

 

[Arkaign]

I guess im going to jump into the fray here and ask the knowledgable AT's if you had a 2K DPA account (Dell) and you wanted a PC that would last at least 2-3 years and have room for upgradability to maybe push it out to 4 years.

What PC would you buy from Dell to make the most of the 2K budget, and get most bang for your buck and also hit those targets mentioned?. I do alot of gaming, some encoding and alot of multitasking as my activities. I have a Syncmaster 2333SW so I game at 1920x1080. My current PC is a X2 6000+ 3.0ghz 4GB Ram 2 HDD's 75GB and 250GB and a ATI 4850.

2K budget?

i7 920 or higher
6GB DDR3 or higher
1TB HDD or higher (perhaps add an SSD if budget allows)
5850 or higher
26" 1920x1080 or higher

$2k is a lot of $.

 

[cbn]

I guess im going to jump into the fray here and ask the knowledgable AT's if you had a 2K DPA account (Dell) and you wanted a PC that would last at least 2-3 years and have room for upgradability to maybe push it out to 4 years.

What PC would you buy from Dell to make the most of the 2K budget, and get most bang for your buck and also hit those targets mentioned?. I do alot of gaming, some encoding and alot of multitasking as my activities. I have a Syncmaster 2333SW so I game at 1920x1080. My current PC is a X2 6000+ 3.0ghz 4GB Ram 2 HDD's 75GB and 250GB and a ATI 4850.

Why not look at the Alienware models? Make sure to get one with a HD58xx so you can run triple monitors for multi-tasking/gaming.

If you don't like how that Chassis looks you might be able to modify one of the more conservative XPS 800s to your specs. Unfortunately I think you might lose your warranty though.

 

[cbn]

your theory of "2 cores ought to be enough for anyone"

2 cores are not enough for everybody (see my sig). I have never said this. I have been hoping that newer and stronger dual core technology will surpass older four core technology.

Regarding CPUs for GTA IV.....

I think spending $289 for a CPU just so I can play a game that works on much cheaper technology is a letdown.

 

[Munky]

2 cores are not enough for everybody (see my sig). I have never said this. I have been hoping that newer and stronger dual core technology will surpass older four core technology.

Regarding CPUs for GTA IV.....

I think spending $289 for a CPU just so I can play a game that works on much cheaper technology is a letdown.

Your sig is saying a future dual core i3 is a better gaming cpu than a current quad core i5 or i7? That makes no sense.

What cheaper technology are you talking about? Certainly not consoles, because console makers lose money on HW and make money on SW. If the business model for consoles was to make money on the HW too, the consoles would be selling for a lot more than they do. In fact, I'm pretty sure back in 2005 the xbox360 and the PS3 had a more powerful cpu than any desktop cpu at that time. Not exactly cheap in terms of performance.

 

[cbn]

What cheaper technology are you talking about? Certainly not consoles

I am talking about consoles. Xbox 360 starts @ $199.

However, I still like PCs much better (for various other reasons).

 

[Munky]

I am talking about consoles. Xbox 360 starts @ $199.

However, I still like PCs much better (for various other reasons).

And yet a $199 PC won't play anything remotely as well as a xbox360. Apples vs. oranges.

 

[cbn]

And yet a $199 PC won't play anything remotely as well as a xbox360. Apples vs. oranges.

Most people own a computer for reasons other than playing games.

Some people even use multi-monitors for multi-tasking.

Therefore I think video cards (especially ones equipped with "Eyefinity") are a much higher value than what we are talking about.

If I did lots of video encoding I would buy a i7...but I would not buy a i7 strictly for the gaming. Speaking of gaming value this is one area where AMD beats Intel by a pretty good margin (although I suspect Core i3 will give them a good challenge).

 

[cbn]

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2008/11/05/intel_core_i7_gaming/

Another example of why I don't think Core i7 is a good value for gaming.

Notice low resolution benchmark vs higher resolution benchmark.

 

[toyota]

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2008/11/05/intel_core_i7_gaming/

Another example of why I don't think Core i7 is a good value for gaming.

Notice low resolution benchmark vs higher resolution benchmark.

um thats at 2560x1600 which the vast majority will never use and its using just a single gtx280 which struggles with eye candy at that res. a very horrible example indeed.

 

[cbn]

um thats at 2560x1600 which the vast majority will never use and its using just a single gtx280 which struggles with eye candy at that res. a very horrible example indeed.

No I am talking about the low vs medium (1920) resolution.

 

[toyota]

No I am talking about the low vs medium (1920) resolution.

well those are all fast cpus so what did you expect? the lone dual core cpu in there is giving up nearly 50% compared to the quad core cpus.

"You see where all of our quadcore CPUs record nearly identical frame rates while the 3.16GHz Core 2 dual core CPU falls behind. It is obvious that even at this high resolution there are CPU multithreading benefits to this game. Our quadcore CPUs are GPU-limited. They have hit the wall in what they can accomplish as the GeForce GTX 280 is standing in their way."