Core I7 a waste of $$?

[KarmaKiller]

ntel’s Nehalem architecture might have generated a lot of excitement and rave reviews, but it turns out that Nvidia isn’t that impressed with its impact on gaming performance. In fact, yesterday the company described Intel’s claims about Core i7's gaming performance as “disingenuous” in a presentation to introduce Nvidia’s concept of an optimised gaming PC.

In the presentation, Nvidia’s technical marketing director Tom Petersen said “I have a copy of Intel’s latest deck that they share with press and customers, and on there they have a slide that is called The Intel Core i7 920 Processor, where they claim that gaming performance goes up by 80 percent when you use a Core i7. Now, I was impressed by that claim, and I was trying to figure out how they could possibly say such a thing, and it turns out that Intel is basing that claim on only 3DMark Vantage’s CPU test.”

As Petersen points out, this test “is designed to show CPU difference, it doesn’t actually measure gameplay, it doesn’t actually measure anything about game performance. Sure enough, if you do that test you will see Core i7 running faster, but I think it’s a little disingenuous to call that game performance.”

To prove his point, Petersen outlined two types of PC, which he likened to cars - the Hummer and the Beamer. Petersen described the Hummer, saying that it “has got to be big, and it’s got to be expensive and of course it’s infused with Hafnium, which is kind of a dig at Intel. It has a Core i7, which is Intel’s latest, greatest CPU that they claim is the best for gaming.” The Hummer features a Core i7, 4GB of RAM, an X58 motherboard and a single GeForce GTS 250. Meanwhile, the Beamer swaps out the Core i7 CPU for a basic Core 2 Duo E8400, an nForce 750i motherboard and a pair of GeForce GTS 250 cards in SLI.

The cost difference between the two is massive, with a Core i7 965-based Hummer costing $1,501 US based on pricing from US etailer Newegg, and the Beamer costing just $715 US. Petersen also noted that even a Core i7 920 setup with a single GeForce GTS 250 would still cost more than the Beamer SLI rig at around $790 US. The prices were based on the core components only, and didn’t include features such as the case or PSU.

“You’re paying a pretty dear price to follow the Intel story of how to build the fastest PC for gaming”, said Petersen, as he showed a graph of how gaming performance scales with CPU upgrades. Petersen got his test results by adding together the frame rates from Crysis Warhead, Fallout 3, Call of Duty: World at War and Far Cry 2 at 1,920 x 1,200 (no AA or AF) and taking an average. With a Core 2 Duo E8400 and a GeForce GTS 250, the average was 41.6fps.

He then showed how this increased as you upgraded the CPU (the blue line in the graph above), and compared it to how the frame rate increased when you added another graphics card in SLI. The frame rate only increased to 42.4fps after upgrading to a Core i7 965, but jumped all the way up to 59.4fps after upgrading to a GeForce GTX 260 (216 stream processors) SLI setup.
-snip-
“Particularly in today’s economic climate, people are concerned about getting the most value for their money,” says Petersen. As such, Petersen advises PC gamers to ignore Core i7 and instead set up a Core 2 Duo system using an nForce SLI motherboard. “With the leftover $800 I can go out and buy 16 games,” says Petersen, “it’s not even close.”

Source

He makes a good point I think. But I also think this is geared directly at gamers. If you do other things with your PC *cough* folding *cough* or any other CPU heavy task, then I can see this as a mute point.

Your thoughts?

[pullmyfoot]

Either way, 80% is pure BS. With the addition of the Phenom II 955, the AMD Phenom II line now sits nicely on top of the core 2 quad line in terms of value . And its close enough to the core i7 for me not to care if I was looking for a high end chip.

IMO right now I think the fastest CPU you should get if you want to game is an AMD Phenom II 955 or a C2Q Q9550 before you start to reach the point of diminishing returns (actually I think you already reach that point a few steps down south in a nice PII 720 or Q9400 or something like that). The rest you should really just be spending on a good graphics card.

3D Mark is getting a little too gimmicky for me.

[KarmaKiller]

Oh I knew that was gonna be said sooner or later.

Anywho, I think it's a interesting point. Instead of buying $230 CPU, $200 Mobo, $70 ram, you can simply just drop ~$300 on CPU/Mobo/Ram, and spend the left over on dual GPU's. Though I don't think they considered the PSU requirements, but even still, it's very doable to save money if your a gamer.
Now myself, I'm chomping at the bits to get my hands on 8 virtual cores of goodness.
But obviously, I have other plans then just gaming.
lol

[pullmyfoot]

Edited ma post

The 955 is as good as the Core i7 in my books. Its not too far behind the i7 920 in performance (even beating it in some benches) and it costs less. 3.8Ghz @ stock voltages also seems very dooable. Good stuff.

I suppose I should be folding . Cranked up the console My 4850's not so spectacular PPD makes me feel pretty depressed though Its pathetic compared to the theatrical power of those transistors

[KarmaKiller]

Well I gotta say I've been a fan of multi GPU configs for some time now. This is just evidence I was on the right path. lol
I'm sure others won't see it that way though.

[pullmyfoot]

Well I gotta say I've been a fan of multi GPU configs for some time now. This is just evidence I was on the right path. lol
I'm sure others won't see it that way though.

Well I did that. Once. With a couple of 7600GT which died a while back. But that was only because I had them. I would never do it if I had the choice

[Bizkitkid2001]

I agree with that, my Core i7 only runs at around 15-20% CPU usage while playing games like FarCry 2 and Crysis with a GTX 285. The GTX 285 is a big bottleneck for the Core i7.

I wonder what kind of CPU usage a machine running two GTX 295 in SLI would have?

I only put together an I7 rig for future proofing. It may be a while until a video card comes out that is so fast the I7 becomes a bottleneck.

[pullmyfoot]

That would be interesting . Why don't you go order two now and check back with us tomorrow

[EXreaction]

This is just stupid. From the very beginning Intel has said that the i7 is not going to increase game performance (they actually said it would probably give worse game performance).

They take one slide (which I can't even tell what it says in the graphs because they picture is so friggin tiny, although I assume they are showing benchmarks between cpus in different applications) and suddenly say Intel is claiming an 80% increase in gaming performance?

And just WTF is this?

The Hummer features a Core i7, 4GB of RAM, an X58 motherboard and a single GeForce GTS 250. Meanwhile, the Beamer swaps out the Core i7 CPU for a basic Core 2 Duo E8400, an nForce 750i motherboard and a pair of GeForce GTS 250 cards in SLI.

The cost difference between the two is massive, with a Core i7 965-based Hummer costing $1,501 US based on pricing from US etailer Newegg, and the Beamer costing just $715 US. Petersen also noted that even a Core i7 920 setup with a single GeForce GTS 250 would still cost more than the Beamer SLI rig at around $790 US. The prices were based on the core components only, and didn’t include features such as the case or PSU.

First they claim the i7 setup costs $1,500, then they said that going to a single GTS 250 takes that price down to $715? These guys are absolutely insane.

Well I gotta say I've been a fan of multi GPU configs for some time now. This is just evidence I was on the right path. lol
I'm sure others won't see it that way though.

This is an extremely stupid thing to say. Did you even read that article?

With a Core 2 Duo E8400 and a GeForce GTS 250, the average was 41.6fps.

He then showed how this increased as you upgraded the CPU (the blue line in the graph above), and compared it to how the frame rate increased when you added another graphics card in SLI. The frame rate only increased to 42.4fps after upgrading to a Core i7 965, but jumped all the way up to 59.4fps after upgrading to a GeForce GTX 260 (216 stream processors) SLI setup.

Going from a GTX 250 (which is the old 9800 GTX rebadged) to two GTX 260s in SLI gives a whole 50% performance increase. Yay, 50% faster for 4x the cost!



nVidia, keep digging that grave deeper and deeper. Honestly I don't see myself ever buying anything from nVidia again.

[Ultima]

well I read the article and they kinda bend the obvious to a point that Intel shows off as not all that great.
I'm no Intel fan, everyone here on the board knows that, but this is just nuts.

No-one who buys a Core i7 965EE rig is gonna buy a single GTS250, that is like putting a 1.2L 4 cilinder block in a '69 charger or putting a 440 big block in a Toyota Yaris, it doesn't fit the picture.
Ofcourse a cheaper cpu with 2 GTS250's is gonna outrun the i7 rig, it doesn't have enough graphic power to go that fast, the cpu is willing, but......

But on the other hand there is our all beloved AMD. with their nice and shiny Phenom II line. I loved it from the second I powered up my X3 rig and I loved it even more when it turned out I could overclock it to 3.7Ghz and I went nuts when I could enable a 4th core AND still overclock to 3.6Ghz.

Thing is, the i7 is a very powerfull cpu and sure, AMD beats it several times, but it can be overclocked as well, and when a core i7 runs @ 3.5Ghz, it reminds me of the FX-55 vs P4 Prescott, when the Prescott needed to run like 5.xGhz to keep up with a stock clocked FX-55 in games.

The difference isn't THAT big this time round, but still.....this comparison isn't fair, the proverbial "apples and oranges"

[EXreaction]

And you friggin fanboys have to stop the BS. Show me any benchmark where the Phenom 2 beats an i7 without overclocking.

[KarmaKiller]

This is an extremely stupid thing to say. Did you even read that article?

No I just made the post, didn't bother reading.
Yes I read the article. And as I see it, if you are on a strict budget, and are a gamer, it seems like a SLI or Crossfire setup is in your best interest.
Not go all out on the CPU, then try to squeeze in a gpu with leftover funds.

But I see what your saying, and ulitma too for that matter.

The thing I don't understand, when you look and benchmarks, it shows the I7's doing better then every other CPU out. Which I can understand, but it obviously helps some having a better CPU.

And I think biz raised another interesting point. What about bottlenecks?

[KarmaKiller]

And you friggin fanboys have to stop the BS. Show me any benchmark where the Phenom 2 beats an i7 without overclocking.

And thank you, I wasn't gonna go there...

[EXreaction]

If you are on a strict budget, a multi-gpu setup is out of the question. There is only 1 reason for multi-gpu and that is when you get multiple 4890's/GTX 280's because there is no single card faster.

[Bizkitkid2001]

If you are on a strict budget, a multi-gpu setup is out of the question. There is only 1 reason for multi-gpu and that is when you get multiple 4890's/GTX 280's because there is no single card faster.

GTX 285

[EXreaction]

GTX 285

Isn't that the dual 280 card? Those don't count as a single gpu (although I guess I did say single card)

[Bizkitkid2001]

Isn't that the dual 280 card? Those don't count as a single gpu.

No, the GTX 285 is the 55nm version of the GTX 280. It is a single GPU, and it is the fastest single GPU out right now.

Also, another note. The GTX 275 is comparable to the 4890. THe 4890 is slower than the GTX 280 and 285.

[Ultima]

It is really simple actually.

If you are thinking about going Core i7, in my opinion, the only "logical" cpu to choose is the 920, it is not too expensive compared to a Phenom II, but still can be overclocked past default 965EE speeds, so for the people who overclock, it is a very nice cpu.

The Phenom II is like Windows 7, where the Phenom II is windows 7 and the original Phenom is Vista, the Phenom II/Windows 7 is what Phenom 1 / Windows Vista was supposed to be.

Everyone has their preferences, there are just as many reasons to go for a Core i7 as there are for going for a Phenom II, so it just comes down to what are you willing to spend and what is your preference.

[EXreaction]

What happened to the Phenom 2 beating the i7 in benchmarks like you said? Or about the i7 being comparable to the P4 while the Phenom 2 is an FX55?

[EXreaction]

No, the GTX 285 is the 55nm version of the GTX 280. It is a single GPU, and it is the fastest single GPU out right now.

Also, another note. The GTX 275 is comparable to the 4890. THe 4890 is slower than the GTX 280 and 285.

GTX 275? Now what the heck is that?

All these cards nVidia dumps in the same class are confusing as hell. Even less of a reason to even try to pay attention to nVidia.