Nvidia Says Core i7 Isn't Worth It

[IronRyan21]

I appreciated this article, very informative. I always wondered about the i7 performance increase in gaming compared to older chips. I wonder if this goes with the new amd x4 955 compared with an x2?

 

[apache_lives]

who uses a system 100% for gaming? NO ONE

who wants faster systems? EVERYONE

Does anyone use a Pentium 1 these days? Will it play crysis? Nope - and i bet back in the day people though it was overkill and no one would need more performance.

I hope Intel brings out a sucessful Larrabee design to the market and blows nvidia away.

I bet nvidia hates the i7 design platform and similar because THEY CANNOT MAKE SLI CHIPSETS FOR THEM - bahahaha.

 

[Cuddles]

To me Intel is saying "Just by using an I7 CPU your Gaming Performance will go up by 80%."
Is that a true or false statement and on what CPU is this increase in Gaming Performance being based off of?
If you go from a Phenom II 940 to an I7 720 will you see an 80% increase in your gaming performance?
If there isn't an 80% increase in Gaming Performance then is Intel trying to mislead the customer base by making false claims?

I seriously doubt that "Just by switching to an I7 Intel CPU you will see Gaming Performance increase by 80%" but that doesn't take away that people will be mislead into thinking that if such a statement does exist.
I would like to see where this statement is and what they are basing this magic 80% off of. Then I would like to see Intel held accountable for such a statement. If this statement is public and people did buy an I7 based off of this statement then those customers should be guranteed an 80% performance gain and if those customers didn't get an 80% increase in performance then Intel should be responsible for damages.

Just show me the statement and if I qualify then I'll go buy an i7 right now. 80% Performance gain just by buying a CPU...

 

[Fusion777]

nVidia is stating a truth such as this only because they don't seem to be making i7 chipsets. They make valid and informative points - however, the i7 is indeed much faster in true CPU intensive environments, which games typically aren't (in comparison with rendering, multimedia production, etc). This is nVidia trying to protect its Core 2 chipset investment, otherwise I'd be surprised to hear anything out of them against intel CPUs.

 

[DjEaZy]

[citation][nom]Cuddles[/nom]To me Intel is saying "Just by using an I7 CPU your Gaming Performance will go up by 80%."Is that a true or false statement and on what CPU is this increase in Gaming Performance being based off of?If you go from a Phenom II 940 to an I7 720 will you see an 80% increase in your gaming performance?If there isn't an 80% increase in Gaming Performance then is Intel trying to mislead the customer base by making false claims?I seriously doubt that "Just by switching to an I7 Intel CPU you will see Gaming Performance increase by 80%" but that doesn't take away that people will be mislead into thinking that if such a statement does exist.I would like to see where this statement is and what they are basing this magic 80% off of. Then I would like to see Intel held accountable for such a statement. If this statement is public and people did buy an I7 based off of this statement then those customers should be guranteed an 80% performance gain and if those customers didn't get an 80% increase in performance then Intel should be responsible for damages.Just show me the statement and if I qualify then I'll go buy an i7 right now. 80% Performance gain just by buying a CPU...[/citation]

... and tha tests show... if tha resolution gets higher, then tha difference between i7 and AMD Phenom 940 iz not so noticable or not at all... tha GPU do tha physics now, video compression...

http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-phenom-x4-945-and-955be-processor-review-test/1
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/phenom-x4-955,2278.html

 

[rooket]

Hmm interesting there is a 3.4ghz HT cpu, made in 2004. But why even bother? AGP sucks ass and even if you have the fastest AGP slot card out, a low end PCI Express card these days will blow it away. I dunno what this guy's point is. I've got a 2.4 and a 3.2, they are both slow. Have yet to rebuild those systems. Friend of mine offered me something better so I will probably end up recycling them anyways.

 

[matt87_50]

wow, is it just me or are intel and nvida really going at it lately?
anyway, no, an i7 isn't worth it. mabey worth it if you just consider the cost of the cpu but not worth the very high cost of the i7 mobos as well.

 

[rooket]

I think if you want a quadcore, it is foolish to buy a socket 775. An i7 920 is faster than them all and is quad core with hyperthreading, so you get 4 cores plus an additional 4 virtual pathways. All for less than $300 for the CPU alone. Plus Intel doesn't have anything left on the roadmap for the older socket. Last time I checked, the fastest core2quad cost about a grand. Waste of money.

 

[Caffeinecarl]

[citation][nom]rooket[/nom]I think that if one hasn't upgraded from their HT cpu yet, then going to an i7 920 is a safe bet. Prices have come down on some motherboards. However, I spent very little money upgrading to core2duo E8400 and this system runs a lot better than my expectations. Probably partially because I didn't opt for a crummy Asus motherboard this time.[/citation]

I agree. If you're way overdue for a new computer, then a Core i7 could be a sensible choice for a new platform. But, if you're already using a relatively fast machine (Core2 Duo/Quad) then switching to Core i7 isn't going to do much of any good, if any, right now. As far as what I plan on, if my Core2 Duo E8400 starts laggering a bit, I can always overclock easily, or drop in a Core2 Quad Q9550s if I decide what I'm doing really justifies four cores. Not sure it'd really be worth the loss of OC headroom.

I see the Core i7 going obsolete as an upgrade path for me before I will need anything new. I'm not saying it's a bad processor, I'm just saying that what came before it was so good, I probably won't need it!

 

[Ikke_Niels]

I kinda agree with Nvidia here, videocard is leading.

But the mainpoint is when is it in front of buying new stuff.
I'm atm in a position of upgrading within a few months but still have no clue if I need to upgrade my CPU/RAM or my videocard (money can't cut 'm both ).

If Tom's could make an article to check which videocard is the "max" for a few CPU's that would help a damn lot *and* I think it's quite usefull information for a lot of people.

 

[apache_lives]

heh Intel makes a super high end cpu/platform and slaps a premium on it to set it aside from lower end cpus and you all have a wine? same as SSD's, GTX295/4870x2 - why does everyone wine about the price? ITS ALWAYS BEEN THAT WAY - if you have the money then high end for you, if you dont buy low end, dont have a go at high end products because you cant afford them.

i7 isnt for mainstream, nor most other high end products - check out your info before bashing perfectly good products on the market.

 

[PrangeWay]

Yeah for any serious gamer/computer geek this is pretty well established that if you're running a real gaming rig at 1900 or 2560 (like you have to be to have a "real" gaming" right) GPU is where you're gonna bottleneck whether you have a i7 or a 9650 or a P2 940/55. You're framerates are all gonna come in pretty darn close. Of course I have an i7 but I use it for work/home office, use a P2 940 in my gaming rig...

 

[roholidays1]

It is logic for Intel to claim this. NVidia has much sense theo, because changing a video card will cost you tops 500$, but a CPU change, especially the new i7, will cost you almost double. So, considering who has more to lose or gain thru this campaign, I go with nVidia and will think to purchase a new Video Card. That might be the new ATI 4890 tho..

 

[Nossy]

Hmm. i7 is 229, 6GB is 89, Mobo 230.

If you havent bought C2D or C2Q in the past year then jump on the i7 bandwagon if you want a new comp. I'd say right now that upgrading a gfx card isn't worth it with DX11 and Win7 around the corner unless you have deep pockets. % increase can be misleading. Say if you have 10 fps in Crysis and an upgrade gives you 20fps, that's a 100% gain, but in reality you have 10 fps increase and a total of 20fps which is not that great, but the 100% number is very attractive. You can rig the setup to yield the result you want if you know the strengths and weakness of your product. Both of them obviously are promoting their products.

Not sure why Nvidia is putting down i7. It's very silly because CPU upgrade path often leads to GPU upgrade. DUMB.

Sorry Nvidia, my next upgrade is i7 920 with 4890.

Right now I think the bottleneck is the software.

 

[Guest]

What Nvidia is essentially saying is Nvidia is holding your performance back, Intel is way ahead of the game. These GPU companies will continue to release baby step products to take your money away from you.

 

[FlayerSlayer]

I have a Core i7 920 and a GTX 285. I get great framerates, AND I get great performance in applications. I can confidently play games, or do things that AREN'T GAMES.

Why does everyone act like there are two groups: non-gamers, and only-gamers. Sometimes, the games turn off and we want to watch movies, or even (gasp) get work done. Then the i7 comes into play.

Besides, i7 965? Really? How about the 920 at a third of the price? That's actually worth it.

 

[bustapr]

[citation][nom]ronch79[/nom]So what will an AMD Phenom II be? A Mercedes, perhaps?[/citation]
Phenom II would more rather be a Toyota in this case.

 

[rooket]

I like my 115fps with v-sync turned on and full details in TF2 on steam with E8400 and 9800 GTX+ superclocked edition

 

[rooseveltdon]

[citation][nom]bustapr[/nom]Phenom II would more rather be a Toyota in this case.[/citation]
lol not really dude more like a lexus, you get premium performance and a reliable and over clocking friendly chip for an affordable price, for less than $200 i could get a ph2 940 clocked at 3.0 ghz stock speed and with a lot of room for over clocking and four cores...intel does not offer anything at that price range that could really beat that....and for less than $150 i could get a tri core cpu at 2.8 ghz stock,with an unlocked multiplier and solid all around performance again,at that price range intel does not offer anything like and by going amd i would save enough money to get a kick ass graphics card that would actually improve my gaming without sacrificing cores or power...so yeah more a lexus than a toyota my friend.

 

[A Stoner]

Well, nVidia is wrong. I went from a Q6600 with a GTX 285 and 8800 GTS 640 to an i7 920 with just the GTX 285, and my gaming with 7 open clients at once no longer stutters and spurts. The only changes are the motherboard, CPU and memory. Money I did not want to spend, still ends up getting me alot of bang for the buck. Of course, maybe another GTX 285 would have done as much for less money, but I am seriously doubting that the graphics card was what was the bottle neck. I think it was the memory bus.

 

[average joe]

Nvidia is being a little biased with there numbers. The E8400 is still a 3 ghz chip. It's just happens to be a dual core and games tend to be single threaded. Comparing a q8200 to an I7 920 which would be low end to low end comparison and would show a lot more variance between the two architectures.

If you are running a top end dual core and move to a top end quad core it's no wonder that they both can keep the GPU fed with instructions. I think it takes 2.66 ghz core 2 chip or better to keep a gx250 fed.

I have a q6600 and at stock speed its a 2.4ghz chip. My frame rates increase up to around 2.8ghz before they basically flatten out.

 

[average joe]

I started writing my post at 9 am and got really busy for ~5 hours. I finished it and while rereading it I realized it did seem to make any sense anymore. Please disregard it.

 

[nao1120]

[citation][nom]The Schnoz[/nom]There are other things to think about. If you are building a new system you would be better off buying a Core i7 just for the LGA 1366 chipset. Not only will you get triple channel memory but you will also have a new chipset which should last longer than the LGA 775. Besides, if you're going to buy a chip for $170 bucks like the E8400 you might as well get an AMD AM3 based processor like the Phenom II X4 810 which is selling for the same price, has a new chipset with longevity, and supports both ddr2 and 3. Oh, but of course Nvidia wouldn't say that because they don't have any AM3 chipsets.[/citation]


Are you talking about how long the socket 775 lasted and in year, and the 1366 and another year....., what about in 1 years time the 1156 socket intel has planned.

That means you upgraded for a pointless few fps in gaming for the 1366 platform, when its successor is already coming out a year later.

Only statement i agree with on this one, is the fact AMDs platform lasts alot longer, and may be compatible with other boards. Intel seems to think they can re-release new mbs yearly lately, and think people will actually buy them. Maybe only enthusiasts that need that extra bit of FPS.

They are the fastest, i agree, but not worth every penny in my books. Core 2 duo/quads will outlast the i7 1366 release, until the 1156 comes out. If its even worth getting in comparison.

 

[bfstev]

so this is nvidia's backlash at intel for telling them they cant make chipsets for i7? Just try to discredit the whole processor line?

They are like little kids on the playground that refuse to share or play nice with each other.

 

[apache_lives]

let me get this straight - more performance = bad??? why am i getting voted down for questioning that?