i7 really worth it?

[TuxDave]

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!

Given those two choices... then my answer is no still

 

[NoSoup4You]

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.

 

[toyota]

A stock E6600 is still fine for most 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.

well I agree the E8400 at 3.6 is VERY good, you arent close to averaging 60fps in Dragon Age if this benchmark is any indication. http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,...rks-75-percent-boost-for-quad-cores/Practice/

GTA4 is probably about the only game where a quad especially an i7 would make a huge difference in playability though. http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,...ead-of-Core-2-Quad-in-CPU-benchmarks/Reviews/

personally I would like to upgrade to a quad but until I get a much faster video card there really isnt a big need to. if I had a Microcenter close by I would jump on the Q9550 for under 200 bucks and just sell my E8400 for around 100 but I dont. an i7 just requires too much money to upgrade considering I will need mobo, ram, and cpu. sometimes I just think of how simple a console would be and wonder why I bother fooling with a pc for gaming. lol

 

[cbn]

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.

The last two Intel platforms LGA 1366 and LGA 1156 have offered quad core as the default processor.

But at the same time I think we are realizing these processors are overkill for gaming.

 

[cbn]

GTA4 is probably about the only game where a quad especially an i7 would make a huge difference in playability though. http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,...ead-of-Core-2-Quad-in-CPU-benchmarks/Reviews/

That comparison "GTA 4 (PC): Intel Core i7 far ahead of Core 2 Quad in CPU benchmarks" really isn't about quad core vs dual core.

It is about Nehalem vs Core 2 quad architecture. It even says so in the title.

 

[toyota]

The last two Intel platforms LGA 1366 and LGA 1156 have offered quad core as the default processor.

But at the same time I think we are realizing these processors are overkill for gaming.

when you want to run vsync and keep the framerate up especially in regards to minimum then no the newer quads are not overkill. if you are building a gaming pc from scratch there is no reason not to go with i5/i7 at this point.

 

[toyota]

That comparison "GTA 4 (PC): Intel Core i7 far ahead of Core 2 Quad in CPU benchmarks" really isn't about quad core vs dual core.

It is about Nehalem vs Core 2 quad architecture. It even says so in the title.

what does that have to do with what I said? I said in GTA 4, a quad would make a difference in playability and it WOULD. the 2.83 Q9550 is easily beating the 3.33 E8600. I then said especially an i7 which is true because its beating the Q9550. please dont twist things to make an argument.

 

[Zstream]

I do not know really, going from a E3110 (dual core) to this 860 did not give me the boost for $$ spent. I should have just went with two good SSD hard drives, would have been a much better value.

 

[cbn]

what does that have to do with what I said? I said in GTA 4, a quad would make a difference in playability and it WOULD. the 2.83 Q9550 is easily beating the 3.33 E8600. I then said especially an i7 which is true because its beating the Q9550. please dont twist things to make an argument.

I am just skeptical that GTA IV really needs a quad core.

I guess we will wait for more benchmarks.

P.S. I realize I may have taken some things you said out of context.

 

[Markfw]

I am just skeptical that GTA IV really needs a quad core.

I guess we will wait for more benchmarks.

P.S. I realize I may have taken some things you said out of context.

I already linked to a benchmark that proved GTA4 was way faster on a quad, and you agreed even !

 

[Munky]

The last two Intel platforms LGA 1366 and LGA 1156 have offered quad core as the default processor.

But at the same time I think we are realizing these processors are overkill for gaming.

They are NOT overkill. I don't think you realize just how cpu-hungry some modern games are, and that trend will only increase in the future. If I wanted to play the latest games with max settings, I'd get nothing less than a quad, or a triple core on a tight budget. Pairing a high end card with dual core might be ok for some games, but not for others. I'd hate to be the guy who shelled out $400+ on a fancy video card, only to have it held back by a weak cpu.

 

[Carmen813]

They are NOT overkill. I don't think you realize just how cpu-hungry some modern games are, and that trend will only increase in the future. If I wanted to play the latest games with max settings, I'd get nothing less than a quad, or a triple core on a tight budget. Pairing a high end card with dual core might be ok for some games, but not for others. I'd hate to be the guy who shelled out $400+ on a fancy video card, only to have it held back by a weak cpu.

This man speaks the truth.
I just upgraded from an Athlon X2 5400+ to an i5, and the difference in gaming (particularly dragon age) is incredibly huge. Dragon age loads much quicker and runs much smoother. My video card is a Radeon 4890, 4GB DDR1600.

 

[pctwo]

if the most cpu intensive thing I do is gaming (I don't see myself doing much video encoding), how much more, if any, should I pay for i5 over a C2Q?

 

[cubeless]

if the most cpu intensive thing I do is gaming (I don't see myself doing much video encoding), how much more, if any, should I pay for i5 over a C2Q?

do you oc? do you keep a system for years? it's worth the extra $$$ at this point to go quad if you do... c2d is dead for me since ddr2 and p45 mobos cost the same as ddr3 and p55 mobos...

 

[pctwo]

I meant core 2 quad vs i5, not dual vs quad core.

I'll probably OC some and keep for about 3, 4 years.

 

[cbn]

I meant core 2 quad vs i5, not dual vs quad core.

I'll probably OC some and keep for about 3, 4 years.

If you already have a socket 775 mobo set-up I would just go with a 45nm Core 2 quad.

SATA 3/USB 3 is around the corner. No need to get excited about these parts when 32nm CPUs and much better supporting features on mainboards will be here in 1 year.

The only reason I am considering LGA 1156 is because the best CPU my early Conroe board can support is 65nm Kentsfield (ie, Q6600, etc). Even then I truly don't need anything better than what I already have. I could easily wait till Bulldozer or Sandy Bridge (without affecting anything I do)

 

[cbn]

I'd hate to be the guy who shelled out $400+ on a fancy video card, only to have it held back by a weak cpu.

If we hook that $400 Eyefinity card up to triple monitors then the CPU basically doesn't matter anymore.

I actually wonder how long the single small monitor (with high end GPU) PC gaming trend is going to last? Consoles already do pretty well with one monitor and nobody complains those won't play GTA IV without a $300 CPU.

 

[Arkaign]

If we hook that $400 Eyefinity card up to triple monitors then the CPU basically doesn't matter anymore.

I actually wonder how long the single small monitor (with high end GPU) PC gaming trend is going to last? Consoles already do pretty well with one monitor and nobody complains those won't play GTA IV without a $300 CPU.

(1)- A significant minority of users will even touch dual monitors or more. Probably way under 5%.

(2)- Single monitors don't have to be small, 25", 28", 30" are coming down pretty quick, and probably more users hook up to 42" or larger LCD/Plasma TVs than those using multiple monitors. I'd DEFINITELY prefer a 55" 1080p Plasma to 3 30" monitors in a line. I don't mind multi-monitor for work purposes, it's actually pretty nice, but looking at an image stretched across them bothers me due to the bezel plastic getting in the way.

(3)- Hooking up a "$400 Eyefinity card to triple monitors" makes the CPU suddenly not matter? What? Yeah go try to play GTAIV on an X2-4000+ at 5760x1080 (if the game even supports it) and let us know how that works out Hell, even Dirt 2 runs like ass on lower-end duals, with sub-30fps averages with a Radeon 5870(!).

 

[cbn]

(2)- Single monitors don't have to be small, 25", 28", 30" are coming down pretty quick, and probably more users hook up to 42" or larger LCD/Plasma TVs than those using multiple monitors. I'd DEFINITELY prefer a 55" 1080p Plasma to 3 30" monitors in a line. I don't mind multi-monitor for work purposes, it's actually pretty nice, but looking at an image stretched across them bothers me due to the bezel plastic getting in the way.

1. The resolution is too low with Large LCD/Plasma TVs. Giant 1080p defeats the purpose of having increased FOV with Eyefinity

(3)- Hooking up a "$400 Eyefinity card to triple monitors" makes the CPU suddenly not matter? What? Yeah go try to play GTAIV on an X2-4000+ at 5760x1080 (if the game even supports it) and let us know how that works out Hell, even Dirt 2 runs like ass on lower-end duals, with sub-30fps averages with a Radeon 5870(!).

The CPU needs to be reasonably strong but not much more than that. As far as GTA IV is concerned that is a console game that plays well on 2005 technology.

 

[toyota]

1. The resolution is too low with Large LCD/Plasma TVs. Giant 1080p defeats the purpose of having increased FOV with Eyefinity



The CPU needs to be reasonably strong but not much more than that. As far as GTA IV is concerned that is a console game that plays well on 2005 technology.

going to a high res does not make up for having a very weak cpu. if you are getting very low min framerates because of the cpu then going to a more gpu intensive res isnt going to remedy that.

also you are out of your mind if you think GTA4 "plays well" on 2005 tech. it requires a very fast modern dual core just to be playable. really a quad especially i7 is needed if you want to get a good expedience. it also takes at least a reasonable modern mid range card like a 9800gt if you are playing at or above 1680 and with highest settings. really anything faster than a 4850 or so is almost useless without an i7 though since this game is so cpu dependent.

 

[cbn]

also you are out of your mind if you think GTA4 "plays well" on 2005 tech.

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.

 

[toyota]

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.

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

 

[cbn]

going to a high res does not make up for having a very weak cpu. if you are getting very low min framerates because of the cpu then going to a more gpu intensive res isnt going to remedy that.

Yes I understand the CPU time and the GPU time can't exceed a certain amount in order to achieve 30 FPS average in typical benchmarks (which according to Guru of 3d or Xbit is the minimum level for smooth playability)

 

[Markfw]

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

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.

 

[Arkaign]

Yes I understand the CPU time and the GPU time can't exceed a certain amount in order to achieve 30 FPS average in typical benchmarks (which according to Guru of 3d or Xbit is the minimum level for smooth playability)

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. What is good enough is of course a bit subjective on the individual's feelings on the issue, but generally you want the absolute minimum to be 30fps under worst-case scenario, and I personally loathe seeing FPS drop below 60 for any reason.

Also, please don't spread FUD, the PC version of GTAIV is rendered a bit different than the console versions, and can be set to details/resolutions/texture sizes that aren't possible on the consoles. Due to this as well as the way it was coded/ported, it really pays off to have at least a high-clocked C2D for the game, and ideally, an i5 or i7 quad. This has been proven conclusively, just as the benches show quads rule the roost on Dirt 2.