Originally posted by: Sylvanas
If I had a current 755 system with a Q6600 I would not be buying this
If I had a current 755 system with a Dual core I would not be 'upgrading' to another dual core
If I wanted to build a new system low/midrange system I would not be using 755- there are P2's cheaper and better and Corei5 on the way
If I wanted to build a new high end system I would not be wanting a high speed dual-core
Not interested in this chip at all. No point.
Originally posted by: OCguy
If you can give me a couple programs that a 3.8ghz i7 would make a difference over a 4.3+ghz wolfie [dual core], and that more than 2% of PC users use, I would start to see it this way.
Originally posted by: swanysto
Originally posted by: Sylvanas
If I had a current 755 system with a Q6600 I would not be buying this
If I had a current 755 system with a Dual core I would not be 'upgrading' to another dual core
If I wanted to build a new system low/midrange system I would not be using 755- there are P2's cheaper and better and Corei5 on the way
If I wanted to build a new high end system I would not be wanting a high speed dual-core
Not interested in this chip at all. No point.
You would think in your attempt to make your point that you would at least know what you are putting down. Unless of course you are from another country where Intel decided to sell you guys a bootleg version of the 775 socket. If that is the case, I apologize for correcting you.
Originally posted by: Sylvanas
If I had a current 775 system with a Q6600 I would not be buying this
If I had a current 775 system with a Dual core I would not be 'upgrading' to another dual core
If I wanted to build a new system low/midrange system I would not be using 775- there are P2's cheaper and better and Corei5 on the way
If I wanted to build a new high end system I would not be wanting a high speed dual-core
Not interested in this chip at all. No point.
Originally posted by: Insomniator
Why are there still 270 dollar dual core cpu's?
Originally posted by: ShawnD1
Originally posted by: OCguy
If you can give me a couple programs that a 3.8ghz i7 would make a difference over a 4.3+ghz wolfie [dual core], and that more than 2% of PC users use, I would start to see it this way.
According to almost every benchmark on Anandtech, a quad core will beat a dual core in almost anything you can think of. photoshop, media encoding, 3D rendering, Microsoft Excel, file compression, games.
What else do you use your computer for? Aside from games, 3D rendering, media encoding, MS Office, and general dicking around (multitasking), I'm not sure what else a computer can do. Quad core wins at every one of those tasks.
Originally posted by: OCguy
Most people use thier computers for games and surfing the internet.
From your games link:
E8200: 83.9
i7: High 87
How many people do you think could tell the different between 84 and 87 FPS?
And the i7 is clocked higher!
Originally posted by: error8
Originally posted by: OCguy
Most people use thier computers for games and surfing the internet.
From your games link:
E8200: 83.9
i7: High 87
How many people do you think could tell the different between 84 and 87 FPS?
And the i7 is clocked higher!
Well, I can see that GTA 4 runs perfect with a quad core, when it was choppy on my 3.9 ghz dual core and Riddick Dark Athena has seen a nice improvement going from 2 to 4 cores. So, I'd say that a quad does worth it anyday over a dual since games will just use more cores with time.
In the "games" link, you can see that the difference in Crysis between an E8200 and an i7 is of 7 fps and in FarCry 2, at specific settings is as much as 26 fps. That's nothing too shabby and these games are advertised as being more in the dual core business.
No offense, but your E8600 is becoming obsolete very fast.
Originally posted by: OCguy
Originally posted by: error8
Originally posted by: OCguy
Most people use thier computers for games and surfing the internet.
From your games link:
E8200: 83.9
i7: High 87
How many people do you think could tell the different between 84 and 87 FPS?
And the i7 is clocked higher!
Well, I can see that GTA 4 runs perfect with a quad core, when it was choppy on my 3.9 ghz dual core and Riddick Dark Athena has seen a nice improvement going from 2 to 4 cores. So, I'd say that a quad does worth it anyday over a dual since games will just use more cores with time.
In the "games" link, you can see that the difference in Crysis between an E8200 and an i7 is of 7 fps and in FarCry 2, at specific settings is as much as 26 fps. That's nothing too shabby and these games are advertised as being more in the dual core business.
No offense, but your E8600 is becoming obsolete very fast.
The scaling in games of the few games that actually use more than 2 cores is marginal at best.
GTA4 is a crappy port. Hardly enough reason to say it is "obsolete". I actually play a game that benefits from a Quad (Supreme Commander), and I can see no difference between my Q9450 and this chip.
Of course even Yorkies are "obsolete" technically, but not practically.
Originally posted by: error8
Originally posted by: OCguy
Originally posted by: error8
Originally posted by: OCguy
Most people use thier computers for games and surfing the internet.
From your games link:
E8200: 83.9
i7: High 87
How many people do you think could tell the different between 84 and 87 FPS?
And the i7 is clocked higher!
Well, I can see that GTA 4 runs perfect with a quad core, when it was choppy on my 3.9 ghz dual core and Riddick Dark Athena has seen a nice improvement going from 2 to 4 cores. So, I'd say that a quad does worth it anyday over a dual since games will just use more cores with time.
In the "games" link, you can see that the difference in Crysis between an E8200 and an i7 is of 7 fps and in FarCry 2, at specific settings is as much as 26 fps. That's nothing too shabby and these games are advertised as being more in the dual core business.
No offense, but your E8600 is becoming obsolete very fast.
The scaling in games of the few games that actually use more than 2 cores is marginal at best.
GTA4 is a crappy port. Hardly enough reason to say it is "obsolete". I actually play a game that benefits from a Quad (Supreme Commander), and I can see no difference between my Q9450 and this chip.
Of course even Yorkies are "obsolete" technically, but not practically.
So you have a Q9450 that it's not used in your main GTX280 SLI rig? That is very weird.
GTA 4 is a crappy port, can't say it isn't, but I'm having so much fun playing it now, without any stuttering. Supreme Commander is a very old game, even if it is optimized for quads, slower old dual core rigs are able to run it flawlessly. I have the impression that the next major titles that are to be released, will surely use 4 cores. And when that happens, the performance boost going from 2 cores to 4 core should be important. Fast dual cores are still hanging strong today, but their days are numbered.
And I didn't say that your E8600 is obsolete, I said that is becoming obsolete. That is a difference.
Originally posted by: nyker96
wiki says sandy bridge (32nm) is evolutionary core revision to c2d focusing on power saving not performance. looks like Intel isn't really worried too much about amd catching up. but power saving is good especially going 8core or 16core later.