Kyle smells i7 in the air...

veedubfreak said:
Dont forget that x58 will support both crossfire AND sli, this is a big plus to many. Also, new toys are new toys reguardless of the "Facts"
Click to expand...

amd/ati crossfire will work on any x58 motherboard... nvidia sli will only work on "certified" x58 motherboards
 
mjz_5 said:
amd/ati crossfire will work on any x58 motherboard... nvidia sli will only work on "certified" x58 motherboards
Click to expand...

i thought they were mutually exclusive, SLi only or crossfire only. when did that change?
 
Sojuuk said:
i thought they were mutually exclusive, SLi only or crossfire only. when did that change?
Click to expand...
Nope, pretty sure Crossfire will work on ANY motherboard with dual x16 slots. They don't even need to be electrical x16 slots, just physical ones.
 
FSX, although I'm not sure how well that scales with cores instead of clock speed. But hardcore flight sim guys drop serious money on their rigs.
 
mjz_5 said:
amd/ati crossfire will work on any x58 motherboard... nvidia sli will only work on "certified" x58 motherboards
Click to expand...

2 way 16x/16x SLI will work on ANY x58 mobo.

3 way SLI works at 16x/8x/8x on non NF200 equipped X58 mobos.

Those with the NF200 chip can do 3-way 16x/16x/16x SLI.
 
I meant as in Sup Com being the 'only' game that is CPU limited, both these games are MMORPGs, I'm not that naive. :p

Theres no ifs or buts about it, these games are clearly CPU bound, you need a 3GHz C2D just to break 40fps in AoC and 50fps in Warhammer.
 
harpoon said:
I meant as in Sup Com being the 'only' game that is CPU limited, both these games are MMORPGs, I'm not that naive. :p

Theres no ifs or buts about it, these games are clearly CPU bound, you need a 3GHz C2D just to break 40fps in AoC and 50fps in Warhammer.
Click to expand...

so u mean to say a i7 at 3ghz wont make Aoc and WAR run at least 10fps higher?
 
jonneymendoza said:
so u mean to say a i7 at 3ghz wont make Aoc and WAR run at least 10fps higher?
Click to expand...

I dunno, it depends on the game engine, we won't know for sure until someone does some tests. From what I've seen, i7 is slower in COD4, but slightly faster in HL2 and WiC:

http://diy.pconline.com.cn/cpu/reviews/0810/1438115.html

I think you'll find that in general, the more multi-threaded the engine, the better i7 performs compared to Core 2. So it should scream in something like Sup Com, Lost Planet or FSX, but for most current games it probably won't be much faster than Core 2.
 
SharpieFiend said:
I really wish that people would stop saying this crap... The drivers aren't optimized for i7 yet, so let's wait until ATI/nVidia (and everyone else) come out with drivers which include proper support before saying that. ANY new platform needs proper support before it can be fully utilized.
Click to expand...

While that MAY be true, it also may not. Let's not forget all the early C2D benchmarks where were VERY impressive in every aspect despite drivers as well as hardware that wasn't ready for mainstream quite yet. Granted that wasn't a COMPLETELY new platform.
 
harpoon said:
I dunno, it depends on the game engine, we won't know for sure until someone does some tests. From what I've seen, i7 is slower in COD4, but slightly faster in HL2 and WiC:

http://diy.pconline.com.cn/cpu/reviews/0810/1438115.html

I think you'll find that in general, the more multi-threaded the engine, the better i7 performs compared to Core 2. So it should scream in something like Sup Com, Lost Planet or FSX, but for most current games it probably won't be much faster than Core 2.
Click to expand...

so i7 wil be great for games as im sure games like alan wake will be multithreaded right? as you just stated. games now are not multithreaded yet and will do in the future so i see this i7 becoming better has time goes by
 
November... Still a long way away, here's hoping that we will start seeing reviews over the next two weeks or so.
 
Scali2 said:
I think we all know that you don't need fancy quadcores for most games...
But should that stop Intel and others from developing faster CPUs? I don't think so.
Click to expand...

One thing that bugs me about this forum sometimes is that even outside of the gaming forums, everything revolves around games. Everyone thinks that we're "all done" just because most games are GPU bound and quadcore didn't increase your fps.

There's a lot more to do out there than play games.
 
Meh, my QX9650 should see me through to the next Tick (Westmere, 32nm). :)
 
Still going strong with the Q6600, but the next round of Nehalem based CPU's will probably see an upgrade... Or I'll blow the money on another folding system, who knows :D
 
Surly73 said:
One thing that bugs me about this forum sometimes is that even outside of the gaming forums, everything revolves around games. Everyone thinks that we're "all done" just because most games are GPU bound and quadcore didn't increase your fps.

There's a lot more to do out there than play games.
Click to expand...

Well for one, there a lot of gamers here so naturally were gonna compare/talk gaming performance. It's important to a lot of us.
Second, games can be what pushes systems hardest a lot if times thus, if a rig can run games very well it's usually indicitive of how everything elese will run.
 
he probably burned one of the i7's he has when you burn a chip it has a distinct smell thats a bitch to get rid of
 
Savoy said:
Well for one, there a lot of gamers here so naturally were gonna compare/talk gaming performance. It's important to a lot of us.
Second, games can be what pushes systems hardest a lot if times thus, if a rig can run games very well it's usually indicitive of how everything elese will run.
Click to expand...

Sure, there are a lot of gamers here, but branch out and realize there are other uses for a CPU. The number of times someone in a non-gaming subforum states "quad cores are not worth it..period" because all *they* ever do is play games is crazy. This is [H]ard, not [G]amer. People come here for advice whether they game or not. One should qualify one's statements and realize not everyone is the same. This should be the best site to come to for hardware, not just gaming hardware. Small and quiet HTPCs, high grade motherboards, 16-core systems etc... whether they offer gaming benefits or not.

On the second point, this simply isn't true, especially in the INTEL PROCESSOR subforum and in an i7 thread no less. Games can push overall system performance, but that's mostly GPU limited again these days. The very fact that everyone states "quad core isn't worth it for gaming" and i7's are coming with 4, 6 and 8 cores means games are by definition not pushing this area of hardware. I'm also sick of reading "I guess the i7 sux because the FPS isn't higher".
 
I wouldn't say that "games can be what pushes systems hardest". As it has been proven, only a handful of games actually do that -- there are very few games which can use more than 2 threads efficiently. If a rig can run games well, does that mean it will encode x264 faster? Probably not, as a system running 8 cores at 3GHz will probably not be as fast for gaming as a system running 2 cores at 4GHz.
 
I don't expect anything to be multi-threaded enough to justify an upgrade from an E8400 in 2-3 years.

But that's me.
 
jonneymendoza said:
so i7 wil be great for games as im sure games like alan wake will be multithreaded right? as you just stated. games now are not multithreaded yet and will do in the future so i see this i7 becoming better has time goes by
Click to expand...

Yep, Alan Wake uses 4 cores afaik. It looks like i7 will shine in games that are properly multithreaded.
 
AVT said:
I don't expect anything to be multi-threaded enough to justify an upgrade from an E8400 in 2-3 years.

But that's me.
Click to expand...

OK, here we go again with exactly what I'm talking about.

Video encoding is multi-threaded enough RIGHT NOW to benefit from an upgrade to 4, 6 or 8 cores. So is the BIND DNS server. So is Citrix Metaframe. So are some Photoshop and Premiere actions and filters.

Or did you mean "I don't expect any GAMES to be multi-threaded enough".

C'mon, people.
 
I am happy that my TRUE 120 will worth with these chips, just need to get a new mounting bracket.
 
S-B said:
US$361! Roughly on par with the $367 that was reported earlier.
Click to expand...
Indeed.
My budget says $325 each for the i7 920 and a X58 mobo. Seems reasonable so far. Soon after launch if not at launch.
 
All those looking to upgrade remember you may need new a heatsink/waterblock. This is what is most annoying to me :-(
 
new heatsink is 30-40 bucks dude, gimme a break that's hardly a barrier to entry.
 
mjz_5 said:
wow.. i would never spend more than 150 dollars on a motherboard...
Click to expand...

You would if you were serious about overclocking your system (that's the only reason I know of to spend more than $150 on a consumer board).

EDIT: I suppose if you always wait until near the end of a given processor technology, you could get a decent OC'ing board for $150. Still, for that price I wouldn't expect much either way.
 
the difference in overclocking between a $150 and 300$ motherboard is usually like 15% more overclocking
 
mjz_5 said:
the difference in overclocking between a $150 and 300$ motherboard is usually like 15% more overclocking
Click to expand...
As others have pointed out, it's that extra 15% that makes you [H]ard. :D Besides, I have purchased motherboards that cost over $200 and didn't overclock them. Lots of us have no problem paying more for a superior product (and before you go out on a rant, I'm not saying "$$$ make better").
 
2 other things.
1: The more expensive board is going to use better components, and have more features
2: its all that are going to be available at/near launch (No P55 at launch). P55 is probably going to be LGA1160 only. It wouldnt surprise me at all for them to do that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top