• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

master debating the i7

BravO)))

BravO)))

Supreme [H]ardness
2FA
Joined
Jun 16, 2008
Messages
7,285
It seems to me like the i7 is really kicking ass in the benchmarks, but a question that has arrived to me to which I would like to see debated. Has anyone thought that most of the benchmarks used are made for quads? If so, do you think that the real world apps that we use are? Point is, most of these benchmarks don't mean jack when the gains in world apps ie: gaming don't really see the improvement because they are not made with just quad cores in mind. And for the programs that do, is it because it needs all that cpu, or is it because it is poorly coded. The main gain out of quad cores as of now that I can see is: non-real world benchmarks and multi task processing. I think over the years we have been getting over hyped about benchmarking even though the c2q were awsome, but I have a feeling that the real world apps will not see that much of an improvement as what the synthetic programs are seeing. Are we over hyping the i7? I know we will see an improvement, but I think it will only be marginal at best.
 
BravO))) said:
It seems to me like the i7 is really kicking ass in the benchmarks, but a question that has arrived to me to which I would like to see debated. Has anyone thought that most of the benchmarks used are made for quads? If so, do you think that the real world apps that we use are? Point is, most of these benchmarks don't mean jack when the gains in world apps ie: gaming don't really see the improvement because they are not made with just quad cores in mind. And for the programs that do, is it because it needs all that cpu, or is it because it is poorly coded. The main gain out of quad cores as of now that I can see is: non-real world benchmarks and multi task processing. I think over the years we have been getting over hyped about benchmarking even though the c2q were awsome, but I have a feeling that the real world apps will not see that much of an improvement as what the synthetic programs are seeing. Are we over hyping the i7? I know we will see an improvement, but I think it will only be marginal at best.
Click to expand...

my bro's e6300 towards the die shrinked versions of the dual cores doesnt make much difference in real world apps either. Its as if hl1 is going to run faster just because you changed a single core p4 into a quad core q6600(leaving the 7800gtx card equavalent there)

not intels fault that most games are console ports and most apps not that demanding
 
This is not new, and has been discussed over and over.

Encoding, rendering and similar multimedia apps will see a huge improvement. Math type apps, GPGPU type apps, folding at home for example will see a huge jump and of course multi threaded synthetic benchmarks.

Anything that only usese 2cores or less will see marginal if any jump in speed, for example gaming and most casual apps aorund windows.
 
jonneymendoza said:
my bro's e6300 towards the die shrinked versions of the dual cores doesnt make much difference in real world apps either.

not intels fault that most games are console ports and most apps not that demanding
Click to expand...
It has nothing to do with them being console ports.

Graphics are the bottleneck.
 
my point is, what's the point of being a lawful person having a 428 in a car when you are limited by a speed limit sign.
 
Master debating? Really? How long have you been waiting to use that one.

I'll be going with deneb if the Core i7 is a "self overclocker". Kyle kinda brushed me off when I asked him about it, but I donno, some of the reports out there are looking pretty bad.

BravO))) said:
my point is, what's the point of being a lawful person having a 428 in a car when you are limited by a speed limit sign.
Click to expand...

428 is badass? duhhh.:p
 
Tech has definitely reached some kind of breaking point w/ diminishing returns liek someone said in another thread. It used to be .. I would upgrade because multitasking/switching programs and windows alone would be slow [single core anyone] but now, I'm not seeing any "ooOo AAaa" gains from a Core2 to Phenom Quad to X2 to shrunk Core2. Nothing stresses the CPU anymore like it used to, and I don't have the use for any programs that utilize 4cores.

Things are mellowing - right now all I want is uber speed bandwidth where more CPU power isn't going to help or just some revolution.. all that sci-fi shit. Everything is as fast as I care for, cept boot time and bandwidth speed. Tech keeps improving but nothing that can use that power is around.
 
lowteckh said:
Tech has definitely reached some kind of breaking point w/ diminishing returns liek someone said in another thread. It used to be .. I would upgrade because multitasking/switching programs and windows alone would be slow [single core anyone] but now, I'm not seeing any "ooOo AAaa" gains from a Core2 to Phenom Quad to X2 to shrunk Core2. Nothing stresses the CPU anymore like it used to, and I don't have the use for any programs that utilize 4cores.

Things are mellowing - right now all I want is uber speed bandwidth where more CPU power isn't going to help or just some revolution.. all that sci-fi shit. Everything is as fast as I care for, cept boot time and bandwidth speed. Tech keeps improving but nothing that can use that power is around.
Click to expand...

You hit it. Imo, we are so big on synthetic benchmarks it's not even funny. The real gains are what matter. Coming for this gen quad cores, does anyone think that the gains are worth upgrading to the i7?
 
BravO))) said:
You hit it. Imo, we are so big on synthetic benchmarks it's not even funny. The real gains are what matter. Coming for this gen quad cores, does anyone think that the gains are worth upgrading to the i7?
Click to expand...

no its not worth it but im on a p4 so its a HUGE gain for me
 
Yes it will, but aside from synthetics how "noticeable" of a difference will it be against current chips? The forums and rumors/preliminaries are amass with talk about how i7 is server or whatnot orientated, and 'regular joe' apps and games will not benefit from it.

I could say I'm a light user - all I do is browse, watch, chat, BT, game a lot. A 2core does this very well- extremely well.. how many more cores do I need to have?

For my kind of user which I believe come in heavy numbers [not including those w/ an itch for upgrading to new tech], the appeal of i7 is very limited as I cannot fathom how much faster I would need to minimize or switch tabs.

My upgrade path will most likely be dictated by the advancement in graphic cards until something truly revolutionary comes around, be it hardware or software.
 
lowteckh said:
Yes it will, but aside from synthetics how "noticeable" of a difference will it be against current chips? The forums and rumors/preliminaries are amass with talk about how i7 is server or whatnot orientated, and 'regular joe' apps and games will not benefit from it.

I could say I'm a light user - all I do is browse, watch, chat, BT, game a lot. A 2core does this very well- extremely well.. how many more cores do I need to have?

For my kind of user which I believe come in heavy numbers [not including those w/ an itch for upgrading to new tech], the appeal of i7 is very limited as I cannot fathom how much faster I would need to minimize or switch tabs.

My upgrade path will most likely be dictated by the advancement in graphic cards until something truly revolutionary comes around, be it hardware or software.
Click to expand...

i agree. unless ms office or a web browser takes full advantage of 2 let alone 4 cores ie office opening faster then you can say the word "faster" then all new cpu's including die shrinks of i7's wont be for u if you already have a core 2 but i dont so i7 fits my needs
 
But also at a hefty premium, such is the suggestion of a "lower" end system.
 
MrWizard6600 said:
I'll be going with deneb if the Core i7 is a "self overclocker". Kyle kinda brushed me off when I asked him about it, but I donno, some of the reports out there are looking pretty bad.
Click to expand...

Which reports?
I found this interesting:
http://translate.google.com/transla...c/hard/79405.htm&hl=sv&ie=UTF8&sl=zh-CN&tl=en
FritzChess: "deneb"@ 3.2GHz = 7727 points

http://translate.google.com/transla...ttp://hardware.mydrivers.com/2/118/118851.htm
FritzChess: i7 940 @ 3.2GHz = 11583 points.

Only test I have found so far that uses same software, but this indicates, that AMD once again has an uphill battle.
 
Atech said:
Which reports?
I found this interesting:
http://translate.google.com/transla...c/hard/79405.htm&hl=sv&ie=UTF8&sl=zh-CN&tl=en
FritzChess: "deneb"@ 3.2GHz = 7727 points

http://translate.google.com/transla...ttp://hardware.mydrivers.com/2/118/118851.htm
FritzChess: i7 940 @ 3.2GHz = 11583 points.

Only test I have found so far that uses same software, but this indicates, that AMD once again has an uphill battle.
Click to expand...


Well the 2900xt's in crossfire scored higher than the 8800gtx's in sli, we all know how that played out in real world performance.
 
BravO))) said:
The real gains are what matter. Coming for this gen quad cores, does anyone think that the gains are worth upgrading to the i7?
Click to expand...
Excellent point.
But as somebody whos trading his uber laptop for a uber i7 desktop and a decent laptop, Ill take the uber desktop.
I miss being able to game, and since I miss playing SupCom, and SupCom will use a quad, and I might as well pay the extra $400 (roughly) for the i7 which will stay relevant for a long time instead of a Q6600 which is almost disco and wont hold up as well.
 
I would take desktop over a laptop any day. I would like to see what would happen if the reviewers did a pepsi challange with their every day task on the processors instead of benchmarks. How do you guys think that would turn out?
 
BravO))) said:
Well the 2900xt's in crossfire scored higher than the 8800gtx's in sli, we all know how that played out in real world performance.
Click to expand...

Comparing apples to oranges eh?

but lets up the ante.
I will wager you $50(via paypal) the the nehalem is faster than deneb clock for clock in +80% of usage...are you game?
 
In which task? But I can't bet. I am underway on a computer that I can not use to make money. I would get in huge shit.
 
Menelmarar said:
It has nothing to do with them being console ports.

Graphics are the bottleneck.
Click to expand...

It's mildly annoying that people keep saying this... We know that graphics cards are extremely important for performance, but if we're examining a CPU from a gaming perspective it's because we want the performance that a CPU offers in certain games and because we've more or less surmounted the bottleneck with our graphics cards already (at least for people who have one or more GTX 280s or 4870s)... Namely Supreme Commander and other strategy games plus Source engine games (TF2, L4D, HL2 & mods). I would definitely see the benefits of an upgraded CPU performance from what I have currently (although I mainly need an improvement in clock speed).
 
What's there to bet? His simple point was just that synthetics aren't worth jack shit if real world performance is unnoticeable or can't measure up. 3DMark Vantage has quads killing duos in the CPU score, but does it mean anything at all in gaming? Mm, not really. Bets are so freaking... juvenile.

@Genbanks, you will not be seeing games get an improvement off current chips going to i7. This has been argued over and over and over, beaten so dead it shouldn't be brought up again. You can argue "future" games and whatnot, but that also has been pounded in so deep - current games that have been touted as the "future" in the past are well, not multi-core/threaded.

Speculation is such yawn.
 
I'm kinda tired of this and the chips havn't even been released yet.

To me it boils down to - Gaming, browsing, office etc, not going to make any difference. Folding, rendering, compiling etc, it's going to be a fair bit better. How much, we will have to wait and see.
 
Not to mention the whole two sockets debacle... Yay! Right now I don't give a damn about i7. My E8400 still has a lot of life in it, more than a year. Just give me a new graphics card!
 
lowteckh said:
@Genbanks, you will not be seeing games get an improvement off current chips going to i7. This has been argued over and over and over, beaten so dead it shouldn't be brought up again. You can argue "future" games and whatnot, but that also has been pounded in so deep - current games that have been touted as the "future" in the past are well, not multi-core/threaded.

Speculation is such yawn.
Click to expand...

I don't really care about that, my only point is that I'm tired of people claiming that graphics cards are all that matters. It's valid to discuss gaming vis-a-vis CPUs. I didn't bring it up. And you don't know that it won't make a difference in current games yet. How do you know I wouldn't get a boost from upgrading a 680i+q6600+ddr2 to a x58+i7+ddr3?
 
Besides raw performance, be it in benchmarks, games or "real world" apps, Core i7 offers several other things that have not been available up to this point:

Integrated memory controller from Intel.

SLI certified on an Intel chipset. (I think skulltrail was an exception to this but it doesn't really count)

Greater performance per energy used and better power throttling when idle.

It's Shiny!

If I owned a Core or Core2 based desktop right now, I wouldn't be considering an i7. I don't care to spend the money to stay near the bleeding edge of computer performance. However I see the eventual death of Socket 775 coming quickly, so I'd rather hold out a bit longer and get new gen gear. I fold so I can use the extra performance as long as I can afford it. The price premium will probably add at least a year to the life of the system for my uses.
 
So when the 8,12 and 16 core CPU’s come out next year will they start to program for multi core?
 
Maybe they'll have dual threaded programs then. Don't quote me though, wouldn't want to be responsible for disappointment :p
 
Well since no one seems to be programming games that fully use 8 or 16 threads, I'm waiting for some sort of breakthrough in biotechnology, say an implant that will allow my brain to handle interpreting many programs at once. Once they invent that, I will be able to finally use multi-core processors and my i7 purchase will be justified!
 
If only the brain was as uber as you thunkit. We can't multitask for shit - can you game and even think about something else at the same time (and not get owned)? We're inefficiently multi-core.
 
lowteckh said:
If only the brain was as uber as you thunkit. We can't multitask for shit - can you game and even think about something else at the same time (and not get owned)? We're inefficiently multi-core.
Click to expand...
Who says you have to think it to multitask on a computer? I can play a game with several other apps running, burning a DVD, unpacking a file, and running F@H on the spare cycles without a bit of slow-down. Tell the computer what to do and let it do the "thinking" itself :).
 
What I mean is that since games aren't particularly multithreaded, I would have to be able to play four of them at once to fully utilize say eight cores. There's no way I could do that very well though. Would require some assistance.

We have a lot of brainpower that we're not consciously aware of. It's busy doing things like maintaining balance, making judgments, responding to stimuli and even deciding what is important enough to bring to the attention of consciousness. I was joking that maybe it would be easier to alter our brains than to code multithreaded programs since no one seems to want to do that even though we're looking at 8/16 threads soon. Guess it wasn't a very funny joke :(
 
Our brains are more like the PS3s CPU. One main core and many minor cores. As was mentioned, for balance, senses, etc.
 
Here is the deal. Programs can be wrote to use all cores of a cpu, but that doesn't mean that it runs them effectively. I know most of you want programs to run multithreaded, but here is the problem. Programs know of days are not going the multithread route, but instead the streamline route. Why design a program to run on two cores when it can effectively run on one core?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top