• 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.

More Nehalem benches (Hexus.net)

I wonder if it's worth buying a Core i7 for gaming. I plan on playing my games @ a resolution of 1280x1024 or 1600x1200. Seems like a Q9450 will handle games very nicely for another year, year and a half.

Just read that according to Hexus, the 2.66Ghz Core i7 CPU will cost 266 dollars? I wish!
 
DaddyDC650 said:
I wonder if it's worth buying a Core i7 for gaming. I plan on playing my games @ a resolution of 1280x1024 or 1600x1200. Seems like a Q9450 will handle games very nicely for another year, year and a half.
Click to expand...

Unless you're a hardcore FSX or Sup Com player, I'd agree. :)

Nehalem (I still can't get used to calling it i7) will probably be a bit faster once games become more multithreaded, but thats gonna take a while.
 
If you've already got a Q9450, buying a Nehalem would be an epic waste of money for gaming. Wait for the die shrink. No matter how well a game takes advantage of multiple cores, it wont matter since virtually everything short of a couple strategy games are so GPU dependent.

At low resolutions the CPU comes into play more often, but at that point you've already got framerates that are very high, and don't need the extra juice. Adding AA or details only adds to your GPU's load, not your CPU.
 
It seems to be showing the same sort of performance profile to the benchmarks we saw a while back - a good amount faster in multithreaded programs, but not a huge amount better in single-threaded programs.

Currently, I absolutely wouldn't think of replacing any decent Core 2 system with a similarly-clocked Core i7 unless it's running heavily multithreaded tasks and the current CPU wasn't up to the job. Otherwise, you're paying to replace most of the system for a pretty minor performance increase - Core i7 isn't feeling like a must-have upgrade at the current time to me.
 
You wont see a big difference in gaming if you go Nehalem. I cant wait till it comes out so the prices come down for the higher end Core 2 chips, so i can get one of those.:)
 
GunzofNavarone said:
did u read what i wrote? I said they have a window to get back in the game.

there is a difference.

And when the orginal Athlon came out many people said this
Click to expand...

I think you meant black hole instead of window.

When Nehalem trounces slightly Core in single threaded performance and murders both ( especially K10 by up to 2x ) in multithreaded scenarios , how can you perceive that as a window?

If anything , Nehalem is far more dangerous to AMD than Core.Nehalem couples the most powerfull x86 core with the best interconnect and memory controllers available.The catch : the later parts aren't seen in desktop scenarios.They shine in servers , AMD's cash cow now.
Wanna bet how AMD's server share will be 1 year from now ?

The future is multithreaded.I'd say that in 2 years , the only single threaded apps left will be IMs,Winamp and probably Firefox. :p
 
The pifast results are really weird... on this rig, using a e6750 underclocked to 2.4Ghz (RAM set 1:1), I get 27.38s to complete the same 10m calculation (assuming it's 10x2^20 digits, as opposed to 10,000,000). Just, confusing... Since by all rights this computer should be *far* slower in even single threaded apps than any of the Intel processors in that test.
 
easy to code, maybe. not so easy for it run right when it actually is deployed. little tiny single user apps dont count.
 
Wheres the common sense? Just because someone compiled an app they wrote out of a book, doesn't mean its going to work right in the real world. If it was so easy, where are they?

I've made my opinion known, and if people disagree, fine, lets just leave it that.
Ill just say its alot easier said than done, which is why we dont see alot of multi-threaded applications.

People having been tossing around "multi-threaded apps are the future" for years now, and the reality just isn't there yet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top