• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Core i7 Multi-GPU SLI/Crossfire Game performance review

ok, now, I might be missing something, but, are they not pimping the fact you just have to splash the cash on a nice new i7, but comparing things in CPU limited situations with a , DUAL CORE C2D, vs a 200Mhz faster, triple channel higher bandwidth QUAD CORE.

Surely, the only possible way to do this particular comparison would be, i dunno, quad core vs the new quad core? Seems to me its yet another piece of proof that guru3d has gone down the tubes and tbh has been crap for a couple years.

Early on it mentions how a C2D or a phenom X series, then they take basically the slowest possible chip either series can provide to compete with a brand new quad core thats at a faster clock. Its just so far beyond bad reviewing I don't know what to call it, other than a farce, a joke and an Advert probably paid for through Intel advertising/free bits for the site.
 
You would be insane to go I7 for now as for less money you can beat it with an overclocked Quad Core and still have plenty of change!!

The pricing is just ridiculous for the performance differential in games. I7-965 system will run you about £1.6K + gfx cards on top so lets say £2K.

Until/when/if PC games ever make decent use of multi cores Intel are going to lose market share to a cheaper & better performing AMD CPU.
 
drunkenmaster said:
ok, now, I might be missing something, but, are they not pimping the fact you just have to splash the cash on a nice new i7, but comparing things in CPU limited situations with a , DUAL CORE C2D, vs a 200Mhz faster, triple channel higher bandwidth QUAD CORE.
Click to expand...


I agree. The other reviews I have read have shown a drop in performance in games, unless at low res and hence very cpu limited, but at least they were against 3.2Ghz Q9xxx cpus which is a far comparison.

In fact this is the first review I have read so show such big increases across the board but I will read some more.

If true then for people with at least GTX260 SLI or above, the new i7 setups might be worth the money.
 
A quote from anandtech.

Overall in gaming tests the situations where Nehalem was faster than Penryn outnumbered those where it didn't, but upgrading to Nehalem for faster gaming performance doesn't make sense. We were entirely too GPU bound in all of these titles, if you want Nehalem it should be because of its performance elsewhere.
Click to expand...

Not worth upgrading if all you do is game.
 
lol, tbh I hadn't been bothered to read anything on the i7, anything more than a q6600 is ridiculous for gaming, and you can get away with FAR far less than a Q6600 aswell and notice no difference in the majority of games.

If you want outright encoding/3d rendering performance you should get an i7, for gaming, its not remotely better, infact as was said the few REAL reviews show just as many games scaling better on the X48 as the X58.

Guru3d's review is just beyond utter crap, as per usual. Have you noticed that with almost every launch(mostly ATi stuff) they cry like little girls about their late review/early inconclusive review because whatever company it was didn't get them their review kit out on time. They never seem to notice that because of their crap numbers in most tests most likely no one gives a crap about them, at all.

I mean Anandtech used to be good but for well over a year haven't been hugely reliable, very frequently completely ignore their own numbers and miss out most of the conclusions they can draw from their own numbers, I don't not trust them, they can run a benchmark they just can't seem to make heads or tails out of their own numbers. Guru3d, to be fair, I'm not sure were ever that good but this kind of review is beyond a pee take.
 
Last edited:
On the plus side...

Its good to see the X58 board handling Xfire and Sli without major problems.

Also its clear there's no advantage in having more than 512mb memory (gfx) at 1920*1200.. only for that buttery gameplay smoothness.
Edited for Boogle ;)
________
MEDICAL DISPENSARIES
 
Last edited:
sarge78 said:
Also its clear there's no advantage in having more than 512mb memory (gfx) at 1920*1200.
Click to expand...

And thus demonstrates one of the many pitfuls of relying on canned benchmarks, especially those with average FPS. Having 1GB VRAM results in a smoother framerate, fewer (if any) pauses / stutters in games, etc. It's a more enjoyable experience when actually playing, vs. benchmarking.
 
nice find still for extra 20 fps in some games the i7 is not worth at the moment. would have been nice if they overclocked that dual core and see how it compares it then.
 
Mr Kingston said:
agreed, not a very fair test seing that the other 2 boards are ddr3. Why didnt they use the 790i ?:eek:
Click to expand...

Probabaly ran out of money (And suitable thought process) after spunking over the i7 setup :D

As a side note, i've never read such pathetic journalism either. Are they deliberately trying to win the approval of pre-pubescent teenagers or is the guy just a tool?
 
I think Intel are taking a bit of a risk trying to drag all high end users into the high price market. They've tried it before and really lost that market for a couple of years afterwards. The Extreme range has always been an utter ripoff. A similar move has done immense damage to Nvidia.

AMD will probably smell an opportunity here, but we'll see how we go. At the very least most of us will be sitting quite comfy in the knowledge that it it's not really worth switching our older cpus.
 
AMD may smell an opportunity - but can they capitalise on it? The new Deneb core in initial benchies is at most 10-15% faster than Phenom clock for clock, and the initial release will top out at 3Ghz. By the time AMD have a sufficiently fast core, Intel will be releasing their 32nm refresh which will likely increase performance immensely - just via increased amounts of cache.

Fortunately the cheapest i7 doesn't look too expensive. Its the platform around it that costs a bomb.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom