How much quicker in games are I7s vs older Qs ?

Buckster · 27 Jul 2009 at 17:33

I'm tempted to upgrade but I think probably on reflection the cost is greater than the benefit ?

was restricted up till now with Vista OEM - so couldn't change mobo - but now W7 RC - and full version ordered thats not a problem.

currently have a Q6600 @ 3.5 gig -with 6 gigs of RAM @ 790 CAS4

(or sometimes running at 3.3 with RAM at 1100 CAS5)

lure of a >4.0gig I7 is tempting - but I'm just not really sure if there will be an oticeable difference ?

(graphics cards is a 4890) - I like playing Arma 2 and FSX

cheers, Mark.

gurusan · 27 Jul 2009 at 17:36

not quicker at all really....q6600 at 3.5ghz and a 4890 should really be all you need for some time to come.

Buckster · 27 Jul 2009 at 17:37

ah ok thanks - that should be a

for fun-ness but

for the pocket

my Q6600 gets VERY hot - I mean its at 1.5375Vcore in bios - but its stable - and only gets hot under small prime - not with real games.

this P5B Deluxe has lasted me the longest out of any mobo ever I think - I'm way over 2 years now - not sure how long exactly - must be a good 2 1/2 years though

setter · 27 Jul 2009 at 17:42

Tbh your current rig will handle games fine, a q6600 at 3.5ghz is still a pretty powerful cpu.

Keto · 27 Jul 2009 at 18:37

Depends a lot on the game, most would be GPU limited.

Resident evil 5 benchmark shows some CPU scaling though:

http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,...Evil-5-Core-i7-reigns-Phenom-strong/Practice/

Greebo · 27 Jul 2009 at 19:20

I7 only shows it's legs once you get into xfire 4870x2 or sli gtx285/295 or tri/quad sli.xfire and then only at very high res (tbh you would need high res to justify all those graphics cards.

setter · 27 Jul 2009 at 19:25

Ive found with my previous q6600 @3.8ghz and my current q9550 @3.8ghz as well, coupled with a gtx 280xt, any game i currently play runs perfectly well at 1920x1200. Ive thought about i7 as well but the high cost for the cpu and mobo has put me off a bit.

jbloggs · 27 Jul 2009 at 19:36

AnandTech Bench

gurusan · 27 Jul 2009 at 19:41

so looks like no difference whatsoever...

mmj_uk · 27 Jul 2009 at 20:00

gurusan said:
so looks like no difference whatsoever...

If you're only gaming then there's no need to get a top end CPU at the moment, it's debateable whether quad core is even necessary, although it will probably scale more over the next year or two when CPU physics is more heavily used.

Sayso · 27 Jul 2009 at 22:16

I7 isn't a gaming platform, if you want a games machine buy a PS3

might be better off waiting for the dual "I5" to come out if they clock as high as th rumours suggest and couple that with a GPU to suit the resolution you play at...

Buckster · 27 Jul 2009 at 22:18

I've got a PS3

its been off at the back (to see if anyone would miss it) for 1 month now !! lol

tdream · 28 Jul 2009 at 10:07

I thought i7 is worse for gaming.

Greebo · 28 Jul 2009 at 10:19

http://www.guru3d.com/article/core-i7-multigpu-sli-crossfire-game-performance-review/19

Read the full review though. As you will notice, there is a substantial gain (up to 100%) to be had if you are tri-sli or greater with say a gtx285 on the i7 platform.

If your not then no gain in games.

Greebo · 28 Jul 2009 at 10:21

gurusan said:
so looks like no difference whatsoever...

Depends on the game. Far cry 2 has a 15% gain (9fps) with an i7 cpu over the same speed q9xxx cpu which is quite sustantial.

http://anandtech.com/bench/default.aspx?b=49

Corasik · 28 Jul 2009 at 10:34

tdream said:
I thought i7 is worse for gaming.

There was a post on here when the i7 was quite new, which linked to a report on i7 V Phenom2 V a Core2 Quad. They only tested about 6 games or so, the Phenom2 came top in 1 game, in almost everything else the i7 can first, and the Core2 Quad came second.

Yet it was hailed as i7 sucks Phenom2 rocks.

Most games are GPU bottlenecked, but not all, the i7 has a better clock for clock performance than Phenom2 and Core2 Quads, so if its not GPU bottlenecked, the i7 should be faster.

i7's are very nice in World of Warcraft, which has fairly simple graphics, and an older cpu heavy 3d engine. The I7's based on the cheaper 1156 socket might be even better though, as they have a bigger speed boost in turbo mode, and its unlikely that many games will need the real I7's tripple channel memory controller.

gurusan · 28 Jul 2009 at 10:40

I never understood why people are always hailing the phenom 2. The chips are cheap but good mobos are quite expensive...and people say they are awesome, amazing overclockers yet I don't think I've seen more than 3.9ish ghz for a stable 24/7 clock. Pretty poosauce if you ask me.

high-res performance does seem quite good though.

DragonQ · 28 Jul 2009 at 11:11

The i7 is not worse than the Phenom II in gaming, it's just that with the PII you can get basically equal gaming performance (on average, depends what games you play) for less money. That's why the i7 isn't touted as a gaming platform, unless you have a really high end GPU setup (where your CPU would be more important).

mmj_uk · 28 Jul 2009 at 11:27

tdream said:
I thought i7 is worse for gaming.

Worse value for gaming yes but it's the fastest and most efficient CPU on the market period.

Games are software applications like any other program, you don't get a CPU that destroys the competition on all fronts but suddenly chokes in games, games are simply the only application to have a massive hardware co-dependency which is a GPU.

PakJai · 29 Jul 2009 at 17:31

Corasik said:
i7's are very nice in World of Warcraft, which has fairly simple graphics, and an older cpu heavy 3d engine. The I7's based on the cheaper 1156 socket might be even better though, as they have a bigger speed boost in turbo mode, and its unlikely that many games will need the real I7's tripple channel memory controller.

Yeah I second that.

WoW is very CPU intensive whereas other games depends on the GPU.