CPU/Mobo Intel's Tick -Tock Torture! New Sockets, Chipsets etc. etc.

Udit said:
I was being sarcastic dude
did you read what "damn" said & what "vandy" replied with?
Click to expand...

actually they both are correct but both of them pointing different premises:D
one pointing out the clock to clock perfm n other pointing out some games which is really performing better on i7s but still newer is better with added goodies what else we want? Synthetic bench soft are designed to utilize the procy to the fullest available means they are actually few, very few games/softwares now are able utilize them fully(or as much as poss) until then we cant really judge any i7s real potential power IMO:)
 
Vandal said:
I'm talking about games fool. Why don't you read up some benchmarks comparing a C2D with a Core i7 for games, you'll notice at times, on certain games there is a difference of more than 70% - I think that's very significant, no? You ought to be banned for making a ridiculous statement like that :p
Click to expand...
Looks like you believe in Anandtech's numbers too, good.
Intel's Core i7 870 & i5 750, Lynnfield: Harder, Better, Faster Stronger - AnandTech :: Your Source for Hardware Analysis and News
Shows a Q9650 clocked at 3.0, the i5 750 and the i7 920 clocked at 2.66. Except in crysis, the difference is less than 5fps, none in a few cases. Assuming we do run the latter two at 3.0 ghz, I still dont think we'd see anywhere close to a 70% gain. I'd love it if you showed me something to substantiate this claim. Do hurry up so we can get the fool banned. ;>
 
Intel's Tick -Tock Torture! New Sockets, Chipsets etc. etc.
Click to expand...

As a customer, I may not buy Intel due to so many sockets and lower value for money, but their tick-tock strategy is really praiseworthy as it has definitely brought forth so many choices for people and accelerated advancements in processor technology. Seriously, Intel is awesome, just not cheap for the long term.
 
Udit chillax man. No need to get worked up over such a trivial issue!

Vandal, please do not spout your long list of adjectives over other members. For sure they may not have access to all the hardware you can but doesn't mean they are 'fools'. Invariably, you have been proved wrong.

Games do not have a significant improvement over the previous generation Yorkfields. I'd love to be proved wrong here. And mind you, I game at 1920*1200 so show me the benchmarks which shows the Nehalem architecture to have a significant advantage over the Yorkfields. By significant not any measly increase of 5fps.
 
damn said:
http://anandtech.com/show/2832/16

Shows a Q9650 clocked at 3.0, the i5 750 and the i7 920 clocked at 2.66. Except in crysis, the difference is less than 5fps, none in a few cases. Assuming we do run the latter two at 3.0 ghz, I still dont think we'd see anywhere close to a 70% gain. I'd love it if you showed me something to substantiate this claim. Do hurry up so we can get the fool banned. ;>
Click to expand...

The Q9650 set at 3.00 and i5,i7 set at 2.66 has been done on purpose. I hope you understand why that was done. Running two separate architectures at same speed IS NOT the same.
 
asingh said:
The Q9650 set at 3.00 and i5,i7 set at 2.66 has been done on purpose. I hope you understand why that was done. Running two separate architectures at same speed IS NOT the same.
Click to expand...
I do, gave it a mention because most sites compare processors that way regardless of weather or not they are of the same architecture or platform. Its just etiquette.
 
And since metamorphosis here has been i5 vs. i7. The winning edge which i7s have, is HT. Each core can see 2 threads which 'can be' directed to the processor by the developer. Thus we get 8 logical cores, where as the i5s remain at a 4. Imagine the scenario, where you want a torrent client running, your virus client running, some encoding happening, and you game flawlessly. Architectures on the i7 design make this possible. It is a matter of choice. Supreme high-end with vs. mid end is the choice to make. Regarding gaming performance, I have seen reviews where the i7 pulls ahead, but the rest will contest their links and/or screen shots. Many factors come into play when just seeing gaming performance, and we all being experts no those factors. RAM/GPU/GAME/Resolution are parametric. For the price vs. performance ratio one can choose what they want to do with their system and decide. It is quite foolish to compare i5 to i7.
 
Back
Top