http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardware/2009/04/23/core-i7-waste...s-nvidia/1

my first thought after reading that article: duh

Of course you are going to see more of a difference in gaming when going between single GPU and SLI than a CPU upgrade from a core 2 duo to a i7 965... especially when you are only giving them a 8800GT/9800GT/GTS 250 for a graphics card.

In both cases the systems are GPU limitied, so CPU upgrades mean little if anything. Equip them with GPUs that will really let the CPU's shine and then tell me it makes no difference.

I'm really starting to hate nVidia...

Yeah really, AT LEAST put a GTX260 in there.

I would have never thought it possible but it seems like nVidia puts out more meaningless propaganda than the Democrats.... ugh.

Good link Gary. It seems the fan boys won't be able to handle this bit of news lol!
I still have my Q6600. It runs beautifully today. And I'm glad lol!

Not exactly a good link since they used very weak videocards when they should have been using top of the line cards.

Michael C said:

but if they had done that then nVidia wouldn't have been able to covertly advertise their rebadged..er... new GTS 250 cards.

MrBungle said:

Sounds more like the Republicans' propaganda to me - "this is rubbish" without any constructive suggestions

Beavis Khan said:

No if it were like Republican propaganda it would be just as stupid just slightly less expensive, they would have used 9600GT's instead.

My friend has similar PC to mine, except hes got core 2 duo x6800 and a 280 gtx,

I get significantly higher fps than him in GTA4 and my videocard s0x0rz because its an old 8800gtx. Explain that plox?

Videocard makes the biggest difference but When I went from my old FX-60 and nforce 4 with ddr 550 to i7 with triple ddr3, every single game that was running choppy just sped up significantly. That has to do with CPU-to-RAM bandwidth and that's significant for games.

Fallout 3 used to chop out, so did Crysis and few other games (GTA4 obviously) and with a lot faster CPU (quad core and higher frequency makes almost no difference but CPU-to-RAM bandwidth does) games are smooth as silk even on an old 8800gtx.

GTA 4 is a terrible example, that game is coded horribly. Obviously his computer should be raping yours(no offense). I'm sure in other games FPS would be higher.

sovietdoc said:

Because your friends computer is CPU limited. The game will only move as fast as the slowest part, the amount of work assigned to each of the critical components CPU, RAM, Video Card will vary by game.

The easiest way to see this is to get yourself something that can monitor CPU usage while you play... I suggest a logitech G15 keyboard with the performance monitor running during game play. If the game gets choppy and CPU usage is 95-100% its a CPU limitation, if the game slows down with CPU < 95% and RAM at 100% with the hard drive clicking away you need more RAM, if neither RAM nor CPU is near maxed the slow down is the video card.

Its also important to remember that the minimum specs listed on games are just that minimum requirements NOT smooth frame rate requirements.

sovietdoc said:

Not necessarialy, RAM speed has been shown time and again to be less important than quantitiy. If you were using your 8800GTX on that old FX60 you were CPU limited the 5 fold increase in processing power you netted by moving to the i7 likely did you more good than the increase in raw bandwidth to memory from the CPU. IF the difference were simply memory bandwidth then an AMD Athlon 64 X2 5000+ would would run circles around a core 2 quad equipped with DDR2 RAM.


sovietdoc said:


Again CPU limitation.

We benched a few days ago and he does get up to 25 fps difference in older games but none of the latest titles are in his favor.

gta4 is an exellently coded game. It actually makes use of the cpu potential 100%

Michael C said:

lolz. And you know this how?

a lot of people blame say GTA 4 is coded badly because it runs poorly on their PC's but works on a PS3 but what they forget is that the draw distance on the PC is 10x that of the PS3 version which greatly increases the strain on the system since it has to run AI for all the cars out 10x as far, render buildings out 10x as far, etc...

PC > All consoles.


Well, okay except the Wii.

Beavis Khan said:

I don't know, I just know things ok!

Plug & Plays original thesis is pretty spot on. Anandtech compared a Phenom II 720 and 940, C2Q 9550, and an i7 920 in various games at many different settings and what they found was that the 720 hung in there with all of them in every game. the GPUs? Crossfire 4870's.

heres the article
http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=3533&p=3

if you strictly game then the Phenom II 720 is a perfectly viable option

Why are peeps fixated on the GPU side of it not the CPU side of it...good dam fanboys!!! Team Green Team Red ..............ARRRGGGGhhhghghghghH

Any how, I have read on several forums and sites that the ideal chip for gaming is the E86xx series core duo's or the Q9650's....as the bandwidth when overclocked its MONSTER!!!! You are talking 4GHZ at least on air and the CPU's are cheap as CHIPS (Pardon the Pun)

Anyway just coz I posted it, does not mean I believe it, its posted to debate and discuss not flame war dudes.....

f**k intel because the suck

AMD RULZZZZZZZZZ !!!!!!