Intel i7 massive price cuts

  • 0 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
#1 Edited by HitmanAgent47 (8576 posts) -

http://www.igniq.com/2010/08/23/intel-i7-massive-price-cuts/ 

 
 

If you’re planning on building a gaming PC anytime soon, you will be pleased to know of Intel’s upcoming price reductions for some of their flagship processors. In just seven says time on the 30th of August, the Core i7 950 (LGA1366, 3.06 GHz, quad-core) which is currently retailing for $564 on Amazon.com will be slashed to $294, effectively replacing the i7 930.

OverClockers.co.uk already has the processor listed for £234.99 on pre-order.

The 950 performed extremely well in benchmarks with plenty of room for overclocking. Tom’s Hardware pitted it up against the 975 Extreme Edition and it certainly held its own against the $1,000 processor.

 


 
That's right the i7 is going to be on sale, a more powerful $500 version will be only less than $300 and it's 3.06 GHz right out of the box. It benchmarks well and it's a good card to overclock too. Lots of ppl are building a new pc rig and i've also been thinking of getting an i7 cpu, yet I complained it's too expensive. Hopefully now I can get more value out of it and the i7 920 hopefully wilil even be cheaper now. Just thought I should let others know because it seems alot of ppl including myself are interested in building a new right now.
 
However I belive the i7 1336 socket is going to be phased out with the sandy bridge architecture i7 cpus and that's why they are dropping the price. You can read more about it here.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Bridge_(microarchitecture)     
 
Edit: rumor also suggest that maybe the i5 will be cheaper too, however it's only speculation.
#2 Posted by InfamousBIG (3200 posts) -

Huh, too bad I just upgraded my CPU to a six core from a Pentium D.

#3 Edited by HitmanAgent47 (8576 posts) -
@InfamousBIG: If your talking about the amd version, you get what you paid for, it's nowhere near as fast as this i7 processor. It just has two more cores and six hyper threads I belive at an overall lower speed.
#4 Posted by defaulttag (890 posts) -

That's an awesome price, but I'm broke. I'm pretty happy with an i7 920 clocked at 4.0GHz at the moment. But I'll keep this in mind once I get the funds.

#5 Edited by HitmanAgent47 (8576 posts) -
@defaulttag: Just get any i7 cpus and overclock it. This cpu is the 1336 socket, so you need a X58 mobo and triple channel ram. Overclocking it will probally be easy to get near 4.0Ghz. I don't know if the other versions are getting a price drop, there is a version that's 2.8Ghz, hopefully that will be significantly cheaper too. Maybe just buy that version and overclock it. 
 
Wait you already have an i7 clocked at 4.0Ghz? You don't need a second one.
#6 Posted by Skytylz (4030 posts) -

Are the core 2 processors going to get phased out soon?

#7 Posted by edins (33 posts) -
@Skytylz:  They are mid way of being phased out, new computers are in the transition to i7. Unless mabey its dell...they suck.
#8 Posted by Jeust (10480 posts) -

Nice find! Thanks!

#9 Posted by Chandu83 (222 posts) -

I wish I wasn't so broke. Besides, I am looking to buy a 460 before I upgrade my Q9400

#10 Posted by Meteora (5787 posts) -

Oh fuck, I'm tempted to buy this. That'll be +400 dollars down the drain for me (I need to get a new motherboard and computer case). And I already spent some money on a new card... *sigh*

#11 Posted by ajamafalous (11863 posts) -

Well damn.

#12 Posted by BunkerBuster (1042 posts) -

Sweet, just in time for...
...
...
Starcraft 2?

#13 Posted by WEGGLES (739 posts) -

I just built with an i5 750. Glad I did. I'd be tempted to spend that extra hundred for this processor and I was already $200 over budget as it was from "little" upgrades here and there :P

#14 Posted by Adamsons (877 posts) -

Decent price drop, if you were to overclock id probably stick with a 920/930 still, but a reasonable bump if you arent.
 
Running my i7 920D0 at 3.8Ghz for around a year now, solid as a rock.

#15 Posted by mclakers (125 posts) -

I just bought an I7 930 at MICRO-CENTER FOR 199.99,  building a new Rig. Thinking of OC to 4.2 if possible, but if the 950 is going on sale, ill have to do some re-search to see if its better to invest another 100 bucks for the 950. hmmm....Excited

#16 Edited by Marz (5644 posts) -

ORLLY? i was about to pull the trigger on an AMD 1090t because i felt I7 upgrade was a bit too expensive for my budget, gonna research these new prices and figure out somethign new.

#17 Edited by Geno (6477 posts) -

Just a note to anyone considering this, the i7 processors have little benefit for gaming (because almost no games use hyperthreading to any extent). You might see a some benefit in overclocking due to its extra multipliers, but that's about it. If you're doing encoding work however you'll see a large performance boost (over a conventional non-HT quad core).  

#18 Posted by AlisterCat (5484 posts) -

Excellent news. I was looking to get a new motherboard and processor at the end of the year. I might have to go for a 950 since it looks to be only £10 more than the 930.

#19 Posted by AndrewB (7500 posts) -

Won't be long before the next line of processors complete with new, one less pin sockets.

#20 Edited by HitmanAgent47 (8576 posts) -

It's funny how someone can say it has no benefits, consider they don't ever recommend this i7 cpu over an amd build as suggestions, just to keep everyone else's pc a budget pc and less powerful than theirs. If anything, it does give you a bit of framerates and i'm someone who is using amd dual core and an old mobo, using a new X58 mobo  and a 1336 i7 with triple channel ram is better than using some shitty dual core, or an old ragged quad core. Of course this will be overclocked and it will be overclocked severly. Playing gta4 and assassin's creed 2 on my new card is nothing but bottlenecks. Lots of us are waiting on an excuse to upgrade, this post gave me the right motivation to. Older quads doesn't really overclock well, you can get about 3.0Ghz on an old intel quad core.
 
Of course they are right that phenom X4 can get near the benchmarks if it's overclocked for gaming benchmarks. However it's kind of hyprocritical when that same person runs an i7 cpu and doesn't recommend it at all to others. It's going to be a huge upgrade for me and the new X58 mobo will be too. Some benchmarks, well maybe gaming benchmarks isn't that different, synthetic benchmarks are decent and I know i'll get less bottlenecking than using a amd quad cpu. I also recommend this over a X6 amd cpu, this would be the best cpu right now and if there is a sale, it will save others money being clocked at 3.06Ghz without buying an expensive cooler to add to the cost. Honestly should we go recommend more amd mobos and cpu's or old intel quad cores instead of an i7? I don't think so.
 

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-i7-975,2318.html    

 

#21 Posted by Azteck (7449 posts) -

Yesss. I just got a chunk of money, and will probably build myself a PC. Good news for me.

#22 Posted by m1k3 (1325 posts) -

Looks like im switching to Intel on my next PC build after staying with AMD for the longest time.

#23 Edited by TMThomsen (2070 posts) -
@HitmanAgent47:  If you refer to Geno's statement, he said most games have little benefit from additional cores. It of course depends on the game engine, and developers have started to focus more on multi threading.
 
As seen in this test, the amount of cores had minuscule effect on Call of Duty 4's performance. Alternatively, Crysis, which had been built with multi cores in mind, had a noticeable effect.
 
Edit: Furthermore, looking at the Stalker test it can be seen that the game utilises 2 cores at max.
#24 Edited by HitmanAgent47 (8576 posts) -
@TMThomsen: Games i'm struggling with using two cores are all gta games, red faction gureilla, mafia 2 for stutters and now assassin's creed is stuttering even worst. Also just caused 2 improved for me, i'm not getting the 60 frames I expected, rather it's like 30-40, which is not the same as the benchmarks. Look there are tons of dual core games, however alot of really open world games aren't great with dual cores. Dispite what ppl are saying about no games uses quad, that's absolutely not true. Sure they don't support it, however it's still runs way faster than dual core so it is sort of used framerate wise. That's just another sweeping generalization that you think it's true and saying half truths.
 
Of course the dual core games, it's running really fast on my dual core and gtx460. Call of duty 4 is one of those dual core games, suprisingly mass effect 2 is running at 60 frames per second non stop so it has to be a dual core optimised game and alot of other games. Even crysis because back then when they made it, ppl didn't have quad cores yet or it's really new at the time so it's not supported. Unless your talking about crysis warhead.
 
You can't deny you can only get like 3.0Ghz out of an intel quad core before, so you have more overclocking potential. Also who cares what an amd cpu is overclocked to, most of them besides the X4 version isn't going to be fast enough. Overall the i7 is a great upgrade for alot of ppl, even with older quads or dual cores like me. The mobo will also be great (X58 gigabyte or asus) since it will be a sli mobo, the first two lanes for alot of them are pci express 2.0 X16 which will be better than a lesser quad core mobo. Bringing an i7 to 3.8-4.0Ghz is also a great feature for a quad core 8 thread cpu.  
 
Then again these are going to be phased out by the new efficient sandy bridge processors, however who cares, the X58 mobo that supports the LG1336 mobos are powerful enough.
#25 Posted by Geno (6477 posts) -
@HitmanAgent47 said:
"

It's funny how someone can say it has no benefits, consider they don't ever recommend this i7 cpu over an amd build as suggestions, just to keep everyone else's pc a budget pc and less powerful than theirs.

An i7 CPU should never be bought solely for gaming. Games do not take advantage of hyperthreading, therefore the extra money spent on that feature goes to waste for gaming. As you can see here and any other benchmark, Core i5 750 (2.66Ghz Quad core without HT) and Core i7 920 (2.66Ghz Quad core with HT) perform the same. In fact in most cases the Core i5 750 outperforms the Core i7 920 slightly in gaming. The Core i7 950 is the same as the 920 except with another couple of multipliers. A person could easily just overclock an i5 750 to the same level for the same or better performance in games. Modern quad cores as a whole benchmark over the 60fps range in the vast majority of games and scenarios, so a $150 AMD quad does nearly everything that a $200-$300 Intel quad can in regards to gaming, which is why AMD is often recommended. I hope the second part of your statement is a joke (but knowing how delusional you are, most it's likely not).  
#26 Edited by HitmanAgent47 (8576 posts) -

I don't recommend quad cores amd cpus to others, it's funny how you do when your running an i7 and recommending them that. Which model and how fast? I'm guess 3.8Ghz LG1156? dual channel memory? probally water cooled. If it's so bad, why are you using it? Shouldn't you just save money by an i5 instead? I doubt you will every buy an amd mobo, we both know that's not the most ideal if you want power. Amd products are overated by their fans, besides that X4 cpu, the rest of their products are mediocre powerwise and doesn't stack up. Sure it removes bottlenecks just like the i7 if it's default. However overclock the i7, it changes everything.

 
Amd mobos, too bad most of them doesn't support sli, which limits other ppl's options. X58 mobos gives you both sli and crossfireX which is an advantage itself with the 1336 socket. I mean your using sli, yet you are recommending products that will limit that ability. You also as expected ignored the synthetic benchmarks, or even 3d mark vantage benchmarks that gives you like a thousand more score for intel. While games doesn't all support dual core, 3dmark vantage does run benchmarks and i7 default wise is stronger. Your just saying gaming benchmarks are everything, while your right, it's not the full picture as usual. Those benchmarks on tomshardware uses a 3.2Ghz cpu vs a 3.06Ghz i7 950. Overclock that and it will be way better than the amd side of things. Overall the advantages with the sockets, mobos, sli crossfire support, overclockability goes to intel. Talk about hypocritical, you buy one thing and tell others to do the opposite.

#27 Posted by Zimbo (875 posts) -

I would definitely take advantage of this If I wasn't broke. Curse you student life!

#28 Posted by Geno (6477 posts) -
@HitmanAgent47 said:
"

I don't recommend quad cores amd cpus to others, it's funny how you do when your running an i7 and recommending them that. Which model and how fast? I'm guess 3.8Ghz LG1156? dual channel memory? probally water cooled. If it's so bad, why are you using it? Shouldn't you just save money by an i5 instead? I doubt you will every buy an amd mobo, we both know that's not the most ideal if you want power. Amd products are overated by their fans, besides that X4 cpu, the rest of their products are mediocre powerwise and doesn't stack up. Sure it removes bottlenecks just like the i7 if it's default. However overclock the i7, it changes everything.

 
Amd mobos, too bad most of them doesn't support sli, which limits other ppl's options. X58 mobos gives you both sli and crossfireX which is an advantage itself with the 1336 socket. I mean your using sli, yet you are recommending products that will limit that ability. You also as expected ignored the synthetic benchmarks, or even 3d mark vantage benchmarks that gives you like a thousand more score for intel. While games doesn't all support dual core, 3dmark vantage does run benchmarks and i7 default wise is stronger. Your just saying gaming benchmarks are everything, while your right, it's not the full picture as usual. Those benchmarks on tomshardware uses a 3.2Ghz cpu vs a 3.06Ghz i7 950. Overclock that and it will be way better than the amd side of things. Overall the advantages with the sockets, mobos, sli crossfire support, overclockability goes to intel. Talk about hypocritical, you buy one thing and tell others to do the opposite.

"
Core i7 920 @ 4Ghz. I run an i7 because I do lots of folding. I recommend other CPUs for people that plan to game on their computers, since an i7 provides no benefit over the same-clocked i5, and in a broader sense, over nearly any modern quad core in games. Your views on AMD products are incorrect, they are not "overrated", they are suggested for all mid-high end gaming builds by all major enthusiast websites for good reason.
 
Synthetic benchmarks are good for an overall sense of power, but useless for real world applications. Synthetic results weigh in only very lightly as to the final quality of a product.  
 
Obviously you will get better performance with a higher clock. The same can be achieved by moderately overclocking a non-i7 processor.  
 
What I own and what I suggest to others is irrelevant. If I used a $10,000 dual Xeon setup, does that mean I should suggest that everyone use one? No, I suggest the best hardware for a given purpose at a certain price point.  
 
Honestly, you're just trolling again. Fix your logic, fix your English, and fix your attitude. 
#29 Edited by HitmanAgent47 (8576 posts) -
@Geno said:

" @HitmanAgent47 said:

" Honestly, you're just trolling again. Fix your logic, fix your English, and fix your attitude.  "



 Every last sentence is an insult from you. I'm only suggesting an i7 because there seems to be a price cut and others using a 3.0Ghz  version probally doesn't have to buy a cooler. Also I like to use a X58 mobo triple channel and don't want to be limited to crossfireX mobos since they don't sli. Also for the last sentence, that's pure flamebait.
 
Not buying another amd cpu regardless and still for gaming, the i7 is so much stronger, it will reduce more bottlenecks than the other cpu, even if it's almost very similar gaming wise. You can't tell ppl not to buy it when there are price cuts.  
 
This cpu on youtube scores 
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kb24FVMWuH8 
 (Amd X4)
3D Mark Vantage Score: P15289
CPU Score: 12351
GPU Score: 16606 (sli hd5770)
   
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNDMxEESMYo&feature=watch_response  
 
he one in the video response at 4.0Ghz i7
3D Mark Vantage Score: P19252
CPU Score: 24438
GPU Score: 17981
    
#30 Posted by Dipstick (547 posts) -

Just ignore hitman. Ignorance is bliss

#31 Posted by Geno (6477 posts) -
@HitmanAgent47 said:
" @Geno said:
" @HitmanAgent47 said:
" Honestly, you're just trolling again. Fix your logic, fix your English, and fix your attitude.  "
 Every last sentence is an insult from you. I'm only suggesting an i7 because there seems to be a price cut and others using a 3.0Ghz  version probally doesn't have to buy a cooler. That's pure flamebait. "
You're the one that said AMD processors are overrated and I corrected you. You also made the outlandish statement that I only recommend builds that are worse than my own in order to keep everyone below me or something ridiculous like that. Then you say I'm the one providing flamebait? 
#32 Posted by ATrevelan (606 posts) -

I've got an i7 and I can testify to how it hasn't made a huge impact in games. Video editing? Sure. 
 
The benchmarks don't lie, people.

#33 Edited by Geno (6477 posts) -
@ATrevelan said:

" I've got an i7 and I can testify to how it hasn't made a huge impact in games. Video editing? Sure.  The benchmarks don't lie, people. "

He just tried to compare the gaming performance of 2 processors by providing the scores of two completely different systems in 3DMark Vantage. One of them is also massively overclocked while the other isn't. I don't think Hitman even knows what a benchmark is. 
#34 Edited by HitmanAgent47 (8576 posts) -
@Geno said:

"@ATrevelan said:

" I've got an i7 and I can testify to how it hasn't made a huge impact in games. Video editing? Sure.  The benchmarks don't lie, people. "

He just tried to compare the gaming performance of 2 processors by providing the scores of two completely different systems in 3DMark Vantage. One of them is also massively overclocked while the other isn't. I don't think Hitman even knows what a benchmark is.  "
 
Look another insult, i'm not buying another amd cpu dispite you telling everyone not to get one. You think your always right and no one else can have an opposing opinion. If ppl wants to buy a X6 amd, are you going to tell them they shouldn't buy it because the last two cores won't work for gaming? Then make everyone not buy it over a X4 phenom?

 
@Geno:

I doubt you are keeping everyone else's pc worst, however you never recommended and i7 at all, you should do that for a $2000 build. It is true you never posted a build with an i7, it's all amd mobos, nothing like X58 or LG1156 which I think will help others who likes to use nvidia since you also use nvidia or sli, i7 and not amd mobo. I just posted two sets of 3dmark scores above, it's so much more powerful for the i7 like almost double for sythetic benchmarks. At least 3dmark vantage actually has programs to run a real cpu test, even if not all games supports it. I'm sure they have similar results for gaming for the gpu score, however the i7 is alot more powerful and I don't belive it's overkill. However I still belive i7 overclocks well and will reduce bottlenecks well if you bring it up to 4.0Ghz. (ignores my counter arguement by default)
 
Look I know how know it all are like, you think it's insulting that anyone can go against your view. However it's not to hurt your ego or challenge you saying your wrong, it's just a different opinion, so don't tell me what I can or can't buy or tell that to others. It's their choice, not yours, even if you done the research, you don't always consider their needs, which is a sli mobo with a i7 cpu that can handle sli with 16X, 16X pci express 2.0 with triple channel ram. I don't need a phenom with a phenom mobo just because it has nearly the same benchmarks gaming wise or I don't use it for video editing.
 
Look i've been running amd cpus when they first started and besides the X4, none of their cpus are as powerful benchmark wise. I have alot of bottlenecks with amd products, that's why I really like the i7 intel cpu. Have you ran any of their products in the past?
#35 Posted by ATrevelan (606 posts) -
@HitmanAgent47: The point isn't that i7s suck or that they don't overclock well, it's that there are other processors that work just as well with games and don't need a price cut. 
 
i7s are great processors but they really aren't necessary. No game out there uses the extra power and the GPU is more important in 99.9% of the games out there. Folks looking for an upgrade can get an i5 or something along those lines for a better price--even with the i7 price cut--overclock it, and still get the same results.
#36 Edited by Geno (6477 posts) -
@HitmanAgent47 said:

" @Geno: I doubt you are keeping everyone else's pc worst

Except that's what you accused me of earlier.  
 

@HitmanAgent47

said:

however you never recommended and i7 at all,

Because it's pointless to gaming, which should come to no surprise to anyone that is even moderately informed in the area.  
 

@HitmanAgent47

said:

nothing like X58 or LG1156 which I think will help others who likes to use nvidia since you also use nvidia, i7 and not amd mobo

I've recommended plenty of LGA1156 setups. AMD setups are also able to use SLI.  
 

@HitmanAgent47

said:

I just posted two sets of 3dmark scores above, it's so much more powerful for the i7 like almost double for sythetic benchmarks. At least 3dmark vantage actually has programs to run a real cpu test, even if not all games supports it. I'm sure they have similar results for gaming, however I still belive i7 overclocks well and will reduce bottlenecks well.   Look i've been running amd cpus when they first started and besides the X4, none of their cpus are as powerful benchmark wise. "

Games are graphically bottlenecked, that means anything over 1280x1024 is most likely being limited by the GPU and not the CPU. Most quad cores are equally effective at handling game loads. Heck, some dual cores are still able to handle most games if clocked high enough. Again, synthetic benchmarks are unimportant and your reliance on those numbers shows your naivete. AMD CPUs have always been weaker than Intel CPUs, but the extra power that Intel CPUs provided is all but unnecessary for games, therefore so is their cost. 
 
In conclusion, there is no point in spending $300 for a processor for gaming. Anyone who can will enjoy higher clocks and better productivity performance, and there's nothing wrong with that, I'm just trying to clear up some of the BS that you like to spout. Reply with your broken English and mislogic if you must, but I've said all that needs to be said already (if English is not your first language, I'm sorry, if it is, you need to go back to school). 
#37 Posted by HitmanAgent47 (8576 posts) -
@ATrevelan: well i5 uses like LG1156, your stuck with dual channel ram and that mobo. In the future if you wanted to use an i7, you will have to use the 1156 version with dual channel ram. Also the mobos doesn't have 16X, 16X pci express lanes, which will create a slight bottleneck, if your considering everything.
#38 Posted by TekZero (2665 posts) -

Great, I'm going to be building my new gaming rig in the next couple of weeks. 

#39 Edited by HitmanAgent47 (8576 posts) -
@TekZero: I'm glad the thread helped, you are getting a $500 cpu for only $294 and you probally don't need to buy  a new cooler right away. 
 
@Geno:
Once again your last sentence is an insult, I challenge you to counter my arguement without an insult and maybe i'll consider it. Okay if there are sli amd mobos, there aren't alot of them on the market. Have you ever ran a dual core in the past? Or only quad? I already posted the games i'm getting bottlenecked in, gta games, just cause 2, red faction gurreilla, mafia 2. They do bottleneck a bit. My gtx460 1gb should be able to hand it better and even better when I sli it. Dual cores aren't exactly great for open world games, even though you can bring up the clock cores high like 3.8Ghz. Back then quad core constantly gives you more framerates overclocking it, that's a well known fact to me. I7 is even better, it can overclock well and with all the hyperthreading, it's not a bad thing to have. Do I buy a weaker engine with less cylinders because it runs similar to a 8 cylinder engine? Stuff like that might still help when you overclock it. I haven't seen many benchmarks on review sites where both these cpus are overclocked to 4.0Ghz, there might be differences then.
 
Look if you deal with know it alls, maybe you do know alot, i'm not trying to hurt your ego if I partially disagree. Like I said, thanks for your opinion, however we should be able to make up our own minds without getting insulted. Maybe you should read this because i'm not trying to hurt your feelings or get you angry or hostile by disagreeing. It might sort of describe how you are feeling. You don't need to impress anyone because we all know you know your stuff. I just don't always see eye to eye with everything you recommend. Sometimes you make sweeping generalizations imo and it's not the full picture or speculate. I mean sometimes I wondered if you ever ran a dual core or amd cpu before you make a statement about it because I have.

http://personalitydisorders.suite101.com/article.cfm/how_to_deal_with_knowitall_personalities
#40 Posted by Zimbo (875 posts) -

@HitmanAgent47 said:

You think your always right and no one else can have an opposing opinion. 

Excerpts from HitmanAgent47s mini bio:

My opinion is usually right about everything.

 If you disagree, it's merely your opinion that's wrong 

However I am not trying to seem arrogant. If you think that, i'm not trying to hurt you ego intentionally, the truth hurts and that's your problem for the misinterpretation, not mine.


Just give up guys. I'm out, 2:00am here :(

#41 Posted by Barrock (3525 posts) -

Hmmm... I originally planned on going with a $200 i5. Should I go with the i7 now for gaming?

#42 Edited by Geno (6477 posts) -
@HitmanAgent47: Your argument is a strawman, therefore I don't even need to counter it. I never said that AMD dual cores were just fine for gaming, where did you even get that from? I only stated that a) your insinuation that AMD procs are "overrated" is incorrect and b) you won't see any benefit in gaming performance from an i7 compared to an i5 or Phenom II X4. In each benchmark, a Core i5 750 performs the same or better than a Core i7 920 at the same clock speeds. I also defended myself from your claim that I intentionally suggest weak computers. That is all. This has nothing to do with being a know-it-all, as your facts are clearly wrong and wouldn't be uttered in the first place if you had even the slightest clue what you were talking about.  
 
Standing in the face of all reason while spouting nonsense is evidence of delusional disorder. Here is a link for you, since you were so kind to provide one for me:  
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusional_disorder
#43 Posted by HitmanAgent47 (8576 posts) -
@Barrock: It runs faster than the i7 for games as ppl has said, however the i7 can be overclocked well, it has 8 threads vs 4 I think. I think the newer sandy bridge cpus later 2011 will have like 16 threads (purely speculation of course)  still 8 is enough for anything. It depends on if you want to use one of those X58 mobos that has both sli and crossfireX at 16X,16X with dual channel memory or not. If not, just go with the i5 as others said, however if you want all those features like I need, then i'll go with the i7. I am hoping if the 950 is $294, the 930 has to be cheaper than that, which is more affordable. These cpus are going to be phased out eventually.
#44 Posted by Djeffers03 (2545 posts) -

My god computer components are expensive.

#45 Edited by HitmanAgent47 (8576 posts) -
@Geno: I'm still buying an i7, you aren't saving me any money by making me buy an amd mobo. 
 
You still haven't answered my question, show me amd mobos that supports am3 with sli, DDR3 triple channel ram. I know there aren't alot, which is a problem for me and others who wants to sli. Yes i5 can perform better, however it has less threads, maybe I will find a use for the i7 besides gaming, it's still nice to have more threads. Well you are suggesting computers with value, so you suggest ati, amd, even a X3 cpu over a X4 2.8Ghz version for the cheapest build and suggesting amd mobos. That is a fact, maybe mix it up with some intel, X58 and i5, i7 with more nvidia cards which are more powerful. I'm curious, do you run ati cards?  
  
Well I already checked for mental illnesses and they haven't turned up any complete disorders. Maybe a bit of ADD and trash like that however no full dianosis. I mean your narcissistic and want everyone to respect you for your knowledge, which they already do, yet it cna't be challeged without getting iinsulted. You said I provided no counter arguement, i'll say it again since you like to ignore it. X58, triple channel memory, slil, X16, X16 pci-e 2.0 lanes which you wouldn't get with an i5. Yet you like to ignore anything that counters your point. Also using amd mobos, usually features crossfire, which will limit your choice of using sli for nvidia. Considering you didn't really post mobos that's am3 and supports sli. Go ahead and ignore the counter arguement even though it's sound and tell yourself it's not even an arguement, it makes sense to me. You yourself are using everything in my counter arguement and recommending something else.
#46 Edited by Geno (6477 posts) -
@HitmanAgent47 said:

" @Geno: show me amd mobos that supports am3 with sli. I know there aren't alot, which is a problem for me and others who wants to sli. 

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100007625%20600007943%20600008309&IsNodeId=1&name=NVIDIA%20nForce%20900  
 
Those are only a few. If you check on other websites, there are at least a dozen or so. Nvidia has actually supported SLI on AMD for quite some time. By the way, the PCIe2.0 bandwidth limitation you mention is limited to about 2% on average; you'll have to spend about $200 extra on the i7 platform compared to an AM3 or i5 platform for that 2%. With that money, buying a better graphics card would be far more beneficial.  
 
@HitmanAgent47 said:

Yes i5 can perform better, however it has less threads, maybe I will find a use for it besides gaming, it's still nice to have. 

Yet you use 3Dmark Vantage scores to argue your point.  
 
@HitmanAgent47 said:

Well you are suggesting computers with value, so you suggest ati, amd, even a X3 cpu over a X4 2.8Ghz version for the cheapest build and suggesting amd mobos. That is a fact, maybe mix it up with some intel, X58 and i5, i7 with more nvidia cards which are more powerful. I'm curious, do you run ati cards?    "

I think you're referring to my PC build thread. Well if you read it, you should see that Intel and Nvidia are both represented.  
 
@HitmanAgent47 said:

I'm curious, do you run ati cards?    "

At the moment I'm using Nvidia, but I don't see how that' relevant to anything. 
#47 Edited by HitmanAgent47 (8576 posts) -
@Geno: Two of those mobos are the same. So there are a dozen? Well maybe, maybe not. Well you use 3d mark gpu scores to argue your point, which I think is affected a bit by the overclock too. A higher overclock will reduce the bottleneck with i7 and since it can go really high, to 4.0Ghz, it will help. Expecially with more powerful cards over weaker cards which doesn't matter as much. Hd5970 and GTX480 will probally benefit more using an i7 at higher clock speeds over an amd X4 cpu. However lesser cards won't matter as much. Trust me when I ran my 9800Gx2, it bottlenecked like alot, that's why I don't want it to happen again if I use sli this time around.   
 
So have you ran ati cards in the past? I'm just curious, if so which cards? 
 
Yes I am wasting a bit of money, however using a X58 mobo, you can update the bios if the X6 i7 every goes down in price many years from now. Performance wise you are right that you can save a bit of money, however it limits your options to amd products and ati.
#48 Edited by Geno (6477 posts) -
@HitmanAgent47 said:

Well you use 3d mark gpu scores to argue your point

What point? 
 
@HitmanAgent47 said:

So have you ran ati cards in the past? I'm just curious, if so which cards? "

I have ran ATI cards in the past and I probably will in the future, but again, I don't see how this is relevant. 
#49 Edited by HitmanAgent47 (8576 posts) -
@Geno: The point you think the 3dmark gpu score is totally the videocard and the cpu has no effect on the gpu score at all. However I think with overclocking, it's going to increase the score or maybe reduce the bottleneck so the score is purely what the card was meant to output. With a more powerful i7 cpu at 4.0Ghz, it's going to be even faster than the amd X4 imo, yet the gpu score after a certain point won't give you much more framerates. I'm sure after let's say 3.6-4.0Ghz, there probally is no bottlenecking at all.
 
Also if pci express 2.0, which is like a 32X lane gives you only 3%, well, i'm sure using that lane is way better than just using pci express 1.0 which might have a slight bit of bottlenecking. I mean your second nvidia sli card might be at 8X, at pci express 1.0, you might even argue there isn't alot of difference, yet it's good to have more poweful lane imo. However that's my opinion, you can disagree.
 
What ati cards have you ran in the past? I'm just curious. You recommend ati cards alot, so i'm curious about your experience with their product. 
 
Now I see alot more gtx460 in that thread now edited, however before it was out, it was all practically amd products.
#50 Edited by Geno (6477 posts) -
@HitmanAgent47: 3DMark is again, a synthetic benchmark and therefore extremely insignificant in regards to real world performance. Your CPU score in 3Dmark vantage can be 100,000 and it won't necessarily benefit you in games. A GPU will only be bottlenecked either with a) an extremely weak CPU or b) if the GPU setup is triple high end GPU or above, therefore offloading the bottleneck to the CPU. Regardless, for the fifth time or so, 3DMark is NOT a good measure of real world performance and you should probably stop bringing it up in regards to processor strength in order to avoid further sounding like an idiot.  
 
If you wish to know what ATI GPUs I've used in the past, ask me through PM. It's irrelevant to the topic and I just know that you'll try to twist it in some way against me. You've stated numerous fallacies about ATI cards before. 

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.