Why buy Quad Processors??

lol anything over 3ghz is not overkill at all.

When you start crossfiring-quadfiring high end cards like a 5870, 3.6ghz isn't even enough some times. Depends what game though.
 
this is the same old thing over and over again - i7s are huge and powerful and of course carry the price for it, except i'd say half the people that get i7s don't even utilize the power of it.
sure if you actually do things (other than gaming) that can take full advantage of its threads and full power then its worth the purchase for you, but if not then why waste the money?
its been said time and time again, intel is more based for the enthusiast and amd is geared towards the majority of the community, those more on a budget.
and gaming wise especially with dx11 the limiting factor is GPU power. every processor performs the same (actually amd 965 is on top by .2 fps over the i7) when dx11 is active, showing the bottleneck clearly being the GPU...and the GPU used is a 5870.
LINK
 
JunK said:
this is the same old thing over and over again - i7s are huge and powerful and of course carry the price for it, except i'd say half the people that get i7s don't even utilize the power of it.
sure if you actually do things (other than gaming) that can take full advantage of its threads and full power then its worth the purchase for you, but if not then why waste the money?
its been said time and time again, intel is more based for the enthusiast and amd is geared towards the majority of the community, those more on a budget.
and gaming wise especially with dx11 the limiting factor is GPU power. every processor performs the same (actually amd 965 is on top by .2 fps over the i7) when dx11 is active, showing the bottleneck clearly being the GPU...and the GPU used is a 5870.
LINK
Click to expand...

But it has a lower minimum FPS by like 4 FPS which matter more than the maximum......
 
PewPewBangBang said:
But it has a lower minimum FPS by like 4 FPS which matter more than the maximum......
Click to expand...

thats nothing - especially while both minimums are already over 50 fps - dunno if you've played the game but anything over 35 fps is butter smooth always

edit: is 4 minimum fps worth the extra cost? not to those buying the i7 for gaming, come on now
 
I'm also discussing pricing and longevity here. For non multi-gpu setups an i7 really does not give much of an edge if any (for those that don't OC). Not all people can afford 3 GPU setups. i7's are also not on the cheap side for sure, $300 for the 3Ghz chip is kind of steep, especially with newer chips coming out soon I just don't see the point in going with an i7 now.

ryc freakinghell: I can use every bit of any processor I'm given for the apps that I use, but my reasons above explain my point better.
 
JunK said:
thats nothing - especially while both minimums are already over 50 fps - dunno if you've played the game but anything over 35 fps is butter smooth always

edit: is 4 minimum fps worth the extra cost? not to those buying the i7 for gaming, come on now
Click to expand...

lol yea i play Dirt 2, not DX 11 though cuz i have 3x4850 but i play it maxxed at 1680x1050 with over 100FPS.

IDK bout you, but in almost every game, anything under 55-60FPS i can feel the lag. Anything over that or 70FPS is super smooth and i don't notice any lag.

Idk how you play but im pretty sure along with me, almost everyone else can tell that at 30FPS games lagg pretty badly.

Yes i know, wasn't saying the i7 may be worth it for the small difference but 4 FPS is no small feat. Differences in GPU are the same, 5870 is only like 8% faster than a 5850 for $100+ more. For a cpu to get 4 FPS more in the minimum is pretty good, especially cuz its a CPU.

But of course, its up to the buyer to determine if its worth it to buy an i7 over an AMD. There are more benefits going with an i7 than just the processor. X58 allows both CFX and SLI.

Idk, i7 is worth it for me because im running 3x4850's and i7 scale much better with multi-gpu solutions.
 
i understand that most games with under 50 fps you do lag badly, i am the same way, thats why i specifically said that this game is still buttery smooth at 30-40fps because i dunno, its just very well made that way. it isn't laggy at all
 
This is an interesting topic and being discussed very well as opposed to flaming and hate. I for one am going to be building a new comp. I'm going with a Phenom II simply because it is cheaper and the performance will meet my needs. I would love to get an I7 but it's just not in my budget. Even if it was within my budget I would spend the savings on other stuff like more ram or better cooling or a super high end video card. I think everyone's determining factor honestly in choosing their new cpu isn't necessarily based solely on performance, cuz barnon everyone would pick an I7. I think it comes down to price sorry but money talks and if i can walk away with more money in my pocket i'll be happy. This doesn't go for the people that create music and other things and need the power of an I7 so don't get me wrong

/rant
 
mad pistol said:
Not necessarily "easier" but AMD does give you more options for less money. You can get AMD's fastest Phenom II X4 processor for $180 at newegg, and that comes with an unlocked multiplier. The PII 940 obviously doesn't. Also, intel's i7 975 comes with an unlocked multiplier too, but you have to drop a cool $1k to get it, and the PII's direct competitors are limited by what motherboard you choose.

The value of the Phenom II's is not in the processors themselves, but the platform. It's been proven time and time again that you get comparable gaming performance for about $200-$300 less than that of a comparable i7 920 based system. Check it on newegg if you don't believe me. The cheapest 1366 motherboard is $170 currently. That buys you a cheap barebones motherboard with only a handful of features compared to the highend boards. The most expensive AM3 motherboard is $200, and those come absolutely loaded.

Make whatever arguments you want, but AMD is targeting budget minded buyers, and in that respect, they're doing very well. I guess if you want to spend hundreds of extra dollars on an i7 system that yields virtually no increase in gaming performance, that's your right. You can listen to the benchmarks if you want, but when you compare the processors in real world conditions, the Phenom II's are a viable alternative to the the i7's. Benchmarks never tell the full story, and it's pretty obvious that intel designed their current architecture to run those tests very well. If the i7's were truly that much more powerful, then the gaming performance would reflect that. Unfortunately, that's not the case.

I was able to buy a 5870 with the money I saved, and that is a huge value bonus. :)
Click to expand...
?

Sorry, i had to.
Basically AMD is really performance on a budget. If you have the money and the means i highly suggest Intel, as the i7 is extremely, extremely powerful. But it is expensive, theres no debating that. The thing which one really has to look at, is in almost every situation a bottom of the line core i7 is going to out preform the Phenom II at stock clocks on each. Although the core i7 may have the advantage of hyperthreading, one really has to decide is the extra 150-300 bucks worth it, simply for the core i7. My opinion is yes. But many people can not afford to shell out 1500-2000 bucks for an entirely new computer, which is where AMD really seems to shine. Quality-wise, both the core i7 and phenom II's are extremely good processors for people ranging from casual gaming to working. The bottom line is that both products are really a good choice, but so far Intel seems to be somewhat better choice, assuming you need the extra power for computing, gaming, and/or some sort of work. Only time will tell as to if that sentence remains true. :cool:
 
$1000 for a chip and board? Really? You are going to blow it THAT out of proportion?

I bought a whole gaming computer (i7) for $1200. I'm pretty sure the i7 is $300, sometimes on sale for $200. The board I got wasn't refurbed or anything, a Foxconn, for $180.

Regarding the topic question, why quad core? I'm a digital media major, so editing and that sort is crucial to me. Since that's the case, to avoid future upgrades I got the top of the line.
 
I built my whole machine for around 1100$. 300$ for the i7, 250$ for ASUS P6T (Down to 230$), 100$ for 6GB of DDR3 1333mhz RAM, 225$ for a 4870 (granted these are 150$ or so now), 100$ for a 700W PSU and 100$ for a 1TB HDD.

So actually with the price drops its around 1000$ for a system that can max every game Ive thrown at it @ 1920x1200.
 
I think folks get locked into a "keeping up with the Jones" kind of attitude. My rig is starting to get a little "old" tech wise and I run both Crysis and Crysis Warhead at Max everything. I run that garbage GTA4 at max and its known for what a pita it is for running smooth. I think it has more to do with a well matched and spec'ed rig than how many cores and how much money. Mine cost about $700 and it is nearly 2 years old at this point

AMD x2 Black Edition @3.1g dual core
4g DDR2
Dual 8600GT 1g DDR2 running in SLI
Gigabyte S4 series MB
250g HDD
windows XP Pro
lots of fans and tunnel rams to channel air

Simple rig that at the time was top shelf as the quads were just coming out and were still kinda exotic. I havent found anything to make my rig stumble I always play at max graphics etc. Besides, I find it very hard to believe that any game maker would produce a product spec'ed out of the average gamers league ... its not good for business. Look what happened to GTA4 ... that has really hurt that franchise as new out of the box it was unplayable on most machines. I may be wrong on this but it will be awhile before we see quads being a minimum spec, maybe recomended soon ... but not minimum.
 
FreakingHell said:
Not quite, they are becoming recommended. But I guarantee that in 6-8 months, games will start appearing that require them.
Click to expand...

Any idea on which games those will be?

Obviously, most mmos aren't going to. Which ones on the horizon are looking like they're going to require quad cores? FPS and big blockbuster ones?
 
D.T.S. said:
Any idea on which games those will be?

Obviously, most mmos aren't going to. Which ones on the horizon are looking like they're going to require quad cores? FPS and big blockbuster ones?
Click to expand...

None in particular at this point, but there will be some. They might not need to be true quads, but maybe duals with hyperthreading will work too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

auntdabby
  • Article Article
Game Overview: ARC Raiders
Replies
1
Views
476
LukePyro
LukePyro
auntdabby
  • Article Article
Game Overview: Meccha Chameleon
Replies
6
Views
529
Mochi
Mochi
Saf
  • Sticky
Official eGO Minecraft Player Guide
Replies
1
Views
1K
Saf
Saf

Latest posts

Back
Top