News - Intel Core i7 pre-orders begin to appear, prices start at $340

[moogle]

Using a D-Tek FuZion, so it probably is compatible with a new bracket I expect.

Still, this is going to be the first jump in tech I haven't scrambled for in quite a while. Of course, if the real benchmarks turn out to be significantly better then the previews are showing, I may not be able to contain myself

I was expecting a LOT more. AMD held a huge lead over Intel for quite some time thanks to the embedded memory controller, now that Intel has incorporated it I was expecting to see substantially higher performance then current reports indicate.

Contain yourself then That setup you have will last you a while. You're still GPU limited in games (Crysis at Max) so upgrade that instead when the time comes. If you're doing number crunching then I'd understand but you don't need it! Have some restraint man!

Plus why not wait and see what AMD comes up with (although we all feel that Intel will still be in the lead) but who knows, what if AMD calls our bluff and you guys who adopted early end up with a next gen Pentium 4 setup

[Webby]

Oh and don't forget unless memory manufacturers bring out something special soon you will be stuck with DDR3 1333 because of the 1.65v limit imposed by Intel (apparently more voltage than that cooks your shiny new processor pretty fast), the certainly are no 1600MHz sticks available that I have found with voltages less than 1.8v

[j.o.s.h.1408]

wow is it? im still on a p4 3.2ghz single core LOL. shall i get i7 or a core 2? i am only dropping £900 on a full on upgrade.

[PeterStoba]

£900 would get you a motherboard, ram and cpu, with some change for a few fans! Core 2 Quads/Duos will be all over ebay for buttons, even though they are cheap enough now

[j.o.s.h.1408]

ha but i need a case, psu, hdd, and a graphics card lol!!!

[DeSean]

I obviously want one, but the best way to upgrade my current system is better graohics and better storage. New CPU, memory and motherboard is a big investment. 130W TDP is fairly high too (although if I could afford Nehalem I wouldn't care, I admit.)

[moogle]

I obviously want one, but the best way to upgrade my current system is better graohics and better storage. New CPU, memory and motherboard is a big investment. 130W TDP is fairly high too (although if I could afford Nehalem I wouldn't care, I admit.)

Exactly thats the only upgrades people would need until a new game or something comes along and starts making the CPU/Memory a bottleneck (that we all use).

[j.o.s.h.1408]

Exactly thats the only upgrades people would need until a new game or something comes along and starts making the CPU/Memory a bottleneck (that we all use).

and at this rate with console ports it aint gunna hapen any time soon either way i still have to build a whole system soon so i will wait even till feb/march if thats what it takes for bugs and prices to be reduced

[kalniel]

Exactly thats the only upgrades people would need until a new game or something comes along and starts making the CPU/Memory a bottleneck (that we all use).

There's always FSX

[moogle]

There's always FSX

It's CPU/Memory limited? Don't tell me FSX is bottlenecked by the CPU (Quad or Duo) I would have thought it's still to do with the GPU.

[kalniel]

It's CPU/Memory limited? Don't tell me FSX is bottlenecked by the CPU (Quad or Duo) I would have thought it's still to do with the GPU.

From Tomshardware (table is messed up but you should get the point):

CPU is Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800 @ 2.93 or 3.47ghz

MS Flight Simulator X SP2 in fps 1280 0xAA 1680 0xAA 1920 0xAA 1280 4xAA 1680 4xAA 1920 4xAA
GTX 280 (1024 MB) 177.92: 32.7 32.7 32.2 34.6 34.4 33.7
GTX 280 (1024 MB) CPU@3.47: 37.8 37.7 37.4 39.2 38.9 38.4
Difference in performance in percentage 15.6 15.3 16.1 13.3 13.1 13.9

MS Flight Simulator X SP2 in fps 1280 0xAA 1680 0xAA 1920 0xAA 1280 4xAA 1680 4xAA 1920 4xAA
9600 GT (1024 MB) 177.92: 33.3 33.0 32.6 34.6 34.2 34.2
9600 GT (1024 MB) CPU@3.47: 37.5 38.8 37.8 39.1 39.2 35.5
Difference in performance in percentage 12.6 17.6 16.0 13.0 14.6 3.8
--
If a 9600GT is as fast at 1920 and 4xAA as it is at 1280 and 0xAA (and a 280 at 1280 for that matter) then I'd say it's CPU/memory limited, not GPU.

[j.o.s.h.1408]

yup fsx is cpu dependant indeed. so is sup comm

[moogle]

Well looks like you FSX and Sup Com guys will need to be forking out some cash then as I only play FPS and RPG's

But yes thanks for telling me something I had not previously known, now my next question is what the hell is it asking the CPU to do

Hopefully the major games (no offence to FSX and Sup Com, I'm talking Crysis, CoD, UT, Bioshock) don't start becoming CPU limited too soon.

Oh yes I'll take your word for it on those results, Tomshardware has become so different nowdays I don't really like visiting it.

[kalniel]

Yeah I know what you mean about Toms - this should be the link to the 280 page and you can use the drop down to see the 9600GT:
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/GeForc...w-31366-5.html

Sup Com is interesting - it's also relatively GPU demanding, so the limiting factor switches between GPU and CPU depending on the size of the game (small and the start of games are GPU limited, large and long ones become CPU limited) But I don't have a problem with it on my X2+1950xt. 3gb ram helps though.

I think games might become more CPU limited if they follow the console model - the PS3 for example does have a lot of CPU power to a relatively weak GPU. If PC users expect more cars etc. than the console version then the CPU demand could be even higher.

The other factor is that, netbooks aside, the age of a PC more or less determines it's CPU power - you will struggle to buy any new PC that doesn't have what is actually a darn powerful CPU inside it. The GPU side is a completely different story and most new computers come with less powerful graphics than a gaming system several years old. So if a game developer wants to maximise the potential market size they'll happily code to use as much CPU as possible while keeping things lighter on the graphics side.

[j.o.s.h.1408]

Yeah I know what you mean about Toms - this should be the link to the 280 page and you can use the drop down to see the 9600GT:
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/GeForc...w-31366-5.html

Sup Com is interesting - it's also relatively GPU demanding, so the limiting factor switches between GPU and CPU depending on the size of the game (small and the start of games are GPU limited, large and long ones become CPU limited) But I don't have a problem with it on my X2+1950xt. 3gb ram helps though.

I think games might become more CPU limited if they follow the console model - the PS3 for example does have a lot of CPU power to a relatively weak GPU. If PC users expect more cars etc. than the console version then the CPU demand could be even higher.

The other factor is that, netbooks aside, the age of a PC more or less determines it's CPU power - you will struggle to buy any new PC that doesn't have what is actually a darn powerful CPU inside it. The GPU side is a completely different story and most new computers come with less powerful graphics than a gaming system several years old. So if a game developer wants to maximise the potential market size they'll happily code to use as much CPU as possible while keeping things lighter on the graphics side.

thats how the sims games work too. when you go inside a mansion it crippled my pc and was getting at an average 5-10fsp while my cpu was 100% being raped! thats on a single core p4 at 3.2ghz as well which was out the same time the sims 2 first came out

pc games are going to become more demanding, not less so weather you agree or not, i7 will make your pc last longer then a core 2 system.

Alan wake springs into mind boasting about it being the first pc game that utilises all 4 core's of a quad core

[El_MUERkO]

OCUK had i7's, compatible mobos and triple channel ram up on their site for preorder but all mention of them has been removed