GPU Advice for Gaming-heavy Rig

[Mouzafphaerre]

.
The i7 is comparable to the Hyper-threaded P4, as I was explained to by my said consultant. Unfortunately, I'm not even 1% of a geek to re-explain it. But my mind and heart ain't warming to the i7 thing, which I sense to be the usual Intelish semi-step before their new leap (Celeron, P2, Celeron again, HT...).

Thanks for the Intel + nVidia vote.
.

[Husar]

Well, the Core i7 usually costs considerably more than a comparable Core 2 at the moment, partly because of the motherboard and RAM required.
Hyperthreading is nice I guess but not for gaming and if you want your Adobe to be faster, I think they support CUDA now which should be considerably faster than even a Core i7 with HT.

Here are some CUDA benchmarks showing that at least the Core 2 quads can't really come up to an NVidia graphicscard using CUDA as long as it's not a low-end graphicscard. Ok, not every program supports CUDA but there are coming more and more so I don't really see the point in spending a lot more on a better CPU when it's useless for games(graphicscard being the bottleneck unless you get like four of them) and when a decent graphicscard can do video conversion and similar tasks faster anyway.

[Caius]

I'm a old gamer, but I read this (need the approval of the gurugahs) and wonder what they can say:

Some early articles suggested that i7's design is not ideal for gaming performance. In a test performed on leaked hardware, a Core i7 940 compared to a QX9770 showed the Core i7 to be slower than Yorkfield clock-for-clock in two trials, while being faster in two others. The difference in all cases was small, and was due to the significantly smaller sized L2 cache on the processor cores, with each core able to access its own 256 kB of L2 cache. In contrast, the most recent Yorkfields have up to 12 MB of L2 cache. To help compensate, the Core i7 also has a new L3 cache of 8 MB, shared among all four cores, similar to AMD's "Barcelona" processors. This is due to the trend of games making use of more threads, and with hyper-threading (HT) the Core i7 can scale more than 4x faster, such as in cinebench tests. However, more recent testing done on all clock rates of official hardware with final drivers and BIOS revisions show that Core i7 at the very least beats Yorkfield clock-for-clock, and in most cases exceeds it by an average of about 17%. But when it comes to high-end multi-GPU environments (Nvidia 3-way SLI and ATI Crossfire X), the i7 is revealed to be much faster than Yorkfield (QX9770) in clock-for-clock)

[Lemur]

Hay, Caius. It's not unusual for a new architecture's first generation to show little to no gains over the previous one. A lot of the changes are there to support higher clock speeds and optimizations down the line.

So the first generation of I7s score the same or slightly lower at gaming than the CoreWhatevers? Not surprised. But watch out in a year or so, I7s (and their derivative platforms) are going to start spanking the old architecture, no doubt. Just not today.

For somebody buying today, it boils down to a simple question: Spend less now and face a closed upgrade path, or spend more and hope that the hot procs of 2010 and 2011 are compatible with your mobo?

[Caius]

o the first generation of I7s score the same or slightly lower at gaming than the CoreWhatevers? Not surprised. But watch out in a year or so, I7s (and their derivative platforms) are going to start spanking the old architecture, no doubt. Just not today.

Must be that because programs are not prepared for them? Or because those new procesors are new? How much does one cost?

Might as well keep my simple core processor as a relic.

[Lemur]

Must be that because programs are not prepared for them?

Based on what I've read, the I7s are optimized for x86 code, and do not require any major re-writing of apps. This was intentional, as Intel got severely spanked when they tried to push devs into a new framework (Itanium, anyone?).

Or because those new procesors are new? How much does one cost?

Remember, the proc is only a third of the cost, since the new architecture requires a new mobo and DDR3 RAM. That said, a 3 ghz Yorkfield Core 2 Quad retails for $324, whereas a 2.93 ghz I7 retails for $545. And you'll probably see better performance from the cheaper model.

So no, it's not an issue of newness; rather, you're paying extra to get onboard the platform with more of a future. We probably aren't going to see big jumps in the CoreWhatever in the future. Maybe a few cranks of the clock speed, but nothing more. The I7, on the other hand, will be advancing will all the inexorable fury of Moore's Law.

That said, sometimes the changes down the line require a new motherboard, so "future-proofing" is always a gamble. You may be able to just drop in a new proc into your I7 board in two years, but you may not. Anybody's guess.

[Husar]

And then you will want a new graphicscard because it will be the bottleneck for the next few years most likely and you will need a new motherboard anyway to support that new graphicscard.
Like uhm, a new PCIe standard that your new energy-munching 12000shader units graphicscard needs to get enough energy.

So yes, like the Lemur says, future-proofing is a bit of a gamble, by the time you feel it's necessary to upgrade, an entirely new and better architecture may be out already, hard to say, I'm personally thinking about a Q9550, especially after I felt my E6600 was still more than enough for most current games before I sold it earlier this year.

[Xiahou]

Remember, the proc is only a third of the cost, since the new architecture requires a new mobo and DDR3 RAM. That said, a 3 ghz Yorkfield Core 2 Quad retails for $324, whereas a 2.93 ghz I7 retails for $545. And you'll probably see better performance from the cheaper model.

Actually, I think even the i7 920 would outperform the 9650 while being significantly cheaper. For the more comparably priced 9550, the gap widens even more.

I know everyone hates Tom's Hardware now, but they're easiest to generate comparisons with (plus whatever bias they have shouldn't be a concern since we're comparing 3 Intel chips anyhow).

I'd say that if you're going Intel, go with the i7. It has the best performance. If you want to be budget conscious, instead of stepping down to Core 2 quads, just save even more money and get a PhenomII. Depending on what you're upgrading from, even a PhenomII will give you huge performance gains at a lesser price and and it's a full $100 cheaper than the 9550. But, if you want performance and your budget can handle it, there's no reason not to go i7 IMO.

For video cards, I'm still leaning towards ATI, but Nvidia has closed the performance gap pretty well. If you're going the budget (AMD?) route, I think you'd be very pleased with a 4850- it offers good performance at a great price, but if you're going all out go for the 4870 or even the 4890. Someone could probably make a convincing argument for Nvidia as well, but I don't find CUDA or Physx to be important factors when making a choice in the near future (looking at you Husar); as it's not clear when, if ever, they'll be widely supported.