looking to build a new computer with a $1000~$1300 limit.

[Kaelan?]

Windows 7 is a major memory hog. Throw in a game and you'll be approaching 3.. and that last gb isn't always enough of a buffer if you're going to be multitasking. I go with 8, and would recommend at least 6 for windows 7.

Windows consumes less memory when an application is in fullscreen (which is how you're playing your games, right? right?), so this isn't as much of an issue as all that. You could probably do fine with 3GB if you were using tri-channel.

[Celeras]

Sure, go ahead and tell me why an i7 is worthless compared to a core2duo by posting more benchmarks that are GPU limited using a 280 when the OP has posted his list with a 5870, something that's better than 280x2.

When you want to compare CPUs, you make sure you're not limited by GPUs. When you want to compare GPUs, you make sure you're not limited by CPUs. It's a very simple concept.

I really don't give it shit if you want to shell out for an i7. But when you give asinine advice that will cost people money to people who explicitly say they're on a budget, I'm going to have to make you look like an idiot.

You're trying to spout a 1-line 'rule' and apply it to every situation without understanding what you're talking about. Games at resolutions of 1920x1200+ are GPU based, there's no way around this. The hardware can't keep up with the software, even the original Crysis has trouble being maxed out by todays state-of-the-art. Now, if you would have actually looked at the benchmark I linked, you would see it was just over a year old and done with the best video cards available at the time. That is all that is important, and that principle hasn't changed because GPUs still haven't caught up.

Yes, the benchmarks were GPU based, because the settings they were run at are ALWAYS going to be GPU based. If you would have read page 1 of the benchmark you would have seen them flat out explain this is why they chose these settings. Here in lies your WOOSH. Because if the GPU cannot handle the resolution/settings, your CPU can only do so much. And if that threshold is less than the maximum performance of the slower processor, barring any other differences besides chip, you're not going to see significant performance gains despite how much faster the 'max' of the faster processor is. You were right to point out the CPU/GPU relationship, but completely wrong in your interpretation of what that actually meant.

i7 is a decent amount faster than core2 at this point(about 15%), and this is more than evident in benchmarks that only test the CPU such as 3dmark. Of course it is, it's a newer chip and more efficient technology. But because modern gaming at 1920x1200+ puts such a strain on the GPU, these differences don't transfer to actual gameplay. Hence, the i7 is next to worthless when it comes to gaming at these settings.

TLDR: You're an idiot, get the fuck out I can't believe you made me type all this.

[Celeras]

Windows consumes less memory when an application is in fullscreen (which is how you're playing your games, right? right?), so this isn't as much of an issue as all that. You could probably do fine with 3GB if you were using tri-channel.

Actually I usually go windowed at full screen resolution for IM notifications ;p It wouldn't be a problem unless you're multi-tasking most likely, but either way its better safe than sorry. Nobody wants to drop a bankroll on a new PC then hitch if they alt tab to check email or look on a wiki or something. I'd always recommend the extra buffer for 7.

Keep in mind though it doesn't even matter if you're not using 64 bit. I always forget to mention that to people when giving this sort of advice, as you can't even use more than 4gb on the 32bit versions of the OS.

[Deadgye]

I really don't give it shit if you want to shell out for an i7. But when you give asinine advice that will cost people money to people who explicitly say they're on a budget, I'm going to have to make you look like an idiot.

His budget is the same as mine, and currently with an i7 I'm under it. I understand the concept of saving money, but cutting corners is not something you want to do with PCs because it just means you're going to have to upgrade sooner.

Games at resolutions of 1920x1200+ are GPU based, there's no way around this.

Yes, GPU based; not GPU bottlenecked like in the benchmark you linked. Big difference. About the same as the difference between a 280 and a 5870.

And really, who doesn't multi-task while gaming nowadays? While running games in 1920x1200 I plan to be running pigeon, firefox, windows live mail, winamp, streamripper, etc full time; and a bunch of other misc applications a lot as well. A stronger CPU will help in that regard.

Now if we're talking 2560x1600 or eyefinity resolutions, I'll be agreeing with you 100%; but that just doesn't seem feasible given his budget.

Windows 7 is a major memory hog.

It uses memory much more efficiently than XP and Vista.

[Kaelan?]

You can always get more ram later if you need to, especially if you're on a budget.

[Celeras]

Yes, GPU based; not GPU bottlenecked like in the benchmark you linked. Big difference.

If it's always GPU based, and the hardware is incapable of handling the settings.. then it is always going to be GPU bottlenecked. Over your head and under your feet, to the point which I know think you're just trolling.

[Olo401]

The very first review on the newegg page ...

Rule #1 - NEVER pay attention to what Newegg reviewers say. 99% of those people are idiots.

I still wouldn't go i7 (simply not worth it for gaming, see page1)

Stop you're talking out of your ass. On technical merits ONLY the i7 on the LGA1366 platform is the best gaming CPU line on the market today. If you have information that states otherwise, go ahead and link it.

And just remember that if you chose to drop down because of expense, you save on not just the processor but also the motherboard and ram since you no longer require ddr3 (which also is negligible not only for gaming, but most everything other than being 'required' for i7). It adds up.

Could you please stop giving out horrible, poorly researched advice? DDR3 memory is MUCH faster than DDR2 at equal speed, and can reach higher speeds without overclocking, and DDR2-1066 is almost/exactly the same price as DDR3-1600. Go check it out for yourself on Newegg.

And just to add, I disagree with the previous conversation of ram saying 4gb is enough. Right now, I'm using 1.63gb with just Windows 7 and firefox. Windows 7 is a major memory hog. Throw in a game and you'll be approaching 3.. and that last gb isn't always enough of a buffer if you're going to be multitasking. I go with 8, and would recommend at least 6 for windows 7.

Win7 isn't nearly as bad as Vista.. but it does use up a lot of memory. Going up to 6 won't hurt, but if you plan to do so make sure you upgrade in pairs that match the memory you currently have so that you keep dual-channel intact.

You really should quit while you're ahead, before I decide to explain why you're being epically wooshed.

If it's always GPU based, and the hardware is incapable of handling the settings.. then it is always going to be GPU bottlenecked. Over your head and under your feet, to the point which I know think you're just trolling.

Please don't explain anything else.. you're doing nothing but wooshing yourself and trolling everyone else.

[Celeras]

Rule #1 - NEVER pay attention to what Newegg reviewers say. 99% of those people are idiots.

The man asked if his setup looked ok, and the first review mentioned it had a problem with the ram he chose. It's worth mentioning, 'ignore that lol' isn't what the guy asked for.

Stop you're talking out of your ass. On technical merits ONLY the i7 on the LGA1366 platform is the best gaming CPU line on the market today. If you have information that states otherwise, go ahead and link it.

Technical merits dont mean shit. I already linked the information that proved i7 was useless for gaming. I also went out of my way to explain WHY it was useless despite it being benched a whopping 15%(by GPU comparison, the 5870 that came out mere months ago is showing to be 40-80% slower then first generation fermi in early benches) faster on average then technology from 5 years ago. Why don't you go ahead and read that first before whipping out the red text.

Could you please stop giving out horrible, poorly researched advice? DDR3 memory is MUCH faster than DDR2 at equal speed, and can reach higher speeds without overclocking, and DDR2-1066 is almost/exactly the same price as DDR3-1600. Go check it out for yourself on Newegg.

Much faster on paper and equates to next to nothing in gaming performance. And while the ram itself is priced comparably, you end up shelling out more for the mobo/processor to fit it when its not necessary unless you want to go i7. Which as I already stated, is also useless unless you game at archaic resolutions.

This is getting a bit ridiculous now, why don't you just go ahead and fucking suggest Alienware while you're at it. You don't know what you're talking about.

[Olo401]

Technical merits dont mean shit.

Then why would anyone even BOTHER with benchmark testing? Why would anyone give a shit if they had a Corei7 or a fucking Celeron? Of course, then you immediately say this:

I already linked the information that proved i7 was useless for gaming.

Nice spin move.. You should be a ballerina.

Your link provided exactly the opposite information - the worst you could possibly say based on that testing is that the early batch i7s are equivalent to a matched Core 2 Quad.

And then there's the fact that the testing in that article was done horribly - the systems used had low amounts of memory (2gigs for the C2D, 3 for the i7), running under a 32-bit OS. Combine that with the monster video cards with upwards of 2GB of memory themselves and you have a test system that's collapsing under its own weight just from a lack of physical memory, never mind taxing the system with heavy gaming.

Much faster on paper and equates to next to nothing in gaming performance. And while the ram itself is priced comparably you end up shelling out more for the mobo/processor to fit it when its not necessary unless you want to go i7.

And here you ignore what I said completely. You get faster speed DDR3 memory for the same price as slower speed DDR2. I never said I disagree that the differences between equally clocked DDR2 and DDR3 are negligible. Combine that with the FACT that in benchmark after benchmark and test after test the i7 beats out everything else, even in gaming performance, unless you throw down on a C2Q Extreme which barely matches the 920.

Oh yeah, and there's also the i7-860 on the market now which is actually a better processor than the 920 and runs on the more practical 1156/P55 platforms which are a lot easier on the wallet than the 1366/X58. So your argument about i7 being out of reach price-wise is shot too.

Now, please stop trolling and misinforming people. And as for your Alienware suggestion, I'd never recommend anything you would buy.

[Olo401]

Don't feel like making a new thread for something that comes up so often... can anyone verify is this is a solid $1300 tower? I always get paranoid and feel like I'm missing something when I put together builds.

It looks fine to me.. that motherboard is one of the more reliable ones, tho if you plan to overclock I'd probably recommend an EVGA board and some upgraded cooling.

[Celeras]

I looked at the benchmarks you just pasted, and here's the resolutions the test were run at in every single one of them. (I wont even get into the fact that half of them are GTAIV which is largely dependent on the CPU moreso then any other game.)

1280x800, 1280x1024, 1280x1024, 1680x1050, 1680x1050, 1680x1050.

Could have sworn I said at 1920x1200+. Golly gee. As I posted on page one, this is what happens on higher resolutions. The i7 gets a bigger lead on your archaic resolutions because they can be handled by the GPU better. The lower the resolution, the easier it is for the GPU to max out, the more CPU horsepower you need to keep up.

the worst you could possibly say based on that testing is that the early batch i7s are equivalent to a matched Core 2 Quad.

That's exactly what I am saying, you tard. At higher resolutions, i7 gives a minimal performance upgrade when compared to Core2. That's it.

I'm done here. Ruiner, I went ahead and sent you a PM as there's only so much ignorance I can handle from one thread. Anybody else who may need help, feel free to PM me as well

[Olo401]

And as I said, the test system used in the link you provided is handicapped severely by the fact that they use a 32-bit OS with minimal amounts of system memory and monstrous GPUs that kill all of that minimal system memory. That crippled the entire system's performance so badly that everything ended up looking equal in the benchmark. That has a LOT more to do with the crappy results they got than the video resolution.

However, if you have a set of properly-done benchmarks not performed by a Ukranian blogger who doesn't know how to build a test system, by all means link it.

[Sonomaa]

note to thread, try to keep the technerd rage civil
note to op, not buying a corei7 is a disservice to your gaming future, forget whatever numbers people are throwing at you and simply understand the length and power of a corei7 stick. for a grand and change like you have, the PC you build can be a thing of beauty, make sure its a beauty of current power and not last years model.

also, trust the Hard.
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2009/...7_processors/5

[Ratatapa]

Why did you ban Olo ....

[Darus Grey]

also, trust the Hard.
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2009/...7_processors/5

As always, these benchmarks in no way represent real-world gameplay. They are all run at very low resolutions to try our best to remove the video card as a bottleneck. I will not hesitate to say that anyone spouting these types of framerate measurements as a true measuring tool in today’s climate is not servicing your needs or telling you the real truth.

? Article you linked basically said what Celeras has been saying, i7 is not needed for real-world performance in gaming, you have to go out of your way to actually see it gain performance.

I still wouldn't get a C2D though, they still run $70-130, and if you don't want i5 or i7 you can get much better AMD cpus in that price-range.

What I think you *might* have meant to link...was the "Real-World CPU" tests from hardocp.

http://hardocp.com/article/2009/05/1..._cpu_scaling/3

Conclusion: i7 does nothing for gaming.

[CoronA1979]

LOL Olo got banned, haha..

Not sure why though ^__^

[Sonomaa]

? Article you linked basically said what Celeras has been saying, i7 is not needed for real-world performance in gaming, you have to go out of your way to actually see it gain performance.

I still wouldn't get a C2D though, they still run $70-130, and if you don't want i5 or i7 you can get much better AMD cpus in that price-range.

What I think you *might* have meant to link...was the "Real-World CPU" tests from hardocp.

http://hardocp.com/article/2009/05/1..._cpu_scaling/3

Conclusion: i7 does nothing for gaming.

several months difference between the two articles which allows for bios maturity. the new corei7s are doing quite a bit better. if your trying to compare a corei7 vs a corei5 then there isnt much of a difference for gaming but if your trying to compare a core2duo or core2quad its a bit larger of a difference.

if this is a corei7 vs core2quad comparison, dont bother and get i7, if your trying to justify the price between an i5 and c2q then get an i5, you are always better off buying the better chipset for upgrades later, buying an older one to save a little money now makes your future upgrades very bleak.
tldr dont buy a socket being made obsolete very soonish so you can save a little cash for a gaming computer.

[Reeno]

well my stock CPU fan sucks, anyone have any suggestions of a good one? never had to buy one so ya dont know xD

[Tormentormike]

well my stock CPU fan sucks, anyone have any suggestions of a good one? never had to buy one so ya dont know xD

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16835186134

and lol at Celeras nerd raging so much. Deadgye and Celeras are both in New York, duke it out and post vids of that. At least you can entertain the rest of us. :]

[nitsuj]

well my stock CPU fan sucks, anyone have any suggestions of a good one? never had to buy one so ya dont know xD

This one is great so far: http://www.cogage.com/a_page/cpu_coo...ue_spirit.html


review: http://www.hardocp.com/article/2009/..._roundup_q309/