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

[xopher]

Someone actually said i7 is bad for gaming?

They should be banned from computers.

[Celeras]

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.

Seriously? I'm sure its the bios maturity making the difference in the articles, and not the fact that one bench was run at 640x480 and the other at 2560x1600.

You're absolutely correct on futureproofing though. There will be a point where current incarnations of i7 can flex its muscle and show actual performance gains vs. older tech, even if that isn't now. However the hexacore i7s are due out in Q3 of this year, and that's probably what you're going to want to use if you feel the need to stick with socket 1366 for the longterm.. not the current i7s.

[Deadgye]

(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)

A GPU that came out months after another one runs faster? Surprise surprise. The difference isn't as big as you make it out to be either. And the fermi can't even run 'nfinity' by itself. And seriously, the reason your benchmark didn't mean shit was because it was severely bottlenecked. An i7 will make a difference when using a 5770, 5850, 5870, and 5970. i5 vs i7? I'm not going to argue that because the performance is close. But c2d vs i7? You have got to be retarded if you still want to go for c2d. And still, you want to look at your PC from more than a gaming only perspective.

You want some real benchmarks?
http://hardocp.com/article/2008/11/0...ore_i7_gaming/

As you can see at 1920x1440 the games are not bottlenecked by a 280, but once you get to 2560x1600 they are. 5850, an easily affordable budget* video card will perform better than the 280. And these tests are using stock 920's. That's 2.6Ghz. You can easily take your i7 to 3.6, 3.8, and with some luck and cooling 4+.

*My opinion :3

[Sonomaa]

Seriously? I'm sure its the bios maturity making the difference in the articles, and not the fact that one bench was run at 640x480 and the other at 2560x1600.
.

running a benchmark at low res means the graphics card doesnt suffer any performance loss, it allows the cpu to actually flex, its pretty common to stress test a CPU for actual power
besides, this is a CPU debate, not a video card one

[Deadgye]

besides, this is a CPU debate, not a video card one

His point was that at 1920x1080+, and with a single video card only, that the video card will be so stressed that the cpu won't make a difference. He'd be correct if he was talking about a year or two ago. But presently that's not true.

[Celeras]

running a benchmark at low res means the graphics card doesnt suffer any performance loss, it allows the cpu to actually flex, its pretty common to stress test a CPU for actual power
besides, this is a CPU debate, not a video card one

It's not much of a debate if you just look at the CPUs, i7 is significantly faster hands down. It just doesn't translate well to modern gaming when GPUs are factored in at higher resolutions.

As for Deadgye's 'real' benchmark, just want to point out that you misread the data. In the comparison benches the i7 was clocked identically to the core2quad, at 3.2ghz.

It's still a good benchmark, and yet another example that supports what I've been trying to relay. You can really see the difference on page 2 between the weaker core2duo vs the quad i7, opens up drastically as the duo hits the wall at 67~fps. Unfortunately, it also shows the core2quad go blow-for-blow with the i7quad. As the article summary states:

"The first thing you will notice about the above performance is that the 3.2GHz Core 2 QX9770 outperforms the 3.2GHz Core i7 pretty much across the board when “Very High” quality is used in the game. This is not true for low quality settings, but we don’t think that our readers are going to be playing FarCry 2 without they eye candy turned on. The simple fact of the matter is that our readers do not buy these expensive hardware setups to run at low resolutions and low graphical settings."

Pretty much says it all. We're all basically agreeing now, just coming to different conclusions based on the same facts.

His point was that at 1920x1080+, and with a single video card only, that the video card will be so stressed that the cpu won't make a difference. He'd be correct if he was talking about a year or two ago. But presently that's not true.

It's easy to say this without backing it up..

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/g...ry-2,1679.html

Farcry 2 1920x1200 as an example. How far do you have to scroll down to get to the 5870, the best single GPU on the market? Quite a ways, and it averages below 60 FPS in an old game. Keywords, because farcry 2 is years old now, and the best single gpu available still can't manage to break 60fps. And thats not even on 2560x1600.

[Deadgye]

edit: Hah, this entire argument seems to stem from a misunderstanding which is why we're sort of agreeing with our argument. XD I'm apparently not the only one who made the mistake either. When I read "Core 2" I guess my brain completed it with "duo" instead of "quad". :3

{You either don't know how to read benchmarks, or you weren't listening to me. Quad core vs Quad core is not what I've been discussing, the performance is too similar. That's not a c2d that matched the frames on the first page. It's a quad core. The c2d is about 30fps behind. In the farcry part, the c2d starts to match the i7 at 1920x1400, because the (now outdated) video card is not strong enough. If the OP was building his computer with a 280 you're point would be valid.. but he's not.

Farcry 2 1920x1200 as an example. How far do you have to scroll down to get to the 5870, the best single GPU on the market? Quite a ways, and it averages below 60 FPS in an old game. Keywords, because farcry 2 is years old now, and the best single gpu available still can't manage to break 60fps. And thats not even on 2560x1600.

Did you even look at the specs they ran the game on? 1920x1200 with 8xAA and 16xAF. To show the difference; go back to the farcry benchmark from the hardforums thing I linked. At 2560x1600 2xAA the 280 was giving 41~44 fps. In the one you linked, the 280 is giving ~39 fps.}

While the core 2 quads may provide matching performance to the i7 in gaming, they use an outdated socket type and cost just as much, if not more. (At least in my case.) And in non-gaming applications, the i7 will outperform them. There's really no reason to get them instead of an i7.

[Celeras]

You either don't know how to read benchmarks, or you weren't listening to me. Quad core vs Quad core is not what I've been discussing, the performance is too similar. That's not a c2d that matched the frames on the first page. It's a quad core. The c2d is about 30fps behind. In the farcry part, the c2d starts to match the i7 at 1920x1400, because the (now outdated) video card is not strong enough. If the OP was building his computer with a 280 you're point would be valid.. but he's not.

Ok I understand what you're saying now. But I've never been trying to compare a Core 2 duo specifically to an i7 quad.. that would be silly. The point was to compare two similar chips (same cores, clock, etc) between core2 and i7. I could see how this could have been mixed up, due to it being Core 2 _____ regardless. Or maybe you just decided to branch the discussion off, which is fine as well

And I of course understand the difference between enabling AA/AF, and that's entirely the point. To see the benefit of an i7, you have to turn these settings off. I don't know about you, but I don't buy new hardware to disable settings ;p

[edit] Lol, yeah you editted in exactly what I was typing as I was making my reply x.x; I was wondering why you kept linking things that made my point then disagreeing... d'oh!

[Deadgye]

I don't think anybody honestly games at 8xAA 16xAF unless they're playing old games. Going over 4xAA just seems silly to me.

[xopher]

So I just upgraded from a Core 2 Duo to a i7 920 and my FPS in Aion has gone up by 20-30 fps with AA to the max.

Didn't even upgrade the gfx card yet.

[Celeras]

I don't think anybody honestly games at 8xAA 16xAF unless they're playing old games. Going over 4xAA just seems silly to me.

I can barely tell the difference tbh. Point still stands though ;p

[Reeno]

whats a really nice mouse? all i can think of is MX518 and sidewinder x8 :/ and im kinda leaning towards MX518

[Celeras]

I use MX518, and will vouch for it as awesome.

[Waraji]

So I just upgraded from a Core 2 Duo to a i7 920 and my FPS in Aion has gone up by 20-30 fps with AA to the max.

Didn't even upgrade the gfx card yet.

lolAion, that is all.

[Reeno]

I use MX518, and will vouch for it as awesome.

ya same here, but ive heard some nice things about the sidewinder x8 so was thinking maybe to give that a try and wanted some opinions =P

[Sonomaa]

I have the original sidewinder mouse (not the x series) and its nice, the buttons are responsive, the DPI is good and adjustable, havent used macros at all and kinda wish I could reprogram the DPI selection buttons to something else but it works very well, very smooth and such

that being said, if I hadnt spent so much money on it I would 100% have stayed with my 518

[Mabubeezareel]

I have the original sidewinder mouse (not the x series) and its nice, the buttons are responsive, the DPI is good and adjustable, havent used macros at all and kinda wish I could reprogram the DPI selection buttons to something else but it works very well, very smooth and such

that being said, if I hadnt spent so much money on it I would 100% have stayed with my 518

Recently picked up the Logitech G500, and am loving it so far. DPI buttons on it are reprogrammable, which is great for me since I only use one DPI setting anyway. Took me a few hours to get it setup to my liking, but have not a single to complain about it since.