Overclock.net banner

[vr-z] Core i7 vs Core 2 in games

3K views 29 replies 24 participants last post by  killerhz 
#1 ·
#3 ·
I will go against the grain on this and say that after reading quite a few reviews pitting the i7 vs similarly clocked Penryns, that we are somewhat CPU bound even when gaming. I would even go so far as to say that we are just as CPU limited as we are GPU limited if not more. This is especially evident when adding more than one graphics card. Its quite mind boggling to see almost double the framerate in some games when using the same exact graphics card configurations.
 
#5 ·
ok now show the e8600 at 4.4 , bet we will never see that comparison.
funny how all these comparison all they wana oc is i7's as if the core2's cant oc.

edit , k i see the oc on the q9, but still want to see e8600 at 4.4 lol
 
#6 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by ryanrenolds08 View Post
I will go against the grain on this and say that after reading quite a few reviews pitting the i7 vs similarly clocked Penryns, that we are somewhat CPU bound even when gaming. I would even go so far as to say that we are just as CPU limited as we are GPU limited if not more. This is especially evident when adding more than one graphics card. Its quite mind boggling to see almost double the framerate in some games when using the same exact graphics card configurations.
Yep, somehow with SLI/CF this shows itself. Perhaps once we get more powerful single-GPU cards it will show itself elsewhere as well.
 
#8 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by vi3t_boy View Post
I'm confused by the graph. A q9550 stock beat a 9550@ 3.6 ghz.
ya lol i saw that
 
#12 ·
all this review proves is that every processor ranging from a q9300 @2.5ghz to an i7 920 @3.6ghz is GPU bottlenecked on crysis at 1920x1200. thats it, nothing else gained from the fail article. when sli is introduced things change but they forgot to compare a q9550 @3.6ghz SLI setup....
 
#13 ·
Quote:


Originally Posted by TestECull
View Post

: Even in our favorite benchmark, it's beat out by it's ancestors more than it beats them.

Crysis 19X12 all high, it's beat by an E8600. Not even a dual core. : GG Intel.

I'm confused by what you're saying. Are you saying the e8600 is not a dual-core?

It does seem that at most resolutions that the penryns are beating the i7 in some games. However, as was mentioned previously, when we're talking about high resolutions or multiple cards the i7 seems to pull ahead quite a bit. I remember seeing benchmarks where the quad-core extreme penryns were pitted against the i7 extremes, and at equal clock-speeds the i7's were getting 20-30% higher framerates with the same video cards, mostly in SLI, tri-sli, tri/quad-fire setups.
 
#15 ·
Quote:


Originally Posted by lordikon
View Post

I'm confused by what you're saying. Are you saying the e8600 is not a dual-core?

It does seem that at most resolutions that the penryns are beating the i7 in some games. However, as was mentioned previously, when we're talking about high resolutions or multiple cards the i7 seems to pull ahead quite a bit. I remember seeing benchmarks where the quad-core extreme penryns were pitted against the i7 extremes, and at equal clock-speeds the i7's were getting 20-30% higher framerates with the same video cards, mostly in SLI, tri-sli, tri/quad-fire setups.

Save your energy. since i started reading these forums about 3 months ago he holds the crown of #1 amd fanboy. countless posts i have read from him are constantly either to bash intel or rep amd and nothing in between.
 
#16 ·
It may only be on par or even slightly less than C2D and C2Q performance with single cards, but it is still considerably good with SLI and CrossFire. Also, as much as I love games, there are other things to use computers for besides games
 
#18 ·
The graphs are terribly done but they do nothing but affirm the fact that i7 is not a gamer's CPU.
 
#19 ·
so they compared socket 775 against nehalem with SLI...

i had to actually read it twice to get my head around it. thanks for the post but what a useless test.

edit: why not a crossfire/SLI test of nehalem vs 775, i'd be quite curious as "apparently" the new architecture scales much better ?
 
#22 ·
Quote:


Originally Posted by Auld
View Post

Save your energy. since i started reading these forums about 3 months ago he holds the crown of #1 amd fanboy. countless posts i have read from him are constantly either to bash intel or rep amd and nothing in between.

Heh, well no matter how you skew it neither the Core2 or the Core i7 have decent competition from AMD, which sucks, because competition is a good thing.

Quote:


Originally Posted by Auld
View Post

Quote:


Originally Posted by tweakboy
View Post

Q series pownz i7 ! both too fast, u can't tell a diff! no or noch!

lolwut?


His screenname is 'tweakboy', what did you expect?
 
#23 ·
What's so special about the results? If you notice, they used SLI with all the Core i7 cpus, but only 1 card with all the LGA775 cpus. What the hell is that? Umm, why not use SLI with ALL the cpus, not just Core i7. lol, is this the only way to show Core i7 beating LGA775 in games?
 
#26 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by drewfus View Post
ya lol i saw that
actually it dousn't beat anything.

The min fps is just 1 frame lower then the non oc'd cpu. so basicly its the same.
The reason is that at such high resolution it becomes more GPU dependant
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top