x58 motherboards

There are some games which utilise the extra processing power of the i7's. FSX is one of these, as it's very CPU intensive. I ran some benchies using this title, from when I was running a Q9550 and then my i7 920 and the FPS increased a fair bit. This was using the same GPU (GTX280) by the way. I can't remember the exact figures, but I know it was enough for me to be able to ramp up the visual settings.

Then there are other CPU intensive titles, such as some RTS's and some RPG's. Another title which I noticed was alot nippier after my upgrade was World in Conflict. I would have done some comparisons now, but I have sold my Q9550 setup.
 
Definitely agree with what you're saying there. I actually play FSX and spec people setups for the game on a flight simming forum. It's very CPU intensive and was impossible to play with good framerates prior to the SP1 multicore patch. Interestingly, the game play doesn't improve much from graphics cards upwards of the G92 8800/9800/GTS 250 cores. The game is coded very badly.

I think however that it's fair to say that in general, the limitation lies with the graphics card as there are many more that suffer from this than CPU limitation. A fair compromise is just to build as balanced a system as possible for one's budget.
 
name='Mul.' said:
I think however that it's fair to say that in general, the limitation lies with the graphics card as there are many more that suffer from this than CPU limitation. A fair compromise is just to build as balanced a system as possible for one's budget.

Agreed there.

As the OP never mentioned their budget or that they were asking for opinions other than recommendations on an X58 board, I took it to be that he has the budget available and has made his mind up on going with an i7 setup. I think that some are saying that the i7 isn't really a worthy upgrade, but I disagree with this if:

a, you have the budget to upgrade

b, you are interested enough to want to try it out.

c, you enjoy the feeling of using a rig which is bang up to date.

Personally, I upgraded because I like to feel that my rigs are current, and that I have the best hardware that I can afford. Core i7's were the next logical step for me. Another reason is that I don't like having to resort to OC's just to get a decent framerate using GFX settings I am happy with. With some titles, I did have to OC my E8400 and my Q9550 to achieve what I wanted. I also enjoy the nice increase in overall system performance from my upgrade and especially in creative tasks such as multi media manipulation etc.

There will always be those who wait till the current gen becomes last gen before upgrading, sometimes due to cost, sometimes due to fear of adopting unproven tech, and I don't see anything wrong with this. But there are others who have the cash to keep current, and enjoy doing so. This is a personal thing though and shouldn't haze advice given to others.
 
To be fair, since it's conception the exception that is FSX, it is a cpu game that can be run on a high spec cpu with a low powered gpu.

I've not played an RPG or mmorpg that utilizes more than one core. There are those that are designed with Gamebyro like Oblivion, Warhammer and the older DAoC that the developement site for Gamebyro claim will allow multiprocessors to be an advantage, but having played them and watched the cpu meter they only hit one core. Setting ur pc up to spread the load will only use 25% across the board, i.e. shar the load but still total 1 core's work.

World in Conflict never hit the cores, to my knowledge it still doesn't, but I'm willing to try it out again with some patching.

The only game-style program I've seen hit all cores without limiting itself to 25% share is 3dmark. The others, although appearing to hit all cores, have that limit within them.

As Hal hints at, mostly due to bad programming across the board.
 
name='stuartpb' said:
a, you have the budget to upgrade

b, you are interested enough to want to try it out.

c, you enjoy the feeling of using a rig which is bang up to date.

I like these points. These are factors which stretch beyond the definition of "Value for Money". You can't put a value on those factors as it varies wildly from person to person. Case in point, the Logitech diNovo Edge Keyboard that I reviewed in members review subforum. The keyboard has plenty of features but from a value for money perspective, definitely not enough to warrant it's pricetag alone. People will buy it for it's style and aesthetics as well, which some may not value at all but some may value highly. Same goes for cases, where you can get an Antec Three Hundred case with good enough airflow, but some would rather spend £80 more on a Silverstone Fortress FT01 for example. Likewise, a similar theory applies here.
 
Bags of cash aside, I'd still prefer to advise a theoretical 8800GT owner not to buy a 9800GT, with it's bios and pcb upd8, cos it was new.
 
name='Rastalovich' said:
Bags of cash aside, I'd still prefer to advise a theoretical 8800GT owner not to buy a 9800GT, with it's bios and pcb upd8, cos it was new.

Well yes, but I'd hardly compare moving from Core 2 Quad to i7 the same as replacing an 8800GT with effectively the same card? :D
 
But it's newer and with the bios change and pcb scores 150 more points in 3dmark06 !!!

Hehe, u can advise all u like, but if some1 wants to buy it cos it's new, they'll do what they want at the end of the day.
 
name='Rastalovich' said:
But it's newer and with the bios change and pcb scores 150 more points in 3dmark06 !!!

Hehe, u can advise all u like, but if some1 wants to buy it cos it's new, they'll do what they want at the end of the day.

What's so wrong with wanting to upgrade your PC to the latest hardware? I fail to see why it's an issue for you? The i7 does offer performance increases over the Core 2 family, not just in gaming but in the wider usage of the PC. Although gaming performance isn't increased as much as initially hoped, the overall performance increase makes it a worthy contender in my opinion and experience.
 
Haven't said there's anything wrong with it, u/he can buy whatever u like, but if my opinion or advice is asked I can freely advise against it if I feel it's unnecessary.

Just because some1's opinion differs from urs or some1 else's doesn't make it either wrong or not correct for them to offer it.

My advise for the op is that it's not worth doing for what he want's - he can take it or leave it.
 
I'm not saying you are wrong Rasta, or that you shouldn't share your opinion. But it does sound like you are saying that the i7's aren't worth bothering with. They do offer advantages over Core 2 chips, but whether it's worth the extra expense is up to the OP.
 
No ur correct there, for what he's wanting to do, oc and play games, I don't think it's worth bothering with.

Rightly or wrongly in ur opinion, that's my opinion and I stand by it tbh.

Ofc if he want's to spend the cash, he's more than welcome.
 
When you use dual or tripple or even quad high end GPU's on ANY core 2 setup, unless you're playing at a res of 2560X1600 there will be a bottleneck created by the core 2 and even greater bottleneck by the all the phenom chips currently out. Even with a QX9650 OC to 4Ghz there will be a bottleneck. The core i7 at about 4 ghz practically reduces this bottleneck to nothing in just about every game (with the exception of poorly coded games).

I've might have not chosen my words correctly and by saying blowing away might not have been the best statement, but I have used core 2 duos and quads at 4 to 4.4ghz overclocks with daul and tri SLI there is a hinderance created by the CPU.

I play lots of games not just MMORPG's which imo most are lame anyway and don't need much computing power to begin with.

The OP asked for a suggestion on a platform which to me seems he has made up his mind in not a opinions on motherboards accross various chipset platforms so even though I could have chosen better words to describe how pleased I am to see the performance improvement on an X58 platform over the X48, 780i, and 790i platforms, but my statement wasn't ignorantly stated. I've done enough testing (not synthetic benchmarks only) with lots of games to see the performance for myself and not to guess at what could be.

Yeah, you can have a great gaming system with a core 2 setup or even a phenom setup, but if you want your high end graphic cards to shine at resolutions lower then 2560X1600, then the core i7 is the only CPU that will reduce the bottleneck to either nothing or practically nothing with a good overclock.

Is it needed? Of course not, but if you are going to spend the cash for high end GPU's then the core i7 is the way to go or else that would make a lot less sense to go with anything less.

SLI, and TRI-SLI work fantastic with a core i7 setup. If you're going to have one GPU and not thinking about adding a second or third then maybe a core 2 setup is the best choice. If you're going to add a second and third high end GPU and not be running a big resolution like 2560X1600 then the core i7 is the best choice.

Somtething to think about even with a single high end GPU setup is that the GTX300 series and HD5000 series cards are right around the corner a core 2 setup with a good overclock may or may not be enough to eliminate CPU bottleneck so the GPU can stretch it's legs completely.
 
name='limpkorn' said:
When you use dual or tripple or even quad high end GPU's on ANY core 2 setup, unless you're playing at a res of 2560X1600 there will be a bottleneck created by the core 2 and even greater bottleneck by the all the phenom chips currently out. Even with a QX9650 OC to 4Ghz there will be a bottleneck. The core i7 at about 4 ghz practically reduces this bottleneck to nothing in just about every game (with the exception of poorly coded games).

What exactly do u mean by bottleneck ?

This term is thrown around like confetty(??) all the time.

But there is a study around somewhere relating to cpus and gpus being oc'd, a bit b4 i7's time, and it doesn't show the cpus holding the gpus back, it shows the performances not increasing after u've oc'd the cpu passed a certain level. Meaning there is no point in oc'ing the cpu passed a certain level to gain any performance for gaming. Think 3.8g sounds familiar and a wonky line around 4g.

I'm keen to see the i7 version of this, I'm sure it's out there.

Bottleneck, as a term I would refer to, is something like using a P4 2.8ghz alongside a 295, without any form of torture, the cpu will run at 100% at many points in time - this is where the cpu holds back the gpu.

If ur cpu doesn't run at 100% during gameplay, it can't hold back the gpu. Something else could hold it back, not the cpu. I'd like to see a game that would run something like a qx9650 @ 100%, that would be something.

I would concede however that the term bottlenecking is being used differently today to how it may have been in the past. Rightly or wrongly.
 
If you're basing your thoughts on an old study I'm afraid you're a bit off as there is a bottleneck on higher end GPU's e.g. HD4870's and GTX260's and up. There are lots of games I've ran comparisons with when I was running my old Q9550 @ 3.99 ghz and three GTX280's in SLI vs. a core i7 @ 4 Ghz with 2 GTX280's like Crysis, Warhead, World in Conflict, UT3, COD4, and Far Cry 2, unfortunately stupid me never saved any of this data as a matter of fact I found a post I made on the EVGA forums back in November right after I had gotten my core i7 and OCd it to 4 Ghz with just two GTX280's in SLI otherwise I really wouldn't have anything to show you, but please look at the 40th post down on this link.

http://www.evga.com/forums/tm.asp?m=641863&mpage=2&key=Far,Cry?

The bottleneck with 3 GTX280's on FC2 with a Q9550 @ 4 Ghz was unbeliebably huge with just 2 GTX280's and the core i7 the runs were much smoother and FPS nearly doubled.

Check out my Far Cry 2 runs @ 3.99 Ghz Q9550 Vs. 4Ghz core i7 that alone is a huge difference in FPS, obviously the game is still very playable with the Q9550 @ 3.99Ghz, but there is definetely a big bottleneck in this game, even at 1920X1200 max settings, with the core 2 chips that is eliminated with the core i7 and the same goes for WIC the frames jump up once I ran the core i7 along with many other games like I mentioned above.

I wish I would have saved all those screenshots back then so I could show you, but I'm not the only one that's shown a bottleneck with GTX200 or HD4800 series cards and core 2 setups. I remember seeing a bottleneck still with a core 2 duo at 4ghz then jumping to 4.5gzh the frames went up about 8-12% accross many games with a single GTX280 and a single HD4870.

I know most games and apps out at the moment don't really take advantage of more then two and in a lot of cases even more then one core at the moment, but the technology from a core 2 chip vs. a core i7 chip is very different starting with the memory controller continuing on with the extra memory channel there is definetely improvements that show in games such as I've seen time and time again for myself not based on reviews I've found or word of mouth. The numbers are impressive to me and I'm very happy with the core i7 upgrade even though games being as playable as they are with a core 2 system from a "value" aspect of course it may not make sense to many.

Clock for clock the core i7 is a faster processor when compared with a core 2 quad and for high end single GPU's and especially more so for double, tripple, and quad GPU solutions the core i7 outshines the core 2 quad dramatically. Now I know FC2 is a heavily CPU bound game, but there is still great performance improvements especially on TRI and QUAD SLI setups when you use a core i7 CPU instead of a core 2 quad.

If the OP is deciding between X58 boards then my suggestion still stands go with the P6T Deluxe you won't regret how easy it overclocks and I'm sure you won't mind the extra FPS you will get from the GPU/s you decide to go with.
 
Naturally one would expect the CPU holding back high end multi GPU configs but the debate was more or less in the context of the graphics card that the OP already owns :)
 
name='sammytomjohn' said:
exactly!

i will only upgrade to i7 when my software utilizes all my system resources!

That's your choice. But those who want to adopt the i7 aren't being frivolous or just spending money for the sake of it. I had the cash available to be able to upgrade to i7, I was interested enough to try it, and I don't see the point in waiting for new tech to become old tech before I adopt it.
 
name='Mul.' said:
Naturally one would expect the CPU holding back high end multi GPU configs but the debate was more or less in the context of the graphics card that the OP already owns :)

Yeah, it's not a case of sli/xfire being poorer than it in theory should be. The matter that those poorer drivers/the setup achieve better results cos they're being shoved through the door faster is really neither here nor there. Then ofc there's the argument of sli/xfire not being supported to a great extent which would make this a complete sham anyway.

Bottleneck from a cpu is where it hits 100% preventing any further operations, be they graphical or otherwize, from doing their job as well as they can.

I've never had it with a 280 oc'd to this date with a q6600/q9400/q6700/qx9650. Believe the last time I experienced it was with a 3800 x2 amd - time it was to upgrade it.

If I get bottleneck problems, which I don't envisage, with even the GT300 range - then I may consider upgrading at that point.
 
There's a key difference between a bottleneck that's preventing the capability of another component to the extent that the game becomes a slideshow, but then there's the bottleneck that prevents you from getting 95fps rather than 70fps. One won't notice the difference between the two framerates but many would rather see the improvement anyway. That's fine in my books.
 
Back
Top