Curse

Brett Kuntz · Jun 30, 2009, 10:31 PM // 22:31

http://vr-zone.com/articles/effects-....html?doc=7160

If you are only ever planning on buying and using 1 GPU, then you only need 2GHz, and a Dual or Triple-Core processor.

High-end Quad-Core processors like AMD's 900 series and Intel's 900 series are meant for users who will be running 3 or 4 GPU's.

Save money on the CPU and spend it on a better GPU. Your first and largest bottleneck will always be the GPU. RAM/Memory speeds and Processor speeds have very little difference in performance.

edit-If money is no object, or you just have a lot of money, then buy a nice fat Quad-Core. But on a limited budget, a cheap CPU, large amount of slow RAM, and 2 GPU's will always out-perform any single GPU setup.

king swift · Jul 01, 2009, 01:13 AM // 01:13

I plan on buying an i7 CPU quad core...what type of GPU(S) should I equip it with. 22" monitor.

Brett Kuntz · Jul 01, 2009, 04:05 AM // 04:05

I'd start off with two 4890 OC's:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814102831

And plan to buy 1 or 2 more within the next 18 months.

The i7 was designed primarily to run 4 GPU's and be used for benchmarking. It will not run games or Windows any faster than say an AMD 720 Triple-Core. You don't seem like the type of person to be doing this type of thing, so I'd suggest not buying the i7 processor.

Elder III · Jul 02, 2009, 07:10 PM // 19:10

Quad cores are nice for some apps. and for multi tasking, but I agree, they are not necessary for (almost all) current games.

Blackhearted · Jul 04, 2009, 09:21 AM // 09:21

I kinda of disagree with the whole "2 ghz is enough" bit if you're basing that solely off this article. Perhaps it is for an i7, but not all cpus are created equal, and not everyone has/will be buying an i7. A mere 2.0 GHZ cpu of a lower end chip(ex. athlon x2/pentium dual and maybe the oldest core 2's) is almost guaranteed to bottleneck most decent cards. Tests on the other cpus would likely prove that right, too.

riktw · Jul 04, 2009, 10:37 AM // 10:37

i have a quad core, and yes for most games its overkill as they use max 2 cores.
but if i am downloading, playing music and gaming that quad core is nice.

Kenzo Skunk · Jul 04, 2009, 10:54 AM // 10:54

For games one core is usually enough as long as you have powerful graphic cpu. But i use my quad core mainly for Maya and Real Flow, where it is essential to have raw processing power. It all depends on what are you using your comp for.

rick1027 · Jul 05, 2009, 07:42 AM // 07:42

i have to disagree i think if you got the money go ahead and buy one there will be a time when our games will run on it so why limit yourself now and i believe i have a game that wouldnt run on a 2ghz processor cause my old machine was a 2 ghz and its why i had to upgrade. i see games of the near future being able to utilize the triple and quad core procesors plus im a major multitasker.

Evil Genius · Jul 06, 2009, 02:16 AM // 02:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kuntz

I'd start off with two 4890 OC's:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814102831

No, that would be a waste on a 22inch monitor with a 1680 by 1050 resolution. A single 4890 would be good enough for that resolution. However, if it has a resolution of 1920 by 1080 then two would be okay, still plenty.

Quote:

And plan to buy 1 or 2 more within the next 18 months.

I wouldn't "plan" to do anything of the sought considering these purchases depend on what games he/she plays (i.e. few games would benefit from more than 2 4890s), and technology changes so it may be better to sell and buy a completely new card than just throw more 4890s in.

Quote:

The i7 was designed primarily to run 4 GPU's and be used for benchmarking. It will not run games or Windows any faster than say an AMD 720 Triple-Core.

I think it is foolish to make this claim based on that one set of data when other data suggests Core i7 does improve gaming performance and there would be significant benefits over the AMD 720 in some games.

Brett Kuntz · Jul 06, 2009, 03:33 AM // 03:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evil Genius

No, that would be a waste on a 22inch monitor with a 1680 by 1050 resolution. A single 4890 would be good enough for that resolution. However, if it has a resolution of 1920 by 1080 then two would be okay, still plenty.

I wouldn't "plan" to do anything of the sought considering these purchases depend on what games he/she plays (i.e. few games would benefit from more than 2 4890s), and technology changes so it may be better to sell and buy a completely new card than just throw more 4890s in.

I think it is foolish to make this claim based on that one set of data when other data suggests Core i7 does improve gaming performance and there would be significant benefits over the AMD 720 in some games.

Unless you plan on bringing data to the table your post falls on deaf ears.

Improvavel · Jul 06, 2009, 08:27 PM // 20:27

Most data by reputable sites like anandtech or guru3d shows that AMD Phenom 2 X3 and X4 and Core2Quad hold their ground against the i7. Actually one of the best bargains atm is the Phenom 2 X3 as there seems to be apparently some advantages to run a tricore over a dual core, but the move from 3 to 4 cores don't seem to make much difference.

The key factor in here is the price (x3 is a bargain) and how fast will games that use 3 and 4 cores be the standard.

A X3 + a powerful GPU will be superior to the same amount of money used for a quadcore + GPU (that will have to be inferior or the old pack will be more expensive).

All of this for gaming of course.

Heavily clocked i7 seems to be the platform of choice for tri sli or higher multiple card configurations though.

For single GPU makes no sense to go for i7.

Fast dual cores like the intel E8x00 series could still win this except they are more expensive than the x3.