New Build I5/i7?

[Austin3334]

Looking to build a new system for under $1500.
I almost went with an i7 920 but before i purchased it the i5 came out so im confused on what to do now.
In my i7 setup i had a gtx275 but with the i5 i could get the 285gtx.
Im just looking for a gaming pc no rendering etc...
what would you'll consider in the long run?

 

[bz2klag]

It appears that if you want multi GPU and/or the most extreme performance at any cost
then go socket 1366 (i7-920).

Socket 1156 (i5 or i7-850, i7-860) only provides 16 pci-e ver 2 lanes, and does 1 card
at 16x or 2 cards at 8x each.

I'm sure there are other differences, but that appears to be the biggest difference
between the two choices.

 

[Boulard83]

If you plan on Multi GPU ( SLI GTX275 ) i wil recommend X58. But for mainly gaming and even with a SLI GTX275, an I5 ( P55 ) can do it.

You can buy a I5 with a GTX275 that is way enough for any games on HIGH or VERY HIGH. The P55 is still capable of SLI but 8x8x ( lots reviews show a very very tiny tiny advantage to 16x16x but its small + )

If you dont plan on encoding, rendering and any MEM BANDWITH needing application, stick to I5 and youll be very happy !

 

[Sunburn74]

I think what confuses a lot of people is this

clock for clock, the i7 920 is faster

however, turbo with the i5 is significantly better than with the i7 920. So if you're using stock settings with turbo enabled (as in all the tests done by various reviewers), the i5 is better. But if you are overclocking manually and turning off turbo, the 920 should win.

 

[Alien432]

i7 860/870 have Hyper Threading and Turbo boost. I'd pick the 860 over the i5 750. for about $80/90 difference. Then again 920 D0 at MC is $199 but P55 boards are generally cheaper than x58. I got a 920 now with i7 860 and Asus Maximus III formula on the way. So I will be able to let you know better next week which is better for gaming. My 920 though is just really FAST ! It's going to be a brawl. Let the best processor win.

 

[Deleted member 94297]

Well, i5's... you can't upgrade them later. So i'd wait for i9 and pick i7/i9. Any with 1366.

 

[Boulard83]

Well, i5's... you can't upgrade them later. So i'd wait for i9 and pick i7/i9. Any with 1366.

1156 and 1366 are 2 new socket ... i dont think that intel will let the I5 socket die this fast ...

EDIT : typo !

 

[Xstatic]

1156 ans 1366 and 2 new socket ... i dont think that intel will let the I5 socket die this fast ...

I wouldn't bet against it though.

 

[Austin3334]

K il probly just go with the i5 since im just gaming. and you say the 275 is good enough for now? im sure il buy a new card in like 6 months to a year anyways so id rather save the money. im not a big fan of sli plus after lookin at the benchmarks for i5 it barely improves performance.

 

[Sunburn74]

Take from it what you will. This is a preview of an anandtech article soon to be released. Essentially when you control for clock speed (ie through overclocking), its clear which chip is superior. Most reviews of the i5-750 gave it an unfair advantage by allowing turbo to play a role. Whilst if you're comparing stock speeds its fair, but to the overclocker, it means nothing. The picture above is much more representative of what the average overclocker would see in terms of performance.

 

[adelphia83]

Take from it what you will. This is a preview of an anandtech article soon to be released. Essentially when you control for clock speed (ie through overclocking), its clear which chip is superior. Most reviews of the i5-750 gave it an unfair advantage by allowing turbo to play a role. Whilst if you're comparing stock speeds its fair, but to the overclocker, it means nothing. The picture above is much more representative of what the average overclocker would see in terms of performance.

You're deliberately singling out a benchmark that favors HT enabled CPU's. In the majority of applications, there is no discernable difference, even in benchmarks. The loss of one of the memory channels doesn't affect real world performance either, only in synthetic benchmarks.

I'm sure if I picked the right benchmark, with your logic, I could "prove" that a Phenom II Quad core can beat a Core 2 Quad or i7.

We're bound to see more of these types of replies from users who ponied up serious money for a Socket 1366 processor in order to justify the added cost.

 

[Evilsizer]

You're deliberately singling out a benchmark that favors HT enabled CPU's. In the majority of applications, there is no discernable difference, even in benchmarks. The loss of one of the memory channels doesn't affect real world performance either, only in synthetic benchmarks.

I'm sure if I picked the right benchmark, with your logic, I could "prove" that a Phenom II Quad core can beat a Core 2 Quad or i7.

We're bound to see more of these types of replies from users who ponied up serious money for a Socket 1366 processor in order to justify the added cost.

he might have but if you look even with HT disabled. i5/[email protected] is still faster then the AMD Quad [email protected]. it is ironic to see both i7 860 and i7 920 at the same time for rendering. DMI buss being slower the i7 920 with QPI should have been a bit faster. im not saying alot faster but it should be a bit faster.

check out my post here with some other benches. sometime next week i will have a i7 860, i could try to compare the two. though i dont feel it would be fair since the 920 rig has raid-0 SSD's. my test drive is a seagate 80gig, i have had for years.