Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Intel x58 with Intel i7 processor

Last response: in Systems
Share
April 30, 2009 2:36:23 PM

Which intel DX58 motherboard would best work with the Intel i7 920 processor? I'm possibly looking to build a gaming PC for running Crysis on very high settings.
Also what video card would be best with the Intel DX58 motherboard and the i7 920 processor? I've never built a computer on my own or even watched someone else do it, is it very difficult?
Thanks for the insight guys!
April 30, 2009 2:46:17 PM

Well theres the Asus P6t, best out of all those versions is the deluxe v2.

or the EVGA x58 motheboard.


vid-card, depends on your budget mostly, in the $1200 range: 4870 1gb/gtx 260

$1400: 4890/gtx 275/gtx 285(mabye)

and these prices are without the monitor, with, it would be more.
April 30, 2009 3:09:33 PM

if it's just for gaming then i7 is the biggest waste of money you can ever have with PC's. get a Phenom II 940 and a Titan Fenrir cooler and OC as far as you can with it, should be about 3.8ghz+, or if you want DDR3 get a 955 and the same cooler, should OC to about 4ghz+ with the same cooler, it'll cost a bit more though.

and building a PC isn't really difficult, you can find guides on how to do it on the 'net.

there's only really three things you have to remember which aren't immediately obvious, 1) Plug the CPU fan in, 2) Plug the GFX card power connectors in, 3) don't bend any pins on the CPU.
Related resources
April 30, 2009 3:33:22 PM

Im sure no one just uses there pc, "for gaming" theres something called the internet and its addictive, movies, etc.

Nonsence, i7 is not a waste of money if you have the money to spend.

i7 out rates all phenom's in gaming including the newest 955.

the 955 with its combo's can be build + the OS for under $1k, because there budget builders.

April 30, 2009 7:49:02 PM

fullmetall said:
Im sure no one just uses there pc, "for gaming" theres something called the internet and its addictive, movies, etc.

Nonsence, i7 is not a waste of money if you have the money to spend.

i7 out rates all phenom's in gaming including the newest 955.

the 955 with its combo's can be build + the OS for under $1k, because there budget builders.



So you would recommend the i7 920 with the Intel dx58 motherboard for gaming? I would be using it for more than just gaming, but that would be the main purpose. I'd use it for some school work (writing papers, lite presentations with MS Office), and my daily internet routine of checking websites and sending e-mails. Other than that, I want a powerful gaming computer.
April 30, 2009 10:08:33 PM

asus p6T
May 1, 2009 3:22:00 AM

fullmetall said:
Im sure no one just uses there pc, "for gaming" theres something called the internet and its addictive, movies, etc.

Nonsence, i7 is not a waste of money if you have the money to spend.

i7 out rates all phenom's in gaming including the newest 955.

the 955 with its combo's can be build + the OS for under $1k, because there budget builders.

no, you must have misread this article: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/phenom-x4-955,2278....

as far as gaming goes, the 955 did perfectly fine. and for less money.
pshhh, and besides, youd have a Dragon platform and intel doesnt have any cool names for its platforms like that! jk, that has nothing to do with it.
but really, if it were me, AMD would be the way id go. price to performance, i7 just aint worth it.

-rambo117
May 1, 2009 5:25:29 AM

Actually, you would need the i7 and an X58 mobo if you wanted to do SLI. The AMD AM2+ and AM3 chipsets only support CrossFire.

If you wanted to just use a single GPU, or a single card with 2X GPUs, then you could also save money with a Q9550 CPU and P45 mobo. It will trade blows with the AMD 955.
May 1, 2009 8:04:41 AM

fullmetall said:
Im sure no one just uses there pc, "for gaming" theres something called the internet and its addictive, movies, etc.

Nonsence, i7 is not a waste of money if you have the money to spend.

i7 out rates all phenom's in gaming including the newest 955.

the 955 with its combo's can be build + the OS for under $1k, because there budget builders.


+1 for that post.
May 1, 2009 1:11:00 PM

Seems as if people that posted against i7 dont see what there missing and are just AMD heads and dont care much for Intel.

Got to look at both sides, not just one.

Also, if they were smart enough on AMD's side, they would have made the 955 a way better cpu than it is.

All it is, is a x4 940 overclocked and called an am3 socket type against the x4 940's am2+...


and Cost: $245 against $288....
May 1, 2009 2:00:27 PM

fullmetall said:
Seems as if people that posted against i7 dont see what there missing and are just AMD heads and dont care much for Intel.

Got to look at both sides, not just one.

Also, if they were smart enough on AMD's side, they would have made the 955 a way better cpu than it is.

All it is, is a x4 940 overclocked and called an am3 socket type against the x4 940's am2+...


and Cost: $245 against $288....

But, your missing the price/performance part of it. the only advantage the i7 has over the 955 is the fact that its better with multimedia. the i7 isnt as good as the 955 in gaming. as you could have noticed in the benchmarks.
on a price/performance ratio, youd save $40 and have one hell of a computer. this isnt out of fanboyism, this is whats best for the money. trust me, if intel's prices were at AMD level, id go intel.

sure, if youve got the money then dish it out on an i7, just saying as far as gaming goes, 955 is matched and sometimes even better than the i7
May 1, 2009 2:26:08 PM

i7 is the best for the money hah, your getting top performance for your money. 955 is basically a sploof for what they made it.

As prices continously drop, an i7 can be built for almost $100 less than an am3.

If the guy is wanting top performance and is showing he has the money, then give him his money worth.

As said before, if the OP is on a tight budget, ( this is for any OP ) then the am3/am2+ would be a better deal but, if they have the money, i would recommend the best for the person.
May 1, 2009 4:01:42 PM

I've seen way too many posts where people Say to go with Intel even when they know AMD have a better alternative for what they are doing for less.

also i7 will never be as cheap as AMD, for the general basic's of an am3 PC e.g CPU, motherboard, graphics card(if needed), memory, PSU, case, DVD-ROM, HDD, if all the controlled variables (memory, PSU, case, DVD-ROM, HDD)stay the same in each build, the AM3 build will cost about £100 less ex vat than the i7 build, and in most areas will perform just as well, take it down to an AM2+ build so the differences are memory, motherboard and CPU, you save another £50 ex vat.

For the money, unless your build is over $3500 an amd based build is the best for the money at the moment unless you are using multimedia programs. I'll go back to my last price comparison, that £150 difference is the difference between getting a 4870 and a 4870 X2, 6GB of ram and 16GB of ram, a 650w PSU and a 1000w PSU, the list goes on.
May 1, 2009 6:01:53 PM

Asus, Gigabyte and MSI have the most attractive and best boards i think. ASRock came out with a beast recently too...i would actually get that instead if i had the money.
May 1, 2009 6:15:14 PM

rambo117 said:
But, your missing the price/performance part of it. the only advantage the i7 has over the 955 is the fact that its better with multimedia. the i7 isnt as good as the 955 in gaming. as you could have noticed in the benchmarks.
on a price/performance ratio, youd save $40 and have one hell of a computer. this isnt out of fanboyism, this is whats best for the money. trust me, if intel's prices were at AMD level, id go intel.

sure, if youve got the money then dish it out on an i7, just saying as far as gaming goes, 955 is matched and sometimes even better than the i7

Computers are supposed to last right? The i7 920 is way more powerful than the AMD 955, so what happens when games use all four cores?
Developers are not sticking with dual core, when most people have switched over to quad.
AMD really did just rehash its older CPU, stick with the i7 if you don't want to upgrade in 1-2 years.
AMD is fine, but they don't have nearly the power the i7 does.
May 1, 2009 6:26:45 PM

computers are meant to last, whoever says that should be shot.

if you can make a silicon based computer last for more than 4 years and still run top-end current technology then i'd be amazed.

the i7 only has an enhancement in apps that can use 5+ threads, otherwise it loses, and by the time those apps come into mainstream gaming, AMD and Intel will have either moved onto 16 core 25nm processors or have moved to Graphene based processors.
May 1, 2009 6:40:52 PM

Intel is already moving to 16 cores....2010
May 1, 2009 10:20:33 PM

Helloworld_98 said:
computers are meant to last, whoever says that should be shot.

if you can make a silicon based computer last for more than 4 years and still run top-end current technology then i'd be amazed.

the i7 only has an enhancement in apps that can use 5+ threads, otherwise it loses, and by the time those apps come into mainstream gaming, AMD and Intel will have either moved onto 16 core 25nm processors or have moved to Graphene based processors.

I'm still using a dual core @ 3.0 GHz that can still run Crysis perfectly. Yeah, I might have to upgrade the GPU, maybe RAM, but the CPU stays the same.
That was my argument, CPUs last a lot longer, and I'm sure i7's will still be popular in 2013.
May 2, 2009 5:09:18 AM

radiowars said:
Computers are supposed to last right? The i7 920 is way more powerful than the AMD 955, so what happens when games use all four cores?
Developers are not sticking with dual core, when most people have switched over to quad.
AMD really did just rehash its older CPU, stick with the i7 if you don't want to upgrade in 1-2 years.
AMD is fine, but they don't have nearly the power the i7 does.

ok, now your missing this. when games start taking advantage of full fledged quadcores, they will MOST LIKELY take advantage of the highest core clock. which in this case would be 955 @3.2GHZ and the i7 920 @ 2.66GHZ
i think we know the winner there
and if the person is a total noob(no offence op if you dont overclock) and dont over clock, then the 955 is the way to go!
geez, what a way to underthink things.. not like theyre gonna start making games that take advantage of hyperthreading
May 2, 2009 7:42:16 AM

^
but when 8 cores comes into play i7 will still get ahead again if it's put against the 955.

and i7's OC further than 955's.
May 2, 2009 9:25:18 AM

AMD is inferior to Intel...case closed.
May 2, 2009 10:07:54 AM

not if AMD adds HyperThreading and gets to 28nm first.^
May 2, 2009 4:45:09 PM

Why_Me said:
AMD is inferior to Intel...case closed.

wow, what a well thoughtout statement...
AMD is slashing intel where it hurts them, the price/performance market. Intel is full of s*** and lies

and helloworld_98, how would you know if an i7 overclocks higher than a 955? i7's can barely get to 4GHZ on air.
May 2, 2009 5:34:30 PM

not D0's, they can hit 5ghz on air if you have a 975.

yeah, I know, holy ***.
May 2, 2009 8:51:22 PM

rambo117 said:
ok, now your missing this. when games start taking advantage of full fledged quadcores, they will MOST LIKELY take advantage of the highest core clock. which in this case would be 955 @3.2GHZ and the i7 920 @ 2.66GHZ
i think we know the winner there
and if the person is a total noob(no offence op if you dont overclock) and dont over clock, then the 955 is the way to go!
geez, what a way to underthink things.. not like theyre gonna start making games that take advantage of hyperthreading

Yeah, the higher clock. That's ALL that matters.
AMD loses to Intel in synthetics every time. Yeah sure, it's 40$ cheaper (if that) but you still have to buy DDR3 and a mobo for 200$. (Gigabyte x58s are cheaper). http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

Plus, games aren't the only thing to consider- don't be so narrow minded. People also use video/photo editing software and compressing files, etc. The i7 wins in that category.

Dual Cores are still powerful today (they lose to Quad Cores by MAYBE 4-5fps on average.) OC those suckers and you're getting the best performance for the cheapest price. Quad Cores will last for 5 years most likely- more than enough time to start saving for a new upgrade.
!