Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

Which combonation is the best for gaming?

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share
November 12, 2009 8:55:31 PM

I've decided to upgrade my computer. I've got a nice case, 700W PSU, and cpu cooler. I'm going to order a 5850 since I only game at 1680x1050. I'm trying to decide what processor, motherboard, and RAM to go with now. I've narrowed it down to a few choices. With all deals/rebates considered, I can the following combonations. I do plan to overclock, but I probably won't crossfire. Which looks best for gaming? How different will the performance be between them?

Intel i7 920 with 6GB of RAM for $520
Intel i7 860 with 4GB of RAM for $440
AMD X4 955 BE with 4GB of RAM for $385

All will use DDR3 RAM, decent motherboards, and be paired with a velociraptor and 5850.

More about : combonation gaming

November 12, 2009 8:59:59 PM

i7 920 uses LGA1366 m/b. And is Intels choice for future CPUs etc.
i7 860 uses LGA1156 m/b, and has no upgrade path.
AMD? NO Clue, I stick with Intel.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 12, 2009 9:13:53 PM

LGA 1156 is a new socket and definitely has an upgrade path, you just won't be able to drop in a six-core processor... like anyone needs a six-core processor.

I'd look at the benchmarks and see how much of a difference there is between the Phenom and the i7s in gaming... is it worth the money to you?
If I had the cash I'd go with the i7 920, if I didn't I'd go with the Phenom.
m
0
l
Related resources
November 12, 2009 9:26:15 PM

Thanks for the replies.

I know the 920 has the brightest future for upgradibility. Will the 1156 socket be in the next mainsteam line of intels? Does anyone know when 32nm quads will hit the shelves? Will AMD's next line of processors be on the AM3 platform?

There is only $80 from the 920 to the 860, and only $135 from the 920 to thee 955. It doesn't seem like that much money when you consider the 8 threads, triple channel RAM, overclocking, and the upgradiblity of the i7 920. But the gaming benchmarks show practically no improvement between them. Will this change with future games or is the i7 920 just not good for gaming?
m
0
l
November 12, 2009 9:28:43 PM

Sincerely, for gaming purpose, going with AMD gives you more money to spend on graphic card(s) which is a good thing.

Get yourself an Asus M4a78T-E and a 955. For that resolution, you will see no benefit at all to spend your money with Intel.

If you don't plan to crossfire 2 5850 or 2 4890, you will not see any difference between the 2 system... but your wallet will.
m
0
l
a c 131 à CPUs
November 12, 2009 9:36:53 PM

I agree with redgarl. Unless you crossfire those high end cards, no performance difference in gaming. Plus AMD is mostly backwards compatible. Their next generation of CPUs could very well work on their current AM3 socket.

But if you do decide to go intel, go socket 1366. If you decide to upgrade from core i7 in the future, only 1366 will support the i9 or future derivatives that are better than i7.
m
0
l
November 12, 2009 9:41:18 PM

Dougx1317 said:
Thanks for the replies.

I know the 920 has the brightest future for upgradibility. Will the 1156 socket be in the next mainsteam line of intels? Does anyone know when 32nm quads will hit the shelves? Will AMD's next line of processors be on the AM3 platform?

There is only $80 from the 920 to the 860, and only $135 from the 920 to thee 955. It doesn't seem like that much money when you consider the 8 threads, triple channel RAM, overclocking, and the upgradiblity of the i7 920. But the gaming benchmarks show practically no improvement between them. Will this change with future games or is the i7 920 just not good for gaming?


The problem is that you need to pay an extra for a third stick of memory, a huge amount for a utterly expensive motherboard and a extra for the cpu caliber.

To tell you the truth, when it comes to gaming, the difference between AMD and Intel isn't so impressive... but the price is.

Going LGA1366 will make you shed around 250$ more than with AMD.
Going LGA1156 will be around 100$ more than AMD.

Anyway, if you don't plan to put enough graphic horse power with your LGA1366, you will end up paying for nothing because you will gain no benefit.

Single GTX260 compared with each cpu.



m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 12, 2009 9:46:36 PM

This is a myth that 1156 is a "dead end", FOR LOL sakes they just released it, and its processors are some of the fastest on the market EVER. i7 860 with hyperthreading trounces a couple of I7 940-50 processors at half its cost. Lets say you never want to o/c and just use the aggressive turbo boost this chip gives you. Yes the road maps show the 6 core for the 1366 platform , but their is also a road map with 32nm processors for the 1156 platform. Possibly even a low priced very high mhz dual core to boot.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 12, 2009 10:03:54 PM

Who with a current 1156 cpu would want a high mhz dual core?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 12, 2009 10:17:41 PM

Possibly for the same illogical reasons implied that your average home user or even enthusiast is going to buy i7 920 processor and motherboard package probably at 279.00 and 180.00 (minimum) and then decide he is going to upgrade to a 6 core. The 6 core chip is probably going to be released at a lower mhz(per core) than what we see now. Thats just how the roadmaps evolve.

So the enthusiast is going to be trying to sell his old processor before buying new. And if intel ever released a 32 nm dual core factory clocked at 3.5 mhz and rumors of its o/c potential being much higher. You would see people give that a go, why not. Its oem where there is still a market for dual cores to.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 12, 2009 10:24:43 PM

I really don't see that happening tbh. In the future (if 1156 had one), yes perhaps dual cores could be good at low prices...but i3 already has that spot.

EDIT - What I mean is, nobody currently with 1156 bought it for that so it can't really be counted as an upgrade.
m
0
l
November 13, 2009 1:03:05 AM

Quote:
Anyway, if you don't plan to put enough graphic horse power with your LGA1366, you will end up paying for nothing because you will gain no benefit.

I have done enough research to know that Nvidia cards have issues when paired with the i7 920, but I agree that there is little or no difference in game benchmarks. One of the big questions is: Will this change in the future? When games are made that are optimized for 4 or perhaps 6 cores, will the 8 threads of the i7 920 be worth it? What about triple channel RAM? Isn't the i7 920 much more future proof with these add on's? Maybe it's not worth the whole $250 extra, but should it be considered?

Quote:
Unless you crossfire those high end cards, no performance difference in gaming.

If I were to get an additional 5850 in a year or so, would the i7 920 be able to perform better then? By how much?

Also, I've read that the AMD 955 can only get to about 3.7Ghz even with the unlocked multiplier, while the i7 920 can get up to 4.2Ghz fairly easily. Am I correct with these numbers?
m
0
l
a c 201 à CPUs
November 13, 2009 2:08:35 AM

The key issue here I think is choice and how often you upgrade your boxes. If you are going to stand pat with the box you build, then I'd say, go with the i5. If, as I do, you go for GFX upgrade and possibly CPU upgrade after 2 years, and multiple GFX cards are in your future, then the i7 gives options not available with the i5. The thing that is often ignored is that not only will there be more cores but history has shown us that next gen CPUs are always faster than their predecessors just like my son's 2.66 GHz i7 is many time faster than his 2.85 Ghz Pentium.

I haven't heard about any issues with the 920 and nVidia cards.....none from published and peer reviewed sources anyway. Though at this time I will say that ATI rules the roost so to speak however it's their 4xx series that take most of the price performance crowns. Only the 295 and 260 remain viable candidates in the link below. The 5770 was the only "winner" out of ATI's new line here in a 3 way tie w/ the NvIdia 260 and ATI 4870:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-graphics-card,...

But again, if you buying right now and yo're keeping th stuff for > 2 years, DX11 compatibility will weigh heavier than if you getting a new card on XMas 2011



m
0
l
November 13, 2009 3:24:53 AM

Quote:
The key issue here I think is choice and how often you upgrade your boxes.
Thank you for the great summary. I'm assuming that everything you said about the i5 is about the same issues as the Phenom. That is exactly what I'm trying to figure out. I generally keep my computers for at least 2-3 years, but I've haven't ever had multiple gpus. I'm not sure I'll even need a second 5850 in the next two years. The idea of the more powerful processor is very appealing, but I'm afraid that I'll regret spending $520 and $300 for a graphics card.
Quote:
I haven't heard about any issues with the 920 and nVidia cards

I'm having a hard time finding it now, but TH had an article on it. It was trying to figure out why the i7's had lower benchmarks than the weaker C2Q and Phenom CPU's with the 5xxx series. It may have been resolved, I don't know.
m
0
l

Best solution

a c 129 à CPUs
November 13, 2009 3:00:02 PM

This is only Part 1, but read this: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/build-balanced-plat...
Soon there will be one looking at AMD CPUs, and hopefully soon another with the HD5xxx cards in it. They should give you an idea of what you'll want. I like how the charts show the minimum-cost combinations. Note that they are using very high settings. You could get by with less if you are willing to lower settings even a little. If gaming is your only concern, I suspect that the cheapest solution will be just fine; that's the AMD one. If you will be doing things other than gaming, a mere $55 for an i7-860 will probably buy visibly better performance in OTHER things, or perhaps in specific, CPU intensive games.
Share
!