Core2duo > i7 ????

[Guest]

Hey i just found a benchmark on google check it out:

now do you think its useless to wast our precious money and build a high end pc with an i7 processor????

Please comment and correct me if im wrong.....Thanks

 

[WR2]

Another chart from the same Jan 2009 article which can be found here.

 

[Lmeow]

I'm just supposing Fallout 3 isn't as multi-threaded which is why the higher clock speed of the E8400, E8500 and E8600 ran the game faster.

 

[enzo matrix]

I'm just supposing Fallout 3 isn't as multi-threaded which is why the higher clock speed of the E8400, E8500 and E8600 ran the game faster.

Do you all seriously consider 0.4-2.1 FPS faster not within the margin of error of the test? Obviously the CPU is not the limiting factor in these benchmarks. I mean look, it shows the 2.66GHz core 2 E8200 beating out the 2.83GHz core 2 quad Q9550 (referencing the first graph). By 0.2 FPS. Are you trying to tell me that that means anything? Are you trying to tell me that the reviewers, or even windows for that matter, are able to achieve 100% the exact same conditions every time the test is run? They do their best, but there is certainly a margin of error, especially when changing from one platform (1366,775,AM3) to another where the motherboard and chipset has to be different.

 

[Blckhaze]

This made me laugh a little.

I get various results on benchmarks if I try to run them like say after I close Iexplorer, or itunes, or if i just get done with a different benchmark. I also get different results if I run a benchmark multiple times as it seems to turn stable and produce higher ratings after a few runs.

 

[user 18]

Also, on modern (LCD) monitors, anything above 60 fps is not displayable, because that is the maximum refresh rate on the monitors. On the first chart, anything other than the lowest two chips are more than good enough to run perfectly. The i7 beats the 60fps by 45%, a perfectly reasonable amount. In the second chart, all of the i7 chips shown beat the mark, and only 2 other chips are able to join them.

 

[enzo matrix]

Also, on modern (LCD) monitors, anything above 60 fps is not displayable, because that is the maximum refresh rate on the monitors. On the first chart, anything other than the lowest two chips are more than good enough to run perfectly. The i7 beats the 60fps by 45%, a perfectly reasonable amount. In the second chart, all of the i7 chips shown beat the mark, and only 2 other chips are able to join them.

That has nothing to do with what can be benchmarked. You are also forgetting about LCD monitors greater than 60Hz.

 

[user 18]

If I was off topic, than I apologize. I was simply trying to point out that benchmarks do not always reflect real world performance, and a lower scoring benchmark may be just as good as a higher one.

 

[enzo matrix]

If I was off topic, than I apologize. I was simply trying to point out that benchmarks do not always reflect real world performance, and a lower scoring benchmark may be just as good as a higher one.

Sorry, I didn't mean to give the impression I didn't like what you said or something. It's a forum, you can say whatever you want within the forum rules. And I do agree. Though we are no given minimum framerates. I quite like the sites that give the average FPS in one bar and the minimum in another right beside it.

 

[gamerk316]

Fallout 3 isn't the most threaded game out there, so the higher clocked Duo's can pull ahead. Still, given that i7 is much more efficent clock for clock, even at lower speeds, i7 will be faster.

That, and try looking at BF:BC2 running on a duo/Quad/i7. Some games use multiple CPU's well, others don't.