Nvidia Says Core i7 Isn't Worth It
Nvidia would prefer that you spend your money on GPUs rather than CPUs
The Intel Core i7 chip is an awesome CPU – this we know. If we were to build a gaming rig, we’d want to have one of these inside it. But Nvidia is telling everyone that the CPU isn’t everything.
Intel claims that gaming performance goes up by 80 percent when you use a Core i7 chip. This impressed Nvidia’s technical marketing director Tom Petersen, who decided to take a closer look at Intel’s claim.
“I was impressed by that claim, and I was trying to figure out how they could possibly say such a thing, and it turns out that Intel is basing that claim on only 3DMark Vantage’s CPU test.”
Of course, a CPU test is just that – to test the CPU. Peterson goes on to explain his view: “…it doesn’t actually measure gameplay, it doesn’t actually measure anything about game performance. Sure enough, if you do that test you will see Core i7 running faster, but I think it’s a little disingenuous to call that game performance.”
Peterson then transitioned to an example that would further his case that Core i7 isn’t the clear superior choice for the gaming PC. He compared two systems, calling the Core i7 965-based one a “Hummer,” and likening the one with a Core 2 Duo E8400 to a BMW.
Nvidia showed benchmark graphs of various systems running Crysis Warhead, Fallout 3, Call of Duty: World at War and Far Cry 2 at 1920 x 1200 (no AA or AF). According to bit-tech.net, the Core 2 Duo E8400 and a GeForce GTS 250 scored an average of 41.6 fps. The frame rate moved slightly up to 42.4 fps after upgrading to a Core i7 965, but jumped all the way up to 59.4 fps after upgrading to a GeForce GTX 260 (216 stream processors) SLI setup.
Here we have a case where the games running at 1920 x 1200 are fillrate-bound rather than CPU. A faster CPU did little to make things better for the GPU, but upgrading to a significantly stronger 3D acceleration setup opened up the headroom for more frames.
Peterson acknowledges that at high-resolutions, it’s smarter to spend on buying more fillrate: “…it is a fact, that when you’re gaming and you’re running at resolutions of 1920 x 1200 or better, the Core 2 Duo is perfect for running all of today’s games. In real gaming, there’s no difference between a Core i7 and a Core 2 Duo.”

Well intel's stats were bs, and nvidia could have probably done a less weighted benchmark in their favor, but they are telling the truth, in many game situations a core 2 duo/quad is just a few frames slower than the much more expensive i7..of course rts and flight sim games may show more cpu difference but at least nvidia is showing an example of what is true for the most part in many popular titles
I see no point in buying the fastest / most expensive hardware of any kind since performance/price ratio goes to hell once you're past the mainstream segment.
Idiots. It doesn't even make sense.
Well intel's stats were bs, and nvidia could have probably done a less weighted benchmark in their favor, but they are telling the truth, in many game situations a core 2 duo/quad is just a few frames slower than the much more expensive i7..of course rts and flight sim games may show more cpu difference but at least nvidia is showing an example of what is true for the most part in many popular titles
I disagree with this statement, the hummer of today is slow, wastes gas, any is pretty much a glorified minivan. The i7 on the other hand is fast, lightweight, outperforms it's competition, etc. Though still pricey and not quite worth getting one yet. My opinion at least.
I do agree that the gpu is more important in gaming, but Nvidia really seemed to be belittling the core i7.
I see no point in buying the fastest / most expensive hardware of any kind since performance/price ratio goes to hell once you're past the mainstream segment.
Cmon Nvidia, just because you can't even yet build a x86 processor you go banging about how a fast CPU is uninmportant. This maybe is a hint about their upcoming CPU performance. Pathetic.
So while the GPU may be important for gaming, the CPU is still important for other applications which may be resource intensive.
With my Core i7 system, I find that I am able to do a whole lot more with it than I could with previous systems.
Maybe Nvidia would prefer that software authors create programs that would rely entirely on the GPU such as that Russian De-Cryption program that uses the GPU to crack encryptions faster than previously thought possible?
Unless you're using a quad SLI setup, running crysis at 2560 x 1600, the CPU will not be the "bottle" neck.
Regardless of what you fanboys think, this is no surprise to PC enthusiast. A GPU makes up 70-80% of gaming performance. the other 20-30% comes from your CPU and ram combine.
Core i7 920 *$280* + x58 mobo *$250* +DDR 3 triple channel ram set = $100
Core2Duo E8400 *$170* + 780i mobo *$150* + DDR2 duel channel set = $50
You save around 250 bucks going with core2duo. Now consider that if you're on a budget and were going to just buy a cheap ol GTS 500 or 8800 GT for around $100 to go with your i7 set up. If you took that extra 250 bucks and went with a core2duo set up with a GTX 285, or SLI GTX 260 core 216 GPU's, you'll have spent the exact same amount of cash, but you'll have a rig that will get MUCH MUCH higher FPS in just about every single game out there.
CPU / RAM are always really small improvements as opposed to a GPU upgrade. GPU > CPU + RAM. Very simple equation when considering how to build a gaming rig.
Personally I want the best, so I'm running a 920 i7 + EVGA Classified + 2 GTX 275's with 6GB of DDR3 1600 ram. But thats because I have cash to burn. lol. But the point of the article was clear and true. GPU's are far more important than CPUs when it comes to gaming.