[QUOTE="CreasianDevaili"][QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"][QUOTE="Spybot_9"][QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"] You call yourself an enthusiasts but you have a E8400... is it just me or is there something wrong with that sentence?
Bebi_vegeta
I am afraid it is just you.:?As long as games dont start running beter with quad cores,the E8400 is a high-end enthusiast level CPU.You dont have to spend a grand on a CPU to be called an "enthusiast" when a $200 one gives you 95% as much performance.
WHAT? The enthusiasts level would of been getting quad core... that's the bottom line... geting Qx6800 or today's Qx9650. CPU's with unlocked multiplier. The enthusisasts is all about jumping on the boat of the highest end and benchmarking.
Some games do run better with quad cores and that's all it matter for the enthusiast.
Very few get the 1k-1500usd quads in the enthusiasts. They would sooner use TEC and push a e8400 to 5ghz, or a Q9450 to 4ghz+. The enthusiasts want options and to make their machine unique. Pushing a e8400 and SLI/CF on water or more extreme cooling, volt mods, pencil mods, bios flashing, seeing how LOW of a multiplier with HIGH FSB can be handles by their motherboard are a few things that are considered achievements on that level.
Why dont you go over to hardocp and ocforums and tell them that unless they have a QX6800 or QX9650 or even the QX9770 they arent enthusiasts. Maybe even go to xtremesystems and tell the people with the e8400 who hit 4.5ghz+ if they were the real deal then they would have gotten a quad. Yet for gaming, which is the point of this thread, and 2560x1600 being a point of interest for the new generation of multi-gpu setups, a Q9450 OC'ed to 3.8ghz and a QX9770 would show NO IMPROVEMENTS in gaming.
Get the quad to 3.6ghz and the e8400 to 4ghz and run 2560x1600 and get back to me. When you notice how little the added cache helps on the yorks at such a high resolution get back to me. To think that you confuse a enthusiast with someone who just associated higher price with higher performance yields automatically is insulting.
The e8400 is the best out there for strict gaming all around with the ease of OCing on air. I am only gaming right now so this fits my high end perfectly. 2009 is when I will start using workstation rendering apps at home instead of just at school and that is why I am going with the nelhalem. The memory controller taken off the NB and put on the proc should make DDR3 really shine, which yet again, isnt up to snuff on current intel setups.
Am I the baddest mofo around for gaming? Not by a long shot. I am a smart shopper, that buys high performance parts when they fit my needs. I am going CF because when I built my machine I decided to go x38, when many told me on here that it wasnt worth it and to go p35. Well CF is getting very popular now and seems people are having issues with p35's 16x/4x CF configuration. I paid 200 bucks for my motherboard instead of 80 bucks and its paying off right now.
Most of us have some sort of understanding of our needs and wants, and plan ahead of time. I went with the flagship DualCore at the time because I got nothing and still recieve nothing from the Quads. I got it oc'ed 27%. AoC, a new mmorpg with multi-core support, couldnt even max it out by any means whatsoever.
Any pc gamer that buys premium parts, dosent have to be extreme editions, is a enthusiast. Anyone who takes something and expands it, such as OCing by a good degree, is a enthusiast. There is no point in buying something that will offer you no improvements and will be obsolete for what it strengths are within a year. Buying a baseline only of lowest denominator of your expectations is budget. Then you have mainstream. Then you have the high end, and finally the extremes.
This argument hasin't anything to do with the thread. So I am talking a little more then gaming capability here.
Doesnt the enthusiast like to benchmark a whole lot? Making a quad core better in alot of benchmarks?
As for exemple... 3dmark... The world record would be hold by the most enthusiasts of them all. Now, unlocked multiplier in general would alow you to clock higher if you have a fps wall... like some motherboard. So he would probably have a Qx9650 that's cooled by liquid hydrogene and so would be his SLI or CF setup.
But now that you say it... I guess it's true that there are many level or degres of enthusiast out there.
I have no clue why are talking about high resolution and associated it with CPU... it's way more GPU bound at that stage.
You can go crossfire if you want... but i'm not sure it's worth it (if you don't already own a ati card) when the Hd4870x2 should be better then crossfire HD4870.
If you have been paying attention then you would also notice that people are reporting that the 280gtx and 4870 in SLI or CF really open up at 2560x1600. Also that people are doing tests and are noticing CPU is bottlenecking the systems even at 1920x1200. That is unless your hitting the extreme quad clocks of around 3.8-4ghz which takes both a good binned chip and motherboard to achieve. Most, even with water, do NOT hit 4ghz on a Q6600. If they even do, then the volts are often so high that they only do it for bench runs and not for long gaming sessions.
3Dmark06 highest scores were usually obtained from a quad and x2900XT in Crossfire. However in gaming the 8800GTX, which would score a good bit lower, was outright better for real world performance and domination. Do you not think the 3dmark06 suicide runs usually resulting in fried parts are extreme, and past just the high end?
Why about the 2560x1600 and CPU? Because I wanted to stop the idea that, and you seem to agree with this reply, that a Qx9770 would somehow give a benefit. If you've spent 1500usd on a proc, most chances are you got a 30 inch monitor that costs about the same. In this case, then your native resolution is 2560x1600. At your extremly high resolution that QX9770 plays a much lesser role in performance than if you had a 24 or lower monitor. So for real world performance it was a waste of money. Just because it looks good on paper or artificial benchmarks dosent mean it will mean much in real world performance gains. The money saved could have gotten a better cooling setup, sound system, or funded materials to do a complete home chasis build on your own.
Then for benchmark numbers, people run 1280x1024 to get the highest number prior. However it is becoming more and more common, and needed on the new gpu, to run it at around 1920x1200 to let the 280gtx SLI or 4870 CF remove the lower resolution CPU bottleneck. If you check around you will see that most are saying you want around 3.8ghz for quad, 4ghz+ for DualCore, to remove the bottleneck to get the highest benchmark in 3dmark06 on the new multi-gpu setups.
So good Ocing on a Q9450 with 4870 CF or Qx9770 with the 4870 CF is not going to remove the reality of 2560x1600. Both of those quads can reach the clocks needed to remove bottlenecks on lesser resolutions, but your just keeping the muzzle on your GPU setup. Alot of potential waste. I would prefer for gaming to get 4ghz on a e8400, run 2304x1440 with 4870 CF and spend the money saved vs a Intel Extreme cpu on something else. Such as putting it away for the expensive as hell nehalem coming in 09 for desktop users.
I also am unsure what setup i will go. Maybe 4870CF, 4870x2, or even Super RV770 CF. Once all of them are out I will make a decision. If a CPU comes out that costs 600 dollars that will give me real world benefits then I will buy it if it relates to what I actually use my pc for. You know why i didnt spend a extra 80 dollars for the DQ6 and instead got a 200 dollar DS4? Because the DQ6 has a back plate for the NB that requires needless work, warranty death, and overall issues if I want to use my own 3rd party cooler. I buy premium parts, when they benefit me. I buy mainstream parts to save the difference and put the money saved back for next generation parts that I feel will serve me better.
Log in to comment