Why Shouldn't I Go For A Core I7?

[madu]

Hey guys,

 

I'm literally pulling my hair out over this... I've gone through lot of configurations during last month or so.. I'm getting the parts on 28th this month...

Anyways I was totally set on this config:

 

Q9550

Asus P5Q Deluxe

G.Skill DDR2-1066 4GB

GTX 260/216 or HD4870

 

Now I was reading again about the Core i7 platform, and I wan thinking what the heck!! should I go for it?

It would cost me roughly $150 more... I have this config in mind:

 

Core i7 920

Asus P6T Deluxe

RAM: Anything I can get for around $180

GTX 260/216 or HD4870

 

You guys would why wonder I need to fuss so much... it is because there is a pretty good chance that I will not be able to upgrade this rig for another year..probably 1.5 years or more... I could upgrade a part or two but not the whole thing...

So I want to get it right this time...

 

I want to know what you guys think.. is it worth..?

I wont be doing any 3D rendering or anything that is high profile... games.. yes... will encode a movie here and there but no biggies...

I really would want to do multitasking, like downloading while unzipping while browsing and a movie too in the background... but nothing the Q9550 cannot handle..

 

So I guess what I really want to ask is, will Core i7 give me better value in the longer run... is it worth to have it for the coming year or two?

or there is no big use of getting it?

 

Thanks lot guys...

Any suggestion is greatly appreciated...

[The Smith]

First, you'll get s1366 and DDR3, so yes it will be more upgradable on the long run than the s775/DDR2 configuration.

 

But in gaming, the performance gain is almost absent.

 

One thing that you need to take into account though, is that the Q9550 is clocked @ 2.83GHz and the i7 920 is @ 2.66GHz. So the Q9550 could even beat it in encoding, but I'm not sure on that, tests should be run.

 

For gaming, since the extra memory bandwidth gives almost no gain, you'll be far better with a Q9550 because, once again, of the higher clock.

 

Good luck in all of that

[WhenKittensATK]

When both are overclocked the i7 920 should destroy the Q9550 OC'd in encoding, but this is like if your doing extreme encoding where it would be worth it. Stuff like DVDs or HD content with X264. I mean if your doing mpeg2 or even x264 a Q5550, it will be more than enough to do the task, but the i7 920 should be faster.

 

If your mainly a gamer, there isn't much use in an i7 right now. I opt'd out of it even though some weeks I just do non stop x264 enocdes on hd content (Didn't want to sit through the snore-fest from TigerDirect to try and buy 1 of the maybe very limited $150 i7 920s). I ordered a Q6600 instead which still when stock beats the hell out of my X2 3800+ @ 2.5 ghz at anything .

 

Save your money for something else, games that support quad core or multithreads are extremely low. Your Q9550 should last you a long time.

Edited December 6, 2008 by Krazyxazn

[troy5061]

Ive got a Q9450 (the Q9550s little brother) overclocked to 3.8ghz and it will be my CPU for the next two or three years to come. Its ridiculously fast. I didnt want to spend the extra on Nehalem.

Edited December 6, 2008 by troy5061

[ir_cow]

the slowest i7 (2.66ghz) beats the 775 extreme 3.2ghz quad in benchmarks. thats saying something!

[troy5061]

In synthetic benchmarks and rendering/editing it does but like said above in gaming there is virtually no difference. So think of it this way.

 

 

If you use your computer for work get i7.

 

If your a gamer get C2D/C2Q and save some $$$.

[madu]

Thanks heaps for your replies guys.

Its just that, I think, should I really save a 100 bucks on something that I will be using for a couple of years? or should I just spend that and get the best I could for my money.

I will not be doing much rendering, but I will be doing a lot of unrar'ing and will be running a VM (VirtualBox)... I'm not sure if the i7 will give better performance when I have a VM running too...

 

Thanks a again for the replies guys. Maybe I'll just save the bucks... if you guys know any other real pros of going for a i7 please let me know...

I'd also like to know if there is any risk in getting the first batch of CPU/Chipset/Mobo of a completely new platform?

 

Cheers.

Edited December 6, 2008 by madu

[ir_cow]

winrar doesnt even use 1 core fully and virtualbox loves ram and will be fine with any quadcore. in my option the only reason to spend the extra 150 is 1-2 years down the road when socket 775 is dead you can easily upgrade your ram since i'm sure it will still be DDR3 and cheaper and get maybe an 6-8core cpus which is on the lineup for 2010.

 

 

socket 775 is a dead end, DDR2 and 3.2ghz 45nm quad core is the highest you're going to see and all thats already out. on the other side getting 8gb of ddr2 cost me under $100 so if make a cheap build and just replace the board in a year or 2 thats most of cost.

[guzzidom]

The same surely goes for whether to bother with quad core for primarily gaming though doesn't it?, anE8400, E8500 or E8600 clocked to 4.2ghz (easily achieved) is going to give that much more in games due to the sheer speed, re the OCC review of the E8400, at stock speeds there wasn't a lot the quads got ahead on, and sometimes then not by much.

 

I just hate the thought of a couple of cores just sitting there doing nothing when you could have a full 8ghz and 6mb of cache fully utilised.

 

Like Horny sez, build a nice fast 775/ DDR3 rig (Asus P5Q-3?) and then in a year or two when the I7's are commonplace and cheap change the mobo and cPU.

Edited December 6, 2008 by guzzidom

[Zertz]

It'll be faster in pretty much everything, just by more or less depending on applications. Games certainly won't exploit the added power + memory bandwidth, but processor intensive stuff like encoding will.

[politbureau]

I don't know what to say except everyone here is right - I have both a QX9770 and a 'low end' i7 920, and at 3.8GHz, they both perform roughly identical in games.... +/-3FPS or so in Crysis.

 

However for $150, i7 certainly has the better value, and personally I wouldn't hesitate to upgrade. Your future upgrade options will be essentially limitless, overclockability is exceptional, and the x58 platform is really robust.

 

As a side note, I wouldn't rule out the Gigabyte UD5 board. While the Asus is probably more straightforward, the gigabyte has more tweaking options in the bios, and is compatible with Tri-SLI if you even decide to go that route. The slot layout of the Asus only supports 2x SLI.

[JBags]

However for $150, i7 certainly has the better value,

 

wasn't the i7 920 for $150 only via phone from tigerdirect on black friday??