how does a core i7 feels like?

[Sk3]

I"m curious.  Is the user experience any different from a core 2 due 2.2?  Do you feel applications and menu are more responsive?  

By overclocking my i7 930 from 2.8 Ghz to 3.6 Ghz I actually improved my frame rates on Performance Test 7.0's Complex 3D graphics test from 65 fps to 80 fps and from 44 fps to 50 fps on DirectX 10 testing. So I figure if I'm getting better frame rates by simply overclocking this already fast CPU, then just imagine how big a difference it'd be to go from a Core2 Duo 2.2 to a Core i7.

Check out Passmark.com for CPU benchmark comparisons. If you download their program you get to download other people's benchmarks so you can get an idea of how well they do compared to yours, or compared to your ideal setup. This is how I made the decision on what I wanted, because even though the Phenom II x6 1055T was rated about the same as the Core i7 930, the Core i7 930 utilizies Triple Channel memory, this actually helping improve frame rates if you're an enthusiast PC gamer like me.



I actually made a thread that's related to your question, you can check it out here: http://www.pebhmong.com/forum/index.php/topic,188688.0.html

[beester]

By overclocking my i7 930 from 2.8 Ghz to 3.6 Ghz I actually improved my frame rates on Performance Test 7.0's Complex 3D graphics test from 65 fps to 80 fps and from 44 fps to 50 fps on DirectX 10 testing. So I figure if I'm getting better frame rates by simply overclocking this already fast CPU, then just imagine how big a difference it'd be to go from a Core2 Duo 2.2 to a Core i7.

Check out Passmark.com for CPU benchmark comparisons. If you download their program you get to download other people's benchmarks so you can get an idea of how well they do compared to yours, or compared to your ideal setup. This is how I made the decision on what I wanted, because even though the Phenom II x6 1055T was rated about the same as the Core i7 930, the Core i7 930 utilizies Triple Channel memory, this actually helping improve frame rates if you're an enthusiast PC gamer like me.



I actually made a thread that's related to your question, you can check it out here: http://www.pebhmong.com/forum/index.php/topic,188688.0.html

You are talking about benchmarks only. Sure, you can see the difference on benchmarks, but can you tell a difference while surfing or doing whatever it is that you are doing on a day to day basis? I highly doubt that, unless you are doing a lot of video converting and compressing of files. There really are no games out there that will max your cpu out if you only have a 24" or smaller monitor. Also, I would rather save my money and buy a better video card than spend the money on an expensive cpu.

[Sk3]

You are talking about benchmarks only. Sure, you can see the difference on benchmarks, but can you tell a difference while surfing or doing whatever it is that you are doing on a day to day basis? I highly doubt that, unless you are doing a lot of video converting and compressing of files. There really are no games out there that will max your cpu out if you only have a 24" or smaller monitor. Also, I would rather save my money and buy a better video card than spend the money on an expensive cpu.

A benchmark means exactly just that, a benchmark. How well your computer does compared to others. You'll never know if yours is actually keeping up with others or doing poorly unless you actually know what the benchmarks are. That's why benchmark tests are important, and as far as I can see on the internet, Passmark.com has more than enough submissions to convince me on which parts are the best buy out there. Their benchmark program allows me to see what kind of frame rates my current CPU/Video Card gets compared to others. Now because I like PC games, this is important because I like to play the latest games at full graphic settings.

Tom's Hardware actually made of note of what you prefer to do by using a $75 CPU paired with different graphics card including the best then, Radeon HD 5870. They tested if getting a better CPU actually makes a difference in real world gaming experiences with Crysis, World in Conflict, and other graphic demanding PC games. They tested an AMD Athlon II x3 440 vs an Intel Core i7 920 using the exact same graphics cards. The conclusion was simple, the AMD does just fine if you don't play PC games that pump out some hardcore 3D graphics but if you plan on playing max settings in World in Conflict or Crysis then yes a nice CPU will make a difference. Their article proves that Passmark.com's benchmark program is actually accurate in telling how your system will do (at least here in terms of gaming).

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/athlon-ii-x3-440-gaming-performance,2619.html

[beester]

U are saying buy i5 and i3 right and dump the i7 because it's too expensive?  That's the going trend for peeps who are building cost effective systems.

I'm saying buy anything within your budget. I only build AMD computers, but that's just me. You can build anything you want, as long as you have the money.

[Sk3]

U are saying buy i5 and i3 right and dump the i7 because it's too expensive?  That's the going trend for peeps who are building cost effective systems.

The cheapest i3 is at $115, at that price the AMD Athlon II x4 630 actually performs better and for $20 less.

I definitely take pride in building both types of setups though. High end, and most cost effective.

[ztommyx]

i'm running on my new set up at i5 750 2.66ghz as we speak (did not tweak it yet)

i'm not a gamer but do use it for cs5 and other graphic design programs.
did not notice much difference (if any at all) from my old set up - core 2 duo 3.xx