the point on logical upgrades is to have the second next generation...or else i dont care, neither logical people care... i had a pentium 4, then i upgraded to core 2 duo, then i took an i7...but...this SB doesnt offer anything new...i have 8 threads, what if i would upgrade to 8 core 16 threads...??? what's the point really..?? -many victims make intel rich company...idiotic shopping therapy...late 2011 beginning of 2012 will be out the "ivy bridge" a shrink down of sandy bridge at 22nm, the first will be 8 core(16threads)(Q4 2011), the second will be 16 core(32threads)(2012 Q1)... sometime, unknown release date, on 2012 we are gonna have DDR4...hahahaha:3eyes::3eyes::3eyes::3eyes: go buy SB, and bulldozers from AMD, you are gonna be crushed by the new 2012 releases...ddr4 with ivy bridge 16 core will overtake your whole system...dont mention the pciex 3.0 and 3.1...go to sleep...stay as you are... i really suggest you...do not be on hurry to take anything until Q4 2011... best regards, think smart people...:biggun:c1:
An upgrades value is relative to what you have now, unlike you I was smart enough to not buy a C2D and got a C2Q instead, so for me i7 was a waste, sandy bridge certainly is not. I have been waiting 3 years for a decent upgrade path. You think it's logical for people to wait another 2 years??? I have a gtx480, I am severely bottlenecked. Also what is the point of buying a 12/16 thread CPU, it used to be that software was ahead of the hardware, that is just not true anymore, you're better of buying a budget cpu each time than buying a high end setup and waiting 5 years for 'value' sake.
i agree...but for another 1 year, it's the double performance...8 core ddr3 -->> 16 core ddr4...double performance...not jokes... in your situation, it's ok...it will be a massive upgrade...and will stop bottlenecking your 480 gtx... it's not the how long you are going to wait...it's what you really ask for your hardware needs...
Yeah, I am planning from going to my Q6600 to a Sandy Bridge most likely. Hopefully I have enough income for it by then, I have recently started feeling handicapped in a few games where I got as low as 20 FPS.
I get what you're saying. But 2 years is a long time to wait, some people are still on dual cores, even people on these forums with 5970's etc...so not upgrading their CPU soon will mean they are essentially wasting their GPU upgrades. "but for another 1 year, it's the double performance" This is always true, 1-2 years after the next gen of cpus, there will be another big update, PC tech doesn't last forever, it all depends on how much of an increase from what you have now, to what you are buying is, and then factor in the price....and your tolerance for bottlenecks. Even my gtx280 had a bit of a cpu bottleneck. By your logic it would be more worthwhile to wait 5 years so you can get a 400% increase instead of 200%...of better yet, why not wait 8 years for an 800% increase so you can get more 'value', you see what I mean? You have to upgrade sometime, the time for me and all dual core users is now, the time for you is in a few years, if I had an i7 I would wait too.
Yeeeee Ppl will be able to run GTA IV@60FPS at Max Detail/Resolutions!รง Lol, Rockstar didn't lied. Hahaha But now, seriously, that is impressive! This chip gonna rock!
I thought they were going to lock overclocking on the 2011? Guess I thought wrong.. BRING ON THE 5GHZ!
They are kindly releasing one overpriced/non-gimped k-edition cpu per socket, Intel only ever cares about the consumers :S
if it didnt need a new board id prolly consider it and end up getting it cause of the must have issue. but having to by a new board eliminates that possibility. highend boards are still too pricy.
Dude, your I7 920 will be good for years to come, you'd seen an improvement, sure, but not one worth it even if you didn't need a new board. Also, you have Quad 295? That's just crazy man, there's no reason for that, by the time a game needs that much GPU power, they'll be too out-dated to help. UNless you're folding, then good job.
Hmm I wonder are those 36-40 temps (and that one akward 99'c) right after the stress or just idle temps. Also would be nice to know what cooling was used.
I am much more interested in good performance for very low energy. People don't realize how much energy that their computer uses costs them over a year. Hopefully SB will be very good on that front and then I can finally upgrade my computer (if I can find some gold).
I almost pulled the trigger on an i7-870/mobo/ram today, waiting is a b!tch, I have this money staring at me, and my games laughing at me... *MUST...WAIT...*
Dude your rig can power through basically every single game there is out there... I think it's just that you want a new rig not the fact your games don't perform well lol. deltatux
Nah, I actually have quite a bottleneck. My min frames dip down to 40 in dirt 2 etc and for games of that type you really need 60 min. My benches compared to i7 owners with stock 480 are a lot lower. i7 DA bench is like 120 frames, mine would be 60 with a min of 35... Same with RE5, every RTS game, Farcry 2, I should be getting 60 frames constant in that game.
Well, if you have a problem, its not your processor, not if its at 3.6 My Phenom II is at 3.4 and my 470 is just about as fast as your 480. I hit 60FPS easy, constant, in all the game you mention.
Riiiiiiiiiiiight. I also get 60 frames most of the time in DA with 32CSAA and 8xSSAA, but in places like the Denerim markets, it goes down to the 30's that is what we call a CPU bottleneck. DA also performs the same with 2aa, or like I said 32csaa+8SSAA, which to me suggests a huge CPU bottleneck i7-920 min frames @3.5 =57 q9650 min frames =40 PII X965 BE min frames =39 i7 avg frames= 90 9650 avg fps = 63 965BE avg fps=62.3 That is also with a much lesser GPU than mine, that is a 50% improvement even with a GPU bottleneck, I have no GPU bottleneck so I can expect a much bigger increase. Your 60 frames constant is a figment of your imagination, I also get 60 frames constant when running around in most places with the 32csaa/8ssaa/16af forced/HQ texture filtering, but not in all places, and that is what i'm referring to, min frames, not average. 17 frames difference in min frames, that is a pretty big difference, especially when 60 frames constant is perceptibly much smoother than variable frames all the way down to 40 http://www.pcgameshardware.com/screenshots/original/2009/11/DragonAge-CPUs-1680.png "my 470 is just about as fast as your 480" No it isn't.