i5 or i7 for simming?

[Flyby]

alright ya brutes,

I request your opinions on which processor will be better suited for simming over the other? I refer to the core i7 versus the core i5. I haven't been able to find that out. All I know is that I've read where the i5 will overclock like a demon. I don't think it has as much cache as an i7. I thought sims took advantage of high clocks and high cache levels. Can someone point me in the right direction here?

thanks,

Flyby out

 

edited: never mind.

Edited August 3, 2009 by Flyby
it's the i7

[Pilotasso]

Im am not familiar with the I5/I7 systems, but for what I do understand is that you realy need high end expensive memories to allow high overclocks. The I7 overclocks pretty well too, so I would get the most potent CPU avaiable, the I7 and do a moderate overclock.

Sim's push the CPU's to the limit, other games tend to level out on most CPU in most situations.

[Flyby]

I tend to agree...

 

Piolotasso,

I agree with you about the core i7-920 being a good choice. Actually there have been several articles about the scaling differences between using high-performance or lesser ram. Here's one:

http://www.anandtech.com/memory/showdoc.aspx?i=3589.

Otherwise prices are dropping. I've seen the -920 on slae for $199.00 just last week.

Flyby out

[Maximus_G]

alright ya brutes,

I request your opinions on which processor will be better suited for simming over the other? I refer to the core i7 versus the core i5.

 

There's nothing to refer to yet. No thorough tests, no overclocking statistics.

[Flyby]

There's nothing to refer to yet. No thorough tests, no overclocking statistics.

ya know G, come to think of it I haven't seen much. But I thought I saw something, a short while back. I'll have to try to find out if there's anything new out there.

Flyby out

EDIT:not too much out there atm.

http://www.overclock.net/hardware-news/512492-tpu-intel-core-i5-lynnfield-2-a.html

 

http://www.tipidpc.com/viewtopic.php?tid=192590

 

http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,687805/Intel-confirms-Lynnfield-CPU-specs/News/

Edited August 4, 2009 by Flyby

[Maximus_G]

Yep, we'll have much more information on i5 when it hits the shelves.

[Oldflyer2]

Core I7 is a whole new ball game. if you look at the through put specs and triple channel ram it's hands down core I7

 

We're talking gigatera's here, with no more frontside bus!

 

in my opinion it's not even a choice. I drewl for this system! with dual nvidia

295's in SLI! it's a monster

 

This is my dream system

 

Asus Rampage II extreme

Core I7 any

24 gigs triple channel ram

2 x BFG 295 GTX video cards in SLI

 

Like I can afford any of this but I am going to get it!..lol

:beer:

[Flyby]

Core I7 is a whole new ball game. if you look at the through put specs and triple channel ram it's hands down core I7

 

We're talking gigatera's here, with no more frontside bus!

 

in my opinion it's not even a choice. I drewl for this system! with dual nvidia

295's in SLI! it's a monster

 

This is my dream system

 

Asus Rampage II extreme

Core I7 any

24 gigs triple channel ram

2 x BFG 295 GTX video cards in SLI

 

Like I can afford any of this but I am going to get it!..lol

:beer:

well have one on me!:beer: But why so much ram? Doing heavy video work?

Anyway, my core i7 system will be built around going SLi too, but not with those awesome 295s (if I could afford one of those I could hope for another when prices drop - maybe when the 300 series dual-gpu cards come out). I'll be looking at the GTX-275, or have a flight of fancy and get a -285 if the Boss let's me.

I've got to go with the i7-920, with DO stepping. I intend to overclock to about 3.6 on air, so I've been checking out cpu-cooler testing.

Yet it seems almost practical to wait until the i5s are tested. I've waited this long. Just have to see h ow trhe wind blows.;)

Flyby out

[Flyby]

then there's this...

 

Seems as though the Chinese have an inside track on the new Intel processors (not official) the link is translated:

http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdiy.pconline.com.cn%2Fcpu%2Freviews%2F0907%2F1717513.html&sl=auto&tl=en&history_state0=

 

Flyby out

[MackTheKnight]

Speaking from experiance here...

 

Go with the i7 920 - you will not be dissappointed. Just make sure you get good 1600 MHZ DDR3 RAM to go with. (Or faster, if you have the budget) I'm running 6 gb of OCZ Gold and it's running like a champ!

 

i7 920 runs stock at 2.4 ghz, if memory serves. Mine is OC'd to 3.0 ghz with the stock cooler. CPU temperture does not exceed 36C under full load.

 

I have a GTX280 for graphics, which I won't consider upgrading until the DX11 cards hit the market.

 

Blackshark avg. FPS of 55 over the city - can't argue with that. :) All settings maxed out, of course.

 

Also make sure you run Vista or Windows 7 64 bit if you go with that much memory, or you won't be able to address it all.

 

Happy upgrading! :)

Edited August 5, 2009 by MackTheKnight

[hitman]

I was able to get my i7 to overclock to 4.2ghz without any trouble. Only reason why I ran it at lower cycles was because I didnt need it that fast. I had Corsair XMS3 PC3-12800 1600mhz ram on an i7 920. When I get to atlanta, im getting the i7 970 and going to sli 3 GTX295's.

[Flyby]

rgrt input, MTK. ;)

Flyby out

[Flyby]

then there's more...

 

found this link about a Lynnfield test:

http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,691811/Lynnfield-tested-Intel-Core-i5-750-and-Core-i7-860-benchmarked-in-Anno-1404-Dawn-of-Discovery/Reviews/

Flyby

[Oldflyer2]

hey!

 

I agree. the I7 920 is plenty I feel, when overclocked to maybe 3 it will perform just fine. I do alot of 3d motion graphics so that's why I need the video and ram power.

 

I am still not sure to go with EVGA or BFG? EVGA has really nice overclocking software for there video cards.

 

I always felt that's where the work is being done anyway. with the new core I7 memory control arcitecture I don't think processor speed can be thought of in the same way as the old frontside bus anyway. Now we have G/T's of transfer speed.

 

 

I remember seeing the limited release of the Dell Rampage a few years ago when nvidia built what I believe was the prototypes for these new video cards with dual processors custom built for that computer.

 

That monster had some outragous fill rates running a 30" monitor! among everything else. I think it went for about $10,000 with the custom paint job......LOL

[Flyby]

hey!

 

I agree. the I7 920 is plenty I feel, when overclocked to maybe 3 it will perform just fine. I do alot of 3d motion graphics so that's why I need the video and ram power.

 

I am still not sure to go with EVGA or BFG? EVGA has really nice overclocking software for there video cards.

 

I always felt that's where the work is being done anyway. with the new core I7 memory control arcitecture I don't think processor speed can be thought of in the same way as the old frontside bus anyway. Now we have G/T's of transfer speed.

 

 

I remember seeing the limited release of the Dell Rampage a few years ago when nvidia built what I believe was the prototypes for these new video cards with dual processors custom built for that computer.

 

That monster had some outragous fill rates running a 30" monitor! among everything else. I think it went for about $10,000 with the custom paint job......LOL

LOL!!! I remember what I paid for an Orchid VooDoo card with 2mb of onboard ram, about $250.00, iirc.Hey! Wan't that before AGP? :lol:

 

BTW, what do you mean about new i7 memory controller, and not looking at processor speed the same way...?

Flyby out

Edited August 6, 2009 by Flyby

[hitman]

hey!

 

I agree. the I7 920 is plenty I feel, when overclocked to maybe 3 it will perform just fine. I do alot of 3d motion graphics so that's why I need the video and ram power.

 

I am still not sure to go with EVGA or BFG? EVGA has really nice overclocking software for there video cards.

 

I always felt that's where the work is being done anyway. with the new core I7 memory control arcitecture I don't think processor speed can be thought of in the same way as the old frontside bus anyway. Now we have G/T's of transfer speed.

 

 

I remember seeing the limited release of the Dell Rampage a few years ago when nvidia built what I believe was the prototypes for these new video cards with dual processors custom built for that computer.

 

That monster had some outragous fill rates running a 30" monitor! among everything else. I think it went for about $10,000 with the custom paint job......LOL

EVGA has the best warranty for their cards. They let you modify them with 3rd party cooling stuff and they allow you to overclock their stuff without voiding the warranty. The only thing they WONT support is shorts due to a leaky water block.

[CyBerkut]

An article of possible interest:

 

New Intel Core i5 chip surfaces on retailer's Web site

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9136298/New_Intel_Core_i5_chip_surfaces_on_retailer_s_Web_site?source=CTWNLE_nlt_dailyam_2009-08-06

 

Flyby, the Nehalem design based processors (including the i7) include the memory controller inside the processor. IIRC, the preceding design's memory controller was affected by the "Front Side Bus" clock speed.

[Flyby]

An article of possible interest:

 

New Intel Core i5 chip surfaces on retailer's Web site

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9136298/New_Intel_Core_i5_chip_surfaces_on_retailer_s_Web_site?source=CTWNLE_nlt_dailyam_2009-08-06

 

Flyby, the Nehalem design based processors (including the i7) include the memory controller inside the processor. IIRC, the preceding design's memory controller was affected by the "Front Side Bus" clock speed.

So how does that effect our flight sims, CyBerkut?

Flyby out

[hitman]

From what it reads, the i5 is just a quad core nehalem without hyperthreading. Ill stick with an i7.

[CyBerkut]

Flyby, I'm not going to hold myself out as some sort of expert on the subject. I would *expect* that the new memory controller arrangement to give us better performance. It may not be something that is readily apparent in all of our *current* flight sims, since we have some limitations (such as only using a single core in XP, and non 64 bit applications that don't access as much memory as a 64 bit app could...).

 

Of course, then one has to look at whether their purchasing decisions will be for the current software / OS only, or with an eye toward what is reasonably expected in the not-so-distant future.

 

Folks go at that from different perspectives. If one is just trying to get the most 'bang for the buck' for the current applications, then they might very well go with a Core 2 Duo or Core 2 Quad, with an eye toward overclocking the cheesewhiz out of it. That can make a lot of sense to someone who doesn't have much cash to throw at it now, and especially so if they expect to have more discretionary cash later on when they are likely to build a new rig (as in having killer job prospects after finishing college). I say this because (on the Intel side of things), the newer chip series use a different socket / motherboard. To further complicate things for some flight sim enthusiasts is a cruel choice between Win XP to allow horizontal & vertical display spanning, or Win Vista / Win 7 to get access to multi-core affinity performance increases.

 

Some of us take a longer view on the hardware decisions for whatever reasons. In my case, the spousal unit (aka the Chief Financial Officer) is understanding enough to be supportive of a new desktop purchase, but it will probably be the only one for at least a few years. As such, I'm attempting to be patient, save up more overtime, and go big with an eye toward expandibility / upgradeability later (incremental changes / additions are easier to get CFO approval for than complete computer replacements). For me, making the jump to the newer chip socket / motherboard makes sense. As for i7 vs i5 vs i3, I don't see a good reason to go with anything less than an i7 (for me). I'm currently leaning toward a model from CyberPowerPC with a water cooled i7 that is "factory overclocked". No doubt it would be cheaper to figure out more things for myself, but the plethora of selections to make creates many opportunities to get it wrong (and end up with something that doesn't work as well as I want it to).

 

As I said, I'm not an expert on the memory changes. As I understand it, the nehalem arrangement yeilds much better memory data transfer rates (or at least the possibility for it). That should allow for better sim performance, if not now then at least in the next versions around the corner.

[dawestsides]

i7 for the win:

 

look at my sig!

[Flyby]

hey Cy,

thoughtful reply. I still wonder at what the holy grail would be for a pc that can run the sims on the horizon. Cache? Bandwidth? cpu-Ghz? Texture fill rate? GPU memory bus speed?

 

I am tending towards the long view. I'm assuming that no matter what components I buy I won't be able to run Sow_battle of Britain in all it's glory for another three years after it's been out (and it ain't due out soon). So, I'll pick a socket then rely on CPU, and GPU upgrades.

 

Sure wish I knew how sim developers decide how hard they will push desktop computer technology.

Flyby out

[CyBerkut]

Such things are moving, greasy targets. ;) I say that because the hardware capabilities keep changing so rapidly. With Intel / AMD / nVidia / ATI all keeping their hammers to the anvils looking for the next edge on their competitors, the magic ratchets up faster than a WoW junkie mainlining Mountain Dew and HoHo's.

 

I'd say that in at least some of the areas that matter to flight simmers, the OS / software has difficulty keeping up with the hardware. For instance, DCS:BS, as amazing as it has been already, is not yet able to capitalize on the massive memory that we can supply to it on our hardware.

 

As for publishers/authors decisions... well, some of that is going to trace back to where they are coming from. Most are understandably going to make (hopefully) good business decisions and the bottom line will largely be in the driver's seat. In some other cases, you may get a situation where the author(s) are more interested in pushing the envelope to see what they can create, and the sales of product (if applicable) may largely be a means to keep funding the development of something that they truly love. X-Plane may be more like that...

 

Fortunately, it appears to be common practice to make many features (especially in graphics) optional, which lets people sacrifice some bells and whistles to make the program run well enough to be tolerable on whatever hardware they have (within reason).

 

It *IS* indeed hard to tell where things will go sometimes... but ain't it fun?!? ;)

[Flyby]

you chose wisely,

 

i7 for the win:

 

look at my sig!

So it seems, dawestside. Check out this link from Anandtech. The article is a few months old; the link is to the conclusion (the point of which I think would be suitable to a gamer's way of thinking).

 

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3570&p=11

Flyby out

[hitman]

So it seems, dawestside. Check out this link from Anandtech. The article is a few months old; the link is to the conclusion (the point of which I think would be suitable to a gamer's way of thinking).

 

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3570&p=11

Flyby out

I can defer against that article. There wasnt a game I couldnt play that had incredible performance. My only bottleneck was my GPU, which I had a GTX 260 Core 216.