i5 or i7 for simming?

[CyBerkut]

We are talking about two different things here. An i7 has 4 cores and 8 threads, with most games using two threads, a few using four. No doubt multiple cores is the future, but multiple CPU's? Throwing in two, dual core CPU's into the same setup will give you 4 cores to work with for some games, but so few use them throwing in two i7's (and I don't know if theres a motherboard that supports this) gives you 16 threads. I think we'll be waiting a very long time to see any game utilize that sort of thing, and seems like a bit of a waste.

 

You could do protein folding though! Help cure cancer! Might be worth it right there.

 

Physically different, yes. Programming-wise, not so much. Being able to access multiple processors, whether they are multiple cores on one CPU die, or spread out on multiple CPU dies is going to be a function of CPUs, mobos, and an Operating System designed to support it.

 

The i7 is not suited to running multiple i7's on a single multi-socketed mobo. Unlike the Xeon, the i7 is not designed to support it. IIRC, the Xeon has two QPI enabled, while the i7 only has one.

 

Given a proper combo of hardware and OS, the application authors either write their apps to take adavantage of the available cores (however many CPU dies they exist within), or they don't. Currently, not many do, but the number will go up over time.

 

How long it will take to reach gaiming remains to be seen. I think competitive pressures (and perhaps some developer's thirst for performance out of love for the game/sim) will bring it about in the not so distant future. I wouldn't be surprised to see it within the next 3 years, although that is just a SWAG.

[TheHeretic]

the dark side...: http://www.pureoverclock.com/review.php?id=794&page=1

:music_whistling: If nothing else, read the last two pages from the review's drop-down menu. A 4890 in Crossfire must be a real power hog. Still...fascinating.

Flyby out

 

AMD's cost/performance ratio has been consistently great this generation in terms of GPU's, with the Phenom II line they have bested Intel for people who really aren't comfortable paying high premiums for minimal results. i7 is king, but you pay for it, and the 955 BE is an incredible chip. The X2 550 competes with the 8500 and again, isn't as good, but its almost half the price for a marginal sacrifice in performance. Mid ranged CPU's are almost no contest with the 940 and 720 being significantly cheaper than intels offerings, which are mostly old quads anyway, though the 940 is discontinued oddly.

[Flyby]

well I must admit I need to take a longer look at an alternative system versus the i7. one thing I need to find out is what AMD's CPU road map looks like. Have to think of a future upgrade path.

Flyby out

[dawestsides]

well I must admit I need to take a longer look at an alternative system versus the i7. one thing I need to find out is what AMD's CPU road map looks like. Have to think of a future upgrade path.

Flyby out

 

I was thinking the same about the 32mm LG1366 socket future developments when I purchased my mobo.

[Flyby]

I was thinking the same about the 32mm LG1366 socket future developments when I purchased my mobo.

yeah, I get your meaning. If one is into complex flight sims Intel seems to be more future-proof than AMD, atm. With Oleg's SoW coming out this century, and DCS's future projects, I have little doubt that the term "cpu-intensive" will continue to haunt us for years to come. ;) I suspect that if I go AMD right now I may be selecting a pathway that is more affordable, but may possibly never let me run gameplay equal to an i7 system. But it's all a matter of degree (of acceptable performance). How many features will I have to turn down? How many can I life without? Yep. All relative.

Flyby out.