so now, is the i7 meeting expectations?

[Flyby]

The i5 is due out soon, and is being declared a viable gaming-cpu option

(http://www.hardocp.com/article/2009/08/25/intel_core_i5_performance_preview/1).

But MicroCenter STILL sells the i7-920 for $199.00- store pickup only. So I wanted to ask you guys if the i7 is the long term better buy? I'm only thinking gaming here, and maybe it comes down to platform. Is the X58 platform a better gaming platform than the P55 platform?

Oh! Nevermind! I know how you guys are! :D There is no "long term" in computer gaming hardware. Might as well get an i5 system. It will be years before gaming codes take advantage of what's out there now (unless someone knows differently).

Flyby out

edit: well, I had some time on my hands,and my mind wandered:music_whistling:

Edited August 26, 2009 by Flyby

[-Bazong-]

I recently got an i7-920 and a DFI micro-ATX Mobo, have'nt upgraded the graphics card yet (an old Nvidia 8600).. But the upgrade to the i7 (unclocked) from an AMD X2 4400+ (same graphics card) got me a few FPS in BS under XP.

Gaming was not the main reason for upgrading to the i7 though, hence the old graphics card...

[MrReynolds]

I recently got an i7-920 and a DFI micro-ATX Mobo, have'nt upgraded the graphics card yet (an old Nvidia 8600).. But the upgrade to the i7 (unclocked) from an AMD X2 4400+ (same graphics card) got me a few FPS in BS under XP.

Gaming was not the main reason for upgrading to the i7 though, hence the old graphics card...

 

Dude, I have that same X2 4400 cpu (8800 gts 320mb card though) and am going to upgrade when i5 / DX11 / win 7 comes out in oct/sept time.

 

I was rather hoping for a FAR greater increase in fps than that :(

 

The only thing really trying to persuade me to get an i7 was that, as it is a "heavier" processor, I thought it would be better for flight sims over i5. I don't need its x16 SLI support, so if it's only a few fps it looks even more promising for i5!!!! :music_whistling:

 

Before anyone comments, I'm not 100% certain of dx11 cards....looking at initial prices / performance gains and price drops across the board for 4890s etc after their release :thumbup:

 

as a ps; could anyone recommend that i get a 1gig 4870 / 4890 to see a jump in fps? I would have thought the old 4400 would be a hell of a bottleneck......

[Flyby]

If the article is to be believed, the i5 is certainly close to the i7 in gaming performance now. Does anyone know of an upgrade path for either one of these CPUs that might be more advantageous to us flight sim-ers? I've read recently that our sims seem to favor more processor speed rather than hyper-threading. I also read that more on-die cache is better for our ilk too. That's why I wonder which has the greater potential for a long(er) term (gamer's perspective) road map?

I saw somewhere that the i5 motherboards will only support 8x8x SLI or Crossfire. I'm not too sure that will be a big issue, bandwidth-wise. I recall reading that a P45 mobo with 8x8x was nearly matching an X48 mobo for fps in games. How's that for having sufficient bandwidth without going top shelf?

So while I don't do video editing, or other heavy app where the i7 outperforms the i5, I'd gamble that the i7 will be the better upgrade path for sim-ers. Especially since Micro Center is offering the i7-920 CPU for $199.99 right now on the web. That's killer!

Flyby out

[sinelnic]

Hi MrReynolds,

 

DCS right now is absolutely CPU-bound, and does not take advantage of multicore. This means that you should not expect exponential gains from i7 nor i5, since their clock speeds are not that faster than the previous generation. Also, moving to an expensive graphics card is useless if you already achieve good framerates with AA and AF maxed out.

 

My suggestions are the following:

1- There are a couple of threads about performance in Windows XP vs Vista vs Win 7, with nice computers. Use the search function to look for them, and take a look at their framerates. If your framerates are already similar to those, adjust your upgrade expectations accordingly :)

 

2- For a quick comparison, I'm using an E8400 dual core with 6GB RAM and an 8800 GTX, gives me 60 fps over terrain, 30-25fps over cities, @1920x1200, AA and AF 8x. This is with Water=normal and Shadows=Active planar. I cannot get more fps by lowering AA and AF, meaning my rig is CPU-bound for DCS.

 

3- I believe in long-term hw investing, I bought this rig about three years ago, and I'm still to find some game I cannot play @ max settings, and until developers take full advantage of multicore, I believe that's what will continue to happen. I was very frustrated to see FSX's poor optimizations, and was amazed to see how ED could improve the visual quality so much without taxing my hardware. DCS will not support multicore for another year or more (GGTharos dixit, correct me if I'm wrong), so I have plenty of time to invest in other areas (multi-monitors, better controls, learning to actually fly) before considering a full HW upgrade. Software development lags hw by many many miles, see how many games are currently designed around DX10.

[MrReynolds]

thanks sinelnic.

Only just jumped on this thread as the op had the same processor as i'm running.

As you can imagine, i also believe in long term HW investment (lol, running an old 939 still)!!!

[-Bazong-]

I should point out that I have very acceptable framerates (never checked exactly what, but definetly most often over 30) at 1680x1050 with water normal and shadows active planar and 4x AA.

If I turn up anything more than that it gets slow, but I'd guess my bottleneck is not the i7 but the old Nvidia 8600?

 

I can easely clock the processor abit even with the stock cooler (planning on getting a graphics card and cooler upgrade later), fiddled around with it since it's very easy with the DFI board and little program that came with it. But since it did'nt make any difference in BS and got noisier I reverted back to unclocked...

 

Will be installing win7 RC anytime soon, but since the game plays nice as it is I have'nt gotten around to it yet.

[sinelnic]

I should point out that I have very acceptable framerates (never checked exactly what, but definetly most often over 30) at 1680x1050 with water normal and shadows active planar and 4x AA.

If I turn up anything more than that it gets slow, but I'd guess my bottleneck is not the i7 but the old Nvidia 8600?

 

It's easy to determine: use RightCtrl-Pause to show the fps, then lower AA, if you get more fps, you're GPU bound.

 

Water and shadows are purely CPU bound, they will kill your fps even with eight 295 in SLI running on liquid-hydrogen-cooled overclock @ 640x480 :)

[mrbinkels]

I completely agree with sinelnic. A few years ago I upgraded my video card (in a old system) and was disappointed with the no gain in performance(FPS). BS def is CPU bound.

 

 

Hi MrReynolds,

 

DCS right now is absolutely CPU-bound, and does not take advantage of multicore. This means that you should not expect exponential gains from i7 nor i5, since their clock speeds are not that faster than the previous generation. Also, moving to an expensive graphics card is useless if you already achieve good framerates with AA and AF maxed out.

 

My suggestions are the following:

1- There are a couple of threads about performance in Windows XP vs Vista vs Win 7, with nice computers. Use the search function to look for them, and take a look at their framerates. If your framerates are already similar to those, adjust your upgrade expectations accordingly :)

 

2- For a quick comparison, I'm using an E8400 dual core with 6GB RAM and an 8800 GTX, gives me 60 fps over terrain, 30-25fps over cities, @1920x1200, AA and AF 8x. This is with Water=normal and Shadows=Active planar. I cannot get more fps by lowering AA and AF, meaning my rig is CPU-bound for DCS.

 

3- I believe in long-term hw investing, I bought this rig about three years ago, and I'm still to find some game I cannot play @ max settings, and until developers take full advantage of multicore, I believe that's what will continue to happen. I was very frustrated to see FSX's poor optimizations, and was amazed to see how ED could improve the visual quality so much without taxing my hardware. DCS will not support multicore for another year or more (GGTharos dixit, correct me if I'm wrong), so I have plenty of time to invest in other areas (multi-monitors, better controls, learning to actually fly) before considering a full HW upgrade. Software development lags hw by many many miles, see how many games are currently designed around DX10.

[Silent Warrior]

Hm... I can't say I've tested BS myself, but my AMD X2 6400 serves me right well. :P Good enough FPS in LO to work with (a god-awful drop with some coastal town in view is all), FSX/X-Plane run just fine as long as I'm careful with the bells and whistles...

 

And, BOY, does it process e-mails fast!

[Flyby]

yeah, I know. You can always count on that "Flyby" guy to stir the pot. ;)

Actually it's good to read these various replies because of the different perspectives and experiences. Interesting that DCS may not code for multiple cores for a while yet, but commendable that the old engine is doing so well for so many rotor-heads.

sinelnic, are you running a high "traffic" setting in FSX? Or complex landscapes? I've reads that these are real CPU cycle hogs. "3- I believe in long-term hw investing, I bought this rig about three years ago, and I'm still to find some game I cannot play @ max settings, and until developers take full advantage of multicore, I believe that's what will continue to happen. I was very frustrated to see FSX's poor optimizations, and was amazed to see how ED could improve the visual quality so much without taxing my hardware. DCS will not support multicore for another year or more (GGTharos dixit, correct me if I'm wrong), so I have plenty of time to invest in other areas (multi-monitors, better controls, learning to actually fly) before considering a full HW upgrade. Software development lags hw by many many miles, see how many games are currently designed around DX10." Well, yeah, but remember when IL2 came out? It was ahead of hardware at the time, as was LOMAC. It will always be a back-and-forth, push-me/pull-me thing between hardware and software imo (just like the war between GPU and CPU; which is the bottleneck now?). Oddly, it seems that new sims sometimes require new hardware (think when Crysis hit the streets).

So which has the better upgrade potential for sims? i5? Or i7?

Flyby out

[sweinhart3]

I work for Intel at the fabs that make the i7 and i5. The i5 is designed to be a scaled down cheaper mainstream chip while the i7 is targeted more toward the enthusiast group. The i5 lacks triple channel memory support and has a smaller cache making the chip and its supporting hardware cheaper. They did add hyperthreading on the i5 as well as improving its internal overclocking logic when multiple cores are not being used which helps to make up for some of its downgraded performance in some applications. In many tests the i5 and the i7 have reasonably comparable performance. So the choice is yours. If you want a great value with good performance characteristics for the i5. If you want the fastest chips that have the most performance capability than the i7 should be your choice. You probably know that right now having triple channel memory vs double channel wont net you much improvement in many applications but its theoritcal performance ability is greater. Also note that the entire core i5/i7 line was designed to take the strengths of the core2 line of chips and beef up its performance and usability in the server market segment. I personally have a Core 2 Extreme 9770, according to some benchmarks, upgrading to the i5/i7 line would yield roughly 5% performance improvement. So for me it would not be worth the extra $1000 to upgrade the chip as well as replace my memory for ddr3 and mb for a 2-3fps boost at best. The new line of processors strength above Core 2 is in its multi-threading server capabilities. I had high hopes for Nehalem when it came out due to the onboard memory controller, but if you have a good Core 2 chip, the upgrade likely wont be worth the money besides bragging rights.

[Flyby]

So, sweinhart, would you say the i7 has no power over the i5 or your 9770 in purely gaming, like flignt sims? How about a future upgrade path? I'm thinking of Rof, and the future conversion of the DCS code to take advantage of multiple cores. I admit there is not much out there now to strain an i7, but the flight sims of next year (Oleg's SoW series) will be among us. Simply, what I'm trying to do is peer into the near future to see which processor series will be the better one for the future combat sims. What with complex AI (think of wingmen, AA-gunners,drivers, etc), FM, weapons (think electronic battlefield), weather, these sims, all threaded to use multiple cores, and maybe large cache, which way to go?

I need a stiff drink! :D

Flyby out

[CyBerkut]

Flyby, I've been watching your investigation into this (and chiming in a bit). Obviously there are a number of ways to prioritize things for arriving at a decision. I guess I would view it like this: With what is currently available, if you can afford it, an i7 based rig is going to get you further down the road (time-wise) before you find yourself saying, "Man, I wish I had that [fill in the blank] capability." Things like the DDR3 RAM and the Cores/threads aren't getting fully utilized yet, but that is where the hardware makers have turned to get more performance. The software creators that want to get more performance are going to have to write their apps to capitalize on that hardware. It just comes down to how long before they get there.

 

I'm not saying that is the "best bang for the buck" for the present. You have to ask yourself, do I want to buy something that I can live with/expand/upgrade incrementally for a longer time... or spend less now, and plan on buying a replacement sooner... ?

 

Ain't technology fun? ;)

[Flyby]

hey Cyber,

I read you loud and clear. I'd better decide soon. No telling how long Micro Center will keep those i7-920s priced at $200.00 USD. The savings will go far towards keeping the price of the rig down. I guess I'd be going on faith that the software people are working on some killer new combat flight sims that will, within two years, have even the i7 series gasping for breath. I've erad enough to make me think I can select good overclocking components to go along with the i7, and not have to spend a fortune to get the results I want.

Imagine the day when our combat flight sims are no longer bottle-necked by the cpu. What that monster might be one can only imagine. Oh, and new video cards are around the corner from both camps. :D

Flyby out

[Flyby]

but wait...there's more: 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 out

[sinelnic]

"Software development lags hw by many many miles, see how many games are currently designed around DX10." Well, yeah, but remember when IL2 came out? It was ahead of hardware at the time, as was LOMAC. It will always be a back-and-forth, push-me/pull-me thing between hardware and software imo (just like the war between GPU and CPU; which is the bottleneck now?). Oddly, it seems that new sims sometimes require new hardware (think when Crysis hit the streets). Flyby out

 

Conceded, but the problem there was that they went ahead of hardware in terms of raw computational power, i.e. assuming a linear scale up of hardware... and did not preview the multicore frenzy that started when the chipmakers realized they could not squeeze that much more performance out of the same architecture.

 

FSX had this exact problem. In PTaylor's blog (key FSX developer) he explained that when they sat down to design FSX, they did not contemplate the possibility of multicore. Which really bugs me because heck! if Ms does not have insight on Intel's plans, then we're all doomed to hell. They couldn't even react to DX10, there's a nice feature called "object instancing" that would allow them to put many more trees and stuff on the scenery without taxing the CPU that much, but they implemented it only on Acceleration's new scenery (Istanbul and another one). They did not even consider PCIe bandwith while designing their engine. They recon this as a mistake... quite one! And DX10 is a Microsoft initiative!!

 

About Crysis, it was designed from the ground up to be a resource hog, to force the market to update to the new DX10 cards. It was not fully optimized on launch, didn't even leverage DX10 to a reasonable extent (almost all eye candy was enjoyable in DX9 mode -scale up-, and the performacne was much better), but I was perfectly able to play it with my 8800 GTX the day it came out... I believe ATI's unability to catch up with Nvidia's cards at that time made the required upgrade much more costly than it should have, so a lot of people ended up with 8600 and lower cards for a very excessive price.

 

About FSX, I need good terrain to make me spend long, otherwise boring hours in front of the sim. Traffic I don't care much though, but flying over a flat texture is not really my cup of tea :)

 

I personally think that with full multicore support flight simulators will be an orgy of beautiful graphics. The leap has to be made though (and it's not only technical, but in terms of art design as well, an item where ED kicks FSX's arse big time), and I believe a huge prize will be in there for the one who nails an engine with believable low-and-slow scenery. I'd love to see DCS get there first... but priorities are priorities...

[Flyby]

hi sinelnic,

good stuff in that reply. I guess I only add that multi-cores will really come in handy for our combat flight sims. Not just for the low and slow scenery ( I think that's GPU rendering speeds there), but for all those little things we want "simulated" in our little combat worlds (like calculated weapons performance, clouds/weather, complex AI routines -with lots of AI participants-as in intelligent targets/adversaries/flight members, radars, laser designators, FMs, etc). To me these are where multi-cores will receive the most stressing. But I want that orgy of beautiful graphics too! :D

Are you familiar with this site? http://www.devmaster.net/forums/index.php

I found it while searching for info on coming 3d engine tech.

[sinelnic]

And I must say, I keep flying BS and continue to love the terrain, even if it could be bettered a lot in terms of detail (why the heck those city textures are so low res?!?!?!?!), it is made in such a way (the colors, the haze) that the general feeling is extremely realistic. I fly for real about once a week, I can tell.

But that said I´m worried about ED giving the new engine low priority. I´d love it if they released some kind of a roadmap with all the features they plan to put in the new engine, so we can discuss and fantasize endlessly.

 

That dev site is awesome! I didn´t know it... nice find!

[HansRoaming]

Ultimately though as duel core machines are the norm as opposed to the exception just think of the 'free' upgrade to fps you'll get when engines finally take advantage of the extra horsepower of additional cores.

[Alex_rcpilot]

Hi Flyby, I'm not quite good at explaining details, so I figured it'd be better for me to offer some direct data.

 

My rig is yielding a neat average of approx. 30FPS in BS with all settings on maximum and no overclocking. I'm running Windows Vista 64bit, the combined resolution is 5040*1050 with SoftTH. But SoftTH somehow stopped nVidia anti-aliasing from working...

[Flyby]

Hi Flyby, I'm not quite good at explaining details, so I figured it'd be better for me to offer some direct data.

 

My rig is yielding a neat average of approx. 30FPS in BS with all settings on maximum and no overclocking. I'm running Windows Vista 64bit, the combined resolution is 5040*1050 with SoftTH. But SoftTH somehow stopped nVidia anti-aliasing from working...

hey Alex! How ya been, bud? :) An average of 30fps is pretty good, I'd say, considering that rez you're running. Even water is set to maximum? That's some roaring system you have there!:thumbup:

 

Hans I keep thinking of all the cycle-sucking stuff that new sims will put on new quads, tri-cores, etc. I hope Sow_BoB will be tamed by the time it comes out. Last I heard it was 80% complete so maybe cpu tech has caught up with it before it even comes out? Wouldn't it be something to run that one in all it's glory and still get decent minimum fps?

 

Did I mention that I just coped an i7-920 for $200.00 USD from Micro Center? I guess I just committed. ;)

Flyby out

[Flyby]

Oh, and it's got the DO stepping. I was amazed at the size of the cooler that came with it. I understand the stock cooler is inadequate for overclocking. I won't be going wild, but am looking at around 3.6ghz. I haven't seen where going much beyond that point yields any significant results for gaming. Anyone got anything different on that point?

Flyby out

[Alex_rcpilot]

hey Alex! How ya been, bud? :) An average of 30fps is pretty good, I'd say, considering that rez you're running. Even water is set to maximum? That's some roaring system you have there!:thumbup:

 

Hey buddy, l've been messing with a bunch of stuff for a while. Yeah, water is set to maximum too. The trick with high resolution across multi monitors is running the game in full screen mode. I found it making a great difference, sometimes up to +10FPS.

 

It's good to hear you had ordered your i7. Let me know when you get it up and running, we may get some flying around online.:joystick:

[Flyby]

Hey buddy, l've been messing with a bunch of stuff for a while. Yeah, water is set to maximum too. The trick with high resolution across multi monitors is running the game in full screen mode. I found it making a great difference, sometimes up to +10FPS.

 

It's good to hear you had ordered your i7. Let me know when you get it up and running, we may get some flying around online.:joystick:

Rgrt with the online hookup. ;) I'll be pulling more components together as cash flow allows. I've been looking at a few decent overclocking motherboards: Gigabyte, ASRock, and MSI. Not top tier boards but meeting my modest needs to overclock an i7-920 to a useful 3.6 ghz. I was close to going with an AMD Phenom II x4 965, but the i7 cost about $65.00 USD less (@ $200.00 UDS) so what could I do? :D

Flyby out