Welcome to Gaia! ::

Minion4Hire
God Emperor Akhenaton
Minion4Hire
God Emperor Akhenaton
Hella Kawaii
God Emperor Akhenaton
With your budget, the Intel i7 is the best choice considering your lack of restraints. I would also suggest EVGA for the video card.

Why not just get a high end i5 and spend more on the gpu?

Because for one, processors last longer in terms of future-proofing. Secondly, both are possible with his budget.
He makes a good point though. The difference in price between a Core i5-3570K and a Core i7-3770K is going to be $100, whereas the performance difference in games will be in the bottom half of single digit percentages (if anything). Spending another $100 on your GPU will offer far more noticeable performance gains.

When it comes to these boutiques though it depends in part on what sales/packages they're offering at the time.

The problem is that Video cards go out of style annually while the i7 has been around since '08. Improvements have been made, sure, but it has always been better than the i5. Will you see a better improvement with a better card? Yes, but it won't be long-lived anyway. Go with a good card, but the CPU is just as important, especially with strategy games.
Let's compare a $300 i7 from 2008 versus a $300 i7 from 2012. There's a pretty big performance difference. Like upwards of a 50% increase in gaming performance. Using the same graphics card.

Real talk.

Nothing in computing is immune from the exponential advancement of technology.

Of course a newer i7 is going to outperform older ones, but even then, the old ones rape everything else. However with videocards, that's not the case. With GeForce, you went from a 9 series to a 200 series, 400 series, 500 series, 600 series and now a 700 series is expected this year. Video cards get outdated faster than processors.
God Emperor Akhenaton
Minion4Hire
God Emperor Akhenaton
Minion4Hire
God Emperor Akhenaton

Because for one, processors last longer in terms of future-proofing. Secondly, both are possible with his budget.
He makes a good point though. The difference in price between a Core i5-3570K and a Core i7-3770K is going to be $100, whereas the performance difference in games will be in the bottom half of single digit percentages (if anything). Spending another $100 on your GPU will offer far more noticeable performance gains.

When it comes to these boutiques though it depends in part on what sales/packages they're offering at the time.

The problem is that Video cards go out of style annually while the i7 has been around since '08. Improvements have been made, sure, but it has always been better than the i5. Will you see a better improvement with a better card? Yes, but it won't be long-lived anyway. Go with a good card, but the CPU is just as important, especially with strategy games.
Let's compare a $300 i7 from 2008 versus a $300 i7 from 2012. There's a pretty big performance difference. Like upwards of a 50% increase in gaming performance. Using the same graphics card.

Real talk.

Nothing in computing is immune from the exponential advancement of technology.

Of course a newer i7 is going to outperform older ones, but even then, the old ones rape everything else. However with videocards, that's not the case. With GeForce, you went from a 9 series to a 200 series, 400 series, 500 series, 600 series and now a 700 series is expected this year. Video cards get outdated faster than processors.

So why did gfx cards and processor come out around once a year and why am I still using a 5750 and a 550Be with no plans to upgrade?
Disconsented
God Emperor Akhenaton
Minion4Hire
God Emperor Akhenaton
Minion4Hire
God Emperor Akhenaton

Because for one, processors last longer in terms of future-proofing. Secondly, both are possible with his budget.
He makes a good point though. The difference in price between a Core i5-3570K and a Core i7-3770K is going to be $100, whereas the performance difference in games will be in the bottom half of single digit percentages (if anything). Spending another $100 on your GPU will offer far more noticeable performance gains.

When it comes to these boutiques though it depends in part on what sales/packages they're offering at the time.

The problem is that Video cards go out of style annually while the i7 has been around since '08. Improvements have been made, sure, but it has always been better than the i5. Will you see a better improvement with a better card? Yes, but it won't be long-lived anyway. Go with a good card, but the CPU is just as important, especially with strategy games.
Let's compare a $300 i7 from 2008 versus a $300 i7 from 2012. There's a pretty big performance difference. Like upwards of a 50% increase in gaming performance. Using the same graphics card.

Real talk.

Nothing in computing is immune from the exponential advancement of technology.

Of course a newer i7 is going to outperform older ones, but even then, the old ones rape everything else. However with videocards, that's not the case. With GeForce, you went from a 9 series to a 200 series, 400 series, 500 series, 600 series and now a 700 series is expected this year. Video cards get outdated faster than processors.

So why did gfx cards and processor come out around once a year and why am I still using a 5750 and a 550Be with no plans to upgrade?

Because a 500 series is still good for now. Anything lower frankly would be a waste of time. I have a 560ti and it can't play FC3 on the absolute highest setting. And god help you if you still use a 9800GTX. The i7's however have maintained the top spot regardless of age. Even the old ones are better than almost every i5.
God Emperor Akhenaton
Disconsented
God Emperor Akhenaton
Minion4Hire
God Emperor Akhenaton

The problem is that Video cards go out of style annually while the i7 has been around since '08. Improvements have been made, sure, but it has always been better than the i5. Will you see a better improvement with a better card? Yes, but it won't be long-lived anyway. Go with a good card, but the CPU is just as important, especially with strategy games.
Let's compare a $300 i7 from 2008 versus a $300 i7 from 2012. There's a pretty big performance difference. Like upwards of a 50% increase in gaming performance. Using the same graphics card.

Real talk.

Nothing in computing is immune from the exponential advancement of technology.

Of course a newer i7 is going to outperform older ones, but even then, the old ones rape everything else. However with videocards, that's not the case. With GeForce, you went from a 9 series to a 200 series, 400 series, 500 series, 600 series and now a 700 series is expected this year. Video cards get outdated faster than processors.

So why did gfx cards and processor come out around once a year and why am I still using a 5750 and a 550Be with no plans to upgrade?

Because a 500 series is still good for now. Anything lower frankly would be a waste of time. I have a 560ti and it can't play FC3 on the absolute highest setting. And god help you if you still use a 9800GTX. The i7's however have maintained the top spot regardless of age. Even the old ones are better than almost every i5.

I am talking about an AMD card not an Nvidia card from a generation ahead.
Also cards and processor operate on a similar release cycle.
Disconsented
God Emperor Akhenaton
Disconsented
God Emperor Akhenaton
Minion4Hire
God Emperor Akhenaton

The problem is that Video cards go out of style annually while the i7 has been around since '08. Improvements have been made, sure, but it has always been better than the i5. Will you see a better improvement with a better card? Yes, but it won't be long-lived anyway. Go with a good card, but the CPU is just as important, especially with strategy games.
Let's compare a $300 i7 from 2008 versus a $300 i7 from 2012. There's a pretty big performance difference. Like upwards of a 50% increase in gaming performance. Using the same graphics card.

Real talk.

Nothing in computing is immune from the exponential advancement of technology.

Of course a newer i7 is going to outperform older ones, but even then, the old ones rape everything else. However with videocards, that's not the case. With GeForce, you went from a 9 series to a 200 series, 400 series, 500 series, 600 series and now a 700 series is expected this year. Video cards get outdated faster than processors.

So why did gfx cards and processor come out around once a year and why am I still using a 5750 and a 550Be with no plans to upgrade?

Because a 500 series is still good for now. Anything lower frankly would be a waste of time. I have a 560ti and it can't play FC3 on the absolute highest setting. And god help you if you still use a 9800GTX. The i7's however have maintained the top spot regardless of age. Even the old ones are better than almost every i5.

I am talking about an AMD card not an Nvidia card from a generation ahead.
Also cards and processor operate on a similar release cycle.

But as I keep saying, the CPU is not as subject to obsolescence as video cards.
God Emperor Akhenaton
Disconsented
God Emperor Akhenaton
Disconsented
God Emperor Akhenaton

Of course a newer i7 is going to outperform older ones, but even then, the old ones rape everything else. However with videocards, that's not the case. With GeForce, you went from a 9 series to a 200 series, 400 series, 500 series, 600 series and now a 700 series is expected this year. Video cards get outdated faster than processors.

So why did gfx cards and processor come out around once a year and why am I still using a 5750 and a 550Be with no plans to upgrade?

Because a 500 series is still good for now. Anything lower frankly would be a waste of time. I have a 560ti and it can't play FC3 on the absolute highest setting. And god help you if you still use a 9800GTX. The i7's however have maintained the top spot regardless of age. Even the old ones are better than almost every i5.

I am talking about an AMD card not an Nvidia card from a generation ahead.
Also cards and processor operate on a similar release cycle.

But as I keep saying, the CPU is not as subject to obsolescence as video cards.

How so?
Disconsented
God Emperor Akhenaton
Disconsented
God Emperor Akhenaton
Disconsented
God Emperor Akhenaton

Of course a newer i7 is going to outperform older ones, but even then, the old ones rape everything else. However with videocards, that's not the case. With GeForce, you went from a 9 series to a 200 series, 400 series, 500 series, 600 series and now a 700 series is expected this year. Video cards get outdated faster than processors.

So why did gfx cards and processor come out around once a year and why am I still using a 5750 and a 550Be with no plans to upgrade?

Because a 500 series is still good for now. Anything lower frankly would be a waste of time. I have a 560ti and it can't play FC3 on the absolute highest setting. And god help you if you still use a 9800GTX. The i7's however have maintained the top spot regardless of age. Even the old ones are better than almost every i5.

I am talking about an AMD card not an Nvidia card from a generation ahead.
Also cards and processor operate on a similar release cycle.

But as I keep saying, the CPU is not as subject to obsolescence as video cards.

How so?

Because the old 2008 i7 processors are still better than the new i5 despite age. Whereas the old 9800GTX cards are nothing compared to the GTX640 cards. The i7 processors have always been on top of the rape pile when it comes to processing.
God Emperor Akhenaton
Of course a newer i7 is going to outperform older ones, but even then, the old ones rape everything else.
The same 2008 i7 versus a 2012 i5.

What about that same 2008 i7 versus a 2011 i3. This comparison is mostly a wash. While the older i7 has the lead in some games, the newer i3 has the lead in others. The difference is that the i3 is far more power efficient than the older processor.

This stuff just progresses quickly. Processors are no exception.

But regardless of how fast processors or graphics cards may advance, graphics performance is simply more important when it comes to gaming.

The only difference between modern day i5s and i7s is a little bit of cache and Hyper-Threading, neither of which is going to do much to impact gaming performance. The i7s and i5s of 2008/2009 were using completely different architectures. The i7 800 series and the i5 used the Lynnfield architecture, while the 900-series i7s were Bloomfield. They were both Nehalem derivatives, but they were definitely different. Triple channel memory versus dual channel. QPI vs DMI. It wasn't even the same socket. There was a lot of variance and spending more money on a processor could actually prove to be beneficial.

Intel is doing the same sort of thing with LGA-1155 and LGA-2011, but the difference is that their enthusiast platform is waning. Ivy Bridge outperforms Sandy Bridge-E, and Haswell is just around the corner. Spending $100 more to go from an Ivy Bridge i5 to an Ivy Bridge i7 isn't a big change. The i5 is the same chip as the i7, just binned as an i5. In 2009, spending $100 more to go from a Lynnfield i5 to a Bloomfield i7 meant a whole lot more, especially since that $300, 2.6 GHz i7 could overclock upward of 4.0 GHz without breaking a sweat.

Simply put - the CPU marketplace has changed since 2008, and spending more money on a graphics card is going to give you better performance. Period.

I'm not saying they should spend outside of their means on graphics. I'm not telling them to buy 3 GTX 680s because it will last them forever. I'm saying that dropping from an modern i7 to an i5 in order to get a better graphics card is going to mean better framerates and a better experience when gaming, regardless of what you're playing, because those processors are so similar but graphics cards are very scalable.
Minion4Hire
God Emperor Akhenaton
Of course a newer i7 is going to outperform older ones, but even then, the old ones rape everything else.
The same 2008 i7 versus a 2012 i5.

What about that same 2008 i7 versus a 2011 i3. This comparison is mostly a wash. While the older i7 has the lead in some games, the newer i3 has the lead in others. The difference is that the i3 is far more power efficient than the older processor.

This stuff just progresses quickly. Processors are no exception.

But regardless of how fast processors or graphics cards may advance, graphics performance is simply more important when it comes to gaming.

The only difference between modern day i5s and i7s is a little bit of cache and Hyper-Threading, neither of which is going to do much to impact gaming performance. The i7s and i5s of 2008/2009 were using completely different architectures. The i7 800 series and the i5 used the Lynnfield architecture, while the 900-series i7s were Bloomfield. They were both Nehalem derivatives, but they were definitely different. Triple channel memory versus dual channel. QPI vs DMI. It wasn't even the same socket. There was a lot of variance and spending more money on a processor could actually prove to be beneficial.

Intel is doing the same sort of thing with LGA-1155 and LGA-2011, but the difference is that their enthusiast platform is waning. Ivy Bridge outperforms Sandy Bridge-E, and Haswell is just around the corner. Spending $100 more to go from an Ivy Bridge i5 to an Ivy Bridge i7 isn't a big change. The i5 is the same chip as the i7, just binned as an i5. In 2009, spending $100 more to go from a Lynnfield i5 to a Bloomfield i7 meant a whole lot more, especially since that $300, 2.6 GHz i7 could overclock upward of 4.0 GHz without breaking a sweat.

Simply put - the CPU marketplace has changed since 2008, and spending more money on a graphics card is going to give you better performance. Period.

I'm not saying they should spend outside of their means on graphics. I'm not telling them to buy 3 GTX 680s because it will last them forever. I'm saying that dropping from an modern i7 to an i5 in order to get a better graphics card is going to mean better framerates and a better experience when gaming, regardless of what you're playing, because those processors are so similar but graphics cards are very scalable.

You are comparing the worst i7 to the best i5. And even then, they barely do better if that. Point being, he should get an i7. Because in the end, you are proving my point entirely. Better product means less planned obsolescence and I don't need a bought off review company to tell me that.
God Emperor Akhenaton
Disconsented
God Emperor Akhenaton
Disconsented
God Emperor Akhenaton

Because a 500 series is still good for now. Anything lower frankly would be a waste of time. I have a 560ti and it can't play FC3 on the absolute highest setting. And god help you if you still use a 9800GTX. The i7's however have maintained the top spot regardless of age. Even the old ones are better than almost every i5.

I am talking about an AMD card not an Nvidia card from a generation ahead.
Also cards and processor operate on a similar release cycle.

But as I keep saying, the CPU is not as subject to obsolescence as video cards.

How so?

Because the old 2008 i7 processors are still better than the new i5 despite age. Whereas the old 9800GTX cards are nothing compared to the GTX640 cards. The i7 processors have always been on top of the rape pile when it comes to processing.

Where is your supporting evidence?
Disconsented
God Emperor Akhenaton
Disconsented
God Emperor Akhenaton
Disconsented
God Emperor Akhenaton

Because a 500 series is still good for now. Anything lower frankly would be a waste of time. I have a 560ti and it can't play FC3 on the absolute highest setting. And god help you if you still use a 9800GTX. The i7's however have maintained the top spot regardless of age. Even the old ones are better than almost every i5.

I am talking about an AMD card not an Nvidia card from a generation ahead.
Also cards and processor operate on a similar release cycle.

But as I keep saying, the CPU is not as subject to obsolescence as video cards.

How so?

Because the old 2008 i7 processors are still better than the new i5 despite age. Whereas the old 9800GTX cards are nothing compared to the GTX640 cards. The i7 processors have always been on top of the rape pile when it comes to processing.

Where is your supporting evidence?

The better question is whether you want to start this again. I certainly don't.
God Emperor Akhenaton
Disconsented
God Emperor Akhenaton
Disconsented
God Emperor Akhenaton

But as I keep saying, the CPU is not as subject to obsolescence as video cards.

How so?

Because the old 2008 i7 processors are still better than the new i5 despite age. Whereas the old 9800GTX cards are nothing compared to the GTX640 cards. The i7 processors have always been on top of the rape pile when it comes to processing.

Where is your supporting evidence?

The better question is whether you want to start this again. I certainly don't.

This again?
So evidence or you are wrong. Take your pick.
Disconsented
God Emperor Akhenaton
Disconsented
God Emperor Akhenaton
Disconsented
God Emperor Akhenaton

But as I keep saying, the CPU is not as subject to obsolescence as video cards.

How so?

Because the old 2008 i7 processors are still better than the new i5 despite age. Whereas the old 9800GTX cards are nothing compared to the GTX640 cards. The i7 processors have always been on top of the rape pile when it comes to processing.

Where is your supporting evidence?

The better question is whether you want to start this again. I certainly don't.

This again?
So evidence or you are wrong. Take your pick.

The evidence that processors age better than video cards?
Three generations of the i7 vs the 5 soon to be six generations of the GeForce? The evidence is already there.
God Emperor Akhenaton
You are comparing the worst i7 to the best i5. And even then, they barely do better if that. Point being, he should get an i7. Because in the end, you are proving my point entirely. Better product means less planned obsolescence and I don't need a bought off review company to tell me that.
I was comparing products of similar price points. I can compare the i7-3770 to the i7-860 if you want me to. They have similar MSRPs as well. The story is the same though; the newer part outperforms the old by a decent margin.

I then went on to point out that you can get an i5 THAT IS $100 CHEAPER that performs similarly to the latest-and-greatest i7 processor. I then also compared a Core-i3 that is nearly $200 cheaper than a modern i7 that manages to hit gaming performance parity with an older i7 - one that matches the MSRP of this new i7 (as the OP's budget would presumably be the same four years ago as it would be now)

Why the ******** are you bitter that modern i5s are beating older i7s? Isn't that just expected?

The point I was making is that the i5s and i7s are SO CLOSE IN PERFORMANCE that - on a budget - you're better off spending that $100 on graphics. What the ******** is hard to understand about that?

And Anandtech is a "bought off" review site? They are THE most reputable review site. And I'm not linking to reviews. I'm linking to benchmarks. How is a piece of hardware producing a certain framerate "bought off"? Go ******** yourself.

Seriously. Why do you resort to taking vague and impossibly ridiculous positions just because you're too stubborn to see someone else's point of view? I present NUMBERS as in ACTUAL FACTS to backup what I'm saying, and your response is to imply that the numbers are wrong....? That maybe they're the product of some "reviewer conspiracy" that involves years of planning and corporate bribery to make it appear as if new processors are better than the old ones. When these processors can be tested and easily compared by anyone...? Really? Dude.... wtf?


As for why there are more generations of Nvidia graphics cards than Intel processors, it's because it is easier and more advantageous to move GPU silicon to newer manufacturing processes and half-nodes than CPUs.

CPUs are very complex with long development cycles. There are a small number of processor cores designed to perform a wide variety of tasks. GPUs are simpler and far more scalable with large numbers of very limited processor cores all working in parallel. With GPUs, moving from a standard 45nm manufacturing process to a 40nm half-node process is advantageous because it can mean more cores can fit in the same die area or the same number of cores will make for a smaller die. That half-node might only be available 8 months after the standard node became available though, and will only stick around for maybe another 8 months after that until they drop to the next full manufacturing node. It's harder to compensate for potentially poorer manufacturing yields of half nodes when it comes to processors as you will lose larger chunks of performance (AMD's Athlon and Phenom X3s for example) from that kind of binning, let alone having to test and validate your architecture in such a short time period. And what is a half node going to offer that processor architecture? Tiny gains in power efficiency? KBs of extra cache? They're can't possibly fit an extra processor core with such a small change and they're not going to risk introducing major architectural changes to a new manufacturing process; that's why Intel developed their "Tick-Tock" design philosophy. But with GPUs it is easy to add redundancy by, for example, incorporating additional stream processors to help compensate for manufacturing defects. And with such a simpler chip in general with far fewer components it doesn't take long to validate a design or to retool it for a new process. As such those small node improvements could give you enough of a leg-up over your competition - especially if you get onto it first - whether you're looking for small cost reductions from a die shrink or a small performance boost due to more transistors. Games drive hardware sales, and their requirements are only going up over time. If you aren't producing cutting-edge hardware you will lose out on those sales.

There are twice as many graphics card generations as processors because they are easier to produce. Because they can take real advantage of half nodes. Because some generations (like 200 series GeForce, and various mid and low end cards from every generaton) rely heavily on rebranding cards from the previous generation instead of releasing all new hardware.

BUT NONE OF THIS MATTERS. If spending $100 on a better graphics card gives you even just a 20% boost in game performance, versus spending $100 to bring your i5 to an i7 for a 0-5% increase in game performance, and their concern is gaming performance, why would you recommend the i7 over better graphics?

To be fair, if you're bringing 9000-series GeForce cards into this (even the 200 series was released before Nehalem debuted) then we need to bring the Core 2 architecture into this discussion as well. Core 2 Duos and Quads were the predominant architecture sold and used in 2008. The GeForce 200-series released mid-2008. Nehalem didn't release until the end of the year.

The raw processing performance difference between a Q9650 and a modern i5 or i7 is over 100% in many benchmarks. Why not in gaming? Because THE GRAPHICS CARD IS MORE IMPORTANT. This has nothing to do with how well processors age and everything to do with how powerful your graphics card is. The fact that newer processors can offer upwards of 40-50% better framerates with the same graphics hardware than 4-5 year old processors is impressive, but the fact remains that a better graphics card is still going to offer substantially better performance. Period. You would need an exceptionally shitty processor to significantly bottleneck most graphics cards.
Minion4Hire
Snipped so I can get the point off to you.

Good. Now that I pissed you off, can you finally leave me the ******** alone? The last thing I ever want to do in this world. is to talk to you. I'd rather get AIDS than talk to you. ********, even Melanoma was better than talking to you. Is ******** off really that hard for you people?

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games