Bedste cpu i7 920, eller E8500.
Bundkort / CPU d. 29. december. 2008, skrevet af mlohnork
Vist: 555 gange.
mlohnork
#0
Hvilken cpu er bedst, hvis spillet kun anvender én core.
Min forstand siger mig at E8500'eren er bedst, men jeg vil gerne ha det bekræftet (eller i værste tilfælde afkræftet).
Gerne med nogle links eller noget, for jeg har ikk været i stand til at finde nogen test af de to cpu's, på ældre, single-core, spil.
Min forstand siger mig at E8500'eren er bedst, men jeg vil gerne ha det bekræftet (eller i værste tilfælde afkræftet).
Gerne med nogle links eller noget, for jeg har ikk været i stand til at finde nogen test af de to cpu's, på ældre, single-core, spil.
#1
Altså nu er der meget stor forskel på disse 2 CPU's
Hvad spil er det?
Hvad spil er det?
#2
Core i7eren er bedst men koster jo ogsaa dobbelt saa meget.. i7 yder noget bedre clock for clock end e8500.. men i et single core spil vil det ikke sige meget alligevel
#4
#0
på ældre singel core spil vil I7´eren stadig æde den.... den har en langt hurtigere cache at give af, men i gamle spil er det jo lige meget om du sidder med en I7 945 EX på 6,4 ghz eller en p4 2,8 ghz....
på ældre singel core spil vil I7´eren stadig æde den.... den har en langt hurtigere cache at give af, men i gamle spil er det jo lige meget om du sidder med en I7 945 EX på 6,4 ghz eller en p4 2,8 ghz....
#5
8mb istedet for 6mb cache. Tvivler på det har den store forskel. Men det lyder jo ikk til at i heller har noget der kan bekræfte hverken det ene eller andet, så jeg må vel leve i det uvisse lidt endnu.
- Det jeg spørger om, er:
Hvis man tager ÉN CORE:
Hvad er så stærkest: i7 920 2.66ghz
eller : E8500 3.16ghz
Jeg kan ikk bruge det til noget, at den samlet set slår E8500'eren. Det siger sig selv.
- Det jeg spørger om, er:
Hvis man tager ÉN CORE:
Hvad er så stærkest: i7 920 2.66ghz
eller : E8500 3.16ghz
Jeg kan ikk bruge det til noget, at den samlet set slår E8500'eren. Det siger sig selv.
#7
Ta' for guds skyld ikke den E8500, du vil være meget bedre stillet fremover med den i7, spillene er så småt begyndt at acceptere quadcores, bare se GTA 4, meget bedre med quad end dualcore.
Og det med cache... well.. min har 12 Mbyte, men får stadig klø af Core i7.. 😉
Og det med cache... well.. min har 12 Mbyte, men får stadig klø af Core i7.. 😉
#8
#7 hvis du gider læse #0 & #5 igen, så er det en kæmpe fordel.
tak
tak
#9
#8
Har skam godt læst det, og er faktisk sikker på at E8500 er hurtigst i SINGLECORE SPIL! Men, Det er nok med max 5 %, som omregnet er 1-4 FPS som jeg mener er ufatteligt lidt at holde som grund for at tage en dual istedet for en Quad.
Har skam godt læst det, og er faktisk sikker på at E8500 er hurtigst i SINGLECORE SPIL! Men, Det er nok med max 5 %, som omregnet er 1-4 FPS som jeg mener er ufatteligt lidt at holde som grund for at tage en dual istedet for en Quad.
#10
#8
Jeg ver enig med #9. Desuden lyder det jo til, at alle Core i7 920 render 4Ghz. Der er sgu ingen af de gamle spil der behøver mere, og som nævnt tidligere er du mere fremtidssikret med en Quad. Hvis du kun vil spille gamle spil, er der jo overhovedet ingen grund til at opgradere.
Jeg ver enig med #9. Desuden lyder det jo til, at alle Core i7 920 render 4Ghz. Der er sgu ingen af de gamle spil der behøver mere, og som nævnt tidligere er du mere fremtidssikret med en Quad. Hvis du kun vil spille gamle spil, er der jo overhovedet ingen grund til at opgradere.
#11
Følgende artikler kan måske hjælpe dig lidt.
The Quad Core myth in gaming
We also will include some gaming benchmarks. Now I understand that some of you expect miracles in gaming when you purchase a new processor. It's just not the case, you are as limited as fast as your GPU (graphics card) can go. It's as simple as that.
All the quad-core love is fantastic, but the reality is it makes very little difference, unless you are on a very high-end SLI or Crossfire platform. Our tests will be conducted on the fastest single GPU on the globe though, the GeForce GTX 280.
Fact is, even a Core 2 Dual E8500 processor is fast enough for a GeForce GTX 280 in most situations, unless we focus on the lowest resolutions where the GPU is not limited and the CPU can provide more data. Next to that, only a few engines really support multi-threaded multi-core gaming. Even Crysis Warhead configured at Multi-CPU mode shows the limitation of today's software applications. For the past decade or so, all code and libraries are based on one core processors. It's slowly changing, but even with a title like Warhead, as you can see, multiple cores matter only a little.
http://www.guru3d.com/article/...
An emphasis on this article:
Now if you read other reviews, you'll notice that the performance results are much closer to each other as what you have just seen. It's very simple, with current single GPU graphics cards anno 2008 and heck even SLI up-to say GeForce GTX 260, that Core i7 processor with the X58 and Triple channel memory combo will not be able to show what it is really capable of. See, up-to that point your GPUs are under heavy stress and max out, while the CPU sits there waiting for the GPUs to place compute request.
The ideal situation for Core i7 965 as used today is a multi-gpu system faster than GeForce GTX 260 SLI. From roughly that point onwards you'll start noticing massive differences between last-generation platforms.
The downside:
Realistically if you own say a GeForce GTX 280, and a current say Core 2 Quad platform, it will be fast enough for that VGA card. In fact it would be much harder to spot performance differences at all.
In such a situation, think of Core i7 as a processor with a lot of spare power for future upgrades. But from that point of view, really, there's just no need to upgrade as the difference will not even be that big.
It's weird to grasp I know, but it is the reality of the situation.
http://www.guru3d.com/article/...
The Quad Core myth in gaming
We also will include some gaming benchmarks. Now I understand that some of you expect miracles in gaming when you purchase a new processor. It's just not the case, you are as limited as fast as your GPU (graphics card) can go. It's as simple as that.
All the quad-core love is fantastic, but the reality is it makes very little difference, unless you are on a very high-end SLI or Crossfire platform. Our tests will be conducted on the fastest single GPU on the globe though, the GeForce GTX 280.
Fact is, even a Core 2 Dual E8500 processor is fast enough for a GeForce GTX 280 in most situations, unless we focus on the lowest resolutions where the GPU is not limited and the CPU can provide more data. Next to that, only a few engines really support multi-threaded multi-core gaming. Even Crysis Warhead configured at Multi-CPU mode shows the limitation of today's software applications. For the past decade or so, all code and libraries are based on one core processors. It's slowly changing, but even with a title like Warhead, as you can see, multiple cores matter only a little.
http://www.guru3d.com/article/...
An emphasis on this article:
Now if you read other reviews, you'll notice that the performance results are much closer to each other as what you have just seen. It's very simple, with current single GPU graphics cards anno 2008 and heck even SLI up-to say GeForce GTX 260, that Core i7 processor with the X58 and Triple channel memory combo will not be able to show what it is really capable of. See, up-to that point your GPUs are under heavy stress and max out, while the CPU sits there waiting for the GPUs to place compute request.
The ideal situation for Core i7 965 as used today is a multi-gpu system faster than GeForce GTX 260 SLI. From roughly that point onwards you'll start noticing massive differences between last-generation platforms.
The downside:
Realistically if you own say a GeForce GTX 280, and a current say Core 2 Quad platform, it will be fast enough for that VGA card. In fact it would be much harder to spot performance differences at all.
In such a situation, think of Core i7 as a processor with a lot of spare power for future upgrades. But from that point of view, really, there's just no need to upgrade as the difference will not even be that big.
It's weird to grasp I know, but it is the reality of the situation.
http://www.guru3d.com/article/...
#12
#11
nu har jeg også set test hvor folk var skeptiske over for den nye arkitektur (I7)
Men ved 3 way sli med gtx260 er ydelsen fra en QX9XXX serie til I7 920 100% fps forskel og nogle få tilfælde over... det siger noget om at en 920 altså rykker og der vil være forskel i alle spil da mere ydelse selvfølgelig vil tilføje en fps eller 2 mere, me nej ville ikke selv ofre 6000kr for et sprit nyt setup for at spille DOOM 1....
nu har jeg også set test hvor folk var skeptiske over for den nye arkitektur (I7)
Men ved 3 way sli med gtx260 er ydelsen fra en QX9XXX serie til I7 920 100% fps forskel og nogle få tilfælde over... det siger noget om at en 920 altså rykker og der vil være forskel i alle spil da mere ydelse selvfølgelig vil tilføje en fps eller 2 mere, me nej ville ikke selv ofre 6000kr for et sprit nyt setup for at spille DOOM 1....