Core i7's

Just curious if anyone is playing the game with Intel's new Core i7's, and whether the game is very fast with it? I am thinking of getting a new computer, and might get the Core i7 920 given how cheap it is being basically the best technology on the market. Would be nice to know in advance if that processor will kill FM speed wise.

I don't think the game would utilise quad-core processing so I doubt there would be radical improvements in speed. I don't have one though so I'm only speculating.

I got a quadcore but this game only supports Duo core at the max i believe

Anyone actually got a Core i7 that can confirm?

No one needs a Core i7 to confirm. The game doesn't support more than two cores. Therefore it can at most only utilise half of the Core i7's potential. So no, it won't be VERY fast, it'll run 'similarly' to your computer having a dual core.

tbh, buying such a pc when there is little to no software in use nor in development for it may be a waste. I would wait a bit with it for such an upgrade.

tbh, buying such a pc when there is little to no software in use nor in development for it may be a waste. I would wait a bit with it for such an upgrade.

Good advise! Waste of money ..

Best to wait and get a cheap Q6600 if you must have Quad.

Mmmmmm shiny.

Is there really much use for quad cores yet? I upgrade my PC regularly, but even thought Quad Cores are now cheap, I don't think I can justify the cost when my dual core runs things so well. As for the i7 - it's exciting and that, but I just don't use the software that could justify the technology (plus it's new which means it's expensive).

The only thing I ever buy relatively new is a graphcis card (as my shiny GeForce GTX 260 will testify).

I think the point is the Core i7's are new generation technology, so they are future proof. The previous technology will be phased out. Eventually I would assume programs will utilise all the cores. So from that perspective paying an extra $180 or so (for Core i7 920 over say Q6600) is worth it as you won't need an upgrade for a very very long time. From what I've read the Core i7's are much faster than the next best quad core on the market and quite a lot faster than any dual cores, so I would have thought that even if it utilised only two of the cores, that it would still be faster than anything else, but I could be wrong.

That's completely untrue. By the time software that utilises quad-cores is in wide distribution the Core i7 will be archaic technology. For example, say you were one of the people that purchased a dual core the day it was released to the public, you had paid a huge amount of money for something branded as "future proof" which was for the most part useless. By the time software came out that could utilise the technology you could get the same processor for much less or a better one for the same price.

Nothing in the technology industry is future proof.

FM does seem to utilise quad core processors, I done a quick test the other day to check the threading option & with threading on processor usage regularly hit 100% when processing matches.

That being said hitting 100% when only processing Scottish senior games in full detail is concerning.

100% does not mean it is using all cores.

100% does not mean it is using all cores.

That confuses me, if the processor usage is 100% how can it not be using all 4 cores?

Wow so it actually splits one instance over multiple cores?

Is there really much use for quad cores yet? I upgrade my PC regularly, but even thought Quad Cores are now cheap, I don't think I can justify the cost when my dual core runs things so well. As for the i7 - it's exciting and that, but I just don't use the software that could justify the technology (plus it's new which means it's expensive).

The only thing I ever buy relatively new is a graphcis card (as my shiny GeForce GTX 260 will testify).

The least powerful of the new Core i7's is EXTREMELY cheap for new gen technology. I can get it for $475 in Aus, although the motherboard you need to use it is more expensive than normal, but they are going down in price also (Can get one for around $362). The DDR3 ram is also more expensive. But even that is going down, I can get 2 gig worth of DDR 3 ram for $99.

Core i7 is probably NOT a smart thing to do if you are just upgrading your comp, because you have to buy a new motherboard and new ram for it to work, but I think it's smart if you are buying a new comp for the reasons stated in my previous post.

That's completely untrue. By the time software that utilises quad-cores is in wide distribution the Core i7 will be archaic technology. For example, say you were one of the people that purchased a dual core the day it was released to the public, you had paid a huge amount of money for something branded as "future proof" which was for the most part useless. By the time software came out that could utilise the technology you could get the same processor for much less or a better one for the same price.

Nothing in the technology industry is future proof.

All I can say is that the Core i7, whether it is archaic by that time or not, will still be relevant for far longer than anything pre-Core i7. The Core i7's aren't just an upgrade, they are completely new technology, that use a completely diff motherboard and architecture. Intel have stated they will start to phase out the old technology also. Core i7's have been tested up to 50% faster than QX9770 which was the next best processor on the market. Also Core i7's have 4 cores, but 8 threads (to the comp reads like 8 cores), much more efficient, which is why I'm thinking that even utilising just 2 cores it would still be a fair bit faster than any dual cores out there. But I haven't really researched that very much so again I could be wrong, which is why I wanted feedback from someone that's actually got the Core i7's.

If I buy something like a Q6600 the combination of chip, motherboard and ram would probably save me around $400 (with a decent setup as opposed to just cheapest around $550) over a Core i7 920 setup (about $940). For all the reasons stated I think the extra $400 is well worth it. Also the Core i7 920, motherboard and ddr 3 ram have all gone down in price consistently since release (the 920 is down around $40 since release under a month ago). DDR 3 ram has dropped considerably in price the last month or two and will continue to the next few weeks/months as they become more mainstream. What I'm really waiting for is the motherboard to drop in price as that really pushes the overall price up. I'll prob wait around a month for further drops before I get it.

For Barside,

If a program does not support multiple cores but still requires high processing power then your quad-core will still be putting in 100% to run it, signifying it can't process any faster, as the unused 3 cores are not able to be used.

100% does not mean it is using all cores.

If you can see usage of all 4 cores, and it shows 100% on all 4, then it does mean that doesnt it?

The game supports 4 cores, when it plays out the background matches concurrently.

Ok thanks, that's helpful. So I guess speed increases are likely with quad cores.

There's quite a difference between processing potential and having software that can use it.

Regardless, you wanted to know whether it would make a difference for FM yes? Tell you what, if you can perceive a difference between the two processors you just mentioned I'll make sure there's a medal heading your way.

The least powerful of the new Core i7's is EXTREMELY cheap for new gen technology. I can get it for $475 in Aus, although the motherboard you need to use it is more expensive than normal, but they are going down in price also (Can get one for around $362). The DDR3 ram is also more expensive. But even that is going down, I can get 2 gig worth of DDR 3 ram for $99.

Core i7 is probably NOT a smart thing to do if you are just upgrading your comp, because you have to buy a new motherboard and new ram for it to work, but I think it's smart if you are buying a new comp for the reasons stated in my previous post.

All I can say is that the Core i7, whether it is archaic by that time or not, will still be relevant for far longer than anything pre-Core i7. The Core i7's aren't just an upgrade, they are completely new technology, that use a completely diff motherboard and architecture. Intel have stated they will start to phase out the old technology also. Core i7's have been tested up to 50% faster than QX9770 which was the next best processor on the market. Also Core i7's have 4 cores, but 8 threads (to the comp reads like 8 cores), much more efficient, which is why I'm thinking that even utilising just 2 cores it would still be a fair bit faster than any dual cores out there. But I haven't really researched that very much so again I could be wrong, which is why I wanted feedback from someone that's actually got the Core i7's.

If I buy something like a Q6600 the combination of chip, motherboard and ram would probably save me around $400 (with a decent setup as opposed to just cheapest around $550) over a Core i7 920 setup (about $940). For all the reasons stated I think the extra $400 is well worth it. Also the Core i7 920, motherboard and ddr 3 ram have all gone down in price consistently since release (the 920 is down around $40 since release under a month ago). DDR 3 ram has dropped considerably in price the last month or two and will continue to the next few weeks/months as they become more mainstream. What I'm really waiting for is the motherboard to drop in price as that really pushes the overall price up. I'll prob wait around a month for further drops before I get it.

I am sure what you said is correct. However when Core2Duo first came out a lot of people were saying the similar thing.

PaulC chose his language very carefully.

There's quite a difference between processing potential and having software that can use it.

Regardless, you wanted to know whether it would make a difference for FM yes? Tell you what, if you can perceive a difference between the two processors you just mentioned I'll make sure there's a medal heading your way.

Ok that's fine. But I'm not buying it just for FM. Another thing I haven't mentioned is the ability of Core i7's (in fact they were built with it in mind) to be heavily and quite stably overclocked, but that's for a different forum.

And yes it would be good to know beforehand if it is quicker from someone that actually has it. Obviously I'll find out once I get it.

I am sure what you said is correct. However when Core2Duo first came out a lot of people were saying the similar thing.

But in that case they were introducing multi-core technology. Obviously programmers wouldn't have much of a clue about supporting it. With Core i7's multi-core has been around a fair while. Core i7's aren't about giving more core's but improving performance and power with what's there.

Planning on doing some video editing?

Planning on doing some video editing?

Nope but playing a game like Crysis without shitty frame rates (bottlenecked GPU) would be good. Plus as much as you might differ in opinion, I retain the hope that more programs will start to use multi-core technology in the near to medium future and like the idea of the rig being future proof (I understand there is no real future proof in the true sense of the phrase, but that it will last a long time without requiring an upgrade). Plus I plan on getting mine significantly overclocked (the 920 2.66ghz has been tested to stably overclock to a ridiculous 3.7ghz air cooled, and even 4ghz water cooled), prob only to around 3.4 or 3.5 ghz air cooled to be safe. That is a significant increase is speed for something that is already the third most powerful processor on the market and by a long way over the 4th. I guess I just love the value it represents for it's low (and dropping) price.

I hope I haven't sounded too negative. If you consider its price to be low then you should certainly go out an buy it, its better than my 6600 so I would definitely choose it if I was offered one of the two. And I'm certain alot more programs will utilise multi-core technology in the future, I just wanted to make sure you realised that it wouldn't do a whole lot now (especially as you were posting in the FM forums).

When I built my last budget gaming rig (I say budget, it came to around £850 by the end of it), I chose dual core over quad-core for the reasons being offered in this thread, there was almost no support for the quads, and it's much the same now, but when I upgrade next month, I'm going for quad-core, DDR3 and Crossfire, in the hope it'll last me longer than the year my current one has lasted, which was pretty good at the time.

Technology moves on, and upgrades FAST, I guess in the long run, if you are on a budget the best thing to do would be to go for the quads, or the i7's if you can afford it.

I hope I haven't sounded too negative. If you consider its price to be low then you should certainly go out an buy it, its better than my 6600 so I would definitely choose it if I was offered one of the two. And I'm certain alot more programs will utilise multi-core technology in the future, I just wanted to make sure you realised that it wouldn't do a whole lot now (especially as you were posting in the FM forums).

Based on what I've read of testing it will do a lot now with anything that supports multi-threading (not just 4 cores), and it does a lot for high end games greatly reducing the stress on the GPU. Even just having multiple programs open that use a lot of processing power. Hopefully that just increases as more programs supporting multi-core technology comes out.

I expect price drops, particularly with the motherboard (which as of now is a still a bit of a novelty) within the next month or so. If I can get the processor/motherboard/ram for under $800 I'd consider that very good value for what it represents.

I'd still like someone with a Core i7 to verify whether it is faster with FM. Particularly as FM is much more CPU than GPU intensive. PaulC's post intimates that it should have some effect performance wise.

I have the new core processor, and I have to admit the game does run VERY fast. With my old PC, the 3D pitch took about 15 seconds to load up. Now it dosen't take any loading at all.

The only thing I can't do is play the 3D match on it's highest speed. It makes me feel sick as the players go to fast for the old eyes. Lol

When I built my last budget gaming rig (I say budget, it came to around £850 by the end of it), I chose dual core over quad-core for the reasons being offered in this thread, there was almost no support for the quads, and it's much the same now, but when I upgrade next month, I'm going for quad-core, DDR3 and Crossfire, in the hope it'll last me longer than the year my current one has lasted, which was pretty good at the time.

Technology moves on, and upgrades FAST, I guess in the long run, if you are on a budget the best thing to do would be to go for the quads, or the i7's if you can afford it.

The ONLY Core i7 processor with value is the 920. The 940 is like twice the price of the 920 and only offers like 0.27ghz increase in processing power. The 965 isn't even worth mentioning. The 920 is really fantastic value compared to what processors cost comparatively other times new technology has been introduced, particularly if you look to overclock, which everyone should that gets a Core i7 as you could almost say Intel has purposely underclocked them to cater for overclockers (like AMD have done in the past).

The most ridiculous thing is a Q9650, previously the fastest processor around is almost as expensive as the Core i7 940. The 920 is even cheaper than the Q9550 despite being far superior. The cost comes not from the price of the processor but from the fact that Core i7's require the new x58 motherboards, and also require DDR3 ram both which are pretty expensive, but are dramatically reducing in price as we speak.

Honestly it seems to me that computer upgrades are needed much more frequently today (depending on what you use them for of course) than they were 4 or 5 years ago so I think it gives it more credence.

I have the new core processor, and I have to admit the game does run VERY fast. With my old PC, the 3D pitch took about 15 seconds to load up. Now it dosen't take any loading at all.

The only thing I can't do is play the 3D match on it's highest speed. It makes me feel sick as the players go to fast for the old eyes. Lol

Thanks, that answers my question

I just bought a core i7 965 based Alienware box. I'll let you know...

Core i7's would be worth it.i'm thinking of upgrading to one too.They also support hyper-threading which means it can run 8 threads.Also (I forget the name they use for it) if less than 4 cores are running the processor will self overclock the running cores assuming temperature and power consumption are within set limits.

I'd say it's worth the money.

For your average home system, a system based on that is obviously way overpowered: you can run just about any game maxed out on CPUs that go for but a fraction of the cost, and if you aren't an enthusiast, into professional video encoding, image processing or just want to make sure your system will last you as long as possible for some reason or other etc. I don't see the point. For everyday use browsing, writing, mailing and SI boarding any system on the market right now is plentyful no matter the cost. Sure, a new Core i7 system is going to last you the longest, but in terms of usage for the majority of home users it's also a waste of money due to power idling.

Personally I'm more into upgrading whenever the power is actually needed and utilized, and a Core i7 system is fairly expensive still. Hardware prices have been dropping steady fast all the time. You do the Maths.

Here are a couple of benchies with current games. Nobody knows in what direction devs will be heading into as far as multi-threading is concerned, but right now it's apparently all moving at snail's pace. Obviously all systems tested deliver more than superb frame rates. If you're into overclocking anyway and want to go quad core, maybe a C2Q 9550 would be another option. Tons cheaper a system, and the Core2 architecture apparently can be overclocked to the max. But by all means, if you've got the money to spend, hell, go for it!

* though you can never have enough CPU power for FM, true that.

Nothing in the technology industry is future proof.

That. Plus that a CPU's architecture doesn't stay the same throughout its lifecycle. The Athlon64 didn't stay the same. Nor did the Core2Duo. Compare, say, the performance per clock-cycle and energy efficiency of an early 2006 E6600 against that of a more recent 2008 E8200. Both are clocking in at about 2,4 Ghz, but the 8200 is a faster processor, and is even more energy-efficient than the earlier Core2Duo processor. And it seems AMD's new Phenom is much improved over its predecessor as well.

Lol at alienware.

They are probs very fast when overclocked.

I'm playing with a Core i7 now (just built my new computer this weekend).

FM09 plays excellently well for me. I am particularly pleased that I can have FM running in the background while compiling / browsing / whatever else I might be doing at the same time, without noticing any particular slowdowns in any of the activities. Sure, a regular Quad core might (should) be able to do the same, but I can only speak for my own system, obviously. The Core i7 is fast and very impressive. As mentioned - total overkill for a regular home system (where the GPU is usually far more important), but since I do a lot of development and also edit HDV's (and play CPU-intensive games like FM09), I'm really happy with it.

The Aliens delivered my i7 965. FM runs like me after an authentic Thai meal. It does use all 8 threads, albeit briefly while the "Processing..." dialog is visible.

The Aliens delivered my i7 965. FM runs like me after an authentic Thai meal. It does use all 8 threads, albeit briefly while the "Processing..." dialog is visible.

Was it worth paying double to get a shiny-looking box?

Was it worth paying double to get a shiny-looking box?

It was only one weeks wages, after tax. Does that make you feel better now?

Is there really much use for quad cores yet? I upgrade my PC regularly, but even thought Quad Cores are now cheap, I don't think I can justify the cost when my dual core runs things so well. As for the i7 - it's exciting and that, but I just don't use the software that could justify the technology (plus it's new which means it's expensive).

The only thing I ever buy relatively new is a graphcis card (as my shiny GeForce GTX 260 will testify).

There is never any need to upgrade to the newest components unless you actually work for a studio who develops advanced 3D software/games

Casual gamers don't need Core i7's, and even your GTX 260 is overkill right now

The most graphically demanding games for the PC (which is still Crysis as far as I know) still run perfectly well on a £100 Q6600 and £100 8800GT with 2gb of ram that costs £20

It was only one weeks wages, after tax. Does that make you feel better now?

Uh.. yes? I don't really know what you want to hear; congratulations you can afford to be ripped off?

^^WHS

Just for showing off that you earn over $3000 a week I will join in the laughter at you being mugged into buying a re-cased Dell.

^^WHS

Just for showing off that you earn over $3000 a week I will join in the laughter at you being mugged into buying a re-cased Dell.

You're just jealous.

You're just jealous.

I don't think so. Dell (who make Alienware) are quite unreliable, there's no way I would buy one. Plus buying a pre-built system hampers upgradeability.

GTX 260 is overkill right now

Not so sure about that.

I have a Evga GTX 280 FTW and i can't play the newest games on max settings.

Normal/High settings are fine but get very slow FPS on higher settings.

Crysis though a very heavy game is not the heaviest game out there anymore. ( i can run that at Max settings on 24" monitor)

My card with my C2Q 9550 2,83 MHZ ----> clocked 3,4 MHZ with 4gb DDR3 RAM 1666 MHz can't run games like

GTA 4 on any high settings. ( could just be the awful port that rockstar made when making it for PC)

Times are changing and game requirements with them. Upgrades are needed much more frequent.

Edit. Forgott to say that the actual monitor you are playing on makes a huge difference.

I don't think so. Dell (who make Alienware) are quite unreliable, there's no way I would buy one. Plus buying a pre-built system hampers upgradeability.

Each to his own.

I don't think Dell make Alienware, but they do own them. In fact Dell doesn't make Dell. They outsourced production some time ago. Also the Alienware has an ASUS MOBO. AFAIK Dell always use proprietary MOBOs. My Dell XPS 710 H2C certainly has a prop MOBO. As for hampering upgrades I'm not sure that's entirely true; both Dell and Alienware use standard chipsets, connector types, buses....

Dell's customer service is the absolute pits though; unless you enjoy listening to people who live in Mumbai but strangely have names like "John", "Eric" and "Mike". There is one reason buy pre-built; the 3 year warranty.

There is never any need to upgrade to the newest components unless you actually work for a studio who develops advanced 3D software/games

That is purley your philosophy based on your financial situation. I buy the highest spec'd PC I can afford at the time and run it for 3 years then fully replace, thats the period of time in which I can justify spending £2K on a PC. By the time I come to replace it, the PC is starting to feel its age.

In contrast to you, I feel its a waste of money buying old tech (even though it still does the job for a while) and upgrading every year to year and a half.

Anyway the game does utilise more than 2 cores, when I built my new machine (i7) I ran the task manager on my 2nd monitor and it shows all cores being utilised. The game runs very smooth, especially due to 6gb triple channel ram.

I spent €340 on my FM pc. I run 36 leagues, 36 additional nations etc.

All you need is a good dual core with 4gb of ram (2 is fine at a push) and an efficient software setup.

Spending more than €400 on a PC is pointless as not only is it largely worthless the moment it is assembled and powered on, it will be out of date within 18 months.

The point about warranties on OEM machines is fud too - with respect - they are engineered on a margin with quality and reliability coming a distant third in the list of priorities. You'd likely need the warranty on one of those machines.

Self assembly, you often get similar or equivalent warranties on individual components (LCD 3 years, motherboard 3 years, RAM Lifetime, HDD four years) and the added satisfication of knowing that you are not paying a brand premium for mcguffin whizz bang and that you know exactly whats in it and what to expect from it.

AMD 6000+

ASUS M2N

4gb of Corsair 6400

200 GB SATA 2 HDD

ATi HD 3850

80% efficient PSU

€350 (a year ago)

Job done.

Seriously.

PS: Yes, power consumption is a concern for me. Not being American, we actually have to pay for our energy sadly.