i run an e8500@4Ghz with a 4870x2 i have looked into wether or not upgrading to i7 would give a huge improvement in games , its normally a few fps better on i7 from what ive seen , i play at 1920x1200 , i don't think games are multi threaded properly yet , this is a guess , i am no expert , i love my system and would recomend that everyone follows nvidia's advice and go and buy a gpu , an ati one , lol only joking

btarunrThe graph may be right or wrong, but NVIDIA's theory makes sense. If you have a reasonably good gaming PC from last year, a GPU upgrade makes more sense. NVIDIA is not refering to a case where your CPU is holding your GPUs back, hence it used a Core 2 Duo E8400 for reference.

Are you saying that my Q6600 is quite sufficient and I only need a better GPU? (Currently on 3850)

Answer: YES

So where is my 4770 or 4850 AGP? Can't find them anywhere... ;)

lemonadesodaAre you saying that my Q6600 is quite sufficient and I only need a better GPU? (Currently on 3850)

Answer: YES

So where is my 4770 or 4850 AGP? Can't find them anywhere... ;)

Cheeky.

Yes, Q6600 is sufficient, and AGP is dead. Solution: get a 70€ no-frills P45 board, and not spend hundreds moving to another platform.

What about Xbox 360 costs less then a VGA and has it all. Most games are first developed for Xbox anyway.

r9What about Xbox 360 costs less then a VGA and has it all. Most games are first developed for Xbox anyway.

Dont xboxes have ati gpu's?

Moronic.



Don't get me wrong, in a lot of configurations (especially low end) a newer graphics card will give you a bigger boost for your $ than a CPU.... but a CPU will also improve a lot of other things.

Most importantly, their diagram completely misrepresents the cost of upgrading a CPU by cutting out the ENTIRE mainstream to mid-high end intel line up and all of AMD's high end. If you are going to build an i7 system, it's your own damn fault if you buy a terrible GPU to go along with it.


Besides, even in their chart, the bottom of the line graphics option achieves a perfectly playable framerate, provided it doesn't drop low too often.

$790 for a Core i7? What are they smoking? Months ago, I got my motherboard, memory, and processor for ~$600.

Obviously that isn't going to make a major difference (except in Saints Row II) but neither is two 250 GTS cards (did they forget the SLI ready power supply?). Meh, marketing. :p

ShadowFoldThe jump from Core 2 Quad to i7 gives such small performance increases in games, I agree with nvidia here. Altho, not necessarily on the whole SLI thing, but I still think that buying a new video card for gaming is a much better idea if you have a Core 2 or Phenom platform.

I agree, really a core2 even stock at 2.4ghz+ will do just fine in modern games, the increase from a CPU won't even compare to the upgrade to a newer and more powerful vid card. Taky my upgrade trend in the last almost 3 years, I went from an x1950pro 256mb to an x1950xtx 512mb, noticed a slight increase in gaming, allowed for more AA without as bad of a hit...though in modern games that was all but nixed. Then I went to a 9600GT from there, almost doubled my FPS, with up to 4X AA where the 1950's would choke on 2XAA, with the GT only having a mere 16 more shaders, a couple generations of technology and refinement, speed and 3.0 vs 4.0 shader model all made a huge difference in that aspect. Then I went with a GTX260 last July, that was easily double...very easyily double what the 9600GT put out with maxxed settings + AA at the same resolution in the same rig. While costing me only about $100 more than I paid for the 9600GT only 7 months prior. Going from an e6300 to a q6600 was an expensive investment, that is much more noticable multitasking-wise more than gaming, but for me is worth it. I had an e8600 @ 4.5ghz for a a good chunk of last year, and ended up going back to a q6600 for my needs as a gamer that doesn't want to have issues running a browser, music player, F@H, WCG, Teamspeak, and a game at the same time without issue. I can do that with a quad, where a dual would seriously struggle. Going from a perfectly good Core2Quad @ 3.6ghz to an i7 really isn't worth it, I'd have to replace the CPU, board and get DDR3, I wouldn't want less than the 4GB I'm used to, so 6GB would be it, what I would spend to go i7 couldn't even compare to the difference that my GPU upgrades have given me.

Part of why the Core2 is still great for gaming, it's not the best, it doesn't need to be to have a damn good experience. It runs cooler, I've yet to see a Core2 that couldn't overclock, they're cheaper, plenty of cheap mb's and ddr2 out there to save a lotta cash and put that towards a better gpu for an overall better gaming experience. Not saying SLI or CF is the way to go, I prefer a single card/single gpu setup myself...and there are plenty of powerful single gpu options out there. For those that need super HD resolutions, sure multi gpu/card setups are a must, but for most gamers, saving the cash and using it where it'd be more noticable and appreciated for a longer period of time is definately important than having the next best thing. Not saying the i7 sucks, but looking at it from a budget mind on the intel side, AMD side stuff is really good and nicely priced, but overall, most gamers don't need i7 and won't to have a good gaming experience when compared to using the money to replace your cpu/mb/ram to gpu...hands down, gpu is the way to go. I didn't read more than a few posts on the first page...so I'm sure I'm just taking the long route to regurgitaiton, but at the same time, you can't blame NV for taking an opportunity for budget-wise common sense approach for those that want to spend money for more performance gaming-wise, but not enough to go to the next gen cpu/chipset yet, or get more performance taking that money and adding another card to a current setup...though if you don't have an SLI board...well feel free to add that to the costs too, which could turn the table on what gpu(s) would be comparable. In the end, it's obvious upgrading a GPU on a semi-current rig would be the better option if other areas are up to par.

FordGT90Concept$790 for a Core i7?

Cost of upgrade: processor + board + memory.

its just a marketing tool to help get rid of there dx10 cards befor dx11 gets here

btarunrAt those high resolutions, games are decreasingly CPU-bound.

i hate the CPU bound argument. its flawed logic.

Yes, as you get a higher and higher resolution, the CPU affects your FPS less and less - your MAXIMUM fps. because your video card is holding you back.

Upgrading your CPU can DEFINITELY improve your MINIMUM FPS. if there was nothing to be gained from getting a faster CPU, we'd all be on pentium 4's and laughing... just as people are laughing in this thread because while the gains are minimal, we KNOW that going i7 would give a few FPS more over a slower CPU.

A friend of mine as 2gb of ddr1 ram and a 745 socket sempron 3000+.. he had a x800GTO 256mb GPU and could play doom3 just fine.. now that the games are more demanding he upgraded to a 9600GT 512mb GPU and can play fallout3 and the witcher just fine (coulndt do that before) so i think that statement from nvidia is just true

Would have been easier to swallow if the CPU graph atleast bumped up abit with the i7.

troyrae360its just a marketing tool to help get rid of there dx10 cards befor dx11 gets here

...so if i buy a keyring off the website ill get better fps than a cpu upgrade..sweet

FR@NKWould have been easier to swallow if the CPU graph atleast bumped up abit with the i7.

Realistically, it wouldn't. Specially with games that only use 1 to 4 cores, which is pretty much all of them. But yes, maybe a few fps increase because of the higher clock speeds, but nothing too large.

They 'flatlined' the line showing upgrade performance increase from a high level C2D to i7 because you just do not gain enough of an fps increase to warrant spending so much over a graphical upgrade. Enough said, no need to cry about it, no need to flame nvidia, they are telling the truth and this graph illustrates it perfectly.

In before ATI fanboys :shadedshu

kyle2020They 'flatlined' the line showing upgrade performance increase from a high level C2D to i7 because you just do not gain enough of an fps increase to warrant spending so much over a graphical upgrade. Enough said, no need to cry about it, no need to flame nvidia, they are telling the truth and this graph illustrates it perfectly.

In before ATI fanboys :shadedshu

go read some i7 reviews. at least one. upgrading the CPU always makes some change to FPS, even if its minor.

Ive said that in my previous post. Im not denying that there is an increase, just not as much, not nearly as much, as when you upgrade your gpu.

I entirely agree with Nividia but because they don't licence Sli on X48, I'll prolly upgrade to ATI

They should push cuda and make an OS run from it before injecting people with delusions of hope. hehe

Its a case to case basis.. say that your comming from a lower end say 8800GT and a core2, changing the card to a GTX200 will greatly benefit indeed..

I loath shit like this. Most would probably argue a 24/7 C2D CPU OC of 3.4GHz @ 450FSB+ is pretty solid. For a single graphics card up to a HD4770 or nVidia equivilent, it probably is, minimal bottlenecking will occur. However once you start factoring CF or SLi into that same equation, 3.4GHz suddenly starts to look decidedly weak. With more an more games being written to take advantage of 4 instead of 2 cores it makes absolute sence to drop £150-£200 on a quad core chip, especially if you have a recent pretty decent graphics card anyway.

I'm willing to bet that a system similar to this;

Decent midrange mobo (P5Q Pro, P5Q-E, or anything like that)
Q6600\Q9550
4GB PC8500 or better

..will last a user at least another 2 years with the only real thing in need of a upgrade would be better graphics as/when, or indeed if, its needed.

KetxxxI loath shit like this. Most would probably argue a 24/7 C2D CPU OC of 3.4GHz @ 450FSB+ is pretty solid. For a single graphics card up to a HD4770 or nVidia equivilent, it probably is, minimal bottlenecking will occur. However once you start factoring CF or SLi into that same equation, 3.4GHz suddenly starts to look decidedly weak. With more an more games being written to take advantage of 4 instead of 2 cores it makes absolute sence to drop £150-£200 on a quad core chip, especially if you have a recent pretty decent graphics card anyway.

I'm willing to bet that a system similar to this;

Decent midrange mobo (P5Q Pro, P5Q-E, or anything like that)
Q6600\Q9550
4GB PC8500 or better

..will last a user at least another 2 years with the only real thing in need of a upgrade would be better graphics as/when, or indeed if, its needed.

me and ket rarely agree, the heavens shall rage at people who dont listen when we do.

I certainly beleive that going from an E8400 to an i7 will have little FPS difference in many game types, on low and mid range video cards.
As ket said however... once you go high end, or crossfire/SLI... stock CPU's - no stock CPU's - will cut it anymore.

I would say we have healthy opposing views :D Neither of our views are really wrong, it just depends on the users concerns. In my case, I want maximum performance out of everything, where most others are probably willing to compromise to save ££, even if the compromise only saves them a little.

theubersmurf<-This, in addition to the fact that nearly every nvidia gpu worth owning requires additional power, which many store bought systems don't have the appropriate connections, nor power even if they have converters.

Again, you need to pay attention to what is actually being said, and stop ignoring what nVidia is saying.

They are assuming you already have a GTS250, or comparable card. Meaning you already have a power supply capable of running a decent graphics card.

And they are comparing upgrading the graphics card to upgrading the entire platform from Core 2 to i7. Throwing an additional power supply in the mix isn't a big deal if you are replacing Motherboard/CPU/Memory as well.

Musselsi hate the CPU bound argument. its flawed logic.

Yes, as you get a higher and higher resolution, the CPU affects your FPS less and less - your MAXIMUM fps. because your video card is holding you back.

Upgrading your CPU can DEFINITELY improve your MINIMUM FPS. if there was nothing to be gained from getting a faster CPU, we'd all be on pentium 4's and laughing... just as people are laughing in this thread because while the gains are minimal, we KNOW that going i7 would give a few FPS more over a slower CPU.

Musselsgo read some i7 reviews. at least one. upgrading the CPU always makes some change to FPS, even if its minor.

Most of the i7, actually most CPU reviews in general, lower the resolution so low that the CPU becomes the limitting factor. It has been like this for years. However, in the real world, the limitting factor is more often than not the GPU, both in the minimum and maximum framerates. And if it isn't, you need to change your settings to make the game look better, because you're doing it wrong.

Now of course there are extremes, but nVidia isn't talking about extremes here. They are talking about mid-range hardware, and the upgrade paths available. Obvious the CPU does play, but with a modern CPU, which is what we are talking about here, that role is overshadowed by the role of the GPU. A P4 is obviously going to be limitting, which is why most of us don't use them anymore for gaming. However, a modern CPU like the E8400 isn't nearly as limitting. In fact, I would argue, that in most modern games an E8400 at stock would be enough to not limit the framerate at all when paired with a GTS250.

Now, I will say that their SLi test that only gave 60FPS was most definitely CPU limitted at that point.

Lol, they started the graph at 40 to make the gains from buying a new gpu look astrinomical