[Carbon]

I understand perfectly - people that get kicks out of buying different pieces of silicon because they have different names or they're new are morons in my book. If you want to take that as a personal insult go ahead because I'm not going to claim it's anything other than pure my-grill-is-bigger-than-your-grill idiocy that has no place here. My personal opinion is irrelevant, though, because whether or not I think buying something for those reasons stupid it's either going to be a good price/perf buy or not. That is what I predicate my recommendations on, not my own value judgements.

With that out of the way, there's absolutely no reason I'm going to sit here and let the OP gets locked paying hundreds of dollars more into a dead enthusiast socket that gives him no benefit over the alternative because he had to fit someone else's idea of what computer processor someone thought was cool. That is ridiculous. Spend your own money if you're "into computers like you're into cars" (if people spent money on cars like they do here they'd glue giant bricks of gold to the inside of their computer and then brag about it on the internet), don't spend other people's money for them based on this mindset. There are plenty of other places you can socialize with people that have it and not end up leading people toward the wrong choices.

And yes, you should look at my other posts seeing as how one of which was linked in the first reply given in the thread and is currently stickied at the top of this forum. I have written extensively about the i7 and its price/performance; you on the other hand have done nothing but make offhand, largely baseless remarks riding others' recommendation bandwagon and then slapping the i7 on the end. The only attempt at backing this up is posting an article with one synthetic benchmark that is summarily refuted as relevant to gaming by your own source.

[Krlll]

I understand perfectly - people that get kicks out of buying different pieces of silicon because they have different names or they're new are morons in my book.

I am not suggesting people go buy something for the name,where did I say that???

I'm not going to claim it's anything other than pure my-grill-is-bigger-than-your-grill idiocy that has no place here

And who are you to decide what is said here?

There are plenty of other places you can socialize with people that have it and not end up leading people toward the wrong choices.

Thanks for the tip but I dont need to be told to go socialise elshwhere by you or anyone else.
I can offer my advice/opinion here just as anyone else can.

And yes, you should look at my other posts seeing as how one of which was linked in the first reply given in the thread and is currently stickied at the top of this forum. I have written extensively about the i7 and its price/performance; you on the other hand have done nothing but make offhand, largely baseless remarks riding others' recommendation bandwagon and then slapping the i7 on the end. The only attempt at backing this up is posting an article with one synthetic benchmark that is summarily refuted as relevant to gaming by your own source.

There are countless benchmarks and tests done on the internet that prove the i7 will give him better performance in games.
Perhaps you need to read the OPs initial post again.

need new computer for gaming
*min price = $5000 max = $6000
*atm playing wow, sim3, Empire total war
*Please look at following comp builds and let me know what you think

You dont even recommend a quad core,something that Empire Total War takes full advantage of along with quite a few other games and more no doubt will follow.
How happy will OP be with your lame recomendation when he builds his nice new PC only to find its not that great even for the games he currently has not to mention those he might buy in the future.

You think my posts are irrelevant and vague fine.
I know what Im talking about when it comes to gaming PCs.

You excel in senseless penny pinching that will only leave a buyer like the above wondering why the hell he didnt spend a little more(its an extra couple 100 max for my recommendations) and get something he will be pleased with instead of saving a few quid and being disappointed.

[Carbon]

Originally Posted by Krlll

There are countless benchmarks and tests done on the internet that prove the i7 will give him better performance in games.

Alright link them then. I'm not going to waste time tilting at windmills.

Perhaps you need to read the OPs initial post again.
You dont even recommend a quad core,something that Empire Total War takes full advantage of along with quite a few other games and more no doubt will follow.

Empire: Total War is GPU limited along with every single game on the market today and for at least the last five years. "Taking advantage" of a CPU means absolutely nothing and E:TW runs just as well on dual-core processors as it does quads. "Futureproofing" is impossible and making purchases based on crystal-balling is a terrible strategy. The OP can buy something that plays today's games at well over 60fps and then buy another one that buys tomorrow's games at well over 60fps in a few years rather than taking your word for it. If there's something major that ends up using a ton of CPU power, it's going to be major enough that the i7 will look dated.

How happy will OP be with your lame recomendation when he builds his nice new PC only to find its not that great even for the games he currently has not to mention those he might buy in the future.

I'm sure the OP will be terribly disappointed in his occasional 0.5fps drop that isn't noticed due to vsync because he had the gall to buy a processor with a 200mhz clock speed difference. So much so, in fact, that he will undoubtedly buy a new processor in two years on the same socket for a reasonable price when Intel is busy exploiting the hell out of the enthusiasts that are stuck with LGA-1366. You're right, this is a horrible scenario.

You think my posts are irrelevant and vague fine.
I know what Im talking about when it comes to gaming PCs.

Clearly I should take your word for it as you haven't bothered linking to anything objective other than an article that disagrees with you. "I totally swear I'm an expert!"

You excel in senseless penny pinching that will only leave a buyer like the above wondering why the hell he didnt spend a little more(its an extra couple 100 max for my recommendations) and get something he will be pleased with instead of saving a few quid and being disappointed.

If I wanted to penny pinch I wouldn't recommend a SSD, 8GB of RAM, a 620HX, or DDR3. Keep whacking that strawman, I guess. Spending $300 AUD on a SSD is going to give reasonable (but not 100% cost-effective) gains in some applications and games, a i7 920 does not.

[Krlll]

Alright link them then. I'm not going to waste time tilting at windmills.

I have no idea what tilting at windmills means but......
i7
Dont know if that will meet your high standards of objectivity.
I could of course provide countless links but that is what Google is for is it not?

Empire: Total War is GPU limited along with every single game on the market today and for at least the last five years. "Taking advantage" of a CPU means absolutely nothing and E:TW runs just as well on dual-core processors as it does quads. "Futureproofing" is impossible and making purchases based on crystal-balling is a terrible strategy. The OP can buy something that plays today's games at well over 60fps and then buy another one that buys tomorrow's games at well over 60fps in a few years rather than taking your word for it. If there's something major that ends up using a ton of CPU power, it's going to be major enough that the i7 will look dated.

Please try and keep up with the times.
Empire Total War does use quad core.
Source.
And give up on this guaranteed 60fps nonsense,with all the eye candy reduced maybe but not if you crank up the detail settings.
Your continuous use of guaranteed 60fps is very misleading,almost like something the marketers(that you seem to hate so much)would come out with.

I'm sure the OP will be terribly disappointed in his occasional 0.5fps drop that isn't noticed due to vsync because he had the gall to buy a processor with a 200mhz clock speed difference. So much so, in fact, that he will undoubtedly buy a new processor in two years on the same socket for a reasonable price when Intel is busy exploiting the hell out of the enthusiasts that are stuck with LGA-1366. You're right, this is a horrible scenario.

Where did you pull the 0.5fps from?Thin air?
And you have the cheek to say I am pulling numbers from nowhere with no sources.

Clearly I should take your word for it as you haven't bothered linking to anything objective other than an article that disagrees with you. "I totally swear I'm an expert!"

I never claimed to be an expert and you can even see in my profile that I consider myself an intermediate user.
Also I really dont see the point of linking to articles that are just a Google away for anyone that cares to look.
It is "common knowledge" that i7 is the new CPU king.
I would have recommended a qaud core to the OP to save money but as he is building a brand new PC from scratch he may as well go i7.
That is my opinion.

If I wanted to penny pinch I wouldn't recommend a SSD, 8GB of RAM, a 620HX, or DDR3. Keep whacking that strawman, I guess. Spending $300 AUD on a SSD is going to give reasonable (but not 100% cost-effective) gains in some applications and games, a i7 920 does not.

I have not created any "strawman".
You reveal yourself to be someone that has an opinion based on price/performance(that I believe to be flawed) and seem unable to accept other peoples ideas/opinions.
You wont budge an inch and think your way is the only way......I have accepted your info on the PSU and seconded your GPU recommendation.
Your reply to that?

you on the other hand have done nothing but make offhand, largely baseless remarks riding others' recommendation bandwagon

What a friendly chap you are!

[Hybr!d]

I'm all up for debate but please do not get personal, it is not required to get your point across.

Thank you, carry on.

[Carbon]

Originally Posted by Krlll

I have no idea what tilting at windmills means but......
i7
Dont know if that will meet your high standards of objectivity.
I could of course provide countless links but that is what Google is for is it not?

No, that's what you're for, seeing as how you made the claim in the first place. This always happens when people don't have a leg to stand on: they love to claim that their argument is "common knowledge" and that it's oh so easy to find sources because they know none exist. What usually happens now is that I link a bunch of sources for my arguments, then you attack those sources for having insignificant flaws, and I end up having to find more sources and we get nowhere. So if you have something present it now because that process is kind of a pain in the butt.

Please try and keep up with the times.
Empire Total War does use quad core.
Source.

That's not the argument. I could write a program in C++ in five minutes that "used quad-core" but that's meaningless. Games are not CPU limited, they have almost never been CPU limited except for the early days when hardware-accelerated graphics didn't exist and was yet to be a standard.

And give up on this guaranteed 60fps nonsense,with all the eye candy reduced maybe but not if you crank up the detail settings.

Addressed earlier.

Where did you pull the 0.5fps from?Thin air?
And you have the cheek to say I am pulling numbers from nowhere with no sources.

I'm not sure what exactly else I'm supposed to be arguing. You claimed that the i7 gives gains, you have yet to back it up concretely. As far as I'm concerned an educated guess beats nothing at all.

You wont budge an inch and think your way is the only way......

I have accepted your info on the PSU and seconded your GPU recommendation.
Your reply to that?
What a friendly chap you are!

I don't think people agreeing with me gives them credit to be wrong somewhere else. This isn't a give and take thing, it's a correct vs incorrect thing.

To sum what I'm saying up:

- LGA-1366 is a dead socket (sources: anyone looking at the Intel roadmap, here, here)
- processor selection does not improve gains at resolutions higher than 800x600 (source: Tom's Hardware CPU charts, extensive scaling test at guru3d, benchmarks exist at multiple resolutions and the practice exists to test CPUs by knocking down res to lowest limit)
- even if it did (and it doesn't), the 4890 runs most games at over v-sync 60fps at 1920x1200 2x AA anyway (source: every 4890 benchmark on the planet)

To sum up what you've said so far:

- I'm wrong
- i7 is "the CPU king" (who cares?)
- I'm wrong
- Empire: Total War "uses quad-core CPUs" (not a useful metric, no benchmark links that any difference in CPU power creates significant difference, one bench exists from a German site at one resolution and on one level with a avg 6fps increase between X3 and i7 920 but 1fps difference between E8400 and i7 920, common sense dictates that E:TW is not the sole exception to the GPU-limited trend)
- i'm wrong
- you know what you're talking about

[Carbon]

And I should also again note one comfortable compromise exists in the X4 955 which is not on a dead socket, has equivalent clock speed to the i7 920 and uses a cheaper motherboard. In fact, it's probably a better pick than the X3 720 if the OP is not overclocking anyway seeing as how its clock speed is higher off the bat. It's just more difficult to spec sometimes.

[Krlll]

No, that's what you're for, seeing as how you made the claim in the first place. This always happens when people don't have a leg to stand on: they love to claim that their argument is "common knowledge" and that it's oh so easy to find sources because they know none exist. What usually happens now is that I link a bunch of sources for my arguments, then you attack those sources for having insignificant flaws, and I end up having to find more sources and we get nowhere. So if you have something present it now because that process is kind of a pain in the butt.

You make baseless predictions about what I will do,then suggest that rebutting my comments will be a "pain in the butt".
So you think me googling all day to rebut your comments would be a good idea but for you to do the same would be "A pain in the butt"

That's not the argument. I could write a program in C++ in five minutes that "used quad-core" but that's meaningless. Games are not CPU limited, they have almost never been CPU limited except for the early days when hardware-accelerated graphics didn't exist and was yet to be a standard.

Thats not whose argument?
It is my argument,I dont give a rats ass what you program in C.
Empire Total War is quad core optimised you can accept that or give your vague contradictory history lesson.
Supreme commander is another.

I'm not sure what exactly else I'm supposed to be arguing. You claimed that the i7 gives gains, you have yet to back it up concretely. As far as I'm concerned an educated guess beats nothing at all

.

Your educated guess is worth as much as my "unsubstantiated"(no links) claims.
You want to get the best bang for your buck?
i7 D0 often reaches 4Ghz+ on air.What can you say about your suggested CPU?
How about that for a reason?

I don't think people agreeing with me gives them credit to be wrong somewhere else. This isn't a give and take thing, it's a correct vs incorrect thing. SNIP

I have given my opinion,are you so arrogant that you consider it worthless?
I recommended a different(better performing)CPU,I recommended a larger case based on my own past experience.
The P182 while large is quite a cramped case(and may need HDD cage removal for larger GPUs),its also a quiet case but obviously pays for it with inferior cooling(one intake fan).
I regularly build gaming PCs for people and to offer someone living in australia a cramped warm case is ridiculous.

- I'm wrong
- i7 is "the CPU king" (who cares?)
- I'm wrong
- Empire: Total War "uses quad-core CPUs" (not a useful metric, no benchmark links that any difference in CPU power creates significant difference, one bench exists from a German site at one resolution and on one level with a avg 6fps increase between X3 and i7 920 but 1fps difference between E8400 and i7 920, common sense dictates that E:TW is not the sole exception to the GPU-limited trend)
- i'm wrong
- you know what you're talking about

Yes you were wrong about Empite - Total War

i7 is king,plenty of people care,especially those building brand new computers.

So you found a link but couldnt be bothered sharing it?

Yes,again you were wrong about Empire and IMO you are also wrong to recomend that case for this build in that country.

I certainly do know what I am talking about.
I dont doubt that you do aswell but it seems you have reached a point of crystallization.
You are unwilling or unable to accept other view points.

Just to summarise something about myself as you have made quite a few assumptions.
I buy the best hardware I can afford and overclock it.
I am not a victim of marketing and thoroughly research everything I buy.
There is no such thing as future proofing but it is only common sense to buy a case that leaves future options open.
Same goes for motherboard and CPU.

As for LAG1366 being dead you are joking right?
http://www.bit-tech.net/blog/2009/07...-proof-choice/
Wow can you believe it I provided a link!

[Carbon]

Originally Posted by Krlll

Empire Total War is quad core optimised you can accept that or give your vague contradictory history lesson.
Supreme commander is another.

"Optimized" would be a meaningless marketing buzzword if anybody actually used it in marketing. As stated before, the difference between a X3 720 and a i7 920 has only been tested once as far as I know on unpatched (and this game was utterly broken at launch) E:TW at 1680x1050 and that showed a avg 6fps difference but a 1fps difference between the E8400 and the i7. The extra core on the X3 is enough to mean that even heavily threaded applications benefit and the X4 955 was omitted.

Supreme Commander is not representative of games in general. FPS and most RTS games do not have its scale. It's also really old. With that said, simply turning off two cores on a QX9770 is not a very reasonable benchmark, and even if it were the OP does not play SupCom.

Your educated guess is worth as much as my "unsubstantiated"(no links) claims.
You want to get the best bang for your buck?
i7 D0 often reaches 4Ghz+ on air.What can you say about your suggested CPU?
How about that for a reason?

Again, who cares? I'm not bringing up overclocking, are you admitting the processor is poorer at stock? If the OP wishes to overclock (despite it apparently being so hot that he shouldn't buy a P182 or anything!!!!) he can get the X3 720 to 3.6 or buy a E8400 and clock it to 4ghz as well.

I have given my opinion,are you so arrogant that you consider it worthless?

The way that you've presented it, yeah.

I recommended a different(better performing)CPU,I recommended a larger case based on my own past experience.
The P182 while large is quite a cramped case(and may need HDD cage removal for larger GPUs),its also a quiet case but obviously pays for it with inferior cooling(one intake fan).
I regularly build gaming PCs for people and to offer someone living in australia a cramped warm case is ridiculous.

We went over this already.

Yes you were wrong about Empite - Total War

Where?

i7 is king,plenty of people care,especially those building brand new computers.

"King" means nothing to anyone who cares about their computer performing such arcane tasks as "games" and "applications". That's why we benchmark things and don't just give royal titles to them.

So you found a link but couldnt be bothered sharing it?
As for LAG1366 being dead you are joking right?
http://www.bit-tech.net/blog/2009/07...-proof-choice/

Pchooo!

Anyway, where in that article does it bring up 1156 (other than saying "oh yeah 1366 isn't dead")? Where in that article does it question whether Intel is going to make enthusiasts pay extra because they're segregated? Where in that article does it take into account the fact that people on 1366 may not want to pay $400 for Westmere 6-cores? Well, in that last case they wouldn't because 1366 is a workstation socket and anyone buying it for gaming is being ridiculous.

What's going to happen to 1366 is simple and obvious by anyone who remembers the 939/940 fiasco. Intel is going to milk the early adopters for all they're worth and dump the rest of their mainstream i7/i5s on 1156. QPI doesn't provide a benefit to most users and it's cheaper to omit it.

I should have recommended the X4 955 from the beginning, though. That is a better buy than the X3 720 in this case.

[Krlll]

Man I have had enough of you.

I give SupCom,I give Empire why go on?Its all nonsense to you
I show what a great OCer the i7 is and your counter of "are you admitting the processor is poorer at stock" is laughable.
A pathetic attempt to redirect/joke and ignore the benefits of i7.
The rest of your answers arent worth replying to as my opinion as you mentioned in one of your well thought out replies is "worthless".
Anyway have fun.........