Gaming Performance

If you're building a gaming box there are clearly better options for you. The i7 970 does well here but it's mostly a waste unless you're doing a lot of 3D rendering or video encoding when you're not gaming. Virtually any of these CPUs will do well in today's games as well as tomorrow's.

Left 4 Dead - 1680 x 1050 - Max Settings (No AA/AF/Vsync)

Crysis Warhead - 1680 x 1050 - Mainstream Quality (Physics on Enthusiast) - assault bench

Batman: Arkham Asylum

Dragon Age Origins

Dawn of War II

World of Warcraft

Archiving Performance Power Consumption & Overclocking
Comments Locked

49 Comments

View All Comments

  • jlazzaro - Friday, July 30, 2010 - link

    agreed with throwing older (920/930) OC'd procs in the mix
  • Patrick Wolf - Thursday, July 29, 2010 - link

    I don't understand why AT doesn't test games with max setings like with video cards. Doing so would be more helpful in seeing exactly what kind of CPU would actually be beneficial @ the settings most of us play at, or at least strive to play at.
  • Etern205 - Thursday, July 29, 2010 - link

    No it won't help you see which CPU will be beneficial because test a game at max setting will tax more on the GPU then the CPU.

    Also I don't see how games can show the advantage of these multicore cpus, photo imaging and encoding shows a clearer picture.
  • Patrick Wolf - Friday, July 30, 2010 - link

    Yeah but these tests only help people using the same GPU and game settings. Testing at GPU limited settings would show what kind of CPU you'd need before performance is affected.

    I suppose these tests show which CPU has the most raw power and getting the best peformer would be more "future proof". But it you're looking to upgrade it doesn't show if it'd even be worth it. Both kinds of tests should be included really.
  • kallogan - Thursday, July 29, 2010 - link

    I'm a cuda fan for 1080p video encoding. I'd never pay this price for a useless processor. My GTX 460 beat the shit out this i7 970 ;-) The only issue is that the Cuda x264 encoder in mediacoder allows only one pass for the moment...

    GPUs are our future !!!!
  • afkrotch - Thursday, July 29, 2010 - link

    Imagine a 980X with two GTX 460s. Can always go more and more.
  • ClagMaster - Thursday, July 29, 2010 - link

    I could do better from a price/performance standpoint with the AMD 6-core processors than this i970.

    AMD Motherboards are cheaper and have much better connectivity. The price differential I could spend on better motherboards and more memory.

    I run MCNP parallel jobs and the AMD processor just takes a little longer to complete the job.
  • stephenbrooks - Friday, July 30, 2010 - link

    MCNP as in the neutron transport code for designing nuclear reactors?
  • ClagMaster - Monday, August 2, 2010 - link

    Yes. I do NJOY too.

    What is so ridiculous about the AMD and Intel Quad and Hex core products is they are more powerful than multi-million dollar Cray XMP and YMP computers I have used 20 years ago.
  • Mr Perfect - Thursday, July 29, 2010 - link

    Looking at the Intel roadmap on page one is a little surprising. Are they honestly launching the new architecture in the mainstream and performance mainstream segments first? I was expecting them to launch the high-end chips first, like they did with Nehalem, and then trickle down the pricing ladder.

    If so, then great. We all won't have to wait another year for affordable Sandy Bridge systems.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now