The new Core i7 or E8600??

[Laedarr]

<p>Just as the topic states.  I have a choice to either stay with a less expensive system with the ability to overclock to 4.0 on the E8600 or go up a couple hundred bucks for the new and "supposedly" improved i7 chipset.  As far as EQ2 is concerned (as this system is solely for gaming and EQ2, 90% EQ2) what would be the most effective way to go as far as FPS and performance for EQ2. </p>

[TalisX1]

<p>For eq2 and most games the E8600 is the better choice. The i7's have less L2 cache than the core2 series and as far as most games are concerned that makes a noticable difference.</p><p>Silat of Nagafen</p><p>Edited for typo's</p>

[Gaige]

<p>920s actually have 8mb of cache vs the 6mb on the E8***s.</p><p>The clockspeed is the big difference, however the i7s make a better overall system if you consider things outside of EQ2.</p><p>If you overclock there is no contest, the i7 is better.</p>

[Laedarr]

<p>I read a thread a while back about an issue with the i7's hyper technology and that it was effecting the performance of eq2 in a negative way because the coding didn't recognize it, or at least something along those lines.  Is this still an issue? </p><p>Both opinions above make sense but it still doesn't sway me to understand which would be a better choice.  I hope that others will chime in.  Much appreciated everyone.</p>

[Laedarr]

<p>I'm hoping I could get a bit more feedback as i'm expecting to purchase a new machine this week.   I really have no idea which would be more beneficial to me.  So please, lets get some accurate thoughts on what would be the best for eq2 between the 2.</p>

[Laedarr]

<p>/bump</p>

[Laedarr]

<p>here's the 2 machines I have a choice between, please give your thoughts as to whether or not it would be worth purchasing the Core i7 machine over the E8600.</p><p><strong>E8600 Wolfdale CPU</strong></p><p><strong>Nvidia nForce 750i SLI MB</strong></p><p><strong>Corsair 4GB DDR2 800 Dual Channel Mem</strong></p><p><strong>500GB SATA-ll 3.0 7200 RPM HD 16MB Cache</strong></p><p><strong>(2) PCI Express 16x Nvidia GeForce 9500GT 512MB DDR2</strong></p><p><strong>LG 22x DVD+/- Rewritable Drive</strong></p><p><strong>16x DVD-ROM</strong></p><p><strong>High Def 7.1 Surround Sound and 600 watt Subwoofer Speaker system</strong></p><p><strong>X-Jupiter Jr Mid-Tower Case w/ 680 Watt SLI</strong></p><p><strong>XG XtremeCool Silent and Overclocking Proof CPU Cooling System</strong></p><p>Total price = $859.00</p><p>The Core i7 machine</p><p><strong>Extreme i7-965 3.20Ghz</strong></p><p><strong>Intel X58 MB Supporting SLI/CrossfireX</strong></p><p><strong>Corsair 3GB-DDR3 1333 Triple Channel Mem</strong></p><p><strong>500GB SATA-ll 3.0 7200 RPM HD 16 MB Cache</strong></p><p><strong>ATI Radeon HD 4850 512 MB</strong></p><p><strong>LG 22x DVD+/- RW Drive</strong></p><p><strong>High Def 7.1 Surround Sound and 600 Watt Subwoofer Speaker System</strong></p><p><strong>Sigma Gaming Unicorn Tower w/500 Watt</strong></p><p><strong>XG XtremeCool Silent and OVerclocking Proof CPU Colling System</strong></p><p>Total price = $1869.00</p>

[Smirk]

<p>i'd go for the i7 for sure, more solid machine and a lot better for the future if you plan on keeping it couple years etc</p>

[Gaige]

<p>Between those two setups the i7 machine will perform better in eq2 for sure.  SLi'd 9500GTs are terrible, especially for this game.  I'd see about maybe getting a 4870 in the i7 though, instead of a 4850.</p>

[Wingrider01]

<p>there are uunet reports of the I7 having performance issues in both XP and Vista with the Hyperthread implementation. Supposedly works a lot better in Windows 7 but that is still beta</p>

[TSR-DanielH]

<p>The I7 system will give you some better performance but it wont be proportional to the price increase.  Considering you'd need to spend over twice as much for the I7, it doesn't seem to justify the 10-20% performance increase you will probably see in game.  Also, like Wingrider mentioned, the current operating systems/programs aren't set up to take full advantage of the I7 yet.</p><p>That said, the I7 computer would be pretty impressive with some basic modifications.</p>

[Derrmerth2]

<p>Hey look, I found two cents! I'll let you have them.</p><p>I run a E8600 based system right now, I can manage 25 FPS on extreme in a raid if that matters any. Normal play about 70.</p><p>In my opinion, go with your E8600 system. You can, with almost any after market cooler, turn your 3.33GHz 8600 in to a 4.1GHz 8600. The internet is chock full of people doing this with out a problem, I'm one of them. At this point in time, the CPU just screams when oc'ed, even not EQ2 games (Yeah, they have those) can't hold a torch to it.</p><p>This is going to alter the price of your base build, but Ive had the parts I'm going to mention for a long time for some. They've been torture tested and have done nothing but impress.</p><p>First, motherboard choice. I'm using a Gigabyte X48T-DQ6. It has proven to be an unstoppable overclocker for socket 775 based systems and even not oc'ing, just as solid of a board as money can buy. I've done things to it that have killed other boards in the past and it hasn't phased this one. I reccomend this board with overclocking in mind. Do so at your own risk, blah blah blah. The BIOS combine with the X48 unlock a potential in your hardware to give you far more bang for your buck then you thought you'd might get. Plus is more USB and SATA ports then you'll ever need. Even packs a dual LAN and some firewire for ... firewire stuff?</p><p>A key letter in this board is that T after X48. This denotes a DDR3 based board. There is a non T version, same thing, DDR2. Most people think, "DDR3 = $$$". Nay says I. You can pick up a 4Gb, (2x2) kit of OCZ Reaper DDR3 1600 for 100 bucks. You can get the OCZ DDR3 2000 Flex EX kit for $200 if you want to get some breathing room on your FSB play. The real key behind this is going with a DDR3 based board allows you to open up your front side bus (FSB) to give your video cards and system plenty of throughput. Hours before I wrote this post, I managed to clog a 1636 FSB doing EQ2 and a <a href="mailto:F@H">F@H</a> client at the same time for a FSB test. Going with DDR2 800 on an SLI config may lead to a clogged pipeline on your board. </p><p>It gets even more dangerous when your going with PCI-e 2.0 based cards. Your simply talking about way too much data for a 800MHz fsb possibly. As for the cards listed, you can get surprising performance in games with mid range cards in an SLI config, like it appears you have. Wellll that X48T I spoke so highly of ... doesn't do SLI. Nvidia's fault. But fear not, for the same price as two good 9500GTs, you can pick up a EVGA 9800GTX+ Superclocked and bring in the same numbers pretty much bench mark wise. The other key thing is (unless I'm mistaken) EQ2 doesn't give a crap about SLI, and in fact would cause problems in some cases. You'd really be using one of those cards to play. Plus given the quirky-ness of SLI, you'r better off getting one card that pulls the same numbers.</p><p>This ones a quick and easy. Hard drive. Go for the Western Digital 500GB (or larger) Black edition. While most of the tests I'm running involve the 1TB version, your getting the same features, just less platter(s). THey have proven to be very reliable thus far, and also incredibly speedy. Pretty much the fastest non-ssd, non raptor class drive you are gonna get. With the tweaks they tossed in on this class of drive, plus the 32Mb cache, it really does make a difference. Most of my zone loads times are less then 15 seconds, some even under 10. (Credit must be given to supporting hardware, but the fast drive helps a ton). I think we've got about a dozen of these drives being poked and proded in different ways after 8ish months for some of them, 0 issues.</p><p>So the moral of my long winded and possibly pointless speech was for less money then an i7 setup, you can bring home some pretty sick preformance. The above setup can yeild a 4Ghz / 1600 FSB system that throws down some numbers.  You'll have no bottlenecks and I think we were turning about 15k+ in 3dmark06 with a very close setup (it's been while). While you may not be on the latest and greatest platform, there simply isn't a need outside of braggin rights on synth benchmarks. In about 9 months this scenario will be different if Intel stays on schedule, but for now you may not need to jump that ship. If for some reason you tax that system, you have excellent room to grow on that platform still. The use of a Q9x50 (quad core, also hits 4Ghz easy) chip and something in the GTX 260 55nm / GTX 285 will leave all your games embarressed.</p><p>Minor note on the i7 sytem. You picked a 3Gb kit. While it depends on what you have running in the background, plus what OS you have, it may not be enough. I've managed to get EQ2 to take a little over 2 gigs of RAM on its own with textures maxed. Combine this with the OS and whatever tibits are running, I've crossed the 3 gig total sysem used RAM line (was about 3.3Gb used with no other real apps running but an IE7 instance). If you have too much RAM, you'll never really notice, if you have too little its gonna suck no matter what hardware your running. However this opens up the 64-bit OS argument which I think has been beat to death twice out here. At least.</p>

[Laedarr]

<p>Derrmerth2, that is exactly the information I was looking for and I very much appreciate your input.  I've been leaning towards the E8600 instead of the much more expensive i7 as well, but you have just made my choice much more direct.  I wasn't planning on building it myself so a lot of your technical speech sorta went in one ear out the other, so i'm hoping that cyberpower can build to the specs I desire and when I call them to build and send my system i'll definitely be reading your post to them.  Thanks again.</p>

[TSR-DanielH]

<p><cite>Derrmerth2 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote>*A lot of words*</blockquote><p><img src="/eq2/images/smilies/e8a506dc4ad763aca51bec4ca7dc8560.gif" border="0" /></p><p>That's a quality write up with lots of good information.  Thank you for taking the time to post!</p>

[Rothgar]

<p><cite>TSR-DanielH wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Derrmerth2 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote>*A lot of words*</blockquote><p><img src="/eq2/images/smilies/e8a506dc4ad763aca51bec4ca7dc8560.gif" border="0" /></p><p>That's a quality write up with lots of good information.  Thank you for taking the time to post!</p></blockquote><p>QFE!</p><p>Now I'm tempted to run over to newegg.com and pick up some components for my Antec Skeleton thats been collecting dust.</p>

[Gaige]

<p><cite>Derrmerth2 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>A key letter in this board is that T after X48. This denotes a DDR3 based board. There is a non T version, same thing, DDR2. Most people think, "DDR3 = $$$". Nay says I. You can pick up a 4Gb, (2x2) kit of OCZ Reaper DDR3 1600 for 100 bucks. You can get the OCZ DDR3 2000 Flex EX kit for $200 if you want to get some breathing room on your FSB play. The real key behind this is going with a DDR3 based board allows you to open up your front side bus (FSB) to give your video cards and system plenty of throughput. Hours before I wrote this post, I managed to clog a 1636 FSB doing EQ2 and a <a href="mailto:F@H">F@H</a> client at the same time for a FSB test. Going with DDR2 800 on an SLI config may lead to a clogged pipeline on your board.</p></blockquote><p>DDR3 is pointless in non-i7 based builds.  C2D's are not bandwith limited and you can buy DDR2 that can run 500mhz FSB which is enough to max out the potential of any Core 2.</p><p>Also, the P45 is a much better E8600 overclocker than the older X48.</p><p><a href="http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128369">http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...N82E16813128369</a></p><p>and</p><p><a href="http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231145">http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...N82E16820231145</a></p><p>That setup will easily max out any C2D or C2Q's clock.  Q9550 at 8.5 x 500 for 4.25Ghz for example.</p><p>DDR3 with a Core 2 is wasted money.</p><p>Your hard drive recommendation isn't bad though, although I like the 640GB WD better since it uses 320GB platters.</p><p>Also, I'd go with a GTX260 or a 4870 1GB over the older 9800GTX+ which is based on the 8800GTS core with just higher clockspeeds.</p><p>Also, FSB has nothing to do with PCIE 2.0 cards so that advice was offbase.  You also contradicted yourself when you claimed that DDR2 800 isn't enough for a "1600 FSB system" although running your FSB @ 400mhz quad pumped (as is the Core 2's case) gives you 1600 FSB anyway.</p>

[Calthine]

<p><cite>TSR-DanielH wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Derrmerth2 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote>*A lot of words*</blockquote><p><img src="/eq2/images/smilies/e8a506dc4ad763aca51bec4ca7dc8560.gif" border="0" /></p><p>That's a quality write up with lots of good information.  Thank you for taking the time to post!</p></blockquote><p>It is!  I'm sincerely hoping my husband doesn't see this post!</p>

[Wingrider01]

<p><cite>Rothgar wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>TSR-DanielH wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Derrmerth2 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote>*A lot of words*</blockquote><p><img src="/eq2/images/smilies/e8a506dc4ad763aca51bec4ca7dc8560.gif" border="0" /></p><p>That's a quality write up with lots of good information.  Thank you for taking the time to post!</p></blockquote><p>QFE!</p><p>Now I'm tempted to run over to newegg.com and pick up some components for my Antec Skeleton thats been collecting dust.</p></blockquote><p>Love mine, best case I have ever used. Took some creative placement of the case so the cats would not turn it into a bed, but it is the center piece of my home theatre now.</p>

[Gaige]

<p>I want an Antec Skeleton but my house is so dusty living in SoCal.  We're replacing the windows/doors this year though so maybe that will help a bit and I'll finally be able to get one.</p>

[TSR-DanielH]

<p><cite>Gage wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I want an Antec Skeleton but my house is so dusty living in SoCal.  We're replacing the windows/doors this year though so maybe that will help a bit and I'll finally be able to get one.</p></blockquote><p>I run into that same issue being in socal.  My antec case actually helps quite a bit with that.  It has removeable fan housing and filters on all of the case fans.</p>

[Kurindor_Mythecnea]

<p><cite>Derrmerth2 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Hey look, I found two cents! I'll let you have them.</p><p>I run a E8600 based system right now, I can manage 25 FPS on extreme in a raid if that matters any. Normal play about 70.</p><p>In my opinion, go with your E8600 system. You can, with almost any after market cooler, turn your 3.33GHz 8600 in to a 4.1GHz 8600. The internet is chock full of people doing this with out a problem, I'm one of them. At this point in time, the CPU just screams when oc'ed, even not EQ2 games (Yeah, they have those) can't hold a torch to it.</p><p>This is going to alter the price of your base build, but Ive had the parts I'm going to mention for a long time for some. They've been torture tested and have done nothing but impress.</p><p>First, motherboard choice. I'm using a Gigabyte X48T-DQ6. It has proven to be an unstoppable overclocker for socket 775 based systems and even not oc'ing, just as solid of a board as money can buy. I've done things to it that have killed other boards in the past and it hasn't phased this one. I reccomend this board with overclocking in mind. Do so at your own risk, blah blah blah. The BIOS combine with the X48 unlock a potential in your hardware to give you far more bang for your buck then you thought you'd might get. Plus is more USB and SATA ports then you'll ever need. Even packs a dual LAN and some firewire for ... firewire stuff?</p><p>A key letter in this board is that T after X48. This denotes a DDR3 based board. There is a non T version, same thing, DDR2. Most people think, "DDR3 = $$$". Nay says I. You can pick up a 4Gb, (2x2) kit of OCZ Reaper DDR3 1600 for 100 bucks. You can get the OCZ DDR3 2000 Flex EX kit for $200 if you want to get some breathing room on your FSB play. The real key behind this is going with a DDR3 based board allows you to open up your front side bus (FSB) to give your video cards and system plenty of throughput. Hours before I wrote this post, I managed to clog a 1636 FSB doing EQ2 and a <a href="mailto:F@H">F@H</a> client at the same time for a FSB test. Going with DDR2 800 on an SLI config may lead to a clogged pipeline on your board. </p><p>It gets even more dangerous when your going with PCI-e 2.0 based cards. Your simply talking about way too much data for a 800MHz fsb possibly. As for the cards listed, you can get surprising performance in games with mid range cards in an SLI config, like it appears you have. Wellll that X48T I spoke so highly of ... doesn't do SLI. Nvidia's fault. But fear not, for the same price as two good 9500GTs, you can pick up a EVGA 9800GTX+ Superclocked and bring in the same numbers pretty much bench mark wise. The other key thing is (unless I'm mistaken) EQ2 doesn't give a crap about SLI, and in fact would cause problems in some cases. You'd really be using one of those cards to play. Plus given the quirky-ness of SLI, you'r better off getting one card that pulls the same numbers.</p><p>This ones a quick and easy. Hard drive. Go for the Western Digital 500GB (or larger) Black edition. While most of the tests I'm running involve the 1TB version, your getting the same features, just less platter(s). THey have proven to be very reliable thus far, and also incredibly speedy. Pretty much the fastest non-ssd, non raptor class drive you are gonna get. With the tweaks they tossed in on this class of drive, plus the 32Mb cache, it really does make a difference. Most of my zone loads times are less then 15 seconds, some even under 10. (Credit must be given to supporting hardware, but the fast drive helps a ton). I think we've got about a dozen of these drives being poked and proded in different ways after 8ish months for some of them, 0 issues.</p><p>So the moral of my long winded and possibly pointless speech was for less money then an i7 setup, you can bring home some pretty sick preformance. The above setup can yeild a 4Ghz / 1600 FSB system that throws down some numbers.  You'll have no bottlenecks and I think we were turning about 15k+ in 3dmark06 with a very close setup (it's been while). While you may not be on the latest and greatest platform, there simply isn't a need outside of braggin rights on synth benchmarks. In about 9 months this scenario will be different if Intel stays on schedule, but for now you may not need to jump that ship. If for some reason you tax that system, you have excellent room to grow on that platform still. The use of a Q9x50 (quad core, also hits 4Ghz easy) chip and something in the GTX 260 55nm / GTX 285 will leave all your games embarressed.</p><p>Minor note on the i7 sytem. You picked a 3Gb kit. While it depends on what you have running in the background, plus what OS you have, it may not be enough. I've managed to get EQ2 to take a little over 2 gigs of RAM on its own with textures maxed. Combine this with the OS and whatever tibits are running, I've crossed the 3 gig total sysem used RAM line (was about 3.3Gb used with no other real apps running but an IE7 instance). If you have too much RAM, you'll never really notice, if you have too little its gonna suck no matter what hardware your running. However this opens up the 64-bit OS argument which I think has been beat to death twice out here. At least.</p></blockquote><p><span style="color: #ffff00;">What's the 64-bit OS argument that's been beat to death? O_o</span></p>

[Stinky123]

<p>Your prices seem way way off,</p><p>You should get 6 gigs of ram on the I7 not 3</p><p>get a 32MB cache HDD not 16 mb</p><p>I say avoid ATI like the plauge when it comes to gfx cards</p>

[TSR-DanielH]

<p><cite>Stinky123 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>You should get 6 gigs of ram on the I7 not 3</p></blockquote><p>While more RAM will never hurt, remember that Everquest 2 was designed for x86 machines and wont be able to address that much RAM.  It will help with the operating systems and background applications but it wont effect Everquest 2 directly.</p>

[SantiagoDraco]

<p><cite>Stinky123 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I say avoid ATI like the plauge when it comes to gfx cards</p></blockquote><p>I'd say the complete opposite.  Or at least I'd say both are now great.   And considering the tromping nVidia got when the 4000 series was released I'd say you're comment is misleading at best <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p><p>Regarding the Core2 vs. i7 debate, is there anyone out there who has gone from a core2 system to an i7 system who has anything to share on the EQ2 performance difference?</p><p>Thanks!</p>

[Ferret]

<p>I have tried both with both overclocked to 4ghz and have not seen a frame difference in performance.  Both run excellent and am using the same raptor hard drives in raid 0, evga 275, and exact same installed software and drivers.  For the sake of this argument go with the cheaper.  If your not going to overclock then dont expect too much from either EQ2 seems to respond decent to overclocking.</p>

[SantiagoDraco]

<p>Well, I decided to bite the bullet and swap in some i7 components, dumping my Core2 8400.</p><p>Old system:  Core2 8400, 4gb RAM, Vista64</p><p>New system: I7 920, 6gb RAM, Vista64</p><p>Video:  ATI Radeon 4870</p><p>The comparison?  There is none.  The i7 just tromps the Core2 for EQ2 performance, hands down.  I went from having to run the game in a "modified" performance mode during raids (and seeing around 20fps) to running in OVER extreme mode with the exception of shadows turned off, and seeing 30fps during raids and much more elsewhere.   Overall game performance at max settings is 30-50/60 fps depending on environment.   Setting numbers aside it really is a huge improvement in performance.  Add to that the overclocking capabilities of the i7 platforms and finally I think we are seeing the platform that can play EQ2 in all it's glory, especially once we see the patch that moves shadows to the GPU.</p><p>Given that EQ2 is so CPU bound it's not a huge surprise, but it certainly is a pleasant one.</p>

[Lethe5683]

<p><span style="color: #00ccff;">THE e8600 processor is superior but the I7 system is superior.  They both seem stupidly setup, I'm not sure where you got that from.</span></p>

[Gaige]

<p><cite>Lethe5683 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><span style="color: #00ccff;">THE e8600 processor is superior but the I7 system is superior.  They both seem stupidly setup, I'm not sure where you got that from.</span></p></blockquote><p>There is no way no how that an E8600 is a superior processor to an i7 920.</p>

[SantiagoDraco]

<p><cite>Lethe5683 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><span style="color: #00ccff;">THE e8600 processor is superior but the I7 system is superior.  They both seem stupidly setup, I'm not sure where you got that from.</span></p></blockquote><p>Nm looks like you are reponding to the OP.</p>

[Laedarr]

<p>I was very close in purchasing all the parts to start building my new system, and I was going to go with the new i7 chipset and DDR3 mobo and just make an ultimate gaming machine.  Through more evaluation of EQ2 and how far behind it is on current specs, I thought I would just hang up my love for the game and just wait, either for a new version of EQ, EQ3 perhaps? or if they find the ability to recode it so that it works flawlessly with mulitcore setups.  Until then, my accounts have been cancelled, and I've moved onto ps3 console games to occupy some of my free time.</p>