I'm about to build a computer. I have my eye on the Intel® Core™ i7 Desktop Processor and the Intel® Core™ i7 Desktop Processor Extreme Edition.

For people who deal with this on a day to day basis, does it really make a difference if I go with (http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=47 ... odes=SLBUZ) Intel® Core™ i7-980X Processor Extreme Edition (12M Cache, 3.33 GHz, 6.40 GT/s Intel® QPI) versus (http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=37 ... odes=SLBEU) Intel® Core™ i7-960 Processor (8M Cache, 3.20 GHz, 4.80 GT/s Intel® QPI)?

I really don't do anything besides game. But I want to be able to play any game out there without ever having to upgrade. My wife does some work with pictures and games, like WOW.

Gonna build 2 of these bitches, I can save about 500 bucks by going with the non-Extreme edition but I want honest opinions since I really haven't decided yet.

These might help with processor benchmarks:
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/processors,6.html
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html

Eh dont get extreme its just overkill get what they do for their 2k performance pc on tomshardware http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/overclock-cpu-gpu,2643.html would do just fine even though its only an i7-930 you dont need anything past a phenom ii x3 but with that build.............well you can see for urself how well it does

im first or second in the server with my i7 920 no real need for more in my opinion.. vidcards and ram is where id put the cash.

the only thing im gonna say is that if u want ur computer to last a long time, u should get the best processor/video card/RAM u can afford. if ur only playing cs:s (which i know ur not) than u dont need to spend more than $700 on a computer, but if u plan on playing the latest and greatest games than spend as much as u can afford. that being said, i dont think spending a grand on a processor is worth it, especially because in the next 6months to a year they will probably have 6core processors for less. id say go with thie i7-960 or something close to it, and a gtx 480 (or a lower end processor and 2x gtx 480s) and at least 6gb or ram, if not 12+

I have the i7-940 and I don't see any need to upgrade anytime soon, so I wouldn't spend the extra on the extreme. The beefiest processors on the market always come at a premium and are almost never worth the money.

^ this.

It's never worth going with the highest end proc. I usually step down one or two from the most potent available simply because the eprformance difference is never noticeable. I have not looked at the performance specs on these two, but I would be astonished if the difference was any larger than 2-3%. Until you get to around 10% it's usually not even noticeable and in reality any less than a 20% difference is not really meaningful.

Also, hardware these days is so far out in front of software it's going to take years for the processor to make much of a difference unless you are doing HPC type of processing involving advanced scientific calculations. Best place for the money is definitely in the video card and storage area...just about any decent processor on the market is going to be fine with any game software out there for the foreseeable future as long as you go with a high end video card.

Oh ya, one more thing...we are on the cusp of a major revolution right now as 3D gaming will soon become a reality. For this reason it is even more important that you do not go cheap on the video card as when the 3D titles start to come out they are going to be very demanding. I am usually one to go a step down on the video card as well simply because I have found that a last generation card typically performs well on current titles and anything that comes out over the next year or two at least, but if I were building a system today I would go with the absolute top of the line video setup because I think you will need it in the next year or so when the 3D titles start showing up. At that point you are going to need a new monitor as well, so the last thing you want is to have to upgrade a relatively new video card at the same time.

i would bet that the intel i7-980x is more than 3% better than the step down because it is a 6core proc and all the others are 4core, but i still wouldnt spend 1k on a proc ever. i really hate intel cause they only sell their processors unlocked at $1,000 and call it the Extreme Edition, its really stupid cause AMD sells unlocked processors at all price ranges.

I don't think I'd have too much fun with 3D gaming, well, since I only have one eye...

Also: Benchmarks
Intel Core i7 X 980 @ 3.33GHz is rated 10,168
Intel Core i7 960 @ 3.20GHz is rated 6,664

I don't know what those 2 numbers mean exactly, but that's a big difference, yes? Would this fall under your 10% rule? Taken from Fomenta's post: http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html So, what do those numbers mean? Meh.

I have learned through the years of gaming that you are going to have to change your computer about every three years. Not once have I ever had any problems with my systems to date because I follow the same rule that Rok does, Ram and Vid card is where you put the money. I run a simple quad core system with a 8800 Gt series BFG vid card and 4gigs of ram and I don't have lag issues and I run everything at full. The system is 2 years old and I only paid $650 Canadian for it from Future Shop, so next year I will just go see what they have on sale again or build which ever is cheaper. Seriously look at what you are going to use it for and what games you play, if they don't need or will ever fully use the extreme components then they are waste of money and only good for bragging. That's my two cents, but let us all know what you get in the end.

lol Coach...I forgot about that. We are both in the same boat on that one, although I have noticed that I have just enough vision in my right eye to get a bit of the 3D effect when I am in the movie theater. On the 3D gaming demo monitors I have seen so far I get nothing though, so its meaningless to me as well.

As far as the numbers go PassMark CPU benchmark tests mathematical operations, compression, encryption, SSE, 3DNow! instructions and a few more things. Most of this stuff is not really menaingful for gaming, but if you do alot of advanced photoshop, 3D rendering, or video editing it can make a big difference.

I guess what it really comes down to is price/performance. If you are doing some of the stuff above it probably falls under the 10% rule, but if not I would not spend the extra dough.

if u want a good test u should look for 3DMark Vantage and PCMark Vantage test results. if those results are from either of those it means the 980x is much better than the 960, but i still wouldnt spend the money on it. u definitely need to look at the requirements of the games u play now, and the games u plan on playing (if they are out). i would say get the 960 (or something around there) and get 1 or 2 GTX 480s and at least 6GB of high end, high speed ddr3.

well considering my processor is only at 3,363 i think either of the options would be good...


my honest opinion would be to go with the lesser of the two options and use the extra money on ram/gpu or for an upgraded mother board

Just my 2 cents. I know you're looking for intel, but what about AMD? The best AMD is ranked at ~6500 (http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html) and it's about 3 times cheaper.

It's my 4th AMD CPU, and I've never had any problems with this brand.

Yeah i agree with Carrot on this point. My AMD gets 1880 and i havent had a bog down once. Money, for gaming, should be spent on a gpu/mobo/sound equipment/cooling. Just get a decent processor and u wont notice the difference on the screen but u sure as hell will notice it in ur pocket.

I was beating the crap out of my system today, I have a Core2 Quad Q9400 that scores a 3801 on that benchmark.

Was running 4 VM's concurrently:
Dev env (Ubuntu 9.10 w/2 cores and 4 GB RAM) which was compiling this monster POS project I am trying to fix
IBM Director server (RHEL5 w/2 cores and 4GB RAM) doing a 2K node discovery pass
Director endpoint simulator (Ubuntu 10.04 w/1 core and 2 GB RAM)simulating 2K hardware systems
Development server for n00b (Ubuntu 10.04 w/1 core and 2GB RAM) running HLDS with 16 bots, Psychostats, Mysql and Apache

While all that was running I had CS:S running on the local desktop in a window attached to the n00bfest dev server plus wireshark running a packet trace. With all that running at the same time I was still getting 100 frames/sec in CSS and zero in the way of stuttering on the hlds image. My average CPU was in the 80-90% range for a good long time.

I guess the point is that even a 1 year old CPU that was one or two notches down from the top of the line when I bought it is still capable of handling far more workload than an average user would ever put on it...that was insane actually, I could not believe how well the system handled the load especially since the processor cores were doing double duty with all the VM's running at the same time.

Basically after seeing that I am even more convinced that spending the money for the top of the line CPU is not worth it.

Agreeing with shredder and as coach wont be running virtual machines, coding etc; he's just gonna game then i dont see why a good AMD Phenom II X6 wouldnt work for him perfectly for 1/4 the price.