Introduction

What a great day to be a gamer. And what an enjoyable day to be running benchmarks in a lab full of hardware.

Intel’s X58 Express was the first chipset to support ATI’s CrossFire and Nvidia’s SLI multi-card rendering technologies (I’m purposely ignoring the D5400XS—a $600 board all on its own), giving enthusiast more choice in deploying graphics horsepower than ever. But even the first X58-based platforms were priced between $300 and $400.

Now you can find the absolute cheapest X58 boards for about $170. However, motherboard vendors often have to cut heavily to get prices that low, and the least-expensive CPU they’ll accept is still Intel’s $280 Core i7-920. That's $450, minimum, before factoring in a triple-channel memory kit.

Cost concerns aside, we’ve had no reservations about recommending reasonably-priced X58-based motherboards, 6GB kits, and overclocked Core i7 CPUs up until now—in fact, that’s what I’m running in my own workstation. But it’s a new day, met with a new platform, socket, and processor lineup. Core i5 and Core i7 for Intel’s LGA 1156 interface are here, bringing with them the same CrossFire and SLI support in a significantly more affordable package.

Does Your Platform Even Make A Difference?

All this talk about high-end motherboards and CPUs. But do those components even make a difference when it comes to gaming performance? Last year, with the launch of Core i7, we took Intel’s flagship, added two Radeon HD 4870 X2s, three GeForce GTX 280 cards, and tested seven different games in an effort to answer that question.

Our conclusion was that the platform complementing your graphics armada of choice absolutely does matter to enthusiasts looking for the best gaming performance. Even at 2560x1600—the most graphically-taxing resolution we’re able to run—the difference between a Core i7-965 and Core 2 Quad QX9770 Extreme was easily quantifiable.

But what if you were able to save $100-$200 on a CPU, motherboard, and memory kit, then turn around and put that savings into a beefier GPU? Maybe even a second GPU? With a much more mature infrastructure of optimized drivers in place, can you get away with a $300 Core i5/P55 combo, or do you need to spend more to get great performance?


  • Print
  • Send to a friend
  • Comment
  • Content also available in:
Sponsored links
Talkback
wild9 08/09/2009 14:55
Hide
--1+

Interesting..whilst the Phenom II is a refined core rather than a new design, it still seems able to hold it's weight. It's also apparent that even the fastest Core i5's and i7's are getting some great results not from nVidia cards, but from AMD/ATI.

wild9 08/09/2009 14:58
Hide
-1+

^ Source: single-card configurations, i.e. what most people can afford.

david__t 08/09/2009 15:08
Hide
-1+

"Running at 1680x1050 represents a solid baseline for mainstream gamers, while 2560x1600 serves as today’s Holy Grail."
With so many people attaching their PCs to 1080p TVs why do we consistenly see a lack of 1920x1080 resolution results? Besides, many people still use top quality 17" & 19" monitors with 1280x1024 resolutions.

Anonymous 08/09/2009 15:46
Hide
-1+

@up:

At 1280x1024 you sure as hell don't need Tri SLI 285 or CrossfireX 4870x2. In fact single 4850 will do.

MADOGRE 08/09/2009 17:02
Hide
-1+

This makes me rethink my whole i5/i7 upgrade at the first of the year.
I'm guessing my Q6600 @3.6 is alittle faster then the Q9550 used in the tests.

Anonymous 08/09/2009 19:46
Hide
-1+

Maybe a i5 and 2x4770 GPU might do some good at a very low price?

kasperg 17/09/2009 08:31
Hide
--1+

the Q9550 was only clocked @ 2.83GHz, they should atleast used the Q9650 or OC the Q9550 to 3.4GHz like the PII 965

Anonymous 14/12/2009 22:43
Hide
-0+

Well. Hello There. I want to share with you guys. Hello there!

Anonymous 29/12/2009 05:41
Hide
-0+

@kasperg
then why not clock the i7 920 to 4GHz and all of the others accordingly?

Sponsored links
Ad
Ad

Best offers

The Graphics Cards Articles and reviews
Sponsored links

Newsletters