Core i7 990x CPU $475 at Fry's in-store only!!!

I think you would get more performance for the same amount of money dumped into an ivybridge or haswell setup. a 3770K plus $100 mobo. This needs to sink below the price of $250 in order for it to be a good buy, that is unless you do some serious multithreaded applications or something.
 
Can I get a decent mobo with features comparable to my x58 for $100 though?

Not that I'd buy into Gulftown for $500 though. I'd pay realistically no more than 300 for it.
 
I think assumption is the only reason you would ever by this is if you already own an x58 platform and are just looking to extend its life a while longer. For instance I own 2 x58 platforms and would be interested if it were about half this price.
 
The 990X, being on 32nm, can most likely clock higher than your 930 and use less power while doing so. Otherwise, differences would be minimal.
 
If you record/encode while you're gaming, this would be a pretty sweet CPU for 1366 EOL. Reality doesn't entirely reflect with the "most games don't use more than dual core" mentality, as most modern architecture GPU drivers are multi-threaded themselves. Quad core >3.2GHz Intel 3.8GHz AMD however, is plenty of concurrency and power. To each their armchair, though.
 
This is still about $200 too high to be a good investment. The Nehalem cpus are still great for gaming and there isn't much today that will make them show their age. At $300 if someone was sitting on a X58 motherboard with SATA 3 and USB 3 this is probably worth the investment over a new motherboard, cpu, and possibly RAM. At nearly $500 a newer Intel chip and motherboard or sitting tight for a while longer makes more sense.
 
Rauelius said:
I believe a 3770k would rip this apart in games...
Click to expand...

If you consider an average of less than 10% advantage when gaming at resolutions that make a game CPU dependent (ie. not real world) then yes a 3770k at stock rips a 990x at stock apart in games. If you look at real world benches between the two a video card likely will choke long before either CPU.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/444?vs=551
 
Hmm, I would definitely be interested to upgrade my venerable 920, but as has been said, it's still a tad too high for an eol platform.

Thanks for the link though.
 
in for 3!!!! just kidding price way to high
 
Wouldn't you be crazy to buy a cpu right now? Wait until end of June?

Code: 
[size=-1]Core i7-4770	4 / 8	3.4 / 3.9 GHz	8 MB	HD 4600	1200 MHz	84 W	$292
Core i7-4770K	4 / 8	3.5 / 3.9 GHz	8 MB	HD 4600	1250 MHz	84 W	$327
Core i7-4770S	4 / 8	3.1 / 3.9 GHz	8 MB	HD 4600	1200 MHz	65 W	$285
Core i5-4670	4 / 4	3.4 / 3.8 GHz	6 MB	HD 4600	1200 MHz	84 W	$209
Core i5-4670K	4 / 4	3.4 / 3.8 GHz	6 MB	HD 4600	1200 MHz	84 W	$227
Core i5-4570	4 / 4	3.2 / 3.6 GHz	6 MB	HD 4600	1150 MHz	84 W	$189
Core i5-4570S	4 / 4	3,0 / 3,6 GHz	6 MB	HD 4600	1150 MHz	65 W	$182
Core i5-4430	4 / 4	3.0 / 3.2 GHz	6 MB	HD 4600	1100 MHz	84 W	$175[/size]
 
weuntouchable said:
If you consider an average of less than 10% advantage when gaming at resolutions that make a game CPU dependent (ie. not real world) then yes a 3770k at stock rips a 990x at stock apart in games. If you look at real world benches between the two a video card likely will choke long before either CPU.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/444?vs=551
Click to expand...

So you agree that it would rip it apart, but at this point with GPU's you really can't tell....Kinda like how I couldn't tell a big difference when I upgraded from my 1090t->2600k->3770k...and I ran an 8350 as well and honestly no big diff. In multimedia the Gulftown might stand up against the 2600k/3770k tho...depends on your needs...in gaming at the resolution I play at I see little difference between any high/ultra-high end CPUs....
 
Not sure where your performance info is coming from but back when I was running tri gtx 470's my 920 at over 4 ghz could not touch my hex core at 3.3ghz and that was at 4800x1200. Those extra cores help as all modern day graphics drivers are multi threaded. Not to mention those 990's can really be overclocked ohh and your just changing out a cpu as apposed to a system. KISS you know what I mean.
 
newbs said:
Not sure where your performance info is coming from but back when I was running tri gtx 470's my 920 at over 4 ghz could not touch my hex core at 3.3ghz and that was at 4800x1200. Those extra cores help as all modern day graphics drivers are multi threaded. Not to mention those 990's can really be overclocked ohh and your just changing out a cpu as apposed to a system. KISS you know what I mean.
Click to expand...

Yeah agreed, just swapping out my 920 for a 990 would be a great simple upgrade. Just waiting for the right price point.
 
everyone is missing the "EXTREME" factor. yeah, i have an Intel EXTREME cpu, i'm pretty darn cool :D
 
newbs said:
Not sure where your performance info is coming from but back when I was running tri gtx 470's my 920 at over 4 ghz could not touch my hex core at 3.3ghz and that was at 4800x1200. Those extra cores help as all modern day graphics drivers are multi threaded. Not to mention those 990's can really be overclocked ohh and your just changing out a cpu as apposed to a system. KISS you know what I mean.
Click to expand...

The graphics drivers being multi threaded doesn't mean anything if the game isn't multi threaded. And today's games almost never take advantage of more than one two CPU cores. You saw an advantage in a 6 core CPU because you ran a 3 card setup at a very high resolution. For the people who run a single GPU on a 27" or smaller monitor anything above a Core 2 Duo won't change performance in the majority of games. Anandtech recently ran an article comparing CPUs performance and multi gpu performance testing high end graphics cards: http://www.anandtech.com/show/6934/choosing-a-gaming-cpu-single-multigpu-at-1440p
 
weuntouchable said:
The graphics drivers being multi threaded doesn't mean anything if the game isn't multi threaded. And today's games almost never take advantage of more than one two CPU cores. You saw an advantage in a 6 core CPU because you ran a 3 card setup at a very high resolution. For the people who run a single GPU on a 27" or smaller monitor anything above a Core 2 Duo won't change performance in the majority of games. Anandtech recently ran an article comparing CPUs performance and multi gpu performance testing high end graphics cards: http://www.anandtech.com/show/6934/choosing-a-gaming-cpu-single-multigpu-at-1440p
Click to expand...
the X2 555 gets beat pretty consistently by the X4 960.

The days of games only using one or two cores are gone
 
jebo_4jc said:
the X2 555 gets beat pretty consistently by the X4 960.

The days of games only using one or two cores are gone
Click to expand...

Look at the single GPU statistics. The X2 555 offers nearly identical performance (less than 2 fps difference) to the X4 960 in 3 of the 4 games (Civ 5 being the exception, the Dirt 3 7970 performance difference is obviously shitty AMD drivers since the 580 offers identical performance between CPUs). What I find interesting is that the oldest game tested is the only one that utilizes more than 2 CPU cores when gaming on a single GPU. It would have been nice if they tested a newer crop of games, but I think the days of games only using two cores are still here.
 
Dual core gaming is nothing new,remember quake? You could enable multi cpu support in it and it was nice and now even the drivers now support it. Was his resolution extreme no I'm running 7680x1440 with one titan and think I need another one which may or may not need another stronger cpu to push them. All I am saying is if he likes his machine does not want to mess with anything the 990x is a great upgrade. Doing minor upgrades like this are great for people who are happy with there system. My wife hates a new system so her current machine is a few years old but I have upgraded it along the way. Honestly if these could run dual I would pick up a pair for her machine.
 
rudy said:
I think you would get more performance for the same amount of money dumped into an ivybridge or haswell setup. a 3770K plus $100 mobo. This needs to sink below the price of $250 in order for it to be a good buy, that is unless you do some serious multithreaded applications or something.
Click to expand...

and this is the problem with intel's extreme line of processors.. there are QX9770's going for the 200+ range on ebay still..
 
I recently upgraded from a 950 in my x58 laptop to a 980, and the difference was night and day, especially in newer games. Also, I do transcode a lot of video, and the 2 extra cores helped a lot. The increase in clock speed and additional cache make the hex-core upgrades worth it, but maybe not at this price. I found a seller on ebay selling new 980s for $100 less than this, so it was a no brainer for me since I also sold my 950 to make up some of the cost.
 
The biggest problem with this is that the 3930k can be had for less than $100 more.
Only people who already have 1366 and don't plan to upgrade in the near future will be attracted to this deal.
 
ggplay said:
The biggest problem with this is that the 3930k can be had for less than $100 more.
Only people who already have 1366 and don't plan to upgrade in the near future will be attracted to this deal.
Click to expand...

Well, of course.. It's only going to be a consideration for people with an X58 that would like to drop in a replacement. And yeah, you're only going to want a 6 core setup for seriously multithreaded apps.

That being said, I use a 980x in one box and a 3770k in another. I do a lot of video encoding and the 980x is still a great machine that I've no interest in replacing or overhauling.
 
I got a Xeon W3570 for sale (unlocked) that runs at 4.4Ghz on air if anyone interested. pm me. No need to spend $500 on 1366 cpu:)
 
weuntouchable said:
Look at the single GPU statistics. The X2 555 offers nearly identical performance (less than 2 fps difference) to the X4 960 in 3 of the 4 games (Civ 5 being the exception, the Dirt 3 7970 performance difference is obviously shitty AMD drivers since the 580 offers identical performance between CPUs). What I find interesting is that the oldest game tested is the only one that utilizes more than 2 CPU cores when gaming on a single GPU. It would have been nice if they tested a newer crop of games, but I think the days of games only using two cores are still here.
Click to expand...
Your comments make me cringe.
BF3 multiplayer benchmarks here: http://www.sweclockers.com/artikel/14650-prestandaanalys-battlefield-3/5
Make sure to scroll down and look at the graphs. A dual core in that game, in multiplayer, is practically worthless.
A Phenom II X6 provides a nice boost over a Phenom II quad.
Note that multiplayer is very cpu intensive, much more so than single player, and if you google search you will find mostly single player benchmark results on other sites which do not show the same thing. The key is to find multiplayer results. These same graphs have been discussed over and over in the forums since they came out.
Anyway, my point is that more and more games are getting like this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top