My experience is conflicting with what I read?

I have no friend

I have no friend

New Member
I bought the first AMD 64 processor. I realize now that it was too early. Games and shit using the 64 bits had not yet developed. I got nothing out of it.
I bought my i7 one month before Sandy bridge was released. I could play the latest games in the highest resolutions without lagg untill it broke down two weeks ago. And now Ivy bridge will be released.

I read how you should waith for Ivy bridge, and how amazing it will be. But my own experience tell me otherwise.

Could it all be a hype like Apple and their constant updates?
 
ivy bridge won't offer much in modern games, but it will last you longer in gaming and for more processor demanding tasks it will be better. For gaming the cpu is important but not nearly as much so as the graphics.
 
The reason we are saying wait is not because it is better. It will be at the same price points, and faster, thus more bang for the buck. Sandy is the best for gaming currently, but the Ivy will have better IPC than sandy thus will be better at everything.
 
jonnyp11 said:
ivy bridge won't offer much in modern games, but it will last you longer in gaming and for more processor demanding tasks it will be better. For gaming the cpu is important but not nearly as much so as the graphics.
Click to expand...

Well, I did have a very good graphics card. Zotac geforce GTX 570, psych x something, I think it still is around for the same price one year later.
However, I bought my CPU before Sandy and would be able to play the latest games maxed out even when Ivy will be released.

So is it overhyped?

Maybe you should buy the latest Sandy when Ivy is released?
 
wolfeking said:
The reason we are saying wait is not because it is better. It will be at the same price points, and faster, thus more bang for the buck. Sandy is the best for gaming currently, but the Ivy will have better IPC than sandy thus will be better at everything.
Click to expand...

Better potential or better results? My AMD 64 was a potential never awakened.
 
once Ivy is released it will be flat stupidity to buy a sandy bridge. its not even logical to stay on the socket as Ivy is 1155 also.
 
I have no friend said:
Better potential or better results? My AMD 64 was a potential never awakened.
Click to expand...

IPC= Instructions per clock. Meaning that a 3.2 Ivy will do 10+ more in the same time as a 3.2 Sandy (assuming your talking about the same RAM, and the same core count)

Meaning it is not potential, it is application.
 
wolfeking said:
IPC= Instructions per clock. Meaning that a 3.2 Ivy will do 10+ more in the same time as a 3.2 Sandy (assuming your talking about the same RAM, and the same core count)

Meaning it is not potential, it is application.
Click to expand...

But they said the same thing about the 64 bit processors. Of course they where right. But it was still too early.
 
well ivy doesn't have any new technologies to go with it like the 64, it's straight up faster. It's the same as from original i7's to 2nd gen, look at that, there is a performance increase, no question, this is the same.
 
I have no friend said:
But they said the same thing about the 64 bit processors. Of course they where right. But it was still too early.
Click to expand...
64 bit has more to do with ram than the processor. You will do far more with a 32 bit @ 3 GHz than a 64 bit @ 300 MHz (10x less) both with 3GB of RAM.

The main thing with games is that even today most of them are 32 bit. All of them that support windows XP are 32 bit, thus having 64 bit does you no good.

IPC has nothing to do with tech. You will get better performance on everything. Because it is doing more at the same speed.
 
wolfeking said:
once Ivy is released it will be flat stupidity to buy a sandy bridge. its not even logical to stay on the socket as Ivy is 1155 also.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. It all depends on the prices. Theoretically as an example, if I could buy a 2500K Sandy for $30 less than a quad Ivy that is ~10-15% faster, it would be far from a no-brainer, particularly for those on specific budget points. Let's say you're a gamer. Either one would work great, easily max out games for X more years. To me, when the Sandy would start getting long in the tooth where you would start thinking about upgrading, the Ivy wouldn't be very far behind. And you saved yourself $30 for what amounted to virtually no realistic performance difference...or if you wanted to get more exact with it, the Ivy would last another month or two before it's performance lifespan would match the Sandy's. I know that's not a good way to put it (or even accurate as such, due to performance depending on actual game releases in this scenario), but you know what I mean.

Short version: Once Ivy is released most people will be passing up Sandy for that (myself included from a 1090T), regardless of the expected price differences. But depending on the prices, it's not like SB becomes pointless. In its heyday Phenom 2 was far from pointless from a sheer price/performance aspect, and once Ivy is released SB will be the same way...just way better.
 
prithive said:
Nothing is special about ivy-bridge. So we dont get regret about this.
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong here, I don't know shit. I'm a layman of the highest degree.

But I can't help feel to wonder. If my computer hadn't broken down. Would I have managed to play the latest games with maximum graphics with my pre-Sandy Bridge CPU even untill the last days of the Ivy Bridge?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top