opinions on this cpu for tadays all around performance

K

kdfresh09

New Member
how would you guys rate an intel core i7 950 in todays games, and applications. what would its equal be in todays intel and amd processors
 
It's still a very viable processor. Got loads of cache, many cores and HyperThreading.
Stronger IPC than anything AMD has to offer today anyway, so if you could overclock it a little I'd say it's stronger than a FX-8350 - or at least on par.
 
kdfresh09 said:
how would you guys rate an intel core i7 950 in todays games, and applications. what would its equal be in todays intel and amd processors
Click to expand...

It's still a good CPU. It's probably about equal to an i5 or AMD FX-8320 in today's terms. I reckon the i7 4790K is faster, probably by a considerable margin.

If you can get something newer then do because the boards for the newer chips will have things like USB 3.0 and SATA 6GB/s and PCI Express 3.0 but if you must get the i7 950 then it's still decent.
 
already own it. im selling it in a build I have for sale, and I wanted to get 2nd opinions on its performance in comparison to present day cpu's so I can add that info in the description when im selling it, so the buyer has an idea of what it is equal to in current technology. but yeah, I was thinking the same thing as a 2.8ghz i5 or an 8320, when all are at stock clocks. ive got a buyer for the build tomorrow supposedly, for $435. its a gaming computer, but the gpu has only 1gb of vram. the buyer knows and is fine with it, since he is on a 720p monitor. specs are pretty good though. 240gb ssd and such other things. so yeah, thanks for the help and opinions
 
1GB is enough for most games on 1080p. My 6950 2GB could handle World of Warcraft on 3x1080p (5760x1080) on medium details.
The important thing is mostly the bit (typically 128 or 256) and the core itself. Of course you want enough RAM tho :)
 
yea a lot of games do use over 1gb of vram... but not at 720p.

the cpu though is almost overkill at 720p ... its a really good cpu definitely stronger than a 1gb video card
 
Jamebonds1 said:
But not all game can be setting to max on 1 GB and work well. Just like BF 4 that need at least 2 GB to do maxed setting video.
Click to expand...
That really depends on the bit bus of you GPU. I had an R9 290 briefly that has a 512-bit RAM bus, so it uses the RAM much more efficiently than an HD 5770 1GB with a 128-bit. I bet if you could cut down the RAM of a 290X to 1GB RAM, it would still max out BF4 - because it basically needs less RAM to do the same.
 
Jiniix said:
That really depends on the bit bus of you GPU. I had an R9 290 briefly that has a 512-bit RAM bus, so it uses the RAM much more efficiently than an HD 5770 1GB with a 128-bit. I bet if you could cut down the RAM of a 290X to 1GB RAM, it would still max out BF4 - because it basically needs less RAM to do the same.
Click to expand...

not true.
1. because then they wouldn't put 4gb on it
2. because it would still have that memory somewhere most likely in the slower system memory, and grabbing it from there would slow it down big time. you'd drop a bunch of fps guaranteed
 
Jiniix said:
That really depends on the bit bus of you GPU. I had an R9 290 briefly that has a 512-bit RAM bus, so it uses the RAM much more efficiently than an HD 5770 1GB with a 128-bit. I bet if you could cut down the RAM of a 290X to 1GB RAM, it would still max out BF4 - because it basically needs less RAM to do the same.
Click to expand...

Memory bus is really just part of the throughput equation. If you cut down a 290X and tried to run 'heavy' games on ultra it would choke as it has to manage data in and out of the VRAM pool.

On a really basic level you should observe similar transfer rates between 2 GHz 512-bit DDR as you would with 4 GHz 256-bit DDR.
 
fade2green514 said:
not true.
1. because then they wouldn't put 4gb on it
Click to expand...
:D :D :D because actual real world performance is all that matters in marketing :D :D :D (NVIDIA had 3GB on their top card before the 290X hit the streets)

beers said:
On a really basic level you should observe similar transfer rates between 2 GHz 512-bit DDR as you would with 4 GHz 256-bit DDR.
Click to expand...
Sort of what I was trying to get through. There are obviously too many variables to make it an apples to apples comparison, but yeah.
 
The 512bit bus just is a wider bus. Allowing faster memory transfer so a 128bit bus is quite a bit slower than a 512 (saying the ram speed is the same). The ram usage is still similar as it still needs the ram for the higher resolution render regardless of bus size. It's just the bigger bus will be better performing. It also depends on memory speed itself. For example a (7000mhz memory) 256bit bus will be better performing than a 512bit at 3000mhz.
 
Last edited:
I didn't waste anyones time. I had this post out for over a few days, and ended up selling it after the fact. wsting time? I was asking for opinions. if your opinion is a waste of time then stop giving your opinion?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top