The Official PC building thread - 4th Edition

i cant wait till we get the new 32 core processor. why there pissing about with more cores is beyond me. 4 cores at 4GHz+ we should be able to achieve that.

Sigh..So many Spoons when all you need is a Knife.

 

Part of the Bulldozer range is a Quad core CPU that is 4.2Ghz stock. Not due out until after the initial launch though it would seem.

 

disappointing.

 

Yep it worries me as well

 

I don't know, with all the setbacks and the revelation of the low prices, I can't help but get the impression the Bulldozer architecture's going to be a flop. The only way AMD would be charging that little for their high-end 8-core CPUs is if the performance per mhz per core of Bulldozer was exactly the same as it is now with the Phenom II. You just wouldn't see a 3.1Ghz 6-core CPU cost less than a 3.3Ghz 4-core CPU unless it was going to be a lot slower per-core.

 

AMD also seems to be having manufacturing issues. Llano had low yields and they expect Bulldozer to be even worse. Also, there will be an architecture revision coming out very shortly after the release that is supposed to make it much faster, which makes me wonder why they don't wait and release a proper product instead of a neutered first wave. I would really like to see Bulldozer blow Intel out of the water but it looks like they're gonna have another HD2900/Phenom I fiasco. Not to mention the Llano APUs eat somewhat into their video card sales.

 

They're already having issues with production of the HD6900 series graphics (still), so I think AMD as a whole are generally a bit behind the production front.

 

Which is generally disappointing. If Bulldozer fails I have no problem going back to Intel but not using ATi video cards hurts my soul

 

I don't think that's likely to be a massive issue for the graphics side, as both companies are behind due to TSMC's 28nm process yields. AMD CPUs though, I'm not sure, Bulldozer really needs to be a magic bullet for AMD to bring them back in the game, and so far, I'm not convinced.

 

Sam,

By "rivals", I'm assuming you are meaning AMD? When you can build me something like this for this price in a competitive Intel, be sure and let me know. Granted the Case and PSU aren't much, so I added a Cooler Master RC-534+ W/460w PSU. I would sell the case and PSU to someone who wants something cheap! I also added an ODD. It would make a darn nice computer console for cheap! Oddly enough the CPUs with the least cache memory seem to see the most improvement in a good AM3+ motherboard. My guess is, it's the higher thruput of the AM3+ motherboards.



Even with the additions, it's $309.97 with the $10 MIR. The shipping is just under $12, so just call it an even $322, delivered. Outstanding!

I enjoy a man with a good sense of humor!

Best Regards,
Russ

 

Was merely in response to the comment that Intel charge a very high price for their top-end, wasn't a comment about value as a whole.
I'm not quite sure why you have two cases in that build, so I'll cut the price to the bundle deal at $220. You can achieve $240 for a system with these parts:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116399
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813138332
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811322034 (I know it's awful, but it's the same case/PSU you chose)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820233132
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822148701

Given that this isn't using any combo bundle discounts, and only comes out $20 on top, I'd say intel offer similar levels of value. Oh and don't give me that the 3-core X40 is better than the dual core G620, I'm not falling for that

 

the only thing is, is that the pentium just don't oc well, or infact at all.

 

You're about to tell me you buy $220 systems for their overclocking potential? I'd like to see you overclock an AMD in a $50 budget basic board. When you've put the fire out, come back and tell me how you got on...

 

you could but an extra $50 in, and of it then

 

Only the i7 990x is about 50% stronger (not more), close to it even with their own i7 970 which maybe 30%+ slower, so it is a beast. But when you have to have a $500+ motherboard and the cpu is $1000+ and 3 or 6 sticks of RAM for it to perform it is just a little nuts. So if you absolutely need the fastest and can afford the waste of money then you go with the Intel.

Now with that said I'd still like to have it I just won't spend that kind of money right now but if times were better I would consider it for one of my PC's.

I was going to argue the 50% with you Sam but I did a little research and found real testing not benchmark nonsense which supports your 50% pretty close, I'd never of believed it otherwise. So yes you are right for the hardware elite this would be a good choice.

Good one Sam,
Stevo

 

You don't have to have a $500 board to use the 970 or 990X, and you know that
You could quite happily put one in a $150 board, they're only the same chipset and socket as the other LGA1366 CPUs. 3 or 6 sticks of RAM are hardly expensive either. Some 12GB 1600mhz CAS9 is what, $80? You can run an i7 970, 12GB of RAM and a decent board for $850 all-in. That's not really that obscene.

 

I gotta agree with Sam.

 

Nope I was ready some of the articles and they said that you loose performance if you don't go with the board I selected or the Z68 so you do it you want your full potential and the 970 isn't worth the money for the little performance you gain but the 990x definitely is.

And yes that is obscene for the 970 in that case I definitely disagree! Again the only case I see valid is going all out with the 990!!

 

Heck, even a slow 8 core would probably be better than my quad when it comes to X264. That program needs more cores!
I would need a lot of money to justify intels offerings. Bleeding edge technology is nice, but I don't need to be on the front line for that much money. I'm quite content being a runner up. I guess I'm not even a runner up at this time :S I want the 1090t, but I'm trying really hard to not click buy LOL! With an 8-core on the horizon, it'd be a dumb decision to buy a 6 core, when the program I use the most (X264), will benefit from more cores.

Although a 6 core, and an 8 core would be very nice. When I do my upgrade in february, perhaps I'll sell 965, and help with the 1090t purchase.

 

the 2600k is as fast as the 990x, and is only a quad core. A z86 board isnt expensive, nor is 8gb of ram