The Official PC building thread - 4th Edition

Russ, it's a 1.8Ghz chip. Only getting to 3.6Ghz? A measly 100%? I forget AMD offer so much more than that these days...

 

Sam,

I understand that, but was it really a 1.8GHz chip? I sincerely doubt it. The E4300 was originally designed for a 1333MHz fsb, but was released as an 800MHz fsb chip, as was the E4400. The AMD AthlonIIx2 7750 dual core I had, beat both the E4300 and the E6750 in performance, even with the E6750's much higher fsb and more L2 Cache. How can you say "these days?" This was 5-6 years ago, and has nothing to do with today's chips.

The cheapest i5 Quad core at present is the i5-2310 2.9GHz and costs $185, the same price as the i5-2300. A decent H series motherboard goes for $85. That's $270 for a 2.9GHz i5 Quad and motherboard, and for my money I get HD 2000 Intel graphics. Oh WOW!!! I can save $65 ($75 with the MIR) and spend $215 ($205 w/MIR) for an A8-3850 2.9GHz Llano and again a decent motherboard and come away with a better all around computer with HD6550D Graphics and save roughly $65. If I want to spend a lot more money for an i5, I can come away with a much better computer using a P67X motherboard and a decent video card, but that up's the price another $185 or so, to about $455, so it costs $240 more, just to be able to play some games better? I don't think so! It's all about the power of a buck, and AMD wins this one easily, so yes, sometimes AMD does give you so much more!

Like Stevo said, the i5 just doesn't live up to all the hype, and I'm not any more impressed with an i5 than he is. You can build a great i5 computer, but the cost to do it is high.

Best Regards,
Russ

 

You could always, I dunno, google it?
The e4300 came on a 200mhz bus, 200x9=1800.

Please at least spend five seconds looking something up before automatically assuming I'm wrong.

 

I did actually write a lengthy response to all of these posts raised, but I'm not sure I'll bother. It's not as if there is any real factual advice in this thread anyway. It's when I see people like Russ routinely posting false info to see if I pick up on it, and deliberately, calculatedly misinterpreting my every word, there's just no real point for any effort extended into this thread.

For anyone happening to stumble upon this thread as an outsider therefore, a concise summary that doesn't respond to any of the fabrications from the last page:

If you're on a limited budget (and I do really mean limited, not just sensible), you buy an AMD system. For low-budget PCs AMD have led the way for some times, and will continue to do so.
If you want a powerful system, you buy an Intel. It's that black and white.
With the Intels you get vastly better out of the box performance, better overclocking on top of this, lower power consumption (Not so much a planet-saver, but better for allowing greater overclocking headroom, less long-term stress on components, and reduced requirements for cooling so the system fits in a smaller, or quieter chassis), and, for those who are so inclined, better onboard graphics (Excluding AMD Llano - if you want a system with integrated graphics that don't suck, but don't need a majorly powerful CPU, buy an AMD Llano system.)
For an enthusiast system, the i5 2500K, an ATX Z68 motherboard from Gigabyte, 8GB of Corsair memory, and a Radeon HD6870 can be had for $550 all in. All you need then is a PSU, a case and some disk drives. Thanks to the low power consumption of the i5 and the HD6870 compared with their respective rivals (80W+130W typical, 95W+150W peak for the i5/6870, versus 105W+150W typical, 130W+170W peak for an X4/GTX560 standard), you can run a pretty lightweight, quiet PSU with this system. All in, it's a cinch to build a gaming system with impressive specification on an i5 build for less than the $800 mark.

For a processing workstation with no need for graphics, enter the i7 2600K. Faster processing power in the majority of applications than AMD's flagship 8-core CPU, the 2600K, the same Z68 board, and 16GB of XMS memory, is $540 for the trio. Hardly a bank-breaker for one of the most powerful systems out there.


There is however, still a note of sensibility that need be applied here. Just because you can upgrade, doesn't always mean you should. Sure, there may well be faster systems out there than yours, but what does upgrading personally get you, numbers aside? People who do nothing more than use facebook and email, maybe playing the sims or farmville, but who want their PC to run and boot faster, should probably forget about a CPU upgrade if they already have a dual core, or perhaps an older quad core CPU, like the Q6600. The best advice you could give to people in that situation would be to grab a small SSD, and stick it alongside their mechanical drive. You can get some great performers for <$120 these days, and even with moderate systems, the difference in responsiveness is superb. It's about the most cost-effective upgrade you can get for non-gamers who don't also need lots of processing power.

 

Russ isn't baiting you or trying too. And Intel may be better for power savings and they are OC'd easier but still for the money you get better performance from AMD. Now that I have a new Intel to base from and can see the wrongly hyped performance, I think you are just wrong Sam and seem to fall into the fanboy group which I truly hate those analogies but seems to fit here.

I can see paying more for true performance but I just don't see it so I'll take the AMD for the money still.

 

Sam,

That's not the bus speed! The bus speed is 800MHz! See here!




Russ

 

Sam is referring to the BSB (Back side bus). not the FSB (front side bus) BSB is on the CPU. FSB Relates to CPU to External connections.

 

I honestly don't think using a 2c/4t i3 as base for the performance of the other Intel CPUs is accurate in any way. My personal system has a i7 930 that I'm very happy with for the most part (the power consumption is getting old). I have also worked extensively on a system with a 2c/4t i5 (can't remember the model), and was actually quite surprised at how poor it performed when I first started using it. Obviously I didn't expect it to be anything near an OC'd i7, however the gap was much bigger than I had anticipated.

Before anyone gets the wrong idea, I have no idea which company offers better price/performance, just that I'd be extremely hesitant to make any performance assumptions on Intel's new CPUs (i5 750 and i7s mainly) based off a 2c/4t i3.

 

DXR88,

I know what he is referring to. While I've never heard it referred to as the BSB it is Quad pumped, making the FSB 800 MHz. AMD calls the BSB, the base frequency.

Best Regards,
Russ

 

Russ, didn't I sell/give you the AMD 965 cooler? Or the 940? I seem to recall giving one of them to you. I guarantee the one I got from the local PC shop was not designed for the 965. I seem to recall it having heat pipes. This one doesn't have them. And yet the heatsink is obviously AMD design. Like a glove.

I have it underclocked to 2.9Ghz(1.275) and a torture test is quickly achieving 55C. 3 threads achieves 52C fairly quickly. I new when I got the heat sink, it was a temporary measure. I definitely can't do anything real strenuous LOL! Oh well. Wednesday I'll have new goodies to play with.

 

IBT High Stress for 20 runs gives me a max temp of 55*C, Playing games I have never seen it break 50. Usually hovers around 44-48.

 

Yes, with your wonderful coolit! LOL! Nah, I'm happy for you man. Hopefully I can attain results like that, with some creative thinking, and air cooling. Of course it'll be easier, only having a quad core, while you have a 6

 

Actually do not have the 6 Yet. Am waiting for buddy boy to buy his Sandy Bridge setup. AFAIK he's got the board and memory already and is waiting for the CPU. So I might be sitting on a hex very soon. Incidentally, he also uses a CoolIt ECO 120 and it also stays in the 40s gaming but with a stock fan and no OCing. He has hit 4GHz with it stable, but doesn't do enough to OC. Mostly Star Trek Online, L4D and Company of Heroes. I might mention he's upgrading for power usage more than anything.

 

Oops. Russ is the one that has the 6 core. My bad :S

 

Kevin,

Yes you did. You solved a real problem for me in doing so too! Thank you, once again.

Best Regards,
Russ

 

Absolutely my friend

 

Kevin,

That would be I! This upgrade came together real nice. I guess I made the right choices when selecting the parts. Adding the fast Patriot Pyro 60GB SSD, was the icing on the cake for me! I'm going to switch to 8GB of ram in the not too distant future. Cas 7, 1333MHz, 7-7-7-21 timings.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231402

Should work pretty well with Win7

Best Regards,
Russ

 

When discussing bus speeds, it is important to take the base bus speed instead of the FSB generally, because it is the base bus speed that defines the system's limitations - how far you can clock an FSB-based CPU based on its multiplier depends on the base bus speed, and the same applies for what memory you can use when overclocking. It's not possible to run DDR memory below double the data rate of the bus speed, for fairly obvious reasons, so when you pushed much beyond 400FSB, 800mhz memory no longer sufficed.
Of course, this is another complication that the i-series CPUs from Intel (excluding the original i7s on LGA1366) eliminate.


Mr-Movies: You're welcome to your own opinion on that matter, but it remains an opinion. Without having done any meaningul testing on the i-series platform, you only have hear-say upon which to base your statements.

 

Yep Intel does absolutely pound AMD for value. AMD's entry level stuff is still, of course, the better value. But anything above entry level AMD just make a poor showing.

This isn't opinion or hearsay Mr-Movies, this is cold, hard facts. Intel is not only the better performer by a longshot, it's also the better value by a longshot. And I'd like to know what you used as a performance test. I also have personally used Intel i series duals and quads, and in my testing, a highly overclocked AMD X2 isn't even in the same ball park. Sorry to say dude, but you're not gonna have comments like that go unanswered. Your numbers are wrong because I know for a fact they are. Clock per clock an i5 is roughly twice to three times faster than an Athlon 64 X2.

 

There are of course applications that do favour AMD in their processing when compared to the status quo, but on average, you're looking at something like:

3.2Ghz Phenom II ~~ 2.83Ghz Core 2 (45nm) ~~ 2.33Ghz Core i5/i7 (45nm) ~~ 2.10Ghz Core i5/i7 (32nm).

I wouldn't say it's double/triple the performance per-clock, but the use of higher clock speeds will help somewhat in that regard. Of course, there are occasions when Intels get innate advantages too, which skew the numbers a bit. Generally speaking you should expect, at the same clock speed, 4 cores of an i5/i7 to approximate 6 cores of a Phenom II, or 8 cores of a Bulldozer, since said cores are slower than Phenom II cores. This comes before overclocking of course, for which AMDs don't have much headroom. When you consider enthusiast overclockers, then a better case is made for going Intel.