|
|
|
The Official PC building thread - 4th Edition
|
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
9. February 2012 @ 17:08 |
Link to this message
|
GigaByte 990FXA-UD5 - AMD FX-8320 @4.0GHz @1.312v - Corsair H-60 liquid CPU Cooler - 4x4 GB GSkill RipJaws DDR3/1866 Cas8, 8-9-9-24 - Corsair 400-R Case - OCZ FATAL1TY 550 watt Modular PSU - Intel 330 120GB SATA III SSD - WD Black 500GB SATA III - WD black 1 TB Sata III - WD Black 500GB SATA II - 2 Asus DRW-24B1ST DVD-Burner - Sony 420W 5.1 PL-II Suround Sound - GigaByte GTX550/1GB 970 Mhz Video - Asus VE247H 23.6" HDMI 1080p Monitor
 |
|
Advertisement
|
 |
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
7 product reviews
|
9. February 2012 @ 17:19 |
Link to this message
|
|
Loud is almost meaningless to me. I can control the fans manually. I want the ability to highly cool(loud), but quiet when I want. So regardless of noise, I want a fan that CAN move a lot of air :p
Man this 8600gt sucks! I'm getting all sorts of graphical lag...
To delete, or not to delete. THAT is the question! |
Senior Member
|
9. February 2012 @ 17:25 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by sammorris:
Mr-Movies: The hype was about the quad cores. Buying a dual core in this day and age and expecting it to perform better than a quad core is pretty laughable, even with a good architecture.
Remember, there is an i5 quad core, and it's this CPU that wins the benchmark praise, not the cheaper dual core versions.
My i5 is hardly better than my old AMD X2, not the new ones, so I'm sorry but your laughable just doesn't apply.
I've now tested my i5, and yes I'm aware of all the variants on both sides, and it just isn't as good as the hype, no surprise there I would say. In fact I had a friend that is not very knowledgeable play with my new system and he is thinking of staying with AMD. When I can get a AMD quad for the same price as a 2c4t (iX) Intel and it will perform better why would I go with the Intel 2 core or spend even more for the 4 core? Hardly laughable but then I'm not a fanboy. My friend was swayed toward Intel for his new rig as he lives around a bunch of the iPeople (Apple) and Intel fanboys, but after playing with mine, which he liked, he was not overly impressed nor am I.
Regards,
Stevo
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 9. February 2012 @ 17:46
|
AfterDawn Addict
7 product reviews
|
9. February 2012 @ 17:26 |
Link to this message
|
|
Hey! I didn't say that LOL!
To delete, or not to delete. THAT is the question! |
Senior Member
|
9. February 2012 @ 17:45 |
Link to this message
|
|
Sorry, I didn't pull your quote marker out when I stripped a bunch of the other comments, it should look correct now Kevin.
Stevo :0
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
10. February 2012 @ 02:44 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by theonejrs:
Originally posted by sammorris:
Originally posted by omegaman7:
So not the same compound, but similar eh ddp?
The local PC shop gave me the stock AM3 cooler for my quad. They're very nice people. They trusted me to try it, and if it works, pay 7.50 later. I asked them about it, when I walked in, and they all but laughed. "Been steering amd fans to intel since 2000" is what one of them said. Intel fanboys! I told them that usually when I'm in the market, AMD seems to have the best price/performance ratio. They didn't say anything. Their comments were based on preference, and nothing more. Honestly, the real world differences between the two manufacturers are nearly negligible, depending on the software.
Russ, I found the leak! It's precisely where the power cable comes out of the pump!
Missing the point somewhat I think. From massive overclocks on cheap CPUs like the e4300, to the unmatched power of the I7s, there is much that separates Intel from their rivals. My only correction would be that it should be 2006, not 2000.
Sam,
I would never call the E4300 a good overclocker, let alone a great one. As I recall, you struggled to get past 3 GHz with yours. Mine ran out of gas at 3.56 GHz. The E6750 was a much better and faster chip, with more L2 Cache.
Personally I'm more than happy with my 1090T BE @3.6 GHz, with the 990XA motherboard and DDR3 1333 MHz cas 7 memory, in spite of all the bugs in Win7. It has many annoying glitches, and I hate the idea that it try's to outguess you, forcing you to spend more wasted time to do things the way you need them done. They made a bunch of boneheaded errors with Win7, like having to sort the desktop icons twice, because it flips the order from A-Z to Z-A. The windows picture viewer sucks. It's also missing icons for a lot of common file types, and there's no preview for picture files unless you open the Preview program, and there is no Gif support. It also has a nasty habit of not asking you before it installs updates, despite my having it set to ask me before it downloads and installs an update. The only saving grace with the Control Panel, is the search function. Otherwise you can't find a thing! 51 Icons, to do the same work in twice the amount of time as the 23 icons I had in XP! Marvelous! :)
Russ
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...
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
10. February 2012 @ 11:54 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by sammorris:
Originally posted by theonejrs:
Originally posted by sammorris:
Originally posted by omegaman7:
So not the same compound, but similar eh ddp?
The local PC shop gave me the stock AM3 cooler for my quad. They're very nice people. They trusted me to try it, and if it works, pay 7.50 later. I asked them about it, when I walked in, and they all but laughed. "Been steering amd fans to intel since 2000" is what one of them said. Intel fanboys! I told them that usually when I'm in the market, AMD seems to have the best price/performance ratio. They didn't say anything. Their comments were based on preference, and nothing more. Honestly, the real world differences between the two manufacturers are nearly negligible, depending on the software.
Russ, I found the leak! It's precisely where the power cable comes out of the pump!
Missing the point somewhat I think. From massive overclocks on cheap CPUs like the e4300, to the unmatched power of the I7s, there is much that separates Intel from their rivals. My only correction would be that it should be 2006, not 2000.
Sam,
I would never call the E4300 a good overclocker, let alone a great one. As I recall, you struggled to get past 3 GHz with yours. Mine ran out of gas at 3.56 GHz. The E6750 was a much better and faster chip, with more L2 Cache.
Personally I'm more than happy with my 1090T BE @3.6 GHz, with the 990XA motherboard and DDR3 1333 MHz cas 7 memory, in spite of all the bugs in Win7. It has many annoying glitches, and I hate the idea that it try's to outguess you, forcing you to spend more wasted time to do things the way you need them done. They made a bunch of boneheaded errors with Win7, like having to sort the desktop icons twice, because it flips the order from A-Z to Z-A. The windows picture viewer sucks. It's also missing icons for a lot of common file types, and there's no preview for picture files unless you open the Preview program, and there is no Gif support. It also has a nasty habit of not asking you before it installs updates, despite my having it set to ask me before it downloads and installs an update. The only saving grace with the Control Panel, is the search function. Otherwise you can't find a thing! 51 Icons, to do the same work in twice the amount of time as the 23 icons I had in XP! Marvelous! :)
Russ
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
GigaByte 990FXA-UD5 - AMD FX-8320 @4.0GHz @1.312v - Corsair H-60 liquid CPU Cooler - 4x4 GB GSkill RipJaws DDR3/1866 Cas8, 8-9-9-24 - Corsair 400-R Case - OCZ FATAL1TY 550 watt Modular PSU - Intel 330 120GB SATA III SSD - WD Black 500GB SATA III - WD black 1 TB Sata III - WD Black 500GB SATA II - 2 Asus DRW-24B1ST DVD-Burner - Sony 420W 5.1 PL-II Suround Sound - GigaByte GTX550/1GB 970 Mhz Video - Asus VE247H 23.6" HDMI 1080p Monitor
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 10. February 2012 @ 11:56
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
10. February 2012 @ 13:31 |
Link to this message
|
|
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.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
10. February 2012 @ 15:06 |
Link to this message
|
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.
|
Senior Member
|
10. February 2012 @ 16:54 |
Link to this message
|
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.
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
10. February 2012 @ 19:24 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by sammorris:
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.
Sam,
That's not the bus speed! The bus speed is 800MHz! See here!
Russ
GigaByte 990FXA-UD5 - AMD FX-8320 @4.0GHz @1.312v - Corsair H-60 liquid CPU Cooler - 4x4 GB GSkill RipJaws DDR3/1866 Cas8, 8-9-9-24 - Corsair 400-R Case - OCZ FATAL1TY 550 watt Modular PSU - Intel 330 120GB SATA III SSD - WD Black 500GB SATA III - WD black 1 TB Sata III - WD Black 500GB SATA II - 2 Asus DRW-24B1ST DVD-Burner - Sony 420W 5.1 PL-II Suround Sound - GigaByte GTX550/1GB 970 Mhz Video - Asus VE247H 23.6" HDMI 1080p Monitor
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 10. February 2012 @ 19:50
|
Senior Member
4 product reviews
|
11. February 2012 @ 15:39 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by theonejrs:
Originally posted by sammorris:
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.
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.
Powered By
 |
|
Red_Maw
Senior Member
|
11. February 2012 @ 15:43 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Mr-Movies:
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 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.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 12. February 2012 @ 15:53
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
11. February 2012 @ 16:15 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by DXR88:
Originally posted by theonejrs:
Originally posted by sammorris:
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.
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.
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
GigaByte 990FXA-UD5 - AMD FX-8320 @4.0GHz @1.312v - Corsair H-60 liquid CPU Cooler - 4x4 GB GSkill RipJaws DDR3/1866 Cas8, 8-9-9-24 - Corsair 400-R Case - OCZ FATAL1TY 550 watt Modular PSU - Intel 330 120GB SATA III SSD - WD Black 500GB SATA III - WD black 1 TB Sata III - WD Black 500GB SATA II - 2 Asus DRW-24B1ST DVD-Burner - Sony 420W 5.1 PL-II Suround Sound - GigaByte GTX550/1GB 970 Mhz Video - Asus VE247H 23.6" HDMI 1080p Monitor
|
AfterDawn Addict
7 product reviews
|
12. February 2012 @ 00:12 |
Link to this message
|
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.
To delete, or not to delete. THAT is the question! |
AfterDawn Addict
15 product reviews
|
12. February 2012 @ 01:11 |
Link to this message
|
|
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.
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T 4GHz(20 x 200) 1.5v 3000NB 2000HT, Corsair Hydro H110 w/ 4 x 140mm 1500RPM fans Push/Pull, Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD5, 8GB(2 x 4GB) G.Skill RipJaws DDR3-1600 @ 1600MHz CL9 1.55v, Gigabyte GTX760 OC 4GB(1170/1700), Corsair 750HX
Detailed PC Specs: http://my.afterdawn.com/estuansis/blog_entry.cfm/11388 |
AfterDawn Addict
7 product reviews
|
12. February 2012 @ 01:15 |
Link to this message
|
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 ;)
To delete, or not to delete. THAT is the question! |
AfterDawn Addict
15 product reviews
|
12. February 2012 @ 01:31 |
Link to this message
|
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.
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T 4GHz(20 x 200) 1.5v 3000NB 2000HT, Corsair Hydro H110 w/ 4 x 140mm 1500RPM fans Push/Pull, Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD5, 8GB(2 x 4GB) G.Skill RipJaws DDR3-1600 @ 1600MHz CL9 1.55v, Gigabyte GTX760 OC 4GB(1170/1700), Corsair 750HX
Detailed PC Specs: http://my.afterdawn.com/estuansis/blog_entry.cfm/11388
|
AfterDawn Addict
7 product reviews
|
12. February 2012 @ 01:40 |
Link to this message
|
|
Oops. Russ is the one that has the 6 core. My bad :S
To delete, or not to delete. THAT is the question! |
AfterDawn Addict
|
12. February 2012 @ 02:44 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by omegaman7:
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.
Kevin,
Yes you did. You solved a real problem for me in doing so too! Thank you, once again.
Best Regards,
Russ
GigaByte 990FXA-UD5 - AMD FX-8320 @4.0GHz @1.312v - Corsair H-60 liquid CPU Cooler - 4x4 GB GSkill RipJaws DDR3/1866 Cas8, 8-9-9-24 - Corsair 400-R Case - OCZ FATAL1TY 550 watt Modular PSU - Intel 330 120GB SATA III SSD - WD Black 500GB SATA III - WD black 1 TB Sata III - WD Black 500GB SATA II - 2 Asus DRW-24B1ST DVD-Burner - Sony 420W 5.1 PL-II Suround Sound - GigaByte GTX550/1GB 970 Mhz Video - Asus VE247H 23.6" HDMI 1080p Monitor
|
AfterDawn Addict
7 product reviews
|
12. February 2012 @ 02:50 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by theonejrs:
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 ;)
To delete, or not to delete. THAT is the question! |
AfterDawn Addict
|
12. February 2012 @ 03:07 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by omegaman7:
Oops. Russ is the one that has the 6 core. My bad :S
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
GigaByte 990FXA-UD5 - AMD FX-8320 @4.0GHz @1.312v - Corsair H-60 liquid CPU Cooler - 4x4 GB GSkill RipJaws DDR3/1866 Cas8, 8-9-9-24 - Corsair 400-R Case - OCZ FATAL1TY 550 watt Modular PSU - Intel 330 120GB SATA III SSD - WD Black 500GB SATA III - WD black 1 TB Sata III - WD Black 500GB SATA II - 2 Asus DRW-24B1ST DVD-Burner - Sony 420W 5.1 PL-II Suround Sound - GigaByte GTX550/1GB 970 Mhz Video - Asus VE247H 23.6" HDMI 1080p Monitor
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
12. February 2012 @ 05:44 |
Link to this message
|
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.
|
AfterDawn Addict
15 product reviews
|
12. February 2012 @ 06:59 |
Link to this message
|
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.
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T 4GHz(20 x 200) 1.5v 3000NB 2000HT, Corsair Hydro H110 w/ 4 x 140mm 1500RPM fans Push/Pull, Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD5, 8GB(2 x 4GB) G.Skill RipJaws DDR3-1600 @ 1600MHz CL9 1.55v, Gigabyte GTX760 OC 4GB(1170/1700), Corsair 750HX
Detailed PC Specs: http://my.afterdawn.com/estuansis/blog_entry.cfm/11388
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 12. February 2012 @ 07:00
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
12. February 2012 @ 07:08 |
Link to this message
|
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.
|
|
