|
|
|
The Official PC building thread - 4th Edition
|
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
15 product reviews
|
12. February 2012 @ 07:42 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
I wouldn't say it's double/triple the performance per-clock
I certainly would say at least twice. Also, yes the superior overclocking just increases that gap. Not to mention POWER CONSUMPTION. Of course most aren't fretting too much over their power bills but when the difference is THAT large... yeesh. I thought Phenom II had bad efficiency. Bulldozer isn't even worth overclocking.
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/11388This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 12. February 2012 @ 07:43
|
|
Advertisement
|
 |
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
12. February 2012 @ 10:19 |
Link to this message
|
|
Yeah, I try not to make a big deal of power consumption for anyone who isn't running their machine 24/7. People will often negate it as a benefit for having inexpensive electricity, and there are other parts of a system that often make far more of a difference to a system's power consumption, as well as usage habits themselves.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 12. February 2012 @ 10:19
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
12. February 2012 @ 10:31 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by sammorris:
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.
Sam,
What is it with you? Do you bleed Intel Blue? Where am I misrepresenting anything here? I said the Llano 3850 on a good motherboard is a better deal than the cheapest i5 2310, and costs much less, The 2.9GHz i5-2310 costs a whopping $65 more than the 2.9GHz 3850 Llano. The Llano 3670k with the unlocked multiplier costs $80 less than the i5-2310, and is probably a better deal than the 3850.
What I take real exception to is: "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." I think you have a hell of a lot of nerve, trying to turn people away from this thread, and then blame me for it! That is a personal attack against me, and is against Forum rules! Not only that you can't even prove what you just said, so you are just talking through your hat!
You don't always get everything right either, like your price for a small SSD. If you bothered to look, you would have seen the 60GB Patriot Pyro I have, still on sale for $25 cheaper at $95. Please don't tell me that 60GB isn't bug enough, because with all the programs installed, I'm still using less than half of the drive space The trouble with you is all you can see is game performance. I can upgrade two computers to a Llano 3670K $210, two decent motherboards for $$170 and 8GB of cas 7 1333MHz memory for each for $100, totaling $470, less than half the cost of a single i5-2600K, motherboard and 2x4GB of memory, which you said costs $540. I actually priced them and it came out to $500 even, so the $235 Llano upgrade for one computer is a much better deal. If you want to spend $305 more, that's your business. I don't! I'm not a big time gamer, so I don't need more than double the cost for unneeded speed, just to run apps, or process Video! I accept the fact that iTunes will be slower, but I don't use iTunes anyway. The only other slow app I do occasionally use is win.rar, and I rarely compress large amounts of data. BTW, you also forgot to include the cost of a video card in the price of the i7-2600K. There is no video on a P67 or P68 motherboard, while the HD-6550D graphics on the Llano, are better than the HD-4670 graphics I have now.
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
|
12. February 2012 @ 10:43 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by sammorris:
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.
Sam,
I don't know who the heck your are trying to fool, but you knew exactly what I was talking about with the 800MHz bus of the E4300. I'm not interested in how good the i-series chips are. I'm very happy with what I have now, and have no intention of switching to Intel anytime in the near or distant future!
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
15 product reviews
|
12. February 2012 @ 11:12 |
Link to this message
|
I will add that AMD Black Edition CPUs don't face an FSB limit either and they were doing it with mainstream products well before Intel.
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
4 product reviews
|
12. February 2012 @ 12:02 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by theonejrs:
Originally posted by sammorris:
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.
Sam,
What is it with you? Do you bleed Intel Blue? Where am I misrepresenting anything here? I said the Llano 3850 on a good motherboard is a better deal than the cheapest i5 2310, and costs much less, The 2.9GHz i5-2310 costs a whopping $65 more than the 2.9GHz 3850 Llano. The Llano 3670k with the unlocked multiplier costs $80 less than the i5-2310, and is probably a better deal than the 3850.
What I take real exception to is: "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." I think you have a hell of a lot of nerve, trying to turn people away from this thread, and then blame me for it! That is a personal attack against me, and is against Forum rules! Not only that you can't even prove what you just said, so you are just talking through your hat!
You don't always get everything right either, like your price for a small SSD. If you bothered to look, you would have seen the 60GB Patriot Pyro I have, still on sale for $25 cheaper at $95. Please don't tell me that 60GB isn't bug enough, because with all the programs installed, I'm still using less than half of the drive space The trouble with you is all you can see is game performance. I can upgrade two computers to a Llano 3670K $210, two decent motherboards for $$170 and 8GB of cas 7 1333MHz memory for each for $100, totaling $470, less than half the cost of a single i5-2600K, motherboard and 2x4GB of memory, which you said costs $540. I actually priced them and it came out to $500 even, so the $235 Llano upgrade for one computer is a much better deal. If you want to spend $305 more, that's your business. I don't! I'm not a big time gamer, so I don't need more than double the cost for unneeded speed, just to run apps, or process Video! I accept the fact that iTunes will be slower, but I don't use iTunes anyway. The only other slow app I do occasionally use is win.rar, and I rarely compress large amounts of data. BTW, you also forgot to include the cost of a video card in the price of the i7-2600K. There is no video on a P67 or P68 motherboard, while the HD-6550D graphics on the Llano, are better than the HD-4670 graphics I have now.
Russ
"what's it with me" is that if I post something that is actually correct, but not to your liking, a rant ensues.
When you post more than half a dozen inaccuracies in one post, we must gloss over them, for fear of incurring further rants.
You can't expect to receive some sort of special treatment on the forum that allows you to post whatever you like, whether or not it's true, yet that's exactly how you go about things. You have absolutely no right to start anything with any of us when we rightly criticise you for it.
If 'bleeding intel blue' is the term for not being so blind with my admiration for AMD that I am only able to buy their products, then so be it. As you should well know, I have a great deal of respect for AMD in their video division, and when they made competitive products, did so in the CPU market. Had their latest products been very successful, my confidence in them would certainly have been restored to the extent that I would consider them in future builds. As it stands though, they make cheap value CPUs, because that's the best they can make. It's all well and good to point out that the majority of users don't need high-end systems, and therefore the advantages Intel rake in with the upper segment of the market don't apply to much of the proportions of sales. Despite this, however, OEM systems for home and business use require lightweight, amenable parts, that will run with small, quiet coolers. The exorbitant power consumption of a large part of AMD's product lineup rules this out.
Now let's consider where we are holding this discussion. Ultimately, an enthusiast's board. Therefore, what's written here applies to those who are willing to take steps beyond buying their off-the-shelf HP system and having done with it. With the products available to these sorts of users from Intel, when you can afford them, there's no reason to try and divert people back to AMDs.
Quote:
You don't always get everything right either, like your price for a small SSD. If you bothered to look, you would have seen the 60GB Patriot Pyro I have, still on sale for $25 cheaper at $95. Please don't tell me that 60GB isn't bug enough, because with all the programs installed, I'm still using less than half of the drive space The trouble with you is all you can see is game performance. I can upgrade two computers to a Llano 3670K $210, two decent motherboards for $$170 and 8GB of cas 7 1333MHz memory for each for $100, totaling $470, less than half the cost of a single i5-2600K, motherboard and 2x4GB of memory, which you said costs $540
Nice of you to choose the absolute cheapest parts, rather than quality parts, just to skew things in your favour a bit more.
I also said, less than $120, so that still covers your Patriot SSD, but clearly you either can't read, or chose to ignore that part of the post.
Quote:
I think you have a hell of a lot of nerve, trying to turn people away from this thread, and then blame me for it! That is a personal attack against me, and is against Forum rules! Not only that you can't even prove what you just said, so you are just talking through your hat!
Personal attack or not, it's the truth. What comes next, regular as clockwork, is the long list of people you know personally who refuse to post at afterdawn because I'm here, having arguments like this. Oddly enough, when you're absent for a few days, none of this ever happens. Don't try to play innocent.
This thread is draining, you are draining, and I've had enough.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 12. February 2012 @ 12:14
|
Senior Member
|
12. February 2012 @ 13:06 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Estuansis:
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.
I would disagree and will not make that mistake for a while yet again. Intel is hype and always has been. Is there high end processor better? I would say so just not a lot better or as much as they hype it.
So you can pay more and brag about all you want, but I'm just not buying into it!
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 12. February 2012 @ 13:07
|
Senior Member
|
12. February 2012 @ 14:35 |
Link to this message
|
Oh Oh!! the two heavy weights are at it again lol, remember the movie Red October when Connery said a revolution is good once in a while, kinda reminds me of this, no biggie, both will kiss and make up in no time.
My wothless humble opinion but still have one, I would agree if your one of those really big power users where your into competition, I can see where Intel would shine, but anything under that I don't see it and would call it a waste of money.
I don't know if I would call AMD CPU'S cheaply made, money wise yes, quality wise hell no, remember I had that old AMD HP, finally when it was at it's last legs and it started to give me problems one of the problems it did not have was the CPU, my first build several years ago you guys helped me put together that AMD chip is strong as ever and that thing hasn't been shut off in years, same as my latest build now almost a year old that Phenom IIx6 is strong as ever.
Quote sammy: What comes next, regular as clockwork, is the long list of people you know personally who refuse to post at afterdawn because I'm here, having arguments like this. Oddly enough, when you're absent for a few days, none of this ever happens. Don't try to play innocent.
Sammy I don't think you mean that, in the heat of the moment we do say a lot of mean things, at the time yes we do mean them, later as we cool off we think a little better, Anyway,I have never noticed that, and in his defense and not because we are good friends, I shoot the breeze with Russ all the time, about many things, I have never heard him try to steer anybody away because of disagreements or whatever, nor have I ever heard him bad mouth anybody on this thread and we do rake people over the coals because there are assholes out there, it could be about politics, religions, etc. as we all do.
Most of us one time or another also had our tiffs with some one here, but don't go away with I have had enough as if your not coming back, you'll be back kiddo, either speel out whatever else ails you, get it all out or have some cool off time and come on back posting.
|
|
ddp
Moderator
|
12. February 2012 @ 15:11 |
Link to this message
|
remember, no flamewars!!!! we all have an opinion so lets just keep it at that & even somebody asks us for help for amd or intel then give them your opinion & only that. agreed!!!
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
13. February 2012 @ 04:18 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by ddp:
remember, no flamewars!!!! we all have an opinion so lets just keep it at that & even somebody asks us for help for amd or intel then give them your opinion & only that. agreed!!!
ddp,
While I do agree with you, I feel that his remarks below, in quotes and bold type, are uncalled for. He just spouts words without making a lot of sense out of them, and never shows any proof for what he says. I didn't personally attack him, but he did personally attack me, without regard to the Forum rules.
"When you post more than half a dozen inaccuracies in one post, we must gloss over them, for fear of incurring further rants."
No example of proof, just words!
"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."
I think he has a hell of a lot of nerve, trying to turn people away from this thread, and then blame me for it! That is a personal attack against me, and is against Forum rules! Not only that he can't even prove what he just said, so he's just talking through his hat! I'm here to help people, and to learn as much as I can! To believe that I am personally out to get him by posting false information, borders on Paranoia!
"Nice of you to choose the absolute cheapest parts, rather than quality parts, just to skew things in your favour a bit more."
The Patriot Pyro 60GB SandForce SF-2281, SataIII is a very fast and competent SSD. It's been rated as a very good value for the money, outperforming other more expensive SSD's. It "is" a quality product, with a good amount of extras!
"Personal attack or not, it's the truth. What comes next, regular as clockwork, is the long list of people you know personally who refuse to post at afterdawn because I'm here, having arguments like this. Oddly enough, when you're absent for a few days, none of this ever happens. Don't try to play innocent."
This is just totally delusional in him acting like I'm the only one he ever got into a snit going on for pages and pages! I just want you to know that I'm upset mainly with the 4 items in bold. I consider the tone to be nothing more than trying to provoke me into a flame war! I promise you I won't bite!
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
15 product reviews
|
13. February 2012 @ 04:46 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
So you can pay more and brag about all you want, but I'm just not buying into it!
You'll notice I'm an AMD user myself and have been for a long time :) I'm not trying to throw digs here but dude I have done the testing. Even comparing to my fairly OCd 955BE a similar i5/i7 is about 40-50% faster... This isn't an opinion or bragging, it's admitting that Intel currently makes a better product than what I own.
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 13. February 2012 @ 04:49
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
13. February 2012 @ 07:57 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Estuansis:
Quote:
So you can pay more and brag about all you want, but I'm just not buying into it!
You'll notice I'm an AMD user myself and have been for a long time :) I'm not trying to throw digs here but dude I have done the testing. Even comparing to my fairly OCd 955BE a similar i5/i7 is about 40-50% faster... This isn't an opinion or bragging, it's admitting that Intel currently makes a better product than what I own.
Estuansis,
I never said that Intel doesn't make a better product. I still prefer my 1090T. I don't need all that i5/i7 speed, nor do I wish to pay for it. It's that simple!
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
|
13. February 2012 @ 08:27 |
Link to this message
|
|
The Patriot Pyro 60GB SandForce SF-2281, SataIII is a very fast and competent SSD. It's been rated as a very good value for the money, outperforming other more expensive SSD's. It "is" a quality product, with a good amount of extras
Best Regards,
Russ
A perfect example of my point. It is quite clear I was referring to the motherboard and memory because I quoted it. It's literally as if beside every post you go "right, how can I misinterpret this in such a way that it looks like he's in the wrong, and nit me?" - do you have any idea how frustrating that is?
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
13. February 2012 @ 09:55 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by sammorris:
The Patriot Pyro 60GB SandForce SF-2281, SataIII is a very fast and competent SSD. It's been rated as a very good value for the money, outperforming other more expensive SSD's. It "is" a quality product, with a good amount of extras
Best Regards,
Russ
A perfect example of my point. It is quite clear I was referring to the motherboard and memory because I quoted it. It's literally as if beside every post you go "right, how can I misinterpret this in such a way that it looks like he's in the wrong, and nit me?" - do you have any idea how frustrating that is?
Sam,
I'm sorry but you sound totally paranoid, because I have never thought of doing such a thing
You implied that I was using the cheapest parts of inferior quality, I didn't. The 60GB Patriot SSD was the cheapest part aside from the memory, which is generally pretty cheap these days. I chose the following parts:
Motherboard
GIGABYTE GA-A75M-UD2H FM1 AMD A75 (Hudson D3) HDMI SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 Micro ATX AMD Motherboard $95 - MIR $85 F/S supports DDR3 2400(OC) / 1866 / 1600 / 1333 / 1066
Memory
G.SKILL Ripjaws Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1333 (PC3 10666) Desktop Memory Model F3-10666CL7D-8GBRH $50 F/S timings 7-7-7-21
APU
AMD A6-3670K Unlocked Llano 2.7GHz Socket FM1 100W Quad-Core Desktop APU with DirectX 11 Graphic AMD Radeon HD 6530D AD3670WNGXBOX $105 F/S
Total $240, all free shipping All high quality parts, not the cheapest, with more than enough bells and whistles! It's what I would probably buy for myself
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
|
Senior Member
|
13. February 2012 @ 10:40 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Estuansis:
Quote:
So you can pay more and brag about all you want, but I'm just not buying into it!
You'll notice I'm an AMD user myself and have been for a long time :) I'm not trying to throw digs here but dude I have done the testing. Even comparing to my fairly OCd 955BE a similar i5/i7 is about 40-50% faster... This isn't an opinion or bragging, it's admitting that Intel currently makes a better product than what I own.
I don't know about that, I would say Intel makes a faster product but not a better one.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
13. February 2012 @ 12:14 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by theonejrs:
Originally posted by sammorris:
The Patriot Pyro 60GB SandForce SF-2281, SataIII is a very fast and competent SSD. It's been rated as a very good value for the money, outperforming other more expensive SSD's. It "is" a quality product, with a good amount of extras
Best Regards,
Russ
A perfect example of my point. It is quite clear I was referring to the motherboard and memory because I quoted it. It's literally as if beside every post you go "right, how can I misinterpret this in such a way that it looks like he's in the wrong, and nit me?" - do you have any idea how frustrating that is?
Sam,
I'm sorry but you sound totally paranoid, because I have never thought of doing such a thing
You implied that I was using the cheapest parts of inferior quality, I didn't. The 60GB Patriot SSD was the cheapest part aside from the memory, which is generally pretty cheap these days. I chose the following parts:
Motherboard
GIGABYTE GA-A75M-UD2H FM1 AMD A75 (Hudson D3) HDMI SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 Micro ATX AMD Motherboard $95 - MIR $85 F/S supports DDR3 2400(OC) / 1866 / 1600 / 1333 / 1066
Memory
G.SKILL Ripjaws Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1333 (PC3 10666) Desktop Memory Model F3-10666CL7D-8GBRH $50 F/S timings 7-7-7-21
APU
AMD A6-3670K Unlocked Llano 2.7GHz Socket FM1 100W Quad-Core Desktop APU with DirectX 11 Graphic AMD Radeon HD 6530D AD3670WNGXBOX $105 F/S
Total $240, all free shipping All high quality parts, not the cheapest, with more than enough bells and whistles! It's what I would probably buy for myself
Russ
It's not really a case of 'cheap and tacky', it's more a case of equivalence.
I have illustrated that a high-end system can be built for a certain amount with an i5 CPU.
To try and demonstrate that AMDs are so much better value, you have chosen, presumably not accidentally, slower memory, and a lower-end microATX board. I could quite well have done the same with the Intel system. To choose parts of a different part of the product spectrum like this is something that happens almost every time a comparison of value is drawn up.
As I stated at the start of my summary post, for the lower-end system, AMD remain better value, and that will be the case for a fair while, Intel just do not extend down to the low-end very well. The system I posted is a high performance system that will leave the listed AMD in the dust, so it has every right to be more expensive, and furthermore, it uses 1600mhz memory, and a proper ATX board. Were I to choose cheaper 1333mhz memory as you have, and a lower-end microATX board, which would still work perfectly well with the i5, you'd have a much cheaper system representing the same level of performance.
It's another case of seeing an opportunity to misrepresent facts, and rolling with it.
|
|
ddp
Moderator
|
13. February 2012 @ 12:24 |
Link to this message
|
|
what did i say about opinions?
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
13. February 2012 @ 12:29 |
Link to this message
|
|
Well, there's not really any opinion going on in that post, and the only part that is, I'm in agreement with Russ. It's fine to disagree with someone's opinion, but it's the piggybacking off my posts and misconstruing things that I take issue with.
|
Senior Member
|
13. February 2012 @ 12:50 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Estuansis:
Quote:
So you can pay more and brag about all you want, but I'm just not buying into it!
You'll notice I'm an AMD user myself and have been for a long time :) I'm not trying to throw digs here but dude I have done the testing. Even comparing to my fairly OCd 955BE a similar i5/i7 is about 40-50% faster... This isn't an opinion or bragging, it's admitting that Intel currently makes a better product than what I own.
I've done the same testing and it isn't that huge of difference but then I don't go by benchmarks which in most cases mean nothing. I go by intensive real world programs/applications to see how they perform and I can tell you that even the i7 2600 does not reach even 30% increase unless you base it off a lower AMD solution, I have a friend how bought an i7 which I tested with it. Also the friend with the i7 even told me that he didn't see a huge difference either like me he thought it was better but for the extra money he wasn't so impressed! Also like me he is an IT admin/tech with a very large car dealership, although I'm not active right now like I was a couple years ago.
I'm all for paying for a better product, which is why I bought an i5 notebook instead of what I should have got (the A6/A8 quad), but as usual with Intel you pay too much for a better product and that is where most of us here have a problem.
So again I just must disagree with you as I don't see the benefit with going Intel and this isn't hearsay it is based on experiences, trusted others and knowledge. Trusted others are people that would have an open mind and not be so biased that no matter what their answer wouldn't be one way or the other.
Regards,
Stevo
P.S. Russ, don't feel singled out as I can guarantee you I give Sam more heartache than you do.
|
AfterDawn Addict
7 product reviews
|
13. February 2012 @ 13:03 |
Link to this message
|
I see the advantages of more expensive products. I tend to go for the cheaper inferior product :p If I had a better job(more income), I would be more toward the enthusiast offerings. I do prefer bleeding edge, but darnit! I don't wanna break the bank at the same time :P I wanted an SSD, and a new camera, but bills and a broke down computer prevented me :( I'm either gonna have to flip burgers or pump gas pretty soon...
To delete, or not to delete. THAT is the question! |
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
13. February 2012 @ 13:10 |
Link to this message
|
|
Indeed, it's fast approaching a full year since I've spent anything on any of my PCs. They're performing OK, but disk space is starting to get a little tight :P
|
AfterDawn Addict
7 product reviews
|
13. February 2012 @ 13:16 |
Link to this message
|
LOL! And Disk space is very expensive right now too. I see the WD1001FALS are at 129. Weren't they over 200 not long ago? Eh, they still need to come down a lot.
I wish you a speedy recovery WD ;) My 13Tb will have to suffice for now.
To delete, or not to delete. THAT is the question! |
Senior Member
|
13. February 2012 @ 13:36 |
Link to this message
|
I actually saw a 2TB drive for $89 on sale, one day only of course, just the other day. Had I felt comfortable buying it at that time I would have but money was tight at that moment. This might mean that we will see drives come back down soon, at least I hope so as I too could use some new drives.
Obviously I too will spend on leading edge technology which is why I have two SSD's now even though they are still expensive and reliability can be suspect as well. I also think that helps support that I'm not cheap but frugal and intelligent about how I spend my dollars. With that said I would buy Intel(s) if I had a large amount of disposable expenditures but really that would not change my way of looking at it though.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
13. February 2012 @ 15:01 |
Link to this message
|
The WD1001FALS is an end of line product, so its pricing is going to be a bit erratic. You really need to compare it to the WD1002FAEX which is its successor. Mine was £70 at the end of 2009, which at current exchange rates pre-tax is $95. Given the massive increase in base cost of hard drives (the essential requirements, regardless of size), it's not unsurprising to find the smaller types of hard drives (mad as it is that 1TB is small these days!) really suffering during the supply problems.
By contrast the 3TB drives are pretty much back as they were before the thailand flooding.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
7 product reviews
|
13. February 2012 @ 15:14 |
Link to this message
|
|
I wish I didn't sell my Black drives. I'd like to experiment with a few things. My green drives behave substantially different. I believe because the head unloading.
To delete, or not to delete. THAT is the question! |
|
