|
|
|
The Official PC building thread - 4th Edition
|
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
5. March 2012 @ 18:10 |
Link to this message
|
Started playing Bulletstorm the other day. Really enjoying it so far, although it's another title I can just play at max detail without worrying about performance :P
Updated performance table for you
HD6850: 130
HD6870: 160
HD7850: 180
HD6950: 190
HD7870: 200
HD6970: 210
HD7950: 265
HD7970: 310
|
|
Advertisement
|
 |
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
15 product reviews
|
5. March 2012 @ 19:12 |
Link to this message
|
BulletStorm is a bit short and generic feeling but it is a riot laugh all the way through. Very creative writing and level design, and always engaging. None of the game feels like a chore.
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 |
Senior Member
|
6. March 2012 @ 00:16 |
Link to this message
|
Apple mobile products aren't better by far, at least I don't buy that nonsense. They almost never have been first and they have always brainwashed their users to believe they are first and revolutionary, neither is true... And on top of that they screw you by over pricing their products and pigeon hole you once you get them. I turn most people onto better products much cheaper than iCrap and the only ones I can't sway are the people that are too dumb to use anything other than iTunes, or so they think.
I say NO to Apple!
$300 for an iPod or $80 for something comparable with FM tuner and no protected music, pretty much a no brainier, and I certainly don't need camera's front and back. Actually why even get an MP3 player since your phone can do the job.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 6. March 2012 @ 00:22
|
AfterDawn Addict
15 product reviews
|
6. March 2012 @ 08:26 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
$300 for an iPod or $80 for something comparable with FM tuner and no protected music, pretty much a no brainier,
Because the $300 iPod has an 800MHz CPU, 256MB of RAM, a 720p display(480p on my 3rd Gen), 30-40 hours of battery life on said hardware, Wi-Fi, BlueTooth, a dedicated graphics chip, a dedicated sound processor, a built-in web browser, the ability to video chat in real-time with Skype, a tempered glass display, a stainless steel chassis, need I go on? It also has access to thousands of quality apps and the ability to to play some thousand high quality games including many ported from other consoles and several platform exclusives. You obviously need a refresher course because the iPod stopped being solely an MP3 player a long time ago. It's basically an ultra mobile PC with just as much functionality. They aren't claiming to be the best or the first. Nobody ever said that here except you. What they do claim is to make a good quality product with a lot of useful features that your $80 MP3 player does not have, at all.
Also protected music is laughably easy to circumvent and on that same thread all of the apps ever released for the Ipod/iPhone can be had for free, and there are a lot of them.
Quote:
I certainly don't need camera's front and back.
The camera on front is solely used for realtime video chat, a feature a cellphone or MP3 player does not have. The camera on the back is a much higher resolution and used for taking pictures. This camera is also much higher quality than those found on most cell phones or multimedia devices matching the iPod's price, let alone for $80.
Quote:
Actually why even get an MP3 player since your phone can do the job.
BTW I make phone calls with my phone, not listen to music. Phones get ass sound quality anyway so who in their right mind would use their phone as a dedicated MP3 player? Not only that but I highly doubt there exists a Micro SD card(what my phone takes) that can hold my music collection alone, around 40GB, while The iPod holds most of it quite easily along with several gigs of games, movies and apps. Not only that but it probably has better sound quality than any dedicated MP3 player currently made. BTW, I have had more than one cellphone marketed as a dedicated MP3 player and they don't hold a candle to the iPod.
The iPod also has the distinct advantage of not being tethered to a paid service like a phone. I don't have to change it on a whim because my mobile service stops supporting it suddenly, as has happened with my cellphone.
Oh yeah did I mention my iPod has the ability to play all of my retro consoles and Gameboy games from the last 20 years? It does that too. Kinda nice considering the gamesave battery in my Pokemon Silver version died about 5 years ago. Yet another thing most other products simply do not have the ability to do.
BTW the display is impressive in the 4th Gen.
http://www.apple.com/ipodtouch/features/retina-display.html
My good friend has it and it is amazing.
I say YES to Apple mobile products. The only ones I can't sway are those too dumb to figure out how to jailbreak, or too set in their own ways to even listen to plain facts.
Don't get me wrong I am the number one person to avoid stupid marketing slang and catchphrases, but the iPod Touch is a fantastic product. It offers a complete package of features that other devices $100 more struggle to match. This is not opinion or speculation, this is cold, hard fact that I can back up with numbers. Remember I am a hardcore hardware purist and I would not support this product at all if I didn't think it was truly worthy of praise. The biggest complaint I can level is that Touch Screen controls are clumsy with my large hands but I got used to that in a day. I use my iPod Touch nearly 24/7 and it is a wonderful replacement for both my laptop and MP3 player. And if it were an iPhone it would replace my phone as well, but my service carrier didn't offer the iPhone at the time I bought the iPod.
I agree that Apple is fundamentally evil and only sheep follow Apple. But their proprietary hardware is top-notch and the homebrew community is very active, creative and prolific.
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 6. March 2012 @ 10:11
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
6. March 2012 @ 11:06 |
Link to this message
|
well hell let me jump in on this convo....lol
my wife has the new Iphone 4S and i think it sucks compared to my GalaxyS. i dont know what or how you get 30-40 hours battery life out of the thing? she uses hers for everything from music player,cell usage,, taking pics send text,surfing hte net, ect... and is lucky to get 8 hours out of it. and the pics the camera takes flat out suck. blurred,to bright to dark pixelated.... once again compared to my GalaxyS id rather have a 10yo flip phone.
as for the 40gb micro sd card? there is a 32gb card that is in my GalaxayS giving me a total of 48gb of storage. and there is a newly jusy outed 64gb micro sd from kingston. the Galaxy tablets are supposed to able to use them right now.
heck i never thought i would hear someone in this thread promoting a IPhone, there is no tinkering to a Iphone. all the tinkering we do with gadget in here??? lol
|
AfterDawn Addict
15 product reviews
|
6. March 2012 @ 11:20 |
Link to this message
|
|
Actually the camera on the iPhone is limited by the software, not the hardware. You can correct this on a jailbroken iPod. It is indeed an 8Megapixel camera. Also, there are about a million and one things you can do for battery life without changing much of anything to do with how it works. Disabling unneeded notifications, updating the software on the phone, disabling bluetooth and data push, disabling ssh when not needed, disabling auto brightness and using a single low level. That's the tip of the iceberg. I normally get about 20-30 hours on my iPod, and my friend's 4th Gen gets 30 to 40. No tinkering eh?
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
|
Senior Member
|
6. March 2012 @ 11:26 |
Link to this message
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
6. March 2012 @ 11:45 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Estuansis:
Actually the camera on the iPhone is limited by the software, not the hardware. You can correct this on a jailbroken iPod. It is indeed an 8Megapixel camera. Also, there are about a million and one things you can do for battery life without changing much of anything to do with how it works. Disabling unneeded notifications, updating the software on the phone, disabling bluetooth and data push, disabling ssh when not needed, disabling auto brightness and using a single low level. That's the tip of the iceberg. I normally get about 20-30 hours on my iPod, and my friend's 4th Gen gets 30 to 40. No tinkering eh?
I think the point we're trying to make here Jeff is that while you can do loads with an iPhone by jailbreaking it, you can do it all on Android without needing to jailbreak, and save a lot of money in the process.
My sensation xl was £300 cheaper than the iphone 4s. Not seeing any major disadvantages yet...
Also, the 40 hours only applies with no data or background usage.
|
Senior Member
|
6. March 2012 @ 12:19 |
Link to this message
|
Well put Sam...
I didn't want to even go here Estuansis which is why I supported you on upgrading your iPod and didn't jump on you over Apple stuff, initially. I think you should upgrade since you like it, the 4th gen is even better and I'm sure you will enjoy the upgrade and that's truly all that matters as you are the one buying it and enjoying it.
However now you know what we really think about it too. :)
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
6. March 2012 @ 12:37 |
Link to this message
|
yes let me apologize, i did not mean to try and start a apple war, i just wanted to put out there me run in with the wifes IPHONE 4S thats all. i dont want any hard feelings out there anywhere.
ok i just ran into this little promo from microcenter.
http://www.microcenter.com/single_produ...duct_id=0376491
thats only $30 more than what i paid for my Q9550. unreal. i wish all this probate stuff will get over with so i can get moms cars sold and get on with my build..
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
6. March 2012 @ 14:39 |
Link to this message
|
|
Yup, the i7 2700K is where it's at these days. That is a particularly good price.
|
Senior Member
|
6. March 2012 @ 15:04 |
Link to this message
|
That is a good price for an Intel! I'd still go for an octal core before that though.
|
AfterDawn Addict
7 product reviews
|
6. March 2012 @ 15:13 |
Link to this message
|
|
I wanna believe the Octo is worth it, but I don't like what I see of the reports. High power requirement, a handful of applications that can utilize the full potential. No doubt a good multitasker though. Not really knocking the Bulldozer. Fact of the matter is, I'd like to try it. But that'd require a complete new build. I'm waiting for the 10 core freaks now :D And hopefully the performance per core doesn't drop again :S
To delete, or not to delete. THAT is the question! |
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
6. March 2012 @ 15:32 |
Link to this message
|
If you're always going to need absolutely all 8 cores in everything you do, the Bulldozers make some degree of sense. Trouble is, that's only usually things like running virtualised machines on a server, and if you're doing that, you normally want server-certified hardware, not lower quality desktop components.
Typical per-core per-clock performance
AMD Bulldozer: 75
AMD Phenom II: 100
Intel Core 2 (65nm): 98
Intel Core 2 (45nm): 113
Intel Core i5/i7 (LF/NH): 135
Intel Core i5/i7 (SB/SBE): 150
Intel Core i5/i7 (IB/IBE): 180 (est.)
My Lynnfield i5 750 is therefore putting out a good 80% higher per-core-per-clock performance, meaning it's not too far off the bulldozer in a 4 vs. 8 contest. My i5 750 can pull off >4Ghz in less than a 200W footprint. The FX-8150 can barely also achieve that. My CPU was £150 a little over two years ago now. The FX-8150 is still £200, if you can find one.
Also consider, the current sandy bridge CPUs are all capable of very close to 5Ghz, if not over, and they can do this within a 200W (i5) or 250W (i7) footprint. A small number of FX-8150s have made it to 5Ghz, but not far off using 500W to do it, and when you consider that 4 cores of a sandy bridge are every bit as capable as 8 cores of a bulldozer, you have two CPUs doing the same work, at 250W vs 450+W. The i7s are also cheaper in a fair few places, and support HT so they can have 8 'cores' if you really need that sort of functionality, even if it's not going to be as thorough as the bulldozers.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 6. March 2012 @ 15:37
|
Senior Member
|
6. March 2012 @ 16:10 |
Link to this message
|
My money is on the Octal core and it will out perform the Intel for most of the stuff I use, including MS Office which can use all cores. Cheaper better in my mind and since I'm not worried about power usage on my Desktop I could careless if I need a 500W supply which is pretty much less that my average PS anyway.
If I get an Intel for a Desktop it will be to do a real comparison against the 8 core AMD and for use with MAC OS's. Instead of relying on the over inflated nonsense people use on the net or get from Intel.
Also I certainly am not worried about what programs won't use all 8 cores as those programs aren't probably intensive any how.
|
AfterDawn Addict
7 product reviews
|
6. March 2012 @ 16:15 |
Link to this message
|
I hear ya! 7zip for instance, is something I rarely use. And when I do, I'm sure the difference (For me) is negligible. Photoshop, use it frequently. But I doubt very seriously that a 1/10th second increase will benefit me much :p Perhaps that's a bit harsh, and unsubstantiated. I don't use the more advanced filters very often(that require more time), but I'm sure the difference there would go unnoticed by me. Folding, gaming, benchmarking... yah ok. Go with the best processor you can. I suppose I would benefit from an 8 core. I'd sure love to encode, and game at the same time, without taking a performance hit on either side :D
To delete, or not to delete. THAT is the question! |
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
6. March 2012 @ 16:28 |
Link to this message
|
|
When you want intuitive better performance with everyday apps, 4 fast cores are infinitely better than 8 slow ones.
|
Senior Member
|
6. March 2012 @ 16:44 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by sammorris:
When you want intuitive better performance with everyday apps, 4 fast cores are infinitely better than 8 slow ones.
I don't think so!
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
6. March 2012 @ 16:49 |
Link to this message
|
Practical experience finds that in very rare scenarios I have something running which uses all 4 cores to the extent that it bogs down my system and I wish I had more cores to use during this operation. This does not include 4-threaded video encodes, as performance is good enough even during optimised video encoding programs not to affect general browsing, watching TV, playing music etc, so really this only happens when I stress test, which you'd want to max the system out regardless.
More often (95%+ of the time I find myself wanting more resources) is when you find older programs you're forced into using for whatever reason that only use one core. Having a CPU that's double the speed of the AMD 8-core is very handy, as it doubles the speed of programs you can't get to multi-thread, sadly still a huge number, even in this day and age.
With 8 slow cores, you can browse just that teeny bit quicker when maxing your system out, with barely noticeable effect. With 4 fast cores, you can make a large library of software run twice as fast. It's a no brainer.
|
AfterDawn Addict
15 product reviews
|
7. March 2012 @ 01:29 |
Link to this message
|
|
I'd have to agree there. Fewer fast cores is better than more slow cores. I don't see why it's even up for debate, considering the overwhelming difference in power consumption, for what equates to the same or less performance, even in applications Bulldozer is supposed to be good with. Couple that with the reported temps people have when using Bulldozer, the insane power consumption, and how both of these limit OCing in an average enthusiast system. In a large number of applications, my 3.8GHz Phenom II x4 is as fast as a 4.2GHz Bulldozer, with way less power consumption.
I'll agree for a small amount of users Bulldozer makes sense, but those most likely to need something like Bulldozer already have it in the server version it's based on, and that's a better quality chip. I also have wished for more cores, but Bulldozer is not the answer. Bulldozer's impending successor might be what Bulldozer was supposed to be.
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 7. March 2012 @ 01:31
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
7. March 2012 @ 02:26 |
Link to this message
|
|
If 4 really isn't enough and you can spend a bit more, you can still get 6 very potent sandy bridge cores in the i7 3930K for $600.
|
Senior Member
|
7. March 2012 @ 10:21 |
Link to this message
|
I'll take 8 cores and much better performance at a much cheaper price! I not buying into the over-rated Intel nonsense, you can have them!!
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
7. March 2012 @ 10:59 |
Link to this message
|
Sounds good if AMD offered a product like that, but they don't yet...
|
AfterDawn Addict
15 product reviews
|
7. March 2012 @ 11:33 |
Link to this message
|
|
The price isn't overrated when they perform better. There are numbers to back this up. Also, they're comparably cheaper. The i5 2500k is only $220 right now.
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
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
7. March 2012 @ 11:41 |
Link to this message
|
|
For 'over-rated' read 'I'm the only one that thinks they're bad'.
I could quite easily pretend and say 'the i7 3930K is more than double the speed of any other CPU, it's better by miles! Ignore the benchmarks, they're all biased anyway!' when I don't own the CPU so have no basis to back that statement up. I don't of course, because that's ludicrous. So the exact same should apply to Bulldozer. People who don't own the FX-8 series CPUs should stop pretending that all the benchmarks are wrong and that they're actually amazing CPUs.
|
|
