|
|
|
The Official PC building thread - 4th Edition
|
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
7 product reviews
|
23. March 2012 @ 13:59 |
Link to this message
|
|
I would be careful overclocking FX steve. The VRM's will be taxed no doubt. Make sure the board can take it ;)
To delete, or not to delete. THAT is the question! |
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
23. March 2012 @ 13:59 |
Link to this message
|
|
But a dual core laptop i5 does not count as a quad core desktop i7 any more than a laptop dual core turion would a bulldozer FX series, so stop using that as basis to pass falsehoods as facts.
|
Senior Member
|
23. March 2012 @ 14:47 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by sammorris:
But a dual core laptop i5 does not count as a quad core desktop i7 any more than a laptop dual core turion would a bulldozer FX series, so stop using that as basis to pass falsehoods as facts.
You just ignore things you don't want to believe. I said before that I compared i5 laptop with AMD desktops, older Truion X2 notebooks as well as using my friends i7 2600 to compare as well. Also the two manufactures take different approaches, Intel's path tends to be high clock cycles to gain performance and AMD's approach is more cores so your trying to compare cores is a joke because it doesn't address performance for the dollar or top cpu against top cpu.
My new Intel i5 doesn't have much on my old Turion X2, both are dual core which you should like except the Intel is suppose to be like a quad with their 4 thread nonsense. I forget the exact numbers but even though the Intel performed better it certainly wasn't a slam dunk as one might have thought or is spewed by the Intel lovers.
When I tested the 2600 it was very close to the same performance as one of my old AMD quads so again to slam dunk their either. My friend that has the Intel 2600 and a i7 notebook feels the same way, he is just not impressed by Intel and will go back to AMD. Like me his boss influenced him into believing that Intel was the way to go and like me he was disappointed. My friend doesn't use the intensive programs that I do and didn't do any extensive testing as I did so his point of view was more prospective, mine is not.
Like I said before if you want to pay too much for perceived performance and you are happy with that then knock yourself out but I'm not buying your argument like I did before now that I have experienced the Intel performance.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
23. March 2012 @ 14:57 |
Link to this message
|
Surely that's the other way round as AMD have used higher clock speeds than Intel for their equivalent products for 6 years now...
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
23. March 2012 @ 15:45 |
Link to this message
|
Let's try and clear this one up once and for all in a civilised manner.
As I understand it, your promotion of AMD over Intel derives from the fact that you did not notice a tangible performance benefit between a Phenom II and a Core i7 2600K? The answer to that is, you shouldn't.
CPUs today are sufficiently powerful that they are never the source of noticeable delay in the day to day running of a system. We are now totally bound by memory (capacity only, not speed, and only up the threshold of necessity - usually 8GB at worse, 4GB for most) and more importantly, primary disk I/O.
Since going SSD, my £50 2009 Pentium dual core E5200 loads programs very similarly to my 4Ghz i5 750 quad core, owing to the SSD, and sufficient memory. Compare that to a system running a Q9550 and a mechanical disk drive, which was slower than the E5200 SSD system in practice, for general usage.
When you are not unbound from these limits by either using a mechanical drive, or not having enough RAM, the performance inconsistency created is so vast it eliminates all possibility of comparison between two CPUs.
The only means to assess how good a CPU is these days is to use a numerical test. Either, how much of this can my CPU do every minute? or how long does it take my CPU to run this test?
What you should generally find is that in most single, dual and four-threaded applications, the i7 2600K will be arithmetically, about 60% faster than a Phenom II at 3.4Ghz. In an application that can use 6 threads fully, a 3.3Ghz X6 1100T the Intel will retain the lead but it will drop to around 10%. This allows for situations like x264 video, where AMD have an innate advantage, to occasionally slip ahead by a few %.
Sadly AMD have discontinued the Phenom II X6 in light of Bulldozer, which is a little short-sighted given their own recognition of the failings of Bulldozer, but if memory serves me correctly you could get the 1100T for about $250. On that basis then, if you sidegraded from an 1100T to an i7 2600K expecting a big performance benefit, and used 6-threaded applications, you'd be disappointed. The machine wouldn't necessarily be any faster at the desktop, nor would it do any of that hard multi-threaded processing any quicker either.
Where it all comes into play is the lesser-optimised applications. In an ideal world, all software would fully utilise 8 threads, and the FX-8150 would be the undisputed king of desktop computing for a sensible price. Fact is though, I can probably only name one bit of software I have occasion to use that does useful work with that many cores. This leaves the situation where you're reliant on 4, 2 or usually only 1 core to do the work concerned. For that, the i7 is worth most of its price. Not all. Why not? Because the i5 is so much cheaper, and lacking HT does not cause it much angst in a single-threaded environment. The Phenom II X6 falls way behind, and Bulldozer even further still.
Do you buy your CPU for:
- Perceived desktop performance ("how fast it feels to use"): Buy EITHER brand (No difference)
- Single-threaded application performance ("good performance in all software"): Buy INTEL
- True Multi-threaded application performance ("the best performance with the best software"): Buy AMD
Power consumption with the i7 and Phenom II is a minor issue as they're not that far apart. The i7s pull around 90W and the Phenom IIs around 110W, despite both CPUs being rated higher (TDP != real world power consumption!) The only real offenders are the original i7 and Gulftown (130W and 150W respectively) and Bulldozer (140W).
This all therefore raises the following conclusion:
If anyone ever says to you that either brand, 'feels faster' than the other at the desktop, and they are similarly rated competing CPUs, it is a placebo. There is no truth in this.
If anyone ever says to you that either brand, 'is faster' than the other, in general, that is a CONDITIONAL. It can be true, it can be false, depending on the application, depending on the number of threads being used.
If you don't really know what sort of software you will end up using, or use a lot of software including some relatively basic applications, the Intel will be the better natural choice, because it will always provide the best performance. I do stress however that the i5 2500K is likely to be the better buy, because it is so much cheaper and does a very large proportion of the work.
If you know what you want with software, have some well-written software you use religiously that's multi-threaded (applies to many people here, esp. video encoders) then yes, AMD is still a good choice.
Is bulldozer better than Phenom II in that case? Rarely, even in this area because the lack of per-thread performance of bulldozer relatively nullifies the extra two cores, but sometimes. Fact is though, you're now stuck with the inferior offering of bulldozer post-discontinuation of the Phenom II X6, and that's enough to raise some doubts.
So, I want no more:
"Intels are worse for your money than AMDs" - that is an opinion, and can never be used as a rebuttal to a factual argument.
LIkewise, "AMDs are worse for your money than Intels" falls under the same ruling. It too is an opinion.
Now, where were we? :)
|
Senior Member
|
23. March 2012 @ 16:09 |
Link to this message
|
|
You're really lost on this and I won't even go on as it is truly a major waste of my time and you seem to purposely not want to understand or comprehend, sad but true. You can buy into your nonsense, I know you got me to at one point, but I do not now and that is based on real world programs not mythical benchmarks that have nothing to do with how fast my PC is truly going to respond. You knock Russ on those things but you sure have them down for your own bias.
Write a book Sam you have a real good start with that last post, but let's see who will buy it. Actually these days it might be a best seller. LOL
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
23. March 2012 @ 16:13 |
Link to this message
|
|
You didn't even read it...
|
Senior Member
4 product reviews
|
23. March 2012 @ 16:15 |
Link to this message
|
i have the 6 core FX processor, which i will probably use in my Media Center PC as they seem to handle encoding an decoding streams relatively better than my phenom 2 965.
For gaming i'll stick to my phenom, the drop of 18~22 FPS on average for the the FX was just bad. i was so upset i almost returned it, then i realized i had an opteron system that could benefit from a chip like the FX.
IMHO, the FX feels like it belongs in a server environment more than a general/performance one.
if you don't believe me buy it and be disappointed....that is if your intention is to game with it.
Powered By
 |
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
23. March 2012 @ 16:18 |
Link to this message
|
Gaming's a prime example of what I wrote above - even the games that aren't single threaded typically max out at 3 cores, on odd occasions 4. It's logical really because there aren't too many things you can do in parallel with games - everything that happens is dependent on what else is going on. You can parallel process physics, AI and the rest of the game engine but after that, that's about it. Gaming's probably the area where Bulldozer will fall down the worst, but I left it out of the previous post as using games as an example causes immense disapproval from those who do video processing work. Dropping games as a comparison between CPUs has seen many a locked thread. Still though, another case where you want the X6 instead of the FX.
If there's a reason why the FX belongs in a server, it's because it is a server chip. Many cores, low performance per-core, extensions that optimise use of virtual machines - it's a sever chip down to a t. AMD just chose to market it to end users as well, and it's not going down so well.
|
Senior Member
|
23. March 2012 @ 16:21 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by DXR88:
i have the 6 core FX processor, which i will probably use in my Media Center PC as they seem to handle encoding an decoding streams relatively better than my phenom 2 965.
For gaming i'll stick to my phenom, the drop of 18~22 FPS on average for the the FX was just bad. i was so upset i almost returned it, then i realized i had an opteron system that could benefit from a chip like the FX.
IMHO, the FX feels like it belongs in a server environment more than a general/performance one.
if you don't believe me buy it and be disappointed....that is if your intention is to game with it.
That is great input and even makes good sense I can see where that would be the case. When I get one I'll provide feedback on how well it operates with CAD programs and Photoshop which I would think the FX would work well with too.
Thanks DXR88 for the good input!
Stevo
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 23. March 2012 @ 16:21
|
AfterDawn Addict
7 product reviews
|
23. March 2012 @ 17:36 |
Link to this message
|
I read your whole post. It makes sense.
Benchmarks mean very little to me. It usually shows the true number crunching winner. But as far as real world performance, that can vary by machine. Ram, Hard drive, etc. I think my machine is plenty fast at the moment. But I am aware that an SSD would probably send my jaw dropping ;) I've never experienced an SSD in action, but I do have an imagination. When I see applications or the CPU waiting on a hard drive... bingo!
To delete, or not to delete. THAT is the question! |
Senior Member
|
23. March 2012 @ 18:07 |
Link to this message
|
|
SSD for your OS drive and a couple of Hybrid drives and you'd be smoken.
|
AfterDawn Addict
7 product reviews
|
23. March 2012 @ 18:26 |
Link to this message
|
|
Actually, I think a 2mb cache 80Gb drive would be smoking LOL! (my moms is slower than molasses)
Nah, I just wish I could afford them. Soon enough I'm sure.
To delete, or not to delete. THAT is the question! |
AfterDawn Addict
15 product reviews
|
23. March 2012 @ 21:32 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
You're really lost on this and I won't even go on as it is truly a major waste of my time and you seem to purposely not want to understand or comprehend, sad but true. You can buy into your nonsense, I know you got me to at one point, but I do not now and that is based on real world programs not mythical benchmarks that have nothing to do with how fast my PC is truly going to respond. You knock Russ on those things but you sure have them down for your own bias.
Write a book Sam you have a real good start with that last post, but let's see who will buy it. Actually these days it might be a best seller. LOL
Quote:
You didn't even read it...
I have to agree with Sam. We try to reason with you passively, and you don't read our posts, basically telling us we're stupid. I can go back for a couple months now where you've repeated it over and over. I will get quotes from those posts if you need proof. Frankly it's getting a little old. At least provide a fact-based argument instead of telling us(Myself, Sam, et al.) that we are simply spouting nonsense. BTW we shouldn't need to search Google for you and post everything. You are a grown adult and can do it yourself. The numbers are out there and they are not hard to find as major review sites and end-users alike have posted similar findings, with screenshots, photo evidence, professional testimonials, ie proof. It would be nice to have a fact based debate, but it's hard when you're convinced someone is lying without even reading what they say. It's blatantly disrespectful.
I will agree I've gotten a bit excited before but this is nonsense and I am going to start treating it as trolling and reporting it if it doesn't stop. This is a forum for open discussion and debate.
Also, don't bring Russ into this. He has been here for a long time and in that time has provided factual evidence for his arguments. I may not always agree with Russ, but he reads what people have to say, and doesn't simply discredit them constantly.
I'm not saying you don't have the right to disagree, but at least back it up, otherwise it's just trolling and serves no purpose.
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 23. March 2012 @ 22:11
|
Senior Member
|
23. March 2012 @ 22:47 |
Link to this message
|
|
No surprise there, but I do read your replies with exception to Sam's last lengthy post as I didn't want to waste my time like I stated! I saw enough were I knew I didn't need to go further.
Sorry you don't like that but I'm not going to lose sleep over it either.
Also I could definitely say you don't read my posts as I've implied. Like I've said so many times I can't believe I have to continually repeat it, IF YOU LIKE YOUR INTEL"S KNOCK YOUR SELVES OUT I DON'T BUY IT! And I have posted numbers to backup my claims way back but like I said it doesn't matter due to your bias.
Enough said, get over it.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 23. March 2012 @ 22:48
|
AfterDawn Addict
7 product reviews
|
23. March 2012 @ 23:11 |
Link to this message
|
|
While lengthy, it really wasn't rambling(not that anybody used the word). Everything made sense, and was dumbed down in a way that it really couldn't be misunderstood. I thought it was well put :p I understand speaking intelligently, but sometimes people take it a bit far. I generally realize when I'm using wording that isn't commonplace. When I do, I have this way of explaining further.
To delete, or not to delete. THAT is the question! |
AfterDawn Addict
15 product reviews
|
23. March 2012 @ 23:22 |
Link to this message
|
My bias? I'm using a fully AMD system and have their company crest as part of a tattoo. I may be more AMD biased than anyone else here, but that doesn't mean I ignore facts. Sam at least gave numbers for his arguments, as I have for mine. Where are yours? We've posted them every time. I don't know what bias you mean.
People do read these threads looking for good information. As previously stated, back up your arguments.
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 23. March 2012 @ 23:49
|
Senior Member
|
24. March 2012 @ 00:07 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by omegaman7:
While lengthy, it really wasn't rambling(not that anybody used the word). Everything made sense, and was dumbed down in a way that it really couldn't be misunderstood. I thought it was well put :p I understand speaking intelligently, but sometimes people take it a bit far. I generally realize when I'm using wording that isn't commonplace. When I do, I have this way of explaining further.
You're right Kevin but it implies opinion when that isn't the fact in this case I won't go further since I've overstated enough on this and it really doesn't need to be pressed further. I do find it funny how things just carry on, but that is part of life ya know. And I'm accused of not reading when I've repeated myself too many times so who doesn't read. LOL
I got my new Sniper RAM and my rating in MS, which is not the best way to rate of course, went from 6.9 with the old 1333MHz (clocked at 1466) Ripjaws to 7.5 with the new 1866MHz Sniper, I couldn't clock the new memory at 1866MHz though so I had to clock it at 1466 or 1760 since my Gigabyte tops out at 1760Mhz. My over-sized CPU heat sink will be a problem with the Sniper RAM as the heat spreaders are taller than the Ripjaws so I might not be able to fill out the slots with Sniper RAM.
Got the Shuttle together everything looks good but my music drive is a enterprise IDE drive so I had to adapt it to SATA to use. I'll have to buy a new HDD for the music drive and copy everything over. So now all I have to do is re-intall the OS and a couple of programs and I should be up and cooking again.
The old ECS KN1 Pro will be re-setup with some Linux distro, I'm not sure which one I'll go with yet but something with a decent control panel most likely. If you have any suggestions for Linux disto's with good control panels I'm all ears. The ECS KN1Pro just won't die so for a low quality board it sure has performed well for many years now.
I may have to get a small case like yours as that would be a great choice for my next small build.
Take care,
Stevo
|
AfterDawn Addict
7 product reviews
|
24. March 2012 @ 00:23 |
Link to this message
|
What I'D like to know, is if a virtual OS can see the host systems hard drives, and Bluray drives. If so, I'd probably play with them more :)
It's a decent HTPC case steve. As you've noticed though, airflow can be quite a challenge. Especially given where my brother has it located. I'll have to take a picture of it tomorrow. Then you'll REALLY see what it's dealing with LOL!
To delete, or not to delete. THAT is the question! This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 24. March 2012 @ 00:24
|
Senior Member
|
24. March 2012 @ 03:10 |
Link to this message
|
Yes you can, in use most devices without too much headache. The only things that will give you issues is USB and local intranet. Both can be used but in the case of USB devices you need to initiate them and release them when done using them in the VM environment. The only exceptions of USB devices is your mouse and keyboard, those you don't need to bother with or worry about. If you don't release the other devices in the virtual environment and go back to the host you will not have access to that device on the host system until you release it in the VM. As to Intranet access, you have to setup a bridge otherwise you'll only be able to use the Internet from your VM environment.
I got the OS installed on the Shuttle G620 Intel HTPC now. Everything went well and this time around I installed all of the essential drivers but not installing the Rapid Storage utility. Without that the HDD score in MS was only 3.3 so I went and installed it and now MS reports 5.5. Of course I had to reboot 3 times to get the driver installed per Intel's request. You would think this would be part of the chipset driver and you shouldn't need to install this too, but no it is required if you want any performance at all from your HDD/ROM devices.
Post some pictures it will be a kick to see the setup.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 24. March 2012 @ 03:13
|
AfterDawn Addict
7 product reviews
|
24. March 2012 @ 04:01 |
Link to this message
|
|
Thanks steve. I want to play with windows 8. Even though I don't like the sounds of what I'm hearing...
To delete, or not to delete. THAT is the question! |
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
24. March 2012 @ 07:09 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Mr-Movies:
You're right Kevin but it implies opinion when that isn't the fact in this case I won't go further since I've overstated enough on this and it really doesn't need to be pressed further. I do find it funny how things just carry on, but that is part of life ya know. And I'm accused of not reading when I've repeated myself too many times so who doesn't read. LOL
Well, it goes on because you bring it up every single time an Intel CPU is even mentioned in this thread. You're the only person that believes anecdotal evidence of how fast an outdated machine 'feels' supercedes all factual evidence, and that every test ever carried out on a CPU is wrong, that you and you alone are right. When anyone provides a reasoned explanation why this isn't the case 'nah, didn't read that, they think I'm wrong'.
|
Senior Member
|
24. March 2012 @ 11:00 |
Link to this message
|
|
Hey guys how ya been? It's been a while since i've posted, am i missing anything? oh, more of the same? *sigh* carry on...
|
Senior Member
|
24. March 2012 @ 13:06 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by omegaman7:
Thanks steve. I want to play with windows 8. Even though I don't like the sounds of what I'm hearing...
I should get 8 going too, that was on my list and I haven't got to it yet but now that I have some other stuff close to done I'll be able to play with that. I'm hoping you can get around the tablet crap and boot directly into the normal desktop disabling the tablet garbage. Another project will be to build a MAC clone system but that will be several month away as I will need to buy some new gear for that.
@Sam,
You are right but I've tested and use the Intel's and I'm not buying it like I said, that isn't going to change just because you say so as I have physical experience, and it isn't a feeling like you want to write it off as. So when you spew there great performance I will disagree! It isn't that I don't think Intel performs well they do in most cases, I really don't like my i5 2450m but it isn't horrible, my friends i7 2600 is nice and I would be happy with it however it just didn't blow everything out of the water and for the money it should have but that is the old Intel story from day one.
I actually agree with you most of the time believe it or not which is why I was swayed into my i5 and that's not a bad thing I needed to play with Intel's again as it has been 4+ years since I was building thousands of them. My G620 isn't too bad either for my HTPC it wouldn't be my first choice but it does OK for the money I still could of got more if I had gone with a AM3+ Shuttle but that wasn't an option or important and the Intel works well so I'm pleased. Also in your post prior you said the 2500 might be the route to go and I agree with that too as when I build my MAC clone I will probably go with that processor as I'm tired of patching boot kernels and drivers every time I upgrade my MAC OS on a AMD platform.
Sorry Sam,
Stevo
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
24. March 2012 @ 13:19 |
Link to this message
|
Let me make this abundantly clear. I have never had any intention of persuading you to buy an Intel CPU over what you currently have. What I have been trying to do is stop you from impressing it onto others that you should always buy AMD over Intel for being 'better value'.
As I explained earlier, anecdotal evidence swings both ways. In your case it makes sense for you to use AMD CPUs over Intels as you're always using every core of the CPU to its full extent. For many, however, and I would argue most, it is more common for only two or three CPU cores to get used, and on that basis, the equivalent Intels are faster, and therefore offer just as much performance for the money, in some cases more.
Just because this situation doesn't apply to you does not mean it does not apply to others.
For example, 120Hz in multiplayer gaming - with a proper 120Hz display and 120fps coming out of the system there is actually a real tangible improvement to gameplay performance, which can make very fast paced titles a lot nicer to play. Not my sort of thing at the moment as they don't make monitors at my resolution with 120Hz capability, and I'm not a good enough player to make use of it :P - But the option is there. In numerous current titles being released, the CPU frame rate ceiling is about 110-120 for the i5 2500K and only 75-80 for the AMDs - you literally need an Intel CPU to get the 120fps effect properly, and only an Intel CPU.
Not exactly a common case, but it's one counter-example. The i5 2500K isn't really that expensive either, at $220 it's cheaper than the FX-8150 and cheaper than the X6 1100T was.
|
|
