|
The Official PC building thread -3rd Edition
|
|
|
Any Flaming Results in a Temp Ban or Worse. Your Choice!!!
|
Senior Member
|
3. November 2009 @ 08:55 |
Link to this message
|
Hot Damn Russ, good for you, and doing it with a small price, in this economy that rings my bell.
erkrow22, You could not get any better advise than these people, made my first build a little more than a year ago, I did not know Jack about building PC's, didn't even know much about computers for that matter and am still a novice compared to these guys, but with thier guidence I went ahead and gave it a shot, and to this day that PC runs like a dream, I built it for my kids so it deffinatly gets worked over.
I would not make a move without consulting these people, your in good hands.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
3. November 2009 @ 09:19 |
Link to this message
|
dang i think ive been blackballed here. guess im not in the right clique anymore...oh well.lmao
let me add to the testing along with the rest of you speed freaks..lol
ok heres what ive done. its kinda odd im with you Russ i cant get it stable useing the 2.00D strap. i have to use the 2.00B strap and get great results i did have this stable so to say by all testing at 3.91ghz 460mhzx8.5. it just seemed sluggish useing stuff so i got it now super fast at 3.78ghz 445x8.5 and mem(1066) is under clocked right now i am useing hte 2.00B strap instead of the 2.40B which would put my mem at 1068 no biggy. here is what i got on Mips and mem bandwidth. the bandwidth is right on with everyone else but why is there such a difference in Mips for me? we are running right at the same clock speed? does the bandwith matter as far as the amount of mem one has? 2gigs vs 4gigs?
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
3. November 2009 @ 09:39 |
Link to this message
|
|
Rob, It looks like you are using the older version of Sandra. The newer one doesn't have the performance index on it. If you had this version, it would be a lot slower. Look at Will's!, and he's got it cranked up to 3.93GHz. I'll send you a copy of what Oman7, Will and I are using and then we can see a direct comparison. I'll send it via sendthisfile. If you don't see it, check your spam or junk folders!
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
|
3. November 2009 @ 09:43 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Jeff:
Smart Defrag is actually one of the slowest ones.
I was going to say, "under 2.5 hours" ! that was one of those spit out your drink all over the screen moments (thankfully I didn't), to me, a defrag taking longer than 45 minutes for a brick of red squares is very unusual.
erkow: A little lost in the benchmark race, but I think your latest build is near the bottom of page 350, if so, it looks reasonable, but I'd change:
HDD to: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822136073
PSU to: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817139003 (or, if you intend to upgrade to high-end graphics or dual graphics later on, this: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817610002 (A very under-rated unit, actually owns the title of quietest full-power PSU ever designed at 11dB up to 250W a.c. in)
The motherboard looks fine if you want an AMD CPU, but you haven't listed one. I'd say it's either:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128378
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103704
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820145260
for an AMD system (335/30)
or
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115055
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813138123
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820145184
for an Intel system (Core 2) (360)
or
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115215
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128406
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820145260
for an Intel system (Core i5) (411/15)
This is really a matter of budget. For the cheaper two builds, the AMD probably works out better value. However, spending the extra $80 or so, the Core i5 is more 'bang for the buck' than either of the cheaper systems, as the moderate price increase provides a substantial increase in performance.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
3. November 2009 @ 10:25 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by theonejrs:
Rob, It looks like you are using the older version of Sandra. The newer one doesn't have the performance index on it. If you had this version, it would be a lot slower. Look at Will's!, and he's got it cranked up to 3.93GHz. I'll send you a copy of what Oman7, Will and I are using and then we can see a direct comparison. I'll send it via sendthisfile. If you don't see it, check your spam or junk folders!
Best Regards,
Russ
actually they are the same ones Russ. as i did get it from you in the first place..lol but i did get the one you just sent me and ran it. this is what im looking at. same results.
think it might have something to do with im on 32bit OS and you guys are on 64bit?????
|
AfterDawn Addict
7 product reviews
|
3. November 2009 @ 11:21 |
Link to this message
|
|
What kind of Memory you running Rob? Looking pretty impressive! ;)
Creaky, thanks for the tidbit. I've been meaning to check out auslogics.
To delete, or not to delete. THAT is the question! This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 3. November 2009 @ 11:23
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
3. November 2009 @ 12:30 |
Link to this message
|
|
|
|
bigwill68
Suspended permanently
|
3. November 2009 @ 12:57 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by omegaman7:
What kind of Memory you running Rob? Looking pretty impressive! ;)
Creaky, thanks for the tidbit. I've been meaning to check out auslogics.
you gotta have Skills to run with the Best.lol
Done out of Here!
|
AfterDawn Addict
7 product reviews
|
3. November 2009 @ 13:42 |
Link to this message
|
|
I have some Gskills laying around here somewhere. They were quite good in fact. I'll likely be buying them again.
To delete, or not to delete. THAT is the question! |
AfterDawn Addict
|
3. November 2009 @ 13:47 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by cincyrob:
Originally posted by theonejrs:
Rob, It looks like you are using the older version of Sandra. The newer one doesn't have the performance index on it. If you had this version, it would be a lot slower. Look at Will's!, and he's got it cranked up to 3.93GHz. I'll send you a copy of what Oman7, Will and I are using and then we can see a direct comparison. I'll send it via sendthisfile. If you don't see it, check your spam or junk folders!
Best Regards,
Russ
actually they are the same ones Russ. as i did get it from you in the first place..lol but i did get the one you just sent me and ran it. this is what im looking at. same results.
think it might have something to do with im on 32bit OS and you guys are on 64bit?????
Rob,
No, it's a different version. I no longer have the one I sent you. I lost that when the dann Sata formated two drives at the same time. I stretched it out a bit and if you look at yours and then this one you will see there is no Processor Rating on mine. You won't get the same with what I just sent you! Look at the forth item on the bottom list up! See it? There is no such thing on mine. Hell everyone remembers when I made a stink about that, as well as when they canceled 2005. That time the numbers went down. I said that MIPS should be just that, MIPS!
I've stretched this one out a bit so you can see it for yourself! I believe I got this from Marty, who got it from DocTY. Try it yourself and you will see. I gave you that long before I got the one I have now! Those numbers are not possible with my version! See where it says Processor, Model, Speed, Cores per Processor, Type and L2 on-board cache? The performance rating is missing! It was dropped with the version I am using now! Try the one I sent you this morning and the numbers will not be that high! There are several versions of 2007. Some read higher and some read lower. That's what is wrong with Sandra. If you don't have the identical version, the performance difference is meaningless!
Respectfully,
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
|
3. November 2009 @ 13:53 |
Link to this message
|
|
well then you sent me the same one that you sent me before. cause idl'd what you sent and ran it right then and got what i just posted
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
3. November 2009 @ 13:57 |
Link to this message
|
|
On the basis of every Sandra being different, I don't believe in MIPS as an absolute measure of speed. Who do you believe? Why should one version be more correct than the others?
|
AfterDawn Addict
7 product reviews
|
3. November 2009 @ 14:02 |
Link to this message
|
|
I don't think he means that one version is more correct than the other. He means that if two or more people are to compare, they need to use the same version of Sandra...
To delete, or not to delete. THAT is the question! |
AfterDawn Addict
|
3. November 2009 @ 14:23 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by cincyrob:
well then you sent me the same one that you sent me before. cause idl'd what you sent and ran it right then and got what i just posted
Rob can you make one and resend it then, and scroll down so we can see that section? It seems very strange that the Performance rating is on yours and not on mine, if. It should be right in between the cores and the CPU speed! You playing with PhotoShop again Rob? j/k ROFLMSOAO!! I do remember when you did that as a joke a long time ago! LOL!! Will's is clocked even higher than yours, with the same CPU and it isn't close to your result, on the Biostar motherboard that holds the overclock record yet! Believe me, I'm not accusing you of anything, honest. Just trying to figure out why the two have that difference!
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
|
3. November 2009 @ 14:25 |
Link to this message
|
Hmmm, perhaps Sandra is Intel biased...It wouldn't be the first time i've heard of software that leans the other way...
To delete, or not to delete. THAT is the question! |
AfterDawn Addict
|
3. November 2009 @ 14:27 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by omegaman7:
Hmmm, perhaps Sandra is Intel biased...It wouldn't be the first time i've heard of software that leans the other way...
Yes, but it always used to be there on any computer with any CPU, and as you can see it's not there! I've used it so many times on so many different computers, and it's always been there with the older versions, but it isn't on the newer ones or 2009!
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
|
3. November 2009 @ 15:16 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by bigwill68:
Originally posted by omegaman7:
What kind of Memory you running Rob? Looking pretty impressive! ;)
Creaky, thanks for the tidbit. I've been meaning to check out auslogics.
you gotta have Skills to run with the Best.lol
Will,
I don't care what kind of memory you have! Memory is not going to improve MIPS by that much! CPU speed will improve MIPS, but not the other way around. You are talking about 17,000+ MIPS here! That's a huge difference! That's why so many people can't see any difference between 800 and 1066 memory. What stepping is yours? I don't think it would matter by that much anyway, but I'll ask! Whatever it is, Rob shouldn't change a thing in his setup. Lock the damn thing and throw away the password. And "Don't" remove the battery! LOL!!
It's a full 25% faster than yours Will, and you are at 3.93GHz. Something is simply not right! In all my years in computers, I've never seen a difference like that with the same model CPU! The only Sandra I would expect those results from is 2005, and it's expired unless you change the date and year back to before it stopped working, because SiSoft pulled the plug on it! I honestly thought it was a joke when I saw it. Just Rob having some fun with us! LOL!!
BTW, I am real impressed with the new 630 Quad. It's better than I expected! It's an encoding Fiend! LOL!! The PIC I showed of Prince caspian even went faster than that, as it did the last 24,000 frames at a speed of over 15,000. Nice and stable too! Ran Orthos on it for about 3 hours while I was sleeping. I'm going to run it again while I'm at work today! So far ir runs much better at 3.51gHz than it ran at 3.6! It didn't crash at that speed, but I got all sorts of written stream errors with DVDRB/CCE, so I knew something was wrong! Since the change to 3.51GHz, it hasn't had a single glitch!
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
|
3. November 2009 @ 15:51 |
Link to this message
|
|
Russ, that version of Sandra is blacklisted for Windows 7, and does not install.
edit: never mind, fooled it with compat. mode.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 3. November 2009 @ 15:52
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
3. November 2009 @ 15:56 |
Link to this message
|
|
Ok, I ran the test, but I'm not convinced. I score lower for MIPS and MFLOPS than a Q6600. I know my Q9550's stock at the moment, but worse than a 6600, let alone a 6700, is just completely false. Methinks I will use a slightly more reliable program to test my CPU's performance with :P
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
3. November 2009 @ 16:31 |
Link to this message
|
|
Russ
honestly no photoshop. i dont have it and dont know how to use it..lol i woldnt do that anyways. like it i want to know why my score is so much higher i agree there shouldnt be a difference in mine and will's score. if anything his should be a tad higher than mine cause he has a higer OC. not much but it is higher. im at work right now SO WHEN I get home i will run it again. as a matter of fact i will re-download it again onto a different hdd and run it from there.
now just because that board has the OC record for the E8400 doesnt mean its the same for the Q9550 or any other chip. not knocking it or sticking up for my board but we all know those records are crap. they are benchmark records not everyday running records.. show me one of these board that will run anythign at 6.0ghz 24/7 then i will be impressed. once again everyone knows that 4.0ghz is what the average person shoots for when they try to OC their new toy..lol thats realistic and obtainable by most. yes there is higher OC's 4.5+ but even then those guys getting that high arent running them there 24/7..
anyhow when i get home tonight i will run it again.
|
AfterDawn Addict
7 product reviews
|
3. November 2009 @ 16:57 |
Link to this message
|
|
You'd be surprised what MS paint can do LOL! NOT that I think you've done it...
To delete, or not to delete. THAT is the question! |
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
3. November 2009 @ 17:01 |
Link to this message
|
dang now im branded as a cheater......
Quote:
Dont hate the player, hate the game
|
AfterDawn Addict
7 product reviews
|
3. November 2009 @ 17:08 |
Link to this message
|
|
I don't think you're a cheater. Consistency is a rare thing, even in computing LOL!
To delete, or not to delete. THAT is the question! |
AfterDawn Addict
|
3. November 2009 @ 19:57 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by cincyrob:
Russ
honestly no photoshop. i dont have it and dont know how to use it..lol i woldnt do that anyways. like it i want to know why my score is so much higher i agree there shouldnt be a difference in mine and will's score. if anything his should be a tad higher than mine cause he has a higer OC. not much but it is higher. im at work right now SO WHEN I get home i will run it again. as a matter of fact i will re-download it again onto a different hdd and run it from there.
now just because that board has the OC record for the E8400 doesnt mean its the same for the Q9550 or any other chip. not knocking it or sticking up for my board but we all know those records are crap. they are benchmark records not everyday running records.. show me one of these board that will run anythign at 6.0ghz 24/7 then i will be impressed. once again everyone knows that 4.0ghz is what the average person shoots for when they try to OC their new toy..lol thats realistic and obtainable by most. yes there is higher OC's 4.5+ but even then those guys getting that high arent running them there 24/7..
anyhow when i get home tonight i will run it again.
Rob,
I was kidding you, but after I thought about it, I think it was GM that did a PhotoShop of a Sandra benchmark one time. Wrong Comedian! LOL!! Sorry!
I just can't imagine someone having the same CPU that's overclocked the way Will's is being 25% slower. I was just pleased that I was able to get almost 54,000 MIPS out of the 630! It will do much more given a little tweaking, but I'm happy with the way it runs right now, and I'm going to leave it alone and be happy! It's just that smooth! It's an outstanding buy for $122. No BE, but not too bad to overclock. Being totally unfamiliar with the way you had to OC the old AMDs. I'm still learning! LOL!! It does run downright cool, about 2C above ambient. It's idling at 29C right now, and that's only 2C above room temp, and this is the worst part of the day! The sun is going down, but it's still 85F out there right now.
I fully understand about the world record thing, but the board he has should still deliver good results, even with just an average CPU. I sent Sam a copy too, so we'll see what his benchmarks look like!
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
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
3. November 2009 @ 20:07 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by theonejrs:
Originally posted by cincyrob:
Russ
honestly no photoshop. i dont have it and dont know how to use it..lol i woldnt do that anyways. like it i want to know why my score is so much higher i agree there shouldnt be a difference in mine and will's score. if anything his should be a tad higher than mine cause he has a higer OC. not much but it is higher. im at work right now SO WHEN I get home i will run it again. as a matter of fact i will re-download it again onto a different hdd and run it from there.
now just because that board has the OC record for the E8400 doesnt mean its the same for the Q9550 or any other chip. not knocking it or sticking up for my board but we all know those records are crap. they are benchmark records not everyday running records.. show me one of these board that will run anythign at 6.0ghz 24/7 then i will be impressed. once again everyone knows that 4.0ghz is what the average person shoots for when they try to OC their new toy..lol thats realistic and obtainable by most. yes there is higher OC's 4.5+ but even then those guys getting that high arent running them there 24/7..
anyhow when i get home tonight i will run it again.
Rob,
I was kidding you, but after I thought about it, I think it was GM that did a PhotoShop of a Sandra benchmark one time. Wrong Comedian! LOL!! Sorry!
I just can't imagine someone having the same CPU that's overclocked the way Will's is being 25% slower. I was just pleased that I was able to get almost 54,000 MIPS out of the 630! It will do much more given a little tweaking, but I'm happy with the way it runs right now, and I'm going to leave it alone and be happy! It's just that smooth! It's an outstanding buy for $122. No BE, but not too bad to overclock. Being totally unfamiliar with the way you had to OC the old AMDs. I'm still learning! LOL!! It does run downright cool, about 2C above ambient. It's idling at 29C right now, and that's only 2C above room temp, and this is the worst part of the day! The sun is going down, but it's still 85F out there right now.
I fully understand about the world record thing, but the board he has should still deliver good results, even with just an average CPU. I sent Sam a copy too, so we'll see what his benchmarks look like!
Oh, I would never brand you as a cheater. I know you are a good guy. You might have some fun, but I know you would have fessed up long ago if you were fooling around. Oman7 said that bit about Consistency, but the performance difference is way beyond consistency! 2-5% difference I could see, but not 25%. Like I said, if you get the same thing again, leave the setup the hell alone! I would definitely password the setup so somebody doesn't come along and mess it up on you. I once had an E4300 up to 32,000 MIPS, and because I just had to see if I could get more, I messed it up to the tune of about 4000 MIPS that I never got back! It never ran at more than 28,000 MIPS after that. Lesson learned, the hard way! LOL!!
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
|
