You thought you got rid of me. I thought I got rid of me. It's been a pain the last few years - no job, diminishing health... old rig slowly dying - but that's changed (at least enough) for the time being and I'm in the market. I'm looking to put together a system that'll last a good long while (overclocking in the distant future, if necessary) and want to try getting it together soon. How soon? How about by the time my retail pre-ordered Rift Collector's Edition shows up? (Roughly two weeks or sooner.) All gear must be orderable through retailers unless expressly advised otherwise. A place here in Virginia called Microcenter is picking up most of what fell away when CompUSA went belly up, and they're pretty big. Not big enough to get the pre-order, Best Buy online had the rights to that (Gamestop/Electronic Boutique may have, as well), but my father's a regular customer there and it's as big as the local BB, so that's who I'm giving first crack at building the box. Microcenter suggested two boards: my previous manufacturer Gigabyte with their GA-890GPA-UDH AM3 890GX ATX (AMD) and Asus' M4A89GTD Pro/USB3 Socket AM3 890 ATX (AMD) - if you need detailed specifications for either, I can list them. I'm not sure of how they are performance-wise, since the last one I researched was the Gigabyte 7VRXP around 2002, so I'm probably in need of a tech refresher course, as well. I know what SATA is, and USB3 is just a newer and higher version, but I want to know things like is it (USB3) as power sensitive as the previous ones? I've had the whole USB cut out several times and been told the board didn't supply the power necessary. What, I need a 900-watt PSU now? If so, I might just kick it out of the feature list. If anyone has a link to a chart of manufacturers, motherboard feature comparison checklist, and ratings (or the like) I'd appreciate that. Oh, and due to Nvidia apparantly rebranding their MX line just to try selling it again (there's a GeForce 7300SE/7200GS running on this computer which can't even touch GeForce4 Ti4200 performance in Quake2 - wonder how much better the Rift beta would've looked), I've decided to go with ATI, an advantage since AMD now owns it, I guess. SATA, USB3, ethernet, Raid, back-up (on-board) sound and video is nice-but-not-necessary... anything I'm missing? Motherboard, CPU, video, probably a new monitor and keyboard (I picked up a Logitech G9x not too long ago)... other than a sound card and new headphones, I just need the drives and case. If I forget anything, feel free to poke me, just do it softly - my skin's sensitive from the lack of sun under that rock. I'll get around to poking Puffer, Ivanolo and Torx when I have the time. *Pops head up, looks around for Dan.* Thanks in advance. I miss Critter!
Well, my first piece of advice would be to set and share with us your budget. Anything you buy is going to be a MASSIVE upgrade from what you have now, but there are some key areas I think you should focus: 1) No AMD CPU. The only thing they have that is competitive is the Phenom II X6 chips, and even those can't compete with the new Intel i5/i7 stuff. 2) 6GB of DDR3 minimum. If you want a future proof gaming rig then 8-12GB is where you should be shooting. 3) Midrage video card get either the Nvidia 470 or the AMD 6870. I'm personally looking at the 6870, but both are similar in performance. 4) Buy a quality power supply. You don't have to spend a fortune, but a name brand 600+ watt PSU is the foundation of any good system. EDIT: Here's my target build, minus an OS hard drive. Added to this will likely be a 120GB SSD drive. I too am waiting on a game (Skyrim), so by the time I build I suspect my $1,200 build will end up being closer to $800. Or more likely I'll just get faster parts. https://secure.newegg.com/WishList/MySavedWishDetail.aspx?ID=15535752
MSP makes me feel bad for playing games on my old AthlonXP 3000+ with AGP 7600GS and gig of DDR(1)400! What is your budget, and what games are you looking to play? For the latest and greatest, MSP has a good list going. I don't know about the nvidia cards, but the 6XXX series of cards have a feature that makes sure you don't kill your PSU by overdrawing current, doing those benchmark stress tests.
Hey, if it still plays your games then that's all that matters! One note in favor of the AMD 6870 video card. Even though performance is on par with the Nvidia 470, the power consumption is a full 100watts less under load. Very, very energy efficient. And easier on your power supply.
VERSATILITY! Actually, borrowing a quadcore that's using that new 'MX' line, but it's running on a digital-out wide-screen LCD. Also side running another Acer Vista system. Details I need to ask about LCDs: I don't like the blur (response time), I don't like it at all. I can see it even though the guys in retail say it's not relevent - they also say more than 30FPS isn't relevent, so we know where that opinion belongs. If I must get an LCD, it must be near CRT-equivalent response, but I'm eyeing this HUGE wide-screen CRT a retro shop has sitting close to their front door. If I can clear out the back of my dad's truck I might get it driven home (then again, he likes LCDs so much he got rid of just about every CRT in his house). Anyway, AMD has always had the edge when it comes to affordability, with the added price not being worth the performance Intel offers. Are you saying those articles about what's in AMD's pipeline are wrong or meaningless? If you're talking about in two or three months... well, there's no way I'm waiting that long and playing Rift on this system (then again Best Buy just screwed my pre-order up, so maybe I should just cancel it and wait). As for budget, it's pretty flexible, just not for paying twice as much for 10% more CPU power. I'm cost conscious even when I have the money. The bottleneck I see in all these systems around here is the video, so I'm not sure midrange is a good idea. I want the entire system to flow properly, not one single thing being a weak point, all pretty level. So, if a 3GHZ chip needs the highest video adapter, but 3.2 is overkill, then the latter isn't even a choice unless I'm getting it nearly free (yeah, when's that ever happened). Here are some 'for instances': this system has a 5.9 CPU and HDD rating, 4.6 on memory, but a 3.7/3.0 in graphics/gaming. What would get the video up to 5.9 and are there any tricks other than adding memory that could get it to 5.9 (or is that speed and unrelated to size)? If I were to get a CPU that would reach 7, I'd want the drives, memory, and video to reach 7, too. I want the system to hum, and I want the options necessary to push the envelope later (as it gets older) equally. I want dual booting - Win7 (XP is too old and Vista is a laughable non-option, but it has to have one Microsoft just because game producers mandate it) and probably Linux - but which kind(s). I want a dedicated RAID stripe with small but lightning fast twin drives solely for OSes, with non-vital software install to a separate physical D drive and a large physical E mirroring all of that (so, if two 125GIG instadrives working the raid, another 250 for the games/music/whatever, and a 500 for back up, that'd be 1TB total). If you consider games are now coming on flash drives that should be all the disk space I'll ever need. I miss anyone?
Post any AMD model you like and I can counter with a cheaper Intel CPU that will be faster. Except for perhaps at the VERY bottom end of the market, hence why we asked about your budget. I used to build AMD exclusively, but the days of them being the bang for the buck are over. Anyway, here's Tom's CPU benchmarks that should help to dispel the misconceptions. http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/.../3DMark-Vantage-Overall-Performance,2416.html
Thanks for the link, I'll check that out a little later. No, USB flash drives hold more and are faster than DVD-RW (Rift CE is on it), Steam won't do a damn thing to return my log-in name, like confirm that I haven't used the account in years (since Half-life) or any of my Virginia ISP/e-mail IPAs. I haven't even been able to play Serious Sam HD because of it, so that was a waste of money. Hardcopy > Steam, but as SSHD shows, Steam can make even a hardcopy useless. Steam is not an option. Oh, and if you're talking about that old Macromedia now-owned-by-Adobe thing websites are using instead of text, making impossible to highlight and copy/paste, then no.
The last link (#10) was the first place I went, but their individual-non-comparison style means having to read every review and possibly even those of boards no longer manufactured (I honestly don't know where the lines drawn). I guess I'm saying I'd do it differently, but then I'd know more about motherboards, already. I seem to remember Tom's was one of the places I went to check before, and the Gigabyte GA-7VRXP was the best purchase without a doubt: had all the features I wanted and was highly rated for the price. There was one issue with the Dual BIOS, but that seemed to get ironed out, or at least I never encountered it. With the server on hiatus, I'll check the Tom's link, now.
This is all I saw... The rest of you guys are gay. Just sayin... Even though "critter" was probably a sick fuck of a troll who entertained himself in the pseudo avatar of a barely-legal teenage girl covered in video-game controllers. Just sayin...
From what I can see, the 2600 series (base and K) seem to outperform AMD's X6 by about 15%, but the prices I see at Tom's shop are 330$US to just over 220$US. Seems the price difference is still there, but that's just their site. Are those prices for the Xeons (3GHZ+) so low because they're single-core? What's the difference in performance with a i7-2600K, night and day? Oh, and assuming I'm reading all this wrong (or there are other places with very competitive prices), what do you all suggest by way of core, quad or better? Edit: as for Critter, there seemed to be more than one picture of her, from what I remember, and I don't think she popped up anywhere else on the 'net, despite the fact that she was so good looking she could've done some modeling/acting. Not saying it wasn't a ploy, but there are usually indicators. To have a personal stash of pictures of someone like that and never have the truth surface...
Alright, checked Newegg (where I bought a lot of that old system), and found the difference between the i7 2600 and 2600K. The slightly advanced graphics ability may not be worth the 30$, but that's probably not a good opinion since I haven't read up on what it does. As for the pricing and power usage, they have the low one for 300$ and the high Phenom for 240$, which is 25% more money for 12.28% more performance. Granted, there might be a wattage issue, but is it that significant? All the other i7s are power hogs and reach four-digit prices, so having one or two chips competing with AMD isn't what I'd call a game-changing edge. I'm definitely missing something, but you should tell me. Again, it's not the price so much as the price-for-performance difference.
In this graphic you can see the fastest AMD CPU available, circled in red, at the bottom. 3 spots above it is the bottom end of the new i5/7 series CPUs, 65 bucks cheaper. Cheaper, faster, cooler, more energy efficient... AMD just sucks now dude, dollar for dollar and in every other way.
For anything but the extreme low end, where I live, AMD doesn't currently make sense, and I don't think Bulldozer is going to change that one little bit. So unless you're buying less than $500-worth of computer, Intel is currently the way to go. I don't think they'll pull another Pentium4/Rambus & net-burst boner, like last time, though it looks like they'll be doing something along those lines with that new Thunderbolt standard. That's the one thing I have against Intel: It wants to be the One Chip To Rule Them All, and in the Intelness Bind Them...
Brand loyalty is just retarded. Especially for something so easily benchmarked as a CPU. You go with the best bang for the buck or the absolute best performer, and in this case Intel is both. I mean, you might justify a Chrysler vehicle based on styling or performance. But you can't argue quality or reliability, the numbers are cold and hard. I wish the CPU market was more competitive but it just isn't.
The link you provided doesn't show the same way that picture does. There are no prices for some and multiple prices for others. Also, the link at the page sends me to the video card section, which does me no good (their fault). Once I figured they were probably all like that, I just went to Newegg.com and compared theirs - that's where I got the 12+%. As for beyond just the CPU, it seems Intel/nVidia are are married just like AMD/ATI, and I want to avoid nVidia, if possible. I'm not asking for anyone to go out and put together the system for me, just saying if everything but a Phenom was recommended, I don't see the problem if I could get a good deal on everything else. Let's go a different route now: What things should I definitely avoid or avoid if I can (like certain features on a motherboard or add-ons/modifications - water cooling would only be an option if it were simple)? Asking this just so I don't make the mistake of paying for something that shafts me or I never use. BTW, it's a good thing I clipcopy posts often, the autologout of the forums seems to be a few minutes.
Except the 6950 which matches and sometimes beat the gtx470 and gtx560. And can be unlocked to the 6970. Also the 6970 is the best bang for the buck videocard right now. They even fixed the xfire scaling issues that plagues the 5 series. If I were to build a system right bow, I would go i7 2600k and the 6950. I have the i7 2600k with 2 asus gtx470s. Given the extenisve problems I've had, with these videocards I cannot recommend asus videocards. Dunno if it's just a problem with the 470 line or not, but I will never buy another asus videocard. Btw mobo is Asus deluxe and I'm pretty happy with it except for the lack of pcie voltage/frequency.
Obviously I inserted the price for the Sandybridge with Paint.net as Tom's didn't list the price for it. You asked for CPU advice and you got it, I don't give two shits what you buy. What I said is fact, not sure why you're being such a nimrod about it. EDIT: Looking at that image I don't know how anyone could mistake it for anything other than Photoshopped. :retard:
Well I'm goin by the hardocp review, which I trust the most.it showed the 560 to be nowhere near bang for the buck status. Not to be dogging on your purchase. (because the 560 is nowhere near a bad buy). But looking at their review, especially after the recent Ari rice drop, the 6950 is king of bang for the buck in higher end. The6970 goes for near 400 yet meets or surpasses the 580 in certain games, particularly in high res, and us 100-150 dollars cheaper AND supports eyefinity out of the box. If you want multi display with nvidia you have to have two videocards. And even then the max ram is what, 1.7gigs? Even the 6950 has 2 gigs of vram. The 470/570 only has 1.5. That can lead to a huge performnce deficit (as shown by the hardocp reviews at multi monitor resoltuions.). And if you aren't playing at ultra high res, ehats the point of getting top of the line gfx anyway?
