I've read June at the earliest.
Printable View
I've read June at the earliest.
You should consider AMD. Drivers aren't as fucked as they used to be (8+ years ago). nVidia is the one with all the driver mishaps.Quote:
Originally Posted by JackalStomper
Haven't had any Nvidia driver mishaps since ever.
Nvidia driver updates just improve performance, they rarely fix flaws.
We know. That's why you are now going through your second GPU in a relatively short time frame, right?
As for me, I'm thinking of just going Z68 now, and here's why:
By the time performance requirements for software has made any Sandy-Bridge /SNB-E CPUs as obsolete as my Athlon 64 3200+, we will have progressed at least TWO enthusiast generations from now (X99?). Combine that with the fact that SNB-E is not appreciably better than SNB unless you do extreme productivity, the high cost of motherboards, and the fact that SNB already has 8 logical cores, and there is nothing for it. I can wait two weeks for C2 stepping, but X79 is just as dead as Z68. Or, I can buy now and be just as well off. I sincerely doubt IVB will be much better than SNB, and it for sure will have a greater impact on the mobile landscape than on the desktop.
I would like to have the ability to just throw 4 more DIMMs into my computer to increase RAM and I would like the full x16 width PCI-E lanes, but with Intel giving us the stick, there's nothing for it. They are hell-bent on two-year platform refreshes, now demolishing any hope you have at investing in an enthusiast platform. I doubt we'll ever see another LGA 775 or X58.
Then there's price, but price isn't really in play here.
Thoughts?
E: The PCI-E 2.0 8x nature of multi-card configs on Z68 is also a known bottleneck to high end video cards. Rectified by dropping an IVB CPU into the slot to enable PCI-E 3.0, but that's a stupid upgrade if you already have SNB. X79 is PCI-E 3.0 capable out of the gate.
Why yes, I am going through my second refurbished RMA GPU in a relatively short period of time. Actually it's my fourth replacement card, but I never expect much from refurbished cards from RMA departments.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warsaw
Also, it looks like it may not be my GPU. I have one more card to test on my second GPU slot but individually the cards have been working fine so far...
Refurb or not, you still have to keep on replacing it. I don't know about you, but I'd rather not have to keep diving in to fix something. It's like having to bring your car into the shop every six months because your transmission keeps breaking in one way or another (read: my car is a PoS).
True, but it's the same for all refub cards most of the time. And it's not related to drivers AT ALL, those were my main points.
I'm not really sure what's causing it. What do you guys think it could be if it only happens when both cards in in the system in SLI mode?
Sounds a bit like the UK's MOT system.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warsaw
E/ make sure your PSU is not on the fringe.
You can get tools to test how much life is left, the other option is if the cards work in other systems and it's SLI it may be your motherboard is packing heat.
Bad SLI bridge? Motherboard-bound issue? CPU getting too hot, causing issues with PCI-E cross-talk?Quote:
Originally Posted by Cortexian
And yeah, it's also the same for used cars. Seems like a great deal at the time of purchase, but then you find out why it was such a bargain.
Radeon 7950s are out or something, have fun
http://www.anandtech.com/show/5476/a...on-7950-review
Nvidia hurry up and stomp AMD with GTX 600's.
I have no doubt that Nvidia will do so, but AMD will just slash prices and Nvidia will be left with a $700 space heater whose only market segment is those playing games on three 2560x1600 monitors. With the Xbox 720 rumored to be sporting a Radeon HD 6670, it doesn't look like we'll be getting anything truly demanding for the foreseeable future; might be better to save your money and grab two GTX580s/590s or two HD7950s/7970s and call it a decade.
Also, I don't know how much longer Nvidia can sustain the huge, monolithic GPU that pushes pixels at the cost of excessive heat generation and power consumption, but I feel like they are going to have to go back to the drawing board soon. Have you noticed that their development cycle has been getting longer and longer starting with the GTX280? Sure, the performance benefits are great, but it looks like they are just trying to push back the wall that they are about to run straight into while they figure out a way around.
Not an Nvidia hater here, just musing on the state of the GPU market.
I pretty much agree with everything you said, though three 1920x1200 monitors require the same top-end cards that most triple 2560x1600 setups do. The sheer amount of extra pixels when running triple-screen just destroys single card solutions, and all but the best multi card solutions.
I will likely upgrade to dual HD 6990's or 7990's instead of GTX 690's since the performance will likely be similar but AMD will likely have a better price.
Working with my college to figure out what to stick in our computers for a complete hardware refresh this fall. Having a bit of a disagreement on video cards right now. On the faculty side, they're looking to get Quadro5000s (6k if they drop in price to the current 5k's level) while from a student side we're pushing for non-workstation cards. I know the Quadro5k/6k pull from the GTX 400 series, but I can't find anything to directly compare between a Quadro and GTX (nature of the benches I suppose). Anyone have a direct comparison with Quadros and GTXs benching both productivity and real time?
The faculty are taking into consideration that rendering on the GPU is tending to be more common and are looking at the Quadro hoping it could help in the future. It's a valid concern, but considering the rest of the department it could be a hindrance. Any offline rendering done on a Quadro would also be able to be done on a GTX as well. While the Quadro would be great for the Maya/Photoshop/Film side of the department, we're getting our interaction/games side rolling as well. Quadros really suck when it comes to the real time applications. You're lucky if you can get 10 fps on a student's basic brush level assignment.
For the price, we could wind up with top tier current gen GTX/HD GPUs and update again the next generation for less than a single Quadro5000. The question is, how much of a difference would we notice when it comes to rendering? These are students that we're talking about, so we're not looking at any Pixar-level render times. Even so, they are students and don't always know how to best optimize render settings so it's easy to say that they'll be rending longer than they should.
Look into some postings from the guy who runs Digital Blasphemy. He had the same problem when he was looking to upgrade his GPU's for rendering. He ended up going with the consumer GTX cards instead of the Quadro cards since there was such little difference in performace.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814127565
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814127545
Which one.
I have no interest in higher end cards, nor the need for one.
I own that 6870, and the thing is a beast. I'd go for it. Running Battlefield 3 at 1600x900 High with at least 80 fps or over, depending on the area of the map.
Those are both high-end cards, not the ultra high end cards. I'd go with the 6870 for power efficiency and EyeFinity.Quote:
Originally Posted by JackalStomper
i'd shell out a little more for a 6950
i have the card and it's actually amazing
I'd agree with that. I'm sure the 6870 would last a long time, but if you go high enough up (to say like a GTX 570/HD6950) you know you're not gonna need another GPU for at least another 2-3 years...unless you're like ThePlague and destroy GPUs as a weekend project.
Took like a week...not a weekend. But I got another 6870 out of it so when the time comes I can crossfire :D AKA when games actually work with crossfire properly...Quote:
Originally Posted by Amit
Well, if you're only using one card currently, you were better off with the HD 5870 that you bricked.
out of you guys that have done alot of builds for other people, what is your PC case of choice.
looking for 90 degree mounted HD's, dust filters, bottom mounted PSU and a fan on top of the case similar to the antex 600
...what size
I'm guessing he would accept suggestions for both mid tower and full tower ATX cases.
as long as it's not rediculously wide or big it doesnt matter so much, once i've seen some suggestions from you guys i'll get the exact dimensions for the housing it sits in.
I have the CM HAF 922. It's a big midtower case (pretty much a full tower), but it's not ridiculously big. It is almost the same size as the HAF 932 despite being a lower-end product than the 932. Plenty of space for everything, but the features for that case are sort of dated now. You might want to go with a cheaper case that has better features. something like the Antec Three Hundred Two which was released last month.
I'm not so sure about the mounting brackets on that antec, but other than that it looks good.
Really tempted to get that 922 though
dammit bod i can't afford to be buying cases right now!
Corsair Obsidian 700D.
Corsair cases are the only cases.
And what of your CMQuote:
Originally Posted by Cortexian
960690?:P
690*
The 690 II isn't bad but they're both crap by comparison.
True and sry for the butchering of the model number. In my head I knew it was the 690, but for some reason I wrote the 9 first...
Went with the 560ti, lower power consumption and heat output sold me. Now for The Waiting Game.
Alright. I thought I was going to get a laptop, which is why I haven't ordered anything yet, but then I decided that while I do need something for school, it's not an urgent need and I'd rather have something that can play everything maxed out now AND later as opposed to something that might be able to run a few games maxed out now at 1080p but will suck in a year.
So I present my final build, barring any compelling suggestions:
Motherboard - ASRock X79 Extreme 6
CPU - Core i7 3820 3.6GHz
RAM - 16 GB (4x4GB) Corsair Vengeance DDR3-1600 Low-Profile
SSD - Crucial M4 128GB SATA III
Cooling - Intel Liquid Cooling
GPU - Powercolor HD7970 (x2)
Case - Fractal Design XL Pearl Black
Total Price: $2177.92 before any MIRs.
The locked multiplier on the i7-3820 isn't a deal-breaker because it's actually still really easy to overclock. This CPU also lets me have all of the features I want from the X79 platform without requiring me to spend another $300 on two cores I'm not going to actually need. Faster RAM is unnecessary because tests on tech sites have shown that Sandy Bridge really doesn't care how fast your RAM is, unlike Bulldozer and K10. I also hate obnoxious fins, also unnecessary. The ASRock board has all the features you could ever really want in an X79 motherboard without the huge sticker price; the Extreme 9 was not worth the increase and the Rampage IV is just an exercise in vanity. The Crucial SSD is replacing the SanDisk from earlier because it's now only $10 more expensive and it has far superior ratings; I like reliability. The liquid cooling loop for the CPU is actually made by Asetek, the same company that manufactures Antec's and Corsair's similar offerings. The Intel one hasn't had reports of whining unlike the Corsaid H80, and it's only $1 more expensive. Easy choice.
I'm also thinking about this monitor or a Dell Ultrasharp 27, depending on what my discount on Dell stuff turns out to be. I think it's 15%, which would make the Ultrasharp a no-brainer.
So, any suggestions before I make the order?
Where's your PSU? Also do you have and extra HDDs going into it? You'll fill the SSD so fast if it's the only storage drive in there. :-3
ps get the Dell u3011 or HP zr30w
Yo, a little help here. I'm thinking about doing a quick, low-budget upgrade for my computer. I'm replacing the CPU, Motherboard, and RAM cards. I need some assistance on the RAM cards I'm going after.
G.Skill 8GB
Kingston 8GB
I've been looking at some of the ratings and reviews. The G.Skill cards are higher rated but look like they come with a lot of issues. The Kingston cards aren't as popular, but they seem to have less problems (as well as less buyers).
If it helps any, this is the Motherboard I've been looking at: ASUS P5G41T-M LX PLUS
Any help at all will be appreciated.
I'd get a 120GB 520-series SSD from intel over the Crucial M4. Far more reliable and you like reliability.
@Warsaw: The Crucial M4's are the next most reliable thing to Intel SSD (almost on par), and they're significantly cheaper. Stay with the Crucial.
Why get Low-Profile DIMM's if you're water-cooling the CPU? The crazy looking heat-spreaders are still slightly better at doing their jobs (more surface area).
Intel liquid cooling over Corsair/Antec? Any reason why?
@DarkHalcyon: GSkill would be better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InnerGoat
I already have a 1080W power supply that I'll be using and yes, I have a 750GB WD Caviar Green for storage. As for the monitor, it's not worth $200-$300 for 160 more vertical lines over the 27 inch.
@Cortexian. aesthetics, mainly. I haven't read about the fins being that much better and I haven't seen any complaints about heat on the LP, so it's really personal preference. I don't intend to OC the RAM. As for the cooling, there are LOTS of reports about the pump making nasty noises, and the Intel one cools just as well without pump whine or grind. They are both made by Asetek at any rate, so it's not really going with a different brand. A d yeah, I think I'll stick with Crucial on the SSD.
Took the 560ti for a test drive.
stock with 3.6Ghz CPU and 1600 ram:
Overclocked with 4.1Ghz CPU
Will do a heaven benchmark when I finish downloading it.
So far I'm impressed with the performance I'm getting for the price I paid.
Getting my first big paycheck this upcoming week, and what better time to upgrade then now? My build right now is fine, but I really want to futureproof this.
CPU:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819103996
Mobo:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16813157280
CPU cooler:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16835209049
Moar ram (already have a set of these):
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820211409
Adding that to an Antec 300, 6870 graphics card, a 750 watt corsair enthusiast power supply, a 64gb torqx SSD, and a 1tb western digital caviar blue.
If your current rig is fine, put your money into savings and keep adding from future paychecks. By the time your rig is 'not fine', then you'll have plenty more money to upgrade.
Well thing is I wanted to buy these, and then put my older parts into another computer for my gf so we can both play.
CPU:
Coming from a Phenom 925 the FX-4100 won't be a massive improvement, but will be able to handle more RAM at higher clocks. I would say go for 6 or 8 cores but given that I haven't run into any bottlenecks with the 4100 yet it seems like a solid deal.
Mobo:
Only has a 4 + 1 power phase, overclocking could be sketchy.
970 chipset, supports a single x16 slot, with crossfire at 8x. Absolutely no SLI, if you ever switch to nvidia you're shit out of luck. I've also heard the 990's have like %5 performance increase but that could just be bull.
Don't know much about asrock boards, never owned one.
Cooler:
Unless you plan on overclocking the SHIT out of that 4100 (think 4.6Ghz+) then the stock cooler should do just fine for you given some decent case airflow. Mine idles at 30C and under load barely breaks 45C. At 4.1 Ghz things get a little toasty, with high loads bringing it close to 50C.
RAM:
Nothing actually wrong here, just that having 4x2GB sticks makes the memory controller work harder than if you had just 2x4GB or 1x8GB. Should be nothing to worry about though, just commenting on it.
What truly is 'Futureproof' using any setup right now in terms of gaming is rather up in the air. The next 5 to 8 years of games will all be focused around whatever hardware the new xbox uses. And until the specs are released building any mid-range machine with the intent to stay is a gamble.
What do you mean by sketchy overclocking? Like I can't go very far with it before it fries the motherboard and every component attached? And i'm hopping from an amd phenom II x4 925 that's stock clock is 2.8ghz lol. To me it's moving up quite a bit.
With that CPU cooler I wanted something that I would be able to use for a long time. It's the one thing I want to have constantly cooled.
My new rig is pretty future proof, especially if the new Xbox is using an HD 6670 as rumored. Future-proof costs $3000 if you want to game at 2560x1440, though, and $1500 if you want to game at 1920x1080.
E: Ordered parts. Went with the Dell 27" over the Doublesight purely for the inputs; I can play Xbox on it and hook my speakers up directly to the monitor to get sound. This is the biggest and most powerful computer I've ever built relative to the contemporary market...
Can anyone tell me what CPU I can buy to put in this thing? It's the motherboard that is in my other computer, and right now it only has a single core processor. If you can find the CPU on newegg that'd be best, because I plan on buying that CPU cooler and more RAM I posted about before there.
An AM2+ CPU.
idk why you'd need help with that lolQuote:
Processor upgrade information
- TDP: 95W
- Motherboard supports the following processor upgrades:
NOTE: Only socket AM2+ processors are supported with this motherboard.
- AMD Phenom II Quad-Core
- AMD Phenom II Triple-Core
- AMD Phenom Quad-Core (A) 9xxx series (AM2+)
- AMD Phenom Triple-Core (T) 8xxx series (AM2+)
- AMD Athlon X4
- AMD Athlon X3
- AMD Athlon X2 (B) (AM2+)
I said what I did because most of those processors are am3, does it matter?
Since they note it, yes it matters. It's a propritary board using a special nForce chipset so it has limitations.
Anything AM2 or AM2+ will work in that board. AM3 will fit, but A.) it might not work because the proprietary BIOS may not support it and B.) if it does work, you won't have full access to all of the AM3 features because that's what happens when you put an AM3 CPU into an AM2+ board.
As for coolers, any AMD cooler from Socket 939 or later will work. I think even Socket 754 coolers will fit, though don't quote me on that.
Will this CPU work with that board?
We already told you what we know based on the link you gave us... It might, at reduced capacity.
http://wccftech.com/nvidia-kepler-gk...tx-580-hd7950/
I'm a little doubtful about the authenticity of these specs but if they turn out to be true the 600's are going to be monsters.
Greater than 7950 performance for $300? Sounds like a pipe dream.
AMD will drop prices to counter; the only reason they are so high right now is because there is little competition.
As for the GTX 680 being more powerful, that's to be expected. Nvidia and AMD seem to be on a tick-tock cycle, with each holding the performance crown for a short while before the other comes out with a new architecture. This is awesome, nothing but good news for us consumers.
Not really a "short while". AMD release -> nVidia release beats it -> Wait a year or two while nVidia remains supreme -> Repeat.
It's not a year or two.
9800 GTX < HD4870 < GTX 280 < HD 5870 < GTX 480 < HD6970 < GTX 580 < HD7950/HD7970.
Those cycles were pretty tick-tock. Don't look at it as Nvidia and ATI being in the same generation, they are really each their own generation by nature of each company striving to beat the other.
Own both, and they are AWESOME. if you have the cash, get either one of these (7970 if you want more then 2 screens).Quote:
Originally Posted by Warsaw
I own two 7970s. XD
I wanted to wait for Kepler, but I needed a new computer now. Oddly enough, I think I'm CPU-bound now. The i7-3820 isn't as top-end as the rest of my rig.
Did you ever post pics? I don't think I saw them.
Post pics.
More crap on kepler. This time the 680. Supposedly priced at $550.
http://wccftech.com/wp-content/uploa...ifications.jpg
http://wccftech.com/wp-content/uploa...Benchmarks.png
http://wccftech.com/wp-content/uploa...01-635x391.jpg
I hate when anything is self proclaimed as 'Best <x>' but that's just me.
http://wccftech.com/nvidia-geforce-g...faster-hd7970/
Inflated graph is inflated. Pay close attention to the numbers on the Y-axis.
I will believe it when I see it. I expect the GTX 680 to be better, but 40% just seems delusional. They probably tested it at 1080p, when any enthusiast knows that when you crank settings to 2560x1600, etc., Nvidia's lead rapidly diminishes. The GTX 680 is an enthusiast card.
Welp.
E: Will get pics up at some point. For now, here's this:
And for $550? For the top-end enthusiast card?
Unlikely.
Nvidia will probably charge between $600 and $650 for the GTX 680. AMD will probably counter by dropping the HD 7970 to between $450 and $500. After a few months, Nvidia will have to do the same and drop it down to $500-$550.
The newer 400/500/600 series cards all have a smaller form-factor than the older 200 series. My 470's are about half an inch shorter than my 285's were.
Hey guise,
I'm going to be building a new 'pooter this spring to replace my old dinosaur of a machine.
I've already got a case, and a PSU.
Could you look at this wishlist and tell me if it's good, or if I'm derpin'. I have ~$500 +- 75 to spend.
http://secure.newegg.com/WishList/Pu...umber=18774205
Thanks,
:haw:
e: Someone wanna build me a wishlist for the best bang for my buck? All I need are the components in the wishlist above. Or just inform me of improvements to my components in the list.
Everything looks fine, but you might want to reconsider that Motherboard. It wasn't made for use with Bulldozer (older chipset) even though it supposed supports it (AM3+). I would go with a board specifically designed for usage with the FX series. So you'll want a 970,990X, or 990FX chipset. The prices for those boards are comparable to that old 880G that you have on your list, but they better support for Bulldozer.
Here's the main difference between the 970, 990X, and 990FX chipsets (PCI-E X-Fire/SLI):
970 - x16, x4
990X - x16, x8, x4
990FX - x16, x16, x4
Since you're only using one GPU I'd suggest a 970 chipset board. I'd recommend these ones: GIGABYTE GA-970A-UD3 or ASUS M5A97 EVO
I can personally vouch for the goodness of the Gigabyte board since that is what I'm using now.
gigabyte boards have apparently been having issues with the 900 series due to incorrect use of the turbo boost function, resulting in underclocked speeds for work loads. Or something like that.
I have an m5a99x evo and it works great though.
I changed a few things:
CPU - Phenom II X4 965 BE
Motherboard - MSI 970A G-46 AM3+
RAM - G.Skill Ripjaws X Series 8GB (2x 4GB) DDR3 1333, CAS 7.
That's all I changed. The Phenom II's are more reliable and more well-rounded than the FX in every category, and perform just as well. I compensated for the extra cost with that motherboard; it's capable of doing Crossfire in x8/x8 mode if you buy another HD 6870 down the road. The ASRock 970 Extreme4 is also worth looking at, as is the ASRock 990FX Extreme3. I swapped your RAM out because tighter timings are more important on an AMD system; if you're willing to pay $30 more on the RAM, you can get 8GB of DDR3 1600MHz at CAS 7.
As for GPU, I looked at Nvidia's offerings. The GTX 560 is $10-$15 more expensive; there is a slight performance superiority, but I don't know if it's worth it to you.
I would actually suggest going with a Core i3 because it will be all around faster without overclocking, but the CPU is $10 more and the motherboard will be around $40 more for the same features.
Well, if you had to build a "gaming" desktop that you didn't plan on upgrading for at least 18 months, with ~$600 what would you gents piece together?
My strongest advice at the moment would be to wait. I know its hard sometimes but with kepler, ivy bridge and 2nd gen bulldozer just around the corner it would be best to hang on and see what things look like once they're out. From there you can choose to go with the new tech, or stick with the old (and probably cheaper) stuff.
What's 'future proof' depends entirely on what the next generation of consoles will use. Because chances are most games will be built around those constraints. I doubt it will be anything intense though.
As for $600, if you are willing to reuse old components from your previous build then you can open up more room in your budget for some higher performance. If you don't plan on using your old rig there is no reason you can't reuse the case, HDD's, optical drives, and perhaps even the PSU.
680 finally gets a real benchmark, and its proving superior to the 7970's in every way.
http://wccftech.com/nvidia-kepler-ge...blows-hd-7970/
Still no official word on price though
Yea, I plan on doing just that, I really just need these components:
mobo
processor
gpu
ram
hdd
I've got a case, power, and optical drive that I plan on reusing. However, how far is the new stuff around the corner? If it saves me some I'm willing to wait it out. It's been a good while since I've upgraded... :smith: Also, I'm not sure what's superior, but everyone I know is running a AMDcpu/AMDgpu setup, instead of something else. I don't plan on doing much on it either except playing the games noted above. (WoW, Skyrim, D3) My laptop can handle it, but it gets hot as hell, and even with a 3-fan cooler mat, overheats.
geforce 600 releases are supposedly going to be staggered just as AMD's 7000's were. The earliest release is this month. Ivy bridge in april, 2nd gen bulldozer around july.
Of course '2nd gen' bulldozers lately has been looking more and more like a factory overclock with a higher TDP. Hardly worth waiting for that.
Hey, looks like two of those 680's might be a drop-in upgrade that will finally let me play BF3 on Ultra settings triple-monitor'd. Might not need to wait for the 690!
Will have to see how 2x680's perform in PCI-E 2.0 x8 slots.
From benchmarks of various cards that I've seen the performance improvement in any dual gpu configuration between dual x16 and dual x8 is marginal at best.
Except the 600 series are going to be PCI-E 3.0 IIRC.
The difference will still probably only be marginal. It's a 3.0 card, but first generation. You'd likely need three or four to saturate 8x2.0 slots.
Depends on the resolution you are playing at and how powerful your cards are. PCI-E 2.0 8x will bottleneck two 7970s at 2560x1440, which is the primary reason I went with X79 rather than Z68. AnandTech actually ran an article on this recently, if you're interested.
Well gents, this is it. Can I get the Brosef Blessing?
http://secure.newegg.com/WishList/Pu...umber=18788525
i recall looking around a month or two ago and finding ram thats about 10 bucks cheaper than what you have, and also supports 1600mhz. other than that, looks good to me. im not exactly an expert though.
His RAM is that price because CAS 7. You can easily get cheaper if you settle for CAS9, but AMD systems are affected by timing more so than Intel systems.
Phenoms can't run anything faster than 1333 anyway. And thats just single channel. Dual channel they are underclocked to 1066 mhz
And about that, Warsaw is correct that the phenoms are comparable to the FX-4100's, or perhaps its better to say the FX-4100's are comparable to the Phenoms. But think of what it costs you, because the performance gap is not large. The phenoms have a higher price, higher TDP, inferior memory controller, lower clock, smaller L2/L3 cache, and run hotter than the FX-4100's.
Passmark Phenom 965
Passmark FX-4100
Single-threaded performance. I would take the Phenom every time. Of course, both can be overclocked to their physical limits, but the Phenom will do better when you don't stress the cores.
Actually, thinking about it, the FX-4100 is a virtual dual-core chip.
5760x1200 - 6000x1200.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warsaw
Welp~
How extreme is said bottleneck? Maybe when the 600 series cards come out it's time to ditch the triple-monitors for a Dell U3011.
Here you go. The graphs are all in PCI-E 3.0, but 3.0 x4 would be the same as 2.0 x8, and 3.0 x8 would be the same as 2.0 x16.
They conclude that PCI-E 2.0 x16 or PCI-E 3.0 x8 is necessary for something like the HD 7970. That means that it would also be desirable for the GTX 680.
I would say game on one, and use the others for work. But then again, you can slowly work at a triple U3011 setup as well.
I might have too keep an eye out for an Z68 board at the right price with similar specs to what I have now then.
What am I talking about, I keep forgetting that I'm planning to build a whole new rig in the next year or two.
If you plan on upgrading to Ivy Bridge and you don't already have a PCI-Express 3.0 capable Z68 board, you might as well just buy a Z77 board when Ivy comes out so you can take full advantage of all the new features. Personally, I'd jump on Sandy Bridge-E over Ivy, because there is just so much more that the X79 can offer over any Z68 or Z77 platform, and you don't have to wait for any of it. To boot, Ivy Bridge-E is a drop-in upgrade for LGA2011, so there's that to look forward to as well.
Well I've been thinking of building a new complete rig for a few reasons:
• My mid-tower is way to cramped for my liking.
• I want to start watercooling things, again more space for those components and tubing is a must.
• I want to retire this system to a HTPC since it has all the HDD's for storage (which makes it really heavy, which makes it hard to LAN with, etc).
That's why I'm probably going to spend some quality coin on a LAN-friendly full-tower, or at least as LAN-friendly as full-towers come. There may be modding involved so that it has some ultra-durable hooks that I can attach a shoulder harness to or something.
But yeah, I'm in need of a new PC to make everything in the house work like I want it to.
Lol, LAN-friendly full tower...my PC is 60 pounds, and I only have one hard drive. If you want LAN-friendly, don't buy a Fractal Design case because these things are heavy.
But yeah, definitely go X79. It has all the upgrade potential you'll need for likely the next 4 years, barring some major revolution in CPU architectures and software design. Also, it's really not any more expensive than Z68 at this point; there is literally no reason not to use X79. $250 will get you a great board on either platform, and the i7-3820 is about the same price as the i7 2600K.
Well I just upgraded to P67, so I won't do anything for the next year at least. This thing is still pretty much brand new, and I built it as a hold-over until I could build my "dream system". My mid-tower is approaching 70lbs now to give you an idea, and I've got a lot of shit out of the case for better airflow and cable management.
If I were to build my "dream system" right now I would def go X79 though, mostly just for some quad-channel memory and PCI-E 3.0. Gonna wait and see what Q4 2012 brings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JackalStomper
Well, I'm trying get a processor/motherboard that can survive in my machine for at least two years without an upgrade. I think I might switch to an i5 in the build list, and bite the bullet to get more bang for the buck.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warsaw
That would be ideal. While you're at it, you might want to consider either an HD 7850 or HD 7870. They just came out, but they offer 90% of the performance of a GTX580 (sometimes 100%) for half the price and the overclocking headroom on them is obscene; they can surpass an HD 7950 if you push them to 1.2GHz core and 1.375 GHz VRAM, which is easy to do because you don't even have to overvolt.
The thing to remember is that Ivy Bridge is supposed to come out in either April or May last I heard; buying a Sandy Bridge CPU right now is tantamount to upgrade suicide. I don't know when Kepler is to be released, but you won't be seeing any wallet-friendly parts until at least two months after the GTX 680's release anyways and that's too long.
E: And yeah, I didn't blow $3000 on a new rig just so I could have to upgrade it in two years. Though I can already see the CPU bottlenecking my graphics in BF3, I'll have to fix that when IVB-E comes out. It's the physics, I tell you. Anything AMD outside of an FX-8120 or 8150 will not stand up for two years; the 8120+ only work if you overclock them out the ass to reach parity with the i7 920, but then you need some hard-core power and cooling and you have only achieved the performance of almost two Intel generations ago.
EE: That's actually true for the Black Box Phenom II's as well. You'll need to OC them to keep up over time, because they also don't match even the i3 line at times, let alone the i5s and i7s. Phenoms are all around better than Bulldozers though unless most of what you do is heavily threaded. If that's the case, then definitely buy an FX chip.
That's quite interesting. The more I think about it... the more I'll probably just wait for the IvyBridge to come out so prices may drop a little on the SandyBridge. I don't need the latest or greatest, I just like longevity of the components. I spoke to my NCO and he said to grab an AMD instead of the i5, but... yea... I'm thinking he's a bit behind the curve.
I'll keep shopping around. Thanks for the help.
If you put a lot of emphasis on budget when speaking with him, then he pointed you in the right direction. AMD has a superior Price/Performance ratio on most of their CPU's.
As for ivy making sandy prices drop? Unlikely, Intel quite enjoys their inflated prices. Hell the bloomfield CPU's have steadily raised in price since their release 5 years ago.
There's a difference between old hardware prices going up due to lack of supply and inflation, and relatively new hardware with plenty of stock being discounted.Quote:
Originally Posted by JackalStomper
The SB prices will go down when IB comes out, maybe not by a lot but they will.
AMD is no longer the price/performance king. If you go to a website such as Tom's Hardware and look at all of the recommended CPUs for each price point, they are all Intel now. It used to be all AMD up to $200, so no, they aren't being biased.Quote:
Originally Posted by JackalStomper
Tom's put up GTX 680 benchmarks a few days early and quickly removed them, but someone saved them all lolol
http://imgur.com/a/RCDqK#44
