[CAT] Scratching Post

[Spandex]

K, after a couple of months of uhming and ahhing I am thinking of pulling the trigger on a new computer.

I have decided on an AMD setup cos I like AMD but don't know what to go for in terms of AM3 versus AM2+

I understand that AM3 boards will have DDR3 memory but am wondering what other penalties I will take if I choose the cheaper route. Right now it appears that a AM2+ proc and mobo combo is about £100 cheaper than it's similarly rated AM3 counterpart.

Also, what's good in the world of GPU's right now? Unlike my preference for AMD over Intel I have no feelings as to Nvidia versus ATI.

[CplSlade]

Can't help you, buddy. I'm seriously considering abandoning AMD for Intel if they don't get off their ass and come up with some contenders.

As far as GPU's, from what I've seen Nvidia is still edging out AMD/ATI, but both companies seem to excel in some spots and lag in others (i.e., Intel chips seem to beat AMDs in digital editing tests while AMDs make better use of memory).

[Vadar]

Sweaty knows
I meself always squeeze tha last drop out of my hardware and beyond; and stays clear of doubtful interwebpages.
I'm an Intel fanboywhore also, for stability > overclocking.
Good luck Spanders.

Edit: Completely lost track for Graphicscards; running DX10 on a DX9 card now.

[tgrant]

Go intel. 6g's of DDR3. Hit toms hardware for the latest specs on GPU's...they change so fast I haven't got the slightest what's good. If you go with a DDR3 board make sure it's got 6 slots for ram.

[Spandex]

Well the thing is I read that the PhenomII X4's aren't actually that much slower than the i7's and they're considerably cheaper. Go with an AM3 board and I can get the DDR3 memory anyway. But then I also read that DDR3 is only like 5-10% faster than DDR2 and again a lot more expensive. So while an i7 with DDR3 would be the business a PhenomII with DDR2 would be 90% of the performance at 50% of the price.

I'm trying not to get carried away. I see all that shiny new stuff and I want to buy it but I don't really need it. I don't even play games that often anymore... but on the other hand I don't want to be upgrading again in 12 months time. This thing is gonna have to last me 2 or 3 years.

[CplSlade]

Yeah, that's it, innit?

[Sgt. Sweaty Sac]

On the first point. Intel. Intel. Intel. I was a die-hard AMD man for YEARS Span, from the K6-2 all the way to the 939's...but AMD just sat on their laurels after getting X86-64 out the door, and Intel just beat the everloving crap out of them not just in regular day-to-day stuff, but things that AMD used to win handily, like gaming and media encoding.

Honestly, what finally sold me on them was how cool the Core2 processors run. When you can take a stock 2.66 chip and OC it to over 3 GHz using the stock cooler...you've got a good chip. I doubt you're into OC'ing heavily though (it's risky as shit, but I like pushing the barrier...till I smash headlong into a wall).

Intel got their act together after the fiasco that was the Presscot cores, and they've been getting better since.

Honestly, if you're dead-set on AMD, I can't tell you shit about AM2 vs. AM3. The last AMD machine I have is my 939 HTPC, and I stopped keeping track of their sockets.

Now....the i7-capable motherboards are out there, yes. The X58 chipset is an awsome chipset that can do some amazing OC'ing and the i7 will be the socket of choice for at least two years. DDR3 is faster than DDR2, though not by leaps and bounds.

HOWEVER...right now, you are paying a HEAVY premium for those parts. Any i7 capable Asus board is over $200 minimum, the cheapest i7 processor is $288, and DDR3? Do yourself a favor, don't even look at DDR3 prices vs. DDR2 prices right now.

Now, I read HardOCP for all my hardware news. Their methodolgy is not "run 10 synthetic benchmarks and call it a day", no, they go by "best playable" using real-world scenarios and differing settings to try and maintain 30 FPS or better.

Lastly, check this one out: http://hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTU ... VzaWFzdA==

For those of you out there still gaming on a dual core CPU, I would suggest making sure you check out page two of this article if you are thinking of investing in a Core i7 for gaming. Our E8500 solidly held its own in FarCry 2 gaming at 1600x1200 resolution and above.

If you want a full rundown of what hardware I'd put into my own machine right now if I was building one Span, just say so, and I'll make you up something killer within whatever budget you're looking at (hopefully without screwing up the USD-Euro conversion)

[Spandex]

Thing is I'm not after absolute performance. I simply don't game enough nowadays to justify blowing 4 figures on a rig. I'd much rather spend £500 and have money left over for other things. I reckon £500 is about my limit - For that I want the proc, mobo, GPU, memory and possibly a PSU and HDD depending on what's left. My current PSU is a decent 450W and I have over a TB of space but one of those is an ancient IDE drive so a new SATA drive might be nice. Oh and I could do with a new optical drive. Mine seems to shit the bed on a regular basis.

I can't see an i7 rig fitting into that budget so am looking for the rung below. The PhenomII's seem to fit the bill but if you think differently... I bow to your superior knowledge...

[Sgt. Sweaty Sac]

Here's what I got Span, all ordered from Novatech.co.uk:

Asus P5Q Pro Intel P45 (Socket 775) PCI-Express DDR2 Motherboard- £96.99

Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 2 x 3.00Ghz 6Mb Cache 1333 FSB Dual Core Processor - Retail- 123.61

OCZ Platinum 4GB (2x2GB) DDR2 PC2-8500C5 1066MHz Dual Channel Kit- £46.99

XFX GeForce GTX260 XT *216 Stream Processor* SLI 896MB DDR3 TV-Out/Dual DVI PCI-Express - Retail ** With Far Cry 2 & Mirrors Edge**- £129.99

Western Digital Caviar Blue 640GB 16MB Cache Hard Disk Drive SATAII 300MB/s <8.9ms 7200rpm - OEM- £50.45

Total Basket Ex VAT: £448.03 ex vat
Delivery Charge: 5.99 ex vat
Basket + Delivery Ex VAT: £454.02 ex vat
VAT @ 15.0%: £68.10
Total Basket Value: £522.12 inc vat

Sorry it wasn't below £500, you could get an E8200 processor at 2.66GHz instead of 3GHz and probably get close to £500. That hard disk is VERY fast (WD6400AAKS), just as fast as my 150GB SATA Raptor that's about 2 years old, but lots more space. I have one as my backup drive, and it smokes the Raptor when it comes to big files.

[Spandex]

This is what I put together this evening. A bit more expensive and I'm not sure if my 450W PSU will cut it. Also, no HDD or optical included in that.

I guess I'm still not sure how quick the Quad cores are compared to the dual cores. How much difference is there?

[Spandex]

Also, the £500 is not set in stone. Just a rough guide.

[KennysRevenge]

I'm running a Core2 Quad and I love it. I can't say that it's substantially faster than the dual core, but it does seem to utilize each core nicely.

[tgrant]

I'm running a Q9300. It's an intel quad. It's alright but unless you're looking into rendering a movie, playing a game and watching the TV at the same time you're gunna be wasting a couple cores. For games or just running a couple apps go with a faster dual. Just my 2 cents. I thought I'd be using this thing to get back into video editing...hopefully I'll be doing more when the baby comes.

[Spandex]

Hmmm, I'm getting a bit frustrated here. 5 minutes ago I was thinking maybe I should just go all out and get an i7 rig. Then I read this here:

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/nvidia ... ,7624.html

And think perhaps Sweaties recommendation is bob on and maybe just upgrade the GPU he suggested. To be honest I don't really need a new HDD. I have the exact one that Sweaty recommends and it isn't even half full at the moment. I can always bung in another HDD a few months down the line. Drop that and I could spend another £50 or £60 on the GPU. Only trouble then would be stretching my 450W PSU even further.

One last reservation... Anyone know anything about what's expected round the corner though? It seems that dual core is enough for now but I'd be really quite angry if another couple of months we see games coming out that are dependant or heavily use 4 cores. I know future proofing is impossible but having something that could run games for the next coupla years is neccessary.

[Spandex]

Hmmm, now I'm scratching my head on Nvidias 260 & 275 versus ATI's 4870 & 4890. Trouble with this shit is that in some games Nvidia destroys the ATI and in another it's the other way round.

I'm currently leaning towards the 275. It seems to be, marginally, the quickest of the lot and Nvidia seem to be really pushing this physX crap.

.... but then the 4890 uses less power and so I might get away with my 450W supply (given that I'm not going with some fancy quadcore and badass mobo chipset, will only use 1, maybe 2, HDD's and 1 optical and I don't have a vast array of USB shite)