Starting building my new computer. I have the case, power supply and SSD.
Before I buy my MoBo.. is there any noticable difference between the 4 core and 6 core i7 processor? Do those 2 cores really make a shit of difference for gaming?
For gaming, it makes no difference at all. The number of games that actually use four cores is quite small. The number that can use six is even smaller. A huge majority are not that cpu intensive, so games like BF3 will perform the same on two cores as it does four. Others such as Deus Ex: Human Revolution, The Witcher 2: Assassins of Kings and Crysis 2 are very cpu intensive, so the performance increase from two to four is 40-50%. They'll probably use six cores, but you won't notice any improvement as they aren't even maxing out four. Frankly, if you are building something for gaming and won't touch any number of photo, video and audio editing apps, you are better off saving a bit of money and getting an i5. Specifically a 2500k if you have any interest in overclocking.
thinks you guys are funny, any computer that could run diablo 2 could run diablo 3 lol, its not the most intense game. my old 5000+ dual core with 2 gigs and 7950 could easily run this game.
I do hope you are joking. I played Diablo 2 on a 180 MHz Pentium Pro with a 2 MB video card, 2.5 GB HDD, and 32 megabytes of RAM.
Note:
XFX - GPU Speed of 830MHz & Memory Speed of 5200MHz, while
SAPPHIRE - GPU Speed of 800MHz & Memory Speed of 5000MHz.
Also on XFX's official site, it states that the cards have DDR5 and not GDDR5...
Question 2:
Difference between DDR5 & GDDR5 for GFXs?
I know G stands for GraphicsDDR5. I've seen GFX cards with either of these and I dunno the exact difference...I read that the "G" is just added to DDR5 of the GFX Memory cause it's well graphics memory, so there is no difference.
Also read that with GDDR5 you can open the memory bank of your GFX or something like this...
SO if both cards use GDDR5 and/or there is no performance wise difference between those two, the XFX is obviously better.
XFX just decided to call it DDR5 as opposed to adding a G, for whatever reason. DDR5 doesn't even exist yet, so it would be tough to use it. DDR4 is supposed to hit the market sometime next year. GDDR and DDR are two different things and perform two different functions, with DDR as your standard ram and GDDR as your graphics memory. Also, the GDDR numbering is not homologous to any DDR designation. DDR2 is more advanced than GDDR2, DDR3 more advanced than GDDR3 and on down the line. They have similarities but are different products. EG, DDR isn't the desktop memory version of GDDR, nor is GDDR the graphics version of DDR.
So long story short...the XFX is slightly faster on paper, but I doubt you'll ever notice it. If you can find reviews of each or a website that compares them head to head, you'd know for sure.
It's funny cause there isn't a source on the internet that give me a definite difference between the two or one that gives an answer the way I want it! Thanks anyways.
Funny enough, the XFX is cheaper than the Sapphire where I'm gonna buy it... <_< Not complaining though. I'll give an update on my about to be new pc soon!
Yeah I bet. A lot of misinformation and bits and pieces around. The only reason I know is because I had wondered the same thing at some point.
Note:
XFX - GPU Speed of 830MHz & Memory Speed of 5200MHz, while
SAPPHIRE - GPU Speed of 800MHz & Memory Speed of 5000MHz.
Also on XFX's official site, it states that the cards have DDR5 and not GDDR5...
Question 2:
Difference between DDR5 & GDDR5 for GFXs?
I know G stands for GraphicsDDR5. I've seen GFX cards with either of these and I dunno the exact difference...I read that the "G" is just added to DDR5 of the GFX Memory cause it's well graphics memory, so there is no difference.
Also read that with GDDR5 you can open the memory bank of your GFX or something like this...
SO if both cards use GDDR5 and/or there is no performance wise difference between those two, the XFX is obviously better.
XFX just decided to call it DDR5 as opposed to adding a G, for whatever reason. DDR5 doesn't even exist yet, so it would be tough to use it. DDR4 is supposed to hit the market sometime next year. GDDR and DDR are two different things and perform two different functions, with DDR as your standard ram and GDDR as your graphics memory. Also, the GDDR numbering is not homologous to any DDR designation. DDR2 is more advanced than GDDR2, DDR3 more advanced than GDDR3 and on down the line. They have similarities but are different products. EG, DDR isn't the desktop memory version of GDDR, nor is GDDR the graphics version of DDR.
So long story short...the XFX is slightly faster on paper, but I doubt you'll ever notice it. If you can find reviews of each or a website that compares them head to head, you'd know for sure.
This thread needs to be moderated. It is not suppose to be a flame war between both of you, Hpnot1Q and Supafula.
The only person flaming is him, so please don't lump me in there. I haven't thrown a single insult out there, despite receiving several.
Take a chill pill, relax and think this through. This thread is to help others with their computer issues (atleast that is what I thought).
And that's what I'm trying to do, but apparently he doesn't want to be helped. I should have recognized that after his first post.
From what I understand, the person never said he would only install windows on the SSD. Both of you went from one assumption to another and started going at each other. Also, there are some misunderstandings between both of you but you are unable to see it as you are way into the thick.
What else are you going to fit on a 64 gig harddrive? One or two more games maybe? It's certainly no assumption as it's very common for people to get a small ssd just for Windows and a large mechanical for everything else. There's really no other reason to go with that setup. It still doesn't make much sense when you can save just a bit more money and go with a 128gig.
64GB SSD is more than enough for OS, apps and games. I have BF3, Skyrim and Prototype installed on mine. It is around 54GB.
With your OS and three games installed, you don't have much room for anything else. It certainly isn't more than enough for Windows, apps and games.
SSD is a great upgrade/buy if you can afford it. End of.
Spending 100$ on a ssd is wise usage of monney, not doing so is greedy use of monney, even the regulair gamer should have a ssd.
English doesn't seem to be your first language, which is ok and is probably why you don't understand what I'm saying here. But there's no excuse to insult anyone. I'm not sure how saving your money is greedy. At this price-point, an ssd is a luxury, not a necessity.
And mind me asking how manny benchmarks you have done in our life time ? I meen why am i even asking for gods sake, its a fact there is no argument over it dude, wtf are you talking about ''you wont be loading those programs up faster ?'' Are you dumb ? Are you trying to sound smart trying to flip the tables arround ? I am amazed by this guys stupidity, how can you say it wont run programs faster ? Thats the hole use of a ssd that what ssd's do thats whats worth buying a ssd is for !
For the third time....installing the operating system on an ssd and all your programs/games on a mechanical hdd WILL NOT increase the loading speed of those apps because they are still installed on a slower mechanical drive. Your OS will boot up faster and anything on that ssd will be quicker, but anything installed on the mechanical drive will not magically be quicker just because your os is on the ssd.
And regarding the internet connection part: I think you dont fully understood me. Because what you basicly r saying is that if for example my internet connection is 5mbps and i run my OS on a normal 7200rpm hdd then my download speed would be the SAME as when would run the same OS with the SAME internet connection but this time on a ssd... Dont get me wrong, a ssd does not increase your internet connection, it just uses its full potential, if you for example have 10 mbps connection, installed your os on a regulair hdd, then it wil never ever use that full 10 mbps, a ssd however wont ether, but itl come MUCH closer to use the full 10mbps then a regulair hdd would.
If you have your os installed on a mechanical drive it will still use the full 10megabit connection, and very easily. 10 megabit is only 1.25 MB/second. While that is speedy for most internet connections, that is terribly slow for any kind of harddrive. As I said, just about any mechanical drive you buy these days will at least hit 66 MB/s. I have 12megabit and routinely hit the max on a computer with a mechanical hdd.
Also i sayd ATLEAST 128gb, because im trying to put myself in other peoples positions, not eveyone has the same luxury as some of us. 64 to 128gb is a massive improvement for a ssd, its not a storage drive we r talking about here.
I don't think you quite understand what I'm saying...
For your last quote: i never sayd ssd's increase framerates.
You say al this with the ''prices'' in your mind, you have to put yourself in a position where you should base your opinion on FACTS of technical stuff, not say: Ugh ugh ssd this that meh, prices r to high... Thats just stupid because you clearly did in your last quote.
You have to consider price, as not everyone can afford an SSD so it won't even be an option for them. You mention facts, but you have yet to use any. In fact, most of your claims are devoid of any facts. Feel free to link resources to back up your claims.
A gaming pc is NOT a gaming pc without a ssd, thats final.
You'll need to expand on this comment, as it's silly without an explanation. A ssd doesn't offer increased fps or any improvement at all once the game is running. If a game is installed on an ssd you'll decrease your loading time by a few seconds, that's it. After that, your gaming experience on a hdd is the same as an ssd. You'd be hard-pressed to find anyone else who agrees with your definition of a gaming pc.
Now looking at those 2 quotes i say, with ''mechanical'' i hope to god you ment to say a storage hdd/regulair NOn ssd. because if not then im going to coontinue laughing my ass of if you wil excuse me for a moment.
What else would I be talking about....
I meen, dude we are talkign facts here, your argument is truely INVALID here, because you are putting up your opinion against a FACT. Thats like saying, ''There is no water in the world...'' Ye i know waaaaay off example, but trying to give you an idea on how you come over toords me when you say what you say
Please post links to these "facts" you keep talking about. Frankly, I still don't think you understand my original statement, despite going into detail twice.
Yeah I've never understood the desire to buy a small SSD for the OS and a large mechanical hdd for the apps. That setup will get you fast bootups, but nothing more.
Most idiotic sentence ever.
Who the f*** does not want faster boot ups ? And im talking major difference not small!
Spending $100ish dollars just to gain a few seconds on Windows bootup is not a very wise use of money.
And thats not all? How about EVERY single program and game you install on it wil load install update
Please reread my post, as you missed my point. Why buy a small SSD to install Windows and a large mechanical to install all your programs and games? You certainly won't be loading those apps or games any quicker.
download a hella lot faster, or the fact that if you install your OS on it that meens then that your internet download speed wil go up, way up, and the pages on the webbrowser wil open much faster, and the general refresh rate of pritty much annything gets boosted up.
None of these things are true. When downloading, the speed limiter is your internet. Mechanical drives can write anywhere from 66 to 100+ MB/second. On the low end, that's a 528 megabit internet connection. That is significantly faster than any home internet connection available. The pages in your browser won't load any quicker either.
So a atleast 120gb ssd is highly recomended.
Let me get this straight. You flame me for inquiring why people are buying small 64gig ssd drives and then turn around and recommend a 128?
Or else its nothing more then just a pc, and deffenetly not a high end or even a low budget gaming pc, or a gaming pc at all.
An ssd hardly defines what kind of system you have. It'll give you quicker boots, app/game loads, etc but it isn't going to magically increase your frames per second. A high end gaming pc works just fine without an ssd. Until prices come down, they are little more than frivolous expenditures. And I have a couple.
Yeah I've never understood the desire to buy a small SSD for the OS and a large mechanical hdd for the apps. That setup will get you fast bootups, but nothing more.
I'll definatly make sure the FSB is high enough for the other components to their work at the highest speed possible, thanks for the help.
So an i7 is always the best choice over an i5, hyperthreading support or not?
If you want to spend the extra $100ish dollars (depending upon what country you are from) for a very small gain in some games and a small loss in others compared to an i5 2500k, then go for it. Hyperthreading is nice (have an i7 in my MBP) for other uses (image, sound, video editing), but the number of games that can utilize it is very small. None of which are made by Blizzard. BF3, Crysis 2, Bad Company, several flight simulator games, are some common ones. But here's the rub...processors are so fast that games aren't maxing them out. So really, even though they can use hyperthreading, it isn't being utilized sufficiently so it doesn't result in a noticeable performance bump over an i5. A huge number of games are only using one and two cores at most and they still aren't maxing them out.
If you have the money and are already getting a good video card, yeah an i7 is fine. But many would suggest saving the money and bumping up your video card to something a bit nicer or taking the plunge on an ssd. In the end, there is no right and wrong answer. You could go i7 in hopes more games will utilize it in the future, but I think you'll be upgrading your i5/i7 before you see any noticeable value of hyperthreading in games.
As far as your other questions...
The 550ti is nice and will probably handle Diablo 3 just fine, but if you do any other gaming it'll be holding you back. You could get a much nicer card with the money saved by getting an i5. But then again, depending upon when you buy, the next round of Intel processors may be out (Ivy Bridge) so I wouldn't lock into anything just yet.
As far as GPU brand...I've had no issues with Asus or MSI. I've heard EVGA is good as are a couple others, but ymmv. I'd recommend setting a budget and building your upgrades according to it. It's easy to justify a couple things here and there and pretty soon you're several hundred dollars over. Set a budget and stick to it. Based upon what you've posted, it'll be a nice machine no matter what.
I have a question about CPUs. I don't know much about the inside of a computer so when it comes to comparing CPUs, Video Cards, etc i'm dumb founded. So if a game requires a Intel core 2 Duo or Equivalent AMD as a minimum requirement, will a AMD Sempron 145 work?
==Side Note==
is there a site that compares CPUs so i can look it up myself for the future.
• Genuine Windows 7 Home Premium [64-bit]
• Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-970 six-core [3.2GHz, 1.5MB L2 + 12MB shared L3 cache]
• FREE UPGRADE to 10GB DDR3-1066MHz SDRAM [4 DIMMs] from 9GB
• FREE UPGRADE to 2TB 7200 rpm SATA 3Gb/s hard drive from 1TB
• No additional office software
• SAVE $49 on Norton Internet Security(TM) 2011 - 15 month
• 1.5GB NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580 [2 DVI, HDMI, VGA adpt]
• 600W Power supply
• Blu-ray player & SuperMulti DVD burner
• Wireless-N LAN card (1x1)
• 15-in-1 memory card reader, 2 USB, audio
• No TV Tuner
• Integrated sound
• Premium HP keyboard and optical mouse
With a 23" hd LED monitor.
ZOMG I am sooo excited!! HP rocks and is the only compony that had the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580 available (besides Alienware, but they rip you off).
Oh and it was 1,600 w/o monitor, but free xbox360
Nice looking computer but man u could have built something just as good for alot less... but regardless that should last u awhile... although i would watch out with that 600w power-supply. also does it just have a stock cpu cooler... if so thats another thing to watch out for
You aren't going to be able to build that computer for less than 1600 no matter how hard you try. Sure, you'd get the exact parts you want, but after it's all said and done, it'll be more than 1600.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
For gaming, it makes no difference at all. The number of games that actually use four cores is quite small. The number that can use six is even smaller. A huge majority are not that cpu intensive, so games like BF3 will perform the same on two cores as it does four. Others such as Deus Ex: Human Revolution, The Witcher 2: Assassins of Kings and Crysis 2 are very cpu intensive, so the performance increase from two to four is 40-50%. They'll probably use six cores, but you won't notice any improvement as they aren't even maxing out four. Frankly, if you are building something for gaming and won't touch any number of photo, video and audio editing apps, you are better off saving a bit of money and getting an i5. Specifically a 2500k if you have any interest in overclocking.
Here's the Anandtech GPU benchmark site he mentioned http://www.anandtech.com/bench/GPU11/188
I do hope you are joking. I played Diablo 2 on a 180 MHz Pentium Pro with a 2 MB video card, 2.5 GB HDD, and 32 megabytes of RAM.
Yeah I bet. A lot of misinformation and bits and pieces around. The only reason I know is because I had wondered the same thing at some point.
XFX just decided to call it DDR5 as opposed to adding a G, for whatever reason. DDR5 doesn't even exist yet, so it would be tough to use it. DDR4 is supposed to hit the market sometime next year. GDDR and DDR are two different things and perform two different functions, with DDR as your standard ram and GDDR as your graphics memory. Also, the GDDR numbering is not homologous to any DDR designation. DDR2 is more advanced than GDDR2, DDR3 more advanced than GDDR3 and on down the line. They have similarities but are different products. EG, DDR isn't the desktop memory version of GDDR, nor is GDDR the graphics version of DDR.
So long story short...the XFX is slightly faster on paper, but I doubt you'll ever notice it. If you can find reviews of each or a website that compares them head to head, you'd know for sure.
If you did, you wouldn't have replied to me in the first place. And more insults. Nice.
No one's definition of "mechanical hdd" is a second or third ssd. Mechanical...meaning moving parts. An ssd has no moving parts.
The only person flaming is him, so please don't lump me in there. I haven't thrown a single insult out there, despite receiving several.
And that's what I'm trying to do, but apparently he doesn't want to be helped. I should have recognized that after his first post.
What else are you going to fit on a 64 gig harddrive? One or two more games maybe? It's certainly no assumption as it's very common for people to get a small ssd just for Windows and a large mechanical for everything else. There's really no other reason to go with that setup. It still doesn't make much sense when you can save just a bit more money and go with a 128gig.
With your OS and three games installed, you don't have much room for anything else. It certainly isn't more than enough for Windows, apps and games.
My point, which is apparently lost on others.
English doesn't seem to be your first language, which is ok and is probably why you don't understand what I'm saying here. But there's no excuse to insult anyone. I'm not sure how saving your money is greedy. At this price-point, an ssd is a luxury, not a necessity.
For the third time....installing the operating system on an ssd and all your programs/games on a mechanical hdd WILL NOT increase the loading speed of those apps because they are still installed on a slower mechanical drive. Your OS will boot up faster and anything on that ssd will be quicker, but anything installed on the mechanical drive will not magically be quicker just because your os is on the ssd.
If you have your os installed on a mechanical drive it will still use the full 10megabit connection, and very easily. 10 megabit is only 1.25 MB/second. While that is speedy for most internet connections, that is terribly slow for any kind of harddrive. As I said, just about any mechanical drive you buy these days will at least hit 66 MB/s. I have 12megabit and routinely hit the max on a computer with a mechanical hdd.
I don't think you quite understand what I'm saying...
You have to consider price, as not everyone can afford an SSD so it won't even be an option for them. You mention facts, but you have yet to use any. In fact, most of your claims are devoid of any facts. Feel free to link resources to back up your claims.
You'll need to expand on this comment, as it's silly without an explanation. A ssd doesn't offer increased fps or any improvement at all once the game is running. If a game is installed on an ssd you'll decrease your loading time by a few seconds, that's it. After that, your gaming experience on a hdd is the same as an ssd. You'd be hard-pressed to find anyone else who agrees with your definition of a gaming pc.
What else would I be talking about....
Please post links to these "facts" you keep talking about. Frankly, I still don't think you understand my original statement, despite going into detail twice.
Spending $100ish dollars just to gain a few seconds on Windows bootup is not a very wise use of money.
Please reread my post, as you missed my point. Why buy a small SSD to install Windows and a large mechanical to install all your programs and games? You certainly won't be loading those apps or games any quicker.
None of these things are true. When downloading, the speed limiter is your internet. Mechanical drives can write anywhere from 66 to 100+ MB/second. On the low end, that's a 528 megabit internet connection. That is significantly faster than any home internet connection available. The pages in your browser won't load any quicker either.
Let me get this straight. You flame me for inquiring why people are buying small 64gig ssd drives and then turn around and recommend a 128?
An ssd hardly defines what kind of system you have. It'll give you quicker boots, app/game loads, etc but it isn't going to magically increase your frames per second. A high end gaming pc works just fine without an ssd. Until prices come down, they are little more than frivolous expenditures. And I have a couple.
I have the same processor/mboard combo and haven't had issues.
Videocard is solid. Really it's a personal choice between 560Ti and the AMD 6950 in that price range.
Memory...you'll see a lot of people getting http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231428 but Mushkin is good.
I have a Corsair powersupply, so I typically recommend them.
If you want to spend the extra $100ish dollars (depending upon what country you are from) for a very small gain in some games and a small loss in others compared to an i5 2500k, then go for it. Hyperthreading is nice (have an i7 in my MBP) for other uses (image, sound, video editing), but the number of games that can utilize it is very small. None of which are made by Blizzard. BF3, Crysis 2, Bad Company, several flight simulator games, are some common ones. But here's the rub...processors are so fast that games aren't maxing them out. So really, even though they can use hyperthreading, it isn't being utilized sufficiently so it doesn't result in a noticeable performance bump over an i5. A huge number of games are only using one and two cores at most and they still aren't maxing them out.
While a year old now, it's still relevant and a good read.
http://www.overclock.net/intel-general/671977-hyperthreading-games.html
If you have the money and are already getting a good video card, yeah an i7 is fine. But many would suggest saving the money and bumping up your video card to something a bit nicer or taking the plunge on an ssd. In the end, there is no right and wrong answer. You could go i7 in hopes more games will utilize it in the future, but I think you'll be upgrading your i5/i7 before you see any noticeable value of hyperthreading in games.
As far as your other questions...
The 550ti is nice and will probably handle Diablo 3 just fine, but if you do any other gaming it'll be holding you back. You could get a much nicer card with the money saved by getting an i5. But then again, depending upon when you buy, the next round of Intel processors may be out (Ivy Bridge) so I wouldn't lock into anything just yet.
As far as GPU brand...I've had no issues with Asus or MSI. I've heard EVGA is good as are a couple others, but ymmv. I'd recommend setting a budget and building your upgrades according to it. It's easy to justify a couple things here and there and pretty soon you're several hundred dollars over. Set a budget and stick to it. Based upon what you've posted, it'll be a nice machine no matter what.
This is probably your best option for comparing those two, but your Sempron is far less powerful than a Core 2 Duo. The Sempron competed with the P4 Celeron back in the day.
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-charts-2008-q1-2008/benchmarks,16.html
You aren't going to be able to build that computer for less than 1600 no matter how hard you try. Sure, you'd get the exact parts you want, but after it's all said and done, it'll be more than 1600.