Computer Question.

[Vault]

Vault, to make it very clear for you I'll re-post this picture (it was posted earlier by me but it appears you didn't take the time to really look at them):

 

 

What we have there is performance and system price. That is, power efficiency for work done against the price of the entire system. On there we have e6500 and e7600 at roughly the same system price as the i3-530, i5-661 and i5-750. This includes the entire system. The whole computer. Everything.

 

But we can see how the relevant i-series processors (with overclocking results previously linked as well) do a lot more work for the dollar spent on electricity.

 

Purchase price of system: the same.

Performance per dollar of electricity: vastly better.

 

Those world record results are on liquid gas cooled systems lol.

 

Seriously link to the whole article when posting graphs. Now go and check C2D vs i5 OVERALL power consumption. :smartass:

 

Ether I'm not going to argue with you anymore. Anyone can see when they buy and build a like for like C2D or i5+ 3.3 ghz gaming system it's more expensive.

 

REMEMBER ANY CPU IS ONLY AT THEIR MOST COST EFFICIENT IF YOUR UTILISING ALL THE CORES. Do you work for Intel?.

Edited November 17, 2010 by Vault

[EtherealN]

Those are not world record results, "lol".

Those are standard systems. ;)

 

And those ARE overall power consumption. That's the entire system. What part of that is difficult? And the relevant ones for the comparison (excepting the 750) are dual-cores, so you'll have the same core utilization with them as you will for your C2D.

 

Seriously, your just not updated on the relevant products. A lot of things has happened in this market in the last two years.

 

Oh, and no, I don't work for Intel. I'm a consultant in the logging industry.

 

Anyways, here's one link: http://techreport.com/articles.x/18448/17

And here's their latest system building guide (though I don't quite agree with some of the choices they've made there): http://techreport.com/articles.x/19868

[Vault]

Those are not world record results, "lol".

Those are standard systems. ;)

 

And those ARE overall power consumption. That's the entire system. What part of that is difficult? And the relevant ones for the comparison (excepting the 750) are dual-cores, so you'll have the same core utilization with them as you will for your C2D.

 

Seriously, your just not updated on the relevant products. A lot of things has happened in this market in the last two years.

 

Oh, and no, I don't work for Intel. I'm a consultant in the logging industry.

 

Anyways, here's one link: http://techreport.com/articles.x/18448/17

And here's their latest system building guide (though I don't quite agree with some of the choices they've made there): http://techreport.com/articles.x/19868

 

What part of you have to use all five cores for it to be cost effective do you completely fail to understand?. How many gamers use 5 cores?. If you intend on running multiple CPU intensive applications in the background whilst gaming sure 5 cores is king. But if you're just gaming 2 cores is ample the other three are just sitting there doing nothing but wasting electricity and generating heat.

 

Do you tell people how to cut down trees?.

[sobek]

Is that bait i smell? :)

[Vault]

To the original OP. You'd be better going to an overclockers forum for advice on a gaming system.

[EtherealN]

Vault, come on, this is getting silly. How about you go and look at those CPU-Z pictures and look at the little box that says "cores". Really, do it.

 

Where you got 5 cores from I don't know. None of them have 5...

 

And as I already said, these are processors that can selectively underclock separate cores when said cores are not needed, and this is a capability that has been there ever since the i7-920 was released two years ago. Now obviously you COULD disengage that system and thus potentially waste power, but this is an active intervention that IMO is only really relevant during actual world record attempts.

 

My profession is not the topic of this thread.

[Succellus]

OTOH don t believe much what a sites says, have some critic, if you start sniffing around you ll find controversial articles and get confused, as some arent that criterious or have some interest in delivering certain informations.

Read a lot and try to read beetween the lines, and see whats not explicit, and before all think on what you really want to do with your PC.

[Gadroc]

Wow! EtherealN you have much patience.

 

Here in the US the E8600 and i7 950 are roughly equivalent in price (actually you can get the 950 for $90 cheaper than the E8600). In no circumstances would I EVER recommend someone get an E8600 system unless they can not replace an existing socket 775 motherboard. Check out the benchmarks and you'll find the 950 beats the E8660 in every one (in many cases even games by a large margin) even though the E8600 is .3Ghz faster. The fact that he can run his C2D at 4Ghz means nothing when an i series chip will do more work and run games faster at a lower clock speed. Ghz != performance when comparing across different chip architectures.

 

To the original OP. Don't go to the forums where Vault get's his advice he is just spouting non-sense.

[Fopeyducker]

I've been thinking about posting so many times during this but EtherealN has done such a fine job and like Gadroc said has shown sooooo much patience it didn't bother.

 

Sorry Vault you either really don't have a clue or you are a troll. :\

Edited November 17, 2010 by Fopeyducker

[Succellus]

Nah he s just a guy with money shortage trying to convince himself that he had made the best choice of all times and doesn t need upgrade like the mere mortals.

[EtherealN]

Hey, he didn't make a bad choice and aside from the GPU I'm not actually sure he needs to upgrade. (Though the small L2 cache on the Wolfdale-M if that is what he has is worrying, but not lethal.) I don't technically "need" to upgrade either since I am running almost all games at max (though I sometimes have to take textures one step down due to not having a full gig of vRAM). For myself though the whole designing and assembling of a computer is pretty much half the hobby. I started looking at a new machine as early as a month or two after I bought this one, but there's always been that little sanity check saying "you don't really NEED to sink another wad of cash into a computer, not yet". (At which point I went and bought a 500 dollar cell phone and a netbook... silly me... :P )

 

But there's a difference between defending the economic realism of one's purchase back then - I made the same choice when I built this machine through going for the e8500 and socket 775 instead of an i7-920 on socket 1366 - and saying that the economic and performance-related considerations that were valid for that budget size two years ago are still valid. Especially when there are socket 1156 processors that outperform the C2D's, drink less power, overclock further and cost about half as much while still maintaining socket compatibility with upper-range processors for later upgrade possibilities. C2D's are, imo, only an option if you already have an s775 system and can only afford to replace the processor. For anything else in the "cheap and effective" department there is either the s1156+i3/i5 or the AM3 platforms.

Edited November 17, 2010 by EtherealN

[EtherealN]

By the way, from this thread: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=45931

 

 

 

During testing my settings were thus:

 

Standard "high" setting, plus cockpit displays at 1024, mirrors on, 4xAA and 8xAF. I didn't go higher on the AA and AF to ensure that it's closer to where most people can participate and measure something that for them would be relatively close to what they run when they play normally. I realize some people (I hate you Viper) will run higher than this, and tests on higher settings wouldn't hurt.

 

Computer setup for my test was a 1680x1050 screen, Intel e8500 running at 4GHz, DDR2 RAM running at 992MHz ( 5-5-5-18 ), and a GeForce 9800GTX+ 512MB running at stock speed. Previous tests over at Wags' thread seemed to indicate that RAM wasn't much of an issue - at least not in the non-combat track that was used there.

 

This track includes wingman action (and death ), cannon employment, rockets, vikhrs, lots of scanning with the Skhval and flares.

 

Results:

Min: 38

Max: 81

Avg: 52,577

 

 

 

Asus P6T

Intel i7 920 @ 4GHz

3x 2GB OCZ DDR3 PC3-12800 @ 800MHz 8-8-8-24

ATI Sapphire HD5850 @ 950 - 1300

Windows 7 Evaluation copy 7600 64bit

 

1680x1050, 4xAA (box, multisample AA), 8xAF, Default High settings, Mirrors on

 

Results:

 

Avg: 66.385

Min: 43

Max: 108

 

So, same speed e8500 vs i7-920, same track, etcetera, and average FPS goes up 25%. Hmmm... This could be a fluke?

 

and again @ 1680 1050

 

Settings HIGH

 

1024 cockpits

 

Min, Max, Avg

22, 133, 76.484

 

i7 @ 4ghz - xfx 5870 @ 875 1250 ... poorly card

 

This time avg fps is up 43%, but both processors are at 4GHz.

(I believe the lower Min on that particular run was due to a session of obsessive flare spam that took place outside of the nominal 10 minute timer of the track, but that some people did include anyhow.)

 

So, there's C2D's at 4GHz getting thoroughly trounced by i7-920's at the same speed in DCS:BS 1.0.1.

[Gadroc]

So, there's C2D's at 4GHz getting thoroughly trounced by i7-920's at the same speed in DCS:BS 1.0.1.

 

Yep. I was happy with my Q9550 running at 3.9 until I got my 5870 and didn't see the improvements I thought I should over a 275GTX. Ended up replacing the Q9550/P45 combo with a 930 / X58 and noticed a huge jump pretty much all round, especially in FSX. Mind you that is with a stock 930 as I havn't found the need to OC yet and it takes a good amount of time to dial in and stability test.