Need help with GAMING rig.
This topic is locked from further discussion.
This is what i came up with that i can afford most likely. Please rate /review as i really am not the greatest at building my own computer. Processor- 1 x Quad Core AMD Phenom II X4 975 Black Edition Quad-Core CPU- Processor Cooling- 1 x Liquid CPU Cooling System [AMD]-ARC Dual Silent High Performance Fan Upgrade (Push-Pull Airflow) Memory- 1 x 4 GB [2 GB X2] DDR3-1333 Memory Module- Video Card- 1 x AMD Radeon HD 6790 - 1GB-Single Card Motherboard- 1 x [CrossFire] ASUS M5A97 -- AMD 970 w/ 2x PCI-E 2.0 x16- Motherboard USB / SATA Interface 1 x Motherboard default USB / SATA Interface- Power Supply- 1 x 750 Watt -- Corsair CMPSU-750TXV2- Primary Hard Drive- 1 x 1 TB HARD DRIVE -- 32M Cache, 7200 RPM, 6.0Gb/s-Single Drive Please any feedback would be great. I plan on using this desktop for ONLY GAMING SWTOR and possibly World of Warcraft. I have a pretty good laptop to do work on.Mshxi420
Drop the CPU to a 955BE and up the GPU to a HD6850 if your interested in playing games, because it'll give you better framerate in games.
The 955BE is the exsact same CPU as the one you've choosen but with a lower multiplier, since theyre both BE's you just raise the multiplier to 975's level.
Why would you opt. for a TX750, a vx550 is much more than your be able to load the PSU, buy a cheaper PSU (not in therms of quality but in therms of price) vx550 would even manage CF HD6850 if you want to, TX750 is just overkill.
Alright cool thx for the feedback. The reason i went with a high PSU was because my last powersupply came stock and i guess i fried it pretty quickly.Mshxi420Thats not because of wattage, it was due to the fact that is was a low quality one. Always quality over wattage, the TX750 has both Q and the wattage. But a vx550 has the quality and the wattage too, hopefully it's alot cheaper sinse your on a budget.
So is the Motherboard and everything else fine/ would be able to handle games such as Swtor and Wow?Mshxi420Change the HD6790 for a HD6850, and change the CPU for a 955BE, change the PSU to a cheaper one but still adeqvate to power up your rig. Change the memory to two 2GB (or a 4GB kit containing 2*2GB modules) The motherboard is AM3+ capable so it fine but the rest need to be changed out. A much more capable system would be. 955BE HD6850 4GB ram (2*2 dual modules for dualchanel) 550w psu. The best about it that it wont be any more expencive.
Anyone else have any opinions / thoughts for this build?Mshxi420With the x4 955 and the hd 6850 it's a balanced system. I would gave give the same advice swehunt did. Only i have this to add, i would choose a psu from one of the following brands , corsair, seasonic, thermaltake, coolermaster, antec. With a minimum of 550 W. However if you want to crossfire your 6850 later (because your motherboard supports that) i would choose a psu with a minimum of 650W.
[QUOTE="Mewi"]The x6 cpu's are way too expensive for what they are worth for the same price you can buy i5-2500 with motherboard that's almost twice as fast.Go for the 6850, ditch the x4 phenom II and go for either 1100T X6 Phenom II or 1090T Phenom II
evildead6789
Well that is 20-40$s more Plus the other components that could be more depending on what that person needs. Besides that fact, I was trying to stick with AMD? and Twice as fast? don't fool yourself there lol.
Intel Core i5-2500 @ 3.30GHz 6,572 $209.99*
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T 6,293 $189.99*
AMD Phenom II X6 1090T 6,050 $169.99*
The x6 cpu's are way too expensive for what they are worth for the same price you can buy i5-2500 with motherboard that's almost twice as fast.[QUOTE="evildead6789"][QUOTE="Mewi"]
Go for the 6850, ditch the x4 phenom II and go for either 1100T X6 Phenom II or 1090T Phenom II
Mewi
Well that is 20-40$s more Plus the other components that could be more depending on what that person needs. Besides that fact, I was trying to stick with AMD? and Twice as fast? don't fool yourself there lol.
Intel Core i5-2500 @ 3.30GHz 6,572 $209.99*
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T 6,293 $189.99*
AMD Phenom II X6 1090T 6,050 $169.99*
The main issue is that he isn't going to see anykind of benefit buying that X6 over the cheaper X4 while running games.You'll find a 955BE going for $100-120 how is that only $40 more for the 1090Thuban?
The 955 has a benchmark of3,962 the 1100T has a benchmark of6,293
That is a difference of 2,300, how does that equate to "not a noticable difference" or not a benefit?
Edit: and that number was a price difference between the intel you mentioned and the AMD phenom II processor I mentioned... obviously :S
The Intel CPU was never debated in this thread, it's not interesting if your on a really tight budget, neither is the X6. Start by telling what type of numbers your comparing, the title to this thread clerly states "GAMING" and the synthetic benchmarks you had those numbers from isn't from gaming benchmarks I can tell you that much. Nope, the gaming difference is nonexistent, look and any chart.The 955 has a benchmark of3,962 the 1100T has a benchmark of6,293
That is a difference of 2,300, how does that equate to "not a noticable difference" or not a benefit?
Edit: and that number was a price difference between the intel you mentioned and the AMD phenom II processor I mentioned... obviously :S
Mewi
The x6 cpu's are way too expensive for what they are worth for the same price you can buy i5-2500 with motherboard that's almost twice as fast.[QUOTE="evildead6789"][QUOTE="Mewi"]
Go for the 6850, ditch the x4 phenom II and go for either 1100T X6 Phenom II or 1090T Phenom II
Mewi
Well that is 20-40$s more Plus the other components that could be more depending on what that person needs. Besides that fact, I was trying to stick with AMD? and Twice as fast? don't fool yourself there lol.
Intel Core i5-2500 @ 3.30GHz 6,572 $209.99*
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T 6,293 $189.99*
AMD Phenom II X6 1090T 6,050 $169.99*
clock for clock the sandy bridge is almost twice as fast as the phenom series, the phenom x6 1100 with 3.3 ghz even looses from the i5-2300 which has only 4 cores and runs at 2.8 ghz. 3.3 ghz x 6 = 19.8 ghz, 2.8 ghz x 4= 11.2 ghz. Since games don't use more than 2-4 cores i'm saying the sandy bridge for games is almost twice as fast here are the number http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/desktop-cpu-charts-2010/3DMark-Vantage-Overall-Performance,2416.html6 core AMDs arent great for gaming, a 4 core is just as good. But lets be honest if you dont go Intel at this point you have a problem, Intel kicks AMDs ass right now.V4LENT1NEHes buying a AM3+ when the PH2 955BE isn't enough to game on he can upgrade for a bulldozer, as of now a 955 does fine, particular if he's on a tight budget.
[QUOTE="evildead6789"][QUOTE="swehunt"] ..That is if your running a HD6990, CPU bottlenecks are overestimated, they gennerally only happen when your running SLI or dualgraphics, for us rest were not likely to be as limited. Even if a product is twice as fast don't say you'll get twice the performance. In general a ph2 955BE wont limmit the graphic performance of a highend card in most games, so even if a 2500k is twice as fast they will perform the same given a HD6870. (as a xmple.)swehuntYes that's correct the 955 be is more than sufficient for gaming but if you upgrade it seems silly to go for an x6 phenom instead of the sandy bridge because the sandy bridge will have a much longer lifespan + your pc works much faster. How can you be sure the Sandybridge outlive the bulldozer? It's not even released yet. The X6 has to be the worst option for a upgrade why would anyone in their right mind get5 that over the bulldozer?
Well the bulldozer hasn't come out yet, and we don't know what it's price tag will be or it's speed. If you can wait then wait, i'm just speaking of the situation as it is now.
[QUOTE="evildead6789"][QUOTE="swehunt"] Yes that's correct the 955 be is more than sufficient for gaming but if you upgrade it seems silly to go for an x6 phenom instead of the sandy bridge because the sandy bridge will have a much longer lifespan + your pc works much faster.swehuntHow can you be sure the Sandybridge outlive the bulldozer? It's not even released yet. The X6 has to be the worst option for a upgrade why would anyone in their right mind get5 that over the bulldozer?
You seem to assume that the available hardware is always available and the price tag is always the same. They are very jumpy and the price with X6 Phenom saved me almost 200$s in hardware vs a marginal CPU benefit. Regardless your argument can be faulty.
6 core AMDs arent great for gaming, a 4 core is just as good. But lets be honest if you dont go Intel at this point you have a problem, Intel kicks AMDs ass right now.V4LENT1NE
This argument is also faulty, there is a SIGNIFICANT differance in benchmarking between 4 core Phenom II and 6 core Phenom II. If you want to make the argument that "intel is better" then that is a valid argument but intel vs amd prices wont always be the same. Sometimes you can save a lot by going through AMD, even if there is a similar processor, there might not always be the best motherboards/cards/etc to match the processor. Another issue people do not consider is availability, sometimes things are sold out and you are left with a different option.
How can you be sure the Sandybridge outlive the bulldozer? It's not even released yet. The X6 has to be the worst option for a upgrade why would anyone in their right mind get5 that over the bulldozer?[QUOTE="swehunt"][QUOTE="evildead6789"] Yes that's correct the 955 be is more than sufficient for gaming but if you upgrade it seems silly to go for an x6 phenom instead of the sandy bridge because the sandy bridge will have a much longer lifespan + your pc works much faster.evildead6789
Well the bulldozer hasn't come out yet, and we don't know what it's price tag will be or it's speed. If you can wait then wait, i'm just speaking of the situation as it is now.
According to the early testing we've seen (leak'ed) it perform a bit better than the 2600k. AMD is fully clear with what the launchprice will be and thats the price where the intel sandybridge is at. Bulldozer is about 3 weeks away as we speak, nope we do not know the performance, but if the price is a indication it'll perform like the sandybridge while possible being ton's better handling heavily multithreaded tasks. The AM3 (witch the X6 will be the best CPU's for) is a dead end but don't comfuse it with the AM3+. (Bulldozer)You seem to assume that the available hardware is always available and the price tag is always the same. They are very jumpy and the price with X6 Phenom saved me almost 200$s in hardware vs a marginal CPU benefit. Regardless your argument can be faulty.Mewi
What argument? eh, your post makes no sense?
Your debating for a x6 and saying how much better it is than a x4 for games, well it isn't. The x6 is better when you need heavily multithreaded task's (as in synthetic benchmarks) but as of now no games benefit from more than 4 fast running threads.
Because a truck can move more dirt than a pickup don't say its going to run faster on the highway, are you with me?
[QUOTE="Mewi"]
You seem to assume that the available hardware is always available and the price tag is always the same. They are very jumpy and the price with X6 Phenom saved me almost 200$s in hardware vs a marginal CPU benefit. Regardless your argument can be faulty.swehunt
What argument? eh, your post makes no sense?
Your debating for a x6 and saying how much better it is than a x4 for games, well it isn't. The x6 is better when you need heavily multithreaded task's (as in synthetic benchmarks) but as of now no games benefit from more than 4 fast running threads.
Because a truck can move more dirt than a pickup don't say its going to run faster on the highway, are you with me?
The performance is 2k points above in benchmarks how is it "Not better for games"? You are the one who isn't making sense lol.
[QUOTE="swehunt"]
[QUOTE="Mewi"]
You seem to assume that the available hardware is always available and the price tag is always the same. They are very jumpy and the price with X6 Phenom saved me almost 200$s in hardware vs a marginal CPU benefit. Regardless your argument can be faulty.Mewi
What argument? eh, your post makes no sense?
Your debating for a x6 and saying how much better it is than a x4 for games, well it isn't. The x6 is better when you need heavily multithreaded task's (as in synthetic benchmarks) but as of now no games benefit from more than 4 fast running threads.
Because a truck can move more dirt than a pickup don't say its going to run faster on the highway, are you with me?
The performance is 2k points above in benchmarks how is it "Not better for games"? You are the one who isn't making sense lol.
In WHAT benchmark? :lol: Tell me i'm really interested. In what game does the 1xx0Thuban beat out the similar clock'ed ph2 X4 by 2k points. You don't have a qlue about what your actually speaking about, I'm sorry but you dont.[QUOTE="Mewi"][QUOTE="swehunt"]
What argument? eh, your post makes no sense?
Your debating for a x6 and saying how much better it is than a x4 for games, well it isn't. The x6 is better when you need heavily multithreaded task's (as in synthetic benchmarks) but as of now no games benefit from more than 4 fast running threads.
Because a truck can move more dirt than a pickup don't say its going to run faster on the highway, are you with me?
swehunt
The performance is 2k points above in benchmarks how is it "Not better for games"? You are the one who isn't making sense lol.
In WHAT benchmark? :lol: Tell me i'm really interested. In what game does the 1xx0Thuban beat out the similar clock'ed ph2 X4 by 2k points. You don't have a qlue about what your actually speaking about, I'm sorry but you dont.You want to add overclocked to the equasion also? Even if you do that with your x4 I doubt you could reach it. I think you are trolling or attempting to justify your previous statements, IN what universe do you think Phenom II X6 1100T doesn't beat your 4 core processor? and the website is called passmark perhaps you are familiar with it? Even the highest marked x4 AMD processor is still nearly 1600 points below the 1100
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html
Edit: Clearly you don't know what you are talking about.
Now you are adding overclocked to the equasion? I think you are trolling or attempting to justify your previous statements, IN what universe do you think Phenom II X6 1100T doesn't beat your 4 core processor? and the website is called passmark perhaps you are familiar with it? Even the highest marked x4 processor is still nearly 1600 points below the 1100Mewi
1) Go to ANY site witch has a CPU gaming benchmark.
2) Compare the 1090T to the 955BE (Both are clock'ed @ 3.2Ghz)
3) Look a ANY GAME benchmark and think about it.
4) Come back here and tell me what you found.
Â
The 1100T is ofc. better than an X4 in various tasks other than gaming but during games two if it's six cores will mostly remain inactive, resultin it performing as a ph2 X4.
Kind as I am trying to educate you i'll help with the links, Anandtech 1090T vs. 955BE say hello! (again 3.2Ghz CPU's)
For those who dont want to click the link to anandtech.
Â
In these games witch were the only games they did test.
Crysis warhead.
Left 4 dead.
Farcry 2
Fallout 3
The thuban 3.2Ghz and the phenom x4 3.2Ghz perform identical, a cuple frames differ withing the margin or error.
Â
Â
Who cares even a little about passmark? :lol:
[QUOTE="V4LENT1NE"]6 core AMDs arent great for gaming, a 4 core is just as good. But lets be honest if you dont go Intel at this point you have a problem, Intel kicks AMDs ass right now.swehuntHes buying a AM3+ when the PH2 955BE isn't enough to game on he can upgrade for a bulldozer, as of now a 955 does fine, particular if he's on a tight budget. Does fine yeah but why not just buy Intel now and skip bulldozer completely? Save more money. Thats if he really wants the computer now of course, nothing wrong with buying Intel now, but there is something wrong with buying AMD now, if anyone wants to buy AMD they should just wait all together for Bulldozer.
swehunt
Again your logic is flawed, for a multitude of reasons. Firstly passmark is a valid benchmarking website, so you can't dismiss it that easily. "Gaming" is irrelevant to benchmarking because benchmarks should always test every aspect of a processor.
Furthermore why is your logic flawed? You assume the person is only running one game, you assume the person is only going to run one application at the same time, you assume way to much. Computers aren't iphone 1's, they have multitasking capabilities for a reason.
Your attacking of passmark.com is unwarranted and doesn't make any sense.
[QUOTE="swehunt"][QUOTE="V4LENT1NE"]6 core AMDs arent great for gaming, a 4 core is just as good. But lets be honest if you dont go Intel at this point you have a problem, Intel kicks AMDs ass right now.V4LENT1NEHes buying a AM3+ when the PH2 955BE isn't enough to game on he can upgrade for a bulldozer, as of now a 955 does fine, particular if he's on a tight budget. Does fine yeah but why not just buy Intel now and skip bulldozer completely? Save more money. Point was to make as cheap build possible, a 955BE would give him that, and the upgradabilliety still remains going AM3+. 2500k would mean raising the budget quite a bit and the build perhaps isn't possible going that high. When I rearrange the 965BE for the cheaper 955BE and likewise recomended stepping back a little on the PSU TC seemed happy about that, the budget is more important to some than others. If it were me I would def. wait untill atleast bulldozer is out, then one better knows if it's worth going AM3+ or not, at this point we have no guarranty the bullD turns out great even if it's their responce to Sandybridge-nehalem and likely performs that way too.
[QUOTE="swehunt"]
Mewi
Again your logic is flawed, for a multitude of reasons. Firstly passmark is a valid benchmarking website, so you can't dismiss it that easily. "Gaming" is irrelevant to benchmarking because benchmarks should always test every aspect of a processor.
Furthermore why is your logic flawed? You assume the person is only running one game, you assume the person is only going to run one application at the same time, you assume way to much. Computers aren't iphone 1's, they have multitasking capabilities for a reason.
Your attacking of passmark.com is unwarranted and doesn't make any sense.
Can't you just look at the benchmarks, passmark has NO relevance because. 1) It's not a real benchamark. 2) It's NOT a gamebenchmark. 3) It's numbers are not a relative to the performance. 4) It's point's is nowhere relative to game performance. 5) IF you however want to know the performance in games, just click the link to anandtech, the have real games being tested on real CPU's. 6) Did I mention It's not a game benchmark? Crysis, farcry 2, L4D, Fallout 3 ALL showed no gain from having a thuban over a X4. Clearly passmark is fooling with you.[QUOTE="Mewi"][QUOTE="swehunt"]
swehunt
Again your logic is flawed, for a multitude of reasons. Firstly passmark is a valid benchmarking website, so you can't dismiss it that easily. "Gaming" is irrelevant to benchmarking because benchmarks should always test every aspect of a processor.
Furthermore why is your logic flawed? You assume the person is only running one game, you assume the person is only going to run one application at the same time, you assume way to much. Computers aren't iphone 1's, they have multitasking capabilities for a reason.
Your attacking of passmark.com is unwarranted and doesn't make any sense.
Can't you just look at the benchmarks, passmark has NO relevance because. 1) It's not a real benchamark. 2) It's NOT a gamebenchmark. 3) It's numbers are not a relative to the performance. 4) It's point's is nowhere relative to game performance. 5) IF you however want to know the performance in games, just click the link to anandtech, the have real games being tested on real CPU's. 6) Did I mention It's not a game benchmark? Crysis, farcry 2, L4D, Fallout 3 ALL showed no gain from having a thuban over a X4. Clearly passmark is fooling with you.Lol............................................................. Sorry but you are wrong.
[QUOTE="swehunt"][QUOTE="V4LENT1NE"] Does fine yeah but why not just buy Intel now and skip bulldozer completely? Save more money.V4LENT1NEPoint was to make as cheap build possible, a 955BE would give him that, and the upgradabilliety still remains going AM3+. 2500k would mean raising the budget quite a bit and the build perhaps isn't possible going that high. When I rearrange the 965BE for the cheaper 955BE and likewise recomended stepping back a little on the PSU TC seemed happy about that, the budget is more important to some than others. If it were me I would def. wait untill atleast bulldozer is out, then one better knows if it's worth going AM3+ or not, at this point we have no guarranty the bullD turns out great even if it's their responce to Sandybridge-nehalem and likely performs that way too. I understand where your coming from, and I see the logic behind it. I personally wouldnt wait for bulldozer because something better is always coming out, but I understand what you mean and agree with it :P
I think due to fusion that we will be stuck with having to upgrade our boards to AM4 unless* I missed an article somewhere?
@V4LENT1NE, and an obvious observation, no one uses their computer for "Just gaming" even if they built it for just that. So even if the game is capped for that specific processor, you can't always be 100% sure you wont need more for other applications, or running multiple games ;3
Edit: Besides that fact, why are we only considering current games into the equasion here?
I can guarantee that i will only be using this rig for gaming. Most likely Only Star Wars The Old Republic and maybe Wow. I have a MBP that has all the software i need for work situations. I really will only be using this rig for gaming only, not even music or internet browsing.Mshxi420
Then go ahead, the build has no serious flaws if you get that HD6850 over the 6790 and the 965BE to a 955BE, hold back just a bit on the PSU but stay with a good brand.
Starwars and WOW should play brilliant.
:roll: ...I'm wrong, Tomshardware is wrong, Anandtech is wrong, HWOC is wrong, HWcanucs is wrong, Bjorn3D is wrong...Lol............................................................. Sorry but you are wrong.
Mewi
ALL the 50-60 reviews alivalable on the web made of the Thuban CPU lineup are wrong and you're right, a Thuban is THAT much better over a ph2 x4 while playing games?
It's you against the whole HW comunity/review/testers, and not just "me".
And yes, the AM3+ will be able to take bulldozer while AM3 wont, thats comfirmed a halfyear ago by AMD witch released the 990FX chipset's capable of both SLI and CF, there are a large variety of AM3+ capable boards out, some of the currect AM3 boards are also able to be AM3+ compatible by a BIOS upgrade. (mainly the more expencive chipsets as the 890/880's)
I am honestly surpriced about your stubborness, even after all the benchmarks alivalable by a simple google you keep spoutin that Thuban is that much better for gaming. :?
Wheres the logic in that?
[QUOTE="swehunt"][QUOTE="Mewi"] Can't you just look at the benchmarks, passmark has NO relevance because. 1) It's not a real benchamark. 2) It's NOT a gamebenchmark. 3) It's numbers are not a relative to the performance. 4) It's point's is nowhere relative to game performance. 5) IF you however want to know the performance in games, just click the link to anandtech, the have real games being tested on real CPU's. 6) Did I mention It's not a game benchmark? Crysis, farcry 2, L4D, Fallout 3 ALL showed no gain from having a thuban over a X4. Clearly passmark is fooling with you.Mewi
http://www.passmark.com/forum/showthread.php?p=11468#post11468
Sounds like a rant to me.
But let's address it as if it was serious.
Point 1) & 3) are the same point and are just silly. Like saying a banana isn't piece of fruit.
Points above 2) 4) 5) and 6) are all just the same point repeated 4 times. Repeating it 4 times doesn't mean it is accurate however. The core of the criticism is that PerformanceTest doesn't reflect on game performance. This is also not true, with some qualifications below. The CPU and video charts larger reflect the type of gaming experience you are likely to have with any CPU / video card combination.
But what is true is that,
A) If you are only interested in playing Game X & Y, then in an ideal world you use these particular games as your benchmark. As they will best represent your usage of the machine.
B) You need to use your brain. So for example, looking at a disk benchmark doesn't make sense if you are running applications that don't use the disk. Same goes for looking at benchmarks that can run on 24+ cores if the application you are using is only single threaded.
C) PerformanceTest doesn't benefit greatly from SLI setups. Where as some games do in some configurations (particularly with very high resolutions). But the SLI performance boost in games is variable as well, depending on the game, the CPU in use & settings used.
Feel free to post this back to the Gamespot forum.passmark
" :roll: ...I'm wrong, Tomshardware is wrong, Anandtech is wrong, HWOC is wrong, HWcanucs is wrong, Bjorn3D is wrong...""
"Tomshardware" is in there...
Not with 100% assurance here, but single sample websites ( since I havn't looked at every website you gave ) are usually wrong/exagerate and inflate based on personal interest/single build structures and push a level of ignorance amongst game system enthusiasts.
To clarify that ignorance, you stated ( I believe it was you anyway ) that the 'i5-2500' is "twice as fast as the AMD Phenom X6 1100T" which is simply beyond fact. Or maybe you said 1090T? either way it is irrelevant, because it is still wrong lol.
I said that that the i5-2500 is almost twice as fast as the x6 , i gave you the evidence before , i'm not going to type all over again btw i completely agree with swehunt, i don't understand how you can look past the numbers , you're only confusing the original poster here.[QUOTE="Mewi"]
[QUOTE="swehunt"]
http://www.passmark.com/forum/showthread.php?p=11468#post11468
[QUOTE="passmark"]Sounds like a rant to me.
But let's address it as if it was serious.
Point 1) & 3) are the same point and are just silly. Like saying a banana isn't piece of fruit.
Points above 2) 4) 5) and 6) are all just the same point repeated 4 times. Repeating it 4 times doesn't mean it is accurate however. The core of the criticism is that PerformanceTest doesn't reflect on game performance. This is also not true, with some qualifications below. The CPU and video charts larger reflect the type of gaming experience you are likely to have with any CPU / video card combination.
But what is true is that,
A) If you are only interested in playing Game X & Y, then in an ideal world you use these particular games as your benchmark. As they will best represent your usage of the machine.
B) You need to use your brain. So for example, looking at a disk benchmark doesn't make sense if you are running applications that don't use the disk. Same goes for looking at benchmarks that can run on 24+ cores if the application you are using is only single threaded.
C) PerformanceTest doesn't benefit greatly from SLI setups. Where as some games do in some configurations (particularly with very high resolutions). But the SLI performance boost in games is variable as well, depending on the game, the CPU in use & settings used.
Feel free to post this back to the Gamespot forum.evildead6789
" :roll: ...I'm wrong, Tomshardware is wrong, Anandtech is wrong, HWOC is wrong, HWcanucs is wrong, Bjorn3D is wrong...""
"Tomshardware" is in there...
Not with 100% assurance here, but single sample websites ( since I havn't looked at every website you gave ) are usually wrong/exagerate and inflate based on personal interest/single build structures and push a level of ignorance amongst game system enthusiasts.
To clarify that ignorance, you stated ( I believe it was you anyway ) that the 'i5-2500' is "twice as fast as the AMD Phenom X6 1100T" which is simply beyond fact. Or maybe you said 1090T? either way it is irrelevant, because it is still wrong lol.
I said that that the i5-2500 is almost twice as fast as the x6 , i gave you the evidence before , i'm not going to type all over again btw i completely agree with swehunt, i don't understand how you can look past the numbers , you're only confusing the original poster here.lol ^^" maybe you guys need to know what you are talking about before making sweeping claims of gaming expertise ;o There is a difference between building a computer and reading stats from a few websites, and knowing computers and where are the right places to look is.
I said that that the i5-2500 is almost twice as fast as the x6 , i gave you the evidence before , i'm not going to type all over again btw i completely agree with swehunt, i don't understand how you can look past the numbers , you're only confusing the original poster here.[QUOTE="evildead6789"]
[QUOTE="Mewi"]
" :roll: ...I'm wrong, Tomshardware is wrong, Anandtech is wrong, HWOC is wrong, HWcanucs is wrong, Bjorn3D is wrong...""
"Tomshardware" is in there...
Not with 100% assurance here, but single sample websites ( since I havn't looked at every website you gave ) are usually wrong/exagerate and inflate based on personal interest/single build structures and push a level of ignorance amongst game system enthusiasts.
To clarify that ignorance, you stated ( I believe it was you anyway ) that the 'i5-2500' is "twice as fast as the AMD Phenom X6 1100T" which is simply beyond fact. Or maybe you said 1090T? either way it is irrelevant, because it is still wrong lol.
Mewi
lol ^^" maybe you guys need to know what you are talking about before making sweeping claims of gaming expertise ;o There is a difference between building a computer and reading stats from a few websites, and knowing computers and where are the right places to look is.
i build computers for a living, i know for sure, swehunt knows for sure and pretty much all of the hardware reviewing community that you don't know what you're talking about[QUOTE="Mewi"][QUOTE="evildead6789"] I said that that the i5-2500 is almost twice as fast as the x6 , i gave you the evidence before , i'm not going to type all over again btw i completely agree with swehunt, i don't understand how you can look past the numbers , you're only confusing the original poster here.
evildead6789
lol ^^" maybe you guys need to know what you are talking about before making sweeping claims of gaming expertise ;o There is a difference between building a computer and reading stats from a few websites, and knowing computers and where are the right places to look is.
i build computers for a living, i know for sure, swehunt knows for sure and pretty much all of the hardware reviewing community that you don't know what you're talking aboutOne thing you should learn is, popularity doesn't mean fact. Build computers for a living? I don't know what that has to do with anything, anyone can build a computer. I've fixed over a thousand computers, fixed more than I've built, but I've built a countless number as well, but does that mean I understand benchmarks? Nope. Does that mean you do? Nope. The only real people that can fully understand benchmarks are the people who are on the engineering level, and I will also point out that many of the websites listed are single sample/build structure websites which means the results aren't accurate.
If I told you to buy a product based on one review, would you do it? Or do you prefer 10 reviews? 100? 1000? Which do you feel would be more accurate? Furthermore, if passmark is an "unreliable" benchmarking source, then how come it has countless samples for most of the current up to date products where as anandtech/tomshardware are far behind?
On that note, when you receive your new computer do you consider it an inflexible machine and don't plan on running any backround applications, what happens if one of those applications is CPU heavy? what happens if that application is malfunctioning and crashes your system because the CPU couldn't handle it? Would you still want a lowball CPU because some entusiast told you its the "Cap of the trade" on the "Current videogames?" Furthermore what about future games?
i build computers for a living, i know for sure, swehunt knows for sure and pretty much all of the hardware reviewing community that you don't know what you're talking about[QUOTE="evildead6789"][QUOTE="Mewi"]
lol ^^" maybe you guys need to know what you are talking about before making sweeping claims of gaming expertise ;o There is a difference between building a computer and reading stats from a few websites, and knowing computers and where are the right places to look is.
Mewi
One thing you should learn is, popularity doesn't mean fact. Build computers for a living? I don't know what that has to do with anything, anyone can build a computer. I've fixed over a thousand computers, fixed more than I've built, but I've built a countless number as well, but does that mean I understand benchmarks? Nope. Does that mean you do? Nope. The only real people that can fully understand benchmarks are the people who are on the engineering level, and I will also point out that many of the websites listed are single sample/build structure websites which means the results aren't accurate.
If I told you to buy a product based on one review, would you do it? Or do you prefer 10 reviews? 100? 1000? Which do you feel would be more accurate? Furthermore, if passmark is an "unreliable" benchmarking source, then how come it has countless samples for most of the current up to date products where as anandtech/tomshardware are far behind?
On that note, when you receive your new computer do you consider it an inflexible machine and don't plan on running any backround applications, what happens if one of those applications is CPU heavy? what happens if that application is malfunctioning and crashes your system because the CPU couldn't handle it? Would you still want a lowball CPU because some entusiast told you its the "Cap of the trade" on the "Current videogames?" Furthermore what about future games?
off course the x6 is faster than an x4 but the question is do you need it if the rig is mainly build for gaming. the topic's title is 'need help with gaming rig'. not any background applicatiion is cpu heavy maybe encoding or unzipping but then again if you're looking for speed the i5-2500 is a much better buy because it's so much faster for games and it's so much faster for everything even with 2 cores less. In pass mark the x6 still trails behind the sandy bridges, even with 2 cores more, doesn't that tell you something about the speed of these cpu's and games are mostly optimized for 2-4 cores. The x6 is not a good buy if you're planning to game a lot. Maybe if you don't game it's worth a try , but again the topic of the title is 'need help with gaming rig' to prove my point tomshardware has a article that's updated every month called 'best gaming cpu's for the money'. You can see where the x6 is placed against other cpu's. you will see the any x6 is even behind the i3-2100 that's only a dual core when it's come to gaming http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-llano-processor,2989-5.html so no the x6 phenom is a bad choice when it comes to games, even at 168 $ it's still slower than the 120$ i3-2100lol ^^" maybe you guys need to know what you are talking about before making sweeping claims of gaming expertise ;o There is a difference between building a computer and reading stats from a few websites, and knowing computers and where are the right places to look is.MewiHey Mewi, Stop all these qoutes about things I have NEVER said.
You do need to tone yourself down alot and start with reading what we're trying to educate you.
We have all been trying to reson with you and you still don't get it, and now your insulting us.
To the other in this thread. Make sure to note that Mewi put's things in his qoutes witch I have never written.
He write what he wan't and put a qoute over swehunt.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment