36 replies to this topic

[Skwisgaar Skwigelf]

Ok, I am not super savvy on computer building but I have somewhat kept up and have built my current rig (granted, it was about 4 years ago). I'm not looking for the best out there but here's what I'm looking to put together in general terms that in my mind should perform pretty well and not break the bank.

Intel Core i5 2400 - 3.10 GHz
Gigabyte MoBo - Intel Z68 Express, DDR3 2133MHz, SATA 6.0 Gb/s, USB 3.0
GTX 550 TI 1GB PCI-e x16
8GB Ram PC3-12800 DDR3-1600MHz
Windows 7 Pro 64bit
750W Power Supply

Use current hard drive(s).

I don't really have a budget per se since i plan on buying separate parts over time but I don't really want to have more than $700-800 in this unit. I have also seen quite a bit of talk about AMD but I have always used and had good luck out of Intel and GeForce so I haven't familiarized myself with AMD products.

Any thoughts? Good rig for gaming? I'm not doing any really intense modeling or programming or anything like that, just general comp use and gaming. I also want to be sure what I put together will hold up for a few years at least before it's rendered obsolete by the insane tech industry progress.

[Stahlseele]

Pretty Solid.
But right now, RAM is dirty cheap.
So if the Board can handle it, take 16 Gigs. 4x4GB.
I'd try and squeeze out a 560 TI, those are REALLY good it seems.
Otherwise i'd just see if i can get an i7 in the same price league than the i5, but if not, that one will perform good enough.

[Skwisgaar Skwigelf]

Isn't GeForce putting out a new series in the next little while? If so then those 560s will drop price and be a more valid option.

[Stahlseele]

Yeah, of course, but so is ATI.
And in 6 months or one year, the next generation comes out.
Seeing how you will have about 3 to 4 months at least untill MWO comes out, as long as you don't need more power right away, simply wait a bit.
The 560 TI is in some variants closer to the 580 than to the 570 . .

[Catamount]

You're not looking too bad all with that system, but if the 550ti is in the price range you're looking at, then the one card you shouldn't be looking at is the 550ti.

It offers the same level of performance as the Radeon HD 6770, for more money, or put another way, costs nearly as much as a Radeon HD 6850, for notably inferior performance, and has worse power consumption than either of them.


Nvidia does not have any competitive cards in the sub-$200 range, so if that's your price range, they shouldn't enter consideration unless you're doing serious GPGPU work.


As for Kepler, Nvidia is releasing it at some point, but even the lowest end cards aren't due until Q3, with the mid-range cards due around Q4, and the higher end cards not due until Q1 2013.



For power supplies, 750W is more than overkill, but that's good news since you can save money. The important thing is getting a good power supply.

You're looking at 100-150W maximum for your GPU, and the i5-2400 has a TDP of 95W, so you'd have to try extraordinarily hard to draw 300W for your power supply with that system, and short of enormous overclocking, you wouldn't be able to hit 400W even if you did try, barring some absurd setup (like 20 optical drives, and 60 case fans, or something ).


You could easily get by with something like this and have power to spare: http://www.newegg.co...N82E16817139026

$44 is hardly a lot for a power supply, and if you do the mail-in rebate, it's $24, which is less then you should ever be able to get a passable PSU for.


If you did want to do serious overclocking, I still couldn't possibly see the need on that system for anything past 500-550W, and keep in mind that at that point, the power supply becomes only one of a lot of worries.

Edited by Catamount, 13 January 2012 - 05:20 PM.

[Skwisgaar Skwigelf]

And see I really don't know anything about the Radeon series because I've never used them. What would be competitive performance-wise with a 560 TI series?

[Catamount]

Skwisgaar Skwigelf, on 13 January 2012 - 05:14 PM, said:

And see I really don't know anything about the Radeon series because I've never used them. What would be competitive performance-wise with a 560 TI series?

The rough equivalent to the 560ti (384 stream process version) would be the Radeon HD 6950. That said, the 560ti presently seems to be priced a bit more aggressively. I'd review the exact performance difference between them in some reviews (or I can, in a little bit), but unless the 6950 is consistently 10-15% faster in games where it matters (where you're meaningfully GPU bound), the 560ti would be the better choice, because it's presently 10-15% cheaper.


Also, see my addendum above about power supplies if you haven't yet.

[Catamount]

Another thing to watch it for will be the Radeon HD 7800 series, because from the looks of it, it's going to become a killer deal.


Does anyone have an idea on the release date? (again, I lack the time to look at the moment since I'm taking off)

[Skwisgaar Skwigelf]

Would a 6870 be worth the around $40 more than a 6850? I can look at the numbers but I'm not really sure how they translate to actual performance.

Thanks for the info about the PSUs too, I have a 450W now that I could reuse but I might look more like a 550-600W just to be on the safe side. Better to have and not need....

[Vulpesveritas]

Catamount, on 13 January 2012 - 05:28 PM, said:

Another thing to watch it for will be the Radeon HD 7800 series, because from the looks of it, it's going to become a killer deal.


Does anyone have an idea on the release date? (again, I lack the time to look at the moment since I'm taking off)

next month.

anyhow... so lets say 750, you have your HDD? And do you have win7 and are specifically looking for professional? anyhow.
CPU:
Intel- i5 2400S http://www.newegg.co...N82E16819115075 $205
AMD- Phenom II x6 Thubian 1100T http://www.newegg.co...N82E16819106008 $200 OR
FX-8120p http://www.newegg.co...N82E16819103961 $210 (8 core)
Mobo:
Intel- http://www.newegg.co...N82E16813128498 $160
AMD- AsRock http://www.newegg.co...N82E16813157266 $160
GPU: HIS IceQ AMD Radeon HD 6870 http://www.newegg.co...N82E16814161396 $170 or
HIS Radeon HD 6850 http://www.newegg.co...N82E16814161384 $150
RAM: low voltage DDr3-1600 Gskill sniper series: http://www.newegg.co...N82E16820231461 $50
PSU: seasonic x750 gold http://www.newegg.co...N82E16817151087 $155

I recommend AMD at this price point. I prefer the extra 2 or 4 threads you get, because on low threaded tasks, you won't lose even 5 frames per second in games between the i5 and FX-8120p. In well threaded games and tasks, the AMD processor will outperform the Intel one. It also overclocks well. And gives you that option in the first place.

[Catamount]

Skwisgaar Skwigelf, on 13 January 2012 - 05:55 PM, said:

Would a 6870 be worth the around $40 more than a 6850? I can look at the numbers but I'm not really sure how they translate to actual performance.

Thanks for the info about the PSUs too, I have a 450W now that I could reuse but I might look more like a 550-600W just to be on the safe side. Better to have and not need....

How old is the PSU?

And what's the model?


As for the 6850/6870


The 6870 is $160-$170, or $140-$150 if you include mail-in rebates.

The 6870 is $150-$160, or $130-$140 if you include mail-in rebates.


So it's about $10 more, and both cards presently include ~$20 rebates. I just include prices with and without them, because a lot of people don't bother with them.


Is the 6870 worth the little bit more?

That's for you the decide, but here's a review that includes both in its testing: http://www.guru3d.co...50-6870-review/


EDIT: For reference, the 6870 seems to usually be about 20% faster at 1920x1200 in many games according to that review, and no less than 10% faster even in titles where the difference is less.

Numerically, that means the performance difference is probably a little bigger than the price difference (so by straight numbers, the 6870 is worth it over the 6850).

Edited by Catamount, 13 January 2012 - 06:41 PM.

[Catamount]

Whether Bulldozer is or isn't worth purchase is something better judged when Windows 8 comes about (or a full patch for Windows 7), because the present Windows Task Scheduler cannot utilize the architecture correctly.


Thuban isn't really worth it at present though, imo, not for gaming. For the most part, it doesn't outstrip Sandy Bridge quad cores enough to garner a huge advantage in hexathreaded apps, and falls considerably behind otherwise, and while games are not usually CPU-intensive (and basically will run nearly the same on anything from a good Core2 CPU onward), if intensive games do come along, especially as that happens inevitably down the road, I'd rather not rely on the emergence of insanely multi-threaded games that, thus far, have failed completely to materialize in any significant way. Most games still aren't significantly past being dual-threaded (some are kind of quad-threaded, but most don't really take good advantage of the four cores, and are still effectively dual-threaded).


Basically, we know games will grow in CPU-type computing requirements eventually, maybe even soon as new consoles come out and push the lowest common denominator for hardware forward considerably, but while that is an inevitability, games being found to be easily parallelizable, hugely, is not, not for the moment. It could happen, but it won't necessarily, and if functions are found to be highly paralellizable, those functions may get dumped to GPGPU anyways, and taken off the CPU entirely. I know Cryengine 3 is supposedly hexathreaded, or so rumors I've heard have suggested, but that claim has seldom panned out. Supreme Commander was supposed to be quad-threaded, afterall, but while it technically scales, it scales terribly. If you run one core at 100% with the game (which can be done easily enough), then two won't be used much more than 50%, even if the game is chugging and needs more CPU power, and won't use the four cores of a quad core by much more than 25% each, again even if it still wants more CPU power, because it just isn't parallelizable. The end result is that Supreme Commander still loves high clocks far more than multi-threaded, and most games since have followed a similar pattern.



I don't know what's going to prove better down the road; no one does. At present though, I think a Sandy Bridge quad core is a much safer bet than a Thuban 6-core CPU. Bulldozer? It's a wild card; I have no idea at present whether it's going to prove great, bad, or mediocre.


It's just how I look at things at present, anyways

Edited by Catamount, 13 January 2012 - 07:14 PM.

[Vulpesveritas]

Catamount, on 13 January 2012 - 07:11 PM, said:

Whether Bulldozer is or isn't worth purchase is something better judged when Windows 8 comes about (or a full patch for Windows 7), because the present Windows Task Scheduler cannot utilize the architecture correctly.


Thuban isn't really worth it at present though, imo, not for gaming. For the most part, it doesn't outstrip Sandy Bridge quad cores enough to garner a huge advantage in hexathreaded apps, and falls considerably behind otherwise, and while games are not usually CPU-intensive (and basically will run nearly the same on anything from a good Core2 CPU onward), if intensive games do come along, especially as that happens inevitably down the road, I'd rather not rely on the emergence of insanely multi-threaded games that, thus far, have failed completely to materialize in any significant way. Most games still aren't significantly past being dual-threaded (some are kind of quad-threaded, but most don't really take good advantage of the four cores, and are still effectively dual-threaded).


Basically, we know games will grow in CPU-type computing requirements eventually, maybe even soon as new consoles come out and push the lowest common denominator for hardware forward considerably, but while that is an inevitability, games being found to be easily parallelizable, hugely, is not, not for the moment. It could happen, but it won't necessarily, and if functions are found to be highly paralellizable, those functions may get dumped to GPGPU anyways, and taken off the CPU entirely. I know Cryengine 3 is supposedly hexathreaded, or so rumors I've heard have suggested, but that claim has seldom panned out. Supreme Commander was supposed to be quad-threaded, afterall, but while it technically scales, it scales terribly. If you run one core at 100% with the game (which can be done easily enough), then two won't be used much more than 50%, even if the game is chugging and needs more CPU power, and won't use the four cores of a quad core by much more than 25% each, again even if it still wants more CPU power, because it just isn't parallelizable. The end result is that Supreme Commander still loves high clocks far more than multi-threaded, and most games since have followed a similar pattern.



I don't know what's going to prove better down the road; no one does. At present though, I think a Sandy Bridge quad core is a much safer bet than a Thuban 6-core CPU. Bulldozer? It's a wild card; I have no idea at present whether it's going to prove great, bad, or mediocre.


It's just how I look at things at present, anyways

Actually CryENGINE 3 naively utilizes up to 8 threads. ( http://www.neoseeker...to-8-cpu-cores/ ) And Thubian still sees even when 4 threads are utilized only about 5% lower frames per second than SB quad cores.
And when all 8 cores are used, the FX-8150p marginally outperforms the i7-2600k. Just a thought.


In any case, you won't see much of a difference between an AMD and an Intel processor in the $150-250 price range. Intel dominates $250+, and AMD has (usually) better processors sub-$150, with Llano and Brazos.

Edited by Vulpesveritas, 13 January 2012 - 08:32 PM.

[Catamount]

Vulpesveritas, on 13 January 2012 - 08:30 PM, said:

Actually CryENGINE 3 naively utilizes up to 8 threads. ( http://www.neoseeker...to-8-cpu-cores/ )

The question is, does it utilize them well

As I said, many games/engines technically utilize multiple cores (real or virtual), but the code itself isn't paralellizable to take advantage of that fact, so it ends up running as well on 4/8 threads as it does on two, and sometimes chokes for CPU power on either (like SupCom).

Basically, it's a worst-case scenario with Amdahl's Law; Very little of the code is actually parallelizable. Will that change? Almost certainly. Will it change soon? I don't know, but companies have been promising that it would for a long time, and it hasn't happened yet.

Quote

Thubian still sees even when 4 threads are utilized only about 5% lower frames per second than SB quad cores

And both would probably only see a marginal improvement over a Core 2 Duo or Core 2 Quad in most games

If game requirements grow faster than game parallelization (as has happened thus far), however, that will end in favor of faster-clocked CPUs with better IPC instead of multicore CPUs.



At this point, Bulldozer presents an interesting choice, because it could potentially be a lot quicker, and Piledriver is going to be a real interesting choice, because AMD will probably have the architectural bugs works out that seem to be plaguing their present new CPUs (and it'll be on AM3+). I'm holding judgement there for the moment.


For now, though, I'd rather rely on good old fashioned per-core performance myself more than anything, because there's just no evidence of good multi-core utilization (we'll see what Cryengine 3 comes out up though). Few games take proper advantage of proper 4 threads as it is, and thus far, there hasn't been a single game made that takes proper advantage of more.

That, to me, suggests that if you're going to go AMD, you might as well get a Phenom II X4 and save some cash. No sense paying for cores to twiddle their thumbs!

[Vulpesveritas]

and if you go quadcore, an AMD A8-3870k as the 32nm STARS core is the highest IPC CPU AMD has put out, finally catching up to Core 2 architecture. Just took them.. how many years? lol plus OC and on die GPU for lower energy bills for non hard core games.
FM1 board: http://www.newegg.co...N82E16813131784 $130
A8-3870k: http://www.newegg.co...01&Tpk=a8-3870k $145

Another thought.

Pre-windows 7 scheduler update: http://www.tomshardw...fx,3043-18.html
add 3-10% higher performance with the scheduler update. http://blogs.amd.com...heduler-update/
3% faster @ 50fps = 1.5 fps faster = 1080p you gain 1 frame per second over the i7.

So really, you don't see that much of a difference in CryENGINE 3 no matter what you do. And IPC is more or less on par with Thubian for the first 4 threads now thanks to the scheduler update.

Edited by Vulpesveritas, 13 January 2012 - 10:08 PM.

[Skwisgaar Skwigelf]

Thanks for the input guys. I'll be looking at that IceQ 6870 a little harder now, and probably stick with the i5. I've been getting my pricing from tigerdirect but I'll check newegg too and see who can get me the best deal for each piece. Again, thanks for the advice.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Skwisgaar Skwigelf, on 13 January 2012 - 11:22 PM, said:

Thanks for the input guys. I'll be looking at that IceQ 6870 a little harder now, and probably stick with the i5. I've been getting my pricing from tigerdirect but I'll check newegg too and see who can get me the best deal for each piece. Again, thanks for the advice.

Good choice, stick with the I5 2500k, easily overlockable and currently one of the better chips for gaming, your just not going to get the full use out of a Bulldozer chip in games at this time.
Also if you can stretch out, even a small SSD for Windows and your primary few games, will increase performance a fair bit.

[Stahlseele]

And as i said:
RAM, RAM, RAM and more RAM!
RAM is kinda like cylinder capacity.
It can only be replaced by more.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

stahlseele, on 14 January 2012 - 04:52 AM, said:

And as i said:
RAM, RAM, RAM and more RAM!
RAM is kinda like cylinder capacity.
It can only be replaced by more.

More than 8Gb of ram for gaming is wasted unless your doing videos,renders or other high process applications.

[Stahlseele]

Want not, waste not.
RAM is dirt cheap now.
I got Minecraft to use up more than 9 Gigs of RAM once.
I can get MWLL to use up more than 6 Gigs of RAM too.
Don't remember how much RAM Crysis² used up with DX11 and HD Texture Pack . .