(Advice needed) New gaming sound setup. - Page 2

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roller

 

He's going for a X79 platform, so getting a non-K processor isn't a good decision, both considering his budget as well as only K processors being hexa-core.

 

The remaining budget could be saved on the side, considering the full Kepler die is going to be released in a few months under the form of the GTX 780 (what the GTX 680 was meant to be, but due to the HD7970 underperforming, the die was cut down). Then, the GTX 680 could either be sold or be a dedicated PhysX device.

Ah I see, didn't know the k-series processors were different further up the line. I guess that it would be difficult getting a non-k series 3930 seeing as it doesn't exist, I figured it had a non-k varient like the 2500 and 3570.

I would advise against hexa-core for gaming though... Most games never use more than two as far as I know. If you're planning on doing a lot more stuff that benefits from multi-processing then it's a good idea but for gaming alone you'll get much better bang for your buck with quad core.

Quote:

Originally Posted by chewy4 

Ah I see, didn't know the k-series processors were different further up the line. I guess that it would be difficult getting a non-k series 3930 seeing as it doesn't exist, I figured it had a non-k varient like the 2500 and 3570.

 

I would advise against hexa-core for gaming though... Most games never use more than two as far as I know. If you're planning on doing a lot more stuff that benefits from multi-processing then it's a good idea but for gaming alone you'll get much better bang for your buck with quad core.

It's never a bad decision to go with (Intel) processors with more cores, considering they maintain IPC across their whole range. And games already use as many cores as present, with some games using more than 12 cores. Also, it helps to futureproof the system.

Intel's consumer CPU line-up does have unlocked and locked CPUs with the same specs, but not on the enthusiast line-up.

EDIT: And the reason why I haven't suggested moving from the 3930K to the 3970X is because for 75% more, an original die octo-core could be bought.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roller 

 

It's never a bad decision to go with (Intel) processors with more cores, considering they maintain IPC across their whole range. And games already use as many cores as present, with some games using more than 12 cores. Also, it helps to futureproof the system.

 

Intel's consumer CPU line-up does have unlocked and locked CPUs with the same specs, but not on the enthusiast line-up.

You're referring to the multi-threading that the i7's have right? Yeah, I forgot about that. Most games only run as one process though and sometimes aren't optimized with multi-threading in mind, but it is indeed a good idea to future proof. Just sayin' that if money needs to be saved that would be the place to do it especially considering the GPU is the biggest bottleneck in gaming.

Quote:

Originally Posted by chewy4 

You're referring to the multi-threading that the i7's have right? Yeah, I forgot about that. Most games only run as one process though and sometimes aren't optimized with multi-threading in mind, but it is indeed a good idea to future proof. Just sayin' that if money needs to be saved that would be the place to do it especially considering the GPU is the biggest bottleneck in gaming.

No, I'm talking about 8 physical cores, not logical. The 3930K and 3970X have 6 physical cores and 12 logical cores.

His budget easily allows for a mid to high-end X79 build (not a full blown enthusiast build, though), to which a 3930K is a bare minimum. Going with a 3820 would be a waste of money and getting a 3770K would be a better purchase, although that would mean simpler electrical layouts and lower memory availability.

EDIT: And make no mistakes, X79 platforms require serious cooling, regardless of OCing. Those aren't your run of the mill P67/Z68/Z77 power sipping builds.

I'd recommend a Thermalright Silver Arrow SB-E for cooling.

Thanks for the new on the GTX 780 Roller! Looks like I'll be upgrading everything when Haswell comes out then! Hello 2560x1600 IPS monitor!

Id look hard at getting an AMD processor and Graphics card aswell.

I run AMD and have no problems keeping up with Intel builds.

But the big reason why is because the PS4/New Xbox are running AMD X86 APU's. Which means that they're just underpowered computers, and also means that games are going to be optimized for AMD from here on out. 4Ghz Octa Core for $210 Anyone?

Source for new consoles being based on AMP APU's

AMD ftw 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shisno 

AMD has been severely inferior since the intel response after the XP/FX lineup was released.  That, and MAYBE certain K6 2's are the only processors ever to eclipse the Intel might.  I used to be an AMD fanboy (4 consecutive builds, great price:performance on a budget).  However, I feel their move to race to Octa was simply a move to get the know-nothings to choose them over the more robust and longlasting Intel lineup.  But, then again.. the 3850 is definitely the king of Price:Performance at this time.  The fact of the matter is, this will be my first build stepping out of the budget cafe and into the enthusiast swank lounge... and damnit, I want something that's going to make even me jealous every time I use my computer at work!

Anyway... I'm on a machine that has essentially fallen off the map for performance.  LGA775 E8400, 4GB 1066, and a 4870.  Planetside 2 has to run at dead-half detail and I still eventually overheat my GPU if I don't take manual control of the fan and kick it to a constant 80% load (if it dies so be it, I'm moving on soon).

 

I'm planning on the Enermax ETS-240 for cooling, and not planning to OC, as it will not be necessary in the near future.  If I keep the system long enough, an overclock may happen.  Roller hit the nail on the head, though.  I'm looking at entry-level enthusiast, with the possibility of either using the 680 for Physx or, selling the CPU/Board/GPU once Haswell moves beyond the initial release boards (I'm never, ever, going to build a system on a gen1 board based upon previous nightmares). 

 

I do a lot of gaming, coding, streaming, and hoping to learn video editing soon.  So, something with severe multitasking power is definitely a priority.  

AMD pretty much lost the performance race since Intel released the Core 2 Duo architecture, and AMD has been on a downward spiral ever since. Considering a base Intel Core i3 outperforms most modern AMD CPUs that have both higher clocks and more cores, and a base Core i5 outperforms all AMD CPUs, it's really a shame on AMD, however they did publicly state they no longer compete with Interl in terms of performance, steering their efforts towards the HTPC market and the low-end market. The raw single and multithreaded performance that Intel has is pretty much unmatched by anything AMD has, and the fact that they're around 10 months behind Intel in terms of research and development certainly doesn't help either.

Bottomline is, AMD CPUs are basically toys, with their flagship products being more expensive and lower performing than Intel's midrange offerings.

Shisno, do keep in mind that while the GTX 680 is a great card to have working as an addon card (at a time where you upgrade to a newer GPU) for PhysX and CUDA purposes, but not so much for OpenCL, as OpenCL performance has been impaired on the 600 series in order to favor professional GPUs. This might or might not be relevant to you, but it's something you should be aware of.

Still, it's a shame you can't get a (real) octo-core platform, although it would introduce quite a price hike to the whole system.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xaborus 

Id look hard at getting an AMD processor and Graphics card aswell.

 

I run AMD and have no problems keeping up with Intel builds.

But the big reason why is because the PS4/New Xbox are running AMD X86 APU's. Which means that they're just underpowered computers, and also means that games are going to be optimized for AMD from here on out. 4Ghz Octa Core for $210 Anyone?

 

Source for new consoles being based on AMP APU's

 

AMD ftw 

The hardware being used on the new gen consoles is total and utter garbage. AMD is very behind Intel in every way. AMD's 4Ghz processors is equivalent to Intel at 3Ghz.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ohhgourami 

The hardware being used on the new gen consoles is total and utter garbage. AMD is very behind Intel in every way. AMD's 4Ghz processors is equivalent to Intel at 3Ghz.

Indeed, but it's cheap, which is exactly what they're going for, compared to the first several months of the current console gen hardware sales that were actually at a loss until software sales caught on, which then further led to die shrinks and lowering the overall platform cost.

Current and next gen consoles hardware is terrible, but it goes to show how far optimization can push old hardware. There are some console games that look really good. 

And there are some console ports that can make a 680 struggle this gen, so this APU optimization kinda makes me nervous about how the next gen is going to effect PC gaming. Still wouldn't go AMD because of it though, and definitely wouldn't get an APU...

Quote:

Originally Posted by chewy4 

Current and next gen consoles hardware is terrible, but it goes to show how far optimization can push old hardware. There are some console games that look really good. 

 

And there are some console ports that can make a 680 struggle this gen, so this APU optimization kinda makes me nervous about how the next gen is going to effect PC gaming. Still wouldn't go AMD because of it though, and definitely wouldn't get an APU...

Indeed, optimization can make wonders but, again, the hardware can only go so far. Also, not only can the porting process be problematic, but it seems ports are deliberately limited in terms of visual fidelity on the PC.

Theoretically, the next console gen going x86-64 could mean better ports, as well as GPU sections of those consoles no longer being fully hybrid "GPGPU" devices.

GPU wise, AMD is a valid alternative to Nvidia as long as users are aware of the difference in features available. Driver wise, Nvidia has been a better option for years now.

CPU wise, AMD has nothing on Intel when it comes to performance or features provided. Phenom II was the last AMD architecture with true separate cores, while Bulldozer onwards has a half core implementation with very poor IPC, and performs terrible on games. The current AMD flagship CPU has fps differences from a non hyperthreaded midrange Intel CPU up to 50fps, which isn't exactly a marginal difference. I've seen a couple server-class AMD CPUs that could hold their own when facing consumer-level midrange Intel CPUs, but the price hike of a server platform negates any advantage over the consumer Intel platform. Still, AMD's APUs make for nice HTPC systems, especially if they're used for playback alone, as Intel's Quicksync provides an immense performance advantage in transcoding when compared to both AMD and Nvidia, considering the core specs on each platform.

EDIT: Also, for anyone who has a Bulldozer-class platform on newer, I strongly recommend upgrading to Windows 8 (in the event they're running Windows 7), as the new OS has redesigned scheduler than gives a free performance boost of up to (real world) 8%. It's still not nearly enough to outperform same class Intel platforms, but it's better than stock performance. There are also Windows 7 hotfixes available upon personal request, but they merely patch up the OS and don't provide the same improvements.