Considering building a new tower, help?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Capricorn

Yeah. that won't work with a i3 CPU lol.

---

Lol well I guess I should choose a different one then. :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coh3n

Lol well I guess I should choose a different one then. :p

---

http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product...ue=706%3A56289

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Capricorn

http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product...ue=706%3A56289

---

Oh that's cool, I didn't know you could do that. Thanks :)

E: I don't know, this CPU is cheaper, and will support the motherboard I want.

I think I have the configuration I want, unless someone can point out something significantly better. :)

I don't really think anything we say at this point is going to change the fact that your dead set on what you originally wanted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Capricorn

I don't really think anything we say at this point is going to change the fact that your dead set on what you originally wanted.

---

Lol, well I've changed things around a bit, but yeah I basically ended up with what I originally had. I've also talked to Hobbit (a computer technician) and a couple people I know IRL, and they said this setup will work just fine. ^^

I appreciate all your guys' help. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sabzi

IMO intel is better in price performance ratio

---

Looking at this site, AMD Phenom II X4 955 @ 3.20GHz is rated 3937 and its around $160. The Intel equivalent is Intel Core2 Quad Q9450 @ 2.66GHz is rated 4024 and is around $316.

For AMD: every 1 of a rating is about $0.04
For Intel: every 1 of a rating is about $0.08

So, AMD is better in performance : price ratio, but Intel wins in highest performance.

On the other hand, Coh3n, I highly recommend getting a mobo that supports DDR3 ram. With the computer I've built for myself (parts coming Wednesday / Thursday), I purchased 4gb DDR3 1600ghz for $98 ($10 off regular price). My ram is 2x faster than your preferred ram and it's the same price.

Look at the build I made for my cousin:
http://secure.newegg.ca/WishList/Pub...umber=11199494

I think it's cheaper than your build.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TRiLeZ

Looking at this site, AMD Phenom II X4 955 @ 3.20GHz is rated 3937 and its around $160. The Intel equivalent is Intel Core2 Quad Q9450 @ 2.66GHz is rated 4024 and is around $316.

For AMD: every 1 of a rating is about $0.04
For Intel: every 1 of a rating is about $0.08

So, AMD is better in performance : price ratio, but Intel wins in highest performance.

---

But the Intel i3 or i5 are probably better performance, no? I'm not that great with computers, but I know that my machine stacks up well even though the GHz are less, and I have an i5. Just throwing it out there that you aren't comparing the most recent Intel product.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TRiLeZ

Looking at this site, AMD Phenom II X4 955 @ 3.20GHz is rated 3937 and its around $160. The Intel equivalent is Intel Core2 Quad Q9450 @ 2.66GHz is rated 4024 and is around $316.

For AMD: every 1 of a rating is about $0.04
For Intel: every 1 of a rating is about $0.08

So, AMD is better in performance : price ratio, but Intel wins in highest performance.

On the other hand, Coh3n, I highly recommend getting a mobo that supports DDR3 ram. With the computer I've built for myself (parts coming Wednesday / Thursday), I purchased 4gb DDR3 1600ghz for $98 ($10 off regular price). My ram is 2x faster than your preferred ram and it's the same price.

Look at the build I made for my cousin:
http://secure.newegg.ca/WishList/Pub...umber=11199494

I think it's cheaper than your build.

---

Thanks very much! I've switched to the motherboard in that wishlist, but chose OCZ ram instead. It's cheaper, and was recommended by Hobbit. <3

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 3Garrett3

But the Intel i3 or i5 are probably better performance, no? I'm not that great with computers, but I know that my machine stacks up well even though the GHz are less, and I have an i5. Just throwing it out there that you aren't comparing the most recent Intel product.

---

I chose the Phenom more or less because it's quad core and it shouldn't be outdated in a couple years (*I hope*). Also, it wasn't that much more than the others I was considering. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TRiLeZ

Looking at this site, AMD Phenom II X4 955 @ 3.20GHz is rated 3937 and its around $160. The Intel equivalent is Intel Core2 Quad Q9450 @ 2.66GHz is rated 4024 and is around $316.

---

lolno. The Intel Core Quad line up is last generation.

And second, that website uses a synthetic benchmark, which means what is shown there is not going to relate to the real world.

Intel really doesn't have anything interesting around the 160$ mark. But to give you a comparison of REAL WORLD benchmarks.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/109?vs=147

We have two similar priced CPU's from Intel and AMD, and we have some interesting results. Knowing what type of programs you run is VERY important for making a CPU purchase. As we can see from the results, the i5 750 beats the 1055T in almost zero of the programs that use multiple cores (Video rendering, synthetic benchmarks that use multiple cores, raytracing) but then we go down into stuff that relies heavily on one or two powerful cores and the i5 750 smashes the 1055T. There isn't any game where the 1055T performs better.

AMD and Intel are not competing directly. AMD cannot beat Intel at their own game. Intel has superior clock vs clock speeds when comparing similar generation CPU's. AMD realized this and has decided that instead of competing against Intel at having faster CPU's at similar clock speeds, they started building CPU's with more cores at similar prices. AMD is targeting a entirely different consumer than Intel is at this point.

For the average person who uses the internet, reads email, word processes and does gaming, you will not have ANY advantage to using a AMD cpu until games start utilizing 4/6/8 cores.

Ask yourself this, am I a hobbyist director? Do I do graphics on a consistent basis? Do I work in a environment which requires virtualization? Well then you should probably buy AMD, since they have the most cores per $.

I honestly do not even think there is a reason to buy a CPU in the 160$ range. AMD just doesn't compete* at that price range compared to lower priced Intel and once you hit 200$ your best off buying a i5 750 for gaming. Which is what OP should have gotten when he said his budget was 1k, but then he decided he didn't want to spend that much.

*for gaming

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Capricorn

lolno. The Intel Core Quad line up is last generation.

And second, that website uses a synthetic benchmark, which means what is shown there is not going to relate to the real world.

Intel really doesn't have anything interesting around the 160$ mark. But to give you a comparison of REAL WORLD benchmarks.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/109?vs=147

We have two similar priced CPU's from Intel and AMD, and we have some interesting results. Knowing what type of programs you run is VERY important for making a CPU purchase. As we can see from the results, the i5 750 beats the 1055T in almost zero of the programs that use multiple cores (Video rendering, synthetic benchmarks that use multiple cores, raytracing) but then we go down into stuff that relies heavily on one or two powerful cores and the i5 750 smashes the 1055T. There isn't any game where the 1055T performs better.

AMD and Intel are not competing directly. AMD cannot beat Intel at their own game. Intel has superior clock vs clock speeds when comparing similar generation CPU's. AMD realized this and has decided that instead of competing against Intel at having faster CPU's at similar clock speeds, they started building CPU's with more cores at similar prices. AMD is targeting a entirely different consumer than Intel is at this point.

For the average person who uses the internet, reads email, word processes and does gaming, you will not have ANY advantage to using a AMD cpu until games start utilizing 4/6/8 cores.

Ask yourself this, am I a hobbyist director? Do I do graphics on a consistent basis? Do I work in a environment which requires virtualization? Well then you should probably buy AMD, since they have the most cores per $.

I honestly do not even think there is a reason to buy a CPU in the 160$ range. AMD just doesn't compete* at that price range compared to lower priced Intel and once you hit 200$ your best off buying a i5 750 for gaming. Which is what OP should have gotten when he said his budget was 1k, but then he decided he didn't want to spend that much.

*for gaming

---

I hear what you're saying, and the be quite honest, I've done a little bit of everything: gaming, video editing/graphics, internet, programming and probably others. Do I know what my main focus will be in a couple years, no, but what IF some games next year decide to use 4/6/8 cores? I don't want to have to replace what I have.

Honestly, I think I would be just fine with whichever CPU I chose, I just decided to go with the AMD.

Well, if they are going to be multi-core, then 4 will be just fine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frement

Well, if they are going to be multi-core, then 4 will be just fine.

---

Let's hope, cause I just ordered all the parts. :p

Lol ... I had thought you bought a OEM X4 940 CPU, and I gave up on you. Then I guess you changed the link and bought the 620. Really, you should have just bought the 555 BE.

Whatever though man, enjoy the new computer.

I still think the i5 would have been better, it's not like it will be obsolete in 2 years, it's pretty top of the line (in a budget) right now..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Capricorn

Lol ... I had thought you bought a OEM X4 940 CPU, and I gave up on you. Then I guess you changed the link and bought the 620. Really, you should have just bought the 555 BE.

Whatever though man, enjoy the new computer.

---

Thanks. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 3Garrett3

I still think the i5 would have been better, it's not like it will be obsolete in 2 years, it's pretty top of the line (in a budget) right now..

---

Is the i5 not the more expensive one?

The i5 is more expensive than the i3, as the i7 is more expensive than the i5.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 3Garrett3

The i5 is more expensive than the i3, as the i7 is more expensive than the i5.

---

Keep in mind that there are many version of the i7.
500USD, 1000USD, etc
4 core, 6 core.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by noidea

Keep in mind that there are many version of the i7.
500USD, 1000USD, etc
4 core, 6 core.

---

Yes, but the i7 was out of the picture as an affordable option. :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 3Garrett3

Yes, but the i7 was out of the picture as an affordable option. :P

---

Probably could have afforded the i7, BUT the thing is the i5 750 performs better than the i7 920 in gaming. So there was really never a point in buying a i7 920.

i3 530 = 120$
i5 750 = 200$
i7 920 = 300$