PoorManQ45 wrote:From a pure processing standpoint the 860 wins.

I would agree with one exception. Well-threaded apps might benefit from the extra cores. Other than that, I think that assessment is spot on. For what Tyler is looking for, the 860 seems like the best option (considering I don't think he's planning on adding two cards). Also, I doubt he needs the multi-threaded ability or more ram than is offered dual channel. Now, let's just see if MoD agrees when he sees this later.

How much is the 860 going for?

*edit* guess it's $199 http://www.microcenter.com/single_produ ... id=0317378

I don't know man. I couldn't justify that. I'd go with the 1055t for the same price. I just never really fell in love with the Hyperthreading deal. I want physical cores!

AppleBonker wrote:

PoorManQ45 wrote:From a pure processing standpoint the 860 wins.

I would agree with one exception. Well-threaded apps might benefit from the extra cores.

i7 860 is hyperthreaded, so it still wins with well-threaded programs. 8 threads > 6 cores.

I absolutely agree with PMQ that the P55 platform's limitations are a risk down the road when it comes time to upgrade. If you want to get some cheap graphics horsepower by tossing in a second video card when the 5570 is cheap down the road, you won't be able to get the most out of that money.
AM3 doesn't present those limitations.

In the end, it comes down to price, which PMQ has outlined pretty well. The fact of the matter is that i7 800-series chips are overpriced. You're better off stepping down to a much cheaper i5 700 or moving over to AMD. The AM3 platform's superior to P55 for gaming and AMD's pricing kicks Intel's a**.

I'd still rather have an i7 920 than ALL of the above.

Note that this is all JUST for gaming.
The P55 platform and newest 1156 CPUs have some really cool tech that makes them awesome for a lot of other stuff (like video encoding, hardware accelerated encryption, etc.). But for gaming specifically, they're a compromise, where X58 and AM3 are not.

Agreed. The 860 and 930 are the same price.

Seriously, spend the extra $50 and get the 930 and 1366 board. You can get combos for like $300 from Fry's and mircrocenter. They are awesome with combo deals!

You know what, I'm going to buck the path a little bit.

I will change my recommendation. For what you are going to be doing any of these processors will work. I am going to recommend that you go with AMD. If you have afford it go for the 1055t. The reason for this is that it is on par with the 930 and will cost a little less when you factor in shipping costs from bonker.

I also believe that AMD is a vital component in the computer world. Without them Intel would be the only game in town for performance processors(ARM isn't considered performance). So I suggest that you support the little guy. It will cost you a little less then a 1366 build too.

Like I said before, I am running a 1055t and it's doing great. My Windows Performance index for the CPU is 7.4 at stock speeds and 7.7 at 3.4Ghz.

Yea I was starting think id just do an amd 1055t. The am3 is cheaper than the 1366.

Also, how do you go about overclocking a computer? Am I gonna need additional fans to cool for the added heat? Is it worth it for me to OC?

Lets leave overclocking alone for now. If you feel the computer isn't fast enough once it's built we can talk about it.

But to answer your question, you will need an upgraded Heatsink and Fan(HSF). I recommend the Cooler Master Hyper 212+ as it offers good cooling performance and is only $30 shipped. If you decide to order it remember to order thermal paste with it. Artic Silver works good and is only a few dollars.

When you get the processor it will include a heatsink as you are ordering a retail version(OEM doesn't include HSF). This heatsink is simply adequate to prevent the processor from cooking itself. It will support the processor at its stock speed and that's about it.

Once you get the system built and are satisfied with the performance at the stock speed I will walk you through undervolting the CPU. What this does is simply decrease the voltage to the processor and in turn reduces heat. I am all for running as cool as possible

Here are some comparative pictures of one of my systems that uses an Athlon II 435.
Stock heatsink and fan:


Aftermarket heatsink and fan:


This system is a Dell OEM and is not overclocked at all as it is not capable of overclocking. The stock heatsink idled at about 40C and peaked around 60C under 100% load. The aftermarket heatsink idles around 30C and peaks at 42C under 100% load. What people don't realize is that the motherboard is also cooled by the cpu heatsink and fan. The southbridge temperature with the stock heatsink was at 77C under 100% load. With the aftermarket heatsink it never goes above 55C. This is due to the greatly increased air movement in the case.

To me the cooler a component runs the longer it should last.

If you just want to run at stock speeds and have everything "within spec" just use the heatsink and fan that comes with the processor. If you want to go above and beyond grab the 212+

I was just curious about it is all. I should be more than happy with anything I get, seeing as my mac runs a core 2 duo at 2ghz with 2gb of ram. Anything is an uograde compared to that. And honestly, diablo 2 isn't terrible on that laptop. Sometimes it gets laggy, but only on like a baal run with a ton of other people.

Hehe, you'll be able to run Diablo 2 using the integrated ATI 4200 on a 785 chipset board. LOL.

This thing will absolutely fly in comparison!

Hahaha, Diablo II will run on a Pentium if you ask it to. 2D game that doesn't even require hardware graphics acceleration (though you do gain the "Perspective" parallax option if you have a 3D card). I ran it for years on a P200 and it runs just fine on my PIII 500 Dell lappy.
The reason you run into bad lag on Baal on your laptop is RAM. Too much going on at once. Your new computer won't have that problem.

Lol. I never knew diablo was that simple to run. Will diablo 3 be more in depth as far as graphics go?

ADDirishboy wrote:Lol. I never knew diablo was that simple to run. Will diablo 3 be more in depth as far as graphics go?

Definitely. What you'll want to look at is Starcraft 3. You should get a graphics card that will run it on Ultra or high settings. IIRC a 5770 and 4870 will do it.

Yea I was probably gonna go with the 5770. I have found some good deals on them so they will be ordered soon. I would order it now if I didn't have a new speeding ticket to pay for, lol.

PoorManQ45 wrote:

ADDirishboy wrote:Lol. I never knew diablo was that simple to run. Will diablo 3 be more in depth as far as graphics go?

Definitely. What you'll want to look at is Starcraft 3. You should get a graphics card that will run it on Ultra or high settings. IIRC a 5770 and 4870 will do it.

On that point, read this:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/bli ... ,2611.html

But yes, according to their results, the 5770 handles SC2 Ultra settings just fine.

You can expect Diablo III to require similar hardware. It will indeed be more graphically intensive than DII. DII was 2D (it did use some pre-rendered 3D art assets, but in-game rendering was all 2D). DIII is true 3D. But it also uses a lot of other newer graphics tech, like shader goodies and dynamic lighting, etc. Basically it's like comparing a steam locomotive to a nuclear submarine.

Wow, this thread is littered with bad advice...

chemao wrote:Wow, this thread is littered with bad advice...

So...do you care to offer GOOD advice? Or just spam my Computers forum?
How about pointing out WHAT is bad about the advice in this thread?

The rig that's described is more than enough for pretty much every game on the market, including the more graphic-intensive games. 6 cores? Really?

chemao wrote:The rig that's described is more than enough for pretty much every game on the market, including the more graphic-intensive games. 6 cores? Really?

Right, but you don't build gaming rigs for today's software ONLY. Unless you build with the future in mind, you're throwing your cash away. Why on earth would you build a machine you're just going to have to upgrade in a few months? But we already covered this at the beginning of the thread, when I asked whether he's looking to save money, or focus on performance longevity.

You want to stay ahead of the curve. Using old hardware standards sucks when it DOES eventually come time to upgrade. I made that mistake when I went socket 754 and AGP back in 2004. If I'd gone 939 and PCIE I would have had more plentiful better options to upgrade with.

chemao wrote:The rig that's described is more than enough for pretty much every game on the market, including the more graphic-intensive games. 6 cores? Really?

You're special there little buddy.

When you build a system you want to make it future proof for around 3 years, MINIMUM!

Sure, he could throw an AMD 6000 in there and overclock it to 4GHz using a Corsair H50 cooler with ease. That would run every current game just fine.

The problem is that games that are coming out, such as SC3 are processor limited. Both speed and number of cores.

The 1055t can be had for $200 shipped. That's a pretty killer deal for what it is.

If you would like to provide a build please do so.

To OP: Buy a case, Quickly! http://slickdeals.net/forums/showthread.php?t=2043776

I recommend the Tempest first, then the EVO. I have both. The Tempest is nice and roomy, but the EVO is smaller and holds the same amount.

Also, buy this cooler. http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Corsair+-+H ... &cp=1&lp=1

You will not regret it. It's a self contained watercooling system.

MinisterofDOOM wrote:

chemao wrote:The rig that's described is more than enough for pretty much every game on the market, including the more graphic-intensive games. 6 cores? Really?

Right, but you don't build gaming rigs for today's software ONLY. Unless you build with the future in mind, you're throwing your cash away. Why on earth would you build a machine you're just going to have to upgrade in a few months? But we already covered this at the beginning of the thread, when I asked whether he's looking to save money, or focus on performance longevity.

You want to stay ahead of the curve. Using old hardware standards sucks when it DOES eventually come time to upgrade. I made that mistake when I went socket 754 and AGP back in 2004. If I'd gone 939 and PCIE I would have had more plentiful better options to upgrade with.

LOL, it will be years before applications really even makes use of quad core architecture. The latest released games barely make use of 2. Get a higher clock speed dual core, and put the saved money towards a good video card or RAM. About the only thing you'll see actually using more than a couple of cores (now AND for the next several years), are multimedia editting applications.

chemao wrote: LOL, it will be years before applications really even makes use of quad core architecture. The latest released games barely make use of 2. Get a higher clock speed dual core, and put the saved money towards a good video card or RAM. About the only thing you'll see actually using more than a couple of cores (now AND for the next several years), are multimedia editting applications.

I didn't really get a 70FPS increase in CSS by going from an AMD 6000+ OC'd to 3.6Ghz to an AMD Phenom 940 at stock speed.

Similar results were found in L4D2, TF2, CoD MW, Stalker, and pong. Running Windows 7 Ultimate 64 bit and using a single GTX295.

You are missing a critical point. Even though Direct3D's initial design intention was to shut off windows as much as possible to allow the system to focus on the game, that is not what is happening anymore. There are a couple dozen processes running in the background at any given time.

I take back my recommendation of the Corsair H50.

It is a great device and will handle overclocking very well, but the Cooler Master 212+ for $30 shipped can do the same thing.

So you'll have to decide if you want a huge cooler dominating your case and making more noise for less money, or if you want a very neat looking cooler that takes up minimal space and makes less noise for twice as much.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ath ... ,2619.html

Those results support the idea that more cores is better...even for today's games.
Obviously there's a question of price vs performance, but those results show there are absolutely benefits to more cores, even when just running a game that's not from a few years into the future.

If you could be satisfied with a tri-core I would go with the AMD 425, 435, or 440. Throw it on a SB710 or SB750 motherboard and try to unlock that beast. If it works you've got an instant Quad core. If it doesn't, overclock the piss out of it!

Oh, I find 120HZ tvs very weird looking. You don't have the motion blur like normal to smooth things out. Everything looks like the sharpness is cranked up! It's a bit ugly to me.

You're just used to motion blur. Once you get used to fast refresh rates, you'll be much better off. Kind'a like those that like the bloated midbass of the Bose acoustimass thingy. Once they get used to hearing some good stuff, they're much better off.

That said, gaming on my plasma works well. The downside is, I don't have time to play games.

PoorManQ45 wrote:If you could be satisfied with a tri-core I would go with the AMD 425, 435, or 440. Throw it on a SB710 or SB750 motherboard and try to unlock that beast. If it works you've got an instant Quad core. If it doesn't, overclock the piss out of it!

Oh, I find 120HZ tvs very weird looking. You don't have the motion blur like normal to smooth things out. Everything looks like the sharpness is cranked up! It's a bit ugly to me.

Isn't the 4th core untested and likely to fry the chip? It's hit or miss for people who try it. The chips serial number has something to do with it too...but I'd be hesitant to recommend a hack like that to a relative "newbie" (No offense)

I have an X3 720 which is supposedly able to do that...but I'm scurred it'll blow up.

I'm on my phone in the middle of a lake in northern Wisconsin. so I wont give details.

it wont harm anything. may be unstable, but of break anything.

for info Google how to unlock 4th core

Oh I know how to do it...the salesman informed me of it when I bought it. I was just under the impression it could damage the chip.

ScorchedNX2K wrote:Oh I know how to do it...the salesman informed me of it when I bought it. I was just under the impression it could damage the chip.

No, it will not damage the chip.

What you are doing is turning on a core and potentially L3 cache that AMD has disabled for one reason or another.

The chip will still consume the same amount of power with the cores unlocked. So it won't be any hotter.

Unlocking is a software modification. Nothing in the chip itself is being physically changed. If the unlock fails you simply reset the bios and you're done.

PoorManQ45 wrote:If you could be satisfied with a tri-core I would go with the AMD 425, 435, or 440. Throw it on a SB710 or SB750 motherboard and try to unlock that beast. If it works you've got an instant Quad core. If it doesn't, overclock the piss out of it!
.

I'll stick with something a little more simple lol. Scorched said it best, I'm a total noob to all this. I mean, I know the general operations of everything and how to SOME detailed things, but unlocking a cpu's 4th core seems a little out of my realm. Maybe on my second build, lol.

In other news, I'm rooting my Droid right now. OC FTW!