By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - PC Discussion - Building an AMD PC... a few questions

Slimebeast on 21 November 2009
CaseyDDR said:
dahuman said:
Slimebeast said:

You have gotten many good advice NJ5, but the single most important thing in my opinion when buying a new system is to answer this question:
- how many years will I keep this CPU until the next CPU upgrade (or even a completely new system)?
(and this in relation to possible GPU upgrades too to some extent)

Personally I aim for 3 year cycles on the CPU and 1.5 year cycles on GPU, while some people may prefer for example 2 year CPU/2 year GPU cycles or any other combination for that matter. Partly I choose my strategy because I find it irritating to have to upgrade motherboard and RAM together with the CPU, but then it's a good strategy because of better-bang-for-your-buck too.

Oh, and please buy AMD and not Intel.
(not because they're better but because I love AMD lol)

can we not be fanboys about computer parts? ^^;;; a better part is a better part in the computer world lol. I'm Intel now but I was AMD for a good 8 years before and Intel before that and AMD before even that and then Intel...... it's what's better for the individual at the time that counts, not brand loyalty.

This.

 

And like others have said, the i5's and i7's just blow everything amd has away. 

I also build my PCs for a 3 year or more life expectancy, and there is nothing AMD puts out that will give you that. I've been running a Q6600 since release date and have FINALLY upgraded, and I still didn't really need to in all honesty, gaming length like that could never be received from AMD. 

 

Yes, you may be able to get phenoms a bit cheaper, but the few extra dollars you spend on an i5 or i7 is absolutely worth it. And the new chipset intel is staying with for some time will be the 1156, so in a year or two from now if I decided to buy a much better video card (260 gtx core 216 currently), i can easily upgrade my processor with it now. 

Also it's my understanding that Intel makes much more use of the DDR3 ram compared to AMD, as AMD just recently started using it.

Lets face it, AMD / ATI  are bargain shopping at Goodwill compared to Nvidia and Intel.

lol first you say 'this' to a comment against computer parts fanboyism, then you make a fanboy comment yourself.



Around the Network
CaseyDDR on 21 November 2009

you can't call it fanboyism if it's true :p 



The Halo francise is the most overrated bland game to ever hit the console market. It provides a bad name to all FPS that even showed effort at creating an original entertaining plot.

I probably have more ps3 games than you :/ 

Soleron on 21 November 2009
CaseyDDR said:

you can't call it fanboyism if it's true :p 

AMD v. Intel is debatable, as Intel has the performance lead but AMD is often better value.

But AMD v. Nvidia? Clear cut. AMD has the single-card performance lead, single-GPU performance lead, lower temperatures, power and noise, DX10.1 and DX11, Eyefinity, and Crossfire on all GPUs (GT 240 doesn't do SLI) and all motherboards without license. AMD's GPUs provide more perf/watt and perf/mm^2 [the latter even comparing 55nm to 55nm].

Nvidia's new cards are massively delayed [late Q1 if you believe Nvidia, or Q2 if you don't; revision A3 hasn't even taped out yet and it'll be 3 months from when it does to retail] , even bigger than their current GPUs so will cost at least $400 for the top model if they are to be profitable, and released figures on FLOPS, shader counts and clock speeds as well as extrapolation from the current series [Fermi is better at GPU compute but not many improvements help game performance] suggest it will be 10 or 20% faster than the 5870 - in other words, epic fail vs. the 5970. And that will be 5-7 months later than the actual 5xxx launch, with lower profit margins.

AMD chips are also at least as reliable as Nvidia: look at the admitted G8x/G9x mass chip failures or the Microsoft-data-proven Nvidia Vista driver crashes issue.

Finally, their corporate ethics are questionable. Look up the denial of fake Fermi, or the Batman AA mode that Nvidia paid to be Nvidia-only, or the artificial SLI lock-in and tax, or the endless rebrands (GTS250 = 9800GTX+ = 8800GT = 8800GTS, all based on G80 just with die shrinks, or GTX280M being G9x rather than GT200). Or locking reviewers out of the GTS 250 when they didn't say nice things about PhysX.

So how can you say Nvidia is better, if not by performance or perf/watt or features or price or schedule execution or reliability or ethically or technology advantage or process advantage or profitability?



CaseyDDR on 21 November 2009
Soleron said:
CaseyDDR said:

you can't call it fanboyism if it's true :p 

AMD v. Intel is debatable, as Intel has the performance lead but AMD is often better value.

But AMD v. Nvidia? Clear cut. AMD has the single-card performance lead, single-GPU performance lead, lower temperatures, power and noise, DX10.1 and DX11, Eyefinity, and Crossfire on all GPUs (GT 240 doesn't do SLI) and all motherboards without license. AMD's GPUs provide more perf/watt and perf/mm^2 [the latter even comparing 55nm to 55nm].

Nvidia's new cards are massively delayed [late Q1 if you believe Nvidia, or Q2 if you don't; revision A3 hasn't even taped out yet and it'll be 3 months from when it does to retail] , even bigger than their current GPUs so will cost at least $400 for the top model if they are to be profitable, and released figures on FLOPS, shader counts and clock speeds as well as extrapolation from the current series [Fermi is better at GPU compute but not many improvements help game performance] suggest it will be 10 or 20% faster than the 5870 - in other words, epic fail vs. the 5970. And that will be 5-7 months later than the actual 5xxx launch, with lower profit margins.

AMD chips are also at least as reliable as Nvidia: look at the admitted G8x/G9x mass chip failures or the Microsoft-data-proven Nvidia Vista driver crashes issue.

Finally, their corporate ethics are questionable. Look up the denial of fake Fermi, or the Batman AA mode that Nvidia paid to be Nvidia-only, or the artificial SLI lock-in and tax, or the endless rebrands (GTS250 = 9800GTX+ = 8800GT = 8800GTS, all based on G80 just with die shrinks, or GTX280M being G9x rather than GT200). Or locking reviewers out of the GTS 250 when they didn't say nice things about PhysX.

So how can you say Nvidia is better, if not by performance or perf/watt or features or price or schedule execution or reliability or ethically or technology advantage or process advantage or profitability?


I've heard about all these accusations, but everything goes both ways with both companies attacking each other. I have NO issue trying out other brands if something is better or more comparible, but since my new vid card (260GTX Core 216) was given to me, I have no reason to buy a new card atm. I will be buying a DX11 card when released and will give both a look, but Nividia always seems to be the clear choice when it comes to performance in the end. 

Also for the delay, its clearly to make their cards release better than ATI's. 

I've jus never had good luck with ATI vid cards working properly in comparison to my Nvidia ones, and this dates back longer than most ppl here have been born :/ lol



The Halo francise is the most overrated bland game to ever hit the console market. It provides a bad name to all FPS that even showed effort at creating an original entertaining plot.

I probably have more ps3 games than you :/ 

ameratsu on 21 November 2009

Sorry to highjack here, but I have a question about 4xxx vs. 5xxx ATI cards.

For someone with with my system (q6600@3ghz, 4gb ddr2, 8800gs 384mb), what card would provide a significant step up?

4870 1gb's are approaching the $100 mark that I've been waiting for, so that's temping. But 5xxx cards have my attention, but only if the technology is tangible for upcoming games. Would a 5 series card be a waste? Should I wait for nvidia to release their new cards and hope for savings on ati cards?



Demon's Souls Official Thread  | Currently playing: Left 4 Dead 2, LittleBigPlanet 2, Magicka

Around the Network
Squilliam on 21 November 2009
ameratsu said:

Sorry to highjack here, but I have a question about 4xxx vs. 5xxx ATI cards.

For someone with with my system (q6600@3ghz, 4gb ddr2, 8800gs 384mb), what card would provide a significant step up?

4870 1gb's are approaching the $100 mark that I've been waiting for, so that's temping. But 5xxx cards have my attention, but only if the technology is tangible for upcoming games. Would a 5 series card be a waste? Should I wait for nvidia to release their new cards and hope for savings on ati cards?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814150436&cm_re=4870-_-14-150-436-_-Product

Thats ~$150

My suggestion is go for the HD 5770 for $25 more because you get far lower idle power consumption ~17w vs 40+ and the 5770 will outpace the 4870 by quite a margin once DX11 games come out.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814121355&cm_re=HD_5770-_-14-121-355-_-Product

If you wanna overclock

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814150447&cm_re=HD_5770-_-14-150-447-_-Product

gives you the best warranty and dual slot cooling with the exhaust out the back.

 



Tease.

jefforange89 on 21 November 2009

If you want a 4870, I'd just put out the extra 20 bucks or whatever for a 5770 - comparable performance, much lower temperatures, DX11, Eyefinity, and so on.



Wii/PC/DS Lite/PSP-2000 owner, shameless Nintendo and AMD fanboy.

My comp, as shown to the right (click for fullsize pic)
CPU: AMD Phenom II X6 1090T @ 3.2 GHz
Video Card: XFX 1 GB Radeon HD 5870
Memory: 8 GB A-Data DDR3-1600
Motherboard: ASUS M4A89GTD Pro/USB3
Primary Storage: OCZ Vertex 120 GB
Case: Cooler Master HAF-932
OS: Windows 7 Ultimate x64		 Extra Storage: WD Caviar Black 640 GB,
WD Caviar Black 750 GB, WD Caviar Black 1 TB
Display: Triple ASUS 25.5" 1920x1200 monitors
Sound: HT Omega Striker 7.1 sound card,
Logitech X-540 5.1 speakers
Input: Logitech G5 mouse,
Microsoft Comfort Curve 2000 keyboard
Wii Friend Code: 2772 8804 2626 5138 Steam: jefforange89
averyblund on 21 November 2009
CaseyDDR said:
dahuman said:
Slimebeast said:

You have gotten many good advice NJ5, but the single most important thing in my opinion when buying a new system is to answer this question:
- how many years will I keep this CPU until the next CPU upgrade (or even a completely new system)?
(and this in relation to possible GPU upgrades too to some extent)

Personally I aim for 3 year cycles on the CPU and 1.5 year cycles on GPU, while some people may prefer for example 2 year CPU/2 year GPU cycles or any other combination for that matter. Partly I choose my strategy because I find it irritating to have to upgrade motherboard and RAM together with the CPU, but then it's a good strategy because of better-bang-for-your-buck too.

Oh, and please buy AMD and not Intel.
(not because they're better but because I love AMD lol)

can we not be fanboys about computer parts? ^^;;; a better part is a better part in the computer world lol. I'm Intel now but I was AMD for a good 8 years before and Intel before that and AMD before even that and then Intel...... it's what's better for the individual at the time that counts, not brand loyalty.

This.

 

And like others have said, the i5's and i7's just blow everything amd has away. 

I also build my PCs for a 3 year or more life expectancy, and there is nothing AMD puts out that will give you that. I've been running a Q6600 since release date and have FINALLY upgraded, and I still didn't really need to in all honesty, gaming length like that could never be received from AMD. 

 

Yes, you may be able to get phenoms a bit cheaper, but the few extra dollars you spend on an i5 or i7 is absolutely worth it. And the new chipset intel is staying with for some time will be the 1156, so in a year or two from now if I decided to buy a much better video card (260 gtx core 216 currently), i can easily upgrade my processor with it now. 

Also it's my understanding that Intel makes much more use of the DDR3 ram compared to AMD, as AMD just recently started using it.

Lets face it, AMD / ATI  are bargain shopping at Goodwill compared to Nvidia and Intel.

You must be kidding? ATI's current GPU's blow Nvidia's away at the moment. This is pretty much clear in any benchmark.



XBL: WiiVault Wii: PM me  PSN: WiiVault

PC: AMD Athlon II Quadcore 635 (OC to 4.0ghz) , ATI Radeon 5770 1GB (x2)

MacBook Pro C2D 2.8ghz, 9600m GT 512 iMac: C2D 2.0, X2600XT 256

 

Soleron on 22 November 2009
CaseyDDR said:
...

 

Also for the delay, its clearly to make their cards release better than ATI's. 

I've jus never had good luck with ATI vid cards working properly in comparison to my Nvidia ones, and this dates back longer than most ppl here have been born :/ lol

The delay is to get bugs and poor yields sorted out. There have been no functional design changes since the late July tape-out of A1 silicon. Since then, the A2 and A3 revisions are to get yields up from the initial 2% to something manufacturable like 60% and to get clock speeds up from their current 20% behind target (promised 750GFlops, delivered 520). Performance will not be greater than A1 silicon.

ATI used to have driver bugs, before they were bought in 2006 by AMD. Now no one has any complaints about them, at least no more than about the Nvidia one. Why do people feel the need to dredge up 4+ year old driver bugs to bash AMD, when in the intervening time there have been Nvidia driver bugs and hardware failures?



Xelloss on 22 November 2009


 Fanboyism is silly, the fact is performace and value between the competitors runs in cycles. Has been that way for years, its not "which ccompany is better"... its "which company is better today"

 Not quite a couple years ago, I built an Intel/Nvidia system. No regrets, and I have since upgraded my 8800GT to a GTX275. Yay.

 If I were building a system today, it would be AMD/ATI hands down. But by the time I feel the need to build a new one, it might be Intel again....

 

 The fact is, these days software/driver issues are usually ironed out quickly by any of the companies. Bad products do happen, but none of the aforementioned are known for putting out crap.