Forum Home
Press F1
Thread ID: 140240	2015-09-11 00:48:00	Plans I have to build a new PC	kioti (17360)	Press F1

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
1408190	2015-09-15 00:19:00	icow, purpose of the PC is to get a bit advanced in hardware and be able to use the machine for digital media, mostly video to HD 1080p from peoples camcorders or other hand held digital video recording devices. And to play a few games at times. Basically i want to take a step forwards and as I am not going to take a giant leap into Military Class mobos, DDR5 ultra expensive low CAS RAM of 128GB total and 12 GB DDR5 Graphics cards costing a years wages, I will be happy enough to move to DDR3 1600/1866MHZ CL9 Memory, starting with 16GB and adding another 16GB at a latter date. Incidentally, I was having a chat with a staff member at a store here in Dunedin,NZ, named Cello and they do custom builds for people, about the build I am thinking of and he suggested that I get 1600MHZ as opposed to 1866MHz because the difference and increase of Ram speed is negligible. Cost difference is only $NZ20 between the two though..oh yeah, the GA-990FXA-UD3 rev4 does support the AMD Vishera 9590, but I cannot find the rev4 version motherboard listed in any of the online computer stores I search for parts. Only available version is rev1.0................also I can get the same clock speed from the 8350 with a little tweek of Core voltage. If I wish to OC that is. Thanks.	kioti (17360)
1408191	2015-09-15 00:25:00	Now ladies and gentlemen, I may just change plans and consider mobo that supports DDR4 RAM and PCI-E3 graphics card.....and forget about XFire and its faults, like stuttering etc, opting for a Mobo with 1xPCIE3 slot and a single graphics card with say 4GB DDR5 costing $600-800. Thanks.	kioti (17360)
1408192	2015-09-15 00:37:00	Your call it's your money. For some heavily threaded applications such as the benchmark you linked the AMD chip wins the battle. For other applications intels superior IPC performance really shows. As a serious gamer myself AMD don't even come into my considerations, their fastest CPUs don't game any better than the mid range intel options, which admittedly is completely playable in either case and not that big of a deal in practice. Truth be told when I monitor the CPU usage on my 6700K it rarely exceeds 25-30% so it's total overkill for what I do with it. I haven't had an AMD CPU since the days when Athlon II CPU's were kicking intels butt all over the place. I tend to go with whatever is currently the best option for gaming. cpuboss.com is a better comparison, and bear in mind that even then that's now 2 generations outdated by the current i5 6xx series If you look at the new model it's even worse for AMD cpuboss.com AMD are cheaper and give you better performance for your money, intel are more efficient and give you more performance per clock cycle at 50% of the power usage. Personally I think AMD are in serious need of some IPC and efficiency improvements and I really hope they can do it.	dugimodo (138)
1408193	2015-09-15 01:42:00	dugimodo, thanks for that. I have to laugh here at this though, "No winner declared" stated in the cpuboss.com Methinks I may have an anti-Intel bent and no not why....could be because 4-5 year back it seemed to me that Intel and MS were inseparable twins, could go back to the days about 7 year ago when I got my first computer with 4GB HDD running W98 which I changed ti NT4, then XP Pro, had 64MB DDR SD 133 memory, Yamaha sound card and onboard graphics, running a Intel Pentium MMX 200 I think it was. Of course I added more RAM and a independent video card. oh well, still thinking of what to get. Thanks	kioti (17360)
1408194	2015-09-15 03:23:00	I have no allegiance, I switch camps at will. 7 years, just a newbie then. Before that I had Commodore 64 Atari STFM 386 DX33 486 DX4-100 AMD K5-90 Cyrix 686 166MX (downgrade from the K5-90, who knew) Pentium 233MMX (my first truly awesome intel gaming PC) If I kept going the list would be pages long.	dugimodo (138)
1408195	2015-09-15 04:19:00	Try this comparo instead :-) . cpu.userbenchmark.com or more recent i5 (?) cpu.userbenchmark.com It all comes down to $$ (or lack of ) in the end though MMX 200, luxury. Sheer extravagance .The stuff of dreams. My 1st descent,game-able PC was a AMD133 overclocked to a massive 160Mhz.	1101 (13337)
1408196	2015-09-15 06:35:00	dugimodo, that's some history. I remember the Commodore 64 back when they first released...they were hailed/plugged as being the Greatest thing since sliced bread, I was in UK at the time, 1978. You had a Intel 233MMX!!!!!! Spoiled you were.	kioti (17360)
1408197	2015-09-15 06:36:00	1101, thanks I will have a look at the links you supplied when I get home in a couple hours. Cheers.	kioti (17360)
1408198	2015-09-15 06:55:00	Sorry I cannot comment on the specs as that is a bit too advanced for me. But I also, always go with AMD. I remember years ago when there was only Intel their CPU prices were sky high. It was only with the advent of AMD that they came down. So I will always buy AMD. (we need to support competition) But I do hope AMD keep up with developments. But with the huge move to mobile phones and note pads, the sales of desktops and therefore mboards and chips must be slowing. Ok they will always be needed for companies and gaming etc. But Mr and Mrs Jo average are no longer buying them (or upgrading them)	Digby (677)
1408199	2015-09-15 08:13:00	Digby, thanks. Yeah, modern day laptops are power packed with fast CPU,heaps of DDR3/4 RAM and GPU capability. But I'm kinda a creature of habit and prefer to use a PC than a Laptop. I hate the Touchpad, I need a conventional Mouse, and I could connect a lappy to me Full HD Tv using HDMI on it because the screens on laptops are just too small for me to see good enough. Hell, who wants a carry about a laptop with a 27 in screen, unless it be one of those new 'Roll up' like a carpet devices that are available.. Cheers	kioti (17360)
1 2 3 4