|
I hate to ask this question, but I need advice for building a new PC (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| tehlord |
| quote: | Originally posted by kitphillips
Well, there are a few things that are plain wrong in your post.
1/ Having a better motherboard won't make it easier to upgrade later. Thats all down to the chipset, and most i5s aren't on a chipset that is going to be easily upgradable.
2/ Its the same build process forever, but a different architecture makes a big difference. Its not like the i7s are the same in ANY way as the Core2Quads.
|
1) I didn't even remotely say a 'better' motherboard would be easier to upgrade. I said the choice was critical with regard to futureproofing. Did you even read what I wrote or use it as an opportunity to dish out some misplaced superiority?
2) The build process is EXACTLY the same. Get motherboard out, fit CPU and heatsink, fit memory, cards, drives etc - blah blah blah. The OP question was are they the same to build NOT are they built using the same processes. Once again you appear to have failed to read in your haste to type.
I'm going to bow out of the post now as there are still questions Wiley wants to ask. If you DO go back to my post you'll see I started it out saying my build might be useful as a point of reference. You're right though, the i7s are the way forward.
There was absolutely nothing misleading in my post, I just don't think you read the posts properly. |
|
|
| Viber |
| quote: | Originally posted by kitphillips
The i7 would cane the i5. Because it has triple channel RAM, which is far more important for music than games. Also, 4 cores are better used by music apps than games, which often aren't multithreaded very well. Music apps make better use of those resources than games would. Don't assume that just because games are equal between i5 adn i7 that mnusic apps will be. |
The i5 has 4 cores too. |
|
|
| DJ RANN |
How much is this PC costing you out of interest?
Let me start by saying I'm not trying to turn this in to a you know what debate but......
The new imacs are seriously powerful and have even out clocked the multicore mac pros.
Why the need for PC? (honest question here). I'm just interested to hear the reasons. |
|
|
| Fledz |
He's on a tight budget Rann. I would hardly go and suggest a Mac when money is an issue and he wants to be able to easily upgrade.
Viber - The i7 920 is obsolete. The i7 930 is what he should be getting. If on a very tight budget, a good i5 could do the job too. Under no circumstance should he be buying older tech C2Ds and Quads.
The 930 is also sooooooooooo easy to OC and runs at great temps with a decent aftermarket CPU cooler.
SW - Get a Gigabyte mobo, something like the X58A-UD3R and try and grab an i7. Also go for 6gb triple channel, low latency RAM. Whatever you do, your mobo MUST have USB3 and SATA3 support. It absolutely must because everything will be at that new standard by next year.
Go Win7 64bit. I really don't understand why anyone would build a new PC and then stick 32bit on it.
As for the HDD, as long as it's a 7200 RPM then they don't make much of a difference anymore between different brands. If you want speed, you should get an SSD for your OS and use the normal HDD for large files. |
|
|
| kitphillips |
^^^ Pretty much.
| quote: | Originally posted by tehlord
1) I didn't even remotely say a 'better' motherboard would be easier to upgrade. I said the choice was critical with regard to futureproofing. Did you even read what I wrote or use it as an opportunity to dish out some misplaced superiority?
2) The build process is EXACTLY the same. Get motherboard out, fit CPU and heatsink, fit memory, cards, drives etc - blah blah blah. The OP question was are they the same to build NOT are they built using the same processes. Once again you appear to have failed to read in your haste to type.
I'm going to bow out of the post now as there are still questions Wiley wants to ask. If you DO go back to my post you'll see I started it out saying my build might be useful as a point of reference. You're right though, the i7s are the way forward.
There was absolutely nothing misleading in my post, I just don't think you read the posts properly. |
1/ OK, your right. But the motherboard you get will be mostly decided by the CPU you get. And its the chipset that makes the difference either way. What I'm saying is, if you get the wrong CPU, you're not going to be able to upgrade later. Therefore the CPU is the most important thing - you need one with a good upgrade path. All the i7s are on a good chipset for upgrading later, the i5s not so much.
2/ When you said build process, I thought you were referring to the build process of the CPUs, not of the whole computers. My mistake, but your post was unclear. Re read it yourself.
When I said your post was rubbish, it was because it sounded like you were saying that CPUs were the same now as they have been for the last decade. I obviously misinterpreted your post so sorry about that. But maybe don't take what I'm saying so seriously. |
|
|
| tehlord |
| quote: | Originally posted by kitphillips
^^^ Pretty much.
1/ OK, your right. But the motherboard you get will be mostly decided by the CPU you get. And its the chipset that makes the difference either way. What I'm saying is, if you get the wrong CPU, you're not going to be able to upgrade later. Therefore the CPU is the most important thing - you need one with a good upgrade path. All the i7s are on a good chipset for upgrading later, the i5s not so much.
2/ When you said build process, I thought you were referring to the build process of the CPUs, not of the whole computers. My mistake, but your post was unclear. Re read it yourself.
When I said your post was rubbish, it was because it sounded like you were saying that CPUs were the same now as they have been for the last decade. I obviously misinterpreted your post so sorry about that. But maybe don't take what I'm saying so seriously. |
Cool beans.
I think we can stop waving our cocks at each other now, they're both clearly huge. |
|
|
| DjStephenWiley |
| Great info here. Lots of Intel info. Is AMD that bad now to the point where it's not even worthy of discussion?! |
|
|
| Fledz |
No quite the opposite. AMD is making up a lot of ground but not quite enough for many of us to choose them over Intel.
They've taken the lead in terms of graphics (ATI vs NVIDIA) but that's a totally different story. |
|
|
| Timothy |
| quote: | Originally posted by DjStephenWiley
Great info here. Lots of Intel info. Is AMD that bad now to the point where it's not even worthy of discussion?! |
The 6-core of AMD is really good, it's better than the i7 920 while being cheap at the same time.
Intel responds with price cuts for their higher end models that are competing with the 6-core CPU of AMD later this summer.
If you're an a budget, those AMD cpu's are better than Intel at the moment.
But I'd personally wait for Sandy Bridge. Intel will introduce 8-core CPU's. |
|
|
| tehlord |
| $40 for a case and 550W PSU is suspiciously cheap. Every budget PSU i've bought has failed, without exception. I've had an Antec PSU since 2005 on the other hand that's still working fine in a secondary PC. I would have thought a decent 500-600W PSU would be in the region of $50-100 alone. |
|
|
|
|
