Flying Fox wrote:Man, that's premature retirement. 875K is still big pimpin.Got link? I am a little itchy to build a new one as it has been 2 years since my 875K.
Personal computing discussed
Moderators: renee, Flying Fox, morphine
Flying Fox wrote:Man, that's premature retirement. 875K is still big pimpin.Got link? I am a little itchy to build a new one as it has been 2 years since my 875K.
flip-mode wrote:rogue426 wrote:Now that AMD has cut Bulldozer prices , does that change anyone's opinion on that proc too?
Far as I am concerned, it is hard for these polls to take price into account. You have to assume that at the moment most people don't have the money set aside for a purchase, so the already budget is already hypothetical. So budgetary concerns should just not be a part out of the equation. IMO.
Flying Fox wrote:Krogoth wrote:End User wrote:Stock 3770K is more powerful than my [email protected] while consuming way less power and generating way less heat. I'm waiting for a Thunderbolt equipped motherboard in June before I buy. The 920 based rig will become my Linux box.
Not to nitpick or anything, but that OC'ed i7-920@ still beats the 3770K (3.5Ghz/3.9Ghz Turbo) at stock by a decent margin in mutli-threaded applications and a tiny bit faster at single-threaded applications. Sandy-Bridge/Ivy Bridges are not much faster in IPC performance than their Bloomfield predecessors.
Got link? I am a little itchy to build a new one as it has been 2 years since my 875K.
flip-mode wrote:Flying Fox wrote:Man, that's premature retirement. 875K is still big pimpin.Got link? I am a little itchy to build a new one as it has been 2 years since my 875K.
Krogoth wrote:This may be enough. The 875K is just Lynnfield with dual channel RAM, so this means going from Lynnfield -> SB -> IB I may be looking at 20-30% more performance out of the box, plus a bit less power consumption. Especially if I am going to hand it down to someone else this may be ok. However my current priority is actually an HTPC so IB is still on my radar screen, but it will be the lesser and may even be the "S" variants, if Intel is going to sort out their process and/or get some nice bins out of their lot.There's no direct review, but the numbers are there if you go back with Bloomfield and Sandy Bridge reviews.
Assuming that all parts are at equal clockspeed. SB is marginally faster than Bloomfield at multi-threaded stuff, while SB pulls ahead by 10-15% in single-threaded applications. The jump from Sandy Bridge to Ivy Bridge is even smaller.
Oc'ed 4.2Ghz i7-920 pulls ahead because of clockspeed nothing else, but getting there requires a lot of power. Oc'ed Bloomfields easily eat up 200-300W depending on the amount of overvoltage.
Crayon Shin Chan wrote:NarwhaleAu wrote:just brew it! wrote:Yes, but still not enough to make me want one unless I already had an AM3+ motherboard on hand (which is unlikely since the only reason to buy an AM3+ motherboard is to run Bulldozer). If they drop the price again by a similar amount, I will start seriously considering it for new builds.
A FX-8150 at $150 would be very tempting - a lot of processing power for very little money. Wonder how it runs 30 firefox tabs. That's the majority of the workload I will be running through a processor.
I have a Sempron 145 and it handles 30 tabs very well!
just brew it! wrote:Ha, must say am surprised, just brew it. I thought you would've regularly crossed the $200 mark on your motherboards / video cards at least.(I've actually got an informal rule that I will not pay more than $200 for any single component. I think I've broken this rule less than a half dozen times in the past 15 years.)
just brew it! wrote:Yikes, why you mad, bro? And no, that's not what I meant.So you're saying that the poll should be worded as "What CPU would you use for your next build if someone was going to give it to you for free?"
just brew it! wrote:BitBlaster wrote:Yup. And given that I'm not a gamer any more, following the rule has become a lot easier...just brew it! wrote:Good rule. Do you include processors and video cards?I've actually got an informal rule that I will not pay more than $200 for any single component. I think I've broken this rule less than a half dozen times in the past 15 years.
just brew it! wrote:Let's see. How about this one (8 cores) or this one (6 cores)? We'd have to break your rule for a matching motherboard, especially if we went with dual socket.flip-mode wrote:So you're saying that the poll should be worded as "What CPU would you use for your next build if someone was going to give it to you for free?"Far as I am concerned, it is hard for these polls to take price into account. So budgetary concerns should just not be a part out of the equation. IMO.
rogue426 wrote:Now that AMD has cut Bulldozer prices , does that change anyone's opinion on that proc too?
flip-mode wrote:Yikes, why you mad, bro? And no, that's not what I meant.
JustAnEngineer wrote:If you've got to pick one component on which to splurge, your monitor is it.
just brew it! wrote:Especially given that monitor interface standards change very slowly (how many decades has it taken us to migrate away from analog VGA?), so you can keep using it through multiple system upgrades.
just brew it! wrote:We're not buying. Price doesn't matter when we're not buying. To me the question is asking which processor I'd prefer. Well, I'd prefer SB-E, but I'm not buying anything. So I'm not implying price doesn't matter, I'm explicitly stating it.flip-mode wrote:Yikes, why you mad, bro? And no, that's not what I meant.
Not mad at all. Just sayin' that "budgetary concerns should not be part of the equation" implies that price does not matter at all.
bthylafh wrote:VGA may have been an anomaly. It seems like we've gotten a profusion of digital connectors lately, and DVI's on its way out.
For future-proofing I'd get a monitor with both DisplayPort and HDMI, but I'd not be surprised to see Yet Another Connector in five to ten years.
NarwhaleAu wrote:just brew it! wrote:Yes, but still not enough to make me want one unless I already had an AM3+ motherboard on hand (which is unlikely since the only reason to buy an AM3+ motherboard is to run Bulldozer). If they drop the price again by a similar amount, I will start seriously considering it for new builds.
A FX-8150 at $150 would be very tempting - a lot of processing power for very little money. Wonder how it runs 30 firefox tabs. That's the majority of the workload I will be running through a processor.
ADHDadditiv wrote:NarwhaleAu wrote:just brew it! wrote:Yes, but still not enough to make me want one unless I already had an AM3+ motherboard on hand (which is unlikely since the only reason to buy an AM3+ motherboard is to run Bulldozer). If they drop the price again by a similar amount, I will start seriously considering it for new builds.
A FX-8150 at $150 would be very tempting - a lot of processing power for very little money. Wonder how it runs 30 firefox tabs. That's the majority of the workload I will be running through a processor.
Its pointless to be honest. That thing may be able to be stable on all 8 cores at 4.8GHz with a Corsair H100, but its worthless when you actually benchmark it for things. The i5/i7 3570k's are better, and only 4 cores. Sure they are a bit more, but they are still well worth it, as I know alot of people who have the i5-3570k and a Corsair H100 at 4.5GHz very stable, one person has it at 4.7GHz, wouldnt recommend it though. It will handle 30 Firefox tabs without even trying. Not trying to be an Intel fanboy, as I was interested in the bulldozer, but its just a piece, very unfortunate.