Need advice about Gigabyte MoBos, re: new system build

oregonxfile

Distinguished
Feb 20, 2009
10
0
18,510
Hello all,
I'm shopping for components for a new system I'm building in the next month or two.

I intend to buy a new Gigabyte motherboard, but I'm not sure which technology is the most current, as well as the best to fill my needs.

My system will be used primarily for image editing. I intend to use an AMD processor, primarily because of cost.

Pretty much, I want to buy the best mobo/cpu combo I can afford.

I'm not familiar with the current lineup of chipsets that Gigabyte uses. There is a killer deal, this weekend only, on a Gigabyte, top of the line mobo that I have been looking at for a long time on NewEgg. The chipset it uses is, or seems to be, several years old (3 or 4 maybe)

Anyway, I'm curious to know if anyone has experience they might want to share, and possible compare the older chip sets against the newer, more current models.

If this question has been dealt with elsewhere here in the forum, or on the website already, I apologize.
A link to those related articles would be greatly appreciated...

Thank you.

X

P.S. all the holy grails apply....silent, fast, stable, cool running...with an emphasis on silent...

I'm not asking too much, am I?? :)
 

oregonxfile

Distinguished
Feb 20, 2009
10
0
18,510
BTW,

The new system will be Win 7 Pro 64

single graphics card (silent type, no fans, likely anyway), unless it is significantly better running more than one graphics card w/ a single ips hd monitor

No overclocking, trying to run at standard chipset/memory/cpu speeds
 
For editing apps, many cores are good.
The FX cpu's will be the most budget friendly chips out there.
What is your budget?
You must be careful with these amd motherboards since the quality of the voltage regulation becomes an issue.
It is more of an issue with the model, not so much the brand.

Intel is supposed to launch some cpu upgrades soon. It might pay to see what they offer. Clock speed is not all, the intel architecture is about 30% faster per clock than amd. Because they use a smaller mfg technology, their chips run with less voltage and are cooler.

You might look at what is offered for haswell-E at the high end, and for the Z97 chipset for less.

My take is that a new build should be using current technologh
 

oregonxfile

Distinguished
Feb 20, 2009
10
0
18,510
I will say that I do have limits as to how much I want to spend, but if something comes along that's a great deal, but costly, I'd probably buck up.

That said, I still tend to lean towards AMD if for no other reason than perceived value for the money. I'd love to assemble a screaming machine, where money is no object, but I will settle for the best I can afford for the intended purpose.

I have had excellent luck with Gigabyte, and AMD, combined with fast GSkill memory. My new build will have a Samsung Pro SSD (256), with a WD internal drive, used primarily for storage.

My current system is about 5 yrs. old, so, since I have to upgrade to Win 7, I'm just going to build a complete new system. I try to buy the best I can afford, and then keep it and take care of it, until it's near the end of its useful life.

I used to be an endless upgrader, but, luckily, I got off of that train....
 
I happen to like Gigabyte for motherboards and g.skil for ram.
Most others are ok too.

As to AMD, I think they are losing out vs. Intel.
Check out the anandtech bench for cpu comparisons.
AMD does well in multithreaded apps, not so well single threaded:
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/697?vs=836
The story is different in gaming, where a good Intel duo is competitive:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-processor-frame-rate-performance,3427-9.html

The best amd offering is the FX-8350 which is about $200.
The i7-4770K is arguably the best Intel offering at about $330. If you are near a microcenter, they will sell you one for $270.


You may read about glowing benchmarks for the newest SSD's.
The sequential benchmarks drive the SSD to it's maximum with programs that issue I/O operations
at a much faster rate than an application can, and does so at high queue levels. 6gb sata looks great.
But, a normal desktop user rarely does anything remotely like that.

The second type of benchmark measures maximum IOPS which will be done at high queue levels again. Think >30.
That is also not what we do. The OS does mostly small random I/O, and at smallish queue lengths.
It is the response time that matters most.

It turns out that at low queue lengths, Most SSD's have the same response time, and they are very low.
That is exactly what you want from a SSD, particularly for the OS.

So, what does this mean when buying a SSD?
---------------Bottom line-----------

Get the capacity you need at the lowest cost per gb

The main benefit of a pro vs evo is endurance, but that is not an issue outside of a server environment.
I would buy an evo and spend the savings elsewhere.

We all have limits but over time, I have rarely regretted paying more for the best, I have often regretted buying cheap.



 

Dark Lord of Tech

Retired Moderator
one thing about some gigabyte boards is that there no diagnostics on them as what I mean is no system buzzer or speaker no leds no nothing and I think that that ud3 is one that has nothing on it if something fails to post. not saying that its a bad board as a mater of fact its the better one for am3+ its just if it don't boot it has no way of telling you were to start looking [unless the rev4 this been changed] there some posts on this here at toms from gigabyte users. but if I had to recommend a am3+ board that 990fx ud3 would be the one .
 

oregonxfile

Distinguished
Feb 20, 2009
10
0
18,510


 

oregonxfile

Distinguished
Feb 20, 2009
10
0
18,510
BTW,

I've always been curious....

Is that the main difference between the Pro and the EVO drives?

I was able to get a great deal on a 256 Pro, which should hold my OS plus a bit.

Ive never used a SSD, and I will probably need help setting it up, especially since I'll have a 3Tb HDD as a program/backup disk