Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Gulftown vs. Sandy Bridge or wait for Ivy Bridge?

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share
February 19, 2011 11:41:02 PM

Hello,

I'm trying to build a solid gaming rig which I've saved for a couple of years now but the fall of the SB and the early introduction of IB has me at somewhat of a question mark. I was prompt to buy the 990X Gulftown in replacement of the SB 2600K that I returned due to recall but now find myself in the eve of the Ivy Bridges introduction. My current setup is this:

2 PNY XR8 580 GTX nVidia GeForce Cards
1200 Corsair Gold 80+ Power Supply
LG 12X Blu-ray/ DVD RW Drive
HP DVDRW 24X
Full ATX Tower
Corsair H70 Liquid Cooling

What should I do? Should I buy the 990X or wait for the fixed Sandy Bridge or just wait for the Ivy Bridge?
February 19, 2011 11:46:20 PM

As a gaming rig I would definitely choose Sandy Bridge over the 990x, and you probably only have 6 more weeks to wait for it to be available.

The 2600K is faster for gaming and a hell of a lot cheaper.

Ivy Bridge won't be out till Q1 2012 at the earliest.
February 19, 2011 11:50:52 PM

Yeah, plus you get the price difference but I'm at a stalemate. Supposedly the Sandy Bridge processor was due out soon right? Or is the 2600K the top processor for the SB lineup before an extreme edition?
Related resources
a b à CPUs
February 20, 2011 1:20:17 AM

As far as I know, the 2600K is the top mainstream Sandy Bridge version. Sandy Bridge E (includes regular and Extreme) in LGA2011 packaging is due out before the end of the year.

Only one question determines my advice to you: Are you using a multi-monitor setup with huge resolution like 5760x1200, or are you using a single monitor?

If multi-monitor, get Gulftown + X58 platform.

If single-monitor, get Sandy Bridge + Cougar Point.

The X58 platform pulls ahead at extreme resolutions due to having full PCIe bandwidth to both graphics cards. At regular resolutions like 2560x1200 the PCIe bandwidth isn't the limiting factor, so I recommend Sandy Bridge.
a c 131 à CPUs
February 20, 2011 2:20:36 AM

Leaps-from-Shadows said:
As far as I know, the 2600K is the top mainstream Sandy Bridge version. Sandy Bridge E (includes regular and Extreme) in LGA2011 packaging is due out before the end of the year.

Only one question determines my advice to you: Are you using a multi-monitor setup with huge resolution like 5760x1200, or are you using a single monitor?

If multi-monitor, get Gulftown + X58 platform.

If single-monitor, get Sandy Bridge + Cougar Point.

The X58 platform pulls ahead at extreme resolutions due to having full PCIe bandwidth to both graphics cards. At regular resolutions like 2560x1200 the PCIe bandwidth isn't the limiting factor, so I recommend Sandy Bridge.

Even in those situations, I can't see it possibly having more than a 1% performance difference.
February 20, 2011 2:21:34 AM

Leaps-from-Shadows said:
As far as I know, the 2600K is the top mainstream Sandy Bridge version. Sandy Bridge E (includes regular and Extreme) in LGA2011 packaging is due out before the end of the year.

Only one question determines my advice to you: Are you using a multi-monitor setup with huge resolution like 5760x1200, or are you using a single monitor?

If multi-monitor, get Gulftown + X58 platform.

If single-monitor, get Sandy Bridge + Cougar Point.

The X58 platform pulls ahead at extreme resolutions due to having full PCIe bandwidth to both graphics cards. At regular resolutions like 2560x1200 the PCIe bandwidth isn't the limiting factor, so I recommend Sandy Bridge.


I have three 23' DELL LED monitors on standby due to my 2 PNY nVidia 580GTX's. I want to avoid bottleneck on the CPU. I was recommended the SB to achieve the OC and help with the bottleneck that might happen on the 980X.
a c 131 à CPUs
February 20, 2011 2:22:48 AM

jorgeireyes said:
I have three 23' DELL LED monitors on standby due to my 2 PNY nVidia 580GTX's. I want to avoid bottleneck on the CPU. I was recommended the SB to achieve the OC and help with the bottleneck that might happen on the 980X.

I doubt you will have a bottleneck in most games at that resolution. CPU load decreases with increased resolution.
February 20, 2011 2:29:05 AM

enzo matrix said:
I doubt you will have a bottleneck in most games at that resolution. CPU load decreases with increased resolution.


Yep. But then again I want to have the CPU future-proof, especially for gaming. So I'm assuming SB would be better? I do a lot of video and media creation but have a MacBook Pro for that. That's the main reason that the 980X for those types of things doesn't worry me so much. I guess it comes down to 980X or 2600K and they're OCs?
a c 131 à CPUs
February 20, 2011 3:05:08 AM

jorgeireyes said:
Yep. But then again I want to have the CPU future-proof, especially for gaming. So I'm assuming SB would be better? I do a lot of video and media creation but have a MacBook Pro for that. That's the main reason that the 980X for those types of things doesn't worry me so much. I guess it comes down to 980X or 2600K and they're OCs?

It's kinda like the i5 760 vs Phenom IIx6 1090t. The 760 performs better in a lot of cases even though it lacks the additional cores.

As for future-proofing, what would you rather have today? In the future?

An Athlon 7750 2.7GHz dual core and $50 extra cash on hand now or a phenom x3 8750 2.4GHz?
A core i7 2600k 4 core with better performing cores and $700 on hand to pay for a processor better than anything out now? or a 990X with lesser cores but two additional ones and $700 less?

I may have become a bit too opinionated but that is my opinion on value and so called "future proofing". What's more future proof? A 980X? or $700?

The simple answer to "future proofing" is to buy the best. But honestly, by the time you need the extra "power" in the future, either system will be weak by modern standards and the price difference between them will be more in line with the performance between them, ie, relatively little. By the time you need 6 cores, your i7 990X will be insufficient in core speed. Look at the phenom x4 from 2007 (The 9650 is a later model but equal to the 9600 released in 2007) vs a modern Phenom IIx2 565BE (not even the best):
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/23?vs=204

In gaming today, I would rather have the phenom IIx2 over the Phenom x4. Why? Because the phenom is too weak per core. Games that can use the extra cores still won't run well because they need more power. And older 1-2 threaded games like Crysis would just suck on the phenom x4

Sorry for all the AMD examples. I'm just more familiar with their model numbers and release history.

i7 sandy vs 980x
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/142?vs=287

i5 760 vs phenom IIx6
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/146?vs=191
February 20, 2011 3:22:14 AM

enzo matrix said:
It's kinda like the i5 760 vs Phenom IIx6 1090t. The 760 performs better in a lot of cases even though it lacks the additional cores.

As for future-proofing, what would you rather have today? In the future?

An Athlon 7750 2.7GHz dual core and $50 extra cash on hand now or a phenom x3 8750 2.4GHz?
A core i7 2600k 4 core with better performing cores and $700 on hand to pay for a processor better than anything out now? or a 990X with lesser cores but two additional ones and $700 less?

I may have become a bit too opinionated but that is my opinion on value and so called "future proofing". What's more future proof? A 980X? or $700?

The simple answer to "future proofing" is to buy the best. But honestly, by the time you need the extra "power" in the future, either system will be weak by modern standards and the price difference between them will be more in line with the performance between them, ie, relatively little. By the time you need 6 cores, your i7 990X will be insufficient in core speed. Look at the phenom x4 from 2007 (The 9650 is a later model but equal to the 9600 released in 2007) vs a modern Phenom IIx2 565BE (not even the best):
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/23?vs=204

In gaming today, I would rather have the phenom IIx2 over the Phenom x4. Why? Because the phenom is too weak per core. Games that can use the extra cores still won't run well because they need more power. And older 1-2 threaded games like Crysis would just suck on the phenom x4

Sorry for all the AMD examples. I'm just more familiar with their model numbers and release history.

i7 sandy vs 980x
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/142?vs=287

i5 760 vs phenom IIx6
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/146?vs=191



You're good though. I think the same way and agree with you. Plus the fact that cashing out $1000.00 is hard at least for most of us. My assumption that SB can reach on air 5.0GHZ through testing would lead me to believe that properly OC it could run "SAFER" and possibly faster. Though I still have to wait a month and a half for it. The 990X ain't bad either but the SB has 8 cores vs the 980X's 6 right?
February 20, 2011 4:21:19 AM

SB has 4 cores, i7 has hyperthreading which can run 2 threads per core.
2600K - 4core 8thread
980X - 6core 12thread
Compare
February 20, 2011 4:35:10 AM

wribbs said:
SB has 4 cores, i7 has hyperthreading which can run 2 threads per core.
2600K - 4core 8thread
980X - 6core 12thread
Compare


My bad. Thanks!
February 20, 2011 4:54:38 AM

jorgeireyes said:
Hello,

I'm trying to build a solid gaming rig which I've saved for a couple of years now but the fall of the SB and the early introduction of IB has me at somewhat of a question mark. I was prompt to buy the 990X Gulftown in replacement of the SB 2600K that I returned due to recall but now find myself in the eve of the Ivy Bridges introduction. My current setup is this:

2 PNY XR8 580 GTX nVidia GeForce Cards
1200 Corsair Gold 80+ Power Supply
LG 12X Blu-ray/ DVD RW Drive
HP DVDRW 24X
Full ATX Tower
Corsair H70 Liquid Cooling

What should I do? Should I buy the 990X or wait for the fixed Sandy Bridge or just wait for the Ivy Bridge?

Hi jorgeireyes :hello:  ...If you got the money you can go for the 990X gulftown,but do not forget that soon there is a new LGA 1366 socket pinset number processor coming out at 3.46 GHz & it is extreme & will be unlocked & is for the X58 chipset :)  ...Also if you go for the ivy bridge gear,do not forget that it also has the same LGA 1155 socket pinset number like the sandy bridge processors have ;)  ...So if you want to also you can buy the P67 chipset based mainboard when they get repaired & a sandy bridge & later on upgrade to the ivy bridge ;)  ...
a c 133 à CPUs
February 20, 2011 5:32:34 AM

Wish I Was Wealthy said:
Hi jorgeireyes :hello:  ...If you got the money you can go for the 990X gulftown,but do not forget that soon there is a new LGA 1366 socket pinset number processor coming out at 3.46 GHz & it is extreme & will be unlocked & is for the X58 chipset :)  ...Also if you go for the ivy bridge gear,do not forget that it also has the same LGA 1155 socket pinset number like the sandy bridge processors have ;)  ...So if you want to also you can buy the P67 chipset based mainboard when they get repaired & a sandy bridge & later on upgrade to the ivy bridge ;)  ...


Ivy bridge will be in the 1155 package, but it will not be compatible with cougar point chipsets. You will still need a new board. Even the Panther point PCH chipset is pin compatible with Cougar Point chipset of Sandy Bridge, but again this might help board manufactures to make boards faster, but we will still need to buy a new board for Ivy Bridge.

@Wish I was Wealthy Please stop giving bad info I have seen you in alot of threads giving bad information I think somebody needs to stop focusing on the smilies and get your facts straight before posting.
a b à CPUs
February 20, 2011 6:02:58 AM

Why would they make it with the same socket but not actually compatible? That would be exceedingly confusing to customers and stupid of Intel. I don't believe that they are that dumb.

Links to the "Ivy Bridge Socket H2/1155 but not compatible with Cougar Point" info please.
February 20, 2011 6:10:44 AM

Will the IB X68 be in LGA 1155 or LGA 2011.
a c 133 à CPUs
February 20, 2011 7:08:18 AM

Leaps-from-Shadows said:
Why would they make it with the same socket but not actually compatible? That would be exceedingly confusing to customers and stupid of Intel. I don't believe that they are that dumb.

Links to the "Ivy Bridge Socket H2/1155 but not compatible with Cougar Point" info please.

It will be backwards compatible with sandy bridge, but to support the new 22nm processor a new chipset will be needed.


http://www.fudzilla.com/processors/item/21621-ivy-bridg...
a b à CPUs
February 20, 2011 7:21:19 AM

Leaps-from-Shadows said:
Why would they make it with the same socket but not actually compatible? That would be exceedingly confusing to customers and stupid of Intel. I don't believe that they are that dumb.

Links to the "Ivy Bridge Socket H2/1155 but not compatible with Cougar Point" info please.


Remember the Socket 478 Canterwood barrier, Or the LGA775 Core 2-Pentium D barrier, or LGA775 Core2 65m-45nm barrier?

Intel has been doing this practice for a very long time. They do make the old processors compatible with the newer boards, but newer processors usually require new boards.

* They aren't dumb, they are just being Intel as they have been
a c 133 à CPUs
February 20, 2011 7:26:45 AM

amnotanoobie said:
Remember the Socket 478 Canterwood barrier, Or the LGA775 Core 2-Pentium D barrier, or LGA775 Core2 65m-45nm barrier?

Intel has been doing this practice for a very long time. They do make the old processors compatible with the newer boards, but newer processors usually require new boards.

* They aren't dumb, they are just being Intel as they have been

Its not Intel just trying to bleed us dry its the fact that to evolve there must be change. There will never be progress without change no matter how small of a change it is there will have to be new chipsets to accommodate them.
a c 133 à CPUs
February 20, 2011 7:40:21 AM

I am an Electronic Engineering student, but seriously it does not take an engineer to figure that out. Its so ignorant that people think they should get the latest and greatest, but not have to pay for it.

a b à CPUs
February 20, 2011 9:56:37 AM

saaiello said:
I am an Electronic Engineering student, but seriously it does not take an engineer to figure that out. Its so ignorant that people think they should get the latest and greatest, but not have to pay for it.


Intel makes a lot of money selling its chipsets along with its processors, AMD doesn't have this luxury. It doesn't take an engineer to figure out that making more money is good.

What I am impressed with AMD's chip designers is that they are able to make designs that are backwards compatible yet contain new features and run faster. It's a heck of a lot easier to work with Greenfield projects (Intel) rather than making things backwards compatible (AMD).

Though AMD does also change sockets when it is really really needed. They changed sockets when they added the memory controller to the processor, switched from DDR to DDR2, and DDR2 to DDR3.
a c 133 à CPUs
February 20, 2011 11:41:20 AM

amnotanoobie said:
Intel makes a lot of money selling its chipsets along with its processors, AMD doesn't have this luxury. It doesn't take an engineer to figure out that making more money is good.

What I am impressed with AMD's chip designers is that they are able to make designs that are backwards compatible yet contain new features and run faster. It's a heck of a lot easier to work with Greenfield projects (Intel) rather than making things backwards compatible (AMD).

Though AMD does also change sockets when it is really really needed. They changed sockets when they added the memory controller to the processor, switched from DDR to DDR2, and DDR2 to DDR3.

The Sandy Bridge CPUs will work on the newer chipsets for Ivy Bridge like I said progress takes change. Look where AMD is at 2 almost 3 generations behind in the game. Their future is hanging on by a very thin thread if (when) Bulldozer fails who knows how or where they will go next.
a c 133 à CPUs
February 20, 2011 11:48:13 AM

Quote:
DELL













;

:pfff:  :lol: 
February 20, 2011 1:16:14 PM

Quote:
Choice P67 boards come with the NF200 chip negating this advantage.

970 vs 2600K is a better comparo as the 970 is 599.99.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/157?vs=287

Having said that X58 is a waste and your just paying for old technology... 45nm vs 32nm as well as old architecture. 970 is Westmere where 2600K is sandy bridge.



I should then stick to SB for now and upgrade to Ivy Bridge next year when is out then right? I know that 990X will probably dominate 2600K on heavily intense multi-threaded apps but not by that much.
a b à CPUs
February 20, 2011 1:49:01 PM

saaiello said:
The Sandy Bridge CPUs will work on the newer chipsets for Ivy Bridge like I said progress takes change. Look where AMD is at 2 almost 3 generations behind in the game. Their future is hanging on by a very thin thread if (when) Bulldozer fails who knows how or where they will go next.


Because they were sitting on their butts during the X2 days. They were so overconfident that Intel couldn't keep up that they didn't do something new architecturally with their cpus. Instead they went ahead and bought AMD which did cost a lot of money, and as we see now the ATi side is earning the most dough.

History is a b*tch, hahaha. Read it

jorgeireyes said:
I should then stick to SB for now and upgrade to Ivy Bridge next year when is out then right? I know that 990X will probably dominate 2600K on heavily intense multi-threaded apps but not by that much.


How much performance do you want? As dadiggle has indicated, what are you going to do, production work or gaming?

If all you're going to do is game, Sandy Bridge has a heck of a lot of a performance overhead that almost no game wouldn't run quickly @ 1080p (with a proper video card). Probably switching later to Ivy Bridge would have a smaller effect on your fps than waiting for the next gen cards of nvidia or amd.
a c 131 à CPUs
February 20, 2011 2:04:51 PM

Quote:
Why don't they? Because Amd fans would cry because they can't use there old boards to run new processors.

I'm confused. AM3+ CPUs won't be compatible with current AM3 motherboards. AMD has already stated this.
February 20, 2011 3:42:50 PM

Quote:
Now now now lol

Thats a different story. Do you use your PC for professional video editing or in heavily threaded applications where Time means money to you? Or do you use it for gaming?



I use a MacBook Pro for that type of work. (Professional Video Editing, Web Design and Multi-threaded Applications). I was thinking more along the lines of 70% gaming and 30% Mutli-threaded Applications.

:D 
a b à CPUs
February 21, 2011 1:03:46 AM

jorgeireyes said:
I use a MacBook Pro for that type of work. (Professional Video Editing, Web Design and Multi-threaded Applications). I was thinking more along the lines of 70% gaming and 30% Mutli-threaded Applications.

:D 


Then the 2500K might be more to your liking. Unless you are going to run with an SLi or CrossFire with 3 or 4 video cards.

With the limited PCI-E lanes on the i5 platform, you would probably be able to get away with 2 cards. If you try running or want to run with a 3rd card, one of those cards would be bandwidth starved.
February 21, 2011 1:08:46 AM

amnotanoobie said:
Then the 2500K might be more to your liking. Unless you are going to run with an SLi or CrossFire with 3 or 4 video cards.

With the limited PCI-E lanes on the i5 platform, you would probably be able to get away with 2 cards. If you try running or want to run with a 3rd card, one of those cards would be bandwidth starved.



Wouldn't the 2600K be better for my setup?

3 LED Monitors
H70 Corsair CPU Liquid Cooling
1200 Corsair Gold
2 PNY XR8 580GTX in SLI
Black Case 5 Fans

What's the difference between the 2500K and the 2600K then?
a c 131 à CPUs
February 21, 2011 1:11:22 AM

jorgeireyes said:
Wouldn't the 2600K be better for my setup?

3 LED Monitors
H70 Corsair CPU Liquid Cooling
1200 Corsair Gold
2 PNY XR8 580GTX in SLI
Black Case 5 Fans

What's the difference between the 2500K and the 2600K then?

The difference is as follows:
-0.1GHz clockspeed increase
-2mb more cache
-hyperthreading

These are, in most cases, not worth the extra $100 and you will not notice a difference in your uses.
February 21, 2011 1:18:05 AM

enzo matrix said:
The difference is as follows:
-0.1GHz clockspeed increase
-2mb more cache
-hyperthreading

These are, in most cases, not worth the extra $100 and you will not notice a difference in your uses.


:( 

I take it that the 990X is out of the question by popular vote then...

But the 2600K would be better overall for future proofing right?
a b à CPUs
February 21, 2011 1:19:50 AM

jorgeireyes said:
Wouldn't the 2600K be better for my setup?

3 LED Monitors
H70 Corsair CPU Liquid Cooling
1200 Corsair Gold
2 PNY XR8 580GTX in SLI
Black Case 5 Fans

What's the difference between the 2500K and the 2600K then?


Oh, my bad, go for the 2500K. The 2600K is a minor bump in speed, but a major bump in price.

You probably wouldn't notice the perf difference, or you could just get an overclocking board later and overclock the heck out of it.
a b à CPUs
February 21, 2011 1:24:33 AM

jorgeireyes said:
:( 

I take it that the 990X is out of the question by popular vote then...

But the 2600K would be better overall for future proofing right?


It's not guaranteed to be future proof, well nothing really is with PCs. But, the thing is so damn fast right now that it eats up everything you throw at it without breaking a sweat.

The i5-2xxx series is the best out there right now, and just keep on thinking that you did buy the best at its time.
February 21, 2011 1:38:23 AM

amnotanoobie said:
It's not guaranteed to be future proof, well nothing really is with PCs. But, the thing is so damn fast right now that it eats up everything you throw at it without breaking a sweat.

The i5-2xxx series is the best out there right now, and just keep on thinking that you did buy the best at its time.



Isn't it i7 instead of i5?
February 21, 2011 2:02:56 AM

jorgeireyes said:
Hello,

I'm trying to build a solid gaming rig which I've saved for a couple of years now but the fall of the SB and the early introduction of IB has me at somewhat of a question mark. I was prompt to buy the 990X Gulftown in replacement of the SB 2600K that I returned due to recall but now find myself in the eve of the Ivy Bridges introduction. My current setup is this:

2 PNY XR8 580 GTX nVidia GeForce Cards
1200 Corsair Gold 80+ Power Supply
LG 12X Blu-ray/ DVD RW Drive
HP DVDRW 24X
Full ATX Tower
Corsair H70 Liquid Cooling

What should I do? Should I buy the 990X or wait for the fixed Sandy Bridge or just wait for the Ivy Bridge?


Forget about SANDY BRIDGE becouse M-Board (h67/p67) is now faulty-board and after Appril 2011 it will be REPAIRED-Board, so option
1st. Intel X58 with i7 (if you are Intel FANS) ,
2rd. AMD890 Chipset with X6 10XX ,
3rd. Ivy Bridge, But do not expect too much becouse they are still at drowing-board.

In my vew 3rd. option is best as your SMPS and COOLING SYSTEM most suitable for AMD PhenomII X6 10xx BE
a b à CPUs
February 21, 2011 4:50:13 AM

jorgeireyes said:
Isn't it i7 instead of i5?


It's an i5: http://ark.intel.com/ProductCollection.aspx?series=5324...

@rupankur
1. The X58 is worth it only if the guy is doing some serious CrossFire or SLi (3 or 4 cards) due to the sheer number of lanes. Or if the guy would run other PCI-E cards such as a sound card, Gigabit LAN card, PCI-E Video Capture card, etc, with his SLi.

2. The X6 is not the best for gaming, a higher clocked X4 would do the job much better. Also, if you factor in the power consumption, Phenom's aren't really the best these days.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4083/the-sandy-bridge-rev...

Factor in the overclockability of the old i5 and i7's and you've got almost no reason to get Phenoms.

* Yeah, AMD's taking a beating at this point in time.

3. This would be the infinite waiting game. Wait for Ivy Bridge, wait for Bulldozer, if you try the waiting game then you'd never be able to buy a PC. It's only worth it to wait if there is a clear release date, and it'd be available within 3 mos. or less.
February 21, 2011 10:15:54 PM

amnotanoobie said:
It's an i5: http://ark.intel.com/ProductCollection.aspx?series=5324...

@rupankur
1. The X58 is worth it only if the guy is doing some serious CrossFire or SLi (3 or 4 cards) due to the sheer number of lanes. Or if the guy would run other PCI-E cards such as a sound card, Gigabit LAN card, PCI-E Video Capture card, etc, with his SLi.

2. The X6 is not the best for gaming, a higher clocked X4 would do the job much better. Also, if you factor in the power consumption, Phenom's aren't really the best these days.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4083/the-sandy-bridge-rev...

Factor in the overclockability of the old i5 and i7's and you've got almost no reason to get Phenoms.

* Yeah, AMD's taking a beating at this point in time.

3. This would be the infinite waiting game. Wait for Ivy Bridge, wait for Bulldozer, if you try the waiting game then you'd never be able to buy a PC. It's only worth it to wait if there is a clear release date, and it'd be available within 3 mos. or less.



Then why does it say on the Intel page that the 2600K, 2600S and 2600 are i7's?
February 21, 2011 10:21:04 PM

Quote:
Cause they are? :lol: 


I know that. Then why does he say they are i5?
March 6, 2011 10:06:18 AM

amnotanoobie said:
It's an i5: http://ark.intel.com/ProductCollection.aspx?series=5324...

@rupankur
1. The X58 is worth it only if the guy is doing some serious CrossFire or SLi (3 or 4 cards) due to the sheer number of lanes. Or if the guy would run other PCI-E cards such as a sound card, Gigabit LAN card, PCI-E Video Capture card, etc, with his SLi.



This is something you just brought to my attention and I am not sure if I my set up would factor in this lane issue.
I am planing on building a system soon for around May. I am taking my sound and video capture cards from my current system to the next one

Video Capture Card: Black magic Intensity Pro http://www.blackmagic-design.com/products/intensity/tec...
"Computer Interface PCI Express 1 lane, compatible with 1, 4, 8 and 16 lane PCIe slots."

Sound Card: Auzentech X-Fi Prelude http://www.auzentech.com/site/products/x-fi_prelude.php...
PCI?

My intentions for the build is gaming. I often use the capture card to watch my pvr/live cable, while I'm gaming.

I run 1 "monitor" (100" 1080p epson projector)
I haven't decided on what video card set up I will end up with, probably 1 580gtx, but i want to leave my options open just in case i want to SLI/Crossfire (no more then 2) when it comes to choosing my next CPU.

So what would suit me best? 2500k 2600k 990x? other?
March 6, 2011 1:20:35 PM

Best answer selected by jorgeireyes.
May 2, 2011 9:39:45 PM

I would get one gtx 580 and the i5 2500k for a 70/30 gaming rig, it should also be massively fast for video editing, if you really want to splurge (although it will make no difference in gaming) get the 2600k, to me those are the only choices right now for a single display
November 3, 2011 7:20:18 PM

I keep finding this thread whenever i search for the differences between gulftown vs sandybridge.

The one thing that strikes me about this article is that one person brings up "future proofing", and he is pretty much slapped down (albeit gently) by the community.

So here is some backup with regards to "future proofing":

i bought my last PC 5 years ago. I have never owned a previous PC for longer than 3 years before upgrading. I was able to keep this PC because it was built with what was the best gear available. It was built with with a quad-core processor long before quad-core was standard. It had dual channel memory long before dual channel was common. It had the fastest possible harddrive that I could find. And it originally had the best video card that money could buy "reasonably".

All of that extra "love" cost money but it paid off quite considerably in the end. This PC can still run even modern games and it runs them extremely well. Over the last 5 years I have been able to play the best and most intensive games released, as well as run all office/research type software that is available. This beast just keeps going and it has been the best PC experience I have had in more than 30 years of owning and running PCs.

But after five years something is finally dying. I'm not sure what it is, but its either memory, motherboard, or processor. All three of which are so closely linked, and now so old, that it would be impossible to upgrade any of them without upgrading the other two. Not to mention it is possible that two components of the three are dying, in which case it would be a very expensive experiment for not getting a performance upgrade too!

My next PC will be purchased exactly the same way. Yes, it will be expensive. But the performance enhancements, the lack of needing to "upgrade" or "overclock" every 9 months, and the lack of maintenance in the end make it WELL worth the money, if you can afford it.

Future proofing works.
November 9, 2011 3:12:07 PM

no mean to disrespect but i find that hard to believe.

i have a feeling that the "PC can still run even modern games and it runs them extremely well" is a bit of an exaggeration but i don't doubt it is capable of office use, although perhaps now getting a bit long in the tooth, if not in performance then at least in efficiency.

admittedly requirements for the majority of new pc games aren't keeping up with the capabilities of modern hardware but i think that's because the current generation of consoles that have been around for a while has restricted or defined what developers will attempt to run their programs at. crysis 2 wasn't the technological marvel that crysis 1 was.

but i digress. I still don't believe that a 5 year old computer could handle too well.

anyhow, a new generation of technology is emerging and newer titles are embracing newer technology such as bf3 and arkham city. this will soon render the old technology defunct.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
November 13, 2011 10:57:40 AM


anyhow, a new generation of technology is emerging and newer titles are embracing newer technology such as bf3 and arkham city. this will soon render the old technology defunct. said:

anyhow, a new generation of technology is emerging and newer titles are embracing newer technology such as bf3 and arkham city. this will soon render the old technology defunct.



i got Q6600 2.4 @ 2.97
3gb ddr2 800 @ 1072
seven 64
GTX260 - stock

BF3 player...

screen 1080p


i set all on medium, 20-25 fps
75% @ low settings keeps game fluid & still nice @ 1920x1080
setting all ultra settings is certainly 3 fps

but this computer handle BF nicly & no need for 1500-2000€ computer to have fun & pwn others in multi.

fan boys comments over here, because most of games from 2000 to 2011 run flawlessly at ultra settings,

only the end 2011 games starts to sucks and only because of shadows & FSAA.

full options ultra excepted reduced shadowing & light FSAA make all game full fps possible.


mental ideology to got pc for over fps because of 60hz screen displaying limitation, and your eyes & your brains dont see the difference over 30 fps

you believe it because you know it but blind test will make you lie at what your trust my friends.

!