Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

New AMD build, good?

Last response: in Systems
Share
February 14, 2011 7:31:18 PM

sup guys, im trying to make a new build , this is what i have so far, buying in newegg:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...


all this goes with an hd 5850 that i already have, and probably adding another one in the future to get the performance of an hd 5970.

tell me what you think, any comment will be highly appreciated!! =D


More about : amd build good

Best solution

February 14, 2011 7:37:21 PM

Purpose of build? budget? Basically fill out form in sticky, link in my sig.

Don't need an x6 if this is for gaming. In fact, Phenom II x4 beat the x6 in gaming.

Cheaper Optical
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

Also, you should write name and price of each component above the link.
Share
Related resources
February 14, 2011 7:51:19 PM

i though of the phenom ii x6 because i thought i will have better future proofing, do u guys think a phenom ii x4 will last for al least some years??
m
0
l
February 14, 2011 7:53:07 PM

Re: Bottleneck question


There are many factors that determine where a bottleneck in a system is. So I'll divide it into CPu and GPU

CPU half of the explanation-
Short answer: Depending upon resolution and type of game. IE how well threaded it is and whether it has physics and AI, or just AI. Also if it's AI intensive like RTS or not, like FPS.

long answer:
Threading
Games are very poorly threaded. The part of gaming that is well
threaded, the graphics portions, is handled by the GPU, which already
have hundreds of cores.

In gaming, the most CPU intensive task is AI. AI, by definition is not
a parallel process. It is extremely difficult to thread AI. Most games
that are "multi threaded" actually keep AI on 1 thread and throw the
rest (minor far less intensive stuff) on the other.

Can you design a game to utilize 4 or more cores? Sure, you can throw
all the CPU non intensive calculations onto their own threads, but
until someone figures out a good way to thread nonparallel
computations, the performance increase will be minimal, as the hard
work is still restricted to 1 thread.

This issue has been stumping programmers for decades. There are ways
to do this in specific situations, but no general solution yet. A
general solution allowing infinite threading of nonparallel
calculations would be the programming equivalent of finding the cure
for cancer, noble prize stuff for sure.

Basically think of it this way. On a math exam you have a 3 part
question in which the answer to part each part depends on previous
answers. IE

A. Add up 3 and 5.
B. Use the answer from part A and divide by 2
C. Use the answer from part B and triple it.

what is the final answer?

This is the type of thinking AI requires. Threading this is the
equivalent of calculating the answer to A, B and C simultaneously.
It's not impossible like the mathematical equivalent is, but it's not
easy.

The other CPU intensive task is physics, Supreme Commander 1 was notorious for this as it actually did physics calculations for each unit AND each weapon fire. However, outside a few games such as that, Physics calculations aren't a big issue. Incidentally, physics is also not well threaded.

So in a game like original sup com, you can throw AI on 1 thread, physics on another, leaving a 3rd for other stuff.

For this reason, more than 3 threads has very little benefit. So if a game is well threaded, it'll utilize CPU up to 3 threads.

On the other hand, if it's not well threaded you're better off with high speed single or dual core.

GPU half of the answer:
Short: depends on resolution, eye candy and drivers.

Long Answer:
The higher the resolution, the more the GPU needs to calculate. Hence, the higher the resolution, the more the the bottleneck shifts towards GPU.

At the same time, enabling AF and AA also require further GPu calculations. So if you turn up the eye candy, GPU has to work harder and further pushes bottleneck to GPU.

Additional features such as tessellation also are GPU calculated. So these will also shift bottleneck to GPU.

At the same time, even if the hardware is capable, if drivers aren't then you got issues. If drivers are extremely poor (take TERA currently for ex) both ATI and Nvidia GPU's are getting unplayable FPS when theoretically they should be fine. So in this case, the bottleneck is with the drivers, not the CPU or GPU technically.

Summary:
Bottleneck moves toward CPU if:
Lots of Physics
Lots of AI
Poor threading
Low resolution

Bottleneck moves to GPU if:
High Resolution
Eye candy enabled
Tessellation is used

Bottleneck moves to drivers if drivers just fail.

In general, since people want to game at the highest res and with as much eye candy as they can, you'll find GPu bottleneck.

The one exception to this is poor software coding. If a game isn't coded to use CPU /GPU properly all bets are off and it'll depend upon game where bottleneck goes.

TLDR: No the Phenom II x4 should not bottleneck 2 5850's.
m
0
l
February 14, 2011 8:00:10 PM

banthracis said:
Re: Bottleneck question


There are many factors that determine where a bottleneck in a system is. So I'll divide it into CPu and GPU

CPU half of the explanation-
Short answer: Depending upon resolution and type of game. IE how well threaded it is and whether it has physics and AI, or just AI. Also if it's AI intensive like RTS or not, like FPS.

long answer:
Threading
Games are very poorly threaded. The part of gaming that is well
threaded, the graphics portions, is handled by the GPU, which already
have hundreds of cores.

In gaming, the most CPU intensive task is AI. AI, by definition is not
a parallel process. It is extremely difficult to thread AI. Most games
that are "multi threaded" actually keep AI on 1 thread and throw the
rest (minor far less intensive stuff) on the other.

Can you design a game to utilize 4 or more cores? Sure, you can throw
all the CPU non intensive calculations onto their own threads, but
until someone figures out a good way to thread nonparallel
computations, the performance increase will be minimal, as the hard
work is still restricted to 1 thread.

This issue has been stumping programmers for decades. There are ways
to do this in specific situations, but no general solution yet. A
general solution allowing infinite threading of nonparallel
calculations would be the programming equivalent of finding the cure
for cancer, noble prize stuff for sure.

Basically think of it this way. On a math exam you have a 3 part
question in which the answer to part each part depends on previous
answers. IE

A. Add up 3 and 5.
B. Use the answer from part A and divide by 2
C. Use the answer from part B and triple it.

what is the final answer?

This is the type of thinking AI requires. Threading this is the
equivalent of calculating the answer to A, B and C simultaneously.
It's not impossible like the mathematical equivalent is, but it's not
easy.

The other CPU intensive task is physics, Supreme Commander 1 was notorious for this as it actually did physics calculations for each unit AND each weapon fire. However, outside a few games such as that, Physics calculations aren't a big issue. Incidentally, physics is also not well threaded.

So in a game like original sup com, you can throw AI on 1 thread, physics on another, leaving a 3rd for other stuff.

For this reason, more than 3 threads has very little benefit. So if a game is well threaded, it'll utilize CPU up to 3 threads.

On the other hand, if it's not well threaded you're better off with high speed single or dual core.

GPU half of the answer:
Short: depends on resolution, eye candy and drivers.

Long Answer:
The higher the resolution, the more the GPU needs to calculate. Hence, the higher the resolution, the more the the bottleneck shifts towards GPU.

At the same time, enabling AF and AA also require further GPu calculations. So if you turn up the eye candy, GPU has to work harder and further pushes bottleneck to GPU.

Additional features such as tessellation also are GPU calculated. So these will also shift bottleneck to GPU.

At the same time, even if the hardware is capable, if drivers aren't then you got issues. If drivers are extremely poor (take TERA currently for ex) both ATI and Nvidia GPU's are getting unplayable FPS when theoretically they should be fine. So in this case, the bottleneck is with the drivers, not the CPU or GPU technically.

Summary:
Bottleneck moves toward CPU if:
Lots of Physics
Lots of AI
Poor threading
Low resolution

Bottleneck moves to GPU if:
High Resolution
Eye candy enabled
Tessellation is used

Bottleneck moves to drivers if drivers just fail.

In general, since people want to game at the highest res and with as much eye candy as they can, you'll find GPu bottleneck.

The one exception to this is poor software coding. If a game isn't coded to use CPU /GPU properly all bets are off and it'll depend upon game where bottleneck goes.

TLDR: No the Phenom II x4 should not bottleneck 2 5850's.


THX MAN!!! u solve a lot of questions i had, i will go for an x4 now, just one more question, u recommend going with the asrock mobo the other guy recommended? just to see if i can save more money haha or stay with the crosshair 4 formula
m
0
l
February 14, 2011 8:17:31 PM

I personally only use Asus and gigabyte due to their higher build quality. ASROCK (Asus rocks) used to be the budget brand of asus. Has since become it's own company, and build quality has gone down a bit.

However, in terms of what you get the money, they're top notch. Of the mid level mobo makers (MSI, ASROCK, BIOSTAR) they're probably the best.

I wouldn't get that Asus though, way too expensive.

Highest I'd go would be this GA $140
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

The price on the ASROCK though is very tempting. Up to you if you want to go for it.
m
0
l
February 14, 2011 8:37:35 PM

i think ill go for the gigabyte don't want lower quality haha, is still less expensive than the crosshair formula
m
0
l
February 14, 2011 8:59:25 PM

banthracis said:
I personally only use Asus and gigabyte due to their higher build quality. ASROCK (Asus rocks) used to be the budget brand of asus. Has since become it's own company, and build quality has gone down a bit.

However, in terms of what you get the money, they're top notch. Of the mid level mobo makers (MSI, ASROCK, BIOSTAR) they're probably the best.

I wouldn't get that Asus though, way too expensive.

Highest I'd go would be this GA $140
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

The price on the ASROCK though is very tempting. Up to you if you want to go for it.


hey, looking at the pictures i saw the cpu power connector was 8 pin, i have to use an 8 pin power connector?? or i can use a 4 pin like the other asus board?? the psu i put has only 2 6-8 pin power connectors, so if i have to use the 8 pin i would have to use one of the two 8 pin on the cpu, and use molex adapter for the other connector of the video card
m
0
l
February 14, 2011 10:53:52 PM

Most higher end Mobo's us 8 pin for CPU to allow greater v for OCing.

GPU's usually come with a 2 molex to 8 pin adapter which you can use. This'll give you the additional 8 pins you need. The 650TX doesn't actually have enough for xfire without using molex adapter.

Alternative would just be to grab this XFX PSU which is cheaper, better and modular, so really no reason not to grab it instead.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
m
0
l
February 15, 2011 1:53:18 AM

banthracis said:
Most higher end Mobo's us 8 pin for CPU to allow greater v for OCing.

GPU's usually come with a 2 molex to 8 pin adapter which you can use. This'll give you the additional 8 pins you need. The 650TX doesn't actually have enough for xfire without using molex adapter.

Alternative would just be to grab this XFX PSU which is cheaper, better and modular, so really no reason not to grab it instead.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...


just one question haha, is there any problem on using one of those adapters?
m
0
l
February 15, 2011 2:24:10 AM

No, those adapters are fine. You can use as many as you want. Limit is the PSU's amperage/wattage, not connectors.
m
0
l
February 15, 2011 2:42:09 AM

banthracis said:
No, those adapters are fine. You can use as many as you want. Limit is the PSU's amperage/wattage, not connectors.


thx man!!
m
0
l
February 15, 2011 2:42:36 AM

Best answer selected by megagabobe1.
m
0
l
!