Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Intel vs AMD + SSD

Last response: in Systems
Share
March 25, 2011 2:21:07 AM

Well, its decision time. I have the option of going Intel or AMD (with some trade-offs)

Intel -
2500k - CPU
ASRock p67 Extreme4 - Mobo
CM H212 - Cooler

AMD -
Phenom II 965 - CPU
Asus 870 - Mobo
CM H212 - Cooler

With the price difference between the two, I would be able to get a 60GB Mushkin SSD with the AMD setup, which I would use as a boot drive and storage for a few select games. I'm really torn between the two sides, a lot of people say the SSD makes the world of difference, but framerates in games would be higher with the Sandy Bridge CPU. Just wanted to hear some opinions... which would you choose and why?

More about : intel amd ssd

March 25, 2011 3:21:33 AM

That's a great question. I can't give you much detail but your FPS are going to be determined most by your GPU and that will be the same for either system.

What a SSD will give you is quick boots every time you start up and will load games/applications quicker. Still, thats a only a few seconds at most but I can see the appeal. ;) 

I hope someone weighs in on the "real world" or at least gaming world differences between the 2500K and Phenom II 965 with an idea what the price premium between the two systems really gets you.
m
0
l
March 25, 2011 4:36:17 AM

Toxic72 said:
Well, its decision time. I have the option of going Intel or AMD (with some trade-offs)

Intel -
2500k - CPU
ASRock p67 Extreme4 - Mobo
CM H212 - Cooler

AMD -
Phenom II 965 - CPU
Asus 870 - Mobo
CM H212 - Cooler

With the price difference between the two, I would be able to get a 60GB Mushkin SSD with the AMD setup, which I would use as a boot drive and storage for a few select games. I'm really torn between the two sides, a lot of people say the SSD makes the world of difference, but framerates in games would be higher with the Sandy Bridge CPU. Just wanted to hear some opinions... which would you choose and why?

If this is in regards to a gaming build...then the question is moot. Let's see... an SSD to load up a second rate build, or take a second or two longer to boot up a superior build.

So what's the question again ? :pfff: 
m
0
l
Related resources
March 25, 2011 4:22:39 PM

For general multi-tasking, opening programs, loading maps in between games, the SSD and AMD combo will take the prize. For gaming, it will rely a lot more on your GPU. The only benefit I can see from the Intel i5 set-up would be for heavy loads such as video encoding, drafting, 3D modelling, etc. From what I've seen in benchmarks, the AMD 955 with a mild over clock will power almost any GPU set-up without bottlenecking it.
m
0
l
March 25, 2011 4:26:57 PM

I would chose the 2500K build with a slow HD. In fact, I already did this near the end of last year, with my i7-950 + Western Digital 1T Black + HD 6870 build. I was actually planning to get an SSD (the Corsair Force 120G), but aborted that plan when I read it would not help gaming performance, except for initial startup and when the game needs to load a new level)

EDIT: axipher's response snuck in before mine.

The first game I played is Oblivion (now that I finally have a build that can play it). This game would actually benefit from the AMD + SSD build, since the AMD 965 is plenty of CPU power and the SSD would improve load times.

My next game is SpaceCraft II, a game that is more CPU hungry. Given the latest games (and even some future ones), I would think the 2500K build would be a better choice. Am I wrong?
m
0
l
March 25, 2011 4:49:22 PM

axipher said:
For general multi-tasking, opening programs, loading maps in between games, the SSD and AMD combo will take the prize. For gaming, it will rely a lot more on your GPU. The only benefit I can see from the Intel i5 set-up would be for heavy loads such as video encoding, drafting, 3D modelling, etc. From what I've seen in benchmarks, the AMD 955 with a mild over clock will power almost any GPU set-up without bottlenecking it.

If that's the case...well then every pc hardware site on the net including this one is totally wrong seeing how all the reviews show different from what you just posted in regards to those two cpu's. If I was building a gaming rig and I had a chance to increase my frame rates vs loading up Windows and a proggy or two a few seconds faster then I would go with the AMD if I had just received a frontal lobe lobotomy and had what was left of my brains sucked out of my skull with a shop vac.


http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/102?vs=288 <----- 965BE vs 2500K
m
0
l
March 25, 2011 4:54:21 PM

Why the hell would you buy a 965?

Rebranded 955 for suckers.
m
0
l
March 25, 2011 7:14:22 PM

Why_Me is right. If anyone could see that benchmark comparison and still go with the AMD, they would need to be checked out for mental disabilities.
m
0
l
March 26, 2011 12:02:26 AM

Lets not get hostile here... The video card is a 6950 2GB, and two of the main games I will be playing are Fall out 3 and Oblivion (and later Skyrim). This is why I'm having a hard time deciding.
m
0
l
March 26, 2011 9:33:35 AM

Toxic72 said:
Lets not get hostile here... The video card is a 6950 2GB, and two of the main games I will be playing are Fall out 3 and Oblivion (and later Skyrim). This is why I'm having a hard time deciding.

If your having a difficult time deciding what cpu to go with, you might want to go with a pre built...maybe cyber power or something.
m
0
l
March 26, 2011 5:05:08 PM

Why? That would just cost me more money for something I could do myself...
m
0
l
March 26, 2011 10:50:34 PM

Toxic72 said:
Why? That would just cost me more money for something I could do myself...


It was a subtle insult.
m
0
l
March 27, 2011 2:50:25 AM

I see that things get pretty hostile here on the TH forums, I'll take my questions elsewhere.
m
0
l
March 27, 2011 3:07:58 AM

You seem to be looking for someone to tell you to get the AMD + SSD, since you have ignored Why_me and me (and every site on the net that has shown how unnecessary an SSD is for gaming).

Check out this link. You will see that you are correct for Fallout 3, but look at the Dragon Age score. An SSD would not change the FPS of any game. For Oblivion, I don't have time to read the one sentence screens that are shown while it is loading a level.

So, the choice comes down to:

1. AMD + SSD - Your CPU is going to bottleneck several current games, and may have a problem with future games you want to play. But, the SSD will make the game take 2 seconds to load instead of 4.

2. 2500K + a fast HD - You have the CPU power to handle all of today's games well (especially mated to the 6950) and will be there for future games that require more CPU power. But, the game will take 4 seconds to load instead of 2.

Why would you sacrifice CPU power (and FPS) just to get the game to start a bit faster? We are talking seconds here, not minutes.
m
0
l
March 27, 2011 3:26:46 AM

Let's be clear about the difference between an SSD and a conventional HDD.

An SSD will generally read and write at about 270MB/sec. A coventional HDD will read at 60MB/sec and write at 35MB/sec, but you can forget that if the file isn't contigious. Anyway, with some rudimentary maths, we can actually work out that conventional HDD is about 6 times slower than an SSD (not to mention the random reads etc.)

And so, there actually are games developed which read large files on your hard disk to load textures, scenarary, and generally other stuff which we know as graphics. Faster access = fun times.

Ok, the AMD vs Intel thing - generally Intel is better across the board from everything I've ever read, but your £200/$200 AMD quad or hex chip isn't going to give you 1FPS in a game. I'm running an AMD Phenom II 945 @ 3Ghz, with ATI 5770 1GB in 1920x1080 I'm getting no lower than 60FPS in DX11 with Battlefield:BC2 - the human eye isn't capable of seeing more than 60FPS so I'm on to a good thing...

And overclocks are what AMD and ATI where made for. You can really pump out an overclock.

Go for the AMD with SSD any day!
m
0
l
March 27, 2011 4:55:02 AM

extraspicy said:
Let's be clear about the difference between an SSD and a conventional HDD.

An SSD will generally read and write at about 270MB/sec. A coventional HDD will read at 60MB/sec and write at 35MB/sec, but you can forget that if the file isn't contigious. Anyway, with some rudimentary maths, we can actually work out that conventional HDD is about 6 times slower than an SSD (not to mention the random reads etc.)

And so, there actually are games developed which read large files on your hard disk to load textures, scenarary, and generally other stuff which we know as graphics. Faster access = fun times.

Ok, the AMD vs Intel thing - generally Intel is better across the board from everything I've ever read, but your £200/$200 AMD quad or hex chip isn't going to give you 1FPS in a game. I'm running an AMD Phenom II 945 @ 3Ghz, with ATI 5770 1GB in 1920x1080 I'm getting no lower than 60FPS in DX11 with Battlefield:BC2 - the human eye isn't capable of seeing more than 60FPS so I'm on to a good thing.
And overclocks are what AMD and ATI where made for. You can really pump out an overclock.

Go for the AMD with SSD any day!

lol ? :heink:  AMD hasn't beaten Intel in over clocking since the release of the core2duo back in 2006. You tell me how an AMD beats an Intel on over clocking...especially seeing how these Sandy Bridge cpu's are hitting 4.8ghz - 5.0+ghz on the average.

Yes take the AMD and SSD you say....of course your the only one that see's that. Anymore advice ? Do show us some benchmarks on this AMD over clocking please. I would love to see those links.
m
0
l
March 27, 2011 12:21:39 PM

extraspicy said:
Let's be clear about the difference between an SSD and a conventional HDD.

An SSD will generally read and write at about 270MB/sec. A coventional HDD will read at 60MB/sec and write at 35MB/sec, but you can forget that if the file isn't contigious. Anyway, with some rudimentary maths, we can actually work out that conventional HDD is about 6 times slower than an SSD (not to mention the random reads etc.)

And so, there actually are games developed which read large files on your hard disk to load textures, scenarary, and generally other stuff which we know as graphics. Faster access = fun times.

Ok, the AMD vs Intel thing - generally Intel is better across the board from everything I've ever read, but your £200/$200 AMD quad or hex chip isn't going to give you 1FPS in a game. I'm running an AMD Phenom II 945 @ 3Ghz, with ATI 5770 1GB in 1920x1080 I'm getting no lower than 60FPS in DX11 with Battlefield:BC2 - the human eye isn't capable of seeing more than 60FPS so I'm on to a good thing...

And overclocks are what AMD and ATI where made for. You can really pump out an overclock.

Go for the AMD with SSD any day!


So many things wrong with this post. One has already been covered.

2. " I'm getting no lower than 60FPS in DX11 with Battlefield:BC2 - the human eye isn't capable of seeing more than 60FPS so I'm on to a good thing..."

So you're using a slow chip with a slow GPU and telling the OP to use a slow chip with his fast GPU?

What are you smoking bro?
m
0
l
March 27, 2011 4:11:42 PM

herpity said:
So many things wrong with this post. One has already been covered.

2. " I'm getting no lower than 60FPS in DX11 with Battlefield:BC2 - the human eye isn't capable of seeing more than 60FPS so I'm on to a good thing..."

So you're using a slow chip with a slow GPU and telling the OP to use a slow chip with his fast GPU?

What are you smoking bro?

+1
m
0
l
March 27, 2011 6:27:30 PM

A year ago, the 965 would have been a good choice. Look at Benchmark Results: StarCraft 2.

Comparing the i5-2400 to the PII 955 you see min/max of 23/45 versus 13/29. 30 FPS is needed for there to be no noticeable slowdown. Which CPU will be better for SC II? Would you rather have faster load times and have to compromise graphics quality to the play the game, or have slightly longer load times and be able to play at high settings? Frankly, this should be a rhetorical question.

Even if you have no interest in SC II, are you going to get the 965, because it's good enough for some other current game (like BF 2), or are you going to consider that in the next 5 years a game will come out that you want to play that requires the power of the i5-2500? The OP says he want to play Fallout 3 now and Skyrim later. I remember when Oblivion came out in 2006. It maxed the best hardware available at that time, making my new P4 3.0 with X800XT build look bad. What will Bethesda do with Skyrim? I will bet that it will require beefy hardware to run at high settings well.

Conclusion: We have no idea what will come out in the next 5 years that will test the current hardware. The 965 gags running SC II at high settings. What will happen when these games come out: Diablo 3, Duke Nuke'em Forever, Skyrim, etc. Would you rather have the option to plop in an SSD in the future or be faced with a new system build?
m
0
l
March 27, 2011 8:18:09 PM

Now THAT was a good answer DX. Thank you. This had made my decision quite clear. (Also, I never thought that the SSD would raise my framerates, but I play a lot of games with open environments and lots of textures, so I figured the SSD would help). Deciding to skip it now and just get a WD Caviar Black for the time being.
m
0
l
March 27, 2011 9:11:33 PM

Toxic72 said:
Now THAT was a good answer DX. Thank you. This had made my decision quite clear. (Also, I never thought that the SSD would raise my framerates, but I play a lot of games with open environments and lots of textures, so I figured the SSD would help). Deciding to skip it now and just get a WD Caviar Black for the time being.

You were given good answers way up towards the top of this thread along with links to benchmarks. It's not our fault you chose not to click those links and read the benchmarks.

btw that WD h/d is a waste of money. The Samsung F1 1TB beats it out in most benchmarks including the ones that count the most...speed, sound decibels, and price.
m
0
l
March 27, 2011 9:45:23 PM

Why_Me said:
You were given good answers way up towards the top of this thread along with links to benchmarks. It's not our fault you chose not to click those links and read the benchmarks.

btw that WD h/d is a waste of money. The Samsung F1 1TB beats it out in most benchmarks including the ones that count the most...speed, sound decibels, and price.


Shiny blue link scare me, to big words.

Me need explanation in thread.
m
0
l
March 28, 2011 11:24:33 AM

Why_Me said:
lol ? :heink:  AMD hasn't beaten Intel in over clocking since the release of the core2duo back in 2006. You tell me how an AMD beats an Intel on over clocking...especially seeing how these Sandy Bridge cpu's are hitting 4.8ghz - 5.0+ghz on the average.

Yes take the AMD and SSD you say....of course your the only one that see's that. Anymore advice ? Do show us some benchmarks on this AMD over clocking please. I would love to see those links.


Right, so please can you point out where I mentioned an Intel chip is better for overclocking that an AMD? I just said the AMD chips are made for overclocking... your analysis of the English I've written here is assuming a lot which I've actually not said.

Besides, I'd feel a lot happier burning out a cheap AMD chip than a more expensive Intel chip - personally I've not exactly got money to literally burn...

And yes, it clearing does make more sense to buy an AMD with SSD for a moderately fast processor and quick disk speeds, than a fast processor which will have slow disk access... I would be happy to say an AMD with SSD will beat most, if not all CPU + disk orientated processes hands down. More or less everything you do with a machine reads the hard disk - So I still say AMD with SSD.
m
0
l
March 28, 2011 11:30:00 AM

herpity said:
So many things wrong with this post. One has already been covered.

2. " I'm getting no lower than 60FPS in DX11 with Battlefield:BC2 - the human eye isn't capable of seeing more than 60FPS so I'm on to a good thing..."

So you're using a slow chip with a slow GPU and telling the OP to use a slow chip with his fast GPU?

What are you smoking bro?


I've stated what I've got in my PC, and I've stated the results I'm getting. I'm really not sure what point your trying to make.
m
0
l
March 28, 2011 1:03:23 PM

From what I can see just "googling" the two hard drives, the WD looks to be more reliable than the Samsung... I couldn't find any speed comparisons though. Do you have a link?
m
0
l
March 28, 2011 2:15:21 PM

CPU makes little difference in games. The Sandy Bridge would be a hell of a lot faster in general applications but you would see perhaps 3-4 FPS more in games, not really noticable.

The difference between a system running from HD and SSD is massive. It's not just boot times and app load times, everything you do on your PC will suddenly becomes much quicker and more responsive. Adding an SSD is by far the best upgrade you can ever give your PC.

If it frees up the cash for an SSD, I'd go for the slower and hotter AMD build every time. The Mushkin 60gb uses the superior Sandforce 1200 controller, so is an excellent choice and will speed up your system massively.
m
0
l
March 28, 2011 3:03:12 PM

Ten98 said:
CPU makes little difference in games. The Sandy Bridge would be a hell of a lot faster in general applications but you would see perhaps 3-4 FPS more in games, not really noticable.

The difference between a system running from HD and SSD is massive. It's not just boot times and app load times, everything you do on your PC will suddenly becomes much quicker and more responsive. Adding an SSD is by far the best upgrade you can ever give your PC.

If it frees up the cash for an SSD, I'd go for the slower and hotter AMD build every time. The Mushkin 60gb uses the superior Sandforce 1200 controller, so is an excellent choice and will speed up your system massively.

Post some links please to back up that post of yours. Again I and others on here would like to see those links.

In the mean time I have a few showing the opposite of what you just posted in regards to those two cpu's and fps.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/288?vs=102 <------ 2500K vs 965 BE

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4083

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2011/01/03/intel-...

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/sandy-bridge-core-i...

http://www.guru3d.com/article/core-i5-2500k-and-core-i7...
m
0
l
March 28, 2011 6:14:13 PM

Having just built a new computer in November of last year (i7 950 + HD 6870 + WD 1T Black + Win7 64-bit), allow me to respond again. We are talking about a gaming build here.

1. Look at the starcraft II link I provided. An SSD is NOT going to make the 965 FPS go up to playable levels. Although the 965 is plenty for most games out today, there are several that are CPU intensive, and we have no idea what is coming in the future. If a game comes out that requires the 50% speed boost the 2500K provides, and is one you really want to play, you would either need to sacrifice on visual options or do a new build.

2. I had the Corsair Force 128G SSD on my list, but decided to see how the new WD Black did first. My system boots up fast, loads apps fast. The new WD is obviously much faster than the Seagate 160G 72K RPM drive in my previous build. Load times in Oblivion are so fast, I don't have time to read the little loading screens. The game never hiccups when it needs to load content as I move around the world.

If I do ever get an SSD, it will be when I do something that does heavy I/O. If I start programming again, I know that Visual Studio will benefit when it builds a large project. It needs to read each source file and write the various output files. I know for a fact that it is very I/O intensive for this task.

For now, I use FireFox or IE8 to browse the web, Excel or Word to create documents, and Outlook to do email. It takes 1-3 seconds to start these apps. An SSD would take .5-1.5 seconds. I don't really care about that, but then I am not on speed. Once an app is open, I don't notice an HD activity switching between them. With 6G RAM, there is no need for the system to write anything to the swap file.

So, is the thrill of getting instant responses starting desktop apps worth sacrificing the speed of the CPU? If so, I would recommend a compromise:

i5-2300 + SSD

m
0
l
March 28, 2011 6:45:46 PM

I've decided to go with the Sandy Bridge, and skip the SSD (as I said before). Now I just have a few more questions -
As I posted above, are there any bench marks comparing the WD Caviar Black and the Samsung Spinpoint (I couldn't find any). Also, how noticeable is RAM with better timings (I.E. - DDR3 1600mhz 9-9-9-24 vs 7-8-7-24).
m
0
l
March 28, 2011 7:43:32 PM

Toxic72 said:
I've decided to go with the Sandy Bridge, and skip the SSD (as I said before). Now I just have a few more questions -
As I posted above, are there any bench marks comparing the WD Caviar Black and the Samsung Spinpoint (I couldn't find any). Also, how noticeable is RAM with better timings (I.E. - DDR3 1600mhz 9-9-9-24 vs 7-8-7-24).

Good choice. As for the RAM, timings mean zero in regards to over clocking with these P67 mobo's so the CL9 is just fine. Just make sure the RAM is low voltage...as in 1.5v or less. G.Skill and Mushkin are both great choices in that respect.

And I would like to apologize to you for the tards on this thread that flat out lied to you in regards to the choice of cpu. Benchmarks speak for themselves time after time.
m
0
l
March 28, 2011 8:17:58 PM

I didn't really plan to OC the memory (I guess I could though). What is the advantage to having lower voltages on memory? I'm trying to keep the price of the whole computer down to under $950, and I found a combo deal with this memory in it:

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

I have about $10 until I hit the $950 cap as is, so any upgrade might be over doing it.
m
0
l
March 28, 2011 8:35:46 PM

Toxic72 said:
I didn't really plan to OC the memory (I guess I could though). What is the advantage to having lower voltages on memory? I'm trying to keep the price of the whole computer down to under $950, and I found a combo deal with this memory in it:

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

I have about $10 until I hit the $950 cap as is, so any upgrade might be over doing it.

Lower voltage RAM means less volts to get it's rated timing and speeds, in other words it's better ram.

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/261222-31-build-advic... <---- If you could take a few minutes and do a "copy & paste" job of that on here and fill it out I would appreciate it. This way I know your budget, what parts you have in mind, if you need an o/s (Windows) included in the budget, etc...

There's probably a good chance Iv'e posted a build in your price range on here and I can repost it on this thread.
m
0
l
March 28, 2011 8:59:17 PM

Well I figured I would just make my own post because I have the cart planned out already (I can't use a public wishlist from Newegg because of all of the combo deals).

Case: *Cooler Master HAF 912* in a combo with *Corsair XMS3 4GB* - $115

Motherboard: *ASRock P67 PRO3* - $140

Processor: *2500K* in a combo with *Cooler Master Hyper 212 Plus* - $252 for both

PSU: *CORSAIR Enthusiast Series CMPSU-650TX* bundled with *SAMSUNG Spinpoint F3* - $142 for both

GPU: MSI 560GTX - $250

I added 4 Apevia Blue LED fans to fill the open slots on the case - $30 for all 4
Also added some Artic Silver 5

I don't need any peripherals or an OS.


Total comes to $954.91 with shipping to Zip Code: 60048

Sorry for the jumbled list, but I figured you could just suggest different parts instead of having to go hunt down a previous build (like different RAM).

m
0
l
March 28, 2011 9:14:34 PM

Toxic72 said:
Well I figured I would just make my own post because I have the cart planned out already (I can't use a public wishlist from Newegg because of all of the combo deals).

Case: *Cooler Master HAF 912* in a combo with *Corsair XMS3 4GB* - $115

Motherboard: *ASRock P67 PRO3* - $140

Processor: *2500K* in a combo with *Cooler Master Hyper 212 Plus* - $252 for both

PSU: *CORSAIR Enthusiast Series CMPSU-650TX* bundled with *SAMSUNG Spinpoint F3* - $142 for both

GPU: MSI 560GTX - $250

I added 4 Apevia Blue LED fans to fill the open slots on the case - $30 for all 4
Also added some Artic Silver 5

I don't need any peripherals or an OS.


Total comes to $954.91 with shipping to Zip Code: 60048

Sorry for the jumbled list, but I figured you could just suggest different parts instead of having to go hunt down a previous build (like different RAM).


This build is set up to add another one of those factory over clocked gtx 560's later on for SLI (750w ftw). Also that factory over clocked Gigabyte gtx 560 down below is clocked even higher than that MSI and has headroom to spare.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboDealDetails.aspx?Ite... Combo Discount: -$15.00 Combo Price: $114.98 $20.00 Mail-In Rebate Card Price After Mail-In Rebate(s): $94.98FREE SHIPPING
COOLER MASTER HAF 912 RC-912-KKN1 Black SECC/ ABS Plastic ATX Mid Tower Computer Case
CORSAIR XMS3 4GB (2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1600 (PC3 12800) Desktop Memory Model CMX4GX3M2A1600C9

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168... $89.99 FREE SHIPPING
Antec TruePower New TP-750 750W Continuous Power ATX12V V2.3 / EPS12V V2.91 SLI Certified CrossFire Ready 80 PLUS BRONZE Certified Active PFC "compatible with Core i7/Core i5" Power Supply

http://www.superbiiz.com/detail.php?name=MB-P67X4B3&tit... $153.99
ASRock P67 EXTREME4 B3 LGA1155/ Intel P67 B3/ DDR3/ Quad SLI & Quad CrossFireX/ SATA3&USB3.0/ A&GbE/ ATX Motherboard

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboDealDetails.aspx?Ite... Combo Discount: -$8.00 Combo Price: $251.98
Intel Core i5-2500K Sandy Bridge 3.3GHz (3.7GHz Turbo Boost) LGA 1155 95W Quad-Core Desktop Processor BX80623I52500K
COOLER MASTER Hyper 212 Plus RR-B10-212P-G1 "Heatpipe Direct Contact" Long Life Sleeve 120mm CPU Cooler Compatible Intel ...

http://www.superbiiz.com/detail.php?name=HD-HD103SJ&tit... $59.99 Free Shipping
Samsung SpinPoint F3 HD103SJ 1TB SATA2 7200rpm 32MB Hard Drive

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168... $239.99
GIGABYTE GV-N560OC-1GI GeForce GTX 560 Ti (Fermi) 1GB 256-bit GDDR5 PCI Express 2.0 x16 HDCP Ready SLI Support Video Card

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168... $18.99
ASUS Black 24X DVD+R 8X DVD+RW 12X DVD+R DL 24X DVD-R 6X DVD-RW 12X DVD-RAM 16X DVD-ROM 48X CD-R 32X CD-RW 48X CD-ROM 2MB Cache SATA 24X DVD Burner - Bulk - OEM

Total: $916.00 *not including shipping, rebates, etc..

http://www.madshrimps.be/articles/article/1000116#axzz1... <---Review on that Asrock motherboard after the latest bios update

http://www.hardwareheaven.com/reviews/1098/pg2/asrock-e... <---Review on that Asrock motherboard after the latest bios update

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4080/welcome-to-sandy-bri... <--- Review before the latest bios...and it still smoked the Asus and Gigabyte boards

http://www.asrock.com/news/events/201102ex/warranty.htm... <---- Asrock two year warranty

http://www.asrock.com/mb/overview.asp?Model=P67%20Extre... <----- ASRock P67 Extreme4 Motherboard
m
0
l
March 28, 2011 9:28:35 PM

Wow! I'm glad Why_Me eventually convinced you to go with the SB. So you know, CPU's matter in games. Not as much as a GPU, but they still matter.

That's like saying there's no difference between a four cylinder and a V8 because they can both hit 80 on a freeway. If you don't care about your electricity bill (mileage), there are times when you'll notice while driving. And gaming is like racing--so you'll notice. Just look at benchmarks and you'll see there's a easily detectable fps benefit. Or if you prefer a simple chart: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-overcloc....

And a guy above said HDD's read at 60MB/s and write at 35MB/s. Yeah...maybe if you're from 2005. A single spinpoint F3 reads at 125MB/s or so at its peak (top 100MB/s or so). I have three in RAID 0 and I get 425MB/s read across the partition. And my load times are fantastic. Although I will get an SSD later this year, get the CPU first.
m
0
l
March 28, 2011 10:36:56 PM

Would filling all of the empty spaces in the CM HAF 912 with fans really be worth it for keeping temperatures manageable? I feel like the two spaces on top are kind of unnecessary (I would have two intakes, one exhaust, and one side fan if I skip the two on top).

Also, I've never heard of Superbiiz.com Are they reliable?
m
0
l
March 28, 2011 10:43:41 PM

Toxic72 said:
Would filling all of the empty spaces in the CM HAF 912 with fans really be worth it for keeping temperatures manageable? I feel like the two spaces on top are kind of unnecessary (I would have two intakes, one exhaust, and one side fan if I skip the two on top).

Also, I've never heard of Superbiiz.com Are they reliable?

Superbiiz has been around forever and then some. Just watch out for their shipping charges since they raised them a few months back. If they hose ya on the shipping charges, wait for that mobo to come back in stock at newegg.

I would add a fan or two to that case. Somewhere on that link is a "4 pack" of case fans.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=E...
m
0
l
September 5, 2012 7:32:36 AM

chmcke01 said:
Why_Me is right. If anyone could see that benchmark comparison and still go with the AMD, they would need to be checked out for mental disabilities.


nice to see a intel supporter. truth is benchmark dont mean anything period. last system i built used amd fx-8150 cpu yes it has eight cores and is not as fast initially as intel's core I-7 cpu but if you bothered to see what mattered you would notice that when using true benchmark testing that allows you to not only test initial loading but continues with running a program for more than 5 to 10 seconds intel continues its steady performance with increasing power draw and heat increase while amd comes to life after the initial start of any load on the cpu and isnt thermally controlled as much as intel which also means that with stock cooling amd will take the gold on game playing not loading the game.
m
0
l
September 5, 2012 8:52:24 AM

marksman said:
nice to see a intel supporter. truth is benchmark dont mean anything period. last system i built used amd fx-8150 cpu yes it has eight cores and is not as fast initially as intel's core I-7 cpu but if you bothered to see what mattered you would notice that when using true benchmark testing that allows you to not only test initial loading but continues with running a program for more than 5 to 10 seconds intel continues its steady performance with increasing power draw and heat increase while amd comes to life after the initial start of any load on the cpu and isnt thermally controlled as much as intel which also means that with stock cooling amd will take the gold on game playing not loading the game.

Your first post on here and you bump a thread that's a year and a half old?
m
0
l
!