Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

After The Disappointment !

Tags:
  • CPUs
Last response: in CPUs
Share
a b à CPUs
October 13, 2011 11:12:58 AM

OK, you guessed it, i was waiting for a Bulldozer CPU that could beat the 2500k in all tests so i could buy it and stick with the underdog, but after reading everything on the internet about the FX8150 i can not justify spending more money on it than a 2500k.

So heres the question, my current set up is a 1090t Ocd to 4ghz the rest of the set up is........

Silverstone Fortress FT02B-W Windowed Gaming Case - Black
XFX 850W Black Edition Modular Power Supply
Asus M4A88TD-V-EVO/USB3
AMD AM3 1090t X6 OCd to 4Ghz on DARK ROCK PRO
Asus GTX580 Direct CU
8gb/4x2gb Corsair XMS3 1600mhz
120gb OCZ Vertex 2 SSD OSdrive
Samsung F3 1TB Data/Game Drive
Sony BluRay Optical Drive
Creative XFI Platinum
CoolerMaster Sickleflow 120mm fans controlled by NXZT SENTRY
Windows 7 64bit
Dell Ultrasharp 27\\\" monitor
Logitech G19 & G9x K/M
Logitech Z5500 5.1 THX certified speakers
8\\\" Samsung digital usb monitor for system monitoring software.

I have saved up £1000 to upgrade this PC internal hardware only, what i want to no is will i see a major difference between what i have now and a 2500k Ocd to 4.oghz?

Heres what i plan to buy, any thoughts opinions are welcome.



Intel Core i5 2500K Unlocked, S1155, Sndy Bridge, Quad, 3.3GHz, HD3000 IGP 850Mhz, 6MB Cache 95W Retail
£167.98

2TB Hitachi 0F12115 Deskstar 7K3000, SATA 6Gb/s, 7200rpm, 64MB Cache, 8ms, NCQ OEM
£79.98

Asus P8Z68-V PRO, Intel Z68, S 1155, DDR3, SATA III - 6Gb/s, RAID SATA, PCIe 2.0 (x16), VGA On Board, ATX
£149.62

120GB Corsair Force Sries 3, 2.5" SSD, SATA III - 6Gb/s, SandForce, Read 550Mb/s, Write 510Mb/s, 85,000 IOPS PC/MAC
£119.98

8GB (2x4GB) Corsair DDR3 Vengeance Jet Black LP, PC3-12800 (1600), Non-ECC, CAS 9-9-9-24, XMP, 1.5V
£90.72


Net Total
Carriage
VAT
£506.89
£7.99
£102.99
Total£617.87

More about : disappointment

a b à CPUs
October 13, 2011 11:22:15 AM

Unless your finding your current build seriously lacking somewhere in performance, it just doesn't seem worth upgrading at all.... Your already packing a GTX 580 along with a 1090T - I'm not sure what extra performance you could need?

Presuming this is a gaming build, adding another card in SLI seems a viable option, however this will more than likely require a PSU upgrade also.

I see no reason to upgrade RAM or SSD - adding another HDD is obviously down to your own personal storage requirements so do this as necessary.

£1000 I'm sure could be better spent elsewhere other than on a PC that really ISN'T lacking anywhere in performance.

a b à CPUs
October 13, 2011 11:26:55 AM

I have to confess, i am an upgrade addict that is thinking of attending UAA, (Upgrade Addicts Anonymous).
Related resources
a b à CPUs
October 13, 2011 11:31:17 AM

If I was in your situation, personally, id be considering moving onto some kind of water-cooling set up.

i5-2500k, ASUS P8Z68-v PRO + WATER-COOLING.

.....either that or jumping on the "multi-monitor gaming band-wagon" and grabbing another GTX 580 along with three monitors :) 



a c 131 à CPUs
October 13, 2011 11:33:11 AM

^I agree with adrian

I'd advise against any SLI or Crossfire due to stuttering.

There is not a significant enough difference between the 1090t and the i5 2500k for an upgrade.

If you do virtualization, maybe add 8 more GB of cheap ram?

Sell your 580 for a 6970 OC and set up eyefininity with some expensive displayport monitors?

Buy 4x3TB WD green drives?

Save even more money and just wait?
a b à CPUs
October 13, 2011 11:39:08 AM

£1000 is enough for a pretty wild holiday-adventure :D  I think more along the lines of putting money towards something like that you can enjoy :) 
a b à CPUs
October 13, 2011 11:52:05 AM

I agree you won't gain enough performance to justify upgrading now. Build a custom water cooling loop for your current system :lol: 
October 13, 2011 11:54:41 AM

I have no issues with stuttering with my 2x 2GB 6950's, that being said... I can vouch for the awesomeness that is 3x1 Eyefinity, and you don't have to buy three "expensive" display port monitors. I picked up three Asus 24" screens and one active mini-DP to DVI adapter and have 5760x1080 goodness for about $600 for the screens and the adapter . Was totally worth it!
October 13, 2011 12:04:59 PM

Why are we comparing a quad core to a octa core that has less cache per core???
a b à CPUs
October 13, 2011 1:06:37 PM

Jyle said:
Why are we comparing a quad core to a octa core that has less cache per core???


We're not? Are we?


.......
October 13, 2011 1:26:13 PM

Uther39 said:
OK, you guessed it, i was waiting for a Bulldozer CPU that could beat the 2500k in all tests so i could buy it and stick with the underdog, but after reading everything on the internet about the FX8150 i can not justify spending more money on it than a 2500k.

So heres the question, my current set up is a 1090t Ocd to 4ghz the rest of the set up is........



You're clearly jumping the gun. Every benchmark you saw probably had that awful kit to boot. the 8150 is an easy 2600k contender

http://www.hardwareheaven.com/reviews/1285/pg9/amd-fx-8...







a b à CPUs
October 13, 2011 1:37:47 PM

Source?

edit: nvm I must be blind
a b à CPUs
October 13, 2011 2:35:18 PM

The above benchmarks seem to run true, but only on specific hardware set ups.

Another thread just posted 6970 + MSI motherboard showing AMD BullDozer performing at the same level as i5/i7.

Specific hardware set ups seem to be performing "abnormally" compared to others. I think its going to take a few more days of testing until some conclusions can be made.
a b à CPUs
October 13, 2011 3:35:38 PM

Which MSI board was it they were using ?
October 13, 2011 3:42:26 PM

Uther39 said:
Which MSI board was it they were using ?



^^ Yea I want one
a b à CPUs
October 13, 2011 3:46:36 PM

MSI 990FXA-GD80 AMD 990FX AM3+

The above apparently.
October 14, 2011 5:55:10 PM

AdrianPerry said:
The above benchmarks seem to run true, but only on specific hardware set ups.

Another thread just posted 6970 + MSI motherboard showing AMD BullDozer performing at the same level as i5/i7.

Specific hardware set ups seem to be performing "abnormally" compared to others. I think its going to take a few more days of testing until some conclusions can be made.


I noticed Toms and Legitreviews both used the same mobo but Legitreviews used the latest bios revision which is 9901, can't recall which one Toms was on but it was 8xxx.
Oh also Legitreviews uses a 6950 and bulldozer is a lot more competitive across the board compared to Toms review.

Would running on a older bios version be the blame here or the Nvidia card? I would hope that more reviews are done to see why there are descrepencies between the two systems.
October 14, 2011 5:59:07 PM

perhaps the Radeon plays better with the FX due to it being from the same co. so they had more time to tweak certain optimizations?
October 14, 2011 7:05:31 PM

Uther39 said:
OK, you guessed it, i was waiting for a Bulldozer CPU that could beat the 2500k in all tests so i could buy it and stick with the underdog, but after reading everything on the internet about the FX8150 i can not justify spending more money on it than a 2500k.

So heres the question, my current set up is a 1090t Ocd to 4ghz the rest of the set up is........

Silverstone Fortress FT02B-W Windowed Gaming Case - Black
XFX 850W Black Edition Modular Power Supply
Asus M4A88TD-V-EVO/USB3
AMD AM3 1090t X6 OCd to 4Ghz on DARK ROCK PRO
Asus GTX580 Direct CU
8gb/4x2gb Corsair XMS3 1600mhz
120gb OCZ Vertex 2 SSD OSdrive
Samsung F3 1TB Data/Game Drive
Sony BluRay Optical Drive
Creative XFI Platinum
CoolerMaster Sickleflow 120mm fans controlled by NXZT SENTRY
Windows 7 64bit
Dell Ultrasharp 27\\\" monitor
Logitech G19 & G9x K/M
Logitech Z5500 5.1 THX certified speakers
8\\\" Samsung digital usb monitor for system monitoring software.

I have saved up £1000 to upgrade this PC internal hardware only, what i want to no is will i see a major difference between what i have now and a 2500k Ocd to 4.oghz?

Heres what i plan to buy, any thoughts opinions are welcome.



Intel Core i5 2500K Unlocked, S1155, Sndy Bridge, Quad, 3.3GHz, HD3000 IGP 850Mhz, 6MB Cache 95W Retail
£167.98

2TB Hitachi 0F12115 Deskstar 7K3000, SATA 6Gb/s, 7200rpm, 64MB Cache, 8ms, NCQ OEM
£79.98

Asus P8Z68-V PRO, Intel Z68, S 1155, DDR3, SATA III - 6Gb/s, RAID SATA, PCIe 2.0 (x16), VGA On Board, ATX
£149.62

120GB Corsair Force Sries 3, 2.5" SSD, SATA III - 6Gb/s, SandForce, Read 550Mb/s, Write 510Mb/s, 85,000 IOPS PC/MAC
£119.98

8GB (2x4GB) Corsair DDR3 Vengeance Jet Black LP, PC3-12800 (1600), Non-ECC, CAS 9-9-9-24, XMP, 1.5V
£90.72


Net Total
Carriage
VAT
£506.89
£7.99
£102.99
Total£617.87



The more interesting question is why NetBurst didn't get AMD 40% share.
October 14, 2011 7:23:25 PM

BaronMatrix said:
The more interesting question is why NetBurst didn't get AMD 40% share.


this is old news, AMD and Intel seems to have buried it and so should you. It does not give AMD excuses to release a delayed to hell sub-par cpu.
October 14, 2011 7:25:28 PM

phatbuddha79 said:
perhaps the Radeon plays better with the FX due to it being from the same co. so they had more time to tweak certain optimizations?

In that case lets hope Toms does some more testing, or perhaps once people get their hands on this they'll put out individual benchies.
!