Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Which is computer better

Last response: in Systems
Share
Anonymous
December 23, 2011 3:03:04 PM

I am stuck between two computers.

1: Case:Cooler Master Storm Scout chassis
GPU: EVGA SuperClocked GeForce GTX 580 (Fermi) 1536MB 384-bit GDDR5 PCI Express 2.0 x16 HDCP Ready SLI Support Video Card.
Motherboard - Gigabyte Z68XP-UD5 motherboard
Power supply - Antec High Current Gamer Series HCG-900 900W ATX12V v2.3 / EPS12V v2.91 SLI Certified CrossFire Certified 80 PLUS BRONZE Certified Active PFC Power Supply
Memory - G.SKILL Sniper Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1600 (PC3 12800) Desktop Memory. Overclocked to a rock solid 1866Mhz
Processor - Intel Core i7-2600K Sandy Bridge 3.4GHz (3.8GHz Turbo Boost) 4 x 256KB L2 Cache 8MB L3 Cache LGA 1155 95W Quad-Core Desktop Processor.
Heatsink - a Scythe Ninja 3 heat sink with massive aluminum fins.
Hard Drive: 2 tb
PSU: 900w

2: 8120FX AMD 8-core processor @ 3.1GHz
QuadfireX (4 Graphics Cards) 6870 HD ATi Radeon DX11 video cards

Scythe Cooler (great for overclocking)
16GB 1600mhz ram Corsair
890FXA-GD70
Blu Ray disk drive
64GB SSD (good for Operating System and Drivers)
2TB data drives (good for MANY movies and games)
Windowed Lian Li Case
PSU: 1000w

I think that the second one only dominates in the gpu and memory but I'm using this computer basically for gaming and schoolwork. I don't want to wait for only a few years and get a new one, I want one that will last me a long time. The gtx 580 is good but is nowhere close to the 6870 in 4-way. Which one should I get? And the problem is that I will not upgrade any of the hardware so sli for the second is not an option. But then I also want a good processor. Which one would you get? This computer was custom built by other people so I'm getting this online.

More about : computer

December 23, 2011 3:09:00 PM

8120FX can't drive 4 6870's and CrossfireX doesn't scale as well as 3 or 2 way crossfire. What resolution monitor do you plan to use with this system?

I would go with the first system. Very solid performer (great processor + great GPU). Use the saved cash to put in a second 580 if you want (I know you said you won't upgrade, but why not?).

By refusing to upgrade, you're creating a problem that doesn't need to exist. Get the first system and if the performance isn't good enough, use some of the money you saved to get a second GPU.
Score
0
Anonymous
December 23, 2011 3:16:39 PM

I'm using a 1400x900 monitor. Not really ideal for gaming but I'm not wasting my money on a new one. And I can't upgrade because it's not really within my budget to add a new one. But for crossfire can't you use different amd cards while for sli you have to use like the same model?
Score
0
Related resources
December 23, 2011 3:27:19 PM

Yes, you have to use the same model to crossfire, It is the same for Sli.

I have a suggestion though.

Why don't you get a Motherboard that can support Quad Sli.

And then you could get the Gtx 580 (just one) and then add more Gtx 580s as their prices go down, when it is necessary, or when the $$$$ allow it.

The i7 2600k is much better then the bulldozer for gaming and for just about anything else.
Score
0

Best solution

December 23, 2011 3:29:29 PM

at 1440x900, 4 6870s is about 3 6870's too many. Go with the first one. The processor is better and uses less power and the GPU will max every game available at 1440x900. You will have no problems at all with the first option.
Share
December 23, 2011 5:13:35 PM

To be honest at 1440 x 900 a GTX 580 is MASSIVE overkill and a single 6870 is just minor overkill ! At 1440 x 900 a GTX 460 768MB or an HD 6770 will max every game out there.

Buying a GTX 580 or 6870 Quadfire but considers buying a monitor over 1440 x 900 wasting money............. :o 


Someone needs to do some more research before buying a computer.
Score
0
Anonymous
December 23, 2011 5:17:47 PM

I know that these are overkill but I want something that will last me a VERY long time. I probably won't get a computer this good until 6 or 7 years later.
Score
0
December 23, 2011 5:36:48 PM

Quote:
I know that these are overkill but I want something that will last me a VERY long time. I probably won't get a computer this good until 6 or 7 years later.


you need to do more research bud. neither one of those computers will last 6-7 years. technology will be ten times faster by then.

you need to list your budget and how much those two machines cost.
Score
0
December 23, 2011 5:44:05 PM

A 2600K will still be a decent processor in 5 or 6 years especially overclocked. Hardware has been ahead of software for a while now.

The first machine is by far the better choice.

The GTX 580 for 1440 x 900 is insane though. Get a GTX 570 and spend the difference on a 1920 x 1080 monitor. You do understand that it takes 1920 x 1080 to even be called true high definition right?
Score
0
December 23, 2011 5:49:31 PM

Both options are not good. And there is NO WAY you'll build a gaming computer in 2011 (or 2012) that will last you until 2018. The computer itself may work, but it won't be playing the newest games.

What is your budget? I'll throw a build together for you.
Score
0
December 23, 2011 5:59:28 PM

hapkido said:
Both options are not good. And there is NO WAY you'll build a gaming computer in 2011 (or 2012) that will last you until 2018. The computer itself may work, but it won't be playing the newest games.

What is your budget? I'll throw a build together for you.



Think about it though. Plenty of people out there are still running Core2Duos and Core2Quads ( Q6600 especially ) and with a decent overclock they are still playing most games maxed out as long as they have a decent graphics card. The Core line was released in 2006......6 years ago. As long as you are willing to upgrade graphics cards a decent CPU will last longer than you think.
Score
0
December 23, 2011 6:15:27 PM

anort3 said:
A 2600K will still be a decent processor in 5 or 6 years especially overclocked. Hardware has been ahead of software for a while now.

The first machine is by far the better choice.

The GTX 580 for 1440 x 900 is insane though. Get a GTX 570 and spend the difference on a 1920 x 1080 monitor. You do understand that it takes 1920 x 1080 to even be called true high definition right?


http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Nvidia-Teraflops-Huang...
you think that current cpus can keep up with that performance? my cpu is a bottleneck in skyrim and i have as good a cpu clock for clock as you can get.
Score
0
December 23, 2011 6:18:07 PM

me thinks 1st one, me no like amd bulldozer
Score
0
December 23, 2011 6:37:27 PM

anort3 said:
As long as you are willing to upgrade graphics cards a decent CPU will last longer than you think.


So you agree a gaming computer built TODAY won't play games in 6-7 years without upgrading? I think an i7 will be OK in that timeframe, but it certainly won't be desirable. Once you're 3-4 generations out, you're not playing new games at high settings (assuming they were designed for PC). And he's talking about getting parts that will already be a gen old when Ivy Bridge comes out, because gtx5xx and hd6xxx are a gen old as of yesterday. The parts he's talking about won't even max the most demanding games now at +60fps minimum (BF3 for example). The only way we'll be able to build PCs that last that long, and are still considered good, is if they run into limits for making transistors smaller. Intel doesn't expect that to happen for a while still. And even then, they'll probably figure out other ways to make things faster.

And no, Core2Duos do not max new games. Two cores is going to kill your framerate in modern games.
Score
0
December 23, 2011 7:08:45 PM

cbrunnem said:
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Nvidia-Teraflops-Huang...
you think that current cpus can keep up with that performance? my cpu is a bottleneck in skyrim and i have as good a cpu clock for clock as you can get.



Skyrim is one of what? The 5% of games that are CPU limited and not GPU limited. Also most games are ports from consoles. That will severely limit 99% of games in the future just as bad as it does today.
Score
0
December 23, 2011 7:10:35 PM

The first system is better. The only case for the second system is if you were using eyefinity, but even then it's not a well balanced system. Go with the first system. You can get a new monitor latter ^_^
Score
0
December 23, 2011 7:12:44 PM

hapkido said:
So you agree a gaming computer built TODAY won't play games in 6-7 years without upgrading? I think an i7 will be OK in that timeframe, but it certainly won't be desirable. Once you're 3-4 generations out, you're not playing new games at high settings (assuming they were designed for PC). And he's talking about getting parts that will already be a gen old when Ivy Bridge comes out, because gtx5xx and hd6xxx are a gen old as of yesterday. The parts he's talking about won't even max the most demanding games now at +60fps minimum (BF3 for example). The only way we'll be able to build PCs that last that long, and are still considered good, is if they run into limits for making transistors smaller. Intel doesn't expect that to happen for a while still. And even then, they'll probably figure out other ways to make things faster.

And no, Core2Duos do not max new games. Two cores is going to kill your framerate in modern games.



At his resolution of 1440 x 900 and his stated intention of not upgrading the monitor he could max just about every game out there with a 3Ghz Core2Duo and a GTX 460.

But for the most part I agree with your statement.
Score
0
December 23, 2011 7:23:50 PM

anort3 said:
Skyrim is one of what? The 5% of games that are CPU limited and not GPU limited. Also most games are ports from consoles. That will severely limit 99% of games in the future just as bad as it does today.


gpus will be able to output more then 20-40 times the amount of data they can now in 7 years. its called reading, you obviously didnt read the article or it didnt even cross your mind.
Score
0
December 23, 2011 9:53:37 PM

Quote:
Just adding something. I'm getting these comps. off ebay. the first choice is currently 810 while the second is 405. First will end in about 3 days while second ends in 2 days. My budget is under 900. Is it safe to get the first one because what if it goes over 900, then the second will be gone already.

The computers:
1. http://www.ebay.com/itm/Intel-i7-2600k-Sandy-Bridge-4-8...

2. http://www.ebay.com/itm/quadfirex-6870-FX-8150-RAM-16GB...



let me make this easier on yourself. your not going to get either one of them. the i7 has a reserve well over what you are wanting to spend. you can buy it now for 1800 which means the reserve is somewhere around there. the amd one is the same case. it has a reserve that is prolly high. cause just the cpu and gpus are worth more then 900 dollars.
Score
0
December 23, 2011 10:00:15 PM

That is the risk you take......I hope you are buying this from an ebay store with a warranty. The second computer was obviously built by someone who has no idea what building a balanced computer means. That processor can not handle a quadfire setup and to be honest it's not really a good processor for gaming at all.

That being said if you can get the second system for $400 and it comes with 4 HD6870s......you could sell 2 of them and get a new monitor. That is crazy cheap.
Score
0
December 23, 2011 10:02:40 PM

cbrunnem said:
let me make this easier on yourself. your not going to get either one of them. the i7 has a reserve well over what you are wanting to spend. you can buy it now for 1800 which means the reserve is somewhere around there. the amd one is the same case. it has a reserve that is prolly high. cause just the cpu and gpus are worth more then 900 dollars.



I didn't even click the links to check the reserve. Hell 4 HD6870s at $400 I am tempted to bid on it!

Nope, no way you are getting either of those for under $1500.
Score
0
Anonymous
December 23, 2011 10:25:45 PM

I'm sorry I don't have that good of a techy brain so when you say that the processor can't handle the 6870 in quadfire that means?
Score
0
December 23, 2011 10:35:15 PM

Quote:
I'm sorry I don't have that good of a techy brain so when you say that the processor can't handle the 6870 in quadfire that means?

its not fast enough to process the amount of data that the 4 6870's can.
Score
0
Anonymous
December 24, 2011 1:04:32 AM

So does that mean the entire computer is unusable and useless or this just applies to the games or will the cpu fry. What effect will this have.
Score
0
December 24, 2011 2:24:54 AM

Quote:
So does that mean the entire computer is unusable and useless or this just applies to the games or will the cpu fry. What effect will this have.


this is just numbers i am throwing out to get across the point.

lets say that the 4 6870's are capable of displaying 100 fps in battlefield 3 with the best processor out there. the 8150 is not the best out there so it might be able to put out 50 fps. the gpu's can output 100 fps but the cpu cant keep up so you have a cpu bottleneck meaning the cpu cant keep up and is the weak point in the system.
Score
0
December 24, 2011 3:15:08 AM

Anyone who has experience w/ CF w/ 3 or 4 cards will "not likely go there again". Both builds are poorly balanced and it looks like someone trying to recoup money on bad decisions.
Score
0
December 24, 2011 3:41:42 AM

JackNaylorPE said:
Anyone who has experience w/ CF w/ 3 or 4 cards will "not likely go there again". Both builds are poorly balanced and it looks like someone trying to recoup money on bad decisions.


the intel is by no means unbalanced? maybe cause someone wants an i7 and a 580 doesnt make it any more unbalanced then an i5 and a 580.
Score
0
Anonymous
December 30, 2011 11:29:20 PM

Best answer selected by skyisover.
Score
0
February 23, 2012 9:35:46 PM

This topic has been closed by Mousemonkey
Score
0
!