Should I re-upgrade from Asus/AMD to Gigabyte/Intel?

Stealth3si

Distinguished
Dec 12, 2010
200
0
18,680
OLD:
Asus M5A88-V EVO
Phenom II X4 960T [Unlocked to 6 cores (Prime95 stable 24+ hours, OCCT stable 12+ hours!!) :D ]

NEW:
GIGABYTE GA-Z68AP-D3
i5-2500K 3.30GHz Quad-Core

I just purchased the Asus/AMD parts for a new build to unlock and overclock to get a bit of power from the CPU, i.e., 24/7 stable OC. I'm neither particularly interested in benchmarking results or looking to break records.

I only tested them (on top of the motherboard's cardboard box) to unlock the cores and for their stability. I never tried to overclock.

Seeing this Intel/Gigabyte bundle on sale I am tempted to upgrade and sell the old parts because Intel is better performing.

The new bundle seems to meet my needs, except it has Intel HD graphics which should be able to run 1080p videos.

■SATA III,
■Onboard graphics (the Intel HD takes care of this)
■art programs,
■extensive multiple tab use in GC/IE
■occasional 1080p video playback.
■No games.

Do you think this is a worthy upgrade?
 
Solution
P67 does not support Intel graphics. Only H-series boards and Z-series do that.

Only Z-series supports BOTH overclocking and the IGP.

If you are not going to overclock, then you can use an H67 board.

ahthurungnone

Distinguished
Jun 9, 2010
616
0
19,010
Firstly, onboard graphics destroy overall responsiveness. Also, Sandy Bridge's onboard graphics really suck!

Secondly, I built two systems a few months ago. An AMD system for about $500 and a Sandy Bridge system for over $700 (they both have dedicated gpus). I overclocked the 955BE so that it performed almost as fast as the Sandy Bridge i5. However, the 955 system beat the crap out of the i5 system because the 955 had an SSD.

Spend $70 on a decent gpu, and then spend your money on your bottleneck: the hard drive. The cpu can only run as fast as it gets data from the hard drive.