Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

New build ($800 budget) What do you think?

Last response: in Systems
Share
September 9, 2012 1:14:34 AM

Right now I want to upgrade my computer, keeping my GPU since they work just fine. In total, including the parts I already have, I want to use this:

CPU: Intel Core i5-2500K 3.3GHz Quad-Core Processor ($199.99 @ Newegg)
CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 Plus 76.8 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler ($19.99 @ Newegg)
Motherboard: ASRock Z77 Extreme4 ATX LGA1155 Motherboard ($142.86 @ Newegg)
Storage: Samsung Spinpoint F3 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($88.98 @ Newegg)
Case: Rosewill RANGER ATX Mid Tower Case ($49.99 @ Newegg)
Power Supply: Rosewill 550W 80 PLUS Bronze Certified ATX12V / EPS12V Power Supply ($56.00 @ Newegg)
Total: $549.94

In addition, I'm following the free 8GB ram deal from buying some motherboards in newegg, and of course I will be keeping my old GPU. So including up above, my total build will have:

Memory: G.Skill Ares Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($54.99 @ Newegg)
Video Card: Gigabyte Radeon HD 5750 1GB Video Card ($129.02 @ Mwave)

And an optical drive that I can't find, but it works just fine.

My question is, do you think this build is good? Is it compatible? What improvements do you recommend?

I will use this build mainly for playing games.

Thanks!

More about : build 800 budget

September 9, 2012 1:22:20 AM

I see little reason for this to have an incredibly powerful i5 paired with a low end graphics card such as a 5750. You're basically making a very high end build in everywhere but the graphics.
m
0
l
September 9, 2012 1:22:21 AM

instead of a samsung spinpoint i would suggest a seagate barracuda it cost's less and it has a 6gb per second transfer.the video card is ok but what games will you be playing and at what resolution
m
0
l
Related resources
September 9, 2012 1:25:20 AM

devilofdeaths said:
instead of a samsung spinpoint i would suggest a seagate barracuda it cost's less and it has a 6gb per second transfer.the video card is ok but what games will you be playing and at what resolution


You do realize that no hard drive can actually max out a SATA 3Gb/s connection, let alone a SATA 6Gb/s connection, right? Also, Seagate is one of the least reliable hard drive brands and Samsung is no better. I'd recommend something from Western Digital above both Seagate and Samsung (Samsung's current 3.5" drives are currently made by Seagate too, so they're no better).
m
0
l
September 9, 2012 1:34:17 AM

blazorthon said:
I see little reason for this to have an incredibly powerful i5 paired with a low end graphics card such as a 5750. You're basically making a very high end build in everywhere but the graphics.


What card would you recommend?

I usually play League of Legends or Dota 2. Sometimes Battlefield 3. I'm also playing Sleeping Dogs, Dark Souls, etc. I play at 1920x1080 resolution.
m
0
l
September 9, 2012 1:37:28 AM

ellohel said:
What card would you recommend?

I usually play League of Legends or Dota 2. Sometimes Battlefield 3. I'm also playing Sleeping Dogs, Dark Souls, etc. I play at 1920x1080 resolution.


I recommend at least a Radeon 7770. A Radeon 7850 or a 7870 such has this would be even better:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
m
0
l
September 9, 2012 1:37:59 AM

ellohel said:
What card would you recommend?

I usually play League of Legends or Dota 2. Sometimes Battlefield 3. I'm also playing Sleeping Dogs, Dark Souls, etc. I play at 1920x1080 resolution.

in 1080 you haf to be lagging unless you overclocked it majorly
m
0
l
September 9, 2012 1:51:11 AM

blazorthon said:
You do realize that no hard drive can actually max out a SATA 3Gb/s connection, let alone a SATA 6Gb/s connection, right? Also, Seagate is one of the least reliable hard drive brands and Samsung is no better. I'd recommend something from Western Digital above both Seagate and Samsung (Samsung's current 3.5" drives are currently made by Seagate too, so they're no better).



personally,I have never had a single seagate failure.Those are all I have recomended and have great luck with all the builds I have done and recomended.maybe you've had a bad personal experiance,but otherwise they are a great drive.
m
0
l
September 9, 2012 1:59:19 AM

Earnie said:
personally,I have never had a single seagate failure.Those are all I have recomended and have great luck with all the builds I have done and recomended.maybe you've had a bad personal experiance,but otherwise they are a great drive.


Seagate used to be a lot better, but they went downhill after buying Maxtor. Even with them today, it's unlikely to have a failure, but it's far more likely than it is for current Western Digital drives.
m
0
l
September 9, 2012 3:54:36 AM

Earnie said:
See,and i feel there drives got better after buying out maxtor.I did however like my raid 0 Raptors for sure.The 1 weird thing is,I dont really remember ever having a HD ever fail on me,from any manufacture.


You've never had a hard drive fail... Damn, you are lucky. I'd expect Raptors to last pretty much until they're too outdated to be worth using, but other than such enterprise-like-quality drives, failures aren't unusual every few years.
m
0
l
September 9, 2012 3:54:45 AM

blazorthon said:
Seagate used to be a lot better, but they went downhill after buying Maxtor. Even with them today, it's unlikely to have a failure, but it's far more likely than it is for current Western Digital drives.



See,and i feel there drives got better after buying out maxtor.I did however like my raid 0 Raptors for sure.The 1 weird thing is,I dont really remember ever having a HD ever fail on me,from any manufacture.
m
0
l
September 9, 2012 3:54:58 AM

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant / Benchmarks

CPU: Intel Core i5-3450 3.1GHz Quad-Core Processor ($189.98 @ Amazon)
Motherboard: ASRock H77M Micro ATX LGA1155 Motherboard ($69.99 @ Newegg)
Memory: Corsair Vengeance 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($44.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: Samsung Spinpoint F3 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($88.98 @ Newegg)
Storage: Samsung 830 Series 128GB 2.5" Solid State Disk ($96.49 @ B&H)
Video Card: MSI Radeon HD 7850 2GB Video Card ($207.55 @ Newegg)
Case: Cooler Master Elite 430 ATX Mid Tower Case ($36.99 @ Newegg)
Power Supply: Corsair 500W 80 PLUS Certified ATX12V Power Supply ($41.98 @ Newegg)
Optical Drive: Samsung SH-222BB/BEBE DVD/CD Writer ($16.98 @ Outlet PC)
Total: $793.93
(Prices include shipping and discounts when available.)
(Generated by PCPartPicker 2012-09-08 23:57 EDT-0400)

My 2 cents :lol: 
m
0
l
September 9, 2012 3:58:06 AM

mocchan said:
PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant / Benchmarks

CPU: Intel Core i5-3450 3.1GHz Quad-Core Processor ($189.98 @ Amazon)
Motherboard: ASRock H77M Micro ATX LGA1155 Motherboard ($69.99 @ Newegg)
Memory: Corsair Vengeance 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($44.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: Samsung Spinpoint F3 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($88.98 @ Newegg)
Storage: Samsung 830 Series 128GB 2.5" Solid State Disk ($96.49 @ B&H)
Video Card: MSI Radeon HD 7850 2GB Video Card ($207.55 @ Newegg)
Case: Cooler Master Elite 430 ATX Mid Tower Case ($36.99 @ Newegg)
Power Supply: Corsair 500W 80 PLUS Certified ATX12V Power Supply ($41.98 @ Newegg)
Optical Drive: Samsung SH-222BB/BEBE DVD/CD Writer ($16.98 @ Outlet PC)
Total: $793.93
(Prices include shipping and discounts when available.)
(Generated by PCPartPicker 2012-09-08 23:57 EDT-0400)

My 2 cents :lol: 


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

One of the better 7870s and near the price of that 7850.
m
0
l
September 9, 2012 3:58:26 AM

blazorthon said:
You've never had a hard drive fail... Damn, you are lucky.

Yes, he is.... lost so many family photos with my first HDD crash...was a nightmare.
m
0
l
September 9, 2012 4:02:00 AM

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

One of the better 7870s and near the price of that 7850.


Thanks for pointing that out :)  Forgot about HIS's competitive prices....-stares at their HD7950's- :lol: 

**EDIT**

Edited parts list with said HD7870.

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant / Benchmarks

CPU: Intel Core i5-3450 3.1GHz Quad-Core Processor ($189.98 @ Amazon)
Motherboard: ASRock H77M Micro ATX LGA1155 Motherboard ($69.99 @ Newegg)
Memory: Corsair Vengeance 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($44.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: Samsung Spinpoint F3 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($88.98 @ Newegg)
Storage: Samsung 830 Series 128GB 2.5" Solid State Disk ($96.49 @ B&H)
Video Card: HIS Radeon HD 7870 2GB Video Card ($199.99 @ Newegg)
Case: Cooler Master Elite 430 ATX Mid Tower Case ($36.99 @ Newegg)
Power Supply: Corsair 500W 80 PLUS Certified ATX12V Power Supply ($41.98 @ Newegg)
Optical Drive: Samsung SH-222BB/BEBE DVD/CD Writer ($16.98 @ Outlet PC)
Total: $786.37
(Prices include shipping and discounts when available.)
(Generated by PCPartPicker 2012-09-09 00:02 EDT-0400)
m
0
l
September 9, 2012 5:12:47 AM

MOBO: Don't buy a micro board. They are only for small builds, and you will really kick yourself if you buy one. I think the ASRock Extreme 4 is perfect.

GPU: A 5750 is really low, and it will be the bottleneck. Ellohel is building a nice rig, and a 5750 kills it. Sell that thing, and get at least a 550Ti or 7850.

Memory: G.Skill RipJawz or Corsair Vengance.
m
0
l
September 9, 2012 5:17:21 AM

envy14tpe said:
MOBO: Don't buy a micro board. They are only for small builds, and you will really kick yourself if you buy one. I think the ASRock Extreme 4 is perfect.

GPU: A 5750 is really low, and it will be the bottleneck. Ellohel is building a nice rig, and a 5750 kills it. Sell that thing, and get at least a 550Ti or 7850.

Memory: G.Skill RipJawz or Corsair Vengance.


What have you got against MicroATX?

Also, the way that you worded that post kinda implies that a 550 Ti is near a 7850 in performance which I'm sure that we all know is not true.
m
0
l
September 9, 2012 5:39:37 AM

blazorthon said:
What have you got against MicroATX?

Also, the way that you worded that post kinda implies that a 550 Ti is near a 7850 in performance which I'm sure that we all know is not true.


oops. yes, I meant 560Ti. I had the 560Ti, and it was excellent at mid level.

I don't like microATX cuz it cuts things off. For one, the boards don't overclock as well. The one you selected, it does not "- Supports Intel® K-Series unlocked CPU" (this is on ASRock ATX boards specifications but not on the H77M)
Also, only 2 DIMMs. Plus it probably has less fan connectors to mobo. (compared to Extreme 4)
m
0
l
September 9, 2012 5:42:50 AM

envy14tpe said:
MOBO: Don't buy a micro board. They are only for small builds, and you will really kick yourself if you buy one. I think the ASRock Extreme 4 is perfect.

GPU: A 5750 is really low, and it will be the bottleneck. Ellohel is building a nice rig, and a 5750 kills it. Sell that thing, and get at least a 550Ti or 7850.

Memory: G.Skill RipJawz or Corsair Vengance.


LOL, what? I built a $800 gaming system and bought an $85 mATX mobo for it. Kick yourself how? The mobo's job is to last and make sure everything runs smoothly. That's it. mATX has no bearing on speed. Yes my fat fingers made me swear a few times cabling but that is forgiveable. For the GPU I would not go lower than a 7870.
m
0
l
September 9, 2012 5:45:33 AM

envy14tpe said:
oops. yes, I meant 560Ti. I had the 560Ti, and it was excellent at mid level.

I don't like microATX cuz it cuts things off. For one, the boards don't overclock as well. The one you selected, it does not "- Supports Intel® K-Series unlocked CPU" (this is on ASRock ATX boards specifications but not on the H77M)
Also, only 2 DIMMs. Plus it probably has less fan connectors to mobo. (compared to Extreme 4)


Having only two DIMM slots is no big deal and OP isn't going for an overclocking record (especially considering the non-K edition CPU). This build isn't a high-power consumption build, so I wouldn't worry about not having a plethora of fan connectors.
m
0
l
September 9, 2012 5:46:54 AM

The 550 Ti is like a 10-20% improvement over the HD 5750 you know buying is just stupid right?

And now to the question.?
If you need a truly gaming build it's better if you put more money in the graohics card than everything else.
That's why i made a build for you which is going to provide ver impresive gaming performance.
Compared to the build's above, it will be less responsive, but in gaming it will have a significant advantage.

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant / Benchmarks

CPU: Intel Core i5-2380P 3.1GHz Quad-Core Processor ($179.98 @ NCIX US)
Motherboard: MSI H61M-P31 (G3) Micro ATX LGA1155 Motherboard ($51.99 @ Mwave)
Memory: Crucial Ballistix sport 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($36.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: Western Digital Caviar Blue 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($79.99 @ NCIX US)
Video Card: Galaxy GeForce GTX 670 2GB Video Card ($365.99 @ NCIX US)
Case: Xigmatek ASGARD PRO (Black) ATX Mid Tower Case ($39.99 @ Newegg)
Power Supply: OCZ 800W 80 PLUS Certified ATX12V / EPS12V Power Supply ($24.98 @ NCIX US)
Optical Drive: Lite-On iHAS224-06 DVD/CD Writer ($18.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Total: $798.90
(Prices include shipping and discounts when available.)
(Generated by PCPartPicker 2012-09-09 01:49 EDT-0400)

In my opinion, if you've got the money that's what you should get.
m
0
l
September 9, 2012 5:53:56 AM

Kamen_BG said:
The 550 Ti is like a 10-20% improvement over the HD 5750 you know buying is just stupid right?

And now to the question.?
If you need a truly gaming build it's better if you put more money in the graohics card than everything else.
That's why i made a build for you which is going to provide ver impresive gaming performance.
Compared to the build's above, it will be less responsive, but in gaming it will have a significant advantage.

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant / Benchmarks

CPU: Intel Core i5-2380P 3.1GHz Quad-Core Processor ($179.98 @ NCIX US)
Motherboard: MSI H61M-P31 (G3) Micro ATX LGA1155 Motherboard ($51.99 @ Mwave)
Memory: Crucial Ballistix sport 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($36.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: Western Digital Caviar Blue 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($79.99 @ NCIX US)
Video Card: Galaxy GeForce GTX 670 2GB Video Card ($365.99 @ NCIX US)
Case: Xigmatek ASGARD PRO (Black) ATX Mid Tower Case ($39.99 @ Newegg)
Power Supply: OCZ 800W 80 PLUS Certified ATX12V / EPS12V Power Supply ($24.98 @ NCIX US)
Optical Drive: Lite-On iHAS224-06 DVD/CD Writer ($18.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Total: $798.90
(Prices include shipping and discounts when available.)
(Generated by PCPartPicker 2012-09-09 01:49 EDT-0400)

In my opinion, if you've got the money that's what you should get.


OCZ PSU? That's just begging for a PSU failure. At least step up to an ~500W Antec, Corsair, Seasonic PCP$P, XFX, or at a minimum, Rosewill model. If the 7870 isn't enough, then a decent 7950 with some overclocking will more than handle any 670 (even when its overclocked), especially in performance for the money. The extra cash could go to a better PSU, motherboard, and case if not to an SSD.
m
0
l
September 9, 2012 5:55:38 AM

^^^^

An i5 3450 would be a better choice with a better H77 mobo. The PSU is also heavy overkill. 650w is sufficient. Also consider a 7950.
m
0
l
September 9, 2012 6:33:26 AM

Have you seen the user reviews for that ocz 800w on newegg? Pretty bad...

I'd also like to point out that the HIS 7870 for 200bucks is out of stock atm.
m
0
l
September 9, 2012 6:38:45 AM

The user reviews should be taken with a grain of salt, ESPECIALLY for power supplies.
m
0
l
September 9, 2012 9:09:52 AM

azeem40 said:
The user reviews should be taken with a grain of salt, ESPECIALLY for power supplies.


agreed. People should read real reviews or buy products with a good reputation. (which means avoid OCZ PSU)
m
0
l
September 9, 2012 1:48:28 PM

now this is something I'm just throwing out there for the Op:

1- MSI R7870 Twin Frozr 2GD5/OC Radeon HD 7870 GHz Edition 2GB 256-bit GDDR5 Item#: N82E16814127662 $244.99


1-CORSAIR Vengeance 8GB (2 x 4GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1600 (PC3 12800) Low Profile Desktop Memory
Item #:N82E16820233186 $44.99


1-Antec Three Hundred Black Computer Case Item #:N82E16811129042 $54.99


1-CORSAIR Enthusiast Series TX650 V2 650W High Performance Power Supply Item #:N82E16817139020 $89.99


1-ASUS Sabertooth 990FX ATX AMD Motherboard with UEFI BIOS Item #:N82E16813131736 $189.99


1-Western Digital Caviar Black 1TB 3.5" SATA 6.0Gb/s Internal Hard Drive -Bare Drive Item #:N82E16822136533
$109.99


1-AMD Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition 3.4GHz Socket AM3 Quad-Core Processor Item #:N82E16819103727
$109.99


Grand Total: $859.93 ALL from newegg.

I changed out the 560Ti only because it was a 1g card and went with a 2G 7870 gHz

Now ,before anyone tries to shoot me in the foot about the AMD end of it,I have extensive experiance with pretty much all the Phenom II's,I have run 2-unlocked 6950's(crossfire) with 965,970,980,1090T and now an 1100T cpu,and have yet to be bottlenecked,@1920x1200,My Cpu while playing BF3(as an example)on all ultra hits a max of about 85-90% load.So personally I see this build as a very well balanced Build.And the nice low cost of the CPU allows for better quality of parts elswhere.Sorry its not a mATX board,but it is a great board.
m
0
l
September 9, 2012 3:28:30 PM

You could go for a much cheaper motherboard and throw in a Radeon 7950 instead of that 7870 if you want an AMD build.

Also, the problem with AMD is that it needs significant overclocking and such in CPU-limited games. Compare what you get in BF3 MP (~48-64 players) with a stock AMD quad core CPU to what you get with a stock i5 and the results aren't pretty (although the stock AMD sic core CPUs do fare well in BF3).

Overclocking the CPU/NB frequency to increase the L3 cache frequency would also be a good idea.
m
0
l
September 9, 2012 3:45:04 PM

blazorthon said:
You could go for a much cheaper motherboard and throw in a Radeon 7950 instead of that 7870 if you want an AMD build.

Also, the problem with AMD is that it needs significant overclocking and such in CPU-limited games. Compare what you get in BF3 MP (~48-64 players) with a stock AMD quad core CPU to what you get with a stock i5 and the results aren't pretty (although the stock AMD sic core CPUs do fare well in BF3).

Overclocking the CPU/NB frequency to increase the L3 cache frequency would also be a good idea.



I usually only play in 64 player servers(caspian border and firestorm),and I can tell you with my (previous)quad core(980 stock 3.8 i believe) i had no problems using my 6950 crossfire setup.Of course now I'm using an 1100T at 4Ghz.But am in the process of building a backup again with a 970 and another sabertooth.it may be just me,but I wouldnt cheap out on a mobo.
m
0
l
September 9, 2012 4:07:09 PM

It's not cheaping out on the board, it's being reasonable. There's no good reason to buy a nearly $200 board. Also, I have had several Phenom II builds and I can say that even 50FPS was a pipedream on my stock Phenom II x4s.
m
0
l
September 9, 2012 9:09:04 PM

blazorthon said:
It's not cheaping out on the board, it's being reasonable. There's no good reason to buy a nearly $200 board. Also, I have had several Phenom II builds and I can say that even 50FPS was a pipedream on my stock Phenom II x4s.



Thats the prob,I'm not reasonable,heck,i havent even used less than a 1000W PSU in over 5 years,LOL,But like i said,thats just me.I have no problem paying whatever for the top products.

Anyways,It was just another option for the OP to consider.And for the price,it's very reasonable.
m
0
l
September 9, 2012 9:09:45 PM

If a system has more than enough power with 550W, it is a waste of $ and not reasonable.
m
0
l
September 9, 2012 9:29:43 PM

Earnie said:
Thats the prob,I'm not reasonable,heck,i havent even used less than a 1000W PSU in over 5 years,LOL,But like i said,thats just me.I have no problem paying whatever for the top products.

Anyways,It was just another option for the OP to consider.And for the price,it's very reasonable.


I forgot to point out that I was talking about BF3 MP with 48-64 players when I said that performance number. Many other games can go well over 60FPS with a stock Phenom II x4.
m
0
l
September 9, 2012 9:34:39 PM

azeem40 said:
If a system has more than enough power with 550W, it is a waste of $ and not reasonable.


It's even worse than that.

If a system has more than enough power with a 500-550W PSU, then going up to a 1KW PSU would even be detrimental because the PSU would be running far below it's intended power output. This is almost as bad as running over it's rated maximum output and like overusing a PSU, under-using a PSU also causes increased damage over time compared to using it properly.
m
0
l
September 9, 2012 9:46:24 PM

Phenom II will bottleneck a lot of games. I recently upgraded to an i5 and an $80 H77 board and minimum FPS in particular shot up everywhere. Period. At least 10%. Forget BF3, its well threaded. Other games are not, and the Intel can feed more data to the CPU without dips and stutters that the creaky old Phenom II cannot. Based on my own experience I cannot recommend AMD for anything other than its APU's for an office/HTPC build.

EDIT: PSU's should run at 50% or so capacity. For any build, add 100w to what you need just in case.
m
0
l
September 9, 2012 10:38:05 PM

Wow, I missed a lot overnight on this thread apparently :lol: 

@ Smeg45

Phenom II X4's will NOT bottleneck most games, they are still very modest CPU's and are comparable to SB i3's.

For example, I got a steady 40-50FPS on BF3 @ 1080p on mixed ultra/high settings with a GTX560 Ti with an X4 955. I wouldn't consider that a bottleneck and that's often the average FPS that particular card would get.
m
0
l
September 9, 2012 10:38:18 PM

Smeg45 said:
Phenom II will bottleneck a lot of games. I recently upgraded to an i5 and an $80 H77 board and minimum FPS in particular shot up everywhere. Period. At least 10%. Forget BF3, its well threaded. Other games are not, and the Intel can feed more data to the CPU without dips and stutters that the creaky old Phenom II cannot. Based on my own experience I cannot recommend AMD for anything other than its APU's for an office/HTPC build.

EDIT: PSU's should run at 50% or so capacity. For any build, add 100w to what you need just in case.


An FX-8120 with one core per module either disabled or cut-down in P state and priority with PS Check and a good CPU/NB (controls L3 cache frequency) can fight give even the K edition i5s excellent competition. AMD is still great if you choose the right CPU, know how to use it, and are willing to spend a few minutes to do a little more than mere CPU frequency overclocking.

Also, most games run well even on Phenom II x4s. Most games are not very CPU bottle-necked. Some are and would need at least some overclocking, but most aren't.
m
0
l
September 9, 2012 10:54:21 PM

mocchan said:
Wow, I missed a lot overnight on this thread apparently :lol: 

@ Smeg45

Phenom II X4's will NOT bottleneck most games, they are still very modest CPU's and are comparable to SB i3's.

For example, I got a steady 40-50FPS on BF3 @ 1080p on mixed ultra/high settings with a GTX560 Ti with an X4 955. I wouldn't consider that a bottleneck and that's often the average FPS that particular card would get.


Not here. Everything is just smoother, and I know that steady 50FPS would turn into a steady 60FPS+ with Ivy Bridge. There is a bottleneck as the Phenom's architecture is just too old.
m
0
l
September 9, 2012 10:58:43 PM

Smeg45 said:
Not here. Everything is just smoother, and I know that steady 50FPS would turn into a steady 60FPS+ with Ivy Bridge. There is a bottleneck as the Phenom's architecture is just too old.


All Phenom II needs is some overclocking in the CPU-bottle-necked games. The age of the architecture is irrelevant. For example, even an old Core 2 Quad can play any game with good FPS if it has a high clock frequency of around 3.6GHz to 4GHz and that's using an architecture that released in 2006.
m
0
l
September 9, 2012 11:02:16 PM

blazorthon said:
All Phenom II needs is some overclocking in the CPU-bottle-necked games. The age of the architecture is irrelevant. For example, even an old Core 2 Quad can play any game with good FPS if it has a high clock frequency of around 3.6GHz to 4GHz and that's using an architecture that released in 2006.

+1

Performance of architecture > Age of architecture

BD vs Phenom II's are a GREAT example of this.

Most people are still running Phenom II's and C2Q's without any complaints, mostly because they're getting decent performance. On a side note, I recently upgraded from a Phenom II X4 to an i7 2700k, I see no performance gain when I use either my HD6870 or GTX560 Ti compared to the Phenom. On Adobe Premiere, however, that's a different story.


m
0
l
September 9, 2012 11:15:04 PM

mocchan said:
+1

Performance of architecture > Age of architecture

BD vs Phenom II's are a GREAT example of this.

Most people are still running Phenom II's and C2Q's without any complaints, mostly because they're getting decent performance. On a side note, I recently upgraded from a Phenom II X4 to an i7 2700k, I see no performance gain when I use either my HD6870 or GTX560 Ti compared to the Phenom. On Adobe Premiere, however, that's a different story.


To be fair, Bulldozer, as an architecture, is actually better than Sandy Bridge. The problems with the Bulldozer CPUs are mostly the crap implementation of Bulldozer in the CPU die design, low frequency cache, inefficient memory controllers, and a lack of thread scheduling optimization (all of which is either indirectly or directly AMD's fault, but still). That's not to say that the architecture can't have any improvements, Piledriver and its successors will show that it has a lot of room for improvement, but if the other issues that I mentioned here are fixed, Sandy Bridge wouldn't even be able to keep up in performance and power efficiency. That's not even including the architectural improvements made in Piledriver.
m
0
l
September 9, 2012 11:32:12 PM

review from johnny guru,10% load test:


Results from Corsair AX1200 low load test
Load
Level +3.3V +5V +12V 5VSB -12V DC Watts/
AC Watts Eff.
10.1% 1A 1A 9A 0.5A 0.2A 122W/
145W 84.1%
3.36V 5.03V 12.03V 5.08V -12.11V

Moving on to the low load test, we get another very nice but not altogether surprising efficiency number. This is not Gold performance here. Why is this nice? Well, it's still just about at Silver. Why is that nice? Consider this - the nature of the SMPS is to be less efficient the lower the load. Units that are optimized to pass at a certain 80 Plus certification level are always less efficient down here around the 10% mark. This is because 80 Plus doesn't get into gear until they set their lowest load to 20%. On units this size, that means they don't start testing until the unit is loaded to 240 watts. As this is well above what most computers draw at idle, I started doing this test to give you a better idea what you can expect from it at idle.

And from this unit, you can still expect well over 80% efficiency here. Very, very nice.

m
0
l
September 9, 2012 11:38:27 PM

blazorthon said:
To be fair, Bulldozer, as an architecture, is actually better than Sandy Bridge. The problems with the Bulldozer CPUs are mostly the crap implementation of Bulldozer in the CPU die design, low frequency cache, inefficient memory controllers, and a lack of thread scheduling optimization (all of which is either indirectly or directly AMD's fault, but still). That's not to say that the architecture can't have any improvements, Piledriver and its successors will show that it has a lot of room for improvement, but if the other issues that I mentioned here are fixed, Sandy Bridge wouldn't even be able to keep up in performance and power efficiency. That's not even including the architectural improvements made in Piledriver.

+1

And to add on to what you said, if it weren't for the crappy implementation of BD, I'm sure AMD would have have made some sort of a come-back in the performance CPU department. I really love how BD works, I just personally hate how it performs.

I think I can comfortably say this is one of the reasons why I'm very anxious to see PD. I'll most likely be picking one up for a side project if the performance gains are reasonable.
m
0
l
September 9, 2012 11:39:23 PM

At such loads, efficiency isn't necessarily poor, but wear and tear is much more severe at 10% than it is at 40-60%.
m
0
l
September 9, 2012 11:46:39 PM

blazorthon said:
At such loads, efficiency isn't necessarily poor, but wear and tear is much more severe at 10% than it is at 40-60%.


can you please show me where it states that?
m
0
l
September 9, 2012 11:54:12 PM

Earnie said:
can you please show me where it states that?


I don't know if it states that in the link, but I didn't look. This is a fact about PSUs. Very low loads increase wear and tear relative to expected loads, but not as badly as going far over expected loads increase wear and tear relative to expected loads. PSUs are intended to be used at over about 20% and under about 80% load and going far out of this range for long periods of time and often is generally bad for a PSU. It's kinda like how not staying within 20-80% charged can increase wear and tear on many rechargeable batteries.
m
0
l
September 10, 2012 12:00:31 AM

PSU even though not made to run at 10% load all the time, but it is not as big of a deal people make it to be if the PSU run at 10% load in terms of PSU longevity. The lifetime of the PSU will not be shorten beyond the number of years of warranty (5-7 years) if you let it run at 10% couple hours a day. People have their computer idle all the time when they don't use them although I tend to turn off my computer when I dont use it to save electricity, but the fact remains, those that let their computer idle certainly uses less than 10% of the PSU capacity (during screen saving mode etc) and I haven't heard of PSU failure rate increased because of that.
m
0
l
September 10, 2012 12:06:09 AM

blazorthon said:
I don't know if it states that in the link, but I didn't look. This is a fact about PSUs. Very low loads increase wear and tear relative to expected loads, but not as badly as going far over expected loads increase wear and tear relative to expected loads. PSUs are intended to be used at over about 20% and under about 80% load and going far out of this range for long periods of time and often is generally bad for a PSU. It's kinda like how not staying within 20-80% charged can increase wear and tear on many rechargeable batteries.



Sry,but comparing batteries and PSU's is apples and oranges.
m
0
l
September 10, 2012 12:12:01 AM

Earnie said:
Sry,but comparing batteries and PSU's is apples and oranges.


I didn't compare them. This is a fact about PSUs and I then said that it was similar to batteries because they both share this problem. PSUs degrade in maximum wattage output over time similar to how batteries degrade in maximum charge over time and for similar reasons.
m
0
l
!