Combined Performance And Efficiency

Would it be possible for me to run the same benchmarks? I have a AMD Athlon 64 X2 5600+ Windsor 2.8GHz Socket AM2 89W Dual-Core Processor (don't laugh). It is time to upgrade. I am considering the 2500K. Will I get 10X-20X faster video encodes? Even more?

can you guys run the phoroxin test suite pts/multicore set in the future ? usualy the other sets are worthless but the multicore is a nice one to see.

Well, here's to another SBM. For the last several quarters I've been lamenting AMDs inability to keep pace with Intel's relentless cadence. I sincerely hope that the next round of SBM will feature a AMD processor -- even better if it can claw out a spot one of the big-boy builds. I know I decided not to wait to get my Sandy on, but it AMD can come anywhere close I'll sell my SB rig on ebay. AMD, you know what you have to do, and if you can do it with Bulldozer, I'll be waiting in line to get one.

Hmmm... that ridiculously cut-down asrock mobo in the $500 build makes me want to see another 'portable' lan-gaming-rig SBM. Emphasis on the portable because the SBM that tackled that theme came up with some really 'big' cases that still needed 2 hands to carry.

With itx form factor increasingly available on the market for cases, PSUs, mobos, and even HSFs, I think another round might come up with a more exciting SFF-SBM.

See for yourself http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/30?vs=288

i doubt it will be that much of an improvement. Got a friend who upgraded from a 5000+ to i3-2100 and the improvment on video conversion was around 2-3 times quicker. I'd imagine the jump from the i3 to an i5 would be about the same for that task, so i'd guess it would be 5x faster or so.

Anyone should have seen this coming, mid-range is ALWAYS the best value.


You pay to have the latest and greatest, but like said, it carries diminishing returns.


With that being the case, It's pretty amazing what you can get these days for under $500. Obviously the $1000 build is in a MUCH better position to be upgraded, as the PSU and Mobo give you greater options. The case and cpu-cooler also are breaking points for me - leaving the $1000 build as the most sensible; In terms of performance and future upgrade paths.

Not quite. If whatever he's doing can utilize Quick Sync, then expect some BLAZING ass encoding times.

The 2500k on a Z68 with Quick Sync can dramatically cut down times....

Thanks for the link. Did AMD release 2 different 5600+? "AMD Athlon X2 5600+ - 2.9GHz - 1MB L2" and "AMD Athlon 64 X2 5600+ Windsor 2.8GHz Socket AM2 89W Dual-Core Processor"

On all video benchmarks you linked to, the i5 was ~3-5 times faster. My ancient dual core is hanging in there a bit better than I expected. But I think my CPU is a generation older than that link (2.8 vs 2.9GHz)??? And since it is not all about GHz, mine may suck more than it looks?

The charts I find with my exact CPU (like http://www.tomshardware.com/charts [...] e,838.html )have older benchmarks and don't include the newer chips.



Does handbrake use Quick Sync? I do some video editing and light gaming, but mostly converting formats & compressing video in handbrake.

I disagree with you here. I have been gaming with a $500/dollar value build for a while now and I refuse to go lower than 1920x1080. Due to that being the standard resolution for high definition and most monitors today start there and go up I think this is a more realistic starting point for resolutions for anyone building a NEW computer (considering they are buying a NEW display to go with it).

Nice to see that the $1000 segment is becoming a better value. This segment has always been the sweet spot for me of great current performance without big diminishing returns. I think you'll probably have to increase your budgets soon by 1-2 hundred though, it looks like you're having to cut some huge corners to build something for $500. Though, if you did stick with AMD the motherboard would not have been such a minimalist one.

SATA 6gb and USB3 may seem overkill for a budget build, but most people on a budget will continually buy little component upgrades to keep up ok, such as a new SSD later (when prices are lower), higher speed external drives for backup, processor, video card, etc. That being said, buying a mobo to run the AMD chip would have meant you can't later upgrade the cpu without buying a new mobo, while getting an i3 gives you more flexibility. Without a doubt, buying AMD is a bad idea right now, but I think that means you need another $50+ to get a decent intel mobo (especially since they're historically ALWAYS more expensive) for more upgrade flexibility and mobo lifespan with USB3 and SATA 6gb.

If you buy a socket AM3+ AMD mobo, you can upgrade the CPU later.
Anyway, keeping in mind that these systems are awarded as parts, if I won the first one, I'd build it with a lesser (or no) GPU and donate it, most likely to the local volunteer fire company.
#2 is a tough call. Performance-wise, it blows past the rig I just built for myself, although it lacks the ports to take advantage of my preferred case's drive mounting and other options. I would need to think about it.
#3 is a beautiful machine. I don't need the graphics horsepower, so I'd build it as-is but with a single GPU.

I don't think the $500 machine is the value proposition it appears. Load it with typical software (that includes multiple background tasks), and I believe its performance could easily drop down into the "unacceptable" range, making it a horrible "value."

Looks to me like for $500 bucks you can play most games at 1080p and with bells and whistles on too. encoding seems be a little lacking, but hey an extra $60 for i5 2400 and you fix that too!

^ agree. They should really just go ahead and make a $600, with a better mobo, i5-2400 and 6870. It would be a helluva machine for only $100 more. But, it would ruin the clean 500x2=1000x2=2000.

Yeah, I would never recommend to someone to build a $500 machine when you can get significantly better parts for 20% added cost.

On another note, I guess it depends on the person, but I'd rather weight the percentages as 40% gaming, 25% encoding, 25% productivity, 10% storage.

why spend on a BD-R optical drive when it doesn't factor in on performance and may impact value negatively?

For the same reason a storage drive was added: These need to be realistic builds for their price range, not "benchmark only" machines.

I would like to argue that a little: a BD player costs as much as a new 500GB HDD. Why am I pointing out this? I gave away my DVDRW because I'm only getting "digital" copies of everything these days, so I'm all about getting more HDDs space instead of spending on a BD player (or RW for that matter). Hot swapping HDDs is getting more cost efficient ($/GB) than a disc format, so I also share cookoy's inquiry about the BD player in the build.

Cheers!

Thanks for correcting me jtt283, a socket AM3+ mobo would be a possible option I guess. I still think it's a bad time to by though, when your (AMD) processor will be easily outdone by a similarly priced one in a few months when Bulldozer (finally) comes out. The upgrade path is there but it's too soon to be released, to be worth buying right now for the value. I honestly don't think anyone should buy a pc in the $500 range right now because of this, and I would even wait for the $1000 price point. Even if AMD does not prove to take a lot of segments over, there is bound to be some pricing pressure, or at least SOME alternative options. I'm very annoyed that I'm still waiting, but there is FAR too much potential for disappointment in buying so soon before big industry changes.