Hey Mr Krugga,
sorry for delay . . . had some reports that needed doing that have been sitting in my inbox since monday and are due in tommorow!
. . . also thought it would be good to pause for thought and give the thread a moment to cool down!
No problem, it's not like I was awaiting your response.
So lets see where we are . . .
Same place we where at the beginning. You post your justification of "well balanced system for the OP", I try to prove you wrong.
I don't pick the hardware the O.P does? . . . he did say he wants to Video Edit? . . . would work fine on an X4 but an X6 is faster still? . . . how fast is fast enough? . . . when does someone feel they have spent enough? . . . I think the HexCore looks like quite a reasonable solution actually?
Well it's not unreasonable to save £40 for a gaming system, he can pick a better graphics then. There's also GPU acceleration for video conversion which may be more appealing? Anyhow in the software he chose there's little difference to justify your purchase and it's more appealing to get the fastest of all three if he can?
Also you state the Phenom™ II X4 955 (3.2GHz) would "give him better results in games at stock" than the Phenom™ II X6 1055T (2.8GHz)? . . . I guess this depends on what games we are talking about . . . as I'm sure you know but possibly forgotten the Phenom™ II X6 series have a feature called
TurboCore™ which overclocks the processor if the thread load is lighter? . . . so in the case of the X6 1055T if only three threads were loaded this would clock the chip from 2.8GHz to 3.3GHz . . . in theory that may be faster than the Phenom™ II X4 955 (3.2GHz) for lightly threaded games? . . . small point but I thought it was worth mentioning . . .
No, sorry, it's worthless. Look up some reviews, don't try to prove a point without having some knowledge. Turbo helps but it doesn't succeed.
Just in case you didn't know DDR3-1600 is a standard feature on AM3 systems . . . even with the CPU running at stock . . .
Afaik 1333MHz is, can you prove it makes if he spends £10 more on 1600MHz with a stock system? I don't think you can, you're too busy posting pictures of the cash.
Whether or not spending the extra is good value is debatable . . . i.e will DDR3-1333 vs DDR3-1600 improve performance? . . . . still the point is it doesn't matter if someone is overclocking or running the system at stock, DDR3-1600 runs right-out-the-box! . . . can that be done on the Intel® Core™ i7?
Yes it can. Can Phenom II beat Core i7? No it can't.
Well xRowan didn't mention it so yeah? . . . When someone mentions he wants to play games does this mean Multi-GPU or?
Ok, next time you build a PC for someone, let him no that there's no Crossfire nor SLI compatibility with the board. Also, there's no way he can have any other type of card in the PCI-Express slot - because there's none free.
Don't the greater majority of people that play games on the PC use a single GPU powerful enough for the games and screen res they play?
No? There's plenty who use SLI/Crossfire these days, majority doesn't attend such forums. And more than a half would like to have an option in the future.
I am?
. . . oh? . . . how so?
You were arguing that AnandTech tested with Triple channel thus benchmarks are irrelevant with Dual Channel memory - I proved you wrong. You were also suggesting that I shouldn't state that Dual channel does little to no difference without proving it. Well I proved my point, did you?
when did I actually say AnandTech bench data used Triple-Channel? . . . did I say that? . . I'm pretty sure I didn't?
Ok, don't panic mate. You just lost another argument, deal with it.
Ok that's quite funny! . . . do you remember just a month ago when the
AMD® Phenom™ II X6 and Intel® Core™ i7 Debate was raging . . . I brought that and another article to your attention in post
#208 #212 and what did you say?
Sure I have read that. I couldn't be bothered to search for other articles, I did now and never acknowledge Triple Channel being a benefit. You've got a prove in the other post, obviously you won't be bothered to read it because you've got a
serious business to do here.
"That's surprising, I wouldn't have thought that Triple Channel may even help in games (even though just a little)." - Mr Krugga 22nd Jul 2010, 17:04
Now you have decided its "not useful at all" . . . interesting!
You know you're a dick, right?
Funny that you didn't mention my other half of the post, where I said: "We need more benches to see what tasks it really helps with. ". But hey, what to expect from a politician in these Forums.
Not guilty on both counts!
Proves my point.
I love the way I show you something then six weeks later you try to make out it is you who are showing me something . . . like your stylee!
WTF are you moaning about now? You're the one who's posting AMD trademarks all over the Forums...
Firstly good show for taking the time out to produce a chart and also the time to work out all the percentages . . . that is a good effort and people don't realise how long it takes so kudos to you! (saved me some work also!) .
No problem, it took me 5-7 minutes to produce it, could make a coffee or something instead and not bother arguing with your points.
. . I checked all the percentages and they were all 100% spot on . . . so having said that I am perplexed how you get % figures so accurate but seem to have a problem with the financial figures? £££
I'm an accountancy student, I don't find myself having problems with counting money. You see, I for once understand that the money the OP or anyone else puts into the build is going to benefit in the future. There's things like resale value and more importantly - the total system difference. Because if you haven't noticed it's not 54% or whatever you state, price increase, it's more like 10% for a total of 20% performance improvement. Yes, gamers buy expensive components and even if you try to save money on anything else and don't include a monitor, it will cost him roughly 15% for the increase of 20% which is IMO reasonable at least.
i7 950 with 1055T . . .
£100? . . . even going with your LGA1366 "dual-Channel" option your 13% out with equal features and a "whooping" 54% out if going for the bang-for-buck option!
Yep, that's what comes to your mind, cripple the system to avoid a fair comparison.
Sorry about that . . . I know it must vex you but I don't make the hardware and I don't set the prices . . . all I know is how to fit the hardware together and how to select components to get great performance and good value for money . . . so depending exactly what xRowan and other people reading this thread want from a Phenom™ II X6 1055T system the cost difference against a dual-channel LGA1366 Intel® Core™i7 950 system is £113 all the way to £160 cheaper!
I can agree with that but because we're saving OP's time arguing about advantages/disadvantages here, he just needs to read up and make his own mind. He doesn't need to calculate anything and I'm pretty sure he's clever enough to understand how £150 looks like IRL.
Yes the £160 cheaper option means you lose Multi-GPU and you lose SATA 6Gb/s & USB 3.0 . . . A showstopper for some maybe? . . for others who just want to plug in their single powerful PCI-E 2.0 X16 graphics card and don't care for the bells n whistles? . . . what a pity that the LGA1366 Intel® Core™i7 950 system just can't be put together any cheaper (assuming you keep the same DDR3 on *both" systems) . . .
Core i7 is the enthusiast level of all Intel offerings. The funny thing is I can build you an i5 quad core with similar level components and a few pounds cheaper. And guess what, it's still gonna be faster in many tasks and only slower in a few. But hey, the OP didn't ask for an i5/X4. Neither did he ask for a budget AM3 board that you suggested.
54% more expensive! . . . significantly more expensive!
Not what my numbers tell me. Have you seen the rest of the system to justify?
So using the anandtech benchdata you kindly prepared that appears to be with these exact configs lets look again at the "value" . . . bearing in mind that all the following X6 performance can be had from a CPU/Mobo/Mem combo costing just £300!
Yes it can but it brings up the question, why did you suggest the more expensive mobo in the first place? Are you trying to acknowledge the OP that AM3 can be had cheaper? Sure it can but does it offer the same set of features? You're comparing two totally different markets now. It's obviously worth considering a value AM3 setup but if you're not a budget and don't won't to moan about lack of upgrade-ability in the future, Core i7 may be the way to go?
I'm going to report you if you post pictures of the money again. I'm sure the OP and everyone else knows how £150 looks like in fifties but it's not only boring but annoying now. Keep your mind games for the family.
Just on the side not, the OP is considering Core i7 950 in advance. It means that he probably budgeted/already has money for the system. It's not like his family won't have anything to eat for a week because he chooses a better system.
