Best CPU for £120 new build.

[Th3D0n]

"GA-965P-DS3P Rev3.3. C2D [email protected]"

I had the same and went for a Q9400 for £120 OEM and i was really happy with the performance. plus i can say my 965p-DS3 worked fine with the Q9400 but i think i had the F12 or F13 Bios

so for £120 the best you can do is go for Q8400 and up.....

 

[easyrider]

Latency is less obvious than raw mhz.

The differences are placebo other than checking in benchies imo.

Its that small.

 

[Big.Wayne]

Latency is less obvious than raw mhz.

Interesting, I guess either you don't know about LowLatency or your confusing it with high GHz

If you are gauging a computers speed by how many minutes and hours it can perform a task in I totally understand where your coming from . . . If your gauging the speed by how it feels to operate real-time tasks then I don't understand why you would say "Latency is less obvious than raw mhz"

The differences are placebo other than checking in benchies imo

In your opinion maybe, I kinda feel the same about Superfluous GHz . . .

speaking of which . . . I would like to clarify something I stated earlier on, I can actually tell the difference in between a 500MHz - 1GHz overclock in certain conditions . . . for instance playing Team-Fortress2 with an Intel® Core™2 Duo E6300 @ stock 1.86GHz with nVidia 8800GT 512MB and then overclocking the processor to 2.8GHz/3.0GHz was noticable, but beyond 3.0GHz up to 4.0GHz was such diminishing returns it hardly seemed worth it and as you said:

"The differences are placebo"

I don't personally work with any software that *isn't* real-time i.e everything I do happens very quickly, I never have to wait on the computer to make my next move (hard-disk speed limit aside) . . . once a person gets into *solid* hardcore data crunching like video-encoding, 3D-Modelling renders, Scientific type work then *RAW* processing power must be very obvious, at the very best knocking hours off the Render/Encode time! . . .that to me is *RAW* power but's it's not as noticable to me personally and I imagine to a lot of other people also who do not use the computer in that kind of way . . . .

Low Latency is more preferable to me and the way I operate a computer than Superfluous GHz, I need a good amount of GHz don't get me wrong but above about 3GHz I'm good and then it's all about other things like latency, fast disks, tweaking IMHO!

Its that small [to me and the way I operate a computer with ease]

fixed!

off-topic:

easyrider, I think your nearly there, your viewpoints are completely valid but I think the way you express them can rub a few people up the wrong way! . . . your nearly getting to the stage where you can stop being yourself and see things from someone elses perspective, previously you have always projected your viewpoint as some kind of Universal-Law which makes you very tiresome to deal with . . . I hope to see you being a more agreeable/pleasent chap in the future!

I think if you mellow out and get the *skillz* you could become one of OcUK's best benchmarkers and our competitive hope, you would so appreciate a group of people wearing EasyRider t-shirts and 1000's of UK overclockers knowing your name for all the right reasons!

Your still sitting there on your DELL *mini* Netbook professing to know what is and what isn't important about modern hardware, your like the backseat driver from HELL!

 

[ghop]

I heard the i3 530 was an amazing little overclocker. Someone on the i3 overclocking thread got 4.8something ghz on theres (phase cooling I think).

No idea if you can get a 1156 motherboard with DDR2 support though...

 

[easyrider]

easyrider, I think your nearly there, your viewpoints are completely valid but I think the way you express them can rub a few people up the wrong way! . . . your nearly getting to the stage where you can stop being yourself and see things from someone elses perspective, previously you have always projected your viewpoint as some kind of Universal-Law which makes you very tiresome to deal with . . . I hope to see you being a more agreeable/pleasent chap in the future!

I think if you mellow out and get the *skillz* you could become one of OcUK's best benchmarkers and our competitive hope, you would so appreciate a group of people wearing EasyRider t-shirts and 1000's of UK overclockers knowing your name for all the right reasons!

Your still sitting there on your DELL *mini* Netbook professing to know what is and what isn't important about modern hardware, your like the backseat driver from HELL!

For starters I don't own a mini netbook.

How can GHZ Superfluous?

Meaning of Superfluous

1. being more than is sufficient or required; excessive.
2. unnecessary or needless.
3. Obsolete. possessing or spending more than enough or necessary; extravagant.

Let me make this simple for you...

1:I can never have enough speed...The faster the chip the quicker stuff gets processed.

2.Having my computer working faster is not unnecessary...PERIOD

3:I would hardly call buying cheap hardware and overclocking it to get more speed extravagant. Extravagant would be buying a Intel Core i7 975 3.33Ghz (Nehalem) Extreme Edition £786.99 not an £88 i3 530 and running it at 4ghz

I can see things from your point of view...But I would argue that on two identicle PC's you couldn't tell which was running the tighter timings on the ram.

But you could tell which one was running the faster clocked CPU.

Thats my point.

You seem to be arguing a point that more speed is bad.When I would argue that the majority of PC users (NOT HTPC Server users) would embrace faster processors.

Speed is one of the main selling points of PC hardware with every gen outpacing the last.

Thats the nature of the business and the nature of the human race and its none stop need to consume.


SPEED,SPEED,SPEED me wants it, me needs it, me precious

 

[Big.Wayne]

How can GHZ Superfluous?

Meaning of Superfluous

1. being more than is sufficient or required; excessive.
2. unnecessary or needless.
3. Obsolete. possessing or spending more than enough or necessary; extravagant.

If your a benchmarker then GHz is good, if your someone who uses really resource hungry applications (encoding, Folding, yada, yada) then GHz is good and to some extent if your a gamer GHz is good up to a certain point, the apparent effects/benefits really start to drop off (diminishing returns) for those of us that have more modest requirements . . .

From my personal viewpoint I see improvements in GHz being measured mainly in minutes and hours whereas I see improvements in latency being more about the here & now, this very moment (or tiny fraction of a moment)

Nanoseconds vs Seconds vs Minutes vs Hours . . . all of them are valid expressions of time and which you pay more attention to is completely your choice . . . my hunch is that you have built up an idea from using the Intel Core 2 platform that System-Latency and RAW Processing power are the same thing, it just so happens that on the Core 2 platform you should experience *both* when the system is overclocked but it's also possible on that Platform to Decrease the system latency while at the same time improving your processing power! i.e the system after being overclocked feels a little sluggish to operate but clearly has more processing power because it shaves 30 mins off your encoding times and scores higher in the benches!

1:I can never have enough speed...The faster the chip the quicker stuff gets processed

Good for you, easyrider the speedking . . . who doesn't really have a workstation, who doesn't own an overclocked computer?

Where is your speed? . . . where is your "stuff" that is needing processing, is it 6 months or is it one year (or more?) since you had a monster-rig? . . . how are you getting your Need-For-Speed fullfilled on an underclocked Core 2 duo and a small portable/battery powered computer that isn't a net-top but has a 800x600 res

Do we have ourselves a Disconnect here?

2.Having my computer working faster is not unnecessary...PERIOD

I am not saying anything to the contary easy, what I am saying is yeah extra speed is cool, extra speed is neat and all that but after a certain point are you just pursueing speed for speeds sake? . . . what are you accomplishing with the extra GHz that you could not accomplish without it?

Surely the computer is a tool which is to be used to achieve something? . . . no different to how a pencil is a tool which is to be used to achieve something?

3:I would hardly call buying cheap hardware and overclocking it to get more speed extravagant. Extravagant would be buying a Intel Core i7 975 3.33Ghz (Nehalem) Extreme Edition £786.99 not an £88 i3 530 and running it at 4ghz

Nor would I easy?, again you are misreading/misinterpreting someone viewpoint, I've clearly said overclocking has its benefits but I think for most people the real-world advantages are over-rated . . . maybe not for you and maybe not for some others but for me personally it's just not as exciting as it used to be . . . what is exciting to me is all the cool stuff you can use your PC for, whether it be gaming, encoding, editing your 128 tracks of audio with real time effects, folding, datamining etc . . . that's the end goal that I can see is being overlooked by some people as they become enamored with the technology itself . . . .

I can see things from your point of view...But I would argue that on two identicle PC's you couldn't tell which was running the tighter timings on the ram.

But you could tell which one was running the faster clocked CPU

Tigher timings on the ram? . . . how about tighter timings on the northbridge (tRD), how about increasing the memory frequency? perhaps overclocking the FSB, lots of things that contribute to a synced system where all the many different parts are fine tuned . . . there's a lot more to it than processor GHz and Memory timings . .

If you think processor GHz is where its at thats fine, I don't see it that way myself beyond a certain point and I'm sure neither do a great many other people, there is no right or wrong really just what is right for you!

You seem to be arguing a point that more speed is bad.When I would argue that the majority of PC users (NOT HTPC Server users) would embrace faster processors

No easy, you flipped my meaning around again! . . . what I am saying is that for a lot of people that more speed is not that good, it's over-rated beyond a certain point . . . although you have multi-million pound advertising/marketing departments who would have you think otherwise!

You really need to get yourself an overclocked PC built mate, your kinda in a funny position where your preaching that RAW speed is your total aim but yet you have managed to exist with a laptop of some description and a small HTPC . . .

Once you got your i3 @ 4.5GHz for £200 running you will have half a leg to stand on!

Speed is one of the main selling points of PC hardware with every gen outpacing the last

Selling points huh?

Doesn't seem to be working very well with you does it?

Thats the nature of the business

I agree, the nature of business is to sell and to make profit, nothing more . . .

and the nature of the human race and its none stop need to consume

I as far as I now I'm part of the human race and I don't have a non stop need to consume? . . . well apart from food of course!

SPEED,SPEED,SPEED me wants it, me needs it

"One day a hare saw a tortoise walking slowly along and began to laugh and mock him. The hare challenged the tortoise to a race and the tortoise accepted. They agreed on a route and started off the race. The hare shot ahead and ran briskly for some time. Then seeing that he was far ahead of the tortoise, he thought he'd sit under a tree and relax before continuing the race . . . . He sat under the tree and soon fell asleep. The tortoise, plodding on, overtook him and finished the race. The hare woke up and realized that he had lost."

OcUK Forums, a community of Tortoises and Sleeping hares

 

[pieman109]

Just my two pence worth, if the op's mobo can be made to support one of the lower end quads, Q8300/Q8400, both of which are in the price range quoted, I'd say get one as opposed to going down the Athlon II/Phenom II route (sorry Wayne), seems to make more sense to me cost wise and thats ignoring any overclocking potential. Keeps his original mobo and ram, no operating system to reinstal, compatibility isn't an issue either.
if the system is overclocked, he should at least get 3.8ghz-4.0ghz I'd have thought and "if the performance gains in the apps hes gonna run are worth it to him", then fair play, and I maintain that view. Doesn't matter in gaming 'cos you only need around 3.2ghz as you're gonna bottlenecked by the gpu. Either way, just plonk any of the two quads I quoted and I reckon he'll be good to go.
Now, this is coming from someone who has just replaced his E8400 @3.8ghz, 4gb DDR2 pc2 8500, and P35-DS3P, with, wait for it.......a Phenom II 720BE X3, asus Matx M4A785TD-M EVO, and 2 x 2gb ocz DDR3 ram as the main pc, and me son now has a Phenom II 550BE, gigabyte MA785GM-US2H, 3 x 1gb pc 6400 ram.
Both systems running Win 7 32 bit, the main pc has a 5850 in it and the second has 4870 in it.
Now, people might say I've dropped a clanger by going down the amd route as opposed to going intel. BUT, like "Wayne" I wanted to play with summat different and I was bored with intel so I thought i'd give amd a go.
For all my useage, the amd systems both perform as well as any intel system, I have enough patience to wait a coupla more minutes for an encoding session to finish, games appear to run at least as well (as they should) if not better with the odd fps increasing here and there.
I find the overriding reason to Amd is cost versus performance, if the op was buying new and had a less advanced pc than he already has, then the amd route would be the better option (just check out the various prices).
Wrt unlocking the extra cores, neither of my two cpus will unlock, but thats the luck of the draw, I reckon its the older ones that unlock meself going by the stepping numbers I've seen and both mine are relatively new, one being brand new.

 

[DTurbo_Tom]

Just get the P2 955 Black Edition, Its by far the better CPU of them all, sure, you can throw benchmarks out about FPS, but its the MIN fps that counts. So while these lower end chips may reach high figure, they arent showing you the minimum FPS which is what you want.

I recently upgraded from an X3 8650 at 2.6 Ghz, to a 955 still using my GB MA790X-DS4 running 4 GB OCZ Gold 1066 DDR2, and the difference between the two chips isnt even expressable in words. The 8650 sure, it could get high FPS, but as soon as things got a bit hectic, you'd see that 60-80fps hit the low 20's maybe even the teens in demanding games, the 955 rapes them and NEVER stutters below 60. It can even hold 30-50fps in Crysis at 1680 x 1050, DX10 64bit, V.High, with the minimum framerate dropping to about 20-22. Thats coupled with an XFX 4890.

The 955 also went straight to 3.6 on the multi alone and nothing else touched with temps tolerable on stock cooler. Got a Tuniq tower 120 extreme on the way, and I'm confident I'll be able to get to or very close to 4GHZ 24/7 stable with it.

Save yourself the hassle and buy the 955, you wont be disappointed.

 

[easyrider]

snip]

I'm not sure what connection you have with AMD but its getting tired.

Why not just post the truth..without resorting to changing an OP's mind when they just want the fastest rig?

You feel compelled to change their mind with your self realised utopia of AMD.

What exactly do you mean by the example of the tortoise and hare?


I don't get it?

A rabbit has a soul....along with a hare..its a living being.

What is the connection with soulless PC hardware I couldn't care less about?

I wouldn't rush into my house if it was on fire to save my rig?

I might rush in to save my dog?

I really don't get your point?

Please explain to me. I apologise for being slightly thick...But I think you have maybe mis-understood the meaning and message about that classic tale.

Were you bullied at school?