-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
Best CPU for £120 new build.
- Thread starter RibTickler
- Start date
Does not compute . . . question is too subjective . . .
"'the proof of the pudding is in the eating"
You can sit here till the cows come home, discussing which raisins to use, which flour to use, vanilla essence or almond?, trying to work out if it will be better to serve it with custard or ice-cream etc . . .
What are you accomplishing? . . . . nothing
Your studio project sounds really interesting, I've done one or two studio builds myself so have a little experience in that arena. Any of the kit you have mentioned so far is more than capable of dealing with the workload you are talking about . . . I can say with confidence that a £120 AMD CPU/Chipset will blow you away in actual use, it's very low latency which lends itself well to audio production, every click is met by an instant action, very *snappy* indeed thanks to the IMC
System Latency is one of those things you don't really need a benchmark to appreciate in the RealWorld!
Took me three years of learning to get a similar low latency on my expensive ££ LGA775 system, then a £100 *modern* AMD CPU/Mobo combo goes and matches it out the box @ stock!
Last edited:
An AMD socket AM2+ processor has a onboard DDR2 IMC so can only work in a DDR2 motherboard . . . An AMD socket AM3 processor has a onboard IMC that is both DDR2/DDR3 therefore it can work in either a DDR2 motherboard or a DDR3 motherboard . . .
- AM2+
- DDR2 Board Only
- AM3
- DDR2 Board
- DDR3 Board
* * * * Propus * * * *
Just making it a bit easier to understand the difference between AM2+ & AM3
Few hours late in answering this post but better late than never . . . This isn't picking at you but if these thoughts are going round your brain it stands to reason some others have similar thinking too . . .
If you own a quality branded 4GB (2x2GB) DDR2 kit I estimate that in one years time if it is still in perfect working order with no kebab stains etc then you will be able to sell it and buy a **** hot 8GB (2x4GB) DDR3 kit for similar money
4GB DDR2-800
January 2010
8GB DDR3-1600
January 2011
Essentially now we are advising the same thing but you are saying sell now and I am saying sell then!
Do you think 8GB of DDR3 will be more useful in a year than 4GB of DDR3 is today?
Of course the other thing is the CPU, anyone buying an AM3 processor today is covered, in 12 months if there are some killer new DDR3 motherboards floating about you can transfer your chip bought today into a motherboard bought in one year, you'll just then have to sell two things off next year
Cost = £0.00
ok well heres the thing, he's already got the DDR2 and it's worth a lot of money . . . your suggestion to Sell his older DDR2 and use the money to buy some new uBer shiny DDR3 makes somes sense . . . however it is my opinion based on historical exposure to emerging technologies that DDR3 will continue to be improved and perfected, there will be more demand for 8GB(2x4GB) and the price will drop . . . on the other hand DDR2 production has been ramping down for a while so the prices must stay good as lomg as their is sufficient demand . . . there is a whole heap of Intel LGA775 boards and AMD AM2/AM2+ boards out there so the price will rise . . .Don't base a whole rig around a couple of sticks of old ram
If you own a quality branded 4GB (2x2GB) DDR2 kit I estimate that in one years time if it is still in perfect working order with no kebab stains etc then you will be able to sell it and buy a **** hot 8GB (2x4GB) DDR3 kit for similar money
4GB DDR2-800
January 2010
8GB DDR3-1600
January 2011
The point that is worthy of debate is that *assuming* what I have mentioned above comes true do you think that working through the year with slightly slower ram is worth it so that in 12 months you can effectively swap-out the older ram and buy a new set that is *twice* the capacity and *twice* the speed?
Essentially now we are advising the same thing but you are saying sell now and I am saying sell then!
Do you think 8GB of DDR3 will be more useful in a year than 4GB of DDR3 is today?
Of course the other thing is the CPU, anyone buying an AM3 processor today is covered, in 12 months if there are some killer new DDR3 motherboards floating about you can transfer your chip bought today into a motherboard bought in one year, you'll just then have to sell two things off next year
- Today
- Buy AM3 CPU
- Buy AM2+ Chipset
- Sell LGA775 CPU
- Sell LGA775 Motherboard
- Future
- Buy 8GB DDR3
- Buy AM3 Chipset
- Sell 4GB DDR2
- Sell AM2+ Chipset
Cost = £0.00
Rroff your doing it again!When was the last time someone has gone from a core 2 duo to a sempron and gone wow this is so much more responsive
Stop trying to *debunk* my selling points!
You could ask the same question about overclocking but we already did that yesterday, some people want speed and some people want more speed . . .the same is true for latency . . . if a low latency system is not of interest to you or something you could not notice then fair enough thats your personal opinion . . . I love low latency so I'm suprised it's something you don't see as a big plus . . . maybe it is because you never experienced it? . . . it's a lot harder to achieve on an older platform like the LGA775 . . .
A Low latency system combined with a fast SSD drive = Beam Me Up Scotty!
Rroff your doing it again!
Stop trying to *debunk* my selling points!
You could ask the same question about overclocking but we already did that yesterday, some people want speed and some people want more speed . . .the same is true for latency . . . if a low latency system is not of interest to you or something you could not notice then fair enough thats your personal opinion . . . I love low latency so I'm suprised it's something you don't see as a big plus . . . maybe it is because you never experienced it? . . . it's a lot harder to achieve on an older platform like the LGA775 . . .
A Low latency system combined with a fast SSD drive = Beam Me Up Scotty!
So your saying on a system with 50ns lower memory sub-system latency I should feel it noticeably faster responding when I click on a button to do something in an application?
Q8400 and OC (assuming it works with his board) would save a ton of hassle and be as close as anything else as makes no odds unless your doing one of the few tasks where the i7 shines.
Personally I don't see the point in spending the extra money atm on an i5 or i7 platform as its not hugely faster on average than a good LGA775 quad... unless one of your main tasks are something that you know they are massively faster in.
Personally I don't see the point in spending the extra money atm on an i5 or i7 platform as its not hugely faster on average than a good LGA775 quad... unless one of your main tasks are something that you know they are massively faster in.
I think he as run away.
He can't notice 500MHZ when clocking but can notice the difference latency when its in nm.
I think he as run away.
He can't notice 500MHZ when clocking but can notice the difference latency when its in nm.
Well the effect is more manifest than that as its ticking over thousands or even millions or more times per second... where every ns helps.
However most OS have a regular tick rate for the kernel - so a faster responding system isn't going to make much odds if its less than one tick... and if it takes more than 1 tick then memory bandwidth and overall raw CPU speed are going to show more benefit.
So its a lot more complicated story than saying your operating system feels "snappier"... which 99/100 will just be placebo... I'm not saying carte blanche that lower memory latency won't have benefits tho.
To elaborate a little more - Windows will typically be ticking over at 100Hz but some applications like windows media player force the kernel timer to 1000Hz - this is why sometimes certain applications will run faster or seem more responsive with media player or other applications open.
Last edited:
Hey Rroff,
sorry for the late reply and thanks for making the effort to *clarify* my point . . .
Clicking a button/icon and jumping with glee at the responsiveness would be a narrow interpretation of what I was meaning!
The definition of what is a fast computer is wide open, some people rely on numbers and charts to gauge speed . . . knocking a few seconds of a Super-Pi result, increasing their 3DMark Vantage scores by a few thousand points etc . . . . other people gauge the speed/power of a system by how much PPD it can crunch . . . . or how quickly it can transcode several DVD's . . . it's a very subjective experience!
One of the things I *personally* appreciate as a computer-operator is a sub 50ns Low Latency System, it's something that makes me *perceive* I am using a fast computer in day-to-day use and once you get a taste for it then it's hard to go back . . . . I first noticed this several years ago when I swapped out a Socket 478 Intel® Pentium® 4 (Northwood HT) 2.8GHz @ 3.5GHz processor for an Socket 939 AMD® Opteron™ 146 2.0GHz . . . It just *felt* a lot faster to me straight away although at the time I was unaware of something called System-Latency . . . of course it's mainly down to the AMD processor having the memory controller built into the chip instead of located in a physically separate chip a few inches away, very clever of AMD and afaik took intel a good few years to absorb that tech into their Nehalem® Processors! . . .
The Latency benchmark I posted above was aimed at anyone that is into that kinda thing, Tweakers appreciate it and so do a lot of other enthusiasts, it is an impressive result from a budget chip and cannot be viewed as a negative in anyway . . . . I think most users will enjoy the *snappy* effect!
Last edited:
Pentiums 4s has super long pipelines - which as you said contributes (badly) to the whole system latency thing... which is probably why some people find they feel sluggish compared to the Opteron - and even the Celerons.
Personally I think memory latency (on its own) is over-rated - but its not something I'm an expert on so open to any information otherwise.
Personally I think memory latency (on its own) is over-rated - but its not something I'm an expert on so open to any information otherwise.
Last edited:
I respect that . . . I feel the same about humunga processor frequency, excessive cores, superfluous FPS, unnecessary RAM capacity and gratuitous level 3 cache!
We all have a Unique viewpoint but with a little understanding and good discussion it's possible to get an *insight* into how the other person is seeing things . . . . it's quite enjoyable actually, I learnt enough about you and your hardware history just from this one thread alone!
Well I don't think I heard anyone talk about that *tick* stuff you spoke of a few posts ago so your quickly becoming an expert to me!
It would be great if you could scrape up a little bit of funding £££ for a cheap test-lab AMD build, something like a Sempron 140 in an inexpensive 760G/HDMI mobo . . . is there any *need* for a fairly lower power HTPC build in your dwellings Rroff?
Fraid not... I have a Zotac N230 for my NAS and a E6600 in an Asus Terminator (P5G31) for HTPC. Tho I could maybe build something cheap to test and then give to my mum as shes been asking about getting a PC.
Generally the OS kernel ticks over at either 1000 times per second or 100 times per second for the software layer* - tho ring0 device drivers, etc. operate below that I believe - so its conceivable at some levels the system would feel more responsive with a lower latency memory sub-system. But its not a cut and dried situation - without knowing the details of the rest of the system latency, etc. you can't quantify if lower memory latency will have a noticeable effect.
* So if you did something that only needed a few very short commands you still wouldn't notice any faster response than the delay between system ticks i.e. 10 or 1ms.
Generally the OS kernel ticks over at either 1000 times per second or 100 times per second for the software layer* - tho ring0 device drivers, etc. operate below that I believe - so its conceivable at some levels the system would feel more responsive with a lower latency memory sub-system. But its not a cut and dried situation - without knowing the details of the rest of the system latency, etc. you can't quantify if lower memory latency will have a noticeable effect.
* So if you did something that only needed a few very short commands you still wouldn't notice any faster response than the delay between system ticks i.e. 10 or 1ms.