• 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.

Which one ?

I'll be honest and say that with your current setup is there anything that it struggles with that you just can't bear with it any longer? The reason I ask is because you seem to have a standard 955 . I ran an unlocked b55 at 4.2ghz with a nb of 2500 using ddr2@1000mhz.
and i benched all my apps against the i7.

In gaming at 1920x1080 there was very little fps gains from the i7, but in games that did the i7 would give out 5-8fps more than my amd.
In handbrake the i7 would literally take half the time to encode than the amd.

A dual core I3 wont outperform a phenom II X4 in conventional encoding unless it uses quicksync. Again everything is relative to the actual applications you use.

Another factor which people always forget to mention on these forums is the resolution of the monitor you are gaming on,
Because sandybridge shows a big fps advantage when at 1680x1050 or below compared to any amd, But at 1920x1080 that gap closes right up with the sb sometimes offering a little advantage.
 
almighty151986 said:
The same? The Sabertooth is clearly the better motherboard....

P67 has and always has been known as the gamer chipset where as the Z68 is the all round chipset...

You look at all the ultra high end entusiast 1155 motherboards they're nearly all based on the P67 chipset.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to argue. We'll let the OP decide.
 
Davedree said:
I'll be honest and say that with your current setup is there anything that it struggles with that you just can't bear with it any longer? The reason I ask is because you seem to have a standard 955 . I ran an unlocked b55 at 4.2ghz with a nb of 2500 using ddr2@1000mhz.
and i benched all my apps against the i7.

In gaming at 1920x1080 there was very little fps gains from the i7, but in games that did the i7 would give out 5-8fps more than my amd.
In handbrake the i7 would literally take half the time to encode than the amd.

A dual core I3 wont outperform a phenom II X4 in conventional encoding unless it uses quicksync. Again everything is relative to the actual applications you use.

Another factor which people always forget to mention on these forums is the resolution of the monitor you are gaming on,
Because sandybridge shows a big fps advantage when at 1680x1050 or below compared to any amd, But at 1920x1080 that gap closes right up with the sb sometimes offering a little advantage.
Click to expand...

I loved from a 4.8Ghz Phenom 2 x6 1075T and even at 4.2Ghz my 2500k hammered it in EVERYTHING....

Minimum frame rates on the 2500k were a good 50%+ higher..
 
Davedree said:
I'll be honest and say that with your current setup is there anything that it struggles with that you just can't bear with it any longer? The reason I ask is because you seem to have a standard 955 . I ran an unlocked b55 at 4.2ghz with a nb of 2500 using ddr2@1000mhz.
and i benched all my apps against the i7.

...
Click to expand...

Well if you read the OP it seems he wants another PC?
 
Davedree said:
I'll be honest and say that with your current setup is there anything that it struggles with that you just can't bear with it any longer? The reason I ask is because you seem to have a standard 955 . I ran an unlocked b55 at 4.2ghz with a nb of 2500 using ddr2@1000mhz.
and i benched all my apps against the i7.

In gaming at 1920x1080 there was very little fps gains from the i7, but in games that did the i7 would give out 5-8fps more than my amd.
In handbrake the i7 would literally take half the time to encode than the amd.

A dual core I3 wont outperform a phenom II X4 in conventional encoding unless it uses quicksync. Again everything is relative to the actual applications you use.

Another factor which people always forget to mention on these forums is the resolution of the monitor you are gaming on,
Because sandybridge shows a big fps advantage when at 1680x1050 or below compared to any amd, But at 1920x1080 that gap closes right up with the sb sometimes offering a little advantage.
Click to expand...

Doesn't struggle with anything at all (yet) i do need to upgrade my GFX at some point, but as i said i am only doing this so my daughter can have a better PC at the moment her pc can only browse the internet lol so i want to give her a good computer, all my gaming is done at 1920 x 1080 res sometimes 1680 just depends.
 
almighty151986 said:
I loved from a 4.8Ghz Phenom 2 x6 1075T and even at 4.2Ghz my 2500k hammered it in EVERYTHING....

Minimum frame rates on the 2500k were a good 50%+ higher..
Click to expand...

What game/s did you get that figure from? And what GPU was using on both? That figure seems 40% north of BS. I could be wrong, if we know the games we can check those figures.

I suppose you could have been using games that favour a particular GPU. I ask because not many if any single GPU will be bottlenecked using a x6 at 4.8Ghz. like I said could be wrong, 50%+!!! 2500k sitting at 4.2Ghz
 
Last edited:
linwelin said:
i5 it is then, was looking at this board for it for its simplistic way of overclocking (being that i am a total noob at that, heck i dont think i have ever tried to do it) http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=mb-054-ak&tool=3 rather expensive though.

i wouldnt touch gigabyte (bad experiences with them, refuse to buy anymore of there products)
Click to expand...

you maybe a "total noob" but you're an expert at picking the best motherboard for the money, spot on first time.

here's a proper review to back up your choice ASRock Z68 Extreme4 Gen3 Review
 
almighty151986 said:
Useless...

The 'old' :rolleyes: P67 Sabertooth just bashes it for fun..

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/motherboards/2011/09/09/asrock-z68-extreme4-gen3-review/3
Click to expand...

You obviously haven't read the comments to that stupid review then :rolleyes:

flong 12th September 2011, 13:07
I have the AsRock Gen 3 Extreme 4 board. I am not sure what went wrong with your ATTO tests for SATA III 6 GB/S connections but I was curious and so I ran the ATTO one GB (your 1024 KB ) segment test with my Corsair GT Force 3. My read speed was 555.4 MB/S and write speed was 504.1 MB/S. My Corsair GT is a 120 GB SSD and it should be slightly slower than the 240 GB Vertex 3 but I am getting speeds wayyyyy above what you got. I am getting 50% - 60% higher speeds than your test lists.

This leads me to suspect that you either got a bad board or you are not describing which ATTO test you are using clearly. You say you are testing 1024 KB segments which should be ATTO's 1 GB setting which is what I used.

I have done tests with several ATTO settings and I have NEVER got less than 500 MB/S. Something is really wrong with your review and your test settings. I am running a 2600K and maybe that is improving my results but I don't see how. The SATA III interface should be independent of the CPU.

Bit-Tech, maybe I am not understanding your SATA III ATTO test but it appears that your data is far - really far - off of the mark. My Corsair GT speeds are superior to the Asus Sabertooth that you list as the top performer. Something is really wrong with your numbers.
Click to expand...

ramon zarat 7th October 2011, 20:15
WOW....

This article about the Asrock Extreme4 GEN3 came out 1 FULL MONTH ago and NOT A SINGLE response whatsoever from Bit-tech to justify their very bizarre and way under par SATA 2 and SATA 3 performance results. I went on Xtrem system (http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums...k-Z68-Gen3-Extreme7-amp-Extreme4-thread/page7 ) and the guys over there benchmarked the same board with VERY different results. Same thing at other sources I've consulted.

It’s clear to me that Bit-tech used wrong drivers, wrong windows configuration, bad SATA cables, a bad drive or all of the above. What’s not clear is **WHY** Bit-tech didn’t even bother to investigate such a HUGE discrepancy. We are talking about 40-70% lower transfer speed from what anyone would expect!!!! Amazing that it totally went under the radar with no comments such as “Those results can’t be right, we will investigate further and update this articleâ€. What's even more amazing is Asrock ddbn't demand a reevaluation!!

I'm very disappointed. It surely shakes my confidence in Bit-tech as a reputable source of information I rely on to avoid purchasing bad products.
Click to expand...
 
almighty151986 said:
Minimum frame rates on the 2500k were a good 50%+ higher..
Click to expand...

Really, as when I upgraded my e8400 to the 2500k, the fps in games wern't much of a boost, but they are more constant now, as my 6950 was almost maxing out with my e8400 anyhow. So now my 6950 is bottlenecking my shiny new 2500k:mad: but Im not fussed just aslong games run smooth:p
 
It's not the best advice to get a P67 board now. The OP is obviously not much of an overclocker and it would be sensible for many reasons to get a decent priced Z68 board that has features that one may or may not find useful down the road.

I would advise you choose between the Asus and Asrock midrange boards which will see most 2500k's to 4.5Ghz should you so choose.
 
Phil2008 said:
Really, as when I upgraded my e8400 to the 2500k, the fps in games wern't much of a boost, but they are more constant now, as my 6950 was almost maxing out with my e8400 anyhow. So now my 6950 is bottlenecking my shiny new 2500k:mad: but Im not fussed just aslong games run smooth:p
Click to expand...

I think the key word in his statement is Minimum ;)
 
Davefran said:
I think the key word in his statement is Minimum ;)
Click to expand...

Ah yeah sorry, Im not sure what my min fps was with my e8400, but I wasn't that impressed with the fps boost I had upgrading to the 2500k. But cos the fps dont jump up and down much now, games feel smoother an I can max out all games instead of running med - high detail with a few demanding games or not well coded games
 
Last edited:
Try reading the posts before you reply lol

Edit: that was meant for Davedree, but applies to Phil2008's post too.

The answer is already there mateys ;)
 
Last edited:
almighty151986 said:
5850 CF & GTX 470 SLI
Click to expand...

Ah. So ppl with a mid to high performance cards wont see much of a boost in games upgrading to 2500k, unless upgrading from a real slow cpu.

Ppl with stupidly high end gpu's will see a nice performance boost upgrading from dual or the old quad cpu's to a 2500k, as the dual or old quad cpus will be holding back stupidly high end gpu's loads

But with like a 6950 you wont see much of a boost in fps as a good dual or the old quads will be able to almost max out the gpu. So yeh the max/min fps might not be like wow, but games will run smoother as the fps will be a lot steadier.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom