Building new computer...inputs?
Community Forums/General Help/Building new computer...inputs?
| ||
| Just got finished with my deployment and made quite a bit of extra $$$....so I'll be upgrading my rig. What are some opinions on the new Fermi 480 versus the ATI 5970? Anyone have either of those cards? I'm leaning more towards the AMD 965 125 watt vs. an Intel I7 chip. Any inputs? Anyone own a 965 that is having any problems? Motherboard is pretty cut and dry (ASUS). Either an 870 or 890FX board. Also planning on running some Crucial 1600 or 1800 mhz RAM. Who's got an above average system out there and what are you most impressed with about it? |
| ||
| From all the benchmarks I read about, the 480 is usually said to be louder and consume more power than the 5970. Performance are really similar for both cards. The problem with the current Intel CPU sockets atm is that they are not future proof. My Q6600 is on the LGA775 socket and it was around for a while. Current i3's and i5's (and the quad i7) are on LGA1156 which is being phased out for LGA1155, which is right around the corner. The LGA1366 (6 cores i7's) is being phased out for a new one around next year. Might not be the best time to build a future proof PC. |
| ||
| I would wait until the Intel turbo boost mode CPUs come out. They can combine multiple cores to act as one (besides other combo modes), and thus effectively raise the clock rate to insane amounts. I would also wait until nVidia brings out 64-bit GPUs, so ATI would have some competition. But since ATI is quite cheap anyway, you could buy an 64-bit ATI instead. 32-bit GPUs are just ridiculous for modern VR simulations as they can't handle any decent Z-buffer ranges. Besides, if 64-bit floats act like on 64-bit CPUs, they would be 5 times faster than 32-bit floats on a 64-bit GPU. |
| ||
| They can combine multiple cores to act as one I was under the impression that they 'just' disable/scale down one of the cores, which would enable them to overclock the other core with less danger of overheating the chip, but it's still only one core doing the work, not two... |
| ||
| It might be not completely linear when they slice off a part of the other cores to add to the main core, but it's for sure not just disabling parts of other cores to overclock the main core. Like I said, there are also other combinations possible, like turbo boosting half of the cores instead of just one (that would make no sense if it was only about heat suspension, as with the one core boost you still get multi-core abilities). And besides, you can't even buy high clocked single cores anymore, so that's as good as it gets. And this sentence from Intel's website is pointing out the key aspect of the turbo boost technology (I mean you can always cool down your PC with liquids if you want, but you can't just add more cores): The maximum frequency of Intel® Turbo Boost Technology is dependent on the number of active cores. http://www.intel.com/technology/turboboost/ |
| ||
| The maximum frequency of Intel® Turbo Boost Technology is dependent on the number of active cores. ...Because the fewer cores active, the more it can overclock the remaining one(s). Here's some more info: http://www.pcauthority.com.au/Feature/173700,pc-building-intels-turbo-boost-vs-amds-turbo-core.aspx Turbo Boost is available on Intel's Core i5 and Core i7 CPUs (both mobile and desktop versions). What it essentially does is manage core speed based upon a combination of load and TDP (Thermal Design Power). TDP essentially provides a budget for the amount of power and heat being distributed to the CPU. If cores aren't needed Turbo boost will clock them down and use the extra power budget to speed up the active cores. Intel has implemented Turbo Boost on its Core i7 and Core i5 CPUs This is all handled by the operating system and works well. Unless you are specifically using multithreaded applications there will inevitably be a core or two going unused. It allows end users to get more out of their CPU for the single threaded programs that dominate their day to day use, and means that when programs actually are multithreaded that they will get the most out of the CPU. |
| ||
| I have the AMD 955 @ 3.2GHz and an Intel i7 @ 2.8GHz. On benchmarks the i7 kicks the 955 butt. However in realworld single core use, I'd say an AMD 955 overclocked to 3.8Ghz is equivalent to the i7 @ 2.8GHz. Just my observations, Jim |
| ||
| It might be not completely linear when they slice off a part of the other cores to add to the main core, but it's for sure not just disabling parts of other cores to overclock the main core. That is exactly what it is. Read the intel whitepaper. |
   |