[mjw21a]

Intel just charge too much for their i7's, and the Hyperthreading doesn't really give much of an advantage except under specific circumstances (kind of like the AMD FX chips). The i5 2500K will overclock up past stock i7 limits not worries making it much better value for the money.

The Thuban does have better all round performance than AMD newer FX's as its per core performance is better. If you can get something that will utilize all 8 threads on Bulldozer then you'll find that the FX-8120 is better however its currently rare to run into that situation. I've run both and found the Thuban to be faster with some things and the FX faster on others.

In actual usage I find the FX is just that tiny bit faster, though the difference is almost imperceptible. We're now at a point in time where performance is so far above anything we actually need that you'll find yourself happy irrespective of what you buy, whether its an Sandy Bridge, Thuban or Bulldozer.

[Cigarsmoker]

Originally Posted by Viper69

Yeah, Sanforce controller rocks from what I read in reviews.

Still debating on what CPU to get after reading in another post..crap..someone suggested the 1090T Phenom Thurban.

Someone else a core i5....how come not a core i7 ???

Sandforce controllers are fast but buggy. When the Sandforce 22xx controlled SSDs first out, a lot of owners, myself included, suffered from the dreaded random BSOD problem. On the most part this have been corrected by firmware updates. Having said that, Intel's implementation is Sandforce done right. They also manufacturer their own NAND chips which certainly have its advantages.

i5, specifically the 2500K is a great processor for the money and is a good OCer. As mj said above, the i7 are not as good a value.

[Viper69]

Originally Posted by Cigarsmoker

Sandforce controllers are fast but buggy. When the Sandforce 22xx controlled SSDs first out, a lot of owners, myself included, suffered from the dreaded random BSOD problem. On the most part this have been corrected by firmware updates. Having said that, Intel's implementation is Sandforce done right. They also manufacturer their own NAND chips which certainly have its advantages.

i5, specifically the 2500K is a great processor for the money and is a good OCer. As mj said above, the i7 are not as good a value.

I agree about Intel making their own chips. In the review I read, the firmware (Cherryville??) has been fixed by Intel it sounded, not by Sandforce (article made it sound like Sforce didn't know about it maybe) anyway, it was a good review, I'm sold on the Intel SSD. The fix, according to review also sounded as if it won't be offered to other vendors at least for a year.

I looked up the prices..now I see why everyone doesn't suggest i7, too pricey for the performance.

If only the Bulldozer was a solid performer across ALL areas, or nearly all, It hasn't lived up to the hype. Even I thought it would be better.

Mj is right about speed too..any of them would be good, esp considering what I have.

[Viper69]

Originally Posted by mjw21a

The Thuban does have better all round performance than AMD newer FX's as its per core performance is better. We're now at a point in time where performance is so far above anything we actually need that you'll find yourself happy irrespective of what you buy, whether its an Sandy Bridge, Thuban or Bulldozer.

Curious..how does the Thuban compare to the i5/ 2500K ??

[mjw21a]

It does fall behind, but there's a number of things is does better with. It's pretty solid for encoding video's in Handbrake across ALL detail settings vs the FX-8120 only doing well with high quality conversion settings.

Once more, in games you won't see a difference regardless of which chip. The only thing where you really see a difference with any of them is benchmarks. I tend to think of benchmarks as irrelevant.

[Cigarsmoker]

In general, hardware is far ahead of software. Sounds like you're the practical/reasonable and the not need to "show" kind.

Here's something to think about. Consider something like this (http://www.memoryexpress.com/Products/BDL_FX4100_970AD3). OC it and it'll do pretty much anything you want today and for the next 2 years. In two years time spend roughly about the same amount, $200 Cdn, to upgrade to something that'll be useful for another 2 years.

My two primary systems are based on an AMD 955 BE and Intel Q6600, both vintages/built approximately two years ago. Two years later, I'm thinking of replacing them with a 2500K system. Only thing stopping me is I can do ALL the things I want with my current systems. I "want" to upgrade but I don't "need" to.

[Viper69]

Originally Posted by mjw21a

Once more, in games you won't see a difference regardless of which chip. The only thing where you really see a difference with any of them is benchmarks. I tend to think of benchmarks as irrelevant.

I agree about benchmarks, they aren't real world applications. I look at them, but I care more about applications, games etc.

Would you OC the 2500k for the purposes of gaming?

[mjw21a]

I wouldn't bother overclocking it for games, it's already fast enough. You would certainly notice a big difference when doing DVD rips etc. Another way of looking at building a system from the ground up with overclocking in mind is that you don't necessarily have to overclock straight away. Think of it as future proofing.

When you find you need more performance down the track, over clock it then to get a longer life out of your system. If doing video encoding however I'd recommend doing so straight away as it'll save you time. Beyond that, tinkering with an overclock is actually quite enjoyable.

[Viper69]

Originally Posted by Cigarsmoker

In general, hardware is far ahead of software. Sounds like you're the practical/reasonable and the not need to "show" kind.

Here's something to think about. Consider something like this (http://www.memoryexpress.com/Products/BDL_FX4100_970AD3). OC it and it'll do pretty much anything you want today and for the next 2 years. In two years time spend roughly about the same amount, $200 Cdn, to upgrade to something that'll be useful for another 2 years.

My two primary systems are based on an AMD 955 BE and Intel Q6600, both vintages/built approximately two years ago. Two years later, I'm thinking of replacing them with a 2500K system. Only thing stopping me is I can do ALL the things I want with my current systems. I "want" to upgrade but I don't "need" to.

You are right. I'm practical. If a CPU has X amount of cores/speed etc, but no games/software takes advantage of it, then I really don't want to buy something I can't utilize. Because in the near future, there will be something better than the current chips that are better than the 2nd or 3rd fastest chip I buy in the present..Make sense?

I like that bundle! I'll have to find something like it in the states however. I was looking at a review, and was thinking I should be in a 4 core AMD for the reasons we have been discussing.

I really appreciate all the help you guys have been giving me.

Hmm 2500k or the equivalent AMD? I don't want to get a chip and have to replace the board in a couple years. Though I realize sometimes that has to be done.

[Viper69]

Originally Posted by mjw21a

I wouldn't bother overclocking it for games, it's already fast enough. You would certainly notice a big difference when doing DVD rips etc. Another way of looking at building a system from the ground up with overclocking in mind is that you don't necessarily have to overclock straight away. Think of it as future proofing.

When you find you need more performance down the track, over clock it then to get a longer life out of your system. If doing video encoding however I'd recommend doing so straight away as it'll save you time. Beyond that, tinkering with an overclock is actually quite enjoyable.

Yah, tha's how I see OCing. I wouldn't buy a chip if I HAD to OC it, just to use it regularly per se.

I only use my computer for the surfing the net, MS Office, ripping music on occassion using LAME @ 192, not 128 (I don't rip music that frequently) and GAMES.. That's it. I don't do any video at all, and I won't be.

[mjw21a]

The closest equivalent's AMD has to the 2500K performance-wise, is either an older Thuban (if you can get hold of one), or the FX-8120 (once overclocked). We're back to where we started there

At stock clocks you'll find that AMD's Phenom X6 1100T is better than the FX's, The i5 2500K will beat out both, none of these chips need to be overclocked, the do want you to overclock them. They want to grow up and reach their full potential

[Viper69]

Originally Posted by mjw21a

The closest equivalent's AMD has to the 2500K performance-wise, is either an older Thuban (if you can get hold of one), or the FX-8120 (once overclocked). We're back to where we started there

At stock clocks you'll find that AMD's Phenom X6 1100T is better than the FX's, The i5 2500K will beat out both, none of these chips need to be overclocked.

REALLY?? How did AMD "mess" up then. No wonder all the reviews read w/disappointment in places.

Well, either a 2500k or 4 core AMD Bulldozer perhaps, like Cigar suggested a FX-4100?

This is all Newegg had for a Thuban Thuban newegg

They have two Denebs

Deneb 1

Deneb 2

[mjw21a]

At stock clocks, the equivalent to a 2500K is a FX-8150. With the 2500K being more competitive on average, and now cheaper too....

You will indeed be happy with an FX-4100 as it'll be faster than what you currently have. I'd prefer to pick up a Phenom II 965BE or a 955BE though as its per core performance is stronger than the FX-4100

You need a so called "6" core FX to compete with 4 cores of AMD previous generation Phenom II, or an "8" core FX to compete with their older 6 core Phenom II.... In that light, if you can pick up a Phenom II at the same price or cheaper than the FX then its better value.

With the right board, heatsink and RAM that chip you linked on Newegg will still do over 4GHz so its a solid choice. That was the chip I previously owned except mine was the older 125W version. I only overclocked it to see what it could do, but in the end I just kept it running stock. It's a solid choice while its still available. a Black Edition would have been nicer however that will still allow FSB overclocking. Pair it with some decent DDR1866 RAM and you'll do alright.

[Cigarsmoker]

Originally Posted by Viper69

I only use my computer for the surfing the net, MS Office, ripping music on occassion using LAME @ 192, not 128 (I don't rip music that frequently) and GAMES.. That's it. I don't do any video at all, and I won't be.

That's pretty much most of what I do too. A good 4 core CPU is just fine. Spend the money on a good GPU for games.

I OC it just because I can. And I've always like the idea of spending less money on a CPU, OC it to get the same performance as a higher price CPU.

[mjw21a]

That Thuban is good value for money though

[Viper69]

Originally Posted by mjw21a

That Thuban is good value for money though

What about the Deneb chips I linked to?

[Viper69]

Originally Posted by mjw21a

At stock clocks, the equivalent to a 2500K is a FX-8150. With the 2500K being more competitive on average, and now cheaper too....

You will indeed be happy with an FX-4100 as it'll be faster than what you currently have. I'd prefer to pick up a Phenom II 965BE or a 955BE though as its per core performance is stronger than the FX-4100

You need a so called "6" core FX to compete with 4 cores of AMD previous generation Phenom II, or an "8" core FX to compete with their older 6 core Phenom II.... In that light, if you can pick up a Phenom II at the same price or cheaper than the FX then its better value.

With the right board, heatsink and RAM that chip you linked on Newegg will still do over 4GHz so its a solid choice. That was the chip I previously owned except mine was the older 125W version. I only overclocked it to see what it could do, but in the end I just kept it running stock. It's a solid choice while its still available. a Black Edition would have been nicer however that will still allow FSB overclocking. Pair it with some decent DDR1866 RAM and you'll do alright.

What do you think of these AMD Choices AMD I believe a BE edition is in there too

What would you go with? OR would you go with a i5 2500K ?

[Cigarsmoker]

Originally Posted by Viper69

What about the Deneb chips I linked to?

The Deneb is a Thuban but with 4 vs 6 cores. If you can find a 955 BE, that chip is a great OCer that will OC well past a stock 965 BE and is cheaper. For a long time it was AMD's flagship CPU and IMO is still a capable gaming CPU.

[Viper69]

Originally Posted by Cigarsmoker

The Deneb is a Thuban but with 4 vs 6 cores. If you can find a 955 BE, that chip is a great OCer that will OC well past a stock 965 BE and is cheaper. For a long time it was AMD's flagship CPU and IMO is still a capable gaming CPU.

If the website is accurate, I THINK I can get a Phenom II X4 955Black Edition for $200.00

NewEgg has the Deneb 965BE for $119.00, and the 975BE Deneb for $149.


One of those, OR the i5 from intel, runs $210.00 from Newegg.

[mjw21a]

^^^ Yea, I've still got my 955BE in my home theatre box....I'd go with the 1045T..... It's just a lot of chip considering the asking price. Very good value for money, and once overclocked it'll beat out an overclocked FX-8120 in many things.

Out of what Newegg have in stock, it would be my choice as when you factor in a future overclock, its great value. I believe you'll even be happy with it at stock speeds. I mean, for $129 you really can't go wrong. Also, for $129 your looking at a multiplier locked 6 core, whereas the 965BE is an unlocked 4 core of effectively the same architecture. I'd go the 6 core for the extra $10. It'll overclock quite well too.