Buying/building a new PC using AMD processor - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 30, 2013, 12:06:40 pm
content: After about six years of good service I think the time has come to upgrade my PC. My current core two Quad processor now seems a bit outdated and I am well behind on PCI express bus technology.Unlike when I built my current PC they seem to be so many options in processor technology and on trying to buy the best value for money. I am aware that many AMD processors include graphics capability, can this be used by general programmes that support GPU processing? Or is it only for graphics output.On the processor side I am aiming for the highest possible clock speed with at least two cores. I'll take more than two but I am quite certain that most of my applications will not use more than one so one for me and one for the operating system if there are more than two fine I run BOINC anyway, I'm only usually interested in built-in graphics processing if it will help in GPU processing tasks.On the graphics side I'm looking for a video card with two HDMI outputs to run two monitors. I don't game but any GPU processing ability that will help other software would be nice.I'm also after USB 3.0 ports these don't seem to have become widely popular and many motherboards don't include them.On the RAM side I'd want 1.6 GHz bus capability.And that is about it really, my main intensive tasks will probably be 3-D CAD and speech recognition which this computer is not very fast at despite having 2.4 GHz processors naturally yet another program that could benefit from multitasking processors does not use more than one core.So what are the main technologies I'm after in processor capabilities for my needs?What I'm trying to do is build a modest but future proof computer, this current machine has lasted six years and is still good I'm hoping to be as lucky again.

author: Bored@Work
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 30, 2013, 12:25:33 pm
content: Last time I got beaten to pulp here when I mentioned that I buy supermarket PCs. I am sick and tired of having to study for month to figure out what is en vouge, to waste countless hours to try to order "the best" items, and wasting more hours to assemble all the rubbish into some case. And all that for maybe a 10% performance edge over some off-the-shelf PC.I can't care less about CPU's, socket types, chipset types, ram technology, PSUs and what not. I just don't care about that rubbish any more. No, supermarket PCs instead. I take one home if a new one is needed. The wife, kids, I, whoever the intended user is, plays with it to figure out if it is good enough. If good enough it stays. If not it goes back to the supermarket.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 30, 2013, 12:45:48 pm
content: I'm starting to agree

author: Jon86
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 30, 2013, 12:51:48 pm
content: When I built mine and a friend's, I just threw together some good, fast, cheapish parts and ended up with a couple of £500 rigs that did what we wanted pretty well.I don't really bother overthinking it, I just buy what I can afford and it turns out pretty wellI think people spend way too much time on totally irrelevant things that won't impact your computer's performance in the slightest.Just my two cents anyway

author: dr.diesel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 30, 2013, 12:55:34 pm
content: Quote from: Simon on December 30, 2013, 12:06:40 pmIf buy future proof you mean 4-6 months? In general you can't buy high HP machines without spending quite a bit via the department store.Matching hardware is very easy these days, it's not what it used to be. From what you spec'd i'd suggest an Intel i5 Haswell, Nvidia GPU, SSD boot drive with 8G of DDR3-1600 Ram. I build about two dozen boxes a year, takes me about 5 minutes each to get the right guts.If you decide to build, I'll gladly help you get the right stuff.

author: GeoffS
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 30, 2013, 01:03:17 pm
content: I've always gone with AMD CPU's for desktop/servers but couldn't give you a particular reason why. They've always done the job for me.When I bought my last computer (some years ago), I went with an AMD 1090T which is a 6 core CPU, and 16GB of memory.The reasoning behind this was that I was running Linux with multiple VMware sessions to duplicate my work environment for testing.For this use it worked well. Although I'm retired, I still have it as my main computer sitting under the desk in a ridiculously large server cabinetIt's not so flash for CAD which would be better served with a single CPU, no real advantage in multiple cores.(Of course there's no Linux based CAD package to speak of so not really an issue for me)If I had to buy a new computer now, it would be from a department store or online from Dell.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 30, 2013, 01:08:12 pm
content: the problem I'm having is that most off the shelf PC's have no USB3 no dual display outputs (I'm finding I might as well stick with VGA/DVI) and many still ship with pciexpress 1 slots, For what ebay has to offer I can get the bare parts cheaper

author: GeoffS
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 30, 2013, 01:12:02 pm
content: Quote from: Simon on December 30, 2013, 01:08:12 pmAgreed, for a CAD system you need a much better graphics cards than most off the shelf systems provide.

author: Fsck
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 30, 2013, 01:17:17 pm
content: you really should build your own. it's almost always cheaper and of course, overclocking extends the viability of your machine over time.I'm still running a 4.2GHz i7 920 from 2009, though I've upgraded to a 7970 gpu, overclocked to 1.15GHz.for cad, shouldn't you throw a quadro or a firepro in it as well?

author: dr.diesel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 30, 2013, 01:19:43 pm
content: Quote from: Fsck on December 30, 2013, 01:17:17 pmProbably not necessary unless your talking some really big layouts, or 4k displays etc.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 30, 2013, 02:01:09 pm
content: Quote from: dr.diesel on December 30, 2013, 01:19:43 pmThis "professional graphics for CAD" thing really bothers me. Only small amount of application benefits from having them, 0 of this is electronics related. You can drive multiple displays with a moderate modern discrete GPU. The only benefit I ever see is 10 bit color resolution, which doesnt really bother me, since I see everything in ~16 colors, 4 of these are different gray. And they do double precision computing for some reason.For OP, I would just buy a recent Dell or Lenovo with whatever they've put in it.

author: Fsck
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 30, 2013, 02:04:08 pm
content: Quote from: NANDBlog on December 30, 2013, 02:01:09 pmI was thinking opengl primativesin regards to multi-display: hell, even with "old" cards, you could drive multiples. I've ran dual monitors off a nvidia 6600gt for a while, and 3 off of an amd 5850.10 bit resolution is basically useless since it needs to be 10-bit end to end. the monitor and your application(s) [10-bit applications are rarer than finding another human while wandering aimlessly on the antarctic.]double precision is incredibly useful if you're a scientist and the crippling of consumer cards forces you to run pro cards or compute-exclusive cards in gpu clusters.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 30, 2013, 02:17:16 pm
content: I strongly recommend to stick to Intel. I used to build/sell computers but I've never seen an AMD based machine survive in an office environment despite using top notch components (Asus motherboard, Kingston memory, etc). I've seen a lot of people getting 'burned' buying AMD based systems. If you need a PC to type a letter or play a game for an hour AMD is OK.If you want something reliable get an HP or Dell workstation for office use. Maybe not the best performance for money but they do run stable even under high loads.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 30, 2013, 02:39:16 pm
content: Well I've ordered all the bits, yes I'm building my own it is cheaper and much better performance.I'm not sure why anyone would be against AMD, I've not had an AMD processor die on me just the crappy asus motherboard but it did get well used. My work use intel i7, what a load of crap ! we have low speed 4 core processors that are made to look like 8 cores and our cad software uses the grand sum of 1! gee i can run 7 cores on boinc and it makes no difference to the cad which is crap for large assemblies because it requires CPU power not GPU, I can run boinc or bitcoin mine on my GPU and it does not even make any difference to a massive model. Yes this shit CAD software is solid edge, performance it not in it's nature and we have PC's that only get 12.5% used.So I'm getting a 4 core AMD 4.2 GHz with graphics, a graphics card, I'll keep my two monitors as I can't get 2 17" monitors with a resolution over 1440*900 (I was rather hoping to find HD ones but they only seem to exist over 20"). 8GB of ram a hybrid SSD drive at 500 GB and a decent gigabyte motherboard (I rather went off asus when they lied about a motherboard i bought rating it at 1066 FSB when that was OC mode and not specified as such, it was really 800 MHz and it was not until years later and many bios updates that it actually started to work at 1066 MHz matching the processor).So I'm fairly happy, spent about £360, I could not get anything off the shelf for that with the same performance and off the shelf still meant installing windows myself and even if I got a PC with windows installed anything decent had 8 on it and anything with 7 was overpriced for the specs.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 30, 2013, 04:26:47 pm
content: Core I7 has turbo mode where one (or maybe 2) cores can be overclocked for single threaded applications. This needs the proper software drivers though.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 30, 2013, 04:36:01 pm
content: I doubt our IT bunch bothered to sort that out and a 2.4GHz processor can only be overclocked so far it will never match a 4.2 GHz processor. Fact is the more cores the lower the speed, why on earth have 8 cores at 2.5 GHz when you can have 4 at 4.2 GHz, you will get more work out of them. I rarely use more than one core, so one for my application and one for the Pc to multitask with, that still leaves 2, why bother to have 6 going begging ?

author: Phaedrus
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 30, 2013, 06:01:03 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on December 30, 2013, 02:17:16 pmI like how the CPU being AMD made the systems fail. That makes lots of sense.The actual reason you probably saw lots of failures with AMD systems is that you were using Asus motherboards... Asus has no good AMD motherboards under $100, or at least didn't until very recently. The entire Asus M4 series motherboards, which were sold for like 5 years, were garbage with crappy power regulation, poor soldering, and cheap caps.If you'd gone with Gigabyte for AMD systems you'd have been better off.

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 30, 2013, 06:09:16 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on December 30, 2013, 04:26:47 pmThe drivers have been in the kernel for a long time.If you have really good cooling (as I do), you can even tweak the board to turbo all cores at the same time.

author: Monkeh
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 30, 2013, 06:21:39 pm
content: Quote from: Simon on December 30, 2013, 04:36:01 pmYou cannot directly compare clock speeds.QuoteNo, more cores increases the heat.QuoteBecause you have 4 at 2.5GHz and they're actually faster single-threaded than the 4.2GHz AMDs?

author: mariush
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 30, 2013, 07:01:27 pm
content: Intel cores are faster than AMD cores, if a software is not designed to properly utilize all the cores then an Intel processor is better.If however you work with software that uses cores well (x264 for video encoding for example) then the eight cores in a FX-8320 or FX-8350 or whatever new version AMD released.Games and most common applications only use 2-3 cores, so it often makes sense to go with Intel processors because of the higher performance of those individual cores. BUT, keep in mind both Xbox One and PS4 are basically using AMD processors with 8 Jaguar cores (similar to the ones in FM2 socket processors) so it's quite possible future PC games will be more and more optimized for 4 cores or more.There's really no difference in quality between Intel and AMD processors - what makes a platform more "unstable" or makes it feel worse is the other hardware the processor is combined with. Of course you're going to have a problematic system if you combine it with the cheapest motherboard on the market.Fact is, AMD made the processors pretty much backwards compatible so today it's even possible to combine a FX-8320 or FX-8350 with a very cheap motherboard that uses chipsets from 4-5 years ago, with VRM circuitry that's barely able to handle these new processors. But just because you can, doesn't mean you should.Can't do that with Intel, as they change sockets almost yearly... they went through 4 or 5 sockets in the last 2-3 years.

author: djsb
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 30, 2013, 08:40:06 pm
content: AMD's new Kaveri (A10-7850K et al) will be available from January 14th. I think I will be using this CPU for upgrading my current PC. Just have to look out for a compatible motherboard. I can spend a little more on a new graphics card and better RAM as well.I think AMD deserves a bit of support as well.David.PS Looks like the Gigabyte G1.Sniper A88X motherboard should do the job nicely.£80 on Amazon.Or the Asrock FM2A88X Extreme6+Then again an FX-9590 CPU with a decent motherboard is probably the best.Or back to intel now an i7 4770k.

author: echen1024
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 30, 2013, 08:48:58 pm
content: I still prefer Intel though. In my experience, Intel processors have been faster for what I use them for, and, Intel is much more reliable. I tried an AMD system once, and it flamed out after around 4 months.

author: Bloch
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 30, 2013, 09:31:30 pm
content: Quote from: Simon on December 30, 2013, 12:06:40 pmI dont care about ram speed > all new PC are fast enough. But if you are using a 64bit windows 8GB are a must !Then a "boot" SSD are a MUSTNo crap software running in background thene a 2 dual core ok for none game pc

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 30, 2013, 09:32:49 pm
content: Quote from: Monkeh on December 30, 2013, 06:21:39 pmno but I'll take a lower core count and faster core any day, sure more cores increases heat that is why the speed is lower, that will be why the more cores a processor has the slower it runs, no I have 4 cores at 2.4 GHz and only ever use one so why bother having 8 when I can have a faster processor with 4 cores so use 25% of my processor instead of 12.5%, fact most software simply does not multithread, even the CAD software i used for work that costs thousands of pounds is incapable of using more than 1 core which is pathetic, it's not even written to use the graphics cards very well, people run around buying multi core processors assuming that their software will simply use them all and they don't unless they are specifically written too but as most users are ignorant and don't know the difference no software developer bothers. I'd be happy with a dual core processor that runs as fast as possible, I'd get more meaningful performance increase.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 30, 2013, 09:36:03 pm
content: GHz isn't everything. There is a huge speed difference between an older and newer CPU from Intel running at the same frequency. I'd compare benchmarks very carefully.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 30, 2013, 09:36:15 pm
content: Quote from: Bloch on December 30, 2013, 09:31:30 pmRAM speed is always more of a bottleneck than processor speed, if you can't feed the processor enough data it's speed is pointless, the first computers has ram access speeds equal to the processor speed, it was only when processors started to go beyond 100 MHz they figured that they could not take the ram with it, the faster the CPU the faster the RAM needs to be, no point in starving your juicy processor, same goes for FSB (or whatever we call it now), you know most "processor usage" stats are actually the FSB stats ?

author: Phaedrus
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 30, 2013, 09:40:03 pm
content: RAM is not a bottleneck. If you have DDR3 1600MHz+ then you're fine. Above that you see at most marginal improvements, especially for Intel systems. Going from 1866MHz to 2400MHz is like a 1-1.5% gain at best in most applications.Exceptions: Memory intensive tasks can improve from higher RAM speed, but you need to evaluate your requirements to determine whether you need more bandwidth (+MHz) or lower latency.Also, AMD APUs, with an integrated graphics chip, need the fastest memory they can get, minimum 1866MHz.

author: Monkeh
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 30, 2013, 09:42:19 pm
content: Quote from: Simon on December 30, 2013, 09:32:49 pmAs I just told you, your 'faster core' is actually slower than an i7.. Higher clocks do not equate to faster processors unless you're comparing the same core.

author: mariush
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 30, 2013, 09:44:47 pm
content: AMD processors can use ddr3 memory up to 2133 Mhz or around that value in frequency. But the sweetspot is 1866 Mhz and officially that's the maximum supported by the integrated controller.Above this frequency the performance increase is very small. Even going up from 1600 Mhz to 1866 Mhz will bring you below 5% performance increase with ram operations in most applications.Also, on some motherboards you can't use 1866 Mhz with four memory modules due to limitations so pretty much everyone sticks to 1600 Mhz.Intel processors gain very little from going over 1600 Mhz, much smaller performance increase compared to AMD processors.System I'm writing on is a FX-8320 based pc with 2x8 GB DDR3 1600 Mhz. Bought 1600 Mhz versions because they were the only low profile 8GB modules on the market, there's basically a couple of mm between the modules and the current cpu fan I have installed.

author: Fsck
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 30, 2013, 09:45:02 pm
content: Quote from: Simon on December 30, 2013, 09:36:15 pmthere's a reason why we have gigantic L3 caches now, but coincidentally, Intel's prefetchers have immensely improved so you don't see the IBM PPC cache/#cores ratios.for most consumers, memory throughput is basically irrelevant. if you really need large amounts of memory transfer and/or quantity, you're going to be using processors with a quad channel controller (this generation).

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 30, 2013, 09:49:00 pm
content: Quote from: Phaedrus on December 30, 2013, 09:40:03 pmThe last RAM efficiency check I did put the bandwidth at a mere 60% of the theoretical one DDR technologies are not a golden bullet.Quote from: Monkeh on December 30, 2013, 09:42:19 pmYes you right looking at:http://www.cpu-world.com/benchmarks/AMD/FX-4350.htmlhowever check for that favourite word: multithreaded test, sure many processors can out match it and the i5 is 15% faster for the tests performed but I'd really like to see a side by side comparison with single threaded software like most software is. At the end of the day I've got around the same performance, I'm not going to fuss over a few percent and wanted to see how AMD match up this time as I've got an intel now, of course my core also includes graphics capabilities and control the RAM directly so I'll probably get better RAM speeds (real data rates not theoretical).

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 30, 2013, 09:52:10 pm
content: Quote from: Fsck on December 30, 2013, 09:45:02 pmso what about things like say encoding a video, you can only preload so much, cache was a compromise when processor speeds started to exceed FSB and RAM speeds, but it's not the all round solution which would be RAM that is so fast the price would be prohibitive

author: Monkeh
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 30, 2013, 09:55:20 pm
content: Quote from: Simon on December 30, 2013, 09:49:00 pmThese are single thread calculations, notice how the 2.4GHzmobilei7 is significantly quicker than the 4.7GHz AMD:http://www.mersenne.org/report_benchmarks/?exover=1&exbad=1&specific_cpu=4374506http://www.mersenne.org/report_benchmarks/?exover=1&exbad=1&specific_cpu=4373897QuoteSo do i7s.QuoteSo do i7s.Please do research, or just buy whatever PC World are selling..Now please note I'm not attacking the AMD APU. I think they offer great performance for the money, and you can't really do any better for what you spent. But as soon as you step past their mid-range CPUs, Intel offer significantly improved single- and multi-thread performance for the same money, and that's mid-range Intel parts against top of the line AMD spaceheaters. The Core i7s you say you have at work are at the very least the equivalent of what you've just built, but they'll last longer, scale better, and, if they're modern parts like the 3770T, use less power.

author: rollatorwieltje
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 30, 2013, 09:58:27 pm
content: Quote from: Simon on December 30, 2013, 09:49:00 pmfrom the same website:http://www.cpu-world.com/benchmarks/AMD/FX-4350_single.htmlIt's barely faster than old Core 2 processors according to that website.

author: Fsck
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 30, 2013, 09:58:36 pm
content: http://www.anandtech.com/show/7364/memory-scaling-on-haswell/3if you scroll down to the x264 benchmark, it should show you very little improvement. as you increase memory speed and lower latency.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 30, 2013, 09:59:55 pm
content: Quote from: wilfred on December 30, 2013, 09:50:05 pmWell I don't know if the same would hold today but my first PC with a 900 MHz Duron with a 200 MHz fsb was a little starved by the ram being at 100MHz which the idiot that put it together left it at when it was 133MHz ram anyway, changing it made a real difference, including to CPU benchmarks. Obviously technology has moved on so it may not be quite the same now, in my experience each new level of DDR technology means a less efficient real data rate compared to the theoretical one.i wanted 17" monitors because i sit so close to them, I was hoping for 2 HD ones but it seems that HD is only on 20"+ monitors, I was after resolution for clarity rather that size, no need to keep twisting my neck to see all of the screen real estate i have and having to lean over to each side to read them. I'll be keeping my 19 and 17 inch monitors on VGA outputs

author: mariush
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 30, 2013, 10:03:34 pm
content: QuoteIt depends on the encoder and the video resolution and quality settings.With an eight core processor, x264 uses up to 12-14 threads to encode, so an image is split into small slices that are then spread on each core. The bandwidth doesn't matter that much because you have relatively small transfers. Latency matters a bit more than frequency with x264.x264 is very optimized, you can see for example here in this sandy bridge review:http://www.anandtech.com/show/4503/sandy-bridge-memory-scaling-choosing-the-best-ddr3/7First pass is a very light pass, using cpu little so actual memory bandwidth matters more (moving lots of data from disk through memory to the cpu) :but when you actually start to analyze the frames in detail and use cpu a lot, the memory bandwidth doesn't matter that muchYou can see here more info about memory scaling on AMD systems :http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/memory-bandwidth-scaling-trinity,3419-7.html

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 30, 2013, 10:06:35 pm
content: Quote from: Fsck on December 30, 2013, 09:58:36 pmIndeed, most of those tests involve talking to hard disks, of course a drastic improvement of an already superior memory technology will do very little. and faster ram merely has more latency cycles so it ends up taking so long to access the data that the speed of transfers becomes secondary. I simply wanted the best speed for money.

author: M. András
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 30, 2013, 10:08:38 pm
content: Quote from: wilfred on December 30, 2013, 09:50:05 pmthis is the reason i never looked at nvidia cards. in the days ati published computing power in Terraflops but i didnt find any number on their newsest generation now, nvidia cards never had a published computing power always clockrates and buswidth. when they are gonna aggree on something that can simply measure what can the hardware really do? for gods sake is that really that hard to give comparable specs to a processor, a graphics card etc. they can do that for server systems why cant they do that for mainstream and desktop systems? no more optimised software for brand x products that shows how good is it and on the other hand its a buggy sluggish code on the other hardware deliberately? just like games i dont recall the name of the game it was few years ago the game run 3 times faster on a 2 year older nvida card to the game then a just relased ati card just simply nonsense and driver updates didnt solve it later on bright green logo on the loading screen meant to be played by nvidia or whatever they logo is, btw for memory bandwith the newest fx series amd processor have started to reach the memory bandwith of the first "I" platform intel processors. a joke its just for 1 bottleneck between the too. the internal l1/l2/l3 cache bandwiths vary significantly too

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 30, 2013, 10:14:52 pm
content: Quote from: Monkeh on December 30, 2013, 09:55:20 pmWell basically I seem to be at about the speed of an i5 which is what I'd have got anyway if I'd gone intel. I looked at many prebuilt systems and it was obvious that I was being passed off slightly older technology with a windows installation. Any decent PCs seem to come with windows 8 - yuk so it has been either way better value for money to buy the parts, even preassembled PCs with no operating system were poorly priced compared to just buying the parts, no I've probably not got a super gaming rig but I don't want one just a decent PC with some years of life in it. My current Pc started out with a Core 2 Duo and now has a Core 2 Quad (no real difference) and lasted for 6 years and still performs well but i wanted to see if i could future proof myself for a few more years, I'm on PCIe 1.0 so 2.0 is a welcome upgrade as it was becoming pointless getting faster video cards.Well off to bed now.

author: Monkeh
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 30, 2013, 10:16:40 pm
content: Quote from: Simon on December 30, 2013, 10:14:52 pmAnd I don't disagree that you've built yourself a nice little system. Just don't even consider comparing it to any i7 with a clock above 2GHz, because it will lose.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 30, 2013, 10:17:33 pm
content: Quote from: Monkeh on December 30, 2013, 09:55:20 pmWell like i said i just want a decent machine, I can't afford the very latest, I didn't know that the i7's had any graphics capability, could have fooled the CAD software i used.

author: Phaedrus
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 30, 2013, 10:56:04 pm
content: Quote from: Simon on December 30, 2013, 09:59:55 pmThe problem is, your experience is over a decade out of date.Even in video encoding, RAM speed makes very little difference above a certain point. The processor itself is still the bottleneck in that scenario, unless you're doing a large video from a spinning disk, in which case HDD to RAM is the bottleneck.DDR3, assuming CAS 11:1066MHz = Bottleneck for many tasks1333MHz = Slight bottleneck for memory intensive tasks1600MHz = Good for most users, slight bottleneck for APUs1866MHz = Good for just about everyone, including APUs2133MHz = Overkill for most2400MHz = Bragging rightsDecreasing CAS by one, and other timings a comparable amount, should drop you about half a tier in that listing. Depends on your CPU and application though; Intel platforms don't seem to care about latency, AMD benefits a lot from lower latency.

author: lemmegraphdat
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 30, 2013, 10:57:15 pm
content: I built my first computer, the first one I ever owned, because it just felt kind of lame to go out and get one already assembled. AMD K62 400 processor with 3D NOW. Still got most of it around here somewhere.

author: Fsck
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 30, 2013, 11:05:15 pm
content: Quote from: Simon on December 30, 2013, 10:17:33 pmactually, that's a driver issue last time I checked, at least with the intel 4xxx and 5xxx graphics cores. which is why I was originally thinking older (older AND secondhand, to minimize price) quadro/firepro paired to intel.

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 30, 2013, 11:40:54 pm
content: Dear Simon:--I see you have already made your choices, but I include the below which was written earlier, for everyone's perusal. I never know just what I am going to get into so I like to make my builds as adaptable as possible.--I am currently also building a new computer. I have been doing research for a month or so. I do not play games, but I do run a lot of video programs simultaneously, so I have need of bandwidth, speed, reliability and redundancy. To keep the cost down I recommend an AMD CPU and Motherboard. The motherboard should be a full size ATX with 2 PCIE 2.0 Slots (so you can use 2 video cards if need be) and as many PCI slots as possible.--The MB should have HDMI, AM3 Socket, at least 6 SATA 6GB/s jacks, at least a couple of USB 3.0 jacks, and be able to accept a max of at least 32 GB DDR3. You should buy 2 8GB 1600 MHz sticks to start with and more if needed. The Asus board below is a good example.http://www.ebay.com/itm/ASUS-M4A88TD-V-EVO-USB3-AM3-AMD-880G-HDMI-ESATA-6Gb-s-DDR3-ATX-MOTHERBOARD-/251251746186?pt=Motherboards&hash=item3a7fc5658a--For mid level quality power supplies you cannot beat the OCZ 500 and 700 with the plug in wires for a clean, no hassle install. The CPU can be selected according to preference. The case should be a full tower with at least 5 external 5.25 bays. The case should have a flat top which you can stack things like the UPS and other things on. The extra bays in a full tower will allow you to install Addonics Hot Swap Racks for HD and SSD drives. I use the 2 bay Addonics Snap-In for SSDs, thereby allowing quick clone and switch. Once you use an SSD for boot up you will never go back.--The rack setup allows you to clone exact copies of your important information frequently. After you clone the drive, you turn off the target drive, until it is needed again. This method unlike raid allows average drive usage to be reduced by half over RAID, which after a couple of years makes a real difference in cost. --I have had all kinds of problems with consumer level RAID and backup software and hardware. Many is the time I have been unable to restore a friend's computer that had regular backups made. Using the disk clone system with hot swap racks allows you to instantly check your backup, and provides certainty. You can even rotate cloned drives to a second location, or a fire & water proofed file cabinet or safe, to provide protection for all but the worst disasters.--The above design can be used or reconfigured to do almost anything. With the disk clone and rack system, a home user can take the risk of used motherboard, memory, and case to save a lot of dough.--Final note; I always keep at least two complete systems up and running at all times, because I cannot afford to be shut down for days. I also keep a couple of cheap Acer laptops in ready to roll condition at all times. Cops feel uncomfortable carrying less than 3 guns, and I am the same way with computers.“If people do not believe that mathematics is simple, it is only because they do not realize how complicated life is.”John von Neumann 1903 -1957Best RegardsClear Ether

author: vk6zgo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 31, 2013, 01:33:55 am
content: I'm not a computer guru like you folks,just an everyday user.Our last HP Desktop had an AMD processor,which worked well,until Microsoft started to hit it with their so-called updates,one of which assumed you had an Intel processor,& looked for a function which AMDs didn't use.It couldn't find it,so it "spat the dummy",with the result that the Computer crashed & could only be brought back to life by going back to the "as bought" condition,losing everything on it.There were several "workarounds" on the 'Net,but they didn't work due to HP's dumbed down version of Windows.Eventually,I had to set it to reject updates.I now only buy Computers with Intel processors,which is hardly fair to AMD,as it was a Microsoft & HP stuffup.but I haven't got the time to go through this nonsense again.

author: Phaedrus
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 31, 2013, 03:12:32 am
content: Avoid the Asus M4. As I mentioned before, they have serious reliability issues.I wouldn't buy an OCZ PSU, as they are bankrupt and the PSU division will most likely be killed. They're owned by Toshiba now. The status of OCZ warranties is still in question; they might not be honored.As for PSUs, I do work for CoolerMaster so I'm a bit biased.But if you want one cheap I'd get the CoolerMaster i500, which is $34.99 on Newegg, or the i700 for $49.99If you want something higher end, we have our V700 on sale now for $89.99 on Newegg. That's built by SeaSonic (highly respected OEM) using an LLC resonant full bridge design with pulse skipping and a DC-DC secondary topology. Voltage regulation inside 1%, and ripple under 30mVpk-pk on all rails. Fully modular as well, which makes installation and cable management very easy. Uses an FDB fan which is both quieter and longer lasting than traditional sleeve or ball bearing fans. And it has a 5 year warranty.Let me know if I'm coming on too strong.

author: vk6zgo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 31, 2013, 05:32:56 am
content: No,this was XP,it was a while back!

author: Phaedrus
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 31, 2013, 05:49:49 am
content: It was probably an issue with the AMD Athlon64 chips then. Athlon64, and especially Athlon64x2, had some issues. The chips were actually fantastic, they beat out the competing Intel Pentium 4s by quite a large margin. But AMD's 64-bit architecture was not fully compatible with Intel's x86-64 architecture, so when Windows got updates to support x86-64, it broke a lot of AMD x64 systems. This was resolved, and is no longer an issue as both are standardized on x86-64.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 31, 2013, 08:42:40 am
content: Perhaps but it wasn't the first time such an issue has occured.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 31, 2013, 08:55:49 am
content: Well back in the days of single cores AMD were pretty good and much more efficient than intel, they used less power and got more done and were easier to overclock, but yes that was over a decade ago.most of the realistic "benchmarks" for RAM are processing large amounts of data from hard drives so really pointless, I don't know what the best CPU speed to ram speed ratio is, my understanding of DDR is that it works great when you just happen to find the data you want in the same pair, set of four or set of eight? (DDR3) memory banks so the higher we go in DDR the more we end up with theoretical but not realistic speed increase, but then I've not been able to compare - yet, in an ideal world we'd have very very fast SDRAM but that is not financially viable.

author: rolycat
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 31, 2013, 11:56:19 am
content: Quote from: Phaedrus on December 31, 2013, 05:49:49 amI think you have this backwards.When AMD introduced their Opteron and Athlon 64 chips the Pentium 4 was solely a 32-bit processor.AMD originated the 64-bit version of Intel's x86 instruction set and Intel were forced to copy it when it became obvious that their incompatible Itanium 64-bit processor was a failure as a mass-market architecture.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 31, 2013, 12:02:39 pm
content: that is what I thought, AMD surprised the world when it poped out the Athlon FX-64 bit as 64 bit did not exist them on the mass market, in response intel released the emergency edition.....err sorry meant extreme edition of the pentium 4 32 bit at 3+ GHz and with so called dual cores that actually gave another 50% performance because it was not true dual core just what they do now on the i7's which is to feed the two main sections of each core separately.

author: grumpydoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 31, 2013, 02:26:55 pm
content: Interesting thread. Given that it includes two discussion points that can sharply divide people in the PC world (AMD vs Intel, home build vs bought) I'm surprised it has all been so politeIt's a bit too long to quote individual items but one or two things spring to mind.AMD Vs IntelYou can't - as has been pointed out - compare raw CPU speeds unless you are talking about the same CPU family.Intel has the faster CPUs, AMD has better integrated GPUs, AMD is arguably better value in terms of bang-per-buck.On the graphics front neither Intel nor AMD builtin graphics are up to more than light gaming duties anyway so I'm not sure it makes much of a difference to most users - for instance I think SImon would probably be fine with either for his uses.There is an article comparing the performance of integrated GPU'shere- I'll just pull one of the graphs to show but most look similar (except the Cloud Gate benchmark which shows the Intel i5-4430 as the faster)Note that both are trounced by either the Radeon HD7750 or GeForce GT640 both of which are considered only entry level cards. OK, to an extent this is because below this there's no point, given the current capabilities of integrated GPUs, buying anything slower. However both are only $80 graphics cards.Integrated GPUs can usually drive multiple monitors these days but you might need to use different connectors to achieve this (eg DVI+HDMI or DVI+VGA). Any modern graphics card will do multiple monitors as well so you probably don't need a separate graphics card at all.RAM bottlenecksThese days with 4, 8 or even 12 cores even fast DRAM is actually even further behind the CPU speed than it was back with Simon's 900MHz Duron with its 200MHz FSB -butwhat has become much better is the amount of cache memory in CPUs and how that cache is handled so RAM speeds have relatively minor impact on overall system performance.The latest Haswell chips specify DDR3-1600MHz and don't seem to benefit from higher than 2133MHz - it hurts overclocking if that's the game you're into to push the RAM faster than this.Home build vs boughtI always build my own PCs - I'm just about to put a new MB and i7-4770K in my video editing machine. I rarely recommend others do though.The bottom line is that if you're not at the performance end of the market it isn't cheaper and it's definitely not more convenient. Simon said he spent £360 - if he said exactly what he bought I missed it but I'm sort-of assuming that he recycled the case, HDD, optical drive and PSU at least.For comparison look atthis pc from ebuyer. No affiliation except that I've bought a few bits from them in the past and they've all arrived OK. £370 for a complete system with a copy of windows 7. The same price gets you a system with an AMD A10-5700 3.4GHz processor and 12G of RAM.OK so DIY? Well, looking at the cheapest sources I can find the CPU costs £137 (ebay not cheapest I found BTW), RAM £55, M/B £60, disk £60, DVD writer £16, case+PSU £26.While thatis16 quid cheaper we haven't added an OS - if you need Windows that's another 70 quid for the OEM copy (which, strictly you aren't supposed to use for your own builds). PLUS there's a year's warranty so if it goes wrong there's half a chance you can just send it back to be fixed rather than have a set of different suppliers blame each other (or more likely you) for the problem. Oh, and it looks like you get a keyboard and mouse with the system FWIW.Simon might like to comment on how the AMD system compares with what he bought.There are lots of reasons for DIY but price is not a good one. I tend to do it because I can pick exactly the components I want and because I find it more interesting but it isn't generally cheaper.17" monitorsHmmm, Simon really do yourself a favour and get a decent monitor. You'll probably find the perceived desire for twin monitors will sort itself out if you get a modern 24" or even better 28" monitor. I find 16:10 better than 16:9 and the 28" ones are at 2560 x 1440 these days which gives you clarity and loads of screen real estate.Quote from: wilfredHyperthreading doesn't increase the pipeline depth - it uses the fact that modern CPUs have multiple execution units per core and some of these will be idle so to increase utilisation a "virtual core" is created. The original HT improved performance by 20-25% and I think the current generation gets more benefit.The i5 is a four-core with no HT though - only the i7 (and i3) have hyperthreading.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 31, 2013, 02:33:38 pm
content: Om my i7 (950 IIRC) single core versus hyperthreading is about 1.25 versus 1 per CPU for CPU intensive tasks.

author: mariush
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 31, 2013, 03:37:23 pm
content: Quote from: grumpydoc on December 31, 2013, 02:26:55 pmThat £370 system is worse than a custom built computer because:* comes in a £20 case with a 250w power supply that in reality will be so shitty it will barely be able to do 200w without active or passive pfc, 70% efficiency etc. While the system barely uses 100 watts due to having everything onboard, try putting a better video card and the power supply will most likely blow up.* the motherboard is a £30 H61 chipset based motherboard, the h61 chipset is severely cut down in functionality (no overclocking, no sata 3 for ssd drives, no usb 3.0)* the hard drive is probably one of those toshiba / ibm / hitachi deskstar (deathstar) that's sold cheap because they want to clear the stocks. Not reliable.* comes with 8 GB of memory but obviously "bottom of the barrel" memory sticks, 2 x 4 gb, 1333 mhz etc* the whole system has only 1 year warranty while if you buy separately you get lifetime warranty for memory, 2-3years for hdd, 2-3 years for motherboard, 5y+ for cpu etcSo think about it. Yes, companies don't pay £70 or whatever they pay for Windows, they probably pay 20-30 pounds or even less for each OEM install. But even so, think how cheap everything has to be so that they'd afford hiring someone to assemble the system and still have a profit. The savings are in the shitty parts used.Here, i even took the liberty to use the same ebuyer to make a system with the same specs from ebuyer parts. I even used a case with a 500w power supply (yeah, right, it's a 200w firecracker) :325 pounds ... now take out the percents ebuyer added to each part, as you buy the parts from distributors not retail, then add 20-30 pounds for Windows and then you still have around 50 pounds profit.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 31, 2013, 03:58:31 pm
content: The parts I bought are below from ebuyer.503900 £97.49 AMD FX-4350 Socket AM3+ 4.2GHz 12MB Total Cache Retail Boxed Processor546762 £59.10 Gigabyte GA-970A-DS3P Socket AM3+ 7.1 Channel Audio ATX Motherboard415112 £32.50 Asus HD 5450 2GB GDDR3 VGA DVI HDMI PCI-E Graphics Card312042 £71.99 Crucial 8GB DDR3 1866Mhz Ballistix Tactical Memory480300 £56.10 Seagate 500GB Solid State Hybrid Drive (SSHD)255692 £20.51 CIT 500W GOLD 12cm Fan PSU579036 £19.98 blu ray driveYes that PC is using all old speced parts, no USB 3.0 no PCI express 2.0 it would last me a year or two.As for monitors I want resolution not size. It is far easier to put two separate programs onto 2 monitors than it is to set them up into one. I am dyslexic and reading Times new Roman font is difficult so I use comic Sans serif but this does not really look very good unless it's on a HD monitor like my laptop that is 17 inches and has a resolution of 1600 pixels.Yes the ratio of RAM speed to CPU bus speed for 133 MHz to 900 MHz of a poorly efficient processor is a much higher ratio than we currently have. Cache memory can compensate so for but try this for size, what about when I have a 3-D CAD assembly that is hundreds of megabytes and needs to be rotated around the screen 3-D CAD software wants to recalculate each and every piece of the model therefore it needs to do those calculations on the RAM not the cache memory. Even my fast works Station struggles with large assemblies and it has been made pretty obvious to me that the graphics card is doing very little and it is all processor and system memory doing the work.I'm not into fast graphics but I was hoping the built-in graphics processor with the main processor would help some applications that support GPU processing even if it is just boinc.

author: mariush
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 31, 2013, 04:11:17 pm
content: Oh Simon, if you can, please return that power supply and order something else. If you're still within the 10 days from order, legally you can return them no questions asked.That's a really lousy power supply that really is nowhere near capable of doing 500w, maybe not even 300w, and you risk getting your system damaged if it blows up after a few months.Here's something that would be fine and just a bit more expensive:from not so great but still way better than that cit psu, to better psuhttp://www.ebuyer.com/520267-be-quiet-pure-power-l8-350w-bn221http://www.ebuyer.com/278493-antec-vp-350w-psu-0-761345-06431-6http://www.ebuyer.com/520268-be-quiet-pure-power-l8-400w-bn222http://www.ebuyer.com/429886-corsair-cx-series-cx430m-atx-power-supply-cp-9020058-ukThe motherboard is excellent.The CPU... i wish you would have chosen FX-6300, it's the sweetspot when it comes to price/performance at £82.49 right now :http://www.ebuyer.com/409191-amd-fx-6300-3-5ghz-socket-am3-14mb-cache-retail-boxed-processor-fd6300wmhkboxMaybe you can still return your fx-4350 cpu in those 10 days.Otherwise, the 5450 is not much faster than an onboard video card, so it's only good for 2d and hd video playback, it can't do games. But it can drive 2 monitors with no problems at all.QuoteThe FX-4350DOES NOThave a built-in graphics processor and even if it did, you would have had to pair it with a motherboard that has the video output connectors (vga/hdmi/dvi) - the motherboard you chose doesn't. So you only have that Radeon 5450 video card but again, that card can drive those two monitors you have (or at least I hope you chose a model with 2 outputs)

author: Monkeh
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 31, 2013, 04:12:50 pm
content: Quote from: Simon on December 31, 2013, 03:58:31 pmMmm, beta testers who pay for the privilege.QuoteWhere's the projectile vomit emoticon again?Otherwise, as mariush says, pretty much fine. I'd choose the Corsair PSU.

author: grumpydoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 31, 2013, 04:22:53 pm
content: QuoteApart from the fact that I'm pretty sure the PSU was 350W nothing you say is wrong BUT I didn't say it wasbetterthan a DIY PC, I said it wascheaper.Now, if I were building a system I wouldn't buy a £20 case, nor consider going anywhere near the PSU that you might get in such a case, nor buy a £30 motherboard - nor any of the components that are in that pre-built system except possibly the CPU.But - can I put together a system of the same spec, with a copy of Windows, for the same price? The answer is no. Even if I can get the price close by choosing the same (i.e low) quality components you can't quite match the price of the bundle. In fact ebuyer go as low as £149 for a PC (although that's without OS). That's without factoring in the time to assemble it, install Windows etc which is not inconsiderable.Possibly if you factor out the cost of the OS and run Linux only - then you can win.And warranty for components - Seagate have cut down to 1 year on the low end stuff haven't they? MSI do give three years on motherboards in the UK so you're right there but for £30 it's almost more hassle to get them to do a warranty replacement than to buy a new board.By all means build your own computer - the big advantage is that you can choose better than bargain basement stuff and you almost certainly will have a better computer but you probably won't have a cheaper computer.Now for most people the £370 pre-bulit system will be fine. They want WIndows, not Linux, and to surf the 'net, and do a few emails and edit the odd document (probably with M$ Works).Chances are that it will also do what Simon wants perfectly as well.Note that I'm not saying don't build your own PC - I just don't think it's a worth it for most people most of the time, and if you do just don't kid yourself that you're saving much (or any) money doing so.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 31, 2013, 04:31:31 pm
content: Well I spent the same on my system but for the case......... which is an old one i have. I don't see all this fuss over cases. Air needs to get in and it needs to get out, the basic design has not changed in years and power consumption is going down.As i say no test has demonstrated yet what single core software thinks of these wonderful CPU's, basically that is potentially a slightly better CPU on old hardware for the same price.I could try swapping that PSU but I doubt the system will use more than 200WAs for the hard drive seems pretty good value for money but I didn't check the prices of purely mechanical drives.My processor will have room for over clocking that 3.5 GHz 6 core (what will i do with the other 45 cores ?) is already being stretched to 4.1 GHz.

author: Monkeh
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 31, 2013, 04:37:12 pm
content: Quote from: Simon on December 31, 2013, 04:31:31 pmBuild a few systems with nice cases. You'll begin to understand, especially if you want a really quiet system.QuoteIt doesn't matter if it uses 2W or 2000W, that PSU is a complete pile of garbage.QuoteSeagate drives, in my experience, are total turds. And their hybrid drives are shocking. The early models were so unreliable they were going through beta firmware releases weekly. Couldn't pay me to use one.

author: grumpydoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 31, 2013, 04:39:29 pm
content: QuoteOK, fair point about USB 3 (remind me why you wanted/needed this) but it has an x16 and x1 PCIe slot free.QuoteEach to their own I suppose.QuotePrograms need to be written specifically to take advantage of the GPU - I don't know how many CAD systems actually do that but likely only to be high end ones.Cache is still important in your example because at any one time the CPU will probably be accessing some areas a LOT so they should be in cache. Of course to get the best performance the software does need to be written to be cache friendly, take advantage of modern CPU instruction sets (especially the SIMD and vector stuff in modern CPUs) so there's a lot software engineers can get right (or wrong) here.

author: mariush
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 31, 2013, 04:46:48 pm
content: Quote from: Simon on December 31, 2013, 04:31:31 pmYour system will not even use 200 watts, it will barely hit 100-120 watts but that's not the issue. The issue is that power supply is based on a very old design (half bridge, pentium 3 generation) that has a very lousy efficiency so it will be hot even at 100w power consumption and will be paired with a crappy, noisy fan that will often run at high speed to keep the power supply cool.It will also have crap secondary capacitors and substandard filtering (no pi filtering on output) which may die soon due to internal heat.Those power supplies I linked to are actually based on newer designs, at least 80-85% efficient at 100-200 watts, they can do the advertised wattage with no problems and they have better fans that you won't hear from across the room.The FX-4350 is a 4 core,4.2 Ghzbase frequency cpu, boosts to4.3 Ghz. Basically the numbers already tell you the cpu is overclocked from factory close to its maximum. Also note the specs on ebuyer are wrong, the CPU only has 8 MB level 3 cache and 4 MB level 2 cache, not 12 MB.The FX-6300 is a 6 core,3.5 Ghzbase frequency, boosts to4.1 Ghzif needed. It has the same 8 MB level 3 cache but has 6 MB level 2 cache ( 1 MB per core duh).So when you run applications on just a couple of cores, the fx-6300 will auto overclock itself to 4.1 ghz, basically just 100-200 Mhz less than FX-4350. In single thread applications, these two processors are basicallythe same. But in applications that use multiple cores, you gain with the FX-6300.Also, FX-6300 only has a 95w TDP in contrast with the FX-4350 which has a 125w TDP. The FX-6300 will be more power efficient and will not heat up that much.Again, i really recommend you return that power supply, it's not safe and just not a good investment. And the FX-4350 is a good buy, but I'd still recommend changing it to a FX-6300.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 31, 2013, 04:50:04 pm
content: Yea i guess i should return the supply, i'll order another one and get the CIT returned as soon as it turns up.

author: Monkeh
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 31, 2013, 04:51:38 pm
content: Quote from: Simon on December 31, 2013, 04:50:04 pmI'll repeat my recommendation of the Corsair unit.

author: dr.diesel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 31, 2013, 04:56:16 pm
content: Quote from: Monkeh on December 31, 2013, 04:51:38 pmAnything made by Seasonic.

author: Monkeh
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 31, 2013, 04:56:46 pm
content: Quote from: dr.diesel on December 31, 2013, 04:56:16 pmThis one is made by CWT.

author: djsb
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 31, 2013, 05:07:57 pm
content: Corsair have a lifetime warranty on their supplies. I use a HX650W in my current machine. This replaced a HX620W that just stopped working due to supply inrush damage. It was replaced no questions asked. Need I say more.David.PS Turns out the warranty is 7 years on the HX650W, so effectively the lifetime of a machine.

author: Monkeh
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 31, 2013, 05:08:24 pm
content: Quote from: djsb on December 31, 2013, 05:07:57 pmOnly 3 years on the CX series.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 31, 2013, 06:09:52 pm
content: depending on the price of an item it can be covered for up to 6 years under CE marking.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 31, 2013, 09:18:44 pm
content: Quote from: Simon on December 31, 2013, 04:31:31 pmOne of the reasons to buy an HP or Dell is to get a case with decent airflow along the CPU, chipset and hard drive. The standard ATX case is about the worst you can get in terms of proper airflow. Hence you'll need noisier fans to reach the same amount of cooling or just kill the hard drive within a year.

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 31, 2013, 09:52:32 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on December 31, 2013, 09:18:44 pmModern ATX cases are very good with airflow and an older case can be "upgraded" with a drill and jigsaw.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 31, 2013, 09:56:12 pm
content: The heatsink will be firing heat from the processor to the back directly at one exhaust fan, the PSU above it is also taking air out, cool air comes in at the front from the bottom and moves through the case, the hard drive is in the coolest part of the case, what is the problem ?

author: Phaedrus
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 31, 2013, 11:00:22 pm
content: Dell and HP cases vary considerably in terms of airflow, depending on what era they're from and what size you get. Some have great cooling, others are toasters. The bigger problem is proprietary form factors; Dell and HP are fond of BTX motherboards, which are ONLY used by Dell and HP and companies making replacement parts for them. BTX motherboards often cost 2-3x what their retail ATX counterparts do. Both Dell and HP have a variety of power supply form factors, none of which are inter-compatible, and some will accept an ATX PSU, but will have a tab limiting its length to 140mm or 150mm. Dell even at one point had a proprietary electrical standard, similar to but different from ATX12V, with a 20-pin connector that would fit into an ATX motherboard; and promptly fry both the board and PSU with a dead short due to different pinouts. Fortunately that was done away with over a decade ago.Modern retail computer chassis generally have excellent airflow. And there have been many advances over the last decade. A full ATX case can often move enough air to keep >1500W of components within their operating specs just with stock fans. In any case, more and more users are switching to all-in-one water cooling solutions, which have a sealed water loop with everything already assembled, which minimizes chances of leakage and makes installation simple.http://www.coolermaster.com/case/mini-itx-elite-series/elite110/^ Fits an mITX motherboard, the higher-end of which can support Intel i7 processors and 16GB+ of RAM. Has space for a 120mm radiator for your CPU, can fit a full-size ATX PSU up to 175mm long (though 150mm or less with modular cables is best) and can easily support an Nvidia GTX770 graphics card and keep it cool.Costs less than a hundred bucks.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 31, 2013, 11:20:41 pm
content: Yes I remember the time that dell decided to reward people who sort reasonably priced spares with a fry up, sort of thing that should be made illegal.........

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 04, 2014, 09:00:32 am
content: well parts arrived, All put together and windows installed. Seems to perform quite well. As predicted a bandwidth test on the RAM gives very poor results and exactly as i predicted around 50% efficient (53 to be exact), I used to get near 100% with SDRAM, 80% with DDR, 60% with DDRII and now 50% with DDRIII, the drop has not been as drastic this time but seems to support my idea that the only way to truly increase speed is to increase speed and/or use multichannel.I'm not over the moon about the motherboard, I am rather dissapointed with Gigabyte, the connectors are of a poorer quality plastic than my current one, I'd say the board is thinner and mose at a risk of being broken, updating the bios seemed to work but on rebooting having changed the bios settings back to Advanced SATA mode so that the machine could boot again and setting the memory from the default 1333MHz to the actual 1866MHz of both ram and motherboard it failed to boot and would not boot until I reset the bios, the only way of getting the RAM back to the correct speed was to do it with the motherboard performance tweaker software, although this setting seems to have stuck in the bios so I'm assuming that the new bios is not setting the latencies correctly. Very poor form.The prcessor seems to not be too noisy on the fan with stock heat sink I'd say it will be pretty quiet and power efficient unless i thrash it, even with 2 -3 cores under permanent load the noise is reasonable.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 12, 2014, 09:43:51 pm
content: I ran Solid Edge 3DCAD on my new machine, knocks the socks off my i7 computer at work so yea take your intel cores and go shove them someplaceagain flipping my model around the screen uses 100% of one core but because I'm on 4.2 GHz versus I forget what but something like 2.5GHz it really does follow my 3D mouse around unlike on my work computer where it is like trying to pull a truck around the screen.Unlike my work computer with that shitty i7 that is supposed to be great at multitasking I can fully load the processor AND graphics card with grid computing tasks and it makes no difference to performance with solid edge whereas at work i have to leave at least one of 8 cores free in order for solid edge to usable in any way.Again I'm getting no problems with running the screens in 3D CAD even if the graphics is fully loaded in direct compute work so my work wasted their £1000 on a quadro 4000 nVidia card because it's a cad station. for half the price of that graphics card I have bought an entire machine that knocks the socks off the work one.the Hard drive seems to peform nicely now that it has worked out what to put on the solid state bit. Of course not blistering performance but it works good for the money.From what I can tell the intel socket heat sink mechanism still sucks, the heatsink I bought actually came with a seating that needs screwing into an intel board so that there are proper screw points for the heat sink wherease the AMd socket is already more rugged. On my old intel machine I had to dump those shitty plastic lugs and screw my heatsink down through the board before putting it into the case.Overall performance is not blisteringly faster than my old machine but it is overall nicer to use probably down to the hybrid drive and it shines when it really gets loaded.

author: Monkeh
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 12, 2014, 09:55:14 pm
content: Quote from: Simon on January 12, 2014, 09:43:51 pmHow many people must tell you how many times thatthe clock speed is irrelevant, you are not comparing like-for-like? Also, confirmation bias.QuoteThe AMD system sucks too, any serious heatsink disposes of their shitty plastic brackets (which, unlike Intel pushpins,break off) automatically.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 12, 2014, 10:05:43 pm
content: Well for the heaviest load I am putting on it it is faster. My hardest use of it is solid edge, and its faster for that than the i7, I guess the i7 is faster for other things, maybe those that really use the processors to it's full. The problem with solid edge is that it is such poor quality programming that expecting it to use any modern processor features is a bit of a stretch of the imagination so brute speed is the only way to make that particular program work. also as I've found the AMD is multitasking better than the i7 with boinc and solid edge, boinc in on idle priority yet still if i have all 8 cores at work running boinc stuff it grinds to a halt on solid edge and becomes unusable I have to manually free up 1-2 cores, yes the AMD does not mind having all 4 cores running 5 boinc tasks (because a GPU task still needs some processor) and flying my model around the screen no problem where as at work under the same conditions the machine stuttersProblem with my old intel machine is that you have to take the motherboard out to get the heatsink off because the large silent heat sink on that was supposed to mounted to the same holder as the intel one and the pins where already knackered by then so I had to take the whole thing off and do it myself with screws and nuts. my new heat sink has a REPLACEMENT seating, if you have intel you have to unscrew their heat sink holder and screw in the one suppled with the heat sink whereas for AMD it goes straight on the original heat sink bracket.

author: Monkeh
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 12, 2014, 10:08:22 pm
content: Quote from: Simon on January 12, 2014, 10:05:43 pmNo, you don't, they don't have brackets. There are simply holes in the board.QuoteAnd a few years and a house move down the line, your heatsink falls off.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 12, 2014, 10:16:10 pm
content: Quote from: Monkeh on January 12, 2014, 10:08:22 pmYes the intel simply has holes in the board so because that is no good the heat sink comes with a seating very similar to the one that already comes with AMD that you have to put in to bring it up to a similar standard of mechanical strength.the AMD seat is solid plastic bracing that is screwed to the board and the 3rd party heatsink goes right on instead of having to add bits to the board to bring it up to spec to take the weight of the larger heat sink.

author: Monkeh
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 12, 2014, 10:25:44 pm
content: Quote from: Simon on January 12, 2014, 10:16:10 pmThat is very good: They are standardised and have specific clearance, allowing you to design a bracket to suit your heatsink.QuotePlastic breaks. Why am I repeating myself?

author: Fsck
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 12, 2014, 10:30:19 pm
content: Quote from: Monkeh on January 12, 2014, 10:25:44 pm

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 13, 2014, 06:53:35 am
content: This is not that heavy just taller, nothing the seating can't handle. the supplied seating for intel boards looked very much like the one already on the AMD board so the heatsink manufacturer is obviously happy with the AMD solution.