Discussion in 'News' started by btarunr, Jul 22, 2011.
Yes AMD is unreal In that department, my last board supported like 30 plus cpus.
I used to think that way, until I realized that by the time I'm ready to upgrade my CPU, I generally want a new board anyway. lol.
The 1366 socket has lasted me for over two years (7 different i7 920's and the current 2 i7 970's; and 6 different X58 motherboards). Motherboards need to keep up in their advancements/enhancements as well as other components so I look at two years as being pretty good.
I see both perspectives and I'm kinda sorry for even starting it. yes this will be one hec of a pricey CPU, much more than AMD's top offering, but in a sense that's also my point. I want AMD to get back in the game, through and though, and compete in every segment, instead of having to play second fiddle.
as for the car analogy, it's more like why would you buy a Porsche 911 Turbo instead of a Nissan GTR (at half the cost) when they deliver essentially the same performance. only in this case the pricier CPU should deliver quite a bit more performance.
True but weren't you somewhat happy when your Q6600 ran in the same board your E6600 was in? And then it still supported your new Q9650? (For example).
I don't think much has changed in the last 6 years to be honest. Not in the computer industry anyways. I'm currently on my old Q6600 box I pulled from the closet. I'm actually suprised it feels just as fast as my i7 rig. And what LordJummy said about AMD never wanting to compete... If AMD could sell a CPU that would slap the i7 out of the water and do it for 1/2 the cost of the i7 while still maintaining the same profits, would they? Damn right they would. lol
I only upgrade when I get a feel for Intel's direction. Lately they're all over the place. Too many options at once confuses the customer. Any marketing specialist knows that a confused consumer is a lost customer.
I went from a QX9650@4ghz to an i7 960@4ghz and only gained .1 in my WEI score. Everything else stayed the same. I was recently considering a m-atx 2600k system and make it smaller, quieter, and more efficient then my current full tower but now I might wait.
I hope they don't make another "new" ram standard like DDR-4 CL50 4-channel before DDR3 comes in CL1.
Any word to this new CPUs power consumption and overclocking abilities?
Only marginally. Before I started this tic toc approach, I probably only used more than one different cpu in the same board 2 different times. Once on Intel and once on AMD. I was always swapping boards looking for more as well as cpus. I realized, that for me, it ended up mostly moot.
I have to tell you I have owned the following cpus in the last few years Q6600 3.6ghz, E8600 4.3ghz, QX9650 4.0ghz, I7 920 4.2ghz, 945 PHII 3.8ghz , 955 II 4.2ghz , 1090TX6 4.3ghz and now a Sandy Bridge 2500k at 4.5 to 5.0ghz all on air depending on the voltage and things have radically changed. The performance difference is crazy on Sandy Bridge over them all. I am a giant AMD fan but I'm dumb struck at the performance jump of this chip even over my I7 920 at 4.2ghz and 1090T at 4.3ghz. This 2500K at 4.5 absolutely destroys them and it will go as high as 5.0ghz 24/7 at reasonable voltage. Prior to this, I could not tell you the difference in what cpu was in my computer if you didn't tell me going from a I7 920 to a 1090T at max overclock, both were fast and there was truely zero real world difference, but Sandy Bridge has changed the game. I see a giant leap here in even simple things like boot time etc... not a little difference a very noticable one. I'm tell you this is unreal, I cannot imagine what a 2600K at 5.0ghz is like but to say things have not changed is truely wrong and this is from a guy who believed like you do until about 3 days ago.
The difference between a 2500k and 2600k is pretty small for most tasks, but it was definitely a huge performance gain going from a Q6600 to a 2500k. I usually only get a new CPU if I bought a lower-end one to start, or if a big jump in performance on the same platform occurs. Back when Socket 939 was around I used like 3-4 different CPU's, but if I had just saved my money for a switch to say LGA775 for Core2Duo I would have been better off to be honest.
I must admit, until I actually upgraded (very recently) to SB myself, I was very skeptical about just how much faster SB would be in real world use, boy was I wrong.
I am currently in the process of doing a mini review of sorts comparing the games I run, at the settings I run at (so the only change is going to SB), and my jaw has hit the floor a couple of times with the results I have been achieving. In all cases the games were playable on the Phenom / HD6970 combo (hence I had a baseline) but SB has boosted framerates even further.
Hightlights so far are that in Metro 2033 (1680x1050, DX11, Very high, AAA with Tessellation) I am seeing a 10fps boost in minimums and a ~8fps boost in the average. Now this is comparing a i5 2500k at stock (3.3-3.7GHz) against a Phenom II X3 B55 @ 4GHz (GPU being a HD6970).
tbh i think i'm still going to buy an i7 990x simply because i can still use the antiquated xp on it
ye ye i can here everyone saying move on ffs but i'm happy with what i've got,
and all i need is the processor, nothing else
i hope the 990x will go down in price a little bit though,
there was a few the other week at overclockers for £700 or about 1139.25 US$ but i hadn't planned on getting 1 till august (and wasn't quick enough ) and now they are back up to £773 or 1258.0575 US$
anyways by the time the i7 goes pop, they'll probably have bought out a new socket with sata 9 and pci express 5
Sense... that makes not...
Unlikely. Ultra High-End CPU's usually don't budge much in price. I know the FX-62 back in the day stayed around $1000 well after it was displaced from it's throne. I believe it was the same with the highest Q9xxx CPU (on a much lower scale) too.
Now just add an SSD for your OS drive. Then the overall difference is just ungodly. Trust me on this.
ye it may not make any sense until you realise that i was going for a i7 980x in the first place for my new build, but didn't get one, not because of cost, but because noone at the shop could tell me what bios the motherboard came with, so i went with the i7 920 simply because of it being compatible out the box
so as i said i'm going with one when i turn 39 (which is soon ) as a birthday present to myself
Arn't you running spinner hard drives anyways? If so, I hardly see a CPU change helping your boot time. But you see what I'm saying. Sounds like it took awhile before a chip came out that impressed you. If I do jump on sandybridge now that'll probably be my last major build. I'm getting to old for this. lol Plus I'm afraid of what the price is going to be for Intels new ones.
I know champ, I was pointing out that there won't be four (active) sockets
The more cores you have, the more ram you need to feed them. Even with the 990X, you should move away from XP. You just aren't using your hardware to it's potential in XP anymore. The 990X is a waste as an upgrade for you.
Seriously, PM me, I have a fully legit way for you to have 7 for free.
thanks for the offer Wile E i'll pm ya soon (i'm moving house in the next week or so
ye i'll have to get some more ram and an ssd ,
ye sure everyone, i could go with a 2011 processor, but i bet they'll be daft prices
and i need my pc now not next year ,
although i'm kinda curious as to when they are bringing out the i7 995x and what that'll cost ,as they always bring the previous iteration down in price a bit (the last sold i7 980x went down to £650 or 1 072.435 US$ from about £750 or 1 237.425 US$ but i kinda missed the boat getting one
weird thing is one of the shops i was thinking of ordering the 990x from has shot there price up from £779 to £800 ,which is like an increase of about 34.64 US$
Separate names with a comma.