New computer being built for upcoming PC titles!

[AceHigh]

Anyways, AMD is significantly cheaper than Intel in price to performance.

Fair point, I heard that AMD was best at the medium performance CPU market.

Who wants to spend $1000 on a CPU anyways?
Well, to be fair I did not buy a black edition or something like that, the i7 I mentioned earlier cost me 2000 NOK which is about 360 USD. And that is the price in Norway, I am sure you can get it cheaper in US.

In my case, I always buy the "almost" top of the line which is the best you can get before it becomes ridiculously expensive, so I can have it for 5 years. My current CPU: Core 2 Duo that has served me faithfully for over 5 years and only this year did I notice that it couldn't handle the newest games any more. I guess my point is, you pay 150 bucks for a decent CPU that will hold for the next 2 years as you said yourself, I paid 360 bucks for a CPU that can last for 5 years, it's not really that big a difference in price, just different life expectancy.

I liked the comparison of that AMD to Intel i7 which is a Nehalem chip. Sandy Bridge has a 17% increase in performance compared to Nehalem. However that is not the reason why I chose to pay a bit more for a Sandy Bridge CPU. It just happens that Nehalem is a 45nm chip, while Sandy Bridge is 32nm. What actually mattered to me is that Sandy bridge needed only 95 watt to run while Nehalem needed about 115. I mean.... saving electricity is a good thing, besides with less power drain comes less thermal signature, so it will be fun to over-clock it.

[Saras]

Anyways, AMD is significantly cheaper than Intel in price to performance.

Fair point, I heard that AMD was best at the medium performance CPU market.

Not quite, AMD isn't so much a medium performance market, it's a "good enough" performance market. Generally an AMD chip will do just fine for a few years.

Anyway, is it just me, or does it feel like the "exponential growth of computing power" has started to decline. Or is it just the cost of manufacturing the software having exponential increase in production costs.

[AceHigh]

I thought that was the same consumer group... you know like "low performance" and "economic solution" is practically the same thing as well....

[Saras]

Oh? I pretty much always took the "If it can only run new stuff on low - it's low end, if medium - medium end, if high/ultra - high end." point.

The the higher AMD ranges don't really have a problem running any current software or at least I wasn't aware of them having it.

[TMRNetShark]

Anyways, AMD is significantly cheaper than Intel in price to performance.

Fair point, I heard that AMD was best at the medium performance CPU market.

Who wants to spend $1000 on a CPU anyways?
Well, to be fair I did not buy a black edition or something like that, the i7 I mentioned earlier cost me 2000 NOK which is about 360 USD. And that is the price in Norway, I am sure you can get it cheaper in US.

In my case, I always buy the "almost" top of the line which is the best you can get before it becomes ridiculously expensive, so I can have it for 5 years. My current CPU: Core 2 Duo that has served me faithfully for over 5 years and only this year did I notice that it couldn't handle the newest games any more. I guess my point is, you pay 150 bucks for a decent CPU that will hold for the next 2 years as you said yourself, I paid 360 bucks for a CPU that can last for 5 years, it's not really that big a difference in price, just different life expectancy.

I liked the comparison of that AMD to Intel i7 which is a Nehalem chip. Sandy Bridge has a 17% increase in performance compared to Nehalem. However that is not the reason why I chose to pay a bit more for a Sandy Bridge CPU. It just happens that Nehalem is a 45nm chip, while Sandy Bridge is 32nm. What actually mattered to me is that Sandy bridge needed only 95 watt to run while Nehalem needed about 115. I mean.... saving electricity is a good thing, besides with less power drain comes less thermal signature, so it will be fun to over-clock it.

Why did you go with a Sandy Bridge core anyways? Didn't you have to get a new Mobo with it because it's an APU? Plus I'm assuming you are going to put on a PCI-E video card... so basically you aren't even using half the APU (not technically "half"... but the graphics processing portion). If you spent $350 (or 2000 NOK), it might last you 3-5 years... But after my 2 years is up with my PC, I can buy another $500 rig that will be better than the Sandybridge you just bought.

What I'm trying to say is, I would like to spend $500 now... then 2 years later spend another $500 to get better hardware... then just spending $1000 today and not upgrading for 4 years (when after 2 years I can get new hardware that is better than the $1000 I spent on day one).

As for running stuff, I think I should be safe with the hardware I bought for some time.

[AceHigh]

I have a decent PCI-E card already, I will wait a year before I buy a better one, I rarely buy a "new rig", it's just a continuous upgrade of the existing one. Although the original parts were all exchanged already. Thus I don't really pay that much at once, but rather lesser amounts each year or so.

This time it's around 660 for CPU, mobo and RAM, I bought a new PSU not so long ago because the old one got fried and my hard drives are fine as they are now.

[Gamerzhell]

try and go for one of the 8 or 9 series boards to avoid compatibility issues with the cpu.

grab the cheapest 8gb ram kit too, brand doesn't matter all of them come with lifetime warranty.

[TMRNetShark]

try and go for one of the 8 or 9 series boards to avoid compatibility issues with the cpu.

grab the cheapest 8gb ram kit too, brand doesn't matter all of them come with lifetime warranty.

http://www.biostar.com.tw/app/en/mb/content.php?S_ID=450

Avoid compatibility? I think you kinda don't know what you are talking about, but it's cool. I'll buy another 2 GB stick of Corsair RAM if I think it's needed. In reality, I think 6 GBs is enough for now. I'm gonna be using that computer ONLY for gaming. No websurfing, movie watching... NOTHING... just games.

[krumm]

try and go for one of the 8 or 9 series boards to avoid compatibility issues with the cpu.

grab the cheapest 8gb ram kit too, brand doesn't matter all of them come with lifetime warranty.

http://www.biostar.com.tw/app/en/mb/content.php?S_ID=450

Avoid compatibility? I think you kinda don't know what you are talking about, but it's cool. I'll buy another 2 GB stick of Corsair RAM if I think it's needed. In reality, I think 6 GBs is enough for now. I'm gonna be using that computer ONLY for gaming. No websurfing, movie watching... NOTHING... just games.

The problem with 6GBs is that it is 3 sticks of ram and you got a AMD cpu.  AMD is dual channel so you will have uneven channels.   

[Natheria]

Anyway, is it just me, or does it feel like the "exponential growth of computing power" has started to decline. Or is it just the cost of manufacturing the software having exponential increase in production costs.

If your talking about a decrease in CPU ramping it's probably because of a couple different factors engineers have to work around. It used to be heat to clock speed limitations but the more recent issue is the fact that the technology for processors is getting so tiny that it becomes harder and harder to control where the electrons move (Do you have any idea how small nanometers are? You're starting to talk about single molecules with this kind of tech).

[NaRu]

Intel does cost a lot more then AMD but I look at how often do I need to upgrade to run the current stuff. AMD are cheap but every 2 years it's a good idea to upgrade while Intel you can have the same CPU for 5+ years. Look at Core 2 Duos and Quad Cores. Those chips are old but yet they perform very well against AMD. The current i7 Sandy bridge only out performs the Intel i7 920 by 10% at most at stock speeds. That's why I pick intel over AMD.

[kureshii]

So no, I don't have an i7 processor that can take over the world, but I do have a processor that it quite powerful... powerful enough to keep up with an i7 980X at a fraction of the cost.

Linking to a benchmark that’s obviously showing GPU-bottlenecked performance doesn’t help your case at all … inb4moresarcasm.

You could have saved a bit of cash by going with an X4 965 BE, and you’d only have to give up a bit of gaming performance—ohwait, you won’t. Heck, looking at it, an i3-2100 makes a pretty competitive budget alternative for gaming as well, although I’d go with the X4 for better multi-threaded performance in other tasks.

That money you save can go toward getting an AM3+ motherboard to ease the transition into Bulldozer, or toward other GPU options. Or you can pick up another 2GB RAM, go with a 2×4GB config for just $6 more (pity you missed it a week or two ago when it was $36).

But it’s okay, I get it, it’s just more of that special brand of sarcasmsauce~

[Lupin]

Who wants to spend $1000 on a CPU anyways?

Yeah, who would spend that much when a $300 CPU (2600K) performs better and isn't on a dead socket?

[bloody000]

Subpar Hexa-core for a gaming-centric build? Seriously?  

Before any of you point fingers at me I'm typing this on a 1090t powered PC.

[Spanks]

I have had a 1055t, its great and all but like other have said I would advise the getting maybe the x4 955, about $40 cheaper for same performance in games. You can overclock a x4 955 if you wanna have some fun, 1055t don't even bother.

Or you could pay $200 for the i5-2500K and have an awesome cpu only limited by how good you are at overclocking.

Anything from x4 955 up will play all the games you want to fine, mostly your gpu at this point.

Neither option you can upgrade much along the road unless you get a am3+ motherboard but I am sure this isn't an option as you wanna save money.

[kitamesume]

Anyway, is it just me, or does it feel like the "exponential growth of computing power" has started to decline. Or is it just the cost of manufacturing the software having exponential increase in production costs.

nah, its not just you, they're pretty much concentrating on reducing the power consumption on the newer models. so yeah, they're going  [less watts > more processing power].

[AceHigh]

The problem is that silicon as a material has stability problems when handling frequency at 4,5 Ghz, thus you don't see CPUs over that 4,5 Ghz. They generally stop at 4GHz.

I believe the Ghz race stopped back when Intel released Pentium 4, after that both Intel and AMD have been getting more processing power due to multi core technology and improved architecture.

We will see a huge leap forward when a material called graphene will replace silicon and be able to provide higher frequencies.

[kitamesume]

^ just to back your info

In February 2010, researchers at IBM reported that they have been able to create graphene transistors with an on and off rate of 100 gigahertz, far exceeding the rates of previous attempts, and exceeding the speed of silicon transistors with an equal gate length.

In June 2011, IBM researchers announced that they had succeeded in creating the first graphene-based integrated circuit, a broadband radio mixer. The circuit handled frequencies up to 10 GHz, and its performance was unaffected by temperatures up to 127 degrees Celsius.

increasing the max temps on processors to 120C would be sweet =D makes passive heatsink more appreciable.

[TMRNetShark]

So no, I don't have an i7 processor that can take over the world, but I do have a processor that it quite powerful... powerful enough to keep up with an i7 980X at a fraction of the cost.

Linking to a benchmark that’s obviously showing GPU-bottlenecked performance doesn’t help your case at all … inb4moresarcasm.

You could have saved a bit of cash by going with an X4 965 BE, and you’d only have to give up a bit of gaming performance—ohwait, you won’t. Heck, looking at it, an i3-2100 makes a pretty competitive budget alternative for gaming as well, although I’d go with the X4 for better multi-threaded performance in other tasks.

That money you save can go toward getting an AM3+ motherboard to ease the transition into Bulldozer, or toward other GPU options. Or you can pick up another 2GB RAM, go with a 2×4GB config for just $6 more (pity you missed it a week or two ago when it was $36).

But it’s okay, I get it, it’s just more of that special brand of sarcasmsauce~

Your sight sees only so far, doesn't it? The 1055T and the 965BE are only $20 difference, right? (Plus you probably don't read previous posts)

I plan on OVERCLOCKING the 1055T. The 1055T is very easily Overclockable and I got a mobo that easily allows me to do that. True, a 965BE can also be overclocked well to 4GHz, but it only has 4 cores. I can Overclock my 1055T to 4GHz... and I bought the extra cooling equipment to get benchmark results that show that the 1055T is very beastly when overclocked while using multi-thread friendly applications (which most games these days take advantage of). Do your research, cause I did. 

AM3+? Ummm, if the new line of AMD processors were so good, I can definitely see them making better ones in 2 years when I would plan on getting an new computer. As of right now, all I see is those new APU's that aren't that impressive to me. 6 GBs of RAM is plenty enough for now (I would never be using that extra 2 GBs anyways).

Don't get me started on the Videocard... The 6850 performs very well for the price.

Then again, I bought the 1055T, aftermarket heatsink+fan, the 6850 GPU, 6 GBs of Corsair RAM, a 320 GB HD, A two-fan installed case, A mobo, and a 575W PSU for $500 shipped. It's cool to hate...

[Lupin]

The problem is that silicon as a material has stability problems when handling frequency at 4,5 Ghz, thus you don't see CPUs over that 4,5 Ghz. They generally stop at 4GHz.

Bulldozer is said to have an SKU with a base frequency of 4.2GHz.

I believe the Ghz race stopped back when Intel released Pentium 4, after that both Intel and AMD have been getting more processing power due to multi core technology and improved architecture.

It stopped after Preshott. It was a losing battle. Heat generation was ramping up much faster than the frequency was.

If Pentium 4 was manufactured in Intel's manufacturing process (32nm or even 22nm) today, it would probably reached it's 10GHz promise from a decade ago.