What do you guys think of this comp?

Discussion in 'Tech Talk' started by Deadend, Dec 4, 2010.

  1. Deadend
    Veteran Crowfall Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2008
    Messages:
    1,449
    Likes Received:
    14
    Occupation:
    Monkey.
  2. EniGmA1987
    Veteran Staff Member Xenforcer

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2010
    Messages:
    4,778
    Likes Received:
    34
    Id spend the extra $4 for the upgraded RAM, very worth it
     
  3. Sogetsu
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2009
    Messages:
    7,511
    Likes Received:
    3
    Occupation:
    Logistics
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    Agree, if you plan on doing any over clocking, getting ram that's 1600 stock would be awesome.

    My ram can't o/c very well, and at the time my mobo said "1333 only!" - come to find out I learned a lot about o/c ram after my purchases.

    I can't get past 3.7ghz on my CPU clock because I can't get my ram to o/c and be stable.

    Yadda Yadda, I don't know much about AMD either - but it looks like a solid rig. 4gig RAM only though? Would be nice if there was an 8 gig, if its dual channel setup, which it obviously is.. just thought it would be triple channel.
     
  4. EniGmA1987
    Veteran Staff Member Xenforcer

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2010
    Messages:
    4,778
    Likes Received:
    34
    AMD doesnt have triple channel RAM, and wont ever. AMD decided to stick with Dual Channel because there were almost no performance benefits from Triple channel. But since Intel is raising the ante AMD decided to just go straight to quad channel RAM which they already have. Quad Channel will move to the desktop side of things in less than 6 months as well.

    Also AMD has DDR-1600 as a stock speed so there is no need to OC to get it. Up to DDR-2000 is the official supported OC spec for AMD on the 6 core processors. But the highest OC achieved on an AMD system is DDR-2507




    You are also going to want to upgrade to the 620w PSU for $7 more.

    If you already have an OS disk you can use then you can pick no OS to save $106. Which you can then put to use for getting an additional 4GB of RAM which is going to be needed.

    These changes will bring you to $974, so I suggest also getting the heatsink upgrade for $30
     
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2010
  5. Deadend
    Veteran Crowfall Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2008
    Messages:
    1,449
    Likes Received:
    14
    Occupation:
    Monkey.
    Like I said I wont be getting this exact comp it probably wont be available by April any way. They change up their parts fairly often for their stock computers. And no I will be getting the OS with what ever comp I buy.

    Also I wanted to ask is it better putting a 1000 in a AMD or Intel machine. I am not really all that familiar with AMD all my comps have been Intel.
     
  6. EniGmA1987
    Veteran Staff Member Xenforcer

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2010
    Messages:
    4,778
    Likes Received:
    34
    Well $1000 will get you a lot farther with AMD than it will with Intel. A decent Intel board will cost you twice as much for the exact same features, sometimes more than that much.

    RAM is same since it is all DDR3 right now. However AMD has a much more tolerable voltage range than Intel. Intel is on its first gen integrated memory controller and they ran into the same problems AMD did back in the day. Too much voltage to the RAM = blown up memory controller. You can raise the voltage to the controller core itself to raise the limit that can go to the memory before the controller pops, but AMD still has a much larger range of voltages to the RAM before the controller dies. Intel is a max of 1.65v, AMD is a max of 1.9v
    However AMD's memory controller is "weaker" than Intel's controller. AMD memory can go high, higher than anything you possibly need today. But Intel can still go higher. The limit for normal stuff on AMD memory is DDR-2000ish. Intel can hit DDR-2300ish more easily. World records are:
    AMD: DDR-2507
    Intel: somewhere over DDR-3000. I dont know the exact number anymore. Here is a guy with DDR-3028 - http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=1454605

    Either way, DDR-1600 already provides more than enough bandwidth to current computers that you wont max it out. You could do DDR-2000 for "futureproofing" if you wanted though.


    As for processors, you can get a better deal going AMD than Intel as AMD processors are cheaper throughout the range than Intel. AMD's top processor costs $229. Now Intel has better performance to it, but that performance is only seen in benchmarks and actual performance you can feel is the same. You can get maybe 3fps better in the best case scenario with an Intel processor over an AMD processor. Average case scenario it would be a 1fps difference.



    I am always looking for the best performance for the money, not just in computers but in everything. I only went with something excessive once and that was because of my ego and massive bragging ability that everyone still drools over to this day and I have had the item for a couple years now. But if you want the best performance for your money then you should go with AMD, if you want maximum performance bragging rights and are willing to spend extra money for very small gains then go with Intel.
    So even though that is a pretty strong argument for AMD, let me tell you that bragging rights go a long way when you have other people going "ooooo" over your stuff :)
    And yet I run AMD and all my friends have such horrible computers they still drool over mine...
     
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2010