The Official PC building thread -3rd Edition

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboDealDetails.aspx?ItemList=Combo.230062

Ive not heard much about their boards. Besides, I would strongly recommend a Gigabyte board with a more up to date north and south bridge. 790/750. And depending on your preferences, gamer or not, you'll wanna consider one with onboard graphics(don't overclock as well) excellent for everyday use, or one without onboard graphics and buy a decent graphics card, which depending once again on your gaming habits can run you between 100-500$(possibly less). Really depends on how you use your system.

 

dru3692,
If you look at the specs of the motherboard you will see that it's not even rated for the Combo CPU that comes with it! Maximum load for the CPU is 95w, yet the CPU in the combo deal is 125w! ECS has made very few decent motherboards, and this is not one of them! Save yourself a lot of grief and maybe even some smoke and get a board that's rated for 140w, with a bit more modern chipset! It also appears to have 3 phase power regulation, which is also not very good by today's standards. This is what I just ordered for myself.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128387
No on board graphics, 8+2 phase power regulation, better chipset cooling, 8 Sata ports, 8 rear USB ports and a whole bunch of other goodies.

It's not that I'm knocking ECS, but I'm knocking ECS! In the past 4 years I've replaced more ECS boards that have gone bad than all the other brands combined! For the most part they make junk, IMO! Hey you get what you pay for, although in the case of ECS, you really don't! BTW, you would also be better off getting the Phenom II x3 720BE. It will overclock and perform better than the Phenom II x4 920, as it's not a Black Edition so it's overclocking limits are low! Even stock, it's the better chip in most instances!

Best Regards,
Russ

 

thanks to you both for the input.

 

dru3692,
You're most welcome. BTW! Another thing about the x3 720! You stand a fair chance of unlocking the 4th core on a Biostar or Gigabyte MB, and if yours did, you would have at least a 2.8GHz Quad! Most that do get the core to unlock, are seeing between 3.2 and 3.5GHz out of them. Not too shabby for a $119 CPU!

Russ

 

ECS i find are a problematic company. many motherboards i purchase have all failed due to the plastic connectors on the board coming loose I.e. PCI-Express x 16 and the RAM banks. I would avoid if i was you and go for a popular well known make.

 

ECS boards are terrible. Avoid like the plague. Gigabyte, Biostar, DFI and MSI are the current reputable brands.

 

Sam,
The thing I keep wondering about is why Newegg is offering an incompatible combo? They certainly should know that you aren't going to run a 125w CPU in a 95w motherboard for very long without problems. There's also Newegg's claim that the Motherboard is AM2/AM2+, while ECS says it's an AM2 in their specs!

In my eyes, the Phenom II x4 920 isn't worth the extra $40 over the Phenom II x3 720. Even up, at stock speeds the x3 720 mostly beats the x4 920, and when overclocking, the difference isn't even close! There was a claim in a Newegg review that someone has a x4 920 running at 4.2GHz on air. We both know that you aren't going to get a 300MHz FSB out of any AMD, and without an unlocked CPU multiplier, 3.1GHz is wishful thinking, as you can't get the FSB past 215-220, and that would only be 3.080GHz @220MHz, a very long way from 4.2gHz. The x3 720 also has the best potential to unlock the 4th core, and most that do unlock, are good for 3.2 to 3.4GHz at least! I'm not knocking the x4 920, but the x3 720 is a much better deal performance wise, for the money!

 

I agree, I know newegg is top notch but not perfect, why I would never buy anything before checking with you guy's first.

 

Both the 920 and 720 are 2.8Ghz, the same core design, how can the quad possibly be slower than the tri?

 

In all the reviews and comparisons I've seen, the 720 does better than the 920 in almost all of the tests, so there must be some difference. The x3 720 is a 940 with one core shut down, while the 920 is a CPU that won't meet 940 standards for all 4 cores, but will pass testing at of all 4 cores at 2.8GHz. Since the x4 920 isn't a Black Edition with an unlocked multiplier, it can't be overclocked very much. The x3 720 is more likely to unlock the 4th core than any other triple or dual, because it's derived from a rejected 3.0GHz 940BE where 3 cores have passed at 3.0GHz. So far no one has come up with any other explanation for why it performs equal or better than the 920!

Russ

 

The 720 I thought was a 920 with one core shut down. I don't see why they would underclock a CPU and turn a core off unless it was so unstable it couldn't be overclocked - from what I've seen of the 720 that seems unlikely.

 

What sources have run these tests? and What are the best tools to test performance?

 

just get a Q9400/Q9550/Q9650 and dont worry about it...lol
sorry guys after ready all the problems there is with the AMD's you guys have or have had or know someone who has one. im glad i didnt go amd...

Sam i am kinda suprised you dont have a AMD rig. isnt it true tha AMD's are better for gameing???

 

Sam,
If you think about it, it makes sense. The 920 has a locked 14x multiplier, so they can use lesser performing chips to make one as it's limited by the FSB. The potential performance level of the 920 is slightly less than than 3.1GHz, while the 720BE can be overclocked to 3.4 to 3.7GHz fairly easy. Unlock the 4th core and that drops a bit, but still has more potential than the 920, but not as much as the 940. It gives the 720 it's own niche!

You were correct, BTW! Originally the x3 720 was a x4 920 with one core disabled. According to a couple of people I know that work for AMD, the problem became the 720's ability to overclock compared to the 920's lack of that same ability! There's some 600 to 700MHz difference in their clock speeds when overclocked. While they wouldn't say directly why, I can guess that it was a waste of time and effort to equip the 920 with cores that will be limited so badly by the FSB as quads, so the decision was made to use the x4 940 for the x3 720, rather than the 920. Like I said, if you think about it, it makes sense. It allows the 720 to stand on it's own, and it takes minimal effort to make very good overclocking 720's out of the 940. It also insures a higher percentage of people being able to unlock the 4th core and still overclock to a higner clock speed than the 920.

I know that there was talk of permanently disabling the 4th core, but that idea was quickly shelved, when AMD recognized the high interest level in the 720. Gaming is where it's really impressive! I'm guessing that the 720's memory performance has a lot to do with that. It sit's on top of all AMD's in both read and write performance with a write performance of 7919MB/s compared to the 920's 7800MB/s. The gap is even wider in read performance at the 720's 6681MB/s vs the 920's 6149MB/s. In fact the only thing that does beat the 720's memory performance at all, is Core 17 with it's triple channel DDR3 memory! At $119, the Phenom II x3 720 is one hell of a chip, and a better buy than the x4 920!

Best Regards,
Russ

 

dru3692,
Just google "Phenom II x3 720 reviews". There are a lot of them!

Best Regards,
Russ

 

Rob,

OK Moneybags! LOL!! At $349.99 for a Q9550 or $319.99 for a Q9650 vs $189 for a phenom II 940. I would rather have the 940! Forget the Q9400 entirely! I just paid for the new 790X-UD4P yesterday morning, so I'm hoping it shows today. Then I will find out if the On Board graphics on the 790GP-UD4H interfered with the OC or not, as the 790X-UD4P doesn't have them! I have to say too, that a lot of the problems I've had have been due to my own lack of experience building and overclocking AMDs. It's been a great learning experience for me, and I've yet to lose my temper or gotten upset in spite of all the problems. Frankly, had I known back in March what I know now, I would have sent back the original motherboard for credit and bought the 790X-UD4P and been way ahead of the game!

As far as the performance goes, I've yet to be unhappy with it!

Best Regards,
Russ

 

Rob: As far as actually using a system goes, there aren't any problems per-se with the Phenoms, other than the original xx00 series ones. The issue is the complexity of working out what is and isn't compatible (and of course for us enthusiasts, the fact they don't overclock very well is also a minus )
The reason I don't have an AMD is because that statement isn't true. AMDs aren't really any better for gaming, outside maybe one title (Far Cry 2 - a game I don't really like). Let's not also forget that when I bought my CPU the X4 955 didn't exist, so there was no such AMD CPU as powerful as what I have.
Russ: The fact that the 920 doesn't overclock because it's not a black edition is simple to grasp. It's the fact that you say it's slower at stock clocks I don't understand. The movement from the 920 basis to the 940 basis (presumably for the black edition to be true) makes sense since the 720 is the top end CPU of the tri core series, but while that explains its overclocking prowess, I'm still lost on why it's faster at 2.8Ghz.
A Q9550 is not $349.99 and hasn't been for years. You've found the Q9550S, a 65W chip. Compare 65W for that against the 125W of the rival Phenom 955 and you'll see why it's so much money. That's a lot of power for a low-energy rig.

 

Right. AMDs are good for gaming in that they keep up fairly well with Intels for a lower price. But overall Intels are still much faster in most things. I only bothered to get my 940 and 790FX board because I am an AMD fanboy and was waiting for a truely fast chip ;P

I was already using my Q6600 and X38 board. I could have just as easily dropped in a Q9550 and had a faster system. Sure the new 955BE is pretty impressive but it's really just my 940 with higher clocks and that's it.

I think the 720BE is actually just a completely working chip with one core disabled only to meet demand. As Russ says most of them can be unlocked and still work and OC just fine. So I can only assume they are fully functional chips and not ones that failed to meet higher specs. AFAIK the entire Phenom II line is based off of one chip and the rest are just disabled/cut down version of the same quad core model.

 

I wouldn't say that makes the AMDs better for gaming, that is simply the bulk of what they stand on for competitiveness at all. They aren't better, they are just as good for gaming (on price), which is why gamers actually buy them. It is interesting that despite the core i7 and i5 architectures are genuine quad core CPUs rather than the 2+2 of the core 2 quads, Intel have not taken up the idea of tri-core CPUs.

 

Sam,
I think part of the problem with identifying what is compatible and what isn't, was AMD's original "Equivalence" formula, whereby a 1900+ CPU was actually a 1600MHz chip, where as today all the new chips numbers are strictly model numbers. I also think that the Retailers don't always give accurate specs, which makes things more confusing. Very much like that ECS/X4 920 Combo that dru3692 was looking at the other day. A 125w CPU is not going to do too well in a 95w motherboard! I also tend to forget that most of the manufacturers are located right here in California, so it's a fairly simple thing for me to check with most of the major companies if there is a question about MB/CPU compatibility!

You are right about the Q9550S. My Bad! I guess I don't know my S from my S! LOL!! I guess I should have clarified the same 2.8GHz clock speeds of the 720 and 920 pertains to gaming. The only real difference I see to explain this has to be the memory performance. I'm going to post some game scores and memory performance later, as my new MB just arrived, so I've got to get myself busy! LOL!!

Best Regards,
Russ