The Official PC building thread -3rd Edition

sorry but the Q9550 is not at $349 anymore $219.99 (the egg) and at (The Mic) going on a month in a half now 6 weeks for $169.99 / 181.04 out the door with tax...

Whats wrong with it? Just had 1 in my possession and Oc'd it to 3.6Ghz stable ran pretty cool also for a 6MB Cache chip...


Good Luck with your board Russ and keep us posted
if had it..I would slap some skills on it..LOL
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231179

 

The Q8200 is down to £107 now, not a great deal more than the X3 720 at £92.

 

http://www.pureoverclock.com/article794.html

this is in the gaming section aswell but im sure others on this thread can appreciate this

 

Here's a little competition between primarily CPUs also tested. The 730 Triple is more than competitive against the Q8200!

http://ixbtlabs.com/articles3/cpu/amd-phenom-2-720-810-920-p1.html

Even if you are a fan of Intel or AMD, for the price it's a pretty impressive chip. Xbit didn't seem to have any difficulty getting it to 3.9GHz. It overclocks well enough to be very competitive! It seems to be an interesting way of representing the test results, combining results from so many different tests, down to a combined performance level I would think the more information you you provide, the more accurate it would be, overall!

Best Regards,
Russ

 

So...essentially, i7 or Core 2 extreme QX9775 is hands down the most cutting edge processor on the market. However...Phenom II is not far behind in computational power, and only costs a small percentage of those intel counterparts. I guess if you want the best, you have to pay for the best. You pay dearly LOL!

1000$ hmmm...I would think at that price it would clean the dishes, and mow the yard too LOL!

 

Oman,
Trust me! You better sit down when you look at my next post!

Russ

 

This truly is a SAD sight! I guarantee somebody new to the market, and computers, looking for the best, would be discouraged at this sight.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...DeactivatedMark=False&ActiveSearchResult=True

 

Sophocles is always kidding me about my inventing some sort of Fusion! Now I'm beginning to wonder!

I have no idea of what I did or how I did it, but I've made the screen shots direct because they are full size so everyone can see there's nothing funny going on here. Oman 7 couldn't make it look that good with Photoshop, and he's got amazing talent! I just got done watching the copy! Strange Flic! I wish I had thought to take a pic of the CCE screen. Speed was from the high 20s to the low 22s with CCE! I've never heard of speeds that high before!

http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/5135/1prepare.jpg

I sort of went Ho-Hum with this one as the time was reasonable! Then the Encode started! It flat chewed up the files It was actually mesmerizing to watch!


http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/4906/2encode.jpg
Bout snapped my neck when it finished encoding! I was totally stunned!


http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/1796/3total.jpg

I went and checked all of my settings in the bios and software, and I didn't see anything that looked wrong or even extreme. The killer to all of this is it's running at a stock 2.7GHz. I confirmed what I already knew, that My particular CPU is limited to 3.2GHz. Even that is touchy, as you have to get everything just right. I've tested mine on a number of other motherboards, including the $200 Asus, and while my friends could get it to boot into windows at 3.3GHz, it would reset the computer, right in the middle of an encode!. His 3.7GHz Athlon x2 7750, easily hits 3.6 on this board. Whatever caused it, I'm not touching a thing until I see some more results and figure it out. I still don't really believe it, but the clock on the wall does! I was guessing about 20-22 minutes when it was about half way finished encoding. The real results are mind boggling!

Best Regards,
Russ

 

Haha hyper transport wins again. It's all that rocking Phenom style memory bandwidth

Don't get me wrong, Intel is faster period. But for some things AMD's architecture has always been better. Athlon 64 X2s matched early Core 2s quite well in some stuff. Few and far between though XD

 

Not bad. But I see you weren't encoding menus, or extras. Just the main title. Looks like it wouldn't need much compression. I usually back it all up, and average between 25 - 35 minutes. 35 minutes being fairly heavy compression.

 

The file was 6.883GB! Many high 20 to mid 30 thousand frame VOBs. It was so astonishing and exciting to watch that I had to do it over again, because I stopped the Rebuilder process a number of times on the first try, shutting down the program an took over 18 minutes, even though I told it to S#i7 can the files! When I started back up it still resumed at where I stopped! The one I posted was the second. I wrote done the start time with the second one, and took a picture of each completion, so the times all fit! Like I said, the clock on the wall agrees!

Russ

 

according to the screenshot, its not even 6gb. Thats why I say...

I don't mean to rain on your parade buddy.

 

Shaff: They compared an i7 to AMDs. Enough said to be honest. It's been fact for a long time that i7s aren't especially great for games compared to other things. I also like how they clocked the AMD CPU to the max and the i7 to an extent which basically requires no settings changes...
I'm not really sure what direction this forum is taking. We're proving that basic AMD CPUs cost less than intel's extreme edition processors - congrats. Lets not forget that when overclocked to the max the 955BE is just ahead of the i7 975 at stock, which can itself be overclocked a further 30-40%, then consider that the i7 CPU isn't designed to be awesome at games. This is basically like saying how a $200 HD4890 beats a $2000 QuadroFX in games.
Omega: Lol, it's 6168 Megabytes decimal, but Russ just made a typo, he said 6.883 not 5.883.

 

Shaff,
OK! Let me put it the way it is written! 5,883MB! Sorry about the typo. You need to look at the article again they didn't OC anything to the max and compete against the I7 at stock speeds. They gave examples at stock speeds and overclocked. I just wish they would think ahead and use the same colors for each CPU It's a little hard to keep up with the constant changing. You have to pay attention to which ones are the OC and which aren't!

Best Regards,
Russ

 

Surely higher speed in a different colour to stock is easier to read?

 

russ thats sams quote...... LOL

the thing is, if you get oen of the cheapest (MSI X58 pro) and a i920 and 6GB of DDR3 1333/1600

vs a 955 with 4GB of DDR3 1333/1600 and their same priced board, that extra money saved can go to a better GPU which will out do the i7, even at 4GHz.


the article is flawed though, they should have chosen the cheapest i7 set up and clock it to 4ghz, which any tom, sick and harry can do, and then let battle commense.

 

And the i7 would bend the 955BE over a table.... hence the problem with that article. if they're moaning about price, use a Q9550 instead.

 

well if they have the same budget, one for i7 and one for amd for gaming, the amd would win as its a cheaper core build and then you can increace the GPU, which is the most effective in games.

 

because on price, standard retail CPUs are better value than extreme CPUs - that's been the case for what, 30 years?