So I need to know...is getting a quadcore really that much faster...2.67 * 4 CPU's? From what I read, most programs aren't even able to take full advantage of that...so if I'm gonna build a new computer I"ll just get a single core processor with high speed just to be sure.

You need to do much reading if this is your line of thought. Short answer, yes.

 

A little more detail: Intel's Core i7 is the fastest processor on the market right now. Recent benchmarks have shown the Nehalem 2.66Ghz Desktop CPU (the one I ordered) is 20-40% faster than the Intel's own Penryn chip with it at 3.2Ghz.

 

So, while you are partly right that at the moment many applications barely support dual-core, the insanely faster memory access speeds of these newer chips far outweigh any reason you'd want to stick with single or even dual-core when upgrading. And don't forget about the improved HT.

 

Another great thing about i7's is all the overclocking capabilities built right into it. With stock 2.66Ghz already out performing everything on the market, every review I've read says it very easily OC's 3Ghz+, with some even going as high as 3.8Ghz with decent temps.

 

Google for citations.

SourceX;613827']You need to do much reading if this is your line of thought. Short answer, yes.

 

A little more detail: Intel's Core i7 is the fastest processor on the market right now. Recent benchmarks have shown the Nehalem 2.66Ghz Desktop CPU (the one I ordered) is 20-40% faster than the Intel's own Penryn chip with it at 3.2Ghz.

 

So, while you are partly right that at the moment many applications barely support dual-core, the insanely faster memory access speeds of these newer chips far outweigh any reason you'd want to stick with single or even dual-core when upgrading. And don't forget about the improved HT.

 

Another great thing about i7's is all the overclocking capabilities built right into it. With stock 2.66Ghz already out performing everything on the market, every review I've read says it very easily OC's 3Ghz+, with some even going as high as 3.8Ghz with decent temps.

 

Google for citations.

 

 

you can easily up ur i7 into the 3ghz+ without upping your volts past 1.20, i'm at 3.5ghz (turbo on) with very low volts and stable.

Edited March 12, 200916 yr by n0t0

can someone buy me a computer.

get a mac bro. you wont regret it

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

anyways. i was researching SSDs about 6 months ago. they have a lot of potential. even now they outperform a standard sata or ide drives in most tests. the last computer i bought i spent $600 (w/o shipping) on parts from newegg. that was over a year ago and it plays most modern games on highest graphics... probably not for long though. amg 2500+ black edition, gigabyte motherboard, couple gigs of value ram, ati radeon hd 3850, a lanbox case, some other useless specs i won't list.

bottom line is I payed the very minimum for this pc and it's done everything i've needed.

I think i'm going to wait a few more years before I buy another pc though. by then SSD drives should be muchhh cheaper

I would never spend 2 grand on a computer, but then again i'm broke as fuck.

 

I would give that a 9 just to be a dick.

u should get a i7 965 instead of the 920 cuz the unlocked multi is totally worth it.........

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AMIRITE?!?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'd prefer the G Skill 6G(3x2G) DDR3 PC12800 9-9-9-24 over the Corsair even tho the Corsair is good, the $ isn't.

Edited March 12, 200916 yr by horseporn

how do the i7's compare to the core 2 extreme? huge difference?

how do the i7's compare to the core 2 extreme? huge difference?

 

i7 pisses all over it even without the need to OC.

SourceX;613573']

• $14.88 - Huge swastika on the side.
  

 

10/10

u should get a i7 965 instead of the 920 cuz the unlocked multi is totally worth it.........

 

I'd prefer the G Skill 6G(3x2G) DDR3 PC12800 9-9-9-24 over the Corsair even tho the Corsair is good, the $ isn't.

 

wtf is up with thos CAS timings... DE

also this would go better in the computers section

 

ph0ne its not even like you made an effort to make a new efficient troll account

 

i leave sp0rky the honor of the ban hammer

i'll create a new zuter when 16 core comes out and SSD reaches 500 gigs at a better read and write rate.

 

nice machine SX. blu ray burner for the win...they have come down in price big time.

 

2 G's is a good deal.

certainly high tech shit right here

9.5/10

 

i'd go with what you said and tet that 1TB for the non-games and OS crap. 10Krpm HDD's are roughly the same performance as SDD's, but who wants shorter life span and more occupation in your case? besides if you want real performance, you go out and get a 15Krpm SCSI drive

 

as for the cpu and ram and such, i'd say they're a bit ahead of their time, but will certainly perform top notch. definitely future proof. if you're not going to overclock that i7 then you'd deserve to be murdered. the stock cooler will fit a mild overclock. as long as the cpu temp doesn't pass 60C at max load then you'll be fine. i would have ditched the gtx285 and bought 2 4870's (1gb of course) for crossfire, or would've waited for the HD4890 which is coming out in a bit.

 

SSD's now EASILY outperform 15k SCSI drives by HUGE margins. A good SLC SSD drive will outperform 15k SCSI drives in RAID setups and will outlast any platter drive all while consuming far far less power especially compared to the 15k raid's. If you want real performance you go out and buy Intel X25-E. It's made for server's and enterprise but isn't super expensive at ~$410 off newegg for the 32gb drive. The only other enterprise SSD that had performance as good or far better that I read about recently was fusionio but that costs $30 per GB and their smallest SSD is 80gb so that's $2400.

 

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-x25-e-ssd,2158-4.html

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-x25-e-ssd,2158-5.html

 

Both 15,000 RPM hard drives by Hitachi and Seagate require more than 10 W idle power, as they were never designed to be efficient at such a workload.

 

Three of the four SSD's used less than one watt while in use while delivering performance equal to or far greater than 15k SCSI. That's very significant for server's and enterprise setup's.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-x25-e-ssd,2158-6.html

 

As expected, the workstation I/O performance of Intel’s new X25-E flash SSD dominates all of the competition. It is nine times as fast as an Mtron Pro 7500, which also is a professional product that was intended for servers and workstations. While the 15,000 RPM hard drives still did well when compared to the Samsung and Mtron SSDs, the X25-E outclasses them.

The 15,000 RPM hard drives required 17.1 W and 18.5 W of average power during the workstation I/O benchmark; Intel’s X25-E was at only 1.1 W on average.

Low power combined with maximum performance results in mind-boggling efficiency figures for the new X25-E server SSD by Intel. Whether you like the product or not, the X25-E provides the workstation performance of fifteen 15,000 RPM hard drives at 1/16 of their power requirement. We don’t dare to think of the total power requirements of 15 hard drives!

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-x25-e-ssd,2158-7.html

 

Intel’s first SSD, the X25-M, which aims at the premium desktop and mobile market, was already impressive. It still dominates many benchmarks, pairing high performance with great efficiency. But the X25-E is something different altogether.

More importantly, it introduces I/O performance that is 10x to 25x higher than what you can get from the latest 15,000 RPM server hard drives. In almost every I/O benchmark, except the Web server test, the X25-E is three to five times faster than its direct flash SSD competitors.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-x25-e-ssd,2158-9.html

 

This is the SSD that I have to go with my new comp that I'm building and it's worth every penny to me. It's far superior to the one SX bought for his comp so I suppose your comments may be somewhat accurate when referring to his comp and SSD.

 

Now your next statement about ditching the gtx285 to get two 4870's in crossfire is just utter stupidity. There is no benefit to crossfire or sli especially when it comes to gaming since the cards are not synced nor do you really gain any worthwhile performance boost, if any. Therefore you get microstuttering where even though you have a solid fps the actual frame timings are different thus resulting in perceptual glitches due to how the human eye processes vision.

sp0rky;615237']

 

Now your next statement about ditching the gtx285 to get two 4870's in crossfire is just utter stupidity. There is no benefit to crossfire or sli especially when it comes to gaming since the cards are not synced nor do you really gain any worthwhile performance boost, if any. Therefore you get microstuttering where even though you have a solid fps the actual frame timings are different thus resulting in perceptual glitches due to how the human eye processes vision.

 

I agree totally...4870??.......no

Sorry if you posted this already but, what type/size monitor do you plan on using?

Bro, you should pick up one of these and one of these while you're at it. Shit made my gaming experience transcendant, dog.

Bro, you should pick up one of these and one of these while you're at it. Shit made my gaming experience transcendant, dog.

 

Both are huge wastes of money

Nah man, I totally noticed a difference.

Nah man, I totally noticed a difference.

 

That's not evidence of your case. Just some of the usual bullshit spewed by noobs.

 

The stuff is in fact completely useless and consumes power.

http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/9577/sarcasmdetector.png