|
When using this resource, please read FragKrag's opening post. The Tech Support forum regulars have helped create countless of desktop systems without any compensation. The least you can do is provide all of the information required for them to help you properly. |
@Thyra -
A lot of people have a mistaken impression that an i7 must be radically different from an i5, a better overall chip that's more advanced. That impression is false, created by the naming convention. Frankly, I don't want to know how many people bought an i7 just because they thought it was better overall than an i5.
The only difference between the i5 and the i7 series of desktop chips is: hyperthreading. That's it. Everything else is the same. (For desktops, Celeron = 1 or 2 cores, Pentium = 2 cores, i3 = 2 cores with hyperthreading, i5 = 4 cores, i7 = 4 cores with hyperthreading.)
Ok, then. What is hyperthreading? It's a technology that allows the CPU to simulate having more processing cores. The i5, for example, has four physical cores that process information. The i7, by contrast, has the same four physical cores but can also simulate four more cores through hypterthreading. This is useful for software programs that can utilize more than four cores, but that don't use those cores to their full capacity.
Example 1:
StarCraft 2, most games, most programs people use in general: These programs are programmed to use four cores or less (SC2 can only utilize 2, stupid Blizzard), and so cannot use hypterthreading. The i7 will perform virtually identically with the i5.
Example 2:
Winzip, video encoding (see: streaming, other uses): These programs love them some cores. Give them more cores, simulated or not, and they'll use 'em. The i7 will have improved performance over the i5 for these purposes, but they aren't common.
Example 3:
Shogun 2: Total War: the only game I know of that can actually use more than 4 cores. Surprisingly, it does NOT benefit from the hyperthreading on the i7-2600k, but it does benefit somewhat from the 6 physical cores on the far more expensive i7-3930k. Presumably this is because it can use more than 4 cores, but uses the cores available to it to full capacity, thus leaving no extra processing power for the merely simulated cores provided by hyperthreading. (Someone correct me if I'm wrong.) So here, again, the i5-2500k will have essentially identical performance to the i7-2600k.
So basically, yeah, your thinking is wrong. The i5-2500k is basically the same processor that will last just as long, unless you use the small number of programs which benefit from hyperthreading. On this forum, that generally means asking people if they intend to stream, since gaming (i5 is identical to i7) and streaming (i5 is inferior to i7) are usually the two most relevant tasks.
|
Just a quick question, I was originally planning to get a 580, but is it worth splashing that extra bit to get a 590 or even the new 7900 series? If so which of the two?
|
Depends on your resolution and purposes, of course (for SC2, any of those would be a waste of money).
But in general, you don't want the 590. The 7970 is worth it over the 580, unless prices have dropped for the 580 a lot. Getting a used 580 would not be the worst idea either.
Edit: just noticed your sig. Casual reminder (I'm sure you know) that GPU does not help streaming.
|
On January 26 2012 01:07 MisterFred wrote:
Depends on your resolution and purposes, of course (for SC2, any of those would be a waste of money).
But in general, you don't want the 590. The 7970 is worth it over the 580, unless prices have dropped for the 580 a lot. Getting a used 580 would not be the worst idea either.
Edit: just noticed your sig. Casual reminder (I'm sure you know) that GPU does not help streaming.
Yes, I'm a caster for our show and McDuffs does the streaming for us 
I see, from a hardware store I usually buy stuff from, 580s still seem around 350 pounds and the 7970 is around 550, so it's a 200 quid difference between them. I'm primarily looking just to start running stuff on high/ultra like BF3 and future games when they are released.
|
On January 26 2012 00:16 MisterFred wrote:+ Show Spoiler +@Thyra -
A lot of people have a mistaken impression that an i7 must be radically different from an i5, a better overall chip that's more advanced. That impression is false, created by the naming convention. Frankly, I don't want to know how many people bought an i7 just because they thought it was better overall than an i5.
The only difference between the i5 and the i7 series of desktop chips is: hyperthreading. That's it. Everything else is the same. (For desktops, Celeron = 1 or 2 cores, Pentium = 2 cores, i3 = 2 cores with hyperthreading, i5 = 4 cores, i7 = 4 cores with hyperthreading.)
Ok, then. What is hyperthreading? It's a technology that allows the CPU to simulate having more processing cores. The i5, for example, has four physical cores that process information. The i7, by contrast, has the same four physical cores but can also simulate four more cores through hypterthreading. This is useful for software programs that can utilize more than four cores, but that don't use those cores to their full capacity.
Example 1:
StarCraft 2, most games, most programs people use in general: These programs are programmed to use four cores or less (SC2 can only utilize 2, stupid Blizzard), and so cannot use hypterthreading. The i7 will perform virtually identically with the i5.
Example 2:
Winzip, video encoding (see: streaming, other uses): These programs love them some cores. Give them more cores, simulated or not, and they'll use 'em. The i7 will have improved performance over the i5 for these purposes, but they aren't common.
Example 3:
Shogun 2: Total War: the only game I know of that can actually use more than 4 cores. Surprisingly, it does NOT benefit from the hyperthreading on the i7-2600k, but it does benefit somewhat from the 6 physical cores on the far more expensive i7-3930k. Presumably this is because it can use more than 4 cores, but uses the cores available to it to full capacity, thus leaving no extra processing power for the merely simulated cores provided by hyperthreading. (Someone correct me if I'm wrong.) So here, again, the i5-2500k will have essentially identical performance to the i7-2600k.
So basically, yeah, your thinking is wrong. The i5-2500k is basically the same processor that will last just as long, unless you use the small number of programs which benefit from hyperthreading. On this forum, that generally means asking people if they intend to stream, since gaming (i5 is identical to i7) and streaming (i5 is inferior to i7) are usually the two most relevant tasks.
Close enough. I hate using the word "simulate" here though since it belies the nature of hyperthreading.
Normally a process can only execute one instruction at a time. However when the instruction is small enough, a processor can fit a second instruction at the same time (think of two 32-bit executes in a 64-bit processor, though this is actually different).
Hyperthreading is the name given to the method that this is organized. The Operating System designates a location for another processor, and when the actual processor responds that it has a hand free, a hyperthreaded instruction can sneak in there when normally it would have to wait for another toggle.
Thus in your first example 4 core processes cant use hyper threads because instructions must be executed one after the other. Consider the following process.
Two variables A and B. You want to swap the values, so that whatever was in A is now in B, and whatever was in B is now in A. For this we need to employ a temporary variable C. The code looks like this.
A > C
B > A
C > B
It is logically impossible to assign these simultaneously. Not across multiple cores, not across the same core twice. When it comes to video games, this is the biggest problem of them all. If I execute all three of the above at the same time, lord knows what the result will be. Even when the instructions are tiny ( Push, pull, pop) you must still instantiate this over 3 distinct toggles.
Your second example involves small instructions done over and over, with each instruction independant of all the others.
Your third example is an example where the application is written in a way that allows for a lot of cores to be used, however the instructions are too big to fit 2 at a time.
So why is a certain Sandy Bridge core chosen to become an i7 instead of an i5? The better one is chosen to become an i7 because the better one deals with heat and power better. In all processors, work is distributed across the processor evenly so that the processor lasts longer. Think of juggling a hot object between your hands. Except you have 64 hands and one very hot object that takes up 32 of your hands to hold. You rotate between all of them. A processor with hyperthreading is robbed of this luxury at times. So a better core is chosen.
Does this mean that performance of an i7 is better for everything? Nope. Can you overclock an i7 more, even with hyperthread disabled? Maybe it will deal with the heat better but it wont necessarily do more with less voltage.
But people like to see 8 graphs in windows task manager. In either case, the i7 and i5 are identical in performance for processes that dont make use of hyperthreading, which is a loooooooooooooot of things.
|
@Firesilver
Assuming you have a 1920x1080 monitor and want ALL the flashy stuff turned on, I'd go for the 580 then. It's overkill for almost everything out there, and should max BF3 (one of the hardest games on graphics currently) if you turn MSAA off. Looking at PC part picker, that shop seems about in line with other UK prices; you guys are really getting screwed on 7970 prices.
Here in the states, the 7970 is about $550 (=350 pounds), while the 580 has dropped to $500. For a 200 pound difference, the 7970 won't be worth it, especially on one monitor. I was assuming more of a 30 pound difference.
Speaking of which, the 580 cards with 1.5gb of ram & 3gb of ram should perform identically for 1920x1080 resolution. The extra ram is really only useful for the really big resolutions/multi-monitor setups, in case you're thinking of spending more for a 580 with 3gb of ram.
@Medrea
Thanks for the lesson! And here I thought i7 chips actually had a minor physical difference with i5 chips. Learn something new every day - and now I also see why 'simulate' is misleading.
|
On January 26 2012 02:02 MisterFred wrote:
@Firesilver
Assuming you have a 1920x1080 monitor and want ALL the flashy stuff turned on, I'd go for the 580 then. It's overkill for almost everything out there, and should max BF3 (one of the hardest games on graphics currently) if you turn MSAA off. Looking at PC part picker, that shop seems about in line with other UK prices; you guys are really getting screwed on 7970 prices.
Here in the states, the 7970 is about $550 (=350 pounds), while the 580 has dropped to $500. For a 200 pound difference, the 7970 won't be worth it, especially on one monitor. I was assuming more of a 30 pound difference.
Speaking of which, the 580 cards with 1.5gb of ram & 3gb of ram should perform identically for 1920x1080 resolution. The extra ram is really only useful for the really big resolutions/multi-monitor setups, in case you're thinking of spending more for a 580 with 3gb of ram.
I see, I think I'll go with the 580 then, many thanks for the quick and informative replies 
|
On January 26 2012 01:45 Firesilver wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 01:07 MisterFred wrote:
Depends on your resolution and purposes, of course (for SC2, any of those would be a waste of money).
But in general, you don't want the 590. The 7970 is worth it over the 580, unless prices have dropped for the 580 a lot. Getting a used 580 would not be the worst idea either.
Edit: just noticed your sig. Casual reminder (I'm sure you know) that GPU does not help streaming. Yes, I'm a caster for our show and McDuffs does the streaming for us I see, from a hardware store I usually buy stuff from, 580s still seem around 350 pounds and the 7970 is around 550, so it's a 200 quid difference between them. I'm primarily looking just to start running stuff on high/ultra like BF3 and future games when they are released.
http://www.aria.co.uk/Products/Components/Graphics Cards/AMD/AMD 7970 Series/Gigabyte Radeon HD 7970 3072MB GDDR5 PCI-Express Graphics Card ?productId=47769
Nice hardwarestore you use
|
And that's all the flashy stuff in the most demanding games, with lots and lots of AA turned on. Unless you're sitting really close to a 27"+ 1920x1080 monitor, it's not really that important.
For 1920x1080 gaming, a GTX 560 Ti 448 is already very powerful and about as far as you can go pricewise without going past the "omg I'm getting owned on price/performance" level. Of course the price isn't so important to some buyers, but if you're looking for any kind of value on a mainstream setup (1920x1080, 1920x1200, or smaller), you're generally not looking for the flagship products. GTX 560 Ti 448 costs like 60% of GTX 580 for something like 80% of the performance, where you're probably not going to get anything meaningful out of the extra the GTX 580 can do.
|
On January 26 2012 02:07 Shikyo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 01:45 Firesilver wrote:On January 26 2012 01:07 MisterFred wrote:
Depends on your resolution and purposes, of course (for SC2, any of those would be a waste of money).
But in general, you don't want the 590. The 7970 is worth it over the 580, unless prices have dropped for the 580 a lot. Getting a used 580 would not be the worst idea either.
Edit: just noticed your sig. Casual reminder (I'm sure you know) that GPU does not help streaming. Yes, I'm a caster for our show and McDuffs does the streaming for us I see, from a hardware store I usually buy stuff from, 580s still seem around 350 pounds and the 7970 is around 550, so it's a 200 quid difference between them. I'm primarily looking just to start running stuff on high/ultra like BF3 and future games when they are released. http://www.aria.co.uk/Products/Components/Graphics Cards/AMD/AMD 7970 Series/Gigabyte Radeon HD 7970 3072MB GDDR5 PCI-Express Graphics Card ?productId=47769Nice hardwarestore you use
Wow, huge difference in price there, Thanks for that.
On January 26 2012 02:14 Myrmidon wrote:
And that's all the flashy stuff in the most demanding games, with lots and lots of AA turned on. Unless you're sitting really close to a 27"+ 1920x1080 monitor, it's not really that important.
For 1920x1080 gaming, a GTX 560 Ti 448 is already very powerful and about as far as you can go pricewise without going past the "omg I'm getting owned on price/performance" level. Of course the price isn't so important to some buyers, but if you're looking for any kind of value on a mainstream setup (1920x1080, 1920x1200, or smaller), you're generally not looking for the flagship products. GTX 560 Ti 448 costs like 60% of GTX 580 for something like 80% of the performance, where you're probably not going to get anything meaningful out of the extra the GTX 580 can do.
I'm running a 34" TV as a monitor at the moment, the GTX 275 XXX edition I have at the moment is decent but struggles on the higher settings which is what I'm hoping to play on, and thanks for the tip on the 560s, they were my other choice.
|
so just built my computer, everything fit fine, all the cables are connected. i turn on the computer and my radeon hd 6870 makes a whizzing sound, is it not snug enough, to i need to tighten it or something or are cables hitting it causing it to whizz. it's pretty fucking annoying, i wanted a silent computer and it makes a lot of noise. I can't even get into the BIOS because i have one of those plugs that can connect into gpu but not into the mobo... if that makes sense, so i have to get that adapter to download the drivers for the video card. how can fix that whizzing problem because it's super annoying. i wish it was plug and play, i want to start playing sc now i have to wait for a friend to bring the adapter >_<
|
Would one of you critique, suggest, or give feedback on this?
http://pcpartpicker.com/p/45xU
Goal : Skyrim, SC2, Witcher 2, Guild Wars 2, etc on high or highest settings with smooth FPS.
|
On January 26 2012 16:38 AAyeR wrote:
so just built my computer, everything fit fine, all the cables are connected. i turn on the computer and my radeon hd 6870 makes a whizzing sound, is it not snug enough, to i need to tighten it or something or are cables hitting it causing it to whizz. it's pretty fucking annoying, i wanted a silent computer and it makes a lot of noise. I can't even get into the BIOS because i have one of those plugs that can connect into gpu but not into the mobo... if that makes sense, so i have to get that adapter to download the drivers for the video card. how can fix that whizzing problem because it's super annoying. i wish it was plug and play, i want to start playing sc now i have to wait for a friend to bring the adapter >_<
If you wanted a silent computer, you should have got a sound dampening case.
The rest of what you said makes no sense. All quality power supplies have a 4+4pin EPS connector for the motherboard along with a 6+2pin PCIe connector for the graphics card.
Maybe the sound you're describing is coil whine? You need to return the card if its annoying you...
|
i got the fractal case, it is sound dampening. i got the corsair cx420 you reccomended. well i tried connecting the monitor directly to to the video card, because that's the only place it would fit, the input on top , it doesn't fit because i don't have that adapter for it ( the one that goes into the motherboard). the power is fine, the card is moving, but i got no display on my monitor
|
|
|
the power supply is fine, i need to download the drivers before i can use the video card input right?
|
And I'm pretty sure I never recommended a Corsair CX. The CWT CX units are well known for having coil whine and that's probably what you're hearing.
You don't need to download any drivers before getting a display on the monitor. You're not describing your problem very clearly. Do you have both 24pin and 4pin connectors plugged into the motherboard and all the 6pin connectors plugged into the graphics card?
|
I couldn't quite parse that response either. What doesn't fit into which port? They have names like DVI (HDMI, DisplayPort, VGA), you know. Maybe if you could be bothered to write coherent sentences or phrases, or look up something you don't know, it would be easier for others to help and you wouldn't be wasting your own time.
Is the monitor really plugged into the video card, or is that a poor guess or interpretation on my part?
|
Well my friend built the computer for me, he says he "put 6 pins out of 12 pci-e " and yeah we did put the 24 pin in, thats why the computer did start.
|
Well there's your problem. Both 6pin PCIe connectors need to be connected for the card to work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
