Quote:

---

Everlong said:
Ditch AMD.

---

Quote:

---

Digital Dreams said:

Quote:

---

Everlong said:
Ditch AMD.

---

LOL Wut? Any particular reason for this statement? I have used AMD for several of my builds and they offer a lot of bang for the buck and with the right motherboard are easily overclocked yet stable.

---

I've heard rumors from several places now that they will be pulling out of the PC market. Probably pure BS since I can't find any real article on it.

I've always preferred intel.

Quote:

---

Deity208 said:
I remember seeing a chart somewhere about SLI performance, here it is.



It's a little dated but it seems like I can just buy another 9800gt and double my performance. Since I already own one this seems like the most cost effective thing to do, doubling the output for the price of one new card ($70sh).

---

well when you put it like that I guess that would be the cheapest option. what power supply you thinking of grabbing? what is the maximum power connector the board you are thinking of buying will accept?

good idea though for sli connector if it saves it saves. also amd saves. and it works. how in any way/shape or form does intel actually do a better job? do they have a reputation for having chips with a higher built in cache? but isn't that measured by the cores?

I lost track of how many cores give you how many bits as long as the ghz is sufficient to run that much processing power. which it SHOULD, and of course you can over clock. idk 32 bit 64 bit I lost count and wasn't counting before 32 bit.

anyway a lot more speed is determined by other things then just the processing power. more cores help, a good socket helps, good ghz per core, how much ram, how fast your hard disk drive is, how good the built in chips on the main board are, the gpu processing and cache should be considered. power supply, etc.

don't forget you can have the best pc in the world but if you have 20 programs running and 10 of them are internet pages plus another 10 applications ANYTHING will slow down.

show the rest of the build when you are finished. these threads to me are the best way to keep up to date really it's what I look at. I always try and get a good board but it's difficult because each processor matches up to a socket so you can swap the ram and hard disk drive and power supply and expansion cards but no matter what the next processor will always be faster. to be completely honest though I would say imho that nothing beats quad core too much. here is why. most processors aren't clocked too high above 3.0 ghz. if you have a server with several processors it'd be more efficient to me then having 1 8 core processor, plus you'll get a better power supply, have room for more ram, and have basically the same expansion slots more or less.

if you are willing to spend more then $1250 to build your gaming computer, then you might as well just build a server anyway, if you don't mind the extra room

Quote:

---

Deity208 said:
Has anyone built a gaming rig lately without spending too much?
I was just checking out newegg and parts seem really cheap these days.

I don't need a cdrw/case/monitor/keyboard/mouse/speakers etc. Plenty of that shit laying around.
May or may not need a new hard drive, do new rigs still use SATA? I'm out of the loop.

I do need a new power supply/mobo/cpu/gpu/ram.

A few of you keep really up to date with new stuff coming out.
I'm interested in SLI, at least quad core and at least 8 gigs of ram.
Only one video card is needed at the moment but I'd like the option to install a 2nd later on.

Also I noticed on newegg most of the motherboards are micro.. maybe my filter is fucked up but I am not a fan of tiny cramped motherboards.

Back in the day Pricewatch.com was the shit for building pcs.
Oh and I've always stood by ASUS/AMD/Nvidia.


Anyways I'm looking for opinions on the best performance to price parts. Phenom II x6 seems like a good choice? Although I've only been looking for one day.

---

Quote:

---

Seuss said:
> LOL Wut? Any particular reason for this statement?  (Ditch AMD)

About ten years ago, AMD was winning the battle, and I would have recommended AMD over Intel.  However, times change, and right now Intel's performance per dollar is much better than AMD on the middle-end market.  AMD cannot compete on the high-end market, and gamers aren't really interested in stuff on the low-end market.  For servers, and low-end hardaware, AMD is a option that should still be considered.

---

Quote:

---

Shroomism said:
LOL dude no offense but stop babbling you have no idea what you are talking about.

tying those (SLI) connectors together is a major pain in the ass???
dude it's a cable you push onto two connectors.
Takes all of 2 seconds and 5 calories to move the 4 muscles. It doesn't get much easier.

if you are willing to spend more than 1250 to build a gaming computer, you might as well build a server?
That makes zero sense. Two completely different applications and end results. Servers generally have multiple redundant RAID configurations for optimal data storage and backup, gaming rigs usually focus on RAID0 (completely sacrificing redundancy for fastest performance), servers generally use ECC memory, bad idea on gaming rig. Servers generally don't have high end video cards. I could go on. You could build a gaming rig out of a server board or vica versa or a hybrid of some kind but there's usually no point as they are for two completely different purposes.

Your argument for quad cores makes no sense. The reason quad cores are good enough right now is because 99% of games/software are coded to only take advantage of 2-4 cores. For most people 6-8 cores is overkill but these CPUs excel at multitasking and especially certain very specific CPU intensive multithreading apps. For some people, 6/8 cores is better. For current gamers, 2-4 is more than enough. More games are beginning to have (4) multicore support, but they are still few and far between. It will be a while until we start seeing games able to take advantage of 6/8 cores, and by then we will have 12 & 16 core CPUs.

Same with RAM. People think they should build a board with 32GB of RAM because the board supports it. That's stupid thinking as most games will max out at ~4-6GB and unless you are running super heavy photoshop/video editing/AUTOCAD/MAYA/500 background programs etc, then you will never even see more than 12GB of usage. And if you are overclocking the RAM then anything over 6-8GB becomes progressively harder if not impossible to achieve 1600-2100Mhz. So unless you specifically NEED 32/48GB of RAM, (and you will know if you do) then you are better off/going to be running faster with 8/12GB. TLDR: MORE RAM DOES NOT ALWAYS EQUAL FASTER

Your system is only as fast as the weakest link. In general gaming performance that means CPU, GPU, RAM speeds/total memory are the main factors and to a lesser but noticeable effect the HDD speed. PSU has absolutely nothing to do with system speed and everything to do with how stable your system runs, don't support cheap PSUs. And yes no matter what you buy, something faster will come out tomorrow. That's how it works. So either keep trying to have the best of the best on the bleeding edge of content and pay out the ass for it, or buy something relatively modern but last weeks news and get it for half the cost and be content with what you have.

Nvidia/Intel is more highly regarded in general because of performance. AMD and Intel go back and forth on who has the fastest current chip, but the latest bulldozer was a fail, i7 sandy bridge does laps. Their 'world record 8Ghz OC' was only achieved with only 2 cores out of 8 enabled. And yes AMD is planning on moving out of the desktop market and focusing on the mobile front.

AMD is better bang for your buck generally. Intel/Nvidia is the luxury models. There's arguments for every front. AMD has eyefinity and Vision FX but crappy (traditionally) drivers. Nvidia has 3d Vision, CUDA, PhysX acceleration, generally great driver support, etc etc. I am a strictly Intel/ Nvidia guy but I got respek for AMD. You'll never find one of their chips on my system though. In the end it's a personal preference thing and everyone has their opinions. I do however work for an Nvidia partner so I might just maybe be a little slightly biased.



Anyway as to the OP...for video card, I recommend a GTX 560Ti as for the best bang for your buck. Best moderately priced Nvidia card right now and should be able to handle just about any modern title you want to throw at it. Roughly about 75% performance increase over a 9800. And a single 560Ti will outperform 2x 9800s in SLI. With the 9800 you're also working on a 3 generations old card that only supports DX9 so if you want all the latest eyecandy and performance of a modern card I'd definitely check out the 560Ti. A single card will do you good and you could even add a 2nd later if you want. If you plan on ever playing on multiple monitors (3D surround) or one super high resolution monitor, I would recommend getting a card with 2-3GB of VRAM so you don't run into frame buffer issues at super high resolutions.

See this comparison for a good rough visual representation.
A 560Ti (~$250) is close to and rivals the performance of some of the higher end models that cost $400-500+
It's about on par with a GTX 295 which was what like $700 new?


A good idea would be using a single 560Ti as the GPU and then use your 9800 as a dedicated PhysX card.

I'd recommend an i5 2500k for best moderately priced modern Intel chip but if you're going AMD on your own there. Intel FTW

New rigs do still use SATA, but SATA II drives are "old" tech now. SATA III is fast becoming the new standard (double the potential read/write speed).  If you get a SATA III drive make sure your mobo supports it (all of the newer boards should).

SSDs are the latest and greatest and about 20x faster than mechanical drives, but also pretty expensive (although about half or less what they were a year ago). If you are looking for the fastest drive possible, you should look into this. At least a 80gb-120gb SSD for your primary OS and all your games and then run a separate larger normal storage drive for your data/media is how it is usually done. Be Amazed as Windows loads in 5 seconds as opposed to a minute. Watch your jaw drop as Photoshop and any game you click opens up instantly the second you click it. I cannot go ever go back to a mechanical drive as my primary, I've been spoiled by SSD. Although this may not be best for a "budget" build right now, definitely consider one in the future when they get cheaper.

OP lemme know if you need any specific help building, I pretty much help people build high end gaming rigs for a living and work in the aftermarket video card/mobo world so I'm down with the latest infoz although it's all pretty basic anyone with google can find.

---

I wasn't babbling but you basically just skimmed over everything I said

I was comparing the sli connection they had in that picture, which is obviously much more complicated then two sli cards, one sli connector

if you are willing to spend $400 dollars on one single processor with 4 cores, why not build with a server board, use two processors with two cores for $200 each, and have the same processing power, with many many more ghz = no need for overclocking, most games will barely max out 2 gigs of ram, ram doesn't make your computer faster, it just prevents it from slowing down

I understand that what I said basically wasn't an entire lecture the way you wrote it out, well sorry about that. I didn't assume the op needed an entire lecture. I was making a generalized statement that, if you want to spend $400 on a graphics card, $400 on a processor, $400 on 32 gigs of ram, and you want a gaming machine that is so powerful, that it surpassed the need of hardware that can run games these days, then why not go ahead and buy a server board, and build that thing up with the most processing power you can want. in that case you could also add in raid 1+0 with 6 half terabyte ssd's, that might run you about $2000 or more just for the drives, if it's speed you need why not?

come on it's ridiculous, most games now will run just fine with a quad core or six core processor, amd works just fine compared to intel, you can save a lot of money, invest in 5-6 gigs ram, one hdd with high end rpm's, a good graphics card like this:

http://www.nvidia.com/object/product-geforce-gtx-580-us.html

what I was TRYING to say, is if you could build a very powerful server for under $1250, why in the WORLD would you need to spend over that much on a gaming computer, unless you plan to stomp out whatever people can produce for the next 10 years and max out what the next gen consoles might not be able to harness??????

Quote:

---

Shroomism said:
Yeah the numbers really do speak for themselves. The current i7 chips make laps around similarly priced AMDs. People like to say oh well AMD hit the world record 8.x GHz... yeah on 2 cores. And they didn't run any benchmarks just posted a CPU-z score. A super mega overclock means nothing if it can't run stable under load. The true test is an extended burn in test. And those AMD chips from what I have seen, do not tend to handle it well. 

---

Quote:

---

Digital Dreams said:

Quote:

---

Seuss said:
> LOL Wut? Any particular reason for this statement?  (Ditch AMD)

About ten years ago, AMD was winning the battle, and I would have recommended AMD over Intel.  However, times change, and right now Intel's performance per dollar is much better than AMD on the middle-end market.  AMD cannot compete on the high-end market, and gamers aren't really interested in stuff on the low-end market.  For servers, and low-end hardaware, AMD is a option that should still be considered.

---

At no point did I ever try to sell AMD as the be all end all to CPUs, I simply offered op my first hand experience with a "budget" rig. Currently my Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition is playing anything and everything I can throw at it. Games these days are more GPU intensive anyway. If you prefer Intel so be it however "ditch AMD" may be a tad harsh don't you think?

---

Quote:

---

if you want to play really high end video games, a simple 3.0 ghz quad core processor and 3 gigs ram will be sufficient with a good enough build to compensate. most of the reliability needed for gaming comes from the necessity for higher end graphics processing and caching. am I entirely wrong???

---

Quote:

---

Shroomism said:
P67/Z68, i5 2500k(i7 2600k??), 8/12 GB DDR3, 560Ti 2GB (SLI?), 800+ watt 85+ rated PSU, Beast mode engaged at the best bang for the buck.

Don't bother with X79 chipset, P67/z68 is 'just as good' for half the price currently.
Ivy bridge chips coming out soon anyway. With PCI-E 3.0. Which will work with current Sandy bridge mobos.

---

the 2600k has NO performance gain over a 2500k when gaming. and the 560ti is the most over hyped graphics card i've ever seen.
the 6950 costs ~$10-$20 more and has better performance all around (and a HUGE gain over it when you move into higher resolutions), compare crossfired 6950s to SLI 560s and the 6950s blow them 560s out of the water.

best bang for buck would have to be a i7 920 (OCed), 8 gigs RAM, 750W PSU and a 6870
you seem to have forgotten the buck part to "bestbang for the buck".

Quote:

---

Wut a Twist said:
can this kid please be banned?
if he's trolling than that's reason enough, if he's really this dumb than he shouldn't be allowed to give advice on these topics anyway.

---

Quote:

---

Wut a Twist said:

Quote:

---

i remember why i had you on ignore. bye again
PS the rps of a harddrive has literally NOTHING to do with ingame performance, the faster the read speeds of a harddrive the lower the loading times will be, but it's the difference between spending 30 seconds staring at a loading screen compared to 50seconds.. your harddrive speed changes nothing else.
PPS battlefeild 3 scales to eight cores, which means that dual core i3 does considerably less in benchmarks compared to an i7.

can this kid please be banned?
if he's trolling than that's reason enough, if he's really this dumb than he shouldn't be allowed to give advice on these topics anyway.

---

really, two i3 processors probably equaling well over 5.5 ghz is going to get less processing power then one i7? jesus, I guess all these years people building servers with four processors a processor in each socket have been retarded thinking they will get quadruple the processing power. fucking please

I'll go build a server with 4 processors each dual core and get more processing power then your one i7, I'm the troll, total fucking bullshit

Quote:

---

I can't believe I got a 2 year ban

---

Quote:

---

come on it's as though you wrote a book did you think to copy right that book first?

---

it's funny how you've written more than him on the subject, and EVERYTHING you said was either irrelevant or downright WRONG.

Quote:

---

blujay said:
Remember, a faster processor doesn't buy skill either. I could rape you in any Source based game with a 2.4ghz + 8600gt + 1gb of ram box that costs ~400 bucks nowadays.

---

Quote:

---

Buying an i7 series chip for your desktop is completely unnecessary

---

Quote:

---

If it means cutting back on your graphics card, fuck sake take the marginal graphics gain today

---

Quote:

---

Honestly i5 is overkill

---

Quote:

---

I built my girl an i5 rig and told her it will run every game produced in the next decade for sure with nothing more than a 150$ graphics upgrade as the price for better cards drops- and possibly without it- and that's almost surely accurate due to how development accommodates the lowest common denominator (cough, consoles) when possible.

---

Quote:

---

Wut a Twist said:

Quote:

---

blujay said:
Remember, a faster processor doesn't buy skill either. I could rape you in any Source based game with a 2.4ghz + 8600gt + 1gb of ram box that costs ~400 bucks nowadays.

---

as if this has any relevance to the topic at hand?
have fun with your shitty graphics, internet tough guy.

Quote:

---

Buying an i7 series chip for your desktop is completely unnecessary

---

uhh, not for people who use their computers for more than just games and browsing the web.
also the last gen i7s are great chips for gaming, and have amazing OC potential. (you can also buy them for around the same price as the new 2500 chips)

Quote:

---

If it means cutting back on your graphics card, fuck sake take the marginal graphics gain today

---

i already said graphics cards are more important than CPUs for gaming, but if someone needs a more powerful processor for converting files or something else CPU intensive, getting a cheaper GPU is obviously the better option.

Quote:

---

Honestly i5 is overkill

---

maybe for watching my little pony videos, but for gaming and the average computer user i would have to disagree. especially when you factor in the overclock potential, it has the best performance:price ratio you can get right now.

Quote:

---

I built my girl an i5 rig and told her it will run every game produced in the next decade for sure with nothing more than a 150$ graphics upgrade as the price for better cards drops- and possibly without it- and that's almost surely accurate due to how development accommodates the lowest common denominator (cough, consoles) when possible.

---

i don't know whether to laugh or cry at this. but this right here tells me you know NOTHING about computers (no wonder you agree with the troll; who by the way was making no sense, so i have no idea how you managed to decipher and agree, with what he was saying).

the new consoles are going to be released within a year/two years, than there's the fact that the next gen of GPUs are just around the corner (new architecture and not just rebranded radeon 5xx and GTX 4x cards, like our current gen GPUs) the developers will be opting for this new hardware and i guarantee within three years your will be struggling at high resolutions for the new games, even with a second one. look up moors law (it's not really a law) and the exponential growth of computers and their hardware.

---

Quote:

---

Shroomism said:
That server board you posted is the same story as the one I posted.
Yeah it's a cheaper board. But it requires XEON 55xx chips. Here's an example of one of the CHEAPER ones. - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819117182
Either way, you are not building that board without spending 2k+ on CPUs

My entire point was that an i3 chip will NOT support dual chips on a single board as far as I know. Nor will an i7. You need a XEON W55xx.

Also you cannot compare a laptop i7 to a desktop i7 2600k, 920, 990x or whatever. They are different chips designed for mobile applications.

---

Quote:

---

You are dumb. Nice derogatory straw-man, too. I wasn't even replying to you. You expose your own rude ignorance by dragging my personal preferences into this kicking and screaming. FYI: the box I built my girlfriend is an i5 rig and it tears through anything you throw at it. It will continue to do so for quite a while. That's the only point I was making. That box is better than 80% out there clocked at 3.4ghz with 4+gb ram and room for any size graphics with a 1k PSU and 1T hard drive. So you should shut the fuck right up and stop being an elitist asshole, because most people can't spend more than $1,200 on their personal computer builds. We built hers for ~900 after peripherals, and that is a damn sweet deal.

For playing modern video games, an i7 is overkill. PERIOD. I mis-spoke. An i5 is probably right where you want to be for "kick-ass" PC gaming tech. Obviously more is always better. There was no reason to nitpick me like that, and it made you look like a douche. An i5 is not overkill. I misspoke. No need to fucking light my goddamn house on fire.

I happen to be a computer scientist. So you can fuck yourself. The chance that next-gen consoles outpace the current series of graphics cards is extremely slim due to cost-per-unit. Even to put something equivalent of a GTX460 (lowest budget entry level card worth buying) in every box, they're going to be pushing $400 with a decent loss on each sale, just like last generation. In two years when they get ready to manufacture their next generation, that level of performance will have dropped to where it's appropriate to include. The upper end will probably still cost too much in two-three years.

I said it would run everything. So you're a dipshit for calling me an idiot while you can't handle basic reading comprehension. I didn't say max res, I didn't say max settings. I said it would run them; and that's more than a lot of people have. Stop being an entitled, selfish little cunt. You sound like a fourteen year old.

---

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA o man this is fucking gold.
i hope you didn't break a finger while slamming your keys
i wasn't even trolling. just telling it how it is.
learn to read and stop flaming.
but thanks for the laughs,
:internettoughguy:

Quote:

---

As an aside:

I hate to break this to you, but there's more to gaming than another step in anti-aliasing. Some of the most beautiful games don't require jack under the hood because they are stylistically beautiful, and that's not going to change. The only reason I spent $140 to buy this GTX460? My old 8800OC burned out and the extremely jaded 8600 backup I had wasn't able to cut the cake.

So keep jacking your digidick, I fucked a sexy lady today and that's one more pussy than you're in; since we're pulling straw man bullshit into this building-a-computer discussion. That's right. The pony guy has more sex that's better per-capita than you do. I happen to have trained myself to jizz more than one without going limp. You can't buy that on Newegg, bitch.

---

Quote:

---

I hate to break this to you, but there's more to gaming than another step in anti-aliasing. Some of the most beautiful games don't require jack under the hood because they are stylistically beautiful, and that's not going to change. The only reason I spent $140 to buy this GTX460? My old 8800OC burned out and the extremely jaded 8600 backup I had wasn't able to cut the cake.

---

Quote:

---

blujay said:

Quote:

---

Wut a Twist said:

Quote:

---

blujay said:
Remember, a faster processor doesn't buy skill either. I could rape you in any Source based game with a 2.4ghz + 8600gt + 1gb of ram box that costs ~400 bucks nowadays.

---

as if this has any relevance to the topic at hand?
have fun with your shitty graphics, internet tough guy.

Quote:

---

Buying an i7 series chip for your desktop is completely unnecessary

---

uhh, not for people who use their computers for more than just games and browsing the web.
also the last gen i7s are great chips for gaming, and have amazing OC potential. (you can also buy them for around the same price as the new 2500 chips)

Quote:

---

If it means cutting back on your graphics card, fuck sake take the marginal graphics gain today

---

i already said graphics cards are more important than CPUs for gaming, but if someone needs a more powerful processor for converting files or something else CPU intensive, getting a cheaper GPU is obviously the better option.

Quote:

---

Honestly i5 is overkill

---

maybe for watching my little pony videos, but for gaming and the average computer user i would have to disagree. especially when you factor in the overclock potential, it has the best performance:price ratio you can get right now.

Quote:

---

I built my girl an i5 rig and told her it will run every game produced in the next decade for sure with nothing more than a 150$ graphics upgrade as the price for better cards drops- and possibly without it- and that's almost surely accurate due to how development accommodates the lowest common denominator (cough, consoles) when possible.

---

i don't know whether to laugh or cry at this. but this right here tells me you know NOTHING about computers (no wonder you agree with the troll; who by the way was making no sense, so i have no idea how you managed to decipher and agree, with what he was saying).

the new consoles are going to be released within a year/two years, than there's the fact that the next gen of GPUs are just around the corner (new architecture and not just rebranded radeon 5xx and GTX 4x cards, like our current gen GPUs) the developers will be opting for this new hardware and i guarantee within three years your will be struggling at high resolutions for the new games, even with a second one. look up moors law (it's not really a law) and the exponential growth of computers and their hardware.

---

I said it would run everything. You're calling me an idiot while you can't handle basic reading comprehension. I didn't say max res, I didn't say max settings. I said it would run them; and that's more than a lot of people have. You sound like a fourteen year old.

---

I will say this though, max res is what most gaming fanatics go for, other wise why build a pc when you could play just about any game on an xbox 360 or ps3. most people willing to build a gaming pc want max res which is a bit fanatical.

I agree with your argument though, the i7 isn't bad and it's modified it's distributions a little bit, but I don't see why a build with an i5 chip and the newest really upgraded nvidia geforce card couldn't handle the job just fine. the newest nvidia geforce card I believe has 2 gb video ram, and 256 bit processing, it's a beast to say the least. if you can find that card as an sli compatible version and throw two of them together, you have max res that is going to work with most games for years.

anyway I guess we have established all this, I don't want to drag this out by repeating the same thing for the dozenth time

Quote:

---

this quote is for blujay

Quote:

---

actual tech forums and not places like the shroomery where you'll get noobs like imachavel who spread nonsense

---

he IS spreading nonsense.. and it's obvious he doesn't know what he is talking about either.

i was asking for him to be banned because he was clearly trolling, (i already pointed out where, although im sure you can find other areas)

Quote:

---

maybe for watching my little pony videos, but for gaming and the average computer user i would have to disagree.

---

hahaha what do you find wrong with this? are you really that insecure about your little pony fetish to flip out to this extent?

Quote:

---

you know NOTHING

---

taken out of context, but yes you proved my point by saying a gaming rig will last a decade.
but hell maybe you're right, ignoring how useless computers from 10 years ago are today, maybe you can build a computer right before the next generation of consoles and GPU hardware and make it last 10 years, hell i can't tell the future and now that intel has a monopoly maybe, just maybe that pc will make it.

but honestly i could tear every sentence of your posts apart showing your lunacy, but it would obviously be a huge waste of time considering how you had a nervous breakdown already.
best part would have to be: "i wasn't even replying to you" yes you were, in ALL your posts in this thread

---

Quote:

---

it is much better to go to an actual store and get all your parts then order online, especially considering that if you get the wrong thing you can drive to the store to return it instead of a lengthy send back process

---

NONONONONONONNONONNONO no. NO.
search the prices online, online stores you'll have to wait/pay for shipping, but those local stores always jack up the price for that same reason, then there's the storage, handling and marketers etc you're paying extra for as well. online shopping>instore, it may not be as convenient but it will almost ALWAYS be cheaper.

there's so much wrong with your guys posts.. ill try to help.

Quote:

---

wow that's an expensive processor and only clocked at 2.66 ghz? wtf makes a new processor worth so much money anyways if it has the same clock rate as an older processor, what good is more cache if you can't use it accordingly

---

i already showed you clock speed does NOT equal performance, this is a marketing technique used to fool the average idiot, and anybody who doesn't know a thing about computers.
second it's a server CPU, they're always more expensive. it's really not worth all that money but that was your original point, "you might as well build a server pc with all that money and get two processors" we all told you that you were wrong but you wouldn't listen and instead went ahead and told the one person being nice to you that he should "write a novel" seriously kid learn some respect. hell i don't know why i'm even responding to you. i guess i just don't want someone to go waste their money on some bullshit server parts because of your poor advice

Quote:

---

Most people with hard core processors won't notice how much faster their computer is unless they are already maxed out on ram

---

maxing out on your ram will slow down your computer regardless how hard your processor is working, you WILL notice a huge difference between a system with a pentium chip in it compared to even a core 2 chip in it (both with only 2gb RAM, but yes if the RAM is maxed out than the computer will experience slowdown)

Quote:

---

wtf makes a new processor worth so much money anyways if it has the same clock rate as an older processor, what good is more cache if you can't use it accordingly? having a processor with 16 cores or whatever it will be but clocked at the same ghz as an older dual core processor, to me is like having a pc with 16 gigs ram with a single core processor

---

look at some benchmark tests of a pentium chip and that xeon processor, you'll see a huge difference between quad core and single core performance (even in single threaded applications and especially in multi threaded applications. PROTIP: most apps use at least two cores at this point, giving a huge performance gain compared to single core chip)
to answer your question the new architecture and its performance gain is what makes it worth so much money, also because intel has a monopoly in that market.

Quote:

---

why is amd thrown to the curb so much?

---

for the same reason they aren't going to make any new desktop CPUs; THEY CAN NOT COMPETE WITH INTEL. i think i already provided a link to why bulldozer was such an epic fail, but it just goes to show having more cores and a faster clock speed means nothing when you have a shitty architecture.

Quote:

---

Jesus this shit was fast

---

yes RAID will make multiple harddrive solutions work well, but other than starting up windows/applications faster it has no use for ingame performance, and if you want to see some real speed buy an SSD.

Quote:

---

why build a pc when you could play just about any game on an xbox 360 or ps3.

---

alot of people use PCs as their home theater solutions, consoles can not compete, than there's the fact that you can swap parts within your computer at any time, you can truly customize it and not be constrained to proprietary hardware/software. consoles cannot replace pcs for anything other than gaming, (which pcs do better anyway).

Quote:

---

I'm really not interested in talking to someone who has to make everything that personal.

Calling people dumb while you can't even take the time to capitalize the letter "I"... Or use punctuation?  Really?

---

Quote:

---

blujay said:
Remember, a faster processor doesn't buy skill either. I could rape you in any Source based game

---

i didn't make this personal. even though you've been trying real hard to make it that way.

this guy just admitted to be posting with a puppet account, why is he allowed to troll on it?
if he isn't trolling idk what to call this