I wanna run PCSX2 but also some PC games like Resident Evil 5, Fable 3, Civilization V, and watch a LOT of 1080p anime fansubs as well.
Should I build a
Intel Core i5-750 + GTS250 on Intel H55 board
+ stronger, faster
+ consumes less power (95W)
+ Turbo Boost
- higher price
- no USB 3.0 and SATA 6Gb/s
- no Hyper Threading
- no DirectX 11
- not upgradable to i7 (LGA 1366)
- faulty Foxconn 1156 sockets
AMD PII X4 955 + HD5770 on AMD 880GX board
+ cheaper price
+ USB 3.0 and SATA 6Gb/s
+ DirectX 11
+ Hybrid CrossFire
+ upgradable to newer X6 (AM3)
- weaker clock-for-clock
- consumes more power (125W)
- no Turbo Core
- nothing like Hyper Threading
07-30-2010, 12:33 PM (This post was last modified: 07-30-2010, 01:00 PM by nosisab Ken Keleh.)
If you'll stick with the machine for some years and changing almost everything at once or the whole machine by what matters, I'd suggest the i5
If you feel upgrading few components (like the CPU, RAM or video card...) at a time in a regular basis is a better tradeoff you should go for the AMD without doubts. I find this the better way of keeping a reasonable long term and always above average machine, as indeed in one or two upgrades you may end out with a second less powerful but still decent machine very soon.
That second way is how I do. Actually in one or two major upgrading comes out a third machine, from the cascade upgrading, I donate to caring institutions. It could be sold to reduce the upgrade cost.
The greatest advantages of regular upgrading are distributing the cost and keeping a more 'nowadays' feeling main machine all the time, the first method may let you with an outdated one very soon.
PS: I'm supposing the ability to replace hardware components as skill, if it's not the case there is no advantages at all and one will be limited to less than satisfactory 'solutions' by fair bigger bucks.
07-30-2010, 05:22 PM (This post was last modified: 07-30-2010, 05:24 PM by Dangerousd777.)
Intel. Intel often has higher product quality and usually overclocks better for the same reason. If clock for clock performance is what your looking for then get the Intel i5 750, get a good universal CPU cooler like a rocketfish (what I have) and overclock it.
The old AMD CPUs like Athlon used to burn up when you removed the heatsink, that was never a problem with Pentium III or Pentium 4, they would just freeze or throttle CPU frequency.
If your paying the power bill, Intel is also a better choice because the investment will actually save you money on into the future, for as long as you use it.
If it were me I would splurge on the CPU because I hate finding something I want to try out that ends up bottlenecking horribly on my system because of my CPU, but regardless that I have a Pentium 4, I rarely find such CPU-intensive programs and workloads. Unless it's compression, encoding or next-gen games, then my CPU's capability is still more than necessary often times.
07-30-2010, 06:04 PM (This post was last modified: 07-30-2010, 06:21 PM by nosisab Ken Keleh.)
Many posts are assuming emulation, specially PCSX2 is the only reason behind the PC choice. Most nowadays CPUs in the mainstream allows reasonable good experience, minimal differences in performance may be acceptable enough and often a best cost/benefit is the main guide to buy. Actually if pushing on that meager performance difference, one should opt for BE editions for AMD and the unlocked versions for Intel as a prime requisite.
The Bigger i7 monsters are well ahead the AMD concurrency today but the price is a beast yet bigger than the monster itself. The i5 is a capped version, one could tell it is for the i7 what the celeron was for the Pentium 4 or D, the i3 only justify to fill the gap in the mainstream- segment. To add injury to the harm most in the same time segment for Intel CPUs aren't upgradeable or interchangeable without changing almost the entire machine.
The fact is AMD is a whole generation behind today and still surprisingly quiet and a bit ambiguous about it's real roadmap. Recalling AMD bought ATI, something may be cooking in the background.
PS: In another post I talked about a non confirmable thought of mine, that AMD main concern is Nvidia and not Intel today.
Both, CPU and GPU, are getting on the absolute limit, the tendency may be not try to squeeze the last drop from each one anymore but tightly integrate them together.
07-30-2010, 06:12 PM (This post was last modified: 07-30-2010, 06:13 PM by Dangerousd777.)
Indeed, if you want cost efficiency then buy a cheaper Intel processor with an unlocked multiplier and overclock it as far as it can possibly go (or do the same with an AMD if you prefer). I wouldn't be able to afford a new motherboard for the newer LGA processors so if I just got a Core 2 duo or quad it would be very sufficient for my needs. I'll choose one with the most cache and the best overclocking potential.
AMD isn't a feasible option either because I would have to swap out my motherboard, although AMD Phenom II might be a good choice and altogether it'll cost the same as buying a higher end C2Q.
When you have Final Fantasy X running this well on PCSX2 with my kind of low-end processor it'll make you think about how much CPU you need and are actually going to use over the course of the system's lifetime.
Right now I'm only getting 20% CPU usage with Windows Live, Yahoo Messenger and some tabs open in Mozilla firefox (which sometimes eats up as much CPU as it can when it becomes unresponsive)