Gulftown Expense Justification?

[alyarb]

I guess his point was that the i7 920's were hitting the same OC's as the 965 he can't see how an OCer could justify the added expense of a marked up chip that is so similar to its cheaper brothers. if anything the corresponding Xeon would've been the "better" option but whatever. In the case of gulftown, it's still a thousand-dollar chip, but it brings several real advantages that the thousand-dollar bloomfields did not. That's what he is trying to say.

 

[soccerballtux]

I don't know how you managed to justify purchasing an i7 965 in the first place, but having six cores vs. four certainly could make sense if you are running software that utilizes them.

AT review covers that pretty well here.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/2960

As for SSDs, thanx Rubycon, for saying what needs to be said.

To me, including for games, SSDs are easily the most important part in a high end rig these days.

It's baffling hearing people argue against them, as quite frankly, you'd have to be a ridiculously simple/basic user to not appreciate the amazing difference even a cheaper Indilinx SSD makes.

And even simply doing things like installing a program or launching your web browser or iTunes, things the most basic users do, i don't see how one cannot notice the improvement & marvel.

after I've booted my comp, everything opens instantaneously already since all my freq used programs are cached in RAM.

 

[Nemesis 1]

We had this discussion along long time ago . Intel has done well . Good job of seperating the high end from the midrange . . Intel 1st qt results came out today most impressive. 10.3 billion over 2 billion profit . For the worst qt of a year its outstanding . AMds report comes out fri I believe .

Intel is in this to make money. I don't think they care what you think .

 

[n7]

In the first place, thanks for insulting me. Second, I can't use less than a 160 gig ssd, as that's my boot drive, unless I want to re-install Xp, and win7 and 30 or more apps, including all settings.

Not to mention the partitioning, and the cost for no benefit (for me)

Did anyone read my post ?

Wasn't trying to insult you specifically, or anyone.

However, people like yourself & aigo aren't exactly value users, so seeing arguments against SSDs from you two is exactly why Rubycon jumped in, & i agree with her 100%.

 

[faxon]

Wasn't trying to insult you specifically, or anyone.

However, people like yourself & aigo aren't exactly value users, so seeing arguments against SSDs from you two is exactly why Rubycon jumped in, & i agree with her 100%.

yea im going to have to agree as well. the difference between my Vraptor based system and my SSD system is night and day. i fresh imaged them both with the same exact install (same system specs driver/arch wise. one has a Q9550 + 5870 one has Q9650 + 2 HD5870, same mobo and sound card, and of course drive difference). once installing everything i use regularly, it took the vraptor system a minute, after a fresh in stall + everything i use, to be completely ready to use, and to respond instantly upon command. on the SSD system i was in the OS with itunes, browser open, game loading, and playing a music stream, before the Vraptor system finished the windows 7 load screen. it was such a pain in the ass beforehand that i refused to use certain software which i noticed significantly reduced responsiveness and increased boot time, just to keep it to a minimum.

to put it in perspective, i was so impressed with the increase that in building a friend a system, with only $200 from him in return, i put out for a 60GB OCZ agility for him, cause i thought it was the single most important addition to the system i could make. the drive will last longer than any mechanical drive i could give him, since most of mine i can spare are getting on past 3-4 years, and i was going to spend for a drive anyway. i was able to justify it on the $-lifetime alone at that point, considering how cheap he is, but then considering the night and day difference it made for me, as someone who keeps my system as spotless as possible, i figured it would make 10 times as big of a difference for him, since i know he is going to clog the shit out of it once i give it to him. im willing to bet you that if everyone were to upgrade to an SSD we would see a significant reduction in the number of average users calling in to have their system's serviced because "it's to slow now, it was better when it was new", because they would never notice the slowdown even with a cheap indilinx drive. there's no excuse now for not getting one either, with the most basic needs for OS, browser, word processing apps, and maybe a game or 2 that you use most commonly fitting nice and snug on a 60GB SSD, and with the price of ~120gb drives dropping in under $300 regularly. if you want more SSD storage later on, it's simple enough to simply add another, and doing so could even increase your performance further still, since you would have the load spread across 2 drives in the first place

 

[sandorski]

Can't justify the Price for an SSD. Maybe when they come down to 3x$/GB of a HD I'll be willing. I look forward to the day as I'm Sold on the Performance aspect.

 

[DominionSeraph]

It'd be cheaper to just upgrade to Windows 98.
10 second boots off a PATA drive with only a PIII 700.

 

[OILFIELDTRASH]

Another satisfied member of the ssd club. Any computer isn't high end till it has one. Mechanical drives are the biggest bottleneck in any modern system.

 

[Markfw]

What OS and what size are you looking for?

For Win7 I'd recommend the Intel X25G2.

Win XP/7 dual-boot and must be at least 160 gig, vertex speed. And I wanted to spend less than $300(not happening...)

 

[PsiStar]

In your opinion is there any justification to purchase the 6core cpu to replace the I7-975? It didn't look like there was enough of a performance increase to do that. I am just looking for your opinions on it?

Per this ... no I wouldn't think that it would be worthwhile, but this is why I bought the i7 920 (& OC-ed) in the 1st place so I could with out too much reluctance set it aside when I get the i7 980X (soon).

I wonder how overall performance/thruput for some of these distributed process programs changes with HDD buffering turned on versus having an SSD? Just how much drive access is there during the runs & does it slow job completion down by a measurable percent?

I understand that SSD performance can be felt, especially during boot ... but for me that is infrequent. Highly interactive s/w too .... I also run SolidWorks on yet another box and there is little question that SSDs would kick that in the a$$, but I am an occasional SW user anyway so I am still ... meh:\

 

[solofly]

SSDs are more money but they are fast. (no mechanical drive will touch it) I bought two last Dec and I don't regret it...

 

[CurseTheSky]

Are we really having a debate about SSD prices in a Gulftown thread?

If you can afford a 980X, a SSD should be no problem for you. $400-450 on an X25-M G2 160GB or even $600+ on some flavor of a 256GB drive will blow your 4 -> 6 core upgrade out of the water. That is, unless you do intense number crunching with very little storage I/O, and then I'd expect a dual socket server board or perhaps some kind of GPU-based crunching machine.

As far as reliability, I'll take something with no moving parts. Yes, they haven't been proven like HDDs have yet, but other than the Vertex LE drives, firmware-based problems (now solved) with X25-Ms, and a few odd problems with some of OCZ's other offerings, I'm not aware of any mass SSD failures. It pales in comparison to Seagate's 7200.11 fiasco in my mind. Not to mention, no matter what your primary storage solution is, you should have a backup (and a couple of high capacity mechanical HDDs should take care of that for you).

Don't knock it until you try it guys.

 

[aigomorla]

Rolling under the deck laughing...

Have you used even a single SSD?

Does not sound like you have. All I can say is damn! There! You got me cursing!

Yes and for the 100th time ruby i only play games!
ROFL... tell me how a SSD is greater then 6 raptors in raid 0 in gaming performance...

Because you and i both know im already bottle necked on my raptors with my onboard dummy RAID.

Thank you very much for ranting that so I didn't have to. To even consider a Gulftown without an SSD is shocking.

Why is it shocking?
My 980X system is probably the largest on the forum.

She is decked with 12GB of DDR3, 6 raptors in raid 0, and 2 HD4870X2 in quadfire, until the new 512sp fermi's come out.

Lacking? i think not... i'll whoop 99% of all the members on this forum in any benchmark they wish to challange me at 24/7 settings as long as its not straight IO.

Are we really having a debate about SSD prices in a Gulftown thread?

If you can afford a 980X, a SSD should be no problem for you.

Its not the price component... this is me were talking about.
Its the benifit... i just dont see it.

I load my game maps just as fast... the only time i lose is windows bootup, but my system is never turned off....

256gigs... mmmmm ok... but i prefer having over 400gigs in storage capacity.. games take up a grip of space and no i hate uninstalling / reinstalling...

As i said i just dont see it, and i refuse to go back on my SM or ARC Raid controller, because i like Dummy Raid...

Don't knock it until you try it guys.

*Sigh*.... this is me were talking about.
Ive been on the Intel X25-E 3 months b4 they came out on my laptop.

I know SSD's... but that X25-E was the last SSD i told myself i was gonna buy because i thought SLC's were better.
Well they are, but not at the 150% price difference they costed.
Thank god my sponsor was able to get me one @ a very nice discount....
Unfortunately its the only one he could get me.

And no im not getting another SSD until we get ICH11R.
You guys dont seem to understand, our current onboard IO systems can not handle the bandwith at substain speeds.
All you guys are seeing are random burst speeds... The numbers change drastically once u throw ssd's on a controller.

Yes i know, because ruby made try it on a very expensive IO controller, and i didnt like it at all!

 

[Rubycon]

Yes i know, because ruby made try it on a very expensive IO controller, and i didnt like it at all!

I suggested you try it. Apparently your usage patterns don't benefit from it. Personally I cannot stand a system with a mechanical drive or a few of them - connected to a dumb host on the motherboard. IIRC your main complaint was slow wait time at POST. That has been fixed on newer revisions of the 1680ix series. However now I would wait for the 1800 series (SAS6Gbps) that's due anytime. I don't drive but I can see why the "go fast" crowd complains about weak acceleration/handling in cars is all about.

 

[poofyhairguy]

tell me how a SSD is greater then 6 raptors in raid 0 in gaming performance...

Seek times on the cheapest SSD on the market blows away the fastest Raid 0 hard disk array for that category. And most disk access is NOT sustained- it is random.

Because you and i both know im already bottle necked on my raptors with my onboard dummy RAID.

For sustained data transfers, sure. But the Raid 0 doesn't do anything to cut that terrible hard drive seek time.

Why is it shocking?
My 980X system is probably the largest on the forum.

She is decked with 12GB of DDR3, 6 raptors in raid 0, and 2 HD4870X2 in quadfire, until the new 512sp fermi's come out.

Lacking? i think not... i'll whoop 99% of all the members on this forum in any benchmark they wish to challange me at 24/7 settings as long as its not straight IO.

That is why it is so shocking. You have maybe the fastest computer on the forum, except in the one area that is the biggest bottleneck on modern computers- I/O.

It is like you have a one year old Porche equipped with with rotting old tires. Then you are asking us if it is worth trading in the one year old Porche for a just released this month Porche, with the condition that you plan to put the rotting tires on the new Porche.

That example is a little far because obviously a Raid 0 of Raptors are not crap like rotting tires are. Yet your Raid 0 does pale in comparison to two cheapy 40GB Intel SSDs thrown into a Raid 0, which is a fraction of the price of a six-core processor....

I can understand it if you just game and you are certain that the games you play are not loading a single thing from the HDs the entire time you are playing. The second though you go to open a webpage on your gaming rig though my crappy Q series quad blows your best rigs' internet performance out of the water....

 

[nyker96]

I like this quote from xbit on gulftown: sums it up nicely,

"As our tests showed, there are not that many tasks that could benefit substantially from having six cores available to them ...

That is why the new Core i7-980X is obviously targeted for those wealthy enthusiasts who go for the new stuff primarily out of curiosity rather than reasonable interest." -xbit

 

[CurseTheSky]

Aigo, why not RAID 0 Raptors for games, and SSD for an OS drive? That's what most of us do (at least in the sense of having a mechanical HDD for one array of data and SSD for the OS and other important things).

You get the best of both worlds.

 

[Rubycon]

I like this quote from xbit on gulftown: sums it up nicely,

"As our tests showed, there are not that many tasks that could benefit substantially from having six cores available to them ...

That is why the new Core i7-980X is obviously targeted for those wealthy enthusiasts who go for the new stuff primarily out of curiosity rather than reasonable interest." -xbit

They are doing something wrong then.
Everyone else will tell you to buy this processor immediately if you encode video. This is dead on! The Gulftown haters are probably socket 1156 users! :biggrin: I have other chips to compare to. Sure if you have a 920/3520 o/c to 4GHz or higher and do nothing but game then sure this CPU is going to let you down. If I were in that predicament with a mechanical HDD I'd buy a pair of X25M 160s instead.

 

[aigomorla]

Aigo, why not RAID 0 Raptors for games, and SSD for an OS drive? That's what most of us do (at least in the sense of having a mechanical HDD for one array of data and SSD for the OS and other important things).

You get the best of both worlds.

because once again i dont see it!

when i upgrade id like to see it.

975 -> 980X i got 2 more cores.
965 -> 975 i got a D0 with better OC potential.

At least with cpu's i know what im doing.
IO.. i just dont see it... and u cant really max out a SSD or you lose a lot of performance... not to mention intel is gonna drop there 22nm SSD's again... so why waste money now, when i can wait for ICH11R, which is more optimized for SSDs when they come out.

Also i like looking at my raptors... its fun:

That is why it is so shocking. You have maybe the fastest computer on the forum, except in the one area that is the biggest bottleneck on modern computers- I/O.

Once again... how is a single SSD gonna help me out in my games.
Even benching marking... have u seen me do a soley IO benchmark?
Im a hardware preview person... + high end gamer.. and right now SSD's just dont make any noticeable or gaming benefits.

In BadCompany2 i already am one of the first to spawn on the map.. so what more do i need?
In game loading... i didnt notice jack when i had a SSD.

So once again.. what am i benefiting from by running SSDs?
And windows bootup time doesnt count.. because i lose by like 3 seconds... and yes ive timed it.

I dont encode massive files and require fast swap files... hell im even on 12GB of DDR3, so my HD rarely gets used once windows is booted because i disabled page file...

So tell me.. why do i need a SSD?

LOL... ruby is the only one that has made me commit.. and making me commit again, is asking for the moon.
I wont step on SSD's again until ICH11R is out.
It just doesnt make sense.. id rather grab an extra fermi, and go tri sli, then grab a SSD.
At least id see a noticeable frame increase that way when i watch my porn in steroscopic 3D!

 

[Rubycon]

LOL... ruby is the only one that has made me commit.. and making me commit again, is asking for the moon.
I wont step on SSD's again until ICH11R is out.

Well let me put in a way you understand!

Hitching a state of the art SSD to ICH is like watercooling with Thermaltake kits. Got it?

p.s.

Since you're mentioning gaming increases how much increase in gaming experience have you seen going 975 ► 980X?

 

[aigomorla]

Since you're mentioning gaming increases how much increase in gaming experience have you seen going 975 ► 980X?

not noticable...

although i got 2 more cores + 4 threads more then a 975

 

[Toadster]

Well let me put in a way you understand!

Hitching a state of the art SSD to ICH is like watercooling with Thermaltake kits. Got it?

p.s.

Since you're mentioning gaming increases how much increase in gaming experience have you seen going 975 ► 980X?

wait - wut?

in Anand's review on SATA-6G vs SATA-3G - the x58 ICH held up pretty well

Intel’s X58 still has a few tricks left up its sleeve - it manages to be a very high performing 3Gbps SATA controller. Other than in sequential read speed, it’s even faster than Marvell’s 6Gbps controller with a 6Gbps SSD - although not by much.

http://anandtech.com/show/2973/6gbps-sata-performance-amd-890gx-vs-intel-x58-p55/8

 

[Rubycon]

wait - wut?

in Anand's review on SATA-6G vs SATA-3G - the x58 ICH held up pretty well



http://anandtech.com/show/2973/6gbps-sata-performance-amd-890gx-vs-intel-x58-p55/8

It's fine for light duty use - 2 perhaps 3 drives. For power users with 10-24+ drives a dedicated host is the only way to go.

 

[nyker96]

They are doing something wrong then.
Everyone else will tell you to buy this processor immediately if you encode video. This is dead on! The Gulftown haters are probably socket 1156 users! :biggrin: I have other chips to compare to. Sure if you have a 920/3520 o/c to 4GHz or higher and do nothing but game then sure this CPU is going to let you down. If I were in that predicament with a mechanical HDD I'd buy a pair of X25M 160s instead.

personally I wouldn't mind getting a 6core which is the eventuality but a 6core at $1k? well that is very low on my list. I can think of a million things in my house to upgrade with that cash before even getting to the cpu. Like a brand new Eheim water pump for my turt tank, a new 35" LCD TV in my living room, perhaps some of the worn out furnitures could be refreshed. even on the computer, I can get use a new hd5850 or SSDs or a new 23" monitor or a better scanner etc etc. I think Gulftown is a great piece of engineering, fastest cpu on the planet right now. but it's not priced for mass consumption not for another year or two.

 

[Tsavo]

They are doing something wrong then.
Everyone else will tell you to buy this processor immediately if you encode video.

I still encode video by hand...don't need no 6 core CPU for something I can do manually.