Impressed with my 1090t

[toyota]

Far from $50, it was $70+tax cheaper when I purchased it compared to a 2500K, not to mention I saved $30 on my motherboard. So really, I saved about $120 after rebate. In the long term, i get 2 more cores and if i need to upgrade my CPU, i get to save another $150 by not having to buy another motherboard.

Also, far from a 200 watt difference.

dont play dumb. I was talking about with your cpu at 4.0 and you know it. and I already linked you right to it earlier but I guess you need a picture since clicking on the link was too much trouble. in the other link I posted earlier too even the stock 2500k beat the X6 at 4.0 in gaming.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

 

[toyota]

You're talking to a guy who's last 3 chips have been Intel made...

E8500, Q9550, i5 2430M.

well good then. obviously you did not properly evaluate your current purchase though.

 

[RavenSEAL]

well good then. obviously you did not properly evaluate your current purchase though.

I was on a tight budget and I had to make it work, building my computer was a giant privilege considering my current situation.

 

[toyota]

I was on a tight budget and I had to make it work, building my computer was a giant privilege considering my current situation.

same here though. I looked long and hard at the X6 with the option to go Bulldozer too. after ALL things were consider though it was less than 10% difference less in my build costs to go with a cpu that used more power and was slower. I knew the X6 power consumption would go through the roof if I tried to oc it to match the stock 2500k. at the same time. the already faster 2500k could oc to 4.2 with nothing more than a multi change and still use less power than a stock X6. that means less heat and a cheaper power supply for oced 2500k as opposed to slower oced X6.


I also finally figured that Ivy Bridge would be a better upgrade path if needed since Bulldozer was starting looking unimpressive based on leaks. so again in the end when ALL things were considered, a 2500k made more sense. its also actually cheaper overall when all the other factors I just mentioned are considered. thats also been the conclusion of basically every tech site out there too.

 

[skipsneeky2]

My most demanding application will in fact be BF3 with my next build .

Want to run ultra on the gtx570 which i know the 560ti couldn't deliver without low fps or running out of vram about the only reason why i will pick the 1090t over the intel.

Running medium 1600x1200 now with 1920x1080 soon with a new monitor so really want a worthy gpu to deliver ultra now and 1080p high without vram limits..

 

[fourdegrees11]

For someone with a strict budget limit who has to decide between an AMD setup with a better GPU vs an Intel setup with a lower quality gpu it can still make sense to go am3. For people like me upgrading from a 2.5 year old am3 build it definitely made sense to get a 1090 for $160 over an i5 with new MB for way more.

If I was starting from scratch I would go Intel though, as I can flex my budget based on where I feel I'm getting my $$$ worth

 

[zlejedi]

For someone with a strict budget limit who has to decide between an AMD setup with a better GPU vs an Intel setup with a lower quality gpu it can still make sense to go am3. For people like me upgrading from a 2.5 year old am3 build it definitely made sense to get a 1090 for $160 over an i5 with new MB for way more.

If I was starting from scratch I would go Intel though, as I can flex my budget based on where I feel I'm getting my $$$ worth

Generally yes - if you have Am3 mobo with something like athlon x2 dropping Phenom II X4 or X6 (still X6 is pointless for gaming only rig) is probably optimal solution.

For people without upgrade option it would be just wasted money since they could get so much more for only a few bucks more.

 

[3DVagabond]

Generally yes - if you have Am3 mobo with something like athlon x2 dropping Phenom II X4 or X6 (still X6 is pointless for gaming only rig) is probably optimal solution.

For people without upgrade option it would be just wasted money since they could get so much more for only a few bucks more.

Do most of the people here really only play games and argue on forums with their computers? Not only does it seem that people only "play" on their computers, but they are actually contemptuous of people who do more. Not you, mate. You are actually quite reasonable. I've only quoted you for the "gaming rig only" part of your post. :thumbsup:

There are situations where the PhII x6's work as good or better than the 2500k for $50.00 (or more) less.

 

[BD231]

 

[amenx]

I was impressed with my P4 2.8 Northwood many years ago. It was running everything fine and playing all games properly with a 6600gt. Couldnt figure out why all these folks were spending 3-400 bucks on an Athon 64 back then.

 

[zlejedi]

Do most of the people here really only play games and argue on forums with their computers? Not only does it seem that people only "play" on their computers, but they are actually contemptuous of people who do more. Not you, mate. You are actually quite reasonable. I've only quoted you for the "gaming rig only" part of your post. :thumbsup:

There are situations where the PhII x6's work as good or better than the 2500k for $50.00 (or more) less.

Hmm from my observation yes For huge majority (I'd estimate 80-90%) gaming is most demanding task they do on their computers. Also for non gamers gaming cpus with strong single threaded performance are also good for typical office tasks and even some amateour graphics programs (GIMP uses only 1 core ever for example) .

Only specialist who use certain types of programs will benefit from >4 cores and they typically know it so they don't need to ask on forums for advice

I have a saying "If you need to ask if you need more than 4 cores you don't need them ".

And also folding/boinc crowd might like many cores aproach through it's not a rule since comparing to my boinc teammates I can push about same number of tasks as they do using 2500K@4,5 vs their X6 @4,0 in the same period of time (i return mine faster they return more at once )

 

[GaiaHunter]

Hmm from my observation yes For huge majority (I'd estimate 80-90%) gaming is most demanding task they do on their computers. Also for non gamers gaming cpus with strong single threaded performance are also good for typical office tasks and even some amateour graphics programs (GIMP uses only 1 core ever for example) .

Only specialist who use certain types of programs will benefit from >4 cores and they typically know it so they don't need to ask on forums for advice

I have a saying "If you need to ask if you need more than 4 cores you don't need them ".

And also folding/boinc crowd might like many cores aproach through it's not a rule since comparing to my boinc teammates I can push about same number of tasks as they do using 2500K@4,5 vs their X6 @4,0 in the same period of time (i return mine faster they return more at once )

Anyone going for budget gaming doesn't really need a X6 - a X4 will be enough for a large majority of the games. In Europe a X4 is €95 less than a 2500k. That is enough to go from 6870 to 6950 or from 6950 to GTX570/6970.

If then one play at generally GPU limited resolutions/IQ settings, it might make sense.

 

[Makaveli]

Did you plug the 2600k rig in?

I lol'd too when I read that.

 

[RavenSEAL]

Do most of the people here really only play games and argue on forums with their computers? Not only does it seem that people only "play" on their computers, but they are actually contemptuous of people who do more. Not you, mate. You are actually quite reasonable. I've only quoted you for the "gaming rig only" part of your post. :thumbsup:

There are situations where the PhII x6's work as good or better than the 2500k for $50.00 (or more) less.

People don't get that, sadly.

 

[12andy]

People don't get that, sadly.

On that notion, it appears that even the i3 2100 is about neck and neck (or perhaps even better) with the X6 per the multitasking benchmarks.

I'm still having a hard time imagining this, and would be very inclined to test systems from both camps, side by side, flipping back and forth through various programs.

 

[Makaveli]

Do most of the people here really only play games and argue on forums with their computers? Not only does it seem that people only "play" on their computers, but they are actually contemptuous of people who do more. Not you, mate. You are actually quite reasonable. I've only quoted you for the "gaming rig only" part of your post. :thumbsup:

There are situations where the PhII x6's work as good or better than the 2500k for $50.00 (or more) less.

I'm starting to think that the forum is just full of gamers these days and it wasn't always like that.

And while i'm a avid gamer with SC2 and BF3 being my current time wasters. I also do a ton more on my machine than just game.

This thread almost got to the point where it needed to be closed, thankfully calmer heads have prevailed.

 

[bradley]

Yeah, I almost didn't bother formulating a response. Though I at least own the 2600K and X6 1055 enough to make more than an assumption based on synthetic benches. Physical cores are better able to handle multi-threaded applications like VM and distributed computing in the real-world.

Two threads sharing resources on the same core eventually degrade peformance. I'm talking about workloads higher than a videogame bound by 2-4 cores, where enthusiasts end up with wasted cpu power. I even see some recommending a 2500K for websurfing, when a PII X2 or i3 is more than adequate.

 

[RavenSEAL]

On that notion, it appears that even the i3 2100 is about neck and neck (or perhaps even better) with the X6 per the multitasking benchmarks.

I'm still having a hard time imagining this, and would be very inclined to test systems from both camps, side by side, flipping back and forth through various programs.

Again, it's just a matter of how well the software has the ability to take advantages of several cores.

If you look at applications that actually give a **** about using more than 2 cores, the X6 is 40-80% faster while accounting the fact that the Thuban architecture is a lot older than SB.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Geez guys... this thread really didn't have to turn into an AMD vs. Intel argument.

Thuban is a good chip. It's generally not as good as Intel's current line up, the Intel chips are great. That doesn't mean Thuban is never a good choice and I don't believe anyone is claiming that Thuban is the better part in general.

I'm going to go play Skyrim while running the correlizer project... stuff that in your pipe and smoke it, 2500k.

 

[Makaveli]

Geez guys... this thread really didn't have to turn into an AMD vs. Intel argument.

Thuban is a good chip. It's generally not as good as Intel's current line up, the Intel chips are great. That doesn't mean Thuban is never a good choice and I don't believe anyone is claiming that Thuban is the better part in general.

I'm going to go play Skyrim while running the correlizer project... stuff that in your pipe and smoke it, 2500k.

lol I love how you state the thread went down hill, then your last sentence is flame bait

 

[SlowSpyder]

lol I love how you state the thread went down hill, then your last sentence is flame bait

The last sentence was a total joke. Just one of the very few things Thuban can do better than the 2500k. There is no doubt that for the vast majority of us the 2500k would be the better choice. But that doesn't mean it always is and that doesn't mean Thuban is garbage.

 

[StrangerGuy]

The last sentence was a total joke. Just one of the very few things Thuban can do better than the 2500k. There is no doubt that for the vast majority of us the 2500k would be the better choice. But that doesn't mean it always is and that doesn't mean Thuban is garbage.

Nobody said Thuban was garbage. But just because it's cheaper than a 2500K doesn't automatically makes it better per dollar.

 

[RavenSEAL]

Nobody said Thuban was garbage. But just because it's cheaper than a 2500K doesn't automatically makes it better per dollar.

*Insert AMD Marketing employee trollface here*

 

[lopri]

Check out the 1st page of this thread and think for yourself who/what a troll is. And how s/he throws the bait. It only takes one innocent response to initiate such a troll in a full-throttle mode. These trolls reside in the forum seemingly 24/7, and will look for any crack to get in and start the fight. Heck, as you can observe (again, from the 1st page of this thread), a troll will make a crack to sneak in. (by baiting and patiently waiting, though it usually doesn't take long before an innocent to bite)

They have no desire to contribute or discuss, let alone learn here by communicating with other AT'ers. They are simply looking for a disturbance to kill their time, dragging others down at the same time. They have been doing it so long and know how to get around the forum "rules" . (Though I do think it is not too difficult to identify the trolls in this particular thread.)

Unfortunately mods can't beat these trolls because mods don't have enough time to keep up with these trolls. (Again, these trolls practically live here from what I can see) These trolls will run circles around the rules to make the mod's job difficult. And finally, mods are human as well. If a mod happens to share a view with the troll's agenda, it is possible that s/he may not recognize a troll here that s/he can easily recognize in some other context. It is unfortunate considering that they are all volunteering for the greater good, in good faith.

All in all this is a sad downward spiral which I don't want to further elaborate. (Though I do miss many of my old friends, I have to say) I expect this thread to be closed shortly.

Happy Thanksgivings everyone. And likewise Happy New Year as well.