My behemoth PC needs a challenge

[betasub]

^ Yes, nice rig, like plenty of posters here. And you didn't pull a n00b stunt like OP to brag about it. Hopefully he's learned more from this thread.

 

[skipsneeky2]

^ Yes, nice rig, like plenty of posters here. And you didn't pull a n00b stunt like OP to brag about it. Hopefully he's learned more from this thread.

990x and a pair of gtx590s are something to brag about...

 

[NIGELG]

If the guy thinks his computer is a behemoth then let him be.As a newcomer he was treated harshly.

I suggest Metro with DOF on to stress that PC.

 

[Madcatatlas]

You mean on the offchance that the OP wasnt just trolling or fishing for negative comments or well comments at all?


He has a nice setup. But unless he is trolling, he should now understand a few things, one of them being that you need to broaden your horizon and actually look beyond product names/tags to identify quality components.

Not saying a 6 core AMD prosessor isnt quality, but compared to Intels offerings its not the best cpu, not the second best, not the third best, not the fourth and so on and so forth.

So if that system with that cpu in it is a behemoth.. what word do you use to describe a i2600k with radeon 6990s in crossfire etc etc?


unless he is trolling...which i think he was and which is why i still havent made a serious comment in this topic... i do so try to keep some standards..:sneaky:

 

[Arg Clin]

I am sorry to say, but unless you are an AMD fanboy.. a knowledgeable person will not buy a $200 AMD CPU as a $200 Intel SB CPU mops the floor with it.

Hardly accurate. From a practical point of view there is hardly a noticeable difference in gaming. (which I got the impression is OP's main purpose for the rig)

A knowledgeable person will realize this and then decide if he wants higher performance in CPU intensive single threaded apps (Intel) or 2 extra cores (AMD)

 

[dac7nco]

Hardly accurate. From a practical point of view there is hardly a noticeable difference in gaming

There is indeed a major performance differential. There is absolutely zero reason to buy an AM3 CPU at any price point, and justification of it does the less-informed a disservice. I wouldn't recommend buying a Core 2 Quad either, it is just as obsolete and backwards as AM3, to which it is comparable.

Daimon

 

[Jacky60]

Says the man running $1400 in video cards on a $299 monitor:

2 x6990 at 880
Hanns.G 28in Monitor

You guys need to cut this guy some slack. He has a very nice computer. Probably nicer than 99.9% of computers out there.

Maybe my system is unbalanced in your opinion but my post is entirely correct. His system will bend over just like yours when attempting to play Arma 2.

 

[Arg Clin]

There is indeed a major performance differential. There is absolutely zero reason to buy an AM3 CPU at any price point, and justification of it does the less-informed a disservice. I wouldn't recommend buying a Core 2 Quad either, it is just as obsolete and backwards as AM3, to which it is comparable.

Daimon

Few games are CPU limited. That makes the major performance differential rather theoretical. What is disservice to the less informed is the claim that SB mops the floor with AMD - both platforms will do quite nicely in real life gaming.

 

[SolMiester]

Few games are CPU limited. That makes the major performance differential rather theoretical. What is disservice to the less informed is the claim that SB mops the floor with AMD - both platforms will do quite nicely in real life gaming.

Perhaps at HD resolution, but at the OP's resolution!?, it can be the difference between playable and unplayable minimum FPS.

 

[Red Hawk]

Few games are CPU limited. That makes the major performance differential rather theoretical. What is disservice to the less informed is the claim that SB mops the floor with AMD - both platforms will do quite nicely in real life gaming.

Not necessarily, real-time strategy games can get CPU limited if you push the amount of units in action.

 

[chihlidog]

Not necessarily, real-time strategy games can get CPU limited if you push the amount of units in action.

Dont forget GTA IV and FSX. Especially FSX. Its the only game I have that brings my CPU to its knees.

 

[dac7nco]

Few games are CPU limited.

I play Civilization-V at 3600x1920. If I was using a 2600K instead of my 12 Westmere cores, I suspect I would see better performance in FPS games. I don't play any action games, but modern simulators and RTS games are pretty heavy CPU users. I show usage of most of my 24 threads in late-game scenarios under Civ-V.

You are right on about the "few", however: My new system is an 1155 Xeon, which I can NOT overclock, and it is a LOT faster in FPS games than the SR2 machine in the few benchmarks I've run (single card/single monitor). You are missing the point, however... I hope I don't offend you by saying that CPU/GPU bottlenecks exist for different classes of CPUs and Video Cards. What most games respond to, at maximum settings (I refuse to turn down settings), is high IPC with a few cores.

What a lot of very impartial data shows, is that the K10.5 architecture is a needless waste of space when mated to very high-end video cards. I wouldn't pair your (decent) CPU with a GT430, but I also wouldn't pair it with a Radeon 6990. Economies of scale are change over time: The most I've ever spent on CPUs was $2,300, three years ago... on a pair of Opterons slower than your 965.

I agree that my circumstances are different than most, but AMD is at a point where they succeed or die... ask Centaur.

I don't enjoy smack-talking AMD. I believe they keep Intel busy in the desktop space, and I remember fondly the FX slaughtering the Pentium-D. The Magny-Cours (G34) Opteron was high on my short list for a transcoding system; they were and are cheaper than the dual-1366 machine I was looking at building... Than the EVGA SR2 came along, which allowed me to overclock a dual Xeon, and I realized I could have everything I wanted in a system, without paying $1,500 for 24 VERY low IPC cores.

I await Interlagos with great hopes, but some pessimism... my desires are somewhat unique, but nobody is immune to pricing. The Radeon "Southern Islands" is the next big deal on my short list; it seems to be a blend of workstation and gaming hardware... Fermi screwed a lot of people with a 448SP Quadro, retailing at the price of my entire system. The very least they could've done is understand that engineers often use well over two goddamn monitors.

Daimon

 

[Dadofamunky]

I am sorry to say, but unless you are an AMD fanboy.. a knowledgeable person will not buy a $200 AMD CPU as a $200 Intel SB CPU mops the floor with it.

Also, why did you invest so much on an AMD setup when in a month or so.. AMD is releasing a brand new architecture and a new socket. Your motherboard is not even AM3+ ready.

I am really sorry, but you just made a bad investment.

Also, are you using a CRT? because I am not able to find an LCD monitor at your specified resolution.

To answer your question, The Witcher 2 with ubersampling ON.

Amen to all this. Sorry, OP, but pitching that rig as all that is leading with your chin.

 

[betasub]

I play Civilization-V at 3600x1920. If I was using a 2600K instead of my 12 Westmere cores, I suspect I would see better performance in FPS games. I don't play any action games, but modern simulators and RTS games are pretty heavy CPU users. I show usage of most of my 24 threads in late-game scenarios under Civ-V.

Interesting example. Are those real threads, pinned to each core, or simply activity on all the cores generated through OS load-balancing?

 

[BFG10K]

Cryostasis is probably the most demanding gaming out there. At 1920x1200 with everything on low/off (except textures on highest) the game still drops into the 20s in some places on my GTX580.

The only setting that reliably improves performance in it is resolution. That’s a 100% GPU bottleneck and no processor will fix that.

Some used to say the e8400 was better then the q6600 for gaming

It is in the vast majority of cases; in the toughest games both are usually unplayable anyway.

 

[Zanovar]

Cryostasis is probably the most demanding gaming out there. At 1920x1200 with everything on low/off (except textures on highest) the game still drops into the 20s in some places on my GTX580.

The only setting that reliably improves performance in it is resolution. That’s a 100% GPU bottleneck and no processor will fix that.


It is in the vast majority of cases; in the toughest games both are usually unplayable anyway.

Damn that game hammered my g card,didnt look that graet for the hammering it took either:S

 

[skipsneeky2]

Op has a good rig.

Doubt many games if any will show a drop in framerate over a obvious choice like a x4 955.

If he works as he games those extra 2 cores come in handy.

They won't show increases in performance but if he does alot of digital media work, the cpu pays for itself.

If some chance bf3 ends up being the cpu whore of a game he might be glad he picked a 6 core over a quad core.

 

[dac7nco]

Interesting example. Are those real threads, pinned to each core, or simply activity on all the cores generated through OS load-balancing?

I don't manually assign cores to anything, ever; I find that the OS knows more about resource management than I do.

Daimon

 

[skipsneeky2]

Cryostasis is probably the most demanding gaming out there. At 1920x1200 with everything on low/off (except textures on highest) the game still drops into the 20s in some places on my GTX580.

The only setting that reliably improves performance in it is resolution. That’s a 100% GPU bottleneck and no processor will fix that.


It is in the vast majority of cases; in the toughest games both are usually unplayable anyway.

True but the 2 extra cores of the q6600 are nice to have in games like bc2, which truly benefit from quad cores.

Bet there's plenty of happy q6600 owners still gaming it up with their cpus at 3.6ghzs.

 

[betasub]

^^ dac7nco, I ask because the OS can switch a single thread between multiple cores far faster than monitoring/polling rate. So activity on many cores isn't a guide to how many provide a benefit. It's quite common for quad-core users to observe 25-30% activity on all four cores from a game or app that would run just as fast if assigned to a single core. Sometimes more cores don't really add anything, they are simply available for OS load-balancing.

 

[dac7nco]

^^ dac7nco, I ask because the OS can switch a single thread between multiple cores far faster than monitoring/polling rate. So activity on many cores isn't a guide to how many provide a benefit. It's quite common for quad-core users to observe 25-30% activity on all four cores from a game or app that would run just as fast if assigned to a single core. Sometimes more cores don't really add anything, they are simply available for OS load-balancing.

Ah, I see what you're getting at: Yes, my new system with an E3 Xeon and four cores easily matches the Tylersburg/Westmere system playing CIV-V. I would be reluctant with the E3 to transcode, compile AND play CIV-V, which I often do on the Westmere... if only it didn't pull more energy from the wall as an electric oven!

I can't remember what this thread was about. Ah, yes, the Thuban behemoth, LOL.

Daimon

 

[Timmah!]

990x and a pair of gtx590s are something to brag about...

So i need one more 590 and i can show off my epeen here, right? Personally i think you need to have 2x westmeres + 4x gtx580 to be able to brag about it...

Anyway, i agree with you lot acting immature. So he said hes computer is behemoth, LOL, who can be genuinely offended by something like that? It was just funny exaggeration ffs...
BTW if that LCD he has, was 16:10, i would be definitely envious...

 

[Petey!]

Ya'll posting in a troll thread

 

[yottabit]

arkham asylum with physx ON

 

[skipsneeky2]

So i need one more 590 and i can show off my epeen here, right? Personally i think you need to have 2x westmeres + 4x gtx580 to be able to brag about it...

Anyway, i agree with you lot acting immature. So he said hes computer is behemoth, LOL, who can be genuinely offended by something like that? It was just funny exaggeration ffs...
BTW if that LCD he has, was 16:10, i would be definitely envious...

Don't think many here are offended by this.

Most have i7 processors which are better then the 1100t.

Perhaps the title of the thread is misleading.

I read this thread expecting the Op to have dual xeons on a sr-2 mobo or something which would have been awesome:thumbsup: