Its best to use a SSD drive as your C: drive. just save system files on it.
Then use a SATA drive to store all other files on.
you wont believe the speed the SSD runs load or even installs at and a 128Gb SSD drive should hold all your system files although if your feeling flush with money a 256 SSD would be a killer :up:

Just waiting for a Tom quote saying Blah blah blah:hmmm:

Can't we just agree that Intel is better for some games, and AMD is better for some games? :hmmm:

So many other things help or slow things down what works for one fails on another just read the posts on this forum to see that just go with what works for you :up:

Mm it's not really about Intel vs AMD. The point I've been trying to make is that while not all games benefit from a really fast CPU, the notion that the Phenom II is more powerful than i5/i7 is false, which was the original argument. It just twisted in all kinds of funky ways after that.

V13 has shown that in a lot of games the i5/i7 offers no real advantage, which I agreed with from the start. But that's not the point of argument.


-
V13, I looked at your sources, multiple times now. Problem is they are not really relevant. A thread from Dec 2009 isn't particularly accurate for the situation nowadays, which is the situation Spike would be dealing with if he build a system today. While I agree that AMD generally offers better bang for the buck, the notion that Phenom II is more powerful than i5/i7 is simply nonsense. It will eke out a win in the most heavily threaded applications since it has more cores, but other than that it lags behind.

Your other sources are not particularly comprehensive: 3DMark, while great for benchmarking fanatics, is a synthetic benchmark that does not represent actual game performance. Actual performance varies greatly from game to game, some favoring Intel architecture and others AMD, and yet others showing no preference at all since they don't rely much on CPU performance. The charts you showed for AvP and Metro are not relevant (to the point of Phenom II being more powerful than i5/i7) since neither are CPU bound. Games that are truly CPU bound will favor core speed over count, which puts the advantage at Intel.

Some even contradict your point. For example this one: http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/372...5_i5-2400.html

It clearly notes that the i5 has higher single-threaded performance, which is exactly what matters in gaming. The advantage they show in that case is 31%, which I would consider non-trivial. Again I should note that this means little for a lot of games, but the point stands. It is you missing points like that, while I explained that it's single-thread performance that matters for gaming, that makes me think you're not really objectively looking at my sources or posts (or even the ones you use yourself).

The last graphs you showed in response to Hunter are from the Piledriver chips, the latest in AMD's line-up, 2 generations beyond Phenom II. While Bulldozer actually regressed single-thread performance, Piledriver managed to close the gap with Intel, but remains a fair bit slower in that regard.


I feel you're misinterpreting data, which I think stems from not being familiar with the actual technology, basing arguments on yours and others experiences; experiences are always arguable.

Yes, I prefer Intel. The reason for that is because this is strictly a gaming system: I only really care about single-threaded performance for this system. I don't mind paying the premium because I believe it saves me money down the line. With higher single-threaded performance this i5 will stay relevant a bit longer than the Phenom II and FX (Bulldozer at the time) for gaming. This doesn't come from hearsay and opinion but from reading in-depth articles. I have no loyalty towards them; when the rumors surfaced about them doing away with sockets my first thought was to switch to AMD. If they drop the ball I drop them, simple as that.

And yes, I do have a beef with you. If you play the fanboi card right off the bat my patience goes right out the window.


Lastly, consider this: http://www.google.nl/search?hl=nl&q=gaming+cpu

Pick any result. They all come to the same conclusion.

I'm not sure if im allowed to post two side by side 1920x1080 screenshots side by side, so here is my Crysis 3 result with all settings on high, no AA 8times anisotropic filtering and full screen 1920x1080.

And please, look at the FPS and the CPU usage.

http://puu.sh/2HjHN.png

I used a link, not an IMG code because two side by side 1920x1080 images would probably get me into trouble.

If you also look closly into that picture, you will see that the processor is running at 38 degrees.
And this picture was taken using fraps (recording two monitors in 1080).

I like the way you placed the shortcuts on the desk and shelves :haha:

I would say that the only time you need to worry about the differences between Intel and AMD is when you program or do other maths intensive things like using engineering software. This is particularly true for the old AMDs. Intel rules in that field as it is more stable and built to support that kind of thing.

For gaming however, I prefer AMD simply because you get the same umph for a lot less price and not only that, you get integrated graphics that compete with Nvidia cards. Also if you know what you can turn off or reduce in the graphics settings that are not actually visible to the human eye, you can save your self a lot of pain.

If you do want some very good value, I recommend the AMD A-10 5800 series, http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819113280
These are a quite powerful, and these have a rather good on board GPU.
The AMD A-10 5800's have a clock of 3.7 Ghz and a 7660 on board GPU with 800 Mhz graphics clock, I have seen these play most games on medium (Using the on board GPU)
Some Gaming Laptops have these Quad Core A-10's and a HD 7970 and these can play most games on Ultra.
The A-10's built in graphics card allows for the use of games albeit nothing too intense, without the need of a separate GPU.
The A-10's GPU supersedes the Intel HD series by a massive margin, but the Intel HD series is not meant for gaming, but the 7660D is more than capable of performing.
I am still comfortable with my Phenom II, with the 7970 Ghz these perform brilliantly, even better with Crossfire.
My friends who use Phenom II are also very please with the value and performance.

7660D is still an integrated GPU though. It's going to struggle on higher resolutions, like the nowadays fairly typical 1920x1080. The GT650 he listed before will outperform it pretty substantially.

I've been looking at this one

I really don't understand what's what. Can you tell me how they compare?

The A-10 series are not really gaming CPU but it does the job quite well.
And the integrated GPU allows for light gaming without a separate subsystem, and this little GPU packs quite a punch with it's 800 Mhz clock.
The A-10 also comes off the shelf at 3.7 Ghz and you can Turbo it to 4.2 Ghz if you feel the need.

Also, if your looking for a Gaming Laptop, you can pick up a MSI gaming laptop with using the A-10 and a 7970, you can get one for about $1000 AUD.
At this link http://shop.amd.com/us/All/Detail/No...tebook#Reviews
This GPU also multitasks very well and provides good performance and it's price is very reasonable.
This computer has been received very well from it's customers and they claim to be able to play games perfectly well on ultra.
And they A-10 is able to play games at 1920x1080 using it's built in GPU as long as the games you play are not hardcore games.
I trust that Spike will not be a hardcore gamer if he uses this processor.

I can already do all the light gaming I can handle. The reason I'm looking for new stuff is that I'm sick of playing at the bottom of the barrel.

A laptop is also the very last thing I want. I'm also planning on not spending more than half the price you listed. I guess I just live in a different world.

The price of performance. :hmm2:

That's always the problem. People ask for advice on what to buy, you give them advice, they tell you it's too expensive. :yep:

But Steve, what are you looking to play? Trinity would struggle a bit with the latest games on full-HD resolutions, but if we're talking about running something like SH5 or earlier it should be a very cost-effective solution.

The CPU you listed is a normal one: that A-10 series has a GPU alongside the CPU, on the same chip. The benefit is a smaller package, which can be made cheaper. But due to size restrictions neither part is really top of the line. It's a good solution for a small form factor PC or affordable gaming laptop, though it falls short compared to more expensive, separate components.