Which CPU to go for? Advice appreciated. 2

[stduc]

I'm about to build 2 new PCs, a basic one and a monster.

For the basic one I can get either of these for the same price
Intel® Pentium® Dual-Core E5300 2x2.6GHz 2MB Cache
AMD Athlon II X2 250 Dual Core 3.0GHz 2MB L2 Cache

So my dilemma is - which is really better/faster? Any thoughts anyone?

For the monster PC I have the following choices.

Intel® Core™ i7 930 2.8GHz (4 core)

or, for an extra £240

Intel® Core™ i7 960 3.2GHz (4 core)

or for a whopping extra £670

Intel® Core™ i7 980X 6-core 3.33GHz 12MB Smart Cache

Now, tempting as 6 cores sounds is it worth that much I ask myself. If not, is the 960 worth the extra £240?

Somehow I think not, but at this stage of the game I really would appreciate peoples input. Especially if anyone thinks there is an even better choice I haven't considered.

 

[xwb]

Have you had a look at the Core i5 (4 core). They are a quarter the price of the I7s and run at the same speed.

 

[kjv1611]

Questions: What do you intend to do with the computers, and how long do you intend to use them?

It it were me, I'd go with the i5 for the "big one", as xwb mentioned. For the low-end build, I'd go with whichever you got the best motherboard for. The core i5 CPU (the quad core model) is one of, if not THE most "efficient" or balanced CPU at the moment. The core i7 is nice, but I doubt many people will see any real-world benefits. From most tests I've seen, I've seen no real benefit of an i7 over an i5. In some tests, the i5 outperformed the i7, and it uses far less power to do so.... so it costs less on your power bill, as well as costing less for the initial purchase.

If you're doing something like rendering 1080p video constantly, or doing a lot of 3D-Cad or 3D graphics for video games, movies, that sort of thing, then get the fasetest thing you can afford, pretty much. 6 cores would eventually be worth it, whether they are now or not.

Otherwise, I'd highly HIGHLY suggest going with a Core i5. I just built a high-end system for someone a month or 2 months ago, and put in a Core i5. I'm telling you that was an amazing machine. I've also messed around with a Dell XPS running a Core i7. The Dell ran the same or maybe a tad slower than the custom Core i5. 'Course it could be the hard drives. I put Samsung F3s in the custom build, and for the system drive, I short-stroked the 500GB F3 model.

Oh yeah, that gets me thinking. Save the money on the Core i5/i7 difference, and put that towards an SSD over standard hard drive. You'll see a FAR FAR FAR greater benefit form SSD vs HDD than you will core i7 vs core i5.

Check out this review for a pretty in depth comparison of the CPUS, and look at the CPU charts to see about the diff in the other ones if you want:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i5,2410.html

 

[stduc]

That sounds very reasonable to me. Thanks for the advice. So any take on

Intel® Core™ i5 750 4x 2.66GHz 8MB Cache

or

Intel® Core™ i7 860 4x 2.8GHz 8MB Cache

which is £60 more

I'm suspecting you'll recommend sticking with the i5?


[navy]When I married "Miss Right" I didn't realise her first name was 'always'. LOL[/navy]

 

[kjv1611]

Yep.

You won't see much, if any, gain with a 2.8 vs 2.6 ghz there. And if I were going i7, I'd go at least 920, anyway. But I'd still likely go with the i5. Even if money is no object, you can take that difference, and pick up an SSD. The SSD will give a bigger performance boost than any CPU difference available on modern CPUs, I'd suspect.

You could go with the Intel X25-M G2 series for a really fast system drive, though I believe some of the latest drives coming out are now catching up to, and sometimes surpassing that one.. It's still a great drive, from all I've read. I've not spent the money yet myself.

For my own personal system, I'm running a Core 2 Duo E6750, 4GB DDR2 Ram, a Raptor 74GB gen2 drive for system, nVidia 8600 GT graphics... and I can do most anything with that. When I get into editing some large audio files, and throwing different effects and filters, I stutter a little, but I think it's actually software-related on that, even.

I'm hoping my Core 2 Duo will hold out well enough for another year or two, at least, and then I'll look at the Core i12s or whatever is available at the time.

'Course that's assuming I've got the money to spend when the time comes... I could end up waiting for something like Core i100!

 

[kjv1611]

Hmm, just thought I'd go hunting again, to see...

This SSD:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...id+State+Disk-_-Crucial+Technology-_-20148348

Looks to possibly be THE fastest on the market right now, or at least for SATA drives. Not sure if any of the PCI Express variants are any faster.

I can only dream - at cheapest, the 128GB drive is just under $400 - Amazon and Newegg.

 

[tf1]

I suggest looking at the processor comparison charts at Tomshardware and then make an educated decision. Don't forget to use the latest prices (which seem to change regularly in this commodity market).

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/charts/processors,6.html

Regards: Terry

 

[kjv1611]

I guess I ought to specify - the review I read (charts and all) comparing the i7 and i5 were comparing the i7 920 and the i5 750, and the lower end i5, I forget the number. The i5 750 seems the sweet spot... especially for the price.

Also, bear in mind what charts you look at - make sure they will apply to what you are going to use the hardware for. And some of the charts don't accurately demonstrate the "feel" of the difference. In some instances, it can LOOK like it's a huge difference, but in real world application of the hardware, the difference doesn't FEEL as much as the chart shows.

Anyway, if you've got the money to burn, and WANT to, get an i7. I know I'd be tempted to do so with the 6 core one, but it's an awful big chunk of change to blow - at least for me. If I wanted to use the money to the fullest, I'd DEFINITELY go Core i5 and an SSD - would run about same price, I suppose, as getting the upper end i7 and a standard hard drive.

Now I'll hush - no really.

 

[stduc]

I usually keep a PC around 5 years. The heavy workload I want to reduce from hours (on this PC) to minutes (hopefully) is building large panoramas (using Panorama Factory) and editing home videos into something watchable! I also have a few humongous spreadsheets that currently take about 5 minutes to recalculate! I don't play games, so that is not an issue. In addition I am in the process (and have been for years) of digitising my record collection.

My current plan is:-

Coolermaster Sileo 500 Case,
CoolerMaster 700W Silent Pro M700 Modular PSU,
ASUS P7P55D-E: 2x Rear USB3.0: 6x Rear USB2.0: 2x Front USB2.0: 1x Rear Firewire MOBO,
Intel® Core™ i5 750 4x 2.66GHz 8MB Cache CPU,
Scythe Kabuto CPU Cooler,
Corsair XMS3 4GB (2x2GB) DDR3 1600MHz RAM,
XFX Revo64 Driverless RAID card,
500GB 7200RPM SATA II x 4 as 2 x 500GB Mirrors HDD,
Samsung SH-S223 22x DVD RW SATA,
nVidia GeForce GTS 250 1GB Video card,
AOC F22S+ 22" Widescreen TFT 1680x1050 5m/s Monitor,
Creative Sound Blaster X-Fi Xtreme Audio card

I am buying into the i5 CPU argument. At present I am not sold on the idea of an SSD. I'm trying to keep the cost down to around £1000 - OK currently around £1200 - LOL. As for an O/S I guess its gonna have to be Windows 7 (I think XP would waste most of the machines capabilities)

I am still pondering at the moment. I'm not 100% sure of my chosen monitor - but it does look the best value for money. Nor am I sure I am choosing the right Graphics card. I am also trying to decide between using 4 500 GB drives as 2 x 500GB mirrors or going 1TB and putting 3 in a RAID 3 array.

Decisions decisions - LOL

[navy]When I married "Miss Right" I didn't realise her first name was 'always'. LOL[/navy]

 

[kjv1611]

Just out of curiosity, does your motherboard support RAID 3, or are you planning on using an ADD-IN card for that? I've not looked, but I highly doubt the mobo (P7P55D-E) supports RAID 3.

I've got a stack of PCI SATA cards that work well, and support RAID 3, but they're PCI cards, and as such are limited by the PCI bus. It was a sad day when I realized that the PCI bus was my limiting factor. I'll still use the things, but just not where I'm concerned with performance.

Anyway, on your configuration, if you want the best performance, I'd stick with the Samsung F3 drives or WD Black drives. I've used both, and can say they are exceptionally fast for standard 7200 RPM drives.

If it were me, this is what I'd do, assuming you want everything in RAID:

I'd have 2 RAID array's built, 2 drives each, or if you can swing an additional say $50, you could have 2 drives in one RAID array, and 3 in the other..

So with 4 drives, I'd put them each in a RAID 1 (if data redundancy is #1 concern). If performance is #1 concern, you could put the 2 "system" RAID drives in a RAID 0, and the data drives in RAID 1.

Whatever you do with your "system" drive/RAID array, I'd also suggest "short stroking". In other words, don't use the whole drive. Short stroking (you can Google it) tends to reduce access time by a good amount. What that means is that you will not use the full 500GB of the drive in this case, but rather about 100GB (or 50 GB each, if you run a RAID 0 setup). This will put a 7200 RPM drive closer to the Raptor/Velociraptor speeds when it comes to Access time, which is where they still have a lead over most drives (other than SSD).

Regardless, I'd put the data drives in RAID 1, if just 2 drives, or I'd get another drive, and put the 3 into RAID 5. If 3 500GB drives, that'll give you 1 TB usable data storage, but still be redundant - you can have a drive fail, and keep going (hopefully replacing the one bad drive very soon).

Me oh my, was that long. By the way, if you want the simplest setup with less fuss, just "short stroke" ONE hard drive, no RAID, for your system. Then for data, put the other 3 in a RAID 5 setup, and you'll be set.

Then on top of that, you'll want to have a back-up somewhere. If the RAID storage is the only place you've got stuff saved, and the RAID config gets corrupted badly, or the hardware on which it is based goes bad, you'll be up the creek without a backup.

Sorry, that was too long... I didn't take the time to edit/filter it all.

 

[stduc]

You've lost me - a bit!

I was going to use this PCI bus card for raid - XFX Revo64 Driverless RAID card.

Either with 4 drives in 2 mirrors or 3 drives in a RAID3 configuration.

Backup will be to a 1TB USB drive.

I was planning to partition the drives.

[navy]When I married "Miss Right" I didn't realise her first name was 'always'. LOL[/navy]

 

[kjv1611]

Okay, then the PCI card is what you were going to use.

That's the same situation I had with my PCI cards - it's okay for just pure data storage, but your system could very well run SLOWER rather than faster with a PCI card.

Modern hard drives run at 50 to 80 MB/sec BARE MINIMUM, and many of them can hit over 100 MB/sec. In a RAID config, your read speeds would normally be as much or more than the single drives...

Your PCI bus, I forget the specifics, but it caps out at 80 or 90MB/sec, I believe, which will limit performance of your hard drives.

So, you could still go that route if you wanted...

Maybe, and this is purely an idea I'm thinking as I type... and a good one, I THINK.

1. Use the Onboard RAID for a mirror of 2 drives for your system.

2. Use the PCI card RAID mirror (RAID 1) for the data drives.

3. When you set up Windows on the system RAID configuration, set your partition size at 100GB or no more than 200GB. Then just leave the rest sitting there, unused.

Doing this will give you a short-stroked RAID parition for your system, decreasing access time, while keeping the RAID 1 (mirror) redundancy.

Make any sense?

 

[stduc]

The ASUS P7P55D-E: has
2 x PCIe 2.0 x16 (single at x16 or dual at x8/x8 mode)
2 x PCIe 2.0 x1 (2.5GT/s)
2 x PCI

and

6 xSATA 3.0 Gb/s ports
2 x SATA 6.0 Gb/s ports

And does RAID 0,1 5 and 10

The reason for the Revo card (which I have in another PC) is that it is driverless and so easy to configure.

Given those specs would it slow things down? If so, then I guess 4 500GB drives in a RAID 10 using the onboard RAID would be best? Or perhaps 2 mirrors, one on the 6GB ports and one on the 3GB for Data?

Confused - who moi? You bet I am.

 

[kjv1611]

Well, if all your drives are SATA2 (3Gb) drives, then it won't matter whether you use SATA2 or SATA3 ports - you shouldn't see any difference. It's possible that the SATA2 chipset will actually be a bit faster... I've read of at least one review showing some of the SATA3 chipsets aren't really doing terribly well, often being slower that those that only support SATA2. That's pretty common with new technology.

It is likely the onboard RAID will give you better performance. However, I'd do some searching to see how others have done with the onboard RAID for the particular board, or at least the chipset. I've read some horror stories with onboard RAID on occasion, while others have no problems.

The PCI card MIGHT be a safer RAID, and the onboard RAID SHOULD be a faster RAID, in the given scenerio. But like I said, do plenty of checking. The RAID 10 should give the most performance benefits, but the dual mirrors will by far give better system and data protection.... especially if you put one on one chipset, one on another...

Unfortunately, the only way you'll know which is best for certain is by trying different configurations. If you've got the time, and your data already backed up elsewhere, I'd give some tests....

I'd test a RAID 10 config with just the onoard RAID - test for performance, how it "feels", and also for how it recovers when a drive goes missing.

Next, I'd test with one RAID 1 on the onboard RAID, and one RAID one on the PCI card, and see how that goes.

Of course, if you use the onboard RAID for the system, you'll need to install the SATA RAID drivers - be sure to get the latest from Asus' website. The good part here is that with Windows 7 (vista too), you won't have to use a floppy drive for those drivers - you can use a CD, USB hard drive, USB thumb drive - really, just about anything. With XP, you'd have to hit F6 at the right time, have the files on a floppy, and pick what you needed. Vista and 7 both are a dream compared to XP in that regard.

 

[cdogg]

Back to the CPU discussion for a moment...

I think the important thing to look at is the difference between the Lynnfield and Bloomfield. Because the Lynnfield only requires dual-channel DDR3 (Bloomfield is triple-channel), it's a cheaper configuration to start with. Intel's Turbo Boost technology was also significantly enhanced in the Lynnfield CPU's, allowing for stock speeds to outperform the more expensive Bloomfield.

So really, unless there is a particular benchmark that you're concerned about that shows the i7 920 in the lead, there's no reason not to choose the i5 750 (2.66GHz - 3.2GHz) or the i7 860 (2.8GHz - 3.33GHz).

~cdogg
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Einstein
[tab][navy]For posting policies, click [/navy]here.

 

[kjv1611]

Hmm, cdogg, I apparently haven't paid much attention to dual/tripple channel DDR3. I mean, I made sure RAM matched mobo sort of thing, but I didn't even realize there were 2 different "DDR3s". That's very interesting, and I don't know why I missed it. Will have to do some reading.

Thanks for mentioning that.

 

[cdogg]

Sure, no problem. I looked up prices and saw that there is an $80 difference between the i5 750 and the i7 860. That's a lot when you consider that the 860 doesn't always outperform the 750 by that much.

The 860 has hyperthreading turned on and a slightly faster clock speed. Apparently it spends more time running aggressively above 3GHz than the 750 does, which is why in some benchmarks you'll see it in the lead. The real differences that I've noticed is in audio/video editing and gaming. Only in those two areas does the 860 really seem to separate itself from the 750.


~cdogg
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Einstein
[tab][navy]For posting policies, click [/navy]here.