Xeon is Intel's server line of processors. The one you've picked is basically a server version of a Core i7 930. That offers things like ECC memory support that simply aren't useful for consumers. Again, for consumer use, you'd be better off going with a Core i7 870 and a motherboard with a P55 chipset and an LGA 1156 socket.
The motherboard looks like it's designed to support Xeon processors and SAS hard drives. That would constitute paying extra for features that are useless for a gaming machine, and only matter if you're building a server.
Xeon is Intel's server line of processors. The one you've picked is basically a server version of a Core i7 930. That offers things like ECC memory support that simply aren't useful for consumers. Again, for consumer use, you'd be better off going with a Core i7 870 and a motherboard with a P55 chipset and an LGA 1156 socket.
The motherboard looks like it's designed to support Xeon processors and SAS hard drives. That would constitute paying extra for features that are useless for a gaming machine, and only matter if you're building a server.
The Vertex 2 is a solid state drive. It's based on a SandForce controller. You can use it just like a hard drive, except that it will be a lot faster--so any programs running on it will probably run a lot faster and not make you sit and wait for things to load.
The Vertex 2 is a solid state drive. It's based on a SandForce controller. You can use it just like a hard drive, except that it will be a lot faster--so any programs running on it will probably run a lot faster and not make you sit and wait for things to load.
ok so best is to buy a ssd for first and a wd black as someone mention --
But if we make a poll you agree that most people will have intel and nvidia although you can make your dinner with a gtx480?
There probably are more gamers with Nvidia cards out there than AMD, but that's largely a holdover from Nvidia dominating the market 3 years ago. If you restrict to new gaming cards bought in the last year, there are probably a lot more AMD than Nvidia. If you restrict to DirectX 11 cards, the Steam Hardware Survey finds AMD with a market share over 80%.
Yes, there are more people with Intel processors than AMD. For the last four years, Intel has had better processors, and the main reason to buy AMD was because AMD would offer lower prices. The situation is about to get much worse for AMD with the launch of Sandy Bridge, but AMD might catch up in the spring with the launch of Bulldozer.
AMD (Radeon) cards currently handily beat Nvidia (GeForce) cards in performance per watt, at least if you restrict to cards on the 40 nm process (Radeon HD 5400 and up, GeForce 400 and up). That is, if you want a given level of performance, an Nvidia card will put out about 20% more heat to get it than an AMD card. The GTX 465, 470, and 480 are much, much worse than that, even. But other than that, heat output is roughly proportional to performance. If you want twice the performance, you get twice the heat.
Greater heat output isn't necessarily a big problem in a desktop, but can become one if you don't have a good cooling system on the card. The reference GeForce GTX 470 and 480 are the worst reference cards for that. The reference Radeon HD 5970 isn't cooled that well, either. It's off the market by now, but the Radeon HD 4870 X2 was pretty bad about this, too. Performance for watt for its own sake is a much bigger deal in laptops.
There probably are more gamers with Nvidia cards out there than AMD, but that's largely a holdover from Nvidia dominating the market 3 years ago. If you restrict to new gaming cards bought in the last year, there are probably a lot more AMD than Nvidia. If you restrict to DirectX 11 cards, the Steam Hardware Survey finds AMD with a market share over 80%.
Yes, there are more people with Intel processors than AMD. For the last four years, Intel has had better processors, and the main reason to buy AMD was because AMD would offer lower prices. The situation is about to get much worse for AMD with the launch of Sandy Bridge, but AMD might catch up in the spring with the launch of Bulldozer.
AMD (Radeon) cards currently handily beat Nvidia (GeForce) cards in performance per watt, at least if you restrict to cards on the 40 nm process (Radeon HD 5400 and up, GeForce 400 and up). That is, if you want a given level of performance, an Nvidia card will put out about 20% more heat to get it than an AMD card. The GTX 465, 470, and 480 are much, much worse than that, even. But other than that, heat output is roughly proportional to performance. If you want twice the performance, you get twice the heat.
Greater heat output isn't necessarily a big problem in a desktop, but can become one if you don't have a good cooling system on the card. The reference GeForce GTX 470 and 480 are the worst reference cards for that. The reference Radeon HD 5970 isn't cooled that well, either. It's off the market by now, but the Radeon HD 4870 X2 was pretty bad about this, too. Performance for watt for its own sake is a much bigger deal in laptops.
The Radeon HD 6000 series cards will be made on the same TSMC 40 nm process node as the Radeon HD 5000 series cards, and the process node is the main factor that determines performance per watt. The Radeon HD 6800 series is a little better in performance per watt than the various 5000 series cards. The 6900 series is going to be a new architecture (and different from the 6800 series), so we don't really know how that will perform.
Comments
Yes
thank you guys for all of the info
what are the results for the
ASUS® P6T WS PROFESSIONAL: NEW ERA CORE i7 WORKSTATION
120GB OCZ VERTEX 2 SATA II 2.5" SSD (upto 285MB/sR | 275MB/sW)
Intel® Xeon® Quad Core W3530 (8M Cache, 2.8 GHz, 4.80 GT/s)
are they any good?
)
The Vertex 2 is good.
Xeon is Intel's server line of processors. The one you've picked is basically a server version of a Core i7 930. That offers things like ECC memory support that simply aren't useful for consumers. Again, for consumer use, you'd be better off going with a Core i7 870 and a motherboard with a P55 chipset and an LGA 1156 socket.
The motherboard looks like it's designed to support Xeon processors and SAS hard drives. That would constitute paying extra for features that are useless for a gaming machine, and only matter if you're building a server.
quizzical i just asked randomly what they do
The Vertex 2 is a solid state drive. It's based on a SandForce controller. You can use it just like a hard drive, except that it will be a lot faster--so any programs running on it will probably run a lot faster and not make you sit and wait for things to load.
ok so best is to buy a ssd for first and a wd black as someone mention --
But if we make a poll you agree that most people will have intel and nvidia although you can make your dinner with a gtx480?
which produce less heat nvidia or radeon?
There probably are more gamers with Nvidia cards out there than AMD, but that's largely a holdover from Nvidia dominating the market 3 years ago. If you restrict to new gaming cards bought in the last year, there are probably a lot more AMD than Nvidia. If you restrict to DirectX 11 cards, the Steam Hardware Survey finds AMD with a market share over 80%.
Yes, there are more people with Intel processors than AMD. For the last four years, Intel has had better processors, and the main reason to buy AMD was because AMD would offer lower prices. The situation is about to get much worse for AMD with the launch of Sandy Bridge, but AMD might catch up in the spring with the launch of Bulldozer.
AMD (Radeon) cards currently handily beat Nvidia (GeForce) cards in performance per watt, at least if you restrict to cards on the 40 nm process (Radeon HD 5400 and up, GeForce 400 and up). That is, if you want a given level of performance, an Nvidia card will put out about 20% more heat to get it than an AMD card. The GTX 465, 470, and 480 are much, much worse than that, even. But other than that, heat output is roughly proportional to performance. If you want twice the performance, you get twice the heat.
Greater heat output isn't necessarily a big problem in a desktop, but can become one if you don't have a good cooling system on the card. The reference GeForce GTX 470 and 480 are the worst reference cards for that. The reference Radeon HD 5970 isn't cooled that well, either. It's off the market by now, but the Radeon HD 4870 X2 was pretty bad about this, too. Performance for watt for its own sake is a much bigger deal in laptops.
what about the 6800 and 6900 series
and on another subject
Quiet 80 PLUS Dual Rail PSU + 120mm Case Fan
vs CORSAIR TX SERIES 80+ ULTRA QUIET PSU
everyone recommends the corsair series
The Radeon HD 6000 series cards will be made on the same TSMC 40 nm process node as the Radeon HD 5000 series cards, and the process node is the main factor that determines performance per watt. The Radeon HD 6800 series is a little better in performance per watt than the various 5000 series cards. The 6900 series is going to be a new architecture (and different from the 6800 series), so we don't really know how that will perform.
thanks