Quantcast

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Going Cheap:Can I go cheaper?

WaldoCornWaldoCorn Member UncommonPosts: 235

 

Without loosing graphics capability, SSD, or 4 cores?

Yeah I know kill the SSD and go Vishera, but no wannie kill SSD.(not opposed to a Vishera buils that comes real close +- $30)

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813157334

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814125453

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817139049

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113288

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820147188

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231193

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16827151256

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832116986

And yeah, I would be re using a case.

The Quad I need as a couple of my games are quad pumped.

The SSD to load me before the round starts (BF3), plus loading screens, not to mention (well hell this is the 21st century).

See the world and all within it.
Live a lifetime in every minute.

Comments

  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 22,243

    Very easy way to save money:  there's a combo deal with the motherboard and OS:

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboDealDetails.aspx?ItemList=Combo.1224791.13-157-334

    -----

    Is a Radeon HD 7750 with 1600 MHz DDR3 memory faster than Radeon HD 7660D integrated graphics with 1866 MHz DDR3 memory?  Probably.  $100 worth of faster?  No.  So you could save a lot of money by going with integrated graphics instead.  First, better integrated graphics:

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113280

    Then more and faster memory, since it's also going to be used as your video memory:

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820233142

    That, on net, saves you $61, and gets you more CPU performance at the expense of less GPU performance.  Whether games run faster or slower will vary by game, but it should never be a huge difference.

    -----

    While I've commonly pooh-poohed concerns about write endurance for SSDs, having a 120 GB TLC SSD as your only drive together with only 4 GB of system memory would give me pause.  I'd certainly rather have this, even ignoring that it's a dollar cheaper and offers more usable capacity:

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820249024

    That's Plextor's second generation SSD based on a Marvell controller, and it's pretty good.  Compare it to a Crucial M4, for example.  There's also this, which is cheaper:

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820171740

    But that leaves the question of how much you want to trust SanDisk.  They've been making flash memory products for many years, but they're new to the SSD scene, and have made some questionable controller choices.  That one is a Marvell controller, which should be fine, but it means having to write their own firmware for it, and a company's first efforts at writing firmware sometimes don't work out very well.

    -----

    How badly do you need a modular power supply, especially on a low-wattage unit that isn't going to have that many cables even if they're all hard-wired?  You can save a good bit of money by giving up modularity:

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817139026

    -----

    You're completely missing a case.  You are going to get a case, aren't you?

  • WaldoCornWaldoCorn Member UncommonPosts: 235

    You've touched on something I have wondered about for quite a while now, the integrated graphics of the A - 10.

    Currently Im using a 5750, graphics card, and that begs the question, if a 7750 isn't $100 better, how close is the card on the system I have now? Should I re use it? But if the A-10 is on par w/5750 I won't re use, have reasons not to (see below).

    And, if I throw a second small usb monitor onto the A-10 (800x400) 7", do I run into a problem, where do I plug it into? Probably not but your the one to ask. ( I run my main monitor at 1400 x 1050, native and max) And use my TV as second(DVI) currently, the little would be for TS or running a mule on Potbs. The 5750 dosent give me enough oomph to run full res on monitor w/lowest on TV (1024x768)

    And no Modular isn't a huge concern, would free up some room for another case fan (intake) in the area commonly used for cable management on Micro's. Gven I go with an A-10 there is a little more wattage to dissapate (thinking out loud) where I live is hot and dusty (Overpreasured and filtered). Yet no card to dissapate...hmmm,

    Anything n these points that are of Glaring concern to you?

    The 7" was something I was planning on doing, regardless, which is why I didn't post it. Perhaps now I should.

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824185013

    A second monitor is needed but not my 27" TV, too big and too much video draw, card screams when using both, (see hot and dusty above)

    The 2 gigs on the 7750, was, to my thinking, a way to provide enough memory for the added res. 8 gigs on the A-10, addresses this yes?

    See the world and all within it.
    Live a lifetime in every minute.

  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 22,243

    The added video memory usage for a second monitor will probably be in the low tens of MB.  It's not a major concern.

    If you have a typical GDDR5 version of a Radeon HD 5750, then that's likely to be better than a DDR3 version of anything, whether discrete or integrated.  Using DDR3 rather than GDDR5 means that the card will be hamstrung by a lack of memory bandwidth.

  • WaldoCornWaldoCorn Member UncommonPosts: 235

    Yeah, so the small monitor for second w/current card, or, the integrated lets me save that money and use my TV as second, w/slightly lower video performance.

    Only game I have where I personally will feel that is PS2. Barely acceptable now, actually un acceptable as Ive quit playing due to poor video performance. Sub 30 fps in heavy fights = uncompetetive for me. Which I shouldn't complain, was sub 10 til I did a great deal of tweaking and benching on both card and CPU.

    Damn well, I may have to rethink the whole thing.

    Now I de - rail my own thread.

    What do I build for low ball cash, in your opinion?

    As it is my core duo@ 3.6 and a very slight tweak on my GPU are mached, so to speak, on PS-2. About 20 fps shy of what I need.

    In other words, if I bump up the clock on either I get a fps increase in the game. But not Acceptable Stress Results, on the hardware.

    BF 3 gets a huge FPS gain from CPU bumps (not suprising as it's quad pumped), almost none from GPU bumps.

    If I get a good enough card, can use TV for monitor 2, thus saving that money.

    My money is low, of course.

    Not opposed to getting a used Q 9550, for $180, that lets me re use my windows as no mobo change.

    Have I answered my own question? lol

    q 9550 - 7850 - SSD - PSU.

    Really wanted to get into a DD3 mobo, at 3 yrs on current, used heavily. It is as they say, a matter of cash. Im trying to do too much for too little, I think.

     

     

    See the world and all within it.
    Live a lifetime in every minute.

  • KenFisherKenFisher Member UncommonPosts: 5,035
    Originally posted by WaldoCorn
     

    Not opposed to getting a used Q 9550, for $180, that lets me re use my windows as no mobo change.

    Have I answered my own question? lol

     

    ebay link   (not sure if this is the right one, not an endorsement of seller)


    Ken Fisher - Semi retired old fart Network Administrator, now working in Network Security.  I don't Forum PVP.  If you feel I've attacked you, it was probably by accident.  When I don't understand, I ask.  Such is not intended as criticism.
  • WaldoCornWaldoCorn Member UncommonPosts: 235
    Yeah thats the one , the Xeon and Q9550 are the same chip, same bios etc. The guy I was looking at is a few bucks more, but he is a local phone call for me, and actually answers his phone.. nice.

    See the world and all within it.
    Live a lifetime in every minute.

  • WaldoCornWaldoCorn Member UncommonPosts: 235

    My current board

    http://www.gigabyte.com/products/product-page.aspx?pid=3485#ov

    3 phases, ouch.

    Q9550 and 7850 no OC on either, will it work, do you think?

    Im feeding 1.275 v in bios to CPU.

    108 TDP on my GPU. prolly closer to 115 w/oc's I have used on it, but did I ever actually pull that much?

    See the world and all within it.
    Live a lifetime in every minute.

  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 22,243

    Rather than pouring a bunch of money into an aging Core 2 Quad that you'll have to replace next time you want to upgrade anyway, I'd recommend focusing on some more modern parts that won't need to be replaced so soon.  Furthermore, overclocking a Core 2 Quad on that motherboard would be playing with fire, and it's not terribly fast at stock speeds.

    Instead, I'd say to keep your video card a while longer, while focusing on upgrading the CPU side of things this time.  Get an FX-6300 together with an AMD 970 motherboard for it and 8 GB of DDR3 memory, and plan on keeping those parts for a very long time.

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboDealDetails.aspx?ItemList=Combo.1236414

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboDealDetails.aspx?ItemList=Combo.1224793.19-113-286

    Then in a year or two when you have more money, you replace the video card.  You use the Radeon HD 5750 until then.  It's still a decent enough card and supports the latest graphics APIs that matter, and should be able to run most games on high settings, and most of the rest of medium.

    This might not get you something better today than going with the Core 2 Quad Q9550 today.  But it will leave you in a much better spot the next time you want to upgrade, as this way, you'll be able to keep the motherboard, CPU, memory, and OS license through the next upgrade.  If you get the Core 2 Quad today, all of those will need to be replaced the next time you want to upgrade.

  • WaldoCornWaldoCorn Member UncommonPosts: 235
    Originally posted by Quizzical

    Rather than pouring a bunch of money into an aging Core 2 Quad that you'll have to replace next time you want to upgrade anyway, I'd recommend focusing on some more modern parts that won't need to be replaced so soon.  Furthermore, overclocking a Core 2 Quad on that motherboard would be playing with fire, and it's not terribly fast at stock speeds.

    Instead, I'd say to keep your video card a while longer, while focusing on upgrading the CPU side of things this time.  Get an FX-6300 together with an AMD 970 motherboard for it and 8 GB of DDR3 memory, and plan on keeping those parts for a very long time.

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboDealDetails.aspx?ItemList=Combo.1236414

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboDealDetails.aspx?ItemList=Combo.1224793.19-113-286

    Then in a year or two when you have more money, you replace the video card.  You use the Radeon HD 5750 until then.  It's still a decent enough card and supports the latest graphics APIs that matter, and should be able to run most games on high settings, and most of the rest of medium.

    This might not get you something better today than going with the Core 2 Quad Q9550 today.  But it will leave you in a much better spot the next time you want to upgrade, as this way, you'll be able to keep the motherboard, CPU, memory, and OS license through the next upgrade.  If you get the Core 2 Quad today, all of those will need to be replaced the next time you want to upgrade.

    Yep, I feel that Ive been very fortunate to get the performance I have for 3 yrs now, 1000mhz oc on that board was a miracle. And while it runs great and has low temps, why push it while I have this narrow window to do something about it?

    Also theres the original board I posted, It looks like the FM2 is going as far as it ever will, so that too, while OK today, has seen its future come and go.

    OH post edit, I wouldn't be OCing the 9550m at all, looking at bench marks its roughly double my dual core core dou, both at stock speeds,and I know my OC isn't doubling my performance, as I bench tested evrey aspect of my CPU's performance, and the increase was 20% across the board.

    However Im sure Im not pumping 95 watts through it as either. It was eating 1.185 v stock and now eats 1.275, so prolly 70 - 75 wats.

    95 watts, no, dont think I want to try that.

     

    See the world and all within it.
    Live a lifetime in every minute.

  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 22,243
    Originally posted by WaldoCorn
    Originally posted by Quizzical

    Rather than pouring a bunch of money into an aging Core 2 Quad that you'll have to replace next time you want to upgrade anyway, I'd recommend focusing on some more modern parts that won't need to be replaced so soon.  Furthermore, overclocking a Core 2 Quad on that motherboard would be playing with fire, and it's not terribly fast at stock speeds.

    Instead, I'd say to keep your video card a while longer, while focusing on upgrading the CPU side of things this time.  Get an FX-6300 together with an AMD 970 motherboard for it and 8 GB of DDR3 memory, and plan on keeping those parts for a very long time.

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboDealDetails.aspx?ItemList=Combo.1236414

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboDealDetails.aspx?ItemList=Combo.1224793.19-113-286

    Then in a year or two when you have more money, you replace the video card.  You use the Radeon HD 5750 until then.  It's still a decent enough card and supports the latest graphics APIs that matter, and should be able to run most games on high settings, and most of the rest of medium.

    This might not get you something better today than going with the Core 2 Quad Q9550 today.  But it will leave you in a much better spot the next time you want to upgrade, as this way, you'll be able to keep the motherboard, CPU, memory, and OS license through the next upgrade.  If you get the Core 2 Quad today, all of those will need to be replaced the next time you want to upgrade.

    Yep, I feel that Ive been very fortunate to get the performance I have for 3 yrs now, 1000mhz oc on that board was a miracle. And while it runs great and has low temps, why push it while I have this narrow window to do something about it?

    Also theres the original board I posted, It looks like the FM2 is going as far as it ever will, so that too, while OK today, has seen its future come and go.

    OH post edit, I wouldn't be OCing the 9550m at all, looking at bench marks its roughly double my dual core core dou, both at stock speeds,and I know my OC isn't doubling my performance, as I bench tested evrey aspect of my CPU's performance, and the increase was 20% across the board.

    However Im sure Im not pumping 95 watts through it as either. It was eating 1.185 v stock and now eats 1.275, so prolly 70 - 75 wats.

    95 watts, no, dont think I want to try that.

     

    If the motherboard is built to be able to handle 95 W and you have a processor that at stock speeds, uses far less than 95 W, then overclocking the processor far enough that it actually uses 95 W wouldn't take a miracle.  Getting a processor that uses 95 W at stock speeds and overclocking that further is dangerous, however.

    Pretty much all motherboard sockets available today are going to be replaced soon.  Switching from DDR3 to DDR4 memory means that you need a new socket for everything.  There's a decent chance that Kaveri will have a Socket FM2 version, in addition to the rumored Socket FM3 version.  But the top bin of Kaveri is unlikely to have more than six cores, and might not have more than four.

    I expect AMD to eventually make a CPU without integrated graphics based on the same Steamroller cores as in Kaveri.  And there's a meaningful chance that that will have a Socket AM3+ version.  But I wouldn't count on it.  Rather, you should get a processor today that will be fine for a long time.  Such as an FX-6300, which offers 6 cores, decent per-core performance, and isn't outrageously expensive.

  • RidelynnRidelynn Member EpicPosts: 7,076

    One thing about overclocking and TDP

    Power goes up very fast, much faster than you would expect.

    Every piece of silicon is a bit unique - part of the fab process.

    Chip specs more or less say "This chip will run at these frequencies and not exceed this TDP" - they do some testing before they get binned. If that fail that test, they get tested at the next lower clock, and so on and so forth, until they run out of bins to place it for.

    So your chip may run right at it's TDP. It may run far underneath it to begin with. Without a power meter, it's impossible to tell - but it's safer to assume that it's running at listed TDP at stock speeds. Different companies also calculate TDP's different ways, and sometimes the same company will calculate TDP differently based on the product line. Sometimes it's "max power draw", sometimes it's "max power draw under ~typical~ conditions" which can be very ambiguous and arbitrary.

    Changes in frequency are relatively mild on TDP changes, mostly linear, but that depends on the exact physics of your silicon (internal capacitance, transient response, etc). Voltage changes have an extreme effect on TDP - as power goes up by the square of voltage, so it's an exponential increase in power consumption.

    http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2010/ph240/iyer2/
    also
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_design_power

    This gives a bit of technical background.

    A rule of thumb I use: If you are at stock or underclock, figure at TDP
    If you overclock via clocks alone, figure 150% of TDP
    If you overclock via clocks and voltage, figure 200% of TDP
    It's better to overshoot on the TDP than undershoot

  • WaldoCornWaldoCorn Member UncommonPosts: 235

    I did the OC on this CPU 3 years ago, stressed and benched up to 3.9, then backed everything off to 3.6, thats where it has lived, drawing facory recomended voltage. Its actually recomended to not exceed 1.3625V, it has run fine, and cool at 1.275v which is the recomended voltage on the intel box it came in. 

    Im not planning on doing any OCing on any CPU I change to.

    I wasn't asking about overclocking.

    Nor am I buying a processor that provides performance my current GPU can't use, and puting it in a motherboard that doesn't fit in my case.

    I do appreciate all the info, and will use what Ive gleaned to make an informed decision.

    Thank you.

    See the world and all within it.
    Live a lifetime in every minute.

  • RidelynnRidelynn Member EpicPosts: 7,076

    No, but you were asking about some TDP's, and had some really odd estimates based on whatever OC levels or voltages you had tried, so I thought I may give you some information to make more accurate guesses - although even at best they will still just be guesses.

  • WaldoCornWaldoCorn Member UncommonPosts: 235

    I pulled the TDP for my GPU off the specs.

    And made a guess as to how much wattage my CPU actually uses.

    Odd?

    And I asked if a 95 watt CPU would be too much for a 3 phase board, in Quizes opinion, which he gave.

    And again Im thankfull.

    I guess this is just one of those daya where I am existing in a dimension apart from humanity.

    And for that, I am truely gratefull. Odd though it may be.

     

    See the world and all within it.
    Live a lifetime in every minute.

Sign In or Register to comment.