Motherboard and CPU recomendations

[alskahawk]

  I recently used my old Gigabyte MB/Video Card/Ram and CPU on another build. So now I am looking to upgrade with a new MB/CPU/Ram/Video combo for my flying computer. It will be only used mostly for a few flying games. AH2, OFF etc.

I haven't kept up on the changes in the last couple of years.  I have looked at just putting a decent AMD board in with a dual core CPU but I am not sure. What are the good Intel chips? What is the I7, I5 etc? Whats a good under $200 MB? I prefer Asus or Gigabyte, but I am open to suggestions. I usually use Tiger Direct or Newegg for parts. I am looking to keep the combo under $500.

 Left over items on my computer:

150GB Raptor HD
750 W Pwr Supply
CD/DVD Sata drive

[ebfd11]

Here is one that might suit your need

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboDealDetails.aspx?ItemList=Combo.502076

and here you go to look through the combo deals

http://www.newegg.com/Store/ComboDeals.aspx?ComboStoreID=1&name=CPUs-Motherboards&Page=1

[alskahawk]

 Thanks. Good Recomendations. Unbelievable. Six core, last I heard of was Quad.

[Infidelz]

As an Intel shareholder I am shocked at this brazen attempt at influence. I would point out that those systems are amd based. I have read in the forums you should reconsider using only Intel based systems. They are the most common and would have better support.

[1701E]

If the system is only for gaming such as AH then a fast clocked Dual core is going to be better than a Quad or 6 core CPU.  Skuzzy has said AH only uses 2 cores and is better run on a faster clocked Dual then a Quad.  While Intel is typically faster overall (and some seem to have better luck with chipsets), AMD works perfectly fine in games.  My Phenom II 555 x2 and even Athlon 4850e ran the game close to perfectly (when coupled with a GTX 260 and a lowly 2GB of RAM) at full settings (only 2-4K shadows).

For 500$ Intel can create a faster system but if you're only gaming you can save some money and get darn good performance for less with AMD.
Think the main complaints against AMD is poor chipsets or something along those lines and speeds when video-editing/compressing/etc, but personally I've never had troubles with AMD.  If Intel didn't cost so much I'd buy them.

[columbus]

also good with the X6's is the turbo core feature .. i think it goes up to 3.6ghz on the 890fx chipset

also a good reference is this for price/performance comparsion

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html

[cattb]

As an Intel shareholder I am shocked at this brazen attempt at influence. I would point out that those systems are amd based. I have read in the forums you should reconsider using only Intel based systems. They are the most common and would have better support.

Ohboy Intel shareholder 

[Spikes]

As an Intel shareholder I am shocked at this brazen attempt at influence. I would point out that those systems are amd based. I have read in the forums you should reconsider using only Intel based systems. They are the most common and would have better support.

Troll or fanboi?

[Skuzzy]

Like it or not folks, Intel does work better than AMD, for many things.  It is not just the CPU, but the chipsets surrounding the CPU that are better than anything in the AMD corner.  

Yes, Intel is, generally, more expensive.  That is a fact.

I have to support the game, and Intel is the lion share of the systems running the game, yet AMD at the heart of the lion share of support issues.  That is a fact.

If you do video editing, Intel is a no-brainer choice.  You could spend a lot less on Intel, than AMD, and still have a faster video editing/rendering solution.  That is also a fact.

I have zero vested interest in either company.  My only motivation is fewer support calls/emails.  I will always suggest the faster clocked CPU.  6 cores do not buy you much improvements, if any, in 99% of the real world applications, including video rendering simply due to the limits of the external memory busses.  Only one core at a time can access the external memory bus.

Get the faster clocked CPU, with 4 cores, or less, and you will be a happy camper.

[Bino]

FWIW, the i-7 930 overclocked quite easily for me from the stock 2.8 GHz up to 3.4 GHz (see CPUZ link in sig, below)

YMMV   

[alskahawk]

 Thanks! These are all good view points. I have used both Intel 2 core, quad, AMD Dual, and for my use it doesn't make a lot of difference. I am leaning towards AMD because of price and because I have a water cooling system with a AMD mount. Less money to the MB/CPU means more video card. But its not locked and loaded yet.

[eagl]

I have to support the game, and Intel is the lion share of the systems running the game, yet AMD at the heart of the lion share of support issues.  That is a fact.

In the other thread you said most of the problems were from unnecessary video card driver updates

It also cracks me up how people misquote you skuzzy...

Over the last year or two I think you've said, in various ways, statements to the effect of:

"AH uses as many cores as it needs"
"AH runs faster when fed more mhz than it does when fed more cores (assuming same cpu family)"

Which of course appears to mean that more cores isn't "wasted" exactly, but if you're going to spend money on a new multi-core cpu, then buy the faster clocked one instead of slower clocked one with more cores.

Also, people forget that the vid card makers have been making their drivers multi-core aware for a couple of years now.  So no matter how many cores AH uses, other processes running on the computer including vid, sound, network, etc. drivers may utilize additional cores.  So going dual or quad core certainly might help, as long as you're not taking a huge clock speed hit from one cpu to the other.

Is that close to what you usually mean when discussing this topic?

[Skuzzy]

In the other thread you said most of the problems were from unnecessary video card driver updates

It also cracks me up how people misquote you skuzzy...

Over the last year or two I think you've said, in various ways, statements to the effect of:

"AH uses as many cores as it needs"
"AH runs faster when fed more mhz than it does when fed more cores (assuming same cpu family)"

Which of course appears to mean that more cores isn't "wasted" exactly, but if you're going to spend money on a new multi-core cpu, then buy the faster clocked one instead of slower clocked one with more cores.

Also, people forget that the vid card makers have been making their drivers multi-core aware for a couple of years now.  So no matter how many cores AH uses, other processes running on the computer including vid, sound, network, etc. drivers may utilize additional cores.  So going dual or quad core certainly might help, as long as you're not taking a huge clock speed hit from one cpu to the other.

Is that close to what you usually mean when discussing this topic?

Context, ain't it great?


The multi-threaded video card drivers run at kernel time, which requires a context switch.  When that happens all processes are in user space are stopped and pushed out of the way on all cores so the kernel can run exclusive.

Nothing in the kernel can run parallel to a user process and vice-versa.


When I discuss video cards, the number one problem is newer drivers being loaded on older cards.
When I discuss CPU/computer related problems, AMD is the number one problem.

If I ever said Aces High will use as many cores as it needs (I do not remember saying that, but I am old so I do not trust my memory), then I was in la-la land, as that is absolutely not true.  Aces High uses 2 cores.

[Jenks]

Like it or not folks, Intel does work better than AMD, for many things.  It is not just the CPU, but the chipsets surrounding the CPU that are better than anything in the AMD corner.  

So if I'm looking at a new mobo, one with Intel south and northbridges would be preferable to one with, say an Nvidea northbridge? (assuming almost exclusive aces high use)

[cattb]

What are the most common problems you find with AMD Skuzzy? Is it more older computers, newer, or both?