Time to get a new PC-advise appreciated

[victoriabears]

First off , for my needs below, what would going i5/i7 get me over a AMD or Intel quad core chip for the $2-300 price difference?

My system was an amd 64+ 3400 with 4 gb ram so you know where I am leaping from with a video card with 500mb ram.
Its six years old and the MB blew so have been pushed into getting what I've wanted for some months anyhow.

I torrent quite a lot, backup dvd's, and generally bring dvd's recorded on dvd recorders to the PC for editing or conversion to xvid/divx, and have to convert stuff like mkv files to divx.

I do not capture or game, but I have seen that my laptop which is a Intel core2duo t64 @ 2.ghz, encodes to divx about 10 times faster than my old desktop.=, so given that comparison how would a quad core or i5/i7 desktop stack up, as the speed of encoding with my old desktop was getting on my nerves.

Just look for general viewpoints, not massively technical, I do not mind spending $1200 if the jump from the $8-900 system is worth it for my purposes.

Appreciate the help and have researched this forum but not really found my answer. I want to get a whole new system not try to use parts from my clapped out one.

[victoriabears]

given the time and effort I put into advising folks on this forum, some pay back opinions would be nice-thanks

[aedipuss]

wow... it's the weekend still here in the u.s. and you want immediate gratification?

anyway there is a new amd 6 core cpu at a very attractive price in the pipeline that will work in existing motherboards. you might look into that. intel's version is many times higher in price.

[edDV]

I don't yet have an i5 or i7 so if I was in your shoes, I'd search for encoding benchmarks then decide how much is worth the price.

Encoding delays are frustrating. That is why I always have at least two machines running. That and I find other ways to use the time like answering questions here.

When you get a new machine, it seems fast until it doesn't anymore.

[usually_quiet]

anyway there is a new amd 6 core cpu at a very attractive price in the pipeline that will work in existing motherboards. you might look into that. intel's version is many times higher in price.

You mean like this one? http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103849 (I subscribe to email offers from a couple of computer hardware vendors, so I was informed the moment these were available for sale. )

[jagabo]

At the CPU level, Intel and AMD prices are roughly equivalent for equivalent performance. At the system level, Intel costs more because AMD systems are usually aimed at the lower end of the market with cheaper components overall. And Intel owns the high end of the CPU market now so it can set disproportionately high prices there.

Of course, the performance you get will depend on what software you use. So edDV's advice, look for benchmarks using the software you use, in the way you use it, is good. Then decide if any price premiums are worth it to you..

[aedipuss]

anyway there is a new amd 6 core cpu at a very attractive price in the pipeline that will work in existing motherboards. you might look into that. intel's version is many times higher in price.

You mean like this one? http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103849 (I subscribe to email offers from a couple of computer hardware vendors, so I was informed the moment these were available for sale. )

well sort of, but i was thinking more like these for $200

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103851

[victoriabears]

thanks everyone, I try to stick to TMPG express or divx author for software, rather than have tons of different software around, it is not the fastest but seem to provide the most reliable against quality ratio.

I would like to build my own computer as have fixed and upgraded over the years, and have hard drives of the size I need and dvd burners, but do mobo's still support IDE?,,and I have always gone against a large hard drive and splitting it into partitions, preferring 2 or 3 separate hard drives, is that old thinking?

seems like a lego set situation, the only thing that scares me is this paste business with placing the chip/heat-sink/fan, also I would like to stay with xp, have a spare license apart from anything else, as windows 7 seems a bit of a pain for video work also stick with 32 bit ?

[jagabo]

All the major review sites covered the six core AMD CPUs recently.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/3674/amds-sixcore-phenom-ii-x6-1090t-1055t-reviewed
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-phenom-ii-x6-1090t-890fx,2613.html
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2363071,00.asp

Basically, with some exceptions, they're priced like Intel quad cores because they perform like them.

[usually_quiet]

All 3 of my previous computers were Intel-based. This time, I decided to build my own and determined that AMD would give me more for my money. I'm still happy with it. It does what I need it to do, and it is more upgradeable than the Socket 775 system I would have been able to afford otherwise.

Intel's fastest i7 is apparently still the king for video encoding, but I don't think your budget supports that option. AMD doesn't have CPUs that are truly comparable to the top i7s in performance.

AMD's Phenom II X6 1090T was rated a bit better in some encoding benchmark tests than the slower i7s, which still cost more if you factor in the cost of comparable motherboards. For what it is worth, not many applications can make good use of 4 cores, let alone 6. The fastest i5s are the peppiest dual-core processors around, so they tend to perform quite well in benchmarks, and are priced like the Phenom II x6s. A Phenom II x4 965 is pretty nice and costs $100 less than a Phenom II X6 1090T.

The motherboards for the newest Intel CPUS are more expensive than those for AMD's newest CPUs, but they don't necessarily offer better features on the backplane or better manufacturing quality. AMD doesn't make motherboards. Intel does, but for what you get, they are expensive compared to third-party offerings.

The same 3rd party companies are making boards for both AMD and Intel solutions. Very cheaply made motherboards are available for both and very nice motherboards are available for both. The main difference aside from CPU support is chip sets. The AMD boards use AMD chips and the Intel boards use intel chips. AMD chips are less costly.

[victoriabears]

I am finding all this input very interesting and informative-thanks.

My PC had a gigabyte MB with an AMD 64+ 3400 chip and I found the whole experience very good, re installing was easy using the gigabyte on line updates etc, and given that I left it on 24/7 for 6 years, upgraded memory/video card and vacuumed it out every 6 months, it had plenty of fans and quite heavy use over 6 years I cannot be anything but happy.

[redwudz]

I would like to build my own computer as have fixed and upgraded over the years, and have hard drives of the size I need and dvd burners, but do mobo's still support IDE?,,and I have always gone against a large hard drive and splitting it into partitions, preferring 2 or 3 separate hard drives, is that old thinking?

seems like a lego set situation, the only thing that scares me is this paste business with placing the chip/heat-sink/fan, also I would like to stay with xp, have a spare license apart from anything else, as windows 7 seems a bit of a pain for video work also stick with 32 bit ?

Most newer motherboards have one IDE socket for two devices. There is always the option of using a PCI slot IDE (PATA) adapter. But most optical and hard drives are SATA these days and there are usually four to six or more SATA sockets. I still use a fast, small boot drive (150GB WD Raptor) and several larger HDDs for edit and archive. You could get a new SATA boot drive and a SATA DVD burner and you would still have the two PATA slots available for your older drives. I don't use multiple partitions even on my 1.5TB drives. I don't see any advantages for what I use them for.

A six core or a quad core has the most benefit for multi-core aware software. H.264 and Divx/Xvid are two that come to mind. A four core CPU is also nice for multitasking where you can do several operations with the computer without affecting the overall speed too much.

I would probably recommend a Micro-ATX motherboard if gaming isn't an issue. They usually have about the same amount of SATA and PATA ports and the on-board video is often very good. They do have less PCI slots, but there isn't much need for them with newer MBs.

Most newer MBs have went to DDR3 RAM, but it's about the same price as DDR2 at present, so a better deal. Even with XP, I would recommend 4GB RAM in a dual channel kit, as you may want to upgrade to W7 in the future. W7 is more robust than XP, IMO, but that's up to you. W7 also has some niceties such as auto defragging and is a bit more modern than XP. I prefer 32bit OSs and haven't went to 64bit versions because of incompatibilities with some of my older software.

If you don't plan to overclock and the CPU comes with a decent heatsink, most HSs already have thermal compound tape on them. Just attach and you're done.

EDIT: I also tend to use Gigabyte MBs in my builds. The inexpensive Propus AMD quad CPU may be worth looking into. I'm using one in my HTPC at present with a Micro-ATX MB and feeding my projector through HDMI and the surround sound through S/PIDF to a surround AMP. It also has a Blu-ray ROM and does quite well at BD>MKV conversions.

[TBoneit]

I used a i7-930, a Asus P6T and a Nvida chip GTS250 so I could play around with Cuda.

Benchmark here:
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2010/03/01/intel-core-i7-930-cpu-review/5

The performance is good. I used to run a Q6600 based system. I'm still sorting out the software for encoding due to tiny glitches with my HD-PVR Captures. However TMPGEnc Xpress 4 seems to be using the 4 physical and the 4 logical cores for encoding.

The benchmark page I referenced indicated they were able to overclock to 4.3 Ghz.

Core i7-930 details

• Frequency: 2.8GHz
• Number of cores: 4 x physical, 4 x logical
• Core: Bloomfield
• Packaging: LGA1366
• L1 cache: 32KB L1 data, 32KB L1 instruction per core
• L2 cache: 256KB per core, inclusive
• L3 cache: 8MB accessible by all cores, inclusive
• QPI: 4.8GT/sec
• Memory: Triple-channel DDR3-1,333MHz
• TDP: 130W

[RabidDog]

RE motherboards
I am pleasantly pleased with ASus also liked Chaintech and Asrock in the past
Not impressed with GigAbyte/Nforce
I would go for 4 physical cores (or more) Amd tend to be cheaper in the lower ranges.
also maybe set aside some money for SSD as , I read, they provide a welcome boost to system performance, and about now they are entering a more mainstream phase. STill too expensive for me tho. And dont forget a Good case and power supply.Thats my Advice.

[DarrellS]

For "bang for the buck", I'd build either an Intel Core i5-750 quad core Lynnfield 2.66GHz or AMD Phenom II X6 1055T Thuban 2.8GHz machine. Both seem to be comparible to a low end I7.

GIGABYTE GA-P55A-UD4P LGA 1156 Intel P55 SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 ATX Intel Motherboard
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128409 $169.99 after rebate
Intel Core i5-750 Lynnfield 2.66GHz
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115215 $199.99

GIGABYTE GA-890XA-UD3 AM3 AMD 790X SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 ATX AMD Motherboard
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128438 $139.99
AMD Phenom II X6 1055T Thuban 2.8GHz
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103851 $204.99

G.SKILL 4GB (2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1600 (PC3 12800) Dual Channel Kit Desktop Memory Model F3-12800CL9D-4GBNQ
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231193 $109.99

Western Digital Caviar Black WD1002FAEX 1TB 7200 RPM 64MB Cache SATA 6.0Gb/s 3.5" Internal Hard Drive
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822136533 $109.99 x 2

XFX HD-477A-YDFC Radeon HD 4770 512MB 128-bit GDDR5
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814150369 $89.99 after rebate

or

EVGA 512-P3-N871-AR GeForce 9800 GTX+ 512MB 256-bit DDR3
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130339 $99.99 after rebate

COOLER MASTER Hyper 212 Plus
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835103065 $26.99

[bigass]

I concur with the recommendation of others. I've added two new PCs to the family in the past quarter -- one for HD HTPC use, the other for audio/video production and general use.

The HTPC is based on an Asus 785G motherboard and AMD Phenom II X4 955 cpu.

The production PC is also an Asus board, a P55 I think, with an i5 750. First time I build a PC from scratch, and like everyone everywhere says, it's an intimidating idea at first, but if you've tinkered over the years, it's easier than you probably think. Applying the heatsink/fan was a stress moment but the hard part was actually tidying up the cabling at the end of the build.

I've been an AMD man for years and was ready to go AMD again for the edit rig, but I read too many articles with analysis showing the Intel i5 stuff stomping the Phenom IIs. I know it's just seconds on small files, but seconds add up to minutes ... and you know the old rule: if you can afford it, it's already obsolete. I'd rather wait longer before feeling *really* obsolete.

FWIW, the Intel build was significantly more expensive on every relevant item -- CPU, mobo, plus I had to get a video card. (Ended up getting a card for the HTPC, too, but I'm picky.)

[creamyhorror]

and you know the old rule: if you can afford it, it's already obsolete.

What kind of rule is that? It makes more sense to recommend buying something not on the cutting edge so you don't pay a premium for the newest technology - unless, of course, your budget is essentially unlimited or you have nothing better to spend the money on.

[usually_quiet]

Everybody seems to have a favorite motherboard brand, except me. I just looked for the features I wanted, solid capacitors, a layout I liked, and something that didn't look cheap and junky. When Newegg offered a good combo deal on one of the two motherboards I liked most and the CPU I wanted, it made the decision easy.

I still like my MSI 785GM-E56 MATX motherboard very much. I wish it had one more PCI-E x1 slot, but there aren't many MATX boards that have that combination. (USB 3.0 add-on cards use PCI-e and so do current TV cards. I know I can use the video card slot for my TV card but would rather keep it unoccupied just in case I find I need a video card one day.)

I prefer sticking to a budget. If a system is being built for work, time is money and maybe the cutting edge is worth the tarrif. If it is just for personal use, maybe not.

[budz]

Like redwudz I also built a AMD Quad system with the cheapo AMD Propus 630 cpu along with a Gigabyte mobo. It's the best bang for the buck because at a later time I can always upgrade to a AMD 6 core cpu. I try to stay a few steps ahead of the game so there's room for future upgrading. The Propus cpu is a good overclocking cpu with the right mobo. It does video encoding well as I do bluray conversions with BDRebuilder and DVD Rebuilder Pro.

For the last few years I've only used Gigabyte motherboards because IMHO Asus quality control went downhill.
Intel is king at the moment but you gotta pay the price for it. Good luck on deciding which cpu you'll buy, AMD or INTEL.
Just my 2 cents!

[bigass]

and you know the old rule: if you can afford it, it's already obsolete.

What kind of rule is that? It makes more sense to recommend buying something not on the cutting edge so you don't pay a premium for the newest technology - unless, of course, your budget is essentially unlimited or you have nothing better to spend the money on.

Exactly my point. Because what you can probably afford is *not* cutting edge, I think it best to set a budget of what you *can* afford and spend all of it on the best gear you can, resigning yourself to the fact that unless you have an obscene amount of money, you're not going to be buying the newest thing on the market. Therefore, if you can afford it, it's already past the point of novelty -- swallow that knowledge and do the best you can with what you've got.

IOW, perfect is the enemy of good. Spend what you have on good stuff, possibly stuff that's open to future upgrades as finances allow.

I've given myself that doorway with both my systems -- I can one day go six-core on my AM3 setup, or go i7 on my ....whateversocketthei5was setup.

[victoriabears]

Is it true that a 1TB hard drive with the operating system on it would be less of a good idea than a small hard drive with just the OS/programs , and separate hard drives for the data? In a modern system with say and i5 and 4 or 6 gb ram

[redwudz]

If you need to back up the boot drive or just defrag it, a smaller OS drive would be a better choice, IMO. You should only be keeping the OS and the programs on the boot drive. The boot drive is accessed constantly by the OS and not a great place to capture to or expect fast performance for encoding or editing from. Better to have a couple of other drives for those purposes. I used to use 80GB boot drives, but OSs like Vista and W7 need a bit more room. Maybe about double that or around 150GB.

You can use larger drives, and use some of that extra space for archival storage where fast access isn't needed. But I find a small, fast boot drive gives me better performance. I like the WD 10K RPM Raptor at present for a good cost/benefit. The larger SSD drives are also a good choice, but they need the TRIM command to keep running at top performance and they are still fairly expensive. Besides, booting or loading programs at a high speed doesn't help much for encoding or editing. Spend most of your $$ on a faster CPU, not faster HDDs and you will get better performance. Again, JMO.

[victoriabears]

Thought I would regail you with my decision, a lot of it is the Dell 0 % finance for a year and the price saving over a local PC builder. Realising that option might have better quality components though I will see how Dell is and may be my 2nd PC will be a local builder next year, I have never bought a Dell and at least now they allow space for changing/upgrading video cards and memory, also it has a PCI slot and I have a PCI IDE card for my older drive. I had a horror story with a very proprietary HP 6 years ago from Future Shop.

Will update when I get it and use it for a while:-

Studio XPS 9000
Studio XPS 9000, Genuine Windows® 7 Home Premium, 64bit, English $1,488.00 1 $1,488.00 Studio XPS 9000 Studio XPS 9000
[224-4407]
Processor Intel® Core™ i7-920 processor(8MB L3 Cache, 2.66GHz)
[317-0067]
Memory 9GB Tri-Channel DDR3 SDRAM at 1066MHz - 6 DIMMs
[317-0079]
Keyboard Dell Studio Consumer Multimedia Keyboard
[330-3828]
Monitor No Monitor
[320-7810]
Video Card nVidia GeForce GTS 240 1024MB
[320-0907]
Hard Drive 750GB 7200 RPM SATA Hard Drive
[341-8518]
Operating System Genuine Windows® 7 Home Premium, 64bit, English
[330-6097]
[420-6436]
[420-6576]
[420-7938]
[420-8873]
[420-9691]
[421-0323]
[421-0530]
[421-0756]
[421-1183]
[421-1603]
[421-2087]
Mouse Dell Optical USB Mouse
[310-9573]
Modem No Modem Option
[313-3607]
Adobe Software Adobe® Acrobat® Reader 9.0 Multi-Language
[410-1867]
Optical Drive 16X DVD+/-RW Drive
[313-8757]
[313-8916]
[421-1412]
Sound Card Integrated 7.1 Channel Audio
[313-7186]
Speaker No speakers (Speakers are required to hear audio from your system)
[313-4514]
Network Integrated 10/1000 Ethernet
[430-3347]
Office Productivity Software (Pre-Installed) Microsoft Works 9.0, English
[420-8085]
Security Software McAfee SecurityCenter, 15-Months
[410-6669]
Hardware Support Services 1 Year Basic Service Plan
[920-5050]
[988-7347]
[992-7420]
[993-6107]
Optional Support Services Dell Online Backup 2GB for 1 year
[988-0099]
[988-7707]
Installation No Installation
[900-9989]
Misc 5 Please contact me regarding Dell’s exclusive internet offers
[465-8687]

Congratulations! You have qualified for savings with your online purchase. - $189.00 5% in savings with eligible online purchase. - $64.95 Subtotal: $1,234.05 Shipping and Handling: $0.00
Environmental Disposal Fee: $5.50 PST: $86.76 GST/HST: $61.97 Total: $1,388.28

[victoriabears]

Duplicate