New PC, looking for suggestions

[GSH]

I used to occasionally upgrade CPUs, keeping motherboard/ram/etc. Haven't done that in 5+ years, ever since my Athlon64 3800+ x2 (socket 939?) was just before AMD changed their socket style, and I couldn't get anything faster. All the computers I've put together since then have stayed as-is in the CPU+MB front from initial build; I've changed up storage, RAM, and video card. But, I'm getting a pretty good CPU+MB, and just not touching things. I don't see that much value in swapping out CPU over time, and trying to find someone to buy the old CPU.

For me, the AMD vs Intel decision mainly comes down to initial cost vs total consumption. AMD is cheaper, but the chips run hotter and consume more power. Living in Texas, where we have the AC on for months, the less computer heat the AC has to remove, the better. The rule of thumb for data centers is that for each 1 watt of computer power, you spend 2 watts of cooling. So, I think that over time, the extra initial price of Intel will pay back in less total power consumption -- of both the computer and its cooling.

Also, per here, roughly a year ago, game benchmarks weren't showing a meaningful benefit past 3 real cores. This might have changed slightly in the past year, but the general rule is that multithreaded programming is hard for anything other than embarrassingly parallel apps like video encoding or rendering. BZ2 is still uses about 1.05 cores. There's a little background thread action for Gamespy networking, and ogg decoding, but 99% of the time, BZ2's background threads are waiting for work. Rewriting BZ2 to be really multithreaded would be 3-4x the work of adding DX9. If you're doing a ton of those apps that really benefit from multithreading, great, get more cores. If not, 3-4 cores will probably be sufficient for a while.

Although a lot of gamers decry 'consolification', the X360/PS3 are more multithreaded than your average desktop PC, so you have to aggressively multithread the app to perform on those systems. (X360 is triple core plus hyperthreading, and PS3 is hyperthreaded CPU + 5-6 SPUs). That generally ports back to the PC decently for anything better than an Intel Atom.

-- GSH

[-APOCALYPSE-]

AMDs are good in my opinion because they do exactly what it says on the tin really. Cooling wise yes it may take more power. Making the heatsink completely clean of dust would help reduce heat and also more RAM so it will place less load on the CPU.

Thats just me though.

[Nielk1]

My computer now is pretty hot, won't want to have that again. Then again, its the GFX card in my current PC that does it less than the CPU.

I would be interested in a list of competing AMD processors for the i7.

[-APOCALYPSE-]

I think the phenoms are competing i think not sure. never read the tech magazines

[Ded10c]

Yes, hexacore.

Re: graphics, I'm getting the Gigabyte nVidia GTX 460(?) come the end of the month, replacing the 8400gs which is just holding its place for now

[GSH]

AMD's got some chips launching soonish, in the Llano and Bulldozer families. No benchmarks yet. If you're an AMD fanboy, you'd probably want to wait 2-3 months to see what's next.

Modern GPUs run cooler. But, going multiple GPUs can really negate that. An ATI (AMD) 6950 runs cooler than a pair of 6850s. See here, among other sites. Once again, initial cost of one better card vs 1-2 cheaper cards, and then the ongoing power consumption cost.

-- GSH

[-APOCALYPSE-]

sounds awesome AHadley. Im thinking of getting a AMD Turion x2 64 Ultra @ 2.2 or 2.4GHz since its the best CPU that can fit a S1 socket.

[Psychedelic Rhino]

My sweet grasshopper, if you don't get an SSD for your OS after spending so much money on all the other sweet stuff you've shown, we'll all have to kill you. I personally carry a wicked strain of rabies.

[Nielk1]

Now I have an interesting issue to consider. The coming AMD Bulldozer. No idea if I should go for that or just get the best PC I can.

I basically need 3 things:
Ability to play some high quality games.
Ability to render, sadly though the CPU unless I can get an oddball GPU render to work.
Lots of storage.

[Psychedelic Rhino]

The daily trudge of coming up and transitioning through OS processes, makes a 100gb SSD well worth the consideration.

[Nielk1]

OK, it needs an SSD, now just to figure out everything else.

[TheJamsh]

Someone obviously got paid recently

A 100GB SSD To run the basic programs off on computer startup would be awesome, then have the other two TB drives for data/other programs.

Is 1666hz the maximum front-side bus speed around or have we gone past that yet? Thats always an important thing to consider when looking at RAM/Motherboard/Processor.

I take it that given you're going for 8GB of RAM, you're going for a 64-bit OS?

[Ded10c]

I take it that given you're going for 8GB of RAM, you're going for a 64-bit OS?

I think that's a fairly safe assumption

[Psychedelic Rhino]

I re-looked at some current SSD prices. To keep within some kind of reason, a 64gb might be more in order.

Here's an insanely fast one.

http://www.overclockersclub.com/news/27778/

[sabrebattletank]

You forgot to add the mouse