I was/am in the same boat as you, I have an E8400, 9800GX2 (dual-gpu) and decided that the CPU was really holding me back in games as nearly all games use quad-cores nowadays.

I'm starting with CPU/Mobo/Memory:
Intel Core i5-2500K Sandy Bridge 3.3GHz LGA 1155 95W Quad-Core Desktop Processor
GIGABYTE GA-P67A-UD3-B3 LGA 1155 Intel P67 SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 ATX Intel Motherboard
G.SKILL Ripjaws X Series 8GB (2x4GB) 240-Pin DDR3-1600 SDRAM Memory

Then after that I'll decide if I need to upgrade my 9800GX2, it still runs great, but feel like it's CPU-bound, also it's only DX10, so if I decide to upgrade I'll most likely upgrade to the Radeon HD 6950

4/15/2011 12:40:52 PM

just built this new rig for about $1500; system kicks serious butt in everything i have thrown at it thus far. i can run Crysis 1 and 2 on highest settings with AA turned on without the slightest lag or stutter.

CPU: Intel Core i7-960 Bloomfield 3.2GHz Quad-Core
Motherboard: GIGABYTE G1.Sniper
GFX Card: MSI N560GTX-Ti Twin Frozr II/OC
RAM: G.SKILL Ripjaws Series 12GB (3 x 4GB) 240-Pin DDR3 1600 (PC3 12800)
HDD: 2x Western Digital VelociRaptor 300GB 10000 RPM (Running RAID0)
1x Western Digital Caviar Green 1TB
Optical: LG Black Blu-ray/HD DVD-ROM & 16X DVD±R DVD Burner
PSU: CORSAIR HX Series 850W
Case: COOLER MASTER HAF 922
CPU Cooler: Corsair H50 High Performance Liquid CPU Cooler
OS: Windows 7 Home Premium

4/15/2011 1:31:00 PM

^^ How much did that build cost you?

4/19/2011 9:55:28 AM

CPU & Motherboard - $354
Memory - $75 on sale
So something like $430

The increase is about 30W or so, so I'm presuming I'll keep my PSU until I need to upgrade my graphics.

4/19/2011 10:46:10 AM

Question:

I only have 2 gigs of memory. I was looking at upgrading that substantially. My mobo takes DDR2 and has 4 slots. With how much cheaper DDR3 is, would it be smarter to go ahead and replace the mobo and buy new DDR3 memory? I see slickdeals constantly on DDR3.

4/26/2011 1:56:18 PM

IMO, for the amount of money and work involved to replace the motherboard and buy new RAM simply for DDR3, i'd just up the DDR2 and save yourself the trouble. check out ebay for DDR2 auctions/sales, may end up finding something decent. btw, what CPU do you have? is it compatible with DDR3?

4/26/2011 2:09:02 PM

Western Digital Caviar Black WD5002AALX 500GB 7200 RPM SATA 6.0Gb/s 3.5" Internal HDD
HIS H687F1G2M Radeon HD 6870 1GB 256-bit GDDR5 PCI Express 2.1 x16
COOLER MASTER Silent Pro M700 RS-700-AMBA-D3 700W ATX12V V2.3 SLI Certified CrossFire
CORSAIR DOMINATOR 6GB (3 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1600 (PC3 12800)
ASUS P8P67 DELUXE (REV 3.0) LGA 1155 Intel P67 SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 ATX Intel Motherboard
Intel Core i5-2500 Sandy Bridge 3.3GHz (3.7GHz Turbo Boost) LGA 1155 95W Quad-Core
CORSAIR CWCH50-1 High Performance CPU Cooler
Pioneer Black Blu-ray Burner SATA BDR-206DBKS
Crucial RealSSD C300 CTFDDAC128MAG-1G1 2.5" 128GB SATA III MLC Internal(SSD)

I am real excited about getting a SSD drive, I just hope it is an easy setup with a SSD and a HDD in combo. I have heard reviews that the Marvell chipset on the Intel motherboards play hell with a SSD or just SATA 3 in general, but I think there is a way around it. I am usually an AMD guy, but I wanted to give the Intel chips a run seeing that the rest of the office are running them as well.

4/26/2011 4:18:06 PM

Go with the 6950 and overclock to 6970

http://www.techpowerup.com/articles/overclocking/vidcard/159

It's $50 more AR or so...

And the Core i5-2500K has the unlocked multiplier, the i5-2500 does not. Just thought I'd mention it if you wanted to OC it a bit, the Intel chips are notorious for 20% OC on air on stock voltages.

[Edited on April 26, 2011 at 4:21 PM. Reason : ,]

4/26/2011 4:19:08 PM

I would not try to deal with the Marvell controller. I've heard they're often slower than SATAII. Plus I don't think they support TRIM yet. I could be wrong though.

4/26/2011 4:32:19 PM

Got this machine set up about a week ago... and liking it so far. I had to order it through NC State, so I was limited in the options I could get, but I still like it. Couldn't get the absolute top-end of anything.... but it'll do.

Dell Optiplex 980 Tower
Intel Quad-core i7-870, 2.93 GHz
8 GB Memory, DDR3, 1333 MHz
2 x 1 TB 7200 rpm hard drives, 3.0 Gb/s, RAID 0
1GB NVIDIA GeForce GT330
P2211H - Flat Panel Monitor, 22 inch (1920x1080)
OS: Red Hat EL 6

Now I just need to learn how to modify my codes for multi-core processing

4/26/2011 4:39:18 PM

Awesome, thank you for the recommendations! I was torn on the video card too, I will go ahead and change that up.

Do you just not install the Marvelll driver? Is that something you can disable?

4/26/2011 6:06:33 PM

If you play more 'Nvidia' games (w/ PhysX support), the 560 Ti is a great card too for a little less than the 6950

4/26/2011 7:10:06 PM

^^I know x58 doesn't natively support Sata III but P67 does. Here are the storage specs for that board:

Quote :

"Intel® P67(B3) Express Chipset 2 xSATA 6.0 Gb/s ports (gray) 4 xSATA 3.0 Gb/s ports (blue) Intel® Rapid Storage Technology Support RAID 0,1,5,10 Marvell® PCIe 9128 SATA 6Gb/s controller with HyperDuo function* 2 xSATA 6.0 Gb/s ports (navy blue) JMicron® JMB362 SATA controller* 2 xExternal SATA 3.0 Gb/s ports (1 x Power eSATA) * These SATA ports are for data hard drives only. ATAPI devices are not supported. "

So you should just use the SSD with the gray Intel 6.0Gb/s ports and not the Marvell controller. Why is that Marvell one even included if P67 natively supports SataIII?

4/26/2011 7:12:36 PM

The Marvell controller is included to add HyperDuo support, essentially uses one SSD as cache and safely stores all the data on one HDD. So you'd theoretically achieve 80% the speed of SSD while keeping the large data storage size of an HDD.

4/26/2011 8:11:53 PM

So why don't you just get an SSD and a HDD? HDD's are so cheap now.

-oh makes sense. Guess you can get a smaller SSD and stores your apps/games on a HDD.

[Edited on April 26, 2011 at 8:24 PM. Reason : s]

4/26/2011 8:13:50 PM

That sounds good, put the SSD on the 6gb/s port and maybe see if I can get the Marvell to work on my WD HDD.

But yea I definitely need the HDD for all the storage and try to keep the SSD as clean as I can.

Thanks so much for this!

4/26/2011 9:08:58 PM

bought these RAM sticks yesterday because I was in a hurry; wasn't paying attention as my mobo only supports ddr2 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231314

any recommendation on a replacement mobo? just needs to support these new sticks + LGA775 socket (trying to replace as little as possible.. definitely hadn't planned on dealing with this; if i RMA the sticks i lose $20 off the bat). tried looking at some stuff at Newegg but the only mobo's that would work had 3 stars or less

running a Intel E4500 Core 2 Duo (2.2ghz): http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=30781

[Edited on April 26, 2011 at 11:06 PM. Reason : ]

4/26/2011 11:05:22 PM

Chipsets that support 775 & DDR3:

Low-end MicroATX - G41 (includes integrated gfx)
Mid-range ATX - P43
High-end ATX - X48

(just make sure it's 775 & DDR3, as some of the boards are DDR2 only)

I'd recommend almost anything Gigabyte, ASUS.... but if you can find the ASRock version this is probably the only board that will support the DDR3-1600, the rest max out at 1333, which is fine, your memory will just auto-adjust to the lower speed.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813157174

[Edited on April 27, 2011 at 11:08 AM. Reason : .]

4/27/2011 11:07:46 AM

thanks Prospero. i found the ASRock P43DE3 @ Amazon, but the estimated ship time was 1-3 months i know i'm looking for an old socket but i'm still a little surprised how difficult a good mobo for this combo is to find. may end up having to go for a new mobo/cpu...

4/27/2011 8:18:46 PM

my new setup:
http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=1791305

4.0Ghz without flinching. 5.7Ghz... coming up next???




[Edited on April 28, 2011 at 12:58 AM. Reason : .]

4/28/2011 12:56:00 AM

damnz, The new OCZ Vertex 3's are killer SSD's. 485MB/s read and 285MB/s write... I mean you practically need the 6gb/s sata's for them. Can't wait to pick up an SSD later in the year.

4/28/2011 4:10:12 PM

Yeah I'm not going to pick up one of those until i get an actual Intel SataIII interface. Not going to waste it on a Marvell controller unless they improve them.

4/28/2011 4:12:59 PM

My computer is almost 3.5 years old, it's going to be so fun to upgrade it/buy another; this thread is fantastic. But only after I buy a new car.

4/28/2011 5:13:43 PM

Quote :

"damnz, The new OCZ Vertex 3's are killer SSD's. 485MB/s read and 285MB/s write... I mean you practically need the 6gb/s sata's for them. Can't wait to pick up an SSD later in the year."

the Corsair RealSSD's (C300) has had 355MB/s on SATA-III interface for awhile.

the P67 chipset handles SATA-III just fine.

also the cheapest Vertex3 is like $300 and it's up to 550 MB/s Read, 500 MB/s Write

[Edited on April 29, 2011 at 11:27 AM. Reason : /]

4/29/2011 11:24:59 AM

^^heehee

Quote :

"the P67 chipset handles SATA-III just fine."

Yes the native intel shipset does. That mobo includes both the SATA-III intel AND the SATA-III Marvell chipset I believe. I was just saying go with the Intel one.

4/29/2011 11:32:57 AM

yea, i just invested in cpu/mobo/memory/psu, waiting to get an SSD & new graphics right before Battlefield 3 comes out

My latest upgrades:
Intel Core i5-2500K Sandy Bridge 3.3GHz (3.7GHz Turbo Boost) LGA 1155 95W Quad-Core Desktop Processor
GIGABYTE GA-P67A-UD3-B3 LGA 1155 Intel P67 SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 ATX Intel Motherboard
G.SKILL Ripjaws X Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) 240-Pin DDR3-1600 SDRAM Memory
SeaSonic X Series X650 Gold (SS-650KM Active PFC F3) 650W 80 PLUS GOLD Modular Power Supply

Took about 1:30 to completely disassemble, clean the fans/filters, clean the 9800GX2, rewire and install all the new equipment. Booted up first try and with two clicks, overclocked to 4.0Ghz

My Enermax Liberty 500W was still cranking away great after 4+years, but knowing caps lose their efficiency I upgraded b/c the Seasonic was on sale for $99 and couldn't pass that up for an 80 Plus GOLD PSU AND Modular (w/ 5-year warranty no less!)

[Edited on April 29, 2011 at 12:10 PM. Reason : .]

4/29/2011 11:54:13 AM

Aight guys I need some advice. I was waiting for the sandy bridge to come out so I could get a deal on a good cpu and motherboard. I have been watching slickdeals for a couple of months and havnt seen a thing. I am about to get out of school for the summer and want to go ahead and build a new computer. What is the best bang for your buck cpu now adays? I am currently running a core 2 duo e6750 so I just want some more horsepower. Thanks in advance.

5/3/2011 10:21:49 PM

Core i5-2500K Sandy Bridge.

Processors never go on sale, not sure why you'd even bother waiting. At best you might get $10 off a cpu/motherboard combo, but if you want a quality motherboard you just gotta pay it.

5/3/2011 11:02:50 PM

^ Do you have a suggestion for the best motherboard to go with it. Again I dont need anything fancy but sataIII and usb 3.0 would be nice. The most important thing for me is to just save a few bucks. Is newegg the best place for this stuff?

5/4/2011 8:10:04 AM

two posts above my previous post is what i went with. best bang/buck IMHO and yes, bought on newegg.

5/4/2011 11:14:10 AM

Quote :

"Processors never go on sale, not sure why you'd even bother waiting. At best you might get $10 off a cpu/motherboard combo, but if you want a quality motherboard you just gotta pay it."

My i7-950 jumped from like $500+ to $290.

5/4/2011 11:34:24 AM

that's because it's an older generation and a top of the line model which are always overpriced to begin with, perfect example look at the Extreme series, they almost always drop in price 40% or more once they are outdated.

processors drop in price yes, but not go on sale. the only time that happens is when a newer generation is about to be released or once it's been released. the only time i can remember a cpu on sale was the E6600, Q6600, E8400 or something like that at Microcenter and it was only like $20 off (~10%) and it sold out quick.

another reason... Core i5-2500K is faster than the i7-950 and the i5 only costs $230. There's no reason anyone would pay $500 for a cpu that's not as fast as a newer generation at half the cost.

[Edited on May 4, 2011 at 12:18 PM. Reason : .]

5/4/2011 12:13:33 PM

True in regard to price drops.

Quote :

"another reason... Core i5-2500K is faster than the i7-950 and the i5 only costs $230. There's no reason anyone would pay $500 for a cpu that's not as fast as a newer generation at half the cost. "

They're not faster clock by clock and only have half the threads. Sure the turbo boost is higher but it's easy to match it with the older i7s. Remember the x58 i7 replacements (Intel Patsburg or x68) haven't come out yet. The only advantage of the newer chips is less power and a higher stock turbo boost. You're not gaining any performance per clock.

5/4/2011 1:03:59 PM

You obviously haven't read any reviews on the Sandy Bridge.

32nm > 45nm... it's hasn't been about clock speed since the early-2000's

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4083/the-sandy-bridge-review-intel-core-i7-2600k-i5-2500k-core-i3-2100-tested/

In almost every single test the i5-2500K is faster than the i7-950

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/288?vs=100

Not to mention you can OC the i5-2500K pretty easily to 4.5Ghz-5.0Ghz on air.

[Edited on May 4, 2011 at 5:35 PM. Reason : .]

5/4/2011 5:11:07 PM

It's always about clock for clock. They're not much faster, if at all, than the previous generation. 32nm is just cooler and more power efficient. The x58 enthusiast replacement chips aren't out yet.

Quote :

"In almost every single test the i5-2500K is faster than the i7-950"

That's a silly statement and doesn't make any sense. You're comparing a faster clocked processor to a slower one. Clock for clock they're generally the exact same and the i7 series comes out on top in every instance when all the threads are used because it has twice as many. Video/audio encoding, rendering, etc.

I'm just making the point that if you're already on x58 and have a nice overclock you're really not going to be gaining much (other than maybe the ability to overclock MORE) by switching to P67. You might as well wait until the actual x58 replacements come out later in the year or Q1 2012.

I'm personally happy at 4.0. Hell at 3.2 I still had no trouble in any games with dual 460's. I'm too busy these days to mess with benchmarking but if you've got that much time on your hands then by all means do it.

5/4/2011 9:02:09 PM

STOCK THE I5-2500K IS FASTER! READ IT! Don't be bitter.

I'm not arguing about this stupid clock-for-clock comparison, it's not a good argument at all considering the 2500K is unlocked multiplier and can reach speeds much faster than 4Ghz, lower power, faster, higher OC, less heat, less expensive.... what was your argument again... wait for X68?

[Edited on May 5, 2011 at 12:12 AM. Reason : .]

5/5/2011 12:12:42 AM

Quote :

"In almost every single test the i5-2500K is faster than the i7-950"

Quote :

"That's a silly statement and doesn't make any sense."

This is how normal people benchmark processors...
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/288?vs=100

You can't take an OVERCLOCKED i7-950 and compare it to a STOCK i5-2500K because you want to compare Mhz to Mhz, that's silly.

Is the i7 faster in certain memory intensive applications, well of course, but 25 out of the other 30 tests show that this performance gain is not seen across the board and that the i5-2500K is faster.

Quote :

"I'm just making the point that if you're already on x58 and have a nice overclock you're really not going to be gaining much"

Agreed, but I don't see how that point addresses anything about price for someone buying new.

[Edited on May 5, 2011 at 12:21 AM. Reason : .]

5/5/2011 12:14:53 AM

So I have some new hard drives coming. What utility do you guys use to scan them to make sure you dont have any bad sectors?

5/5/2011 12:34:28 AM

After about a year of no problems my CRC failures when using WinRAR started showing up again, so I ran memtest overnight. It came up with a little over 3000 errors, but only after the 12th pass.

Other than the WinRAR/CRC issue the computer runs fine - as near as I can tell.

Just wanted to get an idea of how likely it was that it was the memory and not the processor cache or motherboard, since I hear reported errors could be the result of those as well, maybe even a hardware compatibility issue. I just want to make sure before I buy more memory - maybe get a different make/model as opposed to the same kind that's already in there. The only reason I want to be sure is because if it were a definite problem with the memory I would think that errors would show up well before the 12th pass... like in the first couple of passes.

After I get home I'll start testing one module at a time. Memtest didn't hit anything until the 12th pass, so it will probably take a few days to do the test.


[Edited on May 5, 2011 at 7:51 AM. Reason : -]

5/5/2011 7:46:40 AM

Quote :

"STOCK THE I5-2500K IS FASTER! READ IT! Don't be bitter."

This isn't saying anything. Of course a faster clocked processor is faster.

Quote :

"Agreed, but I don't see how that point addresses anything about price for someone buying new. "

I wasn't. I was just arguing for the sake of arguing. I never said Sandybridge wasn't a better deal for the money because it is.

I'd still get an i7 2600k over a 2500k. I like seeing the 8 threads. haha. Plus to your point it's "faster" in benchmarks because it's clocked faster.

[Edited on May 5, 2011 at 9:09 AM. Reason : s]

5/5/2011 9:09:15 AM

your logic is baffling. there's a reason they don't benchmark clock-for-clock.

Quote :

"Of course a faster clocked processor is faster."

Are you saying a P4C @ 3.6Ghz is faster than my Sandy Bridge @ 3.3Ghz? This argument is retarded, I've already told you that, so stop using it.

Quote :

"Plus to your point it's "faster" in benchmarks because it's clocked faster."

Not JUST frequency, it's the manufacturing process is the reason why it's as fast and can overclock even HIGHER. Who cares if the 950 can match the same frequency as a stock Sandy Bridge, the 950 has a locked multiplier and tops out at 4.5-4.6Ghz, the Sandy Bridge can easily hit 5Ghz and has an unlocked multiplier... it's the same reason why the Sandy Bridge has a higher stock frequency, it's because it's designed to go faster.

About the only argument that would have worked here is that the 950 has higher throughput, but that does not equal speed in all cases.

[Edited on May 5, 2011 at 10:57 AM. Reason : .]

5/5/2011 10:47:31 AM

Quote :

"also the cheapest Vertex3 is like $300"

Dammit, I missed that part of the article. lol They tested the 256gb thats priced at $540 that got around 485/290 in cyrstaldiskmark, 506/280 in AS ssd and 446/505 in Atto benchmarks.

Where's the next gen intel SSD's that suppose to come out and be half the price? Not coming out fast enough.

5/5/2011 4:04:58 PM

last i checked Intel's latest SSD was still slower than the Vertex3 and they were using the Marvell chipset and not their own....

5/5/2011 5:00:50 PM

Quote :

"your logic is baffling. there's a reason they don't benchmark clock-for-clock."

I still think you're missing the point but that's okay because as I pointed out I'm just arguing semantics here.

Quote :

"Are you saying a P4C @ 3.6Ghz is faster than my Sandy Bridge @ 3.3Ghz? This argument is retarded, I've already told you that, so stop using it."

And this proves you're missing the point. Of course that won't be the case. Here we're talking about two chips that are essentially in the same family and use the same architecture. I never said I cared about if one overclocks easier than the other or if one was more efficient. I already agreed the newer smaller chips are going to be more power efficient and cooler. Although I never once touched on the multiplier or ability to overclock as a factor in my discussion.

The ONLY point I was making was that because both newer/older i5's/i7's are essentially the same architecture and have the same features in general you're not going to be gaining anything by upgrading clock for clock. I don't care what reviews you've read or how you have your CPU clocked.

I'm simply saying if I like my CPU at 4.0ghz and I'm upgrading to another CPU at 4.0ghz I obviously want to gain some performance. This happened in the past with entirely new architectures and features being added but my point was Sandybridge doesn't really add any new features or advances that give it an edge to the enthusiastic. Not to mention P67 isn't geared towards the hardware enthusiastic (less PCI-E lanes, only dual channel support, etc).

5/5/2011 5:42:41 PM

I know you're trolling but i'll respond anyways, I completely see what you're saying and comparing clock-for-clock speeds is an absolutely retarded way to compare processors for the numerous reasons I've ALREADY listed above.

Please enlighten me on why anyone would benchmark clock-for-clock? It ignores so many other comparisons.

Quote :

"Here we're talking about two chips that are essentially in the same family"

Uh no, in my VERY FIRST RESPONSE I TOLD YOU WHY, 32nm is faster than 45nm, they are NOT EVEN CLOSE to being the same, not the same TDP or TCASE, not the same multiplier, not the same frequency, not the same # of transistors, not the same number of threads, not the same cache, not the same bus speed, not the same memory speed, not the same memory channels, not the same socket, not the same chipset, they were released almost 2 years apart... i mean there's about 10+ reasons right there that completely affect a processors performance and why you just don't simply compare "clock-for-clock"

Most importantly the manufacturing process is the biggest differentiator along with an unlocked multiplier. You can't compare one CPU @ 4.0Ghz with another because for one CPU it might be a 33% overclock and 100% of it's overclocking potential, while for another CPU it might be a 30% overclock and only 30% of it's overclocking potential.... the MANUFACTURING PROCESS DRIVES THIS!

[Edited on May 5, 2011 at 6:09 PM. Reason : /]

5/5/2011 6:04:31 PM

Quote :

"Uh no, in my VERY FIRST RESPONSE I TOLD YOU WHY, 32nm is faster than 45nm, they are NOT EVEN CLOSE to being the same, not the same TDP or TCASE, not the same multiplier, not the same frequency, not the same # of transistors, not the same number of threads, not the same cache, not the same bus speed, not the same memory speed, not the same memory channels, not the same socket, not the same chipset, they were released almost 2 years apart... i mean there's about 10+ reasons right there that completely affect a processors performance and why you just don't simply compare "clock-for-clock""

They're not THAT different. We're comparing an i5 to an i5 here. Comparing a newer i5 to an older i7 would be silly. The architecture in regard to the QPI, PCI-e lanes, memory, etc is different by design. You'd have to wait for LGA 2011 to make an i7 to i7 comparison.

Lynnfield i5 (45nm):
TDP: 95W
Tcase: 72.7C
# memory channels: 2
Max memory bandwidth: 21GB/s
# Transistors: 774 million

Sandy Bridge i5 (32nm)
TDP: 95w
Tcase: 72.7c
# memory channels: 2
Max memory bandwidth: 21GB/s
# Transistors: 995 million (duh they added the processor graphics)

You're still missing the point. I was making the point of clock by clock. That was my initial condition and that was the only point I was making. Sure there's a few differences in the newer i series 32nm chips but they aren't the high end chips that are replacing the high end Nehalem chips.

I think you're just bitter because you didn't wait until Q4 when Intel is supposedly replacing X58 with Socket 2011. If I were to upgrade that would probably be when. It's nice the actual socket size will stay the same from LGA 1366 so coolers will be backwards compatible.

5/5/2011 6:43:01 PM

Quote :

"They're not THAT different. We're comparing an i5 to an i5 here. Comparing a newer i5 to an older i7 would be silly. "

WTF, where have you been? All we've been discussing is the i5-2500K vs. the i7-950, which was exactly my point, how much are you going to backtrack? Bitter my ass, I saved a shit ton of money.

I've asked you ten times already to explain this:

Quote :

"I was making the point of clock by clock"

You haven't explained it yet, in fact I've explained it FOR YOU and already debunked why this is just plain retarded, end of story. You have no point to make.

And stop trying to change your argument, at no point were we talking about two i5's, even so the 2400 spanks the highest end Lynnfield

[Edited on May 5, 2011 at 7:03 PM. Reason : .]

5/5/2011 6:45:47 PM

Quote :

"And stop trying to change your argument, at no point were we talking about two i5's."

We started comparing an i5 to an i5 the minute you brought up actual specs that were SPECIFIC to the i5 architecture compared to the i7 architecture regardless of generation.

Why would we compare a new i5 to an old i7 (in regard to specs/features)? They're designed differently from the start. If you wanted to compare 1st gen to 2nd gen we should at least compare the same series of chips. That being said as I pointed out the TDP, Tcase, etc are THE SAME for both i5's. Of course the i5 doesn't have the same TDP or Tcase as an i7. Even with the first gen chips the i5's were different than the i7's. You're comparing apples and oranges.

Quote :

"You haven't explained it yet, in fact I've explained it FOR YOU and already debunked why this is just plain retarded, end of story. You have no point to make."

I'm going to let this rest. You're just missing the point. I made one statement and you kept arguing around it and not actually addressing it. You could have said Sandy Bridge was actually faster clock for clock or at least tried to argue against me. All you were doing was bringing up irrelevant points that had nothing to do with the point I was making. It's like I was arguing A to B and you were trying to argue C. It's a tactic that doesn't really work in practice.

Quote :

"Bitter my ass, I saved a shit ton of money. "

I only said bitter because you said it first. We're talking about overclocking processors and performance gains that hardly even matter. I don't think money is an issue here. My only point was I'd rather hold off until Intel actually releases their new performance i7 chips. I don't see why you got all riled up about it.

5/5/2011 7:04:49 PM

You're just repeating what I'm saying.

5/5/2011 7:08:26 PM

Happy cinco de mayo!!!!

5/5/2011 7:10:40 PM