Let me tell ya, this learning new stuff isn't for the faint of heart! As you know, I've been working on this gaming computer for someone, which in and of itself wouldn't be a big deal if they had a relatively reasonable budget for an up-to-date gaming PC..... say somewhere in the $2000-3000 range. BUT NO, it's $600! What that means is that I had to be creative and learn the "ins & outs" of the gaming computer world, but not only that, but the next level of PC hardware as well.....meaning the Post-Core 2 Duo/Quad era. Just when I finally get comfortable with the various parts of that generation, and having just climbed (almost) to the top of the heap in acquiring a Q9550 "Yorkfield" processor!
First of all; I've kind of learned to hate Intel! Since the arrival of the Lynnfield/Clarkdale, whatever you want to call their various families of processors, there's been a proliferation of CPU sockets. Everything from 1366, to 1150, to 1156, 1155/H2, yada, yada, yada. I hate it. P4 was socket 478 (after that aborted 423), then the Core Duos were the socket 775, now, we've got all manner of sockets! Which is why I finally settled on the 1155. At least that one can go from the Sandy Bridge G2, to the Ivy Bridge without having to buy a new board..... mostly..... if your board has a Z77 chipset anyway. The other ones.... mostly dead ends..... hate it.
Then, there's the whole chipset debacle. When combined with the myriad of sockets, this is a veritable minefield of processor/chipset/sockets to negotiate to determine what one should be bought. Take the Z68 for example. You're a gamer who wants PCIe 3.0, RAM at 1600? Nope, gotta get a Z77 board. Gives me a headache. This whole time, AMD has been pretty much on the AM3 socket. Oh yeah, Intel has been kicking the stuffing out of those guys, so never mind I guess.
Then there's the whole processor thing. Not only do we have the i3, i5, i7 thing going on, but you have "K" spec, "S" spec, and "T" spec processors within the groups as well. Oh, I almost forgot that there are the normal ones with no suffix. Of course, most people are familiar with the "K" spec, unlocked chips, but what about the "S" and "T"? S for lower power (about 65 TDP), and T for ultra-low power (35, or 45 TDP). Actually, for a normal user like, me, these are the ones that are really interesting. On my current Core 2 Duo/Quad platforms, I'm already at more computational power than I need most of the time, but on second generatoin (and later) Core processors, it's really WAY more power than the normal person needs. Yes, I targeted and got a 2500K for the gaming project just in case the kid decides that down the road he wants to play something like Starcraft Crysis, or any other game that is processor intensive. But for me? I'll probably be OK with a lower priced "S":spec 3330S from the Ivy Bridge generation, or even a "T" spec processor like I talked about before. For what I do (which is the same for most people), the money is better spent on an SSD (way faster speed I/O to the board), more RAM (run a bunch of stuff at once), USB 3.0 (way faster transfer speed with removable storage I use every day). So really, my jump to Intel's "Core" series of processors will have nothing to do with processing power, it's having the same (or somewhat better) level of power as I have now, while having a much cooler running machine. Although my 95TDP "Yordfield" is the most efficient of the high-end Core 2 Quads, that's still 50% higher than an "S" spec Ivy Bridge.
During the last week or two, I've spent as much or more time educating myself on AMD's various current graphics offerings. If I could have had the luxury of spending $500 on a graphics card, it would be a no-brainer, but I'm working in the $100-200 market space. On the bottom end of that space is the 7790, and on the top there's the 7850.
You can see that at a similar price-point, why there's no real need to look at the 7770, while the $35 difference between the 7790 and 7850 actually does pay for something. Now, in this case, it's all about the needs of a gamer (even a lower end one), but I also learned a few things about how much power each of the different chips uses. In AMD's "Southern Islands" line of cards, it's pretty evident that 7750 version of the "Cape Verde" chip doesn't push a ton of polygons, but it only uses 55w, well less than half of the "Pitcairn" 7850. So while I was learning that at a doable price-point for my client the 7850 is a nice pick-up, I also learned that the 7750 will be a really nice cool running card for me.
In combination, the same research has yielded me twice the results! I've found the cool-running CPU along with a low-consumption GPU for me, while at the same time a high-speed, scalable CPU and beefy GPU for my client. I suppose, overall, I'm pretty happy, regardless of Intel's efforts to confound me!
No comments:
Post a Comment