Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest banner
1 - 20 of 22 Posts

·
Fucking Zen as Shit
Joined
·
16,161 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
So needing to build a new desktop.
My old one is built in a Shuttle case and is now too small for the video cards i'm using, and i want to go triple SLI.

This is will be running XP64 pro, hopefully 8gb of ram, and a 15,000rpm HDD.

I only run 3 programs on it, one of which is a real-time visualizer which is extremely CPU and GPU heavy. and in CAD mode is very CPU and RAM heavy.
Basically i'm running a really advanced version of autocad, and a VERY intense video game (for generic terms).


I'm going to be running 1 Geforce GTX 260 (I already have it) and 2 GTX 285 or 295's in triple SLI.

So i'm torn or processors. Both manufacturers and cores.
AMD or Intel, i have no brand loyalty.
I'm thinking 4 cores because more is better :), but if there was a good argument on why 2 would be faster i'm open for it.

The programs i'm using are written to take advantage of alot of ram, and multiple core processors.
 

·
81 inches of fun
Joined
·
14,286 Posts
My Intel computers have sucked ass. This last time I bought a computer with an AMD and have not had one issue outside of a cooling fan that is noisy.

Granted these are off the shelf systems, but I have had 5-6+ computers and the only one that has lasted more then 4 years and has not crashed all the time has been the AMD chipped computer.

Whether it is related or not I don't know, but that was my experience.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
286 Posts
I always run amd mostly because its cheaper than intel for most everything.But in terms of cores. The cores are basically like secretaries, a fast dual core, is like having two fast secretaries to get through a line, vs having a quad core, would be essentially like having 4 secretaries, if your going with the same speed, quad core can process more information in a shorter amount of time, but if I'm not mistaken most programs don't utilize the full quad core unless your running 64 bit vista, lucky you :)

Correct me if I'm wrong, that's my understanding of it though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
728 Posts
I always run amd mostly because its cheaper than intel for most everything.But in terms of cores. The cores are basically like secretaries, a fast dual core, is like having two fast secretaries to get through a line, vs having a quad core, would be essentially like having 4 secretaries, if your going with the same speed, quad core can process more information in a shorter amount of time, but if I'm not mistaken most programs don't utilize the full quad core unless your running 64 bit vista, lucky you :)

Correct me if I'm wrong, that's my understanding of it though.
This is a good analogy, bottom line is, if the software you use is single-threaded, you are better off with a faster dual core, if the software can break the work into multiple-threads, the quad core will perform better.
 

·
hoo dat. wat.
Joined
·
21,594 Posts
AMD used to be in the lead until the latest batch of dual/quad cores, but now they can't touch the overall performance per $ of the intel chips.

Wat video game??? :naughty:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
276 Posts
im an amd fanboy but intel has the chips at the moment

however...your tri sli will not work with those cards...they all have to be the same

can be different brands but the model has to be he same

i have been runnin sli for 4 years and build pcs every week

unless nvidia has changed something in the 200 series that i dont know about

i just put a 260 in an amd am2 6400 rig i built today
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
828 Posts
Intel. We have never ever had problems with Intel since we've been using them. I don't care if AMD is cheaper, we have always seemed to have better reliability with Intel. Now, this was years ago that we tried AMD, but to me, it's just not worth switching from something we have had rock solid reliability for so long.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,000 Posts
Your going to have a hard time with a straight answer on this one.

I prefer AMD, but I have been reading that the new Intel chips are better than the new AMDs. I have no experiance on the quad cores.

The newest chip I own is a AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+. It's not blazing fast anymore, but it certainly give me no problems. It has been overclocked and under powered since the day I installed it.
 

·
I Drank WHAT!
Joined
·
709 Posts
Intel kicks butt over AMD now, and the core duo quads are on sale right now.


(Sorry AMD but that;s for the training)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,279 Posts
AMD used to be in the lead until the latest batch of dual/quad cores, but now they can't touch the overall performance per $ of the intel chips.

Wat video game??? :naughty:
yepp.. i was on the amd bus for a long time.. had trouble switching over .. now running intel no issues.. been working great for me..
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
20,292 Posts
always ran Intel, never had a complaint. the quad core pc's are smoking fast, i was building one before i left OU and started beefing up my gun collection.
 

·
Blowd up
Joined
·
6,335 Posts
I know it is not your exact situation, but for Solidworks, the Intel's are blazing the way right now. I am an AMD person myself most of the time, but if I were building a workstation it would be dual core Intel. I don't know of much that will take advantage of quad core.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,518 Posts
I know you rent running a mac in this application. But, looking at what apple is doing for thier high end machines, I'd go w/ intel. Heck, build something similar to what mac is doing in theid desktops. Seems like high end graphics runs well on quad core intel. If it's good enough for apple, it should be good enough for what you are building.

Is it always tis ahrd to tpye after spending 3 hrs at Bell's??????
 

·
I Drank WHAT!
Joined
·
709 Posts
So needing to build a new desktop.
My old one is built in a Shuttle case and is now too small for the video cards i'm using, and i want to go triple SLI.

This is will be running XP64 pro, hopefully 8gb of ram, and a 15,000rpm HDD.

I only run 3 programs on it, one of which is a real-time visualizer which is extremely CPU and GPU heavy. and in CAD mode is very CPU and RAM heavy.
Basically i'm running a really advanced version of autocad, and a VERY intense video game (for generic terms).


I'm going to be running 1 Geforce GTX 260 (I already have it) and 2 GTX 285 or 295's in triple SLI.

So i'm torn or processors. Both manufacturers and cores.
AMD or Intel, i have no brand loyalty.
I'm thinking 4 cores because more is better :), but if there was a good argument on why 2 would be faster i'm open for it.

The programs i'm using are written to take advantage of alot of ram, and multiple core processors.
You might also want to think about going to Vista (ouch don't hit me so hard!!) Vista uses more ram, XP is limited. Look it up.

Graphs wise, and RAM wise match EVERYTHING!! Stagering Video cards will not result in the best performance. two high end SLI cards are better then 3 so so cards same as it was in the early SLI (x2) days.

Quad core and bo-cu RAM is the way to go for video processing ie. CAD and made HD porn :naughty: LOL!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
828 Posts
I would call and talk to the guys at Autocad though, seems like the last CAD boxes we did they basically said Autocad would NOT take advantage of multiple processors.
 

·
Fucking Zen as Shit
Joined
·
16,161 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
You might also want to think about going to Vista (ouch don't hit me so hard!!) Vista uses more ram, XP is limited. Look it up.

Graphs wise, and RAM wise match EVERYTHING!! Stagering Video cards will not result in the best performance. two high end SLI cards are better then 3 so so cards same as it was in the early SLI (x2) days.
Hance why i am running XP 64pro, which is made to take advantage of up to 128gb's of ram, look it up.


I though i had read you can use different cards in SLI scenario, i went to Nvidia's website annd you can run hybrid SLI, but only 2 cards.
Guess i'll keep this card in here, and buy 2 or 3 new ones when i build the next one.




I would call and talk to the guys at Autocad though, seems like the last CAD boxes we did they basically said Autocad would NOT take advantage of multiple processors.
I'm not running AUTOCAD per se, but another very customized program that was built off of autocads core. Very customized, and can take advantage of up to 8 cores
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,719 Posts
I love AMD. I built my AMD system from a barebones kit when I was 15 or 16 or something, so like 4 years ago, and I'm still using it as my main computer. It only cost me about $200 to build, and I'm running a Sempron processor I paid $35 new for, and for some reason my computer thinks it's an Athlon which is cool. It's running at like 1.5 gigs too. I should probably upgrade though, as my sound card is kinda blown, the processor is too slow to run newer games, and my MP3 player has more space than my hard drive. But oh well, I have no real need to.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
312 Posts
Intel is still the best bang for the buck. I have a E4300 running 3GHZ, and a E7400 running 4.2 both on air cooling and budget parts. AMD simply doesn't offer anything that will overclock right out of the box. If total overall speed is what you want stick with a dual core over a quad core. The vast majority of software takes no advantage of the extra cores.
The higher clock speed per $ of the dual core chips will give more noticable performance.
If cad is your thing forget cores and go allout for bus speed and CPU MHZ.
 
1 - 20 of 22 Posts
Top