Build Advice 775, AM3, i7, or wait for i5...which is the most cost effective?

I don't run many yet, but I am thinking of a couple of years down the line at least. With more games utilising it as well as applications, I want to be ready for that rather than finding myself needing to upgrade again too soon.

 

I don't see how a 920 @ 4GHz with 8 threads is not enough, unless you are encoding video day in, day out. Four has is the staple diet of fast enough right now. It's enough to provide spare overhead should we need it. A PC is still governed by the balance between cores and speed.

 

The 32nm die shrink and the purported 22% increase in clock for clock performance, will have enthusiasts reaching for their wallets. Sandia labs have stated that over 16 cores brings no benefit to their applications.
http://www.sandia.gov/news/resources/releases/2009/multicore.html

In a few years bit-techers will be building systems with that many cores, the industry must have a solution. It would be disastrous for hardware suppliers if software developers could not tap into the power of consumer's systems, there would be little need to upgrade.
I believe that a future article about the software industry's solutions to multi-core computing, would answer a lot of questions, for me anyway?

 

Hey, I'm new. Thought I'd just jump right in here:

Well this is the problem with the PS3 as far as I'm aware. That cell processor they whacked in there made the total cost of developing games for it staggeringly expensive. That's why we're only just now starting to see game that take advantage of it come out.

Multi-threading applications is hard, expensive and sometimes just not needed. ET:QW supports multiple cores, but what does it do with them? Core 1 does the main bulk of the game processing and stuff (hence why it shows 90% load) but Core 2 does the stuff that Core 1 is too lazy to do. I.e. fetch the next section of megatexture, precache things and what not. Hence showing up 10% load or less.

This brings me to my next point. If you view it in a utopian manner you could split the major process trees of an application over say 6 cores easily, with room left over...But what's the point in spreading your application across 6 cores when it's probably not going to utilize those cores to the full? I.e. Running seperate aspects of a game across 6 cores giving loads of 30% on each, when you could compress down the cores you're using to two at 90%? The app would run the same and i doubt there'd be a massive performance hit (because some things are too complex to split across multiple cpus) plus it would be cheaper to program.

I imagine as the architecture of CPUs is improved over time, we wont actually need to program for more than 4 cores...Atleast If I understand it right.

3 Cores is probably fine for a few years now to be honest...Atleast I hope so. Going for an AM3 system my self soon.

 

Can't really disagree with that statement however Turbotab has a point, if someone brings out something better there are people who will buy it simply because it is better regardless of if it is needed or not.

 

If someone brings out an 8 core CPU, programmers will still only focus on the majority of market share and what is needed. So the person will have 4+ cores going to waste...Which is their own fault. I doubt programmers would spread an application across 8 cores when they can do the same on 2 or 4.

An apt example is someone bringing out the best car ever made, but it's 3ft too wide for a normal road system. You either have to expand the roads (lots of time/money) or refine the car (less time/money).

 

You can qualify Bindi's comment with 'for now', I do think that the i7's raw power at stock and its excellent overclocking potential, will make it the new Q6600, a chip that OCed will still be pretty handy in 2 years time.
However I've been researching the issue of programming for many-core environments, and there is a potentially amazing technology called Intel Ct. This new tech is an extension to C/C++ that will automatically create parallelism in code, it will apparently even work for legacy apps.

Explained in high-level detail - boffin talk
http://techresearch.intel.com/articles/Tera-Scale/1514.htm

Explained for those with a hangover!
http://www.technologyreview.com/computing/22517/

Also, as this new tech will work with all x86 systems, Intel's Larrabee could take on a whole new dimension? So, has software managed to catch-up the hardware?

 

The new article on the site was very informative.

I think after reading it AM3 is the better route than 775 for perfomance and for being upgradable. However, I'm still undecided on whether or not it's worth spending the extra for an i7 (roughly £170).

 

I agree about that article and I'm in the same position as you. AM3 or i7. The cost of an i7 is what puts me off really. The AM3 is cheap and effective with the ability to upgrade later on. AMD are pretty good with compatibility I thought, so maybe it's a better route than the i7.

I want to see what the 720BE can do on water first though.

 

If I were building now, I'd go AM3. But it really depends on what you want to use the computer for, and how important money is in the calculation.

 

If you're still planning to keep your system for around 3/4 years then the extra £170 works out at less than a fiver a month, you will kick yourself for going with an AM3 in 18 months time, not because they're not good CPU's, but because the i7 has so much extra performance potential.

Current software cannot utilise the full power of the i7, but as the overclocking article demonstrates, multi-cores are becoming King. If you look at the my post above Intel's Ct technology, software devs will soon be able to more easily exploit many-core processors, and a i7's 8 threads provide far better longevity.

Do you think your current water-cooling system will cope with the heat of an i7 or AM3? I know very little about water cooling, I don't think my Q6700 has enough overclocking headroom to warrant spending a couple of hundred quid on H2O?

PS As a bonus, if you chose a system, you won't have to keep reading my gibberish

 

I'll keep it short and sweet because I'm feeling sick and my Hobbit needs leveling. ¬_¬

Many-core programming: It's going to be a long while before the 720BE is defunct from use in games. I mean I'm still playing modern games like Crysis on an E6300 and it looks damn sexy. Hell, before this I was still using an SoA 3200+ and I could play Counter-Strike: Source, Half-Life 2, etc, etc on it just fine (Ati 9800pro too!)

The other applications I rely on for my work take advantage of faster memory buses rather than more cores. For example Ableton Live (Audio Creation Application) is not even optimized for 4 Cores yet (afaik) and the key factor in making my work flow smoother is more and faster RAM speeds. You've got no idea how devastating a 24 VST-Instrument stack is on this little bugger, practically grinds to a halt.

That Intel CT stuff you linked, that's still in development. It could take months to complete. Then it'd have to be rolled out to programmers and companies for inclusion in their applications. It'll take them a while to create stable and working revisions of those applications and the chances are by the time that's all said and done I'll be upgrading to the next generation of sockets anyway! I highly doubt that Intel could roll this technology out and have it used in under 4 years. I think it's going to be a while before games and applications (Atleast ones relevant to me) start using this technology.

--Interesting side note: just had a power flicker and my PC just shutdown, how annoying. I've lost 2 PSUs living in this area and I don't want to lose anymore. Got a surge protector but is there anything else I can do to prevent this **** happening again?--

Cooling: 720BE has around 20% more heat spreader area than the i7, which technically means it can be cooled better! CPU temps are only one factor though. I've not seen any articles or results for Watercooled 720BE's, so I can't really judge just how sexy it'll be over the i7.

Cost: The problem is, I don't have money NOW. The i7 is so damn expensive over the AM3 + 720BE it'd have to have something really good going for it other than "It might be better in the future."

Conclusion: This came out longer than I thought.

 

Honestly if I was in your position I would just go with i7. It's easily overclockable, it's quad core, multi thread etc. Since you like to keep your system for so long this is the only way I could see it lasting for a few years without lagging to far behind new technology. And the prices are going down everyday. i built my i7 system in Feb of this year and jsut since then prices have gone down on the mobos, ram, everything.

I paid right under a grand for mine and that was for a complete build, case, power supply, OS, ram, video card, mobo, blu ray drive, etc. Only thing I didn't purchase was a monitor and keyboard and mouse.

But really it comes down to what you are comfortable spending and if you fill that your needs are getting met.

 

lol. Well you have a point about watercooling, I think it should be just about okay for now, but if I get another videocard then I will want to add another radiator to my setup. The thing is, looking at my case I can't really figure out where would be a good place to put another 120.2 rad. more problems...

 

Hope you're feeling better..

The OP is not a major gamer though, and modern games tend to be GPU limited, especially at higher resolutions and with more eye candy enabled. The exception to this rule seems to be Crossfire/SLI systems that need a highly overclocked powerful CPU to shine.

Never heard of that software, I'm pretty handy with a glockenspiel, but that's my limit!

Intel have stated that it will release Ct to devs, by the end of 2009. So by 2010 we will be able to see how well it works. But given the that many-core processors while not perfect, are the only current solution to maintaining Moore's law, Intel must be pretty happy with results they have achieved in testing. Still I would have loved to see 100 GHz CPU's

Core i7 can overclock to over 4Ghz on air, higher than X3 720s with same cooling, as they use different design processes, you cannot easily make a comparision.

Buy now Pay later!

 

Ahh yes...But I'll break my inadvertent combo! Before this Intel rig I had an AMD rig and before that AMD rig I had an Intel rig and before that..you get the drift. Your scheming will ruin my pattern!

Seriously though, it's something I am considering more now that I look at it. I think I'll build a water system for this C2D first, then decide later in the year. That way I completely avoid the issue of jumping on the new tech bandwagon!

 

OK, combo saver to the rescue, Intel i7 with a AMD-ATI GPU meerkats or see a quack about your OCD, whichever is easier!

 

Response to the "video encoding day in and day out": not even today's encoding techniques use quad core to the fullest. eight core i believe is just a marketing point that garners no practical use in today's applications.

 

If you REALLY wanted to upgrade now, go with the i7. But I personally would wait until Westmere comes out later this year: smaller die = lower TDP = lower heat = better processor.

 

well my nero 7 ultra says it can use 8 threads when encoding not sure if it does though, ill have a look next time i wanna put a video on my ipod to see if all threads are in use.

basically it gives me the option to use a specfic amount of threads for the encoding part

1-8 or auto.