E8500 vs X2 7750

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar

Is an Intel E8500 system worth paying 30 more bucks than a AMD 7750 system.

  • Yes

    Votes: 44 83.0%

  • No

    Votes: 9 17.0%
  • Total voters
    53
Yea I'm the same. I will see what a chip is stable to and then drop it back or run a small overclock which won't harm anything. I ran the E6850 at 3.6 for a little while but it made no real difference in games or photoshop. No point burning out a chip just so you can boast about your big overclock. The i7 will be a good platform but it's just not a viable option for me. In Australia it would cost me the best part of $2000 for a board, processor and 12gig of ram. The AMD cost $400 for the board and processor and I already had the ram. Just a slight difference in cost. Anyway best of luck with the new build and let me know how it all goes.

Regards, Mal
 
Don't know what other people are saying, TL;DR.

Anyway, IMHO: E8500. The Samsung F1 1TB Drive is amazing. I've had mine for like 1yr and it's lightning quick, quiet, cool, and reliable thus far.
Also, only using 1 optical drive isn't too big an issue, either, I rarely, if ever, find a need for 2 cdroms, and when I do, I just rip ISO's and use Daemontoolz.

As far as numbers go, the E8500 is like, head and shoulders over the X2 line. However, I think I've seen the mention, going to the Q6600 may be ideal, as 4-cores > 2-cores for most workstation/multitastking/enduser stuff.

So, to sum: The components are fine, the E8500 is better, and the Q6600 is probably a superior alternative to both (and cheaper, i believe).
 


You done yet?

Photoshop - batch conversion benifits with Raid arrays maybe (who does that alot?), but single image manipulation, ZERO BENEFIT.

I refered to that Intel SSD cause you were crapping on about some $300 card and drive setup which has no benifit over the Integrated Intel Raid Controllers (supporting Raid 0/1/5 etc) - $300 to do the same as a cheaper/common solution (perhaps slower - being capped by latencies and/or bottleknecks of the physical port the card is connected via etc - did you think of that?) - why half ass it (with half his budget) when you can get something more superior for alot more? LOL @ $1000 it would also feel 1000 times better then your setup?

Let me remind you i do run every machine i own in some sort of RAID setup - server in raid5, main raid 0, second server raid1 etc - i know the benifits and disadvantages all too well 😉

Refresh my memory as to why your comparing an E8500 to your 9350e - DUAL CORE VS QUAD CORE? Im running an Ancient Q6600 overclocked to a lame 3.5ghz on air - do you want to compare your rig to mine? Ill give you the advantage - your chip came out years later then mine, and like yours mine is the lowest end of the series - lets compare :)

Let me remind people this "Upgrade Path" thing is BS 99% of the time - does anyone remember Socket 940 (original), 754, 939, 423 etc - all gone, no upgrades no nothing, all lasting a pitiful amount of time, never trust either company and there "upgrade paths" - buy a new rig every ~2-3 years, do minor upgrades, then get a totally new rig. I dont trust the Intel Core i7's current socket to last long - reminds me of Socket423 (original pentium 4 socket) - theres a socket coming for mainstream that will have PCIe integrated into the cpus package its self, see where that goes, and AM2 is being replaced by AM3 - who knows what will happen there, and the current AM2 - what % of boards dont support phenom? alot, and then 125+w cpus busting the compatible boards - great "Upgrade Path" :ange:

Minimal gains with a higher end cpu at high res sure, but who games on there pc 100% of the time? i sure dont - im doing other stuff most of the time and thats where the power goes etc.

Photoshop is a 32 bit app so yes its limited to that 4gb barrier (and wont take all 4gb etc) - having 8gb makes sure photoshop gets all the memory it need and can use while other tasks also get memory.



I await your abuse MalcolmK ^^ your a laugh.
 


Heh on average if i remember correctly the highest end Core i7 is double the performance of the highest end Phenom II - dont tell me that 2k system is anywhere near that $400 snail.

If your running XP, 1gb of ram and a 8400gs video card, its not going to improve no matter what cpu you give the rig - theres other limitations etc.

The MHz wont harm a cpu, its the volts and destroy them and then the heat that comes with it - bump that vcore up a little (to give a higher end vdroop result) and an aftermarket cooler and give just push it as hard as it goes, then down a touch (just below stability limit) - provided its Prime95 (multi) stable and under 70ºc load it will be find and last 2+ years no issues - never lost a chip from overclocking (P55C @ 292mhz, Mendocino @ 600mhz, Coppermine @ ~1010mhz, Northwood @ ~3100, Barton @ ~2300, Conroe @ 3200, and now my kenstfield @ 3560mhz) - never an issue, bar the occasional motherboard issue. From experience Pentium 1's are next to imposible to kill (3.5v @ 300mhz), Pentium 2's hate 2.3+v and run like ovens, Pentium 3's and no matter what vcore wont scale past 1ghz (coppermine only), my pentium 4 northwood was stubborn and wouldnt budge over 3ghz, and my Core 2 Duo's and Quads are the best overclockers so far).
 
I just the best performance I can get right now under a certain price point. I photoshop and video editing is the only thing I worry about. I am not a major time artist editor...i just do occasion designs here and there...i generally never have more than 5 pics open at the same time...and even though photoshop make not be optimized for 4 cores now...who know...cs5 may be and i could see and even greater performance...


I know the i7s...are expensive and they may not even be the best for upgrading, but I know that the cpu speed should stay the same for a few years....if it takes 30 secs to do something the 1st day i run it....it should take 30 secs 2 years later....gaming is no big deal....jus a lil occasional gaming....and i feel that the pci/e slot when be around for a while to come...also...optical drives are easy to upgrade...i will jus grab a dvd burner for now...and wen every blu ray drives drop to 75 50 bucks...ill easily pick one up and upgrade...

Im jus trying to a build a simple machine...raid doesnt seem all that important compared to the hassle...and i dnt think it fair to compair quads to duals...a quad SHOULD destory a dual anytime...but thats not always the case...
 


http://www.madshrimps.be/vbulletin/f22/amd-phenom-ii-arrives-official-tests-benchmarks-inside-60419/

Composite scores of a lot of Phenom II reviews. Apparently the i7 965 Extreme scores 28% faster than the Phenom II 940 on average. That's a *lot* less than double performance for what... 4 to 5 times the price? I wonder which one enthusiasts will buy more of...



 


oops sorry i ment Phenom (Phenom 1), the phenom 2 gets closer!
 


From that chart it looks like the i7 965 Extreme would have about double of the performance of the early B2 Stepping Phenom X4 9500
 


I just hope those i7's and there socket dont go the way Socket 423 went - one generation of cpu and it was gone, along with AMD's socket 940 (original) and 754 (lesser but still).
 
yea i understand where you coming frm...i built a few 754 machines..they were supposed to be promising..but then...they get replaced outta know where...

it would be nice if this 1366 stick around like the 775 did
 


Then again, if its similar to the server based one (tri-channel memory, CSI etc) then there is hope - as the platform will be more wide spread etc, like socket 771 and 775 (not compatible but same deep down etc)
 
Yea...ima buy this i7 system...i got the money...idk whats taking me to so long to order it...!! idk im scared to click order!! lol


 
Hey Apache, How much is 2tb of ssd drives going to cost you. To replace my two year old raid setup with intel SSD's would cost $16500 US and you would have to run two 16 chanel raid cards to be able to connect 30 drives. Also the average cpu usage while heavily into photoshop is %10 so like I said the cpu kirvinb uses won't make much difference. The cpu usage while playing COD4 with an 8800gt OC to 750-1750-2200 is %50. That is on a 24" screen with everything turned up. Also I said the 9350e is more playable than the E6850. Playability does not always correlate to a benchmark score. Playability is all about having a consistent framerate and a seamless transition between frames. That is what makes a game pleasant to play.

To give you an example a few years ago when the Nvidia 7900gs and gt was all the rage I looked throught the reviews on the main websites and decided to go for the nvidia over the ATI1950gt or pro. The 1950gt was in my price range but it got completely bagged by all the websites so I decided to go for the nvidia 7900gs. After trying the 7900gs I was a little disappointed. It scored well in benchmarks but was not smooth to play. Quite jittery and gave me a headache after playing for 15min. Twelve months later I picked up the ATI 1950gt off ebay for $80 and after changing cards and drivers I was amazed at how good the ATI card was. It might have been bagged for being a slower card in benchmarks but in actual use it crapped on the 7900gs. The 1950gt is super smooth in gameplay and my nephew is still using it.

As for the ARECA raid card if you actually tried one you would understand why they are such a good piece of hardware. In OZ the four chanel card is $700 so being able to buy one in the states for $290 is a real bargain. Also if you actually read my suggestions to kirvinb I was recommending he saves some money on this build so he can put it towards a raid card in the future. A single drive will be fine for his first year at college but it won't be long before he needs more drive space and redundancy features.
Graphic arts is one area that has really boomed in the last few years thanks to digital capture. Digital capture is great but for every hour at a photo shoot I will spend at least three hours in front of the workstation. That is why it's a lot easier getting a job as a graphic artist than a photographer.

The ARECA card might be $290 but it gives you performance, drive space and redundancy in one package. As for the onboard controller being as good as the raid card, it's like saying onboard sound is just as good as a top end sound card or intergrated graphics will do the same job as a $300 graphics card. I can guarantee that if you actually tried one you would never get rid of it. Also the Areca raid cards don't depreciate like most computer hardware. A two or three year old card is still worth $220 on ebay. The real question is why wouldn't you buy one.

Anyway I am just saying kirvinb should go for the cheaper option on this build. He is better off saving some money so he can add to his system as his needs change. There is always going to be a faster cpu around the corner and the i7 is still in it's early stages. The i7 is a good platform but it's just a little rich at the moment and the mainboards are still only revision 1 so there going to have a few bugs.

Regards, Mal
 
I have just been testing the drives in my raid 5 and here are some figures for Apache. The raid 5 consists of 6 old WD 320gig drives. They should be dual platter and each drive is good for 70mb/s when connected to the onboard controller and have an access time of 14ms. When the six drives are connect to the Areca raid card in a raid 5 the burst transfer rate is 1100mb/s and the continuous read/write speed is 500mb/s. The access time also drops to 11ms. If I was using new drives with 320gb platters the continuous drive speed would be around 750mb/s and the access time would drop to 9ms with the new caviar black drives. The raid 5 is purely for storage and the OS is on a seperate raid 0. In a year or two the SSD drives will be financially viable as boot drives but not for storage. I hope this gives you an idea of the type of performance that can be achieved with a hardware based controller card. The second hand Areca 12 chanel card and extra drives cost less than two 80gb ssd.

Regards, Mal
 
lol you done yet MalcolmK?

I wont even bother reading that rant you have there, and its not even in paragraphs etc


Rephrase?:

Raid arrays dont equal higher fps, nor better performance for photo editing, and a little gain in video editing, but solid state hdd's are better but more expensive?

Comparing a cr@ppy AMD Quad to an Intel dual is obviously stupid and of no point or purpose, what do you expect from nearly twice the transistors?

i7 is king if you can afford it.


Regards, your_face
 
I cannot believe this thread is still going, and with the same argument.

RAID card = waste of money
Phenom 9350e = garbage

You want to talk about i7 being too expensive malcolm, yet you are recomending a $300 raid card? Get out of here with this blasphemy. Its worthless in a desktop, let alone a moderate budget build. WORTHLESS!!!
 
If you actually read my comments you might learn something. I have put it into paragraphs for you Apache so you might be able to understand it now. As for the i7 it will have no effect in image editing because photoshop is not cpu intensive. It is however very hard drive intensive. Try flicking through 20 or 30 gig of RAW files in Photoshop browser and tell me what makes the most difference. As I have said a dozen times I am suggesting kirvinb goes for a low cost build now because he is going to need a good raid setup in a year or two. That's just the facts. Almost every professional graphic artist or photographer uses raid setups because it is the only way to get the storage space, drive speed and redundancy features we need in a workstation. As for the i7, yes it is a good platform but it's too early to go for one. The motherboards are still only revision 1 and they will have lots of bugs. Wait till at least revision 2.
 


Heh heres a tip for you and photoshop, if you think hdd performance is so important, use the ramdisk software and pack an i7 or Core2 Quad system with 8+ gb of ram and dump the temp/raw files and photoshop swap file on the ramdisk for that nice 8+gb/s ~10ns access speeds and watch your raid card crash and burn, 1000x slower - tri channel ram allows perhaps 50% more ram (extra channel for more memory volume and some performance) and higher speeds (+50% if needed) - see what photoshop likes better 😉

Revision 1 motherboards? so what? read reviews and buy the best rated products, iv seen first revision gigabyte and asus motherboards kick 4th revision garbage from MSI - you obviously dont buy something with bad reviews/ratings.

Why do you go on about your raid card? Onboard Intel based solutions match it, and you dont mention the bottleknecks and additional latency penalties you get from the "cards" and the ports, busses etc, plus if you loose that card you need another one to get the data off - secure my ass, atleast intels raid arrays can be moved between boards.

As for your photoshop benchmarks - http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/Intel-Core-i7-Nehalem,2057-29.html - AMD is all in one group... AT THE BOTTOM, all slower then any intel on the same benchmark, thats with the following settings - "Filtering from a 69 MB TIF-Photo".

On the other hand if you had sufficient amounts of ram you wouldn't spill over to the page file and "thrash" the hdd's etc - that's what ram is for, right? Temporary store information to be processed etc? Photoshop is ram hungry.
 
When your working in photoshop and editing RAW images your storing, retrieving and saving large amounts of data and the hard drive is doing most of the work. A ramdisk will help if you actually run out of non paged memory but the raid card gives similar results. My raid card has 2gig of cache and a continuous drive speed of 500mb/s. As for the raid card being a bottleneck and increasing latency just have a look at the figures for my raid 5. The 8x PCI-Express raid card has a transfer limit of 1100mb/s and it reduces the latency of a standard drive from 14ms to 11ms. The Areca card is the best on the market and in the last two years I have never had a problem with any of my cards. Besides that's what a backup is for. I shoot everything on 4gb memory cards so they fit nicely on a DVD. I also have a second backup on a server. You will find most photographers do the same thing.

I have had four faulty 775 boards in that time and the Areca card allows me to use any platform while keeping the data intact. I can slot it into a Xeon, Opteron, Phenom or a 775 board with an nvidia chipset and it works perfectly. Also those faulty boards were revision 1 boards. Most manufacturers expect a large number or rev1 boards to come back because that's product testing. Just have a look at the number of revisions made to 965 and p35 motherboards. If they got it right the first time there would be no need for revisions.

As for the photoshop benchmarks on this site it's not a real world test because you never use more than two or three filters on any image and even then it's only in very small amounts. The only filters I actually use are unsharp mask, guassian blur and liquify. I use the unsharp mask if a models eyes need a little sharpening. I duplicate the layer, add 1 to 1.5 pixels sharpening at %30 to %50 to the background and then erase the top layer around the eyes and mouth. Gaussian blur is good for smoothing out the pixelation from the scan of a black and white negative and liquify is good for making small adjustments to a models outline. Areas like hips, stomach and where bikini or lingerie straps cut into a girls outline. These are only small adjustments and the cpu usage would rarely hit %100 even for a second. Like I said the average cpu usage while editing is about %10 and that's with a lot of things running in the background.

When I am doing a shoot I try to get the RAW image as perfect as possible because this saves a lot of time in photoshop. If you have to edit 150 images from one shoot you will know what I mean. Half the time is spent converting and organising images into different folders. RAW,Tiff,JPEG,small JPEG, Edit folder, Print folder and this is for each model. Anyway I hope this sheds some light on the benifits of Raid cards and what resourses photoshop actually uses. I have also included a link to one of my web pages so you can view some of my work. Most of these images have had very little editing done to them. That's the way I prefer to work because it saves time and the images look natural.

http://www.onemodelplace.com/member.cfm?P_ID=182149

Regards, Malcolm
 
So MalcolmK why dont you have an i7? if you blow so much on your hdd setup and limit it so bad with poor AMD's? And how many motherboards come with a proper/true 8x slot for your card when your using the 16x slot for the video card? The ATi Crossfire or Nvidia SLI motherboards maybe, but the P35 and 965 motherboards are impossible - the second 16x slot is only a 4x at best 😉

Your revision 1 motherboards - iv had mostly revision 1 motherboards over the last few years - 965, P35 etc - all survived and still work till today, so i dunno what you do with them all? My ASUS P5B-Deluxe Wifi/app lived its whole life with an E6600 @ 3200/1600 (first few to hit that magical "FSB1600 4mb L2 overclock" that so many thought was imposible.

To add to that im sure there more thrashed then most systems too - quad pcie tuners, 2x250's raid0 + 640gb for TV, torrents, converting dvds and playing gta iv at the same time etc - quad core isnt enough for me i think 🙁 dunno how you can survive with a phailure 9150e
 
This shouldnt be even be on here...the raid talk is nice but jus not in my budget...and probably wont be until i get my degree and earn some real money until then i got to stick with the basics...and i said i was gettin the i7s before, but now i dnt know...the phenom 2 looks like...and it may not be the best but it cost less with cheaper mobos and ddr2 ram...of course i could jus get the intel quads but idk about them jus yet
 
The point is I didn't blow money on the raid setup. I started with two drives then four drives with onboard raid, then four drives with a four chanel card and a year ago I picked up the 12 chanel card second hand off ebay and purchased some more 320gig drives and that's what I have today. I will have the raid cards for as long as there is PCI-Express and they don't depreciate in value. When I need more drive space I just add another drive and expand the raid 5 which is a lot cheaper than replacing all the drives. It's all about cost and service life.

Buying an Areca card is the same as buying a pro camera or lens. It lasts for many years, has great performance and has very low depreciation which is the complete opposite to any other computer hardware. To buy the i7 in Australia would cost me the best part of $2000 for board processor and ram and in twelve months it will be old news and worth $500. That's a lot to loose in one year for something that doesn't improve my workflow in photoshop. The 9350e and xfx board cost $400 and it will still be doing the same job in twelve months. Photoshop really isn't cpu intensive so it doesn't matter if you use an intel dual core, amd quad or the new i7 because they all do the same job. How many office workers are going to upgrade to the i7 because it benchmarks higher in microsoft word. If you do computer animation for a living then certainly the i7 or Xeon would be a great option but for photoshop it really makes no difference.

As for the 775 motherboards I ditched the 965 and P35 boards for an abit 650sli and XFX 680sli. Both boards have worked flawlessly and the pci-express connection has never been a problem because it is always higher than the hard drives transfer rate. The most important thing to me is reliability and I live in the tropics so heat is also an issue. For what I do the 9350e is a little champion. It runs cool, quiet, is very responsive, uses very little power, is smooth in gameplay and was cheap to buy.

I have been thinking about your suggestion to use a software ramdisk. 8gig of RAM is in kirvinb's budget so he could use 2gig for the ramdisk which would leave 6gig for the OS. There shouldn't be much difference in OS performance between 6 and 8gig. I will have to run a few tests to see what difference it makes. It would also be a good idea for kirvinb to have seperate drives for OS and storage. That way one drive can handle the OS and programs while the other does the data transfer. It's the same reason I have seperate boot and storage raids. Anyway I will try it out and post some results in a day or two.

Regards, Malcolm
 
That would be my suggestion. Just go for the Phenom 920 with a cheap gigabyte board and 8gig of A-data or kingston memory. Also spend an extra $80 on a second 640gb caviar black drive. OS and programs on one and storage on the other. It will greatly improve performance because the two drives can do different things at the same time. It also means that you already have two matched drives for when you do need a raid setup in a year or two. Anyway that's what I think. I will try to do a few tests in the next few days to demonstrate the performance gains between different drive and ram setups.

Regards, Malcolm
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom