Part 1: Building A Balanced Gaming PC

[computertech82]

intereseting. I'm waiting for part 2 with the amd cpus....

 

[hamitaltintop22]

I think some of the games as well as the graphics cards are very dependent on the frequency of the CPU. Thus the performance of the Hd 4890 decreases when paired with a quad-core with a lower frequency than the e8300. It seems the Ghz determines the HD 4890's performance more than the number of cores.
Of course, I can't wait for the overclocking article either. Can't wait to see e8400 clocked more than 3.8 Ghz against overclocked quad-cores.

 

[hamitaltintop22]

[citation][nom]tapher[/nom]I thought I had posted a comment before, but perhaps I balked. Anyway, as an aspiring budget gamer and therefore overclocker/tom's reader, the E6300 processor attracts my attention as it should be the heir to the E5200's reported excellent overclocking potential. However, the article doesn't explore CPU overclocking. At what point does an overclocked E6300/E5200/E5300 "bottleneck" a given GPU, assuming a stable OC can be achieved near or beyond 4 GHZ?[/citation]
I hope you read the article and know that part 3 and/or 4 (as stated in the article) will involve overclocking while part 2 will involve regular clocked amd cpus. However, I do see that this article might not be of much use in a practical sense, but it is good to see the performance of cpu/gpu at nonoverclocked speeds. For example, the 2.66 Ghz of the i7 is limiting in games that really heavy on the frequency than the number of cores, and so most would overclock it. So since it doesn't address overclocking yet, it might not be very useful in making a complete choice. However, it is fun just to know and it might be important to people who don't want to overclock.
Bottom Line: Overclocking, as stated in the article, will be discussed in later parts, so keeping waiting. This article was great and seems to have accomplished its purpose, testing stock speeding of intel cpus with various graphics cards to discover where the balance lies.

 

[cnox]

Hello,

It's me again...

Another daily check in...

Still no Part 2 article...

You know Thanksgiving is comming up in a few days...

And then the dreaded 'Black Friday'....

We'd like to have more facts before diving in to making a purchase at that time...

Please hurry up and press the friggin button.

Jesus.

 

[computertech82]

10 days since the first one, would like to see the amd before black friday myself.

 

[knightmike]

Amen, Cnox.

 

[Guest]

startin to wonder if intel bribed some one lol

 

[osse]

hehe , well im impationt to , also checking for news everyday. Becaouse none have done this kind of review, witch is the way it ment to be done TWIMTBD ).

There are so far only 2 artickles out on the net where the new radeon 58xx are put to the test on max settings and what is mainstream resolutioun now 1920 x 1xxx, and well on Stock amd 965 vs i5-750 and I7-940, Amd win 8 of 10 tests, paired on 1 looses one.

U find the test on guru3d and benchmarkreviews, but since u all are hardwaregeeks to i recon u all read them.

I am however concered that toms will fall back to its old ways, i dont have to mention what that was, all older hardware geeks know that. And i think and hope that time is gone and forgotten.

 

[Guest]

the angry mob is waiting for part 2 we are sharpening our pitchforks and firing up torches

 

[Guest]

Not trying to be a fan of the HD4850 in crossfire configuration, but TH has named this configuration over some single cards such as gtx275 or 4890 http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-graphics-card,2404-4.html. So I find it hard to believe that even though you have Xfire boards available that you didn't test the configuration. In this case, I find it incredible to believe your testing results, since they are contradicted by the same publication in previous testing http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-geforce-comparison,2007-19.html. Thus, I discount your extensive testing and depend upon my own observations and testing with my X58 @ 3.6Ghz setup with crossfired HD4850's. It's been fluidly running FSX and HL2E2 amongst others, and therefore I believe my eyes not your "testing."

 

[airgreek]

it always amazes me how unappreciative people can be. I should know since we test products in another industry and get the same aholes that call your tests fake. I personally thank your entire staff for the wonderful service provided. People if you do not like their results then fine, go and test yourself! Keep the negative comments to yourself. As theold saying goes, if you have nothing nice to say then keep it to yourself!

 

[osse]

In most cases what you say there can be a good thing, but any test of any product need to read with care, beliving anything without dobbelchecking its what idiots do, hey way not just belive any test that amd do of its own products, or any test that intel do ?.

But the good thing abaut the way they review it in this article is that is very easy to verify any testdata there is, and even testers are just human and can do mistakes, and need to read with care.

 

[pauldh]

Not trying to be a fan of the HD4850 in crossfire configuration, but TH has named this configuration over some single cards such as gtx275 or 4890 http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-graphics-card,2404-4.html. So I find it hard to believe that even though you have Xfire boards available that you didn't test the configuration. In this case, I find it incredible to believe your testing results, since they are contradicted by the same publication in previous testing http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-geforce-comparison,2007-19.html. Thus, I discount your extensive testing and depend upon my own observations and testing with my X58 @ 3.6Ghz setup with crossfired HD4850's. It's been fluidly running FSX and HL2E2 amongst others, and therefore I believe my eyes not your "testing."

First - As stated numerous times in the article, Crossfire & SLI results are scheduled for a later part of the series. Did you read the article? I'm not catching the point you are trying to make concerning crossfire.

Second - Your links are dead, but I'd sure like to see what you call a contradiction. Very likely it's not even the same image quality settings as in this article. I'll stand by this data as accurate and likely any varied results you are seeing is not comparing apples to apples as far as test settings, hardware, drivers, etc. Please provide working links and be specific what results you are questioning.

And last - How would your own testing of crossfire 4850's and an overclocked i7 have anything to do with these stock clocked results that didn't include crossfire? It sounds to me that you are offended the (your) HD 4850 was incapable of handling these test settings.

 

[amdfangirl]

Just curious, could you guys add the Athlon II to your part 2 tests?

 

[cnox]

Are we going to be able to see the part 2 article this week, assuming the short work week due to the holiday? A simple 'Yes' or 'No' answer will suffice.

 

[john boy]

Hoping to see some upcoming info soon in the LGA 775 Series. In wanting to upgrade or replace some of the components your using in these tests, and by checking online at most major online stores selling these computer components, several of the products your testing are scarce as Hen's Teeth to find, or they are already "Out-Of-Stock" on some of the various motherboards and video cards your testing and no assurance of restocking. I suppose some won't restock due to the new stuff coming out now and for the next year.

 

[Guest]

Almost 2 weeks since Part 2 was 'almost finished'

*sigh*

 

[pauldh]

UPDATE: For those anxious to see Part 2, it won't be during this Holiday week. It's scheduled to go live Monday or Tuesday of next week.

 

[cnox]

Who, us? Anxious? What? What ever gave you that idea? Just been asking for the past week, and waiting over 2 weeks, and now it will be 3 weeks between articles...

Next time, can you guys plan your article publishing calendar a little bit more intelligently? The articles that have been published between part 1 and part 2...most of them could have waited without upsetting so many people. Either that, or don't even bother publishing part 1 if it looks like it's going to be weeks and weeks between the other sections. It's really annoying to be teased with one article and then have to wait 3 weeks for the next piece.

Don't toy with geek's emotions.

-C

 

[demondrumer]

i think the asus p6t deluxe v2 would have been a better choice just from a money point of view and to be honest the rog boards arent that much faster except for the sound cards...... oh and they look cool

 

[Guest]

Hy,

First part of the article is very good but to publish the second and the third one is...priceless!

Has Intel "encouraged" you to postpone publishing the second part until next year? or the dog eat your homework?

 

[cnox]

Oh baby. The wait is almost over....tomorrow is the DAY! Smell the sweet scent of benchmarked goodness....

 

[Guest]

The whole idea is really good. However both articles, part 1 & 2 are sooo late. You are testing obsolete graphic cards paired with obsolete CPUs...

 

[dirtdiver]

Well done, what else can I say?

 

[beehew]

Great, super, excellent article. I am very pleased to see that my E8400, HD4890, 22" resolution performed well on almost all the tests. I find it very interesting that the HD4890 performed only okay on the STALKER benchmarks, because that game came bundled with my GPU. (On a side note, I have not played it yet because the overzealous copy protection doesn't believe that I have the disk in the drive.)