The rest of the points and Counter Points.
DarkSable :
You're still proving that you have no idea what you're talking about... When ignoring chips such as the $600 i7-3930k, neither an i5 NOR an i7 have six or eight cores. A desktop i5 is a quad core. A consumer level i7 is an i5 with 3MB more l3 cashe, and hyperthreading.
Yes the The i7-3960K has # of Cores 6 # of Threads 12 and appears AND PERFORMS as 12 Cores because of Hyperthreading is allowing each chip to 2x Process by splitting MicroProcessing the work.
http://ark.intel.com/products/63697
But the rest of the Desktop PCs, CONSUMER, Staples: pick any all are around the normal i7-4770,
http://www.staples.com/i7/directory_i7?fids=142810&rpp=18&pn=1&sr=true which is # of Cores 4 # of Threads 8 so it appears to and performs for the OS as 8 Cores,
http://ark.intel.com/products/75122/Intel-Core-i7-4770-Processor-8M-Cache-up-to-3_90-GHz
Desktop PCs, Consumer i5s here
http://www.extremetech.com/deals/169285-et-deals-529-for-hp-pavilion-500-haswell-desktop
and here
http://configure.us.dell.com/dellstore/config.aspx?oc=fddnrn1359&cs=19&dgvcode=ss&c=US&l=EN&dgc=SS&cid=274440&lid=5138339&acd=12309196895274941 are all around the i5-4430 / 4440 which is # of Cores 4 # of Threads 4 so it appears and performs to the OS as 4 Cores,
http://ark.intel.com/products/75036/intel-core-i5-4430-processor-6m-cache-up-to-3_20-ghz
BUT a i5 can be EITHER a 2 or 4Core and still work as 4 Threads
http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/processors/core/core-i5-processor.html
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Core_i5_4670K_and_i7_4770K_Comparison/
So your statement "NOR an i7 have six or eight cores" is incorrect as you even pointed to the i7-3930 And I pointed to the 3960, both are 6 CORE, but the latter is 12 threads (which is really 12 cores processing), "A desktop i5 is a quad core." is NOT correct as some are actual 2, but they all perform as 4 Threads, and yes I am talking "consumer level a i7 is (NOT) an i5 with 3MB more l3 cashe, and hyperthreading", there is much more including more cores. So YOU apparently throwing BLANKET statements around to justify your harassment doesn't fly when they are ALL incorrect, as proven.
DarkSable :
There are a very small handful of games that even support hyperthreading, and out of those games, some of them perform WORSE with hyperthreading on than they do when hyperthreading is disabled.
HOLD IT! Your tossing around stuff and mixing it together when we are discussing different things AND has NOTHING to do with Hyperthreading. Hyperthreading is the technique developed by Intel to keep multiple cores from 'getting in the way' of each other trying to grab or pass on the processed data, as well as optimize the core to such a extent that it literally performs TWO processes at the same time INside each core, because of the use of MicroProcessing technique. This allows PARALLEL processing of data, rather then SERIAL processing as AMD does. AMD kept adding more and more 'cores' (FX-4xxx was Quad, 6xxx has 6 cores, FX-8xxx is 8 cores) but as more cores were added they didn't have a optimized threading solution, as everything is performed in serial (think of a straight line from A to B as serial, while parallel is A to B and C to D right next to each other).
When we talk about gaming what happens in NORMAL games they tend to be single THREADED applications, so when they follow the serial AMD method the other cores tend to be waiting in line to get a turn to grab code, are waiting to release code, etc. Where as a parallel Intel iCore model allows 2x the data to be grabbed by a single core, and as there is no 'wait' the next core does the same thing and so on. Basically doubling or more the performance while using less cores, then AMD can provide with 'true core'. When a application is actually optimized for MULTIPLE Threads (like Dual Cores) then having dedicated cores does improve performance for serial processing, but Intel's newer generation triumph over it with even more optimize MicoProcessing. In fast the newest Haswell chipset increaded the number of MicroProcesses then ever before, pushing the performance of Haswell iCores even better then the highest end FX chip available (surprisingly).
Now IF AMD had not walked away from the fight (FX chips are over 3 years old
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_AMD_FX_microprocessors as compared to Haswell in 2013) and instead come up with a BIOS update to manufacturers + Driver change that would even 'partially' parallel (say a FX-4xxx with 4 cores had 6 threads) the entire line of current and previously sold chips, this would drastically change the marketscape and put a serious problem in Intel Dominant path. Or conversely, if code was developed (a 'wrapper') to take non-multi thread applications and 'smartly' divide the processing amongst the Cores, AMD again would prevail alot better then Intel, as iCore all are 'half' the cores of the AMD line.
DarkSable :
The reason an i7 is the standard for the bench testers is that they're doing a LOT of things beyond gaming, such as straight number crunching, rendering, or, say, video editing so they can get their bench tests online faster.
Uhm NO, and totally FALSE. The 'Benchmark' systems are ONLY used for Bencmarking and kept under strict control. WHY? Because any introduction of other uses can skew later benchmarks, and cause FALSE results (as in the recent case of Samsung http://bgr.com/2014/03/05/samsung-benchmark-cheating-ends/). Such places as Ziff-Davis (owner of Cnet, et al), Tom's Hardware, CNN Tech, etc. all rely on accuracy and honesty, because if they don't they are LIBEL for compensation for false reporting or bias of one product / maker over another, and honestly they don't really want multimillion dollar lawsuits. CPU Magainze, Tom's Hardware, etc. all provide a disclaimer on exactly HOW they performed their benchmarks, built the systems and even the process of how the testing is complete to ensure "Journalistic Integrity". Now IF your referring to MadR33fer's L33t Youtube 'benchmark videos' ad your 'proof' I would direct you to the infamous word "CAKE IS A LIE". Any person can say whatever BS they want on a blog (personal log), a youtube video, or even a Forum like this. People whom have CREDIBILITY back it up with THIRD PARTY evidence, such as the numerous citation I am doing here. This proves my point, especially when my sources ARE DIRECTLY FROM THE MAKERS OF THE STUFF. Not just my overinflated trolling opinion spew.
DarkSable :
I don't know why you think gaming rigs require Gigabyte motherboards, or Killer branded ram... but no, prebuilts often shave off money on the parts that matter most for reliability, such as the power supply and motherboard. Yes, you can upgrade that later, but why not just build one yourself that's reliable from the start?
Honestly I was replying to your assertion. While you may crave (as many people do) self built systems, many people do not have the time, money, much less patience to be all 'Selfie' mode. Hence the second option of a prebuilt. Now as for 'reliability', I have seen the same thing happen prebuilt OR selfbuilt, it doesn't matter, if a manufacturer makes mistakes or such it doesn't mean "sell it only in prebuilts", it is sold however they can. The BEST assurance of the MOST LIKELY reliability is to buy from the most reputable and this is also normally the most expensive makers (hence my examples) which their sales utterly RELY (make or break) on that rep. So if they screw up, they can't shrug it off, they lose to competitors. Other (like the MANY PSU makers) dont' care all they care about if they push enough sales out they take the profits and screw the people getting the 'bad ones'. Usually that is because being in overseas markets there is less liability (i.e. the FCC/FTC/etc.can't touch them to stop them) so they can do that. I heard it is so bad, they open a factory in China one one side of the street till they get caught, then they just move down the block with a new name and do the whole thing over again (sweatshoppe style) and just keep doing that, raking in the money shut down move make more money.
DarkSable :
Your information on hard drives, simply put, is wrong. No hard drive, even a 10,000k RPM velocraptor, even if it's labeled "Sata III!" will saturate the bandwidth of a SATA II connection by itself. In addition, your original point is still ridiculous - why in the world should the OP get rid of perfectly usable storage just because it doesn't happen to have the newest label? Also, if there is "no reason" for consumers to use RAID, why have tech enthusiasts been relying on it for far greater speed for decades?
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/hdd-charts-2012/compare,2900.html?prod%5B5531%5D=on
Actually the Velociraptor 1 TB 3.5" Hard Drive does exceed the max bandwidth of SATA II (300MB/s) with a score of 400.80 .
Second to that I would add that alot of consumers (as noted by the sales out there) add / switch to SSDs, which would be bottlenecked with a SATA II interface (killing the very reason to get a SSD).
Third, MOST drives now are 4K formatted, NOT 512K (See here to help you understand if you dont' http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/storage/2010/04/01/the-facts-4k-advanced-format-hard-disks/1) and it is physically reading the platter different in case you haven't been paying attention (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disk_read-and-write_head
"Perpendicular magnetic recording (PMR)
During the same time frame a transition to perpendicular magnetic recording is occurring (PMR), in which for reasons of improved stability and higher areal density potential, the traditional in-plane orientation of magnetization in the disk is being changed to a perpendicular orientation. This has major implications for the write process and the write head structure, as well as for the design of the magnetic disk media or hard disk platter, less directly so for the read sensor of the magnetic head." This is not compatible nor usable without a BIOS change IF one even exists for the Mobo, normally the solution is to upgrade to a 'current' Mobo, aka SATA III controllers.
Fourth, as this is a OLD system, thus (as I believe I posted before) the warranty on the drive is way expired, and the normal 'lifespan' is based upon 40Hrs per week constant usage for 3 years (normal business environment) per each manufacturer. So that means after that point or if you exceed those number of hours repeatedly the PHYSICAL hardware itself will not 'be guaranteed to perform' as advertised (i.e. we expect it to break DUH!). So if the OP takes this drive and 'relies' on it, then he is adding a higher risk on a used piece of old hardware that per the manufacturer may 'fail' at anytime. I am on my Alienware m17xR2, and finally had to chuck my one 500GB drive because after these past 3 years of use (though manufacturing date is 4 years ago) it finally crapped out as a example of my OWN experiance.
Fifth, DIDN'T you just say "prebuilts often shave off money on the parts that matter most for reliability" ? So if you derail my suggestion for this reason, WHY then do you push he take the EMachines (prebuilt) hard drive (often shave off money on the parts) and rely on it (most for reliability)? You seem to conflict with YOUR OWN WORDS.
Lastly, as for RAID " tech enthusiasts been relying on it for far greater speed for decades" - incorrect they have been relying on the faster RESPONSE in how the data is stored as compared to how normal 'non-RAID' traditional in-plane orientation mechanical drives using 512K formatted common 5400RPM drives that were the 'standard' for off the shelf systems. As all this has changed (how the data is stored, file size it is stored in, how the data is read, etc.) for consumers they don't 'see' a difference these past years, especially now with SSD on the 'norm' for systems. As you noted "tech enthusiasts ", put it another way a Car Tuner whom 'build his own engine' etc. would push the same argument when he/she sees all the Prius, Hondas, etc. at the gas station all with the 'stock' settings. Enthusiast will take risks the average OP just wants a simple answer to.
DarkSable :
As for transferring the OEM key, you still aren't bothering to read what's in front of you. I'm not thinking of the system builder's OEM, I'm thinking of a factory OEM install. You do not transfer the drive. You have to look up your OEM key, and then reinstall windows on the new computer, using that key. You would then have to call Microsoft and explain the situation, but 90% of the time, they'll activate it just happily.
KETTLE BLACK. I am calling you on it here, because you are spouting "you still aren't bothering to read what's in front of you" when it is your own words your not reading what your saying. First off your saying "why in the world should the OP get rid of perfectly usable storage" which has what? The Windows installed already, so that is why I pointed out the example of just moving the drive to a new build wouldn't work which you respond "
You do not transfer the drive. " WTH MAN? Get your story straight your talking both sides of your head here.
NO, Microsoft will NOT issue a 'new key' NOR activate it "happily" when you explain "I just moved my EMachine OEM copy of Windows to a new Computer". FIRST it is NOT activation (your thinking old XP before SP1), Windows WILL NOT INSTALL, the CD is inserted, you BOOT from CD, it says you need to insert a proper DISK, you can't install. So it isn't just a 'activation key problem'. Secondly you did not read this PER MICROSOFT (that I provided to you)
OEM Software may NOT be transferred to another machine. Even if the original laptop, PC or Server is no longer in use, or if the software is removed from the original hardware, OEM licenses are tied to the device on which the software is first installed
SO: IF OEM Software is NOT installed on EMachine model XYZ with Mobo Model ABC and CPU YYY then IT WILL NOT INSTALL AND IS NOT PERMITTED. It doesn't matter how you " call Microsoft and explain the situation" that still straight the problem.
As you DETEST prebuilts, YOU are NOT using a PREBUILT OEM Windows, obviously, so that means your using the OEM SYSTEM BUILDER edition, which is NOT limited, just like a off the shelf Windows at Walmart/Best Buy/etc. In the case of the OEM System Builder Edition OR off the shelf Windows, YES you can certainly "call Microsoft and explain the situation, they'll activate it just happily" through the Automated System or speak to a person whom will do THE AUTOMATED SYSTEM with you. Can you understand it the SECOND time saying the same thing now?
DarkSable :
I might not have your 20 years of experience sitting at a help desk, but that doesn't say much anyways. When you're diagnosing computers, it's a different story, I'll grant you that, but the technology field changes far too rapidly for anything but recently gained experience to be of a huge help. Your views reflect ideas that were popular some three to five years ago, and which have been disproven. I understand that you're just trying to help the OP, but much of your advice is no longer applicable.
Again you FAIL. You don't know shit about me and your trying to disparage a career (and that means the Mod and others here whom AS WELL have experience like mine thank you) as " that doesn't say much anyways." 20 Years of NOT sitting at a help desk "1800IamaIdiotHelpme" No. I do hands on, remote, designs, networks, and a whole lot more, never mind all my education to understand there is more to 'tech' then 'tech', that there is business, customer needs, expectations, ways to phrase it, etc. And No it isn't "I did computers 20 years AGO" it is I BEEN doing computers since 1984, from a Vic-20 and PET computers till todays tablets using Windows 8, Android, Chrome, etc. and much more. These are not "reflect ideas that were popular some three to five years ago", all I see is you being a ass right now spewing things you honestly do NOT understand, and yet here I am spoon feeding you not only the CORRECT information, but VALIDATING IT with sources to prove I am not full of shit as your doing right now.
Honestly your bunk is more outdated and incorrect is IS seriously NOT helping the OP, and from the get go jumped into a negative tone right off with a biased an unsubstantiated OPINIONS, not FACTS.
Step back, look what I proved, how I proved it, and READ THE PROOF (OMG you SO ignored Microsoft's OWN words come on!!!) then reassess your postings. Honestly look at what I am saying and look at what your spouting. There is a serious problem with what your saying.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram