X58 vs P67 vs Z68 vs X68

[Ten98]

Not sure how this really shows that the 2600K "outclasses" the 990X.

In a handful of synthetic benchmarks the 2600K scores slightly higher than the 990X, but the majority of synthetic benchmarks show in favour of the 990X.

It's a similar picture in the the real-world usage tests. Most show in favour of the 990X, especially those where the X's 12 virtual cores can be used to full effect as opposed to the 8 of the K.

I'm not saying anyone should actually buy a 990X, you'd have to be crazy to do that at this point, all I'm saying is the 990X is faster in the majority of use-cases.

 

[bbtennis1]

Why do you think a multiple monitor setup doesn't work with the P67? The P67 doesn't have anything to do with graphics as it doesn't have onboard graphics. This is also true with the X58. The monitor setup would be entirely driven by what video card you have, and most modern video cards can support at least two monitors with a single card.

What the Z68 chipset is bringing to the table is a combination of the H67 and P67 features. The H67 chipset would allow a user to use the integrated graphics of the Sandy Bridge CPUs, but not the overclocking available to the "K" series. The P67 would allow overclocking, but doesn't support the integrated graphics. The Z68 allows both overclocking and integrated graphics (basically just Quick Sync, as anyone buying the Z68 is likely to have a discrete GPU) support on the same board.

I would like to point out that the Z68 isn't going to be out for another couple of months, so unless you can wait until then, there is no point in considering the Z68. There is absolutely no reason to consider an LGA1366 CPU at all. The highest end CPUs available on it (the i7-980X and 990X, both around $1,000+) are easily outclassed by the only LGA1155 CPUs available, even at stock.

As for the X68, it's impossible to say if you should wait. It's too early to get previews of what the new CPUs will offer in terms of performance or what they'll cost. If you need a new machine now (or relatively soon), there's no point in thinking about waiting for a product that may or may not be released.

As for the rest of your build, I see some issues with the basic setup. The largest of them is that you've only detailed the least important part of the build (the case), but I'll just treat the other parts as if you've picked high quality/high performance parts.

First, there is no reason to get a $180 case, much less the HAF X. You get the same features with the HAF 932 for $120. If you just wanted a high-end case, there are better options, like anything from Lian Li, Silverstone's Fortress series, Silverstone's Raven series, or anything from Antec (I consider the 1200 and P183 high end).

Second, BluRay has no practical use for PCs right now, much less burning them. Drop that out and get a regular DVD burner. You can add a BR drive later when either the prices become reasonable or a PC specific use shows up.

What he said. I'm in the same situation.(son and I are gamers). Think I'm getting Asus P8P67 pro/i7-2600k now. X68 is 6 months away, and will be very expensive for the cpu's IMHO...(like the extreme series)...

 

[nd_hunter]

Not sure how this really shows that the 2600K "outclasses" the 990X.

In a handful of synthetic benchmarks the 2600K scores slightly higher than the 990X, but the majority of synthetic benchmarks show in favour of the 990X.

It's a similar picture in the the real-world usage tests. Most show in favour of the 990X, especially those where the X's 12 virtual cores can be used to full effect as opposed to the 8 of the K.

I'm not saying anyone should actually buy a 990X, you'd have to be crazy to do that at this point, all I'm saying is the 990X is faster in the majority of use-cases.

I know I'm a bit late to the party here, but I'd say the benches they have put up definitely show the 990x being outclassed. The fact that the 2600k is pretty even with the 990x while having 2 less cores, having 4 less threads, using less power, producing less heat, and costing 1/3 of the price is proof positive of how much the 2600k outclasses the 990x.

 

[developeraslam]

What he said. I'm in the same situation.(son and I are gamers). Think I'm getting Asus P8P67 pro/i7-2600k now. X68 is 6 months away, and will be very expensive for the cpu's IMHO...(like the extreme series)...

My question is about z68 motherboard.

if i am using z68 motherboard and using integrated Graphic ( I-GPU ) and want to do overclocking as well at the same time,

so is it possible to overclock both Integrated GPU and CPU WHILE USING INTEGRATED GPU?



because i read on internet somewhere that with z68 motherboard either you can use Integrated Gpu or you can do overclocking but NOT BOTH TOGETHER.

Thanks

Aslam

 

[xf1xcaliber]

I was debating about X58 or P67 for my first build myself. But the truth is that X58 is dead and SB is the future. I haven't encountered any major issues with this build so far (fingers crossed) and everything has worked as it should...

wow the x58 is dead and to think i just bought an asus x58 sabertooth mobo and a core i7 in jan 2011.waisted my money i guess.lol

 

[cscooper2000]

...USB 3 itself is not useless, but USB 3.0 headers are. First, the benefit of having a USB header is that you can quickly swap devices through it... Besides HDDs, there aren't likely to be many [other USB 3.0 devices] for a few years...

Second, the benfit of USB 3 is the faster speeds is only really useful in some cases. Such as you're in the habit of copying a lot of large files at once. If this is the case, you'd have a reason to have a USB 3 external HDD, but it's unlikely you would be needing to swap it quickly. In this case, you'd need USB 3, but not necessarily on a header.

Finally, if you do copy large files regularly, there are better ways to do it than USB devices. You'd prbably want to be using eSATA or firewire instead. These will be faster, though less common on consumer external devices. These ports as headers are much more common than USB 3 headers.

So basically, in my opinion, until they start making 1 TB iPods and iPads, having USB 3 headers isn't going to be that useful./quotemsg]

It truly is fun to see how different we all are. Judging by the graphics cards they choose and comments like above, it seems many of the build-it-yourselfers here are gamers. I don't game at all (though I might start with my next mega build). I'm a video professional — camera, primarily, not even a full-time editor — and I currently own 7 TB of data. Once I have my next build in place (I'm thinking i7-2600k and the ASUS P8P67 Deluxe) I project that 7 TB will quickly grow to 12 TB in the next year, easily!

My current system (a 4 year old laptop) doesn't have ANY USB 3.0 connections (obviously). But I purchased my first 2 TB USB 3.0 drive in March. I plan to phase out my 1TB USB 2.0 HDDs and replace all of them with 2TB USB 3.0 drives, while adding a few more. Why USB 3.0 and not Firewire or eSATA? A camcorder is typically filling my Firewire spot. Some kind of Media card reader, is typically filling my eSATA connection. Plus, hard drives are more expensive with Firewire or eSATA.

Under the new system, I would likely have my two most commonly accessed hard drives occupying the back USB 3.0 ports. All of my hard drives currently sit powered and ready to go, just behind my monitor. I have a snake pit of cable ends sitting near the USB ports, all of them labeled (Drives F, G, M, T, U, V, W and X) ready to be plugged in whenever I need them. While some simple edits of Standard-Definition footage can be edited directly from the USB 2.0 drives. It's less than ideal and doesn't work at all for most of my HD formats. So when I need to edit a client's job that was shot in HD, I copy all of the footage (10GB for a small vignette up to 300GB or more for longer pieces). I usually have to start that footage copying the night before an edit. with USB 2.0 we're talking 3 - 4 hours to copy.

I keep most of my client footage for a few weeks to a few months — for their offsite backup as well as for my peace of mind from clients who will almost certainly call and ask me for it, not 5 minutes after I've deleted it. Some footage is kept as backup indefinitely.

In addition to this, I keep regular system backups on a backup drive (which is only connected to the computer when performing my weekly back up). And still other hard drives need to be introduced to create redundancy every drive I currently have.

Yes, I swap drives constantly, while requiring my current working files to be on my internal SATA hard drives. You can see why I don't want to be digging around in the back of my computer to find the only two USB 3.0 connectors all of the time. I cannot tell you how excited I am to ditch my USB 2.0 HDDs. I, for one, cannot get enough USB 3.0 headers!

 

[HawkFest]

I should clarify on the PCIe 3.0 comments a little bit. To clarify, what I meant to say is that USB 3 itself is not useless, but USB 3.0 headers are. (...) there aren't a lot of devices (think not only external HDDs, but also mp3 players, phones, USB sticks, etc.) that actually use USB 3. Besides HDDs, there aren't likely to be many for a few years, as the companies that make the other devices will want a customer base before offering a USB 3 product.

I have to disagree about this! I am currently using USB 3 ports for "external" SATA 2 and SATA 3 HDD by using this dongle (Koutech IO-ASU330 SATA 6G Device to SuperSpeed USB 3.0 Host Bridge Adapter)... Top throughput using SATA 6Gbps or SATA 3Gbps, available NOW, not "in a couple of years"...

More over, you are missing a huge difference between USB2 and USB3 : the later is Two-way communication. In USB 3.0, full-duplex communications are done when using SuperSpeed (USB 3.0) transfer. In previous USB versions (i.e., 1.x or 2.0), all communication is half-duplex and directionally controlled by the host. WHich means that you'll be able to navigate your external HDD while transferring files without any hiccup, as if it was an internally plugged HDD.

 

[tsnor]

FWIW, you are posting in a 3-6 month old thread...

 

[HawkFest]

FWIW, you are posting in a 3-6 month old thread...

Yes I know. But as for myself, I'm sure that others wil arrive on this page while browsing for information (I was looking up to see what was the Marvel chipset used for controling SATA 3-6Gbps on the Sabertooth X58, if I should instead look for a P67 mobo, targeting a mid-level graphic/media production desktop with a HD 6990). IMHO this thread is still "actual" and merit a little update since we're talking about the very same technology. However I agree that I should've simply add these facts which are not recent, instead of saying "you're wrong" - in regard to the assertion that USB3 wouldn't be of much use until a couple of years -, or such tone. My apologies.

At the risk of repeating myself, I feel that I must insist upon this marvelous little piece of hardware, for those looking up for a cheap but very effective way to use the full potential of USB3 with external HDD - Actually an internal SATA2/3 HDDs used as an external device, bringing forth a solution which is much cheaper and at least as efficient - if not more - than using current dedicated external HDD boxes. I love to have my flat 2.5inch SATA 6Gbps Vertex SSD under hand in my pocket while carrying my work for clients : big files are transfered quite fast 😉

P.S. Question - Maybe off-topic - The later solution is the only way I've found yet to use the full potential of USB3 or SATA3 (6Gbbps) interfaces for external storage purposes while using cheaper internal HDDs or SSDs. However I don't remember my readings : can an eSATA interface (e.g. on current chassis offerings) be hooked-up to one of the mobo's SATA 3 (6Gbps) ports?