My New Computer

localmotion34 · Post by **localmotion34** » Sun Jul 26, 2009 11:28 pm

So about a month ago, I was able to buy a new computer from the supply budget of my training grant.

-AMD64 Phenom II X4 940 45nm 3.2 Ghz Quad core
-MSI 790a motherboard
-8 GB OCZ DDR3 dual channel memory
-Two XFX Raedon HD4870X2 2GB video cards in CrossfireX (4 GPUs total)
-Western Digital 1TB and 640 GB SATA 3GB/S Hard drives
-1000W CoolerMaster Power Supply
-CoolerMaster full ATX Gaming case
Windows Vista 64 bit - Soon to be Windows 7 64 Bit

Now, this is for hard core lab applications, but it is still mine. However, for my home personal use, I have saved up about as much money as this computer cost (2400$). I am wondering should I go with a similar setup, or maybe go with an Intel I7 quad core, 12 GB triple channel memory, and NVIDIA GTX 290's (2GB) in tri SLI.

There are new Sapphire true 2GB video cards that have a core clock of 870 MhZ. However, they have not been heavily reviewed compared to the GTX 295.

Basically, I can buy FOUR Sapphire 2GB for the price of TWO NVIDIA GTX 295s. But going with ATI CrossfireX will require sticking with an AMD quad core. Plus, is triple channel memory overhyped?

Any thoughts?

pdwyer · Post by **pdwyer** » Mon Jul 27, 2009 12:05 am

The OS is conspicuous in it's absence

64bit I guess since you are have 8gb of ram

CrossfireX for lab applications... hmmmm... late night gaming in the lab you mean?

localmotion34 · Post by **localmotion34** » Mon Jul 27, 2009 12:11 am

I need CrossfireX or SLI to be able to connect in an Infrared camera and calcium imaging camera at the SAME TIME. I need like 1GB of frame buffer graphics memory to render the images on screen and capture the data stream. Also, ill probably be able to run Crysis at max everything at the same time--lmfao.

GWarner · Post by **GWarner** » Mon Jul 27, 2009 12:13 am

The Phenom II X4 940 actually clocks at 3.0 GHz. For 3.2 GHz you'd need a Phenom II X4 955. Unless of course you plan to over clock it which I personally never recomend.

IMO either of the AMD CPUs is a far better deal than Intel's grossly overpriced i7 series.

The real question is, do you really need all that power and memory? Especially the lab computer. IMO it sounds more like a gaming rig than a lab computer.

localmotion34 · Post by **localmotion34** » Mon Jul 27, 2009 12:34 am

GWarner wrote: The real question is, do you really need all that power and memory? Especially the lab computer. IMO it sounds more like a gaming rig than a lab computer.

The lab computer really does need that video power. The computer i am going to build for HOME will indeed be a gaming rig. That's why i am interested in finding out all your opinions on what I should go with. AMd/ATI or Intel/NVIDIA.

The lab computer i have now can do DNA sequence alignments of 20,000 base pairs or more in 45 seconds, while on an Intel Core2 Duo 2.6 Ghz it takes 15 min.

And i do have the 945 series AMD, not the 940.

Rescator · Post by **Rescator** » Mon Jul 27, 2009 4:12 am

Since your planning a beast of a new home computer, I'd suggest ether a i7 quad or Phenom II quad system as those are latest gen, there wont be a i8 or Phenom III anytime soon.

But when it comes to GFX cards I'd do a few rounds on the net to check the status of DirectX 11 cards, in a few months the first DX11 cards should appear, from ATI first then Nvidia shortly after.

A beast of a system like you are planning is meant to hold up for a few years right? So I'd go for Win7 and DX11 gfx in this case.

And if you don't end up with a DX11 in a few months, you can be sure that the price for DX10 cards will drop in price when the new DX11 cards hit the stores

PS! Check these charts:
http://emsai.net/reviews/cpu/
http://emsai.net/reviews/gpu/

They should help you avoid buying something "new" that performs worse than something older. *wink*
When the new DX11 cards hit the review sites I'll update the NPR charts obviously.

The thing with DX10 and DX11 isn't just performance it's also features related, so choosing DX10 or DX11 is a question of features + performance.
The CPU's on the other hand is just performance, current gen or last gen is equally fine. (reason I'm saying that is the fact that AMD seems to be skipping SSE4, so getting i7 just for SSE4 may not be much of a point, no CPU's have SSE5 yet and it will be exiting to see what happens with that).

pdwyer · Post by **pdwyer** » Mon Jul 27, 2009 12:31 pm

@localmotion34 Was writing "vista" embarrasing?

I use vista64 at home, mainly because XP64 bit me a couple of times with drivers but it took a long time to turn the crap off.

Before this becomes another pros & cons of vista and win7 thread... have you thought about a Tesla? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlZ_IoY4XTg&feature=fvw

GWarner · Post by **GWarner** » Mon Jul 27, 2009 1:45 pm

I wouldn't be too worried about DX10 much less DX11.

How long has DX10 been available and yet there is only a small number of games that support it. Most games still only support DX9 and it will probably stay that way for several years more at least.

My choices would be AMD for the CPU. The Phenom IIs give you much more bang for the buck than then i7s do. But if money is no object and performance is king, go for the Intel i7s.

For the GPU, neither company has a clear winner over the other so it boils down to personal preference or past experience. For me I'd go with nVidia because the last time I tried an ATi card the drivers were so unstable that the system unusable. I've never had that kind of problem with nVidia based cards.

localmotion34 · Post by **localmotion34** » Mon Jul 27, 2009 2:07 pm

GWarner wrote:But if money is no object and performance is king, go for the Intel i7s.

LOL. If money were no object, I'd wait and go with two AMD Opteron Barcelona 45 nm Quad core 3+ gHz. Add in 64 GB of ECC REG DDR3 2000 RAM along with 4 of the new and upcoming ATI 49XX series boards with stock clock speeds of 1 GHZ. All in CrossfireX with liquid cooling and overclocked to 1.4 Ghz.

Then, it just might run Fear 2 on max settings. LMFAO.

blueznl · Post by **blueznl** » Mon Jul 27, 2009 2:15 pm

The number of cores is (still) not relevant for gaming, though it is for other things. If you're purely focussed on gaming, I'd get the fastest combo mainboard / memory / dual core I could get, either Intel or AMD. (I always was an AMD fan but I must admit the Core 2 Duo (hope I got that right) is one impressive beast.)

As for video, buy some NVidia card, but not the best or the latest. Go for a model one or two generations behind, then go all out in about a year or so, there's lots of nice stuff on the horizon

But don't wait too long, or you'll be waiting all the time for the next next next generation

Digital Wargames · Post by **Digital Wargames** » Mon Jul 27, 2009 2:16 pm

For the GPU, neither company has a clear winner over the other

I am not fond of ATI for the reasons you mentioned, but price/performance/power use ratio, ATI is far in the lead. I could not believe I was getting 400+ stream processors on an ATI card and well under 100 on a comparable priced Nvidia.

blueznl · Post by **blueznl** » Mon Jul 27, 2009 2:47 pm

I'm a multi monitor lover and I had nothing but troubles with ATI in the past, perhaps it's all ok these days but the bad behaviour 'from the old days' has left a bitter taste in my mouth, so no Intel nor ATI for me at the moment. But hey, send me a few good ATI video cards and I may come around

localmotion34 · Post by **localmotion34** » Mon Jul 27, 2009 3:04 pm

See, these two XFX Raedon HD 4870X2 in quad CrossfireX are just amazing. I have yet to have the Catalyst Control Center crash, and they destroy anything thrown at them.

However, I have no experience with the NVIDIA GTX 295s, and was just wondering how they stack up. They might be even better. However, THREE Sapphire 2GB 870 MhZ cores might just be invincible as well. Three of those cost as much as Two XFX and two GTX 295.

ATI is definitely back, and smoking, but I want to be sure when Crysis 2 and 3 come out, I can run them at max everything.

GWarner · Post by **GWarner** » Tue Jul 28, 2009 3:39 am

localmotion34 wrote:Then, it just might run Fear 2 on max settings. LMFAO.

FEAR 2? It's a good game, but no way is it worth more than $20 and the $50 they asked for it at launch was a total rip off.

Digital Wargames wrote:I could not believe I was getting 400+ stream processors on an ATI card and well under 100 on a comparable priced Nvidia.

Yeah but what good are those 400 stream processors if the drivers won't run. 100% of 216 is still way more than 0% of 400.

I also don't bother with multiple GPUs, SLI or Crossfire, too many stories about how much trouble they are to get and keep working. A single powerful GPU suits me just fine.

I'd follow the same thought with CPUs but nobody's making single core CPUs any more.

Digital Wargames · Post by **Digital Wargames** » Tue Jul 28, 2009 5:15 am

Yeah but what good are those 400 stream processors if the drivers won't run.

At the time, the particular ATI card I was looking at had just hit the market. No BS, it was being sold with no drivers, no drivers available on the ATI site, or manufacturer site, it shipped with some beta drivers.

In the end, I bought a Nvidia 9400GT. It was the best card I could buy without having to get a new power supply.