bit-tech.net

PC Hardware Buyer's Guide

Comments 26 to 50 of 109

Reply
McDuff32 1st September 2011, 19:29 Quote
Thanks for the guides, I will probably get the enthusiast one soon, but with a 6950 and fractal design instead :)
confusis 1st September 2011, 20:39 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Material
Quote:
Originally Posted by confusis
Or, with socket am3+ you have at least a year, maybe two of upgrade life..remember bulldozer is coming out soon?.. intel changes sockets like they change their underwear

Given that we don't know how bulldozer will perform we'd be nuts to recommend people buy inferior kit now in preparation for it.

re:read what i originally said again instead of just ripping into AMD (seems to be a trend on this site)

The phenom 840, in many reviews, scores as well performance-wise as the core i3 2100. Please explain how that is inferior?
telephonebox 1st September 2011, 20:50 Quote
would this not be a better option for the premium player PSU:

http://www.scan.co.uk/products/850w-psu-antec-hcp-850-gb-modular-92-eff-80-plus-gold-sli-crossfire-eps-12v-quiet-fan-atx-v23 ?

That build shouldn't need more than 850w.
David164v8 1st September 2011, 21:18 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Material
Given that we don't know how bulldozer will perform we'd be nuts to recommend people buy inferior kit now in preparation for it.



We realize the PSU in the Affordable All-Rounder is a little on the dear side which is why we recommend some cheaper alternatives if you want to reduce the cost of the build. There is a sentence specifically addressing this issue with recommendations on how to get around it.



We talk about the Bulldozer launch and whether we have any review samples in the Podcast we just recorded today. If you want to know more about potential Bulldozer performance i'd suggest you give it a listen - it should be up in the next few days, probably at the start of next week.

Sounds suggestive ;P
lizoron 2nd September 2011, 00:15 Quote
what do you guys think the minimum power supply for SLI gtx560 ti oc (msi twin frozr II)?
Material 2nd September 2011, 00:27 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by telephonebox
would this not be a better option for the premium player PSU:

http://www.scan.co.uk/products/850w-psu-antec-hcp-850-gb-modular-92-eff-80-plus-gold-sli-crossfire-eps-12v-quiet-fan-atx-v23 ?

That build shouldn't need more than 850w.

Yes it could possibly be, but as we haven't reviewed it we cant recommend it. We can only recommend thing we know are great.
Quote:
Originally Posted by confusis
re:read what i originally said again instead of just ripping into AMD (seems to be a trend on this site)

The phenom 840, in many reviews, scores as well performance-wise as the core i3 2100. Please explain how that is inferior?

This is true but as the i3-2100 is at the very bottom of Intel's range and the Phenom II X4 840 is more towards the middle of AMD's range we'd suggest that getting an LGA1155 mobo is a better bet - the best CPU an AM3 board can take currently is a Phenom II X6 1100T whereas a LGA1155 board would be able to take a i7-2600K. This, we think, means that the upgrade path for LGA1155 is way more compelling - buying a board now gives you the potential to upgrade to some stonking processors in the future.
Kris 2nd September 2011, 12:35 Quote
Also, in many instances a radeon 6950 is as fast as a 570, yet ~50 £ cheaper... more value right there. Therefore, 2x6950 is much cheaper than a 590, yet as fast or faster.

of course, the 560 vs 6950 is an excellent question indeed, and i guess it boils down to a person's wallet - the 560 is some 30£ or so cheaper than the 1GB 6950, yet the 6950 is faster, and you can maybe unlock it into a 6970 (i'm not sure if that is doable with the 1GB version though).

Is it just me who simply sees better value in AMD-s offerings? Not to mention they are more friendly on the power bill... :)
lizoron 2nd September 2011, 15:30 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kris
Also, in many instances a radeon 6950 is as fast as a 570, yet ~50 £ cheaper... more value right there. Therefore, 2x6950 is much cheaper than a 590, yet as fast or faster.

of course, the 560 vs 6950 is an excellent question indeed, and i guess it boils down to a person's wallet - the 560 is some 30£ or so cheaper than the 1GB 6950, yet the 6950 is faster, and you can maybe unlock it into a 6970 (i'm not sure if that is doable with the 1GB version though).

Is it just me who simply sees better value in AMD-s offerings? Not to mention they are more friendly on the power bill... :)


ok will this stop? its just getting annoying.
noizdaemon666 2nd September 2011, 15:43 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kris
Also, in many instances a radeon 6950 is as fast as a 570, yet ~50 £ cheaper... more value right there. Therefore, 2x6950 is much cheaper than a 590, yet as fast or faster.

of course, the 560 vs 6950 is an excellent question indeed, and i guess it boils down to a person's wallet - the 560 is some 30£ or so cheaper than the 1GB 6950, yet the 6950 is faster, and you can maybe unlock it into a 6970 (i'm not sure if that is doable with the 1GB version though).

Is it just me who simply sees better value in AMD-s offerings? Not to mention they are more friendly on the power bill... :)

Do you not read bit tech reviews or something? In nearly every game, resolution and setting the 560Ti beats the 6950 1GB. And no, unlocking is impossible on the 1GB version of the 6950. It's next to impossible now on the 2GB version.

The 6950 again, gets beaten by the GTX 570. So how in the hell does 2 6950s beat what is essentially 2 GTX 580s?!?!?!? So yeah, 590 is more expensive, but would outperform 2 6950s with ease.

Sick of people complaining about bit-tech reviews and recommendations. Their monitor reviews are a bit naff but they're working on them. But other than that their reviews and thus their recommendations are nearly always dead on the mark.
xaser04 2nd September 2011, 15:51 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Material

We realize the PSU in the Affordable All-Rounder is a little on the dear side which is why we recommend some cheaper alternatives if you want to reduce the cost of the build. There is a sentence specifically addressing this issue with recommendations on how to get around it.

A "little on the dear side" :|

The whole point of the affordable all rounder is that it is affordable. Having a PSU that is not only expensive for what it is (as I say the Corsair TXv2 650w is £10 cheaper), but also expensive considering the overall build cost (15% of the overall total) just doesn't make sense.

Replace the expensive PSU with one of the cheaper suggestions and leave it as a suggestion instead.
xaser04 2nd September 2011, 15:59 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by noizdaemon666
Do you not read bit tech reviews or something? In nearly every game, resolution and setting the 560Ti beats the 6950 1GB. And no, unlocking is impossible on the 1GB version of the 6950. It's next to impossible now on the 2GB version.

The 6950 again, gets beaten by the GTX 570. So how in the hell does 2 6950s beat what is essentially 2 GTX 580s?!?!?!? So yeah, 590 is more expensive, but would outperform 2 6950s with ease.

Sick of people complaining about bit-tech reviews and recommendations. Their monitor reviews are a bit naff but they're working on them. But other than that their reviews and thus their recommendations are nearly always dead on the mark.

HD69xx series scales better than the GTX5xx series. It really is that simple. The GTX590 is also significantly castrated when it comes to clock speeds hence why 2 HD6950's can happily keep up or beat it depending on the game and / or resolution.

Bit's reviews have a lot of room for improvement, but overall they are pretty good.
noizdaemon666 2nd September 2011, 16:04 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by xaser04
HD69xx series scales better than the GTX5xx series. It really is that simple. The GTX590 is also significantly castrated when it comes to clock speeds hence why 2 HD6950's can happily keep up or beat it depending on the game and / or resolution.

Bit's reviews have a lot of room for improvement, but overall they are pretty good.

Bit-tech's review shows the GTX 590 beating the 6990 quite a lot. 2 6950s are less than 1 6990. So how does this equate to beating the GTX 590?
braincake 2nd September 2011, 20:18 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by noizdaemon666
Quote:
Originally Posted by xaser04
HD69xx series scales better than the GTX5xx series. It really is that simple. The GTX590 is also significantly castrated when it comes to clock speeds hence why 2 HD6950's can happily keep up or beat it depending on the game and / or resolution.

Bit's reviews have a lot of room for improvement, but overall they are pretty good.

Bit-tech's review shows the GTX 590 beating the 6990 quite a lot. 2 6950s are less than 1 6990. So how does this equate to beating the GTX 590?

no offence to anyone here, but this is the only site i have seen that places the 590 above the 6990 in flat-out performance. the 590 is the better card overall when thermals noise and size are factored in. but the 6990 is the faster card
thehippoz 2nd September 2011, 23:58 Quote
thing is.. nvidia has no chance to do this

http://img190.imageshack.us/img190/7137/pyrit.jpg

that's a single 6970, the 580 doesn't break 37-38k passphrases/sec in pyrit.. I don't know how you can label a card better when it's 2-3x as slow in raw speed (alu performance) and in cases like bitcoin-
Quote:
the mining algorithm is based on SHA-256, which makes heavy use of the 32-bit integer right rotate operation. This operation can be implemented as a single hardware instruction on AMD GPUs, but requires three separate hardware instructions to be emulated on Nvidia GPUs (2 shifts + 1 add). This alone gives AMD another 1.7x performance advantage. ~1900 instructions instead of ~3250 to execute the SHA-256 compression function.

http://www.backtrack-linux.org/forums/beginners-forum/38193-latest-gpu-cracking.html

pretty much explains the mentality of people who buy nvidia nowdays for crunching rigs.. or they are strait gaming or look at huang as some sort of rockstar with flashbacks to 680i + 8800gtx

AMD Radeon HD 6990 = 2550 billion 32-bit instruction per second
Nvidia GTX 590 = 1243 billion 32-bit instruction per second

and don't get me started on folding :D
Saivert 3rd September 2011, 16:35 Quote
since when was AMD so excellent choice for GPGPU tasks?
in that case they need to spend more money on marketing so people actually get informed about this.

NVIDIA marketing > AMD marketing!
enough said. and marketing is everything.
Rai 4th September 2011, 00:42 Quote
Is there any further news on whether or not Be Quiet! plans to market their products in the USA? And if they do not, why so? (Trade, licensing issues, etc?)

I would like to get my hands on some of their fans. :(
thehippoz 4th September 2011, 00:48 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saivert
since when was AMD so excellent choice for GPGPU tasks?
in that case they need to spend more money on marketing so people actually get informed about this.

NVIDIA marketing > AMD marketing!
enough said. and marketing is everything.

it's money and they love huang over there.. http://news.stanford.edu/news/2008/september10/building-091008.html

FAH the way it's meant to be folded
Luay 4th September 2011, 07:56 Quote
I appreciate how you introduce your builds in the screen resolutions they are to be used on. You guys are obviously putting a lot of effort, but it's not enough to recommend a gpu. I suggest you recommend a chipset/cooler manufacturer.
The best use of the AMD Radeon HD69xx GPUs, and the probable reason it was not mentioned, is because it is for budget-oriented high-resolution gaming, while bit-tech skipped that and went for low-res budget gaming, and high-res premium gaming builds.
Nothing beats Sapphire HD6950 2GB Dirt3 Edition in performance+cooling+noise/price.
Recommending the GTX 460 over the Asus HD 6870 DCU for a small amount of money was not something I would agree to as well.
Kris 4th September 2011, 16:34 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by noizdaemon666
Do you not read bit tech reviews or something? In nearly every game, resolution and setting the 560Ti beats the 6950 1GB. And no, unlocking is impossible on the 1GB version of the 6950. It's next to impossible now on the 2GB version.

The 6950 again, gets beaten by the GTX 570. So how in the hell does 2 6950s beat what is essentially 2 GTX 580s?!?!?!? So yeah, 590 is more expensive, but would outperform 2 6950s with ease.

Sick of people complaining about bit-tech reviews and recommendations. Their monitor reviews are a bit naff but they're working on them. But other than that their reviews and thus their recommendations are nearly always dead on the mark.

Good points you have, however - sadly bit's graphics reviews don't show the whole picture - there are more games out there than what they test.

Therefore, I think it really comes down to the games you play.

For example, where amd is better(in some cases, not by much of course):

- dragon age 2
- deus ex: human revolution
- fear 3
- dirt 3 (not 100% sure about this one)
- Just cause 2
- f1 2010
- battleforge
- stalker: call of pripyat
- aliens vs predator
- etc

and nvidia is better in other games, like:

- crysis 2 (please read that tessellation review, it's very much thought provoking: http://techreport.com/articles.x/21404)
- lost planet 2
- battlefield: bad company 2
- batman: arkham asylum
- metro 2033
- starcraft 2
- hawx 2
- civ 5

so basically it's a wash, and depends on what are your priorities when it comes to games... but regarding this list, i still stand by my belief that amd-s cards offer better value. :)

guys, i recommend checking out hardocp-s reviews of gfx cards, they have a system that I think has more merit for actual gameplay. :)

like a long time ago, i made a suggestion to one of the bit-s editors - why not have a section on the site where they test new games as they come out? It seems simple enough, they could just choose 2 amd and 2 nvidia cards and could test games at 1080p and up resolutions only; I imagine it wouldn't take too much time, yet would actually give us great data as most new games are not tested for performance in a comparative way. :)

ooh, rant over, i hope you guys got my point - there is no black and white here. :)
Xir 5th September 2011, 15:48 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by hurrakan
Which optical drive should I get to backup (rip) my blu-ray movies, in a "premium" style (quickly + silently)?
...While just changing the question to: What Bluray drive is quiet and speedy...
Yes, it's been a while *cough* years *cough* since there was a DVD (now Bluray) shootout.

I know, "They're all the same anyway", funny enough, no they're not, not as far as sound is concerned anyway, performancewise...granted. :D
But sound in a pretty silent rig is important
foxrocks 7th September 2011, 10:56 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Material


We realize the PSU in the Affordable All-Rounder is a little on the dear side which is why we recommend some cheaper alternatives if you want to reduce the cost of the build. There is a sentence specifically addressing this issue with recommendations on how to get around it.

I don't get this. Why put the PSUs in at all then? Clearly for the Affordable All-rounder there are significantly cheaper choices that will do the job just fine, so why not put them in the build in the first place?

Even more odd is the £90 Corsair HX650 added to the Enthusiast Overclocker build. Until this month the Antec Truepower New 650W was deemed good enough to be in the Gaming Workhorse build, so presumably it should be plenty good enough for the Enthusiast Overclocker.

This PSU is readily available for about £65, so if you felt the need to change out the OCZ PSU then I am mystified as to why you'd recommend the Corsair over the Antec as its replacement. Can you explain that choice at all? It just seems like throwing money away to me.
boyparka 20th September 2011, 15:50 Quote
Hi,

Long-time lurker here - just registered to thank you guys for these guides. I based my new gaming PC on your "gaming workhorse" build. I've always gone for "high end sub-top" components (if that description makes sense), and your build made it a lot easier figuring out which parts meet that description...

Cheers!
braincake 26th September 2011, 18:42 Quote
im gonna be honest. you can get 8gb of 1600mhz ram for £40 on ebuyer now. there is no reason at all to buy 4gb unless you really need to save that £10
Dave Lister 3rd October 2011, 15:56 Quote
Could you guys (bit-tech) please add wifi cards to your buyers guide ? Mine just died and I don't want to have to get another belkin thing that only lasts 2 years at the most.
mkb 21st October 2011, 11:30 Quote
anyone know where October's Buyers Guide is?
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums