What's better? (Comparing CPU Parts)

[Celeras]

I hate when answers aren't clear cut in stone. D:

As simple as it's going to get for you:

480($499)>5870 by 15%($419-479)>470 by 7%($349)>5850 by 13%($300-325)

Anything else isn't in the conversation for 'top card' this generation, except for the 5970.. which is a dual GPU faster than all of the above for $700.

[SaviorSelf]

My best recommendations (and I just built my computer)

Corsair is a great PSU but go with the 850 Modular (don't think the 750 is) because I already regreat that
Don't buy the 40GB SSD if you plan on actually using the computer. I have the 80GB G2 and after FFXI and FFXIV both being on the SSD I have 14 GB left. Unless you're really ok having all your stuff installed to the D: drive, which I'm not. I figure if I have that much shit installed I need to uninstall something

I'm already going to upgrade my 750 PSU and my 80GB SSD after 2 month, so I suggest you consider buying higher the first time around (or just buy my used ones )

Why the 850 modular? By all means, I'm not sure.
I only have one game that I play (Aion) so that and the OS on the SSD.

For the other HDD, I was under the impression that dividing the content (Programs files, pictures, movies) all being on separate drives and in RAID would be fast? Again, by all means, any articles to read up on will be welcomed. What's wrong with having everything on the D or other drives?

As simple as it's going to get for you:

480($499)>5870 by 15%($419-479)>470 by 7%($349)>5850 by 13%($300-325)

Anything else isn't in the conversation for 'top card' this generation, except for the 5970.. which is a dual GPU faster than all of the above for $700.

Just to make sure I'm reading this right, the 5870 is 15% better than the 470, and so forth?

And an additional question. 930 is 2.8GHz, 920 is 2.66GHz, yet everyone goes with the 920 when the price difference is $10. Why is this?

[Jurgen]

And an additional question. 930 is 2.8GHz, 920 is 2.66GHz, yet everyone goes with the 920 when the price difference is $10. Why is this?

The i7 930 is just a newer version of the i7 920 and just came out a few months ago. The reason so many people have the i7 920 isn't because they are buying it over the i7 930, but because it has been out longer.

[SaviorSelf]

Ahh that would explain it. Microcenter by my house had the 930's for $199 until May 2nd, good deal.

[Celeras]

Just to make sure I'm reading this right, the 5870 is 15% better than the 470, and so forth?

Lol, no no read it as a sentence. 480 is 15% faster than a 5870, which is 7% faster than a 470..etc etc with their prices in parenthesis.

[SaviorSelf]

7% eh? That's not so bad, but the heat/power consumption is a big difference compared to the 5870 yeah?

[Celeras]

Definitely, but that's more a product of the 5000s being surprisely efficient rather than a fault of the 400s.

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/n...5215/22205.png

Hotter for sure, but not really moreso than previous nvidia generations. Its kinda been overhyped for some reason this time around.

[Agito]

How would these ATI 2GB cards compare to the new Nvidia cards?

5850 2GB http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...Tpk=5850%202gb

5870 2GB http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...-888-_-Product

[Celeras]

If you have to ask about those they're not for you, and I'm not trying to be a dick. They're quite a bit more expensive but not really all that much faster.(E6 is the 2gb)

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/5...3509/22284.png

The main selling point of 2gb version vs. 1gb has to do with ATIs multi monitor gaming push via eyefinity. And even there its performance is questionable if you're not using all 6 displays. See full review if you'd like here: http://www.anandtech.com/show/3621/a...ion-reviewed/9

[Deadgye]

>5850 by 13%($300-325)

Yeah no. The 5850 will beat the 470 on some games, and it will get beaten on others. Factor in that it takes less power, produces less heat, and costs less.. The 5850 is better than the 470; hands down.

[Minions]

Yeah no. The 5850 will beat the 470 on some games, and it will get beaten on others. Factor in that it takes less power, produces less heat, and costs less.. The 5850 is better than the 470; hands down.

You would be right, except ATI fails at making drivers, and is the reason I won't buy one of their cards again. Every single time you update your drivers, something breaks, FPS drops, and you end up being worse off.

[Celeras]

Yeah no. The 5850 will beat the 470 on some games, and it will get beaten on others. Factor in that it takes less power, produces less heat, and costs less.. The 5850 is better than the 470; hands down.

Really man? Every thread? It's fine if you want to be a total fanboy, that's you're entitlement. But it's seriously getting old when you spew out your bullshit opinion as if it's law, and attempt to distort the truth. Especially when I did nothing but state performance/price facts to let people make their own decision.

Now for what you actually said: Hands down my ass. Heat/Power, for sure, already asked and answered on page 1. Its up to each individual person to determine whether this matters for them. But performance wise, you're way off base. It's real easy to say "win some lose some" and not post any data. It's even easier to say the same thing, and post a single benchmark in your favor. Neither fucking cut it when you're talking to me, though. I'm not pulling numbers out of my ass, the 470 is 13% faster than a 5850. In fact, performance wise, it's closer to the 5870 than it is to the 5850. Spoilered for hugeness:

Spoiler: show

http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/211...v2smallpng.jpg

That is as neutral and collective a source as you're going to get, for reasons you'll understand when you read the information at the top. Even disregarding all the PhysX games that give nVidia an even bigger lead than shown there, look at the results. Those numbers look familiar?

480($499)>5870 by 15%($419-479)>470 by 7%($349)>5850 by 13%($300-325)

Looks pretty spot-on to me.

[Deadgye]

Please tell me that chart isn't using only average frame rates. lol (If you're going to follow it you're going to need to say 10% btw, not 13%.) http://www.hardocp.com/article/2010/...0_sli_review/3 will support my side.

And don't mistake me for a fanboy, I'm only going by what statistics I've seen.

[Celeras]

I link a culmination of benchmarks from nearly a dozen sites, and you link a Metro bench from HardOCP.

I get it, you're trolling. Sorry for bothering.

[edit] And just for the record, I said 13% instead of 10 because it is generally accepted that the 5870 is 20% faster than the 5850. And I just happened to recall 7% as the number that the 470 was behind, and made up the difference. Close enough.

[Deadgye]

I'll make sure to read only the first page of any links you give me in the future too. Your 'culmination' doesn't tell me shit either right now. Are those fps max, min, average? What are the settings for each of the tests? I could spend 5 minutes in mspaint and make something that means more than it.

[Celeras]

The settings are clearly shown, and the websites are listed. If you want to put the numbers under scrutiny, feel free to visit them and get back to me.

[Amastacia]

You would be right, except ATI fails at making drivers, and is the reason I won't buy one of their cards again. Every single time you update your drivers, something breaks, FPS drops, and you end up being worse off.

So funny story.

The 5870 I own now is the first ATI card I've ever bought. In more than one other thread, I've explained why, but the nutshell version is "timing".

Prior, I was using an 8800GTX. I have always been happy with nVidia's drivers, but had started to get a bit annoyed with the bloat, and with the tendency for new driver releases to do unpredictable things to some older games I enjoy (FFXI being the most notable).

I snagged a 5870 on opening week since my 8800GTX was dying anyway, and while the initial drivers were bollocks, they've been steadily improving. Not to say they're perfect, but I've been at least as happy with ATI's progress on driver stability and performance as I was with nVidia.

Is ATI as good at the driver thing as nVidia? No, not really. But horror stories are overblown as well, and all the major driver-induced issues that plagued the 5800s on release (e.g. GSOD, random lockups, etc.) have all gone away.

That is as neutral and collective a source as you're going to get, for reasons you'll understand when you read the information at the top. Even disregarding all the PhysX games that give nVidia an even bigger lead than shown there, look at the results. Those numbers look familiar?

You're right that this is about as neutral and collective as you're going to get. I still don't think I'd count on it to make more than general statements like "in general... 480 > 5870 > 470 > 5850" and leave the percentages out.

Priceerformance isn't going to be linear for any of these cards, and isn't going to be a static number (dependent on numerous variables), so even if you can give an approximate gap, pricing can change, and that performance gap can change.

I'll be interested to see what, if anything, happens to street prices in the coming weeks as more quantities of Fermi become available (regardless of ATI's statements about no changes), and my general recommendation will be to hold off and see what does happen. There might be driver revisions and/or price changes that will make some options more or less attractive, and little harm can come from taking the stance of "wait and see" for the time being.

I'm an early adopter, but it's not the smartest thing in the grand scheme of things, and I won't recommend to others what I'd do myself.

[levish]

The 470 would be faster than the 280.

+1 on running Aion for a month on a ATI card with no problems.

[SaviorSelf]

Looking to buy Windows 7 for my new computer. Couple of questions.

Trying to find the difference between OEM/Retail versions. Both are tied to the motherboard? Say I want to put Windows 7 on my laptop also, I'd have to buy 2 copies?

Through the website promoted a while back that had Windows 7 for students for 30 bucks, I went back and checked and it's still available, however it is $64.99 now for a digital download. Would I just download that onto a flash drive or burn it to a CD?

[Amastacia]

You would have to buy 2 copies.

They are sort of tied to the motherboard. Strictly speaking, they are, but you can generally replace the mobo, reinstall, and it'll still work. If it fails to activate, you can just call Microsoft, explain that your old motherboard died, and they'll generally allow it to activate on the new mobo. You cannot, however, have 1 copy tied to 2 motherboards at the same time.

The digital download is an ISO, which you would burn onto DVD and install that way.

As for OEM/Retail... strictly speaking as an end consumer you're "supposed" to go retail box. What you miss from buying an OEM copy is the ability to call Microsoft tech support - you can still use Auto Update and everything, but the idea is that the OEM is supposed to provide your tech support, not Microsoft.

Realistically, everyone buys OEM if they're building their own PC, because they're smart enough to do their own tech support, or know someone who is.