Non-Modeling question: Anybody built their own Quad-Core?

[Superjew]

I gave up on having the latest and greatest computer. I spent probably about $5000 in the run of 2 years on computer upgrades... for what. Playing a videogame for a month is not worth a $1000 upgrade. I quit with a AMD Phenom X2 7750BE overclocked from 2.7GHz to 3.2GHz, 6GB DDR2 800, and a Radeon X1950. I will upgrade hard drives and Windows, but other than that, I am running this puppy into the ground. I am also moving into my first house in about 2 weeks, so I have to start using less electricity cause I have to pay for it. I may get a iPad for my general surfing and only fire up the PC for games and video editing.

Im sorry to hear you wasted so much money.

Next time you go throwin $5000 around, you should do a little research before you build your computer, that would solve your problem.

Does it make you sick to your stomach that you spent $5k and STILL have an AMD chip?

Let me guess, you blew your money on Alienware, thinking the more that I spend the better it will be?

Edited April 7, 2010 by Superjew

[NICHOLAS]

Im sorry to hear you wasted so much money.

Next time you go throwin $5000 around, you should do a little research before you build your computer, that would solve your problem.

Does it make you sick to your stomach that you spent $5k and STILL have an AMD chip?

Let me guess, you blew your money on Alienware, thinking the more that I spend the better it will be?

someone is on the rag :)

[Mark M.]

True to some extent, but you're overlooking the RAM in the equation. It's not important for most games I've come across, but even 64 bit XP cuts out above 8 GB. However, some programs like photoshop and Microsoft Flight Simulator X with extensive add-ons (which seems to be the way it's used now days) can start to see some benefit from the 12+ GB RAM club. Of course, it's a toss up loosing some other features. Ultimately, Windows 7 still requires more resources than XP, but it's a huge step up from Vistacrap.

Very few programs will really use that much RAM to the point that XP runs into problems. Most games, no matter how many addons they have, still only take up so much memory. The games themselves are 32-bit in nature and have to deal with their own limitations. Having more ram in your system doesn't mean the game will use it.

Also, 64-bit architecture by it's nature uses more memory for even the basic small programs. While it supports more total system memory, it also uses more for any given application than the 32-bit does. Think of it as "it's got more buckets to store bits of data in, but the minimum size bucket you can put any program in is twice as big"

I'll eventually go i7 (someday) for 64 bit and higher/"more advanced" DDR types, but IMO if they did more with what we had, rather than breaking the system then scrambling to patch it through brute system power ("RAM isnt' working? Let's double it, but use twice as much! "heh, that's Microsoft, all right!) we'd have much more streamlined systems that can do tons more with less resources. That's just my personal lamentation, however.

Edited April 7, 2010 by Mark M.

[Alex.B]

Quad Core for Photoshop?

Try to run Photoshop on an iMac... maybe the new 27" Core i5 and your face will like that:

If you really need this upgrade for FSX... it's another story.

But, as someone else pointed out, really FSX doesn't need a Quad Core, only RAM and a smashing Video Card!

just my 2 cents...

[BrittMac]

FSX is more CPU heavy than most "games". They have said since the beginning that it will use two cores, but not four. It doesn't seem to matter if you use SLI/Crossfire, as I saw no difference when I did. Of course, different setups will produce different results. Having a newer Vidcard will not hurt your performance at all, but it isn't as crucial in FSX as say MW/MW2. Dunno why it works that way.

[Caffeine]

I built a quad core (Q9450, 4GB RAM, GTX260 video card, all high end brands) 12 months or so ago for less than $1000. Admittedly I already had the monitor and hard drives. It doesn't have to cost a lot.

I'll make one recommendation, be very careful installing the CPU / heatsink. They're the only components where there's any real risk of damaging anything.

[Cloggy]

Thats just a quadcore where one of the cores failed, so they disabled the core and made a 3 core. Its a failed quadcore. I hope your heart isnt set upon that overpriced/under performing build you mentioned.

You're wrong about the 4th core having 'failed', you're right about it having been 'disabled'; in some cases this 4th core can be unlocked.

Did I mention how much it was going to cost? I don't think so. If it performs to meet my needs (rather than yours), then it isn't under performing is it.

My 3 year old build would smash your new build.

You lucky sausage. You must be so proud.

[Superjew]

You're wrong about the 4th core having 'failed', you're right about it having been 'disabled'; in some cases this 4th core can be unlocked.

Clearly you never understood why AMD went with a TriCore processor. It would of been a waste of money to build a quadcore processor only to disable one of the cores. What they did to save money, instead of having to throw away all the defective dye's, they just disabled the defective core to sell them as tri-core instead of scrapping them. Its an ingenious way of saving a defective product. A Phenom X3 CPU, is a Phenom X4 that had a defective core. Say %80 of their quadcore's came out ok, but %12 turned out with one faulty core. Now they disable one core, sell it as a tri-core and now they have a %92 yeild than a %80 yeild from throwing away the defective ones, and instead sell them to you.

AMD's moves are getting silly. They are a running a one legged race against themselves when they are boasting about Tri and Quad Core's, Intel is boasting about 6 and 8 core processors.

[BrittMac]

Clearly you never understood why AMD went with a TriCore processor. It would of been a waste of money to build a quadcore processor only to disable one of the cores. What they did to save money, instead of having to throw away all the defective dye's, they just disabled the defective core to sell them as tri-core instead of scrapping them. Its an ingenious way of saving a defective product. A Phenom X3 CPU, is a Phenom X4 that had a defective core. Say %80 of their quadcore's came out ok, but %12 turned out with one faulty core. Now they disable one core, sell it as a tri-core and now they have a %92 yeild than a %80 yeild from throwing away the defective ones, and instead sell them to you.

AMD's moves are getting silly. They are a running a one legged race against themselves when they are boasting about Tri and Quad Core's, Intel is boasting about 6 and 8 core processors.

Well, I don't know what they are doing now to make the X3 core's, but when they first came out they only disabled one of the four cores to make the X3 core. At first, you could re-enable the core, but then they started cutting the fourth core so it never could be enabled. This is common knowledge from the early AMD quad core days. BUT, like I said, I don't know how they do it now.

For some reason, I don't think they would use quad core chips with one bad core to make a X3 chip though. That makes no sense. I will look into that one some more, but that would make the consumer really suspect AMD, and I haven't seen that kind of backlash on any forums. Odd.

[Cloggy]

Superjew, you might be interested to know that my Intel Pentium computer just died today....the crappy old AMD one is however still going strong, and I'm using it now to write this especially for you. ;)

[Superjew]

Superjew, you might be interested to know that my Intel Pentium computer just died today....the crappy old AMD one is however still going strong, and I'm using it now to write this especially for you.

No surprise there, Pentium's were known to be inferior to AMD 10 years ago.

Like I said, AMD USE to build the best chips in the socket 939 days.