U mean people like u and me..
*fish slaps AdamK with a ASUS Board*
But seriously adam.. ur a nut of your own... i still have yet to meet someone with a steam account even 1/4 of what u have.
I have a 980x, it OCs well, but not like a 2600K. I have it at 4.2 right now, but ive heard 2600Ks do just over 5 GHz on water or high end air. I may not have the best chip or batch it seems, but if the SB-E can also do that, they will be a lot faster than an overclocked 980x.
what stepping is that 990x aigo? and what vcore and VTT do you use? I assume you are primarily using BCLK overclock
Socket 1366 and 2011 also provide the most PCIe lanes compared to the mainstream Intel offerings. For those running 3+ GPUs, it can make a pretty big difference.
Running three graphics cards makes almost no sense to begin with, especially seeing how much scaling gets worse.
Based on reviews I have seen from the 5xx and 69xx series, tri-SLI/tri-xfire is actually very good. The scaling gets much worse, and sometimes performance even goes down, when you up this to 4 GPUs. 3 GPUs are pretty much needed if you are doing 3x30'' displays, or 3x22 + 3D at high quality levels. Plus tri-fire or tri-SLI has a high e-peen value as well.
3D is a dying fad, so I won't mention it. Just to clarify, I'm not referring to Tri-SLI/CF. I'm referring to having three graphics cards. If you want Tri-CF, you can go for one Radeon HD 6990 + Radeon HD 6950/6970 2GB, and that's a viable alternative with any P67/Z68 motherboard that has 2x PCIe 2.0 8x support. NVIDIA's cards are too expensive for the 3GB versions, which are the ones you want for 2560x1440 + 4xAA/16xAF or higher.
The 1366 and 2011 are not budget platforms. Also, it's a lot cheaper to go 3x 6950 (or 6970) vs. 6990 + 6970. That's if you can even find a 6990 that isn't gouging you really badly.
Many folks paying $1000 just for their CPU probably couldn't care less if they buy 3xgtx580 when 'cheaper' systems exist.
You getting 32 lanes of PCIe is worthless, for the most part.
....
putting ridiculously insane amounts of cache like 15MB L3 and Quad-Channel memory even when it doesn't need it helps perception that it's faster, even if it's not.
....
The only thing that makes a real difference in performance is those two additional cores, but they add unneeded cache and memory channels because they have the die space for it;
....
Running three graphics cards makes almost no sense to begin with, especially seeing how much scaling gets worse.
....
3D is a dying fad, so I won't mention it.
....
That being said, spending $1000 on CPUs and/or graphics cards is moronic.
Intel Corp.'s next-generation Core i7 "Sandy Bridge-E" microprocessors for performance enthusiasts will deliver from 12% to 65% higher performance compared to current extreme chips, according to estimates by the manufacturer.
The rough estimates of performance advantage of the Sandy Bridge E-series Core i7-3960X compared to the model Core i7-990X are the following:
+13% in Cinebench 1.5
+12% in POV-Ray 3.7
+36% in 3DMark 11 Physics Test
+15% in ProShow Gold 4.5
+34% in SPECint_rate base 2006
+65% in SPECfp_rate base 2006
+111% in Sandra 2011B/Multi-Media FP sub-test
+92% in Sandra 2011B/Memory Bandwidth FP sub-test
According to Intel's internal estimates, Sandy Bridge E-series microprocessors will account for about 1% - 2% of Intel's desktop processor shipments by volume in 2H 2011. By contrast, Sandy Bridge chips for mainstream PCs will represent a half of Intel's desktop shipments in the second half of 2011.
It depends. If you go with a 6950 2GB and unlock it you can use it with a 6990 at its full potential. Buying three 6970s is $1050. Buying one 6970 and one 6990 costs $1080, roughly the same. What you save by going this option is on platform costs.
That being said, spending $1000 on CPUs and/or graphics cards is moronic.
That being said, spending $1000 on CPUs and/or graphics cards is moronic.
You know, $1,000 ain't that much money in the scheme of things. Seriously, if your main hobby is being a PC enthusiast, it's probably not hard to save up $3,500/yr to buy the best of the best (assuming you have some kind of job and not too many other expenses).
That's very true. People spend their money differently. I know those who will not bat an eye dropping $400 for a pair of jeans or a sweater. Or those who drop $800 for a pair of shoes.
You know, $1,000 ain't that much money in the scheme of things. Seriously, if your main hobby is being a PC enthusiast, it's probably not hard to save up $3,500/yr to buy the best of the best (assuming you have some kind of job and not too many other expenses).
I don't really see why anyone with a rational mind would spend $1000 on graphics cards or CPUs.
Because "good enough" is subjective and depending on how much money people have and how much time they spend in front of their computer, the $1000 can be a great return on their investment.
Don't forget that many of the people that buy bleeding edge parts also resell at a good 70-80% of purchase price to buy the next bleeding edge product. That means that after the initial investment in parts, they are really only paying 20 to 30% of what you claim. The difference puts their real cost in the range that you have already explained is reasonable to spend, only with much better performance than parts in that range.
+1
$1000 to some people is nothing. And people who will use their machines for work and not games, will get a much better return on investment.
And since I am one person who always buys the latest and greatest as soon as it comes out (not extreme however), I do sell my parts for about 60-70% of my initial cost which means less out of pocket cash when it is time to buy again. I will be selling my P67 system the same day SB-E comes out.
Doesn't change the fact that they're idiots.
How is that?
When I bought my QX6700 for $1500 I was earning $1000/day as a technology consultant. $1000 was nothing, not to me and not to my employers.
The CPU itself was the only quad-core I could get mt hands on at the time to run my apps for forex (foreign currency exchange) in which time was money, to the tune of thousands of dollars per day for my clients.
You can make it known that your opinion is that people who buy $1k cpu's are idiots, but all you are really doing is making it known that you are ignorant to a whole segment of the world out there that knows how to make money by investing theirs, and part of investing in your business is buying the hardware that makes the difference.
That might make me an idiot in your book, but frankly I'm quite ok with being underestimated by the competition.
Perhaps I should rephrase what I said earlier because it's been taken out of context: "I don't see why any rational enthusiast/hobbyist would spend $1000 on CPUs or graphics cards". If your work depends on it, then I don't think it's wrong.
I just explained that an enthusiast or hobbyist wouldn't really be spending $1000 on upgrades if they resell each time they buy. I doubt very many people who buy those expensive parts just throw the "old" ones in a closet.
People spend tons of money on all kinds of hobbies. Spending a couple grand a year on computer parts is quite a bit cheaper than other hobbies. If they like spending more to play around with bleeding edge parts, there is nothing wrong with that. It isn't like the people on here are buying those parts without full knowledge of the lower price to performance ratio than cheaper parts.
I will say that there are people who do pay that price premium without understanding what they are getting for their money. People who buy at Fry's or the like and listen to what the salesperson says, you know? But that is completely different than someone who essentially leases the highest end parts before refreshing at every cycle or someone who just enjoys computers as a hobby and knows full well what they are paying for.