My view on CPU's have always been to buy the very best on the market at the time of purchase. That way there is no need to do more numerous and expensive upgrades along with the hassles associated with them.
The high end extreme CPUs can last years if you pick right. I'm into year 3 with my Area 51 980X CPU and it's still going strong and can bench very high. I have replaced many components like the HDD's, memory and multiple generations of GPU's since I bought this system. I've spent thousands of dollars but I have yet to find a reason to replace my CPU/Mobo. And believe me the first sign of it lacking I will I just haven't found that to be the case as of yet.
Granted they are expensive but if you break it down over the years I am at about $400 a year atm. Maybe even closer to $300. For that price, along with mobo upgrades, I would be hard pressed to have kept up with the 980x performance. In fact the first few upgrades after the 980x wasn't an upgrade at all. There are other options associated with a CPU/Mobo replacement such as USB and PCI 3.0 but it wasn't enough to justify the replacement for me. They are a very negligible performance increase which hold no weight to my CPU upgrade decisions.
buy the very best on the market at the time of purchase.
That's pretty much what I do as well. At least in relationship is base tech, chipset, motherboard and stuff like that. This last time I did get i7-9xx, but a little slower to buy high-end GPU (at the time) and some nice IPS monitors. I think your gaming requirements are a little more extreme than mine.
I also like to keep working machines put together, demote them, and just put money (otherwise spent on upgrades) on a new build.
So, pretty soon, I'm going to have to come up with another gaming machine (the Core2-Conroe-Quad box is getting a little old). So, it's either buy/build a new mid-range gamer or buy me a new high-end gamer/workstation and demote my Aurora-R1 to that purpose.
It's a pre-release sample, but I don't expect much more on release. Same old chipset. It seems TH also didn't use the optimal memory. Not bad, but nothing great (similar to Haswell situation ... marginal gains). Will do 4ghz on normal Turbo. No 8core/16thread.
Those that know about Intel Tick-Tock ... well, here ... look
Hmm, this is not the way I remember it working. It says Ivy Bridge-E is just a Die-Shink of Sandy Bridge-E. I guess the cool stuff happens on the "Tock" stroke ... new micro-architecture. I guess that is when we get the new chipset (and all the motherboard advances that go along with that).
Is it just my imagination, or with AMD pretty much being un-competitive in the high end CPU space ... is Intel up to it's old ways?
morblore
2 Intern
•
2.4K Posts
0
July 18th, 2013 18:00
My view on CPU's have always been to buy the very best on the market at the time of purchase. That way there is no need to do more numerous and expensive upgrades along with the hassles associated with them.
The high end extreme CPUs can last years if you pick right. I'm into year 3 with my Area 51 980X CPU and it's still going strong and can bench very high. I have replaced many components like the HDD's, memory and multiple generations of GPU's since I bought this system. I've spent thousands of dollars but I have yet to find a reason to replace my CPU/Mobo. And believe me the first sign of it lacking I will I just haven't found that to be the case as of yet.
Granted they are expensive but if you break it down over the years I am at about $400 a year atm. Maybe even closer to $300. For that price, along with mobo upgrades, I would be hard pressed to have kept up with the 980x performance. In fact the first few upgrades after the 980x wasn't an upgrade at all. There are other options associated with a CPU/Mobo replacement such as USB and PCI 3.0 but it wasn't enough to justify the replacement for me. They are a very negligible performance increase which hold no weight to my CPU upgrade decisions.
Anywho, just my 2 cents.
morblore
2 Intern
•
2.4K Posts
0
July 18th, 2013 19:00
Maybe but can you blame them? The competition that Intel seems to be facing lately is more from the mobile market.
Tesla1856
8 Wizard
•
17.4K Posts
0
July 18th, 2013 19:00
That's pretty much what I do as well. At least in relationship is base tech, chipset, motherboard and stuff like that. This last time I did get i7-9xx, but a little slower to buy high-end GPU (at the time) and some nice IPS monitors. I think your gaming requirements are a little more extreme than mine.
I also like to keep working machines put together, demote them, and just put money (otherwise spent on upgrades) on a new build.
So, pretty soon, I'm going to have to come up with another gaming machine (the Core2-Conroe-Quad box is getting a little old). So, it's either buy/build a new mid-range gamer or buy me a new high-end gamer/workstation and demote my Aurora-R1 to that purpose.
Tesla1856
8 Wizard
•
17.4K Posts
0
July 18th, 2013 19:00
Ok, so I read the Ivy Bridge-E article.
It's a pre-release sample, but I don't expect much more on release. Same old chipset. It seems TH also didn't use the optimal memory. Not bad, but nothing great (similar to Haswell situation ... marginal gains). Will do 4ghz on normal Turbo. No 8core/16thread.
Those that know about Intel Tick-Tock ... well, here ... look
en.wikipedia.org/.../Intel_Tick-Tock
Hmm, this is not the way I remember it working. It says Ivy Bridge-E is just a Die-Shink of Sandy Bridge-E. I guess the cool stuff happens on the "Tock" stroke ... new micro-architecture. I guess that is when we get the new chipset (and all the motherboard advances that go along with that).
Is it just my imagination, or with AMD pretty much being un-competitive in the high end CPU space ... is Intel up to it's old ways?
Tesla1856
8 Wizard
•
17.4K Posts
0
July 18th, 2013 20:00