re: PC Discussion - Gaming, Performance and Enthusiasts

quote:

---

Whats the life span of an SSD? I wanted to get one just to install windows and boost load times.

---

depends on the drive:

I got this guy

In the description it says:

2,500,000 hours

take 2,500,000 and divide by 24 = 100,000 days
divide by 365.. you are looking at like 900 years

quote:

---

ASRock Z77 Extreme4 LGA 1155 Intel Z77 HDMI SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 ATX Intel Motherboard

---

I have 4 of those coming in soon I need to sell. They will be new straight from ASRock.

quote:

---

Ok.. guys I'm really really confused here, all of you have shaken me to my core when it comes to computer parts.. but for some reason I can't help but think at least intel is better than amd on CPUs...

but why on earth are AMD CPUs so much cheaper for so much more GHZ!?!?!?! Is it because intel realizes that 4.0GHZ is overkill.. and is intel still better because they have better Motherboards.. I'm confused!?!

ETA: It looks like AMD goes more for GHz while intel puts more MB into Cache? this has utterly confused me

---

Well, it's difficult to compare them outside of real-world results, benchmarking, and pricing. When you consider everything that makes up a "CPU" (cores, cache, pathways, registers, etc etc), there's no point in comparing clock speeds.

When a processor does its job (the work load), it breaks the load into stages/phases, the further divides those stages into units that can be processed more than one at a time. Software might provide commands/instructions in a linear manner, but a CPU can prioritize those instructions differently. Let's say a program sends out instructions X, Y, and Z. The CPU can divide those instructions into subunits (say, X1, X2, X3, Z1, Z2, and so on) and execute them in the most efficient order (which might be X2, Z1, X3, X1, Y2, etc). That's an oversimplified example, though. It's much more complex in reality.

But basically, it's the design of the CPU that makes the clock speeds different and unrealistically comparable. It depends on how much can be done in what order, the divisions and subdivisions of labor it can provide, and then speed at which each of those units/subunits can be executed (some of it has a lot to do with the register's capability, which stores commands, and the cache, which stores data associated with those commands). Perhaps more difficult to explain is the difference in designs that give one CPU the ability to break down commands into more and therefore smaller subunits than another CPU because it extends beyond the number of cores. However, the end result is the clock speed dictates how quickly those subunits will be executed, and the architecture/design dictates how many subunits can be executed per cycle -- or, instructions per cycle (which is a blurrier distinction because I'm not an engineer). More subunits per instruction means smaller workload per unit, which means faster processing of that subunit at the rated clock speed. On top of that, less workload per subunit also means more subunits per clock cycle.

In regards to cores, I'll quote something I read on Tom's Hardware from one of their CPU Experts, which I feel is a good explanation that supports benchmarks indicating core count doesn't mean much in gaming particularly:

quote:

---

Extra cores found in AMD CPUs and Hyper Threading found in Intel's CPUs can improve performance, but only if they are taken advantage of. As stated above, AMD FX series CPUs are not "true" 8 core CPUs because the Bulldozer and Piledriver architecture is built around a modular design. There are actually two cores per module, but each module only has one FPU (Floating Point Unit), therefore if one core is using the FPU, the other core must wait. Therefore, the actual performance is less than a "true" 8 core CPU. Also, just because there are 8 cores hanging out, that does not mean a program will use all 8 cores. The program must be designed to use those cores.

Intel's Hyper Threading technology (HT or sometime called HTT) are virtual cores. Unlike the physical cores in AMD's FX CPUs. Generally speaking having physical cores is better than having virtual cores; even if those physical core are sharing resources. Basically speaking, HT works by searching for a core that is simply idling, if all cores are 100% busy, then HT just waits... once a core becomes available HT uses it to process another thread (stream of instructions / data). Technically speaking HT can ensure all 4 cores are full utilized as long as there are some programs running that needs to process data.

---

At this point, Intel takes the lead in doing more per clock cycle, and the differences can boil down to material choices, die size, transistor count, and overall design that sort of goes over my head. But it can sometimes require a trade-off. More work at a slower pace, or less work at a faster pace? It largely depends on how efficiently the software can use the architecture, which is why CPU specs must be taken with a grain of salt and it is necessary to examine relevant benchmarks.

Well that was a nice distraction from work.

quote:

---

ASRock Z77 Extreme4 LGA 1155 Intel Z77 HDMI SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 ATX Intel Motherboard




I have 4 of those coming in soon I need to sell. They will be new straight from ASRock.

---

hmmm i am most likely going to be upgrading my mom's computer pretty soon...

quote:

---

I have a question, or more of a request, for whoever wants to help me: I need a TV. I recently converted a spare bedroom (which was being used a storage/hoarder closet) into a usable room, mostly as "play room" for my daughter's toys because there is no more room in her bedroom, and they are cluttering our living room (yeah, she has two sets of grandparents, and she's their only granddaughter. They're spoiling the shite out of her)

But anyway, some of you are much better price hunters than I am, so could someone find one? It needs to be cheap but not a total piece of shite with tons of bad reviews.

Our bedroom has a 720p 32" Emerson, which I'll probably move into that spare room and use the new TV in our bedroom.

Criteria:
Cheap but not shitty random Chinese company
1080p
28-32"

My PC is next to the TV in the bedroom, connected to the TV via HDMI, and I have a media center remote, so this new TV does not need to have internet/wifi or any other additional "media hub" functions.

---

:stoutisyourdaddy: bat signal

nevermind apparently newegg quit carrying them

I'm not quite sure what budget I have in mind, and I'll pay more for the right TV.

For example, this TV looks decent and the price seems good despite the "Smart" features: LINK

Nope, don't need 120hz. I have a 120hz tv in the living room and turned off that feature because it looks stupid in the content that I watch. Might look good for sports or some other live event, but nothing else in my opinion.