# Upgrade PC or New Build



## jdhansen63 (Nov 1, 2011)

I've been lurking for a while, but this is my first post. I've got an old PC (2008) that I've been using as a Media Server for a while but am underwhelmed with its performance during HD playback (skips and starts). My question is, is it worthwhile to make some small upgrades to improve performance, or should I start from scratch and build a new MCPC? My music and videos are stored externally and I use JRiver Media Center to play my music and watch videos.

The Specs for the existing PC are as follows:
HP Pavilion Elite M9100z
- Processor: Phenom-9500 (A) (2.2GHz / 2000 MHz HyperTransport 1.0) AM2; 2 x 2 MB L2 cache (95W)
- Memory: 6 GB (2 x 2 GB, 2 x 1 GB) DDR2 PC2-6400 (max of 8)
- HD: 750 GB 7200 rpm SATA 3G (3.0 Gb/sec)
- Optical Drive: 16X DVD(+/-)R/RW 12X RAM (+/-)R DL LightScribe SATA
- Networking: Wireless LAN 802.11 a/b/g/n & Bluetooth (Integrated)
- Sound: SoundBlaster X-Fi Xtreme 
- Graphics: GeForce 8500GT 
- OS: Microsoft Windows Vista Home Premium (64-bit)

Monitor
- Pioneer Elite Pro1140HD

Is it worth upgrading what I have or should I start from scratch?

If new, cost conscience build recommendations would be appreciated.

FYI, I have a NIB 3TB Seagate Barracuda HD & Windows 8 Pro 64.

Thanks, 
Jason


----------



## Mike Edwards (Mar 10, 2011)

I'd honestly start from scratch. you got enough ram, but your proc and vid card need some improvement since I think that's where your bottleneck is. at this point it's almost not worth upgrading cuz you'll need a new mobo, ram, video card and that's the main pieces of your machine as it is. might be able to salvage the optical drive and case, but the rest is cheap and better stuff is available


----------



## phillihp23 (Mar 14, 2012)

I would start a new build. A custom Build...You should be able to pick up most of the parts at the local Frys in Renton. If you needed assistance they will even put it together for you....for a small fee ($50-$100)
Computer Case: ? Your Choice
OS: Win 8 PRO 64 (you have)
Processor:*Intel Core I7 Sandy Bridge E 3.2GHz LGA 2011 130W Six Core * $570 or Intel Core i7-3820 Sandy Bridge-E 3.6GHz (3.8GHz Turbo Boost) LGA 2011 130W Quad-Core Desktop Processor $300
MotherBoard:*Intel BOXDX79SR LGA 2011 Intel X79 SATA 6Gb/s Usb 3.0 ATX Intel Motherboard* $319
Main Harddrive: *SAMSUNG 840 Series MZ-7TD120KW 2.5" 120GB SATA III Internal Solid State Drive (SSD)* $110
Secondary Harddrive: 3 TB Seagate Barracuda (you have)
Memory: *CORSAIR Vengeance 32GB (4 x 8GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1600 Desktop Memory Model CMZ32GX3M4A1600C9* $265
Optical Drive: *LG Black 14X Blu-ray BDXL Internal Rewriter SATA BH16NS40* $119
Sound: SoundBlaster card with digital optical outlet
Graphics:*MSI N670 PE 2GD5/OC GeForce GTX 670 2GB 256-bit GDDR5 PCI Express 3.0 x16 HDCP Ready SLI Support Video Card* mini HDMI and 2 DVI $365

$1500 plus what ever case you decide to go with and what ever power source you choose. As for the sound card re-use your old one unless you think you want to upgrade.

*Yes it costs a bit but it will handle anything you throw at it. I believe in paying up front and not having to worry about the computer becoming outdated for a long time.
*
I'll update with all the parts recommendations a little later when i get a chance...
If you build a good custom PC it will last a long time 5-7 yrs before you feel the need to update. And typically you can then just start upgrading parts as needed.

I have built a couple custom pc's over the years. My main computer at home I just recently increased the memory to 8GB, installed a SSD (320 GB), and installed Win 8 Pro., it runs a AMD Phenom quad core CPU (water cooled), and a older 8800 GTX Ultra water cooled, it also has a 1 TB drive, 2 TB drive, and 500 GB drive, Blu Ray Burner drive, Blu Ray drive, Soundblaster X-fi sound card, 700W power source.


----------



## Harpmaker (Oct 28, 2007)

My system is older than yours and I don't have any playback issues; and this is with a lowly 2.4GHz Intel Q6600 quad core running on XP 32-bit with a measly 2GB of RAM. I have tried VLC, XBMC and Media Player Classic HT and all work fine for me. I think your main problem is Vista and that you would see improvement simply by installing Win7. Win8 still seems a bit dodgy to me.


----------



## jdhansen63 (Nov 1, 2011)

The benchmarks that I found show the Q6600 being a more capable processor than my AMD chip. Also, from what I've read, XP is not as cpu/ram needy as Vista. I'll buy that going to W7 or 8 will probably be an improvement over Vista, but I don't want to spend the time if it's going to be a short term fix. 

Jason



Harpmaker said:


> My system is older than yours and I don't have any playback issues; and this is with a lowly 2.4GHz Intel Q6600 quad core running on XP 32-bit with a measly 2GB of RAM. I have tried VLC, XBMC and Media Player Classic HT and all work fine for me. I think your main problem is Vista and that you would see improvement simply by installing Win7. Win8 still seems a bit dodgy to me.


----------



## jblueovalfan23 (Jul 10, 2013)

i don't see a reason why it would be a problem to run video on that rig as is. that 9500 is a bit old but it's got some life in it. i've ran 1080p bluray rips on an e4600 for awhile without issue. the 8500gt i can't say that about though. i doubt that's what's holding you back but it seems something is in question. have you tried to use any other software to run the media? i generally use vlc personally. it could easily be a bug in the software that came with an update. if it was working before, i see no reason it should stop now unless it's what i mentioned of the source being hindered somehow.


----------



## jdhansen63 (Nov 1, 2011)

Thanks for all the help. 

For now I'm going to keep using what I have and upgrade to Windwos 8 and install the 3TB HDD and hope for the best. I'll probably buy a SSD to install the OS on too. 

Soon after, I'll start collecting parts to build a new HTPC which I've started to document here:
http://www.hometheatershack.com/forums/computers-htpc-media-servers/68516-new-haswell-build.html

It's a bit more expensive than I wanted to spend, so I'm going to collect a part here and a part there over the next few months (hopefully be done Q1 next year) starting with the case and ending with the CPU. This way if the next gen Intel CPU comes out before I'm done, I can go with that. 

Jason


----------



## NBPk402 (Feb 21, 2012)

I am running win 7 on a i3 NUC with a 2nd i3 NUC as a Media Server and a Atom for my NAS and it works flawlessly. On my NUCs I only have 4GB of ram each and 60GB SSD drives. On the Media Center I run OpenElec/XBMC and it boots in a few seconds... Everything is very fast. I was running a Quad 4GB AMD setup and it def ran slower than my current setup does plus it consumed over 4 times the lectricity. The key I think to my setup running so fast is the Media Center is running OpenElec/XBMC (a stripped down Linux with only what it needs to run XBMC), and my NAS runs XBMC off of a USB stick. The HDD are Hitachi 4TB 5400rpm drives which even though they are not the fastest they run very well. All of my streaming is across a Cisco Gigabit Switch. Total cost was about $1800... But everything was new. 

If you made your old HTPC into a NAS it would cost you nothing... Leaving about $800 for 2 NUCs or you could use 1 NUC and do your browsing from the Media Server. I am very happy with my setup and would highly recommend it


----------



## chashint (Jan 12, 2011)

I would think that computer should be able to handle 1080p video and HD audio without breaking a sweat.

Our computers are the same vintage as yours. Both are running Vista 32 with a Q6600 processor, 2Gb ram, one eith a 8500 video card and the other a new 650TI video card and there are no playback issues on either.
Media Center is the usual program. 

If you just playback on the monitor does it have issues?

Are you going thru an AVR or directly to a TV?

Are you using HDMI?
Both audio and video? 

If you are using 3rd party anti virus consider switching to Microsoft Security Essentials, it is one of the least intrusive ones and is about as good as any other... plus it's free from Microsoft.

If there are any social media programs installed (Facebook twitter) kill em off.

Disable all automatic updates on all programs.

Make sure as few programs as possible start up and run in the background.

Try using Media Player or Media Center and see if those programs have issues to.


----------



## jdhansen63 (Nov 1, 2011)

*ellisr63*
Thanks for the suggestion. I've thought about turning the old PC into a NAS, but I really don't have space for multiple devices. My PC is old, but I think I can extend the life by by upgrading to Windows 8 and installing a SSD as a boot drive. The NUC's seem like an interesting way to go, but you really need a NAS to go with it, again, no space for multiple devices. 

*chashint*
I use Media Center v16, but only for watching standard def DVD from my hard drive (no Blu Ray player on the pc) and listening to music. 

My AVR (Rotel 1067) doesn't have HDMI in, so I go SPDIF to it and HDMI to the TV (Pioneer Elite Pro1140HD). We watch BR DVD's on the BR player with no problems. 

I notice the problem the most when streaming NETFLIX in HD, and to a lesser degree when using MC. When I stream netflix (HD only), the CPU usage, it's at ~90% and playback hangus up even though there's plenty of data in the buffer. Again, I get similar problems but not quite as bad when watching videos on MC. With the computer freshly booted with no programs open, the CPU is running at ~60%. 

I do have 3rd party anti virus running. When I install Win8, I'll make sure to use MS Security Essentials. , I'll do this tonight to see what kind of difference it makes.

I don't have any social media programs installed.

I'm sure I have automatic updates installed, but will probably dissable these when I reinstall the OS.

I do have a but load of programs starting up when I turn on the computer. The first thing I do after start up is go to the system tray and close ~ 10 things. Hopefully I won't let this be a problem with the new OS.

In general, I think a lot of my problems come from this being a 6 year old PC that has never had an OS reinstall. Also, I don't think Vista 64 helps performance. 

I'll report back after I update the computer to report if the problems have cleared up.

Thanks again for all the help!


----------



## Mike Edwards (Mar 10, 2011)

as a computer technician I HIGHLY recommend staying away from security essentials. it's still a pile of garbage in my opinion. something as non intrusive as Avira or Avahst is highly recommended. they use almost the same amount of sys resources as MSE and is 10x better. but as he said. use msconfig and shut down ALL OTHER startup process etc that are non-essential.


----------



## ericzim (Jun 24, 2012)

Mike Edwards said:


> as a computer technician I HIGHLY recommend staying away from security essentials. it's still a pile of garbage in my opinion. something as non intrusive as Avira or Avahst is highly recommended. they use almost the same amount of sys resources as MSE and is 10x better. but as he said. use msconfig and shut down ALL OTHER startup process etc that are non-essential.


As an IT professional I will second Mikes recommendation. Stay away from security essentials, I used AVG for years but they have also gone the way of bloat-ware recently, Avira in combination with a good spyware detection software is all you should need.


----------



## jdhansen63 (Nov 1, 2011)

Thanks! I can get McAfee through my work, so I'll probably go with that.


----------



## Nachmanowicz (Feb 15, 2013)

I'll just drop off my 5 cents here, DON'T BUY I7's unless you're gonna have some professional use for your PC. It makes no difference for games or regular computer use. NO DIFFERENCE AT ALL. Computers are supposed to fit your needs, I would never recommend my girlfriend, for example, a high end computer. Cause she doesn't game, her audio output is already streamed with her video output via an AMD video card with HDMI and all. Do not waste your money on overkill. Plenty of other stuff to waste your money with.

IE
food and audio equipment


----------



## Mike Edwards (Mar 10, 2011)

Nachmanowicz said:


> I'll just drop off my 5 cents here, DON'T BUY I7's unless you're gonna have some professional use for your PC. It makes no difference for games or regular computer use. NO DIFFERENCE AT ALL. Computers are supposed to fit your needs, I would never recommend my girlfriend, for example, a high end computer. Cause she doesn't game, her audio output is already streamed with her video output via an AMD video card with HDMI and all. Do not waste your money on overkill. Plenty of other stuff to waste your money with.
> 
> IE
> food and audio equipment


I would strongly disagree with that. an I7 is a BIG upgrade in performance (in every day stuff) over the I5's etc... I can notice a difference just running simple things like Video editing and processing 1080p video content let alone games (which it makes a HUGE DIFF) etc


----------



## NBPk402 (Feb 21, 2012)

jdhansen63 said:


> *ellisr63*
> Thanks for the suggestion. I've thought about turning the old PC into a NAS, but I really don't have space for multiple devices. My PC is old, but I think I can extend the life by by upgrading to Windows 8 and installing a SSD as a boot drive. The NUC's seem like an interesting way to go, but you really need a NAS to go with it, again, no space for multiple devices.
> 
> *chashint*
> ...


Just to let you know... The i3 NUCs are 4"x4"x1 1/2".


----------



## Nachmanowicz (Feb 15, 2013)

Mike Edwards said:


> I would strongly disagree with that. an I7 is a BIG upgrade in performance (in every day stuff) over the I5's etc... I can notice a difference just running simple things like Video editing and processing 1080p video content let alone games (which it makes a HUGE DIFF) etc


SOrry brother, but you're quite wrong. First off, if you're serious about video editing, that's professional use. Games have no difference pretty much.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2012/05/01/intel-core-i5-3570k-cpu-review/6

As you can see, the differene only resides in the clock pretty much, as long as you have the same architecture. And it makes PERFECT SENSE, because games make no use of hyperthreding, whih is the only difference between i5 and i7's (desktopwise).

Trust me, I know what I'm talking about.

As for everyday use, if youre not even a serious gamer, an i3 will suffice.


----------



## Mike Edwards (Mar 10, 2011)

Nachmanowicz said:


> SOrry brother, but you're quite wrong. First off, if you're serious about video editing, that's professional use. Games have no difference pretty much.
> 
> http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2012/05/01/intel-core-i5-3570k-cpu-review/6
> 
> ...


sorry, I've been a computer Tech for YEARS,,, and yes it makes a difference even in standard applications. it may not be night and day but there is a very tangible difference in speed between them. (and sorry, but video editing is actually pretty much standard fare for hobby forums like these). I have an I7 AND an I5 of comparable speeds... the I7's make a difference , believe you me. and as for games. the gaming forums all over the net would beg to disagree on the performance issues. if all you're doing is web browsing and maybe some office work, sure you can get away with an I5 and be happy, but to say that there's performance increase between the series is just not true.


----------



## Nachmanowicz (Feb 15, 2013)

Forums wouldnt beg to differ about performance diff between i5 and i7 in games.

On Tom's Hardware:
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/334252-28-3570k-3770k-gaming
Voted best reply, by a guy with "CPU Authority" badge


> *The i7 will give you zero extra performance for games over the i5
> *
> The ASRock Extremes are good budget boards. I've had a P67 Extreme 4 for the last 16 months with no problems. Never even exchanged it due to the SATA port problem because I have plenty of S3
> 
> As with SB, you are much better off getting the i5 3570K and using the $100 towards a better video card (or in your pocket)


http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/363045-28-3770k-3570k-gaming



> Only diffrence is hyperthreading which games dont use. Get yourself a i5 3570k It wont bottleneck its the fastest gaming cpu currrently.


+ oned by another "CPU Experts" right below him

On overclock.net
http://www.overclock.net/t/1281609/i5-3570k-or-i7-3770k-for-a-new-gaming-build
3 out of 4 recommended the i5, except for the one who recommended the i7 SETTING ASIDE PRICE.

Even Yahoo Answers
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130411063730AA4Yz66
Voted Best reply by a top contributor:


> Gaming doesn't today use the hyperthreading, and game designers may choose to make use of more cores than 4 before the advanced design of hyperthread. The i7 is clocked a little higher and has a little more L3 cache memory. The K versions are for overclocking, so pushed to limits, the i7 is better, but in typical overclocking, the difference is minor. It is only a few games today needing that much CPU power. Far Cry 3, 64 man Battlefield-3, maybe Planetside-2, but the list is small. The extra money should be put into the graphics card and assuring a reliable power supply, decent motherboard, and sufficient RAM. The power supply is best chosen as single rail (one +12V) with enough 12V watts (amps x 12) to handle CPU, GPU, fans, disk drives to no more than 80% continuous load.
> They could get to hyperthreading in 2014 or 2015. It is hard to predict with the rate of advancement in game designs. At the same time, you can upgrade later selling the i5, but note that Intel Haswell changes the package and is due out this summer.


And that was just the first results in a google search for "i5 3570k vs i7 games".


Now, for more benchmarks:

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Core_i5_3570K_and_i7_3770K_Comparison/8.html


Yeeep, the same. Sometimes i7's will even lose. Maybe because HT generates more heat, maybe I dunno.


I've spent over 3k dollars on my computer, RAM, SSDs, watercooling and etc. It's very high end, and it's running on a i5 2500k @4.8Ghz, which will murder on gaming pretty much any i7 around. It's not about just spending money, knowing where to, to get that extra performance is even more important. Having said that, the i7 is recommended for PROFESSIONAL USE. Otherwise, get yourself a better video card, a SSD, a brazilian wax, whatever.


----------



## Mike Edwards (Mar 10, 2011)

Nachmanowicz said:


> Forums wouldnt beg to differ about performance diff between i5 and i7 in games.
> 
> On Tom's Hardware:
> http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/334252-28-3570k-3770k-gaming
> ...


you're talking about from a gaming perspective. gaming doesn't require as much because it's coded for the lowest common denominator (32 bit systems and the like, trying to cover all their bases and be a jack of all trades, but master of none, 32 bit coding should have been ditched long time ago). but we're on a hometheater site where video rendering, coding and processing is more of a premium. that's not "professional" (I consider professional to be using Autocad with multi pc cross threading and mapped thin clients ... this stuff is just hobbyist level). you may think they're negligible, but I've dealt with both processors EXTENSIVELY and there is a real world difference that can't be replicated with the I5's. not to mention the fact that I7 is more future proof than the I5's which are being phased out.


----------



## Nachmanowicz (Feb 15, 2013)

Mike Edwards said:


> let alone games (which it makes a HUGE DIFF) etc


Well sir, you've said i7's were superior to "matching" i5's on gaming. Now you're talking about something else.

When you'r talkig about video encoding (which, no, is still something specific even in here, and if some ppl do that, most of 'em do it very sporadically) it wont be that much faster. It can give you around a 30/40% boost but not under the right circunstances. Usually you'll have other bottlenecks llike your HDD or even your memo.


For video playback, internet browsing, office working and etc, they are identical.


Im just saying, dont wgo around recommending i7's around to ppl who know nothing about PCs, cause most of the time it'll be downright a waste.


----------



## Mike Edwards (Mar 10, 2011)

Nachmanowicz said:


> Well sir, you've said i7's were superior to "matching" i5's on gaming. Now you're talking about something else.
> 
> When you'r talkig about video encoding (which, no, is still something specific even in here, and if some ppl do that, most of 'em do it very sporadically) it wont be that much faster. It can give you around a 30/40% boost but not under the right circunstances. Usually you'll have other bottlenecks llike your HDD or even your memo.
> 
> ...


ummm, this thread is ABOUT video processing HTPCs, where many of us run custom builds with software tweaked to max out multithreading etc... no offense, but no one here is talking about office work. it sounds like we disagree on what "everyday stuff" is here. that's all

and you'd be surprised on the difference it makes in games. try for yourself sometime. benchmarks can only go so far.

you're quite right, not everyone needs an I7... but no one here is saying that an I7 is NECESSARY for everyone. the price differential between the series is dropping fast and the future proofing the I7 makes it more palatable for most people, but there's always exceptions and those who don't want the extra head room. nothing wrong with that.


----------



## Nachmanowicz (Feb 15, 2013)

Man, seriously, you still trying to say i7 makes difference on games? Makes no diff on minnimum fps and makes no diff on microstuttering, what is it that could POSSIBLY BE the difference?


And, also, topic starter said what his use was: PLAYBACK. and specifically said:



> Is it worth upgrading what I have or should I start from scratch?
> 
> If new, cost conscience build recommendations would be appreciated.


Would you say the i7 would be cost conscient? Srsly man, you're being pretty stuborn. I'd recommend the guy an i3, btw.

i3, budget mobo, small SSD for OS, using his old audio card, old HDD + the 3TB, old GPU... unless he decides he wants to game, then depending on which games and which specs I would recommend a diff gpu and MAYBE MAYBE REALLY MAYBE go for an i5. Only if he's interested on the CPU hungry games...


That's being cost conscious.



PS: you didnt even note he's using unmatched memos, 2x2gb and 2x1gb, he'd be better off with just the 2x2gb.


----------



## Mike Edwards (Mar 10, 2011)

Nachmanowicz said:


> Man, seriously, you still trying to say i7 makes difference on games? Makes no diff on minnimum fps and makes no diff on microstuttering, what is it that could POSSIBLY BE the difference?
> 
> 
> And, also, topic starter said what his use was: PLAYBACK. and specifically said:
> ...


respectfully, that's your opinion, and that's what this thread is for, but there are other factors.... longevity of the socket and series, upgradability in the future, different levels of "worth it" etc... you can recommend anything you want, but please respect others opinions.


----------



## Nachmanowicz (Feb 15, 2013)

I can totally respect your opinion, but I just got kinda mad because you made use of "authority argument: "I'm a computer tech for years". Sorry for going a bit overboard sometimes, but this is a forum, we are supposed to have discussions here. And I presented facts to back up my opinion.


----------



## Mike Edwards (Mar 10, 2011)

Nachmanowicz said:


> I can totally respect your opinion, but I just got kinda mad because you made use of "authority argument: "I'm a computer tech for years". Sorry for going a bit overboard sometimes, but this is a forum, we are supposed to have discussions here. And I presented facts to back up my opinion.


lets just say that Benchmark tests are only a rough estimate, many times they don't give the whole picture due to isolated tests, vs long term overall usages. The "computer tech" reference was meant to emphasis that I've had hands on experience with the whole series of I boards and am not just trying to go off the latest "specs"... I've seen their performance, I've seen the differences between them and HAVE the I5 and I7's (I'm typing on them right now lol). It wasn't meant to belittle your opinion, but to put emphasis on my experience. I think we both agree that the boards have differences between them performance wise, we just disagree on the "sweet spot" for the OP's uses


----------



## Nachmanowicz (Feb 15, 2013)

Dude, if it was only one or another benchmark that had EXTREMELY similar results between the i5's and i7's on games, okay. But it's ALWAYS like that.


----------



## Mike Edwards (Mar 10, 2011)

Nachmanowicz said:


> Dude, if it was only one or another benchmark that had EXTREMELY similar results between the i5's and i7's on games, okay. But it's ALWAYS like that.


you're right to a certain extent. MOST games don't see the benefit (as I agreed, games are coded to the lowest common denominator unfortunately).. but MODERN games are coming out (such as Crysis 3) which make more use of multi-threads and limiting yourself to an I5 is just going to end up hurting you in the long run at this stage unless you upgrade every 6 months to a year. it's called future proofing. and as many of those forums pointed out, if you're doing video editing, rendering, and other workstation tasks the I7's show the performance increase. and since this guy's wanting "PLAYBACK", the I7 is gonna shine. I mean if he just wants to hit play and go... fine, an I5 WOULD do fine, but if he wants to start custom tweaking his upscaling software algorithms and literally put an HTPC to good use and use all the processing algorithms and tweaks that an HTPC can provide then the multi cores come in REALLY useful


----------



## Nachmanowicz (Feb 15, 2013)

Mike Edwards said:


> but MODERN games are coming out (such as Crysis 3) which make more use of cores and limiting yourself to an I5 is just going to end up hurting you in the long run


Sir, and that's where you're going wrong. The i5 and the i7 have the EXACT SAME NUMBER OF CORES. They're both 4 cored processors. The i7 can have 8 THREADS (with HT, HyperThreading), which is not at all the same as having 8 cores. And the only game that uses HT is Flight Simulator.


And this is why you get the same performance for i7's and i5 on games, because for games they're THE SAME PROCESSORS pretty much.


For video processing a i5 with good ram is already overkill, btw.


----------



## Mike Edwards (Mar 10, 2011)

Nachmanowicz said:


> Sir, and that's where you're going wrong. The i5 and the i7 have the EXACT SAME NUMBER OF CORES. They're both 4 cored processors. The i7 can have 8 THREADS (with HT, HyperThreading), which is not at all the same as having 8 cores. And the only game that uses HT is Flight Simulator.
> 
> 
> And this is why you get the same performance for i7's and i5 on games, because for games they're THE SAME PROCESSORS pretty much.
> ...


sorry, I mis typed. threads, not cores. it's too early in the morning lol

and don't forget that the ps4 is gonna be an 8 thread machine so gaming companies are going to be FORCED to recode from the ground up. 8 threaded games are gonna become standard. that's pretty much a fact

lol, sorry I DO video editing all the time. you can max out ANY processor in a matter of seconds with video editing. more is ALWAYS better there.


----------



## Nachmanowicz (Feb 15, 2013)

Video processing i5 is overkill, video editing processing power can run t max pretty much all the time.

The ps4 will be 8 cored, so it's unclear wether they'll make use of HT or not, maybe it'll just end up giving AMD the advantage since they've 8 cored processors for a while now.


In fact, I just didnt recommend any AMD cause I've pretty much missed out on it ever since Sandy Bridge came out. They're pretty cost efficient nowdays from what I reckon, but Im not familiar with 'em enough to go out recommending.


----------



## Mike Edwards (Mar 10, 2011)

Nachmanowicz said:


> Video processing i5 is overkill, video editing processing power can run t max pretty much all the time.
> 
> The ps4 will be 8 cored, so it's unclear wether they'll make use of HT or not, maybe it'll just end up giving AMD the advantage since they've 8 cored processors for a while now.
> 
> ...


exactly, video processing can max out about anything. that's why more is ALWAYS better, keep feeding it and it will go faster and faster..

yeah, with AMD I've fallen by the wayside with most of theirs. they have some great gaming chips, but with desktop processing they're kinda lackluster. they've never completely caught up since the Athalon XP days. I HONESTLY wish they could come out with some stuff that TRULY rivals the new Intel chips. Competition is good and they were the KING of great prices and performance back in those days. I remember having 3 Athalon Xp's over the years and they were FANTASTIC (albeit they ran a bit hot)... and they forced Intel to be a bit more competitive price wise. lddude:


----------



## Nachmanowicz (Feb 15, 2013)

Well, they dont havew the kind of cash Intel has for research, I dont mind if they dont compete with them in the high end computing, but if theyre competing in the gaming and consumer level I guess it's already something. Early on with AM3+ they were no good, but now they're priced more aggressively and are getting some sales. Maybe they should market some more, cause Intel blue boxes still look more reliable.

I've had a Phenom II X4 955 for a while. Great OCability and at the price point I couldnt DREAM of better performance. But yeah, architecture-wise it was still a tweaked Athlon.


----------



## Mike Edwards (Mar 10, 2011)

yeah, Intel has always been the 800 lb gorilla in the room in terms of loads of cash to throw around. and the Phenom's are GREAT for budget builds, or gaming builds for the price alone. If I was only a gamer like I was in college I'd be getting them... I just do too many other things nowadays that requires a little more oomph in the destkop world. And yeah, it's only a tweaked Athalon..hopefully we'll see a little more innovation from them down the road. I always liked the old "back and forth" AMD and INTEL would have back in the late 90's early 2000 era, was GREAT for the market.


----------



## Nachmanowicz (Feb 15, 2013)

Competition is always good. I'm looking forward to AMD's HD 9970. Think I'll get rid of my 7970 and jump right into it, getting ready for the next gen.


----------



## Mike Edwards (Mar 10, 2011)

Nachmanowicz said:


> Competition is always good. I'm looking forward to AMD's HD 9970. Think I'll get rid of my 7970 and jump right into it, getting ready for the next gen.


yeah, the 9970 looks like a BEAST


----------



## Nachmanowicz (Feb 15, 2013)

I'm not much enjoying this new thing companies have been doing of over 500 bucks single chip gpus but I gotta say, I dont think I've ever been so blown out by a GPU as I did with the 7970. It was so much above any other single chip at the time. I'm hoping the new consoles will hold these prices down a bit. Consoles and GPUs dont compete head on, but they do kinda, a bit. And the 360 PS3 generation lasted way too long, it got too far from gpus, so if you wanted high end you HAD to go for PCs. If you wanted quality 3D you HAD to go for PCs.


----------



## Mike Edwards (Mar 10, 2011)

Nachmanowicz said:


> I'm not much enjoying this new thing companies have been doing of over 500 bucks single chip gpus but I gotta say, I dont think I've ever been so blown out by a GPU as I did with the 7970. It was so much above any other single chip at the time. I'm hoping the new consoles will hold these prices down a bit. Consoles and GPUs dont compete head on, but they do kinda, a bit. And the 360 PS3 generation lasted way too long, it got too far from gpus, so if you wanted high end you HAD to go for PCs. If you wanted quality 3D you HAD to go for PCs.


yeah, the 500 buck gpus are making me wince a bit too. I think this came from teh fact that lots of game developers were dumping their code onto the GPU instead of utilizing CPU's and ram a little better. a bit lazy really, but it got the job done. hopefully they change with the new gen...

unfortunately the console life cycle doesn't look like it's gonna change. the console gamers have been more and more adamant that they want a LOOOOOOOOONG gaming lifecycle for the machines with more time between upgrades etc... which means PC's again outshine the console world (as they always have)


----------



## mechman (Feb 8, 2007)

Let's get the thread back on topic shall we gentlemen?


----------



## Nachmanowicz (Feb 15, 2013)

lol, sure, but I suppose we need the topic starter back in.


----------



## jdhansen63 (Nov 1, 2011)

Thanks for all the advice. To answer a few questions, I don't game and have no plans to game in the future. 

As I stated in the OP, I use J-River to play my media and would like to take advantage of the HD playback settings (ROHD MadVR).

I'm leaning twards the FD Node 605 case, Intel Haswell CPU, mATX motherboard, 3 HD's, 16GB ram and no video card (I have airflow issues where this will be located and want to minimize heat load). 

Hope this helps to steer the discussion.
Let me know if you have any specific questions.


----------

