Buying/building a new PC

IncognitasIncognitas Posts: 12
edited December 1969 in Bryce Discussion

So hopefully I can get some advice on what would be the very best set up to run Bryce 7 pro and what would be the minimum but most efficient system to run Bryce 7 Pro?

I need this info because I'm getting my son to build me a new PC after saving some money and getting a nice tax rebate.Sadly the minimum system info given on this site is a bit vague to be much help.

«1

Comments

  • JimmyC_2009JimmyC_2009 Posts: 8,245
    edited December 1969

    Bryce is unfortunately still a 32 bit application, but more cores would help a lot with rendering. It can be made LAA (Large Sddress Aware), but it still wont use any more than 4 GB of memory afaik.

  • ChoholeChohole Posts: 19,356
    edited December 1969

    A bit more than minimum specs, but this is what is in my new PC, My son drew up the specs for me, and I had it built.

    CPU AMD A8-3870K APU (3.0GHz, 4 Cores)
    MB ASUS® F1A75-M: FM1 A-SERIES, SATA 6.0GB/s, USB 3.0
    mem 8GB SAMSUNG DUAL-DDR3 1333MHz (2 X 4GB)
    grphcs 1GB AMD RADEON™ HD6450 - DVI,HDMI,VGA - DX® 11
    1st HD 500GB 3.5" SATA-III 6GB/s HDD 7200RPM 16MB CACHE
    2nd HD 1TB 3.5" SATA-III 6GB/s HDD 7200RPM 32MB CACHE
    DVD 24x DUAL LAYER DVD WRITER ±R/±RW/RAM
    Power 450W Quiet 80 PLUS Dual Rail PSU + 120mm Case Fan
    Cooling SUPER QUIET 22dBA TRIPLE COPPER HEATPIPE AMD CPU COOLER

    Oh and Win 7 64bit.

  • IncognitasIncognitas Posts: 12
    edited December 1969

    I remember David Brinnen giving his specs at one time but sadly that thread is no more so I cannot reference it.

  • IncognitasIncognitas Posts: 12
    edited December 1969

    chohole said:
    A bit more than minimum specs, but this is what is in my new PC, My son drew up the specs for me, and I had it built.

    CPU AMD A8-3870K APU (3.0GHz, 4 Cores)
    MB ASUS® F1A75-M: FM1 A-SERIES, SATA 6.0GB/s, USB 3.0
    mem 8GB SAMSUNG DUAL-DDR3 1333MHz (2 X 4GB)
    grphcs 1GB AMD RADEON™ HD6450 - DVI,HDMI,VGA - DX® 11
    1st HD 500GB 3.5" SATA-III 6GB/s HDD 7200RPM 16MB CACHE
    2nd HD 1TB 3.5" SATA-III 6GB/s HDD 7200RPM 32MB CACHE
    DVD 24x DUAL LAYER DVD WRITER ±R/±RW/RAM
    Power 450W Quiet 80 PLUS Dual Rail PSU + 120mm Case Fan
    Cooling SUPER QUIET 22dBA TRIPLE COPPER HEATPIPE AMD CPU COOLER

    Oh and Win 7 64bit.

    How well does it render volumetric heavy scenes?

  • JimmyC_2009JimmyC_2009 Posts: 8,245
    edited December 1969

    I remember David Brinnen giving his specs at one time but sadly that thread is no more so I cannot reference it.

    The search function now works on the old forum archive.

    I found this, and I hope David doesn't mind me posting it here?

    By David Brinnen on the old forum

    Here is my setup,

    Windows 7 Pro
    64 bit OS
    Intel i7 CPU
    6 Gb memory
    HD 5850 GPU

    The i7 is mildly overclocked, using bios settings, this was not lightly undertaken, two weeks of careful research were performed before I started altering voltages. What I found was that in the stock state, the motherboard chose safe but high voltage settings, I found I was able to lower the core voltages and increase the clock speeds and memory speeds. This approach means the CPU runs cooler and faster than it did out of the box.

    The stock chips is entry level i7 (920) which is something like 2.6 Ghz, I have turned it up to 3.3 Ghz. If you follow this path to get more performance, remember rendering at high priority at 100% load, and most OC advice is for gamers who design their systems around only 80%. Fit a better cooler than comes as stock and be prepared to make only minor changes at a time. Beyond a certain point, higher grade memory is needed to maintain system stability - this is perhaps the most tasking aspect of an overclocking project, since memory latency and clock multipliers need to be matched for things to work without a hitch.

    On the plus side, if you are an inveterate tinkerer, it can also be quite an interesting project in itself. Plus, at the time of purchase, the processor I got cost the thick end of £200 and after careful tweaking, it provided the performance of an £800 processor. Doubtless, these things will be worth, tuppence before long and mobile phones will be more powerful, but until then, this is one way to get more bang for your buck.

    The greatest liability, so far, has been PSU's, even expensive (good?) ones seem to give up the ghost after about 18 months. Also, hard drive failure after PSU's have gone "pop" has not been unknown, so I backup to network drive, portable drive and DVD. Once stung by data loss, never forgotten.



  • LordHardDrivenLordHardDriven Posts: 917
    edited December 1969

    So hopefully I can get some advice on what would be the very best set up to run Bryce 7 pro and what would be the minimum but most efficient system to run Bryce 7 Pro?

    I need this info because I'm getting my son to build me a new PC after saving some money and getting a nice tax rebate.Sadly the minimum system info given on this site is a bit vague to be much help.

    Well it kind of depends on a couple of things. First of all are you and Intel only person, and AMD only person or are you open to either option? Also are you only interested in what is needed for Bryce or are you interested in having the best rig you can have with today's technology? Finally what other things do you do with it? I ask that because now a days you got motherboards that allow you to do the SLi thing of making 2 video cards act like one except now you can do it with 4 video cards. Thing is the only real area of computer use that really benefits form that is gaming.

    Here is what I would go with and my choices are mainly based on performance over cost or a best bang for the buck approach.

    CPU: AMD FX-8150 Zambezi 3.6GHz Socket AM3+ 125W Eight-Core Desktop Processor
    Motherboard: GIGABYTE GA-990FXA-UD3 AM3+ AMD 990FX SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 ATX AMD Motherboard
    Memory: 2 x Crucial Ballistix sport 16GB (2 x 8GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1600 (PC3 12800) Desktop Memory (Total of 32GB)
    System Drive: OCZ Vertex 4 VTX4-25SAT3-512G.M 2.5" 512GB SATA III MLC Internal Solid State Drive (SSD)
    Storage Drives: 4 x Western Digital WD Black WD2002FAEX 2TB 7200 RPM SATA 6.0Gb/s 3.5" Internal Hard Drive (You can never have to much storage space in computers)
    Optical Drive: LITE-ON H/H Internal BD Writer with Nero Essential SATA
    Video Card: 2 x XFX Double D GT630NCDF2 GeForce GT 630 2GB 128-bit DDR3 PCI Express 2.0 x16 HDCP Ready Video Card (SLi Configuration)

    Now I'm also configuring with an eye to the future as I wouldn't be able to replace such a system a couple of years later. So alot of what I got here is overkill for Bryce, like the Solid State Drive, The Dual Video cards and 32GB of memory. 8GB of memory would be enough, you don't really need a solid state drive and one decent video card would be fine.

    Now there is an issue as to which is actually better Intel or AMD? Intel does out perform AMD on some tests by fractions of a second so in that respect intel is better but the top of the line Intel CPU with 6 cores cost around $1000 whereas the top of the line AMD with 8 cores is only about $200. With a savings of $800 I can stand to be a few fractions of a second slower.

  • ChoholeChohole Posts: 19,356
    edited December 1969

    chohole said:
    A bit more than minimum specs, but this is what is in my new PC, My son drew up the specs for me, and I had it built.

    CPU AMD A8-3870K APU (3.0GHz, 4 Cores)
    MB ASUS® F1A75-M: FM1 A-SERIES, SATA 6.0GB/s, USB 3.0
    mem 8GB SAMSUNG DUAL-DDR3 1333MHz (2 X 4GB)
    grphcs 1GB AMD RADEON™ HD6450 - DVI,HDMI,VGA - DX® 11
    1st HD 500GB 3.5" SATA-III 6GB/s HDD 7200RPM 16MB CACHE
    2nd HD 1TB 3.5" SATA-III 6GB/s HDD 7200RPM 32MB CACHE
    DVD 24x DUAL LAYER DVD WRITER ±R/±RW/RAM
    Power 450W Quiet 80 PLUS Dual Rail PSU + 120mm Case Fan
    Cooling SUPER QUIET 22dBA TRIPLE COPPER HEATPIPE AMD CPU COOLER

    Oh and Win 7 64bit.

    How well does it render volumetric heavy scenes?



    Sorry I don't know yet, I am still in the process of installing stuff. The bit I hate most about getting a new PC

  • HoroHoro Posts: 4,267
    edited December 1969

    chohole said:
    Sorry I don't know yet, I am still in the process of installing stuff. The bit I hate most about getting a new PC

    I can tell. I usually need at least a full week. I document each file I install at the beginning and later. When I set up a new machine, I check the list what I've used and what not, and install accordingly.

  • ChoholeChohole Posts: 19,356
    edited December 1969

    Horo said:
    chohole said:
    Sorry I don't know yet, I am still in the process of installing stuff. The bit I hate most about getting a new PC

    I can tell. I usually need at least a full week. I document each file I install at the beginning and later. When I set up a new machine, I check the list what I've used and what not, and install accordingly.



    I have had to force feed the new machine some of my apps, because I have older versions, and Win 7 didn't like then. I did have to upgrade my Poser, as that simply was not going to play along, but was lucky to find a copy of P8 at a reasonable price.

    Luckily enough I did get my old copy of Photoshop to install, there is absolutely no way I can afford to replace that, especially as my version is so old it is out of the upgrade cycle, so I would have to buy a full app again, not an upgrade.

    Bryce 5 is on now anyway. I shall redownload Bryce 7, as the version I do have backed up is an older one.

  • Peter FulfordPeter Fulford Posts: 265
    edited December 1969

    chohole said:

    I have had to force feed the new machine some of my apps, because I have older versions, and Win 7 didn't like then. I did have to upgrade my Poser, as that simply was not going to play along, but was lucky to find a copy of P8 at a reasonable price.

    Were these installation problems or running problems? I can run Poser4 on this Win7 unit fine using the compatibilty mode feature, but this Poser4 was a complete setup imported from a previous machine.

    If you have the Pro or Ultimate editions of Windows 7, you can download a virtual Windows XP installation to help tame stubborn programs and older hardware peripherals (CPU will need virtualization feature - yours does).
    http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows7/install-and-use-windows-xp-mode-in-windows-7

  • ChoholeChohole Posts: 19,356
    edited December 1969

    No I got windows 7 home. realsied after it was alread too late that I may have been better spending a wee bit more and going for the Pro edition.

    A couple of the programs that won't install are really ancient, back to about windows 95 I think :red: those ones I can live without.

    My favourite version of poser though, first off it said it would run it in compatibility mode then said it needed something else doing to it, can't remember off hand what it was.

    And I do hate the way that windows 7 puts little red squiggly lines under words I spell properly, the British way. favourite does have a u in it.

  • Peter FulfordPeter Fulford Posts: 265
    edited December 1969

    chohole said:

    And I do hate the way that windows 7 puts little red squiggly lines under words I spell properly, the British way.

    :goggleeyes:

    Win7 spell checks? Can't say I've noticed my version being so culturally insensitive.

    I see red underlines with Word 2000 but that is country aware on the whole.

  • ChoholeChohole Posts: 19,356
    edited December 1969

    Well something is putting little red wiggly lines under all my British words. As I hadn't noticed it before I assumed that it was something that Win 7 had done.

  • Peter FulfordPeter Fulford Posts: 265
    edited December 1969


    Now there is an issue as to which is actually better Intel or AMD? Intel does out perform AMD on some tests by fractions of a second so in that respect intel is better but the top of the line Intel CPU with 6 cores cost around $1000 whereas the top of the line AMD with 8 cores is only about $200. With a savings of $800 I can stand to be a few fractions of a second slower.


    The performance difference between the i7-3960X ($1008) and the FX-8150 ($190) is a lot more than fractions of a second:
    http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-i7-3960x-x79-sandy-bridge-e,3071-22.html

    Now whether the benefit of the Intel is worth the money is a fair and subjective point - but the benefit is real. Of course, the 3960X is not the smart way to buy Sandybridge-E Hex core - that crown belongs to the 3930K at about $570. Very similar performance at nearly half the price. Still three times the AMD Bulldozer cost but bringing things much closer under the law of diminishing returns.

    Examining the Intel CPUs at a similar price level to the FX-8150, things get interesting. The older i5-2500k ($198) has always given the AMD a run for its money:
    http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/windows-7-hotfix-bulldozer-performance,3119-6.html
    The current i5-3570k ($230) is more efficient still, and compatible motherboards can be had with useful "future" technology like Thunderbolt.

  • GussNemoGussNemo Posts: 1,855
    edited December 1969

    If you use Opera, go to the Opera tab in the upper left hand corner of the screen, Preference > Settings > Advance tab. I don't know about other browsers. I do know that you can add words to Opera's dictionary, so I wonder if spell checker in other browsers have the same feature.

    I didn't find a spell checker for IE 9, but if you check the tools section in whatever web browser you use there may be a setting for it.

  • LordHardDrivenLordHardDriven Posts: 917
    edited December 1969

    _ PJF _ said:
    The performance difference between the i7-3960X ($1008) and the FX-8150 ($190) is a lot more than fractions of a second:
    http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-i7-3960x-x79-sandy-bridge-e,3071-22.html


    Really? I didn't see anywhere that broke down the performance improvement percentages to give any weight to your claim that it's alot more then fractions of a second. However when I made that comment I was thinking of a different type of test rather then your link's comparrisson test of a bunch of random apps most of which I don't use. It's a shame the random apps didn't include Bryce then it might be more relevent?

    _ PJF _ said:

    Now whether the benefit of the Intel is worth the money is a fair and subjective point - but the benefit is real. Of course, the 3960X is not the smart way to buy Sandybridge-E Hex core - that crown belongs to the 3930K at about $570. Very similar performance at nearly half the price. Still three times the AMD Bulldozer cost but bringing things much closer under the law of diminishing returns.

    Well there are many examples both great and small in price differences. I picked one example which was top of the line for both brands. Now of course if you start comparing top of the line with one brand and 2 or 3 steps back from top of the line of another, sure you're going to be able to skew the price difference more favorably to the brand of your personal preference.


    Examining the Intel CPUs at a similar price level to the FX-8150, things get interesting. The older i5-2500k ($198) has always given the AMD a run for its money:
    http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/windows-7-hotfix-bulldozer-performance,3119-6.html
    The current i5-3570k ($230) is more efficient still, and compatible motherboards can be had with useful "future" technology like Thunderbolt.

    Funny I didn't read it that way at all. Spin it all you want but when you compare competing model to competing model of CPU Intel is more expensive and in a significant way. It always has been and likely always will be. Now granted Intel can and does often beat the competition on performance tests but in the levels we're talking about, to be blunt, it's not likely to be noticed by someone who is asking for advice on parts for a system someone else is going to build for them. No offense meant to the OP I'm just saying it like it is. Depending on how old his old system is any of the CPU's mentioned so far could seem like an amazing improvement.

    It's a tough call recommending for someone and there are alot of factors to consider. I like to keep recomendations as close to the latest and greatest because that in theory will provide the greatest support longevity wise. Things move so fast that computer stores can't afford to keep too much of the older technology around. If you start with a somewhat dated system and a year or two later a key part like a CPU goes bad you could find yourself having to replace more then just that one part.

  • cynthia1968cynthia1968 Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    Here's my 2 cents.

    I bought a HP Pavilion for 450 euros yesterday; the PC has an AMD-A8-3820 APU with HD Graphics and a 1GB AMD RADEON HD6450 graphics card on board.

    I've tested the PC with Carrara 7 Pro (32 bit version), and the renders are pretty fast. It took four seconds per frame, and the old computer has a 1 GB Geforce GT220.

    The same render on the old computer took 28 seconds per frame.

    Also I simply copied the poser directory to my new PC, and it didn't give issues.

    Both computers work on a 64 BIT version of Windows 7 Pro.

  • HoroHoro Posts: 4,267
    edited December 1969

    In my experience, render will not be faster with a new computer. Because you start to use the more advanced options which you didn't before because it took a week to render. Now it renders as fast as the simpler scenes before. :)

  • BWSmanBWSman Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    chohole said:
    Well something is putting little red wiggly lines under all my British words. As I hadn't noticed it before I assumed that it was something that Win 7 had done.

    Probably your browser doing that. I'm Canadian & also use proper English for spelling & fireFox will automatically spell check.

  • HoroHoro Posts: 4,267
    edited December 1969

    Yes, my Chrome here and Firefox at the shop both correct for American spelling.

  • Peter FulfordPeter Fulford Posts: 265
    edited December 1969

    Really? I didn't see anywhere that broke down the performance improvement percentages to give any weight to your claim that it's alot more then fractions of a second. However when I made that comment I was thinking of a different type of test rather then your link's comparrisson test of a bunch of random apps most of which I don't use. It's a shame the random apps didn't include Bryce then it might be more relevent?

    You couldn't see anywhere? How strange; it's so obvious. You can either apply the percentage advantage to a long time frame, or simply read through the linked article for the raw data. Out of the "bunch of random apps" (actually a carefully chosen range to represent the likely uses of the CPUs) there are three 3D rendering programs.

    The Blender render took 42 seconds with the i7-3960X, and 56 seconds with the FX-8150.

    The 3DSMax render took 1 minute 56 seconds with the 3860X, and 3 minutes 10 seconds with the 8150.

    The Solidworks render took 1 minute 47 seconds with the Intel, and 3 minutes 24 seconds with the AMD.

    Those aren't fractions of a second. There isn't a Bryce result, no; but given that Bryce makes big use of floating point operations whereas the AMD emphasises integer operations, my estimation is that Bryce will be at the top end of any advantage scale. Extrapolate those results out to typical Bryce render times and they become a significant improvement.

    Worth the money? Buyer's call. But the advantage is real and easy to see. To double-down on the claim of "fractions of a second" is simply to relay misinformation.

    Funny I didn't read it that way at all.

    Why not? What results led you to conclude that the FX-8150 is significantly different to the i5-2500K? In the link I gave, the two are shown close with an advantage to the 2500K. Other results in various tests show the two close with the advantage going the other way. Given that the 2500K was older and cheaper than the 8150 when the latter launched, it's fair to say that it's always given it a run for its money. The AMD was quickly discounted whereas the Intel remains close to its launch price despite the arrival of its successor.

    This should come as no surprise to anyone who has been following PC developments.
    http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8150-zambezi-bulldozer-990fx,3043-24.html

    Spin it all you want but when you compare competing model to competing model of CPU Intel is more expensive and in a significant way. It always has been and likely always will be.

    Not spin - objective facts derived from testing - with links. AMD has occasionally been price / performance competitive at the high end of the desktop market. Now it's only price / performance competitive at the entry level - where it blows Intel's i3 out of the water. This is nothing to do with brand preference - just facts. The A8 is such a good entry CPU for 3D rendering (i.e. floating point calculations) that it outperforms its own replacement - which is based on the integer favouring architecture "Piledriver", the Bulldozer replacement.
    http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/a10-5800k-a8-5600k-a6-5400k,3224-11.html

    Now granted Intel can and does often beat the competition on performance tests but in the levels we're talking about, to be blunt, it's not likely to be noticed by someone who is asking for advice on parts for a system someone else is going to build for them. No offense meant to the OP I'm just saying it like it is.

    Well, no, you're not. The original poster specifically asked what would be the very best setup for Bryce and what would be the minimum / efficient. Any useful answer will include those parameters along with some guide as to the price / performance trade off. Advice that a $1000 CPU based system will give you mere fractions of a second advantage over a $200 CPU based system is not useful because it isn't true.

  • HoroHoro Posts: 4,267
    edited December 1969

    http://www.cpubenchmark.net/ is a most comprehensive list of CPU performance. Take the price and divide it by the rating and you get a rough bang to the buck value. The question is, do I want the fastest render machine or the most efficient one concerning cost and performance? Often the budget decides but even then you can find the best performance for the price. Comparing power consumption versus render speed, my cheap i3 is better than the more expensive i7 but the i7 is faster than the i3 by a factor of 2.

  • Sara16Sara16 Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    The Intel i7 3770 CPU is best bang for the dollar.

    IMPORTANT:
    No matter how good the CPU you get the other critically important thing is the motherboard; a bad choice and install of apps (that may come with the board) can cause CPU spiking which in effect is a performance killer. Thereby it's important to not only get the best bang for the dollar 'CPU' but also a decent motherboard for example; Z77 either Asus or Gigabyte are great value bang for the dollar AND don't install the included crapware; and don't have apps such as; EasyTune running in the background!! Oh and also turn off power management!!!

  • LordHardDrivenLordHardDriven Posts: 917
    edited October 2012

    _ PJF _ said:
    You couldn't see anywhere? How strange; it's so obvious. You can either apply the percentage advantage to a long time frame, or simply read through the linked article for the raw data. Out of the "bunch of random apps" (actually a carefully chosen range to represent the likely uses of the CPUs) there are three 3D rendering programs.

    The Blender render took 42 seconds with the i7-3960X, and 56 seconds with the FX-8150.

    The 3DSMax render took 1 minute 56 seconds with the 3860X, and 3 minutes 10 seconds with the 8150.

    The Solidworks render took 1 minute 47 seconds with the Intel, and 3 minutes 24 seconds with the AMD.

    Those aren't fractions of a second. There isn't a Bryce result, no; but given that Bryce makes big use of floating point operations whereas the AMD emphasises integer operations, my estimation is that Bryce will be at the top end of any advantage scale. Extrapolate those results out to typical Bryce render times and they become a significant improvement.


    Worth the money? Buyer's call. But the advantage is real and easy to see. To double-down on the claim of "fractions of a second" is simply to relay misinformation.


    Well first of all you keep focusing on the fractions of a second comment which I already stated was based on the notion it was a different kind of test that measured the actual speed. I can only presume it's your blind devotion to the defense of Intel that has caused you to ignore that and keep focusing on the fractions of a second comment. You're estimation and extrapolation based on programs not even remotely similar to bryce? In other words it's your opinion that Intel is the better choice for Bryce but you have no hard evidence to support that opinion.

    _ PJF _ said:

    Why not? What results led you to conclude that the FX-8150 is significantly different to the i5-2500K? In the link I gave, the two are shown close with an advantage to the 2500K. Other results in various tests show the two close with the advantage going the other way. Given that the 2500K was older and cheaper than the 8150 when the latter launched, it's fair to say that it's always given it a run for its money. The AMD was quickly discounted whereas the Intel remains close to its launch price despite the arrival of its successor.


    This should come as no surprise to anyone who has been following PC developments.
    http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8150-zambezi-bulldozer-990fx,3043-24.html


    My conclusion comes from the 4 tests, two where Intel wins, two where it loses. That does not say to me that the Intel is better. At best it says to me they're equal. Also you're making alot of your case on the results of the AMD processor when it was first released about a year ago. I could point to past releases of Intel where they failed badly at release but then a few months later improved performance with hotfixes.


    Not spin - objective facts derived from testing - with links. AMD has occasionally been price / performance competitive at the high end of the desktop market. Now it's only price / performance competitive at the entry level - where it blows Intel's i3 out of the water. This is nothing to do with brand preference - just facts. The A8 is such a good entry CPU for 3D rendering (i.e. floating point calculations) that it outperforms its own replacement - which is based on the integer favouring architecture "Piledriver", the Bulldozer replacement.
    http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/a10-5800k-a8-5600k-a6-5400k,3224-11.html

    Sorry I'm still seeing spin. Extrapolations based on your estimations aren't objective facts, they're subjective opinion with links that seem to support your opinion but really don't. Then here now you try to further muddy the waters by comparing APU's to other APU's that aren't even released yet. You also completely ignore from your own link this little tidbit "APUs aren’t being positioned as great solutions for workstations". So why exactly are we now talking about APU's? APU's are in their infancy and if you look at computer technology historically things in their infancy quite often don't do as well as the hype, even with Intel. RDRAM comes to mind. So yeah if you want to play that game of make the company look bad by highlighting it's mistakes that can go both ways. AMD has always beat Intel price wise and still does, it's only the performance arena where AMD hasn't been as competitve as many would like


    Well, no, you're not. The original poster specifically asked what would be the very best setup for Bryce and what would be the minimum / efficient. Any useful answer will include those parameters along with some guide as to the price / performance trade off. Advice that a $1000 CPU based system will give you mere fractions of a second advantage over a $200 CPU based system is not useful because it isn't true.

    It's one thing to extrapolate and make conjecture on what an artical says but please don't do it with what I said. I didn't advise the OP to buy what I put up for a configuration, I said that's what I would buy and that my choices weren't strictly centered around what would be best for Bryce. I also told him that to answer his question for the very best and the minimum efficient was impossible with the limited info he provided. Further I made the point that CPU preference was very important to being able to answer his questions because if a person is an AMD only person then it would be a waste of time and energy to try to convince them they should go with Intel. Just as it would be a waste of time to try to convince an Intel only person that it would be better for them to go with an AMD. I'm not here to sell particular brands, I don't get kickbacks from companies if I convince someone to switch to thier brand. So I'm not going to play that game like you're trying to do and that is why the very first thing I said to the OP was, "Well it kind of depends on a couple of things. First of all are you and Intel only person, and AMD only person or are you open to either option?" Also the comparrison of the AMD CPU to the Intel CPU that I made was just an example of the point that competing model to competing model AMD is significantly cheaper. Let me put that in simpler terms so maybe you can grasp it this time, that was an example of the differences between Intel and AMD not a reccomendation. I had hoped it might draw the OP out into stating his CPU preference so I might be better able to answer his question based on his criteria. I certainly wasn't looking for some Intel fan to get his panties all twisted up into a knot because I mentioned AMD is cheaper. Nor thru that Intel fan's response, try to trample over my opinion rather then answer the OP's question with his own opinion.

    Frankly your whole response here has pretty much ignored the OP's question and focused on attacking my opinion. Presumably because you didn't like what I said to you in another thread where once again you were arguing minutiae while disrespecting someone else's opinion, much like you are doing here now. That and clearly you're biased in favor of Intel.

    Post edited by LordHardDriven on
  • FixmypcmikeFixmypcmike Posts: 11,612
    edited December 1969

    Let's keep it civil and refrain from personal attacks, please.

  • Peter FulfordPeter Fulford Posts: 265
    edited December 1969

    Ah - ad hominem, strawmen and misrepresentation. Progress is clearly being made.

    "...your blind devotion to the defense of Intel..."

    "...I'm not going to play that game like you're trying to do..."

    "...some Intel fan to get his panties all twisted up into a knot..."

    "Nor thru that Intel fan's response..."

    "...clearly you're biased in favor of Intel."

    Thanks for those giggle-worthy attempted distractions, I really did laugh out loud. Of course, there is no evidence whatsoever in my posts of an irrational emotional attachment to the Intel brand. OK, I'll admit "[AMD] at the entry level - where it blows Intel’s i3 out of the water" is a bit ambiguous. But hey...


    Tomorrow, if I can be bothered, I'll address the strawmen and misrepresentations. I have to say it's quite something to be misrepresented for the purpose of being accused of misrepresentation.

    And all because... fractions of a second.

    :mrgreen:

  • LordHardDrivenLordHardDriven Posts: 917
    edited October 2012

    _ PJF _ said:
    Ah - ad hominem, strawmen and misrepresentation. Progress is clearly being made.

    "...your blind devotion to the defense of Intel..."

    "...I'm not going to play that game like you're trying to do..."

    "...some Intel fan to get his panties all twisted up into a knot..."

    "Nor thru that Intel fan's response..."

    "...clearly you're biased in favor of Intel."

    Thanks for those giggle-worthy attempted distractions, I really did laugh out loud. Of course, there is no evidence whatsoever in my posts of an irrational emotional attachment to the Intel brand. OK, I'll admit "[AMD] at the entry level - where it blows Intel’s i3 out of the water" is a bit ambiguous. But hey...


    Tomorrow, if I can be bothered, I'll address the strawmen and misrepresentations. I have to say it's quite something to be misrepresented for the purpose of being accused of misrepresentation.

    And all because... fractions of a second.

    :mrgreen:

    Ah so you're going to keep trolling the op's thread just for the purpose of attacking someone's personal opinion all while continuing to mistake an example for a suggestion. How mature of you.

    It's really quite funny in a pathetic sort of way, I mean the only real justification for your attack on my opinion is that you don't want the OP to be misinformed. Yet you've not responded to the OP or his question. Maybe rather then considering coming back to do additional trolling you should consider actually addressing the question the OP asked?

    Post edited by LordHardDriven on
  • LordHardDrivenLordHardDriven Posts: 917
    edited December 1969

    Let's keep it civil and refrain from personal attacks, please.

    Oh so trolling is okay just so long as one keeps it civil? :roll:

  • ChoholeChohole Posts: 19,356
    edited December 1969

    Actually I think the poor OP has got totally discouraged by all the "discussion" and has abandoned this thread., which is not at all fair, as I am not certain he ever really got the sort of answers he needed.

    So a return to topic would be in order.

  • pumecopumeco Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    For the benefit of the OP, all I will say is this:

    - I always used to buy Intel and have never had an Intel break down on me.
    - My current Black Edition AMD 3.4 Quad is my first AMD after recent disgust with Intel quality.
    - Intel often have an edge in speed, but at the cost of other things.
    - Intel processors generally run way hotter than AMD.
    - AMD build is way better than Intel.
    - AMD stock cooler is way better than Intel.

    The differences between these two manufacturers become more obvious when you look at the specs and compare it to what you actually get for your money. I'm no expert and cannot say for sure, but basically I think the deal is that Intel are only getting the speeds because they are prepared to "push" the limits of the design more than AMD are, and that's why they run hotter than AMD. This became more obvious to me when (out of curiosity) I was looking into overclocking. The impression I got from overclockers is that although the Intel's give you a good out-of-the-box performance, they are incapable of beating the equivalent AMD if you overclock an AMD.

    My current opinion is exactly the same to this day: Intel are producing crappy-built slabs and coolers that run at ridiculous temperatures compared to AMD, so it's a case of do you want a hot-running system or do you want something that is clearly running within more realistic tolerances?

    Regards Peter, he is indeed a fan of the Intel machines, but to his credit, he is water-cooled as a result :mrgreen:

Sign In or Register to comment.
Rocket Fuel