Which of these processor is the best choice for simulations?

[n smikle]

I want to build a new computer soon, and I just can't decide on which platform to use, whether Intel or AMD. The constraint of course is price so it's not like a workstation or anything that expensive. These are the processors I have in mind.

1. Intel i5 750
2. Intel i7 860 ... VEEERY unlikely $$
3. Intel i7 920 .... Very unlikely $$
4. AMD phenom II X6 1055T.
5. AMD Phenom II X6 1090T

I really think the 1055T and i5 750 is what I might end up with. But I just need some help deciding. Too many variables.. like the number of cores, Triple channel memory support (AMD has none), Bandwith limit(i5) etc.
If anybody here is good with computer hardware please give me some advice. I just want to know I have something that can run simulations and maybe play games and 3D rendering. Thanks.

[Giblet]

Depends on your needs really, I splurged and got the i7-920, cuz it has a lot of overcloking room, even on the standard heatsink.

Use this chart, and get yourself the fastet CPU you can afford.

Keep in mind the CPU you get might limit MOBO choices, further limiting what you can do.
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html

[Miguel]

What do you want to do with your machine? I mean, with the simulations I perform on computers, the more physical threads available the better. You give me 200 cores, I use 200 cores. But most stuff isn't really that parallelizable, so you might see more improvement by going for the faster CPU cicles. You must know what you want to do with that CPU power and have a look at benchmarks at sites like tomshardware or anandtech (the former is IMHO the best benchmarking site available).

[Jersey Tom]

Which types of simulations?

[tommylommykins]

hmm. For gaming, the number of processors isn't really the most important thing in my opinion. It's much too easy to buy yourself an uber processor with a massive monitor and then a weedy graphics card: If you do that, then all of the raw power of the processor will be lost on you, because your slow graphics card cannot keep up; if you opened Task Manager in this case, you'd see that when you were playing games only 15-20% of all the processor time you had available to you was being used. This is called a Waste of Money.

This is almost always the case. Unless you are playing a physics-intensive game -- most games are [b]not[b] physics intensive -- then your graphics card will always be what's slowing you down. there's no point in buying a 6-core processor when your money could be better spent buying a 2-core and a better graphics card. Even though you would have less cores, you would have a better computer, and therefore more value for money

There are very little situations where you can max out 6 cores on a computer, or even 4. Games certainly wont max out six cores. Almost nobody has a 6-core machine, so the game-builders aren't going to make games that can take advantage of that many cores, because there's just no point for them to do that.

Also, are you really going to do simulations or renders on your new machine? Answer this realistically. Unless you're doing them already, or are about to get paid to start doing them, then I bet that there's a 90% chance you wont be doing simulations or rendering on it 3 months down the line. If that's the case, you'll probably just be gaming. Go for a slightly cheaper processor and a better graphics card instead

[Giblet]

Another perspective.

The new intel i7 cpus have a new memory interface, QPI, or Quick Path Interconnect (edited, had the wrong acronym before), and the ram interface is much quicker, and if you are going to be running simulation software, the ability for the CPU to pass data back and forth the ram is very important.

I would not suggest getting a dual core, as you are opting into a legacy socket that has reached the end of it's life cycle. The i7 CPU's have a different socket, but it appears to be a short lived socket as well, as the 6 core CPUs are going to a different number of pins. AMD tends to stick with the same socket for a longer period of time.

I did the opposite of what Tommy suggested, and put all my money into the CPU, motherboard, and RAM, and cheaped out on the GPU. I bought a 250 gts, and it does everything I need. I get 70-100 fps in 1900x1200 on most games, most importantly iRacing.

I can't run Crysis in full detail at a decent FPS, but that has been the only hiccup. I can always get a better video card down the road, but replacing the CPU, MB, and Ram is much bigger cost. I can run it at 3/4 detail, and it's more than fine.

Every other modern game I have tried to run, runs smoother than polished glass. Mass Effect 2, Left for Dead 2, Assassins Creed 2, Modern Warfare 2, (lots of twos), rfactor, name it.

While not a lot of software is multithreaded, more and more is every day, and no new software or game worth it's salt is is being designed around a single core anymore.

Outside of gaming, more cores = more options. I can run Vmware, and run Ubuntu in there, and throw two cores at it, and keep 2 for Win7. I could keep two, and tun FreeBSD and Ubuntu at one core each, still plenty fast. Run multiple simulations at once. It's like having two machines in one, and if you are running sim software, it runs better, or only sometimes, in Linux AFAIK.

Buying lesser core hardware aside from the GPU will limit you in the future, and a major purchase should be looked that way. GPU's tend to take major steps pretty quick, get upgraded often 2 or 3 times in the life of a box.

Also look at your daily computing needs. I can unrar a 1.46 gig (standard internet xvid download) file in less than 15 seconds on my i7. My compiles take less time. My multi threaded video converter, Handbrake, converts a high def movie to iPhone format in minutes. I though there was a mistake the first time I ran a conversion. My audio creation software can run more instruments, at a far lower latency. Photoshop absolutely screams along.

You must Futureproof.

Also important to see what a CPU can be OC'd to safely. the i7-920 can go to 3.2 up from 2.6 out of the box, with no upgrades to the heatsink. that puts it in the range of the $1000 dollar bigger brother.

Figure your needs first, your budget second, and buy accordingly.

[n smikle]

Thanks that makes things a little clearer.

This is the review i used. http://anandtech.com/show/3674/amds-six ... reviewed/9

This is what I do on my computer:

Some 3D modeling and rendering.
From the review The intels are slightly better.

Photoshop and Illustrator.
The intel's seem to win here.

Video conversion. But Rarely.
From the review AMD X6 is good but..

Games.
from the review Intel wins.

CAD & Simulation.
(Presently I find my self doing more and more CAD and simulations).
I don't know which benchmark relates to this...?

And other stuff.. I am thinking about USB 3.0 for the future, I wonder if the Core i5 will be at a definite disadvantage here?

Giblet, it sounds like the i7 9xx is a good choice. I never really thought about it too much The i5 750 has a nice price and the i7 860 is slightly better than the 920.. 930 is good too. Strange this group of proc's are barely separable in gaming perfomance all better than AMD.. I think I'm narrowing it down to i5 750, i7 860 and i7 920.. lol

[wesley123]

i would head for teh 1090T, it is an black edition so it is easy overclocking and the price aint high either, certainly if you compare it to the intel 6 cores. also the AM3 socket would have a longer lifecycle then the intels(although bulldozer might head for an new socket else AMD will still play backmarker)

[Apex]

If you don't enjoy upgrading every few months - because spending money frequently on a PC just ain't right I have used this rule of thumb with great success!

You need to balance all the components; HDD, CPU, GPU, RAM, Misc & OS. How you do it is spend (nearly) equal amounts of cash on each one of those categories. Stick with proper brands and you'll have lot of enjoyment for many years! Don't buy outdated tech but don't buy the top of the range either.

For instance a pc (which is quite old now) has the following spec.
i7 920
ASUS GeneII motherboard
ASUS NVIDIA GTX 260
6x 1Gb corsair RAM (so all DDR3 slots are filled)
3x 500Gb HDD (setup as raid 0 for OS and raid 5 for data)

Although by no means the best benchmark, the windows performance index (win 7) is CPU 7.4, RAM 7.5, graphics 7.2, HDD 6.6. Which seems to be quite well balanced.

So get your budget sorted, and pick your components, build end enjoy

[Giblet]

Just keep in mind that the i7-920 overclockable to 3.2 with no work or upgrades needed is a huge factor.

2.67 to 3.2 = substantial free improvement.

A correction for apex, the ddr3 ram to get 6 gigs is in 2 gig sticks, as there are 3 slots.

[n smikle]

I'm not really a fan of overclocking. I don't like the philosophy of it; the performance seems free, but not when you consider the extra power that you need. like 80 to 100 more Watts.

How much faster is a i7 930 than an i5 750 over a simulation? How much percent (or seconds whatever).

If any of you guys with an I7 or I5 have Solidworks, I want to email you a simulation to run and then you tell me how long it takes.

[n smikle]

Ok I went with the i7 870, with OCZ vertex 2 SSD and 4GB ddr3 memory, AMD 5850.. sounds "domestic" right?

I know it's not a socket 1366; those motherboards are expensive not to mention you need three sticks of memory. Maybe I could have made some sacrifices in other parts of the system and gone with it but I just don't have that guarantee that the performance is going to be night and day. I just can't find any proper reviews on these things doing simulations.

The system is no workstation that's for sure. But I will push it to the limit then see if I am bottle-necked again. Right now I have some routed pipe files that are over 200MB and it is killing my current PC.. each file takes 15 minutes just to save!!