Core i what now?

[Element 117]

You know me, I'm the Mac girl. The owner of two octacore Mac Pros, (and fine production machines they are, but)

but there's this game. It's Windows only, and it wants a 3.0ghz processer. Nooo my octacore 2.66 isn't good enough, according to the benchmarks. So a question. Do I just swallow my pride, and try to hire someone to swap out the processors on octacore 2? Or should I shop for a windows PC?

....

Right, so we're shopping for a windows PC, but last time I looked "pentiums" were still the shiznit. I don't mind dropping a few thousand on a machine, but I have no real idea of equivalences in terms of the new intel chips AMD, and etc, and graphics cards are confusing as hell. So presuming my budget isn't an issue, but that I'm not really looking to cobble something together with my bare hands, where should I turn that won't sell me shit I don't want?

Thanks in advance

 

[figmentPez]

What type of 3.0Ghz processor does what game want? and what 2.66Ghz processor do you have? Not all Ghz are created equal. A "nehalem" based processor (i7, i5, i3, some Xeon processors) does more work per clock than a Core 2 processor, and a lot more than a Pentium 4/D. A game that wants a 3.0Ghz Pentium D is likely going to be more than satisfied with a 2.6Ghz nehalem, especially if it's got 4 or more cores.

 

[Element 117]

What type of 3.0Ghz processor does what game want? and what 2.66Ghz processor do you have? Not all Ghz are created equal. A "nehalem" based processor (i7, i5, i3, some Xeon processors) does more work per clock than a Core 2 processor, and a lot more than a Pentium 4/D. A game that wants a 3.0Ghz Pentium D is likely going to be more than satisfied with a 2.6Ghz nehalem, especially if it's got 4 or more cores.

Minimum PC System Requirements
PC Processor TypeIntel® Core™ 2 Duo processor, AMD Athlon™ X2 processor whu?
PC Processor Speed2.4GHz
PC Operating SystemWindows XP with Service Pack 3, Windows Vista with Service Pack 2, Windows 7
PC System Memory2GB RAM
PC Hard Drive Space10GB
PC Video512MB 32-bit 1280 x 720 DirectX 9.0c-compatible NVIDIA GeForce 8800, Radeon HD 2900 or higher video card -what?
PC Sound CardDirectSound-compatible sound card
PC Drive Type and SpeedDVD-ROM
PC Additional RequirementsBroadband Internet service is required to play this game
PC Optional RequirementsA gamepad is recommended, but not required to play this game

 

[Matt²]

What type of 3.0Ghz processor does what game want? and what 2.66Ghz processor do you have? Not all Ghz are created equal. A "nehalem" based processor (i7, i5, i3, some Xeon processors) does more work per clock than a Core 2 processor, and a lot more than a Pentium 4/D. A game that wants a 3.0Ghz Pentium D is likely going to be more than satisfied with a 2.6Ghz nehalem, especially if it's got 4 or more cores.

Minimum PC System Requirements
PC Processor TypeIntel® Core™ 2 Duo processor, AMD Athlon™ X2 processor whu?
PC Processor Speed2.4GHz
PC Operating SystemWindows XP with Service Pack 3, Windows Vista with Service Pack 2, Windows 7
PC System Memory2GB RAM
PC Hard Drive Space10GB
PC Video512MB 32-bit 1280 x 720 DirectX 9.0c-compatible NVIDIA GeForce 8800, Radeon HD 2900 or higher video card -what?
PC Sound CardDirectSound-compatible sound card
PC Drive Type and SpeedDVD-ROM
PC Additional RequirementsBroadband Internet service is required to play this game
PC Optional RequirementsA gamepad is recommended, but not required to play this game[/QUOTE]

If I may make a suggestion on the video card, get a Nvidia GForce gt 280 with 1 gig (or more) ddr3 memory. If, and it sounds like you do, have the bucks to blow on it, that will do VERY well for the money. They haven't made the 8800's in a couple years AFAIK. I personally would stick with Intel and get a i5 or i7 quad core processor and motherboard. (I usually go with Gigabyte motherboards, but there are other brands as well, such as Asus.) I suggest a minimum of 4 gigs of DDR3 memory, (will cost a tad more but is faster than DDR2) a 64 bit Windows 7 Home or Pro, and depending on if you're using it only for this game (Which game is it anyway?) You may not need that large a hard drive, so maybe a 250 gig hard drive?
DVD rw drive;
sound is built into most motherboards these days, with most sound systems being HD, so you can skimp there if you wish.

If you want more specifics for parts/prices, I'm sure myself or others would be more than willing to help.

 

[Element 117]

links to builds or trusted websites might be better:

Final Fantasy XIV Online Collector's Edition - Windows

 

[figmentPez]

Since you still haven't told us what processor your Mac has, I'm going to assume it's one that came out in the last year and thus has a Nehalem based processor. If that is the case your 2.66Ghz chip will easily match or best a 3.0Ghz Core 2 Duo/Quad. So you're set for processor.

Video card will be the question, and what resolution you're willing to settle for. I'm not sure what graphics card your Mac would have come with, but if it's a GeForce GT 120 you'll probably want to upgrade, and if it's a Radeon HD 4870 then you might be satisfied depending on how big your monitor is and if you're willing to run at non-native resolution.

 

[Element 117]

Since you still haven't told us what processor your Mac has, I'm going to assume it's one that came out in the last year and thus has a Nehalem based processor. If that is the case your 2.66Ghz chip will easily match or best a 3.0Ghz Core 2 Duo/Quad. So you're set for processor.

it won't run the benchmark test in bootcamp with a score fast enough to run the game.

 

[figmentPez]

it won't run the benchmark test in bootcamp with a score fast enough to run the game.

That doesn't mean the processor is the weak link.

 

[Element 117]

it won't run the benchmark test in bootcamp with a score fast enough to run the game.

That doesn't mean the processor is the weak link.[/QUOTE]

wow. ugh. Ok, so you think EVGA GeForce GTX 285 - Apple Store (U.S.) would br the better choice? Thanks for your help.

 

[Element 117]

Graphics cards are confusing me the most. And it looks like it might be better if I just build a PC rig myself..... Fun stuff.

 

[figmentPez]

Yeah, graphics cards are confusing. That's part of the reason I hadn't replied yet. Maybe someone else has some good advice on graphics cards. I haven't paid close attention to the market, so I'm out of touch, especially with the type of high-end cards that are never in my budget.

 

[Element 117]

Honestly, I truly appreciate the replies so far. I'm kinda embarrassed at how nice Matt2 is, in light of how mean I am to him. If shego turns out to be mother theresa, I'm screwed.

It looks like Apple screws Mac Pro users over with the upgrade choices, not that gizmodo is a reliable source.

 

[DarkAudit]

Since you still haven't told us what processor your Mac has, I'm going to assume it's one that came out in the last year and thus has a Nehalem based processor. If that is the case your 2.66Ghz chip will easily match or best a 3.0Ghz Core 2 Duo/Quad. So you're set for processor.

it won't run the benchmark test in bootcamp with a score fast enough to run the game.[/QUOTE]

Benchmarks are bunk. Manufacturers have gamed the system in order to get high scores. Does it run the game itself?

 

[figmentPez]

Benchmarks are bunk. Manufacturers have gamed the system in order to get high scores. Does it run the game itself?

The game (Final Fantasy 14) isn't out yet. The benchmark is meant for people to test their system to see if they'll be able to run the game when it does come out.

 

[Matt²]

Honestly, I truly appreciate the replies so far. I'm kinda embarrassed at how nice Matt2 is, in light of how mean I am to him. If shego turns out to be mother theresa, I'm screwed.

It looks like Apple screws Mac Pro users over with the upgrade choices, not that gizmodo is a reliable source.

it won't run the benchmark test in bootcamp with a score fast enough to run the game.

That doesn't mean the processor is the weak link.[/QUOTE]

wow. ugh. Ok, so you think EVGA GeForce GTX 285 - Apple Store (U.S.) would br the better choice? Thanks for your help.[/QUOTE]

aww shucks.. what do I say.. I'm tryin' to be helpful. Just remember that the next time I slip up and say somethin' stupid!

Amy, I am not sure on that Mac version of the card, especially with it being on a Mac and Windows on a Mac, which I don't mess with at all, but I would maybe try (since you got the bucks) the card (it looks like a groovy card, one I would be more than happy with on my gaming rig) and hold on to the receipt and if it doesn't do well enough for your system then you could return it, and THEN consider doing the PC machine. I think that's going to be your cheapest route.

 

[Element 117]

cheap isnt a concern. i just want a system that will play the game beautifully, without hassle from installing it or dealing with shitty sales men trying to rip me off. Does that make sense?

 

[Matt²]

Perfectly, and I understand what you mean. The easiest way would be to simply install the video card, and that's what I meant by "cheapest" (even though at $500 + that's well out of my pocketbook range!) .. I'll take a deeper look tomorrow and see what the specifics are, I'm home, I'm tired.

 

[PatrThom]

Since you still haven't told us what processor your Mac has, I'm going to assume it's one that came out in the last year and thus has a Nehalem based processor. If that is the case your 2.66Ghz chip will easily match or best a 3.0Ghz Core 2 Duo/Quad. So you're set for processor.

Seconded (sorta). The only Mac Pros released with 2.66GHz processors were the original Mac Pro (which was 2xdual core for 4x total AND not a Nehalem) and the new Nehalems. You say you have 2 Mac Pros which are both 8x. I don't know about the other one (which could be from any generation-they all had 8x models), but if you have a 2.66 that is 8 cores, then it has to be one of the newer Nehalems. Clock for clock, the Nehalems run about 30-40% faster than a Core 2 Duo running at the same processor speed, meaning your 2.66GHz Mac Pro should easily perform on par with even the older 3.2GHz 'Harpertown' Mac Pro. Add to this the fact that the Nehalem chips will auto-overclock themselves up as fast as 3.06GHz anyway and I don't think you'll have anything to worry about as far as the CPUs are concerned. The fastest CPUs that Apple released in the Mac Pro run at 'only' 2.93GHz (max self-overclock is 3.33GHz). You probably don't want to try and swap in anything hotter than the 2.93 (which is a 95W part), no matter how skillfully done. This would likely generate more heat than the chassis could reliably throw away, making your computer more prone to die sooner. Avoid.

However, what Matt² said earlier holds true. If you're still getting by with the original GT120 graphics card, that's definitely going to be your problem. It's good enough for graphic designers and working with video, but its 3D performance is really, really bad. The (only!) two 'gaming' cards to consider (assuming you want cards which work both in OSX and Windows) are the following:
-ATI 4870
-GTX 285
(Another card, the Quadro FX 4800, has more RAM on board and better drivers, but it's slightly under the GTX 285 in gaming performance even though it costs $1000 more)

The 4870 and 285 trade blows in most benchmarks. You're going to want to do some research to find out which one runs your specific game of choice faster since you can only install one or the other at a time due to power requirements. Both of them will give you 2-5x the performance of the older 8800GT.

However, if someone comes out with an ATI 5xxx-series card for the Mac Pro, get that one.

--Patrick

 

[figmentPez]

cheap isnt a concern. i just want a system that will play the game beautifully, without hassle from installing it or dealing with shitty sales men trying to rip me off. Does that make sense?

Do you have any sort of budget that you're thinking about? It's easy to just throw money at a machine and end up with a $6,700 beast from Falcon Northwest (without even getting keyboard, mouse, monitor, speakers, etc.). That would be a pretty awesome computer, but a ridiculous amount of money as well. A slightly more reasonable, but still probably adequate configuration, comes in at $2,800 (also needing keyboard, mouse...)

 

[Matt²]

cheap isnt a concern. i just want a system that will play the game beautifully, without hassle from installing it or dealing with shitty sales men trying to rip me off. Does that make sense?

Do you have any sort of budget that you're thinking about? It's easy to just throw money at a machine and end up with a $6,700 beast from Falcon Northwest (without even getting keyboard, mouse, monitor, speakers, etc.). That would be a pretty awesome computer, but a ridiculous amount of money as well. A slightly more reasonable, but still probably adequate configuration, comes in at $2,800 (also needing keyboard, mouse...)[/QUOTE]

holy crap.. I can't even FATHOM why that machine is $6700..

 

[figmentPez]

holy crap.. I can't even FATHOM why that machine is $6700..

The fastest available Core i7 overclocked with liquid cooling, 12GB of RAM, 128GB SSD and 2TB HDD, 2x Geforce GTX 480 in SLI... several of the components are $500 - $1,000+ just by themselves. It could go even higher with the 256GB SSD, a Blu-Ray drive, a custom paint job, etc.

 

[Matt²]

Amy, I'm sorry but I have too much going on today to take a look at the card.. but I'd go with Patrthom's suggestion. If you want to stick with the Mac, get the 285 card.. if not, maybe something a little more powerful.

 

[Element 117]

Yeah, good ol patrthom, taking his (and yours) advice and getting the nvidia gtx285 upgrade so don't worry about it. If it still sucks, then I'll get that $6700 system.

 

[figmentPez]

Yeah, good ol patrthom, taking his (and yours) advice and getting the nvidia gtx285 upgrade so don't worry about it. If it still sucks, then I'll get that $6700 system.

Well, I hope the simple upgrade works well for you.

If you do go with getting a whole new system, I suggest getting a second opinion. A few things:
1. I don't know if water cooled systems take any special maintainence. Falcon Northwest has a good reputation, but they do cater to gamers experienced with handling their own systems.

2. Getting a Solid State Drive (SSD) would give great boot times, and you'd have more than enough room to load Windows and probably FF14 on the drive, but you'd have to put most everything else on the standard hard drive. I would hope Falcon Northwest would get everything set up so that the default path for My Documents and Programs wouldn't be to the SSD, but there still might be some other issues to make sure you don't overfill the small super-fast drive.

3. It was a hastily picked configuration. Nothing bad about it, but maybe not optimal if you're really serious about spending that type of cash. It might need some tweaking to get the best balance of parts, or to suit your own personal tastes.

 

[Element 117]

Alright then, put up links to a dream machine. Put some thought into it then.

 

[PatrThom]

You looking only for prebuilt units? Or you looking for people to post their best parts lists?

--Patrick

 

[Element 117]

You looking only for prebuilt units? Or you looking for people to post their best parts lists?

--Patrick

Well, I would have to hire a person to build it or break a few parts trying, so... yes?

 

[PatrThom]

As far as using a Mac to run Boot Camp, you probably already have the second-from-the-top-of-the-line unit that is available today, the only way(s) to upgrade performance would be with a stronger graphics card or more RAM.

I will look around at prebuilt units to see if I can find anything. I don't shop prebuilt (I build/customize everything from scratch), so I don't know the landscape. Check back in a couple days (or less).

--Patrick

 

[SpecialKO]

I wouldn't pay attention to that Gizmodo article, Amy, something about it doesn't pass the sniff test.

A GT 120 is a rebranded 9500 GT, which makes it the low-budget discrete memory video card of the previous generation of cards. Lots of video memory, great for media and graphics designers, crappy 3D performance.

The HD 4870 is one of the best non-SLI/Crossfired cards out there, only slightly less good than a solo GTX 285, and potentially better depending on the game. In most benchmarks, the 4870 is towards the top of the solo card options, and the 9500 GT isn't even on the darn chart.

For the improvement to be so marginal in the CNET test, which is also a very poor test if CoD4 at 1680x1050 w/ 4X AA is their only benchmark, either there's something wrong with the system (possible), the test card Apple sent (not unheard of), or the OSX port of the game (most likely). I wonder what he would have gotten had he re-done the test in Bootcamp with the Windows version of the game.

 

[PatrThom]

Did some research. Learned some stuff (some of which I may use for my own experiments...later).

First off, let me state that, if you want a mainstream gaming system, the OS to choose right now is Win7 64-bit, your choice of either Professional or Ultimate. I'd go with Pro unless you need either the extra language or privacy/drive encryption features of Ultimate.

THE top-of-the-line processor right now (End H1 2010) that'll game on Win7 is the Quad-core Xeon X5677, which sports 12MB of cache and a top speed of 3.73GHz. There is no discussion. However, this is a server processor, which means that when you buy a machine with one in it, they tend to leave you room for another one to go with it, and these things ain't cheap at about $1750 each just for the CPU.

I only seemed to be able to find 3 vendors (IBM, Dell, and HP) that offer preconfigured systems built around the X5677. IBM does have the System x3500 M3 which allows configuration of a (dual socket but) single processor x5677 system for about $5600, or dual CPU for around $8200. Both were configured with 12GB RAM, 2x500GB HDD, and redundant (dual) 900W+ PSUs/coolers. However, those prices do not include graphics card(s) nor OS. This isn't a bad deal IF you intend to use the machine for the next 8-12 years (2 good years of gaming, 4-6 years of production, then 2-4 years as 'the emergency spare machine' or something), but that's an awful lot of money to spend on the computer equivalent of a Volvo XC90 SUV when what you are really looking for is a Subaru WRX STi.

The next closest performer CPU-wise is the Core i7 980X. It is 130MHz slower across the board than the X5677, can't use more than 24GB of RAM, and a few other things, but it does have 2 extra cores. This won't make any difference in gaming (yet), but it will help with multitasking when the machine eventually gets demoted to a production unit. So what does a worthwhile boutique system based on the 980X go for (not counting independent ebay units)? After some searching, I found that the magic number starts at about $3100, which appears to be the point where you start to find systems that not only have a 980X CPU, but also have a decent GPU (GTX 480, Radeon 5870) to go with it. At the top end of the spectrum you can find $7000 liquid-cooled, factory overclocked systems that have dual ATI 5970s (each one is already a dual-GPU card, so that's 4 GPUs total) and hyperexpensive SSD drives, but I'm sure they are also rather high-maintenance, so I can't confidently recommend such a machine. The sweet spot seems to be between $4000-5000, and here are some models that look appealing (on paper):

Cyberpower - $3600 (!)
Gamer Xtreme SSD-X with upgraded fans, noise reduction, mid-overclocked 980X, liquid-cooled, Gigabyte -UD7 MLB, 6GB Dominator RAM, Dual EVGA GTX480 SLI, 1200W PSU, 2x1TB HDD in RAID-1, HDD cooling, Sony DVD/CD burner (deleted SSD since all of them are MLC, not SLC).
Alienware/Dell - $4500
Custom-configured Alienware Area-51 unit: Win7-64 Pro, Overclocked 980X, Dual GTX 480 SLI, 6GB RAM, 2x1TB HDD in RAID-1, Single DVD/CD burner, integrated audio, free kbd/mouse, WinUpd for crit only.
TilaTech - $4600
TilaTech Six Core Dominator looks good to go right out of the gate.

There's three units to discuss. I know I'm pretty good about picking components, but I want to hear what other people have to say. Y'all may catch something I missed.

--Patrick

 

[figmentPez]

First off, let me state that, if you want a mainstream gaming system, the OS to choose right now is Win7 64-bit, your choice of either Professional or Ultimate. I'd go with Pro unless you need either the extra language or privacy/drive encryption features of Ultimate.

I'm curious, what rules out Home Premium as a choice for the OS? 16GB of RAM seems ample, even for an extreme system, and XP mode isn't useful for gaming.

 

[PatrThom]

I'm curious, what rules out Home Premium as a choice for the OS? 16GB of RAM seems ample, even for an extreme system, and XP mode isn't useful for gaming.

-Home Premium is just fine for gaming and entertainment. I recommend Pro because the additional features (those aimed at 'business' customers) are appealing.The networking enhancements mean that connecting to and backing up to network-based storage will be much easier (and the future is going to be all about NAS). It's a personal choice, but I recommend Pro because it means not having to upgrade the OS again later.
-Triple-channel CPUs (which is most if not all of the LGA1366 chips) prefer to be upgraded in groups of 3 modules, so while 16GB is possible, going with 12GB usually gives better performance.
-XP mode isn't great for gaming, but it is good for running any 32-bit apps you still like/need. It's getting to where modern systems just can't boot natively to XP any more, so any legacy stuff has to be done via some form of VM (unless you tend to keep some legacy machines around, that is).

--Patrick

 

[Matt²]

I'm curious, what rules out Home Premium as a choice for the OS? 16GB of RAM seems ample, even for an extreme system, and XP mode isn't useful for gaming.

-Home Premium is just fine for gaming and entertainment. I recommend Pro because the additional features (those aimed at 'business' customers) are appealing.The networking enhancements mean that connecting to and backing up to network-based storage will be much easier (and the future is going to be all about NAS). It's a personal choice, but I recommend Pro because it means not having to upgrade the OS again later.
-Triple-channel CPUs (which is most if not all of the LGA1366 chips) prefer to be upgraded in groups of 3 modules, so while 16GB is possible, going with 12GB usually gives better performance.
-XP mode isn't great for gaming, but it is good for running any 32-bit apps you still like/need. It's getting to where modern systems just can't boot natively to XP any more, so any legacy stuff has to be done via some form of VM (unless you tend to keep some legacy machines around, that is).

--Patrick[/QUOTE]

well that there is going to lead me to starting a new thread...

 

[PatrThom]

(deleted SSD since all of them are MLC, not SLC)

Sorry. Realized I forgot to clarify something. When choosing an SSD, you want to pick an SLC one if data will be written frequently. MLC is great for drives that get lots of reads but not as good if many writes are involved (ie, the one you boot from). The tradeoff is that SLC drives are more expensive.

--Patrick

 

[Element 117]

So a few grand later and I'm running a Windows7 PC, and I have to reacquaint myself with virus software. I'm guessing going "eeny meeny miny moe," might be a bad choice. Ideas?