Too much ram???

[Spesh]

Increased frequency doesn't really give real world benefits with DD3 as much as DDR2 did.

Everyone knows this. But I'd still rather have 16gb @ 2133mhz as opposed to 32gb @ 1600mhz.

 

[chuckzwood]

Everyone knows this. But I'd still rather have 16gb @ 2133mhz as opposed to 32gb @ 1600mhz.

Question from newbie . Does using RAM which faster than is natively supported by the CPU result in useful performance difference?? (I hope that question makes sense .)

Just who the hell needs SO MUCH lmao???Only if you are ULTRA CRAZY GAMER and are playing 20 games at once rofl!

People who work with graphics, especially use Photoshop, are able to utilize large amounts of RAM. It does make a significant difference when working with large files. Ever hear the saying time is money??

 

[S.T.A.R.S.]

Even then nobody needs 32 GB of RAM to work in Photoshop lol.Unless if you are programming some ULTRA HIGH CRAZY graphics which nobody does lol.

 

[wolfeking]

Possibly someone that is drafting an entire city in autoCAD might use 32GB. Or people that do probability studies with very large amounts of data, possibly simulation programs like the government uses for war planning.

other than that, completely useless to have above 16GB on the average computer.

 

[TheGoldShinobi]

I also highly second that you go with the 2600k. If you're spending this kind of money, Intel is where you want to be. I could see it if someone wanted to go AMD to support them, but like someone else said, Bulldozer currently has problems. Also in my opinion, some of their recent decisions regarding PR and their product lines have been extremely poor. I wouldn't support their processor market right now.

Also, did I see a 64GB 7200rpm mechanical drive listed? If so, I assume you plan on using it as a boot drive. I just wanted to bring up the existence of SSD's if you would rather go that route. Most people including myself would - no question, but figured I would throw it out there as a possibility in case you DIDN'T want a solid state drive.

Well here's the thing. The only reason the Bulldozer chips havent worked as well as people say is because windows 7 cant use 8 cores. It can only use up to 6 i think, correct me if im wrong, but when windows 8 comes out it will be able to run all of them. Plus the i7 2600k is almost twice as expensive.

 

[Spesh]

Well here's the thing. The only reason the Bulldozer chips havent worked as well as people say is because windows 7 cant use 8 cores. It can only use up to 6 i think, correct me if im wrong, but when windows 8 comes out it will be able to run all of them. Plus the i7 2600k is almost twice as expensive.

That doesn't explain their poor performance in single threaded applications though. Unfortunately, the fact of the matter is Bulldozer is just pretty slow. Clock for clock they are nowhere near as fast as the Sandybridge chips.

 

[wolfeking]

Well here's the thing. The only reason the Bulldozer chips havent worked as well as people say is because windows 7 cant use 8 cores. It can only use up to 6 i think, correct me if im wrong, but when windows 8 comes out it will be able to run all of them. Plus the i7 2600k is almost twice as expensive.

The reason that bulldozer doesn't perform as well as it was expected to is because AMD made a huge hype over it, and people fell for leaked info that had it performing very well.
Clock for clock, it is about equal to the phenom II that it is replacing. Its like they pulled a good 300 HP 302 and put in a 305 HP 460 that promised a year ago to net 800 HP, but in reality can only do it with superchargers, and 120 octane.

Processor limits
The maximum total number of logical processors in a PC that Windows 7 supports is: 32 for 32-bit, 256 for 64-bit.
The maximum number of physical processors in a PC that Windows 7 supports is: 2 for Professional, Enterprise, and Ultimate; 1 for Starter, Home Basic, and Home Premium

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_7

 

[Okedokey]

Well here's the thing. The only reason the Bulldozer chips havent worked as well as people say is because windows 7 cant use 8 cores. It can only use up to 6 i think, correct me if im wrong, but when windows 8 comes out it will be able to run all of them. Plus the i7 2600k is almost twice as expensive.

This is not correct. The reason it fails is because the IPC is low, and the Windows coding doesn't utilise the 'core' scheduler correctly. Even then, with the hotfixes due out in a few months, you can only expect 5 - 10% improvement.

BD is simply a fail.