Which setup is better???

well there's several people who've said they'll give you a new key if you said you had to replace it and decided to upgrade to the new stuff.
 
when my sys failed, mobo was biostar 780 amd2 about 4 years old,it had vista
on it and i upgraded to win7<--cost 157.00 for cert.copy.upgrade not oem
as soon as i upgraded and activated-vista oem code failed to exist and oem
status was gone- when system failed with biostar board,it was with an existing
legal copy of windows, like i said it took awhile but they finally gave me a key.
i actually told them mobo /case and hdd was new and not biostar , as i thought their boards were crap, sorry for carrying on. anyway sorry for side tracking too, regards
 
New Change of mind:

What is Better Upgrade
2x EVGA SuperClocked+ GeForce GTX 660 Ti 3GB 192-bit in SLI - $339.99 Each
Or:
2x XFX Double D Black Edition Radeon HD 7950 3GB 384-bit in CrossFire - $324.99 Each

With: OCZ Vertex 4 512GB SATA III SSD

Now what is the Difference between 192-bit and 384-bit? As the Radeon is actually 6×64 I believe. Don't quote me on that one.

Difference:
http://www.gpureview.com/show_cards.php?card1=670&card2=664
 
Last edited:
The 7950 is a much better upgrade. And the memory bus width is basically how fast the memory can be addressed. The higher the bus, the better the card will handle high resolutions.
 
The GTX 660 Ti has 1344 Cuda Cores, Which I believe is nVidia's name for Stream Processors.
The Radeon HD 7950 has 1792 Stream Processors .

How much of a Graphics Difference/Performance is there between the two for having a difference of 448 Stream Processors?

And am I any Better of going with a Radeon HD 7950 x2 in CrossFire
Or This Video Card SAPPHIRE Vapor-X Radeon HD 7970 GHz Edition 6GB 384-bit with 2048 Stream Processors.
Link: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814202005&name=Desktop-Graphics-Cards
 
You can not compare them like that. AMD and Nvidia do the same thing in different ways. Sort of like a Gas engine vs a diesel. They do the same thing, just in a different way.

AMD has stream that has groups of 5 processors for the 5 different types of data that a GPU can receive. Each type of data can be processed by a highly parallelized multiprocessor processor that is similar to a 358 core processor. The way they do this is similar to AMD desktop processors module design, except it does it much better.

Nvidia has Cuda. It can do some things that AMD stream can not and excells at direct compute. Cuda processors are multilingual meaning that the 5 different datas can be processed using all 1344 cores. This does not mean it is really all that powerful though. The Hotclock shaders are gone from Fermi, meaning in a very basic way, that 2 kepler cores can do the work of 1 Fermi core. But even looking at it like that, the 660ti is better than a 580, when it is not performance canned by its memory bandwidth.

with that out of the way, don't use cores to compare the GPUs. Use real world examples. http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/550?vs=647 the 7950 is generally better except in games that are not AMD friendly, and even then it is far more than enough.
 
Errm are u sure u want 512gb SSD?
I dont think ull be using all 512gb ofc i dont know u and i might be wrong but my guts tell me u wont be needing all 512gb unless u are taking out the HDD...
And Id go either Samsung or Intel SSD personally i think its better than OCZ vertex
 
jshun123 said:
Errm are u sure u want 512gb SSD?
I dont think ull be using all 512gb ofc i dont know u and i might be wrong but my guts tell me u wont be needing all 512gb unless u are taking out the HDD...
And Id go either Samsung or Intel SSD personally i think its better than OCZ vertex
Click to expand...

Yes I am totally Replacing My 1TB HDD with the SSD. I currently have my HDD Setup with two Partitions. C: Drive for Windows and all Programs and D: for All my game installs. I figure if I am going with a SSD why bother pairing it with HDD, Why not get all the speed on Windows and Game Installs.

My C: drive is a 100GB Partition with 84GB used on it.
My D: drive is a 831GB Partition with 216GB used on it.

I plan on Backing up my System with Windows 7 Backup Utility and just clone it onto the SSD when I receive it.

On NewEgg.com OCZ seems to have better rating than some Samsung SSD's for the price they are offered. The OCZ Vertex 4 is offered for $369.99.
 
Last edited:
That is not a good idea, but it is your money. There are things you absolutely do not want on your SSD though, like internet browsers.
 
SSD's have a limited number of reads and writes, they will last a good while but not near as long as a hard drive, and things like internet browsers which contain cookies and all that junk and constantly changing files will eat up the life-span of a SSD

actually it's good this came up, when i furst built this it was only an SSD and chrome was installed to it, need to move it
 
I finally decided what to do. This is what I ended up Buying.
Two EVGA GTX 670 4GB Superclocked cards.
Also bought another 1TB HDD and went into Raid-0 Configuration.
That Speed-ed up my system a lot.
Since I already have the CoolerMaster 212 Evo CPU cooler I overclocked my Stock 3.1ghz CPU to 4ghz. AMD FX-8120

Right now I average on BF3 80-95 Fps with the new Cards running SLI and the Processor overclocked as well.

The Cards don't exceed 60ºC I'd say on 90% Load.
The CPU don't exceed 45ºC I'd say on same load as the Cards.

Couldn't be Happier.

Honestly I have used RaidMax PSU before and had never a PSU fail. This is my third RaidMax PSU and I didn't see a reason for changing it to something else. For me it does what it's supposed to do. Now over a year old and no problems.

Another reason why I went with nVidia Graphics card is that they support PhysX where AMD Cards do not. I have been choosing nVidia over ATI/AMD for the last 5 years and EVGA+nVidia has never failed me.

Thanks for all your input and advice on helping me decide what to do.
 
jonnyp11 said:
SSD's have a limited number of reads and writes, they will last a good while but not near as long as a hard drive, and things like internet browsers which contain cookies and all that junk and constantly changing files will eat up the life-span of a SSD

actually it's good this came up, when i furst built this it was only an SSD and chrome was installed to it, need to move it
Click to expand...

Huh? True they have a limited number of read and writes, but I wouldn't go as far to say "install your web browser on a separate HDD" because of it.

Unless you're defragging it multiple times a day or doing something else like that, it takes years and years and years for SSDs to get worn down.
 
If you're not gonna put your web browser on your SSD because of fear of damaging it, don't bother installing your operating system to it :)


My college mate has an 128GB Intel 520 SSD that he's had for almost 2 years, and he's a security freak, has reformatted and re-installed windows at least 50 times. HD Tune still shows his drive at 99% health :P
 
Yeah I reformatted and reinstalled Windows on my M4 loads of times when I had it and the drive was still very fast afterwards. When I say loads of times, I'm talking like 10-15 times.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top