Why do people feel the need to offer bad advice on upgrades?

yslen · 10 Mar 2010 at 12:09

PhoenixUK said:
cheap tri-core like 435, cheap quad like the 620 or even dual like the 555BE.
And then with all that cash you've saved, as soon as you feel the need for more power you can grab the newest CPU up to date without paying anything extra.

Exactly. I went for the X3 720 BE, because I wanted to see how far I could overclock it. It's way more power than I need, to be honest. Aside from GTA IV I could have stuck with my 5000+ @ 3.2GHz. Still, I'll be interested to see where all this 6-core stuff leads...

craptakular · 10 Mar 2010 at 12:15

can we stop the easyrider vs wayne + AMD vs Intel hating... life is simply to short to keep arguing, I don't own stock in either company so why should we care?

EASYRIDER WITH ANOTHER INTEL BAIT THREAD SHOCKER!!!

Each piece of advice is going to come from people who own the hardware, like yourself always preaching that i7 must be bought no matter what the build. You advice is based on your fanboyism and the fact that you bought i7 and want to marry it.

MikeHunt79 · 10 Mar 2010 at 12:48

jaybee said:
That's ironic, because they don't. Nice advice.

Indeed, out of my dual core PC and quad core PC, my dual core gets more use.

easyrider · 10 Mar 2010 at 13:33

Oxy said:
snip

Its not at all.

I don't suggest parts on who makes them.I suggest them on speed within price brackets.

Its a simple enough concept to understand.

What I can't stand is people saying "why buy that its far to much power for your needs .."

easyrider · 10 Mar 2010 at 13:38

MikeHunt79 said:
Indeed, out of my dual core PC and quad core PC, my dual core gets more use.

You have two systems?

So what does this prove exactly?

Frozennova · 10 Mar 2010 at 13:49

This is becoming a pointless debate both sides have a good argument however its not as simple as saying I have x budget intel/amd will be faster, we also have to factor in overclocking etc as for £350 for Mobo/CPU/RAm you will get i5 or 965 if they dont want to overclock then the 965 will be a better choice as it offers slighly higher stock clocks BUT if you wish to overclock then the i5 is the clear winner as it will reach 4ghz on air quite happily while the 965 wont.

This isnt a fanboy war as AMD and intel have theyre place in the market in terms of the enthusiast market there is no reason to currently buy AMD as for the same budget you will get more if you go to intel. Likewise with the ATi/Nvidia situation the only logical reasoning for buying Nvidia at the moment is if you need CUDA or are part of the Folding@home project

rypt · 10 Mar 2010 at 14:32

NathanE said:
Plus the E6300 really struggled to play H.264, especially if other stuff was running in the background (which is always the case on my PC!)

Offload the H264 to the GPU then

Pneumonic · 10 Mar 2010 at 14:39

frozennova said:
BUT if you wish to overclock then the i5 is the clear winner as it will reach 4ghz on air quite happily while the 965 wont't

The 965BE will reach 4ghz quite happily if you know what your doing..

86JR · 10 Mar 2010 at 14:49

easyrider said:
Its beyond me reading some of the advice given to people upgrading for the first time after a time out of the technology game.

All they want to do is upgrade and get the best they can for the money they have.

In one thread someone has offered the OP advice to spend 70 odd quid on a dual core AMD chip on the basis that it "might" unlock to 4 cores.

What's the sense in that...?

New games and windows 7 really need a quad these days...The OP had the funds for a quad and yet a low end dual was suggested.

Is it me or are people letting brand loyalty dictate their supposedly expert advice?

This is very dangerous and not fair on people who just want advice on what to buy for their hard earned cash.

My view is if you want to join in and offer advice for people then genuinely think before you post. Its not fair on people.

Im pretty sure your the guy who i asked for help with my e6300 overclocking when I was a mere noobie, and you told me you would help me, but firstly i had to vote for you on some thread.

i would rather people gave me advice to buy a dual core that can be unlocked to a quad than make me do something for them before they even tell me anything!

Im not really sure what right you think you have to say that people are giving out bad advice, as every thread I look at people give good advice every day.

wannabedamned · 10 Mar 2010 at 15:39

I'm starting to miss what this thread is even about now... :\

If someone has a budget, and the budget stretches to an I7 spec. Why would you spec otherwise?

If the budget isnt enough for I7, Then spec accordingly... Possibly going AMD route.

I see nothing wrong with what I just said...Can you tell me if there IS anything wrong with what i just said?

I7 is the performance leader at the moment, and the cost reflects that. AMD are aiming at the 'budget > performance' market and the costs reflect that.

If a budget stretches to I7, Spec I7.....Surely that's Right?

I dont get why there's arguing still, just spec the best processor in the guys\girls price margin...Isn't it that simple lol

yslen · 10 Mar 2010 at 15:51

easyrider said:
What I can't stand is people saying "why buy that its far to much power for your needs .."

May I assume that you drive a Zonda F, take your family snapshots on a D3X, fly everywhere 1st class and only buy designer clothes? If yes to all of those, I'm more than a little bit jealous. If no to any of them, surely you can understand how the majority of people would rather have "enough" power and money in their pocket than a cutting edge system that isn't actually that much faster but cost them a lot more?

If buying to a fixed price, I agree with your arguements (anti-fanboyism etc), but I honestly don't think buying to a fixed price is the sensible or generally accepted way of doing things. You don't go to a restaurant and say "right, I'm spending exactly £60, what's the most food I can get for that?" then leave half of it because you couldn't eat it. You don't take your (potentially hypothetical) Zonda for a service and say "here's £500" then watch as the mechanics spend half an hour servicing it then an hour and a half sat around doing nothing at your expense. It always makes more sense to say "what do I need" then find the best deal. This is the opposite of what the sellers want to you do, but I think it's one of the most important things to suggest to someone looking for buying advice, as they often don't realise they could save so much, or indeed that they don't really need such a powerful machine for what they do.

I'm sorry if it annoys you to read it, but I for one will keep suggesting people look at what they really need, and how much they could save, especially when most of the advice people recieve tells them to go spend spend spend. All this hardware will be old in 5 years anyway, regardless of how good it is now, the differences will be pretty meaningless. I have a P2 233MHz box and it doesn't seem any quicker than the Celeron 1.2GHz that replaced it 5 years later. They're both really slow now.

Sorry for rambling, I've been drinking red bull in an effort to stay awake...

Regards,

Yslen

yslen · 10 Mar 2010 at 16:02

wannabedamned said:
If someone has a budget, and the budget stretches to an I7 spec. Why would you spec otherwise?

Sorry, probably partly my fault the thread is still going...

An i7 spec machine is just overkill for most things, and it would be a waste of money to spec one for people only doing "most things", rather than really intensive stuff that would make use of all that power. Given how fast hardware goes out of date, it makes much more sense to hang on to your cash until you actually NEED to spend it, especially because a) prices drop quickly and b) there's such a premium for top-end stuff anyway.

86JR · 10 Mar 2010 at 16:31

wannabedamned said:
I'm starting to miss what this thread is even about now... :\

If someone has a budget, and the budget stretches to an I7 spec. Why would you spec otherwise?

If the budget isnt enough for I7, Then spec accordingly... Possibly going AMD route.

I see nothing wrong with what I just said...Can you tell me if there IS anything wrong with what i just said?

I7 is the performance leader at the moment, and the cost reflects that. AMD are aiming at the 'budget > performance' market and the costs reflect that.

If a budget stretches to I7, Spec I7.....Surely that's Right?

I dont get why there's arguing still, just spec the best processor in the guys\girls price margin...Isn't it that simple lol

If someone had £300 000 000 000 to spend on a house, but they lived on their own had no interest in the opposite sex and had no children, were generally a recluse (albeit a rich one) would you suggest they build / buy a 200 bedroom mansion or a nice 3 bedroom one.

In other words, easyrider is saying you always need the best.

Why buy a veyron if you go to the shops and back and never go over 30mph ?

Why buy a quad core hyperthreading i7 if you use your computer to check your email ? You wouldnt, your better off buying the best cpu for your money for your uses which happens to be an AMD.

This is all about easyriders fanboyism.

easyrider · 10 Mar 2010 at 16:31

Pneumonic said:
The 965BE will reach 4ghz quite happily if you know what your doing..

But the i5 at 4 ghz spanks the 965 at 4ghz

Hell a stock i7 920 spanks the 965 @ 4ghz

easyrider · 10 Mar 2010 at 16:33

wannabedamned said:
I dont get why there's arguing still, just spec the best processor in the guys\girls price margin...Isn't it that simple lol

Exactly.

But what people are doing is speccing slower parts for the sake of getting another on the AMD bandwagon.When its not in the OP's best interest to do.

easyrider · 10 Mar 2010 at 16:39

yslen said:
If no to any of them, surely you can understand how the majority of people would rather have "enough" power and money in their pocket than a cutting edge system that isn't actually that much faster but cost them a lot more?

I think people are missing the point here.

At certain price points you can have enough power for your needs and more.

Its people getting hung up on i7.

I rarely spec i7 as a lot of forums members don't have the budget for it.

So I spec them accordingly.

Usually i5 over AMD as its faster and at the same price point as 965.

What I see countless times is people speccing AMD rigs for the sake of getting another AMD follower when in essence an i5 rig will come in budget and be faster for the same price

That's my point.

Look its simple

Phoenixdancer · 10 Mar 2010 at 16:39

I Like PIE!

You only spec to someones price range within your knowalage of what is best!

easyrider · 10 Mar 2010 at 16:47

twoblacklines said:
In other words, easyrider is saying you always need the best.

Why buy a veyron if you go to the shops and back and never go over 30mph ?

Why buy a quad core hyperthreading i7 if you use your computer to check your email ? You wouldnt, your better off buying the best cpu for your money for your uses which happens to be an AMD.

This is all about easyriders fanboyism.

Thats exactly not what I am saying you muppet

Who really asks for a spec just to check email? I mean who on ocuk starts a thread and says I need a PC for just email?

I'll ask again... I mean who on ocuk starts a thread and says I need a PC for just email?

Your missing the point.Re read the thread from the start....

What happens is people spec with brand loyaltiy in mind and not whats the best kit for the OP budget all the time and I am getting sick to the back teeth of people claiming they know about PC hardware when all they do is spec AMD systems when its not in the OP's best interest.

Now move away from the INTEL/AMD hangup you have and look at the bigger picture.

I would be saying exactly the same if people where speccing intel rigs over AMD's if it was not in the OP's best interest to do so.

Pneumonic · 10 Mar 2010 at 16:55

easyrider said:
But the i5 at 4 ghz spanks the 965 at 4ghz

Hell a stock i7 920 spanks the 965 @ 4ghz

PROOF PLEASE, other than in multi-thread apps which in my post above and various others I have already accepted the i7 is around 10 - 20% faster ...

BUT when the X6 comes out at the end of April it is likely to spank both of them at a lower price point in multi-thread apps.. so you current 'buy' Intel advise is total rubbish..

i5 is a dead platform with NO upgrade path and not dual PCI-E 16 so pointless for 'high' end gamming

i7 is for multi-thread apps and will soon be out-performed by the X6 CPU which will be AM3 compatible, and at a lower price point... so unless you want to spend £1K on a Gulf Town then AM3 is your best option at this point..

so rather than troll on like some whinny 10 yr old, why not actually CONTRIBUTE to this forum..

You haven't as far as I am aware so please correct me if I am wrong.. actually owned either a 955BE or a 965BE.. where as I actually have owned and clocked and have real world experience of both the above and i7 and can therefore offer actual advise from a holistic perspective.. rather than just pointing to the same set of select benchmarks

easyrider · 10 Mar 2010 at 17:07

Pneumonic said:
i7 is for multi-thread apps and will soon be out-performed by the X6 CPU which will be AM3 compatible, and at a lower price point... so unless you want to spend £1K on a Gulf Town then AM3 is your best option at this point..

So the 6 core AMD will outperform i7?

Really?

Wow i'll get one then.

Thats if its true

As I say I'll ditch the i7 in a jiffy if AMD release a 6 core Chip that's faster than i7.

Have you a link to support this? I'm quite excited now. More speed for less money?

Just so you know though Intel will be bringing out the 6 core version that will not be £1000 like the extreme versions.