oh yes, mention it .
Originally Posted by Brutuz
Originally Posted by 2010rig
Originally Posted by 45nm
Performing the same is essentially what it is. I cannot see how 1-2% can be considered a significant difference when it is negligible at best. That means they perform the same with a negligible advantage towards Sandy Bridge Enthusiast. Arguing that 1-2% is a difference that is more than negligible is an irrelevant and moot point. It's not contradictory because that's what it is. Combined with NF200 the difference becomes completely irrelevant. The fact is that x8 / x8 isn't being saturated to give credit or merit to your argument.
Down the road it won't matter because by then we will be seeing Haswell in addition to Z77 and other architectures/chipsets/platforms/sockets. The reality is that if you discuss down the road then you will understand that the lifespan of the LGA2011 X79 platform will be questionable at best after Ivy Bridge Enthusiast. In the past 3 years we have seen over 4 sockets emerge from Intel (LGA1366/LGA1156/LGA1155/LGA2011). Therefore LGA2011's existence and lifespan is questionable at best after Ivy Bridge Enthusiast.
It also doesn't matter how much you invest in a system to 'futureproof' because the industry operates on a 3-6 Month refresh basis. That means incremental upgrades are actually the smarter/logical choice rather than doing major overhauls every couple of years. In addition you do not take into account the devaluation that occurs exponentially on computer parts especially when trying to 'futureproof'. 'Futureproofing' is a myth and a false paradigm.
So, based on this logic, we should never buy into any platform, due to the limited lifespan it offers?
LGA 2011 will support IB-E, and will provide around a 2 - 3 lifespan, same as X58.
I guess you shouldn't have bought that 965 either, and I shouldn't have bought the 930 I currently have.
No one on OCN should have bought 2500K's or 2600K's, in fact, no one should buy anything ever.
Not to mention, a 3930K will be easily more than fast enough for the
average gamer in 6 or 7 years, single thread performance will still be up there and if games are using more and more cores, you have 6 still.
It's the exact same argument as the Q6600 bar the price/value, really.
I'm wildly thinking about the 3930k. The platform is more expensive, yes, But i'll have at least 2k to spend. I also won't upgrade my CPU for at least another 5 years, by then, hopefully IB-E(or the next tick) will be really cheap (and on X79!), or there will be a need for another 500 processor. I'm also not very likely to sell old parts, more recycle them.
(thinks)Nah. I'll be better with a 2600k with gobs of ram and more(better) gpu/ssd/psu.
(thinks)I'm not sure
thats what i was thinking
Originally Posted by Seeing Red
Absolute 'future proofing' is
a myth but there is such a thing as prolonging an upgrade. For most people an upgrade every year is not possible and/or not necessary (a par for par upgrade would be closer to a year if you don't jump between competitors). If everyone adopted this methodology than computer parts would depreciate a lot faster making an upgrade an even harder transition.
this is my line of thinking!
If you make the cycle 4 years, the higher cost up front would be a even better option in cases like mine.
$1000 cpu(6 core)= too much
$5000 cpu(6 core)= just right
It's when the cost benefit over time just doesn't make sense. If going by past upgrade cycles (cpu and gpu) then my money will be better spend on a cpu than the 1st or 2nd tier gpu.Edited by Nocturin - 11/16/11 at 5:39pm