that is a big ass ****in heatsink for the bus. How do we rate something based off a picture and how its suppose to run. We all know you never know preformance untill you own and try urself.
It's overpriced. This is eVGA's "biggest *****" mobo, and eVGA is always overpriced anyway. No reason to spend that much, even on a 1366 socket board. Unless you're planning on doing Tri-SLI (which you shouldn't), get this instead: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813130220 It's not as sexy, but I guarantee you're not going to be looking at your board for more than 0.001% of the time that you own it. It also costs exactly half as much, and does all of the same things minus a third and fourth PCI-Ex16 2.0. Since you were looking at the crazy ridiculous quad-PCI board, you were probably considering tri-SLI, so I'm gonna expand on why you shouldn't : -heat issues, even with good water cooling -you can always get a better 'bang for buck' with one or two cards, rather than three. -at no point in time has anybody ever needed it -It'll crank up your power bill - if you're living with your parent's they're gonna complain; if you're living on your own then you're just gonna have to foot it. Kidding aside, AMD will go under if they can't figure out how to make a Core i7 equivalent. They are way, way behind.
I'm kinda curious how anybody's going to gain access to my firmware. I thought that was impossible without direct access, since you need to be interfacing with the board and not the OS. I'm not a hacker so I don't know for sure.
From what I gather, it embeds itself into the programming of the SMM. The SMM, like they say, is higher than a hypervisor. If they can gain control of the programming of the SMM, they can literally control your computer, since that's nearly the highest level point of control.
Another reason AMD is better. ==== Anyways, the moptherboard fails to impress me, too much extra crap, a 2way SLi without the PhysX will run most games just fine (on highest settings if you buy the right cards) and leaves room for other cards like better sound or avideo capture, also who RAIDS 9 SATA drives outside of a server cluster? I could rip my video collection 3 times and have storage space left over. (of course my preference is for efficiancey and cost effectivness, hence why the latest breaking quad core always fails to impress me, too expensive, by the time I need that much processor power I have replaced my PC anyways.)
What about intels i7? Is that any good compared to multi-core? -I'm a tech noob and would like to know this, since I will need a new pc when strarcraf 2 is released. I already have someone who can put everything together, so no worries about that.-
Yes, i7 blows everything else away. "AMD is better" = drivel. They're currently way behind in that their latest line - the PHII X3 and X4's - is still competing with Intel's C2D's and C2Q's. I did use AMD back in the AM2 days, but switched over when the Core 2's came out (then recently to i7), and haven't looked back. I'm not saying this for any biased reasons; I look at benchmarks and buy for best performance, not brand. If you haven't seen benchmarks yet and continue to fly with AMD based on brand loyalty, it's time to give them a peek: Benchmark example (note the i7 940 and i7 965 aren't even on the chart) http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-phenom-ii-x4-810-and-x3-720be-review-am3/12 Video encoding: http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-phenom-ii-x4-810-and-x3-720be-review-am3/16 Video games (note, again, i7 940 and 965 aren't listed)" http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-phenom-ii-x4-810-and-x3-720be-review-am3/23 The only one place AMD's chip excels is with COD4's engine: http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-phenom-ii-x4-810-and-x3-720be-review-am3/24 So I guess if all you do is play COD4 and COD:WAW, then "AMD is better".
Well I don't buy the super high end $500 processors so the benchmarks of the best processors available are something I don't give a damn about. I also usually use sites that LABEL their graphs
Game performance = FPS, some benchmarks are time-taken-to-complete, and some are trivial number scores calculated by figuring out the processor's ability to crunch data. Guru3d and Tom's Hardware are the two most popular sites for checking tech performance. I highly suggest them if you're looking for stats in the future. As far as labeling goes I guess they just assume you know what they're talking about, since anybody who doesn't wouldn't be reading the reviews. Also, I believe they explain the charts in the text surrounding the graphs. You're right as far as price goes. AMD is probably the name to go with if you don't have alot of cash. The Phenoms are a real bargain. But that's because they're not as on top of the market as they used to be. If they do eventually climb back up and take a decent market share to compete with Intel, their prices will jump back up. I didn't buy my i7 for $500; that's pushing it. And I think anybody who spends over that much on one part of a PC is full of it. I got mine for $290, which is only $75 more than AMD's top-of-the-line Phenom II X4. So the price gap when you get up to the top performing CPU's isn't that big. I think $75 is well worth the difference.
You can buy a game for that kind of money, but I sure would prefer the better processor. Anyway, I heard my friend talking about how much better ATI cards work with AMD, and that Nvidia cards work better with Intel. Is that just bs, or are there really better combinations between different brands? -somebody should update the tutorials we have on pc building-
I've never heard that before; it's more than likely BS. ATI GPU's are made by AMD, but they're not doing anything special that Nvidia isn't when interacting with the CPU. People that buy AMD CPU's generally go with ATI and Intel-buyers generally go with Nvidia. Not sure why. I didn't buy my CPU for games, bought it for my work. If you're just going to play games then go with AMD, since the CPU hardly determines game performance once you get up into the latest dual and quad cores.
