High-End Buyers' Guide: May 2007
by Dave Robinet and Jarred Walton on May 29, 2007 1:30 AM EST- Posted in
- Guides
Ultra High-End AMD System
The AMD Ultra High-End system gets two additional cores added due to the low cost of their FX-74 offering. While single-threaded applications (including, as already mentioned, most games) will not be able to take advantage of the four cores in this system, the processors will be leveraged wonderfully by most productivity applications (including, notably, media encoding). AMD is in the unenviable position of not having any quad CPU offerings that can compete directly with Intel's fastest quad core processors (the QX6800 and QX6700), but the dual sockets do offer improved bandwidth and scaling which can help in certain applications. Also note that the socket 1207 platform will have you ready to upgrade to AMD's Barcelona CPUs (now called Phenom) with the ability to run an octal core configuration later this year. If you really want eight cores, though, you might want to hold off a few months until the new CPUs become available.
Moving up the motherboard chain, the Ultra High-End system is treated to the ASUS L1N64-SLI WS motherboard. While that certainly carries a hefty price tag, this 680a SLI-based motherboard is currently the only solution for AMD enthusiasts that want to run a Quad FX platform. The good news is that ASUS definitely doesn't skimp on the features. You get a whopping four x16 PCI-E slots (two x16 bandwidth and two x8 bandwidth) and 12 SATA ports, along with more typical stuff like FireWire. At present, it's important to note that this motherboard requires both processor sockets to be populated in order to function properly, and for optimal performance you will also need to populate all four DIMM slots (giving dual channel bandwidth to both processor sockets).
Also keep in mind that while the latest Opterons and the Quad FX processors use socket 1207, the two processor families are not interchangeable - or at least they're not supposed to be. Quad FX processors use regular unbuffered memory and Opterons use registered ECC memory. Regardless, AMD has pretty much guaranteed that they will be releasing quad core Barcelona (Phenom FX) CPUs that will run on this motherboard later this year, most likely before quad core socket AM2 processors are released. To be honest, we're far more interested in this motherboard and platform as something for the future than for what it offers right now, and that being the case we're inclined to wait for actual performance numbers from AMD's next-generation architecture before laying out this much money on a new system.
Populating all four DIMM slots was a priority, so we chose four 1GB Corsair XMS2 memory sticks. An alternative option (especially if you plan on upgrading the AMD Ultra system to eight cores) is to go with some 2GB DIMMs like Corsair 2GB XMS2 memory sticks, though this adds an additional $180 to the system price.
As is typically the case with gaming rigs, the graphics solution is the most expensive part of this system. Yes, the Ultra series cards are the fastest gaming cards on the planet right now, but until the cards come down from their stratospheric price point, they won't fit into the budget of even our Ultra High-End system. The MSI NX8800GTX-T2D768E-HD OC come clocked at 610MHz, which is higher than most other GTX cards based on NVIDIA specifications and also more or less matches the default 612MHz base clock of the 8800 Ultra (though the Ultra admittedly has faster RAM clocks and can usually overclock the cores even further). The dual 8800 GTX cards come in at a whopping $1100 for the pair (after rebates), which is a pretty astounding amount of money to spend on a graphics solution. For an extra $600, you can make the leap to the 8800 Ultra series solution.
It has long been known that RAID 0 is of little to no benefit to most users... so why do other Buyers' Guides insist on pairing two drives in a RAID 0 configuration? The WD Raptor 1500ADFD is currently the fastest SATA drive on the market today, though its 150GB capacity lags behind current storage trends. The WD RE2 500 makes up for this capacity as a second drive, ensuring that the system enjoys the benefits of both unparalleled single user performance in OS and application load times, as well as ensuring the system has ample capacity for storage intensive applications. Both drives come with 5 year warranties. If you want even more storage capacity, consider the Seagate 750GB and Hitachi 1TB drives as an alternative. The Hitachi 1TB drive is one of the fastest drives we've tested, at times even besting the Raptor drives.
While RAID will not markedly improve performance for the average user, it can improve either reliability (RAID 5, RAID 1), or single volume data capacity (RAID 0). Another viable option for a system in with these requirements is to look at three hard drives and a dedicated RAID controller, like the 3Ware 9590SE. Users that require such configurations on their desktop systems are few and far between, though, so make sure that you are buying components you truly need.
Given the components used in this system, it's no surprise that we decided to go with a 64-bit operating system, and as we suggested on the previous page we recommend Windows Vista over Windows XP when it comes to 64-bit Microsoft operating systems. If you only want to run 2GB of memory, you can certainly get by with a 32-bit OS for the time being (either Vista or XP), but if that's the case you probably don't want to bother with AMD's Quad FX platform. We also selected the OEM version of Windows Vista in order to save some money, but purchasing the full retail version might serve many of you better. The OEM versions can only be activated a single time on a specific set of hardware; once you've activated the copy, it's tied to your motherboard and you cannot use it on a different motherboard in the future. If you're the type of user to frequently upgrade motherboards, you should definitely pick up a retail copy of Windows Vista instead. The retail product also gives you the option of choosing to install either the 32-bit or the 64-bit version.
| Ultra High-End AMD System | |||
| Hardware | Component | Price | Rebates |
| Processor | 2 x AMD Athlon FX-74 | $916 | - |
| Motherboard | ASUS L1N64-SLI WS | $313 | - |
| Memory | 2 x Corsair XMS2 2GB PC2-6400 Kit (4x1GB total) | $294 | $80 |
| Video Card | 2x MSI NX8800GTX-T2D768E-HD OC GeForce 8800GTX | $1140 | $40 |
| Hard Drive | WD Raptor WD1500ADFD plus WD 5000YS | $361 | - |
| Optical Drive | Pioneer DVR-212BK | $42 | - |
| Operating System | Windows Vista Home Premium 64-bit (OEM) | $125 | - |
| System Total | $3191 | $3071 | |
| Complete Package | $3732-$5391 | $3607-$5266 | |
The AMD Ultra High-End system gets two additional cores added due to the low cost of their FX-74 offering. While single-threaded applications (including, as already mentioned, most games) will not be able to take advantage of the four cores in this system, the processors will be leveraged wonderfully by most productivity applications (including, notably, media encoding). AMD is in the unenviable position of not having any quad CPU offerings that can compete directly with Intel's fastest quad core processors (the QX6800 and QX6700), but the dual sockets do offer improved bandwidth and scaling which can help in certain applications. Also note that the socket 1207 platform will have you ready to upgrade to AMD's Barcelona CPUs (now called Phenom) with the ability to run an octal core configuration later this year. If you really want eight cores, though, you might want to hold off a few months until the new CPUs become available.
 |
Also keep in mind that while the latest Opterons and the Quad FX processors use socket 1207, the two processor families are not interchangeable - or at least they're not supposed to be. Quad FX processors use regular unbuffered memory and Opterons use registered ECC memory. Regardless, AMD has pretty much guaranteed that they will be releasing quad core Barcelona (Phenom FX) CPUs that will run on this motherboard later this year, most likely before quad core socket AM2 processors are released. To be honest, we're far more interested in this motherboard and platform as something for the future than for what it offers right now, and that being the case we're inclined to wait for actual performance numbers from AMD's next-generation architecture before laying out this much money on a new system.
Populating all four DIMM slots was a priority, so we chose four 1GB Corsair XMS2 memory sticks. An alternative option (especially if you plan on upgrading the AMD Ultra system to eight cores) is to go with some 2GB DIMMs like Corsair 2GB XMS2 memory sticks, though this adds an additional $180 to the system price.
 |
It has long been known that RAID 0 is of little to no benefit to most users... so why do other Buyers' Guides insist on pairing two drives in a RAID 0 configuration? The WD Raptor 1500ADFD is currently the fastest SATA drive on the market today, though its 150GB capacity lags behind current storage trends. The WD RE2 500 makes up for this capacity as a second drive, ensuring that the system enjoys the benefits of both unparalleled single user performance in OS and application load times, as well as ensuring the system has ample capacity for storage intensive applications. Both drives come with 5 year warranties. If you want even more storage capacity, consider the Seagate 750GB and Hitachi 1TB drives as an alternative. The Hitachi 1TB drive is one of the fastest drives we've tested, at times even besting the Raptor drives.
While RAID will not markedly improve performance for the average user, it can improve either reliability (RAID 5, RAID 1), or single volume data capacity (RAID 0). Another viable option for a system in with these requirements is to look at three hard drives and a dedicated RAID controller, like the 3Ware 9590SE. Users that require such configurations on their desktop systems are few and far between, though, so make sure that you are buying components you truly need.
Given the components used in this system, it's no surprise that we decided to go with a 64-bit operating system, and as we suggested on the previous page we recommend Windows Vista over Windows XP when it comes to 64-bit Microsoft operating systems. If you only want to run 2GB of memory, you can certainly get by with a 32-bit OS for the time being (either Vista or XP), but if that's the case you probably don't want to bother with AMD's Quad FX platform. We also selected the OEM version of Windows Vista in order to save some money, but purchasing the full retail version might serve many of you better. The OEM versions can only be activated a single time on a specific set of hardware; once you've activated the copy, it's tied to your motherboard and you cannot use it on a different motherboard in the future. If you're the type of user to frequently upgrade motherboards, you should definitely pick up a retail copy of Windows Vista instead. The retail product also gives you the option of choosing to install either the 32-bit or the 64-bit version.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
69 Comments
View All Comments
CK804 - Tuesday, May 29, 2007 - link
A lot of sites seem to prove you wrong in addition to the ones I linked to. You need to get your meter checked or that Dell PS is REALLY inefficient. All of these sites measure power drawn by the SYSTEM at the AC outlet. None of the 8800GTX SLI configurations use more than 500 watts under full load and the R600 Crossfire setup uses 522 watts under full load.http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=332&type=...">One.
http://techreport.com/reviews/2007q1/geforce-8800-...">Two.
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2007/05/16/r600_a...">Three.
http://www.hwupgrade.com/articles/video/13/the-nvi...">Four.
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2873...">Now check this out from YOUR OWN SITE. Do you really think that an upgrade to a quad core and another 8800GTX will pull another 500 watts?
JarredWalton - Wednesday, May 30, 2007 - link
The big question is whether or not you plan on overclocking. I just did some quick tests, and taking a quad core QX6700 chip from 2.67 GHz to 3.33 GHz increases the power draw by about 60W. I know that if I went out and got a QX6700, I would overclock it at least that far. For that matter, if I got a Q6600, I would probably shoot for a similar clock speed.At stock voltage, stock speeds, the highest power draw I got with CrossFire X1950 XTX and a QX6700 (with three hard drives in the system) was "only" 488W. Could such a system run with a 520W power supply? Perhaps, provided it's a really high-quality power supply. Personally, I like to have a bit of leeway, so I would say 620W minimum for such a configuration.
Looking at your Bit-tech link, it appears that a Radeon HD 2900 XT consumes ~70W more power than a Radeon X1950 XTX, and in CrossFire mode the difference was 145W (worst-case). 488W + 145W = 633W... Eureka! Now, are you still going to want to run such a configuration with a 620W power supply? You could try, and it might even work depending on how often you reach maximum load, but again I prefer a little leeway. Without overclocking, I can easily see quad core and 2900 XT CrossFire breaking 600W on a regular basis (or at least approaching it). Throw in overclocking (~80W) and water-cooling (10W-30W - or more - depending on pump), and we are now at over 700W. Sure enough, that's exactly what I measured with the Dell XPS 720H2C (add a few more watts for the additional memory).
I personally follow an 80% rule: just to be safe, I don't exceed 80% of the rated power supply wattage. (this is especially important if you have power supplies with multiple 12V rails, as you almost certainly won't be drawing maximum power from each rail.) That means if I'm going to be drying up to 600W of power, I would want at least at a 750W power supply. If I'm going to overclock, I would want something in the 850W+ range.
CK804 - Wednesday, June 27, 2007 - link
http://www.silentpcreview.com/forums/viewtopic.php...">It seems that the TEC inside your Dell is drawing a lot of power. That's why your power consumption is so high. A power supply wattage rating is the amount of power that the PS can deliver to the components and not how much power it can draw from the wall. Since we have to account for efficiency, 800W * 0.8 = 640 is the power consumption of the components inside. Take away the power consumption of the TEC (640 - 120) and the power consumption of the components is about 520 watts.CK804 - Tuesday, May 29, 2007 - link
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=36...">Are you sure about that breaking 850 watts?http://www.abxzone.com/forums/cases-psus-mods/1064...">That's a little too extreme, don't you think?
JarredWalton - Tuesday, May 29, 2007 - link
Depends on what you throw in there. I've got a system with an overclocked QX6700 and 8800 Ultra SLI with water-cooling, multiple hard drives, and basically about every high-end option you can find. I've measured peak power draw of nearly 800W, and a stock HD 2900 XT uses more power than an 8800 GTX by about 20W at load. Overclock two of those cards, and yes I think you can break 850W power draw.FWIW, idle power draw is 475W on the system, putting 100% load on the CPU takes that up to 625W, and 100% CPU while running 3DMark06 put it at something close to 750-775W (with the average being more like 700W). If I were to manually overclock the GPUs, then I'm sure I could break 800W.
CK804 - Tuesday, May 29, 2007 - link
I still call BS on 800. 475 watts idling? That's a little too extreme don't you think? Did you even read the sites I linked to? And what are you measuring with? Your @SS?JarredWalton - Tuesday, May 29, 2007 - link
Some people always need proof I suppose.Sitting next to me is a Dell XPS 720 H2C measured at the outlet with a Kill-A-Watt device. The CPU is running at 3.43 GHz with 1.550V. Why should I need to read your links when I've got a system right in front of me generating those numbers? But of course you're right: your linked article must be more accurate than anything we could measure in-house. The Dell has a 1000W power supply, and I'm sure Dell is just being cautious, like they are with their 375W PSUs in the XPS 410.
PS: My ass measured a power output of 1.21GW last I checked. I have to be careful as I don't want to accidentally warp myself through time if I go eat Mexican food. You see, I also have a flux capacitor hardwired into my spine, just in case....
Thanks for reading, though.
CK804 - Tuesday, May 29, 2007 - link
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/other/display/100...">AMD 4x4 system with 8800GTX SLI uses 612 watts under full load.JarredWalton - Tuesday, May 29, 2007 - link
Overclocking + overvolting will jack up the power draw of the CPU quite a bit. Stock voltage is supposed to be 1.300V (I think) and overclocked it's 1.550V, plus it's running at 3.43 GHz instead of 2.67 GHz. Throw in a water-cooling setup, three hard drives, 4GB RAM, and you get quite a bit more power draw than a stock 4x4 SLI setup.CK804 - Tuesday, May 29, 2007 - link
Hard drives draw about 10 watts each. That's 30 watts. Each extra memory module will draw about 5 more watts. That's 20 watts. The water pump should draw no more than 10 watts and the fans about 5 watts each. Assuming you're using 2 120mm fans, the extra power draw under a worse case secenario would be 90 watts. So now we move onto the CPU. Are you seriously going to tell me that an overclocked Core 2 Quad consumes 300 watts under load? A Smithfield barely consumed half of 300 watts. I think any CPU would explode if it consumed 300 watts.