Windows 7: Time for new build but I want YOUR input.

I've read the reviews, the tech reports, the charts, comparisons etc and so forth.

But I just want to hear if from you. People actually applying their hardware on a day to day basis.

Currently I run an overclocked Phenom II X4 940 OC'd to 3.6ghz on an ASUS M3A32-MVP, rest of the specs, see below.

I'm not much of a fanboy or biased towards AMD but I'd like to hear what you guys and gals have to say. I'll now be making the switch to USB 3 and DDR3 memory, probably buy an SSD and blu ray burner, but as for the meat and potatoes, my budget is pointing towards either the new AMD II X6 1090T or perhaps switching to Intel i7 920-930.

I do a lot of downloading, video encoding/editing, the very occasional game, and just plain benchmarking for fun. My video card is an ATI MSI 5870 and really the only use it gets is Microsoft Flight Simulator X. I know the flight sim is very CPU intense in addition to the video so I am considering which chip might handle this piece of software better.



I'd love to hear any and all opinions and experiences out there.

Cheers!

An overclocked i7 930 has the edge for encoding and benchmarking.

FSX is an interesting one since it's flat out not optimised for quad/hex cores. Even after manually setting the affinity.

With the machine in specs in can easily get 60FPS, but still drop way down to sub 20FPS in busy areas. Then again, I also run FSX in Eyefinity.

I haven't used the 1090T so I can't compare.

I use convertXtodvd 4 to encode/burn a lot of different source files and on average it's a 15-20min from start to fully burnt for a full DVD-5. Easily much quicker than even my old Q9550 @ 3.8ghz. It depends on the app you use whether it is truly multi-threaded optimised.

Overall, for your needs both chips would suffice, but IMO the intel is a better 'all rounder' if budget isn't a big issue.

Another advantage to to a 1366 setup is the option of going to to intels $$$ 6 core down the track if need be.

While either brand will likely meet your needs (assuming a decent chunk of RAM and a good graphics solution), and while Intels make a great foundation for a gaming rig, the Intels excel in video encoding/editing - and that's without overclocking too.

But my number 1 advice is DON'T try to shave pennies off your budget when it comes to your power supply. Spend whatever it takes to get a good supply from a reputable maker. Don't choose your supply until you have selected all your other components so you know the size to get.

Thanks for the input so far. I don't really pinch when it comes to quality of parts, especially PSU. I've had enough experiences in the past with bad PSU's, usually repairing other people's computers. I am curious though if my current PSU will meet the new needs though? It's an OCZ GameXStream 700W

That's a good supply. Here's my canned text on sizing and selecting a new PSU.

Use the eXtreme PSU Calculator Lite to determine your minimum power supply unit (PSU) requirements. Plug in all the hardware you think you might have in 2 or 3 years (extra drives, bigger or 2nd video card, more RAM, etc.). Be sure to read and heed the notes at the bottom of the page. I recommend setting Capacitor Aging to 30%, and if you participate in distributive computing projects (e.g. BOINC or Folding@Home) or extreme 3D animated gaming, I recommend setting both TDP and system load to 100%. These steps ensure the supply has adequate head room for stress free (and perhaps quieter) operation, and future hardware demands. Research your video card and pay particular attention to the power supply requirements for your card listed on your video card maker's website. If not listed, check a comparable card (same graphics engine and RAM) from a different maker. The key specifications, in order of importance are:

1. Current (amperage or amps) on the +12V rail,
2. Efficiency,
3. Total wattage.

Don’t try to save a few dollars by getting a cheap supply! Digital electronics, including CPUs, RAM, and today's advanced graphics cards, need clean, stable power. A good, well chosen supply will provide years of service and upgrade wiggle room. Look for power supply brands listed under the "Good" column of PC Mechanic's PSU Reference List. Note that some case retailers “toss in” a generic or inadequate PSU just to make the case sale. Be prepared to “toss out” that supply for a good one with sufficient power.

Most PSUs have an efficiency rating of around 70%. This means for every 100 watts of power a PSU draws from the wall, only 70 watts is delivered to the motherboard, with the rest wasted in the form of heat. The best supplies are 85 to 90% efficient, and as expected, cost more. I strongly recommend you pick a quality supply with an efficiency rating equal to or greater than 80%. Look for 80 Plus - EnergyStar Compliant labels.

Too big of a PSU hurts nothing but your budget. Your computer will draw from the PSU only what it needs, not what the PSU is capable of delivering. If a computer needs 300 watts it will draw 300 watts regardless if the PSU is a 350W, 650W, or 1000W PSU. In turn, the PSU, regardless its size will draw from the wall only what it needs to support the computer. In this example, it will draw 300 watts, plus another 45 – 90 watts, depending on the PSU’s inefficiency.

As noted, the eXtreme Calculator determines the minimum requirements. If the calculator (with the changes I suggested) recommends a 400 watt minimum, a quality 400W supply will serve you just fine. But a quality 550W – 600W supply will have, among other things, larger heat sinks to dissipate potentially more heat. It might have a larger fan too. The 400W supply will run most of the time closer to capacity, while the larger supply will be loafing along, rarely breaking a sweat. To help the smaller heat sinks get rid of the wasted 80 watts (20% of 400) of heat, the fan in the 400W supply may need to run full speed, while the fan in the larger supply, with bigger sinks just loafs along too – but in near silence.

Don't forget to budget for a good UPS with AVR (automatic voltage regulation). Surge and spike protectors are inadequate.

Well, from everything I have read, the Intel Core i5-750 pretty much outperforms the new 6 core AMD 1055T and the 1090T. So, while the AMD's have more cores and they are pushing that fact, the performance isn't appreciably better than the middle of the road intel Quad core. And the AMD 1090T is about $300, while the i5-750 is only $200. To me, the choice seems clear.

Thanks for the info. On a side note here regarding FSX. From what you are saying, regardless of upgrade, FSX is not designed nor is there a way to properly update it to take advantage of more core's is that correct? So is microsoft working on a new version any time soon?

By the looks of things I am going to be making the switch to intel as I have been with AMD my last 3 builds and am curious to see how intel handles the video aspect of my needs.