I'm asking this as a separate thread for two reasons- one, I wanted to let all the i570 owners know both of these are in stock and on sale on the cheap at Amazon. That alone is surprising, since the supply of AM3 fitting chips that work with the i570 BIOS has almost totally dried up. Second, I assume that others are going to grapple with the same dilemma if they do see the sale prices an take the leap.
The specs on both are surprisingly close:
AMD Phenom II X4 965 Black 125W, AM3, 8MB Cache, 3400MHz, 4201 CPU benchmark scoreAMD Athlon II X4 645 95W, AM3, 2MB Cache, 3100MHz, 3633 CPU benchmark score
The obvious differences are the giant gap in cache and the extra 30w the Phenom needs. I have a 500w PSU and should be fine with being capable of running either, but there has been so much talk of cooling issues with 125w processors in the Inspiron mini-towers that tt has me second-guessing myself for picking the 125w chip. Right now under severe stress I can keep all three cores of my X3 455 under 50 degrees (95w itself). That makes me think the same cooling system should still be okay for the Phenom, possibly running a bit hotter, but in the worst scenerio requiring a $50 heatsink instead of the generic style I use now.
If you were/are in the shoes of a 570 owner who has topped out the rest of the system components, which would you go for? Replicate the ultra-stable configuration you have now, or shoot for the moon and hope it doesn't undo the rest of the work put into carefully building the system?
BTW, worth noting I have the system utilizing 16gb of DDR3 @ 1333mhz. Since RAM performance has some connection to CPU effort when performing most tasks, this might be a consideration to factor as well.
First i570 OverclockerOverclockers.com Benchmarking Team MemberFX-8350 @ 4.7ghz / Phenom X4 @ 4.3ghzi570 #2 project In progress
Nah man I live & breathe this stuff, it took me all of 15 minutes to throw that response together.
As far as performance comparison... well that would take some research. Since we've done some Passmark stuff I'll post this. Be aware these are synthetic benchmarks and these are *pure* CPU scores, not whole system performance like we did.
AMD Phenom II X4 965 is a score of 4201, Intel Core i5-2320 (in the XPS I told you about) is 6062, the i3-2100 in the Lenovo is 3851.So the Phenom is a pretty good performance part. Personally I'm an AMD fan simply because if you aren't into the absolute bleeding-edge of computer performance then there is no appreciable difference in AMD & Intel CPUs. Because system performance comes down to a lot more than CPU number-crunching ability. Like my main system for example: it plays all the modern games with no problem at all at 1920x1080 with 4x Anti-Aliasing (that is what reduces the jagged edges on the 3D images). Sometimes I can do 8xAA depending on the game engine.
I think that, with your CPU upgrade and an XT you'll be set for a while. Thought I can tell you're like me & have an unquenchable desire to constantly tweak things around. So you'll be happy, for a little while I suspect. lol
Dell Community Rockstar - Platinum
Alienware 13 (late 2014) - Core i5-4510u, 12GB, 480GB PNY XLR8 SSD, nVidia 860M, Graphics Amp: PNY GTX 960Inspiron 11-3162 - Celeron, 2GB, 32GB eMMCInspiron Micro Desktop (mid 2015)- Celeron, 4GB, 32GB eMMCVenue 8 Pro - Red edition, Intel Atom Z3740D, 2GB, 32GB2x S2230M 21.5" - 1080p LED monitor
Feel free to call me Greggers
Other: iPhone 5S, iPad Air, Mac miniRetired & Donated to charity: Inspiron 530, Inspiron Mini 10, Inspiron M5030 (donated to mom, she's a charity case ), XPS 720 Red & Silver
Hmm.... I keep looking at the XT, the price, then doing the math on adding a 750GB standard hard drive with fast read/write marks and then adding a 64GB on top of that- or at keeping the factory 500GB drive in place and adding a 128GB SSD from a reputable company. But then again, the XT does have the reliability edge of redundancy- it keeps the flash drive data on the actual disk as well...
Bah! I wish that UPS would show up with my CPU cooler so I'd at least know I have the bugs worked out. I may still revert back to a 960T or something if I can't get this heat issue under control- the first "upgrade" in heatsinks ended up being a big step backward. I also worry that the bent pin on the CPU I had to fix will somehow end up presenting itself as an issue at some point. It's been flawless since, but I can't figure out how something so delicate having actual physical damage and being eyed-up as straight didn't harm anything.
My poor laptop is dying a slow death too- I want to replace it with a Kindle Fire since it's only used to fetch my email and kill time when traveling anyway, but of all the sites it can't apparently support, GBTV is one. So, that's out and I don't think I want to abandon mid-project on the Dell just to afford a real laptop.
(I have a good amount of Amazon gift credit sitting there from a couple impulse purchases I ended up returning- it's going to get blown on something unnecessary unless they start selling food and gasoline on the site) lol.
While there is some benefit to having the SSD + XT I think that'd be a waste because the majority of your OS & programs are going to be running off of the SSD. This in effect nullifies the benefit of the hybrid XT drive. If you're going to leave the 500GB in there you should probably look at investing in the 128GB SSD.
I decided to just go with the XT- I keep thinking I need one TB or more of storage, but that is such a mental lapse it's insane. Here is a glimpse at my current disk (partitioned factory HD):
I think it's safe to say that I'll be okay with the 750GB. I forget that I move everything to hard storage after I'm done working on it anyway. I'll never even touch half the space on that XT.
Soooo I'm thinking... With Intel just announcing the $330 series you may want to leave that 320GB in there as a storage drive and get a 60GB Intel 330 for $89. If you plan on copying the entirety of your C: (via a clone or such) then the 120GB is $189. The performance is better than the 320 series but not up to that of the 520s.
But 330 is SATA III, isn't it and 570 is SATA II, 330 are just a bit slower compare to 520, price is the winner, but us 570 owners, I am not sure...
Inspiron 570 remastered in Cooler Master HAF 912 case
6 intake and exhaust 120 mm FANS <> Phenom II x4 965 BE OC to 4.0GHz <> Cooler Master Hyper 612 <> MSI 660 2GB OC <> 180 GB Intel 520 SSD, 1TB Seagate Barracuda 64 MB Cache HDD for Games as extension of SSD, 500 GB WD Caviar Blue HDD as data and 160 GB WD as backup (through PCI SATA card) <> 8 GB Corsair DDR3 1333 <>Hitachi GH70N DVD <> Corsair GS 600 PSU <> Battlefield 3 60 FPS on ULTRA
SATA III is backwards compatible with SATA II. But yea the 330s are SATA III. It was just a thought since you brought up how little space you used & the SSD being your primary drive.
What I meant is that SATA III HDD speed depends on interface, since we have slower SATA II interface - we are not going to get benefits of faster SATA III HDDs? Am I right?
Only high-speed HDDs can begin to saturate a SATA II line, you won't see a real-world speed difference (though there is technically a difference on paper).
Well I took the leap and purchased an Intel 330 SSD 120gb drive. That's enough to run my OS and a good amount of other data, plus keep the factory HD (which is just fine for file stoarge) in place. The 2.5" to 3.5" conversion rack I purchased is also capable of housing a second 2.5" SSD if I decide to go for the XT or a larger SSD for file storage down the road.
I have been buying laptop drives exclusively these days since the SATAWIRE works fine on them and they use less power and generate less heat than 3.5 inch drives.
I use these for the drive bay
Thermaltake 3.5 Inch to 2.5 Inch SSD HDD Bay Drives ...
Report Unresolved Customer Service Issues here I do not work for Dell. I too am a user. The forum is primarily user to user, with Dell employees moderatingContact USA Technical Support
Get Support on Twitter @DellCaresPro
SpeedStep makes some good suggestions. Though I prefer the 3.5" desktop drives for my main rig since I like 64MB caches. I personally have a Thermaltake BlacX dual-drive bay. The SATAWIRE product we also sell at my job & I've used it a few times, it's a pretty good little device for laptop HDDs to do SATA to USB if you ever have a want/need to do so.
I went with the second of the two links above (the silverstone 2 x 2.5" bracket). I figure I probably will add a second drive at some point- in theory I could always get an XT down the road, use that for my boot disk and backup location for the data from my primary application file location, which I'd use the 330 SSD for. That way everything on my system would be running at SSD speed but still maintain the integrity of a standard drive for reliability purposes.
BTW, I currently have the CPU running where it hums along at 32C-35C during light processing... during a 10 minute OCCT test at 100% load, it levels out and hits a ceiling at 60C that it never exceeds. Not sure if I should be content with this, or if I should go for buying a CPU cooler that costs anywhere from $40-$80 that will be a little more work to install but should drop that down five or ten degrees?
OCCT is light stressing utility, however it is very close to the real world applications. More challenging is Prime95 and the worst one is IntelBurn, those 2 are well above any application you can use. I have 63.5 max with worst combination of IntelBurn and 55-57 with OCCT, the MOBO T is about 82-86C at worst.
We use world of warcraft as a stressing utility Running WSG with experience turned off at level 19.