Sandy Bridge and RAM question

[epwpower]

So, I'm no PC expert at all which is why I'm having a friend build my next PC. But just the other day, newegg had a sale 15% off all memory, so I went ahead and bought the Gskill 24 Gigs (6 x 4) because for my next PC I have my mind set on 24 gigs of RAM and NO LESS!

However, I also have my mind set on the new intel processor, but I don't think I've done my research with fully understanding the i7 2600 processor that's coming out (or currently in remission) because I looked at the pertaining motherboards and noticed that they are supporting 32 gigs of RAM, meaning that there's 4 slots..so essentially you gotta be using 8gb sticks of RAM to fill that! Which also means that my purchase on Newegg will do me no good because with the RAM that I just bought, I could only get a max of 16 gigs with the new i7 processor.

Am I mistaken? Are there motherboards for the i7 2600 that max out at 24 gigs so that I can be able to fill it up? If not, then why on earth would they make it that way? 8 gig sticks of RAM are super expensive and that makes me sad

[Veneteaou]

I would wait until the i7 2600 is re-released and doing well to shop a computer for one. At the moment you are looking at maybe 2 LGA 1155 motherboards out there, and neither one is what you want in a workstation in my opinion. So wait until it is getting solid reviews, and companies start rolling out mobo's for it.

And you are right: those boards only having 4 RAM slots means 8GB sticks get you to 32. In my opinion you need at least 6 slots for a workstation, to keep it upgradable.

[aptmusic9]

unless you need more than 24GB, why not stick to 1366 slot? i haven't been able push my i7 920 beyond 30-50% cpu use on full arrangements, 20GB loaded in VEP. It seems pretty dang solid. And if I ever wanted to upgrade I could just overclock, buy a 980X and swap the procs out, or get a slave. the options are open.

[interpolate]

LGA1155/1156 motherboards (as far as I can fathom) so far use Dual-Memory architecture, so maybe not the best if want the largest bandwidth. However on a price versus speed scaling, it certainly it looks impressive. They run cooler as well, so swings and roundabouts.

[epwpower]

Thanks for the replies.

I think my problem is solved because if I want to do 24 gigs of ram triple channel, I cannot go with the 2600k.

However, I read that the LGA2011 to be released Q3 may have quad channel with up to 8 RAM slots..?? If I went with the 1366 slot, would upgrading to LGA2011 and compatible releases be a smoother option?

[interpolate]

Quad Channel......awesome. I think AMD had this in mind as well for future processors. So it will be interesting who gets the technology out first. At any cost, my next system will be Intel-based.

[epwpower]

Originally Posted by aptmusic9

unless you need more than 24GB, why not stick to 1366 slot? i haven't been able push my i7 920 beyond 30-50% cpu use on full arrangements, 20GB loaded in VEP. It seems pretty dang solid. And if I ever wanted to upgrade I could just overclock, buy a 980X and swap the procs out, or get a slave. the options are open.

I think I'm going to go that route considering sandy bridge is not very accommodating.

But now that the 2nd generation i7s are coming out, why haven't the older ones gone down in price? Should I wait for this to happen or should I expect Intel to be pretentious enough to keep their prices the same even with the now new release(s)?

[epwpower]

Also, this is kinda interesting
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html

And for what it's worth, should I even be considering AMD? The reason so far I've been going with Intel is because everyone on this forum has good things to say about their processors.

[Veneteaou]

Also, this is kinda interesting
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html

And for what it's worth, should I even be considering AMD? The reason so far I've been going with Intel is because everyone on this forum has good things to say about their processors.

I'm going to call BS on those test results. They are results of data gathered from users, which doesn't take into account demographics, other computer parts, or the purpose of the system it's used in. In many cases, they have fewer than 10 samples (often only 1-5) for a given CPU. There are so many ways you can improve CPU performance above plug-n-play that trusting statistics should not happen. A slightly better comparison here: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...2-nm,2831.html

Intel makes good processors. Currently AMD has no up-to-date processors competing with Intel's Sandy Bridge, so the current buzz you hear is going to be all Intel. Buying a workstation now, there is almost no reason I can think of to go AMD over Intel's SB line. Current AMD processing requires more power, and gives worse results.

If you want to wait, AMD's new line of processor (Bulldozer) should be out sometime later this year. Personally, I don't think there is enough of a performance increase to spend $1500 on something that will only give a slight improvement over something $1000 cheaper. If I was going to spend serious money it would be on a server setup or a slave cluster.

[epwpower]

Thanks for clearing that up, that was an interesting read. Makes me want to go the sandy bridge route. Now im hoping that more motherboards for the 2600k will be rolling out with more ram slots? Or maybe 8 gig ram sticks won't have to cost me everything I own!