Curse

Armageddon · Aug 28, 2010, 08:42 PM // 20:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Undead Cheese

The whole rails overloading problem existed a few years ago on older PSU's, not now.

well it has been a few years

maybe im living in the past

Quote:

Originally Posted by Undead Cheese

As for drawbacks, you can end up getting a lower performing PSU, in terms of electrical noise, ripple supression, voltage regulation, rated ambient. A PSU is the most vital part of your PC, getting a great performing one instead of an average/mediocre one can mean the world of difference if anything bad was to happen.

ah maybe I shouldve been a bit more specific, I didnt mean a cheap supply, I was comparing 2 good ones

I had a Hiper Type-R 480W for a few years, a decent supply but not great, got some good reviews though

I upgraded my pc a few times but kept the same psu because I thought it could handle it, then one day it went bang when I switched my pc on

so now I normally overspec my psu just to be sure

though I do overclock a lot (my E8200 went from 2.66ghz and hit 4ghz

) and run 2 4850's in crossfire and have 4 drives, but who knows, maybe the OP will be doing that in the future

Quaker · Aug 28, 2010, 09:29 PM // 21:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Armageddon

but when it comes down to it, what are the drawbacks of having a higher rated power supply at the same price?

Not much.
There is a certain amount of power loss within the power supply circuits, and a larger capacity power supply will (in theory) have a larger power loss. Of course, the power wastage would vary from model to model, and the actual difference in wasted power between a typical 450watt supply, and a typical 650watt supply is small enough to be neglected.

It could be argued that a higher rated power supply "at the same price" would have to cut corners somewhere. It could mean lower quality, more failure prone components, poor physical design (cooling-wise), or lossier circuits.

However, the average cost increase going from say, 450watts to 650watts, is small compared to total price, and the difference in power loss is negligible. However, putting in some honking big 900-1200watt PSU, when all you need is 450 watts would be a waste.

Undead Cheese · Aug 29, 2010, 03:28 AM // 03:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quaker

Not much.
It could be argued that a higher rated power supply "at the same price" would have to cut corners somewhere. It could mean lower quality, more failure prone components, poor physical design (cooling-wise), or lossier circuits.

Yeah, alot of cheapo manufactuers are notorious for rating their PSU's at unrealistic ambients (<25c), and measuring peak load instead of continuous output. Most half decent PSU's today are rated at 40-50c. If you're gonna overclock, things like Ripple/electrical noise supression and Voltage regulation are very important.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Armageddon

I upgraded my pc a few times but kept the same psu because I thought it could handle it, then one day it went bang when I switched my pc on

so now I normally overspec my psu just to be sure

That was mostly the mixture on having a bad batch (Hiper had a few on those units a few years back) and the PSU being not that good. The 12v rail is quite weak too, only supplying 350w so depending on whether you overclcoked your 4850's too, they would consume alot of power.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quaker

I would recommend an i5-750 over any AMD Athlon or Phenom CPU at this time. The AMDs are great for budget systems, but your budget has lots of room for the Intel and (unfortunately) the i5/i7s do outperform the AMDs.

Depends if the OP is going to overclock really, a stock 965 has an edge over a stock i5. Of course if you're going to overclock, the i5 will be ahead, though.

@OP, are you going to be overclocking at all? as that information would make things alot easier.

If you're NOT overclocking:

If you ARE overclocking

Lord Sojar · Aug 29, 2010, 07:33 PM // 19:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Undead Cheese

Yeah, alot of cheapo manufactuers are notorious for rating their PSU's at unrealistic ambients (<25c), and measuring peak load instead of continuous output. Most half decent PSU's today are rated at 40-50c. If you're gonna overclock, things like Ripple/electrical noise supression and Voltage regulation are very important.

That was mostly the mixture on having a bad batch (Hiper had a few on those units a few years back) and the PSU being not that good. The 12v rail is quite weak too, only supplying 350w so depending on whether you overclcoked your 4850's too, they would consume alot of power.

Depends if the OP is going to overclock really, a stock 965 has an edge over a stock i5. Of course if you're going to overclock, the i5 will be ahead, though.

@OP, are you going to be overclocking at all? as that information would make things alot easier.

If you're NOT overclocking:

If you ARE overclocking

Wait, what? The x58 chipset? WHY? P55 > x58. That is all.

Stick with the Corei7 870 + a good P55 mobo with 4GBs of RAM and a GTX 460

Undead Cheese · Aug 30, 2010, 07:24 AM // 07:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lord Sojar

Wait, what? The x58 chipset? WHY? P55 > x58. That is all.

Stick with the Corei7 870 + a good P55 mobo with 4GBs of RAM and a GTX 460

Errrrrr, why? You can't just go spouting misinformation and say P55 > x58 and just dissapear, state your reasons.

Elektraaa · Aug 30, 2010, 11:19 AM // 11:19

Quote:

I'm not up on the prices of parts in England, but here's roughly what you could expect to get in the USA with your budget.

They're English?

Quote:

Of course prices in Europe are always higher than here too.

English don't use euro's...

Also, it's not really wise to go AMD at the moment.

Quote:

There is a certain amount of power loss within the power supply circuits, and a larger capacity power supply will (in theory) have a larger power loss. Of course, the power wastage would vary from model to model, an the actual difference in wasted power between a typical 450watt supply, and a typical 650watt supply is small enough to be neglected.

What you mean is PSU's aren't completely efficient. Obviously it depends on what percentage they're efficient.

Quote:

Wait, what? The x58 chipset? WHY? P55 > x58. That is all.

Rofl.

Can't really argue with nonsense like this.

So, OP:

Quote:

All I'm interested in is the tower. I've got everything else covered.

What about HDD's, do you have any old ones? If so, are they sata? The same for DVD writers. Can your old case be used for a new PC?

Please state your location and I'll look up components in local shops.
Do you pay the electric bill? If not, whoever does - do they mind added costs?
Will you be needing a windows installation disc?
Are you comfortable with modifying components, such as lapping a CPU cooler (sanding the bottom of it for about 4 hours making it perfectly flat)? Some coolers out perform others in their price range but ONLY if you lap them.
How big can the case be?
Do you intend on overclocking?
Will you be wanting to upgrade later?
Is there anything at all that you perhaps forgot to mention that could cut costs on the new PC?
Are you 100% sure that the most you will tax your PC with, will be gaming? For example, if you ventured into 3D graphics with 3DSM, I'd get an 8 threaded machine (4core, HT). The same with video encoding.

Quaker · Aug 30, 2010, 02:54 PM // 14:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elektraaa

What you mean is PSU's aren't completely efficient. Obviously it depends on what percentage they're efficient.

I wasn't talking about the efficiency of the power supply, but rather, the small fixed power losses that are not related to the power output. For example, there is a certain amount of stand-by power being used even when the computer is "off".

Elektraaa · Aug 30, 2010, 03:52 PM // 15:52

Oh I get it now, I think. It draws current when the PC is off. Yes. Not really worth mentioning though? I think it goes without saying. Out of curiosity, do you have the statistics of an 80% efficient 1KW PSU, current draw when the computer is off vs a non 80% efficient 400W PSU? I've googled, I can't seem to find any.

Undead Cheese · Aug 30, 2010, 07:12 PM // 19:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quaker

I wasn't talking about the efficiency of the power supply, but rather, the small fixed power losses that are not related to the power output. For example, there is a certain amount of stand-by power being used even when the computer is "off".

That really isn't an issue, the power loss would be much too small to make any real difference.

Lord Sojar · Aug 30, 2010, 09:42 PM // 21:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elektraaa

Rofl.

Can't really argue with nonsense like this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Undead Cheese

Errrrrr, why? You can't just go spouting misinformation and say P55 > x58 and just dissapear, state your reasons.

Nonsense? I never spout nonsense in my forum, thank you.

Let me lay it down for all of you.

The x58 platform is primary targeted at virtual machine users, compute users, video trans/encoders, and gamers with more budget than brains.

You are paying a hefty price premium for a triple channel DDR3 memory interface, and access to 2-4 PCIe 16x lanes.

Here's the facts:

No modern GPU can utilize the bandwidth in a PCIe 2.0 16x slot; an 8x PCIe 2.0 slot is more than enough for any modern GPU.

Scaling beyond 2 cards is terrible, thanks degrading parallel design past 2.

This leaves CPU as the question. Both the LGA1366 socket and LGA1156 socket are dead as of this very moment, so neither offers an upgrade path.

In addition to that, Bloomfield CPUs are around the same performance as their Lynnfield cousins. Add to that, Lynnfield CPUs have much more aggressive Turbo modes (and overclocking through Turbo Mode is better for the CPU, since it isn't constant, thus causing more SiDeg) Overclockability on the Lynnfield CPUs is slightly lower, but most gamers won't notice this, since the standard for stable gaming overclocks is far lower than overclocking centric users.

Let's look at general computing, multitasking and gaming. Lynnfield is on par or slightly faster in almost all these areas, assuming the same clockspeed. Don't believe me?

Lynnfield is a cheaper platform to get into, by very significant margins typically.

You only need to buy dual channel configured RAM (aka 2 sticks, so 4GB). You don't need to buy quite as hefty a CPU cooler, since Lynnfield runs cooler than its Bloomfield brethren.

Oh, and dare I forget... Lynnfield CPUs are generally cheaper, their motherboards are generally cheaper, all for the same if not better performance...

Nonsense? I think not.

Armageddon · Aug 30, 2010, 11:39 PM // 23:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lord Sojar

Oh, and dare I forget... Lynnfield CPUs are generally cheaper, their motherboards are generally cheaper, all for the same if not better performance...

Nonsense? I think not.

wait, am I missing something here?

you're recommending the i7-870 (£250) over the Phenom II X4 Quad Core 965 BE (£129) even though the difference in the only game benchmark you posted was less than 3 fps ?

Lord Sojar · Aug 31, 2010, 02:04 AM // 02:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Armageddon

wait, am I missing something here?

you're recommending the i7-870 (£250) over the Phenom II X4 Quad Core 965 BE (£129) even though the difference in the only game benchmark you posted was less than 3 fps ?

I am recommending a Corei7-870 over any of the Corei7-9xx family and the P55 chipset over the x58 chipset.

ALso, you can't do SLi with AMD's 890FX chipset... thus the reason for going Intel instead of AMD, assuming you want 2x GTX460s (since that's the best deal on the planet right now)

Undead Cheese · Aug 31, 2010, 06:56 AM // 06:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lord Sojar

<snip>

1. In Europe and/or UK, the price differences between x58 and P55 are not big (unless you're going i5 with a budget Motherboard), stop living in the past where X58 was ridiculously expensive.

2. You're comparing a CPU with a higher clock speed. Therefore that's enough for me to just discard everything you have said as when I made my recommendation, I specifically told the OP to get the i7 if he/she was overclocking.

3. The overclockablilty of the i7 860/870 isn't good, either.

4. Finally, stop cherry picking benchmarks, please.

Elektraaa · Aug 31, 2010, 10:01 AM // 10:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lord Sojar

The x58 platform is primary targeted at virtual machine users, compute users, video trans/encoders, and gamers with more budget than brains.

Super. I think anyone is plain foolish NOT to use virtual machines in todays world. Antivirus's are and always have been, not a great solution.

Virtual machines allow for testing software you aren't sure is working properly, or perhaps you download from a site you are slightly suspicious of. You can have emails on one VM, bank details on another. It's pretty much the securest way to go about general computing.

Regarding videoing encoding... It's quite common for gamers to make frag movies, no?

It doesn't matter who or what it's targeted at, your statement was this:

Quote:

Wait, what? The x58 chipset? WHY? P55 > x58. That is all.

=).

Your tests are so broken, they don't even show half of the x58 models =P.

Can I see P55 getting these scores please? Let's not forget, the i7 920 is actually the lowest model available to x58

.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lord Sojar

You are paying a hefty price premium for a triple channel DDR3 memory interface, and access to 2-4 PCIe 16x lanes.

Not hefty at all, when you'll save money from buying an x58 CPU.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lord Sojar

Here's the facts:

No modern GPU can utilize the bandwidth in a PCIe 2.0 16x slot; an 8x PCIe 2.0 slot is more than enough for any modern GPU.

Great.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lord Sojar

Scaling beyond 2 cards is terrible, thanks degrading parallel design past 2.

Some what irrelevant. Also, I can't argue with this, because what might be invented in the future, isn't here to argue with, now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lord Sojar

This leaves CPU as the question. Both the LGA1366 socket and LGA1156 socket are dead as of this very moment, so neither offers an upgrade path.

Disagree with that. I fully intend on upgrading to the hexicore, 12thread CPU when its price drops (which I'm sure it will oneday).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lord Sojar

In addition to that, Bloomfield CPUs are around the same performance as their Lynnfield cousins. Add to that, Lynnfield CPUs have much more aggressive Turbo modes (and overclocking through Turbo Mode is better for the CPU, since it isn't constant, thus causing more SiDeg) Overclockability on the Lynnfield CPUs is slightly lower, but most gamers won't notice this, since the standard for stable gaming overclocks is far lower than overclocking centric users.

Turbo mode just ups the multiplier. It's not really much of an overclock. I've found that x58 is the best for overclocking. Especially when dealing with large amounts of RAM.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lord Sojar

Let's look at general computing, multitasking and gaming. Lynnfield is on par or slightly faster in almost all these areas, assuming the same clockspeed. Don't believe me?

What I believe is that the benchmarks you posted are irrelevant to your argument that P55 is > x58. Please show a benchmark of the GREATEST models from BOTH sockets (your statement did NOT mention price; thus, price isn't in this equation) doing a complex render in 3DSM. I would like to see which machine is quicker. I would also like to see tests of overclocking inclusive of large amounts of RAM (I like RAMdisks).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lord Sojar

Lynnfield is a cheaper platform to get into, by very significant margins typically.

Again, your argument wasn't including price. Furthermore, there's even cheaper options than lynnfield. Your point is moot.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lord Sojar

You only need to buy dual channel configured RAM (aka 2 sticks, so 4GB). You don't need to buy quite as hefty a CPU cooler, since Lynnfield runs cooler than its Bloomfield brethren.

The benchmarks you posted are NOT overclocked. A stock cooler on both CPU's would do fine, in that situation. Your argument is moot UNLESS you are talking about overclocking. In which case, show overclocked benchmarks, not stock.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lord Sojar

Oh, and dare I forget... Lynnfield CPUs are generally cheaper, their motherboards are generally cheaper, all for the same if not better performance...

Nonsense? I think not.

They are not better performing CPU's.

Now stop arguing about price. I said your statement was nonsense. Your statement did not mention price.

Finally, other points to add:

WinRAR 3.8 is a 32bit program (unlike the latest models)
Your first benchmark is a single threaded test (pointless test)
Third test is "beta"
Intel Core i7 870 2.93Ghz is higher clocked and higher priced (irrelevant, since your statement didn't account for price) than the 920. It damn well should perform better in strawman arguments.
Fallout 3 isn't coded great. No games are really coded that well to utilize all of modern day CPU's.
No mention of the: Intel Core i7 980X 3.33GHz

Current price of an intel 870: £249.99
Current price of an intel 920: £200.00

If you're really going to compare apples and oranges, and price is clearly NOT a factor in your arguments, then please show the 980X.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lord Sojar

I am recommending a Corei7-870 over any of the Corei7-9xx

LOL. Why? The 950 is considerably cheaper (£234.99 inc VAT) and outperforms it. With the price of a reasonable motherboard weighing in at about £150, x58 really is not a bad choice.

I like that you pick the lowest model of the x58 series vs one of the best from P55 and then you talk about price, only when it suits you (even though it doesn't, because the 920 is £50 cheaper). Smooth move!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Undead Cheese

1. In Europe and/or UK, the price differences between x58 and P55 are not big (unless you're going i5 with a budget Motherboard), stop living in the past where X58 was ridiculously expensive.

2. You're comparing a CPU with a higher clock speed. Therefore that's enough for me to just discard everything you have said as when I made my recommendation, I specifically told the OP to get the i7 if he/she was overclocking.

3. The overclockablilty of the i7 860/870 isn't good, either.

4. Finally, stop cherry picking benchmarks, please.

I agree with you, I think you missed something at point number 2 though. The i7 950 is higher clock than the 870. It's faster than the 870. And it's cheaper than the 870. Even if you aren't overclocking, the i7 950 X58 is pretty good.

I want to also add one last thing. I am not saying that P55 does not suit some people, and I am not saying it is terrible (although it had awful dealings with foxconn / faulty sockets and bent pins up until VERY recently). My argument here is only with Lord Sojar's original comment that P55 > X58.

If you want to target a specific audience and say that P55 is better because it suits them better with, X, X, and X. There will of course be times that P55 is better in that situation. The same as X58 will be better in other situations. This goes without saying, so the ONLY way I can interpret his statement is from a TECHNOLOGICAL and PERFORMANCE based point of view. X58 is without a doubt, the best.

P.S For gaming right now, hyper threading doesn't need to be enabled (4 cores is enough), and each core will perform better with it off.

Undead Cheese · Aug 31, 2010, 11:20 AM // 11:20

Ah, I had completely forgotten about the recent price drop of the 950. :P

Elektraaa · Aug 31, 2010, 11:28 AM // 11:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Undead Cheese

Ah, I had completely forgotten about the recent price drop of the 950. :P

Yeah I wish it was that price when I got my 920. Still, at the time only i5's were available to P55 and every socket (even motherboards by asus) were made by foxconn, excluding EVGA. So I'm kind of happy that I got what I did. I hope the OP replies.

Armageddon · Aug 31, 2010, 11:28 AM // 11:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lord Sojar

I am recommending a Corei7-870 over any of the Corei7-9xx family and the P55 chipset over the x58 chipset.

ALso, you can't do SLi with AMD's 890FX chipset... thus the reason for going Intel instead of AMD, assuming you want 2x GTX460s (since that's the best deal on the planet right now)

the OP just wants a gaming machine, while I think they've over budgeted a bit for what they need, theres still no room in that budget for an i7-870, P55 or x58 and 2 460's in SLI

i7-870 (£250) - P55 board (£100+) 2x GTX 460 (£340)

thats already over the lower end of the budget with only 3 components, they still need RAM, drives, a case and power at least

Elektraaa · Aug 31, 2010, 11:32 AM // 11:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Armageddon

the OP just wants a gaming machine, while I think they've over budgeted a bit for what they need, theres still no room in that budget for an i7-870, P55 or x58 and 2 460's in SLI

i7-870 (£250) - P55 board (£100+) 2x GTX 460 (£340)

thats already over the lower end of the budget with only 3 components, they still need RAM, drives, a case and power at least

That's why I think we need replies to these questions before we start making a build for the OP. I wouldn't go SLI/Xfire regardless of budget, right now. If the OP is looking to be playing GW2, he/she would be best to wait for price drops where possible.

Elder III · Aug 31, 2010, 12:55 PM // 12:55

Elektraaa - please take a few minutes and learn who you are debating with (referring to Lord Sojar), if you were not a newcomer to these forums (nothing wrong with being new btw) you would already know something about the regulars and where they stand on many different hardware issues. I believe all that lord sojar is saying is that the P55 chipset serves the vast majority of gamers just as well as the X58 and has typically been a significantly cheaper platform as well. Nobody is going to say that the the extreme 980x with a $400 X58 is going to perform worse than say an i5 750 with a $150 P55 mobo. You generally do get better performance with more money spent, however most gamers are not going to see a noticeable "real life" performance increase with the more expensive setup. Most people still game with a single GPU, on a 19-20" screen and don't give a hoot about 60+fps with 8x AA etc...

I'm essentially paraphrasing what Lord Sojar has stated multiple times in the past. I think if you would both sit down and look over the others posts in the past you would find that you agree more than you think you do.

*there I've broken my own rule of "Never be a self imposed Moderator" - guess I'll punish myself by going back to work now.*

Elektraaa · Aug 31, 2010, 01:25 PM // 13:25

Nice trolling, after I explained why we should wait for some answers from the OP first =).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elder III

Elektraaa - please take a few minutes and learn who you are debating with (referring to Lord Sojar)

If you're trying to imply that ones argument should change based on who the person is, then not only are you corrupt but all hail me (joking, I don't want special treatment just because I was sponsored by intel)? Seriously though. What on earth do you mean by this? lol. If it's about this comment

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elektraaa

You own this forum? Cool. I like it.

That was rhetoric.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elder III

if you were not a newcomer to these forums (nothing wrong with being new btw) you would already know something about the regulars and where they stand on many different hardware issues.

Again, irrelevant; my argument still stays the same.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elder III

I believe all that lord sojar is saying is that the P55 chipset serves the vast majority of gamers just as well as the X58 and has typically been a significantly cheaper platform as well.

That's not what he said. Maybe he meant it, but that's not what he said. And what you believe is irrelevant. I'm not arguing with what he thinks in his head, I'm not arguing with what I THINK he thinks but I am arguing with what he actually said. Understood?

Whether the platform has been cheaper is completely irrelevant to what is now; furthermore, his statement did not account for price. So what you have said is irrelevant; in addition, the suggestion he did gave was quite poor for someone conscious of price (according to you) - after all, he went over the OP's budget. You might want to get a pentium 1, because in the past, pentium 3 was more expensive. Can you see how invalid this argument is?

Shoulda, woulda, coulda, did think, didn't think, was this, was that, woulda been this. Forget all that. Arguments aren't won through assumptions as to what someone means and computers shouldn't be bought based on what was in the past.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elder III

Nobody is going to say that the the extreme 980x with a $400 X58 is going to perform worse than say an i5 750 with a $150 P55 mobo.

He said P55 was better than X58, period. He never mentioned cost. Stop twisting things.

If you are going to worry about cost, and stick to OP's budget, then that's a different argument, and like I already proved - you'll save money on the 950 and get greater performance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elder III

You generally do get better performance with more money spent

Generally, yes, 950 is cheaper than an 870 though. So one shouldn't compare a 920 (which is even cheaper than both of them) with the 870. One should compare models matching price as closely as possible, that's the 950 and the 870. In that situation, the 950 wins, proving his irrelevant argument false.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elder III

however most gamers are not going to see a noticeable "real life" performance increase with the more expensive setup.

We don't know what will happen in the future. Right now, you can get away with 2 cores and won't see a huge difference, simply because games aren't utilizing much of a computer. In the future? Who knows.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elder III

Most people still game with a single GPU, on a 19-20" screen and don't give a hoot about 60+fps with 8x AA etc...

Competitive gamers have always wanted above 120FPS. Competitive gamers would obviously want to stick to a single GPU because dual introduces input lag.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elder III

I'm essentially paraphrasing what Lord Sojar has stated multiple times in the past. I think if you would both sit down and look over the others posts in the past you would find that you agree more than you think you do.

Wrong. The more I look at it, the more I think it's nonsense. The op mentioned a budget, and the games he/she wanted to play, Lord Sojar spoke of 2 graphics cards (knowing that GW2 isn't out yet) and went well over budget.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elder III

*there I've broken my own rule of "Never be a self imposed Moderator" - guess I'll punish myself by going back to work now.*

I don't really care for all this personal stuff. It doesn't add any weight to the discussion. Now please leave me alone, I'm trying to help the OP. I understand you've tried to help Lord Sojar because you believe he can not express himself properly, so you are essentially insulting him by trying to explain his point to me, yourself. I am not interested in any of that. You can rephrase whatever you like, how you like. You are both wrong, and this is a waste of my time and the OP's.

Who apparently, you aren't interested in helping at all. If you were, you would have just left it at that. I had quite clearly stopped arguing about that, and my last post shows that I was waiting for answers to some questions RELEVANT to the OP.

I will PM them (I feel bad that this thread has turned to rubbish just because people can't get over certain things) and ask for the answers of these questions.

***EDIT***

I'm wrong, the intel i7 920's are now £190. That's £60 cheaper than the P55 870 (32% more).