dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
3645
share rss forum feed


McBrain
BRB Face Melting

join:2010-05-06
Kalimdor
kudos:2
reply to Octavean

Re: AMD vs I-core

I'll be upgraging my rig within the next 3-6 months and will be moving to Intel from AMD. I'm pretty set on the 3930k and an x79 motherboard. I'm assuming I'd get your recommendation for this set-up, right?



Octavean
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-31
New York, NY
kudos:1

Well I guess it depends on what you intend to do with it. For just gaming, no I think an Ivy Bridge CPU and Z77 motherboard would be fine.

On a fresh build I probably spend on average about ~$400 to ~$600+ USD. I was able to build my Core i7 3930K / Asus P9X79 Deluxe based system for about ~$660 (for motherboard and processor) out of pocket. I had an Amazon coupon that brought down the price of the motherboard significantly. If I had to spend much more then that I probably would have opted for something cheaper.

This was pre-Ivy Bridge though. I think a Core i7 3770K (~$300) or Core i5 3570K (~~$170 to ~$200) is a great option.



Krisnatharok
Caveat Emptor
Premium
join:2009-02-11
Earth Orbit
kudos:12
reply to McBrain

I'd go Z77 and i5-3570K as well. You can't really future proof with a more expensive CPU after a certain point (unlocked quad core, right now).



McBrain
BRB Face Melting

join:2010-05-06
Kalimdor
kudos:2

Future-proofing was definitely the goal of that idea. I was assuming LGA 2011 would be the way to go...and the 3960x is definitely out of my price range.

I can also only assume that by the March/April timeframe I'm looking at the 3930k and x79 mobos will have had pretty significant price reductions.

FWIW, the CPU and ASRock x79 mobo I was looking at on newegg were $700 together.

But, dropping to an i5 and z77 will definitely free up more space in the budget (which I haven't even established yet) for a second GPU and 1000w PSU I'll need.

Eventually I'd like to end up with:

-i7-3930k/i7-3770/i5-3570k
-X79/Z77 mobo (depending on CPU obviously)
-MSI Hawk 7870 x 2 (I've got one currently)
-1000w PSU
-Either 3x~23" or 1 27" 120hz monitor
--
McBrain#1430

Name's Ash...Housewares.



Ghastlyone
Premium
join:2009-01-07
Las Vegas, NV
kudos:5

Go with a 3570K and overclock it slightly.

You probably wouldn't notice much difference in the 3930 or 3770.

Take the extra money and get a second video card or upgrade your current one.



Octavean
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-31
New York, NY
kudos:1
reply to McBrain

Intel has a strategy of replacing processors in their Core i7 and Core i5 lineup with faster chips in the same price range. So in this case, essentially, gone are the days that a high end processor will drop in price in significant ways. The Core i7 3930K hit the market in late 2011 at about ~$650 (IIRC) but the price was elevated above the MSRP at that time (IIRC) by retailers / e-tailers. Microcenter is notorious for undercutting MSRP on such Intel Processors in very significant ways and by no means is a daily price available everywhere.

Future proofing is basically unattainable and doesn’t really merit much consideration IMO.

There is a difference in these processors but for gaming the Core i5 3570K is a good choice that is considerably cheaper. Heavily threaded applications other then gaming would likely make those differences more apparent but as I understand it the AMD FX 8320 does fairly well in heavily threaded applications. The AMD FX 8320 isn’t as good for general gaming as a Core i5 3570K and above but it isn’t an unmitigated disaster either,….or at least from the benchmarks I have seen so far.



Krisnatharok
Caveat Emptor
Premium
join:2009-02-11
Earth Orbit
kudos:12
reply to McBrain

said by McBrain:

Future-proofing was definitely the goal of that idea. I was assuming LGA 2011 would be the way to go...and the 3960x is definitely out of my price range.

I can also only assume that by the March/April timeframe I'm looking at the 3930k and x79 mobos will have had pretty significant price reductions.

FWIW, the CPU and ASRock x79 mobo I was looking at on newegg were $700 together.

But, dropping to an i5 and z77 will definitely free up more space in the budget (which I haven't even established yet) for a second GPU and 1000w PSU I'll need.

Eventually I'd like to end up with:

-i7-3930k/i7-3770/i5-3570k
-X79/Z77 mobo (depending on CPU obviously)
-MSI Hawk 7870 x 2 (I've got one currently)
-1000w PSU
-Either 3x~23" or 1 27" 120hz monitor



Holy hell, brother. There will be a negligible difference between the X79 and a Z77 gaming system. I could put a Z77 build together and put the saved money towards features you would definitely notice. X79 will likely never come down in price until obsolete and replaced by Ivy Bridge-E (while Haswell drops).

You definitely do NOT need a 1000w PSU short of going with SLI/Crossfire with the very top end GPUs (GTX 680s or 7970s). Those GPUs take about 240w TDP per, and a CPU uses ~80 - 125w TDP, so something like a good 750w or 850w leaves lots of headroom for mobo and HDDs/peripherals/case fans. The TDP of the Radeon 7870 is 99w. Remember that a PSU drops in efficiency if nowhere near 90% load, so shoot for being as close to that as much as possible.

Here's how *I* would build your system (emphasis on personal preference/quality over price--budget builders look elsewhere):

CPU: Intel Core i5-3570K 3.4 GHz Quad-core processor - $170 + tax (Microcenter)
CPU Cooler: A couple valid options here, depending on how far you want to OC:
COOLER MASTER Hyper 212 Plus RR-B10-212P-G1 "Heatpipe Direct Contact" Long Life Sleeve 120mm CPU Cooler - $15 (w/$10 MIR) - best "bang for your buck" cooler that is very efficient
Prolimatech PRO-MGH-C Megahalems Revision C CPU Cooler - $68 (This is Rev C, which is why it doesn't have any reviews--compare to the Rev B for 1366, but it can match or beat the best closed-loop water cooler out there with good fans--I like Yate Loon from FrozenCPU)
CORSAIR Hydro Series H100 (CWCH100) Extreme Performance Liquid CPU Cooler - $80 (after $15 MIR)
Motherboard: Torn between three options:
ASRock Z77 OC Formula LGA 1155 Intel Z77 HDMI SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 Extended ATX Intel Motherboard - $250 (free 2x 4GB 1600 DDR3 ram), OR
ASUS SABERTOOTH Z77 LGA 1155 Intel Z77 HDMI SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 ATX Intel Motherboard - $225, OR
EVGA Z77 FTW 151-IB-E699-KR LGA 1155 Intel Z77 SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 Extended ATX Intel Motherboard - $210 (w/$20 MIR)
Memory: G.SKILL Ripjaws Z Series 16GB (2 x 8GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 2133 (PC3 17000) Desktop Memory Model F3-2133C11D-16GZL, 11-11-11-31 1.5V - $125
SSD: We just missed the best SSD sales yet--the Vertex 4 512 GB was $300 for Black Friday and has sold out everywhere now, so we are back to pre-deal pricing:
Intel 330 Series SSDSC2CT240A3K5 2.5" 240GB SATA III MLC Internal Solid State Drive (SSD) - $140
Data Drive: Western Digital WD Black WD2002FAEX 2TB 7200 RPM 64MB Cache SATA 6.0Gb/s 3.5" Internal Hard Drive -Bare Drive - $183
Backup Drive: Western Digital WD Green WD30EZRX 3TB IntelliPower 64MB Cache SATA 6.0Gb/s 3.5" Internal Hard Drive -Bare Drive - $153
Video Card: MSI R7870 HAWK Radeon HD 7870 GHz Edition 2GB 256-bit GDDR5 PCI Express 3.0 x16 HDCP Ready CrossFireX Support Video Card - $258 (w/$10 MIR)
Power Supply: Three favorite companies here, take your pick:
Rosewill Tachyon Series Tachyon-750 Continuous 750W @ 50 Degrees C ATX12V v2.31 & EPS12V v2.92 SLI Ready CrossFire Ready 80 PLUS PLATINUM Certified Modular Active PFC - $180
CORSAIR Professional Series Gold AX750 (CMPSU-750AX) 750W ATX12V v2.31 / EPS12V v2.92 80 PLUS GOLD Certified Modular Active PFC - $160 (w/$10 MIR) - I am using this one now
SeaSonic X750 Gold 750W ATX12V V2.3/EPS 12V V2.91 SLI Ready 80 PLUS GOLD Certified Full Modular Active PFC - $100
Blu-ray Drive: ASUS Black 12X BD-ROM 16X DVD-ROM 48X CD-ROM SATA Internal Blu-ray Drive Model BC-12B1ST/BLK/B/AS - OEM - $60
DVD Burner: ASUS 24X DVD Burner OEM - $25
Computer Cases: Several options, again:
Rosewill THOR V2-White Edition, THOR V2-W Gaming ATX Full Tower Computer Case - $90 (w/$10 MIR) (black edition is $134)
Corsair Obsidian Series 800D CC800DW Black Aluminum / Steel ATX Full Tower Computer Case - $270 (w/$25 MIR)
COOLER MASTER HAF X RC-942-KKN1 Black Steel/ Plastic ATX Full Tower Computer Case - $180
Any of the NZXT Phantom Full-size towers - ~$120-$250 (probably would win a "sexiest case contest" if there was one)
OS: Microsoft Windows 7 Professional SP1 64-bit - OEM - $140

For monitors you specified two options--triple setup (24" is more prolific than 23"), or a single 27". If you go for a 27", in my mind, there is only one valid option considering price/quality: the Auria EQ276W 27" IPS LED monitor @ 2560x1440, $400 from Microcenter. I have one, and Octavean has two, and we are both blown away by the quality. These are grade B monitors that don't quite meet Apple's standards to be accepted and used in Apple's displays. Normally you would have to worry about dead pixels and return shipping to Korea, but buying through Microcenter protects you with their warranty and they have a no-questions-asked return policy. I have mine set up next to a 20" Apple Cinema Display and it puts the Apply display to shame. Absolutely nothing "B-grade" about this monitor as it has gorgeous, deep, and rich colors. 10/10 would buy again.

If you want to go with a triple setup, I'll have to pass on a recommendation as I have not done something like that yet. I'd probably use three Asus or Samsung 1080p 24" LED-powered monitors, however.

Anyways, the total damage here, if you were to buy absolutely everything (including monitor), is going to be between $2,069 - $2,434 for the whole rig. Again, I would like to stress that this is not to a budget, but me going crazy building the computer "I would build". You can certainly cut the price down (probably in half) by going with a $100 mobo, the free, non-OC ram, a $60 case, no blu-ray drive, etc.

Just wanted to throw this out there.
--
If we lose this freedom of ours, history will record with the greatest astonishment, those who had the most to lose, did the least to prevent its happening.

computerman2
Premium
join:2002-04-20
Rockwood, MI
Reviews:
·WOW Internet and..
·AT&T Midwest

Went with AMD A6 3620 with Radeon 6530D back in June, Been using AMD Systems since 2003, Entire House is AMD Processors besides very old laptop, and one Intel Atom HTPC. Gaming Performance is Great on the A6 Based system, Other programs performance Excellent!, Very Happy.

Old System was AMD Athlon 64 Single Core 2.20ghz
THis one A6-3620 Quad Core 2.20ghz, with Turbo boost up to 2.50ghz, Which is more than enough for my current needs, As well as 8gb of DDR3 Ram, and Support for AMD Dual Graphics if I ever need more video power



Krisnatharok
Caveat Emptor
Premium
join:2009-02-11
Earth Orbit
kudos:12

Depends what you need it to do, but Intel is best bang-for-buck now.


computerman2
Premium
join:2002-04-20
Rockwood, MI

True, Maybe in the way future sometime i'll eventually get back to Intel based System.. But for now this works fine for my needs at this point..



Ignorant

@comcast.net
reply to Krisnatharok

OK, I'm ignorant. I just bought an AMD FX-8120 on a Gigabyte GA0970A-D3 board because it was about $100 less expensive than a i5-3570k on a Gigabyte Z77-DS3H board with the exact same other components. Did I err in thinking the 8 core AMD was more bang for the buck than the 4 core intel?



McBrain
BRB Face Melting

join:2010-05-06
Kalimdor
kudos:2

No, that's not an incorrect thought process.

It's exactly why I bought my Phenom II x4 965 Black Edition and ASRock Extreme3 970 in September. The two of them together were ~$200. I've got 2 USB 3.0 ports, 2 PCI-e slots for CrossfireX if I want, and a CPU capable of overclocking to 4.2 GHz or higher simply by using OC presets in my BIOS...a pretty sweet deal for less than an i5-3570k by itself, if you ask me.

Now, I only use my computer to surf the web and play World of Warcraft, so for my needs the AMD processor and mid-range motherboard are plenty. I'll be upgrading to either an i5-3570k or i7-3770k and Z77 mother board in the near future, but that's simply because I want to, it's got nothing to do with the performance of my current set-up.
--
McBrain#1430

Name's Ash...Housewares.



Krisnatharok
Caveat Emptor
Premium
join:2009-02-11
Earth Orbit
kudos:12
reply to Ignorant

said by Ignorant :

OK, I'm ignorant. I just bought an AMD FX-8120 on a Gigabyte GA0970A-D3 board because it was about $100 less expensive than a i5-3570k on a Gigabyte Z77-DS3H board with the exact same other components. Did I err in thinking the 8 core AMD was more bang for the buck than the 4 core intel?

Yes you did. More cores =/= better gaming performance. The biggest myth out there about gaming performance is that "it has higher GHz or more cores, so it must be faster!" The AMD bulldozer chips actually perform worse in games than the previous generation of AMD chips (Phenom IIs).

Assuming the $160 price of the FX-8120 CPU, you should have gotten the i5-3570K for $10 more if Microcenter is near you, or the dual core i3-3240 (3.4 GHz) for $150 or the quad-core i5-3330 (3.0 - 3.2 GHz) for $190 from Newegg, if you have to order online (these two straddle your pricepoint).

The FX-8120 is an inefficient processor, but that doesn't mean absent a relative point of comparison, it is bad. It will run games, sure. It may end up being a CPU bottleneck down the road, but at least it will be fast for your super-heavily-threaded applications (folding@home, SETI, etc.).
--
If we lose this freedom of ours, history will record with the greatest astonishment, those who had the most to lose, did the least to prevent its happening.


Ghastlyone
Premium
join:2009-01-07
Las Vegas, NV
kudos:5

said by Krisnatharok:

said by Ignorant :

OK, I'm ignorant. I just bought an AMD FX-8120 on a Gigabyte GA0970A-D3 board because it was about $100 less expensive than a i5-3570k on a Gigabyte Z77-DS3H board with the exact same other components. Did I err in thinking the 8 core AMD was more bang for the buck than the 4 core intel?

The AMD bulldozer chips actually perform worse in games than the previous generation of AMD chips (Phenom IIs).

Which is surprising ^

I was shocked at the performance difference between my AMD Quad Core Phenom II 630 and then going to my new i5 3570K.

The bank vault level in Arkham City with full physX enabled nearly locked up my AMD machine.

After building the new PC, it was smooth as butter.


Krisnatharok
Caveat Emptor
Premium
join:2009-02-11
Earth Orbit
kudos:12

I was looking for the post that has been linked before previously that explained in detail why AMDs are slower than Intel for the past two go-around (Bulldozer vs. Sandy Bridge, Piledriver vs. Ivy Bridge). The tl;dr version is that AMD architecture sucks--it doesn't matter how many cores you have, or how fast they are.
--
If we lose this freedom of ours, history will record with the greatest astonishment, those who had the most to lose, did the least to prevent its happening.



BonezX
Basement Dweller
Premium
join:2004-04-13
Canada
kudos:1

said by Krisnatharok:

I was looking for the post that has been linked before previously that explained in detail why AMDs are slower than Intel for the past two go-around (Bulldozer vs. Sandy Bridge, Piledriver vs. Ivy Bridge). The tl;dr version is that AMD architecture sucks--it doesn't matter how many cores you have, or how fast they are.

not so much that the architecture sucks, mostly that it's just not entirely supported, most of the patches have been to fix processor scheduling in windows.

bulldozer/piledriver is an interesting architecture, but it's not without issues at this point, once they are ironed out(better routing would be a start), and software is written to utilize it a bit better it should be interesting to see, considering that yes it is "slower" but it's not THAT much slower.


Krisnatharok
Caveat Emptor
Premium
join:2009-02-11
Earth Orbit
kudos:12

In terms of gaming, it sucks. Tom's says it best (source):

The Piledriver-based FX-8350 does not completely ameliorate AMDs gaming issues, but it does improve on the Bulldozer architecture, at least pushing past the Phenom II flagship.

At the end of the day, AMD still has work to do in improving game performance. But Piledriver certainly does help rectify the slide backward we saw Bulldozer taking relative to some of AMDs previous quad-core parts in processor-bound games.

So at least it is no longer slower than the Phenom II's. Does AMD expect a high-five for that?
--
If we lose this freedom of ours, history will record with the greatest astonishment, those who had the most to lose, did the least to prevent its happening.


BonezX
Basement Dweller
Premium
join:2004-04-13
Canada
kudos:1

considering it's gen1-2 of a completely new architecture it's a good thing, but the proper thing would have been to not release gen1 publicly, and at-least wait till second or third gen before retail release.

simple thing is, it was with out a doubt rushed to retail.



Krisnatharok
Caveat Emptor
Premium
join:2009-02-11
Earth Orbit
kudos:12

It does have potential. I think Tom's even recommends the FX-4170 (the one with the 4.x GHz clockspeed) if you OC it, given the $120 price-tag, it can match the Intel i3 in frames, if you ignore the power consumption (something like 200% of the Intel).

I wish AMD would avoid the whole "but lotsa cores!" approach and focus on refining their existing architecture. Phenom II was a fantastic design, but it looks like they threw everything out for the sake of "more cores!".
--
If we lose this freedom of ours, history will record with the greatest astonishment, those who had the most to lose, did the least to prevent its happening.



Ignorant

@comcastbusiness.net
reply to Krisnatharok

Actually, I didn't buy components, I bought a system through cyberpower pc. The 8 core AMD FX-8120 system and the 4 core i5-3570k system, with all other components being the same were ~$750 and ~$850 respectively. I was trying to keep the price under ~$800 (and would have preferred $700), and the AMD 8 core was offered as a free upgrade over the AMD FX-6100 6 core, which was only $30 more than the AMD FX-4100 4 core.

I tend to have a lot of programs open when playing WoW - usually at least mumble, a web browser, email application, sometimes other stuff as well. Playing on my current off-the-shelf laptop, I'm often in mid single digit framerates. I'm hoping do all this, plus FRAPS and have improved framerates. My assumption was that it would assign a core to each app. Was this incorrect?

Thanks for info.



McBrain
BRB Face Melting

join:2010-05-06
Kalimdor
kudos:2
reply to Krisnatharok

Sorry for putting out bad gouge.

I was speaking based on my experience, and I'm 100% convinced that the $200 I spent on those two parts went a hell of a long way. Granted, I bought a Phenom II BE and not a Bulldozer chip, and I knew from the word go that I was sacrificing performance for price. I feel like the $90 I spent on my cpu definitely wasn't a bad decision and I still feel like I came out on top in the price/performance ratio...Granted, I'm more than likely wrong, and surely I'll have a change of heart when I buy my first Intel chip. But I'm new to this whole community, and you've gotta learn somehow...right?
--
McBrain#1430

Name's Ash...Housewares.



Krisnatharok
Caveat Emptor
Premium
join:2009-02-11
Earth Orbit
kudos:12

Talking about Phenom II and Bulldozer/Piledriver architecture is an apples and oranges comparison when looking at the relative value vs. Intel.



Krisnatharok
Caveat Emptor
Premium
join:2009-02-11
Earth Orbit
kudos:12
reply to Ignorant

said by Ignorant :

Actually, I didn't buy components, I bought a system through cyberpower pc. The 8 core AMD FX-8120 system and the 4 core i5-3570k system, with all other components being the same were ~$750 and ~$850 respectively. I was trying to keep the price under ~$800 (and would have preferred $700), and the AMD 8 core was offered as a free upgrade over the AMD FX-6100 6 core, which was only $30 more than the AMD FX-4100 4 core.

I tend to have a lot of programs open when playing WoW - usually at least mumble, a web browser, email application, sometimes other stuff as well. Playing on my current off-the-shelf laptop, I'm often in mid single digit framerates. I'm hoping do all this, plus FRAPS and have improved framerates. My assumption was that it would assign a core to each app. Was this incorrect?

Thanks for info.

I would return/cancel it and get the 3570K system instead--much better value for only $100 more. If you absolutely cannot afford the extra $100, get an i3 system instead, it will still be faster than the "8 core" FX-8120 system. I put "8 core" in quotes because the AMDs are not true octo-core chips--it is really four cores further subdivided and slightly built up, but the two sub-cores in each module share resources.

You can read here on Bulldozer: Analyzing Bulldozer: Why AMDs chip is so disappointing.
--
If we lose this freedom of ours, history will record with the greatest astonishment, those who had the most to lose, did the least to prevent its happening.


Dissembled

join:2008-01-23
Indianapolis, IN
reply to tuladrin

Kris, dude, come on. The guy is playing WoW and said he wanted to keep it under $800.



Krisnatharok
Caveat Emptor
Premium
join:2009-02-11
Earth Orbit
kudos:12

Edit: Found WoW benchmarks. Keep in mind this is with a GTX 680 2GB video card, so whatever he got for $700 will be drastically lower.

The FX-8150 performs worse on normal settings (77 FPS) than the i5-2550K (that's one generation old for Intel, mind you) does under AA (88.5 FPS).

But he's not getting an 8150, he's getting an 8120, which will be even slower. Tom's Hardware test system was using a GTX 680 2GB, and I guarantee you he got nothing close to that for $750, so he will probably be dipping under 60 FPS.

In raid settings, he might be going under 30 FPS.

This is why the current AMD CPUs are horrible for gaming.
--
If we lose this freedom of ours, history will record with the greatest astonishment, those who had the most to lose, did the least to prevent its happening.

JoelC707
Premium
join:2002-07-09
Lanett, AL
kudos:5

While I agree with everything you're saying (hell, I even said basically the same thing back on page 1), he mentions he gets single digit FPS now. If he can bump that up to 30+ then I'd call that a decent increase. Can he get better for the money? Without a doubt but that's still going to be a very good increase over his current system, especially if he is set on keeping an AMD system.



Krisnatharok
Caveat Emptor
Premium
join:2009-02-11
Earth Orbit
kudos:12

I find it hard to justify throwing $700 away on a new rig to be disappointed with similar FPS, when only a little bit more money (or different components) could be exactly what he needs.

Remember the Tom's benchmarks are inflated by two things--the faster CPU (they tested an 8150 and he's getting an 8120) and their ungodly fast GTX 680 2GB.

OP hasn't told us what graphics card he is getting.
--
If we lose this freedom of ours, history will record with the greatest astonishment, those who had the most to lose, did the least to prevent its happening.


JoelC707
Premium
join:2002-07-09
Lanett, AL
kudos:5
reply to Ignorant

said by Ignorant :

(snip)My assumption was that it would assign a core to each app. Was this incorrect?

Yes and no. You can usually set the affinity of each process to a specific core but there is no need to do this under most circumstances. Setting the affinity means you can tell it you want this process to only execute on core #3 for example. You are also free to set it to core #1 and #2 if you wanted it to have more than one core.

Windows includes a built in scheduler that basically intelligently (or in some cases, not so intelligently) shuffles processes around to each core. If you have an app that is single threaded (meaning it can only execute on one core), and it uses up "100%" of it's CPU, you won't usually see one core at 100% and the others at zero (unless you've told it to do that). In a dual core setup, you would see ~50% load on each core (~25% for a quad core and so on). That's the task scheduler shuffling that process between cores.

In all honesty, this isn't something you will ever really need to know about or worry about.

JoelC707
Premium
join:2002-07-09
Lanett, AL
kudos:5
reply to Krisnatharok

For sure, and you're right the GPU choice (if any) will play a big role in what FPS he will ultimately see. FWIW, if he is capable of building his own, he could likely get an i5 system with a midrange GPU for the same possibly less. I say this assuming the $100 price increase for the i5 system he compared to didn't have a GPU change (or even have an add-in GPU at all).



Krisnatharok
Caveat Emptor
Premium
join:2009-02-11
Earth Orbit
kudos:12
reply to JoelC707

I think he was under the assumption that 8 cores = 200% the power of 4 cores.

You're right, there are so many unknowns here, but we did try to steer him in the right direction.
--
If we lose this freedom of ours, history will record with the greatest astonishment, those who had the most to lose, did the least to prevent its happening.