technology Looking for a Better Computer

[CMQuickfireTK 751]

First: Single thread IPC is shit on Bulldozer, not to mention that it A. runs hotter and B. uses quite a bit more power. I picked the non-k as I very much doubt the OP wants to overclock and I wouldn't recommend overclocking on a production rig. Photoshop is one of those apps that will probably see AVX2 adoption. So why settle for a one trick pony when there's a good all rounder for roughly the same price?

 

Ftfy, Piledriver GREATLY improved single-threaded performance, still not as good as an intel yes, but it's not "shit" anymore.

[Milk Wave 454]

@@TorqueEffect, 

 

80+ basically means the efficiency of a power supply is higher then 80%, meaning it saves money and provides your computer with a better source of power.

 

My power supply is a Corsair CX600 Active PSU with 80+ Bronze, meaning I think it's around.. 80-84% rather then buying a non 80+ PSU which can run between 79% and below.

 

80+ Platinum is the best you can get, which runs well around the 95% efficiency mark.

[Okeen 49]

I personally use a Windows 8 64 bit Operating System with an Intel core i3.

Fantastic computer, even with only i3.

Runs all the games I want including Battlefield.

Edited August 2, 2015 by rabodo

[A Blithering Div 247]

Ftfy, Piledriver GREATLY improved single-threaded performance, still not as good as an intel yes, but it's not "shit" anymore.

 

It barely beats the Phenom II and still doesn't quite match Nehalem. These aren't entirely accurate for a uArc comparsion due to differing frequencies and turbo but my point stands. Both uArcs are 4 years old. I stand by my statement that single thread performance is shit.

[Milk Wave 454]

@@A Blithering Div,

 

That's because Phenom II is just an amazing processor back in its day, and up till now :3

Also, single threaded performance is suitable, not shit. It may not be as fast as Intel, but it gets the job done in a good amount of time. Thankfully with their Kaveri cores, they're hoping to improve both single threaded and multi threaded performance by quite a lot, so we'll see how that turns out. 

[A Blithering Div 247]

@@A Blithering Div,

 

That's because Phenom II is just an amazing processor back in its day, and up till now :3

Also, single threaded performance is suitable, not shit. It may not be as fast as Intel, but it gets the job done in a good amount of time. Thankfully with their Kaveri cores, they're hoping to improve both single threaded and multi threaded performance by quite a lot, so we'll see how that turns out. 

 

 

I wouldn't say amazing but it was an excellent value versus the i7 920 at the time. $250 for an x4 955 and mobo vs $500 for an i7 and mobo and in games (at the time) they weren't that different and both were overclockable.

 

But Piledriver is still rubbish in single threaded tasks. This is because of high in-core latency and 1 float scheduler. I am fully aware of what kaveri can bring, I've read the slides and follow computer hardware near religiously. However, its all "upto" 20% faster CPU and there aren't any 4 module bins in the roadmaps.

[Milk Wave 454]

@@A Blithering Div, 

 

Like I said, still suitable, so that's pretty much the answer.

 

 

It barely beats the Phenom II and still doesn't quite match Nehalem. These aren't entirely accurate for a uArc comparsion due to differing frequencies and turbo but my point stands.

 

Also you used the FX-4300, not the 8350. The 8350 vs a Phenom 955 and even the 965 just crushes the shit out of both processors in everything.

[CMQuickfireTK 751]

It barely beats the Phenom II and still doesn't quite match Nehalem. These aren't entirely accurate for a uArc comparsion due to differing frequencies and turbo but my point stands. Both uArcs are 4 years old. I stand by my statement that single thread performance is shit.

 

That's great. I hope it works out for you.

 

also I can see why... You've compared the lowest end FX

Edited December 16, 2013 by z77

[A Blithering Div 247]

@@A Blithering Div, 

 

Like I said, still suitable, so that's pretty much the answer.

 

 

 

Also you used the FX-4300, not the 8350. The 8350 vs a Phenom 955 and even the 965 just crushes the shit out of both processors in everything.

 

First, it isn't suitable if it can't match four year old uArcs.

 

The old Phenom flagship is actually the 1100 Black Edition which is 6 actual cores. However the frequency disparity is quite big at 700MHz and once again, turbo has not been disabled. Of course, we can always compare an i5 4670k to an FX-8350 and see how that goes... Looks like the only thing the 8350 has going for it is xvid encodes. Even then, not by much. Handbrake has AVX2 support as well.

 

FX-4300 is marketed as a quad core. I will treat it as such.

[Milk Wave 454]

@@A Blithering Div, 

 

Both of those are quite similar, but instead of using synthetic benchmarks... How about games?

 

Do they perform the same? Is any one of them different by a major margin? Heck, 90% of the gaming community really cares about FPS rather then 3D rendering and such. The only time i'd really give any sort of care to any of those tests are when i'm using a program that's pretty much similar to the benchmarks.

 

And in gaming, the FX 6100 gets between only 5-15 fps less then an Intel i7 3770k.

[CMQuickfireTK 751]

@Blithering Div Go be an intel fanboy somewhere else.

Edited December 16, 2013 by z77

[A Blithering Div 247]

@@A Blithering Div, 

 

Both of those are quite similar, but instead of using synthetic benchmarks... How about games?

 

Do they perform the same? Is any one of them different by a major margin? Heck, 90% of the gaming community really cares about FPS rather then 3D rendering and such. The only time i'd really give any sort of care to any of those tests are when i'm using a program that's pretty much similar to the benchmarks.

 

And in gaming, the FX 6100 gets between only 5-15 fps less then an Intel i7 3770k.

 

Depends on the game in question. Something like Starcraft 2 tends to shine on Intel CPUs: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-processor-frame-rate-performance,3427-8.html

 

Something like Battlefield 4 and the CMT approach starts showing its muscle: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/battlefield-4-graphics-card-performance,3634-10.html

 

Therein lies the problem. With a budget of $1,200, its hard to recommend a CPU that only does well in highly threaded tasks. This is precisely why I suggested the 4670 in the first place. Now if the budget were $800, I actually would have suggested the FX-6300 (or 8320 if I could squeak in a mobo capable of handling it) as it is an excellent value. Far better than an i3 in most cases: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/677?vs=699

[Milk Wave 454]

@@A Blithering Div, 

 

 

@,

 

Heyo, so you're looking for a nice computer? :3

 

If you want, I can put together an AMD Build for you, it'll be around 800+ maybe and performs well. Games will run good, multitasking will be good too.

 

Case is NZXT Phantom 410 ATX Mid Tower. It's sweet since it looks more, futuristic :3

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811146086

 

Processor is AMD FX-6300 6 core processor, clocked at 3.5 Ghz. It's a nice guy, runs well too!

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113286

 

Motherboard is by ASUS. It's an AM3+ Motherboard so it supports the processor, as well as being loaded with awesome stuff. Also supports dual channel RAM.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131874

 

GPU is by ASUS as well. It is the Radeon R9 270x, 2GB edition, and it's a hunk of cooling. Also comes with Battlefield 4 :3

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814121802

 

RAM is Corsair Vengeance Series, 8GB of DDR3 1600 dual channel kit. And it matches with the Mobo color~

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820145345

 

Power Supply is a nice Corsair CX 750 watt PSU. Mind you some things are out of stock, but they restock just about all the time. It's a nice, reliable brand with 80+ Bronze.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817139040

 

And HDD, is a Western Digital Caviar Black 1TB Hard Drive at 7200RPM. It's like, the top competitor against Segate's Barracuda 1TB HDD.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA2W00ZD1577

 

And there you have it! 7 Parts to put together, making a nice machine. It comes up to $818 without sales I believe, so if there ever is sales plus rebates you can get it cheaper.

 

Also note, if you're not from the US, then I don't think you can order from here :c

Oh well :3

This my dear friend, is the key to an 800 dollar computer.

[Tech Pony 64]

When it comes to the FX series, I'd have a hard time recommending it for a gamer. Sure you can take it and overclock the hell out of it, but its stock performance for gaming leaves something to be desired. You'll get much better performance out of a comparably priced i5 for simple gaming. 

 

If you're doing things such as recording your games, and other heavily multithreaded applications, the FX-83xx series does start to come alive and can hold its own against some much more expensive i7 processors. 

 

Also, there's a leaked AMD roadmap showing that there will be no future advancements of the FX series past vishera (at least for the foreseeable future), all future R&D from AMD is going to be going towards their APU's.

 

AMD's chipsets also leaves a lot to be desired compared to intel.

 

 

 

 

 

[A Blithering Div 247]

@@A Blithering Div, 

 

 

This my dear friend, is the key to an 800 dollar computer.

 

Antec Nine Hundred is a better case IMHO.

[lomk 20,665]

Awwwwwhhh crap! I saw an Intel vs. AMD argument! Lemme in on this action!

 

Concerning AMD vs Intel, neither is better. I have an Intel ultrabook that I'm using right now, and an AMD custom desktop that I game on. I'm sick of seeing so much brand loyalty. Don't rag on people who don't use the same stuff as you. Go with what suits your needs.

 

For me, when I bought my ultrabook, I didn't get it because it's Intel. I got it because it was small. I got it because it boots fast. And if you want a good school computer, an ultrabook is the way to go. You don't need a 750 GB hard drive if all you have is Word files. The biggest plus on an ultrabook is that it's so tiny. My old cell phone is literally thicker than my ultrabook. Again, didn't get it because it's Intel. I got it because it fit my needs.

 

When I built my desktop, I went with an AMD build. Because AMD does make pretty good processors, especially for the money. I agree that the FX-8350 is no match for the i7-3930K. The Intel chip is far superior. But you have to know what your needs are. Before I built my rig, I really wanted an Intel chip. Not something as huge as an i7-3930K, but maybe an i5-3570K. But then I watched a video (below) about what your CPU is used for. I read into it. Bigger processors are better for video rendering and if you want a good gaming rig, your focus should be on the GPU. The graphics card carries the brunt of the load in gaming, not the CPU. Sure, it can bottleneck your GPU. But is an extra 10 fps worth spending an extra hundred or so dollars? It wasn't to me. So I went with an FX-6300. I'm playing Minecraft Borderlands 2, GTA IV, Skyrim, Black Ops II, and a few other games in 1080p with no lag. 

 

Intel fanboys? AMD fanboys? Will you guys all just do the world a favor and please stop it? Don't get one or the other because of a name. Get one or the other because it fits your needs. I personally see them both on the same level. I think AMD makes better chips for the money. I think Intel makes better chips in terms of just a good overall chip. If you want to drop some serious cash on a high end desktop or server, you can't go wrong with Intel. If you have a budget and you're going to be doing some gaming, AMD is a solid bet as long as you get a good GPU. One is not better than the other. They're just built around meeting the different needs of different people. 

 

As for that video, this is what I watched to get some education on what the CPU is used for.

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCrOAng0kdQ

 

Edited December 16, 2013 by ~Sadistic Luna~

[CMQuickfireTK 751]

Thank you! I couldn't have explained it better myself.

[Milk Wave 454]

Antec Nine Hundred is a better case IMHO.

That would be your opinion. I'm just going with one that's good for airflow, stylish, looks much different compared to most cases (( NZXT has a habit of doing that )) and for sure would get the job done.

[Tech Pony 64]

My desktop is an AMD FX-8350, OC'ed to around 4.6/4.7 (I don't remember the exact number off the top of my head)

 

For simple gaming, you will see much better performance out of a comparably priced i5. That is indisputable fact. AMD still lacks the single threaded performance that Intel has and most games are still single threaded. Sure the GPU is ultimately just as important when it comes to gaming, but after building my AMD desktop, I wouldn't recommend it to anyone looking to build a good gaming computer except in the sub 800 dollar price range. 

[A Blithering Div 247]

That would be your opinion. I'm just going with one that's good for airflow, stylish, looks much different compared to most cases (( NZXT has a habit of doing that )) and for sure would get the job done.

 

I said it was my opinion (IMHO)?

 

Outside of that decent build.

[Milk Wave 454]

@@A Blithering Div,

 

I don't exactly know what IMHO meant, sorry. Anyways, thanks for saying it's a decent build. I mainly look for quality parts in systems :3 

[A Blithering Div 247]

@@A Blithering Div,

 

I don't exactly know what IMHO meant, sorry. Anyways, thanks for saying it's a decent build. I mainly look for quality parts in systems :3 

 

Well, it is. Good call on the dual channel memory as well. Most builds I see on the web use one stick of RAM and I just want to scream at them USE 2 YOU'RE WASTING HALF OF YOUR MEMORY PERFORMANCE FOR NO REASON.

[Milk Wave 454]

@@A Blithering Div,

 

Pfft, yeah I agree.

Heck I saw Quad Channel 8GB RAM for the same price as Dual Channel. That'll work well for motherboards suited for just that :3

[lomk 20,665]

 

 

Most builds I see on the web use one stick of RAM and I just want to scream at them USE 2 YOU'RE WASTING HALF OF YOUR MEMORY PERFORMANCE FOR NO REASON.

 

I don't know where you're looking where you find stuff like that! That's just stupid to not fill all your RAM slots IMO 

[Tech Pony 64]

I don't know where you're looking where you find stuff like that! That's just stupid to not fill all your RAM slots IMO 

 

The more ram sticks you have the more likely an unstable OC will occur but it's best to fill out a channel at least.