Any new AMD processors recommended to compete with i7 for 3-D CAD (Revit or Chief Architect)??

mmmmmmm not exactly the high end amd cpus are meant to compete with i3's and i5's how ever if a program is highly threaded enough they can keep up with an i7 in some cases.

If you mean by "lower-end i7 " somthing like intel i7 920 2.66Ghz processor , then you can find that AMD fx-6300 or 8350 around same performance (or better phenom ii x6 1100T if you can find ) , but i strongly recommend that you stick with intel, get core i5 2500k for better performance than lower end i7 ... you won't regret it

best wishes 4 u

if you willing to consider an i5 though an fx 8350 is worth considering as an alternative

http://www.behardware.com/art/imprimer/880/ check this out

well...
the bottom line to any workstation is: get an i7 - the best you can afford /revit heavily depends on cpu/. also a xeon processor should be considered, but only (and I can not stress this enough) if you have to keep the station as stable as possible, working 24/7 and generating minimum errors
also, you should stay away from gaming graphic cards - for cad you should use a workstation oriented gc...

you could have a few funny issues as you put it but also workstation cards have special drivers (and much more stable) designed for a workstation that are more precise in compute functions...desktop cards do not have this stability or compute capability. if you really want a workstation you should get a quadro card not a geforce.

well .... if you consider i7 2600 is lower end then at this case no way in world will you find an AMD CPU that can go near the performance , clock by clock for every task the i7 2600 beats every amd cpu

Here is what i have tested and came up with.
AMD does work fine with auto cad because of one thing...GPU Scaling

If you pair a 970a or higher with a 6770 + or a 7770+ and a FX cpu you inable gpuscaling in a since. It is not full blown but think of it like a software raid card it will raid but just not as good as a hardware raid card. I have had great sucess running AUTO Cad 2013 and 2013 Inventor 3d just fine on the AMD platform. This program will take advantage of the multiple CPUs which is AMD's strong point...(one of many few against Intel...right now ). It will also off load some of the video workload to CPU's that are not being utilized by the program from what i understand from AMD's white pages. I have 4 systems with the following specs Gigabyte 990FxA ud5 mobo, both have OC-GHz edition 7770's in them from XFX the new ghost edition one, an FX 8320, 8 GB of 1600 Corsair Vengance, samsung 840 SSD 250GB, 2 x 1 TB WD Black Drives all drives are Sata 6 GBPS with 750 watt TR750 from thermaltake. I have opened up 16 GB files in 2 to 6 mins with them where it used to take upwards of 15 20 mins to open before in an i5 (clarksdale core). Inventor gets insane 2d framerates for and AMD chip arround 189fps but in 3d its arround 50 or 60 fps @ 1080p. Just because a company says it will not support AMD does not mean it will not work. Trial and error is the best troubleshooting in the IT world.

PS I own and love my intel i7 3770k but i know not everybody's wallet can afford one, but they are on sale at Microcenter for 229.98 this week ......

As a person who has the i7-2600K I can say there is no AMD processor out there that can touch it, except some specific apps (like video editing, where the 8350 comes very close).

Well... As for the workstation vs gaming cards -

- gaming cards are build for speed - they are like a sports-car /lambo or a ferrari/ - fast, efficient and great. They possess superb clock rates, great memory bandwidth and many useful features designed to display content as FAST as possible. Also the gaming card 'looks' at the scene, discards many elements which would not be displayed and renders the 'final' scene prioritizing speed over quality.

- workstation cards are build for workload - they would be a decent off-road /like Nissan Patrol/ - slower but stable, hard working and ready to handle anything you throw at them. Their forte is displaying anything as accurate as possible with many plugins any professional application would need. Also they have ECC memory, better OpenGL optimization, special firmware, different drivers... And their algorithms render the entire scene /including the elements the gaming card discards/ with the emphasis on accuracy and quality.
This link should prove to be useful: www.nvidia.com/object/quadro_geforce.html

Honestly, I don't know...

The thing is: the better you are at a certain task, the more you'll feel limited by the resources at hand.
Take me for example - if I were to start poking around 3D graphics /e.q. stuff like Maya/ my current 'gaming' HW (i7 2600K + GTX 570) would be way above me, so I'm pretty sure:
a/ I wouldn't notice the difference at this point
b/ it will be good at handling anything I could throw at it.
As I'd get better I'd notice some limits /such as inaccuracies in rendering/ which would certainly bug me, but I'm pretty sure I would ignore them for some time /as long as I feel I have much more to learn/. And when I'd reach a certain level on my skills /when I felt like I could brag about my skills and/or apply for a job in the field/ the bugging would be unacceptable and I'd get a professional Quadro card.
But when I'd go pro and plan my living around designing stuff I would definitely start building a workstation with a lot of firepower /since now it becomes my work and any work worth doing deserves to be done right and to the best of my skill and ability ).

tl/dr> Build a workstation only if you can handle it, afford it and you're sure it will pay back at least the difference to a normal 'consumer class' PC.
/also from experience - the people who build workstations usually know all the reasons why they need them in the first place, so in case you have doubts, then a consumer pc would be good enough/.

The difference between them is somewhat like this>
Workstations are like a mule - can run 24/7 and have error corrections which can help running crucial applications.
Regular PC is a racing horse - not quite as powerful but a lot faster than a workstation /due to no error correction/.

I am a little confused by the lack of flexibility in some of the statements. Price to performance. seems to not even be a consideration or is versatility. Consider this further stretching of the badly used car analogy: "Get a Maserati, it is faster." Faster than what and under what circumstances? For the first many yards, most humans are faster than almost any car, including a Maserati. Even if this weren't a fact, there are many, many cars I would rather prefer for most tasks.
My advice based on subtext of question (if I need to be economical) is buy a mid priced processor and and a better GPU. Since this is a learning machine, there is no need for ultimate performance, your skillset will almost certainly not keep up with higher costs many have recommended. I feel strongly that best bang for buck and most versatility is to go all in AMD. That being said, an i7 is a fine processor but an 8 core AMD with a $150 Radeon will provide a great starting point and an easier upgrade path than most other combinations.

Hi, I run a small design company and assemble my own PC's for running 3-D CAD applications. Some of the responses on here regarding workstation graphics cards are a little off. It isn't to do with speed- the workstation graphics cards have drivers optimised for Open GL which is the pipeline used for professional CAD software. Gaming cards are set up for Direct X. The thing is this- an entry level workstation card outperforms a top end gaming card for CAD software. For example, I have a gaming rig at home with a Geforce GTX 560 (mid to high end gaming card from the last generation), and have a workstation using a Fire PRO V3100 (very cheap entry level workstation card). The 560 is 5x the speed of the V3100 for gaming, but the V3100 is noticeably smoother running 3-D CAD than the 560 despite the much lower specification of the card. Its all down to drivers.

Workstation graphics cards use the same interface (PCIE) as a gaming card so there is no problem fitting one to a standard PC. The other thing to bear in mind is that an i7 2600 CPU includes a basic Intel graphics adaptor free of charge. On this basis what I would suggest is: Get an off the shelf PC with an i7 and no additional graphics card (check to make sure the motherboard in the system has a PCIE X16 slot). Then purchase a workstation graphics card to compliment it. I would look at what graphics cards are recommended for your software and choose something suitable. From my experience I'd say the Fire PRO cards are usually cheaper for the same performance band however it is very application specific (some programs will run better on a lower specced Nvidia Quadro card than a Fire PRO, others its the other way around). Workstation cards are more expensive than gaming cards for a given processor spec, but entry level models aren't too expensive (circa £100). The mid range cards start at about £250, however if your not doing massive projects and this is primarily for learning then I'd suggest an entry level card would be OK. The current entry level cards are the AMD Fire PRO V3900, and the Nvidia Quadro 600, either can be had for around £100 and fitting a card like these to a PC is very straight forward.

Take no notice of the ignorant people telling you to get an i5 for CAD, seriously some people need to take the logo out of the picture and just give the correct advice! Take a look at this graph http://www.behardware.com/medias/photos_news/00/39/IMG0039483.png now as you can see in 3Dmax, which i believe to be " 3-D architectural cad software" like you asked for, the 8350 beats all the intel chips. Fan boys will tell you anything on here.

Did you end up picking a machine? I've been doing some very similar researching and these have been very helpful comments. I work for a software company that has a add-in to Revit, so I'm using Revit a fair bit, but not for rendering. I also have been getting into building computers and have been trying to figure out how to judge a how certain components (CPU especially) contribute to specific software performance. Anyway, I'm interested to know how things work out for you. Did you ever consider building your own? Its extremely easy, picking the components is the most challenging/fun part. Or I should say understanding the components/software performance relationship is a challenge.