Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

What CPU is for me?

Tags:
  • CPUs
Last response: in CPUs
Share
October 7, 2014 10:39:49 PM

I have spent hundreds of hours researching CPUs trying to decide what would be best for my build. I am building a desktop for gaming, computer programming, and possibly some networking. I had decided on the FX-8350 but I have started hearing that AMD is going to completely drop the FX line. Is it still worth while for me to get this CPU or what other processors would be good for me? I will be very thankful for any input I can get. Thanks!

More about : cpu

a c 396 à CPUs
October 7, 2014 10:43:28 PM

AMD just brought out the FX 8370 and 8370E. I doubt they are going to drop FX.
m
0
l
October 7, 2014 10:46:53 PM

So everything I'm hearing is wrong? Their road-map seems to imply that they are dropping the FX line as well. What processor would you recommend?

i7Baby said:
AMD just brought out the FX 8370 and 8370E. I doubt they are going to drop FX.


m
0
l
Related resources
a b à CPUs
October 7, 2014 10:53:11 PM

Get i5 4590 !
m
0
l
October 7, 2014 10:55:17 PM

Why? What makes that CPU better? And you can't just say, "Because it's Intel!" The benchmarks and price-per-rating is better on the FX-8350.

rockie_ said:
Get i5 4590 !


m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 7, 2014 10:59:59 PM

baskoball said:
Why? What makes that CPU better? And you can't just say, "Because it's Intel!" The benchmarks and price-per-rating is better on the FX-8350.

rockie_ said:
Get i5 4590 !




FX 8350 has 8 cores but weak ! i5 4590 is fast enough to feed even GTX Titan .
http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i5-4590-vs-AMD-FX-83...
m
0
l
a c 111 à CPUs
October 7, 2014 11:00:07 PM

baskoball said:
So everything I'm hearing is wrong? Their road-map seems to imply that they are dropping the FX line as well. What processor would you recommend?



Well, where are you hearing this? Is it a reputable source or some peewee speculating based on a conspiracy theory?

Regardless, I think your claim of having spent "100s of hours" is hyperbole. Perhaps if you pause to think for a minute and reason this way:

- is there a compelling argument to go with an AMD processor?
- If I build now and the processor (or the entire line goes away tomorrow) does it invalidate my build?
- Is there a viable alternative, eg. Intel?

- Why agonize yourself to death over something that should take a few minutes?

Regardless of which choice you make, you will have a computer that will work for 4-5 years and then you can spin over the same arguments again.

m
0
l
October 7, 2014 11:04:20 PM

The link you supplied even recommends the FX-8350.

rockie_ said:
baskoball said:
Why? What makes that CPU better? And you can't just say, "Because it's Intel!" The benchmarks and price-per-rating is better on the FX-8350.

rockie_ said:
Get i5 4590 !




FX 8350 has 8 cores but weak ! i5 4590 is fast enough to feed even GTX Titan .
http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i5-4590-vs-AMD-FX-83...


m
0
l
October 7, 2014 11:07:05 PM

Yes it is an exaggeration, but I have spent a long time researching it. I want to continue upgrading my build along the way. Yes it will be good for 4-5 years, but I don't want to hit a wall at the end of those 4-5 years and have to start from scratch.

Karsten75 said:
baskoball said:
So everything I'm hearing is wrong? Their road-map seems to imply that they are dropping the FX line as well. What processor would you recommend?



Well, where are you hearing this? Is it a reputable source or some peewee speculating based on a conspiracy theory?

Regardless, I think your claim of having spent "100s of hours" is hyperbole. Perhaps if you pause to think for a minute and reason this way:

- is there a compelling argument to go with an AMD processor?
- If I build now and the processor (or the entire line goes away tomorrow) does it invalidate my build?
- Is there a viable alternative, eg. Intel?

- Why agonize yourself to death over something that should take a few minutes?

Regardless of which choice you make, you will have a computer that will work for 4-5 years and then you can spin over the same arguments again.



m
0
l
a c 111 à CPUs
October 7, 2014 11:11:15 PM

baskoball said:
Yes it is an exaggeration, but I have spent a long time researching it. I want to continue upgrading my build along the way. Yes it will be good for 4-5 years, but I don't want to hit a wall at the end of those 4-5 years and have to start from scratch.



You will always "hit a wall" after a few years in technology. SATA replace IDE, DDR4 replace DDR3, PCIe replace PCI, USB 2.0 replace USB 3.0... Socket x replace Socket y. I can go on, but you get my idea.

In 4 years time it's immaterial.

m
0
l
October 7, 2014 11:15:09 PM

I see what your saying. But what about currently? What would be the best processor for me in your opinion? I am not biased towards one or another. I'm just looking for one that is able to do what I need to and one that is cost efficient as well as having good benchmarks.

Karsten75 said:
baskoball said:
Yes it is an exaggeration, but I have spent a long time researching it. I want to continue upgrading my build along the way. Yes it will be good for 4-5 years, but I don't want to hit a wall at the end of those 4-5 years and have to start from scratch.



You will always "hit a wall" after a few years in technology. SATA replace IDE, DDR4 replace DDR3, PCIe replace PCI, USB 2.0 replace USB 3.0... Socket x replace Socket y. I can go on, but you get my idea.

In 4 years time it's immaterial.



m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 7, 2014 11:15:44 PM

baskoball said:
The link you supplied even recommends the FX-8350.

rockie_ said:
baskoball said:
Why? What makes that CPU better? And you can't just say, "Because it's Intel!" The benchmarks and price-per-rating is better on the FX-8350.

rockie_ said:
Get i5 4590 !




FX 8350 has 8 cores but weak ! i5 4590 is fast enough to feed even GTX Titan .
http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i5-4590-vs-AMD-FX-83...




The graphics processing is taken by the GPU . For example , GTX 970 has 1664 stream processors , not 4 not 8 ! The CPU just serves .
m
0
l
a c 111 à CPUs
October 7, 2014 11:25:03 PM

baskoball said:
I see what your saying. But what about currently? What would be the best processor for me in your opinion? I am not biased towards one or another. I'm just looking for one that is able to do what I need to and one that is cost efficient as well as having good benchmarks.



I prefer Intel processors, but many here build with AMD and are perfectly satisfied. Either processor will work for you.

I most often build with Intel i5, sometimes with the i7 and then a few in the high-end Intel (now Haswell-E) or Xeons. I've done an Intel Celeron and Atom build for file servers, for instance.

The Intel i5 is an extremely powerful and versatile processor using very little power, and is easy to cool.

AMD excels if you want a low-price processor with extremely good integrated graphics (not sure how long that's going to be true still).

In the lines where you're looking, the crossover happens and from there on up, Intel is usually the most powerful processor.
m
0
l
October 7, 2014 11:29:52 PM

Karsten75 said:
baskoball said:
I see what your saying. But what about currently? What would be the best processor for me in your opinion? I am not biased towards one or another. I'm just looking for one that is able to do what I need to and one that is cost efficient as well as having good benchmarks.



I prefer Intel processors, but many here build with AMD and are perfectly satisfied. Either processor will work for you.

I most often build with Intel i5, sometimes with the i7 and then a few in the high-end Intel (now Haswell-E) or Xeons. I've done an Intel Celeron and Atom build for file servers, for instance.

The Intel i5 is an extremely powerful and versatile processor using very little power, and is easy to cool.

AMD excels if you want a low-price processor with extremely good integrated graphics (not sure how long that's going to be true still).

In the lines where you're looking, the crossover happens and from there on up, Intel is usually the most powerful processor.


So for my build and for my applications you would say the multiple cores and the hyper threading that AMD has in those chips is not worth while? Just curious. I don't truly understand how much hyper-threading would help me so I'm just curious.
m
0
l

Best solution

a c 111 à CPUs
October 8, 2014 12:24:12 AM

baskoball said:

So for my build and for my applications you would say the multiple cores and the hyper threading that AMD has in those chips is not worth while? Just curious. I don't truly understand how much hyper-threading would help me so I'm just curious.


Unless you have some tasks that runs concurrently and are often blocked (video rendering is most often used as the best example) then hyperthreading does not help much. It is often useful to look at the single-thread performance of a processor as well. For things like compiling code, only one thread is used. :)  Few games at present use multi-threading. Maybe in the future more games will, but we're talking today. :) 
Share
!