Are they bad? Like I mean at heat dissipation and performance in games? I am building a new pc soon and want it to last for about 8 years before I replace it
Anyway, AMD has decent CPUs depending on what you are playing and doing, but in general INtel CPUs perform better in games, but that does not make AMD CPUs BAD.
If you ask if they generate heat, well, yeah, as any CPU, and depending on the series too, for example the FX-9590 has a TDP of 220W, meaning it would generate a lot of heat, but if you ask if they are bad in quality, no, they are good, just with that little downside.
There single core performance is sub par. So, 6 amd cores are about equal to 2 intel cores.Most games use 2-4 cores for gaming. Heat dissipation isn't really an issue until you get into the fx-9370 and fx9590. An intel i7-3 series and above are little bit better than all of Amd's current cpus. Also, I7's have hyperthreading which make it perform like it has 8 cores, instead of 4. I5's are i7's without hyperthreading. An I5 4570 is equal to an fx 8350 in most games. In the end the most future proof option is an i7.
Anyway, AMD has decent CPUs depending on what you are playing and doing, but in general INtel CPUs perform better in games, but that does not make AMD CPUs BAD.
But is the AMD FX-8350 bad? I heard in another forum it overheats...
Anyway, AMD has decent CPUs depending on what you are playing and doing, but in general INtel CPUs perform better in games, but that does not make AMD CPUs BAD.
But is the AMD FX-8350 bad? I heard in another forum it overheats...
The FX-8350 bad? Where did you hear that, even when I'm not an AMD fan, saying the 8350 is bad is like saying the i5-3570 is bad, it MIGHT overheat if you do really heavy stuff with the stock cooler...
If you have a 1080P display, a single Nvidia 980 should max it out for years. You can always add another one. For the future, you could go SLI and have the most performance possible with two or even three video cards. I gave a huge 1200W supply in case you go crazy in the future with graphics cards.
If you have a 1080P display, a single Nvidia 980 should max it out for years. You can always add another one. For the future, you could go SLI and have the most performance possible with two or even three video cards. I gave a huge 1200W supply in case you go crazy in the future with graphics cards.
What do you plan to do with the machine? My q6600 atill bucks and its gotta be close to 8 years old or nearin it, i can still play high settings in new games when heavily overclocked. This isnt typical but if you arent planing on high end gaming the 8350 is a good chip, if you cool it properly as mentioned it will easily last that l8ng and still be functioning just not likely at the level you might want and certainly not for gaming.
If you have a 1080P display, a single Nvidia 980 should max it out for years. You can always add another one. For the future, you could go SLI and have the most performance possible with two or even three video cards. I gave a huge 1200W supply in case you go crazy in the future with graphics cards.
$ 2500 is my budget. Although I am willing to wait for a few weeks for Christmas sales. Also, don't want a 1200 watt power supply. Electricity here in our country is expensive!
If you have a 1080P display, a single Nvidia 980 should max it out for years. You can always add another one. For the future, you could go SLI and have the most performance possible with two or even three video cards. I gave a huge 1200W supply in case you go crazy in the future with graphics cards.
Alot of wasted money if you ask me.
Maybe, change the SSD to a 256GB one, you are already setting up a 3TB HDD, the CPU to a 4th generation one, there, it might make the price go down a little bit and be more accessible...
P.D: I'm not a native English speaker, is right to say "make the price go down"? Thanks
Anyway, AMD has decent CPUs depending on what you are playing and doing, but in general INtel CPUs perform better in games, but that does not make AMD CPUs BAD.
But is the AMD FX-8350 bad? I heard in another forum it overheats...
As I write this I am on a FX-8350 cooled by the Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO, I'm getting ~37 degrees Celsius with Chrome and Skype open and about ~45 (I haven't checked) in games, I haven't overclocked it, however, it is a beast at overclocking, people can get up to 8GHz if you cool it right.
I recall when I rendered videos it was still very cool, the 8 cores render videos very fast.
Bottom line, AMD CPUs are better for entry-level and high-end computers however, Intel is better suited for mid-level and high-end computers.
If you have a 1080P display, a single Nvidia 980 should max it out for years. You can always add another one. For the future, you could go SLI and have the most performance possible with two or even three video cards. I gave a huge 1200W supply in case you go crazy in the future with graphics cards.
Don't get so much memory if your not going to render videos, otherwise, just get 2x4GB, by the time you need more than 8GB there will be cheaper, faster RAM on the market for less than there is now.
The 1200W supply is overkill, you only need 80%-95% of the power to be used to make it efficient, below or over that and you might as well spend the money on extra SSDs or an extra monitor.
And I'd HIGHLY recommend to get 4 250MB SSDs and put them in RAID 0 than get a 1TB SSD, you will save so much money AND get a higher read/write speed in some cases, same with the HDD, just get 3 1TB drives and put them in RAID 0 - or put them in their own partition so you can organize your files better.
There, you might like that one, still, 1000W is way too much, but if you want to have your computer a little bit future proof, this one can last for a while, when 5th generation CPUs go down, you can swap later, I'm the kind of people that likes good stuff without wasting too much money, that's what I would buy if I had that much money, you can still add another 970 for SLI and the PSU would be fine!
If you have a 1080P display, a single Nvidia 980 should max it out for years. You can always add another one. For the future, you could go SLI and have the most performance possible with two or even three video cards. I gave a huge 1200W supply in case you go crazy in the future with graphics cards.
Don't get so much memory if your not going to render videos, otherwise, just get 2x4GB, by the time you need more than 8GB there will be cheaper, faster RAM on the market for less than there is now.
The 1200W supply is overkill, you only need 80%-95% of the power to be used to make it efficient, below or over that and you might as well spend the money on extra SSDs or an extra monitor.
And I'd HIGHLY recommend to get 4 250MB SSDs and put them in RAID 0 than get a 1TB SSD, you will save so much money AND get a higher read/write speed in some cases, same with the HDD, just get 3 1TB drives and put them in RAID 0 - or put them in their own partition so you can organize your files better.
4 dimms of ram for quad channel feature of the platform.
If you have a 1080P display, a single Nvidia 980 should max it out for years. You can always add another one. For the future, you could go SLI and have the most performance possible with two or even three video cards. I gave a huge 1200W supply in case you go crazy in the future with graphics cards.
Don't get so much memory if your not going to render videos, otherwise, just get 2x4GB, by the time you need more than 8GB there will be cheaper, faster RAM on the market for less than there is now.
The 1200W supply is overkill, you only need 80%-95% of the power to be used to make it efficient, below or over that and you might as well spend the money on extra SSDs or an extra monitor.
And I'd HIGHLY recommend to get 4 250MB SSDs and put them in RAID 0 than get a 1TB SSD, you will save so much money AND get a higher read/write speed in some cases, same with the HDD, just get 3 1TB drives and put them in RAID 0 - or put them in their own partition so you can organize your files better.
4 dimms of ram for quad channel feature of the platform.
The 4 cards will make a slight difference compared to the price increase, just get 2x4GB, you'll never reach that much usage (Unless you want to have a RAM disk or high-quality animation previews) in real-world scenarios.
Also, you will find the faster refresh rate will make a very slight difference in performance but a huge difference in price, I'd suggest the G.Skill Ripjaws/Ares (2x4GB).
It will be just as fast at Quake 3, Quake 4 , and Serious Sam 2 a full 8 years from now as it is now, so you have that going for you!
The RAM? It would be a waste of money, in 2 years time, let alone 8 there will be faster RAM with better technology for the cheap, just today I saw a 3D printer in a shop for only 2000 dollars, that's how fast technology is evolving.
Bottom line, waste the money if you want, but if you don't want to spend hundreds of dollars for stuff you can buy for a few bucks when you need it, then don't get more than 8GB of RAM or get RAM with DDR4.
NOTE: You can always buy another pair of 4GB cards and put THOSE in in a few years, that will do the trick, but you don't need them now, I'd say.
there is nothing wrong with AMD processors. if you are on a tight budget you can build a VERY capable machine for video and photo editing with AMD parts. you can get a speedy 8 core CPU WITH a motherboard that will let you overclock for about $300 if you choose to go with the green team. AMD processors are great for multi threaded applications but not so good for applications with limited multi-CPU support, like gaming.
personally, I haven't used an AMD CPU singe the San Diego core days, back when i had AMD's FX 57 sitting in a DFI nForce4 motherboard. it was a monster back in it's day, Intel had nothing that was even remotely close to it. i think that was 2005-ish? i bet half of you kids on here have never even heard of DFI they were amazing! 5 star reviews on every board. too bad they left the enthusiast market.
but i would go back to AMD in a heart beat if they would make something beefy enough to keep me happy.
RAID is a big no no for SSD's; they fail far faster if you RAID them.
Also I don't think RAIDing SSD's is required no matter how much money you have, unless you are a speed freak. SSD's are fast enough as they are.
If you have a 1080P display, a single Nvidia 980 should max it out for years. You can always add another one. For the future, you could go SLI and have the most performance possible with two or even three video cards. I gave a huge 1200W supply in case you go crazy in the future with graphics cards.
Don't get so much memory if your not going to render videos, otherwise, just get 2x4GB, by the time you need more than 8GB there will be cheaper, faster RAM on the market for less than there is now.
The 1200W supply is overkill, you only need 80%-95% of the power to be used to make it efficient, below or over that and you might as well spend the money on extra SSDs or an extra monitor.
And I'd HIGHLY recommend to get 4 250MB SSDs and put them in RAID 0 than get a 1TB SSD, you will save so much money AND get a higher read/write speed in some cases, same with the HDD, just get 3 1TB drives and put them in RAID 0 - or put them in their own partition so you can organize your files better.
4 dimms of ram for quad channel feature of the platform.
The 4 cards will make a slight difference compared to the price increase, just get 2x4GB, you'll never reach that much usage (Unless you want to have a RAM disk or high-quality animation previews) in real-world scenarios.
Also, you will find the faster refresh rate will make a very slight difference in performance but a huge difference in price, I'd suggest the G.Skill Ripjaws/Ares (2x4GB).
Why pay for a major platform feature and not use it? You could dial back on the size of the dimms opt for 4x2GB and get the additional speed.
If you have a 1080P display, a single Nvidia 980 should max it out for years. You can always add another one. For the future, you could go SLI and have the most performance possible with two or even three video cards. I gave a huge 1200W supply in case you go crazy in the future with graphics cards.
Don't get so much memory if your not going to render videos, otherwise, just get 2x4GB, by the time you need more than 8GB there will be cheaper, faster RAM on the market for less than there is now.
The 1200W supply is overkill, you only need 80%-95% of the power to be used to make it efficient, below or over that and you might as well spend the money on extra SSDs or an extra monitor.
And I'd HIGHLY recommend to get 4 250MB SSDs and put them in RAID 0 than get a 1TB SSD, you will save so much money AND get a higher read/write speed in some cases, same with the HDD, just get 3 1TB drives and put them in RAID 0 - or put them in their own partition so you can organize your files better.
4 dimms of ram for quad channel feature of the platform.
The 4 cards will make a slight difference compared to the price increase, just get 2x4GB, you'll never reach that much usage (Unless you want to have a RAM disk or high-quality animation previews) in real-world scenarios.
Also, you will find the faster refresh rate will make a very slight difference in performance but a huge difference in price, I'd suggest the G.Skill Ripjaws/Ares (2x4GB).
Why pay for a major platform feature and not use it? You could dial back on the size of the dimms opt for 4x2GB and get the additional speed.
The speed from having 4 cards instead of 2 is minor, having more cards double the chance of a card being faulty and increases the power consumption, and if they wanted to upgrade, they would not be able to without discarding some cards.
On the other hand, if you were to have 2 cards, you can buy another 2x4GB set to ramp it up if needed.
It depends on your own personal choice - if you want to upgrade (or might even consider it) in a few years and if the 4x2GB is cheaper, ect..
There single core performance is sub par. So, 6 amd cores are about equal to 2 intel cores.Most games use 2-4 cores for gaming. Heat dissipation isn't really an issue until you get into the fx-9370 and fx9590. An intel i7-3 series and above are little bit better than all of Amd's current cpus. Also, I7's have hyperthreading which make it perform like it has 8 cores, instead of 4. I5's are i7's without hyperthreading. An I5 4570 is equal to an fx 8350 in most games. In the end the most future proof option is an i7.
That is not true. A 6 core AMD CPU will outperform Intel dual cores in most things that uses more than 2 cores. Games also generally use up to 6 cores, not 2-4.