AMD FX 6100 with AMD Radeon 6870 or Just i5 3570K

[shlokpatel]

I want to build a budget pc which I will not be doing much gaming on if any. I can either get the FX 6100 with AMD Radeon 6870 or just the i5 3570k. Which one would be better ?

 

[shlokpatel]

What will be a good motherboard for the i5 ?

 

[shlokpatel]

I will be using the pc mainly for surfing a a bit of editing videos

 

[shlokpatel]

Thanks a lot

 

[shlokpatel]

the only AMD Bulldozer chip that MIGHT BE worth trying out is the FX-8120/50.
that's it and the FX-4100/70 is better than the FX-6xxx line of chips anyways.

Intel is the better option.

So if i was to get the amd with the 6870 it would be better to get the fx 4100 than the 6100 ? Why ?

 

[shlokpatel]

Oh Thanks for helping

 

[quilciri]

but it's a mute conversation....

I think he means "moot", unless you're going to have a conversation in mime

Which video editing software are you using?

 

[quilciri]

Shlokpatel is using powerdirector? I guessed I missed that. Well, no comment on the video card, then. From what I remember PD 10 has an OpenCL accelerated renderer, so AMD all the way there.

By chance do you live near a microcenter? Between the lower processor prices and the mobo bundle deal, you might be able to fit in a 2700k, which would serve your video editing better than the 3570k.

have fun!

 

[Komomu]

oop why not get a core i3-2120 with the 6870 which is cheaper than the 6100 then upgrade to core i5 later?

 

[quilciri]

I use PowerDirector...

heh, the editor question was directed at the OP, that's what I thought you were answering. Different editors favor either ATI/AMD or Nvidia cards, so was just trying to get him (possibly) better editing performance.

 

[shlokpatel]

I am not close to any microcentres so I think i might just get the 3570k and I will definitely not be able to upgrade so I think getting the i5 right now would be the best for me.

I use camtasia 7, movie maker and microsoft encoder mainly for editing which I do not do very often so I do not need an i7

 

[quilciri]

I am not close to any microcentres so I think i might just get the 3570k and I will definitely not be able to upgrade so I think getting the i5 right now would be the best for me.

I use camtasia 7, movie maker and microsoft encoder mainly for editing which I do not do very often so I do not need an i7

Hey whatever you want. I just focused on the video editing part of your requirements because web surfing is a non-issue as far as what type of performance you need.

good luck!

 

[Guest]

In here you will ready what to afraid with ivy cpu’s in details, the heat spreaders removed, thermal camera was used, etc:

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/340000-10-corei-7920-bloomfield

The overheating problem has nothing to do with OC or not there is no cooler that can keep you happy for 1 minute or 2 with these chips.
There is some pressure from many users to upgrade now and in the bottom you will find 2 sandy bridge cpu’s for LGA 2011 motherboards.

I say is better to go with AMD gaming is most related with the graphics card and less with cpu, frequency, the most games are using only 1 core anyway.

 

[rds1220]

In here you will ready what to afraid with ivy cpu’s in details, the heat spreaders removed, thermal camera was used, etc:

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/340000-10-corei-7920-bloomfield

The overheating problem has nothing to do with OC or not there is no cooler that can keep you happy for 1 minute or 2 with these chips.
There is some pressure from many users to upgrade now and in the bottom you will find 2 sandy bridge cpu’s for LGA 2011 motherboards.

I say is better to go with AMD gaming is most related with the graphics card and less with cpu, frequency, the most games are using only 1 core anyway.

You have absolutely no clue on what you are talking about, you are talking out your butt. Also maybe try to post in coherent English. Everyone of your post have been babbling that makes no sense.

 

[rds1220]

Lets look at some real benchmarks done by Toms Hardware.

So as you can see your great Bulldozer is horrible in gaming. I would go with a Sandy Bridge Pentium before I get a Bulldozer.

 

[Guest]

I don't mess arround any more if you don't like me is fine with me.

BlizzardGamer made a pretty good reasearch of the issue and i have a link in his thread. There links was out of Tom's Hardware and i avoid using them in my posts.

if someone intrested helping me he can PM me i allready asked rds1220 help with PM.

Nobody in Tom's hardware wins by fighting exept intel that made these strange changes.

 

[rds1220]

If Bulldozer is so great prove it. Lets see some benchmarks...

 

[Guest]

We don't need other links the data was clear we see 2 Fps from AMD and only in some games the price for the money is better AMD.

 

[rds1220]

Exactly you can't prove it because the benchmarks out there from reliable sources show how bad the Bulldozer is. You're right the data is clear the Bulldozer is a piss poor performer in gaming and you would be better of with an I3. Even an I3 will out perform the Bulldozer. Lets not forget too that at higher resolutions with high-end video cards the Bulldozer will start to bottleneck the video card. Better money with AMD ah..no you can get a cheap 1155 board with an I3 for the same price and it will out perform the Bulldozer. I would rather have 4 brutally fast cores then 8 pissweak cores of the Bulldozer.

 

[Guest]

You want to build a pc for winning in any benchmark or to play games?

 

[rds1220]

You want to build a pc for winning in any benchmark or to play games?

If I'm going to be spending money on a gaming build I want the best performance for the money not a piss weak con job from AMD. AMD has nothing in the enthuist market and they know it that's why they have said they aren't going to even try to compete with Intel anymore. Fanboys use to have the argument that Intel was only for rich people who had money but AMD was good for a low budget build. Now they don't have that either because the Bulldozer is so weak that you can build an I3 build for the same price as a cheap AMD build and it will out perform a Bulldozer. In gaming there is no reason to with AMD.

 

[Guest]

do as you like.

 

[quilciri]

If I'm going to be spending money on a gaming build I want the best performance for the money not a piss weak con job from AMD. AMD has nothing in the enthuist market and they know it that's why they have said they aren't going to even try to compete with Intel anymore. Fanboys use to have the argument that Intel was only for rich people who had money but AMD was good for a low budget build. Now they don't have that either because the Bulldozer is so weak that you can build an I3 build for the same price as a cheap AMD build and it will out perform a Bulldozer. In gaming there is no reason to with AMD.

That's a bit over the top, and contains quite a bit of hyperbole. I agree with the more reasonable version of this post, but as you worded it, you appear to be highly biased.

For the OP, since you're not planning to overclock, intel will be the better choice for all around performance and longevity. However, I'm getting the idea from your first post that the 3570k machine you're considering is saddled with HD graphics. I realize you say you won't be doing very much gaming, but keep in mind that even HD 4000 graphics (intel's best integrated solution) is horrible for gaming. Unless the titles you want to run are 6 years old or otherwise have extremely low requirements, you'll need a discrete card if you want to game with that machine.

There are still instances where AMD is a better idea. If you live near a microcenter, the 965 black is avail. with mobo combo deals for extremely cheap. They don't currently offer any with the i3. Also, in multiplayer (such as BF3) that makes use of four cores, the 965 black will perform better than the i3.

Again, the 3570k will outperform either of them, but only when paired with a very powerful video solution. In the vast majority of cases, the video card will run out of juice before any of the above processors.

 

[quilciri]

I'm sensitive because I agreed with the heart of what he was saying, but not the foaming-at-the-mouth way he said it?

 

[shlokpatel]

That's a bit over the top, and contains quite a bit of hyperbole. I agree with the more reasonable version of this post, but as you worded it, you appear to be highly biased.

For the OP, since you're not planning to overclock, intel will be the better choice for all around performance and longevity. However, I'm getting the idea from your first post that the 3570k machine you're considering is saddled with HD graphics. I realize you say you won't be doing very much gaming, but keep in mind that even HD 4000 graphics (intel's best integrated solution) is horrible for gaming. Unless the titles you want to run are 6 years old or otherwise have extremely low requirements, you'll need a discrete card if you want to game with that machine.

There are still instances where AMD is a better idea. If you live near a microcenter, the 965 black is avail. with mobo combo deals for extremely cheap. They don't currently offer any with the i3. Also, in multiplayer (such as BF3) that makes use of four cores, the 965 black will perform better than the i3.

Again, the 3570k will outperform either of them, but only when paired with a very powerful video solution. In the vast majority of cases, the video card will run out of juice before any of the above processors.

Thanks for your help but now I am allowed to spend a £100 more so I will be able to get both the 3570k and the 6870 so i'm sorry I forgot to add that.

I am going to buy the i5 3570k and the 6870 with OCZ 500W ModXStream Pro psu. Will the 500w be enough ?