8350 vs Haswell

[montosaurous]

Should I upgrade to an FX 8350 or wait and get a Haswell i5? I currently have a 970 AM3+ Asus board with an FX 4100. If I were to get the Haswell i5, I would not OC it. The FX 8350 would be OC'ed to 5.0GHz though. My uses are watching movies/tv shows, web browsing, light gaming, and everything inbetween. I want it to last until 2015 when I will most likely completely rebuild my system along with a Skylake i5. It will eventually be paired with crossfire Radeon 7770s and 16GB 1333 RAM.

 

[sarinaide]

If you are on a AM3+ setup to use any Intel platform, it goes without saying you will need to change your entire setup which costs, as for light usage that doesn't require a power right so contemplate your cheapest route forward.

Dual 7770's is not really the best available option, it scales well in some titles but the results are less than impressive in others. A single 7950 can 90% of the time out perform two Cape Verde's, If longivity is your game then you need to also cop out a bit on a GPU with more power.

 

[Rockdpm]

If I were you, And I had the money. I'd go to haswell then it leaves the door cracked for Skylake when it comes out. As for your GPU's... whats your budget?

 

[sarinaide]

1] 8350 is the most current chip from AMD that supports his AM3+

2] Steam Roller also confirmed on AM3+ though I expect new chipsets though I am sure on a bios flash a existing AM3+ will operate with a Steam Roller part.

3] He has 3 Generations upgradebility without needing to manditorily change motherboard though obviously on features he will be left behind.

4] Haswell is only expected Q2-3 on a new socket which will cost money over and above the existing setup which is not exhausted.

 

[noob2222]

with cf 7770s you wouldn't need to hit 5.0 ghz, 4.0 (stock) would probably still be bottlenecked by that gpu setup.

 

[sarinaide]

Yeah 7770's are good but like above it barely makes high end grade and will limit a CPU before it is limited.

 

[montosaurous]

Yeah I saw Steamroller will support AM3+, though the chipsets do concern me. I will hold off until Steamroller as long as it comes by the end of 2013. I have heard that PCIE 3.0 is not a big difference than 2.0. While my motherboard does not have onboard USB 3.0, my case does not either. I rarely use USB anyways. My biggest concern with AMD is that it will go bankrupt or be bought by another company. Btw if I go with Intel I will get a GTX 650 instead. All I would need to upgrade is the motherboard and CPU. As long as Haswell is DDR3 I will be fine with all of my other components.

 

[Rockdpm]

Yea haswell will be DDR3, Only 1 or 2 companys have DDR4 ram right now but it won't be the industry standard to earliest 2014.

 

[montosaurous]

And I wanted to OC the 8350 to 5.0GHz because I want it to get at least close in performance of Haswell.

 

[Rockdpm]

And I wanted to OC the 8350 to 5.0GHz because I want it to get at least close in performance of Haswell.

Which won't happen

 

[montosaurous]

My FX 4100 is fine for my current uses, but it will only be sufficient for 1-2 years longer. Does performance differ with OS, such as Linux which utilizes hardware better than Windows?

 

[Rockdpm]

My FX 4100 is fine for my current uses, but it will only be sufficient for 1-2 years longer. Does performance differ with OS, such as Linux which utilizes hardware better than Windows?

Linux has been known to favor Linux better than Windows. Supposedly Windows 8 is where bulldozer will shine... (Yea right)

But IMO its tid for tat between Intel and AMD for Windows. I think they all have their +'s and -'s but in the end when the dust settles... Intel's latest and greatest will beat AMD's latest and greatest.

 

[nekulturny]

Which won't happen

Linux has been known to favor Linux better than Windows. Supposedly Windows 8 is where bulldozer will shine... (Yea right)

But IMO its tid for tat between Intel and AMD for Windows. I think they all have their +'s and -'s but in the end when the dust settles... Intel's latest and greatest will beat AMD's latest and greatest.

Bulldozer already does shine in certain things, in some things it beats out Intel. Direct X11 games, which are the newest and sexiest. (BF3 for example) FX-8150s stand right up to I5-2500Ks and i7-2600Ks (since Ivy has no real advantage over Sandy for gaming, the same applies). The FX-8120 is at a pretty nice price point, for some heavily threaded work like video editing, CAD, etc. Its not as good as an i7 for everything, but you can't argue with $160 bucks for an 8 thread processor compared to $300+ for an Intel 8 thread.

Windows 8 is trash in and of itself. I'm not saying you should buy Bulldozer/PileDriver, but buy it for what it can do on Windows7, Windows 8 is just pure garbage for the Desktop market with its "metro" interface.

Directly to the OP in regards to his question,

For your described system usage, I don't see how you need anything more powerful than an FX-4100. I would consider sticking with that until you find something the 4100 isn't capable of doing. None of your described tasks are particularly CPU demanding. I wouldn't crossfire 2 7770s though. A single, stronger video card setup is usually the best solution.

 

[montosaurous]

Of course they will. AMD will never be able to beat intel. I would just upgrade but AMD's future looks grim, and I fear another company will buy them out and ruin them, as well as ATI. I believe that AMD's newest architecture is fundamentally flawed; it will be a long time until more than 4 cores, letalone 4 threads are needed for basic apps. And the fact that each core is split in two bothers me. I use Fedora for everyday use, and I run Windows on a VM. I'm not sure if having more threads helps with VMing, but it might give me a little breathing room.

 

[montosaurous]

And adding the second 7770 would be more of an upgrade option.

 

[nekulturny]

Of course they will. AMD will never be able to beat intel. I would just upgrade but AMD's future looks grim, and I fear another company will buy them out and ruin them, as well as ATI. I believe that AMD's newest architecture is fundamentally flawed; it will be a long time until more than 4 cores, letalone 4 threads are needed for basic apps. And the fact that each core is split in two bothers me. I use Fedora for everyday use, and I run Windows on a VM. I'm not sure if having more threads helps with VMing, but it might give me a little breathing room.

It doesn't look good for AMD's future at this point, you are correct in your fears.

However, I'm not so sure the new architecture is fundamentally flawed. Its more that its ahead of its time than anything. The architecture can and does perform on par with Intel's architecture in certain things. AMD was thinking "server" when they designed the Bulldozer architecture. The problem with using it for the desktop market is they haven't quite found the balance between stronger single thread performance and strong multi-threaded performance. Maybe they will find it, maybe they won't. In the meantime, based on Trinity benches that Tom's did (if you want the link to the article), you can at least take some comfort in the fact that AMD has met (and in some cases exceeded) its stated goal of increasing Bulldozer's performance by 10% in PileDriver (some things they got 15% improvement). At least they stuck to their roadmap. Its a small victory, but a victory nevertheless.

 

[Rockdpm]

Bulldozer already does shine in certain things, in some things it beats out Intel. Direct X11 games, which are the newest and sexiest. (BF3 for example) FX-8150s stand right up to I5-2500Ks and i7-2600Ks (since Ivy has no real advantage over Sandy for gaming, the same applies). The FX-8120 is at a pretty nice price point, for some heavily threaded work like video editing, CAD, etc. Its not as good as an i7 for everything, but you can't argue with $160 bucks for an 8 thread processor compared to $300+ for an Intel 8 thread.

Windows 8 is trash in and of itself. I'm not saying you should buy Bulldozer/PileDriver, but buy it for what it can do on Windows7, Windows 8 is just pure garbage for the Desktop market with its "metro" interface.

Directly to the OP in regards to his question,

For your described system usage, I don't see how you need anything more powerful than an FX-4100. I would consider sticking with that until you find something the 4100 isn't capable of doing. None of your described tasks are particularly CPU demanding. I wouldn't crossfire 2 7770s though. A single, stronger video card setup is usually the best solution.

I didn't say it doesn't shine. But for gaming yea Bulldozer does ok but rendering and such is where bulldozer's strength is

 

[nekulturny]

And adding the second 7770 would be more of an upgrade option.

You're still better off with a single, stronger video card, you avoid potential microstuttering issues that way.

 

[Rockdpm]

You're still better off with a single, stronger video card, you avoid potential microstuttering issues that way.

Why I always try to get a single tier card from now on

 

[nekulturny]

Why I always try to get a single tier card from now on

Yea... you're better off selling the lower end card, or using it for something else, rather than adding a 2nd lower end card. I just popped a 7870 in to replace my 550 TI. The 550 TI, I will use to build a computer for my mother rather than let it collect dust.

 

[montosaurous]

Where is a good place to sell used hardware at?

 

[nekulturny]

Craig's List, ebay, friends, family, etc. I think this forum even has a classified's section. You might be able to get $50 out of your 7770. No, its not anywhere near what you paid for it, but if you get it, I'd take it.

 

[montosaurous]

I know. I bought my PS3 for $400 in 2008 and got $150. Doesn't bother me at all. I mean, a single 7770 is fine for me now. I just figured adding a second would last me 3 years. I'll probably upgrade with the 8000, or possibly 9000 series (depending on time of release) then. I figure an SSD will be a much better upgrade now than the CPU then, and I'll hold off until Steamroller, possibly excavator if it isn't on FM3/AM4 and AMD's last Pure CPU.

 

[nekulturny]

I know. I bought my PS3 for $400 in 2008 and got $150. Doesn't bother me at all. I mean, a single 7770 is fine for me now. I just figured adding a second would last me 3 years. I'll probably upgrade with the 8000, or possibly 9000 series (depending on time of release) then. I figure an SSD will be a much better upgrade now than the CPU then, and I'll hold off until Steamroller, possibly excavator if it isn't on FM3/AM4 and AMD's last Pure CPU.

An SSD wouldn't be a bad toy to have. I would at least buy one that is 128GB capacity though, ideally I'd get the 256GB. I'd suggest Crucial M4's. But yea, for what you're doing, light gaming, and watching videos, your system is fine for that, you don't need 16GB of RAM either. 8 is more than plenty enough.

 

[Rockdpm]

Yea the Crucial M4's seems to be best of the best for SSD value