Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Vishera or Ivy Bridge for December build?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
October 25, 2012 2:10:59 PM

I need to build a computer for some friends by December. They want to use it mostly for photo/video editing, games, and a little folding. I've already bought them a GTX 670, a 128 GB SSD, a heatsink, and some RAM, but I can't decide between AMD (FX-8350) or Intel (i5-3570k) for the CPU. It looks like Vishera is pretty good with multi-threaded apps e.g. photo/video editing. But it's still not as good at everyday tasks as Intel, or at gaming in CPU bound games. The upside as I see it is that it's not a dead socket, and steamroller should be a major improvement. LGA 1155 is a dead socket however, but...it's just better right now, especially once it's overclocked. I wish I could wait until Haswell came out, then it would be a no brainer, but alas, it isn't an option. Argh...I can't decide, any opinions are welcome, thanks!

P.S. I plan on creating a VM for them to run final cut pro on it, would more cores (aka vishera) be advantageous?
a c 140 à CPUs
October 25, 2012 2:20:34 PM

Augray37 said:
I need to build a computer for some friends by December. They want to use it mostly for photo/video editing, games, and a little folding. I've already bought them a GTX 670, a 128 GB SSD, a heatsink, and some RAM, but I can't decide between AMD (FX-8350) or Intel (i5-3570k) for the CPU. It looks like Vishera is pretty good with multi-threaded apps e.g. photo/video editing. But it's still not as good at everyday tasks as Intel, or at gaming in CPU bound games. The upside as I see it is that it's not a dead socket, and steamroller should be a major improvement. LGA 1155 is a dead socket however, but...it's just better right now, especially once it's overclocked. I wish I could wait until Haswell came out, then it would be a no brainer, but alas, it isn't an option. Argh...I can't decide, any opinions are welcome, thanks!

P.S. I plan on creating a VM for them to run final cut pro on it, would more cores (aka vishera) be advantageous?


If you were to go Intel the I7 would be better than the I5. The I5 is great for gaming but it doesn't always do great in really heavy threaded stuff like video editing, video/audio compression and folding at home.The I7 with it's slightly larger cache and hyperthreading does much better. I would go with an I7 if you can afford it.
a b à CPUs
October 25, 2012 2:22:03 PM

If you consider the LG 1155 a dead socket with little life expectancy then you have already answered your own question. I reckon the 8 core will be beneficia in all aspects except for gaming like you said, however if you plan on doing folding etc and especially running more than one VM at one time then the FX is the way to go. Not to forget that you can OC the FX model well also.
Related resources
a c 78 à CPUs
October 25, 2012 2:28:37 PM

If they're only doing occasional video/photo editing, you will find the i5 quite up to the task. In my opinion, the i7 is really only justified if this were the primary purpose of the system (such as a professional who does this for a living), if gaming and daily browsing, watching movies, basic day to day computer usage most people do, the i7's HyperThreading brings little to nothing to the table for those tasks.

As far as the 8350. Its not a bad CPU, it would be a good choice as well at it's price range.

As far as sockets going EOL, buy a system for what it can do for you today, not what it might or might not be able to do a few years from now. Due to the way computer hardware advances, pretty much any CPU upgrade (in 3 years to throw out a number), is going to include a new motherboard for best results anyway. If you find yourself needing to upgrade a CPU before that time, either 3 things have happened, 1. Your needs changed, 2. You're doing it "because you can", or 3. You didn't buy the right CPU to meet your needs in the first place (IE. Buying a cheaper CPU now with the idea that you can upgrade it later).. Save more and buy the right CPU that you think meets your needs, rather than buying 2 CPUs and having one sit on a shelf as a paperweight.
a c 140 à CPUs
October 25, 2012 2:43:47 PM

I see no point in getting the Piledriver you get more out of the I7. With the I7 you are getting an all around better processor that is great for both lightly threaded programs and heavy threaded programs. If you are gaming you turn off the hyper threading and you have a great gaming CPU. You decide to do heavy threaded work just go into the BIOS turn on hyper threading and you have a great CPU for doing heavy threaded work. About the only thing Bulldozer and Piledriver does half decent is heavy threaded work. So with AMD you get a CPU that is good in heavy threaded programs but lousy in single threaded programs. With the I5 you are getting a CPU that is good at single threaded programs but not so great in heavy threaded programs. With the I7 you are getting an all around good CPU that is good at BOTH single and multi threaded programs. BTW in your post above you seem to be forgetting that he is also doing Folding At Home. Giving that he is adding Folding At Home into the mix it makes it even more worth it to get the I7.
a b à CPUs
October 25, 2012 2:49:23 PM

rds1220 said:
I see no point in getting the Piledriver you get more out of the I7. With the I7 you are getting an all around better processor that is great for both lightly threaded programs and heavy threaded programs. If you are gaming you turn off the hyper threading and you have a great gaming CPU. You decide to do heavy threaded work just go into the BIOS turn on hyper threading and you have a great CPU for doing heavy threaded work. About the only thing Bulldozer and Piledriver does half decent is heavy threaded work. So with AMD you get a CPU that is good in heavy threaded programs but lousy in single threaded programs. With the I5 you are getting a CPU that is good at single threaded programs but not so great in heavy threaded programs. With the I7 you are getting an all around good CPU that is good at BOTH single and multi threaded programs. BTW in your post above you seem to be forgetting that he is also doing Folding At Home. Giving that he is adding Folding At Home into the mix it makes it even more worth it to get the I7.


I see a great reason in not buying an I7. Its called.......Price
HOWEVER
IF OP is crappin the money and money isn't an issue then definitely I7
a b à CPUs
October 25, 2012 3:44:23 PM

I say go with the FX....

In normal everyday task (that not need to much processing) both proc is more than capable to do it...
it became irelevant which one is better (U don't need extreme to watch movie, or typing :D )

I'm not sure about VM but if it's well threaded then FX is way to go..

about "future" steamroller or haswell. I tend's to not think about it...
Future is unpredictable, we cannot know until it actually arives and benchmarked... (It could be good or disappointment)

edit: ps if u can afford i7.. I7 is a good choise, amd still had notthing to compete with it... (but I rather sink the extra money at SSD)
a c 140 à CPUs
October 25, 2012 3:54:05 PM

Except this isn't an everyday computer for checkig emails and watching youtube video's. This is going to be a computer that is going to be demanding on both the CPU and GPU. Like I said look back at my post above. The Piledriver will be fine in heavy threaded programs but not so great in single threaded programs like games which this person is going to be using the computer for. The I5 will do great in games but not so great in heavy threaded programs like video editing and folding at home. Again if this person can afford an I7 it would be the best all around processor, it will cover the best f both worlds.
a b à CPUs
October 25, 2012 4:02:45 PM

but watching movies, checking email, and reply at Tom's is my every day task... :D 

Hehee.... (I'm guess it differs for each person)

a b à CPUs
October 25, 2012 4:05:21 PM

@OP

Is there a price ceiling for the build? Any build that needs MOAR CORES will be better off with an AMD build for sure, but if you got the money I agree with rds1220, the i7 will fare better most of the time. Don't know where you live, but Microcenter is getting rid of the i7 2700K they have and are selling them at usd$220 with a usd$50 discount on the motherboard. That's a sick deal if you ask me.

Cheers!
a b à CPUs
October 25, 2012 4:06:23 PM

rds1220 said:
Except this isn't an everyday computer for checkig emails and watching youtube video's. This is going to be a computer that is going to be demanding on both the CPU and GPU. Like I said look back at my post above. The Piledriver will be fine in heavy threaded programs but not so great in single threaded programs like games which this person is going to be using the computer for. The I5 will do great in games but not so great in heavy threaded programs like video editing and folding at home. Again if this person can afford an I7 it would be the best all around processor, it will cover the best f both worlds.


What i understood was that the user would be doing 3 things. Gaming, Using multiple VMs and Video/photo editing.
Only reason I said that was because the FX will be more useful in 2/3 of those things.
But if the user is much more heavy on the games, less of the vmware and editing/rendering, and doesn't mind spending an extra bit of money then, sure I5 is the way to go.
But I wouldn't splash out that much for an I7
a b à CPUs
October 25, 2012 4:12:22 PM

I'd take FX in this one, if it was just gaming then the i5 but as you want to do other things that benefit from the extra pseudo cores (sorry I just can't call them real cores) then FX. i7 doesn't justify the extra cost for "a little folding" and as you are pairing it with a single GTX670 unless you are playing something seriously CPU bound the 83xx is not going to really trail behind (to say it would would be to say it will bottleneck a single GTX670 which is just BS)

As to socket life and upgrades listen to Nekulturny
a c 140 à CPUs
October 25, 2012 4:20:17 PM

BuddiLuva said:
What i understood was that the user would be doing 3 things. Gaming, Using multiple VMs and Video/photo editing.
Only reason I said that was because the FX will be more useful in 2/3 of those things.
But if the user is much more heavy on the games, less of the vmware and editing/rendering, and doesn't mind spending an extra bit of money then, sure I5 is the way to go.
But I wouldn't splash out that much for an I7


No he will also be doing Folding At Home too.
Quote:
photo/video editing, games, and a little folding [At Home].


I've never done Folding At Home but from what I have read it goes up there with stuff like Auto CAD as being VERY CPU demanding. The I5 is a great CPU but I'm not sure if it will be able to handle something as demanding as Folding At Home. The extra memory cache and hyperthreading of the I7 won't help in games but it should help in video editing, compressing audio filest (which he isn't doing but I'm just trying to make a point) and Folding At Home. My point is yea the Pile Driver and I5 cost less but you are getting the best of just ONE area, either just gaming (the I5) or just heavy threaded work (Piledriver.) The I7 cost more but you are getting an all arounf better CPU that can handle the most demanding games with ease and knock out the most CPU intensive work pretty fast. Again if the person can go wit the I7 it will be the best choice.
a b à CPUs
October 25, 2012 4:28:48 PM

rds1220 said:
No he will also be doing Folding At Home too.
Quote:
photo/video editing, games, and a little folding [At Home].


I've never done Folding At Home but from what I have read it goes up there with stuff like Auto CAD as being VERY CPU demanding. The I5 is a great CPU but I'm not sure if it will be able to handle something as demanding as Folding At Home. The extra memory cache and hyperthreading of the I7 won't help in games but it should help in video editing, compressing audio filest (which he isn't doing but I'm just trying to make a point) and Folding At Home. My point is yea the Pile Driver and I5 cost less but you are getting the best of just ONE area, either just gaming (the I5) or just heavy threaded work (Piledriver.) The I7 cost more but you are getting an all arounf better CPU that can handle the most demanding games with ease and knock out the most CPU intensive work pretty fast. Again if the person can go wit the I7 it will be the best choice.


True, can't really deny that. But if the person can afford it is the real issue, we'd all love to end up with an I7. Even I would, but its just too expensive. If money isn't an issue then sure go with the I7 win win in all situations.
October 25, 2012 4:31:20 PM

rds1220 said:
I see no point in getting the Piledriver you get more out of the I7. With the I7 you are getting an all around better processor that is great for both lightly threaded programs and heavy threaded programs. If you are gaming you turn off the hyper threading and you have a great gaming CPU. You decide to do heavy threaded work just go into the BIOS turn on hyper threading and you have a great CPU for doing heavy threaded work.


These people aren't hardware savvy like us. having to go into the BIOS to do anything would be a major inconvenience.

@everyone else

Yeah, it might be better to just get an i7. It's just...I already spent more money than I wanted to on the GTX 670, so I'm trying to save some money elsewhere. The build doesn't have a concrete budget, more of a "try not to go over $1000, cuz it's not the end of the world but it's possible I might not be able to make rent that month if you do" budget. really, how much will a few SECONDS on SOME applications make? Once the i5-3570k is OC'd it will be even better. Idk.
a b à CPUs
October 25, 2012 4:32:19 PM

My vote goes for FX 8350 :) 

For video editing and folding, the FX is simply a fantastic chip at that price range. You probably have seen the multi threaded benchmarks yourself. In some cases like x264 encoding, it even ties with the much more costlier i7-3770K !!!

For running VM's, the FX will make the i5 piss in its pants....more cores is definitely better here :) 

For gaming, I'm not sure you'll make out the difference between an FX and an i5 for the next 3 yrs or so, unless you play at a resolution of 800x600, and can differentiate between 200 fps and 250fps on a monitor that refreshes @60Hz!!! But by then games would probably be optimized to use even more cores, putting the FX in a better position than it is now:) 

People keep cribbing bout single threaded performance of the FX's, but you fail to realize how fast today's CPU cores are, especially when you compare them to what we had a few years ago. I personally feel that single core performance of any modern day chip is more than good enough, coz most heavy duty applications have already been optimized for multiple cores, or to use the GPU for acceleration.

I don't know why rds1220 time and again blindly spreads hate against AMD, but for the usage scenario's you've mentioned, i'm pretty sure the FX is correct choice:) 

Cheers, all the best, and remember that more better compiler optimizations for Vishera are on the way:) 
a b à CPUs
October 25, 2012 4:42:43 PM

rds1220 said:
If you are gaming you turn off the hyper threading and you have a great gaming CPU. You decide to do heavy threaded work just go into the BIOS turn on hyper threading and you have a great CPU for doing heavy threaded work.


By that logic, even an FX user can go to the BIOS and disable a core from each module, and get ~15% more performance for gaming by avoiding the windows7 scheduler issue!!!

http://techreport.com/review/21865/a-quick-look-at-bull...
a c 140 à CPUs
October 25, 2012 5:39:04 PM

$hawn said:
My vote goes for FX 8350 :) 

For video editing and folding, the FX is simply a fantastic chip at that price range. You probably have seen the multi threaded benchmarks yourself. In some cases like x264 encoding, it even ties with the much more costlier i7-3770K !!!

For running VM's, the FX will make the i5 piss in its pants....more cores is definitely better here :) 


Multi threaded programs is about the only thing that Bulldozer and Piledriver does half decent in but it still gets beaten out by the I7 in most programs. As for the few times it actually beats out the I7 it's still just barely in most cases.Now before you go throwing a pissy fit and throw out cherry picked benchmarks let's look at some benchmarks. Also in some cases that I5 that will piss it's pants beats out your beloved crappy Piledriver.



















$hawn said:
For gaming, I'm not sure you'll make out the difference between an FX and an i5 for the next 3 yrs or so, unless you play at a resolution of 800x600, and can differentiate between 200 fps and 250fps on a monitor that refreshes @60Hz!!! But by then games would probably be optimized to use even more cores, putting the FX in a better position than it is now:) 


Ok this is compleatly pointless and pretty much irrelevant.

$hawn said:
People keep cribbing bout single threaded performance of the FX's, but you fail to realize how fast today's CPU cores are, especially when you compare them to what we had a few years ago. I personally feel that single core performance of any modern day chip is more than good enough, coz most heavy duty applications have already been optimized for multiple cores, or to use the GPU for acceleration.


Because it's fact. While the Piledriver is better than Bulldozer it is still far, far behind Intel in single threaded programs and the bench marks prove that. No one is saying that AMD processors can't give playable frame rates because they can. You'd prefer we ignore the facts like crappy lightly threaded performane and in the case of Bulldozer bottlenecking high-end GPU's because it doesn't faor your favorite brand. Again let's look at some benchmarks



















$hawn said:
I don't know why rds1220 time and again blindly spreads hate against AMD, but for the usage scenario's you've mentioned, i'm pretty sure the FX is correct choice:) 


Blindly spreads hate against AMD, lol yea ok. The fact is that AMD offers nothing over Intel which is in most cases faster and more effcient than AMD's CPU's or APU's. I'm not going to recommend a lower-performing CPU specifically for gaming because you'd prefer we ignore all the problems with AMD's architecture because it doesn't favor your CPU brand. Like I said if this person could afford an I7 it would be the much better choice since it does great in both heavy threaded and lightly threaded programs.
a b à CPUs
October 25, 2012 5:50:09 PM

I try to remain neutral as to AMD/Intel and I own both and recommend either depending on budget and need but I have to say I hate that BF3 singleplayer benchmark its a terrible indication of a CPU's actual power and a useless indication of what framerates you will get in multiplayer BF3 (which lets face it is what people buy the game for).

I think you need to stop shouting i7 though the OP's budget would be skating on thin ice with that, I would maintain that as a compromise for his multitude of uses the FX is the attractive option in this case
a c 140 à CPUs
October 25, 2012 5:57:35 PM

wr6133 said:
I try to remain neutral as to AMD/Intel and I own both and recommend either depending on budget and need but I have to say I hate that BF3 singleplayer benchmark its a terrible indication of a CPU's actual power and a useless indication of what framerates you will get in multiplayer BF3 (which lets face it is what people buy the game for).

I think you need to stop shouting i7 though the OP's budget would be skating on thin ice with that, I would maintain that as a compromise for his multitude of uses the FX is the attractive option in this case


BF 3 is just one game with linked benchmarks, look at the others there, Mist of Pandaria and Elder scrolls there too. As for the second part we know the I7 is out of range and it would have ended there had Shawn not posted his usual trolling flaimbait crap. He wants to start an argument I'll give it to him and back it up with benchmarks.
a c 101 à CPUs
October 25, 2012 5:59:21 PM

rds1220 said:
If you were to go Intel the I7 would be better than the I5. The I5 is great for gaming but it doesn't always do great in really heavy threaded stuff

The i7 is only ~30% faster than i5 in most of those for a ~50% higher price so not really worth it unless editing/rendering is time-critical to the user.
a c 140 à CPUs
October 25, 2012 6:01:33 PM

InvalidError said:
The i7 is only ~30% faster than i5 in most of those for a ~50% higher price so not really worth it unless editing/rendering is time-critical to the user.


Yes I agree and we already have established that the I7 is out of price range so it's irrelevant.
a b à CPUs
October 25, 2012 10:22:47 PM

Guys can we take off the shiney troll badges, put the hockey masks away, take the spud guns out of your pockets and stop sharpening up sticks?

Someone will lose an eye and then there will be tears ... again.

a b à CPUs
October 25, 2012 10:29:23 PM

Reynod said:
Guys can we take off the shiney troll badges, put the hockey masks away, take the spud guns out of your pockets and stop sharpening up sticks?

Someone will lose an eye and then there will be tears ... again.


Ah, you're no fun, reynod! haha.

I think the OP can consider himself answered at this point, right? Can you confirm that, Augray37?

Cheers!
October 26, 2012 1:09:07 AM

Well, my question now is, how much would more cores (vishera) benefit me if I ran a virtual machine for Mac applications?
a b à CPUs
October 26, 2012 1:40:31 AM

I don't have a direct answer for that, but depends on the logical CPUs you can assign to the VM I guess.

If you givet it 2 modules will fare so so compared to the first logic unit of each module, for example... That is if you want the Mac to see 4 logical CPUs.

All in all, I don't think it will be much worse than only giving it 1 core or 1 module. You can play with that I guess and give us an impression 8)

Just take into account that if you want to have better response time, assign just 2 modules top, so turbo kicks in (yo').

Cheers!
a b à CPUs
October 26, 2012 2:42:12 AM

rds1220 said:
Multi threaded programs is about the only thing that Bulldozer and Piledriver does half decent in but it still gets beaten out by the I7 in most programs. As for the few times it actually beats out the I7 it's still just barely in most cases.Now before you go throwing a pissy fit and throw out cherry picked benchmarks let's look at some benchmarks. Also in some cases that I5 that will piss it's pants beats out your beloved crappy Piledriver.

http://media.bestofmicro.com/Y/J/357643/original/sandra%20arithmetic.png

http://media.bestofmicro.com/Y/J/357643/original/sandra%20arithmetic.png

http://media.bestofmicro.com/Y/L/357645/original/sandra%20cryptography.png

http://media.bestofmicro.com/Y/6/357630/original/mainconcept.png

http://media.bestofmicro.com/Y/3/357627/original/handbrake.png

http://media.bestofmicro.com/Y/4/357628/original/itunes.png

http://media.bestofmicro.com/Z/1/357661/original/winzip.png

http://media.bestofmicro.com/Z/0/357660/original/winrar.png

http://media.bestofmicro.com/X/P/357613/original/7zip.png

Because it's fact. While the Piledriver is better than Bulldozer it is still far, far behind Intel in single threaded programs and the bench marks prove that. No one is saying that AMD processors can't give playable frame rates because they can. You'd prefer we ignore the facts like crappy lightly threaded performane and in the case of Bulldozer bottlenecking high-end GPU's because it doesn't faor your favorite brand. Again let's look at some benchmarks


Blindly spreads hate against AMD, lol yea ok. The fact is that AMD offers nothing over Intel which is in most cases faster and more effcient than AMD's CPU's or APU's. I'm not going to recommend a lower-performing CPU specifically for gaming because you'd prefer we ignore all the problems with AMD's architecture because it doesn't favor your CPU brand. Like I said if this person could afford an I7 it would be the much better choice since it does great in both heavy threaded and lightly threaded programs.


Sorry for coming late to the party:D  Now lets gets some facts straight here.

In most of the benchmarks, you yourself have posted, the FX 8350 seems to be doing pretty well, sticking in between the i7 and the i5. The AES bench looks a bit confusing to me, especially after looking at these links,
http://uk.hardware.info/reviews/3314/20/amd-fx-8350--83...
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-r...
http://www.rage3d.com/reviews/cpu/amd_vishera_fx8350_la...

You don't have to recommend the FX for gaming, or AAC/MP3 encoding, cause that's not what the OP's major workload is, i think you better go back to the original post and re-read his requirements, before blindly screaming Intel on top of your lungs.
Infact, looking at your posts, it seems you answered the OP's question solely from the point of "high end gaming", without even bothering to read his question!!
For video encoding and VM's, and the other stuff he wants to do, the FX is the better chip, there no arguing with that, your own benchmark prove that. For gaming, the FX can manage very decent playable FPS, so your argument is again moot.

Another point of good advice to you is please stop comparing an FX with a much more expensive i7, the FX is in the i5's price range, so please do compare it with that, if you want an even comparison.

If the OP only wanted to game, rip music, and run super pi benches the whole day, i wud have absolutely no issues with you recommending the i5, heck even i would have done so my self !! Just look at the list of benchmarks, and see how many single threaded programs are there in it - and you can bet that list is gonna get smaller!!!

Hope i put some sense into you, see u after 12+ hrs !!! :) 
October 26, 2012 3:07:25 AM

nekulturny said:
If they're only doing occasional video/photo editing, you will find the i5 quite up to the task. In my opinion, the i7 is really only justified if this were the primary purpose of the system (such as a professional who does this for a living), if gaming and daily browsing, watching movies, basic day to day computer usage most people do, the i7's HyperThreading brings little to nothing to the table for those tasks.


Sorry but i have to strongly disagree with you on the gaming part there is a HUGE difference between an i5 and i7 hell even an i7 1st gen vs i7 3rd gen just look at the guildwars 2 benchmarks with my i7 3770k i get 186 fps i7 sb-e gets 74 fps with i5 70 fps.

Im running a hd7970 so more you spend on a cpu the more fps you see in gaming also amd cpu's have VERY poor performance in guildwars 2.

October 26, 2012 3:08:48 AM

I have to agree with the previous post by Shawn.
The comparison the other guy did is explained pretty well by him.

You, sir, have a serious +1
To the OP: stick with the FX8350, it will fit all of your needs, for a lower price, while getting a processor which you can tinker around a lot more than any Ivy (overclock like crazy, disable 1core per module to make it a 4core with quite excellent single thread performance if you so desire, etc.)
October 26, 2012 3:13:35 AM

techguy911 said:
Sorry but i have to strongly disagree with you on the gaming part there is a HUGE difference between an i5 and i7 hell even an i7 1st gen vs i7 3rd gen just look at the guildwars 2 benchmarks with my i7 3770k i get 186 fps i7 sb-e gets 74 fps with i5 70 fps.

Im running a hd7970 so more you spend on a cpu the more fps you see in gaming also amd cpu's have VERY poor performance in guildwars 2.

http://media.bestofmicro.com/J/K/348032/original/CPU%20Cores.png



Why is your comment relevant?
For starters, nobody will run their cores at 3ghz. Period.
Second, that graph considers 1st gen FX, this post is about Vishera vs Ivy
Third, most of the benchies we considered are the ones made here at Toms (the FX launch coverage posted this very week), and they state that when considering CPU power in gaming, there is LITTLE difference between high tier cpus. If you can recognize 5fps beyond the 60fps mark, then good for you.
a b à CPUs
October 26, 2012 5:14:22 AM

Well. I'd hate to be playing guild wars 2 at that resolution on a 7970. =(

Any benchmarks on 1080p and on?
a c 101 à CPUs
October 26, 2012 5:51:37 AM

ohyouknow said:
Well. I'd hate to be playing guild wars 2 at that resolution on a 7970. =(

Any benchmarks on 1080p and on?

The reason why CPU benchmarks are usually done at lower resolutions is because higher resolutions would end up completely GPU-bound (hard GPU bottleneck) and then ALL CPUs would score almost exactly the same no matter how good/bad it is, which would make inclusion of game benchmarks in CPU reviews pointless - you would effectively be doing a GPU benchmark across platforms rather than a CPU benchmark.
a b à CPUs
October 26, 2012 6:43:16 AM

Why not get a high end APU platform? It's cheap enough to replace the chip with its update every year, while discrete gaming performance is just as good in some metrics as its competitor i3 at the price point while some instances firing across the bows of the i5 form a intel stand point.

If photo rendering is your thing the APU now has support to offload the x86 work load to the iGPU for faster photo rendering, with Adobe and Photoshop very much catering for this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcA9W1xb0Cs

In our current ecconomic climate why isn't cheap good enough?

But if I was going to engage with the masses and recommend you a epeen machine it would be a i5 or if you wanted AMD then a FX 83XX alternatively a FX 6300, get a decent high end board and you be sorted.

No amount of back and forths, intel this amd that is going to actually make your mind up.
a b à CPUs
October 26, 2012 6:50:54 AM

Reynod said:
Guys can we take off the shiney troll badges, put the hockey masks away, take the spud guns out of your pockets and stop sharpening up sticks?

Someone will lose an eye and then there will be tears ... again.



I'll probably end up closing this thread soon but there is some good discussion here and clear thinking, and that has kept it open so far.

I think that this comes down to specific usage patterns. Specific games and programs will determine what is best for this system... but from what I have read of the users needs and the preferred budget, it's hard to argue for Intel here.

Then there is the motherboard chipset. I do favor AMD chipsets slightly, but I would not count on the current AM3+ socket surviving too long, or staying competitive.

I have a buddy that needs a new rig soon. Will I use an Ivy Bridge? Probably, but if his usage was going to favor the extra cores more I would jump all over the AMD CPU... and insist on test driving it for a week so that I could really compare.

Regardless, the real impressor will be the SSD. That will make the largest subjective impression.
a b à CPUs
October 26, 2012 6:59:05 AM

Yip SSD and GPU biggest and notable differences.
October 26, 2012 10:54:24 AM

azraa said:
Why is your comment relevant?
For starters, nobody will run their cores at 3ghz. Period.
Second, that graph considers 1st gen FX, this post is about Vishera vs Ivy
Third, most of the benchies we considered are the ones made here at Toms (the FX launch coverage posted this very week), and they state that when considering CPU power in gaming, there is LITTLE difference between high tier cpus. If you can recognize 5fps beyond the 60fps mark, then good for you.


LoL a i7 3770k is an ivy bridge and there is a huge diff between 74 fps and 186 fps when you hit wvw frame rates drop 80% on huge 30 vs 30 zergs thus i5 would be 14 fps vs 37.2 fps at 30 fps its smooth at anything lower than a i5 2600k and you would have single digit frame rates.
And the stock on my cpu is 3.9 ghz easily oc to 4.5 ghz on air cooling.
a c 78 à CPUs
October 26, 2012 2:07:10 PM

rds1220 said:



Because it's fact. While the Piledriver is better than Bulldozer it is still far, far behind Intel in single threaded programs and the bench marks prove that. No one is saying that AMD processors can't give playable frame rates because they can. You'd prefer we ignore the facts like crappy lightly threaded performane and in the case of Bulldozer bottlenecking high-end GPU's because it doesn't faor your favorite brand. Again let's look at some benchmarks

http://media.bestofmicro.com/X/U/357618/original/battlefield%203%201680.png

http://media.bestofmicro.com/X/V/357619/original/battlefield%203%201920.png

http://media.bestofmicro.com/Z/4/357664/original/battlefield%203%202560.png

http://media.bestofmicro.com/Y/Q/357650/original/skyrim%201680.png

http://media.bestofmicro.com/Y/R/357651/original/skyrim%201920.png

http://media.bestofmicro.com/Y/S/357652/original/skyrim%202560.png

http://media.bestofmicro.com/Z/2/357662/original/world%20of%20warcraft%201680.png

http://media.bestofmicro.com/Z/3/357663/original/world%20of%20warcraft%201920.png

http://media.bestofmicro.com/Z/5/357665/original/world%20of%20warcraft%202560.png



Blindly spreads hate against AMD, lol yea ok. The fact is that AMD offers nothing over Intel which is in most cases faster and more effcient than AMD's CPU's or APU's. I'm not going to recommend a lower-performing CPU specifically for gaming because you'd prefer we ignore all the problems with AMD's architecture because it doesn't favor your CPU brand. Like I said if this person could afford an I7 it would be the much better choice since it does great in both heavy threaded and lightly threaded programs.

Please take your pills. Just for the sake of discussion. EVERY SINGLE link you put up in gaming performance shows the FX-8350 meeting the 60FPS standard. If the OP isn't aware, the vast majority of computer monitors sub-$400 are not capable of displaying more than 60FPS. While, you can argue that higher FPS means that potentially when frame rates dip, they won't be as dramatic, if those links are "evidence" offered as proof the FX-8350 is not a "good for gaming", I'm not particularly impressed.

Don't get me wrong, there are some games where Bulldozer/PileDriver's architecture can substantially impact performance potential, but the fact is that these games are the miniorty, not the majority, contrary to what some people on these forums might have you believe. If you plan on buying a 120hz monitor, then theres no reason you shouldn't be looking at i7s. But figure on that meaning you're going to be running a crossfire 7970 or SLI GTX 670 to boot to have that monitor reach its full potential. I'm sure that goes beyond your budget.
a b à CPUs
October 26, 2012 2:15:59 PM

nekulturny said:
Please take your pills. Just for the sake of discussion. EVERY SINGLE link you put up in gaming performance shows the FX-8350 meeting the 60FPS standard. If the OP isn't aware, the vast majority of computer monitors sub-$400 are not capable of displaying more than 60FPS. While, you can argue that higher FPS means that potentially when frame rates dip, they won't be as dramatic, if those links are "evidence" offered as proof the FX-8350 is not a "good for gaming", I'm not particularly impressed.


cereal no serial troll is serious.
a c 78 à CPUs
October 26, 2012 2:18:43 PM

azraa said:
Why is your comment relevant?
For starters, nobody will run their cores at 3ghz. Period.
Second, that graph considers 1st gen FX, this post is about Vishera vs Ivy
Third, most of the benchies we considered are the ones made here at Toms (the FX launch coverage posted this very week), and they state that when considering CPU power in gaming, there is LITTLE difference between high tier cpus. If you can recognize 5fps beyond the 60fps mark, then good for you.

I love when people throw out those "CPU scaling benchmarks". Yes, it does give you a look at how efficient the architectures are, however, nobody is going to downclock their CPUs from their stock settings to play games. Those kinds of benches are like synthetic benches, they have their place, but theres synthetic benchmarks and real world benchmarks, lest the two not be confused. Gamers overclock, not downclock.
a b à CPUs
October 26, 2012 2:32:31 PM

I got told not that long ago by a certain person that my APU apparently doesn't game well with my 7870, a) because it is a APU and b) it is not designed to work like a normal CPU with discrete graphics. Oh well same FPS as me old Bully and Thubby............geeez what are the odds.

Best solution

a c 78 à CPUs
October 26, 2012 2:37:10 PM
Share

Yea, well, I take Proximon seriously when he says hes going to lock this thread at some point. And I can't blame him, not that I haven't gotten hip deep in these silly arguments, but honest to god, if the choice is between the FX-8350 and the i5-3570K at that price range, flip a coin, and theres no wrong answer here IMHO even if you fall on brand preference as the deciding factor, they're both good choices.

Comparing the performance of a $300+ i7 processor might be nice, but its totally not what the OP asked for.
October 26, 2012 2:42:31 PM

Going to throw my .02 cents in here. For a new build, I would go AM3+ & Vishera.

The FX-8350 is a good CPU that is equivalent to the i5-3570. BUT, I already know that Haswell won't be on the 1155 chipset. I also don't know if there will be another CPU set on AM3+, so upgrading wise, AMD is a wiser choice.
a c 140 à CPUs
October 26, 2012 3:45:46 PM

nekulturny said:
Please take your pills. Just for the sake of discussion. EVERY SINGLE link you put up in gaming performance shows the FX-8350 meeting the 60FPS standard. If the OP isn't aware, the vast majority of computer monitors sub-$400 are not capable of displaying more than 60FPS. While, you can argue that higher FPS means that potentially when frame rates dip, they won't be as dramatic, if those links are "evidence" offered as proof the FX-8350 is not a "good for gaming", I'm not particularly impressed.

Don't get me wrong, there are some games where Bulldozer/PileDriver's architecture can substantially impact performance potential, but the fact is that these games are the miniorty, not the majority, contrary to what some people on these forums might have you believe. If you plan on buying a 120hz monitor, then theres no reason you shouldn't be looking at i7s. But figure on that meaning you're going to be running a crossfire 7970 or SLI GTX 670 to boot to have that monitor reach its full potential. I'm sure that goes beyond your budget.


No one said that Piledriver couldn't get playable framerates. In many cases people will clearly point out that AMD processors provide playable framerates. With that said I'm not going to ignore the facts like you seem to wish that we would do. Piledriver is still much slower than Intel in single thread performance and could still bottleneck a high-end GPU's on high resolutions. I'm not going to recommend a lower-performing CPU specifically for gaming.
a b à CPUs
October 26, 2012 4:11:59 PM

I will tries to summaries....

- Get the I7 if the budget allow, if not then get the FX. Don't go to I5 since the FX could do a par (some plus and minus) and benefit more for VM...

- Get the NVI card since more apps can use/depend on CUDA.. (likewise go to AMD if it more openCL)

- Throw a big and nice SSD in there, it will speed up a lot of things....
(People may said it not worth it, but from my experience it worth a lot)
October 26, 2012 4:55:12 PM

Best answer selected by Augray37.
a c 78 à CPUs
October 26, 2012 5:01:49 PM

rds1220 said:
No one said that Piledriver couldn't get playable framerates. In many cases people will clearly point out that AMD processors provide playable framerates. With that said I'm not going to ignore the facts like you seem to wish that we would do. Piledriver is still much slower than Intel in single thread performance and could still bottleneck a high-end GPU's on high resolutions. I'm not going to recommend a lower-performing CPU specifically for gaming.


*sigh* I started to respond to you, but you're really not worth it. :sarcastic: 
a b à CPUs
October 26, 2012 5:10:52 PM

nekulturny said:
*sigh* I started to respond to you, but you're really not worth it. :sarcastic: 


You need a collection of demotivational facepalm images I find them super effective if you want to respond to a mouth breather but literally can't summon the will power to type.
a b à CPUs
October 26, 2012 8:01:12 PM

Thanks everyone for contributing. It really was a good discussion even if the same old arguments were re-hashed yet again. Each of you can walk away happy that you made your point, and no blood was spilled.
!