Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AMD FX-8320 or intel i5 3470 for MY usage

Last response: in CPUs
Share
November 1, 2012 1:19:50 PM

I am not going to be gaming but I am going to be heavily multitasking, encrypting/decrypting, compressing/decompressing, watching loads of movies and videos, browsing the Internet, listening to lots of audio, Uni work and powering 2-3 displays, therefore I was leaning more to the 8 core AMD processor with 2 low end discrete graphics cards (1 XFX Radeon 5450 1GB at £20 and I will use one from my previous computer).
Do you agree?

The system will also have 8GB DDR3 1600MHz RAM, 120Gb ssd, 500gb Sata 6gb/s,
a b à CPUs
November 1, 2012 1:40:03 PM

Yep, FX.
a b à CPUs
November 1, 2012 1:47:53 PM

At this point I think both will do a very satisfying job.
I would say go with the one that gives you the better motherboard features for the price.
Be sure that the motherboard chipset used supports 6gb/s sata ports.

As for 2-3 displays, I recommend spending a tiny bit extra on the videocard and make it an eyefinity card.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

This card should support 3 displays easy. I read that eyefinity can support 6 displays but I don't know how and what is required to do so.

As I am suggesting this, I have to add required information (I struggled when I wanted to set it up for a client)

Requirements:

1- Windows Vista or 7. Eyefinity will not work on XP.
2- Displayport input on monitor, or ACTIVE display port adaptor (20$)
(Most new monitors have displayport adaptors now)


Lets say you do decide to run a game for whatever reason, you wont have embarrassing results due to 2 ultra low end cards ;) 
Related resources
November 1, 2012 1:56:10 PM

C00lIT said:
At this point I think both will do a very satisfying job.
I would say go with the one that gives you the better motherboard features for the price.
Be sure that the motherboard chipset used supports 6gb/s sata ports.

As for 2-3 displays, I recommend spending a tiny bit extra on the videocard and make it an eyefinity card.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

This card should support 3 displays easy. I read that eyefinity can support 6 displays but I don't know how and what is required to do so.

As I am suggesting this, I have to add required information (I struggled when I wanted to set it up for a client)

Requirements:

1- Windows Vista or 7. Eyefinity will not work on XP.
2- Displayport input on monitor, or ACTIVE display port adaptor (20$)
(Most new monitors have displayport adaptors now)


Lets say you do decide to run a game for whatever reason, you wont have embarrassing results due to 2 ultra low end cards ;) 


I'm actually only spending £20 on the card and taking the same one from my old pc to have 2 then I can plug 1 monitor into its own graphics card (assuming I only have 2 displays) would this be sufficient for my usage?
Why can't I use HDMI?
November 1, 2012 2:51:01 PM

witcherx said:
Since you are building a good system
instead of 2 low end cards why not go for 1 card..
I know the cost would double for the gpu.. just thinking... :p 

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/362249-33-question-re...

I think you could use the GCN architecture of 7750/7770 for your other tasks as well.. though an expert would advice you better on the GCN part then me.. :p 

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5541/amd-radeon-hd-7750-r...


I'm buying ONE low end card and using an old one I have (the same model).
November 1, 2012 2:53:15 PM

oh. sry dint see you next response.. it wasnt there when i replied ;) 
November 1, 2012 2:55:26 PM

witcherx said:
oh. sry dint see you next response.. it wasnt there when i replied ;) 


Okay, does that seem sufficient for my use?
November 1, 2012 2:59:18 PM

which is your current 5450?
Is it already an eyefinity capable card?
a b à CPUs
November 1, 2012 3:09:43 PM

eyefinity is more for gaming across multiple monitors. Windows can already spread across as many monitors as you have without need for anything special in the video card or driver.

And I agree both CPUs should be just fine. Ivy Bridge uses a little less power, if that matters. ANd if you use any video programs that can use QuickSync, then the Intel will be much faster.
a b à CPUs
November 1, 2012 3:11:09 PM

Unless;
1. the 5450 has a display port output
2. its a FleX edition

The 5450 will not support 3 monitors.
November 1, 2012 3:13:09 PM

no was wondering why he needs two cards for multi display if he could do the same with one?
a b à CPUs
November 1, 2012 4:33:39 PM

In this particular usage the FX-8320 shall be better than Intel offering.
November 1, 2012 4:36:03 PM

witcherx said:
which is your current 5450?
Is it already an eyefinity capable card?


I'm not sure
November 1, 2012 4:38:09 PM

bjaminnyc said:
The SAPPHIRE FleX HD 6450 is a very inexpensive solution for a 3 monitor setup, and it works with HDMI + DVI x2. Only the FleX series are capable of 3x eyefinty without displayport. Not bad for $60.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...


I am only buying one graphics card to power one display, but I have ANOTHER from my old computer which I can use to power the second display.
November 1, 2012 4:39:06 PM

bjaminnyc said:
Unless;
1. the 5450 has a display port output
2. its a FleX edition

The 5450 will not support 3 monitors.


I am only buying one 5450 however, I already have another one which I could use to power a second display.
a b à CPUs
November 1, 2012 4:47:13 PM

For productivity use the FX is superior. I'm actually really impressed with it it's at times right at the heels of the i7s for a very attractive price.
November 1, 2012 4:48:21 PM

To be clear.. I CAN buy ONE card and use ANOTHER card I ALREADY HAVE, put them both in and run one display on each (ie, 2 displays each with their own video card) via HDMI, cant I ?
a b à CPUs
November 1, 2012 5:54:04 PM

Fx
November 1, 2012 5:56:12 PM

Thanks, Can I do what I said in my last post?
a b à CPUs
November 1, 2012 6:26:01 PM

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-5450,2549...

unless your video card only has one video out, you can do it from the one card. there isn't much on crossfire setups with the 5450. just get a dvi-hdmi adapter, assuming the card you have has the hdmi and dvi ports. that will give you 2 hdmi ports on one card.
November 1, 2012 7:57:47 PM

noob2222 said:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-5450,2549...

unless your video card only has one video out, you can do it from the one card. there isn't much on crossfire setups with the 5450. just get a dvi-hdmi adapter, assuming the card you have has the hdmi and dvi ports. that will give you 2 hdmi ports on one card.


Yea the card I have just now has HDMI and DVI I'm sure.
I didn't mean on crossfire or SLI. Would I be able to purchase the 5450 and run a monitor at 1080p on that and put my old card in to power another display at 1080p
a b à CPUs
November 1, 2012 8:16:45 PM

Dude, just go with a FX 8320 and a HD 6770. You'll be much better off.
a b à CPUs
November 1, 2012 8:35:04 PM

robbiecee2 said:
Yea the card I have just now has HDMI and DVI I'm sure.
I didn't mean on crossfire or SLI. Would I be able to purchase the 5450 and run a monitor at 1080p on that and put my old card in to power another display at 1080p

yes, you can run 2 different cards in the same computer and use each one for its own monitor.

the 5450 is also capable of doing the same thing by itself, no additional card needed.
November 2, 2012 10:43:30 AM

My old card is the XFX 5670 512mb DDR5
a b à CPUs
November 2, 2012 6:19:35 PM

hafijur said:
the intel cpu is 2x as much power efficent as the amd cpu and generally the intel cpu should be faster then the amd cpu. However the performance of amd is decent on some tasks but not so good on others. If you want the most efficient cpu get the intel as the amd cpu just guzzles through electricity enough so that you could run to i5 3470 and no.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/702?vs=698

comparison option here for you.

This one though shows how ancient the amd fx looks performance per watt wise:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/the-vishera-review-a...

while that is a minor valid point, look at time vs money



Intel drew less power, but took 3 minutes longer to complete the task.

The power difference, total used throughout the task. 101W for Intel, 1101s = 0.30H *101Watts/1000kW= 0.030KHW billed by your electric company, HIGH US power bill of 18c per kwh = 0.54 cents

901s for amd, 0.25h * 185w/1000kw = 0.046 KWH billed, @18c = 0.82c ...

so is 3 minuets of your time worth 0.28c ?



robbiecee2 said:
My old card is the XFX 5670 512mb DDR5


then you shouldn't need the 5450 as that one will handle multiple monitors just fine.

use the hdmi for one, and something like this http://www.amazon.com/AmazonBasics-HDMI-Adapter-Cable-M...
November 2, 2012 8:16:34 PM

Setting aside the CPU for a second. YES you could run the 5670 and the 5450 in the same box each running it's own monitor. The question is why? The 5670 will run two monitors just fine. If you aren't going to Crossfire why introduce an additional point of failure?

As to the CPU, if you have a AM3+ motherboard go for the 8320 and not worry for a year or two. If this is a new build you will regret not going with an Intel build. Just sayin'.
November 2, 2012 9:47:25 PM

hafijur said:
the intel cpu is 2x as much power efficent as the amd cpu and generally the intel cpu should be faster then the amd cpu. However the performance of amd is decent on some tasks but not so good on others. If you want the most efficient cpu get the intel as the amd cpu just guzzles through electricity enough so that you could run to i5 3470 and no.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/702?vs=698

comparison option here for you.

This one though shows how ancient the amd fx looks performance per watt wise:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/the-vishera-review-a...


I won't be gaming and the non gaming tests look better on the fx, also I am in university accommodation so it won't cost me extra for more electricity :p 
November 2, 2012 9:49:27 PM

noob2222 said:
while that is a minor valid point, look at time vs money

http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/cpu/amd/Vishera/power-95wsm.png

Intel drew less power, but took 3 minutes longer to complete the task.

The power difference, total used throughout the task. 101W for Intel, 1101s = 0.30H *101Watts/1000kW= 0.030KHW billed by your electric company, HIGH US power bill of 18c per kwh = 0.54 cents

901s for amd, 0.25h * 185w/1000kw = 0.046 KWH billed, @18c = 0.82c ...

so is 3 minuets of your time worth 0.28c ?





then you shouldn't need the 5450 as that one will handle multiple monitors just fine.

use the hdmi for one, and something like this http://www.amazon.com/AmazonBasics-HDMI-Adapter-Cable-M...


Okay thanks, the second monitor I have has a DVI input anyway :-)
November 2, 2012 9:53:16 PM

misry said:
Setting aside the CPU for a second. YES you could run the 5670 and the 5450 in the same box each running it's own monitor. The question is why? The 5670 will run two monitors just fine. If you aren't going to Crossfire why introduce an additional point of failure?

Yea I think I'll just use the 5670 for 2 displays.


misry said:
As to the CPU, if you have a AM3+ motherboard go for the 8320 and not worry for a year or two. If this is a new build you will regret not going with an Intel build. Just sayin'.

Why will I regret it ?
November 3, 2012 5:10:48 AM


robbiecee2 said:
Yea I think I'll just use the 5670 for 2 displays.



Why will I regret it ?


Dont worry about those fanboy remarks...

They believe in a myth that "Intel is somehow are beneficial and keep your hands off AMD " which is untrue.......

!