Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Did I just make a stupid move? (AMD purchase)

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share
November 24, 2012 3:50:00 PM

I just bought the following components for my first ever build:

Silverstone Grandia GD07B ($146 on Amazon)
MSI GA970 mobo ($75 on NewEgg) w/ 15 dollar rebate
G.Skill Ripjaws 8 GB (2x4) DDR3 ($25 through NewEgg)
LG Black 12x Blu Ray Drive ($35 through NewEgg)
Intel 330 180 GB SSD ($137 through TigerDirect) w/30 dollar rebate
Seasonic G Series SSRM 550W Power Supply ($70 shipped through NewEgg) w/15 dollar rebate
Sapphire Radeon 7870 ($220 on NewEgg) w/15 dollar rebate
AMD FX 8150 CPU ($160 on NewEgg)
TOTAL = $793 after rebates


Now I keep reading about how AMD processors run hot, take too much power (costing money that I figured was saved), and (the 8 cores) aren't well-utilized when running games and basic operations.

Is my build going to suffer because of this? Should I try to sell the CPU and get a AMD FX 4170 instead? Or should I try to sell both the motherboard and the CPU and get an Intel motherboard/cpu combo for the same price ($235)? Is it worth the trouble?
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
November 24, 2012 4:04:32 PM

Yeah pretty dumb move.Good news is you get a aftermarket cpu cooler oc your cpu it will preform pretty well so no worries.
m
0
l
November 24, 2012 4:05:46 PM

i would go Intel... 3570K at least with a mb that Tom's recommends from their testing
m
0
l
Related resources
a c 101 à CPUs
a b À AMD
November 24, 2012 4:06:45 PM

I would have recommended an FX 6300 instead, or an Intel build. But unless you can get a refund I think it's better just to stick with it. It's not like the CPU is useless. It does use more power than Intel processors, but it really shouldn't make much difference on the electricity bill.
m
0
l
November 24, 2012 4:14:40 PM

Is the 8150 going to bottleneck me on gaming? Or is it just going to eat up some more power that I wouldn't have otherwise if I had planned better?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 24, 2012 4:23:41 PM

Bobstrauss said:
Is the 8150 going to bottleneck me on gaming? Or is it just going to eat up some more power that I wouldn't have otherwise if I had planned better?



For gaming its about equal to a i3 from the intel side.

m
0
l
November 24, 2012 4:32:35 PM

Hmmm ... Seems at my price point ($235) I'm about right then? Could I have done much better with that amount of cash?
m
0
l
November 24, 2012 4:41:44 PM

Why not an fx8350? that should be somewhat better... so u just have to sell the processor.
m
0
l
a c 101 à CPUs
a b À AMD
November 24, 2012 4:44:59 PM

Bobstrauss said:
Hmmm ... Seems at my price point ($235) I'm about right then? Could I have done much better with that amount of cash?

You could have gotten an FX 8320. Or you could have saved some money and gotten an FX 6300 that will still do better than the 8150 in most games.
m
0
l
November 24, 2012 5:00:02 PM

Hmmm ... Well hopefully someone will take this AMD 8150 off my hands for what I paid for it ($160). Maybe worst case scenario is I get $140 out of it so I can buy a 6300.
m
0
l
November 24, 2012 5:01:22 PM

again : why not the new 8350? that should be a lot better...
m
0
l
November 24, 2012 5:02:20 PM

Quite a bit more expensive for the 8350.
m
0
l
November 24, 2012 5:07:59 PM

I paid $160 for the 8150

Prices on NewEgg:

$140 for a 6300
$180 for a 8320
$220 for a 8350
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 24, 2012 5:22:02 PM

its always a bad idea to buy amd cpus if you care about gaming performance. regardless of the amd cpu you are always playing catch up.
m
0
l
November 24, 2012 5:54:46 PM

cbrunnem said:
its always a bad idea to buy amd cpus if you care about gaming performance. regardless of the amd cpu you are always playing catch up.


No, its not see the huge difference once you get to the "gamer's" res?

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-rev...

Its certainly not a bad idea if they are much cheaper. You can put the $ to a better graphics cards instead. I see alot of people getting an i7 and gtx 560 ti when they can get i5 and hd 7950/660ti/670 for the same price, and they wonder why they consistingly get beaten by chepaer gaming rigs.
m
0
l
November 24, 2012 6:27:34 PM

don't worry be happy! AMD has great performance so stay cool
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 24, 2012 6:38:24 PM

burntpizza said:
No, its not see the huge difference once you get to the "gamer's" res?

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-rev...

Its certainly not a bad idea if they are much cheaper. You can put the $ to a better graphics cards instead. I see alot of people getting an i7 and gtx 560 ti when they can get i5 and hd 7950/660ti/670 for the same price, and they wonder why they consistingly get beaten by chepaer gaming rigs.


i see a sizable lead at 1080p? its not a matter of how big the disadvantage is its that amd is always behind and at best on par with Intel in gaming.
m
0
l
November 24, 2012 6:48:03 PM

Oh well, unless someone on Craigslist offers me $160 for it I think I'll just keep the 8150. If it bogs me down I'll just try to buy a cooler and OC it.

For me, I'm not sure if the Intel route is worth it at the moment. Seems as if an Intel CPU equal to the 8150 in gaming (in the i3 range) might not outperform in other areas, while also requiring a more expensive motherboard - and the hassle of me selling what I already bought.

The games I'm most interested in (NBA2k series, Tiger Woods Golf, FIFA, and maybe BF3) will probably run fine on the 8150. And who knows if GTA V is even going to come out on PC. I'd think that is where I might really see the limit.

m
0
l
a c 101 à CPUs
a b À AMD
November 24, 2012 6:48:25 PM

cbrunnem said:
i see a sizable lead at 1080p? its not a matter of how big the disadvantage is its that amd is always behind and at best on par with Intel in gaming.

It's still well above 60 FPS. Also, check the Medal of Honor: Warfighter CPU benchmark:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/medal-of-honor-warf...

Vishera somehow ends up beating Sandy Bridge-E.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 24, 2012 7:21:40 PM

Sakkura said:
It's still well above 60 FPS. Also, check the Medal of Honor: Warfighter CPU benchmark:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/medal-of-honor-warf...

Vishera somehow ends up beating Sandy Bridge-E.


thats one game and i question it too. going from a pentium to a sbe cpu that is overclocked points to gpu bottleneck but doesnt really explain the "win" PD gets. hmmm thats one win to the intels hundreds though.
m
0
l
November 24, 2012 10:09:19 PM

@ OP: Stay calm and cool :)  Use your PC well. You will not sense the difference between an AMD CPU vs Intel one in 98% of the games. Test your rig at gaming. If you actually can see some poor performance in a certain game and if it is not related to your GPU, you can switch your CPU for a better one later. Do not pay too much attention to benchmarks and stuff. What really matters is the final experience
m
0
l
November 24, 2012 10:47:09 PM

I say keep it and use it until it can't play games or wait till next year when the new FX line will show up. There are high expectations for those and you won't have to get a new mobo. The 8150 will get you decent performance in every game. It was not a smart move but you already made it and now you have to deal with it.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 24, 2012 11:11:37 PM

Worst case, you have an ~8% performance difference during games. It's not a big deal so there's certainly no need to worry about anything.
m
0
l
November 24, 2012 11:41:33 PM

Hey man don't listen to some of the Intel only people. It's not the best, but its a great rig. Wish I had it instead of my old Pentium Dual-Core 2.2ghz
m
0
l
a c 101 à CPUs
a b À AMD
November 25, 2012 8:56:25 AM

hafijur said:
intel currrent cpu's are 2-3x better performance per watt. Heck intel don't even have a consumer line cpu that takes as much electricity as your cpu and amd cpu's when overclocked even multiply that difference performance per watt. An amd cpu cost twice as much at least to run then an intel cpu for same performance.

Thing is, using another 50 or 100 watts under load isn't really going to add that much to your electricity bill. Especially if you don't run at 100% CPU load 24/7. It's more of an issue for cooling and noise; using more power means there's a lot more heat to get rid of.
m
0
l
November 25, 2012 9:11:43 AM

hafijur said:
intel currrent cpu's are 2-3x better performance per watt. Heck intel don't even have a consumer line cpu that takes as much electricity as your cpu and amd cpu's when overclocked even multiply that difference performance per watt. An amd cpu cost twice as much at least to run then an intel cpu for same performance.

http://www.techradar.com/reviews/pc-mac/pc-components/p...

Interesting, overall gpu will get like 70fps instead of 90 etc with an intel cpu.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-rev...

There is no defending the power consumption but a 8150/8350 is still not a completely dead investment. Firstly, you would hardly sense the difference between 70 and 90 fps, that is what i am saying. And in games that use multi cores/threads efficiently (i.e BF3) AMD CPUs make some sense, getting similar performance to Intel ones. The OP mustn't feel bad about his choice, cause no one can claim that AMD won't unleash a power efficient CPU in 2 years or sooner. And there are indications that the new generation will work on AM3+.
m
0
l
November 25, 2012 9:39:49 AM

I don't know why folks here say the CPU fan makes the noise in the box. It's more likely to be the GPU's cranking up under load and they will also account for the bulk of the power used.

AMD offers a very reasonably priced liquid cooling kit for the 8150 if it's that bad. Most of the time the CPU is operating well under full capacity, and in power saving mode.

Why pay for premium performance product for which there is little or no benefit?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 25, 2012 10:06:53 AM

Since you already bought the cpu I would suggest keeping it. It isn't as fast as a 3570K but you'll be fine with it. Also, it will run a bit hotter and use a bit more energy but I wouldn't worry about it. Get a nice cpu cooler and overclock that thing and enjoy your rig.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 25, 2012 11:00:01 AM

@Haf what are you on about? 3 years behind?

You DO know that the 965 BE is only 25% worse than the i5 2500k, and costs half the price? Not exactly behind, my friend. If anything, intel is far, far behind in terms of costs.
m
0
l
a c 101 à CPUs
a b À AMD
November 25, 2012 11:19:15 AM

hafijur said:
It will cost like 8p a day extra to run an amd system over an intel one doing some intensive tasks I believe. Multiply that over 365 days and that is £29.20 and over 4 years that is £116.80. This is 10 hours per day so you can half it if you use it 5 hours a day. When you think of it that way intel cpu's extra cost will be paying for itself.

The CPU will not be at full load most of the time. 10 hours of full load per day is just ridiculous. Even 5 hours is a stretch. But let's go with it anyway. Using an extra, let's say 80W, for 5 hours a day, 365 days a year (no vacations or anything like that), means using 80W x 5h x 365 = 146000 Wh per year = 146 kWh per year. If we set the price per kWh at £0.15, which is high, that works out to just under £22 per year. And that's if you're using your CPU far more than most people. Realistically it's going to be less than a tenner per year for most people. And in the US it's probably going to be even less, since the price of electricity tends to be lower.
m
0
l
November 25, 2012 12:57:39 PM

I agree Sakkura's point. For *** sake this is a micro-chip not a refrigerator lol. Let's not scare people as if they are going to pay double electricity bills just by using their pc.

On the other side, AMD deserved this. If you read the company's history, you are going to see that AMD has always been the underdog. Their chips were mostly better than those of Intel's but their market share had always been small and their products much cheaper. This situation was true until 7-8 years ago. After that they screwed up themselves by being lazy and such. They didn't improve/invent/innovate ***, hands down. Now they are trying to fix this but they are much behind imo.

All in all, had AMD not been in this market, we would all be using our Pentium 7s with 180w TDP and a performance not better than core 2 duo's.
m
0
l
November 25, 2012 1:34:34 PM

Thanks for all the replies, everyone. I figure at my budget and needs I'll stick with AMD. Would be nice if someone would buy the 8150 from me so I could get the 6300 instead, but I'll probably do what you all suggest and just upgrade later if AMD makes a solid release down the line.
m
0
l
November 25, 2012 1:36:02 PM

I'm not too upset about it, by the way. Just difficult being a perfectionist when it's your first PC/HTPC build and you have no clue what you're doing! ;) 
m
0
l
November 26, 2012 12:01:21 AM

harna said:
I don't know why folks here say the CPU fan makes the noise in the box. It's more likely to be the GPU's cranking up under load and they will also account for the bulk of the power used.

AMD offers a very reasonably priced liquid cooling kit for the 8150 if it's that bad. Most of the time the CPU is operating well under full capacity, and in power saving mode.

Why pay for premium performance product for which there is little or no benefit?

At least in the case of the 8350 the stock CPU fan makes tons of noise. The stock CPU fan in this case is made for 4-6 core processors as stated by one of their workers during the interview i will link. The stock fan is trying to cool the 8 core processor and has a very hard time doing it so it kicks into high RPM and creates tons of noise.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=...
m
0
l
!