Simple CPU Question .... I Think :(

A

AstroDav

n00b
Joined
Feb 9, 2013
Messages
3
I use to build computers all the time, maybe 20-25 total, but that was WAY back in the 2-core days. I just simply burned out & didn't have fun doing it any longer. But I still do my own family computers, since I'm a bit picky. I guess I was pretty good at picking the pieces, since this ancient Athlon64X2-4800+ / Nvidia9800GT rig is only now feeling serious effects of the "I-Can't-Do-That" disease. So it's time for new.

The results of several recent 3a.m. bedtimes have allowed me to figure out the best parts for my price-range ... graphics, memory, case, drives, etc. The MOBO won't be a problem, since that's always been my favorite piece to research. However, because of how long I've been out of the loop, I'm WAY behind on new CPU-tech. That's where I need YOUR help, although I have narrowed the possibilities down to a minimum. There's just a couple (that means 3 or 5) items which I'm still clueless about.

You saw above I haven't picked a MOBO yet, for the obvious reason I haven't picked a CPU yet. But I'm going with 1 of 6 for sure (or 1 of 9, I'll elaborate at the end). Although I've used 90% AMD's, I'm not completely Intel-Stupid. I'm NOT a fan-boy either way & hope this thread doesn't devolve into that.

So the basics are, I'm looking at AMD FX-8350, 8320, or 8120. I shouldn't even include the last one, since it ranks quite a bit lower than the first 2 on about every benchmark/comparison I've been able to find, at only $25'ish cheaper. These are all 8-core. Now, for Intel, I've picked i5-2450P, 3470, or 2500K. I've read remarkable stories about the last one, even though several benchmarks place it a bit lower than the 1st two. HOWEVER, I'm a good OC'er & seems like that "K" signifies a chip which works well with that art, so it could probably be convinced to operate at near the performance of the 1st two. And it also already has a higher clock speed than either, but significantly lower than the 1st two AMDs. I'm plenty computer-savvy to know that doesn't mean a whole lot in modern chips, but I'll be the first to admit that it's my major CPU-weakness .... I LUV seeing those monstrous clocks, like the 4.0GHZ of the biggest AMD above.

I do know that typically Intel usually beats AMD same-4-same, and quite often even a couple notches HIGHER of an AMD. But here's my main stickler. Best that I can tell, ALL i5's are 4-core. All AMD's above are 8-core. (Let's not get into hyperthreading discussion in depth, although it may play a part, if i5's actually have it) So ... even though Intel chips quite often outperform AMD chips, will those 8-core AMD chips have a noticable advantage above those 4-core Intels? If not, will those extra 4 cores allow the AMD chips to perform AS WELL as the Intels? I bring that up because ALL of the AMD's, with only 1 sole exception, are up to 60 bucks cheaper. I'm NOT building a bargain-basement system here, but I'm also a Disabled Vet with fixed income. $25 doesn't matter, $60 might.

So will I get better performance from those faster, bigger, & cheaper AMDs? Or will the somewhat more expensive, smaller, & slower Intels STILL outdo them?

That's the main question & the only one I need a definite answer to. However, as hinted at above, there are 3 more CPUs I'm eyeing as curiosities. The A10-5800K, A10-5700, & A8-5600K APUs, with integrated graphics. Now right off the bat I KNOW these don't ompute as well as ANY of the 6 above, but they aren't dramatically too far back. My new build WILL have a great graphics card in it, so I'm not saying I'll rely on the onboard video. But the plan is to buy SLI/Crossfire capable stuff, but only 1 card for now. I'm not even sure I'll like a dual graphic set-up, but doing it this way allows me to add that second card later, if I so choose.

But will these chips with onboard Radeon graphics work together with a dedicated Radeon card, much like a Crossfire setup? he biggest & neatest advantage I see by going this APU-route is that I would still have working video if I blew my card up. (Remember I said that I OC'd .... well, sometimes I OD too & burn something up :) ) So does either of these reasons give me a legitimate reason to go with the less powerful APUs, which will actually do all the computing I want to do anyway?

Last thing, an "addie" since we got to talking about onboard graphic stuff. I noticed that some new MOBOs have some decent onboard graphics now. Will THIS graphics do an SLI/Crossfire-type deal with a dedicated video card? Does it have to be the same brand? In other words, if the MOBO graphics are Radeon, will it work with Nvidia, or just Radeon? THIS option would allow me to do what I SHOULD do anyway & go with one of the faster pure-CPUs. But then I'd still have that extra graphics when I melt my new dedicated video card.

Thanks in advance for all help.
 
OK, first off, I love seeing your toughs put on the table like you have done :)
I had a lot of the same thoughts before settling on a odd choice with a FM2 750K, will have to update sig.

Going from bottom to top.

Trinity, hmm, yes the onboard GPU will crossfire with a few select mid level cards from the HD6xxx series.
Do not go for SLI with Trinity, as you can't use the onboard GPU for it and most boards limit the secondary large PCI-E slot to 4x speed.

My general advice is that if you plan to buy a dedicated GPU, don't buy Trinity, as you pay 40$ for a an good onboard GPU that you will never use.

Going Intel or AMD, whew that depends on what you do on a daily basis.

The Intel cores are more efficient per clock and per watt, but AMD wins in highly parallel workloads and have more buttons to tinker with when overclocking.

If you do a lot of encoding, have a bad habit of using many VM's and want to spend a lot of time "personalising" your overclock go for AMD.

If you want to get a easy OC with lots of power for high end gaming and don't need more than 4 cores go for a 2500K or 3570K.

Did I miss something?
 
Add this. Maybe it'll help with the CPU choice between Intel 4-cores & AMD 8-cores. 3 things I basically do:

1. I game. NEVER on-line. My games are almost entirely simulators. SimCity4, upcoming SimCity Limited, Trainz 2011, Cities-XL, Tropico-4, Civ-5, junk like that. I'm not running & shooting, but sometimes (often) build up humongous maps & metros.

2. I'm an author. My books are almost always 1 of 2 genres. #1 is novels built around events which could, or have, happened. These require LOTS of research, so sometimes I may have 50 tabs open on 2 different browsers + my text editor open somewhere else. I figure this type usage is more bandwidth/memory intensive, but it does use processor power also. #2 type is BIG eye-candy books, the expensive type with large pretty pictures & little writing which you leave open on the end-table to impress your friends. Here I may have much fewer tabs open, but they will each contain large hi-res images. I may also have 1 or 2 image editors going (Photoshop, Ultimate-Paint, format changers, etc.) So I figure this type is more graphic intensive, less bandwidth, about the same memory.

3. I'm a very active & somewhat advanced astrophotographer. The images I take through the scopes via CCD are B&W exposed through 4 color filters. The result is a set of "FITS" files, usually around 1500X1200, & often up to 300MB each, depending upon how long the exposure was. All 4 of these will be open at one time in Photoshop, while I align, crop, adjust, etc. The final, usually 500MB'ish, then goes through a converter to make it into hi-res TIFFS or lower-res PNGs. VERY high memory usage, CPU, GPU, everything.


Maybe that info will help a little on which CPU-type is better.
 
At the risk of somebody starting off on some ridiculous rant saying I'm just an Intel fanboy (I'm not, I still rock an AMd Phenom II X3 720 BE, too)...

Your ideal combination is probably a Core i5 Ivy Bridge system with an entry-level or mid-range Nvidia card. This comes simply from the fact that it appears what you're doing with your machine seems more IPC and memory-dependent (which Intel is beating AMD on). Adobe Photoshop also offers some level of acceleration with Nvidia cards. I'm not sure on specifics regarding that, so do some research there.

If you were doing more encoding work, or using a program often that could take advantage of 6+ cores, AMD would look much better for you.
 
Well considering you posted nothing about a budget, I would get a 3930k, the best of both worlds. Lots of cores with Intel's efficiency per clock. I wont lie with what you pay for the 3930k you can get the 8350 and the board.
 
Stop looking at "core" counts on chips and start looking at reviews. See what these "8 core" chips perform like compared to 2 and 4 core Intel variants. There are a million and one threads about these new AMD "cores" ... again depends on the workload and in most cases it's more like half the amount of advertised cores. These AMD chips also have to be clocked real fast to get the biggest benefit, where as Intel is faster at lower clocks.

Like some of the previous people suggested, I'd go the Intel route.

Try to be more concise when getting your point/questions across too. You obviously have a lot on your mind... take a step back and re-think.

I don't see a budget listed anywhere either, would definitely help knowing that, as well as what programs or games (and resolutions) you'll be using/playing.

I'd stay away from SLI/CF. But that's just me. Microstutter sounds terrible. Would rather go the route of one hella fast video card.
 
Colinstu, not including the 3 APU's which I stated as more of a curiosity, I listed 6 specific CPU's I am looking at, ranging from $160'ish to $220'ish. Does that not give you a pretty decent hint at what budget I'm thinking about processor-wise? The questions were firmly grouped around just CPU's, with only a vague mention of graphics issues, and specified that most everything else was already decided upon. So a budget for the complete system was unnecessary & served absolutely no purpose to further the inquiry.

There were 10 paragraphs in my initial post describing in detail what I was considering & what questions I had about certain specifics. In addition, I followed up with a 2nd post detailing my usual computer usage as it may or may not apply to the CPU. Would you have rather read an entire book to be more concise? I also clearly stated that I had consulted several reviews, benchmarks, etc., & that I already knew Intel usually outperformed AMD, regardless of core-count.

Everyone else, thanks for the thoughtful replies & help. They have helped me to definitely decide Intel is the better choice in my situation, a result which I highly suspected anyway. As mentioned, I've read huge numbers of good things about the 2500K, but didn't even consider the 3570K until it was mentioned a couple times. Very close price, decent amount better chip, so that will most likely be the final verdict.
 
AstroDav said:
Everyone else, thanks for the thoughtful replies & help. They have helped me to definitely decide Intel is the better choice in my situation, a result which I highly suspected anyway. As mentioned, I've read huge numbers of good things about the 2500K, but didn't even consider the 3570K until it was mentioned a couple times. Very close price, decent amount better chip, so that will most likely be the final verdict.
Click to expand...

If you have a Microcenter near you they have excellent pricing on the 3570K and typically comes with motherboard combo discounts. I agree the 2500k/3570k is probably your best bet. It is generally better than AMD for gaming, photoshop, etc and the better memory handling will help with your simple multi-tasking needs. If you were looking to do video encoding or something that would benefit from having a lot of high-powered/low performing cores than the AMD would be your best bet. You really can't go wrong with either to be honest, but the Intel setup will outperform for your use and if you consider how long you kept your last processor you'll probably make any added expense of going Intel back in your power bill. So it's probably a win-win for you.. more performance, less cost.
 
colinstu said:
Stop looking at "core" counts on chips and start looking at reviews. See what these "8 core" chips perform like compared to 2 and 4 core Intel variants. There are a million and one threads about these new AMD "cores" ... again depends on the workload and in most cases it's more like half the amount of advertised cores. These AMD chips also have to be clocked real fast to get the biggest benefit, where as Intel is faster at lower clocks.
Click to expand...

Quit with the 'cores' thing. They're real, dedicated integer cores. They're not pseudocores like hyper-threaded logical cores. Sharing the FPUs doesn't have that much of an effect on performance, if I turn on one-core-per-module mode in my BIOS I get a 5% or so performance increase in single threaded apps with my 8120.

That said, it's perfectly honest to say that the individual cores are slow and hot compared to Intel's offerings. Intel CPU's will perform better on single-threaded workloads, AMD 8-cores will do as well as an i7 on multithreaded workloads.

AstroDav said:
(Let's not get into hyperthreading discussion in depth, although it may play a part, if i5's actually have it) So ... even though Intel chips quite often outperform AMD chips, will those 8-core AMD chips have a noticable advantage above those 4-core Intels? If not, will those extra 4 cores allow the AMD chips to perform AS WELL as the Intels?
Click to expand...

The i7's have hyperthreading, the i5's do not.

The AMD 8-core chips will do just as well as an i7 on the image editing/having lots of tabs open. An i5 or i7 will outperform the AMD chips in the games you mentioned (because of the single-thread speed advantage), but it's not like they wont be playable on the AMD hardware. The real downsides to the AMD platform are that you're going to pay more for electricity over time and you're going to want a better cooler if you overclock (I'd recommend one of those simple no-assembly-required all-in-one water coolers). That can erase the price advantage. Definitely go with the 8320 if you go the AMD route, you'll get the speed improvements of the 'Piledriver' architecture and you can easily overclock it beyond the speed of the 8350. They both have the same OC limits, you'll be hard-pressed to pass 4.8 GHz, and 4.6 is the best balance between performance and power consumption.
 
I would normally recomend the I5 here all day long, but with the giant photo editing, wouldnt the 8320 have an advantage?

I am currently running a 965 oc to 4.0 and when I photo edit much smaller pics (~17M) all 4 cores hit 100% for a sec when I pull a new one up and I get a short freeze (maybe 1 second). It is really annoying, I couldnt imagine it with a file 17x larger.
It may be the crappy software I use (Canon's digital photo pro) but I was thinking that the 8 core would fix that?
 
AstroDav said:
Add this. Maybe it'll help with the CPU choice between Intel 4-cores & AMD 8-cores. 3 things I basically do:

1. I game. NEVER on-line. My games are almost entirely simulators. SimCity4, upcoming SimCity Limited, Trainz 2011, Cities-XL, Tropico-4, Civ-5, junk like that. I'm not running & shooting, but sometimes (often) build up humongous maps & metros.

2. I'm an author. My books are almost always 1 of 2 genres. #1 is novels built around events which could, or have, happened. These require LOTS of research, so sometimes I may have 50 tabs open on 2 different browsers + my text editor open somewhere else. I figure this type usage is more bandwidth/memory intensive, but it does use processor power also. #2 type is BIG eye-candy books, the expensive type with large pretty pictures & little writing which you leave open on the end-table to impress your friends. Here I may have much fewer tabs open, but they will each contain large hi-res images. I may also have 1 or 2 image editors going (Photoshop, Ultimate-Paint, format changers, etc.) So I figure this type is more graphic intensive, less bandwidth, about the same memory.

3. I'm a very active & somewhat advanced astrophotographer. The images I take through the scopes via CCD are B&W exposed through 4 color filters. The result is a set of "FITS" files, usually around 1500X1200, & often up to 300MB each, depending upon how long the exposure was. All 4 of these will be open at one time in Photoshop, while I align, crop, adjust, etc. The final, usually 500MB'ish, then goes through a converter to make it into hi-res TIFFS or lower-res PNGs. VERY high memory usage, CPU, GPU, everything.


Maybe that info will help a little on which CPU-type is better.
Click to expand...

Given your usage pattern, I would recommend an Intel i5 or even i7 and a mid level Nvidia GPU + lots of memory.

Here are my reasons:

CPU:
The extra AMD cores do nothing good in the games you listed and you have to OC a 8 core AMD to match the i5 at stock, but you can OC the i5 and "beat" the OC 8 core from AMD. Hyperthreading will not help here.
I can't predict the book performance, as I have not found any reviews matching your scenario.
Photoshop seems to like Intel and Hyperthreading actually benefits with ~10% in this scenario. AMD does not seem to be able to match 4 of Intels cores in Photoshop, despite having 8 cores.

GPU:
You have not listed a resoulition, but the titles in your list are not as heavy on the GPU as popular FPS titles and a short drop in frames caused by the GPU will not be as noticeable as waiting for the CPU to compute actions across a huge world populated with tons of units.
Again I do not know how a GPU affects handling writing a book.
Nvidias current gen cards are not extreme compute, as Nvidia scaled a little back compared to previous cards, but Nvidia is the safe choise for GPU assisted tasks, as AMD depends on the development of OpenCL and Nvidia already has a lot of support from Cuda.
A 660 or 660 TI should be able to handle your gaming needs at 1080p and assist a lot in Photoshop.

Memory:
It's as cheap as it gets right now and you will not regret having to much memory as much as you will regret having to little.
You can start of with 2x8GB and if it is enough, enjoy having a surplus, otherwise get another set of 2x8GB

BTW.
Get windows 8 regular/pro or 7 pro, as standard windows 7 installs max out at 16GB of memory.

Edit:
A good idea is to post a proposed build in the gen hardware sections, and answer all the build questions, they have some ppl who are hardcore at setting up a system and finding good prices.
 
You really can't go wrong with either platform.

Intel offers lower power, higher FPU throughput and faster single-threaded performance, but you will only really notice the difference in high-end gaming.

AMD offers competitive multi-threaded, and good-enough single-threaded performance for a lower price. Piledriver is what Bulldozer should have been, and since Intel was not inclined to push performance with Ivy Bridge you get a very good value.

I lean towards Intel purely for the power reasons, but once AMD ditches AM3+ they should have competitive idle power draw across their product line.
 
If you want a simple set and forget setup go Intel.

If you want to play around and tweak it then go AMD.

I go AMD over Intel not due to performance but just because I get more fun out of playing around with them.
 
Are you going to be using air cooling?

What resolution will you be running for gaming?

Are you currently using an SSD and a secondary hard drive (or more) for storage? With budgeting you could get the top-of-the-line SSD and it sounds like you'd use it to its fullest.

In this case you probably should go with the i5-3570K and overclock it. It maims those games. Some of what you do will hit single-threaded performance. But if $60 might matter, take that into consideration.
 
Last edited:
LGA 2011 with i7-3820.

You can drop 64G in and get a 4 core 8 thread for cheap.
 
I use both i5 3570K and Phenom II side-by-side and honestly I don’t notice the difference in performance.

As for building/configuring, AMD is more fun to overclock/undervolt especially under Linux, and I really dislike the delicate pins on the Intel socket. When servicing or swapping heatsinks, I find AMD CPUs easier/safer to clean in place (on the mobo), whereas Intel CPUs have to be removed as there is more risk of leakage & accidental damage to the socket.
 
I think your choice of a 3570 is perfect as it will certainly benefit you more when playing those games you listed. As someone else mentioned Intel is really good with single threaded operations. Those games are mainly single threaded and would get better frame rate on the Intel hardware.

I think that the main point is that you really need a good chip for Photoshop and multitasking. I don't use Photoshop so I won't pretend to know anything about it's performance with AMD FX chips. The AMD FX and Intel 3570K should multitask quite well for you. I know my 8120 is stuck processing 50 webpages at once many times and Win 8 64 runs just as snappy with those pages open or closed.

Another option for you is to do some research on the FX chips and Photoshop. Then if they seem that they suit you, consider looking at the FX-6300. It's pretty quick, OC's like it's big brothers, and is darn cheap. But remember it's behind the Intel's when it comes to those older games. Of course all of the FX chips will run them fine but at a lower frame rate because those games aren't multithreaded.

Post some pics of your build in this thread when you finish it. I like looking at nerd porn. :)
 
When your upgrading from that kind of older processor you can't really make a wrong choice anything out there will spanks it rear end and them some more.
I prefer AMD myself for the threaded performance, your needs might vary.

The FX6xx range is quite well priced, easy to OC and has good peformance it will hammer your old CPU and then some more. FX8xx for even more demanding work I went with the 6 range as it's more than enough grunt for me (video and photo work) needed a bit more performance than the FX4 series had.
 
I just today came across this chart on Tom's Hardware, comparing different CPU's performance in Adobe Photoshop, and the AMD A10-5800K was near the top.


While the Trinity did more poorly on nearly every other CPU test, including video tasks in Adobe Premiere, somehow it was very competitive in Photoshop, even better than the 8-core FX 8350 and the top of the line Ivy Bridge.

Not sure why, as this seemed to be the only test that it performed nearly that well in.
 
Hmm...since the OP mentioned really large file sizes, I'd guess that 32GB of RAM would be a cheap performance boost.

While this link recommends different Intel based configurations, it seems to focus on core count:
http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/files/2012/07/CS6_hardware_recommendations.pdf

I'm guessing that for CS6 performance, you'd want a capable GPU and after that the # of cores and the impact on performance would be based on the specific filters being used?

The Trinity link above is kind of interesting, and if I had to guess, I'd say the benchmark is using Open GL calls that leverage the IGFX and the high memory speed (still much slower than GDDR5) of the A10 as tested.

As everyone is on a budget, a specific CPU+mobo price difference between the brands could be used to pay for a GPU, RAM, and SSD, all of which would impact CS6 performance more than a CPU choice would.

Just my IMHO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top