CPU Can't decide on cpu

Its getting to the annual time of me replacing my core parts, and hopefully do it before or around christmas if i can save up enough. What i try to do is get a cpu + mobo that i know could last me around 5 years (i know thats a very long time) but everything else over that time could/will get replaced.

Heres what i will get

CPU, MOBO, RAM, PSU, Case

Heres what i will transfer

GPU, HDD's, Sound card (pci), BD ODD's, TV Card (pci), Wireless card (pci-e)

I was hoping to spend around £350 and i use it for mostly for gaming and some video editing (anything upto but usually 1080p) and occasionally audio production.

What i need to know is if i was to try to save money are there any current AMD chip that i would feel happy with or if i can should i go for something like the Haswell Core i5-4670K with a Asus Z87-A mobo, if i follow the Enthusiast Overclocker system in the August 2013 buying guide but that would push me to over £450. But is spending that extra £100 woth it in the long run?

 

No it's not worth it.

 

I love the vocal AMD fans on here <3

The Intel set up will be faster at the vast majority of tasks, because I guarantee that your audio/video software won't be taking full advantage of multiple cores properly, meaning that single thread speed is vital - and that's something Intel have a distinct advantage in. Buying AMD will save you £50-70 if you're realistic, £100 would be picking from the slower AMD offerings.

You could always find a second-hand board and CPU from the Marketplace - Haswell stuff is appearing - to keep costs down.

 

So when i edit hd videos and create Blu-rays for family from the Canon HD camcorder the intel chips are still better.

The reason i got to about £100 difference was in the mag the budget pc has a AMD A10-6800K cpu, if i was to use the stock cooler and take off HDD, ODD, OS from the price its £365 and the enthusiast overclocker price would come to £468.

Things like cpu i would only get new, other items i wouldn't mind so much.

 

The most powerful cpus are intel yeah, it mainly depends on budget and usage.

Try and find out how many cores the software you use/are planning to use can take advantage of, and try to find any comparison between intel/amd with the software.

AMD's newer chips, with 8 cores etc are starting to show they're not half bad with things that can take advantage of them, so if the software you'll be using can they may be a great choice, if it can't then intel would probably be the way to go

 

When it comes to editing video the AMD chips more than come into their own.

However, core count is king there so you would want an 8320+ ideally.

I personally think a FX 6300 6 core will be more than enough for your needs. It costs pretty much half of the 4670k so no matter how much you love Intel it would be crazy to consider anything else. It also hits 5ghz easily.

 

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/the-vishera-review-amd-fx8350-fx8320-fx6300-and-fx4300-tested

Or, go look at benchmarks rather than taking things on a forum as fact. Bearing in mind that this is comparing against IvyBridge CPUs (so Haswell will be faster) it's pretty clear that the AMD units only take home a 'win' in heavily multi-threaded environments - single thread or even mixed leaves Intel sitting pretty. Oh, and Intel does all of that whilst consuming massively less power. The big issue is that the reality of computing today is that we're in a single/mixed thread environment for nearly everything.

The conclusion, although a bit long, sums it up perfectly:

 

What I said was true. When it comes to encoding video AMD are more than good enough, given the software is multi threaded.



There.

As for gaming? well that will no longer be single threaded or dual threaded given the consoles are coming. And you don't need to take my word for that. How about every developer asked?

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-future-proofing-your-pc-for-next-gen

OK to address the power argument. Without getting all scientific (as I have before) I will just say that paying £80 more for the Intel CPU would take you about ten years to see a return on your investment.

The only reason to buy Intel for any sort of budget rig now is if you want to join the blue team so you can go around going on about pointless advantages. This isn't about Intel VS AMD it's about spending money wisely. Something that seems to have gone for a burton over the past couple of years.

 

Oh boy. Here we go again. LOL.

It hits 5GHz? Woop woop. My FX-8350 hit 5.6GHz bench stable and 5.4GHz fully stable on water, but that doesn't mean it was powerful. My Intel i7-4770K still whipped it into shape in a lot of circumstances at a fraction of the speed.

That's because, as said by Ian in the Anand review, single threaded IPC is seriously lacking in the AMD chips. You can say "the app isn't optimised" as much as you want but the fact of the matter is that the chips are only good at certain things, and that's about it.

They also consume about twice the amount of power, which is diabolical by today's standards. They're still at 125W. Wait a minute, isn't that what we had in 2008? Yeah... five years down the line and they STILL haven't managed to bring the figure down.

Furthermore, to add to your power consumption "it'll take a lifetime to see any return", wrong. If both CPUs work flat out, at 50w difference (for arguments sake), it will cost you (average) £32 per 5000 hours of use. That's little over one and a half years at 10 hours a day.

EDIT: I see you're linking that video again. Those results are EXTREMELY bias. He used a 7870 (from memory) which means you are, no matter what way you put it, going to be GPU limited at those resolutions. 2560x1600 with one 7870? The guy is a joker. LOL. The CPU will not help you! Put a pair of 7970s in there, or even dual 770/780s, then you will see what real CPU performance is about...

 

Encoding is one part of video work - there's also the running the actual editing software as well, which half the time isn't anywhere near multi-threaded. Plus, the OP also intends to use the box for gaming, which is where Intel still have an advantage.

Okay, games will certainly go multi-thread. Will they go to the full 8? Doubt it! A quick check of the Steam hardware survey shows a preponderance of quad core CPUs, which is also (funnily enough) the target for most developers' coding. There have been a handful of games released so far that properly support multi-threading (Tomb Raider is a good example), and you can't just bring the new console argument in either. Developers have to think about their return on investment, and creating new PC engines is going to cost a lot of money, which they may well ultimately decide not to do...because their userbase isn't rocking 8 core CPUs.

Secondly, we've had multi-core consoles since 2006/7, and they haven't had a massive difference.

PS: Eurogamer's Digital Foundry aren't the be-all in terms of tech. Their recent next-generation articles have been ridiculously flawed.

 

And your 4770k cost the same did it dude? Here we go again with your skewed reasoning. Seriously, understand what it is you are arguing about as you clearly don't seem able to.

Your argument is, basically, A Ferrari is better than a family saloon !

And you need to understand that what you are comparing is software. Not the actual hardware. Because, when the software works properly and does what it should then it works very well on AMD. I showed you benchmarks before and your answer was "There's been some mistake"

That was about the best you could do, rather than admit that wow, these chips are actually quite good when the software uses them properly !

This is nothing new. AMD have always done **** like this. 64 bit CPUs before there was even a 64 bit OS to support them. It took years before 64 bit became mainstream and used. Yet, there are all of you Intel fans, who scoffed at the 64 bit CPU (it's pointless, yawn) putting 16gb ram in their systems.

Funny, amnesia.

We had the power argument before. And, it was a waste of time. It takes years to see the difference.

But the power argument is just another one of your pathetic death throes where you would rather eat your own crap than admit that an AMD CPU is worth buying.

Look at the other Intel guy "Well you could buy second hand or sell your soul rather than go AMD?".

It's hilarious.

 

BTW RE - your power argument. That's with a system under full load of course, completely ignoring the fact that there is AMD Cool N Quiet which downclocks a rig.

Seriously, be gone with your pathetic power argument.

How many people put their rig under a ten hour full load every day for a year and a half?

 

No no no, never, of course they won't.

I mean the consoles only have...... Oh wait, 8 cores.

I find your inability to recommend AMD, even in a cheap rig, to be laughable.

FFS OP says he has £350 and you go and blow it all on a board and CPU.

Is it that bad, dude? is it REALLY that hard to recommend a different CPU even when it's in a budget rig? or is your head really that clouded?

FFS.

 

I was giving extreme examples. Seriously. Do you work for AMD and are you trying to get them out of the $1B hole they lose every year by telling everyone how much better it is, purely because you own an inferior CPU and don't want people having better than you?

Oh, it seems you forgot that Intel have the exact same thing. It's called EIST, C1E, C3E, C6E, SpeedStep... I think you get the point. Both manufacturers have power saving technologies in place, and thankfully AMD do, or you'd get a horrific shock when you get your leccy bill.

Good one for avoiding the fact that his review on the CPUs was completely ****. I could test it with my 8800GTS and show the exact same thing. He's GPU limited more so than CPU limited which means that he is naturally going to score more or less the same FPS in every occasion.

It's time you did your research and possibly grew up. What's the point in being so aggressive over a forum? Do you think you're cool, being a keyboard warrior? Probably... but that's not the point.

EDIT: My point above stands. What's the aggression for? You need to get out and away from your AMD infested head once in a while. Just like when you were trying to convince someone to go AMD when he CLEARLY stated that he has the budget and WILL be going Intel. If people want to go with Intel, and are willing to spend (like a lot of us in the tech world are), then what is the point in trying to make us to the other way? Give up. You won't win. Intel remain superior, even if you do have to pay the price for the performance.

Consoles have gone with eight cores, correct. However, now you need to remember that they are eight, lowly clocked, **** poor IPC cores. The reason Intel do not have eight core CPUs, and I firmly believe this, is because their quads destroy AMDs offerings with half the core count and almost half the power usage too. Never mind all of the other enhancements Intel can afford to research, develop and deploy.

 

People need to calm down.

I think I managed to put a reasoned point across without sounding aggressive and particularly for/against either AMD or intel.

As I said, OP, try to find out if the software you use will actually take advantage of the extra cores of the AMD chips or not, no point just speculating.

 

That wasn't aimed at you, George. Andy just gets super defensive over his AMD toys and if anyone suggests Intel, he throws his toys out of the pram.

Long time by the way!

 

Seriously, I get it, you want to justify your CPU purchase, but you don't need to post three replies in a row like that, and get irate to boot. Or read people's posts properly.

I'm happy to recommend AMD when it's the right thing. In my opinion, it's not the right thing when somebody is asking for a gaming/video editing rig, already has a decent GPU, and is simply asking whether extending to the cost of an Intel is worth it. They're not saying the budget is strictly stuck at £350 at all.

At that point, I'm out. I've offered my advice, provided benchmarks from a reliable site (not Youtube) and made my point. I'm not here to get in to a pissing contest with somebody who wants literally every person on this board to buy an AMD because they happen to have gotten one.

 

You were talking crap again.

Don't tell me, I'm getting all defensive !

Firstly no I don't work for AMD. Secondly your childish having something better line is a doozy. Cheers, made me laugh.

But alas, when I compared a £160 locked Intel CPU to a £113 AMD one the AMD won. Yet 'better' buy Intel eh? if only so you can join the ranks of people like yourself who go around talking crap.. Have you ever heard the saying -

Never ever try to reason, or argue with, an idiot on the internet. They will simply drag you down, devoid of any fact, and beat you with experience.

YAWN YAWN YAWN. Now you're trying to beat me with that aforementioned experience.

Sadly for you I'm not going there, because if I had to get all scientific and start pulling out numbers you would find you're quite wrong. AMD CPUs do not use 50w more than Intel ones unless put under heavy load (as I said above) so your statement was wrong. They also don't use 50w more than an Intel CPU when in low power state.

So, as I said, don't go there. All that will happen is you will find out how wrong you are (like all of the other threads you've talked crap in) then sheepishly walk away with your tail between your legs.

No matter how much you go on, or what your propose, nothing is going to back up your argument that a budget rig should contain a high end CPU. Nor will it make OP get double the amount of money to spend. So when some one comes along and says "Hey, I need an Intel based system and I have £600" ? then by all means, knock yourself out.

Until then this OP has £350. So you're a bit ****ed on your 4670k.

 

You can **** off with that. Don't make me start taking screenshots to show where this began !

OP asked if it was worth £100 more to put an Intel in his rig. What did I say? get an 8320? quick !! GET AN 8320 !!!!111oneoneeleven.

No. I simply put three words down, then you came along with the hard sell trying to make OP buy a system he said he can't afford.

Don't try getting all clever like that Dutch dude.

 

Scientific numbers? Hah. Try me. Tell me again how that cable extension is working out for you, with your fried motherboard.

You'll beat me with experience? The only experience you have to offer is "INTEL ARE EXPENSIVE. GET AMD"

Pfft. Get real dude.

Don't try getting clever? How's about you get educated and then come back. Then we'll talk. LOL.

Also, if you are video editing, here is a benchmark that some of you would be fond of.

Please, enlighten me how the AMD CPU is better. The OP wants stuff for gaming as well as video editing. The Intel CPU is more powerful in these circumstances and this is something which you fail to realise because Tech Syndicate told you so.

http://www.play3r.net/reviews/amd-piledriver-fx-4350-fx6350-fx-8350-shootout-review/9/