TELVM wrote:

luckybob wrote:

... Its just Microsoft repeating itself. 95 > vista, 98 >7, me >8.

Interesting analogy 🤣 .

its completely true.

95 marked the end of dos, and forced hardware into PnP. it was buggier than a hooker with the sniffles.

98 perfected 95's flaws and ran fine for most people for a VERY long time.

ME was just a flop.

Apparently 8.1 will bring back the Start menu. If that's the case I think I will upgrade. Oh I ran into a software that requires Windows 8: Visual Studio Express 2012 for Windows Phones. The Phone Emulator even requires Windows 8 Pro. Bastards...

Mau1wurf1977 wrote:

Apparently 8.1 will bring back the Start menu. If that's the case I think I will upgrade.

The Start *button*... not the Start menu. ;)
http://venturebeat.com/2013/04/22/windows-8-1 … button-useless/

Gemini000 wrote:

Geeze, these numbers are adding up. I've already somehow brought the total up to $1,457 before taxes, and I originally budgeted for $1,300 before taxes. The taxes themselves will probably add another $200ish to the price.

Our currencies are pretty much on parity. I put together a system with my favourite computer Shop in Perth.

If you could do a cost break-down, maybe that would help?

The system is based on the i7 3770, 8 GB, 120GB SSD + 3TB WD Green, 660GTX...

You didn't mention monitor, keyboard mouse and any of that?

Who is the "best" online PC shop in Canada? Is there a newegg equivalent?

WD Greens save nicely on power, but I'd question their reliability (a friend has had two of them die within less than 2 years in service; and I've seen reports on the web that corroborate that).

i'd like to know why everyone is hell-bent on intel. AMD/ATI offer more bang/buck.

keeping to a ~$1300 budget I propose:

https://secure.newegg.com/WishList/MySavedWis … spx?ID=27451707

4x raid SSD and a 3tb hard drive SPECIFICALLY for video streaming. (3 year warranty vs 2)

Everything you need except for a case. I'd pick you out a case but its going to be a $200 lian-li. 😜 thats how I roll.

personally i'd also add-in a high end audio card, but that's just me. I'm DESPERATELY trying to come up with an excuse to NOT buy this soundcard on my next paycheck: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?It … N82E16829102050

luckybob wrote:

i'd like to know why everyone is hell-bent on intel. AMD/ATI offer more bang/buck.

It's a "help me with a new build" thread. It's basically Internet Law that every single post has to be opinionated as fuck.

😜

luckybob wrote:

its completely true. […]
Show full quote

TELVM wrote:

luckybob wrote:

... Its just Microsoft repeating itself. 95 > vista, 98 >7, me >8.

Interesting analogy 🤣 .

its completely true.

95 marked the end of dos, and forced hardware into PnP. it was buggier than a hooker with the sniffles.

98 perfected 95's flaws and ran fine for most people for a VERY long time.

ME was just a flop.

I would beg to differ. 98 still had a version of DOS underlying it.

http://www.ctyme.com/msdos7.htm

You can still boot to a DOS prompt under ME, too.

http://www.oocities.org/dos8me/

SquallStrife wrote:

luckybob wrote:

i'd like to know why everyone is hell-bent on intel. AMD/ATI offer more bang/buck.

It's a "help me with a new build" thread. It's basically Internet Law that every single post has to be opinionated as fuck.

:P

Exactly. :D

TBH: I have no preference between AMD or Intel CPUs. I'm going with what offers the best performance for the price. The AMD FX-8350 chip has the best raw performance for the price, but when I started looking up gaming benchmarks, the Intel i5-3570 was 25% better than the FX-8350, while its raw performance was only about 5% less, and the prices of the two CPUs are similar.

Sorry, wrong thread. Please pretend this post doesn't exist.

Gemini000 wrote:

TBH: I have no preference between AMD or Intel CPUs. I'm going with what offers the best performance for the price. The AMD FX-8350 chip has the best raw performance for the price, but when I started looking up gaming benchmarks, the Intel i5-3570 was 25% better than the FX-8350, while its raw performance was only about 5% less, and the prices of the two CPUs are similar.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eu8Sekdb-IE

crysis 3:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIVGwj1_Qno

Geeze, this is looking more and more like a toss-up. I found some more benchmarks that show the i5-3570 to have 33% stronger single-thread performance over the FX-8350, yet the FX-8350's overall performance is 25% stronger. This suggests that the more threaded an application/game is, the better it will run on the FX-8350 over the i5-3570, which is to be expected, yet the less threaded the application/game is, the better it will run on the i5-3570 compared to the FX-8350.

I also just noticed something that could be very important. The FX-8350 has 8 MB of L2 cache. The i5-3570 only has 1 MB. :O

That... is an amazingly large difference between the two.

There's also something else to consider: Recording

The more multi-threaded the processor, the better the performance of a game will be while running recording programs at the same time.

...it's really hard making a decision between these two CPUs... but these extra considerations I noted just now could sway my decision on the CPU back over to the AMD side.

Gemini000 wrote:

Geeze, this is looking more and more like a toss-up. I found some more benchmarks that show the i5-3570 to have 33% stronger sin […]
Show full quote

Geeze, this is looking more and more like a toss-up. I found some more benchmarks that show the i5-3570 to have 33% stronger single-thread performance over the FX-8350, yet the FX-8350's overall performance is 25% stronger. This suggests that the more threaded an application/game is, the better it will run on the FX-8350 over the i5-3570, which is to be expected, yet the less threaded the application/game is, the better it will run on the i5-3570 compared to the FX-8350.

I also just noticed something that could be very important. The FX-8350 has 8 MB of L2 cache. The i5-3570 only has 1 MB. 😳

That... is an amazingly large difference between the two.

There's also something else to consider: Recording

The more multi-threaded the processor, the better the performance of a game will be while running recording programs at the same time.

...it's really hard making a decision between these two CPUs... but these extra considerations I noted just now could sway my decision on the CPU back over to the AMD side.

Welcome to the state of modern hardware! PC hardware has been homogenized to the point of insanity, and now extremely minor differences in tasks can yield noticeable performance benefits/deficits. Personally, since you run ADG, I'd go with the AMD, but to each their own.

The motherboards you'd get with either wouldn't be especially different, either.

The L2 cache? Yeah, Intel only states the amount of L2 cache per core, whereas AMD states the amount of cache over all, so the i5-3570 has 1MB per core, which comes out to 4MB overall. The AMD has 8MB overall... Which comes out to 1MB per core.

Dant wrote:

The L2 cache? Yeah, Intel only states the amount of L2 cache per core, whereas AMD states the amount of cache over all, so the i5-3570 has 1MB per core, which comes out to 4MB overall. The AMD has 8MB overall... Which comes out to 1MB per core.

Nooo... I was quoting totals. The i5-3570 has 256 KB per core. o_O;

The FX-8350 has 2 MB per physical core, shared between two logical cores. I imagine that sharing can be a big hiccup in the performance sometimes.

I also cut $75 off the cost of the build if I go back to AMD...

...yeah, I'm probably gonna make the change back. Though I'm gonna stick with the new PSU and RAM selections. 700w is more than enough for the PSU, and the new selection once again has a single 12v rail. It also specifically advertises longer cables, which considering I'm going with a full-tower case with a bottom-mounted PSU, that's probably important. :P

Gemini000 wrote:

Nooo... I was quoting totals. The i5-3570 has 256 KB per core. o_O; […]
Show full quote

Dant wrote:

The L2 cache? Yeah, Intel only states the amount of L2 cache per core, whereas AMD states the amount of cache over all, so the i5-3570 has 1MB per core, which comes out to 4MB overall. The AMD has 8MB overall... Which comes out to 1MB per core.

Nooo... I was quoting totals. The i5-3570 has 256 KB per core. 😮;

The FX-8350 has 2 MB per physical core, shared between two logical cores. I imagine that sharing can be a big hiccup in the performance sometimes.

I also cut $75 off the cost of the build if I go back to AMD...

...yeah, I'm probably gonna make the change back. Though I'm gonna stick with the new PSU and RAM selections. 700w is more than enough for the PSU, and the new selection once again has a single 12v rail. It also specifically advertises longer cables, which considering I'm going with a full-tower case with a bottom-mounted PSU, that's probably important. 😜

Oh *Quickly pulls up CPU-World*... Oh, wow you're right... WTF Intel?

The FX-series has a deeper caveat than that, whilst the FX-8350 has 8 integer units, it only has 4 FPUs!... Mind you, said FPUs are 128-bit and AMD plays tricks on the scheduler to make it work out. Really, that is also why the L2 caches are shared as well.

Gemini000 wrote:

The FX-8350 has 2 MB per physical core, shared between two logical cores. I imagine that sharing can be a big hiccup in the performance sometimes.

The FX 8350 has 2MB per module. Each of the four modules is a dual core that shares certain resources, L2 cache being one of them.

I can't stress this enough, there's no such thing as "logical" cores in FX architecture.

The L2 cache sharing between the two modules is not the problem per se, 2MB is big enough. Associativity and cache latency are the one of the main bottlenecks in the architecture.

Dant wrote:

The FX-series has a deeper caveat than that, whilst the FX-8350 has 8 integer units, it only has 4 FPUs!... Mind you, said FPUs are 128-bit and AMD plays tricks on the scheduler to make it work out. Really, that is also why the L2 caches are shared as well.

The FPU being shared between the 2 integer cores is not a huge problem as it can do two 128 bit instructions per clock cycle. But there are other problems, and they are tweaking it. Thing is, with 256bit AVX it will only do one. So this depends on the SIMDS being executed and whatnot.

But yeah, sharing does have its caveats.

Part of the problem with AMD FX series is due to Windows randomly "bouncing" threads between cores/modules forcing the L2 cache to reload the data only it to be no longer needed when a thread is moved to a different core/module. When one core on each module performance of the remaining core improves (there is a review on THG about this). For AMD FX the best os of choice is Linux as performance in general is better. The patch doesn't do much at all and windows 8 is no improvement over win7 in that regard. That is why people so strongly side with Intel, much stronger single threaded performance and when most games barely use more than two threads/cores the choice is clear for most gamers.

I find it ironic, the whole AMD vs Intel debate has never cooled down since day one. ^.^

Intel has almost always been the #1 performer. Amd has always come in 2nd with the "I'm a better value". The money you save by going AMD should be put into a SSD raid. like on the newegg wishlist i posted. You will get a LOT more benefit from a SSD raid than you would from a few extra FPS in a game.