Ultimately you're gonna buy what you buy and that's that. However I have been building computers for a while both for my self and customers. Weather it bee for web browsing, gaming or photo and video editing.

i'v fairly keen on hardware and price and I have learned quite a bit over the years. I specialize in making computers with quality parts that work well together and can last 10 years.

If you owuld like i could make some suggestion, keeping in mind that you are in Canada. I think the Brands that I would suggest are purchasable in Canada, would be too costly and and have proven year after year for our customers to be rock solid (a lot of times even in the worst conditions).

Mau1wurf1977 wrote:

I thought they are called modules 😀

They're called so because cores are arranged in a modular approach. People believed the misconception that sharing resources would make them not REAL cores. I've noticed how people have struggled to understand the architecture, i was just not expecting it here.

The current situation reminds of the Pentium 4 and Athlon 64. The way I see it AMD needs double the cores, higher clock and double the power draw to stay competitive.

But hey, back in the day many people preferred the Prescott 😀

The situation might be look alike but it is quite different.

First of all Intel spends more in R&D than AMD gets in profit. AMD does not need to double its power draw to increase performance. The greatest problem AMD has and never solved is the lack of proper compiler and software support. They 've never invested enough in that department. How could people expect miracle performance from a radically designed architecture? Plus, AMD's plans had to be changed due to several constraints.

Why did AMD had to can SSE5? It was not because it was bad, quite the contrary, it was because Intel wanted none with it and announced AVX which is little more than glorified SSE with 256 bit registers. Who was the whole market gonna follow? To adopt SSE5 Intel would have to change its architecture and that would leave them in a situation of possible disadvantage. Instead AMD had to design its FPU on Bulldozer architecture to be able to cope with 256 bit AVX.

Not having its own compiler provides other deal of problems. There is no better option than Intel's compiler which provides the fastest code compilation. The problem all over the years is that Intel has not been fair, with several libraries on that same compiler not using the full capabilities of AMD CPU's. And i'm not saying Intel has to optimize their compiler for AMD but they shouldn't also cripple its potential. Just for instance if some code can be optimized using SSE3 the compiler would choose different code paths if an AMD CPU was used. In some libraries AMD CPU's were forced to run legacy 386 code. 386!!

AMD can't also compete in fab process tech, they just can't. I think they're actually doing a good job. 32nm SOI is old and it didn't marry very well with this architecture. And these examples are just needles in a haystack of problems, although they are quite big.

I've been researching benchmarks and the general architecture of the AMD FX series CPUs. I am aware that the Bulldozer CPUs underperforms compared to the Phenoms at the same clock speeds, but that the new Piledriver architecture turns the tables around and do indeed perform much more strongly. The FX-8350 is half the cost of comparably powerful Intel chips. Yes, the FX-8350 is a power hog and will be more expensive to go with in the long run compared to an Intel chip, but I did the math. It would cost about $40 more in electricity per YEAR to run the AMD chip over a similarlly powerful Intel chip. IMO: Not worth worrying about.

Also, I'm aware it's 8 "logical" cores, and that the processor itself actually only has 4 "physical" cores. Really, how does this affect anything? The speed rating you're given for a CPU is split evenly across all cores anyways. A 3 GHz Quad-Core has the same amount of processing speed as a 3 GHz Dual-Core. The difference is in how they divy up threads and cache memory, and as such, how much needs to be shared between multiple threads. It makes a lot more sense to go with as many cores as you can nowadays, especially with more and more applications (including games) taking advantage of the power of multi-threading.

There's no advantage for gaming in having more than 3-4 cores at this time, as games just don't take advantage of more than that.

Hyperthreading (and other virtual core technologies) also often just reduce performance. Intel brilliantly decided to map hyperthread cores onto physical ones in pairs, such that games asking for the first 2 "cores" will end up running two threads on the same physical core. This actually killed my framerate back when I still played World of Warcraft and prompted me to disable hyperthreading in my BIOS.

AMD CPUs have not been worth buying for systems in which performance matters, ever since Intel introduced the Core 2 Duo. And before you claim that I am an Intel fanboy, keep in mind that:
- I'm a third generation cheapskate.
- I prefer AMD/ATI over nVidia (for business reasons if not price/performance).
- I've gone back and forth between AMD and Intel CPUs since the mid-90s (Wyse 8MHz 286 -> Intel 386DX-33 -> AMD 486DX4-120 -> Intel PII-450 -> Intel PIII-550 -> AMD Athlon-something-or-other -> AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+ -> Intel Core 2 Duo something-or-other -> Intel Core i7-860 o/c'd from 2.8 to 4.2GHz).

GAME CHANGER

I just found some more intriguing performance benchmarks that show that while the FX-8350 has a lot more raw power than similarly priced Intel CPUs, its gaming performance is indeed worse. Not BAD, but not as good.

In order to close the gap with Intel, I only need to spend $25 more to get the i5-3570 CPU. It's a quad-core and its raw processing power is slightly less than the FX-8350, but its gaming performance obliterates the FX-8350 by quite the margin. Which means overall, it's a better processor. :o

SO... any recommendations for motherboards that will support the i5-3570 yet still carry the same military-grade quality of components as the ones I was looking at?

Not sure, but I always encourage people to check out The Tech Report's system guides when they're asking for advice on building a new machine from parts: http://techreport.com/review/24646/tr-april-2 … 13-system-guide

Edit: Also: http://techreport.com/review/23750/amd-fx-835 … sor-reviewed/14

Gemini000 wrote:

Also, I'm aware it's 8 "logical" cores, and that the processor itself actually only has 4 "physical" cores.

This is a very common misconception. Kris, i don't know exactly where you read that but that's just simply not true.

Actually what you say reflects an Intel Quad Core processor with HT but surely not an AMD CPU.

FX CPU's are comprised of modules, which are 2 integer cores that share some components such as the FPU itself, L1I cache, Fetch and Decode areas mainly. Does this mean they are not REAL cores or they are logical? Absolutely not. And very different from Hyper-Threading BTW.

In Intel architechture cores and resources are wide enough to some times use the resources not needed for threads currently being executed. So HT uses execution ports that are not doing anything to do things ahead. It is smart but it also has its share of problems. Ever wondered why Intel is fattening up the cores with more frontend resources and 2 more execution ports?

In AMD Fetch and Decode feed the cores simultaneously and each core executes code independently of each other with the performance penalty of waiting the fetch and decode feeding both cores at the same time. Ever wondered why AMD is providing every core a dedicated deocode area?
Even so, the main reason for AMD FX's not to excel at games has probably more to do with the cache subsystem than anything else.

In the end, everyone should buy the CPU most suited to its needs. Again, you'll be fine with FX 8350.

Gemini000, just had a look at the prices. In Canada (I checked with ncix.com that guy has a great YT Channel) the price gap is a bit larger than over here in Australia, you're looking at a price difference of $120 between the 8350 and 3770.

On the one hand you don't worry about an annual power savings of $40, but you do worry about a price difference of $120 over three years. At least over here electricity prices are only going up.

Now with the compiler and fab issues. Exactly why would you then choose to go with a product who's company is "disadvantaged" and doesn't have the latest and greatest fab (in other words backing a losing horse). It can't be for financial reason, as explained above.

Also we know you produce your videos, so do I, and having lots of RAM does very little for video editing and capturing purposes. Having a top notch CPU and very fast storage (SSD) does however. I asked about your Video Editing software and if it supports QuickSync. Why do I ask? Check out this performance chart:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5771/the-intel- … 3770k-review/21

It cuts your render time almost in half. Not sure what your render process is. For me I do a Max Quality render with PowerDirector (The files end up being massive, e.g. My 3h long MT-32 Tutorial Video ended up being 16GB). But with QuickSync it doesn't take long. And before uploading to YT I use handbrake and turn it into a smaller size for uploading (2 to 3 GB). The most RAM that's in use is only 1 GB. But boy does the SSD drive help. Especially for capturing Full HD material with FRAPS for example.

And finally I want to talk about reliability and compatibility. With Intel everything "just works". You mentioned BIOS updates and "issues with a certain CPU" in your first post. Without being specific, you will run into more issues more often with AMD than with Intel. Seeing you want to produce and sell your games and TV shows, try to see it from a business perspective. $140 more and you have the best CPU from Intel (Socket 1155).

So I think I have explained my recommendation and I'll leave it at that, because ultimately it's your money and your choice. I hope it all works out for you!

Obliterates in gaming? It depends on the benchmark you're looking at.

http://www.pureoverclock.com/Review-detail/co … rmula-z-rog/19/
http://media.bestofmicro.com/W/V/358879/origi … U%20Scaling.png

Pretty sure these are done on multiplayer though with tons of players (especially for BF3), so I'm not sure it interests you Gemini.

Gemini000 wrote:

GAME CHANGER […]
Show full quote

GAME CHANGER

I just found some more intriguing performance benchmarks that show that while the FX-8350 has a lot more raw power than similarly priced Intel CPUs, its gaming performance is indeed worse. Not BAD, but not as good.

In order to close the gap with Intel, I only need to spend $25 more to get the i5-3570 CPU. It's a quad-core and its raw processing power is slightly less than the FX-8350, but its gaming performance obliterates the FX-8350 by quite the margin. Which means overall, it's a better processor. 😮

SO... any recommendations for motherboards that will support the i5-3570 yet still carry the same military-grade quality of components as the ones I was looking at?

Where did you see those benchmarks? It's funny how benchmarks change from reviewer to reviewer. I can just as easily provide you a review that show otherwise.

But anyway... If you go Intel, why can't you wait barely 2 months for Haswell? The 22nm is now pretty mature.

Mau1wurf1977 wrote:

And finally I want to talk about reliability and compatibility. With Intel everything "just works". You mentioned BIOS updates and "issues with a certain CPU" in your first post. Without being specific, you will run into more issues more often with AMD than with Intel.

Dude i respect you and i surely don't wanna start a war here, in fact i pretty much enjoy your work with old sound cards and whatnot, but what you stated above is pure BS. Some people will have issues with Intel systems and others with AMD. Now saying that issues happen more often with AMD than Intel is simply not true. Calls for pure speculation.

carlostex wrote:

But anyway... If you go Intel, why can't you wait barely 2 months for Haswell? The 22nm is now pretty mature.

Because my current system is not set up for wireless access, and Dad's router is in a location that's incredibly inconvenient to plug into directly. The moment I move I will be without internet access on my main system, and I'd rather just put a whole new system together than open my current one up again for the thousandth time. x_x;

And yeah, I'm noticing that benchmarks can vary wildly from place to place. Reviews of components can also seem to fluctuate wildly. The really funny thing though is that the performance numbers don't fluctuate so much that the world will come to an end if I don't pick the best CPU or the best graphics card or whatever. But, I want to make sure I'm getting the best overall performance for the money.

To that end, here's a revised list of parts I've selected:

CASE: ThermalTake VN700M1W2N Overseer RX-I Full Tower Gaming Case
PSU: Corsair Gaming Series GS700 CP-9020064-NA 700W
MOTHERBOARD: ASUS SABERTOOTH Z77 Intel Series 7 Motherboard
CPU: Intel Core i5-3570 BX806237i53570 Processor - Quad Core - 3.4 GHz
GPU: EVGA GeForce GTX 660 02G-P4-2662-KR Video Card
RAM: Kingston Hyper X Beast KHX18C10T3K2/16X 16GB - 1866 MHz
HD: WD Blue 1TB Desktop Hard Drive

It turns out $88 more expensive than I've got budgeted, making this nearly $1,400 worth in parts, inculding the minor things I'm not bringing up like the memory card reader, BD-R drive, etc., and not including taxes. Again, not getting an SSD to start, but I might later on.

Gemini000 wrote:

Because my current system is not set up for wireless access, and Dad's router is in a location that's incredibly inconvenient to plug into directly. The moment I move I will be without internet access on my main system, and I'd rather just put a whole new system together than open my current one up again for the thousandth time. x_x;

USB WiFi dongle?

I'd still have to buy one and then never use it again after getting a new system...

Plus, I think I should let you guys know what it is exactly I've been stuck working with for the past couple years:

CPU: AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual-Core @ 2.00 GHz
GPU: GeForce 9800 GT /w 1 GB RAM
RAM: 2 GB DDR2
HD: WD 250 GB

...do I need to go on? :P

SquallStrife wrote:

USB WiFi dongle?

Yeah, i suggest the same.

OK Kris. Anyway, my Core 2 Duo is running happily at 3.6GHZ paired with a HD4850. It's not the best system to run Arma 3 but i'm not gonna upgrade until next year.

Plus, I think I should let you guys know what it is exactly I've been stuck working with for the past couple years: […]
Show full quote

Plus, I think I should let you guys know what it is exactly I've been stuck working with for the past couple years:

CPU: AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual-Core @ 2.00 GHz
GPU: GeForce 9800 GT /w 1 GB RAM
RAM: 2 GB DDR2
HD: WD 250 GB

...do I need to go on? 😜

That's very similar to what is now my Linux box, which was my main Windows gaming box 2 computers ago (since replaced by a Dell M1730 laptop and another custom-built Core i7 + HD5870 desktop). The main difference was I had 2 7800GTX in SLI and several HDDs, but mine was also a 2.2GHz CPU.

I feel your pain. The CPU was pretty much obsolete for gaming not long after I built it around 7 years ago, so it wasn't even that great for Oblivion and such.

Still, as a Linux workstation it's been a champ at doing various server-y stuff, plus (cross-)compiling things, downloading things, surfing the web, and playing Youtube videos for my daughter.

Gemini000 wrote:

I'd still have to buy one and then never use it again after getting a new system...

You should seriously consider turning your current system into a Linux box. You could use it to produce Linux ports of your games 😀

Gemini000 wrote:

To that end, here's a revised list of parts I've selected: CASE: ThermalTake VN700M1W2N Overseer RX-I Full Tower Gaming Case PSU […]
Show full quote

To that end, here's a revised list of parts I've selected:
CASE: ThermalTake VN700M1W2N Overseer RX-I Full Tower Gaming Case
PSU: Corsair Gaming Series GS700 CP-9020064-NA 700W
MOTHERBOARD: ASUS SABERTOOTH Z77 Intel Series 7 Motherboard
CPU: Intel Core i5-3570 BX806237i53570 Processor - Quad Core - 3.4 GHz
GPU: EVGA GeForce GTX 660 02G-P4-2662-KR Video Card
RAM: Kingston Hyper X Beast KHX18C10T3K2/16X 16GB - 1866 MHz
HD: WD Blue 1TB Desktop Hard Drive
It turns out $88 more expensive than I've got budgeted, making this nearly $1,400 worth in parts, inculding the minor things I'm not bringing up like the memory card reader, BD-R drive, etc., and not including taxes. Again, not getting an SSD to start, but I might later on.

You’re going Intel now???! You seem to be highly influenced in this and your other hardware choices based on bits and pieces of disjointed information. You need to view your proposed new build more holistically else I fear much money will be thrown away for something very unmatched or even sub-standard in places. Note also that 1155 has been around since 2011 and while its had a great run, is soon to be a dead socket. At this point in time, I would either wait 2 more months for Haswell, go for a new FX or LGA2011 or buy used.

Second point, the 3570k and FX8320 are directly comparable. Each has its strengths and weaknesses on a roughly 50-50 ratio. Personally I would go with the FX8320 as I tend to go for “different” builds, apart from the dead socket issue. I’m using Intel at the moment, but it is the craziness that is X79 and it’s built because its what I want, not what people want. So if I felt like an FX, I’d build an FX. You gotta make that decision man.

Also, you appear to be counting every dollar, so I’ll provide a quick summary on your proposed build for you: case is personal choice so OK, PSU- OK, video card –OK, way too much motherboard, wrong choice of cpu compared with motherboard, massive overkill ram, very poor o/s drive + storage configuration.

OK, on to the details

Motherboard: The Sabretooth is overkill since you’re planning on using the locked 3570. You took the wrong lesson away from previous conversations regarding Sabretooth and FX. You need a Sabretooth with an 8 core FX as the very high power draw of the FX, especially if compounded by overclocking, is too much for lesser boards with poorer PWMs. That is why experienced builders use either the Sabretooth, Crosshair, etc. However, 1155 cpus don’t draw nearly as much power, thus can use most Z77 boards out there safely. A good match for a strong budget i5 build would be an Asus P8Z77V-LX, Gigabyte z77x-d3h, Asrock Z77 Extreme 4 or MSI Z77a-gd55. But more on that when we touch on the choice of CPU.

CPU: If you’re using the multiplier locked 3570, then you’re not gonna be overclocking, in which case, unless SLI or Crossfire is in your future, you don’t even need the above boards and can make do with something much cheaper, like a H61 board. Buy a cheaper locked cpu, as the 3570 is so close to the price of an uncastrated 3570k that it makes no sense.

RAM- If you’re counting every penny like you appear to be doing here, i.e. mentioning $88 difference in your budget, then you shouldn’t be looking at this particular ram set. Especially when you’re not even overclocking (see above cpu). Again, don’t go with what other people or reviews say you need. Unless you’re A) not budget constricted, B) a heavy overclocker and C) going for a “show” style, you don’t need this ram. Buy 2x 4gb of generic Kingston or Corsair ram and be happy. FYI, I have 16gb of 2133mhz Kingston Hyper –X, 16gb of Corsair Vengeance 1600mhz and 8gb of Kingston 1333mhz generic ram, and I feel no real life difference between the three of them. I went for the Hyper-X and Corsair sets as I fulfill reasons A), B) and C).

HDD- Please save the budget from the massive overkill motherboard and ram and put it towards an SSD. Running a modern Windows 7 or even Linux rig using it’s hard disk as a primary O/S drive is comparatively dog slow and negates the whole point of these new rigs. You do not get the new 201x’s feel without an SSD. A good SSD is like $100 these days. You don’t need 480gb, as little as 60gb is good to go. Use the 1TB WD Blue for games and storage then.

Case and cooling- Regarding the case, it’s a personal choice and there’s no right or wrong. But I want to correct one misconception I gather you have about CPU cooling. Whatever the airflow of your case is, if your CPU is high TDP/ overclocked or has a poorly mounted heatsink/ paste, you’re going to have temp and stability issues. A good case itself will not save you in this case. A well mounted and correctly sized heatsink for the job together with a correct amount of paste does more for cooling than any high-end case can. Unless of cause you insist on fitting an FX build into one of those old 90s style side mounted PSU cases!

Don’t know what stuff costs where you are, but a quick look at my local store shows the following, for my recommended FX build (price in US$):
FX 8320 – 185
2 x4gb Corsair Vengeance LP 1600- 81
Asus Sabretooth 990FX- 231
Intel 330 64gb- 79
WD Blue 1TB- 64
LG- BD-R 109
Asus GTX660- 297
Corsair TX650M- 118
CM 690 II Advanced - 118
Win7 HP- 92
TOTAL: $1,374
Easily done, whipped this up at my desk in the office in 5 mins- Not even factoring in bundle discounts, specials or searching around. Newegg should be cheaper as these are brick-and-mortar prices.