• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Any guide to explain everything while purchasing CPU?

The Day Dreamer

The Day Dreamer

Senior member
Can you please suggest a good article explaining minute details to consider in a processor?

Assisting professor in university for his research work in Nano circuit architecture.
 
How wide a field are you casting here? x86? ARM? SPARC and other server architectures? Microcontrollers like AVR?
 
You aren't going to find it. Ultimately the best guide to what CPU you should choose is a benchmark of the exact app you want to run on that CPU. Anything less is going to be estimations and guesses. Things like microarchitecture, instruction sets, core counts, clock speed, branch depth, cache size, ALU count, etc all play into a processor's performance but don't necessarily determine it for an application.

There is a reason why there are so many synthetic benchmarking applications out there and there is a reason why good reviews include more than just synthetic benchmarks, they will include a whole host of applications that you might use.
 
When I shop around for a cpu, i like to set a budget, and then narrow down the choices of my CPUs. Then i evaluate each of the candidate to determine which one has better value. I usually do this by using a rubric and grade each cpu on a scale of 1-10. 1 means i won't buy while 10 means i will definitely buy.

For example, if i have $120 budget, i can narrow my selections down to AMD fx 6300 and i3 4170

i3:
Slightly better performance in gaming than fx 6300 on average +2
Much better performance than fx 6300 in older single core games +3
Lower power consumption and thermal +1
More recent and modern architecture +1
MutiThreading +2
Made by Intel -10 brand loyalty penalty 😛
socres: -1
Verdict: no way would i buy it

fx6300:
More cores +2
Future games support higher cores thus a bit future proofing +1
Great mutitasker +2
Overclockable +2
faster than i3 in mutithread +3
scores: 10
Verdict: this will defiantly be my choice for $120 cpu
 
Last edited:
AMDisTheBEST said:
When I shop around for a cpu, i like to set a budget, and then narrow down the choices of my CPUs. Then i evaluate each of the candidate to determine which one has better value. I usually do this by using a rubric and grade each cpu on a scale of 1-10. 1 means i won't buy while 10 means i will definitely buy.

For example, if i have $120 budget, i can narrow my selections down to AMD fx 6300 and i3 4170

i3:
Slightly better performance in gaming than fx 6300 on average +2
Much better performance than fx 6300 in older single core games +3
Lower power consumption and thermal +1
More recent and modern architecture +1
MutiThreading +2
Made by Intel -10 brand loyalty penalty 😛
socres: -1
Verdict: no way would i buy it

fx6300:
More cores +2
Future games support higher cores thus a bit future proofing +1
Great mutitasker +2
Overclockable +2
faster than i3 in mutithread +3
scores: 10
Verdict: this will defiantly be my choice for $120 cpu
Click to expand...

Not sure if serious. If serious.....get help.
 
Uh...wow.

That "-10 'cuz I hate Intel's guts" modifier is not exactly a technical point in favor of AMD you know. And it makes you look juuuuuust a little biased. As does posting under the name AMDistheBest.

Using the right tool for the right job is of paramount importance, but from a purely technical standpoint, "brand loyalty" does not and should not enter the equation.

Sorry, but at $120 Intel has this market cornered. Aren't the FX 6300s only $99 now anyway? Their competition is Skylake Pentium G-series, not Haswell i3s, and at THAT point they do win, hands down. But the general purpose user will be better suited with an i3 rather than an FX 6300
 
Azuma Hazuki said:
Uh...wow.

That "-10 'cuz I hate Intel's guts" modifier is not exactly a technical point in favor of AMD you know. And it makes you look juuuuuust a little biased. As does posting under the name AMDistheBest.

Using the right tool for the right job is of paramount importance, but from a purely technical standpoint, "brand loyalty" does not and should not enter the equation.
Click to expand...

There's a LOT of people out there like that. They won't buy Intel no matter what.

Me, personally, I'll use either Intel or AMD. AMD less so lately, though I've contemplated pulling out my 1045T Thuban chips, and getting a pair of those 970 Asus boards with the M.2 slots on them. That could be interesting to play with.

Edit: The 860K is on the front page of Newegg.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...cm_sp=Homepage_FDD-_-P1_19-113-379-_-01182016

If you overclocked that to 4.5Ghz (well within the realm of possibility), then I think throughput wise, it could easily beat my G4400 @ 4.29Ghz, at least for well-threaded integer tasks. (Thinking DC here.)

And for the same price as my G4400 (very nearly, at least), you could get a quad-core / dual-module CPU. Without IGP, of course, but if you're going to be doing "SKY OC" (BCLK OC) then you can't use the IGP anyways.
 
Last edited:
Azuma Hazuki said:
Uh...wow.

That "-10 'cuz I hate Intel's guts" modifier is not exactly a technical point in favor of AMD you know. And it makes you look juuuuuust a little biased. As does posting under the name AMDistheBest.

Using the right tool for the right job is of paramount importance, but from a purely technical standpoint, "brand loyalty" does not and should not enter the equation.

Sorry, but at $120 Intel has this market cornered. Aren't the FX 6300s only $99 now anyway? Their competition is Skylake Pentium G-series, not Haswell i3s, and at THAT point they do win, hands down. But the general purpose user will be better suited with an i3 rather than an FX 6300
Click to expand...

my rating, my choice. Say what you want, it won't change my mind. Many would agree as well. Who in the right mind would game on a two core intel nowadays?

"Mutipurpose" woot, this is something i adamantly disagree. 6 cores fx means much better multitasking. Wouldnt that suit general purpose better?
 
Certainly anyones choice what to buy. Myself, I am instituting another criteria "Use AMD fanboy posts as a contra indicator". + 20 points for intel irrespective of performance. After all, we cant let logic interfere with our decision.
 
frozentundra123456 said:
Certainly anyones choice what to buy. Myself, I am instituting another criteria "Use AMD fanboy posts as a contra indicator". + 20 points for intel irrespective of performance. After all, we cant let logic interfere with our decision.
Click to expand...

lmao. I see many of you enjoy poking fun at my post huh? Remove that -10 penalty, you'll still see fx 6300 wins in my evaluation. I give scores like this. better/much better performance is +3 since that is the most important aspect to look for in cpu.
Bonus features like overclocking, mutithreading can nail another +2
Rest, like architecture, future proofing ect, scores one point.
fx 6300 adds up to 10 in this regard while i3 scores 9. This is about as unbiased as i can get.

In any case, op wants a cpu... to study nanotechnology??? Well, he can get just about any. All cpus are manufacture using nao tech
 
You can get an 8320e for $120 right now.

AMDisTheBEST said:
When I shop around for a cpu, i like to set a budget, and then narrow down the choices of my CPUs. Then i evaluate each of the candidate to determine which one has better value. I usually do this by using a rubric and grade each cpu on a scale of 1-10. 1 means i won't buy while 10 means i will definitely buy.

For example, if i have $120 budget, i can narrow my selections down to AMD fx 6300 and i3 4170

i3:
Slightly better performance in gaming than fx 6300 on average +2
Much better performance than fx 6300 in older single core games +3
Lower power consumption and thermal +1
More recent and modern architecture +1
MutiThreading +2
Made by Intel -10 brand loyalty penalty 😛
socres: -1
Verdict: no way would i buy it

fx6300:
More cores +2
Future games support higher cores thus a bit future proofing +1
Great mutitasker +2
Overclockable +2
faster than i3 in mutithread +3
scores: 10
Verdict: this will defiantly be my choice for $120 cpu
Click to expand...
 
VirtualLarry said:
That's a bit... harsh, don't you think? I could say the same thing about any mainstream Intel CPU lower than an i5, but I don't.
Click to expand...

No its not. Look at benchmarks, look at FX8xxx prices. Even if you stick to AMD its an awful product. Assuming you didn't go intel to begin with as the better option.

Not sure if its due to the way its harvested. But it tends to fall short quite often due to sporadic performance, almost at FX4300 levels. While the FX8xxx doesn't show this random weakness.
 
Last edited:
The Day Dreamer said:
I still hear that AMD produces a lot more heat and is generations behind in technology. Do I stand correct?
Click to expand...

AMD's CPUs are basically power hogs and are in fact generations behind in technology. AMD's latest enthusiast desktop CPUs are based on an architecture that launched more than three years ago on a platform that's even more ancient.

In contrast, Intel has been giving enthusiasts new CPUs and new chipsets at basically a yearly clip (there was a pause in 2014 with "Haswell Refresh").
 
AMDisTheBEST said:
my rating, my choice. Say what you want, it won't change my mind. Many would agree as well. Who in the right mind would game on a two core intel nowadays?

"Mutipurpose" woot, this is something i adamantly disagree. 6 cores fx means much better multitasking. Wouldnt that suit general purpose better?
Click to expand...

Buying an AM3 socket system now is quite foolish, though.

Regardless of your opinion of the FX-6300.

And, if you already have an AM3 system, you should be buying an 8 core FX chip, not a 6 core chip.
 
Arachnotronic said:
AMD's CPUs are basically power hogs and are in fact generations behind in technology. AMD's latest enthusiast desktop CPUs are based on an architecture that launched more than three years ago on a platform that's even more ancient.

In contrast, Intel has been giving enthusiasts new CPUs and new chipsets at basically a yearly clip (there was a pause in 2014 with "Haswell Refresh").
Click to expand...

You are correct. However, each new Intel generation since Sandy Bridge has brought small to mimimal improvements for the desktop. If you are more concerned with the platform, the improvements have been better there I believe.

The FX6300 does use more power, and requires a dgpu since it has no IGP. It is competitive in multithreaded performance with an i3, but gets slaughtered in single thread. So at less than a hundred dollars, for a cheap gaming build where a dgpu will be used anyway, it is not a terrible choice, especially if you can overclock to 4ghz or so on the stock cooler. For general use though, I would go with intel or an FM2 APU like the A8-7600.
 
AMD is not aiming for the enthusiastic market, well at least not until zen rolls out. Their latest cpus are either budget Athlon, mobile cpus, or desktop apus. You need to understand that intel spends more on R&D than AMD. 2 quarters of intel research and development spending is already one year of AMD's total revenue. Besides the cpu, amd also has gpu to worry about so its already inferior R&D budget is split between the two. You arent really expecting the fund starved AMD to release something new and exciting in a mere 3 years now are you? It makes great affordable cpu, not expensive top tier ones that require insane research and development. Use logic here. I am pretty surpise to see AMD going back to the enthusiastic market with their new zen actually. I was expecting them to jump to mobile cpus and leave the x86 market.
 
Last edited:
Sorry to tell you, AMD certainly did aim for the enthusiast market with Bulldozer. They just missed. I still remember ads comparing it to an Intel extreme edition cpu in gpu limited scenarios trying to prove it was a better value. Extremely deceptive ads BTW, since Intel itself offered other cpus that were a much better value than the extreme editions.
 
frozentundra123456 said:
Sorry to tell you, AMD certainly did aim for the enthusiast market with Bulldozer. They just missed. I still remember ads comparing it to an Intel extreme edition cpu in gpu limited scenarios trying to prove it was a better value. Extremely deceptive ads BTW, since Intel itself offered other cpus that were a much better value than the extreme editions.
Click to expand...

I was a clueless and tech ignorant kid at that time so i could care less. AMD gave up on the enthusiastic market ever since they released the piledriver. Their road map from then onward was never aiming at the enthusiast market.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top