convert to haswell, or stick it out with AMD?

[Rinaun]

I've never been big on buying used components from an enthusiast site because my previous experience with them has always been less then stellar with their longevity. The sy stem i was upgrading from which was 4+ years old was originally a Q6600 rig, it lasted about a year before it called it quits and I had to trash it, i was not looking for the same experience again this time around.

Did the CPU die, or did something else die? You aren't being very clear when you say you bought a rig and then it died. I'd never buy a rig used on any site, but a processor? I buy them all the time used to avoid paying new prices for something that pretty much won't die. I've also built over 100+ computers in the last few years, and EVERY SINGLE ONE has not had one CPU issue. I understand your mental block with buying used electronics though, and I wish you the best of luck in finding the part you need new for a cheap price.

the FX-8320 was the best "bang for your buck" processor vs every other intel around. It wasnt so much a matter to me that I would see about 20% less single threaded performance, it was the overall performance I was considering and versatility for that matter. A simple passmark bench showed that there was a 6467 point difference between the two benchmark results. That combined with the addition of extremely fast DDR3 ram, and a newer graphics card and chipset it was basically all the computer I would ever need.

It was the best "bang for your buck" processor because the TDP was outrageously high compared to the alternatives, plus AMD is financially in the hole which makes any company sell something for near-losses. You bought something for cheaper that in the long run will cost you more; go figure. You should have taken the two cookies later route and just picked up a 1155; I'm still using my 2600k and will be for probably another two years. I really don't think people realize what 125w of TDP turns a PC into (a space heater).

The reason im nitpicking now is because i'm starting to get pet peeves over the "dated" feel of the supposedly new technology I bought. Sure vishera was brand spanking new at the time, but the motherboard was comparably older, mainly due to the fact that it seems AMD has abandoned the mATX market for APU. If the Core i5 3570K was 150 dollars at the time I was building this rig, I would have immediately bought that no questions asked, but not only is it STILL not 150 dollars (unless you include that sale which is not only unavailable to me, but out of stock everywhere else), it was even higher in price at the time when I was building this rig.

Uh, I bought a 2500k in 2011 with my friend at frys for 160$ (on a really nice sale). I'm not sure where you'rte getting your pricing, benchmarks, or information from, but it completely goes against everything I've heard/experienced in the last few years. One again, I recommend you buying a used Intel processor and a nice brand new everything else.

But i understand everyone's resentment towards AMD and people buying AMD products, it makes perfect sense, but for those of us that aren't as hardcore enthusiast as some of you, spending 1000-1500 on a computer is just wasting money, considering what they are all capable of, regardless of the little details. I could have spent 500 dollars on a computer using only the cheapest processors available and still built a faster rig then what I was coming from.

Lol. Resentment? No, my friend. It's called logic. It sounds like you like AMD, coupled with some buyers remorse over their offerings. I have built AMD computers and Intel computers within the last few weeks; each has their own purpose (amd for lower-end clients specifically). I'd rethink the last paragraph and let us know whether you want only an AMD product, or if you want our advice in what to buy and will not attach a brandname to the product. It sounds like you really want someone to suggest you an AMD solution when realistically it's just not a good option ATM.

it looks to me like you simply looked at to wrong benchmarks to base your decision
you can't ignore the higher ST performance (better performance for non 8t optimized software), you can't ignore the lower power usage (lower load on the MB), because as you are experiencing right now, it's all relevant...
It's not really hard to justify an i5 for a fast gaming system, the cost difference to your FX would be small in the end, smaller than wasting your time with these problems and now having to buy new hardware again!?

It's hard to justify anything when you think one brand is better than the other without even looking at their offerings, which is what the OP is doing. It happens often in this industry but at this point the OP is just ignoring good advice in hopes of someone recommending him a worse AMD solution, compared to an Intel-based solution. I as much as the next guy love AMD (A64 baby) right now is a terrible time to buy anything but an APU-based product from them. I'd suggest you stay away from AMD unless the sale is AMAZING and you can afford the extra heat.

 

[Spawne32]

"It wasnt so much a matter to me that I would see about 20% less single threaded performance, it was the overall performance I was considering and versatility for that matter. A simple passmark bench showed that there was a 6467 point difference between the two benchmark results."

"since I have been playing guild wars 2 for quite some time now"


it looks to me like you simply looked at to wrong benchmarks to base your decision

you can't ignore the higher ST performance (better performance for non 8t optimized software), you can't ignore the lower power usage (lower load on the MB), because as you are experiencing right now, it's all relevant...

It's not really hard to justify an i5 for a fast gaming system, the cost difference to your FX would be small in the end, smaller than wasting your time with these problems and now having to buy new hardware again!?

I dont HAVE to buy anything, my gaming performance is just fine. 25-30 fps in the highest CPU load areas in GW2 is still plenty acceptable for the time being. And elsewhere in the game its 40-55fps no problem. Mind you these are on the MAXIMUM possible settings with supersampling enabled.

 

[Spawne32]

Lol. Resentment? No, my friend. It's called logic. It sounds like you like AMD, coupled with some buyers remorse over their offerings. I have built AMD computers and Intel computers within the last few weeks; each has their own purpose (amd for lower-end clients specifically). I'd rethink the last paragraph and let us know whether you want only an AMD product, or if you want our advice in what to buy and will not attach a brandname to the product. It sounds like you really want someone to suggest you an AMD solution when realistically it's just not a good option ATM.


It's hard to justify anything when you think one brand is better than the other without even looking at their offerings, which is what the OP is doing. It happens often but he's pretty much at this point just ignoring good advice just to get someone to recommend him a worse AMD solution, compared to an Intel-based solution. I as much as the next guy love AMD (A64 baby) but right now unless you're buying an APU I'd suggest you stay away from AMD.

This is only the second AMD system ive ever owned in my entire life, im hardly a AMD fanboi by any sense of the word. I ran nothing but intel up until A64, and then 3 years later, nothing but intel again up until now. Ive bought no less then 25 intel processors over the course of the past 10 years and probably 3 AMD ever in my entire life. I'm not exactly sure where you get the idea of me having buyers remorse? I dont have buyers remorse over anything, if i did, I would be on newegg right now buying the intel system and putting this thing up for sale. The reason im hesitant to make the jump is because it would be a jump from the highest end AMD to a lower end budget intel processor. Yes the motherboard might be superior, and the single threaded performance might be superior, but what else am I losing in the process?

Again my intent with the thread was merely to get opinions and maybe some glimpse into what potential future prospects there might be if i held out into 2014 for a significant leap forward with AMD, or a significant price drop with intel. I also dont understand why everyone is focusing on TDP so much ITT. Yes the TDP is ridiculous, but the issue is that motherboard manufacturers seemingly refuse to outfit their boards properly for these 8 core processors, that is the argument there. You can look all over the web and there are people still having issues with lack of adequate VRM for 8 cores even on ATX form factors. Do you want me to [rag] on AMD a little bit to prove my non fanboi status? I think the FX-9370 and FX-9590 is by far the dumbest thing AMD has ever done in the history of the company. Not only are they priced ridiculously too high for the performance, but a 220watt TDP processor is absolutely ludicrous. I have counted a total of 2 motherboards so far on the market that even come close to being able to support said processors and anyone who is buying this stuff is flushing their money down the toilet. If there ever was a case to say Intel > AMD, that would be it.

 

[Rinaun]

This is only the second AMD system ive ever owned in my entire life, im hardly a AMD fanboi by any sense of the word. I ran nothing but intel up until A64, and then 3 years later, nothing but intel again up until now. Ive bought no less then 25 intel processors over the course of the past 10 years and probably 3 AMD ever in my entire life. I'm not exactly sure where you get the idea of me having buyers remorse? I dont have buyers remorse over anything, if i did, I would be on newegg right now buying the intel system and putting this thing up for sale. The reason im hesitant to make the jump is because it would be a jump from the highest end AMD to a lower end budget intel processor. Yes the motherboard might be superior, and the single threaded performance might be superior, but what else am I losing in the process?

Again my intent with the thread was merely to get opinions and maybe some glimpse into what potential future prospects there might be if i held out into 2014 for a significant leap forward with AMD, or a significant price drop with intel. I also dont understand why everyone is focusing on TDP so much ITT. Yes the TDP is ridiculous, but the issue is that motherboard manufacturers seemingly refuse to outfit their boards properly for these 8 core processors, that is the argument there. You can look all over the web and there are people still having issues with lack of adequate VRM for 8 cores even on ATX form factors. Do you want me to [rag] on AMD a little bit to prove my non fanboi status? I think the FX-9370 and FX-9590 is by far the dumbest thing AMD has ever done in the history of the company. Not only are they priced ridiculously too high for the performance, but a 220watt TDP processor is absolutely ludicrous. I have counted a total of 2 motherboards so far on the market that even come close to being able to support said processors and anyone who is buying this stuff is flushing their money down the toilet. If there ever was a case to say Intel > AMD, that would be it.

Thats fine and all, and I understand your hesitation to upgrade from the best of one brand to another lower version of another brand. You need to understand though that the amount of tasks and applications that the 8 cores will benefit you as a gamer is almost zero. The TDP is only brought up because well, its double the amount of the nearest competitor and they still can't match the performance of them.

If that isn't indicative of how far behind AMD is in the high-end processor market by them releasing a 220w TDP processor rehash, I don't know what else does (you do know they aren't competing in that market anymore officially, right?). I'd still recommend moving to something on Intel's lineup, but at the same time unless you are getting a good deal I'd just wait for the deals to come to you. I still highly suggest you to buy a processor used; you could have everything you want without taxes, and save some coin. If you are holding out for AMD's next release, LOL you don't read news because yeah if it is coming out it's going to be trash. They announced a long time ago their focus is going to be more towards the mobile market. I don't keep up on processor news lately but I remember them giving a press briefing on this earlier in the year.

 

[Spawne32]

Well im not in a huge rush, and the longer I wait getting into the new year, the better the pricing will be (i hope). I'm not completely opposed to buying used, but its not my first choice ATM, and seeing as how its not really a high priority right now, I have plenty of time to look for good deals. Only reason im holding out for the releases is out of mere curiosity, but I dont expect AMD to be offering anything profound at all. Frankly im amazed AMD fell this far behind, whatever their philosophy was at the time when they overtook intel back in the A64 days, they surely have abandoned it now, and I dont even recommend AMD processors to people in the mobile market either. (usually because their performance is equally worse when compared to i3) Hell i could even go as far as to wait for the next generation of intel processors, although I dont know how far off we are from that.

 

[bgt]

Spawne32, I own a 8350 and a 4770K and the difference is minimal in every day use. So....don't regret having bought an AMD. The system is fast enough and power consumption is not as bad as you think. Besides that........the AM3+ platform is rock stable and will eventually benefit from new software/gaming improvements like Mantle and GCN. Too much doom and gloom on this forum about AMD products. Annoying really. I also owned more Intel stuff than AMD stuff, I still do, but the only really bad AMD CPU I ever owned was the 1st 9500. Other than that I've never regretted buying AMD.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Spawne32, I own a 8350 and a 4770K and the difference is minimal in every day use. So....don't regret having bought a AMD. The system is fast enough and power consumption is not as bad as you think. Besides that........the AM3+ platform is rock stable and will eventually benefit from new software/gaming improvements like Mantle and GCN/HSA. Too much doom and gloom on this forum about AMD products. Annoying really. I also owned more Intel stuff than AMD stuff, I still do, but the only really bad AMD CPU I ever owned was the 1st 9500. Other than that I've never regretted buying AMD.

AM3+ doesnt support any HSA features. And Mantle, that will be extremely limited for years, if it doesnt die off. Will benefit Intel just as much.

And if you own a 8350, you should know how desperate AMD is, since they wont give you the needed specs for it. hence why we got the cases of stock 8350 that throttles due to going over TDP limit of the MB due to being 140W+ CPUs as IDC already demonstrated.

And if daily use you mean watching youtube and surf webpages, then most likely yes. But gaming wise, it shows quickly how slow the FX series really is.

 

[Rinaun]

AM3+ doesnt support any HSA features. And Mantle, that will be extremely limited for years, if it doesnt die off. Will benefit Intel just as much.

And if you own a 8350, you should know how desperate AMD is, since they wont give you the needed specs for it. hence why we got the cases of stock 8350 that throttles due to going over TDP limit of the MB due to being 140W+ CPUs as IDC already demonstrated.

And if daily use you mean watching youtube and surf webpages, then most likely yes. But gaming wise, it shows quickly how slow the FX series really is.

This. HSA would be awesome......if it was on AM3+. It's not gloom, it's just being realistic. If you think the FX series is a better purchase at MSRP versus an intel based CPU at msrp..........what benches are you reading? Even if it did show at MSRP it was equal, you aren't counting in the wattage cost/AC costs. It's easy just looking at benches but as proven above, AMD is stuck between a rock and a hard place which has resulted in TERRIBLE non-APU based chips. If it wasn't for the APU's I'd say stay away from every AMD cpu that isn't on some kind of screaming microcenter-level deal.

 

[sequoia464]

Uh, I bought a 2500k in 2011 with my friend at frys for 160$ (on a really nice sale). I'm not sure where you'rte getting your pricing, benchmarks, or information from, but it completely goes against everything I've heard/experienced in the last few years. One again, I recommend you buying a used Intel processor and a nice brand new everything else.
.

I got in on that 2500 from Fry's as well, think I paid $150 though.

Problem for the OP and most others is that generally Fry's, and Micro center's pricing is in store only. Don't think Micro center ever sells CPUs online at their sale prices.

Did see that Fry's is currently selling an i5-4440 and an MSI Z87 ATX board for $244, not sure if in store only or available online. Might be an option.

 

[frozentundra123456]

"It wasnt so much a matter to me that I would see about 20% less single threaded performance, it was the overall performance I was considering and versatility for that matter. A simple passmark bench showed that there was a 6467 point difference between the two benchmark results."

"since I have been playing guild wars 2 for quite some time now"


it looks to me like you simply looked at to wrong benchmarks to base your decision

you can't ignore the higher ST performance (better performance for non 8t optimized software), you can't ignore the lower power usage (lower load on the MB), because as you are experiencing right now, it's all relevant...

It's not really hard to justify an i5 for a fast gaming system, the cost difference to your FX would be small in the end, smaller than wasting your time with these problems and now having to buy new hardware again!?

I dont really understand the OP in this thread, as he seems dissatisfied with the purchase, but keeps insisting it was better "bang for the buck" than the alternative which others keep suggesting. However, I think you focused in on the correct part of the dilemma, choosing which benchmarks to examine.

The FX is a good value if your primary use is heavily multithreaded productivity apps or *certain* games that are also heavily multithreaded. The problem with the FX for gaming is that an i5 is very close to the FX in games the FX is best at, while the FX loses badly in games (or even apps) which favor high single threaded performance, which is most older games, and a lot of newer games as well. I had a hard time finding benchmarks, surprisingly, but I believe Guild Wars does heavily favor intel architecture.

In addition, it is undeniable that over a 3 or 4 year lifetime, a part of the initial cost savings of the FX will be eaten up in increased power usage.

Going from an 8 core vishera at 4 ghz, I doubt gaming performance would improve enough to justify moving to a new system now however.

 

[sm625]

GW2 is a single core / 1.5 core game. It needs one very powerful core to handle its main process. That's why any modern pentium will outperform an AMD 8 core. The game just is not properly threaded. This game highlights the huge mistake AMD made. They needed to make one seriously wide core to accommodate programs like these.... like one with 6 ALUs and 3 AGUs and double the FP units. It's actually surprising that neither intel nor AMD have done this. It's sort of like a Cell style design. Sony wasnt entirely out of their gourds when they came up with the idea...

 

[ShintaiDK]

They needed to make one seriously wide core to accommodate programs like these.... like one with 6 ALUs and 3 AGUs and double the FP units. It's actually surprising that neither intel nor AMD have done this. It's sort of like a Cell style design. Sony wasnt entirely out of their gourds when they came up with the idea...

What would that help? If you noticed, the only CPUs that is so wide is Itanium. And for good reason, you need an IA64 style uarch to make it work. Else its just idle resources.

 

[TerryMathews]

This. HSA would be awesome......if it was on AM3+. It's not gloom, it's just being realistic. If you think the FX series is a better purchase at MSRP versus an intel based CPU at msrp..........what benches are you reading? Even if it did show at MSRP it was equal, you aren't counting in the wattage cost/AC costs. It's easy just looking at benches but as proven above, AMD is stuck between a rock and a hard place which has resulted in TERRIBLE non-APU based chips. If it wasn't for the APU's I'd say stay away from every AMD cpu that isn't on some kind of screaming microcenter-level deal.

I'm with you on most of this post but no one gives a hot [hoot] about TDP at the enthusiast level. If they did, there wouldn't be a market for SLI anything, or the Titan, or people pouring voltage into their CPUs to up the frequency.

That point of your argument is the equivalent of a yuppie talking about fuel economy at a Ferrari convention.

No profanity in the tech forums, please
-ViRGE

 

[Jacky60]

.
But i understand everyone's resentment towards AMD and people buying AMD products, it makes perfect sense, but for those of us that aren't as hardcore enthusiast as some of you, spending 1000-1500 on a computer is just wasting money, considering what they are all capable of, regardless of the little details. I could have spent 500 dollars on a computer using only the cheapest processors available and still built a faster rig then what I was coming from.

I genuinely don't think anyone here resents AMD and I have always championed their products where I could. People are giving you impartial and very good advice and you seem to have decided that their advice is worthless. If you're buying a CPU for Passmark then go AMD, if you're buying for real world performance worthy of 2013 or even 2011 then buy Intel. I used to buy really cheap cases with crap PSU's included and actually bought about 6 each incrementally better than the last and each costing about $60. They all needed replacing regularly due to being too small or not having high enough power. Four year ago I saw the light and bought a decent case and a very decent PSU for about the same price as the 6 turd cases. The case (HAF 932) still is big enough for anything I need and the PSU (Enermax Revolution 1250W) is still capable of powering three very high end cards. The point people are making is that crap AMD CPU's are a false economy as they don't perform satisfactorily when you get them and they need replacing really quickly. My last CPU was an Intel 920 which at 4ghz lasts 5 years and can still play modern games well. Name any AMD CPU from 5 years ago that is remotely comparable...1 CPU, one motherboard, one set of RAM =5 years top flight use....do the math! I'm coming at this purely from a gaming perspective and I don't care a jot about TDP and yes for watching you-tube and writing emails the 8350 is fine as is your current setup but for gaming it's an entirely different story. That story may change soonish with the new consoles using AMD APU's but until it does the advice in the overwhelming majority posts here is correct.

 

[Spawne32]

I genuinely don't think anyone here resents AMD and I have always championed their products where I could. People are giving you impartial and very good advice and you seem to have decided that their advice is worthless. If you're buying a CPU for Passmark then go AMD, if you're buying for real world performance worthy of 2013 or even 2011 then buy Intel. I used to buy really cheap cases with crap PSU's included and actually bought about 6 each incrementally better than the last and each costing about $60. They all needed replacing regularly due to being too small or not having high enough power. Four year ago I saw the light and bought a decent case and a very decent PSU for about the same price as the 6 turd cases. The case (HAF 932) still is big enough for anything I need and the PSU (Enermax Revolution 1250W) is still capable of powering three very high end cards. The point people are making is that crap AMD CPU's are a false economy as they don't perform satisfactorily when you get them and they need replacing really quickly. My last CPU was an Intel 920 which at 4ghz lasts 5 years and can still play modern games well. Name any AMD CPU from 5 years ago that is remotely comparable...1 CPU, one motherboard, one set of RAM =5 years top flight use....do the math! I'm coming at this purely from a gaming perspective and I don't care a jot about TDP and yes for watching you-tube and writing emails the 8350 is fine as is your current setup but for gaming it's an entirely different story. That story may change soonish with the new consoles using AMD APU's but until it does the advice in the overwhelming majority posts here is correct.

You didn't read a word i wrote on the last two pages did you?

 

[Yuriman]

As others have alluded, Guild Wars 2 is basically a worst-case for your CPU. 6.5 of your cores sit idle, and each of your cores is only about 60% as fast as an Intel core.

Unfortunately, a lot of games are like this. Many still run fine because despite being poorly threaded because they don't need all that much grunt, but the ones that are generally going to punish you for having picked an FX most are MMOs (and some strategy games).

It's because of this Jekyll & Hyde performance that I don't think FX CPUs are very good general-purpose chips. They're a great value if you have a specific use for them - in some instances you have a chip that beats the slightly more expensive i5 a bit and that's great. For this particular game your CPU is performing little better than a 7 year old Core2 and it's tempting you to spend money. If you decide to go that route and replace your FX with an i5, you'll likely have spent more money than it would have cost to go with an i7 to begin with, even if you sell your current hardware.

 

[Rinaun]

I'm with you on most of this post but no one gives a hot [hoot] about TDP at the enthusiast level. If they did, there wouldn't be a market for SLI anything, or the Titan, or people pouring voltage into their CPUs to up the frequency.

That point of your argument is the equivalent of a yuppie talking about fuel economy at a Ferrari convention.

How so? Voltage = thermal limits, more voltage less overclocking. Energy in California is .32 cents a kw at my tier of usage; if we just do TDP (220w for the fx-9370) you're talking in one year a 24/7 cost of.....$615.01. Now lets take a 2600k, which has 95W and keeps up with the AMD 9370. At 95w x 24/7 running for a year, you have energy costs of.... $265.57. That's a HUGE difference, but if you want to ignore it ok! Lets also ignore the AC bill and everything else, too.

This has nothing to do with me being a hippy and more to do with every AMD pc in the last 2 years I've worked with spitting out 50c air at idle compared to my intel-based solutions. If you want that amount of TDP dump inside your house 24/7 (IDK bout you but I run my PC 24/7) then fine, but it's a bit silly to just ignore that. Also, your analogy is a bit skewed because I wouldn't be talking about TDP if this guy had watercooling or was doing LN2 runs. He's running this in his house, as a gamer. Enthusiast is a bit of a stretch here but I'm not getting into semantics on this forum. Even your analogy about SLI is completely off; people pick SLI because it's a cheap alternative to dumping a 200$ video card and rebuying a 300$ one. Sure it's clunky but when you are stuck with selling a card vs buying a new one, most consumers find it easier to buy another card (especially used). People don't even factor TDP into SLI for the most part, and let me know when you can buy another AMD chip, add it to your board alongside the existing chip, and get an instant 40-50% performance boost added to your original chip. Let me know, because I'm pretty sure AMD hasn't been able to get their motherboards to do this for years. (am2, AM2+, AM3, AM3+ ETC)

 

[Spawne32]

The TDP is nice in the winter, my room is over the un-insulated garage. 😛

 

[TerryMathews]

How so? Voltage = thermal limits, more voltage less overclocking.

Orly? All this time I've been overclocking wrong by adding volts? Please tell me more about this lower volts more overclocking system you've got.

Energy in California is .32 cents a kw at my tier of usage; if we just do TDP (220w for the fx-9370) you're talking in one year a 24/7 cost of.....$615.01. Now lets take a 2600k, which has 95W and keeps up with the AMD 9370. At 95w x 24/7 running for a year, you have energy costs of.... $265.57. That's a HUGE difference, but if you want to ignore it ok! Lets also ignore the AC bill and everything else, too.

You're still completely missing the point. Anyone that is pinching pennies over electrical efficiency isn't building the kinds of rigs we are throwing around. Electrical efficiency would be an Intel or AMD APU, not anything with a GFX card.

This has nothing to do with me being a hippy and more to do with every AMD pc in the last 2 years I've worked with spitting out 50c air at idle compared to my intel-based solutions. If you want that amount of TDP dump inside your house 24/7 (IDK bout you but I run my PC 24/7) then fine, but it's a bit silly to just ignore that.

Still wrong. There are a number of things at your house that put out more waste heat than your total PC, let alone an "inefficient AMD processor." Have a cable box? Toaster? Older refrigerator? If the PC is the least efficient item in your house that's on 24/7, I'll literally kiss your ass. PM me your address.

Even your analogy about SLI is completely off; people pick SLI because it's a cheap alternative to dumping a 200$ video card and rebuying a 300$ one. Sure it's clunky but when you are stuck with selling a card vs buying a new one, most consumers find it easier to buy another card (especially used). People don't even factor TDP into SLI for the most part

Does nothing to negate my point that SLI is horribly inefficient from both an electrical and thermal standpoint.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Still wrong. There are a number of things at your house that put out more waste heat than your total PC, let alone an "inefficient AMD processor." Have a cable box? Toaster? Older refrigerator? If the PC is the least efficient item in your house that's on 24/7, I'll literally kiss your ass. PM me your address.

Do you travel to Denmark? 🙂

Our household uses 3(summer)-4(winter)Kw/h per day. I am sure you can do the rest of the math.

 

[Headfoot]

Spawne32, I own a 8350 and a 4770K and the difference is minimal in every day use. So....don't regret having bought an AMD. The system is fast enough and power consumption is not as bad as you think. Besides that........the AM3+ platform is rock stable and will eventually benefit from new software/gaming improvements like Mantle and GCN. Too much doom and gloom on this forum about AMD products. Annoying really. I also owned more Intel stuff than AMD stuff, I still do, but the only really bad AMD CPU I ever owned was the 1st 9500. Other than that I've never regretted buying AMD.

Is your day to day usage playing Guildwars 2? Because that's where the problem lies according to OP. If not, then your day to day experience is completely irrelevant and misleading. Much like Passmark

 

[TerryMathews]

Do you travel to Denmark? 🙂

Our household uses 3(summer)-4(winter)Kw/h per day. I am sure you can do the rest of the math.

Meh. We can nit pick inefficiencies even from your sig. 2 RAM sticks, and a 680? 600W PSU? It's probably loaded beyond optimal on the efficiency curve.

While cute, your comment really isn't accurate. If we're accepting the TDP of an 8320 is around 140W and it's performance is near an un-overclocked i5 4570, it's what? 50W inefficient?

It also did nothing to address my larger point that gaming machines are not designed for efficiency, they are designed for speed within a certain budget.

Very much like sports cars.

 

[Headfoot]

OP: I don't know exactly how strong your anti-used electronics aversion is, but if you sold your current combo for $100 and bought a 2500k/2600k/3570k + z68/z77 motherboard combo used for $150-200 (reasonable price), it would only cost you between $50 - $100 to upgrade. Max overclock v. Max overclock you will have a much faster set up. When you think about it, your current setup is used (by you) and the set up you'd swap into would also be used, just faster.

 

[Rinaun]

Orly? All this time I've been overclocking wrong by adding volts? Please tell me more about this lower volts more overclocking system you've got.

Are you seriously asking this? You do realize that every time a chip shrinks in size, the voltage requirements drop, and thus a company can INCREASE the speed of the chip. AMD has been just increasing voltages to gain extra MHZ when they are down on the market for a LONG TIME. I'm not going to argue anything more on this topic, because if you really think you have the same headroom in overclocking with a 220 watt processor as you do a 95 watt processor, then you need to leave this subforum please or at least post some kind of statistics that show if you have a higher TDP chip you get better OCs. I'm pretty sure you took what I said and confused it with "the lower the actual voltage of a chip, the more you can OC it" rather than what I was saying in that if you have a chip with LOWER TDP, you have a much higher room thermally to overclock. This is true; again, post data if you don't believe this. I'm pretty sure heatsink size is shrinking and fan speed is decreasing, not increasing. Also AMD coolers are made of almost solid copper wheras intels are still made out of cheap materials compared to AMD heatsinks. Why? Because AMD needs the extra cooling.

You're still completely missing the point. Anyone that is pinching pennies over electrical efficiency isn't building the kinds of rigs we are throwing around. Electrical efficiency would be an Intel or AMD APU, not anything with a GFX card.

Wrong again. Are you not reading numbers? Anyone who is an enthusiast IS NOT BUYING AMD PRODUCTS. I've not only worked with several large PC companies who design boutique enthusiast rigs, but I've also done tons of stuff like LN2 runs and chilled water. THAT IS ENTHUSIAST LEVEL. Buying an AMD processor and switching 5 settings in the bios that you saw one guy do on youtube is NOT ENTHUSIAST. Once again, semantics, and considering I've sold stuff to high-end companies in the industry I'm confident my definition of "enthusiast" is pretty much on-spot. Considering not only would a "enthusiast" NOT buy AMD hardware unless they were sponsored/got it for free, I can 110% tell you that for 24/7 use, 300$ a year is enough to make anyone rethink saving 100$ upfront.

Still wrong. There are a number of things at your house that put out more waste heat than your total PC, let alone an "inefficient AMD processor." Have a cable box? Toaster? Older refrigerator? If the PC is the least efficient item in your house that's on 24/7, I'll literally kiss your ass. PM me your address.

Lol. You aren't making any sense. Who cares if my fridge uses more wattage? I need that to live. My TDP of my server? Why would I care? My clients pay me to run that. Now my gaming rig? Yes, I care about the TDP because its on 24/7 in my room, I sleep with it on and I also have no AC in my room. This is similar to a LOT of the setups that people use. So yes, it does matter. If you live in Siberia or something I can see why the TDP doesn't matter to you. P.S. drop the personal attacks please, if you want to argue your point try doing it without calling me out personally over trivial things like how much watts my toaster uses 🙂.

Does nothing to negate my point that SLI is horribly inefficient from both an electrical and thermal standpoint.

Yeah, see, we're done here. You completely ignore the fact that sometimes people can get (for free even) another video card to throw in their PC. I just gave a client an additional 9800gtx+ which IIRC can drop down to 2d mode when he isn't gaming and uses trivial amounts of volts, which almost completely kills your argument of "sli is inefficient". It's apples and oranges anyways, so your analogy wouldn't work.

 

[TerryMathews]

what I was saying in that if you have a chip with LOWER TDP, you have a much higher room thermally to overclock.

That isn't what you said. Do you need me to quote it back for you?

This is true; again, post data if you don't believe this. I'm pretty sure heatsink size is shrinking and fan speed is decreasing, not increasing. Also AMD coolers are made of almost solid copper wheras intels are still made out of cheap materials compared to AMD heatsinks. Why? Because AMD needs the extra cooling.

Superior cooling increases efficiency. If you aren't yet familiar, review the concept of "voltage leakage". You cite this as an example of AMD's deficiency where I would instead cite it as an example of Intel's penny pinching. Another good example is the TIM on the 4770Ks.

Wrong again. Are you not reading numbers? Anyone who is an enthusiast IS NOT BUYING AMD PRODUCTS. I've not only worked with several large PC companies who design boutique enthusiast rigs, but I've also done tons of stuff like LN2 runs and chilled water. THAT IS ENTHUSIAST LEVEL. Buying an AMD processor and switching 5 settings in the bios that you saw one guy do on youtube is NOT ENTHUSIAST. Once again, semantics, and considering I've sold stuff to high-end companies in the industry I'm confident my definition of "enthusiast" is pretty much on-spot. Considering not only would a "enthusiast" NOT buy AMD hardware unless they were sponsored/got it for free, I can 110% tell you that for 24/7 use, 300$ a year is enough to make anyone rethink saving 100$ upfront.

What a big shot you are. Please teach me more about overclocking OK? I've been watching everything I can on the utubez and I just can't get those 5 settings right.

This whole conversation degenerated from my point that no one building a gaming rig seriously considers thermal or electrical efficiency when designing these rigs. None of your rant in this paragraph do anything to counter that point. They just make you look like a kid.

Lol. You aren't making any sense. Who cares if my fridge uses more wattage? I need that to live. My TDP of my server? Why would I care? My clients pay me to run that. Now my gaming rig? Yes, I care about the TDP because its on 24/7 in my room, I sleep with it on and I also have no AC in my room. This is similar to a LOT of the setups that people use. So yes, it does matter.

This is an extremely short-sighted viewpoint. If your concern is electrical efficiency or thermal output, doesn't it make more sense to target the item that would get you the most gain for your $$? In the grand scheme of things, both your computer and your fridge dump waste heat in exactly the same place.

Your house should be equalizing, unless you keep your door shut all the time? I don't know why you would do that, I don't keep the doors shut in my house...

P.S. drop the personal attacks please, if you want to argue your point try doing it without calling me out personally over trivial things like how much watts my toaster uses 🙂.

You need a thicker skin if you consider that a personal attack. And it's not trivial in a discussion related to thermal or electrical efficiency as those items I listed are common high-draw and low efficiency items. Very relevant to this conversation. More households in the US have a toaster than have a computer...

Yeah, see, we're done here. You completely ignore the fact that sometimes people can get (for free even) another video card to throw in their PC. I just gave a client an additional 9800gtx+ which IIRC can drop down to 2d mode when he isn't gaming, which almost completely kills your argument of "sli is inefficient". It's apples and oranges anyways, so your analogy wouldn't work.

Irrelevant when considering thermal or electrical efficiency. Stop moving the goal posts and maybe we can have a reasonable discussion.

Dropping down the 2d mode on a 9800gtx still consumes, what, 40W? That's 40W of totally wasted power, easily equivalent to the inefficiency of the FX-8320.

The sad part is, you and I are on the same page for the most part, you just don't want to admit it. Your last paragraph summed it up perfectly. You installed that second video card because it was "free performance". And you're absolutely right when you're looking at initial cost. But that video card uses electricity, even when idle in 2d mode. It isn't free. It isn't as thermally or electrically efficient as trading out those two video cards for a more modern video card like a GTX 760. Which is ultimately the hypocritical point from your post, people don't give a hot [hoot] about thermal efficiency when building a gaming rig. Fact. You just proved it with your last paragraph.