Give me a reason to go AMD... I WANT TO BELIEVE.

[Boze]

Its time to replace some guts in my computer.

I'm going to purchase a new motherboard, RAM, and CPU.

I'm looking at $600.

I'm considering the following:
AMD FX-8350 or Intel Core i5-3570K processors
ASRock 990FX Extreme3 or ASRock Z77 Extreme3 motherboard
CORSAIR Vengeance 32GB (4 x 8GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1600 Desktop Memory Model CMZ32GX3M4A1600C9

Both processors are around $180 to $220 depending on where I purchase.
Both motherboards are $120ish.
The RAM kit is about $250 or so.

I intend to run SuperSpeed RAMDisk and take 16 of the 32 GB and make a RAM disk in Windows 7.

I'm going to be using Adobe Lightroom and Photoshop, VLC Media Player, Winamp, Visual Studio 2012, and I usually have Chrome / Firefox / IE open with 5 to 40 tabs. I usually run most of these apps simultaneously.

I want to believe in AMD. I've been using AMD processors since the K6-2 300 MHz. Unfortunately, it seems like AMD is dying a slow, but ultimately sure death.

Ivy Bridge-E is 6 months or so away. Give me some reason, any reason, to believe in my AMD. Otherwise, I'm afraid I should just stab it through the heart and end the company's suffering by spending another $180 on a low-end Ivy Bridge-E part and motherboard... since I'm sure they'll debut at around $300 for the processor and $200ish for a decent motherboard.

 

[bgt]

Dangerous question on a very Intel minded forum. Here we have a saying: shooting the ball in an open goal(from socker). For me its obvious: I prefer my 8350 over my 3770K. But thats personal:biggrin:

 

[lakedude]

Normally I'd say that the MB and RAM are overkill for a system in that price range and that the money would be better spent elsewhere but a RAM disk is a good idea. I love running in pure ram but I do it poor man style with Puppy Linux which runs entirely in RAM.

AMD isn't too bad if you can make good use of all those cores and if single threaded threaded performance is not critical. Also if you are not worried so much about power consumption.

If you are worried about power or if you need single threaded performance you are pretty much stuck with Intel.

 

[lyssword]

If you want ~200ish cpu/mobo combo, fx6300 is better than i3, at $300 mobo/cpu combo the i5 is better. Cheapest (~120 cpu/mobo), the intel ivy dual cores are best.

 

[NTMBK]

Does it make sense to run a memory kit costing that much instead of getting an SSD instead? 16GB isn't an awfully large disk size, and you'll use that up fast. A 256GB SSD, which you also boot from, would do you a lot better.

For what you've listed, the 8350 should actually be very nice. VS2012 will compile multiple projects in parallel, and the 8 integer cores on the 8350 will really churn through that compilation. In Photoshop CPU based benchmarks, the 8350 leads the 3570k: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-review,3328-9.html In general, in a workload well suited to parallelism it wins out, but on more single-threaded tasks it loses- so it entirely depends on what you run on it. It sounds like you multitask heavily, and run productivity apps which tend to be multithreaded well, so the 8350 is a good choice for you.

 

[Vic Vega]

You want the truth? Pick either. Day to day you will notice no difference.

 

[MisterMac]

Slight difference if he goes with 3770k - but there's an added cost unless he gets a microcenter deal.


But in a pure price scenario the 8350 will be most likely the best.



Question is - if you will OC.
Average luck of the chip lottery - should favor the 3570k marginally then?
Due to larger headroom.

Vic probably has the right idea - day 2 day it would be hard to feel a diff.

 

[mrmt]

Ivy Bridge-E is 6 months or so away. Give me some reason, any reason, to believe in my AMD. Otherwise, I'm afraid I should just stab it through the heart and end the company's suffering by spending another $180 on a low-end Ivy Bridge-E part and motherboard... since I'm sure they'll debut at around $300 for the processor and $200ish for a decent motherboard.

Well, if you don't care about time and power consumption, then go AMD. If you do care about the former, as you seem to make money with your rig, go with SNB-E or wait for IVB-E, as both will give you more performance than the 8350. If you do value power consumption then forget the 8350. You'll be better with the 3570K at whatever overclocks you do. But if you are on budget and don't care about power consumption, then you can go AMD again.

 

[Maximilian]

Get the 8320 instead of 8350 and same some £££.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Dangerous question on a very Intel minded forum. Here we have a saying: shooting the ball in an open goal(from socker). For me its obvious: I prefer the 8350 over my 3770K. But thats personal:biggrin:

You can't be serious. There are many on these forums strongly promoting amd.

 

[Gikaseixas]

FX 8350 is a great choice for your needs

 

[shady28]

Here's one set of reasons :

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


And here's a bunch more (Now, you DID ask for reasons....) :

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2012/11/06/amd-fx-8350-review/3

http://media.bestofmicro.com/Y/Y/357658/original/visual studio.png

http://media.bestofmicro.com/Y/1/357625/original/fritz.png

http://media.bestofmicro.com/X/Q/357614/original/abbyy finereader.png

http://media.bestofmicro.com/Y/F/357639/original/photoshop.png

http://media.bestofmicro.com/Y/H/357641/original/premiere.png

http://media.bestofmicro.com/Z/1/357661/original/winzip.png

http://media.bestofmicro.com/X/P/357613/original/7zip.png

http://techreport.com/r.x/amd-fx-8350/qtbench.gif

http://techreport.com/r.x/amd-fx-8350/tc-aes.gif

http://techreport.com/r.x/amd-fx-8350/tc-twofish.gif

http://techreport.com/r.x/amd-fx-8350/7zip-comp.gif

http://techreport.com/r.x/amd-fx-8350/7zip-decomp.gif

http://media.bestofmicro.com/X/L/357609/original/3ds max.png

http://media.bestofmicro.com/X/Y/357622/original/cinebench.png



If there is a point to this, it's that the FX-8350 can in fact compete and even beat (in some cases, demolish with a +40% margin) much more expensive Intel chips like the i7-3770k. It's able to do so in quite a wide range of different scenarios too.

But one thing that is indisputable, is that Intel chips have superior performance per core. How much varies by task, ranging anywhere from 10% to as much as 40% faster per core.

Most of what you'll get here in these forums are based on Intel being better at these benchmarks, run at low resolution on a rig with a GTX 690 GPU (to... isolate the CPU) :

Skyrim
Crysis 2
Metro 2033
Arkham City
DIRT 2
HAWX

Generally gaming is an Intel strong point - but not in all games.

If you take a look at the below link (TweakTown), you'll see that these benchmarks don't show all that much difference. The reason? Because TweakTown uses a GTX 580. In other words, gaming stalls on the GPU on anything other than a top of the line GPU anyway :

http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/4348/amd_fx_8150_am3_3_6ghz_bulldozer_cpu_review/index9.html

edit : fixed broken links

 

[R0H1T]

The thing is ~ do you really want to believe in AMD ? If power is not a constraint I see no reason to ditch AMD because they deliver comparable performance especially in multithreaded workloads !

 

[frozentundra123456]

Here's one set of reasons :

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


And here's a bunch more (Now, you DID ask for reasons....) :

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2012/11/06/amd-fx-8350-review/3

http://media.bestofmicro.com/Y/Y/357658/original/visual studio.png

http://media.bestofmicro.com/Y/1/357625/original/fritz.png

http://media.bestofmicro.com/X/Q/357614/original/abbyy finereader.png

http://media.bestofmicro.com/Y/F/357639/original/photoshop.png

http://media.bestofmicro.com/Y/H/357641/original/premiere.png

http://media.bestofmicro.com/Z/1/357661/original/winzip.png

http://media.bestofmicro.com/X/P/357613/original/7zip.png

http://techreport.com/r.x/amd-fx-8350/qtbench.gif

http://techreport.com/r.x/amd-fx-8350/tc-aes.gif

http://techreport.com/r.x/amd-fx-8350/tc-twofish.gif

http://techreport.com/r.x/amd-fx-8350/7zip-comp.gif

http://techreport.com/r.x/amd-fx-8350/7zip-decomp.gif

http://media.bestofmicro.com/X/L/357609/original/3ds max.png

http://media.bestofmicro.com/X/Y/357622/original/cinebench.png



If there is a point to this, it's that the FX-8350 can in fact compete and even beat (in some cases, demolish with a +40% margin) much more expensive Intel chips like the i7-3770k. It's able to do so in quite a wide range of different scenarios too.

But one thing that is indisputable, is that Intel chips have superior performance per core. How much varies by task, ranging anywhere from 10% to as much as 40% faster per core.

Most of what you'll get here in these forums are based on Intel being better at these benchmarks, run at low resolution on a rig with a GTX 690 GPU (to... isolate the CPU) :

Skyrim
Crysis 2
Metro 2033
Arkham City
DIRT 2
HAWX

Generally gaming is an Intel strong point - but not in all games.

If you take a look at the below link (TweakTown), you'll see that these benchmarks don't show all that much difference. The reason? Because TweakTown uses a GTX 580. In other words, gaming stalls on the GPU on anything other than a top of the line GPU anyway :

http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/4348/amd_fx_8150_am3_3_6ghz_bulldozer_cpu_review/index9.html

edit : fixed broken links

8350 does well against 3570k in highly multithreaded workloads, but loses in most cases against 3770k, and the wins are on by a small margin anand bench.

Edit: didnt watch the you tube video, but of the benchmarks you listed from tech sites, I only saw two or 3 wins for the fx and it wasnt close to 40% faster.

 

[Arachnotronic]

Buy the 3570k. It's just a better chip.

 

[blackened23]

**trying to think of reason**

Nope can't think of one, when you can get a 3570/3770k within the same price window.

 

[parvadomus]

The 8350 is a solid cpu for that kind of things.

 

[sequoia464]

A 256GB SSD, which you also boot from, would do you a lot better.
http://

+++

This should be your first purchase - then go from there.

 

[Sleepingforest]

The 8350 is definitely a cheaper solution to get the cores that Photoshop craves when compared to a 3770K. You'll be slower a few seconds in big changes using filters and so forth though. So it's up to you to say whether that's worth $100 more.

 

[veri745]

You can't be serious. There are many on these forums strongly promoting amd.

There really aren't very many AMD fans. Some of them are kinda loud, and one or two seem pretty misguided, but they're definitely a small minority overall.

 

[Durvelle27]

save few bucks and get a FX 8320 and put more money into a SSD

 

[Arkaign]

If you're not overclocking, then the 8350 is actually fairly decent. The problem arises in that the K-series Intel chips are easy to OC, and once overclocked with a good air cooler, they are basically the gold standard in almost everything. IOW, a 4.5Ghz i7 will beat a 4.5Ghz FX in virtually everything, and all while consuming a TON less power. A lot of people actually don't OC though, and in that situation the 8320/8350 and even 6300 are pretty good value for your money.

For a non-gamer who does a lot of encode/etc that needs as many cores as possible, the FX is a winner pure and simple. On a limited budget, the savings from going say 8320 will let you put more $ into other components.

Going back to the OP, and the uses described, I fully believe the 8320/8350 would offer better performance overall than the i5. If you lived near a MC, and flipped that i5 to an i7 + OC, well then it's not so clear and dry. Heavy MT will be mostly a wash, and gaming and other not heavily MT apps will overwhelmingly favor the IPC of the Intel platform.

As an aside, I've had absolutely horrible luck with Corsair Vengeance. FOUR bad 8GB packs from TigerDirect, and two of the replacement packs were also bad. Speeds were 1600 and 1866, and this was confirmed by testing in multiple mobos (where other ram worked flawlessly), and then Corsair support / RMA. At least the RMA was relatively painless. But I've never seen such a bad batch of ram in my life, and I go back to the individual DIP DRAM chips used in the early AT/XT pcs.

 

[Idontcare]

Its time to replace some guts in my computer.

I'm going to purchase a new motherboard, RAM, and CPU.

I'm looking at $600.

I'm considering the following:
AMD FX-8350 or Intel Core i5-3570K processors
ASRock 990FX Extreme3 or ASRock Z77 Extreme3 motherboard
CORSAIR Vengeance 32GB (4 x 8GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1600 Desktop Memory Model CMZ32GX3M4A1600C9

Both processors are around $180 to $220 depending on where I purchase.
Both motherboards are $120ish.
The RAM kit is about $250 or so.

Ram is silly expensive right now compared to just a few months ago. In Dec I bought 4x8GB DDR3-1866 for $110, now its $240 or so.

Ram will come back down, so if you can delay your upgrade for any reason then I'd argue to delay it based on ram prices alone.

If you can't delay the upgrade then consider buying just a single 8GB dimm now and upgrade by buying another three 8GB dimms in 4 or 6 months.

As for the processor+mobo...I take it you are thinking you will use the stock HSF for the respective processors? Is OC'ing in the mix for you?

And how do you feel about paying for power consumption over the coming year or two? Does saving $20 upfront but paying $20 out in extra power consumption over the course of 12 months make any difference to you?

Price/performance really ought to include the price you'll be paying month in and month out, and there is a difference between the two processors you are looking at.

 

[cytg111]

Its time to replace some guts in my computer.

I'm going to purchase a new motherboard, RAM, and CPU.

I'm looking at $600.

I'm considering the following:
AMD FX-8350 or Intel Core i5-3570K processors
ASRock 990FX Extreme3 or ASRock Z77 Extreme3 motherboard
CORSAIR Vengeance 32GB (4 x 8GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1600 Desktop Memory Model CMZ32GX3M4A1600C9

Both processors are around $180 to $220 depending on where I purchase.
Both motherboards are $120ish.
The RAM kit is about $250 or so.

I intend to run SuperSpeed RAMDisk and take 16 of the 32 GB and make a RAM disk in Windows 7.

I'm going to be using Adobe Lightroom and Photoshop, VLC Media Player, Winamp, Visual Studio 2012, and I usually have Chrome / Firefox / IE open with 5 to 40 tabs. I usually run most of these apps simultaneously.

I want to believe in AMD. I've been using AMD processors since the K6-2 300 MHz. Unfortunately, it seems like AMD is dying a slow, but ultimately sure death.

Ivy Bridge-E is 6 months or so away. Give me some reason, any reason, to believe in my AMD. Otherwise, I'm afraid I should just stab it through the heart and end the company's suffering by spending another $180 on a low-end Ivy Bridge-E part and motherboard... since I'm sure they'll debut at around $300 for the processor and $200ish for a decent motherboard.

If you want to throw money after 'belief' just give it to the next religious nut savior who comes knocking on your door trying to convert you. There is informed decisions and anything else is downhill from there.

 

[aigomorla]

<---- the only AMD's ive been look at is the hudson ones with fusion APU.

Great little boxes which hide behind HDTV's and can stream netflix / movies.
Some setups even come with a media center remote.

I think i built around 5 of them this year for friends and family.

however as a main machine... id want something which is a bit snappier.. and has more performance when needed....
Having a gazillion cores is overraited unless u need them.
The AMD core can not step up to the intel cores.... in honesty ur better off getting an Ivy now even over an AMD.

Also is 16GB enough of a swap file for you?
if you required that much IO speed, id honestly RAID 2 SSD's (60gigs x 2 in R0?) and use that as a temp drive / cache space.
It wont be as fast as a ramdrive but to your eyes, it should be close if u pick good SSD's..
And u wont need to worry about it every time the power goes off.