92 replies to this topic

[Khan Warlock Kell]

Im going to get a new cpu and im not sure which way to go i dont want to spend a fortune so i was thinking of going with either a AMD Bulldozer FX-8 Eight Core 8120 with 8 gigs of ram or a Intel Core i5 3570K Processor also with 8 gigs of ram.

For grafix an AMD Radeon HD 7770 Double D 1024MB GDDR5

any thoughts or suggestions ?

[Vulpesveritas]

For gaming, a much better option would be to go with an AMD FX-6200 and then upgrade that GPU to a Radeon HD 6870 or 7850.

[Chili]

I made a new build and used the new ivy bridge intel i7. It seems to be a good chip so far
Chili

[WardenWolf]

Purely between those CPUs, the Intel Core i5 kicks butt in games (and most other tasks as well). However, as Vulp noted, a better video card may be even more important. If you can keep a Core i5 (even a slower one, like the 3550 or 3450) and get a faster video card with it then great... if not, go over to AMD and go for FX-6 or 8 series and high clock speed. You *might* also be able to find an older Phenom II X4 - those are every bit as good for gaming, and often at a better price point.

[Vulpesveritas]

if I might recommend, for the price you're looking at, a better option? (also, given that unless your a heavy RTS player [civilization series and the like] a better GPU will be far more important after you have a decent CPU (Phenom II X4 OC'd, or a FX-6200) for frames per second in games. Also, an FX-6200 has comparable multitasking performance with an i5.)
$140+235 = $370. Assuming same price for motherboards.
CPU: http://www.newegg.co...N82E16819103727 $110
GPU: (if you have the power supply and cooling for it) http://www.newegg.co...N82E16814127682 $250
(if you have a small PSU/ case, or just don't want to eat power) http://www.newegg.co...N82E16814131472 $260

Edited by Vulpesveritas, 11 July 2012 - 12:04 PM.

[Steelo]

Listen to everything that vulpes says, he is a god amung men

Edit:

he designed me my computer and gave informative and well thought out advice on the matter

not to mention he has created some really amazing guides on various hardwares

Edited by Steelo, 11 July 2012 - 12:08 PM.

[Paralax]

Zakius, on 11 July 2012 - 11:41 AM, said:

Im going to get a new cpu and im not sure which way to go i dont want to spend a fortune so i was thinking of going with either a AMD Bulldozer FX-8 Eight Core 8120 with 8 gigs of ram or a Intel Core i5 3570K Processor also with 8 gigs of ram.

For grafix an AMD Radeon HD 7770 Double D 1024MB GDDR5

any thoughts or suggestions ?

Intel Core i5 3570K Processor also with 8 gigs of ram better chipset more OC potential

I have a i7 Ivy Bridge and a set of GTX 690s I am more than happy, but I admit the CPu was mucho over kill i could of stuck with my Quad core6800 for another year and just got the video cards

Vulpesveritas, on 11 July 2012 - 12:03 PM, said:

if I might recommend, for the price you're looking at, a better option? (also, given that unless your a heavy RTS player [civilization series and the like] a better GPU will be far more important after you have a decent CPU (Phenom II X4 OC'd, or a FX-6200) for frames per second in games. Also, an FX-6200 has comparable multitasking performance with an i5.)
$140+235 = $370. Assuming same price for motherboards.
CPU: http://www.newegg.co...N82E16819103727 $110
GPU: (if you have the power supply and cooling for it) http://www.newegg.co...N82E16814127682 $250
(if you have a small PSU/ case, or just don't want to eat power) http://www.newegg.co...N82E16814131472 $260

Isnt the 560 TI 448 going to be a little more bang for the bucks?

Edited by Paralax, 11 July 2012 - 12:32 PM.

[Aznpersuasion89]

Get the 7770....so I won't be the only one with one....

[Vulpesveritas]

Paralax, on 11 July 2012 - 12:29 PM, said:

Intel Core i5 3570K Processor also with 8 gigs of ram better chipset more OC potential

"Better chipset?"
990FX vs Z77 chipset;
PCI-e bandwith: Z77 win
SATA bandwith: 990FX win
SATA 3 ports: 990FX win
RAID Controller: 990FX win
USB 3.0 support: Z77 win

Seem pretty even to me. Z77 is stronger for multi-GPU and USB (until you get 3rd party USB 3.0 controllers in the picture, making that a moot point.) and 990FX dominates the storage side.

Aznpersuasion89, on 11 July 2012 - 12:32 PM, said:

Get the 7770....so I won't be the only one with one....

So you're suggesting he get a worse computer? Really?

Edited by Vulpesveritas, 11 July 2012 - 12:36 PM.

[Aznpersuasion89]

Jeez, I was just joking.....

[Barbaric Soul]

Paralax, on 11 July 2012 - 12:31 PM, said:

I have a i7 Ivy Bridge and a set of GTX 690s I am more than happy, but I admit the CPu was mucho over kill i could of stuck with my Quad core6800 for another year and just got the video cards

No you couldn't. Well, actually you could have done that, but you wouldn't get anywhere near the performance your getting now. You would have experienced a thing known in the computer tech field as bottlenecking. No Intel Core2Quad, Core2Extreme, or I5 or any AMD processor is fast enough to keep up with DUAL GTX690 video cards. Infact, I wouldn't be surprised if dual GTX690 aren't somewhat bottlenecked by that I7 IB processor(unless it's OC'ed to over 5ghz). For dual GTX690 cards, you really should have built a socket 2011 IB-e build.

Bottlenecking is when one peice of hardware is to slow to keep up with other hardware, thus slowing the whole computer down.

Edited by Barbaric Soul, 11 July 2012 - 12:49 PM.

[Vulpesveritas]

Aznpersuasion89, on 11 July 2012 - 12:41 PM, said:

Jeez, I was just joking.....

Figured you were, but there are people out there who might think you weren't, hence my reply.

[Wolf Kerensky]

The bottom line is, AMD works better with ATI, and Intel works better with NVIDIA.

[Paralax]

Barbaric Soul, on 11 July 2012 - 12:46 PM, said:

No you couldn't. Well, actually you could have done that, but you wouldn't get anywhere near the performance your getting now. You would have experienced a thing known in the computer tech field as bottlenecking. No Intel Core2Quad, Core2Extreme, or I5 or any AMD processor is fast enough to keep up with DUAL GTX690 video cards. Infact, I wouldn't be surprised if dual GTX690 aren't somewhat bottlenecked by that I7 IB processor(unless it's OC'ed to over 5ghz). For dual GTX690 cards, you really should have built a socket 2011 IB-e build.

Bottlenecking is when one peice of hardware is to slow to keep up with other hardware, thus slowing the whole computer down.

But it would of been a massive step up from the Dual GTS 240s I had (I think they where atleast maybe 260s) BFG is dead anyways

Agressive watercooling running at 4.79ghz

Wolf Kerensky, on 11 July 2012 - 12:55 PM, said:

The bottom line is, AMD works better with ATI, and Intel works better with NVIDIA.

No this it not true

Edited by Paralax, 11 July 2012 - 01:05 PM.

[Vulpesveritas]

Wolf Kerensky, on 11 July 2012 - 12:55 PM, said:

The bottom line is, AMD works better with ATI, and Intel works better with NVIDIA.

Wrong. GPUs work just as fine on either side. It doesn't matter if you have a Nvidia GPU on an AMD build, or a AMD card on an Intel build. The only thing to check is the chipset as lower end non-nvidia chipsets don't support SLI.

[BigJim]

@OP' If you're in the Uk, I just ordered a Phenom II 965 Black Ed from Amazon for £80 - That's £20 less than the cheapest price I'd been able to find anywhere else - Consider how beefy a GPU that will let you splurge on, and will still give you access to the AM3+ skt (for Bulldozer etc..) in a few years when games might well need a better cpu.

Edited by BigJim, 11 July 2012 - 01:34 PM.

[Wolf Kerensky]

AMD and ATI are legally bound to make sure they work better together than with either Intel or NVIDIA. It's big business, after all.
I wouldn't go for AMD or ATI, in any case.
Out of a total 10 cpus I've owned, 3 were AMD and 2 of those failed. None of the Intels failed or were defective.
GPU history: 4 out of 12 = AMD, 2 of them failed and the other 2 were defective. Only 2 NVIDIA cards of those 8 were defective, none failed. And no, I'm not an overclocker.
I'm not a huge hardware expert, either.
I'm simply sharing my experience and whatever facts I know.

[Vulpesveritas]

First thing-ATI no longer exists. Secondly, you sir have had bad luck indeed lol. Over the last decade, AMd has had very reliable products, in most cases statistically moreso than Intel. GPU wise, there are no compatibility flaws in current systems between either AMD or Nvidia. Ask any reviewer, I mean, why is it that despite the majority of reviewers using Intel based systems, that AMD radeon cards are faster at nearly every price point? Reliability on AMD graphics cards are also rather high, though in most cases reliant on the board partner.

[BigJim]

To be fair, I've flitted all my life between manufacturers and never had an issue with any card, other than when games get too demanding for my card to keep up.

3dfx Voodoo 2 pci - Great.
GeForce 5200 pci - Great.
Radeon X700 agp - Great.
Radeon x1950xt pcie - Great.
Geforce gts250 pcie - Great.

It's time for another ati/amd card this time around & I expect to have no issues with the 7870 coming on Friday.
I've got 3 or 4 older (fanless) gfx cards kicking around in my boxes of old computer gear & pound to a penny if I chucked them into a box tomorrow they'd work just fine.

*EDIT* can't spell

Edited by BigJim, 11 July 2012 - 02:37 PM.

[silentD11]

Cards aren't biased by CPU. The only advantage of AMD completely is that AMD IGP can be combined with AMD discreet GPUs in some cases for a minor performance boost and AMD seems to have less chipset "screw ups" than intel does... though they've had more than their share of CPU bugs since Phenom.

However as things stand TODAY, you'll get better performance on an intel platform. AMDs new CPUs are actually slower than Phenom II clock for clock. Unless you've got something that can use those 8 cores (and games can't) Bulldozer will lose to Phenom II and get smashed by core i5/7.