94 replies to this topic

[Beaker]

Chas, on 19 March 2012 - 10:38 AM, said:

I look at it this way. If you buy with the intention of massive upgrading later, you're settling for a sub-par system now and probably not seeing the best performance out of the newer components later on.

More, like people who buy with the "intent" of going SLI "later on", few actually do. The majority of SLI systems are built as SLI from the get-go. While a lot of hardware junkies are gamers, the reverse isn't necessarily true.

So many of them are looking to get the best possible system NOW, and not have to fart with upgrading in a year and a half if the system they build remains acceptable (barring simpler things like video card upgrades and more memory) for a 2-3 year time-span.

As I said earlier, the best upgrade path is one where the system remains in the "acceptable" range so long that you don't NEED to upgrade it before it would make better economical sense to just replace it.

I don't buy with the intention of a "massive" upgrade later. I buy with the intention of giving it a GBP£200 upgrade 2 years down the line. My machines have a 4 year lifespan. I buy something that'll run everything I throw at it now. Moving from the old rig 9650/4Gb/GTX260 to the FX-6100/8Gb/MSI 6850 Cyclone cost me GBP£350 in the shop. Mainly because I set a flat budget for the upgrade. After rebates it's cost me GBP£305. Sure I could have burned £500 on it right now, but I've always biught a basically decent machine, and upgraded it 2 years later. Be that more RAM, a new GPU, or a new CPU (Last machine actually got a CPU and GPU upgrade from a 6000+ and a 2900 Pro to the 9650 and GTX260). Relatively minor upgrades, and didn't cost me a huge amount (£170ish IIRC). Also on the original purchase of the 6000+ the bang-for-buck was MUCH better with AMD than the old E6400 that came in the same price bracket.

Likely the Mid-Life update will be a new CPU and GPU, and I don't see anything other that I'll need for 4 years at least. The old rig was still acceptable for the most part, what drive me over the edge was the constant "The display driver NVxxxxxxxx has stopped responding", and has also meant that after the THIRD nVidia card in a row that I've owned has been a pig I'll never buy their stuff again.

I considered an i5 2500, but as I was working to a set budget it just didn't fit for me. The AMD CPU cost £90 after the rebate, and that's bottom end i3 money over here. Even a few months down the line the 2500 rig would still have bumped the build by a MINIMUM of £125 after adding in a similarly specced board (i5 2500 was around the £150 mark still, and a similarly specced board at the time was £120ish). That's in opposition to a board, CPU and RAM package that cost £245 in total. Yeah I've "lost" some performance, but the extra performance wasn't worth the extra cost.

Chas, on 19 March 2012 - 10:38 AM, said:

Even if the majority of users never EVER partake of this. And, as I said, it means settling for a sub-par system now and buying more equipment later on instead of being able to coast on what you've already got.

No, it means you get a Good Enough system now, that does everything you want, and doesn't skin your wallet. I've not found anything that this setup doesn't run more than acceptably, and don't TBH expect to find anything for 18 months or so that will bother it.

Chas, on 19 March 2012 - 10:38 AM, said:

You're making the assumption I'm going off a bunch of "I'm going to throw a clean Windows insteall on it and run a bunch of synthetic benchmarks" reviews. I work with this hardware on a daily basis and game across multiple systems. While performance on the Sledghammer series isn't "bad", even patched to a fare-thee-well, it's still not on par with the older i5 and i7 on a clock-for clock basis and only still excels in integer crunching functions and VERY highly multithreaded apps.

I also work with many different systems on a daily basis, and I have to say that the Bulldozer isn't as bad as the benchies, and the fanboys suggest. It's not amazing, but it's Good Enough for anything you'll do now.

Chas, on 19 March 2012 - 10:38 AM, said:

For gaming, it's still won't beat out marginally more expensive processors that have been on the market over a year. I have exactly zero loyalty to any given brand. My loyalty resides in how much performance can they give me within my price range or if you're delivering features I want that others can't (as was the case in AMD's initial movement to 64-bit computing). Arguments of "good enough" and "you can spend MORE money and upgrade to something that MIGHT be better at some nebulous point int he future" fall on deaf ears. I want maximum bang for my buck. And I want it NOW. Not "maybe...sometime down the road".

Marginally more expensive?!

FX-6100 = £112-£15 rebate = £97 at the moment, and the the i5 2300 is £142 (checked on Scan.co.uk). That's not a marginal cost, that's nearly half as much again.

Basically as I spend £500ish over a 4 year period I will end up in 2 years with something better than the i5 2500 is now. If I dropped an i5 2500 in to my machine it would have upped the cost, and meant no GPU for Beaker (when I set a budget it's a HARD budget) until the MLU , and the GTX260 really wouldn't have cut it by then.

If you want maximum bang for your buck, and want it now cudos to you, however us mere mortals are quite happy to get something that does what we want NOW, and upgrade it later if it's required.

[Chas]

Seth Deathstalker, on 19 March 2012 - 12:34 PM, said:

@Chas: so what is your recommended build for a rig to last four to five years without needing to rip out the intel board after Ivy Bridge because of a new socket? I am not trolling. I am just curious.

I'm saying build the best-performing system you can for your money NOW.
The rest will take care of itself.

I'd rather have a system I know will last for 3-4 years in the "acceptable" range than a cheaper system I know I'm going to have to throw more money in 18-24 months just to get another 18-24 months out of it..

[Chas]

Beaker, on 19 March 2012 - 03:41 PM, said:

I don't buy with the intention of a "massive" upgrade later. I buy with the intention of giving it a GBP£200 upgrade 2 years down the line.

If it's in my budget, I'd rather spend the extra $100-200 now and maybe chuck $200-300 at a new video card ~3 years out. I still come out ahead money-wise.

Quote

My machines have a 4 year lifespan.

Funny, so do mine.

Quote

I buy something that'll run everything I throw at it now.

A P4 2Ghz will "run everything you throw at it now". The IMPORTANT part, that you're leaving out, is "will it give you the best bang for your buck and run it as fast as is possible in your budget?"

Unless the budget is quite low, the answer to that is "no".

Quote

Moving from the old rig 9650/4Gb/GTX260 to the FX-6100/8Gb/MSI 6850 Cyclone cost me GBP£350 in the shop. Mainly because I set a flat budget for the upgrade. After rebates it's cost me GBP£305. Sure I could have burned £500 on it right now, but I've always biught a basically decent machine, and upgraded it 2 years later. Be that more RAM, a new GPU, or a new CPU (Last machine actually got a CPU and GPU upgrade from a 6000+ and a 2900 Pro to the 9650 and GTX260). Relatively minor upgrades, and didn't cost me a huge amount (£170ish IIRC). Also on the original purchase of the 6000+ the bang-for-buck was MUCH better with AMD than the old E6400 that came in the same price bracket.

In other words, you set yourself a low budget for the system.
If you want to build a system for the equivalent of $560 US, great!
But advocating someone who's looking to drop roughly double your entire lifetime budget (including the upgrade cycle mentioned earlier) on a brand new machine they're expecting optimal performance from is ludicrous!

Quote

No, it means you get a Good Enough system now, that does everything you want, and doesn't skin your wallet. I've not found anything that this setup doesn't run more than acceptably, and don't TBH expect to find anything for 18 months or so that will bother it.

If someone has a preset budget and is looking to get maximum performance within said budget, telling them "buy a cheap system now and wait for something better" is nuts. It's akin to buyer's remorse. You're attempting to justify your purchase choices by trying to convince others to purchase in the same manner you did to somehow convince yourself and others that your choices were valid.

Your choices WERE valid. For YOU. At YOUR BUDGET.
As buying advice for somebody looking to spend in a completely different bracket on a system, especially one who may or may not be a hardware junkie, it's Just Plain Wrong.

Quote

I also work with many different systems on a daily basis, and I have to say that the Bulldozer isn't as bad as the benchies, and the fanboys suggest. It's not amazing, but it's Good Enough for anything you'll do now.

And I'm saying "why settle for "good enough" when you can afford "best in class"?
At the budget you set, you bought best in class for a $560 system.
Why are you going to tell someone else to buy a budget choice when their budget for the system is roughly twice what you were willing to spend out?

Marginally more expensive?!

Quote

FX-6100 = £112-£15 rebate = £97 at the moment, and the the i5 2300 is £142 (checked on Scan.co.uk). That's not a marginal cost, that's nearly half as much again.

Yeah. Over here in the colonies, the FX-6100 is $150
The i5 2500K is $220
Or, if you have a MicroCenter near you, it's $180

That's equivalent to 2.3-5.3% of the total purchase price of the system.

Quote

If you want maximum bang for your buck, and want it now cudos to you, however us mere mortals are quite happy to get something that does what we want NOW, and upgrade it later if it's required.

I'm not dictating how YOU should build your $500-600 systems. I'm merely pointing out that it's stupid to expect someone who's looking to build (and pay for) a better class of system to "settle" for what would be second or third-class parts in their price range.

Make of this what you will.

[Seth Deathstalker]

Chas, on 19 March 2012 - 06:34 PM, said:

I'm saying build the best-performing system you can for your money NOW.
The rest will take care of itself.

I'd rather have a system I know will last for 3-4 years in the "acceptable" range than a cheaper system I know I'm going to have to throw more money in 18-24 months just to get another 18-24 months out of it..

I wasn't speaking about a cheap system.
I understood you as followed: buy the best system possible now with little regard to longlivety and upgrade ability.
(i.e. build an ivy bridge system although haswell will need a new socket/mobo. Ok, if one has money to spend, then go on )
What I meant was: rather get an 'average' system with a long and good upgrade path than the best possible now with a restricted upgrade path.

[Chas]

Seth Deathstalker, on 19 March 2012 - 08:32 PM, said:

I wasn't speaking about a cheap system.
I understood you as followed: buy the best system possible now with little regard to longlivety and upgrade ability.
(i.e. build an ivy bridge system although haswell will need a new socket/mobo. Ok, if one has money to spend, then go on )
What I meant was: rather get an 'average' system with a long and good upgrade path than the best possible now with a restricted upgrade path.

If the overall budget works out to be about the same either way?
And if the system lifespan works out to be about the same?
I'd prefer to build the system once and, at worst, throw more memory and maybe a new graphics card at it.

As always, building your own system is only cheaper if your time is worthless to you.
Mine isn't.

[Vulpesveritas]

Chas, on 19 March 2012 - 11:38 PM, said:

If the overall budget works out to be about the same either way?
And if the system lifespan works out to be about the same?
I'd prefer to build the system once and, at worst, throw more memory and maybe a new graphics card at it.

As always, building your own system is only cheaper if your time is worthless to you.
Mine isn't.

At the same time you should change out your TIM every couple of years anyhow as most need to be reapplied after then. Is it really going to take you that much longer to flip the arresting catch and swap out the new CPU? I mean heck, you don't even need to clean off the heatspreader then.

Also, given that the 100w trinity APUs are looking at reaching 4ghz+ with integrated graphics on the side, would tell me we'd be looking at at least that with the Piledriver 8-core. Also, AMD has claimed a 10-15%IPC increase.

So let's do the math shall we? Bulldozer performs ~5-15% lower clock-for-clock core-for-core compared to the Phenom II's. So let's assume that it performs more or less as well as the Llano STARS cores IPC-wise, which is similar to the old intel core 2's in IPC. Then given the current rumors for the IGP being GCN, with 75% of the cores of the 7750. which means that that ~40w of that processor are going to the IGP. Giving us about ~5w more for the 125w 8 core chip, we're looking at possibly an even 4ghz.

So basically the way I see it, the Piledriver 8 core will be like an octa-core core2 at 4ghz.
Sandybridge is ~10% higher IPC than core2, and Ivy another ~10%. so compared to an ivy bridge octa-core without HT, the IB processor would be ~7% faster. However the HT i7 quads are not as effective in multi thread, so in such applications piledriver would pull ahead quite a bit.

And you're still using AM3+.

Steamroller (high end version), which won't be released until 2014, will also be AM3+, on 22nm with a clock boost and another 10-15% expected increase in IPC.

Though we may see AMD tossing around three or more mainstream level motherboards with the new homogeneous processors they will be releasing 2014. Heck, the steamroller-based APUs for 2013 will be capable with some functions, like dumping floating point on the graphics cores.


So eh we'll see. Me personally, I'll get an AM3+ board and ride out two processor upgrades and see how the homogeneous processors do.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Let's try to be perfectly clear, the I5 2500k is a better chip than both the 8120 and 8150.

However to the average gamer they are going to see no noticeable benefit or reduction to their games between the 2 chips sets. Games are not suddenly going to come to a ground breaking halt because they went AMD instead of Intel so lets dispel that notion.

Both chipsets are perfectly fine for gaming, in a like for like build where the Mobo and CPU is the only difference AMD will come out cheaper allowing you to shift budget elsewhere.

AM3+ boards irrespective of what one may do short term are going to be around awhile 2 more CPU generations for AMD so will be cheaper long term there is no escaping that fact, would you upgrade from Bulldozer to Piledriver/steamroller maybe but it's unlikely to be massively GAME breakingly worth it.
From a Phenom II most definitely.

To say because someone has a 1-2k budget that AMD does not register into the equation is dumb, almost flat out stupidity. Intel chips might be more powerful but as above not massively so that they are a must for gamers, but they come at a price not just the immediate purchase price.

But current generation CPU's are way ahead of the gaming market that makes which chip you choose for a gaming machine irrelevant.

[Beaker]

Chas, on 19 March 2012 - 07:04 PM, said:

*snip*

I was going to go through and actually answer your points, however it's screamingly obvious you're one of the "i5 or nothing" crew.

I was suggesting alternatives, and making a point WHY they are an alternative. You're just doing the normal fanboy thing, and shouting people down.

If you can't cope with someone who doesn't agree with you I suggest you turn off the computer, and never go on the 'net ever again. As if is I'll restate. The FX series of chips are Nowhere Near As Poor As The Intel Fanboys Say.

[Chas]

Vulpesveritas, on 20 March 2012 - 12:17 AM, said:

At the same time you should change out your TIM every couple of years anyhow as most need to be reapplied after then. Is it really going to take you that much longer to flip the arresting catch and swap out the new CPU? I mean heck, you don't even need to clean off the heatspreader then.

Also, given that the 100w trinity APUs are looking at reaching 4ghz+ with integrated graphics on the side, would tell me we'd be looking at at least that with the Piledriver 8-core. Also, AMD has claimed a 10-15%IPC increase.

So let's do the math shall we? Bulldozer performs ~5-15% lower clock-for-clock core-for-core compared to the Phenom II's. So let's assume that it performs more or less as well as the Llano STARS cores IPC-wise, which is similar to the old intel core 2's in IPC. Then given the current rumors for the IGP being GCN, with 75% of the cores of the 7750. which means that that ~40w of that processor are going to the IGP. Giving us about ~5w more for the 125w 8 core chip, we're looking at possibly an even 4ghz.

So basically the way I see it, the Piledriver 8 core will be like an octa-core core2 at 4ghz.
Sandybridge is ~10% higher IPC than core2, and Ivy another ~10%. so compared to an ivy bridge octa-core without HT, the IB processor would be ~7% faster. However the HT i7 quads are not as effective in multi thread, so in such applications piledriver would pull ahead quite a bit.

And you're still using AM3+.

Steamroller (high end version), which won't be released until 2014, will also be AM3+, on 22nm with a clock boost and another 10-15% expected increase in IPC.

Though we may see AMD tossing around three or more mainstream level motherboards with the new homogeneous processors they will be releasing 2014. Heck, the steamroller-based APUs for 2013 will be capable with some functions, like dumping floating point on the graphics cores.


So eh we'll see. Me personally, I'll get an AM3+ board and ride out two processor upgrades and see how the homogeneous processors do.

More power to you then.

[Chas]

Beaker, on 20 March 2012 - 05:57 AM, said:

I was going to go through and actually answer your points, however it's screamingly obvious you're one of the "i5 or nothing" crew.

Yup. Must be much easier on you to just append an unfavorable label and move on. No actual dialog, thought or research required.

Now go back and actually read what I said instead of reacting to your impression of what you imagine I said.

Quote

I was suggesting alternatives, and making a point WHY they are an alternative. You're just doing the normal fanboy thing, and shouting people down.

No. I was stating my opinion and the basic reasoning behind it.

Quote

If you can't cope with someone who doesn't agree with you I suggest you turn off the computer, and never go on the 'net ever again. As if is I'll restate. The FX series of chips are Nowhere Near As Poor As The Intel Fanboys Say.

Sorry, but I'm not the one who's having trouble coping with disagreement here.

[Beaker]

Chas, on 20 March 2012 - 02:08 PM, said:

Yup. Must be much easier on you to just append an unfavorable label and move on. No actual dialog, thought or research required.

Now go back and actually read what I said instead of reacting to your impression of what you imagine I said.

I read it, You seem to have missed the points about there being other usable alternatives to Intel. I'm not saying the AMD chips are faster, but they ARE faster than a lot of sites are suggesting, and they aren't just to be sniffed at and ignored. AMD seem to be approaching the CPU market in the same way they have the GPU market. Makes sense. Make something mid-range, and make it cheap enough, let it roll for a few months, then come out with what you really wanted to. I don't consider them to be Quad/Hex/Octo core chips anyway, and it was a stupid marketing decision to market them as such. They share too many resources, and this causes a serious performance impact in an OS that isn't expecting to see it.

Quote

No. I was stating my opinion and the basic reasoning behind it.

Likewise, and you seem to be taking offense. I'm not bothered one way or another. I don't care if people use Intel, AMD or even VIA. If the price/performance is in the right ballpark for people that's what I recommend. If someone wants a specialist machine (and that's all I really build for people these days) I work out what they want to do with it, then come up with a spec. I don't "Do" brand loyalty, I do "Not using that again because it's awful", I'm sure you can figure out what manufacturers fit in that segment.

Quote

Sorry, but I'm not the one who's having trouble coping with disagreement here.

*shrug* You refuse to see another point of view, and that's unreasonable.

[Chas]

Beaker, on 20 March 2012 - 02:32 PM, said:

I read it, You seem to have missed the points about there being other usable alternatives to Intel.

No. Actually I haven't. I'm simply saying that there are times the AMD platform isn't appropriate.

Quote

I'm not saying the AMD chips are faster, but they ARE faster than a lot of sites are suggesting, and they aren't just to be sniffed at and ignored.

I agree. As I said earlier, the AMD chips aren't "bad" by any stretch of the imagination. And I'm NOT ignoring them.

Quote

AMD seem to be approaching the CPU market in the same way they have the GPU market. Makes sense. Make something mid-range, and make it cheap enough, let it roll for a few months, then come out with what you really wanted to.

And I'm also used to AMD's paper launches, late delivery, and sometimes strange execution. This is why I don't recommend buying promises of "Something better coming, down the road".

Quote

Likewise, and you seem to be taking offense.

At being called a fanboy by people acting like fanboys?

Let's just say that I now need to spend out for a new irony meter.

Quote

*shrug* You refuse to see another point of view, and that's unreasonable.

No. I simply disagree with the basic premise. I *do* see where you're coming from. And your arguments aren't without merit.

I have a preference for building a fairly monolithic system designed to last as long as possible with simpler modifications (new video card, more memory, light overclocking).

Others here approach longevity by designing systems that are meant to be upgraded over a period of time.

If you wish to continue to label me "unreasonable" about it, that's your problem.

[Vulpesveritas]

Chas, on 20 March 2012 - 07:22 PM, said:

No. Actually I haven't. I'm simply saying that there are times the AMD platform isn't appropriate.



I agree. As I said earlier, the AMD chips aren't "bad" by any stretch of the imagination. And I'm NOT ignoring them.



And I'm also used to AMD's paper launches, late delivery, and sometimes strange execution. This is why I don't recommend buying promises of "Something better coming, down the road".




At being called a fanboy by people acting like fanboys?

Let's just say that I now need to spend out for a new irony meter.



No. I simply disagree with the basic premise. I *do* see where you're coming from. And your arguments aren't without merit.

I have a preference for building a fairly monolithic system designed to last as long as possible with simpler modifications (new video card, more memory, light overclocking).

Others here approach longevity by designing systems that are meant to be upgraded over a period of time.

If you wish to continue to label me "unreasonable" about it, that's your problem.

On another note, something that might want to be also taken into realistic consideration is how heavily does he multitask? I doubt he'll be only using his desktop for gaming, and if he is a heavy multitasker the AMD processors might be a better option than the i5. Just a thought.

[Beaker]

Chas, on 20 March 2012 - 07:22 PM, said:

No. Actually I haven't. I'm simply saying that there are times the AMD platform isn't appropriate.

I know that, I was just pointing out that not even considering them isn't the right way to go about things. Of the last few machines I've built I've done a Dual Xeon workstation with a Firepro card in it, a couple of FX machines (including my own), 2 i5s and an i7. I really don't mind whatever people want/need.

Quote

I agree. As I said earlier, the AMD chips aren't "bad" by any stretch of the imagination. And I'm NOT ignoring them.

He is just disregarding them though.

Quote

And I'm also used to AMD's paper launches, late delivery, and sometimes strange execution. This is why I don't recommend buying promises of "Something better coming, down the road".

Intel aren't beyond paper launches, and while their existing CPUs are impressive for the most part, they have a history of saying "This is awesome", and producing something terrible (Pentium 4/Pentium-D etc). I never expected miracles from the 1st Generation Bulldozer, I expected a reasonable level of performance from a spanking new architecture that bears little resemblance to any previous CPU (Except the really DEC series of CPUs). I don't like their marketing of them, if they had marketed them as they are rather than as Quad/Hex/Octocore chips people would have taken more notice. Have to see how things progress, and while I'm not expecting 30% gains on the next get like some people are, I'm interested to see how things pan out.

Quote

At being called a fanboy by people acting like fanboys?

Let's just say that I now need to spend out for a new irony meter.

I'd have used Intel except for the fact I had a budget to work to (New Rugrat is EXPENSIVE, and I need a new car too). As it stands I didn't have the budget, and other people often don't want to blow thousands on a new rig. The only thing I try and avoid these days is nVidia GPUs in my own machines, but that's more down to a HORRIBLE history with them.

Quote

No. I simply disagree with the basic premise. I *do* see where you're coming from. And your arguments aren't without merit.

I have a preference for building a fairly monolithic system designed to last as long as possible with simpler modifications (new video card, more memory, light overclocking).

Others here approach longevity by designing systems that are meant to be upgraded over a period of time.

I've always bough a machine to last 4-6 years, and then upgraded it at the mid-point (If I think the upgrade it worth it). Well for the last 4 machines anyway. I used to just overclock the hell out of the computer, but these days I prefer to just buy what works. I blew too many motherboards, CPUs and Graphics cards up over the years (remember playing with a scalpel and soldering iron to overclock? horrible wasn't it?)

Quote

If you wish to continue to label me "unreasonable" about it, that's your problem.

He's refusing to accept there might be a reason to go AMD, you appear to be able to see the point, even if it's not a path you follow. Likely I'll upgrade at some point to an Excavator series, if the speed bump makes it worthwhile. At the same time I'll probably pick up a new GPU. Meaning in 2/3 years I'll have something better then than I could buy now no matter what I spend.

[Bianca Flowers]

Beaker, on 20 March 2012 - 08:34 PM, said:

I know that, I was just pointing out that not even considering them isn't the right way to go about things. Of the last few machines I've built I've done a Dual Xeon workstation with a Firepro card in it, a couple of FX machines (including my own), 2 i5s and an i7. I really don't mind whatever people want/need.


He is just disregarding them though.


Intel aren't beyond paper launches, and while their existing CPUs are impressive for the most part, they have a history of saying "This is awesome", and producing something terrible (Pentium 4/Pentium-D etc). I never expected miracles from the 1st Generation Bulldozer, I expected a reasonable level of performance from a spanking new architecture that bears little resemblance to any previous CPU (Except the really DEC series of CPUs). I don't like their marketing of them, if they had marketed them as they are rather than as Quad/Hex/Octocore chips people would have taken more notice. Have to see how things progress, and while I'm not expecting 30% gains on the next get like some people are, I'm interested to see how things pan out.


I'd have used Intel except for the fact I had a budget to work to (New Rugrat is EXPENSIVE, and I need a new car too). As it stands I didn't have the budget, and other people often don't want to blow thousands on a new rig. The only thing I try and avoid these days is nVidia GPUs in my own machines, but that's more down to a HORRIBLE history with them.



I've always bough a machine to last 4-6 years, and then upgraded it at the mid-point (If I think the upgrade it worth it). Well for the last 4 machines anyway. I used to just overclock the hell out of the computer, but these days I prefer to just buy what works. I blew too many motherboards, CPUs and Graphics cards up over the years (remember playing with a scalpel and soldering iron to overclock? horrible wasn't it?)


He's refusing to accept there might be a reason to go AMD, you appear to be able to see the point, even if it's not a path you follow. Likely I'll upgrade at some point to an Excavator series, if the speed bump makes it worthwhile. At the same time I'll probably pick up a new GPU. Meaning in 2/3 years I'll have something better then than I could buy now no matter what I spend.

thats true of anything (whatever you buy now, there will be something better in 2 or 3 years, Moore's Law hasn't been repealed yet.

Sandy bridge is so much better than everything AMD is putting out, the dual-core, non hyper-threading Pentium G860 outperforms the Phenom II X6 and X4 and FX-8xxx/6xxx/4xxx, at $99.99.

There is no reason to buy AMD for a dedicated gaming computer. for an inexpensive laptop, or all-purpose machine for your parents, that can do some light gaming at low - medium settings? AMD Llano computers and notebooks are wonderful, for dedicated gaming systems? Sandy Bridge + any GPU stronger than a 6770 or 7750 is just stronger at games than anything in the AMD inventory.

[Vulpesveritas]

Bianca Flowers, on 21 March 2012 - 07:32 PM, said:

thats true of anything (whatever you buy now, there will be something better in 2 or 3 years, Moore's Law hasn't been repealed yet.

Sandy bridge is so much better than everything AMD is putting out, the dual-core, non hyper-threading Pentium G860 outperforms the Phenom II X6 and X4 and FX-8xxx/6xxx/4xxx, at $99.99.

There is no reason to buy AMD for a dedicated gaming computer. for an inexpensive laptop, or all-purpose machine for your parents, that can do some light gaming at low - medium settings? AMD Llano computers and notebooks are wonderful, for dedicated gaming systems? Sandy Bridge + any GPU stronger than a 6770 or 7750 is just stronger at games than anything in the AMD inventory.

That dual-core processor is only going to be faster in older games where only two threads can be used. Most games today are quad-threaded. And thread count should, and most likely will increase in years to come.
Also, a good reason to go AMD is if they're telling the truth, then Piledriver will be nearly as fast as Ivy Bridge, and then Steamroller is expected on the same motherboard socket and expected to be another 10-20% faster than Piledriver.
So it all comes down to whether you prefer to do CPU swaps or just completely redo your system.

Then also there are ethics to take into consideration considering Intel has broken the law in the recent past. And AMD is considered a clean corporation.

Oh and lets not forget that for $10 more than that little Pentium you have the FX-4100 which is faster than that pentium in threaded applications, is faster when multitasking on the desktop, and has an unlocked multiplier so you can make it even faster still.

I may be an AMD fanboy to some extent, however your claiming that a Pentium is faster than an Fx-8150 is something only someone looking at pre-2008 games and not considering multitasking at all, or is an Intel Fanboy. Do you think that your OS is single-threaded? Because it's not. Your OS can spread everything you are doing and run it on multiple threads. An 8 core is going to outperform a dual-core on the desktop, hands down. I usually have 10 or so tabs in Google Chrome, my documents, VLC media player, openhardwaremonitor, network diagnosis, all running at the same time, and then I play games once in a while too.
And as the OP stated he may do video with it, which is something which can use a good number of cores, once again said FX-8150p will be faster than that pentium. Even an FX-4100 would be.

Also Llano- depends. Dedicated gaming laptop sub-$800 is pretty much a Llano PC.

Edited by Vulpesveritas, 21 March 2012 - 07:54 PM.

[Bianca Flowers]

no. I was looking at an article that tested a wide variety of games, and except Battlefield 3, which just didn't care if it was an i7-3939 or an Athlon II X3, the Pentium G 860 outperformed everything from AMD under $200.

just read it.

http://www.tomshardw...hmark,3120.html


I'm not an AMD or Intel fanboy. I will use the best bang for my buck, in the mid 2000s, I used AMD because they were better, then. Now, I use an i5, because its better

[Vulpesveritas]

Bianca Flowers, on 21 March 2012 - 08:08 PM, said:

no. I was looking at an article that tested a wide variety of games, and except Battlefield 3, which just didn't care if it was an i7-3939 or an Athlon II X3, the Pentium G 860 outperformed everything from AMD under $200.

just read it.

http://www.tomshardw...hmark,3120.html


I'm not an AMD or Intel fanboy. I will use the best bang for my buck, in the mid 2000s, I used AMD because they were better, then. Now, I use an i5, because its better

Lets see... skyrim, one of the most CPU bound games out there, had an AMD processor beat said pentium.
Also, consider this - It shows that pentium to be faster than an i3 which is hyperthreaded and able to utilize more threads. So those benchmarks don't quite make sense to me.



http://www.techpower.../FX8150/11.html
so you're telling me it outperforms it?...

[Beaker]

Hexus, Techradar, xbitlabs,passmark, futuremark and guru3d all disagree with Tom's Hardware here. TheyH have a long history of kissing Intel's arse, and they used to show benchmarks on how much better the P4 was over the AthlonXP and Athlon64. It goes back a long way, and when I'm pulling up reviews for things I look at Tom's hardware, and often find them disagreeing with almost everyone else.

[Catamount]

I have to admit, there is a case made on that site for Bulldozer, but really, I think we'll have a more clear picture once Piledriver is out.

For the moment, I'd probably still go with the i5 for gaming, but not by a longshot.

Edited by Catamount, 22 March 2012 - 06:43 AM.