Considering an 8350... Am I as mad as a brush?

Orch · 22 Sep 2013 at 18:46

When you guys talk about the power consumption difference, how much are we talking a year in £s??

Boomstick777 · 22 Sep 2013 at 19:26

joeyjojo said:
They'll consume similar amounts of power overclocked.

Haswell and Piledriver FX?

Take a look at some reviews, the difference is huge. Haswell is very low power use..

badcompany · 22 Sep 2013 at 20:06

I went [email protected] the [email protected]

Very happy with it.

Orch · 22 Sep 2013 at 20:09

Boomstick777 said:
.

For example I paid only £300 for my 4770K and the motherboard. You could pick up a 4670K and mobo for prob around £220+

Any examples? Bearing in mind the board needs to be solid for overclocking? I've been weighing this up for weeks and every way I look it the haswell option is about 30% more for not much more performance. I'd love to be proved wrong tho

danoliver1 · 22 Sep 2013 at 20:32

Orch said:
Any examples? Bearing in mind the board needs to be solid for overclocking? I've been weighing this up for weeks and every way I look it the haswell option is about 30% more for not much more performance. I'd love to be proved wrong tho

I think you just answered your own question. If your happy spending more for slightly better performance which in real usage you probably wont notice then go haswell.

humbug · 22 Sep 2013 at 20:41

Cost effective Xeons are still £160, are slower than the i5, only have 4 cores / 4 threads and can't be overclocked, for VM's he's better off the FX-83#0, and i would argue for gaming to. unless he plays nothing but MMO pay to win DX9 games.

Martini1991 · 22 Sep 2013 at 20:53

The 4c/8t Xeon may be higher priced, but that's somewhat offset by needing a better motherboard for AMD.

The actual difference is like 30 quid at the most.

Either way, no option is particularly wrong, I'd look into the Xeons performance in VM's before anything though.

EDIT : There's always the second hand Z68 and 1155 i7 route.

Orch · 22 Sep 2013 at 20:58

danoliver1 said:
I think you just answered your own question. If your happy spending more for slightly better performance which in real usage you probably wont notice then go haswell.

That's my conclusion also, but some seem to swear otherwise so I keep wondering if im missing something!

Martini1991 · 22 Sep 2013 at 21:05

Orch said:
That's my conclusion also, but some seem to swear otherwise so I keep wondering if im missing something!

It's dependant upon different factors whether or not you'd notice.

For myself? I use a 120HZ monitor, I need the the most consistent and stable performance, I need the highest minimums I can get.

humbug · 22 Sep 2013 at 21:07

Martini1991 said:
The 4c/8t Xeon may be higher priced, but that's somewhat offset by needing a better motherboard for AMD.

The actual difference is like 30 quid at the most.

Either way, no option is particularly wrong, I'd look into the Xeons performance in VM's before anything though.

EDIT : There's always the second hand Z68 and 1155 i7 route.

The FX-8350 has better performance in VM's than your option.

If he's not overclocking, like he wouldn't be with the Xeon he get the FX-83#0 for ~£200 with Motherboard, if he is overclocking he can do it for ~£220.

Martini1991 · 22 Sep 2013 at 21:09

humbug said:
The FX-8350 has better performance in VM's than your option.

Do you have some proof/benchmarks to qualify that statement?

Because I don't

EDIT : The Xeon set up is ~230.

Boards for 1150 start from 40 quid, and take all the CPU's.

humbug · 22 Sep 2013 at 21:15

Martini1991 said:
Do you have some proof/benchmarks to qualify that statement?

Because I don't

20 years of building Intel and AMD servers, i know when Intel are the best option and when the best option is AMD! take that or leave it.

I'm not here to get into arguments with you, yet again about Intel vs AMD. its impossible to give advice around here without it degrading into some back and forth playground tiff.

I'm out....

Martini1991 · 22 Sep 2013 at 21:15

That escalated quickly.

Boomstick777 · 22 Sep 2013 at 21:38

Orch said:
Any examples? Bearing in mind the board needs to be solid for overclocking? I've been weighing this up for weeks and every way I look it the haswell option is about 30% more for not much more performance. I'd love to be proved wrong tho

My mobo was £55, GA-B85-HD3 - http://www.gigabyte.com/products/product-page.aspx?pid=4566#ov

I run 4.4Ghz 24/7 clock and bench @ 4.6Ghz

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/7172676

Not bad for a £55 mobo

. If the Op picks up a 4670K and a mobo like this one he will be laughing. Nice performance at low price and low power use.

My 4770K was actually £245 and mobo £55. Best value setup I ever bought for sure. I came from 3960X, prefer the Haswell setup. That says a lot lol.

gpuerrilla · 22 Sep 2013 at 22:00

Martini1991 said:
For myself? I use a 120HZ monitor, I need the the most consistent and stable performance, I need the highest minimums I can get.

This is somewhat moot if you have no budget constraints. If you have the money you get whats best, if you need the performance - guess what - you get whats best!

Hades · 22 Sep 2013 at 22:40

Well my question certainly sparked more debate than I expected and I'm grateful for all the opinions. I still haven't decided 100% although the fact there is so much debate and no clear victor does, I think, show that each manufacturer has its own strengths and weaknesses. e.g. current power vs future power vs price/value. Once again thanks for the input and I shall have a further think.

Orch · 22 Sep 2013 at 22:59

Hades said:
Well my question certainly sparked more debate than I expected and I'm grateful for all the opinions. I still haven't decided 100% although the fact there is so much debate and no clear victor does, I think, show that each manufacturer has its own strengths and weaknesses. e.g. current power vs future power vs price/value. Once again thanks for the input and I shall have a further think.

Yep, it always comes down to the same result, and people will view the result differently depending on circumstances. I've pondered it long enough and just pressed the button on this:

YOUR BASKET
1 x AMD Piledriver FX-8 Eight Core 8320 Black Edition 3.50GHz (Socket AM3+) Processor - Retail £119.99
1 x Asus M5A97 EVO R2.0 AMD 970 (Socket AM3+) DDR3 Motherboard £89.99
1 x Corsair Hydro H80 High Performance Liquid CPU Cooler *Manufacturer Refurbished Unit - 90 Day Guarantee £39.95
Total : £249.92 (includes shipping : FREE).

I nearly got tempted by last minute i7 fantasy but remembered I'm a casual gamer and it would be silly

Can't wait to throw it all together!

teppic · 22 Sep 2013 at 23:14

That's a great board to go with the CPU Orch. And with the cooler you may get it above 4.8GHz (it's a little harder without something like a Sabertooth, it'll depend on the chip). But at 4.7GHz the 8320 performs very close to a stock 4770K in things, except old lightly threaded games, and sometimes beats it.

Orch · 22 Sep 2013 at 23:55

Thanks mate, it was a recommendation from a very helpful member on here so i can't claim the credit

Mobo's are still a bit of a unknown to me at the moment, getting there though!

I'll see how close to 5GHz I can get but would be pretty chuffed with 4.8 I think.

Just need some more pennies for another 7850 to crossfire then I'm BF4 ready

teppic · 22 Sep 2013 at 23:58

If you can get to 4.5GHz you're already getting a huge amount more from the processor. CPU bottlenecks on AMD processors are normally due to one core overloaded - not the entire CPU, and pushing up the clock to 4.5GHz helps to remove that, letting the other cores get much more done. As Phixsator has said, going from stock to 4.8GHz makes it seem like a different computer.