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

[Orch]

Excellent, can't wait!

 

[teppic]

Excellent, can't wait!

I really want an 8350 and Sabertooth myself, just to play with and overclock and stuff, but I can't justify the cost But then I really want Kaveri when it comes out too...

 

[Orch]

Yeh the sabertooth was the board I really wanted, had to keep to a budget though

 

[opethdisciple]

From the majority of benchmarks I have seen over the last year and the most recent of games, I would say an 8350 is not wise over a 4650k for example.

So yes, as mad as a brush.

 

[teppic]

Yeh the sabertooth was the board I really wanted, had to keep to a budget though

Yup, it's the best one, save the Crosshair Formula Z. The 970 EVO is great though - but if you do want Crossfire in the future, I'd consider altering the order and spending a little more on this one, as it allows 16x/16x in Crossfire:

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=MB-560-AS

The one you've picked will do 16x/x4 instead.

 

[Kobi]

From the majority of benchmarks I have seen over the last year and the most recent of games, I would say an 8350 is not wise over a 4650k for example.

So yes, as mad as a brush.

Care to explain why?

 

[Marine-RX179]

Care to explain why?

Well, in terms of gaming performance, there hasn't really been ANY result which an overclocked FX8 conclusively beating an overclocked i5 (and I'm not even talking about a Haswell i5 here, just the IvyBridge i5). The general situation is that an overclocked FX8 can "keep up" with (still a little behind) an overclocked i5 in the best case scenerio, specifically in games that are heavily thread and would use up to 8 cores properly. In any game that DOES NOT use 8 cores, the FX8 would clearly lag behind the i5, and do try to remember, 95%+ of the games using 4 cores or less, meaning the FX8 would only have half or less of its grunt being used in those games, whereas the i5 would still have 100% of its grunt in a 4 cores game (in two cores games, the i5 would only be losing 50% of its grunt, but the FX8 would be losing 75% of its grunt). Even IF the FX8 was faster than a i5 (which it's not), it would be by so tiny margin (like 1-3fps)...comparing to the potential lost of performance in games that don't use up to 8 cores, it's really no-brainer that the i5 offer much more consistence performance (as it has 100% of its grunt intact in games using 4 cores and above).

Also for the cost side of things, far too often when people talking about the FX8320, they are immediately thinking 4.50-4.80GHz performance at £125, but then forgotten that they need to add a £25 CPU cooler cost for 4.50GHz performance/ £40+ CPU cooler cost to 4.80GHz performance- that would mean bring the cost to £150/£175; a non-K edition IvyBridge i5 3470 cost £155, and without the need of buying cooler separately, turbo-boosting to 3.60GHz using just the stock cooler will match the performance of a FX8 at around 4.40-4.50GHz in heavily threaded games, but most importantly, it DOESN'T lose a huge chuck of performance for games that use less than 8 cores.

It is of course better to pay the extra for the K-Edition for overclocking, but I'm just using the non-K i5 as a comparison in terms of cost, to show that the FX8320, despite being good value for what it is, might not be as huge a saving (if at all) over the Intel option as people think.

Edited:
Also just noticed the Haswell i5 4570 is only on £150, that's another 5-10% higher performance than the i5 3470.

 

[Deus Ex]

That escalated quickly.

Also, 4770k for VT, youll get 5-7 years out of it I guess, I mean the i7 9xx series are still goers, and the 2xxx series are phenomenal and they are old bro.

 

[Orch]

Yup, it's the best one, save the Crosshair Formula Z. The 970 EVO is great though - but if you do want Crossfire in the future, I'd consider altering the order and spending a little more on this one, as it allows 16x/16x in Crossfire:

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=MB-560-AS

The one you've picked will do 16x/x4 instead.

I was under the impression that the second being x4 didn't make that much difference in real world, like a few FPS at best?

 

[gpuerrilla]

Also, 4770k for VT, youll get 5-7 years out of it I guess, I mean the i7 9xx series are still goers, and the 2xxx series are phenomenal and they are old bro.

What is the big white square all about?

 

[joeyjojo]

Haswell and Piledriver FX?

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

I expected that too, but the calculations disagree. Correct me if these numbers are unrealistic, I found them from a quick search around.

8350, [email protected] -> [email protected], TDP 125 -> 145.6 W
4670K, [email protected] -> [email protected], TDP 84 -> 121.1 W

So at stock there's 40 W between their TDP (which I know is not reflective of real-world use, but what can we do), but overclocked to 4.5 there's only 24 W between them.

Running 24/7, 24 W will cost you around £25/year. Not exactly a huge difference!

At stock, piledriver certainly eats a lot more power, but people don't realise how much Intel chips go up when overclocked.

 

[Martini1991]

I was under the impression that the second being x4 didn't make that much difference in real world, like a few FPS at best?

At 2.0 it'll make some difference.

EDIT : Joey, where'd you get those consumption figures? Looking at ; http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2013/06/12/intel-core-i5-4670k-haswell-cpu-review/6

It's a lot different.

I know the clock speeds are different, but the power consumption difference is huge.

 

[Orch]

At 2.0 it'll make some difference.

How much is 'some'?

 

[Martini1991]

How much is 'some'?

It can make somewhat of a difference, he's a review for PCI-E scaling ;

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Ivy_Bridge_PCI-Express_Scaling/1.html

I'm aware some AMD boards have third party PCI-E 3.0 support though.

 

[Orch]

It can make somewhat of a difference, he's a review for PCI-E scaling ;

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Ivy_Bridge_PCI-Express_Scaling/1.html

I'm aware some AMD boards have third party PCI-E 3.0 support though.

Excellent I'll have a read through that, thanks.

 

[Martini1991]

Chances are, any board doing 16/4 for AMD is only PCI-E 2.0 though.

It's somewhat strange.
AMD don't natively support PCI-E 3.0 (FM2+ does) yet they were the first to launch PCI-E 3.0 at the back end of 2011 with the 7970.

EDIT : A few of those results are a bit over the place for Crysis 2 like, the most saturated GTX 680 is performing the best for example

But with a 7850 Crossfire, I can't see the second 7850 getting that hammered.

 

[teppic]

16x/4x isn't going to mean appalling results, and by the time you decide to add a 2nd 7850, you may well just decide on replacing it with whatever AMD's new card is. The 990FX chipset just lets you take full advantage of PCI-E 2.0 by giving you the equivalent of 8x8x PCI-E 3.0, which is the same as Haswell supports.

 

[Cool Breeze]

All those touting K series intels need to brush up on their virtual platform, the K series chips don't fully support all direct I/O technologies and would not be a wise choice for a VM platform.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

All those touting K series intels need to brush up on their virtual platform, the K series chips don't fully support all direct I/O technologies and would not be a wise choice for a VM platform.

Plus,the cheaper AMD motherboards are more likely to support them when compared to cheaper Intel ones last time I checked.

 

[Kobi]

/snip

Yes yes, we all know that. All that information is good when it's a 100% gaming machine. This isn't. He needs the extra cores or threads for his VM's. Thus making the i5 not the best choice? I was just curious to hear how he came to that conclusion. Either that or him and yourself quickly glanced through the thread.