• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Paralysed with indecision: i7-4770 or FX-8350.

Here is the OP reason why he cant choose the chip most people are recommending, which he did mention in the OP (you know, the bit of writing under the title of which you drew your conclusion from before reading).

Squeeker said:
K version has had VT-d disabled so non-K only.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
This is the reason why the usual suspects don't get why some of us are aggressive to anti-FX posts as so many are blinded by brand bling and don't actually know what they are posting.

This thread summates it.
 
Th0nt said:
This is the reason why the usual suspects don't get why some of us are aggressive to anti-FX posts as so many are blinded by brand bling and don't actually know what they are posting.

This thread summates it.
Click to expand...

It says a lot that 3 post with 4770k recommendations have already been posted. It is if they only read the title and never the OP and if this is the case then it shows that they have no idea what they are talking about in the first place as it has been proved so many times now, that it should be common knowledge by now, that depending on the workload requirements the FX-83x0 actually have more value over mainstream(socket 10xx) K chips. Not everything is about gaming.

Now if i offended some of you i am sorry, in that i am sorry i had to in the first place but someone has to call these things out.

Btw where is Martini he would usually jump all over something like this topic. Here Tini tini tini.
 
If I had jumped in here, it wouldn't be to recommend the 4770K, because I know it's somewhat hobbled for this kind of work load, and we can all surmise why that is.

But I've given up, most people simply don't know what they're chatting most of the time (That goes for both vendors)
 
Last edited:
mmj_uk said:
Why don't you consider a 4820K if VT-d is important? it's clocked higher than a 4770K at default and will leave an upgrade path in the future.
Click to expand...

Best advice given so far.

OP wants to get 6+ years out of this build.
An X79 board with a 4820 and an upgrade to a 49xx chip a couple of years down the road.
Lots of memory slots for large amounts of RAM for running the VM's.
Plenty of PCIe lanes for multiple VC's if the OP needs more GPU compute power.
The OP's requirements over a 6 year period may well change and the X79 platform is the most flexible.

Initial costs will be slightly higher but this build is intended to be in service for 6+ years.

PS
Shame on those who recommended a 4770K as it is totally unsuited for use in a VM host machine.
 
Last edited:
IMO initial costs on the rig you are talking about would be double. The CPU price certainly is. You're basically taking mid ranged hardware and speccing up a top end rig. 990FX boards have plenty of PCIE lanes and bandwidth. I guess you would have to buy a Rampage IV Formula to compare with the Crosshair V Formula and again, the board is £100 more than the AMD one.

Not that the Intel rig wouldn't be fast because it would be ridiculously fast but everything will pretty much start to cost double. You also need quad channel memory to utilise the quad channel, so that means spending double on ram.

I don't think that meets what the OP is looking for at all tbh.

PCZ said:
Best advice given so far.

OP wants to get 6+ years out of this build.
An X79 board with a 4820 and an upgrade to a 49xx chip a couple of years down the road.
Lots of memory slots for large amounts of RAM for running the VM's.
Plenty of PCIe lanes for multiple VC's if the OP needs more GPU compute power.
The OP's requirements over a 6 year period may well change and the X79 platform is the most flexible.

Initial costs will be slightly higher but this build is intended to be in service for 6+ years.

PS
Shame on those who recommended a 4770K as it is totally unsuited for use in a VM host machine.
Click to expand...
 
OP is planning on building a PC to last a long time my advice is sound.

An 8320 and a £100 board would do the job.
Will that be good enough long term though ?

As to needing to buy more memory most likely 4 sticks will be purchased anyway regardless of platform.
Running VM's needs a good amount of RAM.
So 4x4GB would be a likely purchase anyway.
 
Your rig would be absolutely drool worthy but it's gonna cost.

I really don't know how the FX perform with virtual PCs tbh. Not really an area of interest for me. From what I recall (and don't quote me on this !) 990FX don't overclock very well with 4 dimms in place. I could be wrong, but something is nagging at me about it...
 
I have 4x4Gb in my Sabertooth with an 8320.
Patriot viper 1866.
Runs the same with 4 as it does 2.
If you were pushing to the limit for benching and such then 2 dimms might run at higher speeds, but for stable 24/7 operation filling all the banks isn't an issue.
I use it for downloading mainly from usenet.
When I load up some of the large groups the news client can be using 8GB+ on its own.

VM's normally have a minimum of 4Gb allocated to each one but far larger amounts can be used dependant on the OS and APPS running in the VM.

PS: On the previous gen AMD chips filling all the banks could be an issue.
Not too bad on Thuban but Phenoms had very poor memory controllers.
Maybe this is where you got the notion that 4 dimms was not good on AMD ?
 
Last edited:
FX chips are fine with lower memory speeds but if you are really pushing CPU or memory, four dimms is difficult to get going. Use to be worse on BDs though, they didn't like most things above 1600 when using all four dimms and generally had to be tweaked to get working at higher speeds.

Doesnt really make a difference as 1600/1866 is all you need.
 
Avenged7Fold said:
FX chips are fine with lower memory speeds but if you are really pushing CPU or memory, four dimms is difficult to get going. Use to be worse on BDs though, they didn't like most things above 1600 when using all four dimms and generally had to be tweaked to get working at higher speeds.

Doesnt really make a difference as 1600/1866 is all you need.
Click to expand...

I'm being pretty badly held back by my 1600mhz ram atm. For high bus clocks I can only run them at 1400mhz or so. I wish I had some 1866+. Cor, I could really crank that bus then :D
 
I found on the 8150 that 1600 was the limit with all banks filled with 4Gb dimms.
With 4 2Gb dimms then I could use 1866.
Still got that chip in it's nice tin, wonder if it will be worth anything in a few years. :)

The 8320 is much better and I have no issues with 4x4GB of 1866.

For benching the 4GB dimms come out and a pair of 2Gb gskill go in anyway.
Not that I bench much with the PD these days.
 
My first 8320 came in the tin. I've still got it (the 8320 and the tin) and once I get a replacement Asrock board in I'm going to build it up for my lady :)
 
ALXAndy said:
My first 8320 came in the tin. I've still got it (the 8320 and the tin) and once I get a replacement Asrock board in I'm going to build it up for my lady :)
Click to expand...

I am using ballistix 1600 in one build and had to take the multiplier down on RAM to get the CPU OC stable. RAM is now running at 1599 or something really close to 1600. I might get ambitious and order some high speed and reasonably tight RAM but it would only be to see what numbers my OCs can get to, not really for any practical use.
 
I think the quality of the memory controllers in FX chips is quite variable.
Some are running really high mem speeds circa 2400 and others struggle to get 1600 stable ?

OOPS
Thread hijack
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom