[nomis78]

I am completely stumped

hey guys, first post and looking for some help if you dont mind

im looking to upgrade my system but im not sure what i should do with regards to processor.

My aim is to make a system that will last for a good 5 or so years with the intention of running Photoshop cs5/6 day to day computing and also perhaps running a little bit of gaming (in the way of battlefield and the ilk)

I am able to get the FX 1820 which is one of AMDs new buldozer chips or the intel i5 within my price rang as a ready to assemble kit at dabs.com (id just need to buy a GPU)

Having read some reviews and heard feedback im hearing very mixed things about the buldozer chip and really managed to get into some great confusion as to which is better (i was under the impression that an 8 core would be better then the 4 core but apparently that might not be so?)

can anyone offer some guidance as to what i should be looking at/for from the two?

It looks like the AMD may still be the better overall option with its SLI options future proofing me a little in that regard but im not sure so any help will be appreciated, the two bundles btw:

AMD:
http://www.dabs.com/products/asus-am...SY8.html?src=2

intel
http://www.dabs.com/products/asus-in...VJG.html?src=2

(dont pay too much heed to memory btw as I dont mind paying to upgrade the amd with a little extra memory)

With regards to over clocking its not something i have done before but its something i could look at (especially if going with the AMD since their software suite facilitates doing this safely)

I figured you guys were probably the best people to ask about all this but please bear in mind ive been out of the computer game for a number of years now so im not a clued up as your used to so you may need to speak a little slowly while i get my self re accustomed to all of this

[Knufire]

What's your budget? Does it include a copy of Windows or accessories (monitor/keyboard/mouse/speakers)?

[DocClock aka MadClocker]

1st off... to the Forums!
Ok, I didn't look at the kit you linked in, but in most cases, "ready to build" kits usually come with lower quality parts as the norm.
The reason so many are trying to talk you out of getting the Bulldozer, is that there are not many programs that are optimized for 8 cores (yet)..so your cores would mostly go unused. I don't have any experience with the i5 and above, but I seem to recall that you can overclock the GPU separately from the CPU, even though they are both on the same die (chip).
As far as I know, the Intel line runs circles around the latest AMD design core for core...except the AMD Opteron which is a server optimized chip.

I will look at the system you linked and get back...

[DocClock aka MadClocker]

After looking at the two kits, I stand corrected...both kits look great, although I think I would go with the Intel (personal preference)...it already has graphic's built in and you can save the money otherwise spent on the other kit to help offset the cost of a good video card. Tuff choice..AMD is more known to be backward compatible with earlier components, so future proofing may lead to an AMD. My Intel system is still running (some 5+ years) and
although dated, I still have an upgrade path although only slight improvements can be made, but I would consider my system to be viable for some time to come, so it all really comes down to personal preference. I think you would be happy with either kit for many years, unless you need the latest game, then you will have to upgrade for every game that comes out, or at least that is the way it seems to be (IMHO)

Good luck with your choice, and hopefully someone with experience with these components can give some input before you decide....
I did my best, but all I have on this subject is an opinion, no real facts to back it up.

[Cigarsmoker]

Intel

[mjw21a]

Unless you're an AMD addict like myself, then unfortunately they're right. You're better off going with a 2500K. I can't really think of anything that will use that many threads except Handbrake. Having said that, in actual use you'd never be able to tell which system is which. If software does end up becoming more highly threaded then I daresay Bulldozer solutions will age very well. If not, then you're going to wish you'd gone with an Intel solution instead. Trying to predict how things will go in the future is always a gamble. Easiest thing to do is look at what runs most software the best right now and base your decision on that. If thats the case then the clear winner is Intel. Then again, as I previously said, when using the system you likely won't see a difference.

[manu2b]

Here are two comparisons between a FX8150 and a 2500k:
http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/artic...-Review/1402/6
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4955/t...x8150-tested/7

It seems that the 2500k is a faster in Photoshop, both are great for gaming...

I agree with DocClock. Both systems will make you happy.

[jd101]

+ 1 for the intel plus you get 8gb of ram and save a fiver . but the SABERTOOTH 990FX looks sweet .

[nomis78]

Well I've always had AMFD in the past, the current setup im running which suits my needs pretty well is the following:

http://www.cc.nomcom.info/wp-content...ter-Before.png

The main reason im upgrading is to take advantage of the 64 bit windows OS i have installed and to speed up my work flow in photoshop etc (and like i said allow me a little bit of casual gaming now and again)

Alot of you reccomend the i5 quad core but excuse my dumbnes if octo-core is the way things are going is the buildozer not the longer term solution?

also you mention and o do the reviews that not many programs take advantage of multithreading and honestly, i have no idea what that means so maybe a quick laymans terms explination please?

sorry the last time i was inolved in this sort of thing was back when dual core was JUST starting to gain commercial traction and my knowledger went as far as dual > single core >.< all i know about it is that windows 8 is apparently supposed to improve threaded performance whatever that translates into

(oh and if its worth noting, I have a budget of about £450 at most but thats to buy MB Chip, Graphics and update my cooling, case is a thermal take xaser III with a fan control unit I have a retail copy of windows 7 and the hard drives i intend to just transfer inot the new set up

[mjw21a]

The more highly threaded an application is the more cores it can take advantage of. Some processes can really perform better when highly threaded, however the majority of apps/processes don't really benefit from this.

Another thing to understand is that most CPU cores can handle more than 1 software process thread at a time. Unfortunately for AMD there are many types of workload which either don't benifit from being more highly threaded or the additional development time/cost doesn't justify the app being more highly threaded.

No one cares how fast MS Office runs for example, it's already fast enough on pretty much ANY system.

Due to this many things will NEVER improve on this architecture. The other problem is quite often those tasks that benefit from being highly threaded are also equally suited to being run on a video card using GPGPU compute giving a far higher performance increase than if you'd programmed for multiple CPU threads anyway.....

What I'm getting at is that buying for the future is a gamble. If you buy for what works right now, well, at least it works well right now. Having said that, I'm pretty sure you'd be happy with either system. I'm replacing my Thuban with an FX-8120 tonight. Couldn't resist the upgrade bug any longer

[Cigarsmoker]

In layman's terms: Intel is kicking AMD's butt around the block and then some. So much so that AMD have all but thrown in the towel and call uncle. AMD was a generation behind before Bulldozer, unfortunately Bulldozer did not close the performance, efficiency, or thermal gap. With Ivy Bridge coming out later this month it's only going to get worse not better for AMD. Lots and lots of reviews, opinions and article on this if you want to dig deeper.

As mjw21A, said buy for what you want/need now. By the time software catches up and really utilize whatever number of cores are available, IMO, Intel will be there. It'll be cheaper, faster, and more efficient that whatever is available today.

[mjw21a]

^^^ I'd kind of argue that things will stay the same in regards to where AMD and Intel stand in relation to each other. AMD are introducing a new clock mesh which will apparently improve their power efficiency 10% or so and improve clockabillity. They're claiming 10-15% improvement in IPC, which personally I don't believe, I think it may be in the range of 5-10% but even so Ivy Bridge is simply a die shrink so power useage and clockabillity will be the only true improvements. Changes in process will likely cancel each companies changes out.

AMD's Trinity APU is the thing likely to smash Intel for a 6, especially in Photoshop. BIG changes in the GPU side of things with AMD moving from VLIW5 to GCN on the GPGPU side of things, opening up the range of tasks that the GPU can process. Things are set to become VERY interesting in the next year or so. If you keep thinking of just x86 you'll be left behind. x86 is the dinosaur in this and AMD's current x86 architecture shows this. It's a stepping block to what they want to achieve which is truly powerful APU designs. Intel may eventually make fast enough integrated GRAPHICS on their chips, however they're not even close to running GPGPU compute on their graphics architecture. Only nVidia and AMD can pull that off and only AMD has both the x86 and GPU know how to pull this off of the companies involved.

[Cigarsmoker]

Originally Posted by mjw21a

^^^ I'd kind of argue that things will stay the same in regards to where AMD and Intel stand in relation to each other. AMD are introducing a new clock mesh which will apparently improve their power efficiency 10% or so and improve clockabillity. They're claiming 10-15% improvement in IPC, which personally I don't believe, I think it may be in the range of 5-10% but even so Ivy Bridge is simply a die shrink so power useage and clockabillity will be the only true improvements. Changes in process will likely cancel each companies changes out.

Yes, I agree and is also the natural evolution. Ivy Bridge is only a tic with toc coming next year.

Having said that, AMD need to do to Intel what Intel (C2D Conroe) did to AMD (socket 939) when they introduce C2D. Back then AMD was king in terms of efficiency, power, and performance. Otherwise they will continue to remain a generation or two behind.

[mjw21a]

^^^ Lol at that comment. The only reason AMD ever pulled ahead was Intel making decisions for the wrong reason, meaning the P4. The original Athlon was able to scale higher than the P3 due to a longer (2 stages longer I believe) pipeline though it was marginally less efficient than the P3 clock for clock. Game devs were actually using 3dnow instructions and giving a nice performance boost in games of that era.

Intel realising that at that time most people thought a higher MHz rating = higher performance rushed the P4 to market with a massively longer pipeline and far lower efficiency, coupling it with the highest throughput memory of the era (RAMBUS). In certain workloads the P4 did very well but in the majority of tasks it did poorly. Over the next few years Intel worked on ways to drop P4 power use and improve IPC of their design all the while staying in spitting distance of AMD performance wise.

AMD integrated the memory controller with Socket 754 and 939 keeping their performance advantage, eventually going true dual core on S939. AMD started trying to teach people about IPC/efficiency to help sell their chips and explain that their stuff was faster even though clocked significantly slower the Intels chips. In the meantime Intel packaged two separate dies on one package. Likewise, Intel maintained their market share as they were close in performance but also through anti competitive business practices with their rebates to OEM to stayed eclusively with using Intel chips. Dell's a perfect example of this.

In the background Intel had gone back to the good old Pentium Pro/P3 architecture and were quietly implementing the technologies they'd come up with to improve efficiency of the P4. The first effort was their first single core Pentium M for notebooks. It had excellent performance at low clock rate, outperforming both the P4 and AMD's architecture and sipped power rather than guzzling it like the P4 resulting in lower operating temps.

The next step was taking that architecture dual core and introducing it on the desktop, the rest as we know is history. Looking back on things I can see that Intel had an absolutely brilliant strategy to coming out ahead. While it's possible that this was unplanned I don't really believe so.

They artificially hobbled themselves with the awful Pentium 4 architecture, yet were able to use the technologies they came up with trying to fix that to come up with a truly great product in the form of the Core2Duo. By then the public had learned AMD's message about IPC, and now Intel had the performance crown and the highest performance at a lower clock cycle. In effect AMD had done a good job of preparing the masses for the Core2Duo. Intel has built on their success ever since.

By the time Intel lost the court case and settled with AMD for their business practises and made a multi billion dollar payout, it didn't even hurt their profits too much. They still actually made a profit that quarter. Far as I'm concerned, AMD is a great engineering company, however Intel is a truly great company with leaders that have true vision in remaining competitive.

In the past engineering based companies have failed when where others have succeeded. The DEC Alpha would be a perfect example of this. Time will tell us whether history will repeat. Trinity has the real ability to turn things around for AMD, however I'm not sure AMD has the abillity to market this to any real effect and make a success out of it. They're a pure engineering company. To this point in time all their decisions have been based around engineering of a product, however there has been little to no actual strategy as to their operating as a competitive business.

[h4rm0ny]

Don't know if you want to take this as a factor, but AMD have always been friendlier about upgrades than Intel's make you buy a new motherboard every week approach. I know you say you want the system to last five years, but maybe it's possible that a few years from now you want to get a big boost to your system by dropping in a new processor. I think you're more likely to be able to do that with AMD than with Intel.

Also, Intel have pulled some pretty nasty tricks on AMD business-wise, for which they've been convicted in the courts. So you might consider Intel not very nice if you care about such things. I do, and I buy AMD partly because I just don't want to see Intel take over everything.

Either of the solutions you linked to will probably meet your needs.

[mjw21a]

^^^ Very true..... It's one of the main reasons I've stayed with AMD for so long. I do hope they go quad channel with their next socket upgrade (FM2) though. Their APU's could really make use of the added bandwidth.

[DocClock aka MadClocker]

Here at Overclockers.com, we do not care about a companies politics...that's not what we are about. We are all about getting the most bang for the buck (for the present day)..latest & greatest doesn't always equal a killer rig though it usually applies.
If the Intel based mainboard will take a future i7, then you have a slight edge on the future with it....also the extra memory doesn't hurt either.

[DocClock aka MadClocker]

I get the feeling that most of the computing in the future will be done mostly on the video card with their gp/gpu and the main processor being relegated to mostly a go between for the memory bus and the video card...but that's for another thread

[mjw21a]

^^^ You've summed up my beliefs perfectly. Its why I believe AMDs Trinity is such a big step forward. I don't think code will properly utilize it until the second generation though.

You're wrong about company politics though. That more than anything determines which companies survive

[manu2b]

Originally Posted by DocClock aka MadClocker

Here at Overclockers.com, we do not care about a companies politics...that's not what we are about. We are all about getting the most bang for the buck (for the present day)..latest & greatest doesn't always equal a killer rig though it usually applies.
If the Intel based mainboard will take a future i7, then you have a slight edge on the future with it....also the extra memory doesn't hurt either.

It actually depends on what you mean by "bang for the buck".
If talking about raw power, pure performance, then sure: 2500k or 2600k, without even a discussion.
If you mean having fun overclocking and fine tuning, I'd say FX 81x0.
I used to have a 2600k@5GHz 24/7. It took me around 2 days to find the best bios settings (vCore, Offset, LLC...), and then, boredom started showing its face...
I am about to get a FX-8120, and according to what I've read on many websites/forums (including this one), these chips look pretty interesting from an OC'er point of view.

Of course, I like raw power, and I shall likely get an IB in september, but meanwhile, I'll have a lot of fun fine tuning this BD.

And even if it's not on par with a 2x00K, it's still good enough for what I do (gaming/creative Suite/Office/Multimedia...).

But yes, if the OP wants to keep his rig for some years, I believe SB/IB is the way to go.