SOLVED AMD FX-8120 or 8350?

[Theocnoob]

USA prices for either the Intel or the AMD setup. You can compare what is available to you in your country where you can buy and decide what you may wish to purchase. Either 8-core combination should do well for your inteded use overall. I don't care what you buy and I do not suggest Intel in an AMD forum section unless the user is a gamer only. Where you wish to do considerable video editting, the AMD rig will serve you well for that and not be excessively off the pace in gaming. Good luck.

$339.99 Intel Core i7-4770K Haswell 3.5GHz LGA 1150 84W Quad-Core Desktop Processor Intel HD Graphics BX80646I74770K 4-core with Hyperthreading to appear as 8 core. Unlocked multiplier.

$239.99 Intel Core i5-4670K Haswell 3.4GHz LGA 1150 84W Quad-Core Desktop Processor Intel HD Graphics BX80646I54670K 4-core. Unlocked multiplier.

$189.99 ASRock Z87 Extreme4/TB4 LGA 1150 Intel Z87 HDMI SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 ATX Intel Motherboard
OR
$194.99 ASUS Z87-PRO LGA 1150 Intel Z87 HDMI SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 ATX Intel Motherboard

$34.99 Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO - CPU Cooler with 120 mm PWM Fan



$159.99 AMD FX-8320 Vishera 3.5GHz (4.0GHz Turbo) Socket AM3+ 125W Eight-Core Desktop Processor FD8320FRHKBOX 4-module/8-core processor. Unlocked multiplier. Change multiplier to 20x for 4.0Ghz. Not a problem with either motherboard shown below.

4670K- $239+130= $369 for board and cpu

8350-

$184.49 ASUS SABERTOOTH 990FX R2.0 AM3+ AMD 990FX SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 ATX AMD Motherboard with UEFI BIOS
OR
$179.99 ASRock 990FX Extreme9 AM3+ AMD 990FX SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 ATX AMD Motherboard with UEFI BIOS

$34.99 Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO - CPU Cooler with 120 mm PWM Fan << You could add a second fan like the one that comes with the cooler for 'added' cooling when used with the FX 8 core processor.

IMO you're misrepresenting the cost of the Intel setup because you could easily run those chips on a $130 Z87-A and still get a decent OC.

239+130 (4670K)=369

184+159 (8320)=343

That's only 26 dollars more for the Intel system.

 

[RGone]

Theocnoob, you know I really don't care what you think about my suggestion for a mobo. Mis-representing something? Do you work for Intel? It certainly sounds like it the way you have whined about the OP not going Intel.

I put up some Intel boards I would have interest in and that is where suggestions really come from. If I wouldn't have the thing, then why would I recommend it to one of my buds or even to an unknown in a forum. And then in the end I told him I would still go for the FX-8320 and either of the boards shown. I am not pushing OP to go Intel lke you seem to be, as if you were an Intel sales rep or something.
RGone...

 

[Kamel]

I haven't read every post, but I've tried to read as much as I can...

I'd just like to say that OP, I sympathize with you. I have been in a very similar situation as you, just wanting to get the best bang for your buck.

I'm absolutely not a fanboy of any kind, but I have AMD tendencies because they usually offer better value in my opinion. I've always been on the cheapskate side of the fence, and I've found with Intel it's more difficult to achieve cheapskate status. Having said that, I respect Intel and if I had limitless money I would without hesitation go full Intel (unless I decided to do extreme cooling, which if money weren't an obstacle, I guess that's what would happen so I guess I would still go AMD)

Regardless, I'd just like to give you a cut and dry recommendation based on the following conditions:
1) You're interested in "future-proofing" your PC
2) Gaming is a part of what you do, but not the only way you will utilize your powerful processor
3) Value or "bang for your buck" is important to you
4) Even though bang for your buck is important, you also want to spend as little as possible yet still get a very decent performer
5) You really don't want to do advanced overclocking because you're new, you'd like a "set it and forget it" solution that runs really well

Here is my extremely specific recommendation...
1) FX-8320 - this will save you some coin
2) Cooler Master EVO CPU cooler - invest your saved coin on a decent cooler
3) ASUS Sabertooth 990fx

When you get it all and put it together, get some help like you did here on a simple yet effective overclock.

With this hardware, you "should" easily be able to attain 4.25ghz on all 8 cores all the time, no overdrive or other gimmicks. If you get lucky, you might even be able to get up to 4.5ghz on air. Then there's always the chance you could get extremely unlucky and get a unit that wont quite hit the 4.25ghz but I seriously doubt that. Once you get your overclock done, you'll be fast, happy, and cheap and never look back.

You may find reviews and users who say they can't do anything over 4ghz stable with the same cooler. Just keep in mind this is because of the motherboard. When I had a cheap motherboard temporarily powering my 8320, the best overclock I could get was 4.0ghz stable 4.2ghz almost stable and that was with water cooling (see sig).

I would like to stress again that the glue that holds all of my recommendations together is the motherboard. If you're not going to go for a decent motherboard, then the value just wont be there. Especially if you're hoping for longevity. I do not recommend getting an fx8320 or fx8350 with a cheap motherboard at all, don't do it.

And, now that I finish what I thought was a well thought out post it looks like RGone has basically made the EXACT same recommendation LOL! I am still posting this, because I took the effort to write it.

 

[Theocnoob]

Theocnoob, you know I really don't care what you think about my suggestion for a mobo. Mis-representing something? Do you work for Intel? It certainly sounds like it the way you have whined about the OP not going Intel.

I said mis-representing because you were suggesting $180 motherboards for the 4670K when it can be shot to the moon on a $130 board. That's all. No need to get upset.

No I do not work for Intel, nor do I know anybody who does. I like 4 powerful cores over 8 not so powerful cores. Doesn't mean I'm an Intel fanboy. I just like their stuff better at this particular moment in time.

 

[Brigapes]

I haven't read every post, but I've tried to read as much as I can...

I'd just like to say that OP, I sympathize with you. I have been in a very similar situation as you, just wanting to get the best bang for your buck.

I'm absolutely not a fanboy of any kind, but I have AMD tendencies because they usually offer better value in my opinion. I've always been on the cheapskate side of the fence, and I've found with Intel it's more difficult to achieve cheapskate status. Having said that, I respect Intel and if I had limitless money I would without hesitation go full Intel (unless I decided to do extreme cooling, which if money weren't an obstacle, I guess that's what would happen so I guess I would still go AMD)

Regardless, I'd just like to give you a cut and dry recommendation based on the following conditions:
1) You're interested in "future-proofing" your PC
2) Gaming is a part of what you do, but not the only way you will utilize your powerful processor
3) Value or "bang for your buck" is important to you
4) Even though bang for your buck is important, you also want to spend as little as possible yet still get a very decent performer
5) You really don't want to do advanced overclocking because you're new, you'd like a "set it and forget it" solution that runs really well

Here is my extremely specific recommendation...
1) FX-8320 - this will save you some coin
2) Cooler Master EVO CPU cooler - invest your saved coin on a decent cooler
3) ASUS Sabertooth 990fx

When you get it all and put it together, get some help like you did here on a simple yet effective overclock.

With this hardware, you "should" easily be able to attain 4.25ghz on all 8 cores all the time, no overdrive or other gimmicks. If you get lucky, you might even be able to get up to 4.5ghz on air. Then there's always the chance you could get extremely unlucky and get a unit that wont quite hit the 4.25ghz but I seriously doubt that. Once you get your overclock done, you'll be fast, happy, and cheap and never look back.

You may find reviews and users who say they can't do anything over 4ghz stable with the same cooler. Just keep in mind this is because of the motherboard. When I had a cheap motherboard temporarily powering my 8320, the best overclock I could get was 4.0ghz stable 4.2ghz almost stable and that was with water cooling (see sig).

I would like to stress again that the glue that holds all of my recommendations together is the motherboard. If you're not going to go for a decent motherboard, then the value just wont be there. Especially if you're hoping for longevity. I do not recommend getting an fx8320 or fx8350 with a cheap motherboard at all, don't do it.

And, now that I finish what I thought was a well thought out post it looks like RGone has basically made the EXACT same recommendation LOL! I am still posting this, because I took the effort to write it.

Yes you got it all right , except the 5th statement, as i said faor "future" i also meant to get more money and overclock it more, ths is what i basicly meant too, and i dont like "Set it and forget it" setup, i like PC modding(pimping) and putting new stuff.

Now as much as i heard all the poeple who went FX road were satisfied, and thanks RGone for pointing it out that 2011 socket requires like a 200€ motherboard.

It is very important for me that i get a right setup for the future, for example, after the 8320 doesnt run as well i would replace it with newq FX CPU, but here's the problem, as i think they will no longer make new FX CPU's - Almost dead socket. So i am planning to buy something that will work the way, also because i really burned my hands when i bought Nvidia GTX 650 Ti AMP! OC Edition(Dont get me wrong is SUPER AWESOME GPU), but IT DOESNT SUPPORT SLI, for which i will be needing a new GPU someday instead just connecting it into SLI and get better performance. Thats's why i was thinking a bit about Intel since they got alot 1150 or 1155 socket CPU's and still going meanwhile FX AM3+ is basicly almost dead with 972 pins(I think is 972 pins)

So I THINK i will probably go with 8320 stock speed, and upgrade to a good cooler later, probably expensive one, i think, and OC it with some guidance help. While there's another question, how good is water cooling? Better than normal fan cooling? Cooler Master is recommended allot. And Noctua.

Oh yeah, remeber when i said i don't know much about CPU's? Well, do they all come diffrent with diffrent voltages? (Sorry for me beign stupid about that kinda stuff, that's why i came for help)

And i'm so sorry about the grammar.

 

[RGone]

I will try and say this as well as I can having seen it far far too many times.

The worst, hardest, most nearly useless thing to try and do in computer land is to look hard at future proofing. At least over the last 18 years or so. Things just change too fast. Technology maybe slowing but looking ahead is almost a thankless task.

Intel regularly changes the cpu socket dictating a whole new motherboard for the newer cpu platform. This will not change. Intel cpus are priced sort of like $300.00 then $600.00 then +$1000.00 for the big boy in their performance lineup. I will not be going to a thousand dollars for a cpu in my lifetime, that I know of.

We all tend to believe that AMD will bring the 'streamroller' cpu in AM3+ socket for one last cpu for that socket. Likely in March or a little later in 2014. Odds are that will be the last cpu for AMD desktop processors as we know them. AMD is more than likely going all APU for their cpus including server style cpus as I basically read their road map. Of course things can change or be modified as time goes on. They must make some money and desktop cpus of any brand are on the downhill path.

If you want Intel get the act like 8 core 4770K cpu and a good board and the correct video card for SLi. Job done. All you need is the money. Then you can play change out ram, video cards or add more cooling. Still Job Done.

But future-proofing? The most thankless endeavor one can seek to attain.
RGone...

 

[caddi daddi]

+1 Rgone.
that is why I try to tell people in this forum to hold off on buying into am3+ and go the apu route.
I am going to hold out for steamroller only because I am all am3+ but beyond that I am looking to apu's or going intel.

If you NEED 8 cores for multi threaded apps, then by all means go am3+ with an 8xxx or 9 xxx processor if not, look elsewhere.

sli, crossfire, as far as I can tell your better off with a better, single card and cheaper also.
my 2 7770 cards in crossfire are still much less than my single 7850.

 

[Kamel]

IMHO the am/2+/3/3+ socket is probably one of the longest running socket types ever, and one of few that could change socket type with a simple bios update.

Having said that, I do believe am+ has reached the end of its rope. If you want future proof wait for the next socket and jump on it. Then you just have to hope it will have the longevity that the am socket had. There are no guarantees in that game. In the end even if the socket is compatible I have a feeling you'd want to upgrade the mobo too anyway

 

[manu2b]

I'll grab a SR when they're out.

But if we are talking "bang for buck", staying with AMD, I'd get a good 990FX mobo (ST, Extreme 9...) and go with a used 1090t/1100t.

They are dirt cheap in Europe right now.

Heck, 3 months ago, I got a 1 year old 1100T for €75 incl. shipping.

These little things are beast and they all do 4GHz+ with a decent air cooling.

 

[neo668]

I haven't read the whole thread but would like to add my 2 cents.

Games are evolving to using more than 4 cores (take BF4 for example) unless you intend to play old games only. In this respect, 4-core CPUs, like the i5, might soon not be up for it. You will need at least an i7. Or, AMD.

 

[manu2b]

Yes and no.

If the Intel IPC is still much higher than the AMD one, 4 Intel cores will still be as good as 6 or 8 AMD ones.

Steamroller should bring some nice IPC improvement though.

 

[neo668]

I'm no expert (that's why I'm here) and only look at things from an ordinary user's point of view.

If you go to Game Debate to look up the hardware requirements for BF4, it recommends "Core i7-930 Quad 2.80GHz" or "Phenom II X6 1055T". Nowhere is the i5 mentioned.

I'm also looking forward to Steamroller. Hope it will retain the AM3+ socket.

 

[manu2b]

http://m.techspot.com/review/734-battlefield-4-benchmarks/page6.html


[email protected] does better than a 8350@4GHz.

Twice less cores and 18% lower frequency.

 

[neo668]

What I'm trying to say, I think, is that in future, games will rely more on the number of cores/threads rather than the efficiency/performance of the core.

 

[manu2b]

^I agree, but, still, higher IPC compensates for the lower amount of cores.

 

[neo668]

I agree with you completely. Intel 4 cores = AMD 6 cores. But what if the game needs 7 - 8, or over, cores?

 

[Kamel]

I think we've just entered a gray area in the CPU industry of something as basic as the definition of what a core is in the first place.

The bulldozer archetecture is a genius design, but applications have to be aware of its strengths and shortcommings in order to be able to fully utilize its capabilities.

The fact that hyperthreading works in the first place is proof that optimization of software to better utilize the hardware is essential and has a big impact on end user speeds.

The problem is, things are very new, unstandardized, and rapidly changing. When the CPU world "settles down" with respect to the design of multi core processors, we will begin to see games coded specifically to take advantage of these things. for example, if AMD abandons the BD "1 module, 2 cores, shared cache" design, then it wouldn't make sense for a game dev to ever optimize their game to utilize that design. If instead it becomes widely adopted, more software optimization will occur and in the end the end users will win out.

To say what will happen is like saying you can predict the future though - you can't. Reasonably, someone who knows insider info at AMD might have a better shot at it, but even they wont be able to predict the success and adoption rate of newer archetectures without a reasonable margin of error.

In the end, I think eventually we will come to a standardized idea of what's known as a core, how the OS is to handle such a thing, and how the apps should be designed to take advantage of it. it's like any new technology - when it's first out, standardization obviously won't have occured yet. It's after the dust falls and standards are made that the software will catch up with the hardware.

 

[RGone]

Kamel that is a pretty good description of many situations as things are moving technologically. Good show man.
RGone...ster.

I think we've just entered a gray area in the CPU industry of something as basic as the definition of what a core is in the first place.

The bulldozer archetecture is a genius design, but applications have to be aware of its strengths and shortcommings in order to be able to fully utilize its capabilities.

The fact that hyperthreading works in the first place is proof that optimization of software to better utilize the hardware is essential and has a big impact on end user speeds.

The problem is, things are very new, unstandardized, and rapidly changing. When the CPU world "settles down" with respect to the design of multi core processors, we will begin to see games coded specifically to take advantage of these things. for example, if AMD abandons the BD "1 module, 2 cores, shared cache" design, then it wouldn't make sense for a game dev to ever optimize their game to utilize that design. If instead it becomes widely adopted, more software optimization will occur and in the end the end users will win out.

To say what will happen is like saying you can predict the future though - you can't. Reasonably, someone who knows insider info at AMD might have a better shot at it, but even they wont be able to predict the success and adoption rate of newer archetectures without a reasonable margin of error.

In the end, I think eventually we will come to a standardized idea of what's known as a core, how the OS is to handle such a thing, and how the apps should be designed to take advantage of it. it's like any new technology - when it's first out, standardization obviously won't have occured yet. It's after the dust falls and standards are made that the software will catch up with the hardware.

 

[peanutbudder]

 

[Theocnoob]

http://m.techspot.com/review/734-battlefield-4-benchmarks/page6.html


[email protected] does better than a 8350@4GHz.

Twice less cores and 18% lower frequency.

Hi five to my fellow Intel pusher!