please let it be known that I always have and always will continue to buy whatever is the best TCO (total cost of ownership) for my budget at the time, and have been buying NEW pc parts and building my own since my first, a 486-133 and used since 8088.
sad but trueInteresting how you carefully nitpick words and phrases even from past posts to discredit someone and tag him as biased, fanboy,troll etc so to brighten up yourself as unbiased, do you use this tactic in your workplace too? :biggrin:
please let it be known that I always have and always will continue to buy whatever is the best TCO (total cost of ownership) for my budget at the time, and have been buying NEW pc parts and building my own since my first, a 486-133 and used since 8088. I have a thuban x6 overclocked as my primary gamer, but my previous machine was a q6600@3GHz, and I would not have upgraded from that had I not needed sata 3 and more than pcie 1.0 x1 slots. Also that I just found a core 2 quad 3ghz and am building my ultimate core 2 box, because I miss it and totally loved it.
With that said, and with me being a disabled X computer tech and computer hardware enthusiast; having messed with far newer equipment than I myself own, I must say that for the money the amd fx series is still the best performance even with the niggles like slower sata 3 performance on the integrated controller. When you compare dollar for dollar on cleverly parted together systems, amd is just so much faster per dollar of TCO than intel... but once you go beyond that, AMD has nothin' and the i7 are just mopping the floor with anyone that tries to claim competing speeds.
For budget performance, AMD has the best in terms of TCO when you intelligently build systems... beyond that, Intel is all that's out there and they have insanely fast stuff. I recommend whatever is the best TCO within your budget at the time... and always have, since the days of the 386 onward.
And honestly, I get so sick of people either accusing me seriously of being a fangirl of one or the other, or try to tell me that my decision is based on shallow things instead of a deep amount of research into the TCO and customer needs at that budget. I can be wrong, sure, and when it's shown to me I accept it, learn, and move on thankful for the increased knowledge... but almost all the time it's just joe blow arguing with the ASE certified car mechanic about how she should do her job because he must know more than she does about how she makes her living.
Power consumption is part of TCO. It doesn't take too many years of usage before a 100W delta in power usage blows your TCO-justified pro-AMD budget position.
Where I live I pay $0.13/kWHr, but it is air-conditioned. So every watt of extra power and heat dissipated into the air inside my house is yet another watt of heat that must be removed by the heat pump, which is about a 1W to 1W efficiency deal.
So that extra 100W power delta from my 8350 at the wall translates into roughly an extra 200W of power I am paying for on my utility bill.
Now if I conservatively estimate my loading usage at a mere 8hrs per day (my apps of interest actually run 24/7 full load), then the TCO for my 8350 rig requires accounting for the additional $75/year power-bill footprint.
Or I could buy a 3770k (as I did), lower my power footprint by 200W (accounting for the lessened AC overhead), and get higher performance to boot, in exchange for paying out an extra $130 up front. The TCO here is heavily in favor of the 3770k if I plan to use the computer for 2yrs or more.
The only time you can make a TCO-justified argument that measures up to being in favor of the less expensive but higher power consuming AMD processors is when the usage scenarios are crafted to heavily favor long idle periods where the computer is essentially going unused.
And if that is the expected usage scenario, that you are going to buy a 4GHz 8-core computer only to have it sit idle 95% of the day then one really should be questioning the need for the computer purchase in the first place at that point because your TCO would be much more in favor of getting something used on craigslist then.
Power consumption is part of TCO. It doesn't take too many years of usage before a 100W delta in power usage blows your TCO-justified pro-AMD budget position.
Where I live I pay $0.13/kWHr, but it is air-conditioned. So every watt of extra power and heat dissipated into the air inside my house is yet another watt of heat that must be removed by the heat pump, which is about a 1W to 1W efficiency deal.
So that extra 100W power delta from my 8350 at the wall translates into roughly an extra 200W of power I am paying for on my utility bill.
Now if I conservatively estimate my loading usage at a mere 8hrs per day (my apps of interest actually run 24/7 full load), then the TCO for my 8350 rig requires accounting for the additional $75/year power-bill footprint.
Or I could buy a 3770k (as I did), lower my power footprint by 200W (accounting for the lessened AC overhead), and get higher performance to boot, in exchange for paying out an extra $130 up front. The TCO here is heavily in favor of the 3770k if I plan to use the computer for 2yrs or more.
The only time you can make a TCO-justified argument that measures up to being in favor of the less expensive but higher power consuming AMD processors is when the usage scenarios are crafted to heavily favor long idle periods where the computer is essentially going unused.
And if that is the expected usage scenario, that you are going to buy a 4GHz 8-core computer only to have it sit idle 95% of the day then one really should be questioning the need for the computer purchase in the first place at that point because your TCO would be much more in favor of getting something used on craigslist then.
Power consumption is part of TCO. It doesn't take too many years of usage before a 100W delta in power usage blows your TCO-justified pro-AMD budget position.
Where I live I pay $0.13/kWHr, but it is air-conditioned. So every watt of extra power and heat dissipated into the air inside my house is yet another watt of heat that must be removed by the heat pump, which is about a 1W to 1W efficiency deal.
So that extra 100W power delta from my 8350 at the wall translates into roughly an extra 200W of power I am paying for on my utility bill.
Now if I conservatively estimate my loading usage at a mere 8hrs per day (my apps of interest actually run 24/7 full load), then the TCO for my 8350 rig requires accounting for the additional $75/year power-bill footprint.
Or I could buy a 3770k (as I did), lower my power footprint by 200W (accounting for the lessened AC overhead), and get higher performance to boot, in exchange for paying out an extra $130 up front. The TCO here is heavily in favor of the 3770k if I plan to use the computer for 2yrs or more.
The only time you can make a TCO-justified argument that measures up to being in favor of the less expensive but higher power consuming AMD processors is when the usage scenarios are crafted to heavily favor long idle periods where the computer is essentially going unused.
And if that is the expected usage scenario, that you are going to buy a 4GHz 8-core computer only to have it sit idle 95% of the day then one really should be questioning the need for the computer purchase in the first place at that point because your TCO would be much more in favor of getting something used on craigslist then.
I could be doing my math wrong but it seems cooling efficiency in the US for modern cooling units is ~3:1.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seasonal_energy_efficiency_ratio
http://www.rapidtables.com/convert/power/BTU_to_Watt.htm
I believe I said it in another thread, I think the FX-6300 is a nice chip even with using more power under load than the competing Intel alternative. With that tier of chip I can imagine quite a few scenarios where TCO and performance are a good fit. Not so much with the 8300 series, that to me has fewer scenarios mostly involving a personal need for a multi-threaded value option.
Now if Piledriver->Steamroller is at least as nice as Bulldozer->Piledriver and comes in a 4+ module AM3+ variety I'll probably have to get one to replace the 1090T.
I'm not pro anything but isn't the mobo also on avg a lot cheaper. But as someone who keeps their pc on 24/7 I feel I should have gone the intel route also.
That is not a budget build IMO - the luxury of air conditioning alters it considerably, as you have shown. that is not what I would call a budget system or scenario. I do agree that some places air conditioning is a necessity, such as las vegas. I wrote that while I was... muddled by vicodin and severe pain.Power consumption is part of TCO. It doesn't take too many years of usage before a 100W delta in power usage blows your TCO-justified pro-AMD budget position.
Where I live I pay $0.13/kWHr, but it is air-conditioned. So every watt of extra power and heat dissipated into the air inside my house is yet another watt of heat that must be removed by the heat pump, which is about a 1W to 1W efficiency deal.
So that extra 100W power delta from my 8350 at the wall translates into roughly an extra 200W of power I am paying for on my utility bill.
24/7 full load is a server style load, I was actually meaning consumer style loads, I apologize for not saying that, I was really out of it and left a lot out.Now if I conservatively estimate my loading usage at a mere 8hrs per day (my apps of interest actually run 24/7 full load), then the TCO for my 8350 rig requires accounting for the additional $75/year power-bill footprint.
Most budget builds go for less expensive parts which will account for using cheaper parts and saving more... again this isn't quite what I had meant, and I was really out of it, you make another good point which I will concede I was too out of it when typing that to explain my views on.Or I could buy a 3770k (as I did), lower my power footprint by 200W (accounting for the lessened AC overhead), and get higher performance to boot, in exchange for paying out an extra $130 up front. The TCO here is heavily in favor of the 3770k if I plan to use the computer for 2yrs or more.
My system sits mostly idle most of the time - except when I need the heat to help heat my apartment. When I do, I run folding@home. I was actually accounting for that, but I realize now that I am not so much out of it that many people will not. I was also concede, as I said, discounting high usage scenarios when the waste heat would double up the power bill with air conditioning... I was talking about an entire budget scenario, where someone would not run AC and run their computer 24/7 high load at the same time because their financial situation and computing needs situation were more desktop oriented than server oriented and their budget does not allow AC at all... or merely doing such activities while the AC is on.The only time you can make a TCO-justified argument that measures up to being in favor of the less expensive but higher power consuming AMD processors is when the usage scenarios are crafted to heavily favor long idle periods where the computer is essentially going unused.
And if that is the expected usage scenario, that you are going to buy a 4GHz 8-core computer only to have it sit idle 95% of the day then one really should be questioning the need for the computer purchase in the first place at that point because your TCO would be much more in favor of getting something used on craigslist then.
I can see what you're saying, and it makes sense to some degree. What I have trouble believing is that air-conditioning can be so inefficient. That would be astronomical power usage with just a few computers. I currently pay 14.54p p/kWh to add more numbers to the discussion.
EDIT: Not saying your numbers are incorrect.
I could be doing my math wrong but it seems cooling efficiency in the US for modern cooling units is ~3:1.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seasonal_energy_efficiency_ratio
http://www.rapidtables.com/convert/power/BTU_to_Watt.htm
I believe I said it in another thread, I think the FX-6300 is a nice chip even with using more power under load than the competing Intel alternative. With that tier of chip I can imagine quite a few scenarios where TCO and performance are a good fit. Not so much with the 8300 series, that to me has fewer scenarios mostly involving a personal need for a multi-threaded value option.
Now if Piledriver->Steamroller is at least as nice as Bulldozer->Piledriver and comes in a 4+ module AM3+ variety I'll probably have to get one to replace the 1090T.
True, my AC has an EER of 5.4.....super efficient. So really cheap to run. Energy price = € 0.30/kwhr.If other people can remove 100W from their house with the added expense of a mere 30W then more power to them, but they paid for that privilege by buying a nice spendy heatpump unit. Efficiency isn't free or cheap.
That is not a budget build IMO - the luxury of air conditioning alters it considerably, as you have shown. that is not what I would call a budget system or scenario. I do agree that some places air conditioning is a necessity, such as las vegas. I wrote that while I was... muddled by vicodin and severe pain.
24/7 full load is a server style load, I was actually meaning consumer style loads, I apologize for not saying that, I was really out of it and left a lot out.
Most budget builds go for less expensive parts which will account for using cheaper parts and saving more... again this isn't quite what I had meant, and I was really out of it, you make another good point which I will concede I was too out of it when typing that to explain my views on.
My system sits mostly idle most of the time - except when I need the heat to help heat my apartment. When I do, I run folding@home. I was actually accounting for that, but I realize now that I am not so much out of it that many people will not. I was also concede, as I said, discounting high usage scenarios when the waste heat would double up the power bill with air conditioning... I was talking about an entire budget scenario, where someone would not run AC and run their computer 24/7 high load at the same time because their financial situation and computing needs situation were more desktop oriented than server oriented and their budget does not allow AC at all... or merely doing such activities while the AC is on.
I'm sorry Idontcare, I really was out of it, and I didn't fully explain my case, as well as overstated it. Had I posted it while I was not really out of it I would have explained what I meant by budget scenarios far more meticulously - again this seems to be another situation where our definition of a term is in conflict, that being a budget build... and again yes I was quite out of it while writing that post and I will concede that I overstated my case.
No hard feelings, and I do hope you see my point I was trying to make now that I am posting more clear details?
Well I just checked to be sure and electricity prices aren't much different from 2003-5 and now once you take into account inflation. But for some odd reason a lot of review sites weren't too concerned about checking how much power a Pentium 4 used. ;p
Also there were a lot more content creating programs (quite a few rendering programs and scenarios) tested in those days. Which I do find a bit odd in that you'd think there would be more of that in modern reviews given the big jump in realism/detail. Perhaps there was a lot of interest at the time because it was a relatively new use for home systems where as today it's back in the hands of specialists? The game coverage has increased generally.
The same rationale applies to CFL vs incandescent lights. You can buy a 25W CFL or a 100W regular bulb and get roughly the same brightness. Other issues aside (dimming, mercury, lifespan etc.) the CFL is more expensive up front which makes it less appealing. But strictly from a power perspective you will often recover the cost through lower power bills over time depending on how much it's lit and the savings from less wasted heat and its effect on your cooling system.
However, depending on where you live, it is possible that if you require heating anyway, the regular bulbs may not be a big deal since the "waste" may keep your heaters running less. Similarly, an overclocked AMD FX could heat a small room and if that means not needing to run a heater, it's no problem
In general though, less heat is most flexible if you switch between heating and cooling.