I'll summarize my earlier post. Right now the benefit AMD has is if you really, really, really hate Intel this is your option.
Problem with AMD in the CPU space right now is little reason to buy one other than hating Intel with a passion. I built a FX6350 machine two years ago, its been a dog from day 1 with a dead Mb. Since then I've had 2 more fail, even an Asus one. Don't say its my power supply I have a antech 620 watt in it. Two month's ago the front USB port died, maybe its the case, maybe its the motherboard. I will always go Intel until AMD gets consistent fabulous reviews.
I'd have thought so, but no. I'll check memory usage every once in awhile when my browser is open forever and the browser will be well over 1gb so I'll close it and reopen it.
I don't think I've had any game or any other program go over 1.5 gb usage. Video encoding takes up about 500 mb usually and I'm never encoding more than one program at a time. Sometimes I'll end up with a TV show I've recorded that I have to resave if there are some recording issues (which happens more than I'd like) and it can hit over 1gb if the fix takes a long time.
But I'd never game, encode, fix a recording, do photo editing, and web surf with a dozen tabs open at the same time. I don't have that many hands though that might eat up all my RAM.
Oh, I found one website, gamegpu.ru, that tested 12 games in January of this year. I think the games were all recent games. Unfortunately there was no 6600 or 6700. They did test a 4770k ($310), a 4670K ($240 for the 4690),a 2600K, 2500K, an 8350, and a few other processors.
I disagree. Obviously most others here do too. If everyone is recommending not to do what he is thinking about doing, there's a good reason for it. I think what you're suggesting is a much bigger disservice then the info OP received. Obviously no one is going to convince anyone else which is the better method. I will continue to give the advise I feel is most beneficial, even if it's not *exactly* what the OP asked unless stated that they are under any conditions, interested in any other product besides the ones they are asking about.
So basically you are saying the posters in this forum should only recommend the better of two inferior options and ignore the best option, correct? If you went to the doctor and asked whether you should take aspirin or tylenol, but really needed an antibiotic he should still only consider the two choices you proposed?
You are right that buying right computer for gaming is not as life dependent situation, but otherwise it is, computers do control tasks that if not performed correctly could endanger lives and most of those carry same x86 CPU you buy in retail box for your custom rig. Transport, manufacturing, medical, energy and military operations where lives are at stake everyday are controlled vastly by x86 computers. Questionable reliability of AMD processors and chipsets is why Intel is preferred in professional industry sectors as well. It's not just IPC or TDP we are taking into account, it's about getting a good product, once you are not recommending someone a good product you are doing that person a disservice. Everyone in this thread beside you came to conclusion that skylake i5 is good product for the OP. It is a fact you cannot change, deal with it.What I'm saying is, make the effort to stay on topic. Try to treat the OP as something other than completely ignorant when they don't fit the mold of what you think people should be doing. Too many people around here assume that buying AMD is a sign of complete insanity. And don't conflate this forum's activity with offering medical advice. There's a big difference between someone "buying the right computer" and a life-or-death situation.
Also, none of us are medical doctors, or the equivalent . . . good grief.
If you are buying a new system, then please don't buy an FX chip. The platform is very dated, the CPUs are inefficient and have weak single-threaded performance, and frankly your money can be better spent on an Intel setup.
I suggest a cheap H110 board and a nice Skylake i5 or better.
I don't blame you for hating dead boards. A lot of those AM3+ boards are terrible in one way or another. Too many of them are 4+1 setups. Yeah you can run an underclocked, undervolted (or e-designated) 4m chip on one, but most enthusiast users want a little more, and that blows up weak VRMs.
The board situation for FM2+ is also a mine field, albeit for different reasons. Mostly folks who can't get the most clockspeed out of their chips.
Going Intel is an easy way to get better board quality overall. Not to say that there aren't any lemons. And that's something the OP has to think about critically: don't get suckered into buying a bad AM3+ board (like the MSI 970 Gaming, ugh).
Okay, if 8Gb works for you then you can stick with it on AM3+. You can also probably use it in an Intel rig if you go that way, just get something LGA1150. The 4460 ain't bad.
You also need to take into account overclocking, if you are willing to go down that road. It'll change things a little depending on how much clockspeed headroom is given to which chip. You'll find that most users that can OC run their FX chips at around 4.5-4.7 GHz depending on their board choice. 4.6 GHz is a fairly reasonable goal. The real thing you need to look at is minimum fps. What's the minimum you're willing to tolerate at your chosen resolution? Intel rigs tend to have better minimum FPS overall (not counting stuff like the G3258, but that's not even in play here). You'll need to pump up your clockspeed, NB speed, and memory speed/lower timings to get that min FPS as high as you can on an FX system. If 30 fps min is acceptable to you, you can probably make the FX work under a lot of circumstances. Something tells me you haven't been shooting for 60 fps minimum with that old 965 . . .
Intel chips can (sometimes) OC by quite a bit (especially the 2500k and 2600k), and post-OC the Intel rigs often open up their lead depending on which one you're talking about. Stuff like the 4770k and 4790k have less headroom.
As long as you get the right board, that FX chip can still get you decent minimums. Which board are you looking to get? Be very careful about AM3+ board choice. When in doubt, get the 970a-ud3p. It ain't perfect but it gets you something better than 4+1 power phase.
So this forum is a pro-Intel echo chamber that foments a pro-AMD insurgency that uses every possible thread to start fights over obscure edge cases.
It's so much better to ignore the OP and push personal agendas instead. Wait, no it isn't.
What I'm saying is, make the effort to stay on topic. Try to treat the OP as something other than completely ignorant when they don't fit the mold of what you think people should be doing. Too many people around here assume that buying AMD is a sign of complete insanity. And don't conflate this forum's activity with offering medical advice. There's a big difference between someone "buying the right computer" and a life-or-death situation.
Also, none of us are medical doctors, or the equivalent . . . good grief.
Out of curiosity, what exactly more does the H110 has over a nice 970 AM3+ motherboard like this $72 Asrock ???
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813157688
The AMD platform is over 5 years old. I get you're a fan, but how can you actually recommend somebody spend money on it? You are well aware of its shortcomings.
You want me to compare a chipset to to a motherboard? Does not compute.
Compare any H110 motherboard (any one you like) to the one i posted above, its not that hard to do.
That ASRock board is one of the best perf/$ boards there is currently on the market. Yeah it needs more power to run things, and you require a dGPU for it as well. That's about the only shortcomings that I have found with that board.Compare any H110 motherboard (any one you like) to the one i posted above, its not that hard to do.
So this forum is a pro-Intel echo chamber that foments a pro-AMD insurgency that uses every possible thread to start fights over obscure edge cases.
It's so much better to ignore the OP and push personal agendas instead. Wait, no it isn't.
Out of curiosity, what exactly more does the H110 has over a nice 970 AM3+ motherboard like this $72 Asrock ???
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813157688
The AMD platform is over 6 years old. I get you're a fan, but how can you actually recommend somebody spend money on it? You are well aware of its shortcomings, such as its power consumption.
I am thinking of completely upgrading my 2010 era PC. And by upgrading I mean completely buying new everything and relegating the old machine to a dedicated Win 7 HTPC.
I plan on buying an 8370 because 1. I'm partial to AMD and 2. it's a good deal with a free game that I'd buy anyway (TW:Warhammer) and a decent stock cooler. That's like $80 saved. I rarely buy games new, but I do with Total War and I was about to pull the trigger at Steam for the latest version when I noticed I can get the 8370 with TW:Warhammer for free.
So, for me, the $200 COU price is really something like $200 - $60 (game) - $20 (cooler I don't have to buy) = $120.
I assume $120 makes even this AMD chip decent. But what equivalent Intel chip is the 8370 similar to. I've been out of the loop so long I can't really tell. Or, what percentage of performance will the AMD chip give me compared to whatever Intel chip is the one all the cool kids are buying for their gaming machines?
Also, does the AMD chip have a comparative advantage in anything? I plan on encoding a lot and that uses multiple threads. Is the AMD going to be decent with that?
Oh, my current CPU is Phenom II X4 965 and, as I said, it'll stay with my old machine.
Thanks for any assistance.
I am thinking of completely upgrading my 2010 era PC. And by upgrading I mean completely buying new everything and relegating the old machine to a dedicated Win 7 HTPC.
I plan on buying an 8370 because 1. I'm partial to AMD and 2. it's a good deal with a free game that I'd buy anyway (TW:Warhammer) and a decent stock cooler. That's like $80 saved. I rarely buy games new, but I do with Total War and I was about to pull the trigger at Steam for the latest version when I noticed I can get the 8370 with TW:Warhammer for free.
So, for me, the $200 COU price is really something like $200 - $60 (game) - $20 (cooler I don't have to buy) = $120.
I assume $120 makes even this AMD chip decent. But what equivalent Intel chip is the 8370 similar to. I've been out of the loop so long I can't really tell. Or, what percentage of performance will the AMD chip give me compared to whatever Intel chip is the one all the cool kids are buying for their gaming machines?
Also, does the AMD chip have a comparative advantage in anything? I plan on encoding a lot and that uses multiple threads. Is the AMD going to be decent with that?
Oh, my current CPU is Phenom II X4 965 and, as I said, it'll stay with my old machine.
Thanks for any assistance.
So this forum is a pro-Intel echo chamber that foments a pro-AMD insurgency that uses every possible thread to start fights over obscure edge cases.
The OP specifically asked "What is the value of the AMD 8370 (if any)? I just bought a Xeon x5687 workstation that came with 12GB and a legal OS. This workstation sold for over $1000 back in the day, and is built to live on for another decade easily. Yet it only costs $200 today, which puts the value of the CPU itself at about $40. This CPU is almost an exact match for a FX8370 on passmark single and multithreaded. Therefore I strongly argue that the value of a FX8370 is about $40. It might be used, but there is no reason to believe that its not going to last far beyond the point where it becomes fully obsolete. That is why there are so many of these T3500 workstations selling for $200 used. They just refuse to die so they stack up in warehouses by the thousands.
But none of this makes me "pro-Intel" per se. I am pro value. If a brand new AMD CPU cannot outperform a 5 year old CPU that is only worth $40, then the value of the AMD CPU can only be $40 max. I assign very little value to somethign simply because it is new, mainly because I work with a LOT of stuff that is old and perhaps even ancient but still functional. And I have also bought plenty of new stuff that has died on me in less than a year.
That's true but the OP insisted he wants new stuff, although I do agree that some 4-6 yr old parts from Intel are faster or equivalent to FX.That's a good point: if you're willing to spend money on an old platform, why not just get used parts instead? My dual Xeon E5 is pretty awesome.
That's a good point: if you're willing to spend money on an old platform, why not just get used parts instead? My dual Xeon E5 is pretty awesome.
The 8370E has been for sale from Microcenter for $80 plus $40 off a board. So there is your $40.Therefore I strongly argue that the value of a FX8370 is about $40.
Out of curiosity, what exactly more does the H110 has over a nice 970 AM3+ motherboard like this $72 Asrock ???
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813157688