AMD Build - Hardware & Software

[url]http://pcpartpicker.com/user/slipq/saved/2dfK[/url] Can you guys review this build? I put it together for a friend, and I would like to know if there's anything I should change. Not really trying to exceed $900.

You could go down to a 550 watt psu and you should also put in an SSD.

You need to replace that AMD FX CPU with an Intel Haswell one. It's a shame how much of a flop AMD has made for their current platform. What is your friend going to use this build for and is $900 the top budget? A few changes could be done to save money.

[QUOTE=GreenDolphin;42307761]You need to replace that AMD FX CPU with an Intel Haswell one. It's a shame how much of a flop AMD has made for their current platform. What is your friend going to use this build for and is $900 the top budget? A few changes could be done to save money.[/QUOTE] That 8 core is fine, don't understand the bashing. Its around the same performance as my i5 2500k and with the next games running on more cores its better to get that cpu.

[QUOTE=Skanic;42309162]That 8 core is fine, don't understand the bashing. Its around the same performance as my i5 2500k and with the next games running on more cores its better to get that cpu.[/QUOTE] It's not an 8 core. Each core (which is actually 4) has a thread that shares resources with yet another thread on the same core. If you run an application or game that heavily uses all threads then the threads on the same core will bottleneck each other and performance will tank, hard. With that the AMD FX is an extremely poor choice for gaming when it's actually under 100% load. Even a dual core Core i3 will be on par and actually outperform a FX 8350 in a variety in cases. [url]http://www.behardware.com/articles/880-15/amd-fx-8350-review-is-amd-back.html[/url] [url]http://techreport.com/review/23750/amd-fx-8350-processor-reviewed/7[/url] [url]http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/cpu/46985-amd-fx-8350/?page=5[/url] You will also need to contend with the significant power consumption (up to 200w in worst cases) and poor heat management just to get the same performance as its Intel competitor. A real quad core doesn't have all these problems and it won't be affected by it. This "8 core" processor will never live up to a true quad core processor.

The AMD 8350 for example each core is 1.5 of an Intel Core. And the architecture is completely different, its still a 8 core CPU only that its different. It has 4 Modules and each contain 2 cores and resources the CPU utilizes. The heat isn't as bad as Ivy or Haswell, but the power usage is higher Now in my opinion id rather have a sandy bridge cpu or even an FX 8350 instead of a ivy or haswell cpu since those are getting lower overclocks and are getting warmer. Also on some of the benches your posted, Skyrim was updated a while ago so that it uses the AMD cpu's better. Not sure about shogun 2. In BF3 its pretty much on par, Your third link is also pretty similar its mostly on par or a little bit slower around 5-10%.

[QUOTE=Skanic;42310337]The AMD 8350 for example each core is 1.5 of an Intel Core. And the architecture is completely different, its still a 8 core CPU only that its different. It has 4 Modules and each contain 2 cores and resources the CPU utilizes. The heat isn't as bad as Ivy or Haswell, but the power usage is higher Now in my opinion id rather have a sandy bridge cpu or even an FX 8350 instead of a ivy or haswell cpu since those are getting lower overclocks and are getting warmer. Also on some of the benches your posted, Skyrim was updated a while ago so that it uses the AMD cpu's better. Not sure about shogun 2. In BF3 its pretty much on par, Your third link is also pretty similar its mostly on par or a little bit slower around 5-10%.[/QUOTE] You can call the terminology whatever you like, it's still not as good as 8 standard cores. The fact is Haswell is a better choice for gaming. That doesn't mean it's a better choice in general, but it is the better choice for gaming. Future games will eventually start using more cores, but then there will be new processors. The fact is, we play games in the present, and by the time the 8350 surpasses the 4670k in typical games, both will be obsolete. As per your argument on Haswell being hotter, I don't see any evidence for this. I heard that Intel doesn't solder their heatsinks, but FX has a much greater TDP which should mean more heat for the most part right? Correct me if I'm wrong.

Just my opinion: The 4670K is the better gaming cpu but the 8320 isnt a horrible choice, concidering its 40% cheaper.

[QUOTE=Skanic;42305877]You could go down to a 550 watt psu and you should also put in an SSD.[/QUOTE] was considering an SSD, though, i don't think he'll really find it too significant. he doesn't really want anything super fancy, something he can just game on in his spare time. [QUOTE=GreenDolphin;42307761]You need to replace that AMD FX CPU with an Intel Haswell one. It's a shame how much of a flop AMD has made for their current platform. What is your friend going to use this build for and is $900 the top budget? A few changes could be done to save money.[/QUOTE] he'll be using it primarily for gaming, 3d modeling, and graphic design. also, yes, $900 is the top budget for him. [QUOTE=taipan;42312113]Just my opinion: The 4670K is the better gaming cpu but the 8320 isnt a horrible choice, concidering its 40% cheaper.[/QUOTE] i know, my build will be using a 4670k, however, he wants to go a cheaper route, that's why i decided on an AMD build.

[QUOTE=Slippery-Q;42312358]he'll be using it primarily for gaming, 3d modeling, and graphic design. also, yes, $900 is the top budget for him.[/QUOTE] I got an FX-8350, and if this is the use your friend is going to give it, he's more than good to go with this build. Personally if it was JUST for gaming and you'll be overclocking it a lot etc, I'd go with the Intel cpus... If it's for productivity, the 2 cores per module WILL make it smooth. I haven't had a single complaint moving to this architecture from a Core2Quad (Q6600), but there's the whole "People who own stuff want to justify they're better because they bought it" shit, however, I think I'm just being realistic here.

[QUOTE=Skanic;42310337]The AMD 8350 for example each core is 1.5 of an Intel Core. And the architecture is completely different, its still a 8 core CPU only that its different. It has 4 Modules and each contain 2 cores and resources the CPU utilizes.[/QUOTE] No, the FX8000 series is not eight cores, it's four with something like Hyper Threading. The difference between it and HT though is the FX series has dedicated hardware for implementing two threads, instead of being virtual by splitting the pipeline. Having the dedicated hardware solution is actually worse because you can't turn it off. A core being able to execute two threads doesn't give it double the amount of cores. The Bulldozer core is laid out with two integer units, while the rest of the core (bar two tiny dedicated L1 caches) is shared.