AMD vs Intel build

[DRKM]

Hi,

I am going to be building a desktop for home in the near future and was thinking about using the FX8350.

My uses for the computer will be as follows:

-Data processing
-Simulations
-Programming embedded and PC software
-Programming audio and video software (think facial recognition, movement tracking,ect)

- A little solidworks

I would say probably 0 gaming.


I have an i7 2600 with 16gig of ram at work, and I am more then happy with it.

I was thinking about the FX8350, simply because of the multi-threading ability and the cost factor.

I figure I can build a computer that competes with the i7 3770 and save at least $300.

Am I being realistic or should I just get an i-7?
What do you guys think of this?

[jacky4566]

I'm an AMD fanboy so im biased but in my general opinion the AMD process are not the fastest but they are much better value than comparable Intel chips.

If you are doing a lot of true multi-threaded tasks then the AMD chip is better. 4.0GHZ X 8 cores is alot of juice.

Also you should go AMD just to support the competition and keep them alive. Without it Intel will charge and arm and leg for everything.


Also on a side note. Can you post your full build out of curiosity? In my opinion getting a decent SSD with help make the computer 'feel' significantly faster.

[eblend]

Check out reviews and benchmarks, there are many

Here are some that will show different productivity software and how the chip stacks up. You can find more benchmarks for almost any software if you look on google.


http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...w,3328-10.html

Really its up to you at the end of the day if the extra speed of a 3770k for example is worth the premium.

[DRKM]

Originally posted by jacky4566
I'm an AMD fanboy so im biased but in my general opinion the AMD process are not the fastest but they are much better value than comparable Intel chips.

If you are doing a lot of true multi-threaded tasks then the AMD chip is better. 4.0GHZ X 8 cores is alot of juice.

Also you should go AMD just to support the competition and keep them alive. Without it Intel will charge and arm and leg for everything.


Also on a side note. Can you post your full build out of curiosity? In my opinion getting a decent SSD with help make the computer 'feel' significantly faster.

The competition thing is also pushing me to AMD.

I actually have not gotten a full build together.

I am not sure what mother board to get, from what I can see some of them do not have dual HDMI outputs, which means I need a video card.

As for the ssd, that is defiantly a possibility.

Do you have any suggestions on a build?

[BigDL]

Cheaper alternative to a SSD is a 10k raptor drive, mine runs great and it is way cheaper then a quality SSD.

[DeeK]

Originally posted by BigDL
Cheaper alternative to a SSD is a 10k raptor drive, mine runs great and it is way cheaper then a quality SSD.

I was running 2x 10k raptors in a Raid 0 array. Switching to an SSD was hands down the biggest speed improvement I've ever seen. Just read the specs, a traditional hard drive can't even compare to a good quality SSD.

[BigDL]

Originally posted by DeeK


I was running 2x 10k raptors in a Raid 0 array. Switching to an SSD was hands down the biggest speed improvement I've ever seen. Just read the specs, a traditional hard drive can't even compare to a good quality SSD.

A good quality SSD with equivalent storage capacity will cost a lot of money, as I said its a cheap alternative.

Also, for his line of work with all that programming I would also take the more reliable enterprise level drive (at least that was what they were calling the raptors at one point in time) over a inexpensive SSD. SSD are a lot more reliable now but setting up the development again after a drive failure or on a new computer is a big pain in the ASS.

[DRKM]

Originally posted by BigDL


A good quality SSD with equivalent storage capacity will cost a lot of money, as I said its a cheap alternative.

Also, for his line of work with all that programming I would also take the more reliable enterprise level drive (at least that was what they were calling the raptors at one point in time) over a inexpensive SSD. SSD are a lot more reliable now but setting up the development again after a drive failure or on a new computer is a big pain in the ASS.

I always though that you would run the OS out of the SSD and nothing else?

Put everything else on a disk drive? Was I faulting believing that?>

[BigDL]

Originally posted by DRKM


I always though that you would run the OS out of the SSD and nothing else?

Put everything else on a disk drive? Was I faulting believing that?>

That is how I would do it for a non development machine.

When your developing and compiling all the time you need the fast drive for that or man it can slow things down.

Also, most of the development tools get installed to program files and as far as my experienced don't like to be installed else where.


I just setup my work development machine and it was not fun making sure everything played nice, mainly VS2008, 2010 and 2012...

[revelations]

Originally posted by BigDL
SSD are a lot more reliable now but setting up the development again after a drive failure or on a new computer is a big pain in the ASS.

W7 system image backup works great.

[DRKM]

Originally posted by BigDL


That is how I would do it for a non development machine.

When your developing and compiling all the time you need the fast drive for that or man it can slow things down.

Also, most of the development tools get installed to program files and as far as my experienced don't like to be installed else where.


I just setup my work development machine and it was not fun making sure everything played nice, mainly VS2008, 2010 and 2012...

How large of programs are you compiling? With my i7 and VS I never notice that much lag. Eclipse, well that is another issue altogether...

[DeeK]

Originally posted by BigDL


A good quality SSD with equivalent storage capacity will cost a lot of money, as I said its a cheap alternative.

Also, for his line of work with all that programming I would also take the more reliable enterprise level drive (at least that was what they were calling the raptors at one point in time) over a inexpensive SSD. SSD are a lot more reliable now but setting up the development again after a drive failure or on a new computer is a big pain in the ASS.

If reliability is the deciding factor, you could just go with a Crucial M4 SSD. About 2% failure rate (about the same as a regular HDD). Yes, it's slower than a high-speed performance SSD, but it will be lightning fast compared to any sort of Disk Drive.

Also, the SSD is cheaper..... Assuming you're getting only the size you need for the OS and a few programs.

500GB Raptor (smallest raptor you can get) = $149.99
http://www.memoryexpress.com/Products/MX39621

Crucial M4 128GB = $114.99
http://www.memoryexpress.com/Products/MX35603

Assuming you would need a secondary drive for storage, you could opt for a slower speed drive as primary functions won't be running off it. The slower speed should allow you get WAY more space for the same price.

2TB = $99.99
http://www.memoryexpress.com/Products/MX36055

[BigDL]

Originally posted by DRKM


How large of programs are you compiling? With my i7 and VS I never notice that much lag. Eclipse, well that is another issue altogether...

For one of the products, when I have to do a full build I can drive out somewhere for lunch. It takes a while >>.

[DRKM]

Ended up with the following build:

i7-3770k
Asus Z77 Sabertooth mother board
16g ram
120gb SSD (for windows)
500gb harddrive (for linux)
2TB hardrive
Liquid cooling
GTX 650 2gb OC video card.

Very impressed with the SSD and i7-3770. Windows is acutally much faster then linux Mint (MATE), with the SSD. I was surprised how much of a difference the SSD has made.

[Mitsu3000gt]

Originally posted by BigDL
Cheaper alternative to a SSD is a 10k raptor drive, mine runs great and it is way cheaper then a quality SSD.

How is that a cheap alternative to a $100 128GB Crucial M4 and a 1TB 7200 RPM drive for $65? You can get the SSD AND the 1TB storage drive for roughly the price of a single 500GB raptor, and the SSD option will be WAY faster in every way.

[DRKM]

I put in the 500gb raptor cause I had an extra one from work. No cost involved.

But the SSD is truly a seed demon. I am actually blown away with how fast the OS, and programs loaded onto it are.

[HiTempguy1]

Originally posted by DRKM
I put in the 500gb raptor cause I had an extra one from work. No cost involved.

But the SSD is truly a seed demon. I am actually blown away with how fast the OS, and programs loaded onto it are.

Nobody realizes how much of a difference it makes. I'll never run a computer without one again. SSD is the way of the future. WAY less power and heat to boot!

[DeeK]

Originally posted by DRKM
I put in the 500gb raptor cause I had an extra one from work. No cost involved.

But the SSD is truly a seed demon. I am actually blown away with how fast the OS, and programs loaded onto it are.

Which SSD did you end up getting because there are massive differences in speed based on the SSD itself. But the faster you go, usually the less reliability you have in each brand of SSD.