building a pc, processor help

[Deleted]

im in the process of building a new desktop. im not too savvy when it comes to this sort of thing but im looking at at AMD for my processor but im reading a lot of negative things about the bulldozer series, im not made of money so i dont want to be spending more than 200 pounds on my processor and im looking at a "AMD FX 8350 Bulldozer 4.00GHz Socket AM3+ 8 Core Processor Black Edition" now i cant really make sense of the more complex reviews but if anyone can give me an aswer as to why

1 people are put off by the bulldozer series

2 is it worth buying of is there something better out there

3 what is the top end performance i will get out of it

many thanks

[chazus]

1 people are put off by the bulldozer series

For nearly the same price, an Intel CPU is 8 times out of 10 better.

2 is it worth buying of is there something better out there

Probably an Intel? >.>

3 what is the top end performance i will get out of it

It isn't bad, and you can likely max out most games with some OC. Most people just prefer the lower power, cooler running Intels.

I know it sounds like I'm just piping the marketing line from Intel, but at that price point, Intel simply runs better in almost every application. Unless you're doing video work, rendering, or streaming, Intels just... do better.

[constantduty]

If you're interested in the FX8350 there are a couple of vids on youtube that you can check out with favorable comments on the chip. Basically, you need to consider the chip to be kind of a "budget" 3770k. The Intel chip in almost every game will come out on top; however, if you're doing any streaming, rendering, etc. and don't want to spend the extra $120-$150 on the 3770k you should take a hard look at the AMD offering.

It's worth noting that the 8350 is based on AMD's Piledriver architecture and not their Bulldozer architecture (which received the underwhelming reviews). The 8350 may also give you the option of upgrading on the same socket this winter while going with an Ivy Bridge CPU will lock you out of upgrading on the same Mobo once Haswell hits (soonish).

I did a lot of research recently when building my comp and really considered the 8350. Ultimately I ended up with the 3770k because I could drive to Microcenter and get the chip for $229. If I had not had that option I may well have gone the AMD route.

Vids to check out:

Tek Syndicates 8350 vs 3570k Vid
http://youtu.be/4et7kDGSRfc

Part 3 of Linus' exploration of 8350 vs 3570k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHnsf...A0Tunw&index=5

[Deleted]

If you have the money and little requirement for hyperthreading technology, then I'd go for the i5-3570k. For the hyperthreading, there's mainly two options for CPUs: the FX8350 and the i7-3770 series (unless you have tons of money to burn and little sense OR are ridiculously enthusiastic about PCs in general.

For example:

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant / Benchmarks

CPU: AMD FX-8350 4.0GHz 8-Core Processor ($179.99 @ Newegg)
Motherboard: Asus M5A99X EVO R2.0 ATX AM3+ Motherboard ($119.99 @ Newegg)
Total: $299.98
(Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available.)
(Generated by PCPartPicker 2013-04-02 03:02 EDT-0400)

Compared to:

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant / Benchmarks
PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant / Benchmarks

CPU: Intel Core i5-3570K 3.4GHz Quad-Core Processor ($189.99 @ Microcenter)
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-Z77-DS3H ATX LGA1155 Motherboard ($104.99 @ Amazon)
Total: $294.98
(Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available.)
(Generated by PCPartPicker 2013-04-02 05:07 EDT-0400)

Both are perfectly viable combos for midrange gaming, but the FX will require a slightly larger PSU (due to its 50W higher TDP.)

EDIT: Apparently, I had Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-H77-DS3H in instead of the Z77. My bad.

[n0cturnal]

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant / Benchmarks

CPU: Intel Core i5-3570K 3.4GHz Quad-Core Processor ($189.99 @ Microcenter)
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-H77-DS3H ATX LGA1155 Motherboard ($98.98 @ Outlet PC)
Total: $288.97
(Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available.)
(Generated by PCPartPicker 2013-04-02 03:04 EDT-0400)

Both are perfectly viable combos for midrange gaming, but the FX will require a slightly larger PSU (due to its 50W higher TDP.)

Buying a 3570k with a h77 motherboard would be a waste.

[chazus]

CPU: AMD FX-8350 4.0GHz 8-Core Processor ($179.99 @ Newegg)

This price ($20 off) is also no longer available as of a couple days ago.

[Deleted]

Buying a 3570k with a h77 motherboard would be a waste.

Well, shit - I thought I clicked the Z77 one. My bad. Will edit now.

[Skarsguard]

New games seem to be using the extra cores now days I think if you are an AMD fan and you amust have a AMD processor then the 8350 is a solid buy. There really isn't any "future proofing" for computer parts but I think in say 2 years the 3570k will age faster then the 8350 if the trend continues with new games using more cores.

[chazus]

Games aren't using many more cores, yet. In pure gaming, the 8350 still falls sorely behind, and will continue to do so for it's lifespan (the next 2-3 years). The NEXT generation of AMD's may start to benefit... But that's to be seen. Right now there aren't any games that benefit from more then 3-4 cores.

[constantduty]

I think "sorely behind" still remains to be a bit of an overstatement as evidenced by Tek Sydicate's and Linus' vids/research. The bad taste from Bulldozer is still lingering and we're also on a WoW, for the most part, fan site. The fact is that Steamroller may provide even more improvements and will still work with at 3+ socket. Saving a few bucks now and picking up the next AMD chip in a little under year is certainly a viable path as more games take advantage of more cores in the future.

With the internet's propensity for hyperbole the claim that the 8350 is a viable alternative to the 3570k for those looking to game AND stream/render/etc. is somehow misrepresented as a claim that the 8350 is superior to the 3570k. To be clear, nobody has staked out that claim. For some consumers the AMD chip may provide an overall better value with its additional cores and acceptable yet not superior gaming performance.

[chazus]

When I say "Sorely Behind", I simply mean at worst, a good 10-15% behind Intels, and at best, almost equal (disregarding rendering/encoding). For the same price bracket, the intel beats the AMD in -every game-. Every single one. At least with ATI/Nvidia, some games perform better than others with different cards.

People keep quoting Linus' research, and all that's proven is there's promise for AMD ... in the future. Maybe. That isn't a very good selling point -now-. Or this year, for that matter.