Buying some new parts

[Dopekitten]

So I've had the same computer for ~5 years now (I bought it roughly when the HD4xxx series was released). Unfortunately while it still works perfectly fine, it is is showing it's age a little more than I would like it to. For reference, my current computer is:

Q9450 @ 2.66ghz (I used to have it overclocked for the first year or so at ~3.6ghz, but not anymore, a bios crash or whatever caused me to lose my settings and i couldn't remember how to get it stable anymore, it's possible the CPU is also just not able to do it anymore).
HD4870 512mb (I used a 1920x1200 monitor and i definitely think that 512mb of VRAM is way too little)
8gb 1066mhz RAM (Used to have 4, but I needed more so I bought another 4gb a year ago or so)
Asus P5Q-E Motherboard
Seagate 7200.10 (?) HDD, (dunno, it's old, but I'm going to keep using it even if I upgrade)
P&PC 750W PSU
Antec 1200 case

With that in mind:

1. What YOUR PC will be used for. That means what types of tasks you'll be performing.
I play pretty much all games, and in general I'm not super picky about the graphics settings, but the constraints here are that I need to be play games even at medium settings 5 years down the line. I also like to have evreything open at the same time. For example, ideally what I would like (which I can't do right now) is to be able to have the list of stuff below all open at the same time in windowed mode so i can constantly alt-tab easily without lag: (All in 1920x1200 preferrably)
-a client of Dota2
-8 (yes 8, not a typo) clients of EVE Online
-a client of some other game, ranging from something smallish like Bastion to something more resource intensive like Skyrim
-2-3 instances of google chrome (with 20-30 tabs each)
-VLC running a video at 1920x1200
-Youtube video running in fullscreen
-Steam
-TS3
-Various other small things, notepad, task manager etc..., stuff that's pretty much inconsequential.

One thing I really hate is having to close and reopen stuff all the time because my computer can't handle it. I have pretty bad habits, with leaving stuff open, but preferably I'd like my computer to be able to handle it.

2. What YOUR budget is. A price range is acceptable as long as it's not more than a 20% spread
Under 700 USD, cheaper is better.

3. What country YOU will be buying YOUR parts from.

The US.

5. IF YOU have a brand preference. That means, are you an Intel-Fanboy, AMD-Fanboy, ATI-Fanboy, nVidia-Fanboy, Seagate-Fanboy, WD-Fanboy, etc.

No preference

6. If YOU intend on using any of YOUR current parts, and if so, what those parts are.
Yes, I will be using my PSU, my case, my monitor, and my current hard drive (though that doesn't preclude using an SSD as well).

7. IF YOU plan on overclocking or run the system at default speeds.
Yes I'll overclock provided that it is extremely easy and that i can do it in a way where it won't impact my parts within a life-span of at least 4-5 years, i.e. running at roughly the stock voltage.

8. What resolution, not monitor size, will you be using?
1920x1200

9. WHEN do you plan to build it?
Between 1-2 weeks from now.

X. Do you need to purchase any software to go with the system, such as Windows or Blu Ray playback software?
No.

I've looked at similar threads and the suggested build at the top of this forum, and what I am basically considering is as follows:

http://pcpartpicker.com/p/1SM8N

Which is basically what the stickied thread says to buy. Unfortunately it's really more than I'd like to spend, and I'm not entirely sure if the parts I have there are overkill for what I want. Ideally I want parts such that 5 years from now, I will be in the same position. Computer still works perfectly fine, and does most of the things I want it to do fine, but can't play new games without significant compromises in quality--but still plays them above 60fps at roughly medium settings.

I definitely do want 16gb of RAM at least, and at least 2gb of VRAM. I've heard great things about SSD's, but I have no idea how to pick them (how do I tell which ones are good and which aren't outside of just $/gb), and I'm wondering if I should go with the 7950 or with something else like the 7870 or 7850 even for a really cheap price.

Thanks

 

[lehtv]

That's not a bad start.

CPU - For eight clients of EVE Online, assuming it is possible to assign core affinity for each, I'd rather have a Xeon or an i7 than a 4670K. E.g. you could use threads 3 and 4 for two instances each, threads 5, 6, 7 and 8 for one instance each, and have threads 1 and 2 free for everything else.

Mobo - Good pick for a mild OC, though if you go with Xeon, you can't OC. For a Xeon I'd get Asrock H87 Performance.

RAM - about $100 too expensive for that amount of DDR3-1600. Newegg should have kits for ~$120-130. Do you know how much RAM each EVE Online client will use?

SSD - It's a decent SSD, and $155 is a good price for 256 gigs. Hope the price holds until u decide to grab it...

Graphics - about $100 too expensive for a 7950. E.g. newegg has a good HIS IceQ Boost card for $210 AR. For $300 you should be looking at the 280X which is about this much faster without OC - and you should be able to afford it if you just get reasonably priced RAM.

 

[Dopekitten]

Yea I think the PCPartpicker prices aren't correct. EVE clients typically take ~900mb of memory each.

Also, what is the difference between a Xeon vs the 4670K, just more performance? Not really clear on this.

 

[lehtv]

There are various different Xeons. Xeon just means a server processor, but they work fine on consumer boards.

The Xeon that I suggest is the E3-1230 V3, a Haswell based 4C/8T processor running at 3.3GHz+turbo. It's almost $100 cheaper than the 4770K, while being only 5% slower (3.3GHz vs 3.5Ghz). The jist is it lacks integrated graphics and cannot be overclocked. It also has some server features that you don't need or have to care about.

For heavily multithreaded applications or similarly multithreaded multitasking, it's faster than a moderately overclocked 4670K, just like a stock 4770K would be.

 

[mfenn]

I don't see how it's possible to get the high amounts of multitasking that you want AND have a decent gaming GPU AND make it last for 5 years AND spend less than $700. You're going to have to prioritize.

Xeon E3-1230 V3 $255
ASRock H87 Pro4 $83
Crucial DDR3 1600 8GB x4 $268 - You need more than 16GB considering the high number of game clients and Google Chrome instances (8 GB Eve + 2 GB Dota + 4 GB intensive current-gen game + 4 GB Chrome (68 MB per tab) + 2 GB Windows)
PowerColor 7970 3GB $250 AR
Sandisk Ultra Plus 256GB $165
Total: $1021 AR

This is pretty much the minimal system to meet all your functional requirements except overclocking. We can help you with the build, but we can't really make the requirements judgement call for you. It's up to you whether to scale down the requirements or scale up the budget.

 

[Dopekitten]

Alright.

Well if it's not possible within that budget, then it's not possible. I really have no idea (which is why I'm asking here), and I'm definitely willing to prioritize and work around what I would like. I just mentioned the best case scenario that I'd like to have.

With that in mind, with regard to the parts mentioned:

Xeon E3-1230 V3, so both you and lehtv mentioned this. I suppose this is a better choice because of hyperthreading for what I'd like to do, but from what I've read, this only confers roughly a 20% advantage in situations where the threads are being used effectively? In this case would it be better to simply buy a 4670K and give it a mild overclock? Because I'm certainly willing to do a mild overclock while staying at basically stock voltages, so maybe up to 4.0ghz (not entirely sure how those chips overclock, but that seems reasonable to me), and I imagine at stock voltages, that sort of overclock won't have any significant (if any) impact on the chip lifetime (at least not within the 5 years I'd like it to stay alive).

Seems like having an overclock will also present advantages in situations where I am only running one thing (the list of programs I wanted to have open all at the same time was pretty much the maximum that'd I'd ever have, not necessarily the norm.). Am I wrong in this thinking? And even beyond that, is it perhaps worthwhile to get an i7 4770K for both a mild OC and hyperthreading?

Motherboard: I guess pretty much any will do as long as it supports 16/32gb of RAM.

With regard to the RAM, seems like 32gb is very expensive. I guess it's a judgement call like you said. I think that I will probably stick to 16gb and I'll see how it goes from there considering it's an easy upgrade to buy more. (In that respect, are there still issues with using more than 2 sticks of RAM in boards like there were in the LGA 775 era?)

With the video card, I was keen on the 7950 because it looks like it's in a sweet spot for performance/price (180 AR is pretty good), but basically like I mentioned, what I am looking for is a card that is essentially what the 4870 was 5 years ago, is the 7950 the wrong card? Seems like the 7970 is basically 30% more expensive for marginal benefit.

SSD : Out of curiosity, is it possible to do a raid setup where you have x number of SSD cards in raid 0 + a normal HDD as a raid 1 mirror to this raid 0 array?

I'm willing to scale up the budget or scale down the requirements, or both even, I'm pretty much looking for what are the most optimal parts I can get today to achieve as close to the ideal requirements I mentioned in my original post.

Edit: As a side note, I'll probably be buying these parts computer sooner than later as my current computer is consistently corrupting its BIOS anytime I shut the computer down, or it shuts down by accident. Having to reset the bios and then flash it from the backup bios anytime i want to restart is a pain in the butt and not a good sign

 

[mfenn]

Alright.

Well if it's not possible within that budget, then it's not possible. I really have no idea (which is why I'm asking here), and I'm definitely willing to prioritize and work around what I would like. I just mentioned the best case scenario that I'd like to have.

I'm willing to scale up the budget or scale down the requirements, or both even, I'm pretty much looking for what are the most optimal parts I can get today to achieve as close to the ideal requirements I mentioned in my original post.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Are you able to move on budget or not?

If so, how much?

If not, which specific requirements from answer #1 above are you willing to change?

With that in mind, with regard to the parts mentioned:

Xeon E3-1230 V3, so both you and lehtv mentioned this. I suppose this is a better choice because of hyperthreading for what I'd like to do, but from what I've read, this only confers roughly a 20% advantage in situations where the threads are being used effectively? In this case would it be better to simply buy a 4670K and give it a mild overclock? Because I'm certainly willing to do a mild overclock while staying at basically stock voltages, so maybe up to 4.0ghz (not entirely sure how those chips overclock, but that seems reasonable to me), and I imagine at stock voltages, that sort of overclock won't have any significant (if any) impact on the chip lifetime (at least not within the 5 years I'd like it to stay alive).

Seems like having an overclock will also present advantages in situations where I am only running one thing (the list of programs I wanted to have open all at the same time was pretty much the maximum that'd I'd ever have, not necessarily the norm.). Am I wrong in this thinking? And even beyond that, is it perhaps worthwhile to get an i7 4770K for both a mild OC and hyperthreading?

The Xeon recommendation is driven by two separate factors:

1. Budget. The i7 gets you both worlds but it costs $85, which is not doable given your stated budget.
2. Multi-boxing: Separate processes is the best form of multiprocessing there is when it comes to utilizing HT. They'll be accessing completely separate memory regions, thus will be thrashing the CPU's caches regularly. That's when the true benefit of HT (hiding memory latency) takes effect.

So, could you get better single-threaded performance with an overclocked i5 4570K? Yes. Could you do better at the full multitasking scenario? I doubt it. Obviously the i7 4770K gets you both, but it costs more money.

With regard to the RAM, seems like 32gb is very expensive. I guess it's a judgement call like you said. I think that I will probably stick to 16gb and I'll see how it goes from there considering it's an easy upgrade to buy more. (In that respect, are there still issues with using more than 2 sticks of RAM in boards like there were in the LGA 775 era?)

It's no more expensive than 16GB per gig, so the value proposition is the same. Based on the memory usage model I outlined, you will start swapping when you try to do your full multitasking scenario. Swapping equals death from a performance perspective, so you'd need to scale back your scenario.

To answer your specific questions, as long as you buy 8GB DIMMs, it is very easy to go from 16 GB to 32 GB. You can also run 4 DIMMs with no issues.

With the video card, I was keen on the 7950 because it looks like it's in a sweet spot for performance/price (180 AR is pretty good), but basically like I mentioned, what I am looking for is a card that is essentially what the 4870 was 5 years ago, is the 7950 the wrong card? Seems like the 7970 is basically 30% more expensive for marginal benefit.

Regarding product positioning, the 7970 is in the same place in the 7000 series stack as the 4870 was in the 4000 series. The 7950 would be equivalent to a 4850.

I'm not sure why you're saying that the 7970 only has a marginal advantage over the 7950. It's 20-25% faster in GPU-bound scenarios.

The 7970 recommendation was driven by your requirement to have a machine that lasts as long as possible tempered by my knowledge that more expensive cards start becoming very bad values.

SSD : Out of curiosity, is it possible to do a raid setup where you have x number of SSD cards in raid 0 + a normal HDD as a raid 1 mirror to this raid 0 array?

Yes, but it won't do what you want. A RAID1 is as slow as the slowest member, so you'd just take the whole array down to HDD speeds. A better choice is to schedule regular backups from the SSD to the HDD with a software that can do incremental backups using the NTFS VSS provider. Acronis can do this.

 

[Dopekitten]

Sorry for being unclear.

I tried to answer the prompt section to the best of my ability, but the reality is that while I would like to spend as little money as possible, I would really just like what is most optimal and in that respect I am willing to spend extra if it makes sense to do so. I.e. I do not want to spend a huge amount of money just to buy that last 10% extra in performance, but I am willing to spend extra as long as the performance/price increase is more or less linear. In that respect, the absolute maximum I could spend is 1000 USD, but I would really like it to be around or less than 700 USD.

With regard to requirements in my first post, I'd say that I'd be ok with only being able to run half of what I mentioned, like I said before, that is really just the ideal case, and I wasn't really sure what sort of performance I'd be able to pull out of roughly what I wanted to spent, i.e. 700 USD.

Ok, so I understand the Xeon choice then. My only further question would be that if I had the budget to spend on an i7 4770K, is it a reasonable buy, or is the Xeon significantly better in the performance/price area?

With regard to memory, you're right, I will have to scale back I guess, and in that respect I'm ok with it primarily because it's easy to upgrade the memory down the line if I decide I really want it.

As for the 7950/7970, I guess I didn't realize that the 7970 was 20-25% faster. I suppose that's probably worth it then since it costs about 30% more as well.

Also, with the SSD, I spent a little time looking at similarly priced ones, and it seems like the Samsung 840 EVO 250gb is faster than the sandisk ultra from the mid-range guide that is sticked, but it only costs about 10 USD more:

http://www.amazon.com/Samsung-Electr...sung+evo+250gb

Does the performance difference matter at all? Or is there something else I'm missing here?

Anyway with regard to what you've posted, I think that what I'd be looking buying is something like this:

Xeon E3-1230 V3 $255
ASRock H87 Pro4 $83
Crucial Ballistix Sport 16GB (2 x 8GB) $134
PowerColor 7970 3gb $250 AR
SanDisk Ultra Plus 256GB $165
or
Samsug 840 EVO 256GB $175

Total: $898/908 AR

For about $150-$200 more I could get an i7 4770K + a mobo for overclocking + a cooler. I guess that's probably not worth it.

 

[mfenn]

What you've got listed now is pretty good IMHO. The i7 4770K would cost you about $100 more once you figure in the CPU and mobo, and in your situation I think that you'd rather spend that $100 on RAM.

As for the SSD, either is a good choice. You're right that the 840 EVO is faster than the Ultra Plus, but you're not likely to notice a difference outside of benchmarks. I'd go with whichever costs less, but get the EVO if they are within a couple of dollars (both at ~$175 right now).

 

[lehtv]

Here's 2x8GB of DDR3-1600 for $113: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820313352. Saves you $21.

 

[FredNotFound404]

Ok heres my input forget the intel, its a very good processor but AMD offers a better bang for the buck plus its highly OC you can easily push a 8320 to 4.6Ghz-4.8Ghz giving more headroom, also don't pick the high end cards thats a stupid idea, what I'v been doing for years is picking the 2nd/3rd down the line and updating it yearly sell the old one it should cover 50% of the new ones price, so for now go with the 270x(its a 7950 rebrand, but buying the 270x will give it more sell value), anyway at the end of the next year just sell the 270x and buy whatever AMD/Nvidia put out next, also I smell you will be wanting to stay with AMD thanks to Mantle anyway here my proposition, I didn't add a case tho I think that's personal taste.

Cheers

 

[lehtv]

The only way you will get the FX chip to perform similarly to the Intel is by some serious overclocking, at which point it will consume 3x as much power. And since you need a high performance cooler to achieve that, the cost of the FX chip is essentially the same as that of the stock Xeon, PLUS higher electricity bills over the years. So no the FX chip is pointless for the OP.

The board you picked is not compatible with the processor... can't use an AM3+ processor in an FM2 socket.

The power supply you picked is bad quality and overkill in wattage.

The 270X is not as good as the 7950, not to mention the 7970, and does not come bundled with games at this time.

No reason not to get 16GB of RAM for these uses.

On the plus side, that SSD is nice.

 

[Dopekitten]

mfenn: Yea, I'm going to give it a little more thought, but I probably will stick with the current CPU. The only reason I would consider a better CPU over more RAM is becuase upgrading the CPU later is difficult, I'd have to sell the xeon and then buy a new one, wheras RAM is just buy + plug in.

lehtv: Great! Will update my list

FredNotFound404: Well, like I said in the initial post I don't need anything but the CPU/GPU/Mobo/Ram and an SSD. Also, from what I can tell, it seems the 270x is a rebranded 7870, not a 7950:

http://www.techspot.com/review/722-radeon-r9-270x-r7-260x/

I suppose it is a valid point with regard to the AMD processors, I really hadn't even considered them since I've stuck to intel for so long, though I'm ok with either. It is an 8-core and I tend to do a lot of multitasking, so I guess it might be worth it, especially at $160, but I really don't have the knowledge to make the judgement call, and I'm wary of choosing AMD since I see so many people with intel processors on this forum, though that's not necessarily a good reason.

 

[mfenn]

270x(its a 7950 rebrand, but buying the 270x will give it more sell value),

That's simply not true. The R9 270X is a 7870. The R9 280 is a 7950 and the R9 280X is a 7970.

EDIT: Anyway I agree with lehtv on his points. While you can get an FX up to the same performance as the Xeon, you'll have to pull 200W to do so.

 

[FredNotFound404]

The only way you will get the FX chip to perform similarly to the Intel is by some serious overclocking, at which point it will consume 3x as much power. And since you need a high performance cooler to achieve that, the cost of the FX chip is essentially the same as that of the stock Xeon, PLUS higher electricity bills over the years. So no the FX chip is pointless for the OP.

The board you picked is not compatible with the processor... can't use an AM3+ processor in an FM2 socket.

The power supply you picked is bad quality and overkill in wattage.

The 270X is not as good as the 7950, not to mention the 7670, and does not come bundled with games at this time.

No reason not to get 16GB of RAM for these uses.

On the plus side, that SSD is nice.

I have actually put together several AMD and Intel builds this year, and can tell you that a 8350 its actually cooler then my 3570k for example the last one I put together was a 8350 at 4.8Ghz Vs mine at 4.7Ghz they actually perform much the same in 3DMark Physics test also a 8320 is only slightly inferior to the Xeon and that's at stock while the Xeon can't be OC the AMD OC blows the Xeon, yes it consumes more but its about 70W when both are OCed, also the 270x is a rebranded 7950 there's no such difference.

Yes I notice got the wrong MSI Mobo and PSU (did this in a hurry) here the updated one:

I personally advice to go with a 850W in case he instead of switching cards decides to crossfire them.
I also see no point in 16GB even with all he said open he won't be using more then 6gb it all depends on what you are using it for.

Edit: yeah I looked it up got confused the 270x is the 7870, just pick a 280x then, the 280 isn't out yet.

That's simply not true. The R9 270X is a 7870. The R9 280 is a 7950 and the R9 280X is a 7970.

EDIT: Anyway I agree with lehtv on his points. While you can get an FX up to the same performance as the Xeon, you'll have to pull 200W to do so.

You are reading it wrong the Xeon is only slightly faster at sock, the AMD blows teh Xeon out of the water once OC.

 

[mfenn]

I have actually put together several AMD and Intel builds this year, and can tell you that a 8350 its actually cooler then my 3570k for example the last one I put together was a 8350 at 4.8Ghz Vs mine at 4.7Ghz they actually perform much the same in 3DMark Physics test also a 8320 is only slightly inferior to the Xeon and that's at stock while the Xeon can't be OC the AMD OC blows the Xeon, yes it consumes more but its about 70W when both are OCed,

You're really trying to fit a square peg into a round hole here. Given a 15% overclock (4.2 to 4.8), you would expect a 15% improvement in performance. The problem is that a Haswell with HT already beats the FX-8350 by 15-25% in heavily threaded benchmarks at stock. Add to that the facts that:
- the FX has to burn 3 times the power (200W versus 69W) to get there
- the Haswell still trounces the FX in the occasional single-threaded task
- the FX requires a monster cooler, negating the price advantage

The FX just doesn't make sense here.

I personally advice to go with a 850W in case he instead of switching cards decides to crossfire them.

Why should he spend $40-50 more on a PSU (you linked a 750W not an 850W) on the off chance that he might get a Crossfire compatible card within 1-2 years? The OP has stated that he wants the machine to last without upgrades for longer than that, so he's going to be looking at a newer card.

I also see no point in 16GB even with all he said open he won't be using more then 6gb it all depends on what you are using it for.

Did you even read the thread? There is no way the OP can fit everything he wants to do into 8 GB of RAM.

 

[lehtv]

my 3570k for example the last one I put together was a 8350 at 4.8Ghz Vs mine at 4.7Ghz they actually perform much the same in 3DMark Physics test

Yes, a quad core Intel without HT would performs similarly to an 8-core AMD processor in heavily multithreaded tasks.

also a 8320 is only slightly inferior to the Xeon and that's at stock while the Xeon can't be OC the AMD OC blows the Xeon, yes it consumes more but its about 70W when both are OCed

Slightly inferior... no. It's much slower.

Firsyo usay Xeon can't be OC'd, then you say both are OC'd.

Yes I notice got the wrong MSI Mobo and PSU (did this in a hurry) here the updated one:

The PSU is better now, but as the OP said, he doesn't need a new unit. His PCP&C unit is probably actually better quality than that EVGA unit.

You are reading it wrong the Xeon is only slightly faster at sock, the AMD blows teh Xeon out of the water once OC.

No. Clock for clock, Xeon is about 40% faster. Less in some tests, more in others. To get the same performance from an AMD octocore, you will need to overclock it to near 5GHz. To blow it out of the water as you put it, you would need to overclock it to 6GHz, good luck with that.

 

[FredNotFound404]

You're really trying to fit a square peg into a round hole here. Given a 15% overclock (4.2 to 4.8), you would expect a 15% improvement in performance. The problem is that a Haswell with HT already beats the FX-8350 by 15-25% in heavily threaded benchmarks at stock. Add to that the facts that:
- the FX has to burn 3 times the power (200W versus 69W) to get there
- the Haswell still trounces the FX in the occasional single-threaded task
- the FX requires a monster cooler, negating the price advantage

The FX just doesn't make sense here.

I was comparing the FX to the Xeon not the Haswell also the Haswell runs alot hotter then the FX any day, the OP said clearly the cheaper the better I'm giving him the bang for the buck option, and you are being sttudborn, the FX at 4.8GHZ will hit 300w tops, while the 4770k goes to 170w at 4.7ghz, how is that 3 times has much?



Why should he spend $40-50 more on a PSU (you linked a 750W not an 850W) on the off chance that he might get a Crossfire compatible card within 1-2 years? The OP has stated that he wants the machine to last without upgrades for longer than that, so he's going to be looking at a newer card.

I just Put it out there, to give him option, in case he thought going other route, I put the 750w because thats what that build I sugested would need nothing more nothing less.



Did you even read the thread? There is no way the OP can fit everything he wants to do into 8 GB of RAM.

I have 8Gb of ram and usually have allot of stuff running at the same time, and never crossed 6Gb, I did fail to see the 8 Eve clients tho, so yeah that might require more the clients alone will take around 7.6Gb...

Yes, a quad core Intel without HT would performs similarly to an 8-core AMD processor in heavily multithreaded tasks.



Slightly inferior... no. It's much slower.

Firsyo usay Xeon can't be OC'd, then you say both are OC'd.





The PSU is better now, but as the OP said, he doesn't need a new unit. His PCP&C unit is probably actually better quality than that EVGA unit.



No. Clock for clock, Xeon is about 40% faster. Less in some tests, more in others. To get the same performance from an AMD octocore, you will need to overclock it to near 5GHz. To blow it out of the water as you put it, you would need to overclock it to 6GHz, good luck with that.

You do realize you are comparing the FX 8320 to a 4770k right? not the Xeon:

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Xeon+E3-1230+v3+@+3.30GHz&id=1942
Thats the only benchmark I could find of the Xeon, anyway when I was talking about the Xeon i messed that sentence, has I said I'm usually multi-tasking so I might get some stuff wrong.

 

[lehtv]

I do realize that, and it makes no difference. The Xeon is 0.2GHz slower than the 4770K. Do the math (hint: 5%)

 

[FredNotFound404]

I do realize that, and it makes no difference. The Xeon is 0.2GHz slower than the 4770K. Do the math (hint: 5%)

Dude you can't Overclock the Xenon, you do realize that right? That's what I'm saying my point is don't go with a Xeon, if you are going to spend that money on a Processor a Xenon is a very bad idea has it can't be OC, the 8320 can and once you OC it to lets say 4.8Ghz it blows the Xenon out of the water.

 

[lehtv]

Let me take this for you mfenn

I was comparing the FX to the Xeon not the Haswell also the Haswell runs alot hotter then the FX any day, the OP said clearly the cheaper the better I'm giving him the bang for the buck option, and you are being sttudborn, the FX at 4.8GHZ will hit 300w tops, while the 4770k goes to 170w at 4.7ghz, how is that 3 times has much?

The Xeon is a Haswell chip. The i7-4770K is also a Haswell chip.

Your option is not any better bang for buck, it has already been shown that it ends up costing the same as the Xeon option when you need to pay for high end cooling and an overclocker board. Who's being stubborn here, hmm?

He was comparing the power consumption of the FX @4.8GHz to the similarly performing Xeon @3.3GHz. The Xeon's TDP is 80W.

EDIT: Yes, Intel chips run hotter. They are designed that way; you can't compare AMD temperatures to Intel temperatures and call "AMD wins!!1", they have different standards and limits in that respect. AMD FX chips will throttle at 70C, while Intel Haswell chips throttle at 105C, I believe.

Dude you can't Overclock the Xenon, you do realize that right? That's what I'm saying my point is don't go with a Xeon, if you are going to spend that money on a Processor a Xenon is a very bad idea has it can't be OC, the 8320 can and once you OC it to lets say 4.8Ghz it blows the Xenon out of the water.

Where did I claim you could OC the Xeon? And why would it need to be overclocked? The whole point is the Xeon, at its puny 3.3GHz clock speed, matches a heavily overclocked FX-8350. Surely you understand that argument, even if, despite all the evidence, you decide not to believe it.

 

[FredNotFound404]

Where did I claim you could OC the Xeon? And why would it need to be overclocked? The whole point is the Xeon, at its puny 3.3GHz clock speed, matches a heavily overclocked FX-8350. Surely you understand that argument, even if, despite all the evidence, you decide not to believe it.

Not it doesn't.....

Let me take this for you mfenn



The Xeon is a Haswell chip. The i7-4770K is also a Haswell chip.

Your option is not any better bang for buck, it has already been shown that it ends up costing the same as the Xeon option when you need to pay for high end cooling and an overclocker board. Who's being stubborn here, hmm?

He was comparing the power consumption of the FX @4.8GHz to the similarly performing Xeon @3.5GHz. The Xeon's TDP is 80W.

Ok you are talking about TDP, I get it still I highly advise against the Xenon, the Xenon can't be OC if the OP wants to get more juice in the future he will be stuck with a processor he can't push, plus with no commercial value in a year or 2, My point is the 8320 stock performs, just a little below the Xeon, but its allot cheaper, and with the possibility to Overclock in the future, plus the 8320 doesn't need a high end cooler the option I present is more then enough to keep a 4.8gh OC 8320 cooled, also if the OP gets a 4770k or a 4670k then he will actually need a proper cooling solution Haswell on stock cooler can go all the way up to 90c. TDP wise the Xeon is probably the best at stock, the 4770k is around 90-100W, and the 8320 is 130W, the disadvantage here is when OCed the 8320 will have almost double the tdp of the 4770k OCed, the Xeon can't be OCed so in terms of performance is just not worth it, yes the 4770k is better then the 8320 yet in gaming benchmarks that advantage prove neglectable, and the 8320 is allot cheaper then the 4770k and still a very capable processor, and lets be honest I hardly doubt the OP is preoccupied with the extra 150w, his current build is pulling more then that with that q9450 OC.

 

[lehtv]

Not it doesn't.....

If you say so

Nice wall of text there. I think I'll skip

 

[mfenn]

The below is basically a recitation of points that have already been proven wrong plus some extra doublespeak on top for good measure.

To wit:

Ok you are talking about TDP, I get it still I highly advise against the Xenon, the Xenon can't be OC if the OP wants to get more juice in the future he will be stuck with a processor he can't push,

The point is that he doesn't have to push the Xeon to match what a heavily overclocked FX-8350 can do (let alone the FX-8320). There is no overclocking gas left in the tank in either scenario.

plus with no commercial value in a year or 2,

This is just a ridiculous argument. What's worth more, a like new server-grade processor or a consumer grade part that's been pushed to the brink?

My point is the 8320 stock performs, just a little below the Xeon,

This performance argument has been proven factually wrong several times already using data and basic mathematics.

but its allot cheaper,

This is also wrong given that you need high-end motherboard and cooler to overclock the FX whereas you are fine with a basic H87 board and the stock cooler on the Xeon.

and with the possibility to Overclock in the future,

You'll have to overclock in the present to even come close to bridging the performance gap.

plus the 8320 doesn't need a high end cooler the option I present is more then enough to keep a 4.8gh OC 8320 cooled

A $60 H60 is high-end enough to make the FX cost the same as the Xeon.

, also if the OP gets a 4770k or a 4670k then he will actually need a proper cooling solution Haswell on stock cooler can go all the way up to 90c.

Good thing we're not talking about either one of those parts.

TDP wise the Xeon is probably the best at stock, the 4770k is around 90-100W, and the 8320 is 130W,

Yes, No, and Yes, in that order. Not that the TDP of the 4770K is relevant in any way.

the disadvantage here is when OCed the 8320 will have almost double the tdp of the 4770k OCed,

Probably, but again we're not talking about the overclocked performance of the 4770K.

the Xeon can't be OCed so in terms of performance is just not worth it,

Again, this is factually wrong given the benchmark data that has been linked.

yes the 4770k is better then the 8320 yet in gaming benchmarks that advantage prove neglectable, and the 8320 is allot cheaper then the 4770k, and still a very capable processor

OK, so now performance doesn't matter at all and we're not going to overclock? What argument are you trying to make again?

, and lets be honest I hardly doubt the OP is preoccupied with the extra 150w, his current build is pulling more then that with that q9450 OC.

And now you're really grasping at straws. The OP plainly stated that his current CPU is not overclocked because it is unable to hit the clocks that it used to.

 

[mfenn]

If you say so

Nice wall of text there. I think I'll skip

I took the liberty of spacing it out a bit.