Best price Vs performace processor

C

Currency

New Member
Hey guys, I will be in the market for a new system build in the coming weeks, I am looking to replace my aging 2.7Ghz dual core 235e AMD system. So I am looking for something......

Quad core, best price vs. Performance. Sounds simple enough. Right, let's here some valid discussions regarding the best price vs. performance processor for my new system.

AMD Vs. Intel... I'm an AMD fanboy but Intel has clearly beaten them down in performance reviews, however some of their lineup is a little higher priced in line of price Vs. Performance.

Either way, I plan to build the system around the processor, at least 8GB's of memory, perhaps an SSD and so on, but this thread is clearly regarding the processor selection. You guys have not let me down in the past when it came to finding a good case, so let's hear what everyone has to say and please keep the Intel is better than AMD out of this thread.

Plain and simple, best price Vs. Performance quad core or perhaps six, eight core, depending on price Vs. performance. :D
 
Really for the price an i3-2100 dual core is as powerful as an amd quad core, and more so compared to the current FX quad cores. Although if there is a microcenter near you you can get an AMD 960t phenom quad core with a motherboard for 40 off which puts the price/performance way higher on the AMD side, even with a FX-4100 quad core. (I have a computer i built using them up on the for-sale section if you wanna look at that)
 
I looked at the system you have for sale but the motherboard wouldn't have the upgrade ability I am looking for in my new build.

Yes, Intel has good processors. If I go Intel it's a 2500K all the way, but then spending $220 for the processor alone doesn't allow a whole lot for the remaining system. I don't really want to bottleneck the system with a weaker GPU and power house of a CPU.

I will be doing different things with the system, from gaming, video editing and encoding, and so on. Also since I already have a dual core, I would like a quad core system.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/102?vs=289
 
The dual core you have is an extremely weak one compared to an i3, the intel i series are so much faster than a normal core that with the i3 and i7, each core is setup like 2 so they can take in and send out twice as much info, netting about a 33% increase in performance from the straight core, and the amd cpus are far from this efficiency. The thing is that looking at the bench you linked, the intel dual core is just as powerful as an amd quad core, so what's the point in saying it has to be quad or higher if a dual core will do just as good at things made for quad cores.

For what you want an i3 will do fine, or if overclocking matters to you, then a amd phenom would be the better choice since i3's don't overclock, you will get plenty good performance either way, amd quad, intel dual, intel quad.
 
Yeah. If you don't want to bite the bullet for a quad-core i5 and you don't want a dual-core, then that pretty much leaves Phenom 2. The only other choice would be an APU, but if it's a gaming system you would get better price and performance out of Phenom 2. Who knows, if you went with a 960T you could get lucky and unlock it to a hexa-core. I have no idea if there's many of them sold anymore or what the unlockable supply is like though. (since it is assumed that the unlockable chips were sold first)
 
Last edited:
jonnyp11 said:
i3 and i7, each core is setup like 2 so they can take in and send out twice as much info, netting about a 33% increase in performance from the straight core, and the amd cpus are far from this efficiency.
Click to expand...

That doesnt make sense. First you say the i3/5 has twice as much info, then you say 33%. Make up your mind. Plus the AMD module has about 80% of the performance as a true dual core of the same spec.

Mishkin said:
The only other choice would be an APU
Click to expand...

Other then the GPU the APU sucks, just slightly faster then the Athlon II and doesnt overclock worth a damn. Would much rather have a FX-X4/X6
 
StrangleHold said:
That doesnt make sense. First you say the i3/5 has twice as much info, then you say 33%. Make up your mind. Plus the AMD module has about 80% of the performance as a true dual core of the same spec.



Other then the GPU the APU sucks, just slightly faster then the Athlon II and doesnt overclock worth a damn. Would much rather have a FX-X4/X6
Click to expand...

Actually i said they can process twice as much info with the threading, not that they do, then said they actually get the ~30% increase. And AMD's module is advertised as 2 cores, but you just said they perform at 80% of a similar true dual core, compared to intel advertising a single core that actually performs at ~130% of 2 true intel cores, but since intel cores are faster, that's closer to if the FX was performing at what, like 100-110%?
 
Last edited:
jonnyp11 said:
Actually i said they can process twice as much info with the threading, not that they do, then said they actually get the ~30% increase. And AMD's module is advertised as 2 cores, but you just said they perform at 80% of a similar true dual core, compared to intel advertising a single core that actually performs at ~130% of 2 true intel cores, but since intel cores are faster, that's closer to if the FX was performing at what, like 100-110%?
Click to expand...

Thats all screwed up man.

Intel Hyperthreading cant process twice as much data. With Hyperthreading you can get 0% up to somewhere around 25/30% extra performance vs. a (single) core if that core is running two threads. If you noticed its a 0% to 30% over a single Core

AMD module can perform around 80% of the preformance of a full (dual) core if running two threads. If you noticed its 80% of a dual core.

If AMD IPC was the same as Intel, a AMD module would kill the Intel single core intel with HT.
 
Mishkin said:
Yeah. If you don't want to bite the bullet for a quad-core i5 and you don't want a dual-core, then that pretty much leaves Phenom 2. The only other choice would be an APU, but if it's a gaming system you would get better price and performance out of Phenom 2. Who knows, if you went with a 960T you could get lucky and unlock it to a hexa-core. I have no idea if there's many of them sold anymore or what the unlockable supply is like though. (since it is assumed that the unlockable chips were sold first)
Click to expand...

I'm willing to pay the price for the best price vs performance processor. I just sold an older system than the one I currently use which had a 1.86Ghz Intel core 2 duo which of course is faster than my current 235E CPU.

I just want something that will do what I want it to, plus last several years to come. Overall I am willing to spend around $700-800 for the system build. Considering that was my budget before, and I now have the case I plan to use, I have boosted the budget by an additional $100 which provides some head room.

Also I can get Windows 7 for $10 from the community college I am attending to finish up the math courses of my online A.A. IT degree.

Considering this thread as a whole is just about CPU's and/or overclocking, which I do not plan to do, but may do in the future. I created my thread to search out that gem, that one good price vs. performance processor.

While I would like a quad, I could live with a dual core, but the whole purpose of my planned system build is to build a quad core system.

I play BF3, minecraft, Skyrim. Nothing really intensive that my 235e can't already play, otherwise I wouldn't be able to say I already play them.

I play them on the system I am posting this from, AMD 235e 2.71Ghz dual core, 6Gb's of DDR2 memory, 750GB HDD, XFX 5770, 650 WATT Antec Earth Works PSU, and the new Lancool PC-K62 case.
 
jonnyp11 said:
Actually i said they can process twice as much info with the threading, not that they do, then said they actually get the ~30% increase. And AMD's module is advertised as 2 cores, but you just said they perform at 80% of a similar true dual core, compared to intel advertising a single core that actually performs at ~130% of 2 true intel cores, but since intel cores are faster, that's closer to if the FX was performing at what, like 100-110%?
Click to expand...

I thought this is what Bulldozer is suppose to do? Two modules per CPU core therefore it can handle more threads per core/module.

As for AMD/Intel. They both went their own ways to get to where they are today, while Intel engineers thought it was best to improve on point A of the CPU AMD engineers thought it was best to improve point B of the CPU.

Different ways of getting to one place, if you combine what both AMD and Intel has done via improving their CPU's, you would have a kick ass Core I9 :D
 
Think I have settled on the I3 2100. If anyone has any further input into this topic feel free to post as I will continue watching this thread.
 
StrangleHold said:
Thats all screwed up man.

Intel Hyperthreading cant process twice as much data. With Hyperthreading you can get 0% up to somewhere around 25/30% extra performance vs. a (single) core if that core is running two threads. If you noticed its a 0% to 30% over a single Core

AMD module can perform around 80% of the preformance of a full (dual) core if running two threads. If you noticed its 80% of a dual core.

If AMD IPC was the same as Intel, a AMD module would kill the Intel single core intel with HT.
Click to expand...

Which is what he said...

I think what he was getting at is that Hyperthreading is there to make a single core process data for on two threads simultaneously. In theory, as it can handle two threads, it would be twice as fast, when in reality it only nets ~30%.

He didn't say it is twice the performance, he said exactly what you did.

Currency, take the i3, however make sure you have yourself a Z68 motherboard to go with it, or wait a couple of months and take a Z77 + Ivy Bridge CPU.

If you can't wait, take Z68 and you will still be able to use an Ivy Bridge CPU on your board, you will just lose some features on Z77, which really, there aren't many if you get a PCIe 3.0 board
 
Aastii said:
Which is what he said...

I think what he was getting at is that Hyperthreading is there to make a single core process data for on two threads simultaneously. In theory, as it can handle two threads, it would be twice as fast, when in reality it only nets ~30%.

He didn't say it is twice the performance, he said exactly what you did.

Currency, take the i3, however make sure you have yourself a Z68 motherboard to go with it, or wait a couple of months and take a Z77 + Ivy Bridge CPU.

If you can't wait, take Z68 and you will still be able to use an Ivy Bridge CPU on your board, you will just lose some features on Z77, which really, there aren't many if you get a PCIe 3.0 board
Click to expand...

That's what i was trying to get at, i have issues with putting thought to text/paper/word :(:o Well at least coherantly, i had it in there just written in a bad way.

And what about P67? Also in his other thread he is talking about a 980BE v a 6100 now instead (overclocking wise at least).
 
I still dont see the legitimacy of overclocking the AMD chips, you have to add so much voltage, and ipc still cant touch intel...and in the process of adding the volts, the wattage the AMD pulls goes through the roof, i wouldnt be happy with that myself. (This is pointing at the FX series chips btw)

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/bulldozer-efficiency-overclock-undervolt,3083.html

This is where I found out how bad these things can suck juice...at 4.6 ghz the chip consumes nearly DOUBLE the amount of watts the bugger did when stock...
 
Last edited:
while i'm no professional builder/benchmarker. in the last few years i've built 2x 1090t 1x i5 2550k and a i7 980x. While all 3 processors can handle gaming on ultra settings in bf3 (with my 7970) and basically any game @ max settings. i feel that the i5 2550k performed the best. however when multi tasking (iTunes tv shows, browser, Skype etc) i feel like my 980x handled that situation better than the i5 2550k. the 1090t was a great processor, but i just feel like the intels processors ran smoother. maybe it was a mental bias, i dunno. if I had to redo all 4 computers, i would go with the 2500k/2550k the 980x was $1000 when i bought it, a little bit of buyers remorse but i still love it. If you aren't in a rush, wait and check out ivy bridge when it comes out in a few months. i'll probably be building some kind of ivy bridge platform when it comes out :D

btw this forum sux... LOL jk happy april fools day XD
 
I don't think I will have everything ordered by 4/4, don't even think I will have the cash in hand until after that. No debit card, makes paypal transfer take a week, but keeps me from over spending.


I pieced together a decent I5 2500K rig, well CPU, Mobo, and memory, while reusing some old parts. I could have lower end mobo with the 2500K and 8GB's of memory of around $350 plus or minus a few bucks.

It was a Z68 board, lower end though, but out of all nine systems I've pieced together on newegg I think that will give me the most bang for the buck. Honestly just trying to best my cousin with his Q6600 build. My 5770 is still better than his GPU, but for $350 I almost fell out of my chair in disbelief for a lower end 2500K system.

The other thread is in the desktop computer thread to help me decide overall what to get. Best price vs performance CPU's I've found are the 980T and I3 2100.

My largest issue right now with my current setup is firefox freezing up randomly, it always comes out of it, but waiting 30 seconds here and there just gets annoying. Overall the extra cores of the AMD CPU would help in aspects of multi tasking, but the overall power of the I3 2100 or I5 2500K will beat the 980T to death most days.

In the process of selling off a 1991 Chevy Beretta which I'll net around $400 profit. My overall system budget was $800 but still could be depending on student loan disbursement dates and/or amounts. That means I could put together something for under $350-$400 now, or spend upwards of $800 later but end up paying 6.8% interest.

Also have to go pick up a John Deere 108 lawn tractor I bought last week for $250 on the 5th. 30" cut but beats pushing for only 20 inches of cut.

Way off topic, sort of :D
 
Last edited:
Aastii said:
Which is what he said...

I think what he was getting at is that Hyperthreading is there to make a single core process data for on two threads simultaneously. In theory, as it can handle two threads, it would be twice as fast, when in reality it only nets ~30%.

He didn't say it is twice the performance, he said exactly what you did.
Click to expand...

No, he didnt say the same thing I did.

In post 4 he said a Intel single core with HT had a performance increase of 33% running two threads. Then said that a AMD module was far less efficient.

The first part is close to being true. Its arould 25/30% at max. The second part is false. The AMD module is far more efficient running two threads. Not talking IPC here.

In post 7 now he turns around and says that since AMD module was 80% the performance of full two AMD cores, that means that the Intel is 130% the performance of a full 2 Intel cores. Then comes to the equation that made the AMD 100/110% of the permormance of a two core AMD.

Now you and me both know that you cant twist the % points around like that. The way the % points are equated are different. If you want to equate the % point the same. Starting with 200% for a Dual core. The Intel gets 30% over a single, so that would be 130% of a Dual. AMD gets 20% less then a dual, so AMD would be 160% of a dual core.
 
StrangleHold said:
Thats all screwed up man.

Intel Hyperthreading cant process twice as much data. With Hyperthreading you can get 0% up to somewhere around 25/30% extra performance vs. a (single) core if that core is running two threads. If you noticed its a 0% to 30% over a single Core

AMD module can perform around 80% of the preformance of a full (dual) core if running two threads. If you noticed its 80% of a dual core.

If AMD IPC was the same as Intel, a AMD module would kill the Intel single core intel with HT.
Click to expand...

I understood exactly what he meant, he just said that he isn't great at explaining things too so it really isn't necessary to nitpick.

jonnyp11 said:
Actually i said they can process twice as much info with the threading, not that they do, then said they actually get the ~30% increase. And AMD's module is advertised as 2 cores, but you just said they perform at 80% of a similar true dual core, compared to intel advertising a single core that actually performs at ~130% of 2 true intel cores, but since intel cores are faster, that's closer to if the FX was performing at what, like 100-110%?
Click to expand...

With Hyperthreading, you would think 2 threads therefore 2 x performance, but it isn't true, you only get ~30% extra in multithreaded applications.

Later when saying you get ~130% of true dual core, that is you get 30% over half the performance of a dual core. The 130% was 130% of a single core, not dual, but I got what he meant. It is in reality 1 core = ~65% performance of a true dual core.

As Intel cores are faster, it is the same as the FX processors working at 100-110% for the architecture, so each core putting out 100-110% performance of a true dual core (or rather 2 modules) for it to match the Intel chips.


I'm not disagreeing it wasn't clear, but it is pretty obvious what he was getting at even if worded incorrectly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top