Building Custom Desktop, budget under $1500

[wolfeking]

I am not arguing that intel is faster. But it is not anywhere near $40 more performance, especially when either is going to net you performance above 60FPS in pretty much any game with 7850s and 7870s, and assuming a 7870 with the 2500k, you will be able to get a 7950 with the 8320, which would net far better FPS than any intel CPU on a lower GPU.

You may have the money to blindly throw at Intel, but in gaming, your not going to notice a great deal of difference without looking at the FPS counter constantly.

 

[Okedokey]

.. and assuming a 7870 with the 2500k, you will be able to get a 7950 with the 8320, which would net far better FPS than any intel CPU on a lower GPU.

Huh?

Nice try padwan. Fact 1: The 2500K will own a 8320 in gaming right now (its also the same price). And that's not even factoring the 4.9GHz you can get out of the box with the 2500K. At just 4GHz I would doubt AMD has anything on a 2500K.

This helps with many games, (e.g. Skyrim, Far Cry 3, Metro, BF3, Crysis, FlightSimX) and so on. Hugely so. Especially in four years when you're wanting to overclock that (now old) 7870 and CPU to play the latest 3D game. WIth intel you will be able to, in fact you'll still probably have a faster computer than almost all AMD's alternatives. IC foundaries are not magic, AMD have nothing in the pipeline. Even if they do, it wont be in the socket generations either of us are discussing.

The cpu costs the same last time i checked newegg, as do the motherboards. Even if it is $40 difference, are you telling me that the OP shouldn't opt for a 2500K system (same cost as AMD) because in four years trust me, he'll be happy. And $40 wont mean squat from 4 years ago.

But whats better is that 2500K will perform better in almost all instances now.

So for $40 extra (if that is the case), you get (significantly) better today and better tomorrow. Pretty basic logic.

 

[wolfeking]

Do your research. It is a $40 difference.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113285
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115072

And motherboards are far cheaper.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128508&Tpk=990FXA-UD7
vs
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128549 (they don't even make a UD7 for z77, which is useless to buy with a 2500k anyway, as your paying for at least 2 techs that you won't be able to use. Also have to notice that the UD7 has 16 phase power while the UD5 only has 12 phase).

Top end AMD boards are cheaper than top end Intel anyway assuming the same model. Asus as an example.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131934
vs
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131876

so with your $40 on the CPU and $50 on the motherboard, your now looking at a 7970 vs a 7870, which no matter your CPU you will get better FPS.


Aside from your whole argument, its wrong. On the same graphics card, it performs almost exactly the same at the average 1080p and 5760x1080.
http://uk.hardware.info/reviews/371...rce-gtx-680-tested-with-10-cpus-battlefield-3
http://uk.hardware.info/reviews/371...-geforce-gtx-680-tested-with-10-cpus-crysis-2
http://uk.hardware.info/reviews/371...force-gtx-680-tested-with-10-cpus-max-payne-3

 

[Okedokey]

I can find a 2500K and motherboard of equal quality and performance for the same price mate. It will still own anything you have from AMD and will do so into the future. This is 100% correct because it is fact. $40 is a lot to you, however as a source of balanced information, if I were to read this forum I would want to see the alternative, and the alternative is far, far better.

Secondly, overclock that 680, or add another to those charts and watch it burn. Thirdly, the lower the resolution the more impact on the CPU.

But even then, 20 - 30FPS increase on Skyrim, 10 - 20FPS less on WOW, at the same resolution is worth 40 bucks. Thats with a 2550K. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-review,3328-14.html

It also will use nearly twice the power, generating nearly twice the heat http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-review,3328-16.html

If you're worried about $40, go for the Phenom X4 II, it will perform nearly as good as the 8320 for much much less.

Basically saying what im saying

Would FX-8350 be my first choice in a new build, though? Probably not. Although I’m impressed by the work AMD’s architects have done in the last year, performance remains too workload-dependent. And, inexpensive energy aside, I’m going to go with the more efficient implementation when all else is close to equal.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-review,3328-17.html

Translation, "when it costs the same, go with the intel chip"

 

[wolfeking]

Tell me, how is it far better. The 3570k is better than the 2500k. Given fact.

The 3570k and the 8350 (or 8320 at stock 8350 speeds) give almost identical framerates using the same GPU.
So you are willing to drop to a lower GPU to get the best CPU, even though it nets worse frames? Good luck with that. Would be nice to see you prove it wrong though with your own testing, but based on every response you make on this forum, you would probably drop dead even touching AMD products.


Simple facts is in gaming, you same money, while maintaining performance with the 8320.

 

[Okedokey]

Already linked above.

 

[wolfeking]

1. Synthetic benches, and carefully chosen games.

2. I am done argueing with an intel fanboy.

@OP: If you want to waste $40, go intel. If you want to get a better GPU, and thus better framerates, go AMD. Either will be fine. BF is going reply saying BS, but FTFE.

 

[Okedokey]

Im saying $40 is worth the extra few years you get of being able to play the latest games without a new motherboard, cpu and windows key. And the 2500K is faster now, significantly. Especially in real world computing which is what you do most of the time. And it costs the same.

AMD fanboiz cant handle the truth.

Find me a 8350 platform for better:

2500K $219
Gigabyte motherboard $46

$265, show me an AMD set up that would beat it for less with the same graphics cards.

 

[wolfeking]

AMD fanboiz cant handle the truth.

Neither can Intel Fanboys apparently. And secondly, every damn CPU I own is Intel, and none of them perform any better than any AMD would in the same cases.

Actually, ****it. This entire forum is just fanboys, so screw it.

 

[Okedokey]

And we have the third stage of denial, anger~!

Hhaha, play the ball not the man.

Neither can Intel Fanboys apparently. And secondly, every damn CPU I own is Intel, and none of them perform any better than any AMD would in the same cases.

Actually, ****it. This entire forum is just fanboys, so screw it.

Then why overclock? Fail logic.

 

[wolfeking]

Then why overclock? Fail logic.

Fail in every way, and it is because Intel has very little performance over AMD in everyday cases. A 2600k is $280 worth of fail. A 3930K is $500 worth of fail, simply because it is ever so little performance over even 2 generations old processors, which can be had for much less.

The 2600k I have performs very poorly in everything even at 4,8GHz. Especially CF scaling.

 

[Okedokey]

The 2600k I have performs very poorly in everything even at 4,8GHz. Especially CF scaling.

Hhahahah there it is!

Lol, ok, so your 2600K fails how?

Show me better when its 4.8GHz

BTW cf scaling has NOTHING to do with the 2600K, its AMD fail again! Cross fire is an AMD driver fail, and thats your fault for not doing your research. Well known fact.

God, you have no clue, second time in a matter of days ive handed your ass to you.

The 2500K is around the same price, (or get the 3570K, itll fit in the same mobo and performs better), no matter what nonsense you come out with thats a fact.

Still haven't seen that AMD platform that is better for the same price - wonder why that is?

 

[spirit]

I think we should call and end to this now.

For what the OP wants to do, his system will be perfectly fine.

Let's just leave it at that.

 

[Okedokey]

I understand your intent spirit, and thats good.

But why on earth would a forum of this nature recommend a cpu that is the same price but worse? Not even factoring in OC or upgrade potential.

 

[spirit]

It would appear to me that the FX-8320 doesn't perform too badly at all compared to the 2500K. In some areas, the 2500K is faster, in others, the 8320 is faster. http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/698?vs=288

The 8320 is certainly better than the 8120.

To throw my own opinion in, I'd rather own a 2500K or a 3570K over the 8320, BUT, that's not to say the 8320 should be completely disregarded and I'm not a fanboy on either side.

The OP can choose between the 2500K/3570K or the 8320. Whatever he goes for will be fine.

 

[Okedokey]

True, it will both be fine, but if I were reading this thread, Id want to know what is better for the money. ITS THE SAME PRICE! In fact cheaper until someone can show me otherwise.

Also, lets overclock that 2500K to 4.9GHz (takes 2 minutes), and show me anything for the price or otherwise that is faster (btw your linke spirit has no gaming benches, remember this is a gaming machine).

Even if its not a gaming machine, moreso my point, the 2500K is better there too, even at stock.

 

[spirit]

Ok ok ok, yes, I would agree the Intel chips are better, so I'd ultimately recommend one over the AMD, but I don't have anything against the AMD.

 

[Okedokey]

Im not saying they're all better, just that at the 220 buck price point, where mobos are the same value, the 2500K is the best choice. Simple.

 

[spirit]

I think we should leave it at that conclusion now.

 

[Okedokey]

I think we should leave it at that conclusion now.

We'll leave that up to the OP i think