New PC build- are these components good?

[linnemeyerhere]

Tomtom111,
If given the choice the i5 is a stronger platform but more expensive across the board. I love AMD and had supported same and still do with my bulldozer rig, but my 3770k rig is really impressive and even if you have to get down to an i3 platform for budget reasons you can always upgrade later to the i5 or i7.

 

[Tomtom111]

That's a good point, but if I were to go Intel I'd probably go straight to the i5. Does it justify the £60 premium though? (including the extra for the motherboard) Also, the other parts I selected will be compatible regardless of the brand of CPU i pick, right? (ie GPU, HDD, power buttons on the case, etc.)

 

[linnemeyerhere]

As much as want to tell you the AMD is as good and in real world terms it is but benchmarking and extreme audio/video editing and such the i5 will out perform the AMD. The AMD will yield way more fun overclocking and exploring the limits of your AMD chip.
And yes the choice of mobo and chip is totally independent of the rest of your components.

 

[Tomtom111]

Right, so disregarding editing and benchmarks as neither would be important to me, would AMD be the better bang for the buck in the real world? I get that Intel is better but I'm just not sure if its worth the extra money.

 

[linnemeyerhere]

In my humble opinion yes ! But either way you'll be very pleased, but when on a tight budget then I say AMD still has the bang for buck advantage but this still requires good street level discounts. What I mean is if you by the AMD at higher street discount costing then a highly discounted Intel then the gap narrows. I've found that discounts on Intel never go as deep as AMD for the smart and patient buyer !

 

[kbrady1979]

If you are thinking of going Intel, and aren't going to overclock, go Haswell. Makes no sense to stick with Ivy Bridge if you have no intentions on OC'ing. Here is a very rough, general guideline when comparing Intel and AMD CPU's: AMD prices their CPU's according to what model Intel it is comparable to. A $150 AMD CPU might look much better on paper but will only turn in performance on par with a $150 Intel CPU. That's why AMD's top of the line FX-8350 was about the same price as the Intel I5-3570K, because at the end of the day, they performed about the same. AMD couldn't charge $1000 for the 8350 when a $2-300 CPU could turn in the same numbers, or better numbers. A bit off topic, but if you are ever curious about how "X" processor compares with "Y" processor.....just look at the price equivalent.

Alright, that being said, even though the Intel platform is more expensive, you do get the Intel chipset and all the greatness that comes with it. I would get a socket 1150 I3 or I5 and an H87 or Z87 motherboard and call it a day. If you are thinking you may upgrade to a CPU that you can overclock later on, then start out with a Z87 board so you don't have to change it later. If you never have any plans on overclocking, go with a good H87 motherboard.

 

[NoN]

+1...Good point there!

 

[Tomtom111]

If you are thinking of going Intel, and aren't going to overclock, go Haswell. Makes no sense to stick with Ivy Bridge if you have no intentions on OC'ing. Here is a very rough, general guideline when comparing Intel and AMD CPU's: AMD prices their CPU's according to what model Intel it is comparable to. A $150 AMD CPU might look much better on paper but will only turn in performance on par with a $150 Intel CPU. That's why AMD's top of the line FX-8350 was about the same price as the Intel I5-3570K, because at the end of the day, they performed about the same. AMD couldn't charge $1000 for the 8350 when a $2-300 CPU could turn in the same numbers, or better numbers. A bit off topic, but if you are ever curious about how "X" processor compares with "Y" processor.....just look at the price equivalent.

Alright, that being said, even though the Intel platform is more expensive, you do get the Intel chipset and all the greatness that comes with it. I would get a socket 1150 I3 or I5 and an H87 or Z87 motherboard and call it a day. If you are thinking you may upgrade to a CPU that you can overclock later on, then start out with a Z87 board so you don't have to change it later. If you never have any plans on overclocking, go with a good H87 motherboard.

OK, so what you're saying is that if I do go with the FX6300, I'm getting the equivilant of an i3? , as they're at the same price point? And yet the FX6300 comes out on top. De-mystify please.
Oh, and I have no intention for OCing, but trust me if I had enough I would look straight at a 4670, but its almost £100 more.

 

[kbrady1979]

Over several benchmarks, an I3 will turn in similar numbers to an FX-6300. Don't discount those I3's......they are some very good performers. It's not straight dollar-to-dollar, but you can say an AMD is equivalent to an Intel that is within $10-20 of it.........give or take. There are some things an I3 will do better and there are some that the 6300 will do better........it all pretty much evens out.

 

[Tomtom111]

OK, I think I understand. So would it be a better choice to go with a similarity priced i3 instead of the FX6300, and then leave the door open for a CPU upgrade in the future, like to an i5? That as opposed to getting a FX6300 and then ditching both motherboard an CPU when I want an upgrade. The first option could be more cost effective and make the board last longer. Bearing in mind I would have less cores and a slower clock. What do you think?

 

[linnemeyerhere]

I would say yes to the i3 and use some of the savings to upgrade the mobo features if needed then upgrade to an i5 or i7 when budget allows. If on the other hand you could see yourself getting bitten by the upgrade and overclock bug as most of us have here then AMD is way more bang for buck......really not even close. Reading your needs then go i3 and get 2x4gb ram modules so you can upgrade to another matched pair later as well. Choose ram of at least 1866 mhz.

 

[kbrady1979]

At that point, it's 6 of one and half dozen of another. I prefer Intel based platforms because of the superior chipset features. If you can scrounge up the cash for a higher end I3 or a lower end I5 you will be doing yourself a big favor. I would opt for the Intel system if it were my money.

 

[Tomtom111]

Hmm, OK then is it worth getting a Haswell chip, or going down a slightly cheaper route with the Ivy Bridge line up? From what I've read the biggest improvement is the power usage, but not much else significant, would that be right?

 

[kbrady1979]

Benchmarks show Haswell has a better IPC than Ivy Bridge, and if you aren't going to OC, they run really good. Plus, Ivy Bridge is a dead platform.....there is still going to be another revision of chips coming to the socket 1150 platform.

 

[linnemeyerhere]

Haswell for the mobo features and XMP ram ease !

 

[Tomtom111]

I was reading that getting the 6300 would bottle neck my GPU, and getting an Intel CPU (even an i3) would be the better choice. My problem with it is that the i3 only has two cores whereas the 6300 has six. Three times as many cores. I just don't see how that doesn't make it better at mutlitasking than the i3. And its got a slower clock, and yet it matches the 6300 in benchmarks, although it may not reflect performance in the real world.
Would it bottle neck my GPU?

 

[kbrady1979]

The cores in the Intel CPU are much more powerful than AMD's current offerings. I doubt the I3 could outperform the AMD in heavily threaded applications, but I doubt you are using any heavily threaded applications. As most applications are still single/dual threaded, you hardly gain anything having six cores. Technically, the six core will be faster in applications that can use more than 2 cores, and unless you know you are going to use more than 2 cores, I would still opt for the I3 with plans for an I5 later on.....or save up and start out with an I5.

I understand your confusion about how it's possible the Intel CPU is faster, and it is really hard to explain because it's very application specific but the fact is, Intel CPU cores are SO much faster and more powerful than AMD, that 2 Intel cores can process and calculate just about as much as a handful of AMD cores. A quad core Intel I5 is really the sweet spot unless you are going for a super budget build. In the end, it is your dollar and your decision. The AMD processor is a pretty damn good CPU for a little over $100, and the Intel is as well, it just comes down to what platform you want to build off of, and I think Intel is the best bet.

 

[Tomtom111]

OK, thanks for your advice. One last thing though, if I got the six core and I have three two core programs open, couldn't Windows set it up so that the program has two dedicated cores each, instead of sharing the cores across all the programs? Just a thought.

Thanks again

 

[kbrady1979]

Not that I know of.......Windows will just allow the CPU to work where it's needed. Some cores are used for some things, and some for other.......it all depends on how the program or application is written.