17-3770 vs FX-8350

[Mark1t]

Hello everybody!

A friend of mine will buy a new pc. He needs a VERY responsive system, for multitasking, and LR4 editing. He has a 21:9 lg monitor, so it often happens, that he opens: chrome, lr, iTunes after effects. He is not a gamer, he plays games once a week(bf3 on high, minecraft).He is thinking of these two setups.

---

1. 2.

Asus P8B75-m Asus M5A97 LE R2.0

I7-3770 (not the K, 'cause he doesn't overclocks) FX-8350

4x2gb kingston hyperx 1600mhz 4x2gb kingston hyperx 1600mhz

sapphire hd 7770 sapphire hd 7770

kingston ssdnow v300 60gb kingston ssdnow v300 60gb

1tb hdd 1tb hdd

---

1st question: Which one do you prefer?

2nd question: Do you have a better suggestion for the money ($700)

 

[Jim Cockfield]

That SSD is a bit small for real world use.

I'd consider going with a 128GB model as a minimum. Personally, I'd lean towards a Samsung 840 Pro if buying a new one right now, as they have a good reputation for reliability. But, the 256GB models are faster (as a general rule of thumb, the smaller the SSD, the slower it is, especially for write activity, but that varies by SSD brand/model).

As for cost, have you figured in the cost of things like the case, power supply, operating system, DVD drive, keyboard, mouse, any wireless adapter needed, etc.?

Personally, what i usually do is scan the Dell Outlet listings for bargains, as you can usually find something like their XPS 8500 at a good price if you use coupon codes for more off (and they have one for 25% the listed prices right now that's good through May 28).

That way, you get a complete machine including case, power supply (460 Watt in the case of the XPS 8500 with the ability to handle video cards drawing up to 225 watts via separate connections for that purpose), and Dell sells them with cards like the HD 7870 or GTX 660 for gamers, and also offers lower end cards like the HD 7570, HD 7770; Nvidia GT 620 and GT 640 (and the Dell OEM version of the GT 640 is spec'd identically to the retail GTX 650 with 384 CUDA cores and faster GDDR5, whereas the retail GT 640 uses slower GDDR3).

Chances are, you could find a nicely equipped box from Dell Outlet with a Core i7 3770 and plenty of options after using a coupon code for 25% off that falls within the OP's desired budget, and you'd also have a 1 year warranty with in home service.

I see some now for $1K with free shipping before any coupon code with a Core i7 3770, 12GB of 1600Mhz DDR3, HD 7770 video card with 2GB of GDDR5, 2TB drive, and Win 7 or Win 8 (but you see more of them with Win 8 right now), DVD writer and Blu-Ray player (read only) and they include plenty of USB 2.0 and 3.0 ports, Wireless N adapter, keyboard mouse, etc. with 1 year in home service by default (but, you can add a longer warranty for more). So, after a 25% off coupon code, you'd be in the general ball park for desired budget. Then, add an mSATA SSD (they have an mSATA slot for that purpose) later as budget permits (Intel, Crucial. mushkin and others make mSATA models so you don't have to use the spare drive bay for an SSD).

Heck, you can usually find a new one for around $700 with 8GB of memory (2x4GB leaving two slots open) if you're a good shopper and watch for coupon codes/discounts, then just add to it yourself as needed later (add more memory, SSD, etc.). You can find them with Core i5 3xxx CPUs for a bit less (and chances are, you're going to see a negligible difference between a newer Core i5 3xxx and Core i7 3xxx CPU for most tasks, as they both have the same 4 physical cores).

If he's dead set on building his own system, I'd make sure to include the cost for things like the Operating System and other peripherals needed; as motherboard, cpu cost and basic drives are only part of the total system cost.

As for choosing between the FX 8350 and Core i7 3770, the Intel processor has faster per core performance. So, apps that don't take as much advantage of the extra cores tend to run faster on the Intel CPU. The Intel CPU also uses less power.

The FX 8350 tends to compare nicely against the Intel quad cord models like Core i5 3570K type CPUs (again, the intel CPUs have better performance/core). IOW, you need double the cores with an AMD CPU to get comparable performance with newer generation Intel CPUs in most cases.

That's another option you may want to consider --- just go with something like a Core i7 3570 instead (as performance differences would be negligible compared to the FX 8350 at about the same cost, and you'd get better performance per core for apps that are not written to take advantage of more cores).

Now, if the cost was about the same for a system, I might consider an AMD FX 8350 instead of a Core i5 3570K type system. Flip a coin. ;-)

But, power usage will be higher with the AMD CPU (not a big deal to me, but if power cost is higher in a given area, the Intel model may save money over the life of a system).

--
JimC
------

 

[Mark1t]

Jim,

My friend has a wireless adapter, and a case, mouse, keyboard, 500W PSU and OS, everything. He doesn't want's to buy a full pc from dell, or hp etc... He can build a pc. From those two setups, what do you think, which one should he buy? or could you suggest a better setup for MAXIMUM $700? The ssd is ONLY for windows, and maybe PSCS6(from now it's CC )

Thanks

Mark

 

[gs85739az]

It appears the i7 3770 will fit your friends needs somewhat better than the FX-8350, but both will do ok...



http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/375/AMD_FX-Series_FX-8350_vs_Intel_Core_i7_i7-3770.html

 

[Jim Cockfield]

I might go with the AMD, mostly because I use Linux most of the time and it's pretty good about CPU task scheduling (where even single threaded task workloads are spread fairly evenly between available cores). I also use Corel AfterShot Pro, and it's better than most applications at taking advantage of systems with more cores (where with some of the Adobe apps, you're really not going to see any significant advantage once you get to a quad core CPU design).

For Windows use, that would be a tough call, as the Intel CPUs are *much* better for single threaded tasks (they have a lot better performance per core compared to the AMD models). IOW, don't let the clock speeds fool you. For per core performance, the latest Intel CPUs are much better. So, you really need more cores with an AMD design to do any better (and only with apps that are more multi-threaded in nature, as the Intel models are still going to outperform the AMD CPUs by a significant margin when running single threaded tasks).

Basically, the AMD FX 8350 is going to fall somewhere in between something like an Intel Core i5 3570 and Intel Core i7 3770 for most purposes; and it's priced closer to the Core i5 3570.

Again, that would be another option to consider (go with a Core i5 3570 instead of a Core i7 3770); as for most purposes, the Core i5 3570 is going to perform fairly close to the Core i7 3770. They're both quad core CPUs. The main difference is that the Core i7 3770 also supports Hyperthreading (so you get an additional 4 virtual cores allowing the CPU to support up to 8 threads). But, you still only have 4 physical cores with it, and the Core i5 3570 is a lower cost CPU, and for many apps, the performance difference moving to the Core i7 model is going to be negligible.

Mark1t wrote:

Jim,

My friend has a wireless adapter, and a case, mouse, keyboard, 500W PSU and OS, everything. He doesn't want's to buy a full pc from dell, or hp etc... He can build a pc. From those two setups, what do you think, which one should he buy? or could you suggest a better setup for MAXIMUM $700? The ssd is ONLY for windows, and maybe PSCS6(from now it's CC )

Thanks

Mark

 

[Mark1t]

Thanks, and what would be your build, if you only have $700 (only MOBO, CPU, GPU, RAM)

 

[Jim Cockfield]

There's really no right or wrong answer, as both CPUs are in the same ballpark for performance with most multi-threaded apps.

The Intel is going to have a big advantage for single threaded apps.

For example, you mentioned iTunes, and the Intel CPUs (either Core i5 3xxx models or Core i7 3xxx models) are going to "run circles" around the AMD FX 8350 with those types of apps, just because they don't take advantage of more Cores the way some of the more advanced apps for image editing do, and the Intel CPUs have much better per core performance.

But, any of them are high performance CPUs, and even if you get 50% better performance with single threaded apps with an Intel, that's probably not going to be noticeable in typical, real world use.

Basically, any of them are *much* faster than older generation CPU models. ;-)

So, I wouldn't sweat too much over the benchmarks, as in real world use, you're probably not going to see any noticeable difference between any of them like that (Core i7 3770, Core i5 3570; AMD FX-8350).

I'd find the best deal, go with it, and have no regrets.

Given "bang for the buck", the AMD is probably a better deal compared to the Intel Core i7 3770 (as the AMD is a lower cost CPU and can deliver pretty good performance with newer multi-threaded apps, and as time passes, more and more apps will be able to take advantage of additional CPU Cores).

Yea.... the Intel is faster for most single threaded and multi-threaded apps. But, there's not *that* much difference in them from my perspective.

If comparing the Core i5 3570 versus AMD FX 8350, I'd probably go AMD for the way I use a PC with the apps I currently use. Comparing the Intel Core i7 3770 and AMD FX 8350 is tougher (as the Intel CPUs have much better performance per core for single threaded apps, and have better performance for many multi-threaded apps) .

But, I'd take the lower cost of the AMD into consideration, too (as it has better "bang for the buck" (price/performance ratio).

IOW, flip a coin. There is no right or wrong answer. ;-)

 

[Jim Cockfield]

Mark1t wrote:

Thanks, and what would be your build, if you only have $700 (only MOBO, CPU, GPU, RAM)

I'm the wrong person to ask.

I built my own PCs for many years. But, then I figured out that's it's cheaper to buy a refurb machine from someone like Dell if you're a good shopper and use coupon codes for more off.

So, I'd probably go with something like a Dell XPS 8500 with a Core i5 3xxx CPU, 8GB of DDR3 (leaving two slots open for more), and lean towards a box using a Dell OEM GT 640 (as their OEM version of the GT 640 has the same specs as the retail GTX 650 video cards with 384 CUDA cores and 1GB of GDDR5), and I personally prefer Nvidia over AMD chipsets for video; with a 1TB or 2GB drive in it.

Then, I'd probably buy something like a 128GB Crucial mSATA SSD and plug it into the available mSATA slot and use it for the OS and Programs (so that I'd still have a free drive bay for another physical hard drive), and consider spending around $60 to bring up the memory to 16GB total (by adding another 2x4GB to the two open slots).

That way, I'd get a box with everything I'd personally need (plenty of USB 2.0 and 3.0 ports, Wireless N, dedicated video card, Operating System, optical and physical hard drives, with a 1 year warranty with on site service if I needed it for anything. You could probably find a box like that for around $600 delivered from Dell Outlet after coupon codes if you're a good shopper, and it wouldn't cost a lot to add more memory and an SSD.

So, I just don't see the point in building my own anymore if you're a good shopper and look for bargains and coupons for extra discounts on refurbs. ;-)

--
JimC
------

 

[Mark1t]

Thank you very much! If it's not a secret, can you tell me what are the specs of your pc?

 

[kelpdiver]

As Jim noted, the 60G SSD is a bad idea. Pay a few bucks more for a 120, not have to make a chore of C: drive management and worrying about how much space all those patches are taking. I'd just as soon ditch the SSD entirely and get a hybrid drive or just a plain old harddrive instead of dealing with the tight walls of the 60.

The 4x2gb memory choice is also a bad one. These are dual channel architectures - there's nothing gained, and some downsides to populating both pairs of dimm slots. Go to 2x4gb. Should be cheaper anyway. (unless you already have dimms on hand). You still have the option to go to 16g later.

I'd opt for the intel unless you have very specific needs that favored the high core count. It didn't seem to be the case from what I read. If the AMD is cheaper and allows for the bigger SSD, that might be enough reason to switch.

 

[Leon Obers]

Nobody seems to be looking to the specs of the motherboards itself. IMO there is a big difference between the boards as for the number of slots, USB ports, SATA speed, yes or no RAID possibilities, expansion slots.

I think if it is only for the difference to AMD or Intel CPU, at least choose motherboards with comparable possibilities and specs.

 

[Mark1t]

Leon Obers wrote:

Nobody seems to be looking to the specs of the motherboards itself. IMO there is a big difference between the boards as for the number of slots, USB ports, SATA speed, yes or no RAID possibilities, expansion slots.

I think if it is only for the difference to AMD or Intel CPU, at least choose motherboards with comparable possibilities and specs.

--
Leon Obers

Which mobo is better? Or could you recommend a better for the money?

 

[Leon Obers]

Mark1t wrote:

Which mobo is better? Or could you recommend a better for the money?

It is more the question what you intend to do with it in near future (next 2-3 years).
E.g. do you want to update to a second SSD in your mobo?
No real benefit from a motherboard that only have one SATA 6Gb/s port
Same as for a RAID setting, if a motherboard doesn't give the possibility.
What about eventually expandable cards, if there are no slots for it?

First think over what your needs could be in the near future (2-3 years).
Than look which mobo does give the possibilities to do so.

 

[Mark1t]

Leon Obers wrote:

Mark1t wrote:

Which mobo is better? Or could you recommend a better for the money?

It is more the question what you intend to do with it in near future (next 2-3 years).
E.g. do you want to update to a second SSD in your mobo?
No real benefit from a motherboard that only have one SATA 6Gb/s port
Same as for a RAID setting, if a motherboard doesn't give the possibility.
What about eventually expandable cards, if there are no slots for it?

First think over what your needs could be in the near future (2-3 years).
Than look which mobo does give the possibilities to do so.

 

[Leon Obers]

I did point for what is important in choosing a mobo in general.
Two SSD's (in near future) at least you need two SATA 6Gb/s ports. Same for other devices. (Think of e.g. back-up possibilities, maybe connecting to a scanner ???).
It is just a comparison of the specs and see which are suited to your needs with some spare for near future expansions. Asus, Gigabyte, MSI, Asrock, they all make good mobo's. But sorry, comparison of the specs. plus what they cost is your own homework to do, I don't do that for you.

 

[Birk Binnard]

I recently built my own system using just the disk drives from my previous one but with the addition of a 128GB Samsung 840-Pro to replace my former Kingston 64GB SSD. So my system now has 2 SSD's, 2 HDD's, and 2 optical drives.

I chose the i3770-s becuase it is a low-power chip and the ASUS P8Z77-M motherboard because I don't game and only need one slot for a dual-monitor video card.

The P8B75 uses the B75 chipset which is unfamiliar to me. I had thought the Z77 chipset was the most current one, but that was a while ago and it could be 2nd tier now. I got the P8Z77-M because it had the Z77 chipset which supports 2 SATA-3 ports (for my 2 SSD's) and 4 SATA2 ports for the HDD's and SSD's. It also has native support for USB3 which I wanted for my external backup drive.

When building a system I think it's important to look at the board's chipset capabilities and match them to your usage requirements. There are lots of different chipsets out there and they are all slightly different.

 

[kelpdiver]

Birk Binnard wrote:

When building a system I think it's important to look at the board's chipset capabilities and match them to your usage requirements. There are lots of different chipsets out there and they are all slightly different.

You can effectively ignore the chipset and just look at the ports on the motherboard. A MB maker doesn't have to offer everything the chipset can do. And they can augment the chipset, particularly with SATA6 and USB3 ports. Knowing what each chipset can deliver gives you a chance to filter out choices on newegg, but isn't essential.

Leon's point about dual SATA6 ports is well taken, but the rest I think is over thinking the question. FakeRaid can be ignored. And rarely does it matter if you have 7 slots or 3-4 in a mitx board. Most of the machines I've built in the past 4-5 years have had a single card- an intel NIC to supplement or replace the lower quality onboard. You might add a GFX card to the x16 slot - I did that to get 10bit color. And possibly you might want to install a card with more usb3 or sata6 ports (making the MB concern somewhat moot - buy for today's needs, not a 3 year what if).

 

[offroadcmpr]

Jim Cockfield wrote:

Mark1t wrote:

Thanks, and what would be your build, if you only have $700 (only MOBO, CPU, GPU, RAM)

I'm the wrong person to ask.

I built my own PCs for many years. But, then I figured out that's it's cheaper to buy a refurb machine from someone like Dell if you're a good shopper and use coupon codes for more off.
....
So, I just don't see the point in building my own anymore if you're a good shopper and look for bargains and coupons for extra discounts on refurbs. ;-)