Will you notice going from single channel to dual channel on RAM: probably not. But you aren't saving money by getting one bigger DIMM over a dual channel kit of the same capacity.
Will you notice the difference going from a dual core to a quad core: Yes, it will be noticeable, especially in more modern games. Dual core will run stuff, but your already turning down details to get there
Will you notice the difference between an AMD and an Intel: Maybe. An AMD 4-core will perform similarly to a dual core Intel (they flip flop based on the game or benchmark), a 6-core will tend to win more often than not, but still not always. But an Intel 4-core (i5 or i7) will pretty much always beat any AMD, even the 8-cores. The price difference isn't just in the CPU though, you will also pay more for an Intel-compatible motherboard than you will a similarly equipped AMD motherboard, which is why most people avoid the i3 line - it may be price competitive to the AMD 6 core, but by the time you add in the motherboard, you've pretty much lost any price advantage, and you aren't really gaining any speed advantage.
All of the above pretty much amount to "Is it good enough?" Sure, it will work, it's just a matter of how much you are going to have to sacrifice vs. how much money you save. The next line, however, I absolutely would not budge on though:
Will you notice the difference in an SSD from a WD Blue: holy hell yes, it will be like an entirely different computer. It's like the difference between being stuck behind a farm truck on a narrow country road doing 10 mph, and being all by yourself on an empty 4-line Interstate. Sure, the car your driving may be the same, but it's an entirely different driving experience. Anyone who isn't suggesting an SSD in a build, no matter what else is in that build, is doing you a great disservice.
Will you notice going from single channel to dual channel on RAM: probably not. But you aren't saving money by getting one bigger DIMM over a dual channel kit of the same capacity.
Will you notice the difference going from a dual core to a quad core: Yes, it will be noticeable, especially in more modern games. Dual core will run stuff, but your already turning down details to get there
Will you notice the difference between an AMD and an Intel: Maybe. An AMD 4-core will perform similarly to a dual core Intel (they flip flop based on the game or benchmark), a 6-core will tend to win more often than not, but still not always. But an Intel 4-core (i5 or i7) will pretty much always beat any AMD, even the 8-cores. The price difference isn't just in the CPU though, you will also pay more for an Intel-compatible motherboard than you will a similarly equipped AMD motherboard, which is why most people avoid the i3 line - it may be price competitive to the AMD 6 core, but by the time you add in the motherboard, you've pretty much lost any price advantage, and you aren't really gaining any speed advantage.
All of the above pretty much amount to "Is it good enough?" Sure, it will work, it's just a matter of how much you are going to have to sacrifice vs. how much money you save. The next line, however, I absolutely would not budge on though:
Will you notice the difference in an SSD from a WD Blue: holy hell yes, it will be like an entirely different computer. It's like the difference between being stuck behind a farm truck on a narrow country road doing 10 mph, and being all by yourself on an empty 4-line Interstate. Sure, the car your driving may be the same, but it's an entirely different driving experience. Anyone who isn't suggesting an SSD in a build, no matter what else is in that build, is doing you a great disservice.
1) Check some CPU benchmarks instead of making up stuff.
You have 3 random links just above, there is plenty of data out there.
2) Unlike AMD, with Intel there is an option for cheaper boards so the whole setup is at least same price.
3) SSD has no impact on frame rates, you are trading merely intangible, irrelevant "desktop performance" of primarily gaming computer for severe frame rate loss while gaming.
If your budget is not +800 USD, the answer is to raise up your budget. Stellar advice and expertise in field indeed...still better than gimping the build with SSD and i5 K series tho...
Will you notice the difference in an SSD from a WD Blue: holy hell yes, it will be like an entirely different computer. It's like the difference between being stuck behind a farm truck on a narrow country road doing 10 mph, and being all by yourself on an empty 4-line Interstate. Sure, the car your driving may be the same, but it's an entirely different driving experience. Anyone who isn't suggesting an SSD in a build, no matter what else is in that build, is doing you a great disservice.
Quoted for truth.
I'll add that the benefits of SSDs have been around for quite a while, but they used to cost a fortune. Now that you can get 240 GB for $60 or 480 GB for $110, I'd recommend an SSD on just about any budget--often in lieu of a hard drive, unless you need a ton of storage space.
Having hard time to find one to buy. The RX 470 is like $200+ on newegg and the 480 is $240, is this how it's going to be? I thought they should cost less than that. Any chance I can get them before the year end ?
Having hard time to find one to buy. The RX 470 is like $200+ on newegg and the 480 is $240, is this how it's going to be? I thought they should cost less than that. Any chance I can get them before the year end ?
Having hard time to find one to buy. The RX 470 is like $200+ on newegg and the 480 is $240, is this how it's going to be? I thought they should cost less than that. Any chance I can get them before the year end ?
Right now prices and supply are pretty crazy for every new generation card. Right now you can either find something in stock and pay a bit more for it, or find something for MSRP and put it on backorder.
Eventually prices and supply should settle. I would expect certainly before year's end. Some people guarantee it will be October.
That being said, MSRP for the cards is as follows, and what you should expect a reference card should be going for. AIBs with factory overclocks and such will run for a bit more.
Will you notice going from single channel to dual channel on RAM: probably not. But you aren't saving money by getting one bigger DIMM over a dual channel kit of the same capacity....
That depends on what you use your computer for. If you render videos or compile data it matters. In most games not very much. For porn and facebook not at all.
But it is still a bad idea to not use all channels since things tend to add up and as you say, there is close to zero savings on using one. The only reason to have a single large memory would be if you can't afford another and is saving up and have a crappy motherboard with just 2 slots.
For your build an AMD Athlon X4 880K could make sense. Over a certain amount the AMDs don't make sense since their FX processors have not been updated since 2012. However, the 880K is new and the motherboards are relatively recent.
Will you notice going from single channel to dual channel on RAM: probably not. But you aren't saving money by getting one bigger DIMM over a dual channel kit of the same capacity....
That depends on what you use your computer for. If you render videos or compile data it matters. In most games not very much. For porn and facebook not at all.
But it is still a bad idea to not use all channels since things tend to add up and as you say, there is close to zero savings on using one. The only reason to have a single large memory would be if you can't afford another and is saving up and have a crappy motherboard with just 2 slots.
How much memory bandwidth you need depends tremendously on what you're doing. If the difference it makes is a rounding error 95% of the time but it cuts your performance by 30% in some particular game that you like, then leaving a memory channel vacant was a dumb risk to take. And I'd be surprised if there aren't any games at all out there that somehow managed to rely heavily on system memory bandwidth.
Having hard time to find one to buy. The RX 470 is like $200+ on newegg and the 480 is $240, is this how it's going to be? I thought they should cost less than that. Any chance I can get them before the year end ?
The cards are still very recently launched and thus in short supply. I'd expect that to clear up in weeks, not months. I'll be mildly surprised if the Radeon RX 460, RX 470, and RX 480 and the GeForce GTX 1060 and GTX 1070 aren't readily available at MSRP (or within a few dollars of it) by the end of this month. I'm not willing to make such a prediction on the GeForce GTX 1080 or the new Titan X.
OP, what games does your friend typically play? If MMOs are his primary focus, consider Intel over AMD if budget allows. The benchmarks listed on page 1 are a touch misleading when comparing CPUs. HardwareCannuks chose those games specifically to test CPU performance in GPU limited games (I.E. GTAV, Withcher 3, etc.) MMOs are typically more CPU limited than those games tested. Warhammer: Total War is another CPU limited game.
Also, the SSD is good advice. It's not going to affect framerate, but an SSD makes a world of difference. I left it out of my HTPC that I build a few years ago to save a bit of money, and absolutely hated it. Tossed an SSD in and suddenly, it's the snappy quick response PC I had become accustomed to.
OP, what games does your friend typically play? If MMOs are his primary focus, consider Intel over AMD if budget allows. The benchmarks listed on page 1 are a touch misleading when comparing CPUs. HardwareCannuks chose those games specifically to test CPU performance in GPU limited games (I.E. GTAV, Withcher 3, etc.) MMOs are typically more CPU limited than those games tested. Warhammer: Total War is another CPU limited game.
Also, the SSD is good advice. It's not going to affect framerate, but an SSD makes a world of difference. I left it out of my HTPC that I build a few years ago to save a bit of money, and absolutely hated it. Tossed an SSD in and suddenly, it's the snappy quick response PC I had become accustomed to.
he play stuff like minecraft, Call of Duty, warcraft 3, starcraft...
Hello, everyone! I'd like your help on deciding what to build.... I'm posting here because I can't create new topics yet.
What I'm planning to do with my new pc? - Gaming (Mostly MMOs with some solo-play games like Doom, AC, Deus Ex, Witcher 3 and etc.) - Adobe creative suite (PS, Illustrator, InDesign, After Effects) - Video editing - 3D rendering
Well, mostly gaming and graphic design.
My 2 possible builds: 1 is a budget version and the second one is medium-range.
I left out PSU, GPU and HDD because I will use spare parts from my old pc.
PSU - Starting out with Corsair VS550 550W (Thinking about a new one) GPU - a free GTX 560Ti (Saving up for a Radeon R9 380) HDD - Toshiba 1TB (Might add an SSD in the future)
All in all, both builds seem like decent ones, but I believe that Intel will give me better performance and will be viable in the future as with AMD I would have to upgrade at some point.
What do you think? What would be the best way to go?
@Cleffy Hmm.. Dead platforms? Due to ZEN and newer Intel chips coming out? What would you suggest then? I don't have a huge budget so I'm thinking about this at the moment.
Get the Intel if you need it right now. Although it's a dead platform, it will still be good another 3+ years. Intel chips are not expected to improve dramatically for the next few years. An FX chip is being replaced and is way too old a chip to suggest buying now. It will render 3D images faster, but not by much. Depending on your 3D renderer, it may make more sense to use GPU based rendering for test images and a cloud based render for the final product. I know Blender's OpenCL version has improved enough to make it viable using either a nVidia or AMD GPU. Previously it would have only been recommended to use the nVidia GPU. Zen will render 3D images a lot better than either chip. However, it's a wait and see type thing. Chances are if it's a competitive chip it will be priced a lot higher than the current AMD chips.
FX-83xx are tremendous value right now. Before they werent that good because single core performance, but we have finally moved to multi core age and now they show their true strenghts when at least 4 cores can be put to use (and in software like blender all 8). FX83xx actually perfoms same/better than i5.
Ive also seen some awesome deals on FX8300 (its same CPU on stock as 8320e) so you an buy either of these, whichever is cheaper
also, getting aftermarket CPU cooler is advisable for any CPU (Intel stock coolers are abbysmal, they cant even keep their i5/i7 CPUs from theorttling under full load)
and this is awsome affordable cooler (i32 for Intel, A32 for AMD and they are cheaper in shops than on their page so look around a bit)
FX8300/8320e GA-970A-UD3P Arctic Cooling Freezer A32 RAM - i would aim for 16GB (2x8GB) 1600/1866 Mhz RAM especially because of stuff you intend to use computer for
Kaby Lake from Intel has been posponed to Q12017 (and availability is questionable for first few months along with actual performance, it seems only few % over Skylake), same as Zen (and Zen first comes in enthusiast version of 8 core/16 thread and will most certainly be above price range you aim at) so you may get good year/year and a half before you even need to consider upgrading.
Intel CPUs tend to perform better than AMD CPUs in gaming. You can get into some odd mismatches that go against that statement (like a Celeron vs a FX-9350) , but in general, a Core iX will perform faster than an FX-xxxx in gaming.
That being said, a Core iX usually also costs a lot more than an FX-xxxx. And Intel motherboards tend to cost more than a similarly featured AMD motherboard, which makes the entire "AMD vs Intel" argument a bit more interesting. You pretty much already discovered this price difference in your shopping lists.
Also spoken in general, if you can afford Intel, I say go Intel. But that has some caveats - you can make some pretty inexpensive Intel builds that would not be as good as a similarly priced AMD build, based on what you are sacrificing to get that Intel in there.
As far as dead platforms go - pretty much every platform is dead right now. Intel has been changing chipsets about every 2 generations or so (and in general, you wouldn't want to just upgrade from one generation to the next). AMD's major chipset right now (FM2) still is limited to DDR3 RAM (which isn't necessarily a bad thing), and they do have a new chipset around the corner (FM4), but for the time being there will only be one APU line that runs on it (at least until Zen ships). So I wouldn't put too much stock into the "dead platform" case.
In your case, given the price difference you have already discovered on AMD vs Intel - I would off the top say get the Intel line, since you can afford that. However, that's not my real recommendation. What I would do, if I were in your shoes, would be get the AMD, and get an SSD with that, and it should come to about the same price as you paid for the Intel.
SSD is the single best thing you can do for a computer today. A lot of people will say "but it doesn't help FPS" - and that's entirely true. But it helps everything else, and by an amazing amount. I don't build a computer without SSD's anymore (and haven't for a few years now, even when they were a lot more expensive). If you can afford the Intel plus SSD, do that, and if you have to cut back to an AMD to be able to afford the SSD, then do that, but whatever you do, get an SSD.
So overall it would be better to go the FX 8xxx route because software is starting to utilize more than 2-4 cores?
In games, I would only see a difference of 5-8 FPS if we compare AMD with Intel (FX vs I5 6500), right?
It's hard to decide when there's this war between AMD and Intel fanboys - lack of objective information.
Depens in which games. Witcher 3, Doom, Deus Ex, no. Older games - yes in few. But GPU you have now (and which you intend to buy) aint very powerul so 560ti will definitely be botleneck while with 380 you migth get few frames in some specific games.
Oh and btw, if youre aiming at new GPU (380) much better value is new 470. And thats the point of AMD vs Intlel - by going AMD CPU youll get few frames less in couple of games but youll be able to buy better GPU for same money and generally have much better FPS overall. Or an SSD which will be much more important to QoL for your PC than few frames in some games.
@Ridelynn - Yeah, I guess buying FX 8xxx and having more money left for SSD/GPU is a wiser thing to do, especially if the only difference will be few FPS or seconds. Thank you.
@Malabooga - So I won't notice a difference in newer games with a 4 year old FX 8xxx CPU? Sounds awesome and rather future-proof. 560ti is a card that I got for free, it'll be enough at first, and the problem is that I can only get my hands on 380 as 470 is not in the stores for some reason. Maybe go for Nvidia 980/10x0, but it's rather expensive, and I see AMD cards to deliver approx. the same thing for a lower price.
Comments
Will you notice the difference going from a dual core to a quad core: Yes, it will be noticeable, especially in more modern games. Dual core will run stuff, but your already turning down details to get there
Will you notice the difference between an AMD and an Intel: Maybe. An AMD 4-core will perform similarly to a dual core Intel (they flip flop based on the game or benchmark), a 6-core will tend to win more often than not, but still not always. But an Intel 4-core (i5 or i7) will pretty much always beat any AMD, even the 8-cores. The price difference isn't just in the CPU though, you will also pay more for an Intel-compatible motherboard than you will a similarly equipped AMD motherboard, which is why most people avoid the i3 line - it may be price competitive to the AMD 6 core, but by the time you add in the motherboard, you've pretty much lost any price advantage, and you aren't really gaining any speed advantage.
All of the above pretty much amount to "Is it good enough?" Sure, it will work, it's just a matter of how much you are going to have to sacrifice vs. how much money you save. The next line, however, I absolutely would not budge on though:
Will you notice the difference in an SSD from a WD Blue: holy hell yes, it will be like an entirely different computer. It's like the difference between being stuck behind a farm truck on a narrow country road doing 10 mph, and being all by yourself on an empty 4-line Interstate. Sure, the car your driving may be the same, but it's an entirely different driving experience. Anyone who isn't suggesting an SSD in a build, no matter what else is in that build, is doing you a great disservice.
You have 3 random links just above, there is plenty of data out there.
2) Unlike AMD, with Intel there is an option for cheaper boards so the whole setup is at least same price.
3) SSD has no impact on frame rates, you are trading merely intangible, irrelevant "desktop performance" of primarily gaming computer for severe frame rate loss while gaming.
If your budget is not +800 USD, the answer is to raise up your budget. Stellar advice and expertise in field indeed...still better than gimping the build with SSD and i5 K series tho...
I'll add that the benefits of SSDs have been around for quite a while, but they used to cost a fortune. Now that you can get 240 GB for $60 or 480 GB for $110, I'd recommend an SSD on just about any budget--often in lieu of a hard drive, unless you need a ton of storage space.
Having cards in stock would imply there is a fluid supply that can easily satisfy the demand, something we might not see for months.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814202222&cm_re=rx_480-_-14-202-222-_-Product
Eventually prices and supply should settle. I would expect certainly before year's end. Some people guarantee it will be October.
That being said, MSRP for the cards is as follows, and what you should expect a reference card should be going for. AIBs with factory overclocks and such will run for a bit more.
RX 470 - $180
RX 480 (4G) - $200
RX 480 (8G) - $240
GTX 1060 - $250
GTX 1070 - $380
GTX 1080 - $600
But it is still a bad idea to not use all channels since things tend to add up and as you say, there is close to zero savings on using one. The only reason to have a single large memory would be if you can't afford another and is saving up and have a crappy motherboard with just 2 slots.
Also, the SSD is good advice. It's not going to affect framerate, but an SSD makes a world of difference. I left it out of my HTPC that I build a few years ago to save a bit of money, and absolutely hated it. Tossed an SSD in and suddenly, it's the snappy quick response PC I had become accustomed to.
What I'm planning to do with my new pc?
- Gaming (Mostly MMOs with some solo-play games like Doom, AC, Deus Ex, Witcher 3 and etc.)
- Adobe creative suite (PS, Illustrator, InDesign, After Effects)
- Video editing
- 3D rendering
Well, mostly gaming and graphic design.
My 2 possible builds: 1 is a budget version and the second one is medium-range.
AMD route:
CPU - FX-6300 (FX-8320e)
Mobo - GA-970A-UD3P
RAM - HyperX 8GB
-------------------------- Cost: 241-302€
Intel route:
CPU - i5 6500
Mobo - GA-Z170-HD3P
RAM - Fury HyperX 4GB 2x (DDR4 2133MHz)
-------------------------- Cost: 381€
I left out PSU, GPU and HDD because I will use spare parts from my old pc.
PSU - Starting out with Corsair VS550 550W (Thinking about a new one)
GPU - a free GTX 560Ti (Saving up for a Radeon R9 380)
HDD - Toshiba 1TB (Might add an SSD in the future)
All in all, both builds seem like decent ones, but I believe that Intel will give me better performance and will be viable in the future as with AMD I would have to upgrade at some point.
What do you think? What would be the best way to go?
Thank you!
What would you suggest then? I don't have a huge budget so I'm thinking about this at the moment.
Zen will render 3D images a lot better than either chip. However, it's a wait and see type thing. Chances are if it's a competitive chip it will be priced a lot higher than the current AMD chips.
Ive also seen some awesome deals on FX8300 (its same CPU on stock as 8320e) so you an buy either of these, whichever is cheaper
also, getting aftermarket CPU cooler is advisable for any CPU (Intel stock coolers are abbysmal, they cant even keep their i5/i7 CPUs from theorttling under full load)
and this is awsome affordable cooler (i32 for Intel, A32 for AMD and they are cheaper in shops than on their page so look around a bit)
https://www.arctic.ac/eu_en/freezer-a32.html
So build would be
FX8300/8320e
GA-970A-UD3P
Arctic Cooling Freezer A32
RAM - i would aim for 16GB (2x8GB) 1600/1866 Mhz RAM especially because of stuff you intend to use computer for
Kaby Lake from Intel has been posponed to Q12017 (and availability is questionable for first few months along with actual performance, it seems only few % over Skylake), same as Zen (and Zen first comes in enthusiast version of 8 core/16 thread and will most certainly be above price range you aim at) so you may get good year/year and a half before you even need to consider upgrading.
So overall it would be better to go the FX 8xxx route because software is starting to utilize more than 2-4 cores?
In games, I would only see a difference of 5-8 FPS if we compare AMD with Intel (FX vs I5 6500), right?
It's hard to decide when there's this war between AMD and Intel fanboys - lack of objective information.
@Wmx -
Intel CPUs tend to perform better than AMD CPUs in gaming. You can get into some odd mismatches that go against that statement (like a Celeron vs a FX-9350) , but in general, a Core iX will perform faster than an FX-xxxx in gaming.
That being said, a Core iX usually also costs a lot more than an FX-xxxx. And Intel motherboards tend to cost more than a similarly featured AMD motherboard, which makes the entire "AMD vs Intel" argument a bit more interesting. You pretty much already discovered this price difference in your shopping lists.
Also spoken in general, if you can afford Intel, I say go Intel. But that has some caveats - you can make some pretty inexpensive Intel builds that would not be as good as a similarly priced AMD build, based on what you are sacrificing to get that Intel in there.
As far as dead platforms go - pretty much every platform is dead right now. Intel has been changing chipsets about every 2 generations or so (and in general, you wouldn't want to just upgrade from one generation to the next). AMD's major chipset right now (FM2) still is limited to DDR3 RAM (which isn't necessarily a bad thing), and they do have a new chipset around the corner (FM4), but for the time being there will only be one APU line that runs on it (at least until Zen ships). So I wouldn't put too much stock into the "dead platform" case.
In your case, given the price difference you have already discovered on AMD vs Intel - I would off the top say get the Intel line, since you can afford that. However, that's not my real recommendation. What I would do, if I were in your shoes, would be get the AMD, and get an SSD with that, and it should come to about the same price as you paid for the Intel.
SSD is the single best thing you can do for a computer today. A lot of people will say "but it doesn't help FPS" - and that's entirely true. But it helps everything else, and by an amazing amount. I don't build a computer without SSD's anymore (and haven't for a few years now, even when they were a lot more expensive). If you can afford the Intel plus SSD, do that, and if you have to cut back to an AMD to be able to afford the SSD, then do that, but whatever you do, get an SSD.
Oh and btw, if youre aiming at new GPU (380) much better value is new 470. And thats the point of AMD vs Intlel - by going AMD CPU youll get few frames less in couple of games but youll be able to buy better GPU for same money and generally have much better FPS overall. Or an SSD which will be much more important to QoL for your PC than few frames in some games.
@Malabooga - So I won't notice a difference in newer games with a 4 year old FX 8xxx CPU? Sounds awesome and rather future-proof. 560ti is a card that I got for free, it'll be enough at first, and the problem is that I can only get my hands on 380 as 470 is not in the stores for some reason. Maybe go for Nvidia 980/10x0, but it's rather expensive, and I see AMD cards to deliver approx. the same thing for a lower price.