So, which one should I buy? Comparing price/specs. It also fits right in my budget which is about € 400,-. Those two together would cost me € 405,- _________________ QUICK_EDIT
Heck, I can go with a simple AMD Athlon II x3 450. And I still can't use it out entirely (because the 2 GB RAM of mine prevents it). Why the hell that's not enough for others?! _________________
Orac wrote:
Any opinions you get from here will be honest, because so far nobody has really cared enough to lie to avoid hurting your feelings.
RP wrote:
I like this guy, that Graion Dilach. He seems to know one or two things about people. Mister Dilach can identify a moron in less than five posts!
Off topic:
I think the CPU companies have some contract with game console companies: make worthless stuff for loads of cash so people buy our consoles (like xbox360). _________________ Modelling an infantry unit for TS/Ra2/Yr with 3dsmax (Tutorial):
http://www.ppmsite.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=458275#458275
=======================
Donut Arnold's great templates for TS and Ra2
http://www.ppmsite.com/forum/download.php?id=43817 QUICK_EDIT
AFAIK they're on about the same level on performance (with i5-3750K being marginally faster), but the i5-3750K drains significantly less power in the process. In addition, if you're using integrated graphics, the i5-3750K has a much better graphics processor.
I'd get the i5-3750K since it only costs $10 more. You might also win that $10 in power savings with the i5-3750K if you use the system for a few years, depending on the cost of electricity. _________________ QUICK_EDIT
Thanks Mav.EricK and ^Rampastein, your suggestions and information made me choose the 3750K.
Always funny how people start talking about their own crap and totally forget someone asked a question. It sure isn't "Talk about your processor here!" topic. _________________ QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 14 Sep 2006 Location: The last place you'll look.
Posted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 8:08 pm Post subject:
This is offtopic discussion, why would anyone stay on topic?
Again, Ivy Bridge newer/better than sandy bridge, but AMD FX 8-Core Black Edition FX-8150 eats it for breakfast for cheaper, 0.2 faster buss speed, 8MB Cache, OC ability to 4.2GHz at 50c.
And AMD boards are cheaper too. And Don't say "AMD Dies faster" cause it only does if you don't keep it cooled properly which is the same as anything. _________________ "Don't beg for things; Do it yourself or you'll never get anything."
RJiggler wrote:
Honestly, the hostility makes this thread reminiscent of a Mos Eisley cantina.
Again, Ivy Bridge newer/better than sandy bridge, but AMD FX 8-Core Black Edition FX-8150 eats it for breakfast for cheaper, 0.2 faster buss speed, 8MB Cache, OC ability to 4.2GHz at 50c.
Lol no, unless we're talking about the very few, rare applications which can optimally tax all of its 8 integer cores. In everything that uses 1-4 cores (that includes probably 95% of commonly used programs and games) the FX gets dominated by Sandy / Ivy Bridge CPUs.
In addition, the FX eats 125 W of power in the cases when it does marginally beat the Intel CPUs, while the Ivy Bridge based CPUs have a TDP of 77W and the Sandy Bridge ones have a TDP of 95W.
And the ability to OC to 4.2 GHz doesn't mean anything when the amount of instructions it can execute per one clock cycle is much lower than the Intel CPUs'.
Not hating AMD; I love my Phenom II, but the FX series are simply worse than their Intel competitors in almost everything (the FX-4100 vs Core i3 is a pretty close one though, at least if you use multithreaded programs aswell). _________________ QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 14 Sep 2006 Location: The last place you'll look.
Posted: Tue Jul 03, 2012 10:31 am Post subject:
Well when the day comes that Intel makes a processor that can compete with the 8-cores rendering speed, then maybe, just maybe I'd switch, but for the moment my FX8150 blows away the i5 and i7 at a much lower cost.
And where do you get off calling it a complete piece of shit.
Intel fanboys with their lack of knowledge...no, happy ignorance. _________________ "Don't beg for things; Do it yourself or you'll never get anything."
RJiggler wrote:
Honestly, the hostility makes this thread reminiscent of a Mos Eisley cantina.
Lack of knowledge, yeah. And yeah, I'm a complete Intel fanboy running a Phenom II and a Radeon HD 4850. Like FurryQueen said, the older, lower-end AMD processors (Phenom II X4s) offer great price/performance for both single and multithreaded programs. But stay away from the FX series for now; the Piledriver CPUs coming in Q3-Q4 might make them a good choice though.
AMD also has pretty good APUs (Llano and the upcoming Trinity) for gaming with low budjets. _________________ QUICK_EDIT
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
Processor madness!
