29 replies to this topic

[Wakers]

This is one of the few cases where I would suggest an AMD FX over an i5 - the AMD will do better with multi-threaded operations like audio editing, whereas the single core grunt of the i5 will be somewhat wasted.

[+sanke1]

DARKFiB3R, on 22 June 2012 - 19:04, said:

"Paul Walker" meaning you don't want your case looking like something out of The Fast and the Furious?

Exactly. It rather be Slow and Serious

[Astra.Xtreme]

Wakers, on 22 June 2012 - 20:47, said:

This is one of the few cases where I would suggest an AMD FX over an i5 - the AMD will do better with multi-threaded operations like audio editing, whereas the single core grunt of the i5 will be somewhat wasted.

Whoa, where do you get your information from? The i5 is a quad core and puts the FX to shame in every way and form.

[Wakers]

Astra.Xtreme, on 25 June 2012 - 14:16, said:

Whoa, where do you get your information from? The i5 is a quad core and puts the FX to shame in every way and form.

AMD FX is best in applications that can use more than 4 cores - audio editing, video editing etc. This is where the platform can outperform Intel.

Yes, if you're only using programs that can't make use of more than 4 cores, there's no point in getting an FX over an i5.

This is why Totalbiscuit, for instance, doesn't have an Intel processor in his rig.

[Astra.Xtreme]

Wakers, on 25 June 2012 - 14:40, said:

AMD FX is best in applications that can use more than 4 cores - audio editing, video editing etc. This is where the platform can outperform Intel.

Yes, if you're only using programs that can't make use of more than 4 cores, there's no point in getting an FX over an i5.

This is why Totalbiscuit, for instance, doesn't have an Intel processor in his rig.

But this is for a budget build, which we can assume won't be used with expensive multi-threaded software.
The i5 kills the FX is every benchmark except the rare application that will utilize the "extra" 4 cores.

The FX was a huge flop and even the hardcore AMD fans know it. Windows 7 had huge problems with the processor when it first came out, and I'm not so sure those ever got fully resolved. There are tons of discussion threads out there with people asking about the FX vs Intel i5 or i7 and 99% of the people recommend the Intel.

[Wakers]

Astra.Xtreme, on 25 June 2012 - 17:33, said:

But this is for a budget build, which we can assume won't be used with expensive multi-threaded software.
The i5 kills the FX is every benchmark except the rare application that will utilize the "extra" 4 cores.

The FX was a huge flop and even the hardcore AMD fans know it. Windows 7 had huge problems with the processor when it first came out, and I'm not so sure those ever got fully resolved. There are tons of discussion threads out there with people asking about the FX vs Intel i5 or i7 and 99% of the people recommend the Intel.

You would be assuming incorrectly then, as it is obvious you haven't read the OP at all. It's in the second line that he uses audio editing software extensively, hence the recommendation of AMD. Stop trying to be SuperIntel Fanboy without reading in context, it makes you look silly.

This is about the only situation I would recommend AMD in, and you've come and plonked your foot squarely in your own mouth with your "99% bla bla bla" - this is the 1%!

[Astra.Xtreme]

Wakers, on 25 June 2012 - 19:34, said:

You would be assuming incorrectly then, as it is obvious you haven't read the OP at all. It's in the second line that he uses audio editing software extensively, hence the recommendation of AMD. Stop trying to be SuperIntel Fanboy without reading in context, it makes you look silly.

This is about the only situation I would recommend AMD in, and you've come and plonked your foot squarely in your own mouth with your "99% bla bla bla" - this is the 1%!

Please show me a list of apps that would actually use more than 4 cores and have a performance benefit? I'm willing to bet there is very very few of them out there that have been optimized for that purpose, and even more unlikely that this person will be using those said apps. Even so, the difference would be so small, it wouldn't be noticeable. I'll say it again, this is a budget build. He's not looking to break speed records with top-notch components. There's no reason why he should spend likely more money for a CPU that is far superior in every way except for maybe a slight (emphasis on slight) disadvantage because it doesn't have 8 cores. Overall, the i5 is much much better CPU, period.

And enough with the "fanboy" stabs... It makes you look immature. I obviously read the OP, so have some respect...

[Wakers]

Well you didn't, because the audio editing software would actually be one that benefits from having extra physical cores - which you can get at a budget, by the way.

Yes, the i5 is a much better CPU overall - but not in this instance. Again, I emplore you to read the OP and stop being IntelDefender Man.

[Astra.Xtreme]

Wakers, on 26 June 2012 - 06:19, said:

Well you didn't, because the audio editing software would actually be one that benefits from having extra physical cores - which you can get at a budget, by the way.

Yes, the i5 is a much better CPU overall - but not in this instance. Again, I emplore you to read the OP and stop being IntelDefender Man.

Show some proof... You simply don't understand that programs don't magically utilize cores. They have to be coded and optimized to do so. And very very very few of them even take into consideration 4 cores, much less 8. I'll say it again, the advantage of the extra cores would be slim to none in those applications (if any), so it's not worth it. You're in the extreme minority that believes that CPU is good for anything. Benchmarks and discussions all over the net will prove you otherwise.

[Wakers]

Astra.Xtreme, on 26 June 2012 - 15:29, said:

Show some proof... You simply don't understand that programs don't magically utilize cores. They have to be coded and optimized to do so. And very very very few of them even take into consideration 4 cores, much less 8. I'll say it again, the advantage of the extra cores would be slim to none in those applications (if any), so it's not worth it. You're in the extreme minority that believes that CPU is good for anything. Benchmarks and discussions all over the net will prove you otherwise.

Then you're reading some different benchmarks than everyone else.

Try harder. Actually, don't.

[Astra.Xtreme]

Wakers, on 26 June 2012 - 15:41, said:

Then you're reading some different benchmarks than everyone else.

Try harder. Actually, don't.

http://www.hardwares...-Review/1402/18

I'm starting to think you're delusional...
I'll quote the first sentence from the conclusion from the above review:

Quote

We can summarize the AMD FX-8150 in one word: "disappointment".

Every other review out there says exactly the same thing, so obviously you have no idea what you are talking about.
You can try to convince yourself all you want, but the proof shows otherwise. There's nothing else that has to be said.

[Wakers]

And you've obviously not applied common sense to the review.. which is comparing the processor against competitors in a general and overall way. The OP has a singular requirement, which just happens to be the singular good use for the FX range. Again, try and get that through your uncommonly dense lobes.

But then again, you seem incapable of applying common sense to anything. There's a lack of basic knowledge, specifically relating to the OP, that you seem unwilling to fill on your own behalf. If you're going to be that ignorant and lazy, then I'm not going to help you.

Instead, please feel free to keep making stupid posts here.

[Astra.Xtreme]

Wakers, on 26 June 2012 - 20:36, said:

And you've obviously not applied common sense to the review.. which is comparing the processor against competitors in a general and overall way. The OP has a singular requirement, which just happens to be the singular good use for the FX range. Again, try and get that through your uncommonly dense lobes.

But then again, you seem incapable of applying common sense to anything. There's a lack of basic knowledge, specifically relating to the OP, that you seem unwilling to fill on your own behalf. If you're going to be that ignorant and lazy, then I'm not going to help you.

Instead, please feel free to keep making stupid posts here.

I'm not sure if you simply fail at reading comprehension, or just don't know the first thing about processor dynamics. Or maybe you just like to put up an arguement even if you don't have the slightest bit of intelligence on the topic. Your pick...

If YOU actually read the OP, he specifically states Ableton Live will be used. If you do some background research on that program, you'll notice that it is clearly not optimized for multi-core support. And if you had any common sense in your "lobes", you'd at least know that, LIKE I SAID, programs need to be specifically programmed to take advantage of the extra cores. Adding more common sense on top of that, 99% of the CPUs on the market are 4 cores and under. So what incentive does any company have to program support for more than 4 cores at the moment? Please do answer that... Off the top of my head, I know that virtualization programs will kind of take advantage of more than 4 cores (e.g hyper threads on the i7). And like I've said over and over, the difference those extra cores makes is slim to none. I've yet to see any proof from you that the FX has any major benefit over the i5. I've showed you my discreet proof, and yet you are still too dumb to comprehend it...

It's quite sad how dense you are with such a lack of common sense. And you come here and attack me and show absolutely no proof of the crap you are spewing. Now, go outside, get some fresh air, and calm down. You clearly don't have anything intelligent to add and your childish anger is flaring up. It's best you leave and let the adults converse...

[Blueclub]

If your friend is able to do all the work you said on his 'ancient' PC, then you can go for something like this

2nd Gen CORE i5 2320 3.0Ghz (very little of a different between 2nd and 3rd gen, considering the end user tasks)
Keep the Gigabyte MB
8GB of RAM
Same Casing
Same PSU
Thrash the SDD (if this is a budget computer why add SSD?)

Total: ~£350

[ThaCrip]

depending on what you need and want to spend you can get a i3-2120 CPU which i think is pretty much the sweet spot especially if your on a budget PC and are trying to keep costs down but performance solid. in USA it only costs $115-125 for it and i am sure it's performance will be plenty for most general uses especially if his PC is old as i upgraded to that from a 6 year old setup (AMD Athlon 3500+ dual core 2.0ghz overclocked to 2.4ghz) almost 2 months ago now and my CPU performance has AT LEAST tripled as maybe as high as 5 times or so based on encoding video with x264.exe etc.

plus the money you save there on CPU could be put towards a SSD etc as it would give you overall better performance going with a i3-2120 CPU paired with a SSD drive than getting a i5 quad core with a regular hard drive.