New computer build

[rockytopva]

I have had my Intel Quad core processor computer build for quite a few years now. I am looking to build another.

Processor - Eight core AMD-FX-8120
Motherboard - Motherboard ASUS Crosshair V Formula AM3+

The Deal... AMD FX-8120 & Asus Crosshair V Formula Motherboard & Processor Bundle

Any thoughts? Should I wait and go with the Windows 8 OS? Microsoft rarely puts together two OS is a row so I am a tad worried.

 

[EphesiaNZ]

The AMD-FX-8120 CPU is similar in performance to an Intel i5 2500K CPU but if you like gaming, the Intel i5 CPU is a winner!

If you want 8 cores then the Intel i7 2600K will beat the AMD CPU anyday - combine an i5 or i7 with an Intel based Z77 chipset and you'll have rig that will rock for years and one that will overclock well too - if needed.

 

[rockytopva]

The AMD-FX-8120 CPU is similar in performance to an Intel i5 2500K CPU but if you like gaming, the Intel i5 CPU is a winner!

If you want 8 cores then the Intel i7 2600K will beat the AMD CPU anyday - combine an i5 or i7 with an Intel based Z77 chipset and you'll have rig that will rock for years and one that will overclock well too - if needed.

I think the Intel i7 is quad core 'emulating' eight cores. The AMD is actually 8 cores. If you wan't an Intel eight core I believe you have got to go with their Xeon processor... Which is very expensive!

 

[EphesiaNZ]

Yes, Intel i7 uses hyperthreading to achieve 8 cores whereas the AMD has 8 cores but various tests will show the i5 on par with the FX8120 and the i7 quite ahead. Gaming wins hands down on Intel i5 and i7 but having said this, the AMD 8 core is good value for money - you pays your money, you takes your choice...

Take a look at this,

PassMark - AMD FX-8120 Eight-Core - Price performance comparison

Comparing AMD's 8 core against the 4 core i5 2500K you will see little difference in overall performance rating - to me AMD's 8 cores are not worth much more than Intels 4 cores. Comparing the AMD against the i7 2600k, the i7 2600k wins all the way but at a price premium of course.

I have the 2600K and it rocks

 

[rockytopva]

Yes, Intel i7 uses hyperthreading to achieve 8 cores whereas the AMD has 8 cores but various tests will show the i5 on par with the FX8120 and the i7 quite ahead. Gaming wins hands down on Intel i5 and i7 but having said this, the AMD 8 core is good value for money - you pays your money, you takes your choice...

Take a look at this,

PassMark - AMD FX-8120 Eight-Core - Price performance comparison

Comparing AMD's 8 core against the 4 core i5 2500K you will see little difference in overall performance rating - to me AMD's 8 cores are not worth much more than Intels 4 cores. Comparing the AMD against the i7 2600k, the i7 2600k wins all the way but at a price premium of course.

I have the 2600K and it rocks

3.4 GHz is bound to make a hot processor... What CPU cooler do you use?

 

[EphesiaNZ]

The stock Intel supplied cooler is fine but if I overclock in the future I will go watercooled again.

 

[C-Man]

AMD still needs to work out the bugs in their Bulldozer line. Right now, the six-core Phenom IIs can beat it. I suppose even they have to have a dud sometimes.

 

[Sketcher]

I'd go with an Intel, and their latest line of processors (Ivy Bridge) is just a few weeks away. What I'm more excited about though is the Z77 chipset's I/O advantages.

 

[rockytopva]

My Quad Core processors run great. I think I will wait and see. 2012 should bring some cool stuff to the IT world, will wait and see. Thanks guys for the advice.

I am a big user of Adobe Premiere pro. I did the following video using Flash. Took a lot of time to do!

The Power of Motivation and E/c2 with Zig Ziglar - YouTube

 

[EphesiaNZ]

My Quad Core processors run great. I think I will wait and see. 2012 should bring some cool stuff to the IT world, will wait and see. Thanks guys for the advice.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aiy1Zp_AUXA

Sure, no problem. It always pays to wait if your not too sure. My recent upgrade was planned about a year ago but only just happened - better to wait and be sure.

A lot of apps and games will use 2 cores at best, some still use one and a few will use 4 cores. So a quad core CPU is fine for most stuff - even a dual core is in all honesty. The only reason I upgraded was more for reliability, the previous setup had been going for four years so was about time to upgrade.

Number of cores is kinda trivial, it's the cache allocated to the core and the CPU (and RAM) bus speed that will dictate performance - I know that (in the past) some Intel dual core CPU's have outperformed their quad core rivals due to having more onboard caching.

The unfortunate thing about upgrading is that in six months it will be outdated so waiting for the next best thing to come along can become a lenghty wait as theres always something better to come.

 

[127.0.0.1]

From what I've heard though, it seems like AMD's approach of actually upgrading the architecture of a chip increases the chips overall stability and lowers the overall heat output. Which kinda makes AMD seem a bit more attractive than Intel, with their overclocked models.

But since Intel is the cheaper, that's pretty much all you seen in pre-built computers these days.

 

[rockytopva]

Looks like the only advantage on Ivy Bridge is that it produces less heat. I am thinking that they are going to improve on this chip in the next year.

 

[C-Man]

But since Intel is the cheaper

Since when?

 

[127.0.0.1]

Since when?

You're right.

Maybe I should change that to, most popular... from what I can tell.

 

[C-Man]

They seem to flip-flop quite a bit. First the P3, then the Athlon series, for a half-second the P4, then the Athlon XP. Then it was the Athlon 64 series, now the Core series. Whatever comes after Bulldozer should be a good one to have.

 

[Earnesterin]

[FONT=Verdana,'Trebuchet MS','Lucida Grande',Verdana,Tahoma,Arial]Rick, I appreciate your response and understand that the architecture will be changing on the CPU in the near future, but I'm not seeing where this will benefit me...I really just want to build a new system before mine up and decides that it wants to crash and I am forced to build without all my ducks in a row. There will always be newer and greater around the corner to be sure, but I'm not into that game...I'm more concerned with stability...still looking for answers to my above questions...again, thank you.
[/font]​

 

[rockytopva]

I think Intel is thinking portable device with Ivy Bridge. They want something fast, cool, and a low power output. I would think with Windows 8 they will have something that can run faster, cooler, and more power efficient that will work well with the portable devices.

 

[C-Man]

[FONT=Verdana,'Trebuchet MS','Lucida Grande',Verdana,Tahoma,Arial]Rick, I appreciate your response and understand that the architecture will be changing on the CPU in the near future, but I'm not seeing where this will benefit me...I really just want to build a new system before mine up and decides that it wants to crash and I am forced to build without all my ducks in a row. There will always be newer and greater around the corner to be sure, but I'm not into that game...I'm more concerned with stability...still looking for answers to my above questions...again, thank you.
[/font]​

The Phenom II's aren't speed kings compared to the new i7's, but you'd be hard-pressed to break one, plus they're cheap right now.

 

[EphesiaNZ]

I think Intel is thinking portable device with Ivy Bridge. They want something fast, cool, and a low power output. I would think with Windows 8 they will have something that can run faster, cooler, and more power efficient that will work well with the portable devices.

Whatever Intel come out with, Microsoft will find a way to make it perform like a 386

 

[rockytopva]

Whatever Intel come out with, Microsoft will find a way to make it perform like a 386

I really have a bad feeling about Windows 8! If no other reason Microsoft has never had the ability to produce two good operating systems in a row!