Intel Quadcore Vs. AMD Octacore - Gaming and future octacore-optimized development.

[prankstare]

Hey,

So we all know Intel's architecture is much better and energy/performance efficient per thread/core but how about multi-tasking performance? Also, do you think that, in the near future perhaps, not only games but also most computer programs will all benefit from using 8 actual cores like next-gen consoles are doing for games?

The reason I'm asking this is because I'm a bit torn between buying "faster" but expensive Intel's quadcore solution i5 3570k or "slower" but much cheaper AMD's octacore FX-8350. However, if the future say 8-12 months from now will be eight-core optimized sofware all the way (including games and overall multi-tasking), then I think such "slower" (for now) AMD solution is worth it.

So, any ideas?

Thanks!

 

[NappySlapper]

Uk prices are pretty dire haha

 

[4745454b]

and if you are doing 3d gaming then the 3570k isn't going to be good enough either.

Perhaps, but you'll have to turn off/down less features to hit 120. The 8350 will run 120 as well, but you'll have to turn a lot more off to get it there.

Also, again, we aren't talking about a huge difference in price. The 8350 is around $20-30 cheaper then the 3570. Or at least it was last I checked. I'm not sure how/if Haswell has changed prices. Paying a bit more knowing you won't suffer performance issues with the odd game sounds good to me. When dropping $800 or $1000, what's $30?

 

[8350rocks]

and if you are doing 3d gaming then the 3570k isn't going to be good enough either.

Perhaps, but you'll have to turn off/down less features to hit 120. The 8350 will run 120 as well, but you'll have to turn a lot more off to get it there.

Also, again, we aren't talking about a huge difference in price. The 8350 is around $20-30 cheaper then the 3570. Or at least it was last I checked. I'm not sure how/if Haswell has changed prices. Paying a bit more knowing you won't suffer performance issues with the odd game sounds good to me. When dropping $800 or $1000, what's $30?

It's about $40 cheaper now...and when you add in a comparable motherboard that number becomes more like $70-80 (total) to get the same MB in intel config.

That's the difference between a HD 7850 and a HD 7870XT or HD 7950. Which is money better spent anyway...and will take you much further in gaming.

3570k + HD 7850 < FX 8350 + HD 7950

If you're a budget gamer, then you should know your dollars go farther with a better GPU

 

[Fulgurant]

What your telling me is that last generation's hardware, at launch, that was basically miles ahead of the PC's didn't drive AMD, Intel, and Nvidia to step their game up the be able to keep up with the consoles?

Miles ahead of the average PC, yes. Miles ahead of the PC, no. I bought a system that had a better processor and a comparable GPU to the PS3's in late 2005. (AMD Opteron 165 and a 7800 GT, which was, if I recall, the second-best GPU on the market at the time.)

If that sounds like nitpicking, then I apologize -- but I feel that you touched on an interesting point: the new consoles' hardware won't be nearly as high-end, in PC-comparable terms, as the hardware in the last-gen consoles. The PS4 features decidedly mid-tier graphics' horsepower (comparable to an HD 7850/7870).

A gamer in ~2006 who wanted a console-analogous PC had to spend more than (perhaps considerably more than) $1,000. A gamer in 2013 who wants to build a console-analogous PC can do so for about $600 -- which is obviously more than the cost of a console, but then the PC gamer saves money on all of the extra features of the PC, and he'll also probably save considerable money on software (games).

All of that said, your main point is absolutely correct. Console game development does influence PC game development. A lot. Personally, I'm stoked that AMD took the hardware-design honors in the next-gen consoles, if only because it means that we might finally see the end of Nvidia-exclusive GPU-accelerated physics in games. And yeah, eventually developers will have to find ways to exploit the new consoles' eight-core CPUs, and if that happens, we hardware-enthusiast types have reason to celebrate -- cause let's face it, per-core CPU performance has hit a bit of a wall.

But is console gaming an unambiguously better value than PC gaming? I don't think that's ever been strictly true; regardless, it's less true now than it used to be.

 

[Master467]

oops, double post.

 

[NappySlapper]

and if you are doing 3d gaming then the 3570k isn't going to be good enough either.

Perhaps, but you'll have to turn off/down less features to hit 120. The 8350 will run 120 as well, but you'll have to turn a lot more off to get it there.

Also, again, we aren't talking about a huge difference in price. The 8350 is around $20-30 cheaper then the 3570. Or at least it was last I checked. I'm not sure how/if Haswell has changed prices. Paying a bit more knowing you won't suffer performance issues with the odd game sounds good to me. When dropping $800 or $1000, what's $30?

You are ignoring the point I made again... it isn't $30 saved, it's over $100 saved, because the intel cannot be upgraded. $ 100+ is pretty hefty sum of money. Thats a 128gb ssd or and upgrade from a 7870 to a 7970. A huge difference.

 

[Master467]

What your telling me is that last generation's hardware, at launch, that was basically miles ahead of the PC's didn't drive AMD, Intel, and Nvidia to step their game up the be able to keep up with the consoles?

Miles ahead of the average PC, yes. Miles ahead of the PC, no. I bought a system that had a better processor and a comparable GPU to the PS3's in late 2005. (AMD Opteron 165 and a 7800 GT, which was, if I recall, the second-best GPU on the market at the time.)

If that sounds like nitpicking, then I apologize -- but I feel that you touched on an interesting point: the new consoles' hardware won't be nearly as high-end, in PC-comparable terms, as the hardware in the last-gen consoles. The PS4 features decidedly mid-tier graphics' horsepower (comparable to an HD 7850/7870).

A gamer in ~2006 who wanted a console-analogous PC had to spend more than (perhaps considerably more than) $1,000. A gamer in 2013 who wants to build a console-analogous PC can do so for about $600 -- which is obviously more than the cost of a console, but then the PC gamer saves money on all of the extra features of the PC, and he'll also probably save considerable money on software (games).

All of that said, your main point is absolutely correct. Console game development does influence PC game development. A lot. Personally, I'm stoked that AMD took the hardware-design honors in the next-gen consoles, if only because it means that we might finally see the end of Nvidia-exclusive GPU-accelerated physics in games. And yeah, eventually developers will have to find ways to exploit the new consoles' eight-core CPUs, and if that happens, we hardware-enthusiast types have reason to celebrate -- cause let's face it, per-core CPU performance has hit a bit of a wall.

But is console gaming an unambiguously better value than PC gaming? I don't think that's ever been strictly true; regardless, it's less true now than it used to be.

XBox ONE is going to sell for 550-650.
Console are dead. Only use for them now is for somthing to give your 8 year old so he play COD without looking up p0rn.

 

[Master467]

and if you are doing 3d gaming then the 3570k isn't going to be good enough either.

Perhaps, but you'll have to turn off/down less features to hit 120. The 8350 will run 120 as well, but you'll have to turn a lot more off to get it there.

Also, again, we aren't talking about a huge difference in price. The 8350 is around $20-30 cheaper then the 3570. Or at least it was last I checked. I'm not sure how/if Haswell has changed prices. Paying a bit more knowing you won't suffer performance issues with the odd game sounds good to me. When dropping $800 or $1000, what's $30?

You are ignoring the point I made again... it isn't $30 saved, it's over $100 saved, because the intel cannot be upgraded. $ 100+ is pretty hefty sum of money. Thats a 128gb ssd or and upgrade from a 7870 to a 7970. A huge difference.

Ok, the 4570's are starting to go down in price. Lets replace that 3570 with a now = priced 4570.
Upgrade path + (Even) better performance = Bai bai 8350.

 

[4745454b]

It's about $40 cheaper now...and when you add in a comparable motherboard that number becomes more like $70-80 (total) to get the same MB in intel config.

Links/proof?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113284
8350 $201 counting shipping.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116504
3570K $220 counting shipping. Lets say its $20 saved buying the 8350 for easy math.

So now its up to the board. Lets check out Gigabyte.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128514
990FXA-UD3 All the normal higher end stuff, $128 counting shipping and rebate.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128544
GA-Z77X-UD3H $146 counting shipping and rebate. Saved about $38 by buying the AMD rig.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813157266
990FX Extreme4 $125 counting shipping.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813157293
Z77 Extreme4 $141 counting shipping. ***Comes with free 8GB Crucial stick of ram*** Saved $36 by going AMD.

Again, is <$40 savings worth it? If your budget is that tight then yes. As I've said in this entire thread to me its worth it to spend that HUGE amount of money to make sure my gaming doesn't "suffer" because I want to play an "outlier"

But is console gaming an unambiguously better value than PC gaming? I don't think that's ever been strictly true; regardless, it's less true now than it used to be.

I would disagree with this as well. Less true? You're supposed to be able to pick up the new PS4 for $399? And that system will handle 1080 gaming. I can't think of any new PC or build that will do that for $400. You said a $600 PC. Even if true, that's $200 more then the PS4. Even with games costing an extra $10, you'd have to buy 20 games before they are even. PC is catching up in value, but I'm not 100% they are there yet. More so as some PC games are starting at $60. (Though I admit they decline in price MUCH faster then console games do.) Company of Heroes 2 and Total War Rome 2 are both $60.

 

[Master467]

It's about $40 cheaper now...and when you add in a comparable motherboard that number becomes more like $70-80 (total) to get the same MB in intel config.

Links/proof?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113284
8350 $201 counting shipping.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116504
3570K $220 counting shipping. Lets say its $20 saved buying the 8350 for easy math.

So now its up to the board. Lets check out Gigabyte.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128514
990FXA-UD3 All the normal higher end stuff, $128 counting shipping and rebate.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128544
GA-Z77X-UD3H $146 counting shipping and rebate. Saved about $38 by buying the AMD rig.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813157266
990FX Extreme4 $125 counting shipping.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813157293
Z77 Extreme4 $141 counting shipping. ***Comes with free 8GB Crucial stick of ram*** Saved $36 by going AMD.

Again, is <$40 savings worth it? If your budget is that tight then yes. As I've said in this entire thread to me its worth it to spend that HUGE amount of money to make sure my gaming doesn't "suffer" because I want to play an "outlier"

But is console gaming an unambiguously better value than PC gaming? I don't think that's ever been strictly true; regardless, it's less true now than it used to be.

I would disagree with this as well. Less true? You're supposed to be able to pick up the new PS4 for $399? And that system will handle 1080 gaming. I can't think of any new PC or build that will do that for $400. You said a $600 PC. Even if true, that's $200 more then the PS4. Even with games costing an extra $10, you'd have to buy 20 games before they are even. PC is catching up in value, but I'm not 100% they are there yet. More so as some PC games are starting at $60. (Though I admit they decline in price MUCH faster then console games do.) Company of Heroes 2 and Total War Rome 2 are both $60.

You have steam, right? Find me one person on your friends list with less then 20 games.
There are none on mine, most people have about 40, and one of my friends has well over 200 games (He also has 5 2tb hdd's...).
And new Consoles are going to start at over 500, possibly over 600 dollars. For that i can build a nice PC with an i3 and a gtx 660 (Maybe TI) that will kick it to the curb. Also >upgradeability
Console is dead, and microsoft is setting up a huge server system to host every single multiplayer game on a server so there is less (and more even) lag. This is coming at a huge expense to them, and if XBox ONE does not sell well, don't expect an XBox TWO. If microsoft pulls out of the living room market, people will have to chose between PS5 and what ever garbage Nintendo comes out with, driving more and more people to the promise land of PC gaming.

 

[NappySlapper]

and if you are doing 3d gaming then the 3570k isn't going to be good enough either.

Perhaps, but you'll have to turn off/down less features to hit 120. The 8350 will run 120 as well, but you'll have to turn a lot more off to get it there.

Also, again, we aren't talking about a huge difference in price. The 8350 is around $20-30 cheaper then the 3570. Or at least it was last I checked. I'm not sure how/if Haswell has changed prices. Paying a bit more knowing you won't suffer performance issues with the odd game sounds good to me. When dropping $800 or $1000, what's $30?

You are ignoring the point I made again... it isn't $30 saved, it's over $100 saved, because the intel cannot be upgraded. $ 100+ is pretty hefty sum of money. Thats a 128gb ssd or and upgrade from a 7870 to a 7970. A huge difference.

Ok, the 4570's are starting to go down in price. Lets replace that 3570 with a now = priced 4570.
Upgrade path + (Even) better performance = Bai bai 8350.

Erm, a 4570 can't be over clocked so I think you would actually see worse performance than the 8350...so basically what you have said is that a more expensive chip with worse performance is better.

Good job

 

[8350rocks]

The FX8350 is $189.99 @ Tiger Direct.

http://shop.amd.com/us/All/Detail/Processor/FD8350FRHKBOX?SearchFacets=category%3AProcessor#ComparePrices

(Not counting Microcenter @ $179.99)

Gigabyte 970A-UD3 - $103.99 @ NCIX

http://pcpartpicker.com/part/gigabyte-motherboard-ga970aud3

i5-3570k - $219.99 @ Amazon

Gigabyte Z77-UD3H - $139.99 @ Amazon.com

http://pcpartpicker.com/part/gigabyte-motherboard-gaz77xud3h

So, now we saved $66.00 and can overclock both rigs.

That is the difference between this 2 GB HD 7850:

http://pcpartpicker.com/part/sapphire-video-card-100355l

Versus this HD 7950:

http://pcpartpicker.com/part/xfx-video-card-fx795atdfc

 

[Master467]

and if you are doing 3d gaming then the 3570k isn't going to be good enough either.

Perhaps, but you'll have to turn off/down less features to hit 120. The 8350 will run 120 as well, but you'll have to turn a lot more off to get it there.

Also, again, we aren't talking about a huge difference in price. The 8350 is around $20-30 cheaper then the 3570. Or at least it was last I checked. I'm not sure how/if Haswell has changed prices. Paying a bit more knowing you won't suffer performance issues with the odd game sounds good to me. When dropping $800 or $1000, what's $30?

You are ignoring the point I made again... it isn't $30 saved, it's over $100 saved, because the intel cannot be upgraded. $ 100+ is pretty hefty sum of money. Thats a 128gb ssd or and upgrade from a 7870 to a 7970. A huge difference.

Ok, the 4570's are starting to go down in price. Lets replace that 3570 with a now = priced 4570.
Upgrade path + (Even) better performance = Bai bai 8350.

Erm, a 4570 can't be over clocked so I think you would actually see worse performance than the 8350...so basically what you have said is that a more expensive chip with worse performance is better.

Good job

Forgot the k.
Your name should be "NitPicker" ;D

 

[4745454b]

Why would you drop down to that motherboard? It lacks CF and/or SLI support. I thought we were sticking with similar boards? I thought about using PCpartpicker or other sites, but I felt it would change things to much. Sales always come and go. Being near a Microcenter will change things to. (As will being in a state that you would get charged tax for.) Newegg seems to be the general all around cheapest (usually) for most items. So unless you want to buy your parts from 6 different stores... Things we list here and now will always be wrong next week when a sale starts/stops.

I was going to say seeing as your board still has only PCIe 2.0 and no CF/SLI support you should get this instead.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128512
GA-Z68XP-UD3 CF/SLI support, $90 after shipping and rebate. Better board then the one you listed and now the price difference is what? AMD is $6 cheaper if you still with Newegg, $15 or so with your new board. I think I'd take the better board and 3570K still.

 

[Fulgurant]

I would disagree with this as well. Less true? You're supposed to be able to pick up the new PS4 for $399? And that system will handle 1080 gaming. I can't think of any new PC or build that will do that for $400. You said a $600 PC. Even if true, that's $200 more then the PS4. Even with games costing an extra $10, you'd have to buy 20 games before they are even. PC is catching up in value, but I'm not 100% they are there yet. More so as some PC games are starting at $60. (Though I admit they decline in price MUCH faster then console games do.) Company of Heroes 2 and Total War Rome 2 are both $60.

It's less true now because new-console hardware is less impressive, relative to current-gen PC hardware, than old console hardware was back in 2005/2006. That part of my argument isn't debatable; if you built a PS3-comparable PC in 2006, it cost much more money than a PS4-comparable PC would cost you now. Therefore PC gaming has become a better value proposition relative to console gaming.

As for the rest? Debatable perhaps. As you point out, Steam games decline in price WAY faster than console games do. Sometimes they also go on sale for absurdly low prices*. In years past, we could quibble on this point both because the Steam business model is a relatively new thing, and because consoles enjoyed a healthy used-game market -- but now? Steam has become the standard in PC gaming, and the used-console-gaming market appears to be in jeopardy (on the new consoles).

But even if we disregard the difference in software prices, the PC irrefutably provides more generally useful non-gaming functionality than a console. Therefore you can argue that the gaming portion of a PC costs significantly less than the cost of the whole PC. For example, if you need baseline PC functionality regardless, and let's say a baseline-functional PC would cost you ~$400, then the value proposition of an ~$800 gaming PC, relative to a console, is roughly even. In other words, the whole of a console is essentially pure toy; the toy portion of the PC basically boils down to a nice GPU and perhaps a slightly beefier CPU than you might need otherwise.

* - In fairness, I am perhaps biased on the point of software value for money, because I'm too old now to care terribly much whether I'm playing the newest games. I bought something like 10 games for ~$100 during Steam's New Year sale in early January, and I've only managed to play 3 of them for any significant amount of time so far. They are not ancient or painfully low-tech games, though -- among them Skyrim, The Witcher 1 & 2, Hitman Absolution, Torchlight 2, and the two Batman Arkham games.

EDIT to add: Master467 seems to think that the XBox One will cost over $500, which sounds high to me, but I haven't kept up on all the latest news about the new consoles. I tuned out after the preliminary hardware reviews trickled in. For the sake of argument, I have assumed that the consoles will sell for ~$400, but obviously that estimate could be wrong.

 

[8350rocks]

Why would you drop down to that motherboard? It lacks CF and/or SLI support. I thought we were sticking with similar boards? I thought about using PCpartpicker or other sites, but I felt it would change things to much. Sales always come and go. Being near a Microcenter will change things to. (As will being in a state that you would get charged tax for.) Newegg seems to be the general all around cheapest (usually) for most items. So unless you want to buy your parts from 6 different stores... Things we list here and now will always be wrong next week when a sale starts/stops.

I was going to say seeing as your board still has only PCIe 2.0 and no CF/SLI support you should get this instead.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128512
GA-Z68XP-UD3 CF/SLI support, $90 after shipping and rebate. Better board then the one you listed and now the price difference is what? AMD is $6 cheaper if you still with Newegg, $15 or so with your new board. I think I'd take the better board and 3570K still.

The 970A-UD3 has CrossFire support (not SLI):

http://www.gigabyte.us/products/product-page.aspx?pid=3907#ov

Additionally...we can compare other similar boards as well:

Sabertooth 990FX Gen3: $199.99

http://pcpartpicker.com/part/asus-motherboard-sabertooth990fxgen3r20

Sabertooth Z77: $239.98:

http://pcpartpicker.com/part/asus-motherboard-sabertoothz77

Asus M5A99X EVO R2.0: $117.98

http://pcpartpicker.com/part/asus-motherboard-m5a99xevor20

Asus P8Z77 LE Plus: $149.99

http://pcpartpicker.com/part/asus-motherboard-p8z77vleplus

MSI 990FXA-GD65: $129.98

http://pcpartpicker.com/part/msi-motherboard-990fxagd65v2

MSI Z77A-GD65: $149.99

http://pcpartpicker.com/part/msi-motherboard-z77agd65

MSI 990FXA-GD80: $170.98

http://pcpartpicker.com/part/msi-motherboard-990fxagd80v2

MSI Z77A-GD80: $224.99

http://pcpartpicker.com/part/msi-motherboard-z77agd80

Asus Crosshair V Formula-Z: $214.99

http://pcpartpicker.com/part/asus-motherboard-crosshairvformulaz

Asus Maximus V Formula: $277.59

http://pcpartpicker.com/part/asus-motherboard-maximusvformula

Asrock 990FX Extreme9: $188.94

http://pcpartpicker.com/part/asrock-motherboard-990fxextreme9

Asrock Z77 Extreme9: $295.99

http://pcpartpicker.com/part/asrock-motherboard-z77extreme9

MSI 970A-G43: $69.99

http://pcpartpicker.com/part/msi-motherboard-970ag43

MSI Z77A-G43: $98.98

http://pcpartpicker.com/part/msi-motherboard-z77ag43


That's between $20-100 across the board...

 

[NappySlapper]

Why would you drop down to that motherboard? It lacks CF and/or SLI support. I thought we were sticking with similar boards? I thought about using PCpartpicker or other sites, but I felt it would change things to much. Sales always come and go. Being near a Microcenter will change things to. (As will being in a state that you would get charged tax for.) Newegg seems to be the general all around cheapest (usually) for most items. So unless you want to buy your parts from 6 different stores... Things we list here and now will always be wrong next week when a sale starts/stops.

I was going to say seeing as your board still has only PCIe 2.0 and no CF/SLI support you should get this instead.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128512
GA-Z68XP-UD3 CF/SLI support, $90 after shipping and rebate. Better board then the one you listed and now the price difference is what? AMD is $6 cheaper if you still with Newegg, $15 or so with your new board. I think I'd take the better board and 3570K still.

I don't understand why you are still ignoring my points about the 8350 being much more cost effective in the future. Some people are too set on what is happening now to think about things later down the line I assume, but that is no problem if they do really want the best current performance.

Also it should be noted that the different costs from different countries will mean different opinions.

For example here in the UK my sabertooth 990fx cost me £110 and my 8350 £138 which totals basically £250

If I was to get the intel equivalent: z77 sabertooth costs £170 and 3570k costs £165 which totals £335
That is a difference of £85 , or $133 . And that is BEFORE the intel guy has to spend £100 upgrading their mobo later on (bringing the difference to £185 or $290)

Discuss.

 

[prankstare]

It's less true now because new-console hardware is less impressive, relative to current-gen PC hardware, than old console hardware was back in 2005/2006.

Okay. I'm not quite certain about this, but I have a feeling this next-gen console hardware is not only about the graphics anymore, as it used to be in previous generations. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think what we're actually seeing from now on is a totally different approach to gaming development, where visuals (or aesthetics) is no longer the main concern of game devs. And if that's true, it might take us some time to just get our heads around this new concept, the concept of which physics and other GPU-intensive calculations such as enhanced A.I. (or "simulated intelligence" rather) will be the next big thing in the world of games and technology in general.

One may think I'm crazy for saying these things lol, but that's okay, I take it. But if you look at just how this new console hardware is being architectured right now, how different they are from whatever we have seen so far, I mean maybe we're not really that far off from the truth you know. Sometimes it takes drastic changes to see big leaps (or just an open-minded approach, maybe).

 

[NappySlapper]

Well the graphics on the new condoles will definitely be a large improvement over previous consoles. There are a fair few people that think the pc and next gen will be pretty much neck and neck graphically due to optimisation. I don't know , we will have to wait and see. I think the pc can do that ai stuff better though

 

[firemedictj]

Why would you drop down to that motherboard? It lacks CF and/or SLI support. I thought we were sticking with similar boards? I thought about using PCpartpicker or other sites, but I felt it would change things to much. Sales always come and go. Being near a Microcenter will change things to. (As will being in a state that you would get charged tax for.) Newegg seems to be the general all around cheapest (usually) for most items. So unless you want to buy your parts from 6 different stores... Things we list here and now will always be wrong next week when a sale starts/stops.

I was going to say seeing as your board still has only PCIe 2.0 and no CF/SLI support you should get this instead.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128512
GA-Z68XP-UD3 CF/SLI support, $90 after shipping and rebate. Better board then the one you listed and now the price difference is what? AMD is $6 cheaper if you still with Newegg, $15 or so with your new board. I think I'd take the better board and 3570K still.

I don't understand why you are still ignoring my points about the 8350 being much more cost effective in the future. Some people are too set on what is happening now to think about things later down the line I assume, but that is no problem if they do really want the best current performance.

Also it should be noted that the different costs from different countries will mean different opinions.

For example here in the UK my sabertooth 990fx cost me £110 and my 8350 £138 which totals basically £250

If I was to get the intel equivalent: z77 sabertooth costs £170 and 3570k costs £165 which totals £335
That is a difference of £85 , or $133 . And that is BEFORE the intel guy has to spend £100 upgrading their mobo later on (bringing the difference to £185 or $290)

Discuss.

What about other upgrade problems like newer graphics cards that make use of dx12 vs dx11, or PCI4 vs PCI3 sure the socket on your 5yr old MB is the same and the CPU will fit but it may not be able to make use of the latest technology.

I was just reading on another thread that at least one user has that exact problem right not with pci2 on his board and no pci3 and dx10 vs dx11, means that he cannot achieve what would be possible with a new board. so just because you dont have to upgrade the board to get the cpu to fit doesnt mean you dont need to upgrade the board to get other featers, most notably and probably going to be the most prevalent of them is USB3.0......

Sure AMD competes from a price standpoint but by the time we actually get really well coded programs that efficiently use all 8 cores, i guarantee you that both AMD and Intel will be much more efficient per clock, per core, and the one no one seems to account for power.

If both chips can be purchased for the same price 8350 and what ever AMD comes out with in 3 years time..... which one costs more? The 8350 because it takes 125w to get that level of performance, and most likely that will be cut in half in 3 years to 60w. So what you have effectively done is spent slightly less money now to achieve something that is effectively going to cost you more in the long run to operate, not including all the aforementioned other potential issues.

 

[8350rocks]

What about other upgrade problems like newer graphics cards that make use of dx12 vs dx11, or PCI4 vs PCI3 sure the socket on your 5yr old MB is the same and the CPU will fit but it may not be able to make use of the latest technology.

There is no DX12...I am a game developer and there's been no word of DX12 anytime soon. OpenGL has incoming updates still...but DX11 seems to be pretty much where we're going to be for a while. PCIe 3.0 isn't even utilized in 98% of GPUs out right now...that's still a year or so out before widespread adoption. 3 years from now those may be concerns at some point...but right now they're not even remotely an issue.

I was just reading on another thread that at least one user has that exact problem right not with pci2 on his board and no pci3 and dx10 vs dx11, means that he cannot achieve what would be possible with a new board. so just because you dont have to upgrade the board to get the cpu to fit doesnt mean you dont need to upgrade the board to get other featers, most notably and probably going to be the most prevalent of them is USB3.0......

PCIe 2.0 Cards run DX11 unless he is using a HD 6XXX series card or a Nvidia GTX 5XX series card. He just needs to buy a newer card. PCIe 2.0 Cards support DX11.

Sure AMD competes from a price standpoint but by the time we actually get really well coded programs that efficiently use all 8 cores, i guarantee you that both AMD and Intel will be much more efficient per clock, per core, and the one no one seems to account for power.

Because power is not a concern for 99.999% of the free world...I pay $0.11 kw/hr...why on earth would I sweat $20/yr when I saved $80-100 up front in my build?

If both chips can be purchased for the same price 8350 and what ever AMD comes out with in 3 years time..... which one costs more? The 8350 because it takes 125w to get that level of performance, and most likely that will be cut in half in 3 years to 60w. So what you have effectively done is spent slightly less money now to achieve something that is effectively going to cost you more in the long run to operate, not including all the aforementioned other potential issues.

But you can't buy them for the same money...the AMD setup is consistently a minimum of $60 cheaper with CPU and MB. So that means I can run the AMD setup for 3 years before I break even on it...if I don't upgrade in 2 years.

 

[firemedictj]

What about other upgrade problems like newer graphics cards that make use of dx12 vs dx11, or PCI4 vs PCI3 sure the socket on your 5yr old MB is the same and the CPU will fit but it may not be able to make use of the latest technology.

There is no DX12...I am a game developer and there's been no word of DX12 anytime soon. OpenGL has incoming updates still...but DX11 seems to be pretty much where we're going to be for a while. PCIe 3.0 isn't even utilized in 98% of GPUs out right now...that's still a year or so out before widespread adoption. 3 years from now those may be concerns at some point...but right now they're not even remotely an issue.

I was just reading on another thread that at least one user has that exact problem right not with pci2 on his board and no pci3 and dx10 vs dx11, means that he cannot achieve what would be possible with a new board. so just because you dont have to upgrade the board to get the cpu to fit doesnt mean you dont need to upgrade the board to get other featers, most notably and probably going to be the most prevalent of them is USB3.0......

PCIe 2.0 Cards run DX11 unless he is using a HD 6XXX series card or a Nvidia GTX 5XX series card. He just needs to buy a newer card. PCIe 2.0 Cards support DX11.

Sure AMD competes from a price standpoint but by the time we actually get really well coded programs that efficiently use all 8 cores, i guarantee you that both AMD and Intel will be much more efficient per clock, per core, and the one no one seems to account for power.

Because power is not a concern for 99.999% of the free world...I pay $0.11 kw/hr...why on earth would I sweat $20/yr when I saved $80-100 up front in my build?

If both chips can be purchased for the same price 8350 and what ever AMD comes out with in 3 years time..... which one costs more? The 8350 because it takes 125w to get that level of performance, and most likely that will be cut in half in 3 years to 60w. So what you have effectively done is spent slightly less money now to achieve something that is effectively going to cost you more in the long run to operate, not including all the aforementioned other potential issues.

But you can't buy them for the same money...the AMD setup is consistently a minimum of $60 cheaper with CPU and MB. So that means I can run the AMD setup for 3 years before I break even on it...if I don't upgrade in 2 years.

Why are you giong to upgrade in two years after you just got done telling me that basically all this stuff is here to stay for at least 3+ years......... Nifty quoting technique btw.

 

[8350rocks]

Spoiler

What about other upgrade problems like newer graphics cards that make use of dx12 vs dx11, or PCI4 vs PCI3 sure the socket on your 5yr old MB is the same and the CPU will fit but it may not be able to make use of the latest technology.

There is no DX12...I am a game developer and there's been no word of DX12 anytime soon. OpenGL has incoming updates still...but DX11 seems to be pretty much where we're going to be for a while. PCIe 3.0 isn't even utilized in 98% of GPUs out right now...that's still a year or so out before widespread adoption. 3 years from now those may be concerns at some point...but right now they're not even remotely an issue.

I was just reading on another thread that at least one user has that exact problem right not with pci2 on his board and no pci3 and dx10 vs dx11, means that he cannot achieve what would be possible with a new board. so just because you dont have to upgrade the board to get the cpu to fit doesnt mean you dont need to upgrade the board to get other featers, most notably and probably going to be the most prevalent of them is USB3.0......

PCIe 2.0 Cards run DX11 unless he is using a HD 6XXX series card or a Nvidia GTX 5XX series card. He just needs to buy a newer card. PCIe 2.0 Cards support DX11.

Sure AMD competes from a price standpoint but by the time we actually get really well coded programs that efficiently use all 8 cores, i guarantee you that both AMD and Intel will be much more efficient per clock, per core, and the one no one seems to account for power.

Because power is not a concern for 99.999% of the free world...I pay $0.11 kw/hr...why on earth would I sweat $20/yr when I saved $80-100 up front in my build?

If both chips can be purchased for the same price 8350 and what ever AMD comes out with in 3 years time..... which one costs more? The 8350 because it takes 125w to get that level of performance, and most likely that will be cut in half in 3 years to 60w. So what you have effectively done is spent slightly less money now to achieve something that is effectively going to cost you more in the long run to operate, not including all the aforementioned other potential issues.

But you can't buy them for the same money...the AMD setup is consistently a minimum of $60 cheaper with CPU and MB. So that means I can run the AMD setup for 3 years before I break even on it...if I don't upgrade in 2 years.

Why are you giong to upgrade in two years after you just got done telling me that basically all this stuff is here to stay for at least 3+ years......... Nifty quoting technique btw.

Because I can afford to go to steamroller when it comes out, and that may be before 2 years is up. If Steamroller is as advertised...then it will be worth upgrading out of cycle for...

 

[firemedictj]

Spoiler

What about other upgrade problems like newer graphics cards that make use of dx12 vs dx11, or PCI4 vs PCI3 sure the socket on your 5yr old MB is the same and the CPU will fit but it may not be able to make use of the latest technology.

There is no DX12...I am a game developer and there's been no word of DX12 anytime soon. OpenGL has incoming updates still...but DX11 seems to be pretty much where we're going to be for a while. PCIe 3.0 isn't even utilized in 98% of GPUs out right now...that's still a year or so out before widespread adoption. 3 years from now those may be concerns at some point...but right now they're not even remotely an issue.

I was just reading on another thread that at least one user has that exact problem right not with pci2 on his board and no pci3 and dx10 vs dx11, means that he cannot achieve what would be possible with a new board. so just because you dont have to upgrade the board to get the cpu to fit doesnt mean you dont need to upgrade the board to get other featers, most notably and probably going to be the most prevalent of them is USB3.0......

PCIe 2.0 Cards run DX11 unless he is using a HD 6XXX series card or a Nvidia GTX 5XX series card. He just needs to buy a newer card. PCIe 2.0 Cards support DX11.

Sure AMD competes from a price standpoint but by the time we actually get really well coded programs that efficiently use all 8 cores, i guarantee you that both AMD and Intel will be much more efficient per clock, per core, and the one no one seems to account for power.

Because power is not a concern for 99.999% of the free world...I pay $0.11 kw/hr...why on earth would I sweat $20/yr when I saved $80-100 up front in my build?

If both chips can be purchased for the same price 8350 and what ever AMD comes out with in 3 years time..... which one costs more? The 8350 because it takes 125w to get that level of performance, and most likely that will be cut in half in 3 years to 60w. So what you have effectively done is spent slightly less money now to achieve something that is effectively going to cost you more in the long run to operate, not including all the aforementioned other potential issues.

But you can't buy them for the same money...the AMD setup is consistently a minimum of $60 cheaper with CPU and MB. So that means I can run the AMD setup for 3 years before I break even on it...if I don't upgrade in 2 years.

Why are you giong to upgrade in two years after you just got done telling me that basically all this stuff is here to stay for at least 3+ years......... Nifty quoting technique btw.

Because I can afford to go to steamroller when it comes out, and that may be before 2 years is up. If Steamroller is as advertised...then it will be worth upgrading out of cycle for...

so you have $200 to upgrade out of cycle, but your worried about $100 now????

 

[8350rocks]

Spoiler

What about other upgrade problems like newer graphics cards that make use of dx12 vs dx11, or PCI4 vs PCI3 sure the socket on your 5yr old MB is the same and the CPU will fit but it may not be able to make use of the latest technology.

There is no DX12...I am a game developer and there's been no word of DX12 anytime soon. OpenGL has incoming updates still...but DX11 seems to be pretty much where we're going to be for a while. PCIe 3.0 isn't even utilized in 98% of GPUs out right now...that's still a year or so out before widespread adoption. 3 years from now those may be concerns at some point...but right now they're not even remotely an issue.

I was just reading on another thread that at least one user has that exact problem right not with pci2 on his board and no pci3 and dx10 vs dx11, means that he cannot achieve what would be possible with a new board. so just because you dont have to upgrade the board to get the cpu to fit doesnt mean you dont need to upgrade the board to get other featers, most notably and probably going to be the most prevalent of them is USB3.0......

PCIe 2.0 Cards run DX11 unless he is using a HD 6XXX series card or a Nvidia GTX 5XX series card. He just needs to buy a newer card. PCIe 2.0 Cards support DX11.

Sure AMD competes from a price standpoint but by the time we actually get really well coded programs that efficiently use all 8 cores, i guarantee you that both AMD and Intel will be much more efficient per clock, per core, and the one no one seems to account for power.

Because power is not a concern for 99.999% of the free world...I pay $0.11 kw/hr...why on earth would I sweat $20/yr when I saved $80-100 up front in my build?

If both chips can be purchased for the same price 8350 and what ever AMD comes out with in 3 years time..... which one costs more? The 8350 because it takes 125w to get that level of performance, and most likely that will be cut in half in 3 years to 60w. So what you have effectively done is spent slightly less money now to achieve something that is effectively going to cost you more in the long run to operate, not including all the aforementioned other potential issues.

But you can't buy them for the same money...the AMD setup is consistently a minimum of $60 cheaper with CPU and MB. So that means I can run the AMD setup for 3 years before I break even on it...if I don't upgrade in 2 years.

Why are you giong to upgrade in two years after you just got done telling me that basically all this stuff is here to stay for at least 3+ years......... Nifty quoting technique btw.

Because I can afford to go to steamroller when it comes out, and that may be before 2 years is up. If Steamroller is as advertised...then it will be worth upgrading out of cycle for...

so you have $200 to upgrade out of cycle, but your worried about $100 now????

I could not justify the difference in performance for the cost. 2-3 FPS is not worth a combined $80 increase in price. Likewise...if I were already running SB and my upgrade cycle came up on Haswell (hasfail)...I would just skip that cycle and keep what I had because the combined performance increase from IB and Hasfail is less then it's worth spending the money for...

EDIT: I am looking at performance/$ value. Overall cost bothers me less than what I am getting for my dollars. I cannot justify spending more money on intel for marginally better performance. (makes sense...?)