Intel vs AMD? (No fanboyism please)

[ADMINSKORA-1]

I'm looking a building a computer with these specifications:

http://pcpartpicker.com/p/mstrt6

And i'm looking at building this machine mainly for Music Production, Virtualization, (Virtualbox/VMware) A little bit a gaming, and possibly later as a server.

You'll notice no CPU is listed, that's where i'm stuck.

I'm considering the FX-8350 because the 8 cores would benefit in multi-tasking more, however the Core i5 and i7's raw performance impresses me a lot. Which should i go with? (Again, please no biased opinions, just pure facts if possible, and also no "Just get an i7." or "Just get an i5" answers either).

 

[Gracodana]

if you have the budget, i7 no question intel simply has better core quality thats just fact but the i5 and the 8350 well it depends what you primeraly want to use it as because I would get the i5 if it's a little more gaming focus but the 8350 if it's more productivity focused.

 

[rolli59]

Ok price is close to I5 performance same as I7 and is called XEON http://pcpartpicker.com/part/intel-cpu-bx80646e31230v3 uses the same socket lga1150 motherboards as the I5-I7! The linked one does have disabled GPU on the core.

 

[Sc0urgeTR]

More cores do not equal more performance.
Intel currently has better CPU architecture.
AMD chips have leaky cache.

But what's most important regardless of the CPU is that you have plenty of memory.

 

[bjsm]

AMD is out of the game for CPU's no question there. There was a time when intel and amd were at "war" for the cpu's. But that time is far over. If you have the money intel is always better.

 

[ADMINSKORA-1]

Ok price is close to I5 performance same as I7 and is called XEON http://pcpartpicker.com/part/intel-cpu-bx80646e31230v3 uses the same socket lga1150 motherboards as the I5-I7! The linked one does have disabled GPU on the core.

I think i might just choose that Xeon.

 

[Gracodana]

yeah if it's more productivity focused it might be a good idea to go for the Xeon, it's good bang for buck.

 

[ADMINSKORA-1]

More cores do not equal more performance.
Intel currently has better CPU architecture.
AMD chips have leaky cache.

But what's most important regardless of the CPU is that you have plenty of memory.

I never said that more cores = more performance, all i said was it would help me multitask a lot more, and i could run more virtual machines, that is true, no?

 

[ADMINSKORA-1]

yeah if it's more productivity focused it might be a good idea to go for the Xeon, it's good bang for buck.

Absolutely, but it still seems quite odd to choose a quad-core over an octo-core, don't you think?

 

[Gracodana]

It has hyper threading

 

[Gracodana]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnS50lJicXc

heres a video on it if you dont know what it is.

 

[martinch]

Coming from someone who's always had AMD processors, given your usage, I'd look at one of the E3 Xeons (basically an i7 without the IGP, and a price nearer to the i5's) - Intel's processors are faster (especially with single-threaded code, but also in multi-threaded situations - HyperThreading helps here), and produce less heat/use less power (about 50W less in this case). Plus, the Z97 chipset has some nice features (SATA-Express, M.2, Thunderbolt support, etc) which might be useful, especially if you keep it a while.

 

[ADMINSKORA-1]

It has hyper threading

Wait, the Xeon or an i7?

And Hyperthreading is essentially 8 threads on 4 physical cores, resulting in 8 pseudo-cores, interesting, or at least that's how i understand it.

 

[Gracodana]

Thats how it is

 

[Sc0urgeTR]

Multicore architecture increases in complexity the more cores you add. Programs rarely aim at efficiently using MC. Algorithms to handle tasks create overhead. The more cores the more synchronisation between the cores is required making it increasingly more difficult to program towards. Sometimes a single core still makes sense. Depends on the task.

 

[Gracodana]

Multicore architecture increases in complexity the more cores you add. Programs rarely aim at efficiently using MC. Algorithms to handle tasks create overhead. The more cores the more synchronisation between the cores is required making it increasingly more difficult to program towards. Sometimes a single core still makes sense. Depends on the task.

Yes it compleatly depends on the task games rarly use over 2 cores and the most demanding only use 4 cores so this means that most of the cpu is going to waste. but compare that too viseo editing or rendering or somthing like that and all the cpu is pushed too the absolute limite that it can do taking advantage of all the cores.

 

[rolli59]

It has hyper threading

Wait, the Xeon or an i7?

And Hyperthreading is essentially 8 threads on 4 physical cores, resulting in 8 pseudo-cores, interesting, or at least that's how i understand it.

Both that Xeon and I7 have HT so they will best the FX in tasks that the FX could use its 8 cores in.

 

[Mac266]

The Xeon is definitely your best bet. Either a E3 1231V3 or 1241V3 would suit you fine.

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Xeon E3-1231 V3 3.4GHz Quad-Core Processor ($249.98 @ SuperBiiz)
Total: $249.98
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-11-11 15:40 EST-0500

Or if you want a couple of extra MHz

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Xeon E3-1241 V3 3.5GHz Quad-Core Processor ($271.00 @ Amazon)
Total: $271.00
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-11-11 15:41 EST-0500

At these prices, I'd get the 1231v3.

 

[PsyKhiqZero]

There is no situation where the AMD fx-8350's 8 cores gives it enough advantage to compensate for the i5 and i7 per core performance advantage. IMO buying a FX 8350 is a gamble. You'd be gambling on whether or not programs and games will become multi threaded enough to make it worth while. Assasins creed unity recommends a fx 8350 ( 8 core) or a i5 2500k (4 core 4 vcore) CPUs as minimum so in a 2-3 years the possibility of needing 8 cores is very real. Pretty much every build posted on the internet recommends the intel CPU at the price range.

IMO the real money for AMD right now is the FX 6300. Because it's 80 dollars cheaper you can get yourself quite a big GPU upgrade.

 

[ADMINSKORA-1]

There is no situation where the AMD fx-8350's 8 cores gives it enough advantage to compensate for the i5 and i7 per core performance advantage. IMO buying a FX 8350 is a gamble. You'd be gambling on whether or not programs and games will become multi threaded enough to make it worth while. Assasins creed unity recommends a fx 8350 ( 8 core) or a i5 2500k (4 core 4 vcore) CPUs as minimum so in a 2-3 years the possibility of needing 8 cores is very real. Pretty much every build posted on the internet recommends the intel CPU at the price range.

IMO the real money for AMD right now is the FX 6300. Because it's 80 dollars cheaper you can get yourself quite a big GPU upgrade.

I mainly want to invest in the CPU. This is not a gaming rig, it's a music production rig that can game.

 

[nikoli707]

if your on a strict budget for non gaming, its is hard to beat an 8320+hyper212+mobo for right at $200 when you find them for a steal. otherwise the locked 4c8t xeon or i7k is better for sure if you can afford it.

 

[ADMINSKORA-1]

I just went on cpubenchmark.net, and compared that Xeon to an i5 4440, and the FX-8350, are you sure the Xeon is still a good choice after seeing the results?

=1942&cmp[]=2017&cmp[]=1780]http://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare.php?cmp[]=1942&cmp[]=2017&cmp[]=1780

 

[rolli59]

Yes since those do not include gaming at all and there even the I5 will equal or better the FX and the Xeon will better. Really the decision is yours when running multithreaded programs the FX is good value but it is far behind I7 or Xeon when we get to single threaded performance which most games even programs have. Here comparison of FX 8350 and I7 at 3.5GHz http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/697?vs=836

 

[malshan]

I'll reply for your requirements mentioned:

"And i'm looking at building this machine mainly for Music Production, Virtualization, (Virtualbox/VMware) A little bit a gaming, and possibly later as a serve

Music Production - depends on your software, probably get the FX-8350
Virtualization - get the FX-8350, make sure you have more RAM with remaining money. However, if you are going to run this 24/7 365 Days, get the Xeon. Opteron looks nice too, if you have more money.
Gaming - get an i5, may be Xeon would work as well.

 

[shadismad]

If you want to run multiple VMs while running some other programs without any conflicts you might want to consider the octo-core. I'll explain. Let's say you want to run 2 VMs, that's 2 cores you can consider gone (half of either core processor). If you attempt to split a core between a VM and anything else you are going to notice a significant performance drop. VMs should have their own dedicated core. I have no idea what you envision this machine being capable of doing but more cores means more that can be accomplished at the same time with minimal conflicts. Sure the I5 or I7 cores might have an edge core vs core but from what I infer, you are looking for some advanced multitasking.

Edit: I went back and read some of the other comments and I noticed that server processors and hyperthreading talk was going on. Server processors are an entirely different beast. They require ECC ram and I highly doubt that is a road you want to travel. HT on the other hand is just asking for other problems. Introducing logical cores to VMs is like you trying to make a sandwich while stirring a mixed drink at the same time. Sounds good but not very practical. One possibility, assuming you went with the octo-core, is to dedicate a second core to a VM if you deemed it necessary. 2 cores on the octo-core architecture share the same L2 cache.