Please help me choose!!!! If you love hardware you'll really get a kick out of t

[Appaholic]

Hello fellow techies!! I'm about to purchase a new com and I trying to decide between these two hardware sets.

OPTION 1:
AMD 970 Chipset
AMD FX-8150 eight-core processor [3.6GHz, 8MB L2/8MB L3 Cache]
12 GB DDR3-1333MHz SDRAM [4 DIMMs] - 16GB Max
120GB Solid state drive
3GB DDR3 NVIDIA GeForce GT 545 [DVI, HDMI, VGA]
Blu-ray player/writer-burner w/LightScribe Super Multi 16X DVDRW w/Double Layer
802.11 b/g/n PCI Express Wireless mini card
2 SS USB 3.0 (SuperSpeed)
15-in-1 card reader 2 USB 2.0 1 headphone jack 1 microphone jack 2 USB 3.0
1 PCIe (x16 graphics), 3 PCIe (x1), PCI Express x1 mini card socket with USB connector: 1
-OR-

Option 2:
Intel Core i7-2600K 3.40 GHz,
L3 cache 8 MB MEMORY
6 GB DDR3 1333 MHz
1 TB SATA 3 Gb/s 7200 RPM
24x CD/DVD burner (DVD /-RW) with double layer write capability
4x 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM,
6x 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAMAUDIO
Dual 1.5 GB NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450, SLI-enabled, 3 GB graphics memory
2 USB 3.0 • 8 USB 2.0 • HDMI • eSATA • Headphone out (2) • Mic input (2) • FireWire IEEE-1394 • LAN (RJ-45) • Coaxial S/PDIF • Optical S/PDIF • 7.1 ch. line out • Stereo mic and line input connectors

I want to pull the trigger on one of these systems by tonight if possible, I'm just waiting for a push in the right direction. Thanks a million!!!

 

[Raiddinn]

Number 2 is the route I would take.

Although, I am not real sure what you are trying to accomplish.

They are both kinda sketchy in my opinion.

What are you trying to do with this computer once you get it?

 

[photonboy]

They are both severely limited by the graphics cards for gaming.

You can buy cheaper systems for non-gaming.

I agree, you've said nothing about your USAGE of these systems. If you want a general-purpose, non-gaming system then either one is just fine.

It's very difficult to recommend as your systems are so completely different. On the one hand the Intel CPU would match better with a graphics card upgrade. On the other hand your AMD system has an SSD and a BluRay drive.

That 12GB is also overkill unless you edit video. With an SSD, no video editing and no gaming more than 4GB would provide little to no benefit.

 

[photonboy]

Wait...
Both graphics card configurations are dumb:
1) 3GB of VRAM is pointless on that GPU (more than 1GB can't be used)

2) 2xGTX450 is odd. It's much better to get a single higher-end graphics card.

This is NOT how to build a computer. Sorry, but there are much better configurations out there. The builders are putting in 3GB or SLI'ing a low-end card to make the computers look more attractive to the uneducated.

*Tell us your needs (gaming?) and we can help more.

 

[runswindows95]

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/261222-31-build-advice

If you can fill out the form, it will help us greatly. Overall, both are decent, but without knowing your usage, I can't say which one is better either.

 

[Appaholic]

Thank you very much for your replies...

Sorry about not putting down my usage...I'll be using the either system in the immediate term for app development, web design, video editing, as a home theater pc, and controlling a few virtual machines(long term). When the opportunity comes up I'll use it for gaming. My goal is to get a pc that is expandable but is very on par with other high-end systems as well as getting something that is future proof for at minimum 3yrs.

I will be changing the power supply on the amd setup to a 600w and upgrading the video card( to what I don't know...suggestions??) @Photonboy I'm not sure about the SLIing?? And yes it does sound more appealing to someone who is uneducated...ie: me.

The amd setup is $853.00 and the intel setup is $1050.00(at minimum) they are both certified refurb's and have factory warranties.

 

[Raiddinn]

If you go to the link in my signature, you can see a computer for $1000 that is a lot better than those. You could make it about equal in cost to the $1050 one by getting a second set of RAM with the same part number.

You would have to put the parts together yourself, but that isn't super difficult.

 

[Appaholic]

@Raiddinn So you're saying that the intel i5 2400k is better than the amd fx 8150??

I can agree with your motherboard option and maybe the graphics card but the amd setup has a larger SSD, blu-ray player, usb 3.0, and a warranty for $853. I'll be changing the graphics card and using 4tb networked storage unit so that won't be a problem.

I'm really interested in hearing your opinion on the amd processor though!!!

 

[Raiddinn]

The FX 8150 would have to OC massively to equal the 2400k for most things, especially games.

Pretty much every benchmark test has shown just that same thing.

The only things that the FX might be able to do better would be something that dearly needed the extra 4 cores (an uncommon scenario).

There are two big drawbacks to FX processors and those two things are such big drawbacks that pretty much nobody should get an FX processor.

Number 1, The FX processor is often not recognized on an AM3+ motherboard right out of the box. If people don't have another AMD processor laying around, they often have zero ability to get their new computer to turn on.

Number 2, There is something called IPC. That basically stands for instructions per clock cycle. This measures how much work that a core can do in a certain amount of time. Intel scores very much higher than AMD in this statistic.

An example of #2 that matches up somewhat closely with reality would be to say that an AMD core can process 2 instructions during one cycle whereas an Intel core can process 5 instructions during one cycle (the same amount of real time).

A 4 core Intel would do 20 instructions in 1 cycle and an 8 core FX chip would do 16 instructions in 1 cycle (assuming all the cores were being used). Thus an 8 core FX chip would be behind a 4 core Intel chip unless the FX chip had at least a 25% OC. The 25% OC would make the two pretty much equal.

However, if both had a 25% OC, then the Intel would be at 25 and the AMD only at 20, so the gap will have increased by 1 instruction (20 vs 16 against 25 vs 20). The OCing benefits the Intel chips more than it benefits the FX chips.

The 2400 can't be OCd (you would have to spend a bit more for a 2500k for that), but the FX 8150 is kinda hard to get more than a 25% OC on anyway, so either way the FX 8150 is still behind the 2400 most likely.

You can look all this up yourself to verify if you want. If you just type "2400 vs 8150" or something into google and it should come up with hundreds of review sites that compared these two cihps in an apples to applies comparison.

 

[Appaholic]

Best answer selected by Appaholic.

 

[Appaholic]

I ended up with the 8150, popped it in a storm tropper case and I'm upgrading the mobo to either ASRock Fatal1ty 990FX Professional or ASUS Sabertooth 990FX!! Def need help choosing which one though cause it's driving me nutz!!

 

[Raiddinn]

The Asus will probably last longer, and the Asrock will probably have the more stable operation if you are trying to do the maximum OC.