Question about chosing a CPU?

[Jdubbs_92]

Okay, so I've been studying computers lately. I plan on building a gaming rig for myself to see if maybe I like it enough to choose it as a future career. I'm very newby so if anything comes across as totally stupid that's why haha. I've been trying hard to understand all of this though.

Most places start by saying choose a CPU first, and then build on it. I plan on going AMD, because they are wayyy cheaper than intel. Plus I've been using intel for my gaming in the past, and have been interested in trying out the AMD hypertransport as opposed to the intel hyperthreading. From what I understand the hypertransport may be slightly better for gaming?

Any way the question is is this process good? Very unclear I know! I'd define good as in be able to support most games on the highest setting, and continue that in the future? I know you can't judge ALL that on a processor, but know I do NOT plan to close my wallet on anything else going into this computer. I'm most likely going crossfire as I'm an ATI fan boy sadly. I'm going to slap that with an SSD for my OS and games, and probably like a 1TB HDD as storage. here is the link to the processor(s)

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103961

Based on what I read in the details it seem really good. Mostly due to the 8 freaking cores. I've never used more than 4 ha ha.

Here is a second CPU I'm looking at

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103962

Also is there any real difference between this link and the second?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103960

Lastly is there any advice anyone could give me? Or any reccomendations on parts, builds, or just whatever? Any feedback would seriously make my day.

 

[hunter315]

Im going to start with the hypertransport vs hyperthreading you mentioned, they are totally different. Hyper threading is an additional set of registers and a few extra execution units in the CPU to let it intermix 2 threads on one core to boost performance, Hyper Transport is a bus, its similar in function to the FSB of older Intel chips and serves a similar purpose to DMI and QPI on newer intel chips. Hyper transport does not provide any performance bonus, it is merely a way of setting up a bus.

Looking at the CPUs you linked to, you are in the price range for a 2500k build, its actually cheaper than the third CPU you linked to and will give you better performance in gaming. Right now, its hard to justify the AMD FX chips for gaming builds when an i3 2100 or an i5 2500k fits the bill for a similar price.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115072&Tpk=i5%202500k

Like you said, "due to the 8 freaking cores. I've never used more than 4 ha ha." You have no need for an 8 core CPU, most games can't make use of more than 3 cores, and there are very very few that can use more than 4 so buying a CPU simply because it has 8 cores will get you no farther than if you had chosen a quad core CPU, and many quads on the market have better per core performance than the FX line up does so its not the best choice.

If you want a full build suggested, i suggest you make a new thread over in the systems forum using the template for new build advice
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/261222-31-build-advice

 

[jimmysmitty]

What hunter said. If you are willing to put $200 into a CPU and are mainly gaming right now, go for the 2500K. Its a great CPU that works great. I went from a QX6850 to a 2500K and my HD5870 woke up. I can play Skyrim maxed out, TF2 and most any game I have right not.

And considering that the 2500K is only $224 (sometimes cheaper) it really is in the same price range.

The only FX CPUs that are wayyy cheaper are also wayyy lower in performance compared to the 2500K.

I would also suggest you go with a P8Z68-V Pro Gen3. It will support Ivy Bridge, Intels upcoming CPU, and as well it will support PCIe 3.0 which right now is pointless it will mean you can continue to upgrade GPUs for a longer period before the PCIe becomes a bottleneck.

 

[buzznut]

I have to agree with most of what hunter said, even though I am an AND fan. It really is unfortunate that amd has chosen to call their current architecture 8 core because it really isn't. They have 8 integer cores and have chosen to only use 4 floating point. I guess they thought that integer was more important, Intel is proving them wrong.

At any rate, the 8 core CPUs while capable of running 8 threads really perform more like a quad core. AMD made some design choices that really didn't go in their favor. AMD is a forward thinking company, so it may be awhile before bulldozer could see its full potential. However what counts right now is performance per core per watt, and Intel really shines in this department.

 

[Jdubbs_92]

Hey thanks for the advice. Everyone is indeed saying go for an i5. Thank the lord there are still good people on the net :]

 

[buzznut]

What hunter said. If you are willing to put $200 into a CPU and are mainly gaming right now, go for the 2500K. Its a great CPU that works great. I went from a QX6850 to a 2500K and my HD5870 woke up. I can play Skyrim maxed out, TF2 and most any game I have right not.

And considering that the 2500K is only $224 (sometimes cheaper) it really is in the same price range.

The only FX CPUs that are wayyy cheaper are also wayyy lower in performance compared to the 2500K.

I would also suggest you go with a P8Z68-V Pro Gen3. It will support Ivy Bridge, Intels upcoming CPU, and as well it will support PCIe 3.0 which right now is pointless it will mean you can continue to upgrade GPUs for a longer period before the PCIe becomes a bottleneck.

This is also good advice, although I'd like to interject that I am running an FX8120 and I can also max Skyrim and anything else I want. 😉

 

[jimmysmitty]

This is also good advice, although I'd like to interject that I am running an FX8120 and I can also max Skyrim and anything else I want. 😉

Yea but on a HD6900 series. I have a HD5870, more or less equal to a HD6870. I was suprised as before I would get lag in White Run and some areas with snow but now at the same settings, I get none. Must have been the PCIe 1.1 + the DDR2.

Still its nice to see a fan not being fanboyish. I would recommend a FX if the circumstances were right, such as he already had a AM3+ mobo or it performed a lot better but then again if it did its price would also be a lot higher.

The price we pay for performance.....

 

[buzznut]

Yea but on a HD6900 series. I have a HD5870, more or less equal to a HD6870. I was suprised as before I would get lag in White Run and some areas with snow but now at the same settings, I get none. Must have been the PCIe 1.1 + the DDR2.

Still its nice to see a fan not being fanboyish. I would recommend a FX if the circumstances were right, such as he already had a AM3+ mobo or it performed a lot better but then again if it did its price would also be a lot higher.

The price we pay for performance.....

Tru dat. I was hoping for 4.8 Ghz but I have settled on 4.4 for now. Idle temps are superb but all 8 cores fully loaded I get to 70C. People are speculating that the latest (since January) FX 8120 batches are not equal to the FX 8150 in particular as far as OC potential goes.

I have a feeling though my old Antec 650 blue is not putting out great voltages. Well, its more than a feeling, there's evidence- the voltages being reported are pretty funky. +12V, +5V, and +3.3 are ok, but the rest...Once I move into my new home I think I can achieve higher. If not then I'll have to spring for an H100. Mo money.


I really thought the HD 5870 was quite superior to the 6850, more along the lines of an HD6950.

Yeah, here's the hierarchy:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-graphics-card-review,3107-7.html