Which CPU do I go for?

[blacka05]

Hi everyone,

I really need some advice on what CPU to go for - I seem to be going around in circles at the moment.

Here's what I will be using it for;

- Light gaming (Football manager, Flight Simulator X)
- Light Video editing (1080p home video's at the very most, 10 a year maybe)
- Web browsing with multiple tabs.
- Microsoft Office (Word, PP, and Publisher mainly)
- Mapping software called ArcGIS which I use quite often for my degree
- Streaming the odd video online.

I'm really stuck between AMD and Intel as I am on a budget of about £500-600 (for the complete rig, including a copy of Windows 8.1).

I've read that Intel is better for single core performance, and AMD for multi-core (at lower end) which is what is confusing me slightly as to what will benefit me most.

Thanks for any help you can give!

 

[NerdCore]

Because you will be multi-tasking a lot and using video editing applications including HD video streaming, I highly recommend the Intel i3-4370. It is a 3.4GHz Dual-Core Processor with Intel's Hyper Threading technology, giving the chip FOUR processing threads, killing the heavy multi-tasking game and light video editing. This processor is perfect for light gaming as well and it should fit under your budget, depending on what parts you will be pairing with this processor.

-Dave Fital
Nerd Core

 

[synphul]

Is that budget for an entirely new rig?

 

[blacka05]

Is that budget for an entirely new rig?

Yes, I realise this is not a huge amount but I can't really warrant spending too much over that.

 

[synphul]

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Xeon E3-1220 V3 3.1GHz Quad-Core Processor (£159.74 @ Scan.co.uk)
Motherboard: Asus H97M-E Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard (£65.00 @ Amazon UK)
Memory: G.Skill Ripjaws X Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1866 Memory (£59.79 @ Ebuyer)
Storage: Western Digital Caviar Blue 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive (£39.99 @ Amazon UK)
Video Card: MSI Radeon R7 260X 2GB Video Card (£88.56 @ Ebuyer)
Case: Zalman Z9 ATX Mid Tower Case (£29.68 @ CCL Computers)
Power Supply: Antec High Current Gamer 620W 80+ Bronze Certified Semi-Modular ATX Power Supply (£62.97 @ Amazon UK)
Optical Drive: Samsung SH-224DB/RSBS DVD/CD Writer (£11.89 @ CCL Computers)
Operating System: Microsoft Windows 8.1 (OEM) (64-bit) (£71.60 @ Amazon UK)
Total: £589.22
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-10 20:05 GMT+0000

maybe a setup similar to this?

 

[synphul]

that doesn't include keyboard/mouse or monitor though
do you need those?

 

[blacka05]

that doesn't include keyboard/mouse or monitor though
do you need those?

Thanks for the reply - no I have all that sorted. It will be my first PC build though and I'm struggling a bit trying to find the right CPU.

 

[synphul]

There are any number of options, although I believe most GIS programs make use of multiple cores. An i3 would be dual core with hyper threading (2 cores + 2 virtual cores). An i5 would be 4 physical cores. i7's are 4 physical with 4 virtual cores due to hyperthreading. The xeon is basically an i7 without on die gpu (not needed since you'll be using a video card). The xeon also has hyperthreading and 8mb cache vs the 6mb of the core i5. 8gb ram is typically the min recommended ram for gis programs. I tried to find info on arcGIS and the post I saw was a couple yrs old but mentioned no real heavy use of gpu for things while others say typical GIS programs make use of openGL on graphics cards for mapping. The xeon and that motherboard aren't setup for overclocking though.

 

[blacka05]

There are any number of options, although I believe most GIS programs make use of multiple cores. An i3 would be dual core with hyper threading (2 cores + 2 virtual cores). An i5 would be 4 physical cores. i7's are 4 physical with 4 virtual cores due to hyperthreading. The xeon is basically an i7 without on die gpu (not needed since you'll be using a video card). The xeon also has hyperthreading and 8mb cache vs the 6mb of the core i5. 8gb ram is typically the min recommended ram for gis programs. I tried to find info on arcGIS and the post I saw was a couple yrs old but mentioned no real heavy use of gpu for things while others say typical GIS programs make use of openGL on graphics cards for mapping. The xeon and that motherboard aren't setup for overclocking though.

I have also been researching and not found a great deal on ArcGIS, it tends to run ok on uni computers which have i3 processors and I currently use it at home on a Intel Pentium D CPU from 2005 although it's painfully slow at times.

Would you defiantly recommend Intel over AMD for what I intend to use it for? That's the first hurdle I've been falling at recently.

 

[NerdCore]

for gis programs it is better to use a cpu with as many cores as possible. AMD FX-8350 at 4.0GHz is also very nice to your needs.

 

[blacka05]

for gis programs it is better to use a cpu with as many cores as possible. AMD FX-8350 at 4.0GHz is also very nice to your needs.

I was looking at that CPU also due to the amount of cores as you say. What puts me off is the performance of single core programs in comparison to the Intel's. Do you think there would be much difference?

 

[synphul]

I take that back, there are different xeon processors and the one I listed doesn't have hyperthreading. There are versions that do. However you can't compare the 'speed' of cpu's across different platforms. For instance the amd fx 8350 8 core vishera is 4ghz and the xeon is only 3.1ghz - yet because intel cpu's process more per clock, the xeon single core speed still beats the vishera at 1ghz faster frequency. Only in heavily multithreaded applications does the vishera beat out the xeon and not by much.

http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Xeon-E3-1220-v3-vs-AMD-FX-8350

 

[synphul]

Either would be a decent processor within your budget. My personal preference is intel but that's me, they're not always a better cpu. Just seems like most of the time whenever I've used amd systems they tend to lag under heavier workloads. The real world difference would probably be minimal between those two in all honesty and the amd is a bit cheaper.

 

[blacka05]

Either would be a decent processor within your budget. My personal preference is intel but that's me, they're not always a better cpu. Just seems like most of the time whenever I've used amd systems they tend to lag under heavier workloads. The real world difference would probably be minimal between those two in all honesty and the amd is a bit cheaper.

One I have been looking at is the Intel i5 4690 or 4690k (I don't plan on overlocking, but it's in a bundle and only about £5 more). Only problem is that stretches the budget slightly.

 

[synphul]

That's also not a bad choice. Quad core, no hyperthreading and you could overclock in the future if you wished (if paired with a z97 motherboard). Z97's other differences include m.2 and e-sata support as well as compatibility with broadwell which are the next series of desktop processors intel hasn't released yet.

It's hard making rec's for people outside of the u.s. since pricing and availability is so much different. What seems like a no brainer great deal here isn't always the best deal in the u.k. or elsewhere.

 

[synphul]

Standard retail in the u.s. (no sales or specials) the 4690k runs around 15-16 sterling less than the price currently listed in pc partpicker for the u.k.

 

[blacka05]

That's also not a bad choice. Quad core, no hyperthreading and you could overclock in the future if you wished (if paired with a z97 motherboard). Z97's other differences include m.2 and e-sata support as well as compatibility with broadwell which are the next series of desktop processors intel hasn't released yet.

It's hard making rec's for people outside of the u.s. since pricing and availability is so much different. What seems like a no brainer great deal here isn't always the best deal in the u.k. or elsewhere.

Everything tends to be a lot cheaper across the pond which is rather annoying for us Brits! I reckon I could save about $100-200 if I was in the US, ah well.

I think I'm going to go with the i5 - it may be a bit more than I want to spend, but I'd hope it would last a good few years and be more than capable of dealing with all the tasks I want.

 

[synphul]

I don't see you being disappointed. Especially since you're not heavily gaming or anything. I'm just now upgrading to the 4690k after spending the past 6yrs on an e8400 core 2 duo. Given my uses and the fact I'm not a hardcore gamer who has to keep up with the trends, I expect to get another 4-5yrs comfortably from the 4690k.

 

[blacka05]

I don't see you being disappointed. Especially since you're not heavily gaming or anything. I'm just now upgrading to the 4690k after spending the past 6yrs on an e8400 core 2 duo. Given my uses and the fact I'm not a hardcore gamer who has to keep up with the trends, I expect to get another 4-5yrs comfortably from the 4690k.

Ah good, that would suit me well. Is there a specific motherboard that you would recommend for it? I was looking at ;
- MSI Z97 PC MATE
- MSI Z97-G55 SLI
- Gigabyte GA-Z97X-SLI

 

[synphul]

Out of those boards, the z97 pc mate looks like a decent option for the price. Crossfire support (if you wanted it in the future, nice to have options), pretty wide range of memory support, 6 sata (most in that budget only have 4). I'm not overly familiar with that model but it seems to get fairly good reviews. It's z97 chipset but doesn't have e-sata or m.2 (for connecting faster ssd drives beyond sata 3).

Boards that might be a bit better would be the asus z97-a, gigabyte z97x gaming 5, msi z97 g45 but those all run around 40 sterling more.

This one falls around the middle of the z97 pc mate and the 3 above at 87 sterling and looks decent too
http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/part/msi-motherboard-z97g55sli

It really depends on your budget, obviously you can get more options for more money but if you're not planning on massive overclocking and no need for the newer e-sata or m.2 ssd drives, then the pc mate looks like a good buy and saves you around 40 sterling.

 

[blacka05]

Out of those boards, the z97 pc mate looks like a decent option for the price. Crossfire support (if you wanted it in the future, nice to have options), pretty wide range of memory support, 6 sata (most in that budget only have 4). I'm not overly familiar with that model but it seems to get fairly good reviews. It's z97 chipset but doesn't have e-sata or m.2 (for connecting faster ssd drives beyond sata 3).

Boards that might be a bit better would be the asus z97-a, gigabyte z97x gaming 5, msi z97 g45 but those all run around 40 sterling more.

This one falls around the middle of the z97 pc mate and the 3 above at 87 sterling and looks decent too
http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/part/msi-motherboard-z97g55sli

It really depends on your budget, obviously you can get more options for more money but if you're not planning on massive overclocking and no need for the newer e-sata or m.2 ssd drives, then the pc mate looks like a good buy and saves you around 40 sterling.

I would like the possibility of upgrading to an SSD in the future or getting one from the off if the price is right.

Would that 'middle' range board be able to support SSD (http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/part/msi-motherboard-z97g55sli)

Or would I need to go for one of the upper one's you mention like the Asus z97-a?

 

[blacka05]

Hello,

I think for you i7 processor is good.Core i7 will be better for multitasking, multimedia tasks, high-end gaming, and scientific work. Core i7 processors are certainly aimed at people who complain that their current system is "too slow."

Hi,

In an ideal world the i7 is what I would pick, but I have to draw the line somewhere price wise and so that is why I'd rather go for a high end i5 oppose to a low end i7.