I'm building a 8350 fx cpu build with water cooling. I would like to save as much as possible, because what I've picked out for parts is above $800 +the stuff i already have (I have a amd3 cpu so I can flash the bios no prob)
the thing is I'm going with this ram,
ram 2X (red green led's) http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820148555
,and it can only be over clocked to about 2100 so the higher ram OC capability on the -z doesn't help me and I have a good sound card too.
Power Supplyhttp://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817553004&Tpk=cougar%201000w
----------I'm going with UV red/orange water cooling tubes and I have couger fans.
256 ssd (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820249027) or I'll get one of slickdeals if I see one for like $160
amd fx8350 cpu ($250)
PS I have a haf932 and any suggestions on parts is much appreciated.
neither, don't go with faildozer, sandy or Ivy bridge, if you're going to wait for pile driver to catch up with sandy and Ivy you might as well wait for the new genneration of intel CPUs that will undoubtably be way better than it anyway
-disappointed amd fanboy
Well, if Intel continues with their current method of 5% performance boost with each iteration as they did with ivy bridge, even if AMD flounders around they will inevitably catch up or surpass them.
The Bulldozer chips have their advantages, yet are often outweighed by their pitfalls. The Bulldozer chips, having low single core performance yet several cores (or at least integer processors), they can surpass their Intel counter-parts in a number of applications, but these uses are unfortunately fall in line with only a niche market, where as the bulk of consumers will see much greater performance out of the Intel chips. To counter this the FX chips have come down a fair bit in price.
All in all though, I find it a bit silly to readily base a build on products that have not yet been release and thus have not had their performance accurately reviewed.
Well let me clarify I'm going to get the Piledriver 8350 fx cpu (not intel) and I do CAD work with my rig and gaming. I currently have a Athlon II X4 630 and the extra power from 8 cores would be great when I VM Linux or if I switch from windows to Linux and vim Windows. I'm looking for around 2500k performance and it looks like I can over clock the Fx 8350 to 5ghz. I know that I can get better performance from a 2011 cpu but that's out of my budget.
All in all though, I find it a bit silly to readily base a build on products that have not yet been release and thus have not had their performance accurately reviewed.
----- it is a hell of a lot beter than what i have and it can't be slower than an fx8150
Well then, I've heard rumours that the 1090FX may even give a major performance boost to old Bulldozer chips, so that coupled with the new Piledriver chips might be the way you want to go then. But then again the 1090FX boards don't have a nailed down release date (to my knowledge) and may be a ways off from release.
its a 8 core in the way that the i7 is a eight core, its amds answer to hyperthreading, its 4 really powerful cores threaded deep down on the hardware level, I think if they didn't cripple the cores by threading them off it would be pretty powerful better than the phenoms at least, if they did that it would be at this point they could have started on adding more real cores, there was a lot of ways AMD could have done it right, but the way they choose was not the right way and I really do hope they get it right
on another note a stock 3770K will achive the same performance of a 4.5Ghz 8150, which cost about the same with the water cooling, what do you think will happen later down the road when you can afford a $67 TPC 812, OC it to 4.5Ghz, I'm fairly certain it would be faster than the 8150 at 5Ghz since the the 3770K at 4.5Ghz is as fast as a 2600K at 4.8 which is faster than a 8150 at 5Ghz.
If you can tell me your total budget I can help you out either way, I don't want you to get intel I want you to get the best thing that you can afford
I would definately argue that the bulldozer architecture wasn't made as a response to hyperthreading, as I honestly don't see hyperthreading requiring a response, the performance boosts HT does provide are minor in some applications and nothing in others. Generally speaking, I've found its better to turn off hyperthreading if you intend to OC your chip as you'll gain an extra bit of overhead with it turned off, leading to better overall performance. Only people who do not intent to OC their chips should actually leave HT on.
AMD has been running with the idea that trying to compete with Intel apples for apples isn't going to get them anywhere, thus they decided a while ago (round the athlon/early phenom days) that it would be better to provide a greater number of slower cores for the price of their competiters.
Some of the ideology behind the bulldozer architecture is that the bulk of calculations done in a computer are entirely integer base processes, thus have 2 integer core per 1 shared floating point per module would theoretically lead to greater performance in real world tests. Unfortunately the chip is let down by a number of things that are honestly not too surprising considering how much they changed the architecture, things like deep pipelines and lackluster memory controllers.
lol I want to write more but I gotta run for my bus...