3550p

[GoFigureItOut]

It's been awhile since I've built a new PC. Right now, I'm conflicted on which CPU I should use. I was think about going with an AMD FX 6-core; however, an Intel chip caught my eye! It's the core i5 3550P. I know it's lacking on how much you can overclock, that's not my forte anyways so it's no biggie. A friend of mine built a new machine and he went an AMD Vishera FX. Would my CPU be better than his? I know, it sounds petty, but hey, I'm a guy! I know on the plus side of picking Intel it should be easier to get OS X to run

 

[Frick]

The i5 would be better at some stuff, not in others. Depends on what you do. At least here the AMD 6300 is about €40 cheaper than the cheapest i5 though. Where do you live and what will you use it for? Also remember LGA1150 will be upon us soon.

If all you are interested in is beating your friend, get a FX 83xx or an i7.

 

[GoFigureItOut]

I live in the States. I'll probably be doing some light gaming. Games like Far Cry 3 and Bioshock infinite. I don't mind playing a game on medium quality. Other than gaming, I'll use Photoshop, ripping movies with Handbrake, and Sony Vegas. The i7 is out of my price range.

 

[Inceptor]

Are you looking to build a Hackintosh? Or are you just building a Windows PC?
If it's meant to be a Hackintosh, then go to one of the many sites that deal with that in detail, they usually have lists of, or recommendations of, hardware that will work with OSX.
If you're just building a windows PC, with the workload you're describing, an FX-8320 or FX-8350 might be better (and not very expensive).

 

[GoFigureItOut]

Well, I kind of wanted the computer to do both. Whenever I get bored of Windows, I'd hope over to OS X. I read in a book that the chip IGP is disabled, so the chip would only consume 65W. Aren't the AMD FX around 125W?

 

[OneMoar]

Well, I kind of wanted the computer to do both. Whenever I get bored of Windows, I'd hope over to OS X. I read in a book that the chip IGP is disabled, so the chip would only consume 65W. Aren't the AMD FX around 125W?

get the intel chip it will walk all over the amd chip I don't care how many threads the FX chip has the intel chips is faster
go for the 3750k tho wait for it to be on sale

 

[drdeathx]

get the intel chip it will walk all over the amd chip I don't care how many threads the FX chip has the intel chips is faster
go for the 3750k tho wait for it to be on sale

Not caring and reality are 2 different things.

 

[Frick]

get the intel chip it will walk all over the amd chip I don't care how many threads the FX chip has the intel chips is faster
go for the 3750k tho wait for it to be on sale

Again that depends on what you do. The i5 will probably do a wee bit better on avarage though.

 

[cdawall]

get the intel chip it will walk all over the amd chip I don't care how many threads the FX chip has the intel chips is faster
go for the 3750k tho wait for it to be on sale

Not in handbrake and every other video encoding program out there...might want to read all the post before giving advice.

For the op the extra few dollars to get an 8320 will be well worth it over a 3550p. Yes the amd consume more power but we are talking about roughy $20 more in an entire year. Not exactly a decision maker.

 

[Aquinus]

If you're not planning on overclocking, the P-variant CPUs aren't a bad deal. They'll give you a tiny bit more "umphf" then you would otherwise out of say a regular 3550, slightly lower TDP than the regular 3550 as well.

It's worth noting that the P edition CPUs do not have an iGPU which is where some of that TDP savings is surely coming from.

 

[OneMoar]

the amount of apps save for encoding/processing Applications that can use more then 4 is terribly small if you are doing enough encoding where you need more then 4 Threads then you need to be looking at a intel chip that has the IGPU /w QuickSync or even a i7
if you are just ripping movies and music then the 3xxx series is the way to go its generally faster in everything else and only a few percent slower then AMD's octo core

 

[cdawall]

the amount of apps save for encoding/processing Applications that can use more then 4 is terribly small if you are doing enough encoding where you need more then 4 Threads then you need to be looking at a intel chip that has the IGPU /w QuickSync or even a i7
if you are just ripping movies and music then the 3xxx series is the way to go its generally faster in everything else and only a few percent slower then AMD's octo core

The number of applications that can make use of more than 4 cores with video editing and encoding is plenty large. If that is a main reason to upgrade the AMD chips are better without a doubt and there are more than enough benchmarks to back that up. In his price range the 8320 is by far the most superior chip sold. Not to mention if he wants he can stuff it onto a cheap 970 series board which is just as feature packed as the z77 series boards sold by intel. More features, better performance and lower pricing leads me to heavily suggest the 8320 over any current intel chip in the sub $200 market specifically for encoding.

 

[Tatty_Two]

I couldn't see anywhere that the OP mentioned coding specifically so where is the middle ground? Would it be fairly safe to say the intel would fair better at gaming but the AMD better for some of the more intensive multi threaded tasks? I only ask because if we keep going down the encoding route the OP is only going to get 25% of the picture.

 

[Mindweaver]

It's been awhile since I've built a new PC. Right now, I'm conflicted on which CPU I should use. I was think about going with an AMD FX 6-core; however, an Intel chip caught my eye! It's the core i5 3550P. I know it's lacking on how much you can overclock, that's not my forte anyways so it's no biggie. A friend of mine built a new machine and he went an AMD Vishera FX. Would my CPU be better than his? I know, it sounds petty, but hey, I'm a guy! I know on the plus side of picking Intel it should be easier to get OS X to run

If you are going OSX/hackintosh then get Intel, I don't think it's possible with AMD. Just remember Hackintosh was born when Apple started using Intel processors. Now, I'm not going to say it's impossible using AMD(but I'm pretty sure it is), but it's not going to be pretty and you're going to play hell getting updates... Simply because Apple doesn't use AMD chips. Now Apple considered using a AMD processor with there Air book when AMD anounced there "fusion" APU's in 2011, but nothing ever came of it. So, I'd say 3550p all the way.

 

[OneMoar]

If you are going OSX/hackintosh then get Intel, I don't think it's possible with AMD. Just remember Hackintosh was born when Apple started using Intel processors. Now, I'm not going to say it's impossible using AMD(but I'm pretty sure it is), but it's not going to be pretty and you're going to play hell getting updates... Simply because Apple doesn't use AMD chips. Now Apple considered using a AMD processor with there Air book when AMD anounced there "fusion" APU's in 2011, but nothing ever came of it. So, I'd say 3550p all the way.

this ^
while it is is possible to run OSX on any x86_X64 chip it behaves better on intel/Nvhardware

 

[GoFigureItOut]

I couldn't see anywhere that the OP mentioned coding specifically so where is the middle ground? Would it be fairly safe to say the intel would fair better at gaming but the AMD better for some of the more intensive multi threaded tasks? I only ask because if we keep going down the encoding route the OP is only going to get 25% of the picture.

I'm not sure if I used the right terminology. What I want to do is rip DVD movies to my hdd, then use Handbrake to encode the movies. On my current system, it normally takes about an hour. I also forgot to mention that sometimes I do the opposite. Convert AVI, MP4, etc to DVD's. That takes even longer! Approximately, two hours to complete.


I'm running an AMD 64 X2 6000+. An upgrade has been long over due!

 

[OneMoar]

I'm not sure if I used the right terminology. What I want to do is rip DVD movies to my hdd, then use Handbrake to encode the movies. On my current system, it normally takes about an hour. I also forgot to mention that sometimes I do the opposite. Convert AVI, MP4, etc to DVD's. That takes even longer! Approximately, two hours to complete.


I'm running an AMD 64 X2 6000+. An upgrade has been long over due!

get a 3750k should blow though that sorta of light encoding in about 5 or 10M flat
the majority of retail Ripping software DvDFab,Anydvd has support for Quicksync witch is a massive speed up when working with h264 or mpeg
granted you can get the same speed out of the AMD chips with some tweaks but the intel chip is the more rounded beasty
off topic I highly recommend you use dvdFab if you are serious about keeping your collection backed up
avi is dead don't use it use mkv or mp4

 

[GoFigureItOut]

get a 3750k should blow though that sorta of light encoding in about 5 or 10M flat
the majority of retail Ripping software DvDFab,Anydvd has support for Quicksync witch is a massive speed up when working with h264 or mpeg
granted you can get the same speed out of the AMD chips with some tweaks but the intel chip is the more rounded beasty
off topic I highly recommend you use dvdFab if you are serious about keeping your collection backed up
avi is dead don't use it use mkv or mp4

How about a Core i7 3770? I'm not going to overclock, so I wouldn't need the "K". It's priced at 289, which isn't that bad. I'll just have to find a reasonable priced motherboard. I noticed Intel boards tend to run a bit higher than AMD's. I need a board with four RAM slots. I don't like being confined to just two.

 

[OneMoar]

How about a Core i7 3770? I'm not going to overclock, so I wouldn't need the "K". It's priced at 289, which isn't that bad. I'll just have to find a reasonable priced motherboard. I noticed Intel boards tend to run a bit higher than AMD's. I need a board with four RAM slots. I don't like being confined to just two.

If you really don't wanna overclock that ill do
but I do suggest waiting a bit longer for haswell to hit the shelves

 

[drdeathx]

Haswell will be more expensive and the performance increase is not a lot over IvyBridge. Now is the time to buy Ivy. Onemoar is a Intel fanboy(nothing wrong with that) and I run a Intel rig but I will say when I reviewed Piledriver, the 3570K and 8320 or 8350 is a crapshoot. If you want the best performance, the 3770K clearly is the best choice but more $. If you cannot afford the 3770K, I would say FX-8320 or 8350. I had hands on with all 4 chips if that means anything.

 

[GoFigureItOut]

I had hands on with all 4 chips if that means anything.

It means a lot to me. You're speaking with experience and not just from something you've read or heard. My main concern with the AMD chip is the wattage. My current CPU is 125W and it idles around 65-70c. I have to re-paste the CPU very often. Like once every 3-4 months.

 

[OneMoar]

It means a lot to me. You're speaking with experience and not just from something you've read or heard. My main concern with the AMD chip is the wattage. My current CPU is 125W and it idles around 65-70c. I have to re-paste the CPU very often. Like once every 3-4 months.

there is no way in hell it idles at 70C
either the sensor is wrong or you live in a 500F oven
wattage has very little todo with the temps either your cooler is inadequate or you live in a dessert
http://cl.ly/PI8K/Image 2013-05-29 at 3.24.23 PM.png

 

[drdeathx]

It means a lot to me. You're speaking with experience and not just from something you've read or heard. My main concern with the AMD chip is the wattage. My current CPU is 125W and it idles around 65-70c. I have to re-paste the CPU very often. Like once every 3-4 months.

Trinity is not bad on power consumption. I tested i3 3220 against A10-5800K and there is not a lot of difference but FX processors probably are not as efficient.

 

[Aquinus]

there is no way in hell it idles at 70C
either the sensor is wrong or you live in a 500F oven
wattage has very little todo with the temps either your cooler is inadequate or you live in a dessert
http://cl.ly/PI8K/Image 2013-05-29 at 3.24.23 PM.png

This, also my 3820, despite being a 130-watt TDP CPU, stock probably consumes about as much power as a 2600k at idle. It's when you load the CPU where that number comes into play. The question you have to ask yourself is, is the extra consumed power worth the performance or feature gain? I was willing to give up some consumption to have a huge memory controller and 40 PCI-E lanes and I love every bit of it. 70*C is about what my 3820 runs at when I'm stress testing it at about 1.425v on air on a cool day (~20*C/~67*F). If your CPU idles that high, there is something wrong.

 

[GoFigureItOut]

Here's two images of my CPU in action. The temperature readings could be inaccurate. Unfortunately, I do not have another way of monitoring the temps. If I add a fresh layer of thermal paste, the temps would be around 35-40C. As time progress, and the paste dries, it's always in the 60's. If my pictures are too big, I do apologize.