AMD benefits?

[vm'N]

i see nothing about fx anywhere. He asked what are the benefits of amd, and that's one of them.

Also if you had to choose with a tight budget would you choose an AMD or an Intel CPU?

We can rephrase it to: "also if you had to choose with a tight budget would you choose an AMD CPU or an Intel CPU?"

This is general grammar (atleast in danish).

Example: There are multiple pipelinestages throughout the CPU. There is the fetch-, decode-, scheduling-, and execution-stage.

So we take "stage" and put behind fetch, decode and scheduling.

AMD is calling their CPUs with integrated graphic processor a APU. They are been VERY specific with it.

However lets us drop this discussion.

[vm'N]

Well yeah, but what I was saying is that the shared L2 on AMD's platform is what causes their 8 core CPU's to run more like Quad's with HT.

No. The shared L2 stage is not the reason why it isn't performing as a Intel octa core.

One word: CMT

[F2K8]

Overclocking ability, no messing around with the HDMI output (Nvidia have different settings/patches for HDMI output with full colour), and price. 

[lx_srs]

No. The shared L2 stage is not the reason why it isn't performing as a Intel octa core.

One word: CMT

Yes sorry. Bad wording on my part.

[Vendetta]

Well yeah, but what I was saying is that the shared L2 on AMD's platform is what causes their 8 core CPU's to run more like Quad's with HT.

I mean more cache would help but i think the problem is more fundamental than that. The problem is that the cores are divided into bundles of two and those two cores work together extremely efficientaly but the issue begins when one bundle needs to work with another because the bundles get bottlenecked when interacting with each other by the design of the chip.

[Smiles1946]

So just taking in what everyone has said, I was wondering if you could please just double check this list out and see if it will get the job done.

http://www.pccasegear.com/index.php?main_page=wish_lists&wlcId=327308&action=wish_lists

 

So main factors I like about it is that fact it's cheap and I can easily upgrade it in the future

[vm'N]

I mean more cache would help but i think the problem is more fundamental than that. The problem is that the cores are divided into bundles of two and those two cores work together extremely efficientaly but the issue begins when one bundle needs to work with another because the bundles get bottlenecked when interacting with each other by the design of the chip.

The problem is that both the "cores" in these modules (or bundles as you call them) is been starved. One module (two cores) are the size of a single haswell core. Haswell cores are bigger, and therefore can provide better performance (per core).

Problem is that it cannot successfully provide enough resources for its "cores", so you will experience them stalling at many kind of workloads. This is because of their shared frontend (branch predictor, fetch and decoding stage) and because of bad cachemanagement.

[ChipWoodChainSaw]

its cheap... nuf said.

[vm'N]

So just taking in what everyone has said, I was wondering if you could please just double check this list out and see if it will get the job done.

http://www.pccasegear.com/index.php?main_page=wish_lists&wlcId=327308&action=wish_lists

 

So main factors I like about it is that fact it's cheap and I can easily upgrade it in the future

I would instead get a r9 280x, as it isn't much more expensive and are more powerful, so there would take longer time before you needed to upgrade.

Razer is expensive.

I would consider looking for cheaper RAM. get the cheapest 1600MHz with a CAS latency on 9 (CL9).

You can use pcpartpickers to find it. They have support for AU.

[lx_srs]

I mean more cache would help but i think the problem is more fundamental than that. The problem is that the cores are divided into bundles of two and those two cores work together extremely efficientaly but the issue begins when one bundle needs to work with another because the bundles get bottlenecked when interacting with each other by the design of the chip.

That's what I was saying... It's the cache module setup that causes a bottleneck.

[patrickjp93]

So just taking in what everyone has said, I was wondering if you could please just double check this list out and see if it will get the job done.

http://www.pccasegear.com/index.php?main_page=wish_lists&wlcId=327308&action=wish_lists

 

So main factors I like about it is that fact it's cheap and I can easily upgrade it in the future

Frankly I would never cheap out on a wireless card, and nowadays I go with USB solutions and high-gain antennae so you can better manage placement and direction. Rosewill makes a great wireless n usb 2.0 high-gain solution. Netis now makes a great wireless AC/N solution as well which comes with a driver disk (works for windows 7/8, but not 8.1).

 

Otherwise this is a nicely balanced build. Good choices all around.

[patrickjp93]

I would instead get a r9 280x, as it isn't much more expensive and are more powerful, so there would take longer time before you needed to upgrade.

Razer is expensive.

I would consider looking for cheaper RAM. get the cheapest 1600MHz with a CAS latency on 9 (CL9).

You can use pcpartpickers to find it. They have support for AU.

You can probably splurge a little and go for CAS 8, which will see great benefits when staying in the 1600 MHz speed class.