Help with CPU

[Exp]

you went on about xeons and got a little confused

Oh my bad, that was me. I probably didn't explain it very well.

 

Ah that was Exp who mentioned the Xeon.

 

The Xeon is a good option if Overclocking doesn't appeal to you. It has a slower clock speed of 3.4GHz compared to the i7 4790K clock speed of 4GHz. You can get a slight overclock on it, although nothing like you can with the i7 4790K as that is fully unlocked.

 

It also doesn't have any built in graphics, whereas the i7 4790K does. This isn't a huge deal, but it can be helpful to have the built in graphics just in case your dedicated graphics card becomes faulty. 

 

You can still use the Xeon in a Z97 board if you want SLI support. 

This is a much better explanation.

 

Also (and correct me if I'm wrong), I think even at stock speeds, the i7 4790k should beat the Xeon E3-1231 V3 in performance. The Xeon wins in value, though.

[Kaustubh6199]

Oh my bad, that was me. I probably didn't explain it very well.

 

This is a much better explanation.

 

Also (and correct me if I'm wrong), I think even at stock speeds, the i7 4790k should beat the Xeon E3-1231 V3 in performance. The Xeon wins in value, though.

Ya you are right but tell me mate but is it value for money 

[Exp]

Ya you are right but tell me mate but is it value for money 

I've never used a Xeon on any of my personal machines, just because I haven't had the need. I've played with them on a computer in the past, and it seemed to perform pretty well. I didn't really push it to its limits though. Seems to be pretty good value, at least on paper.

 

In terms of AMD processors, they definitely have a place. The two problems I find that prevent me from recommending them in many instances are lack of high-end upgradability, and single-core performance.

 

Say, you get a Z97 motherboard. You have many options in this case. On the low end, you have Pentiums or i3s as options. Mid to high range, you have an i5. High range, you have i7s or Xeons. Past that, you can even overclock many i7s.

 

Now say you have an AMD 990FX motherboard. You can get some good low-end deals like the AMD FX-6300. You can even overclock it to get some good value, but what happens after that? You need a better CPU, of course. Your options can be the AMD FX-8350 in the midrange, and the AMD FX-9590 on the higher end. After that, you could overclock them of course.

 

Now the difference is, the AMD FX-9590 can keep up with some i7s on heavy workloads, which is great. But the problem comes in general purpose, single core usage. AMD processors generally struggle (by comparison) with these common tasks. With the AMD scenario, you have no other option. Your best bet is to get the AMD FX-9590 and to overclock it as much as you can. You simply don't have the option for better performance without switching to Intel.  And if you switch to Intel, you need a whole new motherboard, adding to the cost. What would only be a $320 upgrade becomes a $450 upgrade (or more!). With the Intel scenario, you have much more overhead to upgrade as you please. I've never really heard of anyone that has a Z97 motherboard switching to AMD to get better performance.

 

Perhaps I made that issue out to be more than it needs to be. Or perhaps I'm completely wrong.

 

Moving on to the second issue, AMD processors generally lack great single core performance. For example, the AMD FX-8350 beats the i3 4330, right? Not always, it seems. On single-core workloads, and even some multithreaded ones (some benchmarks here) the i3 beats the FX-8350. Not saying that the i3 is overall better than the AMD FX-8350, just saying that they do different things and have different priorities.

 

Again, if I haven't stated this enough, AMD processors have their place. I could also be completely wrong about everything I said. I was actually considering the AMD FX-6350 for a budget gaming build of mine. It seems though, that in this instance, going the Intel route will simply fit the purpose better than the AMD route. Different people will tell you different things and this is all my opinion, of course. We, as PC builders, can't be loyal to one brand all the time. As even Linus said in this video, we need to get what delivers the best performance, features, and quality for the money we're spending.

[Kaustubh6199]

I've never used a Xeon on any of my personal machines, just because I haven't had the need. I've played with them on a computer in the past, and it seemed to perform pretty well. I didn't really push it to its limits though. Seems to be pretty good value, at least on paper.

 

In terms of AMD processors, they definitely have a place. The two problems I find that prevent me from recommending them in many instances are lack of high-end upgradability, and single-core performance.

 

Say, you get a Z97 motherboard. You have many options in this case. On the low end, you have Pentiums or i3s as options. Mid to high range, you have an i5. High range, you have i7s or Xeons. Past that, you can even overclock many i7s.

 

Now say you have an AMD 990FX motherboard. You can get some good low-end deals like the AMD FX-6300. You can even overclock it to get some good value, but what happens after that? You need a better CPU, of course. Your options can be the AMD FX-8350 in the midrange, and the AMD FX-9590 on the higher end. After that, you could overclock them of course.

 

Now the difference is, the AMD FX-9590 can keep up with some i7s on heavy workloads, which is great. But the problem comes in general purpose, single core usage. AMD processors generally struggle (by comparison) with these common tasks. With the AMD scenario, you have no other option. Your best bet is to get the AMD FX-9590 and to overclock it as much as you can. You simply don't have the option for better performance without switching to Intel.  And if you switch to Intel, you need a whole new motherboard, adding to the cost. What would only be a $320 upgrade becomes a $450 upgrade (or more!). With the Intel scenario, you have much more overhead to upgrade as you please. I've never really heard of anyone that has a Z97 motherboard switching to AMD to get better performance.

 

Perhaps I made that issue out to be more than it needs to be. Or perhaps I'm completely wrong.

 

Moving on to the second issue, AMD processors generally lack great single core performance. For example, the AMD FX-8350 beats the i3 4330, right? Not always, it seems. On single-core workloads, and even some multithreaded ones (some benchmarks here) the i3 beats the FX-8350. Not saying that the i3 is overall better than the AMD FX-8350, just saying that they do different things and have different priorities.

 

Again, if I haven't stated this enough, AMD processors have their place. I could also be completely wrong about everything I said. I was actually considering the AMD FX-6350 for a budget gaming build of mine. It seems though, that in this instance, going the Intel route will simply fit the purpose better than the AMD route. Different people will tell you different things and this is all my opinion, of course. We, as PC builders, can't be loyal to one brand all the time. As even Linus said in

video, we need to get what delivers the best performance, features, and quality for the money we're spending.

YEs thats the point but mate tell me why people use xeon for editing workstaion why liquidating so much money for 2-5% extra performance rather than using a good i5 or i7 ???? And both processors good at their place but the point is squishing extra 5% performance can save time and money ? and if yes then how ?

Intel has its point for per core performance and amd is good for overclocking but the thing is is video editor who dosen't know about per core performance and overclocking , is it worth of money and time ?

Also You are not wrong about it AMD performance and intel once but the if you are paying almoost 2.5 Grand (150000 INR) for intel RIG then its good

[Kaustubh6199]

I've never used a Xeon on any of my personal machines, just because I haven't had the need. I've played with them on a computer in the past, and it seemed to perform pretty well. I didn't really push it to its limits though. Seems to be pretty good value, at least on paper.

 

In terms of AMD processors, they definitely have a place. The two problems I find that prevent me from recommending them in many instances are lack of high-end upgradability, and single-core performance.

 

Say, you get a Z97 motherboard. You have many options in this case. On the low end, you have Pentiums or i3s as options. Mid to high range, you have an i5. High range, you have i7s or Xeons. Past that, you can even overclock many i7s.

 

Now say you have an AMD 990FX motherboard. You can get some good low-end deals like the AMD FX-6300. You can even overclock it to get some good value, but what happens after that? You need a better CPU, of course. Your options can be the AMD FX-8350 in the midrange, and the AMD FX-9590 on the higher end. After that, you could overclock them of course.

 

Now the difference is, the AMD FX-9590 can keep up with some i7s on heavy workloads, which is great. But the problem comes in general purpose, single core usage. AMD processors generally struggle (by comparison) with these common tasks. With the AMD scenario, you have no other option. Your best bet is to get the AMD FX-9590 and to overclock it as much as you can. You simply don't have the option for better performance without switching to Intel.  And if you switch to Intel, you need a whole new motherboard, adding to the cost. What would only be a $320 upgrade becomes a $450 upgrade (or more!). With the Intel scenario, you have much more overhead to upgrade as you please. I've never really heard of anyone that has a Z97 motherboard switching to AMD to get better performance.

 

Perhaps I made that issue out to be more than it needs to be. Or perhaps I'm completely wrong.

 

Moving on to the second issue, AMD processors generally lack great single core performance. For example, the AMD FX-8350 beats the i3 4330, right? Not always, it seems. On single-core workloads, and even some multithreaded ones (some benchmarks here) the i3 beats the FX-8350. Not saying that the i3 is overall better than the AMD FX-8350, just saying that they do different things and have different priorities.

 

Again, if I haven't stated this enough, AMD processors have their place. I could also be completely wrong about everything I said. I was actually considering the AMD FX-6350 for a budget gaming build of mine. It seems though, that in this instance, going the Intel route will simply fit the purpose better than the AMD route. Different people will tell you different things and this is all my opinion, of course. We, as PC builders, can't be loyal to one brand all the time. As even Linus said in

video, we need to get what delivers the best performance, features, and quality for the money we're spending.

And one more thing i like ask to you a ivey bridge processor can do the job of simple rendering then what should it supposed to be??

[brob]

And one more thing i like ask to you a ivey bridge processor can do the job of simple rendering then what should it supposed to be??

 

Ivy Bridge is the previous generation of Intel cpu cores, introduced in 2012. Haswell replaced Ivy Bridge in 2013. Haswell offered roughly 10% better performance overall. Haswell Refresh (the K versions are also known as Devils Canyon) were introduced in 2014. This latest generation of cpu offer a further increase in performance of roughly 10%.

 

Ivy Bridge is still very good. But Haswell Refresh generally costs the same or less and has about 20% better performance.

[Exp]

And one more thing i like ask to you a ivey bridge processor can do the job of simple rendering then what should it supposed to be??

Ivy Bridge is the previous generation of Intel cpu cores, introduced in 2012. Haswell replaced Ivy Bridge in 2013. Haswell offered roughly 10% better performance overall. Haswell Refresh (the K versions are also known as Devils Canyon) were introduced in 2014. This latest generation of cpu offer a further increase in performance of roughly 10%.

 

Ivy Bridge is still very good. But Haswell Refresh generally costs the same or less and has about 20% better performance.

 

Yes, and the DevilsCanyon CPUs shouldn't really have any problem rendering. Especially the i7 4790k that we've mentioned and recommended in this thread. Of course, you can overclock the Devils Canyon or AMD FX Series CPUs for a good performance increase anyway. If he doesn't want to overclock, I'd say just get the Xeon E3-1231 V3.

 

All of the processors mentioned should do very well. I think some of the main reasons we're suggesting the Intel side is the raw performance increase and simply that the budget allows it. Going off of what Linus said in the video I linked, it's the processor that will give the best performance, features, and quality for the money being spent. Photoshop and applications similar to that can definitely benefit from the i7 or Xeon.

[Kaustubh6199]

 

Yes, and the DevilsCanyon CPUs shouldn't really have any problem rendering. Especially the i7 4790k that we've mentioned and recommended in this thread. Of course, you can overclock the Devils Canyon or AMD FX Series CPUs for a good performance increase anyway. If he doesn't want to overclock, I'd say just get the Xeon E3-1231 V3.

 

All of the processors mentioned should do very well. I think some of the main reasons we're suggesting the Intel side is the raw performance increase and simply that the budget allows it. Going off of what Linus said in the video I linked, it's the processor that will give the best performance, features, and quality for the money being spent. Photoshop and applications similar to that can definitely benefit from the i7 or Xeon.

Thats the good awesome answer mate thank you        

[Kaustubh6199]

 

Yes, and the DevilsCanyon CPUs shouldn't really have any problem rendering. Especially the i7 4790k that we've mentioned and recommended in this thread. Of course, you can overclock the Devils Canyon or AMD FX Series CPUs for a good performance increase anyway. If he doesn't want to overclock, I'd say just get the Xeon E3-1231 V3.

 

All of the processors mentioned should do very well. I think some of the main reasons we're suggesting the Intel side is the raw performance increase and simply that the budget allows it. Going off of what Linus said in the video I linked, it's the processor that will give the best performance, features, and quality for the money being spent. Photoshop and applications similar to that can definitely benefit from the i7 or Xeon.

Thats the good awesome answer mate thank you