Workstation: AMD or Intel?

[jc980]

Do you use 3DS max?

Student edition of the creation suite.

Honestly, the processor matters more.  So, do what I did and go i7.  If you plan to test stuff that's more or less where that 970 is gunna be more helpful.

I really can't tell difference of the render times of both processors.

 

If I can get an estimate, then I can decide.

[jc980]

Rendering with i7 > AMD 8 core.  Cinebench is one way to tell.  Overtime the i7 is far more worth it as the AMD FX processors are a tad outdated.  The only real new setups are the APUs in the 7xxx line aka Kaveri and the new Opterons.  FX is like recycling since 2009, so the platform is far weaker and relies more now on factory overclock of older designs.  Haswell/Devil Canyon is a newer design and is better on this while more designed on newer Xeon E3.  Because of that you're going to get better rendering times now and in the future compared to FX.  Plus, the FX is going to cause a bottle neck in the system that's going to cause a secondary bottleneck.  I had a 9370 in my rig from 2013 up to now, and it was getting dated pretty fast.  I went with the 4790k to replace it and remove the bottleneck.

Since I don't have the funds to test it out, so I guessing 20%(probably higher) performance decrease when going FX?(will be using GPU horse power as well)

[jc980]

Here let me show you the near 600 performance difference from what I scored.

 

post-52617-0-30555900-1437826461.jpg

 

That 600 required a 4.8GHz OC on a 9370.  The one you were thinking about is less than that.  The 4790k around the same as the two at the top just on stock.  The single thread performance of rendering with FX processors is a joke.  With the one you had in your original post will be scoring lower than what my 9370 did since it is a weaker processor.

I'm more interested in the multi-threaded scores tho.

 

I can see the i7 is the best of the best, but sacrificing the GPU is making me hesitate.

 

I COMPLETELY forgot to add in the desc. that I will be also gaming on it from time to time and I won't be buying till Christmas.

Also the goal here is to make the system last for like 5 years, but just how really SLOW the FX are nowadays?

 

I'm more of an hybrid of heavy/average/casual user.

 

Will I absolutely notice the difference?

(I'm not doubting you or anything, I just want to skip the hassle of buying a GPU NEXT year)

[Serpius]

First of all, how can that be rude.

 

I'm telling a person to get out if he can't help or not.

 

I know it's wrong to reply to dick/douche posts, but I just can't stand it.

 

If you can't stand it... DO NOT READ IT!!  

Do not respond to it!! It's that simple.

Don't make it any more worst.

[jc980]

-snippy-

 

Well that concludes it.

 

Intel it is.

 

LONG LIVE THE MASTER RACE! (just kidding, I have love for AMD too)

 

 

 

 

I would like to thank all of you helpful people in this thread!

 

This really helps a lot and finally made my mind clear.

 

 

If you can't stand it... DO NOT READ IT!!  

Do not respond to it!! It's that simple.

Don't make it any more worst.

 

People have their own ways of dealing with other people.

 

Seesh, don't make an absolute fuss about.

 

It's not like I'm going to start a flame war.(jinx'ed it)

[Clyne]

Here let me show you the near 600 performance difference from what I scored.

 

post-52617-0-30555900-1437826461.jpg

 

That 600 required a 4.8GHz OC on a 9370.  The one you were thinking about is less than that.  The 4790k around the same as the two at the top just on stock.  The single thread performance of rendering with FX processors is a joke.  With the one you had in your original post will be scoring lower than what my 9370 did since it is a weaker processor.

Werid...... 40 point difference with a .6ghz OC...

[Clyne]

AMD:

AMD FX 8320E

Noctua NH-U12S

MSI 970 Gaming AM3+

Kingston HyperX Fury Red 2x8 GB DDR3-1866

Sandisk SSD Plus 240 GB SATA III SSD

Seagate Barracuda 3 TB SATA III HDD

ASUS Strix GeForce GTX 970 4 GB GDDR5

I'm going to say this, 8320E is pointless as fuck as undervolting a normal 8320 uses around the same amount of power of a E one.

The 8320E ones are lower binned because the higher binned ones are the 9xxx. The older 8320 and 8350's were binned higher(any FX 8xxx made before 9xxx came out), thus allowing it to reach the 5GHZ mark with no problems. There's the Be Quiet Shadow Rock Slim which is cheaper and around the same as the U12S but it is hard to mount the cooler. Also the 3TB Seagate has high failure rates, just to let you know.

[jc980]

I'm going to say this, 8320E is pointless as fuck as undervolting a normal 8320 uses around the same amount of power of a E one.

The 8320E ones are lower binned because the higher binned ones are the 9xxx. The older 8320 and 8350's were binned higher(any FX 8xxx made before 9xxx came out), thus allowing it to reach the 5GHZ mark with no problems. There's the Be Quiet Shadow Rock Slim which is cheaper and around the same as the U12S but it is hard to mount the cooler. Also the 3TB Seagate has high failure rates, just to let you know.

Well, I would grabbed a normal 8320, sadly they don't have it.(really have no plans on going 5GHz anyway)

Also the Be Quiet stuff ain't available in my country.

 

I also changed my choice on the HDD to a 2TB WD Caviar Black.

 

Thanks for the concern!

[Clyne]

Probably because AMD tweaked it in factory?  9370=8320.  However, 9370 is AMD tweaked to the 4.4 OC with more higher.  I let CCC do the OCing from there.

The interesting thing was that i downvolted my 8320 yet overclocked it by 500MHZ...