CPU Choice

[Cubed_]

Hey, 

I was recently planning on buying an Xbox as a console and not really getting into pc gaming, but I thought of an idea that one I'd like to get some feedback on, and two some help picking the processor for.  My plan was to create a PC that I could use at my desk for work and some video editing (HD-> 4k, go pro quality, nothing major) and then hook it up to my tv where I could play some pc games and watch movies instead of having to buy a separate console.  Then also running a third monitor into my basement and using another keyboard or something (I've heard it was possible) for when I want to research something down there.  I also funded a Kickstarter for a 3d printer, and it would be really convenient to have a computer down there to put models onto a USB / research things. My plan was to just mirror all three displays and turn the ones I wasn't using off, and then switch between them.  Also, I could run a USB hub in the basement with an old VGA monitor or something over some cable like cat6, because I know USB length is limited.  I've also heard of USB Active Cable, that might be able to reach me in my basement? 

 

Originally, I thought to make the computer run a couple VMs to each monitor and so I was looking for at least an 8 core processor so i'd have enough for each setup.  I've since realized I could just mirror the displays, but even so I came across the AMD FX-9560 Black Editon (8 Core, 4.7Ghz).  I know the processor is a little old, and I'd need to liquid cool it, but it's not even $200..  I was wondering if it's still relevant, and would suit my needs.  I'm not looking for any insane performance, since I won't really be gaming in 4k or anything, and trying to build a somewhat budget friendly computer.  Basically, for $200 is it still able to do what I'd want it to? Or would like an intel quad core skylake be a better option.  Also, any other suggestions on processors?

 

Thanks Again

[VerticalDiscussions]

You shouldnt aquire an AMD processor as of now for anything that implies difficult workloads. Theyr pretty bad and there are people that would give you a great in-depth reason for that, despite theyr seemingly superior clock speeds and obviously higher power comsuption. Theyr architecture just doesnt suit demanding needs and theyr IPC rating is well "terrible", as of now (stay ZEN). For 4K video editing and alike, maybe you could get a refurbished Haswell-E I7-5820K cpu or if you can a Broadwell-E I7-6800K. The best budget editing cpu's, packing even more punch than the gaming monster, I7-6700K.

[JSD10]

A quad core intel is much more power efficient, uses less heat, and is better in single core performance. Basically I think the intel is a better option. The price difference also wouldn't be too much because you said you would need to liquid cool the AMD.

[CptLameJokes]

If you want to stay in your 200$ range, even an older i7 is likely to outperform the FX. 

[SpaceGhostC2C]

7 minutes ago, Cubed_ said:

Hey, 

I was recently planning on buying an Xbox as a console and not really getting into pc gaming, but I thought of an idea that one I'd like to get some feedback on, and two some help picking the processor for.  My plan was to create a PC that I could use at my desk for work and some video editing (HD-> 4k, go pro quality, nothing major) and then hook it up to my tv where I could play some pc games and watch movies instead of having to buy a separate console.  Then also running a third monitor into my basement and using another keyboard or something (I've heard it was possible) for when I want to research something down there.  I also funded a Kickstarter for a 3d printer, and it would be really convenient to have a computer down there to put models onto a USB / research things. My plan was to just mirror all three displays and turn the ones I wasn't using off, and then switch between them.  Also, I could run a USB hub in the basement with an old VGA monitor or something over some cable like cat6, because I know USB length is limited.  I've also heard of USB Active Cable, that might be able to reach me in my basement? 

 

Originally, I thought to make the computer run a couple VMs to each monitor and so I was looking for at least an 8 core processor so i'd have enough for each setup.  I've since realized I could just mirror the displays, but even so I came across the AMD FX-9560 Black Editon (8 Core, 4.7Ghz).  I know the processor is a little old, and I'd need to liquid cool it, but it's not even $200..  I was wondering if it's still relevant, and would suit my needs.  I'm not looking for any insane performance, since I won't really be gaming in 4k or anything, and trying to build a somewhat budget friendly computer.  Basically, for $200 is it still able to do what I'd want it to? Or would like an intel quad core skylake be a better option.  Also, any other suggestions on processors?

 

Thanks Again

8-core FX CPUs are fine for low budget VM hosts (you could go to 83XX series without losing much with respect to the 9590 - probably a less extreme overclock would be the best option)., but if you gave up the VM idea, you will be better off with an intel platform. Around the $200 price point there are a number if i5s that will serve you well.

[SnowyMus]

Unless you can get it cheaper, you'll get better much better bang for your buck with an Intel Core i5-6600K. Even without overclocking, it'll win out against the FX-9560 in many benchmarking tests. In terms of overclocking, the FX-9560 is already being pushed pretty hard at stock speeds, being forced to run at around 1.5 V just to maintain its titanic 4.7 GHz clock speed, where you have a lot of room with the i5-6600K.

 

It's not a bad CPU, but it's a bit dated, plus it doesn't even support PCIe 3.0. You aren't getting as much with those eight cores as you can with four.

[Cubed_]

6 minutes ago, VerticalDiscussions said:

You shouldnt aquire an AMD processor as of now for anything that implies difficult workloads. Theyr pretty bad and there are people that would give you a great in-depth reason for that, despite theyr seemingly superior clock speeds and obviously higher power comsuption. Theyr architecture just doesnt suit demanding needs and theyr IPC rating is well "terrible", as of now (stay ZEN). For 4K video editing and alike, maybe you could get a refurbished Haswell-E I7-5820K cpu or if you can a Broadwell-E I7-6800K. The best budget editing cpu's, packing even more punch than the gaming monster, I7-6700K.

Thanks for the insight, I checked out those two processors and they seem like a good reccomendation, thanks.

 

5 minutes ago, JSD10 said:

A quad core intel is much more power efficient, uses less heat, and is better in single core performance. Basically I think the intel is a better option. The price difference also wouldn't be too much because you said you would need to liquid cool the AMD.

Yeah, forgot about that part, still though the AMD is cheap..

4 minutes ago, CptLameJokes said:

If you want to stay in your 200$ range, even an older i7 is likely to outperform the FX. 

I don't really have a $200 range, I just would rather keep the price down if possible.  Thanks though

4 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

8-core FX CPUs are fine for low budget VM hosts (you could go to 83XX series without losing much with respect to the 9590 - probably a less extreme overclock would be the best option)., but if you gave up the VM idea, you will be better off with an intel platform. Around the $200 price point there are a number if i5s that will serve you well.

Would it make more sense to run with the VM idea? How would the performance compare to running some of the above-mentioned processors without any vm?  

[Cubed_]

2 minutes ago, Kavawuvi said:

Unless you can get it cheaper, you'll get better much better bang for your buck with an Intel Core i5-6600K. Even without overclocking, it'll win out against the FX-9560 in many benchmarking tests. In terms of overclocking, the FX-9560 is already being pushed pretty hard at stock speeds, being forced to run at around 1.5 V just to maintain its titanic 4.7 GHz clock speed, where you have a lot of room with the i5-6600K.

 

It's not a bad CPU, but it's a bit dated. You aren't getting as much with those eight cores as you can with four.

 

I guess that makes sense, what's the performance like on a newer i5 vs an older i7? 

[SpaceGhostC2C]

1 minute ago, Cubed_ said:

Would it make more sense to run with the VM idea? How would the performance compare to running some of the above-mentioned processors without any vm?  

If I understood your first post correctly, not really. You seem to want access to your computer from many places, rather than running separate systems on the same PC. I would ask myself this question: if I had the following choices, at the same price

A) Get a PC that teleports with me when I change rooms,

B) Get several less powerful computers that specialize in different use-cases 

which one would make you happier? If B), go with VMs, but my understanding is that you want A)m that is, build one machine, then use it from several rooms.

[Cubed_]

1 minute ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

If I understood your first post correctly, not really. You seem to want access to your computer from many places, rather than running separate systems on the same PC. I would ask myself this question: if I had the following choices, at the same price

A) Get a PC that teleports with me when I change rooms,

B) Get several less powerful computers that specialize in different use-cases 

which one would make you happier? If B), go with VMs, but my understanding is that you want A)m that is, build one machine, then use it from several rooms.

Yeah, I think for my uses a PC that I can use in different places would make more sense.  Thanks for your help

[SnowyMus]

7 minutes ago, Cubed_ said:

I guess that makes sense, what's the performance like on a newer i5 vs an older i7? 

It depends on how far back you go. If you're comparing a newer i5-6600K to an older i7, even the i7-2700K will still beat the 6600K by a bit in multithreaded workloads. Unlike AMD, though, it won't be easy finding a motherboard that can support older generations like Sandy Bridge for cheap unless you get one used, and most of them don't even have USB 3.0 headers for cases.

[Cubed_]

15 minutes ago, Kavawuvi said:

It depends on how far back you go. If you're comparing a newer i5-6600K to an older i7, even the i7-2700K will still beat the 6600K by a bit in multithreaded workloads. Unlike AMD, though, it won't be easy finding a motherboard that can support older generations like Sandy Bridge for cheap unless you get one used, and most of them don't even have USB 3.0 headers for cases.

Hmm, I'll definitely keep that in mind.. Thanks for all your help