core2quad or amd fx/i-5?

[vonheimler]

Ok, Ive got a choice to make. Ive got a four year old system I built with a core2duo e6750 overclocked to 3.2ghz. I am tempted by the new cpu's, particularly the fx 8300 series. My question is will I see much of a gain by building a whole new system with a fx chip, or should I just upgrade the cpu to a core2quad q9650 and buy an ssd drive? Thoughts?

[debs3759]

The general opinion is that if you are going to upgrade to a current generation chip, Intel are far superior to AMD both in raw power and in power consumption. As such, I would say either
upgrading your current system or (and this I consider more practical) upgrading the whole system to an Ivy Bridge platform is your best bet. Of course, which chip you go for depends on your budget

[fenyal]

core 2 architecture vs fx architecture is like comparing a toyota to a ferrari respectively.

i personally have owned both a core 2 quad and a phenom ii x6. i only bring up a phenom because that is what i have personal experience with. (8300 cpus are better than phenoms)
i have done a lot of research on the 8300's and i was looking into buying one of those for my next cpu upgrade.

i personally switched sides from intel to amd when i switched from the core 2 quad to the phenom. this was chip usage only. don't read me wrong, i am not a fanboy of one or the other but rather a fan of price vs performance.

FACT: intel is on top. FACT: intel costs more initially.

if it were my money, i would buy an fx 8300. the cost of operation over the life of a year is only going to be a few dollars difference. which of course intel will save you.

i personally like more cores because i can play that game that uses only 2 cores and have 4 cores free to play around with. or play that game that just came out that uses 4 cores (not sure if there is one yet.. just an example) and have 2 cores for web surfing, ect.

thinking into the future of your build is what you have to do. games will continue to use more and more cores. having a 8 core over a 4 core will do you better in the long run. (xbox one and playstation 4 are both using 8 core amd processors)

the architecture between intel and amd's 8300's right now is so small that what ever you do, especially with these new cpu's, you're not going to be able to tell the difference in pretty much anything you do.

the only time you will tell a performance difference is if you set the processors side by side and compare seconds.

as for an SSD. it is said that SSD's will last with current technologies, for 30 years. if this is true, than getting an SSD is always an investment. i still like my space though so i'm hanging out with the mechanical drives. not to mention the prices are a bit better. HOWEVER do note, i also can't claim that any of my hard drives will last for the next 30 years, or even another year. things happen and pieces tend to fall. in any case if you want to make the leap and have the extra coin. i don't think getting an SSD would be a bad choice, no matter what processor you want.

below is more information you can read if you wish but not necessary for answering your question.

i hope i have helped.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
the next thing to look at is cores. intels comparable priced cpu's to amd's 8300's are only 4 cores. amd's are "8 cores". i can't go and tell you they are full on respectable cores in the sense that has been a normal "core" since the days of pentiums or before, but they are claimed as 8 cores.

on about cores is both amd and intel have their weird ways about this half a core thing. intel has their hyperthreading that pretty much everything they produce now, has. where as amd has started producing these half cores.

intel's solution from all i have gathered is a software implementation in which the cpu will cause the operating system to show up as more cores that the cpu actually doesn't have. but will use resources the cpu isn't currently using on one project for another project. (kind of like sharing scissors and clue in crafting class).
amd has done the same thing but instead made physical changes to the cores and took out parts of the processor that weren't used as much. (i personally didn't like that idea but meh, the performance did increase so i guess it wasn't all bad)