On December 13 2012 03:08 Medrea wrote: You took my last statement and chopped it up into two and three pieces which changed the meaning of the entire statement. The meaning of the statement was that determining how overclockable a chip is involves averaging the entire production line which is something only the manufacturers can do.
Fair enough.
Your first statement is the same as mine as minimizing power consumption is also performance, it is performance per watt.
Here are some benchmarks, as I believe pictures and graphs tell the story better.
^ CPU is not going to be running at 100% utilization all the time, and even during long gaming stretches you aren't pushing past 90% much at all. The real added cost would likely be much, much lower.
Not saying fx is the better choice, there are valid reasons to care about power usage, but I don't think a gaming pc that's going to be overclocked will care too much, nor will the added cost even be that high considering the pc will be idle most of the time and won't be on max utilization at all.
Power consumption is more a problem with a compute workload pc or work pc. There is the added cost of a slightly higher amperage PSU but I don't think it'd be more than $10-20, if at all, considering whether you go amd or intel you still want a quality psu.
Can people stop posting that Adobe CS4 graph. Anandtech really should be ashamed of themselves for continuing to use CS4 because its fucking two CS versions old: we're up to CS6 for crying out loud. Its hardly a honest representation of photoshop performance and to be quite honest, people interested in photoshop benchmarks (why?) have enough money to buy a new version of photoshop every few years.
Anyway, for Lightroom and Photoshop, I/O performance and a good workflow probably more important metrics than the processor these days depending on what work you're doing. Some photographers just dump all of their RAW files onto SSDs for this reason and are able to work off laptops because they don't really need to do silly amounts of retouching. The benchmark itself is kind of meaningless if you think about it since tells you close to nothing besides Adobe products like Intel instruction sets and CS4 probably handles multithreading poorly.
Well, I work with 3D rendering, and i´ve tried with intel before, but after 2 hours of rendering all the intel processor, i7 i5 i´ve worked with, just go slower and slower freq. so i´ve tried with amd and i have to say, works like a charm, no slowdown freq. and i´ve render 20% faster than the i7. I don´t care about gaming, so i guess is all about needs.
On December 13 2012 03:08 Medrea wrote: You took my last statement and chopped it up into two and three pieces which changed the meaning of the entire statement. The meaning of the statement was that determining how overclockable a chip is involves averaging the entire production line which is something only the manufacturers can do.
go for intel you can upgrde it later to an I7. The amd is pretty high-end already. I had only AMD before but i switched to intel Xeon. If you dont wanna upgrade to be end-pc go for amd. Its pretty most bang for the buck
The OP has already made a decision, just so you know:
On December 11 2012 12:01 EngrishTeacher wrote: Thanks for all the replies, I think I'm going with the i7-3770K which is ~2000 yen.
I got a pretty good Corsair PSU so I'll be overclocking quite a bit, anyone know what clock speeds I could expect with air cooling for the 3770K? Getting a Cooler Master Hyper 212 Plus for ~200 yen, any other CPU cooler recommendations in the same price range would be appreciate as well.
EPT![[image loading]](http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph6396/51144.png)
![[image loading]](http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph6396/51141.png)
![[image loading]](http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph6396/51132.png)
