Remarkable Review of the FX-8350 (found buried in another thread)

The i7 4770K costs $350 to operate over 3 years? Doesn't it require power to operate? It's priced at $350...so unless Intel provides a free power source, you're still trying way too hard.... There's a $150 difference in the price tag....

$200 for FX-8350
$350 for i7 4770K

So, your i7 4770K is going to cost in excess of $400 to purchase and operate for 3 years. Advantage, AMD.... Realistically, you'd be replacing the FX-8350 before it's cost of ownership catches the i7 4770K due to the price difference. You'd be looking at 6-7 years before CoO even balances between the 2....

Like I said, you're trying way too hard....

 

this.

The actual end user electricity cost difference is negligible and sorry Chillin, were just not buying your figures!

 

Not only that but I doubt any home user gives a flying **** about $135 over 4 years unless they are seriously OCD.

Chillin ur really scraping the barrel here, if you don't like AMD that's fine no one is forcing you to buy their CPU's so stop grandstanding.

And another thing, since no matter how many times I say this it doesn't sink in maybe a picture will help; FX does not compete with i7....

LOOK!!

 

Is the math really so hard to understand!?

It is the energy difference cost to operate.

 

It's incredible how you guys are completely missing the point.

I'm not saying that the extra $310 (or even $155 if you want to slash the estimates in half) is an exorbitant amount to pay. What I'm saying is that the final cost metric are not the same as the initial metric. Once you take the power consumption difference into account, the AMD ends up costing more or similar.

Why the hell is this so hard to understand? The math is there and is solid:

-Power difference in Watts at idle and load
-Convert into KwH costs
-Multiply by the number of hours a year (in this case, 2 or 4 hours load, the rest idle).
-Multiply by the average upgrade period for enthusiasts (for the average user it is even longer and the difference more dramatic).
-Factor the difference into the current retail pricing.
-???
-Profit.

 

I actually understand math quite well. I also understand electrical principle quite well. Well enough, in fact, to know you can't determine the actual cost to operate a processor by using system power draw figures as is done for reviews. The figures aren't accurate enough to determine the power draw of any one single component in the system. Essentially, the figures presented in reviews are guestimates as to what the power draw is. Without putting a meter directly on the +12v pin on the processor itself, there's no possible way to get an accurate measure of power draw for a processor and therefore your entire argument is invalid.

 

You're arguing semantics here.

They use two completely identical systems sans the motherboard and CPU. Even assuming you are 100% correct, it still ends up showing that the Intel platform is "x" amount more efficient than the AMD platform and the listed figures are the power differences noted, so my point still stands.

 

My, isn't that just the nicest thing you ever heard? Yeah, and my electric company is undercharging me every month to, eh? Oh well, I am glad things like this no longer determine my purchasing decisions though.

 

Ok. Lets go back a few posts and take a look.

You claimed the FX-8350 would cost $44 more per year to operate than the i7 4770K. At that rate, over a period of 3 years, it would cost $132 more to run the FX-8350. Now, figure you're paying $200 to purchase the processor, the total cost of ownership (based on your previous figures) would be $532 over a 3 year period. Now, if we assume that it would cost $100 per year to operate the FX-8350 as suggested in another of your posts, we can assume that the i7 4770K would cost $56 a year to operate. Over the course of 3 years, that's $168 for a total of $506. That's based purely on the processors being run at 100% load for several hours, which isn't the case for the vast majority of end-users....and of course, a 3-year upgrade cycle.

For those on a 1 or 2-year upgrade cycle like so many on this forum, it would only cost $300-$400 for the FX-8350 and $406-$462 for the i7 4770K....again, based on 100% load for several hours a day. For those on a 1 or 2-year upgrade cycle, the FX-8350 is more cost effective due to the lower entry price.

Now, if we assume for a second that the processor isn't the only component in a computer that actually draws power....those figures become meaningless as most high-end graphics cards consumer more power than any processor. Also, since system power draw is what you're actually charged for, the actual cost of ownership will vary based on configuration.

 

How about you just buy what's best, my lineup of the last ten years:

Athlon XP 2600+
Athlon 64 3200+
Opteron 165
Core 2 Duo E6300
Core 2 Duo Q8200
i5 3570K

See? If you pick a company you're screwed in one generation or another. If you get your brain together and just buy the best, you'll enjoy value. Fanboyism is futile and will only make you lose sometimes. Go for the winners and there will always be profit. Today it's intel, get over it

 

Well that's a pretty contradictory statement -
You say everyone should buy the best, however your specs show Intel's mid range CPU, a budget GPU, budget PSU, budget motherboard, onboard sound, and memory from OCZ who left the DRAM market 3 yrs ago.....seems like a case of do as I say not as I do? Or is your rig the best because it has an Intel processor?

"The best" doesn't always mean the best value for money.......I mean if it it did then you would have a i7 3990 instead of a i5 3570.

Speaking for myself and others like me; processors aren't really top of my priority list....

It really grates us when people talk about a single piece of hardware like it's the only component in a PC.....whether it be the board, RAM, GPU or whatever..
I just happen to like (ASUS) AMD motherboards, know all their quirks/features and BIOS options, most of my hardware is high quality (with a couple of exceptions) this one board will last me 3yrs through several CPU upgrades (THAT is value btw..) including Steamroller if I deem it necessary.
Hell I'd be just as happy with the X4 in my spare rig.....(though tbh the FX blows it away in FC3/Metro/Crysis3)

So why should I (and others) constantly have to defend what CPU is in my/our system?

I mean like I said no one is forcing AMD on Intel owners so why does anyone even care, just let and let live ffs.

 

I dont think a 680 is considered a budget gpu. I know my 2 were $1120 before tax and shipping

 

Inexpensive then...

EVGA is cheaper than a lot of others, anyway it wasn't meant to be offensive, just an observation.

 

I've got an Intel "gaming rig" and an AMD HTPC. I buy what's best (for MY needs) at the time.

If you look at value for money, AMD is unbeatable if you don't need the "latest and greatest". You can usually run multiple generations on the same motherboard, reducing upgrade costs.... With Intel, you're forced to replace motherboards every 1-2 generations now, which reduces value for most consumers.

With AMD, you buy a new motherboard every second or third upgrade. With Intel, you buy a new motherboard every upgrade if you're on a 2-year or more upgrade cycle.

 

No other company compares to evga for customer support warranty, they don't make the best cards but classified and ftw cards are usually much better than the reference. MSI makes the best hardware, lightning but support isn't great.

 

Inexpensive? Lol? A 680 even now still runs around $450-500. I paid $490 for mine, it's hardly budget, lmao. I mean, it's not Titan money, but it falls in line with the high end price we've seen on GPU's for generations.

 

You missed the point. Agent got it...

 

The idea that EVGA is cheaper than other brands? They're not. The signature and classified series are by far the most expensive models of any brand, and the reference models are the same price as most other brands, if not more (because of the excellent warranty). Not that this really matters I guess, I just had to pick on you because it was a funny thing to say. I sure wish I was rich enough to think that a $500 card sat in the "budget" category.

 

I think you got Picking mixed up with Nitpicking...... fine I'll give you that for the sake of argument....feel better now?

 

Don't take this personally but Tech Report are full of shlt dude, their articles are often misleading and inaccurate..

If you want a reliable source XiBit Labs or AnandTech are worthy...



Here's an example of why: (I could cite others but just happened to be reading this article)

Fraught with danger? Thermal throttling? Exotic cooling? Biased reporting at it's finest. :wanker:


Firstly thermal throttling doesn't kick in till 90c.....and PD is good for up to 5Ghz on air - even AnandTech stated up to 5.2Ghz.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7066/amd-announces-fx9590-and-fx9370-return-of-the-ghz-race





However this paragraph really demonstrates why Tech Reort should just GTFO the internet...they are the FOX News of hardware sites;

This guy is trying to say PD needs 1.55v for a mere 4.5Ghz..


This is either an outright lie or they have no business testing hardware, most likely both.

Most chips can hit at least ~5Ghz REAL (no turbo) on about ~1.5v. All will do 4.5Ghz on less than 1.4v......

I just wanted to clear that up....