Maximum PC

Why 8 cores? I think that thing pulls more power and is hotter than the well aged i7-920 and is still quite the handful to keep cool.

Unless you're absolutely set on that case, you could go mATX build in something like a Silverstone TJ08, z77, and a i5 3470. Spending a little more of course, but feel it'd be better with single threaded applications like games still tend to be.

Trying to keep it under a certain price-point? Main usage?

I just thought for the price, it wasnt bad. Especially overclocking it. I dont mind the power it pulls, its just good price.

I like the price of the build which is why i put that together instead of the Intel. I dont know much about gaming computers

Game performance is still largely related to how well single threaded performance of the processor is. And sure, while AMD can give you more bang for the buck on total throughput, if gaming is your primary use for the computer, AMD only looks appealing until about the $130 mark. After that, Intel takes over.

Of course, the hope is that future game engines will use multiple cores as the new consoles are supposedly AMD 8-cores. But I can't put my faith into that. Both the Xbox 360 and PS3 can handle 6 threads at once. So unless you meant to tell me that PC game developers are really that lazy...

A 125 Watt proc. Might as well turn on every light in your house for the rest of your life. You would spend about as much on the electric bill.

Perhaps you live where it comes cheep or free, but to some of us that's just crazy talk. you could run two low power procs for that coin a month. . . Or better yet save up what you would have spent on electricity for two months and buy an Intel

From what I can see you want to save money now so you can piss it away later?. . .

Let's discuss this for a moment.

Taking this data: http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/ ... epmt_5_6_a , the most expensive rate in November 2012 in the contiguous US is 19.97 cents per kilowatt/hour. Assuming AMD's and Intel's TDP ratings really do mean worst case power usage, let's see how much energy you save based on the following:

• Processors are stock
• Intel is at 65W, AMD is at 125W
• You leave the computer on every day for 8 hours at full load

Every year you save about $35/year going Intel. So sure, you've reaped the cost already. But if you're going to dump the computer the year after, you're losing $35. What's $35 to you?

However, the reality is that:

• The listed TDP is a rating from both companies isn't what you think it is:
  
  • It measures heat energy (Thermal design power), which isn't interchangeable with electrical energy.
  • This is a measurement regarding the cooling system
    
    • Intel allegedly lists the minimum heat dissipation capacity required of the cooling system when running the processor under a practical full load (i.e., running a video encoder and not Prime95).
    • AMD lists the maximum heat dissipation the processor is expected to generate under a practical full load.
• It's more useful to measure the total system power consumption.

So honestly, the reality is, you're probably going to having the Intel computer until it's ancient history before you start saving any money from power consumption.

So...are you saying the 125w really isnt that big of a deal?

OK so what is heat?

It's wasted power. Anyone that knows electronics knows heat = bad. The more heat produced the less efficient the chip is. So taking that into consideration and asumming the computer runs 24 7 (because everyone should be folding for a cure to cancer) that amounts to more then $35 a year.

If i really need to get technical and pull out the CPU specs I will be more then happy to. However your point is mut by saying it's rated in heat not power. That actually makes it worse not better.
Nice try though.


OP: Depending on how much you use the computer the difference could be minuscule or it could add up. It really has more to do with how you use the computer. However you asked for critiques, thus I gave you one.

Careful what you wish for

if its a 65w or 125w processor it is being rated by its use of electricity, not its thermal rating. and if a processor has 8 cores and 6 are never used, why buy it? multiple threads have been available for years, since the P4 with hyperthreading, and very few software companies including games use whats available. server technology is the only thing that has kept up.

If you do huge amounts of video, or photoshop then an octo core would pay for itself in time saved, otherwise a waste of money when a quad core would do.

http://www.amd.com/us/products/desktop/ ... rison.aspx
http://ark.Intel.com/products/65520

Anywhere that uses watts is under Thermal Design Power. It's not a measurement of power consumption. Nor can you infer power consumption and the part's TDP precisely.

So the entire point of my ranting is... use an actual freakin' review: http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/the- ... 0-tested/6 . Yes the AMD part chews up a noticeably larger amount of average power under load. TDP does not mean anything for power because of its inconsistencies on how it's measured and what it's measuring.

So your going to rant when the link you provide clearly shows that what I was saying is correct.
The AMD chip(s) are less efficient then the Intel one. Simple law of thermal dynamics. More heat will always equal more waste, it doesn't really matter how it's measured. SO a 125W proc will always use more power then a 65W one. Efficiency is the name of the game, and I don't need a review to tell me how that works, just a brain raised in electronics.