PDA

View Full Version : Help with choosing AMD or Intel processors for build



yoshiii
02-09-2014, 06:38 PM
Hello

I am builidng a new system to use for gaming and lightwave.

I am looking at the AMD 8350 maybe the 9570 and the Intel i7 4770k.

Which one of the processors would be best? Also is the 8350 good? I am looking at the 8350 so I can build the computer faster.

I have a 750 watt psu, GTX 660 and 120g SSD right now.

I read somewhere that the i7 4770K doesnt do too well with mulity tasking. Is this true?

WilliamVaughan
02-09-2014, 07:18 PM
FWIW- I never had luck with AMD and LW playing nice.... I've always preferred Intel.

Some of my worst experiences on a computer were demoing LW on an AMD system.

Ryan Roye
02-09-2014, 07:48 PM
I only chose Intel because I have more programs that depend on the speed of single cores rather than multi-cores. AMD will get you more bang for the buck in most cases, but know that any function in any program that can only utilize 1 core at a time will operate noticably slower with an AMD system.

To me, AMD systems seem better built for people who work with compositing, do primarily modeling/rendering, and work with programs in which the majority of their functions are able to take advantage of multi-threading. From what i've read, 3d apps in general are rather mixed in that department, including Lightwave.

JonW
02-09-2014, 07:57 PM
I would go Intel. The 4770 is a good choice both for rendering & all the single core work which Modeler & Layout use, other than rendering.

There are a reasonable number of CPU benchmarks in this thread & the 4770 seems to be the current price/performance CPU favourite.
http://forums.newtek.com/showthread.php?133251-11-5-s-BenchmarkMarbles-lws-share-your-machine-s-render-time-here

yoshiii
02-09-2014, 08:13 PM
I would go Intel. The 4770 is a good choice both for rendering & all the single core work which Modeler & Layout use, other than rendering.

There are a reasonable number of CPU benchmarks in this thread & the 4770 seems to be the current price/performance CPU favourite.
http://forums.newtek.com/showthread.php?133251-11-5-s-BenchmarkMarbles-lws-share-your-machine-s-render-time-here

How about the AMD 9590?

Lightwolf
02-10-2014, 06:13 AM
Nowadays Intel hands down, since they offer the best performance for the buck (and power use for that matter).
Especially if you also consider that a lot of code still doesn't use more than one core (and that's true across packages).

And yes, I wish AMD was a viable alternative, but currently it only seems to be if you're on a _very_ low budget.

Cheers,
Mike

Danner
02-10-2014, 06:25 AM
I actually think the 4930 is a better value than the 4770. They costs about the same, the 4930 is a little slower for single threads and quite a bit faster for multythreaded tasks

hrgiger
02-10-2014, 06:30 AM
intel. love my 4930k.

LW_Will
02-10-2014, 12:48 PM
FWIW- I never had luck with AMD and LW playing nice.... I've always preferred Intel.

Some of my worst experiences on a computer were demoing LW on an AMD system.

Odd. ;-)

I have NEVER had a problem with any AMD Processor, from the Athlon all the way to the FX series.

Now, I do not like AMD Graphics cards tho, much prefer nVidia.

my .02... your milage may vary...

AbnRanger
02-10-2014, 06:09 PM
Nowadays Intel hands down, since they offer the best performance for the buck (and power use for that matter).
Especially if you also consider that a lot of code still doesn't use more than one core (and that's true across packages).

And yes, I wish AMD was a viable alternative, but currently it only seems to be if you're on a _very_ low budget.

Cheers,
MikeAgreed...my previous build was with an AMD Phenom X6 1090t. It was a good CPU, but I later found that there are certain multi-threading libraries that were optimized for Intel...cause Intel developed them. 3D Coat, for example uses Intel's TBB library, and it makes things MUCH smoother/faster throughout the whole app., when an Intel CPU is used.

For example, the AMD X6 was neck and neck with the i7 950 in many of the benchmarks for rendering. It was a little cheaper, so I went with it. However, about a year ago my motherboard went down, so I had to use a render node I had just purchased (on eBay). It was an i7 950. Low and behold, when I used 3D Coat, it was able to handle large brushes on a 4k+ map with ease...whereas the AMD really struggled with it.

From that point on, I was convinced that Intel was the way to go. AMD mentioned publicly about 3years ago that they were no longer going to try and compete with Intel for the high-end-enthusiast market. They changed their architecture and still couldn't make a dent in the current line of Intel CPU's. This is why CPU performance has really stagnated over the past 2-3yrs. Try to spring for a i7 4930, and maybe offset the cost elsewhere in your build. Perhaps shop well for a good MB that doesn't necessarily have all the bells and whistles.

And instead of a GTX 780 or something, buy a GTX 580 3GB on eBay or Amazon, for 1/3 the cost. It is still one of the best cards on the market in terms of CUDA performance, and it performs like a champ in every other CG app I may use.

Nicolas Jordan
02-10-2014, 06:51 PM
I was considering building a machine as well and looked closely at AMD processors but in the end I just decided to order a Alienware Aurora i7-4930K machine just to save the time and hassle of building a new machine. If you have the time, like the adventure and want to save money it's probably a good idea to go ahead and build your own machine but I would stick to Intel though since fast AMD CPUs seem to require high end cooling and they run very hot!

Sebasvideo
02-10-2014, 07:51 PM
I built a machine with an AMD 1090T back in 2010 that is now my second rendering machine, and it was a fast machine, but when I built another with the i7 3930k it left it eating dust. Easily twice as fast. I haven't taken a look at the latest benchmarks, but AMD had fallen quite behind.

But I would advise you to take a look at real 3D rendering benchmarks, forget about that PassMark and similar that give you a number that means nothing, find benchmarks where you can compare real rendering times of both Intel and AMD high end CPUs. There is a thread here that people post their rendering times from a scene that comes with the extra content, can't remember if it's 11.0, 11.5 or 11.6

http://forums.newtek.com/showthread.php?133251-11-5-s-BenchmarkMarbles-lws-share-your-machine-s-render-time-here/page29

AbnRanger
02-11-2014, 02:41 AM
I built a machine with an AMD 1090T back in 2010 that is now my second rendering machine, and it was a fast machine, but when I built another with the i7 3930k it left it eating dust. Easily twice as fast. I haven't taken a look at the latest benchmarks, but AMD had fallen quite behind.

But I would advise you to take a look at real 3D rendering benchmarks, forget about that PassMark and similar that give you a number that means nothing, find benchmarks where you can compare real rendering times of both Intel and AMD high end CPUs. There is a thread here that people post their rendering times from a scene that comes with the extra content, can't remember if it's 11.0, 11.5 or 11.6

http://forums.newtek.com/showthread.php?133251-11-5-s-BenchmarkMarbles-lws-share-your-machine-s-render-time-here/page29As I mentioned earlier, rendering benchmarks don't give the whole picture. There are certain optimizations that Intel INVESTS in....like NVidia heavily invests in CUDA development. That's the thing with AMD, they sit on their duff with GPU compute capability...expecting someone else to do all the heavy lifting for them (OpenCL). While NVidia steadily develops CUDA.

It's the same on the CPU side. I bet Newtek has looked into adding Intel Embree (raytracing kernels) tech into their engine...which, like VRay, should provide a hefty boost in rendering performance (but you have to have an Intel CPU to support it, AFAIK). I tested the Embree plugin for VRay (2.4) the other day, and true enough...the same frame rendered about 30% faster. That's money back into your pocket, IMHO.

I always liked pulling for the underdog, but AMD has pretty much bowed out of the fight...so Intel is the only game in town, effectively.

Lightwolf
02-11-2014, 02:54 AM
(but you have to have an Intel CPU to support it, AFAIK)
Nope, it Embree works fine on AMDs that have the required extensions (just like Intel CPUs).

Cheers,
Mike

AbnRanger
02-11-2014, 03:18 AM
Nope, it Embree works fine on AMDs that have the required extensions (just like Intel CPUs).

Cheers,
MikeThat's cool...but I bet it is just like the Intel TBB library and other technologies Intel develops, it's optimized to work much better on Intel CPU's. If I were Intel, I would do the same. Why should Intel invest time and treasure just to give the tech away to AMD?

I can attest personally, that in 3D Coat, everything multi-threaded in the app works dramatically better on an Intel CPU. If Lightwave uses any Intel tech, in terms of multi-threading libraries and such...the result will be the same.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ylU8Oz0-dY

Lightwolf
02-11-2014, 03:33 AM
That's cool...but I bet it is just like the Intel TBB library and other technologies Intel develops, it's optimized to work much better on Intel CPU's. If I were Intel, I would do the same. Why should Intel invest time and treasure just to give the tech away to AMD?

Not really, given the differences in architecture the results are fairly consistent. The main culprit here is Intel's compiler (if it's used in the first place) - but even that can be (easily) patched for better results on AMD.

However, all software optimisations put aside, AMDs are just slower per clock.

Cheers,
Mike

AbnRanger
02-11-2014, 04:17 AM
Not really, given the differences in architecture the results are fairly consistent. The main culprit here is Intel's compiler (if it's used in the first place) - but even that can be (easily) patched for better results on AMD.

However, all software optimisations put aside, AMDs are just slower per clock.

Cheers,
MikeI don't know about Embree, but I tried and tried to find some kind of "patch" for AMD CPU's in terms of the Intel TBB (Thread Building Blocks) library and found absolutely nothing. If something is developed BY Intel, expect it to work much better on a COMPARABLE Intel CPU. As I mentioned previously, the i7 950 was neck and neck with the AMD X6 1090t on all the rendering benchmarks. Even now, the 8350 is only 20% faster than it...so not really even worth an upgrade.

But after my motherboard went bad on the AMD CPU, I had to use my render node (until I got the MB back from the manufacturer)....which had a i7 950. Again, I was blown away how noticeable the performance difference was in 3D Coat...the whole program. If Lightwave uses Intel TBB libraries, you can expect a dramatic difference there as well.

Lightwolf
02-11-2014, 04:29 AM
I don't know about Embree, but I tried and tried to find some kind of "patch" for AMD CPU's in terms of the Intel TBB (Thread Building Blocks) library and found absolutely nothing.
You can always compile it from scratch. However, there isn't that much CPU specific code in there ... and even that maps across x86 CPUs.
Having said that, it may well employ strategies that work better on Intel CPUs ... but then code is likely to be biased either way, even if there's no intent (just due to the architectural differences).

Actually, where TBB can make a massive difference is multi-socket systems - mainly due to the different mapping of virtual to physical cores and sockets.

Cheers,
Mike

yoshiii
02-16-2014, 11:56 AM
I only chose Intel because I have more programs that depend on the speed of single cores rather than multi-cores. AMD will get you more bang for the buck in most cases, but know that any function in any program that can only utilize 1 core at a time will operate noticably slower with an AMD system.

To me, AMD systems seem better built for people who work with compositing, do primarily modeling/rendering, and work with programs in which the majority of their functions are able to take advantage of multi-threading. From what i've read, 3d apps in general are rather mixed in that department, including Lightwave.


I would go Intel. The 4770 is a good choice both for rendering & all the single core work which Modeler & Layout use, other than rendering.

There are a reasonable number of CPU benchmarks in this thread & the 4770 seems to be the current price/performance CPU favourite.
http://forums.newtek.com/showthread.php?133251-11-5-s-BenchmarkMarbles-lws-share-your-machine-s-render-time-here

I would go for the i7 4770k but the mb's are expensive. For 300 dollars I can have a AMD 8350 and mb but for 300 dollars with intel, I can only have the i7 4770k.

fazi69
02-16-2014, 12:56 PM
Right now I have FX-8350 and it is little slower in rendering than i7 but I have strange feeling that everything else is more responsive. Modeler seems to like my AMD. I brought it fully aware that it can be slower but I did my part in fight with Intel monopoly :-) Look at the CPU prices ! It is madness ! Imagine CPU market with only Intel. High end CPUs where there is no AMD counterpart are at record prices, but low-end where AMD giving Intel hell with theirs CPU/GPU combined units are cheap as never before. Look at what Intel did in last two years when they do not need to fear in i5/i7 segment ? NOTHING ! 3-5% gains from generation to generation and new socket every time ! SCANDAL ! So maybe we should vote with our money ?

One thing if You want AMD FX is that You need really good motherboard. Voltage section must be minimum 6+2 or 8+2 and must have good radiator.
I learned that hard way and needed three motherboards to learn my lesson :-)

yoshiii
02-16-2014, 04:53 PM
I only chose Intel because I have more programs that depend on the speed of single cores rather than multi-cores. AMD will get you more bang for the buck in most cases, but know that any function in any program that can only utilize 1 core at a time will operate noticably slower with an AMD system.

To me, AMD systems seem better built for people who work with compositing, do primarily modeling/rendering, and work with programs in which the majority of their functions are able to take advantage of multi-threading. From what i've read, 3d apps in general are rather mixed in that department, including Lightwave.


Right now I have FX-8350 and it is little slower in rendering than i7 but I have strange feeling that everything else is more responsive. Modeler seems to like my AMD. I brought it fully aware that it can be slower but I did my part in fight with Intel monopoly :-) Look at the CPU prices ! It is madness ! Imagine CPU market with only Intel. High end CPUs where there is no AMD counterpart are at record prices, but low-end where AMD giving Intel hell with theirs CPU/GPU combined units are cheap as never before. Look at what Intel did in last two years when they do not need to fear in i5/i7 segment ? NOTHING ! 3-5% gains from generation to generation and new socket every time ! SCANDAL ! So maybe we should vote with our money ?

One thing if You want AMD FX is that You need really good motherboard. Voltage section must be minimum 6+2 or 8+2 and must have good radiator.
I learned that hard way and needed three motherboards to learn my lesson :-)

If there is not a big difference in rendering time, I will get the AMD 8350, dont need the best, just want to have something that is very good.

Sebasvideo
02-16-2014, 05:58 PM
Right now I have FX-8350 and it is little slower in rendering than i7 but I have strange feeling that everything else is more responsive. Modeler seems to like my AMD. I brought it fully aware that it can be slower but I did my part in fight with Intel monopoly :-) Look at the CPU prices ! It is madness ! Imagine CPU market with only Intel. High end CPUs where there is no AMD counterpart are at record prices, but low-end where AMD giving Intel hell with theirs CPU/GPU combined units are cheap as never before. Look at what Intel did in last two years when they do not need to fear in i5/i7 segment ? NOTHING ! 3-5% gains from generation to generation and new socket every time ! SCANDAL ! So maybe we should vote with our money ?


Sorry, but it seems to me this is not based on any serious evidence or testing. You have a "strange feeling that everything else is more responsive". Well, that's very subjective. Unless you run a real life benchmark that's just your "feeling", not something concrete. If you want a real tangible comparison make a scene with a few objects that take a while to render, something with blurred reflections, procedural textures, etc. Render it in your machine, take note of the time, then post it in a thread and ask people to render it in their machines, telling you the CPU, motherboard and RAM. Obviously don't put something that takes an hour to render on a six core CPU because nobody is going to run it, but something that takes ten minutes in an average 4 core many people would be willing to render it. I wouldn't mind.

And I hate evil corporations as much as the next guy, but I don't have a problem with Intel. They make great CPUs and most of them are affordable, even if not as much as AMD. But the regular guy can build a very powerful machine for about a thousand American dollars. Now, perhaps in your country they are hugely overpriced, I know how it is because I lived in another country for many years, and depending on the import laws you could be paying a huge tax on it.

That said, I'm not a fan boy either, in 2010 the AMD 1090T was a processor that was close in real life benchmarks to the most expensive Intel, so I built a machine with it. Then in 2012 I built another one with an Intel 3930k, because it was a great value for the power, and it's roughly twice as fast as the 1090T for rendering. Of course I checked lots of benchmarks, not the ones that assign numbers, but the ones that give you the time of performing an action, rendering things on video and 3D programs.

Your assertion that Intel is not innovating and their prices are too high because AMD is not bringing anything that competes in speed is just conjecture. Do you have a friend in the Intel board that told you this? Or did you just read it online somewhere, from people repeating opinions of many other people? Because it seems to me that it's not that easy. I mean, you know the level of intelligence and dedication that these people have? I'm talking about the ones developing and testing the chips of course, not the Intel board of directors. I doubt that these people are just sitting on their gluteous assemouses waiting for AMD to bring something new to the table and then say "OK boys, AMD released a new chip, it gets close to our top of the line CPUs for one third of the price. Let's get working on the next innovation!". Technology is not infinite, it progresses, but that these scientists are doing their best to develop new CPU technologies doesn't necessarily mean that they will every month. As in anything else, they probably hit roadblocks they have to get around.

Now, I built my last machine before I even started with 3D programs. When I saw what just one frame takes to render compared to anything done in After Effects I wished I would have spent more money to get a Xeon dual CPU workstation. This is especially true for Lightwave, because it doesn't split single frames unless you have a 3rd party render manager.

Lightwolf
02-17-2014, 04:26 AM
Your assertion that Intel is not innovating and their prices are too high because AMD is not bringing anything that competes in speed is just conjecture.
To be fair, it's not far off. Broadwell is being released later just because Haswell has no competition at the moment. There are no technical reasons to delay them.

And just like GPUs, CPUs are priced based on performance in relation to what the major competitor is doing (this has been a trend for the past decade or so).
However, if there is no competition in a performance segment, prices soar (just compare Xeons to server grade AMDs).

And then there's also the trend of higher segmentation at the moment - features being unlocked depending on the environment (CPUs that support ECC will only do so in certain (expensive) chipsets), 8-cores sold with 6 active cores etc...

Cheers,
Mike