| Index | Recent Threads | Unanswered Threads | Who's Active | Guidelines | Search |
 |
World Community Grid Forums
Category: Support
Forum: BOINC Agent Support
Thread: Which does more work: FX 8350 or i5 4690k |
| No member browsing this thread |
|
Thread Status: Active Total posts in this thread: 13
|
|
| Author |
|
|
imakuni
Advanced Cruncher Joined: Jun 11, 2009 Post Count: 105 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
The thing is, I plan on buying a new PC soon, and I just can't decide on the processor. I'm stuck in FX-8350 or i5-4690k or i5-4670k (depending on the place I'll buy). Both got my needs covered, and -barely- within my budget; so I said to myself "well, let me just get the one that will do most work for boinc then"
----------------------------------------But then comes the problem. From the info I gathered: -the quad core i5 will run applications much faster than the FX. -however, the FX has 8 cores, so it will run 8 applications at once, as opposed to only 4 applications on the i5's side. -however #2, I've heard that each of the 4 pairs of cores share the same floating point unit "processor"; as such, each core's performance (for boinc at least) is halved, and the FX would act as a 4 cores processor, and therefore lose to the i5. I'm kinda.... lost here. As for the prices where I live, the i5 4690k costs about 1/3 more than the FX. The FX costs as much as an i5-3330, so that would be a suitable comparison as well. If anyone could shed me a bit of light, I'd appreciate it.  Want to have an image of yourself like this on? Check this thread: https://secure.worldcommunitygrid.org/forums/wcg/viewthread_thread,29840 |
||
|
|
enels
Senior Cruncher Joined: Apr 25, 2008 Post Count: 286 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
My i5 3330 running Mapping Cancer Markers 100% 24/7 produces 24000 WCG points per day using 70 watts measured at the wall. Other projects are similar as I recall. Perhaps as low as 2100 ppd.
|
||
|
|
Byteball_730a2960
Senior Cruncher Joined: Oct 29, 2010 Post Count: 318 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
I know it's not a 4690 or 4670, but here is what a 4590 running windows 8 has been putting out for me.
Runtime - 0:155:22:49:16 Points - 1,146,221 Results - 1,937 |
||
|
|
Coleslaw
Veteran Cruncher USA Joined: Mar 29, 2007 Post Count: 1343 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
Some helpful comparisons here (unfortunately not against each other) http://wuprop.boinc-af.org/results/compar_cpu.py
----------------------------------------And according to CPUBoss, 4670k is the better value (yes this does not focus on DC'ing) http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-4690K-vs-AMD-FX-8350     |
||
|
|
Sgt.Joe
Ace Cruncher USA Joined: Jul 4, 2006 Post Count: 7849 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
In looking at the CPU Boss figures, The i5 will save you significant costs over time because of its lower energy use. Depending on your cost of electricity and how long you plan to keep it, the i5 may actually be cheaper in the long run despite the higher initial cost.
----------------------------------------Cheers
Sgt. Joe
*Minnesota Crunchers* |
||
|
|
Coleslaw
Veteran Cruncher USA Joined: Mar 29, 2007 Post Count: 1343 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
88w vs 95w is going to take a long time to see any advantage in savings considering the price difference in chips in most demographics. However, the advantage you will have with the i5 is that it is far superior in single precision work than the AMD chip. Since WCG has no multi-threaded app as of now, it will outperform the AMD in a per work unit scenario. However, I don't know if that is enough to justify only doing half the number of work units at a time. It will also more than likely run much cooler and thus require less cooling solutions in your setup. Depending on the build, that price alone could make up for the difference in cost of chips. However, that concern is typically one for those with over clocking in mind or areas with poor ventilation.
----------------------------------------Edit: The only real advantage I see for the AMD here is if you were focused on badges. Since 8 cores increases badges quicker that 4, you can do that math. [Edit 3 times, last edit by Coleslaw at Nov 6, 2014 2:06:48 PM] |
||
|
|
ryan222h
Senior Cruncher Joined: Sep 4, 2006 Post Count: 425 Status: Offline |
88w vs 95w is going to take a long time to see any advantage in savings considering the price difference in chips in most demographics. The FX-8350 is a 125w part vs. 88w for the i5. Youtube has a few comparisons which might help make your decision. Here's one of them: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLvNbZLBGYw  [Edit 1 times, last edit by ryan222h at Nov 6, 2014 2:43:31 PM] |
||
|
|
Coleslaw
Veteran Cruncher USA Joined: Mar 29, 2007 Post Count: 1343 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
Ah yes... my GoogleFu is getting rusty.
---------------------------------------- |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
You might also take into consideration that the i5-4690k and i5-4670k both have an integrated Intel GPU which the AMD doesn't have. It can be used for crunching on for example Einstein@home. It's not like a full blown GPU so don't expect the world from it, but it's like having an extra core.
|
||
|
|
Falconet
Master Cruncher Portugal Joined: Mar 9, 2009 Post Count: 3315 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
There are some new FX-8XXX chips that have a 95w TDP.
---------------------------------------- - AMD Ryzen 5 1600AF 6C/12T 3.2 GHz - 85W - AMD Ryzen 5 2500U 4C/8T 2.0 GHz - 28W - AMD Ryzen 7 7730U 8C/16T 3.0 GHz |
||
|
|
|