Jump to content


 


Register a free account to unlock additional features at BleepingComputer.com
Welcome to BleepingComputer, a free community where people like yourself come together to discuss and learn how to use their computers. Using the site is easy and fun. As a guest, you can browse and view the various discussions in the forums, but can not create a new topic or reply to an existing one unless you are logged in. Other benefits of registering an account are subscribing to topics and forums, creating a blog, and having no ads shown anywhere on the site.


Click here to Register a free account now! or read our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Photo

Which Motherboard/CPU Combo Best?


  • Please log in to reply
18 replies to this topic

#1 jimlau

jimlau

  • Members
  • 111 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:08:37 PM

Posted 26 December 2016 - 08:18 PM

Overall performance-wise, which of the below is best?

 

1) Asus H110M-A MB with the Intel Core i7 6700, or
2) ASRock 970A-G with AMD FX9590

 

I'm not a gamer, though I do render 3D videos and compose music, which tend to max out my CPU for 10 minutes or so. I do need some decent graphics capabilities. Does either of these have decent graphics, or would I need to get a graphics card for either?

 

I currently have the ASUS M5A88-M with AMD Phenom II X4 965. It's graphics are not good enough and it needs a graphics card.



BC AdBot (Login to Remove)

 


#2 hamluis

hamluis

    Moderator


  • Moderator
  • 55,246 posts
  • ONLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Killeen, TX
  • Local time:07:37 PM

Posted 26 December 2016 - 08:58 PM

If graphics are the main concern...why are you considering a MB/CPU change?

 

You can review the specs for either board to see what graphics support is onboard.

 

Louis



#3 Zone_86

Zone_86

  • Members
  • 303 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:07:37 PM

Posted 26 December 2016 - 09:29 PM

If you deem that all it needs is a better graphics solution I agree with hamlius. Never consider the FX 9590 with it's massive 220 TDP power draw and power supply requirements etc. Also an AMD 970 board isn't going to run that processor optimally - if at all. You would need an AMD 990fx chipset to be in the free-and-clear and for someone that may do professional grade type video editing where absolute stability is paramount an FX 9590 is a massive non-no. FX 8350 would be nice choice with the FX 8320/8350 and with a decent overclock to 4.5 GHZ you are getting 99.5% of the performance of the FX 9590. You could re-use your DDR3 ram as well. I7 6700 is a better solution though because of lower power draw and DDR4 handling but you would need to but some DDR4.

 

Again if all you need is a GPU then get a GPU. If you want more video editing horsepower I would opt for an AMD 970 motherboard, FX 8320, and I would OC it to 4.5 GHZ, and add something like an RX 480. Reusing your DDR3. You money your choice.



#4 jimlau

jimlau
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 111 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:08:37 PM

Posted 26 December 2016 - 10:26 PM

If graphics are the main concern...why are you considering a MB/CPU change?

 

You can review the specs for either board to see what graphics support is onboard.

 

Louis

Thanks for the feedback. I'm not exactly savy on all this, including on-board graphic support and overclocking.

I am looking for more horsepower/speed overall, and I was checking speed ratings on Portatech barebones PCs to get a sense of that.

I just received a graphics card (nVidia GT 730) I was going to add to my current system, but I was wondering if the better CPU/MB would make that unnecessary. I would return the graphics card if not needed, sell my current computer with its RAM, and buy the newer PC.

So I'm looking for horsepower with decent graphic capabilities. Actually, the Intel comes with Iris Pro Graphics HD 530 I think? Is that decent?


 


Edited by jimlau, 26 December 2016 - 11:02 PM.


#5 hamluis

hamluis

    Moderator


  • Moderator
  • 55,246 posts
  • ONLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Killeen, TX
  • Local time:07:37 PM

Posted 27 December 2016 - 09:03 AM

I can't address any questions re Intel computers...haven't had one since my initial system in 1996.

 

Other members here are more qualified than I to address your stated wants...be patient and they will respond :).

 

Louis



#6 Captain_Chicken

Captain_Chicken

  • BC Advisor
  • 1,347 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:08:37 PM

Posted 27 December 2016 - 09:20 AM

What program do you use to render in 3D? Is it GPU accelerated?

You are right, the I7 6700 comes with HD Graphics 530, while the FX series don't come with integrated graphics.


Computer Collection:

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

#7 jimlau

jimlau
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 111 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:08:37 PM

Posted 27 December 2016 - 09:44 AM

What program do you use to render in 3D? Is it GPU accelerated?

You are right, the I7 6700 comes with HD Graphics 530, while the FX series don't come with integrated graphics.

I use SONY Movie Studio 12. For music compiling, I use SONAR X3.

My 3 options for cooling are a basic fan, or a large heat sink with a large cooling fan, with or without 2 case fans. If I only fully load the CPU for 10 minutes a few times a day, are case fans needed?

 

Thanks.



#8 Captain_Chicken

Captain_Chicken

  • BC Advisor
  • 1,347 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:08:37 PM

Posted 27 December 2016 - 10:10 AM

2 case fans would definitely improve thermals. 

Reading the required specs for Sony movie studio it requires a good graphics card with at least 512 MB of Vram. I would recommend you get the I7 6700 system and a good GPU like a GTX 1050.


Computer Collection:

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

#9 jimlau

jimlau
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 111 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:08:37 PM

Posted 27 December 2016 - 10:29 AM

2 case fans would definitely improve thermals. 

Reading the required specs for Sony movie studio it requires a good graphics card with at least 512 MB of Vram. I would recommend you get the I7 6700 system and a good GPU like a GTX 1050.

would the GT 730 be ok? i think it has 1GB of RAM.



#10 jimlau

jimlau
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 111 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:08:37 PM

Posted 27 December 2016 - 10:40 AM

Actually, looks like the motherboard has 1 GB of memory, if that's what the following means, under the graphics specs::

 

Maximum shared memory of 1024 MB



#11 Captain_Chicken

Captain_Chicken

  • BC Advisor
  • 1,347 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:08:37 PM

Posted 27 December 2016 - 07:26 PM

 

Actually, looks like the motherboard has 1 GB of memory, if that's what the following means, under the graphics specs::

 

Maximum shared memory of 1024 MB

No, it means shared memory as in shared between the graphics cores. The GT 730 is a very slow card, but i am not completely sure 


Computer Collection:

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

#12 jimlau

jimlau
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 111 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:08:37 PM

Posted 27 December 2016 - 07:47 PM

 

 

Actually, looks like the motherboard has 1 GB of memory, if that's what the following means, under the graphics specs::

 

Maximum shared memory of 1024 MB

No, it means shared memory as in shared between the graphics cores. The GT 730 is a very slow card, but i am not completely sure 

 

Yeah, the GT 730 seems pointless. So either a faster card, or I see if the on-board is good enough.

The computer manufacturer responded to my question with this:  The VRAm is variable up to 1.72GB

What do you make of that? Good news? ;)



#13 Drillingmachine

Drillingmachine

  • Members
  • 2,311 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:03:37 AM

Posted 28 December 2016 - 04:54 AM

Graphic cards can use RAM as extra memory, but it's very slow.

 

I don't recommend i7-6700. You already have quad core and i7-6700 is quad core too so difference is not big enough. Also i7-6700 is very expensive and build quality is very poor:

 

http://www.fudzilla.com/news/processors/39390-some-intel-skylake-cpus-become-a-part-of-bendgate

http://www.anandtech.com/show/9505/skylake-cpu-package-analysis

 

Given price, that's unacceptable.

 

If you really want more CPU horsepower, then best option is to wait for AMD Zen. Octa core for decent price is excellent choice. Zen's estimated availability February 2017.


Edited by Drillingmachine, 28 December 2016 - 04:55 AM.


#14 jimlau

jimlau
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 111 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:08:37 PM

Posted 28 December 2016 - 10:44 AM

Graphic cards can use RAM as extra memory, but it's very slow.

 

I don't recommend i7-6700. You already have quad core and i7-6700 is quad core too so difference is not big enough. Also i7-6700 is very expensive and build quality is very poor:

 

http://www.fudzilla.com/news/processors/39390-some-intel-skylake-cpus-become-a-part-of-bendgate

http://www.anandtech.com/show/9505/skylake-cpu-package-analysis

 

Given price, that's unacceptable.

 

If you really want more CPU horsepower, then best option is to wait for AMD Zen. Octa core for decent price is excellent choice. Zen's estimated availability February 2017.

I talked to the bare bones company about newer chips coming, and they send second half of 2017. I thought with the 4 year newer technology and motherboard and the faster RAM the Intel 1 would make things faster. In all the bare bones computer would cost about $500 (with 16GB RAM at $70 and my own SSDs). Do you have any sense how expensive the Zen would be compared to the i7-6700?

 

Actually read this in what you linked: "With Ryzen, AMD is claiming that an 8-core, 16-thread chip is 10 percent faster than an Intel Core i7-6900K in various benchmarks." I would assume their prices would likely be in the same ballpark? That would be ~3 times the price of the i7-6700. Would be out of my price range. I guess I have to consider sticking with what I have. A bit deflating. ;)


Edited by jimlau, 28 December 2016 - 11:08 AM.


#15 Drillingmachine

Drillingmachine

  • Members
  • 2,311 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:03:37 AM

Posted 28 December 2016 - 12:38 PM

Memory makes virtually no difference. DDR3 is fast enough so  about only reason to use DDR4 is lower prices, bigger modules, lower power consumption and better support for future. Speed wise there is no problem still using DDR3. i7-6700 would make computer faster but it's still quad core vs quad core so not That much faster especially when you are using software that utilize all cores.

 

i7-6900K is way overpriced. We don't know yet how expensive Ryzen will be and also there are likely 6-core version coming also. For pricing, we must consider following:

 

- Ryzen motherboards are much cheaper than LGA2011-3 ones and about on same range as LGA1151 motherboards.

- Ryzen die size is smaller than die on Radeon RX 480 so Ryzen is cheaper to produce. Not to mention with Ryzen there's no need for 8GB memory, VRM components etc like on RX 480.

- There are big bunch of morons that buy Intel even if AMD is faster, cheaper, cooler etc, we saw that on Athlon64 era.

 

So Zen is expected to be quite cheap. I wouldn't be surprised if AMD sells cheapest version of 8-core Ryzen for $350.

 

Anyway, since there's only three weeks for Ryzen official launch, it pays to wait for it.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users