# 3550p



## GoFigureItOut (May 27, 2013)

It's been awhile since I've built a new PC. Right now, I'm conflicted on which CPU I should use. I was think about going with an AMD FX 6-core; however, an Intel chip caught my eye! It's the core i5 3550P. I know it's lacking on how much you can overclock, that's not my forte anyways so it's no biggie. A friend of mine built a new machine and he went an AMD Vishera FX. Would my CPU be better than his? I know, it sounds petty, but hey, I'm a guy! I know on the plus side of picking Intel it should be easier to get OS X to run


----------



## Frick (May 27, 2013)

The i5 would be better at some stuff, not in others. Depends on what you do. At least here the AMD 6300 is about €40 cheaper than the cheapest i5 though. Where do you live and what will you use it for? Also remember LGA1150 will be upon us soon.

If all you are interested in is beating your friend, get a FX 83xx or an i7.


----------



## GoFigureItOut (May 27, 2013)

I live in the States. I'll probably be doing some light gaming. Games like Far Cry 3 and Bioshock infinite. I don't mind playing a game on medium quality. Other than gaming, I'll use Photoshop, ripping movies with Handbrake, and Sony Vegas. The i7 is out of my price range.


----------



## Inceptor (May 28, 2013)

Are you looking to build a Hackintosh?  Or are you just building a Windows PC?
If it's meant to be a Hackintosh, then go to one of the many sites that deal with that in detail, they usually have lists of, or recommendations of, hardware that will work with OSX.
If you're just building a windows PC, with the workload you're describing, an FX-8320 or FX-8350 might be better (and not very expensive).


----------



## GoFigureItOut (May 28, 2013)

Well, I kind of wanted the computer to do both. Whenever I get bored of Windows, I'd hope over to OS X. I read in a book that the chip IGP is disabled, so the chip would only consume 65W. Aren't the AMD FX around 125W?


----------



## OneMoar (May 28, 2013)

GoFigureItOut said:


> Well, I kind of wanted the computer to do both. Whenever I get bored of Windows, I'd hope over to OS X. I read in a book that the chip IGP is disabled, so the chip would only consume 65W. Aren't the AMD FX around 125W?



get the intel chip it will walk all over the amd chip I don't care how many threads the FX chip has the intel chips is faster 
go for the 3750k tho wait for it to be on sale


----------



## drdeathx (May 28, 2013)

OneMoar said:


> get the intel chip it will walk all over the amd chip I don't care how many threads the FX chip has the intel chips is faster
> go for the 3750k tho wait for it to be on sale



Not caring and reality are 2 different things.


----------



## Frick (May 28, 2013)

OneMoar said:


> get the intel chip it will walk all over the amd chip I don't care how many threads the FX chip has the intel chips is faster
> go for the 3750k tho wait for it to be on sale



Again that depends on what you do. The i5 will probably do a wee bit better on avarage though.


----------



## cdawall (May 28, 2013)

OneMoar said:


> get the intel chip it will walk all over the amd chip I don't care how many threads the FX chip has the intel chips is faster
> go for the 3750k tho wait for it to be on sale



Not in handbrake and every other video encoding program out there...might want to read all the post before giving advice.

For the op the extra few dollars to get an 8320 will be well worth it over a 3550p. Yes the amd consume more power but we are talking about roughy $20 more in an entire year.  Not exactly a decision maker.


----------



## Aquinus (May 28, 2013)

If you're not planning on overclocking, the P-variant CPUs aren't a bad deal. They'll give you a tiny bit more "umphf" then you would otherwise out of say a regular 3550, slightly lower TDP than the regular 3550 as well.

It's worth noting that the P edition CPUs do not have an iGPU which is where some of that TDP savings is surely coming from.


----------



## OneMoar (May 28, 2013)

the amount of apps save for encoding/processing Applications that can use more then 4 is terribly small if you are doing enough encoding where you need more then 4 Threads then you need to be looking at a intel chip that has the IGPU /w QuickSync or even a i7
if you are just ripping movies and music then the 3xxx series is the way to go its generally faster in everything else and only a few percent slower then AMD's octo core


----------



## cdawall (May 28, 2013)

OneMoar said:


> the amount of apps save for encoding/processing Applications that can use more then 4 is terribly small if you are doing enough encoding where you need more then 4 Threads then you need to be looking at a intel chip that has the IGPU /w QuickSync or even a i7
> if you are just ripping movies and music then the 3xxx series is the way to go its generally faster in everything else and only a few percent slower then AMD's octo core



The number of applications that can make use of more than 4 cores with video editing and encoding is plenty large. If that is a main reason to upgrade the AMD chips are better without a doubt and there are more than enough benchmarks to back that up. In his price range the 8320 is by far the most superior chip sold. Not to mention if he wants he can stuff it onto a cheap 970 series board which is just as feature packed as the z77 series boards sold by intel. More features, better performance and lower pricing leads me to heavily suggest the 8320 over any current intel chip in the sub $200 market specifically for encoding.


----------



## Tatty_One (May 28, 2013)

I couldn't see anywhere that the OP mentioned coding specifically so where is the middle ground?  Would it be fairly safe to say the intel would fair better at gaming but the AMD better for some of the more intensive multi threaded tasks?  I only ask because if we keep going down the encoding route the OP is only going to get 25% of the picture.


----------



## Mindweaver (May 28, 2013)

GoFigureItOut said:


> It's been awhile since I've built a new PC. Right now, I'm conflicted on which CPU I should use. I was think about going with an AMD FX 6-core; however, an Intel chip caught my eye! It's the core i5 3550P. I know it's lacking on how much you can overclock, that's not my forte anyways so it's no biggie. A friend of mine built a new machine and he went an AMD Vishera FX. Would my CPU be better than his? I know, it sounds petty, but hey, I'm a guy! I know on the plus side of picking Intel it should be easier to get OS X to run



If you are going _OSX/hackintosh_ then get Intel, I don't think it's possible with AMD. Just remember _Hackintosh_ was born when Apple started using Intel processors. Now, I'm not going to say it's impossible using AMD(_but I'm pretty sure it is_), but it's not going to be pretty and you're going to play hell getting updates... Simply because Apple doesn't use AMD chips. Now Apple considered using a AMD processor with there Air book when AMD anounced there "fusion" APU's in 2011, but nothing ever came of it. So, I'd say 3550p all the way.


----------



## OneMoar (May 28, 2013)

Mindweaver said:


> If you are going _OSX/hackintosh_ then get Intel, I don't think it's possible with AMD. Just remember _Hackintosh_ was born when Apple started using Intel processors. Now, I'm not going to say it's impossible using AMD(_but I'm pretty sure it is_), but it's not going to be pretty and you're going to play hell getting updates... Simply because Apple doesn't use AMD chips. Now Apple considered using a AMD processor with there Air book when AMD anounced there "fusion" APU's in 2011, but nothing ever came of it. So, I'd say 3550p all the way.



this ^
while it is is possible to run OSX on any x86_X64 chip it behaves better on intel/Nvhardware


----------



## GoFigureItOut (May 28, 2013)

Tatty_One said:


> I couldn't see anywhere that the OP mentioned coding specifically so where is the middle ground?  Would it be fairly safe to say the intel would fair better at gaming but the AMD better for some of the more intensive multi threaded tasks?  I only ask because if we keep going down the encoding route the OP is only going to get 25% of the picture.




I'm not sure if I used the right terminology. What I want to do is rip DVD movies to my hdd, then use Handbrake to encode the movies. On my current system, it normally takes about an hour. I also forgot to mention that sometimes I do the opposite. Convert AVI, MP4, etc to DVD's. That takes even longer! Approximately, two hours to complete.


I'm running an AMD 64 X2 6000+. An upgrade has been long over due!


----------



## OneMoar (May 28, 2013)

GoFigureItOut said:


> I'm not sure if I used the right terminology. What I want to do is rip DVD movies to my hdd, then use Handbrake to encode the movies. On my current system, it normally takes about an hour. I also forgot to mention that sometimes I do the opposite. Convert AVI, MP4, etc to DVD's. That takes even longer! Approximately, two hours to complete.
> 
> 
> I'm running an AMD 64 X2 6000+. An upgrade has been long over due!


get a  3750k should blow though that sorta of light encoding in about 5 or 10M flat
the majority of retail Ripping software DvDFab,Anydvd has support for Quicksync witch is a massive speed up when working with h264 or mpeg
granted you can get the same speed out of the AMD chips with some tweaks but the intel chip is the more rounded beasty
off topic I highly recommend you use dvdFab if you are serious about keeping your collection backed up 
avi is dead don't use it use mkv or mp4


----------



## GoFigureItOut (May 29, 2013)

OneMoar said:


> get a  3750k should blow though that sorta of light encoding in about 5 or 10M flat
> the majority of retail Ripping software DvDFab,Anydvd has support for Quicksync witch is a massive speed up when working with h264 or mpeg
> granted you can get the same speed out of the AMD chips with some tweaks but the intel chip is the more rounded beasty
> off topic I highly recommend you use dvdFab if you are serious about keeping your collection backed up
> avi is dead don't use it use mkv or mp4




How about a Core i7 3770? I'm not going to overclock, so I wouldn't need the "K". It's priced at 289, which isn't that bad. I'll just have to find a reasonable priced motherboard. I noticed Intel boards tend to run a bit higher than AMD's. I need a board with four RAM slots. I don't like being confined to just two.


----------



## OneMoar (May 29, 2013)

GoFigureItOut said:


> How about a Core i7 3770? I'm not going to overclock, so I wouldn't need the "K". It's priced at 289, which isn't that bad. I'll just have to find a reasonable priced motherboard. I noticed Intel boards tend to run a bit higher than AMD's. I need a board with four RAM slots. I don't like being confined to just two.


If you really don't wanna overclock that ill do
but I do suggest waiting a bit longer for haswell to hit the shelves


----------



## drdeathx (May 29, 2013)

Haswell will be more expensive and the performance increase is not a lot over IvyBridge. Now is the time to buy Ivy. Onemoar is a Intel fanboy(nothing wrong with that) and I run a Intel rig but I will say when I reviewed Piledriver, the 3570K and 8320 or 8350 is a crapshoot. If you want the best performance, the 3770K clearly is the best choice but more $. If you cannot afford the 3770K, I would say FX-8320 or 8350. I had hands on with all 4 chips if that means anything.


----------



## GoFigureItOut (May 29, 2013)

drdeathx said:


> I had hands on with all 4 chips if that means anything.




It means a lot to me. You're speaking with experience and not just from something you've read or heard. My main concern with the AMD chip is the wattage. My current CPU is 125W and it idles around 65-70c. I have to re-paste the CPU very often. Like once every 3-4 months.


----------



## OneMoar (May 29, 2013)

GoFigureItOut said:


> It means a lot to me. You're speaking with experience and not just from something you've read or heard. My main concern with the AMD chip is the wattage. My current CPU is 125W and it idles around 65-70c. I have to re-paste the CPU very often. Like once every 3-4 months.



there is no way in hell it idles at 70C 
either the sensor is wrong or you live in a 500F oven
wattage has very little todo with the temps either your cooler is inadequate or you live in a dessert 
http://cl.ly/PI8K/Image 2013-05-29 at 3.24.23 PM.png


----------



## drdeathx (May 29, 2013)

GoFigureItOut said:


> It means a lot to me. You're speaking with experience and not just from something you've read or heard. My main concern with the AMD chip is the wattage. My current CPU is 125W and it idles around 65-70c. I have to re-paste the CPU very often. Like once every 3-4 months.




Trinity is not bad on power consumption. I tested i3 3220 against A10-5800K and there is not  a lot of difference but FX processors probably are not as efficient.


----------



## Aquinus (May 29, 2013)

OneMoar said:


> there is no way in hell it idles at 70C
> either the sensor is wrong or you live in a 500F oven
> wattage has very little todo with the temps either your cooler is inadequate or you live in a dessert
> http://cl.ly/PI8K/Image 2013-05-29 at 3.24.23 PM.png



This, also my 3820, despite being a 130-watt TDP CPU, stock probably consumes about as much power as a 2600k at idle. It's when you load the CPU where that number comes into play. The question you have to ask yourself is, is the extra consumed power worth the performance or feature gain? I was willing to give up some consumption to have a huge memory controller and 40 PCI-E lanes and I love every bit of it. 70*C is about what my 3820 runs at when I'm stress testing it at about 1.425v on air on a cool day (~20*C/~67*F). If your CPU idles that high, there is something wrong.


----------



## GoFigureItOut (May 30, 2013)

Here's two images of my CPU in action. The temperature readings could be inaccurate. Unfortunately, I do not have another way of monitoring the temps. If I add a fresh layer of thermal paste, the temps would be around 35-40C. As time progress, and the paste dries, it's always in the 60's. If my pictures are too big, I do apologize.


----------



## OneMoar (May 30, 2013)

GoFigureItOut said:


> Here's two images of my CPU in action. The temperature readings could be inaccurate. Unfortunately, I do not have another way of monitoring the temps. If I add a fresh layer of thermal paste, the temps would be around 35-40C. As time progress, and the paste dries, it's always in the 60's. If my pictures are too big, I do apologize.
> 
> http://i39.tinypic.com/2w2eo1h.jpg
> 
> http://i42.tinypic.com/2v1mbzs.jpg



either you are using way to much thermal paste or you are using poor quality paste 

there is no way in hell it should be in the high 60's at idile either something is physically wrong with the cpu (solder on the IHS has failed EXTREMELY COMMON old the older Althlon Chips) or the sensor is BUNK
I am Inclined to believe that the sensor is bunk those old chips don't tolerate the heat like the new ones can, once they hit about 80c there cooked and if you are hitting 70 at idol then you would be well over 80 at load and it would be non-functional


----------



## Frick (May 30, 2013)

Exactly what kind of paste do you use?


----------



## OneMoar (May 30, 2013)

Frick said:


> Exactly what kind of paste do you use?



I am betting Tooth Paste or miracle whip
I have never had paste go bad in the ~12 years I have been working on computers
not to the point where it would cause a 25C spike in temperatures maby  10C Difference at most  and that was with silicon white paste


----------



## GoFigureItOut (May 30, 2013)

Frick said:


> Exactly what kind of paste do you use?



Arctic Silver 5.


----------



## Tatty_One (May 30, 2013)

GoFigureItOut said:


> Arctic Silver 5.



In that case it's either bad contact or poor cooler, or of course you are putting 1.6V through it!


----------



## Frick (May 30, 2013)

Tatty_One said:


> In that case it's either bad contact or poor cooler, or of course you are putting 1.6V through it!



This. AS5 is supposed to get better when it is burnt in. 200 hours of setting time, according to the maker. We're getting a bit off topic, but how hot does the heatsink get?


----------



## GoFigureItOut (May 30, 2013)

OneMoar said:


> either you are using way to much thermal paste or you are using poor quality paste
> 
> there is no way in hell it should be in the high 60's at idile either something is physically wrong with the cpu (solder on the IHS has failed EXTREMELY COMMON old the older Althlon Chips) or the sensor is BUNK
> I am Inclined to believe that the sensor is bunk those old chips don't tolerate the heat like the new ones can, once they hit about 80c there cooked and if you are hitting 70 at idol then you would be well over 80 at load and it would be non-functional




I used the recommended amount according to AS5 website. Normally, I just put a dab in the middle and let the pressure from the heatsink spread the thermal paste around. I guess it could be time to add a fresh coat of thermal paste. The last time I re-pasted my chip, the CPU was literally stuck to the heatsink. It lifted right up when I took it off.  Here's a couple of pictures showing how uneven the paste is, and in some spots, it was dried up.


----------



## GoFigureItOut (May 30, 2013)

Frick said:


> This. AS5 is supposed to get better when it is burnt in. 200 hours of setting time, according to the maker. We're getting a bit off topic, but how hot does the heatsink get?




I'm not sure. I've never touched the heatsink after normal operations. I normally let it cool down for about a half an hour. 

Here's my current heatsink: http://www.geeks.com/details.asp?invtid=AMD-AM3-COPPERFAN


----------



## Aquinus (May 30, 2013)

GoFigureItOut said:


> I used the recommended amount according to AS5 website. Normally, I just put a dab in the middle and let the pressure from the heatsink spread the thermal paste around. I guess it could be time to add a fresh coat of thermal paste. The last time I re-pasted my chip, the CPU was literally stuck to the heatsink. It lifted right up when I took it off.  Here's a couple of pictures showing how uneven the paste is, and in some spots, it was dried up.
> 
> 
> http://i42.tinypic.com/2h6yg5d.jpg
> ...



Is that a CPU? 

In all seriousness you really should try to send pictures that are sharp so we can seen what we're looking at. TIM will dry out, it happens. Just replace it and see how it does. It also looks a lot like the Phenom II stock cooler.


----------



## Frick (May 30, 2013)

I can't see anything in those pictures. CPU's will follow heatsinks with thermal paste, it's the way it is. That is normal. Could be a very uneven heatsink, or the lid on the CPU is very uneven.


----------



## Aquinus (May 30, 2013)

Frick said:


> I can't see anything in those pictures. CPU's will follow heatsinks with thermal paste, it's the way it is. That is normal. Could be a very uneven heatsink, or the lid on the CPU is very uneven.



It almost looks like the compound was spread out before hand. I personally would just clean it and put just a pea-sized spot of TIM on the CPU and let the cooler spread it when you mount it. Do not lift the cooler off the CPU after it makes contact or you'll want to do it all over again imho.


----------



## Mathragh (May 30, 2013)

Those temperatures are indeed quite high. However, I think people tend to forget that chips of that time didn't really have anything in the way of power savings, and are running at 100% clocks and voltage at all time(iirc). This, together with bad airflow in his case(and perhaps overuse of thermal paste), could be the major cause for the high temperatures. The idle temperatures of both new gen amd and intel chips will be a lot lower, even under the exact same conditions.

Also, the difference in poweruse between AMD and Intel chips these days is really small at idle, and only becomes apparent under (high) load. Furthermore, I suppose the single threaded performance for most modern day apps is good enough at both camps. Sure, Intel might be a bit quicker, but every program bottlenecked  by raw CPU power is usually properly multithreaded these days. 
If Gofigureitout is mainly using his PC lightly, with an occasional encoding session, I'd say the poweruse difference is negligible(making it a non-argument). 
In the same price class, the intel will be quicker at the occasional single threaded bottleneck, while the amd will probably encode a bit better, and brute-force through highly multithreaded stuff a bit quicker. 

So, imho the TDP difference isn't that relevant, with idle power being low both ways, and the occasional high load wont matter in the grand scheme of things. Furthermore, AMD gives you more bang for buck at the multithreaded apps(less wait time for encoding), while intel might give you perhaps 0-10% more fps(in older games) in gpu bottlenecked situations(which you should always be in at a reasonable budget). 

What remains is OSX support, which I frankly don't know much about. 
If what people say is true about AMD being fairly incompatible with OSX, I suppose the decision is simple: Go Intel


----------



## Tatty_One (May 30, 2013)

Plus, forgive me but that cooler is aweful, 2 heatpipes and a 2.75  inch fan   Probably not much better than stock.


----------



## Aquinus (May 30, 2013)

Tatty_One said:


> Plus, forgive me but that cooler is aweful, 2 heatpipes and a 2.75  inch fan   Probably not much better than stock.



+1: Whilst I agree with you, even the stock cooler idles much lower than that, more like 40*C on a Phenom II and I've seen an Athlon go lower with the same cooler, this is just bad.


----------



## OneMoar (May 30, 2013)

you have WAAAAAAAAAAAAYYY to much paste on there
put a pea sized dot on it and clamp the cooler down


----------



## GoFigureItOut (May 30, 2013)

Tatty_One said:


> Plus, forgive me but that cooler is aweful, 2 heatpipes and a 2.75  inch fan   Probably not much better than stock.



The reason I bought it because it was the only SFF heatsink that I saw with heatpipes and it only cost $8.99. I had a Zalmam, but it was too big and was touching a few capacitors.


----------



## GoFigureItOut (May 30, 2013)

OneMoar said:


> you have WAAAAAAAAAAAAYYY to much paste on there
> put a pea sized dot on it and clamp the cooler down




Okay. I reapplied the thermal paste. I probably put on a little bit too much.  It looks like a pea-sized amount to me. 

Before:






After:


----------



## OneMoar (May 30, 2013)

pic one is exactly what you want a paper thin coating with a little bit of blotchyness


----------



## drdeathx (May 31, 2013)

The pea size you pictured needs to be about half the size


----------



## GoFigureItOut (May 31, 2013)

OneMoar said:


> pic one is exactly what you want a paper thin coating with a little bit of blotchyness



Well, something is amiss! That thin coat is the thermal paste before cleaning and applying a new layer. My temperature went down a smidgen to 57C.


----------



## Aquinus (May 31, 2013)

GoFigureItOut said:


> Well, something is amiss! That thin coat is the thermal paste before cleaning and applying a new layer. My temperature went down a smidgen to 57C.



Like drdeathx said, use half as much as you did and you should see that number get a bit lower.


----------



## shovenose (May 31, 2013)

GoFigureItOut said:


> Well, something is amiss! That thin coat is the thermal paste before cleaning and applying a new layer. My temperature went down a smidgen to 57C.



That's one huge pea


----------



## drdeathx (May 31, 2013)

Aquinus said:


> Like drdeathx said, use half as much as you did and you should see that number get a bit lower.



LOL Chick Pea


----------



## GoFigureItOut (May 31, 2013)

drdeathx said:


> The pea size you pictured needs to be about half the size





How about the size of a grain of rice? I heard that should be sufficient.


----------



## Mathragh (May 31, 2013)

also make sure the surface of both the CPU and the cooler are totally clean.
In your 2nd picture it looks like the CPU heatspreader still has a grey hue over it, which could mean it has still some old paste on it left, causing higher temps(or it might be an image artifact).


----------



## GoFigureItOut (Jun 1, 2013)

Mathragh said:


> also make sure the surface of both the CPU and the cooler are totally clean.
> In your 2nd picture it looks like the CPU heatspreader still has a grey hue over it, which could mean it has still some old paste on it left, causing higher temps(or it might be an image artifact).




I couldn't find my bottle of Arctic clean, so I had to use some rubbing alcohol. I noticed the hue, too. I thought it was just a visual effect from the sun light.


----------

