Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

AMD VS Intel, CPU, GPU & MB suggestions

1246711

Comments

  • HulluckHulluck Member UncommonPosts: 830
    Originally posted by Vrika
    Originally posted by Hulluck
    OP there are certain people, a lot actually that you can trust in this section. 

    Quizzical and Ridelynn are especially trustworthy. When someone disagrees with either of them, he's very likely wrong.

    ...That includes the times I've disagreed with Quizzical in some of the threads.

    I would agree with that but I also know there's more than just them. That said i hate to guess how much time Quizzical has spent helping people over the years get solid builds. But its not just him there is other regulars in those threads giving just as good advice options. You are in a lot of these threads. Lot of people are giving healthy debate options thoughts.

     Most people who post here asking for help have limited budgets and no one likes spending extra to correct a mistake because of bad advice. This is the second topic that i have read where this guy says some absurd stuff with bad reasoning. Only this time trying to get someone to buy something. Most people that I know do not  want to spend extra money to sort out errors or problems from bad advice.  Whatever. This guy seems to be trolling or something I don't know and it might cost someone.

     

     

    Late edit but whatever. Didn't change post just adding that its even stupidier that he purposely went with 1 stick instead of two.  Intentionally did this. Whatever..  Who wants to take advantage of dual channel ram. Lets nit be absurd here. Its a pricey over rated luxury..

     

     

  • RidelynnRidelynn Member EpicPosts: 6,833


    Originally posted by Gdemami
    Why not educate yourself instead of accepting some dogmas..?http://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/1349-ram-how-dual-channel-works-vs-single-channel#!/ccomment-page=1


    Because I like to educate myself when it's possible - I did go and read that article.

    It was interesting.

    He has a bunch of synthetic benchmarks - ok, we expect some disparity in there, and I won't really try to relate them to real world performance because they aren't really that meaningful (even though they do strongly point to the benefits of higher RAM bandwidth that dual channel offers).

    But he only has 1 gaming benchmark - and for part of the benchmark, he benchmarked the loading time... from the hard drive. That would make for a great SSD vs HDD comparison, but it shows next to nothing for Single vs Dual channel RAM (unless he had the game loaded in a RAM disk beforehand, and eliminated Windows automatic disk caching as a variable).

    RAM was purged between all tests. No active memory management programs were present outside of the default, clean Windows installation.

    Except that a clean Windows installation has a very good memory management/disk caching algorithm (SuperFetch, which has largely replaced the old Vista ReadyBoost), which can greatly affect these tests. And how exactly did he purge the RAM? Common sense would say "reboot", but he doesn't exactly say, and SuperFetch is smart and can start pre-caching from previous sessions (across cold boots) the moment Windows is finished booting, based on previous activity.

    Like I said, easily within normal system fluctuations. I also tested Skyrim's load time with several high-fidelity mods loaded, which should have theoretically hammered RAM and I/O for file retrieval, but saw effectively zero advantage between dual- and single-channel performance.

    Yeah... ok. It probably did hammer I/O for file retrieval. That hammers disk I/O, which is orders of magnitude slower than any RAM, and lo and behold, since the disk remained constant between the two tests, the results stayed constant.

    Bad benchmarks don't really illustrate the issue. The synthetics do a pretty good job of showing just exactly what the cost of saving money on the motherboard chipset is.

    And the conflicting advice (not that I agree or disagree with the bulletpoints here, but just trying to make sure I include them all), to summarize:
    I don't like AMD CPUs even though they aree much less expensive because they are )older tech )hotter )harder to manage case airflow )more finicky to overclock
    But I like AMD GPUs because they are less expensive, even though they are )older tech )hotter )harder to manage case airflow )more finicky to overclock

    I'm utterly confused. I obviously don't get it. Can you please explain this to me one more time, how the lower binned i5 in a crappy motherboard is better overall? ANd do make sure to go back into Hyperthreading vs Multithreading vs tash scheduling vs PCI timers vs whatever else got drug into this discussion - because I feel as though I have been drug around in circles, and - I am just trying to make sense of all of this and want to make sure I have it all straight...

  • GdemamiGdemami Member EpicPosts: 11,723


    Originally posted by Ridelynn

    He has a bunch of synthetic benchmarks - ok, we expect some disparity in there, and I won't really try to relate them to real world performance because they aren't really that meaningful...The synthetics do a pretty good job of showing just exactly what the cost of saving money on the motherboard chipset is.

    Enough said.

  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 21,076
    Originally posted by Gdemami

     

    You would be stupid to buy FX-8350 or any AMD instead of i5-4460 that goes for 190 USD these days.

    It is a no brainer.

    The argument for getting an Intel CPU is faster cores.  So of course you recommend paying most of the price premium for Intel, but getting lower clocked cores (max turbo of 3.4 GHz, rather than 3.9 GHz for a Core i5 4690, or more with overclocking), so as to give up much of the advantage of buying Intel but still pay most of the price premium.  I say that's ridiculous.

    If you're going to pay a premium for fast cores, then do it right and get fast cores.  Get a Core i5 4690 or get an unlocked version and clock it however you want.  If you're not willing to pay what that costs, then get substantial savings by going with something slower, not just $30 or so.

  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 21,076
    Originally posted by Gdemami

     


    Originally posted by Reckloose

    Just to add to the cores thing, Intel uses hyperthreading, which essentially doubles the cores. So 4 physical cores, becomes 8 virtual cores. I haven't actually encountered any particular scenario where physical cores are superior to the virtual cores, but other than my home systems, a lot of my experience in virtual cores is within ESX clusters (which seem not to care at all, one way or another).

     

    ...

    I use an i7 in my rig, because of SWTOR, since swtor's engine is ridiculously dependant on processor cycles for performance.


     

    Just to clarify, i5 does not use HT. i5 is basically defective i7 with disabled cores and HT.


    I play SWTOR wiith maxed graphics on my C2D E8400... The issue with SWTOR was poor optimization, it is not CPU intensive, vast majority of games aren't.

    The Core i5 is not a salvage part that had to disable stuff because it was defective.  It has stuff turned off because Intel wanted people to have to pay more to get the extra features.  It's kind of like how Windows 8 is not a defective version of Windows 8 Pro (or use Windows 7 Home Premium and Windows 7 Professional if you think all editions of Windows 8 are defective), but artificially limited because Microsoft wanted people to have to pay more to get the additional features.

  • GdemamiGdemami Member EpicPosts: 11,723


    Originally posted by QuizzicalThe Core i5 is not a salvage part that had to disable stuff because it was defective.  It has stuff turned off because Intel wanted people to have to pay more to get the extra features.

    Yeah, intel is wasting money producing i5 with 6 functional cores and then turn 2 of them off, while still charging for 4 cores only.


    /facepalm

    So there goes the "thrustworthy" people...

  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 21,076
    Originally posted by Vrika
    Originally posted by Gdemami
     

    Quick i5 rig:

    i5-4460
    Gigabyte H81
    HyperX 8GB module
    Antec 550W
    Seagate 1TB HDD
    PowerColor R290

    668.94 USD Total, no rebates included.

    Add case up to your likehood. Feel free to spent extra for 97 MB if further upgrade is your concern or w/e you wish to adjust to fit your preference and wallet.

    Do I read that wrong, or did you just suggest a computer built with only 1 RAM module?

    That's probably the worst of it, but that proposed build has all sorts of problems.  For starters, the power supply is Antec's low end, but doesn't come with a low end price tag.  The video card is refurbished, and thus out of stock and not likely to come back in stock for long.

  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 21,076
    Originally posted by Gdemami

     


    Originally posted by Torvaldr

     

    That is probably the funniest thing I've ever read on these forums. It crushes "one channel is better than two" and "2 cores are better than 4".


     

    It is not better, it does not matter. It has no impact on performance and since the board supports only 2 slots, it is reasonable to leave 1 available for later upgrade...

    So you propose artificially gimping the computer up front by cutting memory bandwidth in half, just so that there is an option to fix the problem later?  Would you break a window in your house and then leave it unfixed for months just so that you have the option to upgrade your house later?

    CPU memory bandwidth isn't that big of a deal so long as you're not feeding integrated graphics or doing something artificially stupid.  But leaving a channel vacant entirely certainly counts as doing something artificially stupid, at least in a high-powered desktop.

  • StizzledStizzled Member RarePosts: 1,933
    I haven't read the rest of the thread in this post, but if your main game (going by your signature) is going to be Albion Online, I would just suggest a top end AMD APU. It's going to be the cheapest build your going to come across that can game, and you can always throw a GFX card in later for a performance boost if you want.
  • GdemamiGdemami Member EpicPosts: 11,723


    Originally posted by Quizzical

    So you propose artificially gimping the computer up front by cutting memory bandwidth in half, just so that there is an option to fix the problem later?  Would you break a window in your house and then leave it unfixed for months just so that you have the option to upgrade your house later?CPU memory bandwidth isn't that big of a deal so long as you're not feeding integrated graphics or doing something artificially stupid.  But leaving a channel vacant entirely certainly counts as doing something artificially stupid, at least in a high-powered desktop.

    Unless you built gaming machine for benchmarks, it has no practical bearing on performance.

    Your usual theorycrafting....

  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 21,076
    Originally posted by Cramit845
    Originally posted by Gdemami

     


    Originally posted by Cramit845
     
    Although right now, I feel like the AMD makes more sense on the price point


     

    It doesn't, it is your bias only. You were leaning towards AMD before you posted here :)


    AMD is simply not a gaming CPU.

      In all actuality I've been leaning more Intel than AMD because historically I'm an "intel guy" more than an AMD guy.  It's been the thought of possibly upgrading again in 2-3 years that makes me think going with a cheaper setup might be more beneficial after reading everyone's posts. 

      The intel seems like I would have to go into a higher price range or have to settle for lower end components in other areas to keep the price down.  In that case it makes me feel like I don't have the money to make an intel system that would be worthwhile for what I'm doing.

      No decision on my part yet, so if you feel Intel is the right way to go, can you offer a system closer to the $800 price point that includes an intel cpu that overall would be better than an AMD build?  I'm feeling like I just don't have enough funds to make an intel system worth it, right or wrong in your opinion?

    The argument for getting a better CPU up front is twofold:

    1)  It's easy to upgrade a video card later.  Upgrading a CPU later will mean replacing the motherboard and probably memory, as DDR4 will be the standard by the time you upgrade.  And that means a new OS license, too.  That's a much bigger project than a simple video card upgrade that doesn't require modifying any other hardware.

    2)  GPUs will continue to make steady and important performance improvements at least until the end of Moore's Law, precisely because graphics workloads trivially scale to arbitrarily many threads and typical CPU workloads don't.  CPUs have been advancing at a much slower pace of late, as simply adding more cores doesn't help that much.  A high end CPU today might well be a legitimate high end CPU five years from now, while today's high end video card is very unlikely to offer half the performance of the high end in five years.

  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 21,076
    Originally posted by Gdemami

     


    Originally posted by Zebbakei

    Following what you're saying, AMD 8 cores have untapped performance, which I agree too, but games are increasingly utilizing multiple cores as even consoles are 8 core now. An 8 core AMD should be solid for 5-7 years, especially if/when all games can utilize all 8 cores.

     

    We can hear that since release of PS3(using 8 core platfrom) in 2006 :D

     

    CPU load distribution does not scale the way you think.

    More cores are great for multitasking but do not help much with load of single app where utilization of CPU load is limited.

    Also, there is Ahmdal's law.

    How much multiple cores can help a single application depends very, very strongly on the application.  Some cannot use more than one core at all.  Some scale very well to dozens of cores spread across multiple sockets if you have them.  Two separate programs both pushing a CPU hard simultaneously is unusual for consumer use.

  • GdemamiGdemami Member EpicPosts: 11,723


    Originally posted by Quizzical

    How much multiple cores can help a single application depends very, very strongly on the application.  Some cannot use more than one core at all.  Some scale very well to dozens of cores spread across multiple sockets if you have them.  Two separate programs both pushing a CPU hard simultaneously is unusual for consumer use.

    Do you feel smarter when you repeat same thing I say? :)

  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 21,076
    Originally posted by Gdemami

     


    Originally posted by Quizzical

    So you propose artificially gimping the computer up front by cutting memory bandwidth in half, just so that there is an option to fix the problem later?  Would you break a window in your house and then leave it unfixed for months just so that you have the option to upgrade your house later?

     

    CPU memory bandwidth isn't that big of a deal so long as you're not feeding integrated graphics or doing something artificially stupid.  But leaving a channel vacant entirely certainly counts as doing something artificially stupid, at least in a high-powered desktop.


     

    Unless you built gaming machine for benchmarks, it has no practical bearing on performance.

    Your usual theorycrafting....

    So given the choice between getting something worse or getting something better for cheaper, you propose getting something worse on the basis that it's not that much worse?  You can get 8 GB as two 4 GB modules for cheaper than $70.  For example:

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820226217

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820233180

  • GdemamiGdemami Member EpicPosts: 11,723


    Originally posted by Quizzical

    So given the choice between getting something worse or getting something better for cheaper, you propose getting something worse on the basis that it's not that much worse?  You can get 8 GB as two 4 GB modules for cheaper than $70.  For example:http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820226217http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820233180

    Not sure if serious...

    2 modules are not better as they:

    1) Provide no performance gain.
    2) Leave no room for any further upgrade - MB has only 2 memory slots.

  • RidelynnRidelynn Member EpicPosts: 6,833


    Originally posted by Gdemami
    Originally posted by QuizzicalHow much multiple cores can help a single application depends very, very strongly on the application.  Some cannot use more than one core at all.  Some scale very well to dozens of cores spread across multiple sockets if you have them.  Two separate programs both pushing a CPU hard simultaneously is unusual for consumer use.

    Do you feel smarter when you repeat same thing I say? :)


    I think you were saying that about Hyperthreading.

  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 21,076
    Originally posted by Gdemami

     


    Originally posted by Quizzical

     

    The Core i5 is not a salvage part that had to disable stuff because it was defective.  It has stuff turned off because Intel wanted people to have to pay more to get the extra features.


     

    Yeah, intel is wasting money producing i5 with 6 functional cores and then turn 2 of them off, while still charging for 4 cores only.


    /facepalm

    So there goes the "thrustworthy" people...

    Intel has never made a Core i5 that had six cores with two disabled.  Their Core i5 branded chips have always been dies with either two or four cores.  Dies with six cores, of which two are disabled, have always been branded as either Core i7 or Xeon.

  • RidelynnRidelynn Member EpicPosts: 6,833


    Originally posted by Gdemami

    Originally posted by Quizzical

    So given the choice between getting something worse or getting something better for cheaper, you propose getting something worse on the basis that it's not that much worse?  You can get 8 GB as two 4 GB modules for cheaper than $70.  For example:

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820226217

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820233180


    Not sure if serious...

    2 modules are not better as they:

    1) Provide no performance gain.
    2) Leave no room for any further upgrade - MB has only 2 memory slots.


    On your crappy H81 motherboard that's true. On a decent Z97 motherboard, which most reasonable people would select for an Intel gaming computer, that would not be true.

    The amount you save on the DIMMs would help cover the cost in upgrading to a decent motherboard - it still doesn't fix the rediculous CPU selection or other oversights though.

  • RidelynnRidelynn Member EpicPosts: 6,833


    Originally posted by Gdemami

    Unless you built gaming machine for benchmarks, it has no practical bearing on performance.

    Your usual theorycrafting....


    Exactly how many times have you cited benchmarks as the reason for going Intel over AMD, or Single channel vs Dual channel, or any number of other things, in this very thread, let alone other hot threads this week.

  • AthisarAthisar Member UncommonPosts: 666

    I haven't read through this one, but are we seriously suggesting one stick of RAM over two? While high RAM speeds (e.g. 2400MHz) make no perceptible difference, falling back to 1 channel definitely will.

    For midrange I'd probably go for an AMD 8320 (overclocked, they all go to at least 4.4GHz or so with a $30 CPU cooler) and an AMD 290 GPU. A 500W branded PSU is fine.

    Getting an i5 will trade blows depending on the game, but almost all will run fine. For midrange I wouldn't go for nvidia.

  • HulluckHulluck Member UncommonPosts: 830

    Dual channels,  so overrated.  To much of a hassle to install two sticks.  Consumes more energy, higher energy bill cost. More chances for a part failure with 2 sticks of ram....... 

     

    image

     

  • GdemamiGdemami Member EpicPosts: 11,723


    Originally posted by Ridelynn

    On your crappy H81 motherboard that's true. On a decent Z97 motherboard, which most reasonable people would select for an Intel gaming computer, that would not be true.The amount you save on the DIMMs would help cover the cost in upgrading to a decent motherboard - it still doesn't fix the rediculous CPU selection or other oversights though.

    Really? The difference between kit and single module is 10 USD.

    What MB you suggest then for the price 60 USD?

  • GdemamiGdemami Member EpicPosts: 11,723


    Originally posted by Athisar

    I haven't read through this one, but are we seriously suggesting one stick of RAM over two? While high RAM speeds (e.g. 2400MHz) make no perceptible difference, falling back to 1 channel definitely will.

    Yep, dead serious.

    Dual Channel is long lived myth. If you actually check some tests, the performance gain is negligable.

    Gaming and general purpose wise, it is relevant when using IGP only.

  • GdemamiGdemami Member EpicPosts: 11,723


    Originally posted by Athisar

    For midrange I'd probably go for an AMD 8320 (overclocked, they all go to at least 4.4GHz or so with a $30 CPU cooler)

    FX-8320 is at 130 USD at pricepicker. With 30 topped for cooler, you are at 160 USD.

    i5-4460 at pricepicker goes for 172 USD.


    FX-83220 worthy? I don't think so.


    AMD is NOT cheaper!

  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 21,076
    Originally posted by Gdemami

     


    Originally posted by Athisar

    I haven't read through this one, but are we seriously suggesting one stick of RAM over two? While high RAM speeds (e.g. 2400MHz) make no perceptible difference, falling back to 1 channel definitely will.


     

    Yep, dead serious.

    Dual Channel is long lived myth. If you actually check some tests, the performance gain is negligable.

    Gaming and general purpose wise, it is relevant when using IGP only.

    You have two choices:  A and B.  Option A both performs better and is cheaper.  Option B both performs worse and is more expensive.  Which do you choose?  Does it even matter how much more performance and how much cheaper?

Sign In or Register to comment.