Howdy, Stranger!

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

Help with new gaming rig!

2»

Comments

  • bone15bone15 Member UncommonPosts: 52
    Originally posted by Dren_Utogi

    Spend a bit more and get an FX9590 . You will thank yourself leter.

     

    I currently have a 8350FX and can play everything I through at . Also using 7870 x2 , but usually on run x 1 since most games still dont support dual gpu very well.

    no and no.. Fx9590 is a crap cpu.. even intels G3258 beats it in gaming when oced to 4,2ghz 2core vs 8core

  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 25,347
    Originally posted by bone15
    Originally posted by Gdemami

     


    Originally posted by stevebombsquad

     

    You can overclock it fine on the stock cooler too. If you use the extra cores it isn't in anyway inferior other than in single core performance. If you read the conclusions, with the FX at stock, the I3 is only 1.8% faster when all of the data is averaged. The majority are within 5%. With overclocking, it will perform better, and you can do that on the stock cooler. Even the people doing the overclocking recommend getting the FX. If he knows nothing of overclocking or chooses not to, then the I3 might be the way to go.


     


    The overclocking FX on stock cooler and cheap MB is neither smart nor you will see any notable gain.

    I am not saying that i3 is any significantly faster, even tho I believe you will get more stable frame rates and overall more consistent performance but that aside, going with FX because of stock OC is ridiculous and any extra spending on cooler and MB makes the choice even worse.


    Until Haswell, FX-6300 was very competitive CPU but today, there is no reason to go FX over i3-4160 which is overall much better choice.

     

    i think you need to look again.. Intels Old Duo cores even beat the hell out of amd.. Fx-6300

     

    but LOOK at this intel's dual core beats it by alot.. and Cost 50-70$ less..

     

    http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Pentium-G3258-vs-AMD-FX-6300

    The numbers there are trivially wrong.  It has a dual core barely beating a six core in single-threaded performance, and then the six core barely beating the dual core in programs that use all cores.  Going from one core to two cores will nearly double performance on the Pentium G3258, but going from one core to six core son the FX-6300 will typically multiply performance by about 5.  (Not 6, due to lower turbo and shared schedulers.)

    You can't just pick a few benchmarks at random and say, this is representative of everything.  You have to understand what you're measuring and why.  It's basically trivial to create a benchmark where an FX-6300 would beat any Core i3 in single-threaded performance by an enormous margin, for example, but that's not representative of typical performance.  Something that leans heavily on instructions like AVX or AES-NI that games basically can't use at all will give wildly different performance from games.

    Games typically have a single-threaded bottleneck of the rendering thread handling graphics API calls.  If the programmers aren't stupid, the single-threaded performance required will be low enough that any modern desktop CPU can handle it just fine.  But if there isn't a ton of other CPU work needed, this can give results like an Intel CPU offering 100 frames per second and an AMD 80.  That's basically a tie unless you've got a 120+ Hz monitor.  And furthermore, this bottleneck is going away in the near future:  it's already gone in Mantle and with certain OpenGL extensions, and will likewise be gone in DirectX 12 and Vulkan.

    Just about everything else conceivable in game clients either needs only a small fraction of a core, isn't meaningfully limited by CPU performance, or is nearly trivial to scale to arbitrarily many CPU cores.  If a game decides that it needs a lot of CPU performance for something or other, a six core CPU will offer it and a dual core won't.  That's going to provide an awful lot of game situations in the foreseeable future where an FX-6300 works fine and a Pentium G3258 struggles badly.  Even if you overclock the latter but not the former.

  • stevebombsquadstevebombsquad Member UncommonPosts: 884
    Originally posted by bone15
    Originally posted by Ridelynn

    I'm not advocating any particular CPU, but thought I would throw this out there.

    http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i3-4330+%40+3.50GHz&id=2025

    Passmark scores of some commonly used CPUs, along with Cost vs Performance charts. Passmark benchmark is a decent standard - it's flawed in the same way all benchmarks are flawed, but at least those are easy to account for.

    I don't know where they get their pricing data (although they do show charts of their pricing history, and it looks relatively in line with reality)

    all amd's cpu are crap in gaming.. never go for gaming amd cpu .. overheats and sucks about 140wats.

    You have no idea what you are talking about. Just look at the charts on the link he gave. My son uses a FX6300 with no issues. He has an EVO 212 and it is oc'd to 4.2. We stopped there. The temps are fine and the system is stable. We could quite easily push it to 4.5 or so. 

    James T. Kirk: All she's got isn't good enough! What else ya got?

  • GdemamiGdemami Member EpicPosts: 12,342


    Originally posted by QuizzicalThe numbers there are trivially wrong.  It has a dual core barely beating a six core in single-threaded performance, and then the six core barely beating the dual core in programs that use all cores.

    Evidence does not support your theorycrafting and stuff you made up? Then the evidence must be wrong.

    Priceless.

  • bone15bone15 Member UncommonPosts: 52
    Originally posted by stevebombsquad
    Originally posted by bone15
    Originally posted by Ridelynn

    I'm not advocating any particular CPU, but thought I would throw this out there.

    http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i3-4330+%40+3.50GHz&id=2025

    Passmark scores of some commonly used CPUs, along with Cost vs Performance charts. Passmark benchmark is a decent standard - it's flawed in the same way all benchmarks are flawed, but at least those are easy to account for.

    I don't know where they get their pricing data (although they do show charts of their pricing history, and it looks relatively in line with reality)

    all amd's cpu are crap in gaming.. never go for gaming amd cpu .. overheats and sucks about 140wats.

    You have no idea what you are talking about. Just look at the charts on the link he gave. My son uses a FX6300 with no issues. He has an EVO 212 and it is oc'd to 4.2. We stopped there. The temps are fine and the system is stable. We could quite easily push it to 4.5 or so. 

    thats not gaming... that is Rendering and all sorts.. and Amd Cpu is the worst for gaming.. even their top tier is like 40-60% behind intel i5 4690k

  • KaniverKaniver Member UncommonPosts: 110

    I can't help but wonder what the OP thinks about the turn this thread has taken.

     

    I almost thought a game was being discussed.****************snicker****************

  • RidelynnRidelynn Member EpicPosts: 7,383


    Originally posted by Kaniver
    I can't help but wonder what the OP thinks about the turn this thread has taken.

     

    I almost thought a game was being discussed.****************snicker****************


    This comes up every time a request for a budget build pops up.

    A few people (not the same people) will pop up and recommend some builds - a few will meet the request, a few are are "I built this and it's a beast, you should too", and then a few are just random builds that meet nothing in the specification.

    A few people will take a look at the budget (not me, I try to stay out of the system building, but a few other people), take an honest attempt at it, and they all produce good builds that, if they don't meet the specification outright, at least come very close or offer options. A lot of these people are long-standing members of the forum, and while they may not always agree, they at least disagree civilly and present good arguments for their respective positions that help everyone understand where they are coming from. This advances us all, and I applaud and encourage it.

    And then the same person (not naming names...), almost without fail, will come in, call everyone else retarded and throw some rediculous unsubtantiated claims around, and then just poopoo away anything anyone else says in an attempt to throw FUD all over the thread.

    It's pretty much poisoned this forum from anyone recommending a build, and I wish we could just get rid of said person. He's obviously trolling, but the mods don't seem to be willing to do anything about it, since the posts, when taken individually, aren't bad. But the sum of them all, and the quantity of them all, amounts to a giant troll sitting right on our forum crapping all over the good advice that most of the long-serving community here gives.

    It sucks for the OP of this thread, and the many other threads just like it, that have gotten pooped all over by the troll.

  • cavenerdcavenerd Member UncommonPosts: 10

    For premium gaming peripherals on a budget, I recommend looking at the offerings at http://www.gamdias.com/us/.  

    I personally have used Gamdias peripherals since 2013 and have never had any issues.

     

    Cavenerd

  • BookahBookah Member UncommonPosts: 260

    BEFORE YOU GET AN AMD READ THIS!

    AMD is no longer making high end gamig CPU's so do your self a solid and go Intel, I have an AMD (8350) OK CPU but i have no upgrade path ;(

    Also is you do go AMD get a water cooling system because even the 8350 is HOT and LOUD I would never go above the 8350, they are just pumping more volts into the same proc, hot and unefficient,

    GET AN INTEL

    image
Sign In or Register to comment.