D
Deleted member 82943
Guest
are we looking at the same graphs? I wouldn't say that the AMD chips run "well" in this game. Here's to hoping that Zen kicks ass.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The moment when you realize when pigs have more knowledge about CPUs than you.
um when a i5-3470 runs roughly equal IN GAMES with an FX 9590 how can you say the above? if it's current gen AMD it probably sucks, and IPC does matter in this game, which is what this thread is about.
The roughest patch in AMD's history as a company started after the FX line was released, the phenom line prior to that was competitive enough to not be mocked. They took the opposite approach from Intel when they should've just followed in their footsteps and attempted to improve their idea(of the Core i3/i5/i7 lineup) at a competitive price.
No other product released by Intel or AMD has been so bad that the first company literally stops recognizing the existence of the second company as a competitor a generation after it's release. Intel stopped giving a fuck about desktop CPUs and a part of that is AMD's fault that there is no need to compete. I understand the mobile segment might have a bigger role to play.That Phenom II line was never mocked as far as I saw. The Phenom II performance combined with it's price point compared to the newly released i7's was not too bad. And there was also quite a while there that the Athlon II quad-core in particular was easily the best budget quad-core on the market. But AMD still wasn't that far off from Intel through the first generation of i7's. I was quite torn at the time of whether or not to go with a Phenom II or an i7 (Bloomfield). I decided on an i7 930 and in hindsight I'm glad I did because I recently gave that system away to a friend and it's still quite capable - more so than I know an AMD counterpart at that time would be now based on my experience with such.
I love that video showing the 8350 vs the i5-6400. Where I shop I can get the 8350 for $20 less than the i5-6400 normally. Only difference is I can overclock my 8350 a lot easier. Until I strike it rich I will spend my money on as good of a GPU as I can and then plug and AMD in for the CPU.
Lol so saving 20 bucks is a big deal but the extra power used from running an oced 8350 and oced 390 over time is irrelevant?I love that video showing the 8350 vs the i5-6400. Where I shop I can get the 8350 for $20 less than the i5-6400 normally. Only difference is I can overclock my 8350 a lot easier. Until I strike it rich I will spend my money on as good of a GPU as I can and then plug and AMD in for the CPU.
Lol so saving 20 bucks is a big deal but the extra power used from running an oced 8350 and oced 390 over time is irrelevant?
Try reading his post again. He said they were nearly identical in price the difference between them for him was OCing the 8350 is easier. Also his concern is the GPU before a CPU so an AMD CPU would save money up front for a higher class GPU.Lol so saving 20 bucks is a big deal but the extra power used from running an oced 8350 and oced 390 over time is irrelevant?
The more cores that are used the better AMD does against Intel, thats not news, been true for awhile. What is news is a game actually using the cores like it should to help it run smoother.
Can't really blame him picking up an FX 8350 over the pathetic i5 6400.
PassMark - Intel Core i5-6400 @ 2.70GHz - Price performance comparison
PassMark - AMD FX-8350 Eight-Core - Price performance comparison
PassMark - Intel Core i3-6320 @ 3.90GHz - Price performance comparison
http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i5-6400-vs-Intel-Core-i3-6320/3512vs3535
Shouldn't a modern quad core be scoring 8000+ with a single threaded score of 2000+ (even my old Phenom II manages 4000)
I think I'd rather grab a used i7 at the right price though - something like a 3770k or 2600k, etc.
Although I do have my reservations about buying used when it comes to electrical items - they've probably hammered them.
Or just wait for Zen.
Skylake seems like quite a poor line up overall compared to it's predecessors.
My point was that it is beyond stupid to act like saving 20 bucks up front is a big deal when you are going to lose way more than that in the end from the additional power costs.Try reading his post again. He said they were nearly identical in price the difference between them for him was OCing the 8350 is easier. Also his concern is the GPU before a CPU so an AMD CPU would save money up front for a higher class GPU.
BS. It costs more than two dollars more a month to run an oced 8350 and oced 390 compared to say an i5 and 970 if you are gaming a lot. Even if we go by your BS claim it still costs more to have the 8350 within a year than the i5. So again anybody acting like 20 fucking dollars is a huge deal sure as hell should not be running an oced 8350 and oced 390.Pretty much so. My PC runs 24/7 and every light in my fully electric house. Electric bill this month was less than $140. If I cut off the PC I would save... $2?
BS. It costs more than two dollars more a month to run an oced 8350 and oced 390 compared to say an i5 and 970 if you are gaming a lot. Even if we go by your BS claim it still costs more to have the 8350 within a year than the i5. So again anybody acting like 20 fucking dollars is a huge deal sure as hell should not be running an oced 8350 and oced 390.
BS. It costs more than two dollars more a month to run an oced 8350 and oced 390 compared to say an i5 and 970 if you are gaming a lot.
right now at my preferred local part source there is a $70 difference between a FX-8350 system and an i5-6500 system. both had 16GB ram and a 390x. $1204 vs $1275CAN. that extra $70 could be used to upgrade the video card to the next tier giving you a better value for the dollar.He is lying anyways, there is NO WAY an oc-based 8350 CPU + MOBO + COOLER can be cheaper than i5 6400/6500 + mobo.
right now at my preferred local part source there is a $70 difference between a FX-8350 system and an i5-6500 system. both had 16GB ram and a 390x. $1204 vs $1275CAN. that extra $70 could be used to upgrade the video card to the next tier giving you a better value for the dollar.
LULPiss off already. I don't buy parts like that. I shop local and get every thing at once. You want to prove everyone wrong so bad you fucking do it.
Sounds like you are on an Intel sponsored community service mission. You are correct you can get an i5 6500 (I will go with $195 even though the MSRP is $205) and a crappy MicroATX mb for $50 ( I found an ASRock for $48.) It is also true that you can get an 8350 for $150 (which is MSRP and not a sale price), if you want to overclock it you can add an EVO 212 for an MSRP of $30 and pair it with the same crappy style MicroATX for $45 (MSI board) or for $47.50 for the ASUS variant. Looks to me that those prices are roughly equivalent.I am on a community service mission saving misinformed customers from Silicon scum.
Seriously though, an i5 6500 is 195 and Mobo is less than 50 USD.
Sounds like you are on an Intel sponsored community service mission. You are correct you can get an i5 6500 (I will go with $195 even though the MSRP is $205) and a crappy MicroATX mb for $50 ( I found an ASRock for $48.) It is also true that you can get an 8350 for $150 (which is MSRP and not a sale price), if you want to overclock it you can add an EVO 212 for an MSRP of $30 and pair it with the same crappy style MicroATX for $45 (MSI board) or for $47.50 for the ASUS variant. Looks to me that those prices are roughly equivalent.
I wonder how Phenom II X4 / X6 handle the game. Paired with an older GTX 660 card, it may be the smoothest desktop machine I have. Newer hardware is more aggressive about trying to keep clocks low, lending to desktop stutter.
you can use after burner to turn off low power mode. That eliminates the desktop stuttering.I wonder how Phenom II X4 / X6 handle the game. Paired with an older GTX 660 card, it may be the smoothest desktop machine I have. Newer hardware is more aggressive about trying to keep clocks low, lending to desktop stutter.
Sounds like you are on an Intel sponsored community service mission. You are correct you can get an i5 6500 (I will go with $195 even though the MSRP is $205) and a crappy MicroATX mb for $50 ( I found an ASRock for $48.) It is also true that you can get an 8350 for $150 (which is MSRP and not a sale price), if you want to overclock it you can add an EVO 212 for an MSRP of $30 and pair it with the same crappy style MicroATX for $45 (MSI board) or for $47.50 for the ASUS variant. Looks to me that those prices are roughly equivalent.
MSI 760GMA-P34(FX) is the cheapest one for 46 something dollars, will this be able to support an overclock for this CPU?
Biostar TA970 is the cheapest 970 chipset one which is 51.88 - using this one will make the total $11-$14 cheaper than a 6500 based system with a H110.
But would you still recommend something like this mobo (Biostar TA970) to go along with that particular CPU?
MSI 760GMA-P34(FX) is the cheapest one for 46 something dollars, will this be able to support an overclock for this CPU?
Biostar TA970 is the cheapest 970 chipset one which is 51.88 - using this one will make the total $11-$14 cheaper than a 6500 based system with a H110.
But would you still recommend something like this mobo (Biostar TA970) to go along with that particular CPU?
I value power-efficiency, but not specifically for the minimal electricity savings.
1. Less heat in the room = improved comfort. Also: using the Air-Conditioner slightly less might factor into that electricity cost I've been ignoring. This of course will depend on where you live... but I HATE having a hot PC room.
2. Less heat (being produced) in the case
3. Less fan noise (potentially) for the same cooling efficacy
4. More environmentally friendly. I try to save power when possible.
I'm not sure why these benefits (reasons) weren't mentioned. It almost seems disingenuous to frame a PC power-efficiency discussion solely around the electricity bill.
Mainly because your first 3 points are the same/directly related = heat. The 4th is subjective in the fact it depends on many factors and unfortunately opens the discussion to why not use a tablet or your phone for tasks that don't require the desktop. The argument is far to complex to boil down to a single point.I value power-efficiency, but not specifically for the minimal electricity savings.
1. Less heat in the room = improved comfort. Also: using the Air-Conditioner slightly less might factor into that electricity cost I've been ignoring. This of course will depend on where you live... but I HATE having a hot PC room.
2. Less heat (being produced) in the case
3. Less fan noise (potentially) for the same cooling efficacy
4. More environmentally friendly. I try to save power when possible.
I'm not sure why these benefits (reasons) weren't mentioned. It almost seems disingenuous to frame a PC power-efficiency discussion solely around the electricity bill.