52 replies to this topic

[dr lao]

sorry guys i had to go we had a ton of school bus drivers out sick 18 so they got me running

any way im thinking the smart thing to do is get the i5 today and wait tell payday 25th and il be able to spend $100 on a MB . I steal have my old alienware 51 that plays mwo at med setting with 65 fps it has a i3 in it with a gt 545 UN upgradeable due to external 320 watt power break the gtx 750 well not work in it .

[Flapdrol]

dr lao, on 13 March 2015 - 07:08 AM, said:

due to external 320 watt power break the gtx 750 well not work in it .

A gtx 750 only uses 60W, same as the gt 545

if it fits it'll work fine, and will be much faster than your current 2 ghz amd system.

Edited by Flapdrol, 13 March 2015 - 07:49 AM.

[Surn]

If someone says get Intel, just ignore. Intel is about single threaded architecture, MWO is multithreaded. Get a AMD a10-7850k if you do not want to buy an extra video card. Otherwise, a 4 or 6 core FX above 4ghz is ideal for MWO.

[dr lao]

Flapdrol, on 13 March 2015 - 07:48 AM, said:

A gtx 750 only uses 60W, same as the gt 545

if it fits it'll work fine, and will be much faster than your current 2 ghz amd system.

I tried to but its not excepting it
it just beeps then clicks a fue times then shuts down any way im giving it to my 12 yr old and I started this new one so id like to get it going.

Edited by dr lao, 14 March 2015 - 04:47 AM.

[Summon3r]

dr lao, on 13 March 2015 - 07:08 AM, said:

sorry guys i had to go we had a ton of school bus drivers out sick 18 so they got me running

any way im thinking the smart thing to do is get the i5 today and wait tell payday 25th and il be able to spend $100 on a MB . I steal have my old alienware 51 that plays mwo at med setting with 65 fps it has a i3 in it with a gt 545 UN upgradeable due to external 320 watt power break the gtx 750 well not work in it .

good decision!

[xWiredx]

MechregSurn, on 13 March 2015 - 08:20 AM, said:

If someone says get Intel, just ignore. Intel is about single threaded architecture, MWO is multithreaded. Get a AMD a10-7850k if you do not want to buy an extra video card. Otherwise, a 4 or 6 core FX above 4ghz is ideal for MWO.

You are very wrong and should probably do a lot more research before you spread more misinformation. Intel is -king- for MWO performance and we've got mounds of data in the hardware subforum to prove it.

[Kuritaclan]

MechregSurn, on 13 March 2015 - 08:20 AM, said:

If someone says get Intel, just ignore. Intel is about single threaded architecture, MWO is multithreaded. Get a AMD a10-7850k if you do not want to buy an extra video card. Otherwise, a 4 or 6 core FX above 4ghz is ideal for MWO.

Stop spreading bullshit. FX Prozessors better to say AM3+ are a 4 year old architecture that don't do anything well except for messing up your powerbill. If you have one well you may kinda get it to work, but no it is not a good cpu for a rig of 2015. You can skip this forum section till Zen Architecture is introduced to customer market maybee around 2017. Untill than your love for AMD bite into rocks on MWO.

Edited by Kuritaclan, 13 March 2015 - 09:33 AM.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

MechregSurn, on 13 March 2015 - 08:20 AM, said:

If someone says get Intel, just ignore. Intel is about single threaded architecture, MWO is multithreaded. Get a AMD a10-7850k if you do not want to buy an extra video card. Otherwise, a 4 or 6 core FX above 4ghz is ideal for MWO.

Another one that has no idea what he's talking about beyond reading Internet articles.

Education : MWO is per core performance hungry, it relies heavily on Floating Point calculations.

AMD FX processors only have 1 FPU unit per 2 cores and has to share the resources.
This makes them horrific at per core performance and this bad for MWO.

There are at least 2 very lengthy threads from dozens of people providing data and graphs that demonstrate this as a fact right in this very sub forum.

[Bill Lumbar]

Come on guys.... I think the misinformation and claims are flying out both ways here. Yes, from my first hand experiences with my old FX-8350 at 4.8-5ghz overclock, my new I74790K build does put out higher FPS, Avg, min, and in some cases higher max FPS for this game.

As in my thread I started testing both systems out, and as stated, BOTH my FX-8350 build at 4.8ghz-5ghz plays this game at 1440P on a 32" benQ monitor and gives a very nice gaming experience, other then the normal issues that this game has with lack of being fully optimized for ALL systems. From first hand experience, yes my new I74790K at 4.8ghz puts out better FPS numbers when bench marked with fraps, yes the new system does seem "smoother" then my old FX-8350 build at the same in game settings.

As for Amd's APU solutions, I can not confirm or argue for or against the claims that it runs this game fine, I have not ever set one up and ran a rig with them in it. Given the taxing nature of this game on my FX-8350 and the I74790K with both overclocked to the hilt, I find it hard to believe that Amd's APU's perform better then my FX-8350 did in this game. Either way, the claims of higher power usage by AMD, making it sound like such a big deal, when many have already tested the accurate watts coming from the wall on both AMD and Intel systems shows it is next to nothing in difference in real cost vs. each other.

As for the claim that the FX-line ups performance is "Horrific" in MWO, once again, I can't speak for CPU's that I haven't owned, but as for the FX-8350 I owned, it performed well when playing this game. So "Horrific" performance is not how I would define my experience with a FX-8350 while playing this game for over a year. If one is looking to build a new computer from ground up, yes at this time I would recommend that they go with a I74790K vs. a FX-8350 or above. However, if one simply wants to continue to support AMD with their cash, or can not afford the cost of going with the I74790K I would not advise them to turn away from a FX-8350. It is a decent 8 core processor and it does perform well, IMO, and first hand experiences with both systems.

I have no bias for either brand, Amd or Intel, as some have claimed in the past I am more favorable to AMD. Lets just stick to the facts of the matter, and that is very simple, The I74790K @4.8ghz puts out better numbers then a FX-8350 @4.8-5ghz.

IMO, the I74790K seems "smoother", over my FX-8350. Not very often, but from time to time I would see "stutters" or "lag" in the game while panning left to right in my mech. I am not sure if this was a issue with MWO before they did the patch on optimization's or if it is the magic of the I74790K. Prior to the patch, many players in the community claimed to get the same "stutters", even on high end Intel rigs, so who knows for sure. I have not seen them in a while, and honestly don't think I seen them after the patch for optimizations were made, even with the FX-8350 rig. In all honesty, I love the new Intel rig I built, however, IMO, it was not needed or required to play this game and have a good or decent experience.

While I did sell my FX-8350 and gigabyte 990fxa mother board for as much money as I originally paid for it on a combo deal at Micro center, I still have a Asrock 970 extreme mother board. When I upgrade my XFX 7970 to a XFX 290X, or wait for the new AMD 300's series to come out, or if I go Nvidia this time around, I might purchase another FX-8350 and test both systems on 1440P to see if the FX-8350 suffers performance wise in this game vs. the I74790K with a higher end graphics card.

[xWiredx]

Never said it was just simply god awful, just said Intel is clearly better.

Also, you had an OC on the higher end of the "typical enthusiast" overclocks for that thing. Lots of people were only able to eek out 4.5-4.6GhZ with a fair amount of people that have custom-built loops pulling off 4.8-5.2GhZ. Your stock clock numbers on the i7 seemed a hair better than the FX, and your OCed numbers are a good 15-20% higher. Less energy+higher performance=winnar.

At this point, I can't recommend an AMD chip for this game at any budget. Not with the PENTIUM pulling more weight than a 6-core FX chip. No way. Now if this were the BF4 forums, I could see where that FX chip would be a good recommendation. I haven't played BF since Bad Company 2, though, so we won't go there.

[dr lao]

ok guys thank you its settled im getting a i5 my i3 did so well these past 3 yrs. i think its safe to say this is the way to go so is there a budget i5 that every one can agree on and thats the one il get all so im set on spending $100 on a MB any suggestions on this .
amazon prime would be nice but I have an account with newwegg thank you guys so much!

[xWiredx]

There really isn't such a thing as a budget i5. They start at 185 on Newegg and go up to 245. In that range there are like 15 or so CPUs. If you wanted something at about 200, there's the 4590 (there's a promo code for it apparently, and the sale ends on 3/19).

[Lord Letto]

dr lao, on 13 March 2015 - 05:40 PM, said:

ok guys thank you its settled im getting a i5 my i3 did so well these past 3 yrs. i think its safe to say this is the way to go so is there a budget i5 that every one can agree on and thats the one il get all so im set on spending $100 on a MB any suggestions on this .
amazon prime would be nice but I have an account with newwegg thank you guys so much!

Considering your getting a Locked i5 (if you were to get the i5-4460) there will be no overclocking so anything should do as long as it's socket 1150, if you were to get a Unlocked i5 that allowed overclocking though (i5-4690K being the Cheapest, $200 in store pickup @ Microcenter: http://www.microcent...Boxed_Processor ), I'd say get a Z97 Chipset, for $100 there are 9 Options, 8 if you don't want to deal with MIRs. of those, I'd say look at MSI Z97 PC MATE, $90 @ Newegg but there's a $10 MIR that would bring cost down to $80+$2 Shipping so $82, Amazon also got it but no MIR so $90:
PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Core i5-4690K 3.5GHz Quad-Core Processor ($199.99 @ Micro Center)
Motherboard: MSI Z97 PC MATE ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($81.98 @ Newegg)
Total: $281.97
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-03-13 23:23 EDT-0400

Edited by Lord Letto, 13 March 2015 - 07:28 PM.

[Bill Lumbar]

xWiredx, on 13 March 2015 - 11:46 AM, said:

Never said it was just simply god awful, just said Intel is clearly better.

Also, you had an OC on the higher end of the "typical enthusiast" overclocks for that thing. Lots of people were only able to eek out 4.5-4.6GhZ with a fair amount of people that have custom-built loops pulling off 4.8-5.2GhZ. Your stock clock numbers on the i7 seemed a hair better than the FX, and your OCed numbers are a good 15-20% higher. Less energy+higher performance=winnar.

At this point, I can't recommend an AMD chip for this game at any budget. Not with the PENTIUM pulling more weight than a 6-core FX chip. No way. Now if this were the BF4 forums, I could see where that FX chip would be a good recommendation. I haven't played BF since Bad Company 2, though, so we won't go there.

It wasn't my intent to say you did imply or say such things, just some have thrown out those very claims.

As for my OC on the Fx-8350, yes my OC was a bit higher then some, but even with the Zalman I was able to keep the OC on the FX-8350 at a stable 4.8 Ghz with temps showing much lower then on the I74790K with the same Zalman and only OC to 4.7ghz. and even then I had to dial it back to 4.6ghz because I wasn't cool with the temps on it. Yes, the bench numbers did produce just a bit better even at stock on the I7 vs. the FX OC'ed at 4.8-5 Ghz.

I have to ask though, if one is building a new rig, or even better has a motherboard that can accept the FX-8350, is 50% hike in cost for the I74790K worth the 15-20% performance increase over a FX-8350? Is there any value in paying the 50% extra vs the FX chip? For you and others, and myself I am satisfied with the I7, its nice to have the extra boost in this game for sure. For others, it makes sense to go with the 8350..... and when its on sale, the price really can't be beat for what you are getting.

I have to agree with you about BF4, as in I don't play it, never have. However, there are many things that the FX-8350 is good for besides BF4, lol. I did post one bench mark in the past with me converting and rendering a 1080P youtube video while playing MWO and several other tasks being run on my FX system, it did just fine, and that says a lot to me on just what the chip can do. You guys got me to convert to the darkside Wired.... you all have won man, enjoy your victory. There really is no need for the extreme statements and claims made by some others.

@ Dr. Lao,

I am sure your choice to go with the I5 will suit you well in this game. I would however recommend spending at least $125-158 on the mother board, Z97 all the way. I have never liked to skimp on motherboards, and $125 is about the lowest I have ever spent on one for even my media builds.

I haven't had the time to check newegg in the last couple weeks, but two weeks ago they had some nice combos for Z97 boards and many of them was on sale with promo codes/cash off and mail in rebates. If you have micro center anywhere near you, you can catch some really nice combo deals from them also. Cpu's can't be shipped, but I think they will ship motherboards from their online store. I picked up a Gigabyte Z97 Gaming 5 board, and so far, I am pretty happy with it other then the Killer nic. That was solved by downloading drivers and manually installing them in Windows to make the chip a different one that doesn't have issues with drivers. I am sure you will see better performance then the I3 you have been using.

Here is one I almost went with.... seemed like a good option.

ASRock Fatal1ty Z97X Killer LGA 1150 Intel Z97 HDMI SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 ATX Intel Motherboard

Edited by Bill Lumbar, 14 March 2015 - 09:04 AM.

[Flapdrol]

Bill Lumbar, on 13 March 2015 - 07:29 PM, said:

I am sure your choice to go with the I5 will suit you well in this game. I would however recommend spending at least $125-158 on the mother board, Z97 all the way. I have never liked to skimp on motherboards, and $125 is about the lowest I have ever spent on one for even my media builds.

I never "liked" to skimp on motherboards either, but they're becoming less and less important. With haswell they even moved part of the power electronics to the cpu package, reduced current to the cpu means there's less need for lots of vrm's around the socket.

[Catamount]

Flapdrol, on 14 March 2015 - 04:53 AM, said:

I never "liked" to skimp on motherboards either, but they're becoming less and less important. With haswell they even moved part of the power electronics to the cpu package, reduced current to the cpu means there's less need for lots of vrm's around the socket.

Interesting. Haswell has the "fully integrated voltage regulator", yes, but is it not still desirable to provide the cleanest power possible for that ~1.8v going in? I've never really seen tests on OC stability either way, so this is just me spouting armchair reasoning, but it seems (from my armchair) like there'd still be a significant difference from one board to the next.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Catamount, on 14 March 2015 - 06:16 AM, said:

Interesting. Haswell has the "fully integrated voltage regulator", yes, but is it not still desirable to provide the cleanest power possible for that ~1.8v going in? I've never really seen tests on OC stability either way, so this is just me spouting armchair reasoning, but it seems (from my armchair) like there'd still be a significant difference from one board to the next.

yes it probably is, but there are some good boards $100 and under (MSI and Gbyte have several) to suggest that you have to pay more for a motherboard to run intel is just one of those old fallacies that sticks around

[Bill Lumbar]

I understand that the Highest end boards are not needed to run any CPU for the most part.... with the exception of AMD's 225 watt chips. I don't think I have ever given more then $240 for a motherboard, and not sure I ever will. I never suggested a high dollar board is needed, just that I have found for stability, quality, and features that I like to have on a mother board for my main rig anyways I have rarely found all of them for less then $140 and most of the time that has been a sale price. I am sure there are Quality boards out there at the $100 dollar mark, but it does start to become a fine line once you go below that threshold, IMO. I like my new Gigabyte G1 gaming 5 board, but to be honest, part of me wishes I would of gone with a higher end board.

Asrock OC edition was around $209, and newegg has it on sale and a $40.00 rebate, which seems like a decent price for a higher end mother board. Of coarse a board of that price is not needed nor have I suggested it is needed. Just a preference, that is all.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Bill Lumbar, on 14 March 2015 - 08:42 AM, said:

I understand that the Highest end boards are not needed to run any CPU for the most part.... with the exception of AMD's 225 watt chips. I don't think I have ever given more then $240 for a motherboard, and not sure I ever will. I never suggested a high dollar board is needed, just that I have found for stability, quality, and features that I like to have on a mother board for my main rig anyways I have rarely found all of them for less then $140 and most of the time that has been a sale price. I am sure there are Quality boards out there at the $100 dollar mark, but it does start to become a fine line once you go below that threshold, IMO. I like my new Gigabyte G1 gaming 5 board, but to be honest, part of me wishes I would of gone with a higher end board.

Asrock OC edition was around $209, and newegg has it on sale and a $40.00 rebate, which seems like a decent price for a higher end mother board. Of coarse a board of that price is not needed nor have I suggested it is needed. Just a preference, that is all.

See i get alot of people buying higher end boards because higher price means better right?
But alot of the features of the higher end boards go unused because people don't use them or need them.

But then im the opposite of you, i've never spent big on motherboards, most expensive i ever did buy was the Asus Maximus Gene V for my 2500K ( and i brought the mATX because its cheaper )

And i'll admit i miss my 2500k such an amazing CPU :/

Edited by DV McKenna, 14 March 2015 - 08:46 AM.

[Bill Lumbar]

But see that is the thing.... I don't believe higher price means better quality, in fact, I have seen really high end boards with worse quality and even bugs that never seem to get worked out. I buy boards base on features I will use or need, not based on just having them.

To be honest... I almost went with a micro ATX version of the Asrock OC edition board.... it was only $100 on sale a few weeks ago. Normally I don't use Micro ATX boards unless I am building a Media build though. The G1 gaming 5 board is considered a ATX board, but is a bit smaller then a full ATX board, so I went some were in the happy middle of the two. lol.

I have built several rigs that clients was on a lower budget, and went with lower end motherboards, and higher end on the CPU. Tried to OC the build, even a mild OC, and ran into stability issues that could not be figured out other then the lower end mother board being the cause of it. Dropped the same CPU in a mid to high end board and they magically went away, and able to obtain higher clocks with stability.

Edited by Bill Lumbar, 14 March 2015 - 08:58 AM.