55 replies to this topic

[Vincent Vascaul]

Another one of these threads. As someone who runs both AMD and Intel Systems I can say you will be happy with either. I actually just talked to a good friend of mine who is a hard core builder and he just swapped from a 2600K to a 8120 and he says that while the 8120 can't hold a candle in benchmarks, in real life gaming and computing as well as stability he finds it to be much better than the Intel. This is just his opinion and YMMV but I trust him on this one as he has had several builds featured in magazines and tends to know what he is talking about. As for the best budget AMD board I would go with the Asus 990X Sabertooth its purdy, upgradeable and has a 5 year warranty.

[Odins Fist]

My advice to anyone building an AMD "GAMING" rig would be this.. "AVOID" the FX series Crapdozer/Bulldozer.
It may be a stretch to find one, but if you can get a Phenom II 1100-thuban onto a 990FX mobo, it beats the FX-8150 in almost everything, in fact just to keep up in gaming or single threaded apps (which most games are), the FX-8150 needs to have every other core locked down (core function), and be overclocked 400-500MHZ above whatever Phenom II chip it is "trying" to compete with.. Like my Phenom II x6 Thuban @ 4.1975 GHZ for example, you would have to be clocked to 4.8GHZ which is possible, but now you have to contend with HUGE increases in power demand (VRM-TDP), heat, when you overclock every chip is different in some ways, and you can't really predict "EXACTLY" what the power draw will be until you clock it up. In reality you would end up with a 8150 as a 4 core, and why pay for an 8 core... I know some people will say that it beats the Phenom II in multi threaded applications, but that is not what today's gaming is, and unless you are involved with folding, or video production it doesn't matter. I bet this may start someone flaming, but the numbers do not lie, and I have put this to the test, even with a Phenom II x4 960 3.0GHZ Thuban that was originally a 6 core, but had 2 cores locked because of defect, and sold that way, and reached an 1150 MHZ overclock with "BETTER" voltages and Heat than the FX series Bulldozer.
I'm "NOT" trying to Trash AMD, that's all I have ever built for personal use (gaming), but i'm about to jump ship from AMD to Intel, well that and the fact that AMD announced that it is getting "OUT" of the high end CPU business, sounds weird, but that is from their own P.R. Dept.

Edited by Odins Fist, 09 June 2012 - 04:50 PM.

[Vulpesveritas]

Odins Fist, on 09 June 2012 - 04:48 PM, said:

My advice to anyone building an AMD "GAMING" rig would be this.. "AVOID" the FX series Crapdozer/Bulldozer.
It may be a stretch to find one, but if you can get a Phenom II 1100-thuban onto a 990FX mobo, it beats the FX-8150 in almost everything, in fact just to keep up in gaming or single threaded apps (which most games are), the FX-8150 needs to have every other core locked down (core function), and be overclocked 400-500MHZ above whatever Phenom II chip it is "trying" to compete with.. Like my Phenom II x6 Thuban @ 4.1975 GHZ for example, you would have to be clocked to 4.8GHZ which is possible, but now you have to contend with HUGE increases in power demand (VRM-TDP), heat, when you overclock every chip is different in some ways, and you can't really predict "EXACTLY" what the power draw will be until you clock it up. In reality you would end up with a 8150 as a 4 core, and why pay for an 8 core... I know some people will say that it beats the Phenom II in multi threaded applications, but that is not what today's gaming is, and unless you are involved with folding, or video production it doesn't matter. I bet this may start someone flaming, but the numbers do not lie, and I have put this to the test, even with a Phenom II x4 960 3.0GHZ Thuban that was originally a 6 core, but had 2 cores locked because of defect, and sold that way, and reached an 1150 MHZ overclock with "BETTER" voltages and Heat than the FX series Bulldozer.
I'm "NOT" trying to Trash AMD, that's all I have ever built for personal use (gaming), but i'm about to jump ship from AMD to Intel, well that and the fact that AMD announced that it is getting "OUT" of the high end CPU business, sounds weird, but that is from their own P.R. Dept.

Unfortunatly you're wrong on two counts. By all technicality, that FX chip would only have to be clocked to about 4.5ghz to match it core for core, and at the same clocks would outperform your thubian quite a bit in multithread. For gaming however your thubian would still loose to say, a quad core FX clocked at 4.5ghz point given that most games are only quad threaded, and as such won't take advantage of those extra cores save for the OS and the like.
Finally... thubian cores aren't being made any more, so good luck getting your hands on a new 1100t.

[Barbaric Soul]

Odins Fist, on 09 June 2012 - 04:48 PM, said:

My advice to anyone building an AMD "GAMING" rig would be this.. "AVOID" the FX series Crapdozer/Bulldozer.
It may be a stretch to find one, but if you can get a Phenom II 1100-thuban onto a 990FX mobo, it beats the FX-8150 in almost everything, in fact just to keep up in gaming or single threaded apps (which most games are), the FX-8150 needs to have every other core locked down (core function), and be overclocked 400-500MHZ above whatever Phenom II chip it is "trying" to compete with.. Like my Phenom II x6 Thuban @ 4.1975 GHZ for example, you would have to be clocked to 4.8GHZ which is possible, but now you have to contend with HUGE increases in power demand (VRM-TDP), heat, when you overclock every chip is different in some ways, and you can't really predict "EXACTLY" what the power draw will be until you clock it up. In reality you would end up with a 8150 as a 4 core, and why pay for an 8 core... I know some people will say that it beats the Phenom II in multi threaded applications, but that is not what today's gaming is, and unless you are involved with folding, or video production it doesn't matter. I bet this may start someone flaming, but the numbers do not lie, and I have put this to the test, even with a Phenom II x4 960 3.0GHZ Thuban that was originally a 6 core, but had 2 cores locked because of defect, and sold that way, and reached an 1150 MHZ overclock with "BETTER" voltages and Heat than the FX series Bulldozer.
I'm "NOT" trying to Trash AMD, that's all I have ever built for personal use (gaming), but i'm about to jump ship from AMD to Intel, well that and the fact that AMD announced that it is getting "OUT" of the high end CPU business, sounds weird, but that is from their own P.R. Dept.

Have you actually used a BD chip? My primary rig is a 2600k currently OC'ed to 4.5ghz. I just built a FX6200 system for my cousin. Aside from the GFX card difference(5870 crossfireX with the 2600k, single 6870 with the FX6200), I honestly could not tell a difference between my 2600k and the FX6200. And to give you an idea about how picky I am with my computer's speed, I noticed a big drop in speed going from a E8400 OC'ed to 3.8ghz to a Xeon 3220(Q6600 equivalent server chip)OC'ed to 3.2ghz. And when I replaced the 3220 with a Q9650 OC'ed to 4ghz, I noticed the speed come back to my system. So yeah, I do notice CPU speed differences.

Personally, if the money is there, I recommend Intel. But for a budget build, AMD does have some very adequate CPUs. Not bad for $650-

Edited by Barbaric Soul, 09 June 2012 - 09:03 PM.

[Odins Fist]

Unfortunately I have seen some things to the contrary.. My Thuban has litterally beaten a FX-8150 (8) core clock for clock (gaming), and since i'm at 4.1975, or just round up to 4.2 the Bulldozer had to be at 4.6 or higher to hang in "single threaded applications"... I never said I beat a FX in multi-threaded apps, but most games aren't that heavily threaded (per core) to date.... Also if you look, FX-Series Chips (when overclocked) run into power consuption and Heat issues that are pretty demanding.. I'm on water so it doesn't matter, but summer is here, and anyone wanting to push an FX-8150 to a "crusher" of an overclock might want to dump the Air cooling, unless they are near a central air vent..!! I'm assuming of course most people here aren't average computer users.
I have had the same discussion with a guy that works at micro center, and yes the Bulldozer is better for folding, or Video production, but not so in gaming. $99.00 for a Phenom II 960t or $119.00 for a Phenom II 980 isn't so bad, and you buy them to date, but sadly, you are correct, the Phenom II x6 1100 Thuban is going for mad money if you can find them, and there is a reason for that, "NOT" just the fact that they sold out, and are no longer in production.
My question is this... What kind of threading demand will Mechwarrior Online have..?? That will put the icing on this cake.

Edited by Odins Fist, 09 June 2012 - 09:13 PM.

[Barbaric Soul]

if you'd like to see a comparison between BD and SB, with Nehalem thrown in also, here is a nice review with the 7970 and all three types of CPUs.

http://www.techpower..._Scaling/1.html

Yes Intel wins with SB, but BD isn't exactly bad.

Odins Fist, on 09 June 2012 - 09:12 PM, said:

My question is this... What kind of threading demand will Mechwarrior Online have..?? That will put the icing on this cake.

For your answer, check that review I posted a link to and look at the crysis 2 results. MW:O should be about the same as it's using the same game engine.

Edited by Barbaric Soul, 09 June 2012 - 09:17 PM.

[Meldarth Sunphot]

Thuban was a good chip - don't get me wrong but FX is not as bad as everyone makes it out to be - if you haven't ran it; you honestly can't comment on it.

I went from unlocked PII 555 - *unlocked four cores* at 4 ghz - to 8120 which is clocked to 8150 speeds with turbo.......reason its not higher one I don't honestly need it higher.......two; can't seem to get the voltage to hit 1.45 which would get me stable over 4 ghz....

I can honestly say there is a world of difference between the chips........for you there wouldn't be so much until Piledriver which is summertime.......

[Garemie]

Dark Fact, on 06 June 2012 - 04:30 PM, said:

At this price point, your ultimate choice would be the Intel Core i5-3570K.

Personally I would say a z68 motherboard and an i5 2500k would be better suited for said applications, plus, it's cheaper!

One of my best buds just purchased a 2500k and a Asus ROG z68 motherboard and it outperforms my Phenom II 965 by a landslide!

Granted I suppose if you have the extra cash then why not spring for the extra power?

-Jeremy.

[Ridli Scott]

Both mobos are fine to me, but do not use a Crosshair V Formula, it has a lot of problems with that series microprocessors. I had to return mine and order a gigabyte 990fxa-UD5

[Odins Fist]

Ridli Scott, on 10 June 2012 - 03:28 AM, said:

Both mobos are fine to me, but do not use a Crosshair V Formula, it has a lot of problems with that series microprocessors. I had to return mine and order a gigabyte 990fxa-UD5

.
You may have been unlucky then, My main rig is using the Sabertooth 990FX, and my LAN rig is using the Crosshair V 990FX, and I must say the Crosshair V overclocks like a beast, and is much better than my friends GIGABYTE GA-990XA-UD3 AM3+ AMD 990X, as a matter of fact with the same exact chip he is unable to overclock or hold timings for his RAM as well as the Crosshair V, not even close, even clocking the CPU he can't reach what I can... So I guess it may also be the user, what someone is used to, the Old Bios vs UEFI... Load line calibrations and so on... The Crosshair V 990FX is not for a beginer or someone that shouldn't be poking around in BIOS with options they do ot fully understand. I'm not saying that is you, don't get me wrong, i'm saying when someone can't get a stable overclock, or has to RMA a motherboard, 9 times out of 10 it is because of the user lacking the correct knowledge to make what "THEY" want to do, work. Like I said i'm not saying that about you, just pointing out what I have seen from others.

[Dymitry]

I have recently built my new gaming rig, with an 8120, a ninja 3b cooler, asus sabretooth 990fx, 8gb of the amd/patriot ram "performance edition" (that I had to swap for corsair vengance as it was not compatible with the mobo), 2 crucial m4, a 128gb and a 256gb (got the second one on offer ) , a his hd 6950 2gb, a ocz 750w modular (avoid-sounds like a typhoon), 2 asus ve248h and a pioneer blu ray burner. At work I use a comparable (vertex 3 ssd, amd firepro card) xeon (5620)-based machine, and I find my one to be snappier when multitasking, my average task bar usually having opera & chrome open with 20ish tabs, visual studio 2010 with lovely resharper open, possibly idea 11, outlook & word 2010, lync and more stuff. I cannot provide benchmarks (not really interested either) but the difference is tangible, especially when launching apps or compiling code. I obviously cannot make a gaming related comparision (btw it can run everything on fullhd res on high/max details), but unless someone builds a machine just for gaming 100% of the time I find that kind of performance more important that fps (that are gpu-bound anyway), so to me, the fx has been the better choice, when compared to the i2500k (its intel "counterpart"). Btw I have overclocked mine a week ago to 8150 speeds, I should be able to achieve a fair bit more with my cpu cooler, but until I have the need, I'll hold. Ah, a word of praise for the his card: bought it because it was the cheaper 2gb 6950 that I found, it has really surprised me for nearly silent operations and performance! - kind of the opposite of my ocz power supply, really. I knew I should have gone with seasonic .

I also justed want to share my 2 cents on the intel/amd debate, as a topic that I have been following for a decade and half, and because someone asked why amd is the "ethical" choice.
My first "informed"memory is back in the days of the K5 (and Ciryx), strange architecture, inferior performance per clock, and compatibility issues (due to using non dedicated socket/chipset I'd guess) but obviously cheap and decent value, however I don't recall anyone selling them, nor owning one. Then the days of the amd k6, where it was presented by mainstream press (by mainstream I mean magazines that do not require a Phd in engineering to be read) again as an "el cheapo"; pentium 2 alternative, despite being as fast and sometimes faster and with a much better price/performance ratio. I remember the "intel processors are more compatible"; tale that vendors told me 9 times over 10 whenever I questioned them on "why not amd?" on proposed builds for them or classmates/friends, probably remnants of the previous generation.
I remember the days of the "MMX"; dispute, intel proprietary and useless instruction set that did not make any visible impact on performance, but was marketed so well that competition had to implement it. I recall intel swearing that they where just random letters and did not stand for "MultiMedia eXtension" regardless of the fact that every single press release by them, and everyone else was talking about better multimedia performances. End result, AMD and Cyrix forced to pay royalties over an enforced trademark, ultimately costing money to the end consumers, us.

Then the days of the K7 or Athlon came, trashing the P3, on every single benchmark while being cheaper and so much more reliable than P3s (450 and the scam 1133 coppermine come to mind), when suddely a huge portion of the vary same press that was pushing p/p2 sales with the argument of 0.3 seconds in synthetic benchmark, in mass decided that at those speeds that cpu performance was not so important, synthetic benchmarks were, well, just benchmarks, and a faster cpu was going to be hardly noticeable. That is something that constantly emerged over time whenever intel has been trailing in absolute performance. I also remember none of the big manufacturer stocking AMD machines, courtesy of Intel's unfair competition, I remember truckloads of entry level celeron machine shoveled onto people and companies with their horrid integrated graphics, selling at the same price point that could have bought a condom-named amd "duron"; and a dedicated half usable graphic card (performance analysis on this are absolutely useless). Wonder why? Check "AMD vs. Intel" to understand how they artificially kept prices up on inferior products (ah, and crappy pc = more upgrades).

Than the days of the P4 came, where Intel decided to go all in with an architecture made to bank on the very myth that they had created single-handedly, that more clock speed means faster. It was so bad, that they want back to the old p3 architecture when they started with core. Ah, and all of this while initially trying to lock the market into buying a ludicrously expensive and under performing new ram standard "RAMBUS" anyone? Do I need to remember anyone how they were initially presented as the "ram so fast you wont need to buy half as much as before", again treating consumers like idiots...

In more recent years we have Intel trying to let the x86 platform to die for a new and obviously better, very proprietary 64 bit standard: "Itanium", ah is it the thing that is now costing billions to companies around the world that are now locked with a dead platform that even MS (Intel's official partner in crime) will not support?

You could despise amd for anything you want, but you have to give them credit for keeping our pcs alive. I could go on but you get the drill. I am not amd fanboy per se: corporate greed is corporate greed, and were the two companies in opposite positions, I am sure I'd have to swap amd for intel in this post, as history has proved (apple and ms anyone?). The fault is not Otellini's, the rules of the game are wrong and he plays by them-in the best interest of his employers (shareholders). Ms has done it and is still doing it, Apple is doing it, Sony even tried in a locked market as the console one by shipping a cpu that made it intentionally hard to port code to/from. Yes, intel has been condemned from antitrust authorities, but compare what they had to pay for it against revenues/market shares, even in the years when they could not hold a candle to amd, then have a look in your average electronics chain, and see for yourself how the situation is different, how many amd builds are shown/advertised, and on what base.

Amd had his number of **** ups as well, and I for once don't like the marketing hype they have been creating in the recent years, over average products, even though from a historical point of view is understandable. I think that today more than ever, people have a whole load of resources to make informed decisions, and when in front of two comparable products I personally feel like buying the one that feels "righter", until I am proved wrong (or they guilty).
I do not care if Intel holds the performance crown, nor did I when amd did (although if you compare R&D budgets they have been amazing feats). I do not m********e over benchmarks, and until amd will continue to push competitiveness and innovation, and offer a viable alternative to what is a monopoly, my money and my buying advice to whoever is willing to listen to my rants, will go with them- and so far, the only time I had someone complaining on my builds was when I suggested a 3dfx banshee instead of a riva tnt as graphic card).

As a side note, and to be back on topic I would love folks to stop believing all the stories that go around on the internet "this has better image quality", "that has better drivers" unless you find a specific test by a respectable and annoyingly technical source, on the model of the thing that you are looking at, or you can try it yourself. Technology changes so fast that is pointless to talk on "historic" basis, otherwise we should use just matrox for video and ad lib for sound.

Edited by Dymitry, 11 June 2012 - 05:27 AM.

[BaronNight]

Thank you to all the enthusiasts for posting your advice.

[CynicalCyanide]

Wow. If it wasn't for the fact he recently had his laptop stolen, I would've guessed Richard Stallman himself was among us.

If people are really looking to these threads for advice, then perhaps the mods should trim the threads back a bit. Reading multiple pages of anecdotal opinions and autobiographies isn't helping anyone really.

For what it's worth - Here's my 2c.

OP's suggested CPU is a good one. However, depending on what the system is supposed to be used for, there may be better alternatives. For heavy gaming, stepping up to a 2500k / 3570k, would be superior. These chips, along with AMD's systems, come into their own when overclocked, so you may need to learn a little to harness that either way you go. However, if you're the type to do heavy encoding, then the FX-8150 FX 8-Core would be superior, although I think 4-Module would be a more accurate classification.

As for RAM - Yeah, there's a minor difference between 1333 and 1600, so if you can find cheap 1600, sure. Go for it. After that there's very little difference for gaming.

Motherboards? - This is mostly personal preference. All you need to do is find a board with the right features for you (ie: if you're planning to SLI / Xfire make sure the mobo supports it, i suggest two x8 or better PCI-E lanes). For example, if you already have a decent graphics card, and you know that you're planning to upgrade that as well before supply disappears, getting an SLI/Xfire board and buying a 2nd matching graphics card down the road *can* be well worth the extra money dropped on the motherboard. As for brand, ASUS are generally recognized as being high end, and ASRock make great motherboards in terms of features + quality / price.

Sorry if i repeated what someone else posted word for word, just being honest, i couldn't be stuffed reading through 2 pages of life story time.

Edited by iron wolf, 11 June 2012 - 05:56 AM.

[CynicalCyanide]

BaronNight, on 11 June 2012 - 05:53 AM, said:

Thank you to all the enthusiasts for posting your advice.

You're welcome mate, I always enjoy helping people get the most out of their rigs, especially if it's being built for MWO ;D

[Dymitry]

iron wolf, on 11 June 2012 - 05:55 AM, said:

Wow. If it wasn't for the fact he recently had his laptop stolen, I would've guessed Richard Stallman himself was among us.

If people are really looking to these threads for advice, then perhaps the mods should trim the threads back a bit. Reading multiple pages of anecdotal opinions and autobiographies isn't helping anyone really.

No trying to flame, but trolling and repeating stuff that has been said countless times in countless other topics IS helping, right?

[CynicalCyanide]

Dymitry, on 11 June 2012 - 07:01 AM, said:

No trying to flame, but trolling and repeating stuff that has been said countless times in countless other topics IS helping, right?

Pardon? I don't quite understand what you're trying to say

If you're accusing me of trolling, i don't really see how? I was just pointing out that people in this thread are rather long winded about something that isn't strictly on topic, and as for repeating stuff, well if it takes two short lines of repetition to clear up pages of text ... I don't see whats wrong?