75 replies to this topic

[ninjitsu]

Smokeyjedi, on 01 July 2014 - 03:56 PM, said:

ANYTHING you can do, I can do cheaper....LOL suckers. AMD baby!!!! A cinebench score of 8.25 is nothing to shake a stick about. If that is poor performance, than u need to deal in server parts.

Whats your cinebench single core score

[Napoleon_Blownapart]

i am getting 40-60 fps on mostly low already, was just curious what could let me bump up effects more.i really havent tried higher resolutions since some upgrades.

[Sug]

Smokeyjedi, on 01 July 2014 - 03:56 PM, said:

ANYTHING you can do, I can do cheaper....LOL suckers. AMD baby!!!! A cinebench score of 8.25 is nothing to shake a stick about. If that is poor performance, than u need to deal in server parts.

Just an embarrassing statement.

[WarGruf]

For AMD comparison, here is my rig.

Sabertooth FX 990 R2.0,
Vishera OR-C0 - FX8350 clocked @ 4.7Ghz (x23.5 / FSB 2600 / NB 2600 1.45v)
CoolerMaster Nepton 140XL water cooler (Push-pull config as intake)
CoolerMaster HAF XM case (4x200mm fans 2 intake 2 exhaust)
8192 Mbytes (2x4) Corsair DDR3 1600Mhz 9-9-9-24-34
Samsung SSD 840 EVO 250GB
Sapphire R9 270X 18% power / 1120 Gpu / 1400 Memory clocks
Acer 23" 1080p Monitor

This rig nets a healthy 60 Fps on average and has some minor dips to 40 during heavy LRM spamming / AC blasting fights.
I saw an improvement using 14.6RC beta drivers from the AMD website.

Forgot to mention my Ezcool Ambiance 80+ 800w Psu runs it all 32a per 12v rail.
I will let you know how it goes when I pick up another R9 270x for crossfire, has to be better than my old 7770's

Edited by WarGruf, 01 July 2014 - 06:40 PM.

[Smokeyjedi]

ninjitsu, on 01 July 2014 - 04:55 PM, said:

Whats your cinebench single core score

try dividing 8.25 by 8? maybe..........What do I honestly care about single core performance when I have 8 threads?

One day developers will take advantage of SMT extensions.....and actually use them well.......Than you can have this little Intel over AMD debate...........With your lil half baked hyperthreading cores/. reminds me of this guyOh man I can curl 85lbs with my right arm, but only 35 with my left arm, I am SOOOOO AWESOME! ROFL This is your hyperthreading......LOL

[Smokeyjedi]

Sug, on 01 July 2014 - 06:23 PM, said:

Just an embarrassing statement.

Oh is Financial status your only concern? Does my cost effective game rig make ur bum sore? did my game slaying liquid cooled 8core AMD build make u sad when u realized I could build my rig pay for internet for 2 months, buy a few games and the ASUS VG248QE 144hz 1ms gaming monitor. and still land under your total build cost without monitor. Ok chief, tell me more about how spending more money to do the same thing,........makes your smarter?

[Groundpound Devalis]

Is there a reason you are holding your system back by running windows 32 bit? I got tired of reading through the my computer is better or runs just as well cheaper epeen nonsense. Everything you have posted screams and begs to be run in the far superior 64 bit.

To answer your question. I upgraded from 6 cores to 8 and got a notable improvement. BUT, it is not due to number of cores. The improvements most people see or don't is due to the power of the 4 cores MWO will use. Example, I went from 6 at 3.2 GHz to 4.2GHz That is why I noticed an improvement. So if you have 4 cores at 4.0 no reason to upgrade, very very few games dip into the extra processing power of more than 4 cores. Off the top of my head I can think of one. And that reason alone is why right now Intels are a better product. Not worth the money to me so I buy AMD.

[ninjitsu]

Smokey, nerd rage much?

[Sug]

ninjitsu, on 01 July 2014 - 09:23 PM, said:

Smokey, nerd rage much?

Right? What magical AMD cpu can match an Intel in performance and save you enough money to:

Smokeyjedi, on 01 July 2014 - 08:06 PM, said:

pay for internet for 2 months, buy a few games and the ASUS VG248QE 144hz 1ms gaming monitor

[Sug]

DjPush, on 01 July 2014 - 10:35 AM, said:

Here is the thing about MWO. It doesnt work on any system well enough to maintain 60fps.

xWiredx, on 01 July 2014 - 11:21 AM, said:

I am probably beating this horse to death, but high-end AMD is not the same as high-end Intel for MWO.

Yes.

[Smokeyjedi]

Sug, on 01 July 2014 - 09:49 PM, said:

Yes.

Yeah High end intel costs roughly 300$ more todo pretty much the same thing........-10fps when I am sitting @ 80+ in any game OTHER than MWO(oh crysis 3 too) on Ultra settings.....Your extra 10-15FPS costs you literally 10$ per frame per second. (FOR MWO) That is a bad deal for you. Your logic is broken. You should be nerd raging for the heavy need for you to justify your wasting of money.

[Goose]

High End costs a grand or so: You're referring to mid-range equipment.

And I "like" how you gloss over all the extra cooling, and the bonus electrical bill, it takes to get them FXs' to keep up.

AMD was a somebody 'cause the Pentium 4 was bad, not 'cause the FX was good …

[Smokeyjedi]

Goose, on 02 July 2014 - 05:25 AM, said:

High End costs a grand or so: You're referring to mid-range equipment.

And I "like" how you gloss over all the extra cooling, and the bonus electrical bill, it takes to get them FXs' to keep up.

AMD was a somebody 'cause the Pentium 4 was bad, not 'cause the FX was good …

You haven't been gaming or building rigs to even speak more on this matter. (Damn close to 20 years in building gaming rigs now) I have no need to be at the absolute critical bleeding edge of technology..... cost over performance gains are diminishing returns.......so I sit back comfortably,and game.
http://www.tomshardw...iew-1518-2.html

AMD maybe losing to INTEL on single core IPC and power now...........but you clearly don't remember they usually traded blows a lot more closely. Now, AMD has alternative motives (APU=mobile)

http://www.thocp.net/timeline/1970.htm
read up, son.


EDIT** the 1000$ Intel offerings go under enthusiast.
Pure Raw Uncompromised Processing Power-server in disguise?........not even in the same league as AMDs offerings. clearly out in front.

Edited by Smokeyjedi, 02 July 2014 - 07:38 AM.

[Goose]

Your PCjr have the V20 retrofit, or did you get by with just the Tandy Mod?

Edited by Goose, 02 July 2014 - 10:28 AM.

[Catamount]

At this point I'm not even sure what these two are fighting about; I'm not even sure they know.

It sure is entertaining though

Edited by Catamount, 02 July 2014 - 08:14 AM.

[Goose]

[insert faltering comparison to old rock'n roll acts here]

[ninjitsu]

Why is it getting so hostile in here?

Smokey, you keep saying that Intel is so much more $$ to get above the 8350, this really isn't all that true anymore. I've got an i5 4670k which you can pick up at a microcenter for about $190 and it beats the 8350 in video games pretty consistently.

Benchmark showing actual game FPS: http://www.bit-tech....ll-cpu-review/5

[Sug]

Smokeyjedi, on 02 July 2014 - 03:12 AM, said:

Yeah High end intel costs roughly 300$ more todo pretty much the same thing........-10fps when I am sitting @ 80+ in any game OTHER than MWO(oh crysis 3 too) on Ultra settings.....Your extra 10-15FPS costs you literally 10$ per frame per second. (FOR MWO) That is a bad deal for you. Your logic is broken. You should be nerd raging for the heavy need for you to justify your wasting of money.

Anyways...

Can you use your words and tell use exactly which CPUs you are comparing?

Smokeyjedi, on 02 July 2014 - 07:27 AM, said:

You haven't been gaming or building rigs to even speak more on this matter. (Damn close to 20 years in building gaming rigs now) I have no need to be at the absolute critical bleeding edge of technology..... cost over performance gains are diminishing returns.......so I sit back comfortably,and game.

Sorry, but read the Hardware sections on this forum. Every time someone starts a thread about why can't they get more FPS out of MWO they have an AMD cpu.

Smokeyjedi, on 02 July 2014 - 07:27 AM, said:

AMD maybe losing to INTEL on single core IPC and power now...........but you clearly don't remember they usually traded blows a lot more closely.

If by "now" you mean since 2009. Yeah, they traded blows more closely in the early 2000's when you could get about 80% of the power for 50% of the cost going with AMD, and then the heyday of AMD in the mid 2000s when AMD finally beat Intel, but when the i3/i5/i7 came out it was game over.

Smokeyjedi, on 02 July 2014 - 07:27 AM, said:

Pure Raw Uncompromised Processing Power-server in disguise?........not even in the same league as AMDs offerings. clearly out in front.

Ah. The problem is you're delusional. Maybe an AMD flagship could beat an Intel mid range but you're not getting a better deal pricewise at that point.

[Catamount]

ninjitsu, on 02 July 2014 - 08:57 AM, said:

Why is it getting so hostile in here?

Smokey, you keep saying that Intel is so much more $$ to get above the 8350, this really isn't all that true anymore. I've got an i5 4670k which you can pick up at a microcenter for about $190 and it beats the 8350 in video games pretty consistently.

Benchmark showing actual game FPS: http://www.bit-tech....ll-cpu-review/5

So does my 3570k, and while the price of either i5 is modestly more than an 8350 outside of special door-buster prices like Microcenter puts up, one also needs water cooling on that thing to even approach what I can do just with the stock Intel cooler on my 3570k, to say nothing for what I could do with a $30 Hyper 212 EVO, which an 8350 would probably need a custom liquid loop to beat, gaming-wise.

It sounds to me like the 8350 is the more expensive option, not the cheaper option.

At stock clocks for both, yeah the 8350 is cheaper (I'm not counting power; it's cheap here in the US), but it's also slower.


Now of course, were I budget-conscious and in need of the particular capabilities of the 8350, I'd feel differently. The 8350 creams an i5 in certain CPU-heavy tasks outside of the gaming world, and can even match i7s, but that's sporadic, making it a niche CPU at best.

Bulldozer/Piledriver are interesting architectures, and maybe someday, the concept will be worth a second look, but for now it's just not being realized well. Even AMD thinks so. They're abandoning clustered multi-threading, and from the sounds of it, taking more notes from Intel's current chips, with plans for the new chips around the beginning of 2016. Let's just hope price-cutting and their GPUs can carry them until then, because frankly, Bulldozer has been an unmitigated disaster. I guess AMD had to have a Netburst type fail at some point in their history.

Edited by Catamount, 02 July 2014 - 09:21 AM.

[Smokeyjedi]

What I was trying to say, Is that for 180.00$ can. for 8350 boxing day sale, 65$ for H80 same sale and http://www.asus.com/...ards/M5A97_EVO/think i got it for 89.00$ on special @ local PC store. so call it 350$ tax in. I can play ANY game extremely well, other than MWO(LOL)

Intel I7 and Mobo are going to cost you a fair bit more than 350$ most I7 are near(ish) 300$ mark........so I was saying being tech savvy and building my own has allowed me to get more for my money.

10FPS in most games above 80-90fps is measly and goes largely unnoticed. my 24/7 OC is 4765mhz, benching on Passmark above 3770 I7 stock.http:// -remember 10FPS is barely noticeable in any game over 90FPS...... But encoding is crazy fast.......

I can easily bump voltage and throw the multi up one for 5000 mhz (now i use 250X19) which benches me upto 4770 @ stock clocks..before i grabbed GSKILL SNIPER 2133 DDR3 I think tonight is a bench night.....See where I stand now.

Edited by Smokeyjedi, 02 July 2014 - 02:18 PM.