32 replies to this topic

[Catamount]

The IHS issue is something that plagues almost all Intel CPUs in the sense that the cheap cement used is a poor heat conductor, but Intel chips usually OC fine regardless. Most IBs run out of voltage before temperature on a decent cooler. Only a few people, like me, have a real problem, and while, yes, I did have to delid to fix it for overclocking, no I will not have to "change the paste every six months" because I choose something that's going to stick around (IC Diamond 7).

Moreover, I would take an Intel chip at stock or with a weak overclock over an AMD chip with a high overclock, so even if you hit that rare worst case scenarion and lose badly on the IHS lottery, and can't take a half hour and $20 to fix it, you're still better off with Intel. I can't think of any matchup at this point where AMD is delivering even comparable performance.

I agree completely with DV. If you want faster performance, get a Pentium K G3258, a board that will OC it (many Hxx/Bxx boards now have OCing unlocked, especially from Asus, Gigabyte and Asrock), get the cooler he recommended, and you have your best udget option there. If getting sucky fps in MWO is okay because other games do okay, then you're already set.

Edited by Catamount, 12 October 2014 - 07:29 AM.

[ninjitsu]

DV McKenna, on 12 October 2014 - 02:25 AM, said:

Ivy Bridge had this issue on a small % of chips, but it is also a process that has been around before Ivybridge mainly for hardcore overclockers (to an extent it still is) as a means to get lower temps to eeek out that slightly higher clock.

Either way, trying to say that AMD chips with higher power requirements run cooler is false equal system to system the AMD chips will always run warmer due to their higher TDP.

This!

A 125 watt CPU is always going to run hotter than an 84 watt cpu. I've run AMD and Intel. my FX series chip ran way hotter than my i5 I've got now. In their current state, AMD processors are pretty poor.

[Catamount]

Don't forget that they also have much lower temperature tolerance. FX chips are junk, leaving Phenom IIs as the passable chips, but they're 125W chips that die if they get above 62C. Meanwhile my 77W Ivy is not only much harder to get how, but could get up to 80 or 90 and not be bothered by temps that would murder AMD chips.

[Dazi_Shimazu]

DV McKenna, on 12 October 2014 - 02:25 AM, said:

Ivy Bridge had this issue on a small % of chips, but it is also a process that has been around before Ivybridge mainly for hardcore overclockers (to an extent it still is) as a means to get lower temps to eeek out that slightly higher clock.

Either way, trying to say that AMD chips with higher power requirements run cooler is false equal system to system the AMD chips will always run warmer due to their higher TDP.

Hmmm, did I ever refer to AMD processors running cooler than Intel? However, I killed this issue real quick on my 9590 by being on a watercooling setup which all my system has had since 10 years ago. Except I did have to boost the radiator some. My system will hit about 55 and goes no further, even with slight overclocking. A closed system cpu watercooler with 120x120x25mm will remove any doubt from nearly all systems, Intel or AMD, unless you need to replace paste. I don't know anyone, myself, that runs less than a closed, self-contained cpu watercooler. I know people do use CPU fans still... my case temps can be a bit of an issue with a 1600 watt power supply, yeah I don't need it but I planned for future upgrades. Also have 3 video cards hurts the case temps too.

Also does Intel overclocking only work on the turbo mode, I recall this was the way they did it a while ago, did they change it? Have they ever had an issue where the CPU tried to clock itself down during usage to non-turbo clock like a bad video card can or a card where you don't disable Ultra Low power State? Just a curious question... AMD Overclocks the stock clocks and thus you disable the turbo mode so all the time you are all ways at the clock you set.

[Catamount]

Intel can display either behavior. You adjust the 4-core turbo typically via the multiplier, and you can turn off the downclock feature, but no one does. There's no reason to. When the chip needs performance the OC clock and voltage kicks in. When it doesn't, both sit reduced, and it's a win-win, because then you don't burn up your chip with overvoltage long term like a constant OC that never lets up. It causes no performance problems, though the transition can cause instability for an OC, which you just fix by tweaking VDROOP.

[Clit Beastwood]

Schwarz Drachen, on 11 October 2014 - 01:30 PM, said:

Hey Bloodwolf, stay with AMD. The intels run really hot and have some issues with the cpu glue where you need to replace it every six months. While the AMD chipset will keep cool under a lot of stress.

Blood wolf, disregard the above post due to inaccuracy.

There was a very small range of intel cpu's with incorrectly applied heat spreaders, but by and large the Intels run cooler, and are more powerful per watt of electricity consumed. As MWO is poorly optimized for multiple cores, the fewer more powerful cores of an Intel is of greater benefit than several lesser cores with AMD. I am a long-time AMD fan, but when I built a machine specifically for MWO it was intel all the way. If you are near a Microcenter store, their CPU/motherboard bundle prices are really hard to beat.

For reference, my Intel CPU (3770k, selected due to the heat spreader NOT being soldered on) oc'd fine to 4.6 without the lid on it. After delidding, 4.9ghz and it's still relatively cool. Using a corsair h110 cooler. I typically leave it at 4.6 or 4.8 OC for daily use unless I need the higher OC for something.

Edited by Fierostetz, 13 October 2014 - 09:17 AM.

[Odins Fist]

Catamount, on 12 October 2014 - 10:17 AM, said:

FX chips are junk, leaving Phenom IIs as the passable chips,

Wow I never thought I would see this come from you...

Remember when you used to defend FX CPUs, and I said they were trash.

I'm glad you finally saw the light.. LOL-J/K

[Catamount]

Hey, even us fanboys have to admit defeat at some point! AMD... y u do dis

Edited by Catamount, 13 October 2014 - 10:04 AM.

[BLOOD WOLF]

One thing I love about these forums is the Invaluable information you can get. Thanks everyone,

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 18 October 2014 - 01:22 PM.

[Napoleon_Blownapart]

does his mb even support FX? i just went from an athlonx4 to an fx8350 and saw a definate improvement im not saying it beats an intel but in my situation i had to replace my amd mb before i could replace my cpu, so just saying fx sucks without saying the 4ghz clock will get you more fps is misleading.

if youre upgrading your mb you need to decide if you want it to run your current cpu or AMD or Intel

you might just get an improvement with a pcie2 slots bandwith on a new mb.

[EnzyteBob82]

Im not going to pretend I know even as much as 10% about hardware as most of you here, but I dont understand why you guys say that the Phenom II x4 is better than FX. Maybe this is the case with the 4xxx series first gen, or any of the first gen FX's, but I have to say that going from a Phenom II x4 970 @4.1Ghz, to a FX 8350 at the stock 4.0 Ghz made a world of difference for me.

In the OP's case, going to Intel with new board, CPU, and all the trimmings seems like the way to go. I know its not a cheap solution, but if he wants something playable (at least by my standards) there is no cheap solution. I dont see any reason to spend money on upgrades that are going to only give him marginal gains when the money could be going into things that will not only give him really nice improvements, but breathe new life into his setup for the next couple years or even more.

[BLOOD WOLF]

Update, turns out I have A FOXCONN 2a29 mother board. Which locks my CPU so I cant overclock it. I heard I can get it to 3.2 or 3.5 and seen it but my motherboard is made so the CPU cant be overclocked.

I edited my User configs and it got me some increases but Unless I can clock my CPU up I am not going to see good FPS any time soon.

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 25 October 2014 - 11:27 AM.

[Flapdrol]

EnzyteBob82, on 25 October 2014 - 10:44 AM, said:

Im not going to pretend I know even as much as 10% about hardware as most of you here, but I dont understand why you guys say that the Phenom II x4 is better than FX. Maybe this is the case with the 4xxx series first gen, or any of the first gen FX's, but I have to say that going from a Phenom II x4 970 @4.1Ghz, to a FX 8350 at the stock 4.0 Ghz made a world of difference for me.

In the OP's case, going to Intel with new board, CPU, and all the trimmings seems like the way to go. I know its not a cheap solution, but if he wants something playable (at least by my standards) there is no cheap solution. I dont see any reason to spend money on upgrades that are going to only give him marginal gains when the money could be going into things that will not only give him really nice improvements, but breathe new life into his setup for the next couple years or even more.

The higher end Phenom II's has better per-core performance than most FX x1xx cpu's, with the x3xx they improved the uncore and increased clocks, so they do outperform the Phenom II's. But since phenom II's are only marginally faster than core2quads that's not really a great achievement.

Phenom II was a good chip because it competed with core2quads and the much more expensive socket 1366 based i7's.