239 replies to this topic

[Bill Lumbar]

Kuritaclan, on 29 January 2015 - 11:02 AM, said:

Well the RAM controller in the FX Chips take RAM up to 2133MHz you get a little bit better Performance out of higher frequenzy RAM. But since you have 1866MHz stable it isn't that much of a gain. Well 5Ghz is pretty much on a 8350. Did you overclock the NB? There are a couple of FPS layed in. 16GB won't do anything 8GB are ok right now for 99% of all games. As long as you don't make photo/video editing or math processing it isn't needed to have more. However if you wanna have 16GB because of Xhundered browser tabs, it could be ok. If you make a new setup with the i7 4790k get the 2400Mhz RAM and sell your "old stuff".


The HT will help in mutithreading heavy games (mwo doesn't provide support for it right now - maybeeeee theis will come later like it was afterwords introduced to world of warcraft, but newer games by big publishers will have it most likely) - If you have the money get a i7k. If you need to stay in Budget get the i5 4690k. (Keep in mind a i5 is a worse i7/Xeon and has some damaged parts so intel labeled it an i5 and this goes down to i3 and the worst i7/Xeons are labeld as pentiums.) - I would pick up the i7 4790k since it is a bit future savety. Since the i7 4790k has 4.4Ghz Turbo and it only needs one bios click to set this frequenzy on all cores this is the minimum to chase for. With a costum Water loop you should get the i7k up to 4.7+ GHz @ 1.3V to 1.325V maximum. Its luck to get a good one, so there is no guarantee.


I don't know about the real performance of the 7970 but it is a good card. For example i have i7 4770k@4.5GHz and a GTX770 @ Full HD i'm fully over 60FPS. So i would guess your card is in the same region on Full HD. On 1440p it might by avg. the 60FPS but it may drop in some situations below it (also a matter of details you set) - To have full details a new card when it come out like the 380/390 is a reasonable deal.

I have not OC the NB at all on the FX-8350 build. I am running almost all settings in this game on High-very high, postAA, Dx11, and running full screen at 1920x1200. I used to have a Apple 30" HD display, running 2650x1600 and I didn't ever play this game on it, but all my other games ran very smooth and no issues with my 7970. From what I have seen, the XFX 7970 3gb I have performs just under or at the same as the Nvidia GTX770 card, and I picked it up for only $200 bucks around 8 months ago.

As for my usage of my rig, gaming isn't the only thing I do with it. I make videos, dabble with Shadowruns returns editor to create game content, and yes, I do a lot of multi-tasking with my rig main rig, and many times have several windows running in the back ground even when I play this game.

Some of my fraps benchmarks from my current rig.... and as I have said before I rarely see the dips in my FPS unless I hit the F11 key to do the benchmark, I at times get stutters and slow downs.... but it seems these are the "Norm" for many while playing this game, regardless if they are running a high end Intel rig, or a high end Amd rig. Most of the time I see a avg FPS of 40-50 when in normal game mode, and 32-45 in CW drops with my current system. When I am in training maps my fps push above 100. For the most part I get smooth game play, no real stutter issues, other then the ones everyone seems to get with this game. My Min fps and my avg is what I am looking to improve if I upgrade, I could care less if I see my fps hit into the 200's, I am only concerned with not seeing them hit below 50-60 and staying on avg. above 60-80.


2015-01-14 22:15:41 - MWOClient
Frames: 5148 - Time: 180000ms - Avg: 28.600 - Min: 17 - Max: 54 River city with Windows movie encoding and compressing 51gb fraps Video in back ground

2014-12-23 01:27:11 - MWOClient
Frames: 10505 - Time: 180000ms - Avg: 58.361 - Min: 34 - Max: 87

2014-12-23 19:44:14 - MWOClient
Frames: 9641 - Time: 180000ms - Avg: 53.561 - Min: 35 - Max: 88 Caustic Valley

2014-12-23 20:13:56 - MWOClient
Frames: 11033 - Time: 180000ms - Avg: 61.294 - Min: 32 - Max: 98 Viridian Bog

2014-12-23 23:31:16 - MWOClient
Frames: 10735 - Time: 180000ms - Avg: 59.639 - Min: 35 - Max: 115 Viridian Bog

2014-12-24 15:07:42 - MWOClient
Frames: 9198 - Time: 180000ms - Avg: 51.100 - Min: 30 - Max: 80 Snow map

2014-12-24 15:43:31 - MWOClient
Frames: 10703 - Time: 180000ms - Avg: 59.461 - Min: 33 - Max: 91 Viridian Bog

2014-12-24 16:37:10 - MWOClient
Frames: 11399 - Time: 180000ms - Avg: 63.328 - Min: 40 - Max: 85

2014-12-25 11:27:38 - MWOClient
Frames: 10593 - Time: 180000ms - Avg: 58.850 - Min: 32 - Max: 98 Viridian Bog

2014-12-25 11:32:35 - MWOClient
Frames: 13137 - Time: 180000ms - Avg: 72.983 - Min: 52 - Max: 110 Viridian Bog (spec)

2014-12-25 12:17:03 - MWOClient
Frames: 8959 - Time: 180000ms - Avg: 49.772 - Min: 31 - Max: 108 Viridian Bog

2014-12-25 12:35:17 - MWOClient
Frames: 8697 - Time: 180000ms - Avg: 48.317 - Min: 33 - Max: 83 Frozen city (thermal on)

2014-12-25 14:24:05 - MWOClient
Frames: 10949 - Time: 180000ms - Avg: 60.828 - Min: 36 - Max: 91

2014-12-26 13:18:53 - MWOClient
Frames: 7976 - Time: 180000ms - Avg: 44.311 - Min: 24 - Max: 74 Forsest

2014-12-26 13:38:32 - MWOClient
Frames: 10018 - Time: 180000ms - Avg: 55.656 - Min: 25 - Max: 86 Frozen City Conquest

2014-12-26 14:19:04 - MWOClient
Frames: 7877 - Time: 180000ms - Avg: 43.761 - Min: 22 - Max: 71 Forest Colony Conquest

2014-12-26 14:42:02 - MWOClient
Frames: 8461 - Time: 180000ms - Avg: 47.006 - Min: 33 - Max: 68

2014-12-26 16:22:28 - MWOClient
Frames: 10721 - Time: 180000ms - Avg: 59.561 - Min: 33 - Max: 96 Viridian Bog

2014-12-26 16:43:01 - MWOClient
Frames: 10924 - Time: 180000ms - Avg: 60.689 - Min: 34 - Max: 101

2014-12-26 20:24:08 - MWOClient
Frames: 10615 - Time: 180000ms - Avg: 58.972 - Min: 37 - Max: 107 Mining Assault


2014-12-26 21:20:05 - MWOClient
Frames: 11261 - Time: 180000ms - Avg: 62.561 - Min: 36 - Max: 98

2014-12-26 22:20:23 - MWOClient
Frames: 10631 - Time: 180000ms - Avg: 59.061 - Min: 31 - Max: 82

2014-12-26 22:40:51 - MWOClient
Frames: 11689 - Time: 180000ms - Avg: 64.939 - Min: 34 - Max: 107

2014-12-26 23:48:15 - MWOClient
Frames: 9286 - Time: 180000ms - Avg: 51.589 - Min: 14 - Max: 90

2014-12-27 01:08:31 - MWOClient
Frames: 9179 - Time: 180000ms - Avg: 50.994 - Min: 30 - Max: 85

2014-12-27 15:07:36 - MWOClient
Frames: 9047 - Time: 180000ms - Avg: 50.261 - Min: 31 - Max: 95

2014-12-27 15:25:29 - MWOClient
Frames: 8410 - Time: 180000ms - Avg: 46.722 - Min: 22 - Max: 106

2014-12-27 21:23:05 - MWOClient
Frames: 7116 - Time: 180000ms - Avg: 39.533 - Min: 27 - Max: 80

2014-12-28 17:35:26 - MWOClient
Frames: 7488 - Time: 180000ms - Avg: 41.600 - Min: 23 - Max: 60

2014-12-28 17:42:54 - MWOClient
Frames: 6447 - Time: 180000ms - Avg: 35.817 - Min: 26 - Max: 79

2014-12-28 17:46:19 - MWOClient
Frames: 7099 - Time: 180000ms - Avg: 39.439 - Min: 25 - Max: 97

2014-12-28 17:49:53 - MWOClient
Frames: 8725 - Time: 180000ms - Avg: 48.472 - Min: 26 - Max: 88

2014-12-28 18:30:49 - MWOClient
Frames: 7605 - Time: 180000ms - Avg: 42.250 - Min: 24 - Max: 62

2014-12-28 18:40:50 - MWOClient
Frames: 6024 - Time: 180000ms - Avg: 33.467 - Min: 19 - Max: 67

2014-12-28 18:44:56 - MWOClient
Frames: 6427 - Time: 180000ms - Avg: 35.706 - Min: 26 - Max: 66

2014-12-28 18:49:16 - MWOClient
Frames: 11988 - Time: 180000ms - Avg: 66.600 - Min: 14 - Max: 116

2014-12-28 19:26:59 - MWOClient
Frames: 8516 - Time: 180000ms - Avg: 47.311 - Min: 33 - Max: 76

2014-12-28 19:50:23 - MWOClient
Frames: 8984 - Time: 180000ms - Avg: 49.911 - Min: 37 - Max: 76

2014-12-28 19:57:52 - MWOClient
Frames: 10527 - Time: 180000ms - Avg: 58.483 - Min: 37 - Max: 105

2014-12-28 20:06:11 - MWOClient
Frames: 7630 - Time: 180000ms - Avg: 42.389 - Min: 27 - Max: 92

2014-12-28 20:10:02 - MWOClient
Frames: 8390 - Time: 180000ms - Avg: 46.611 - Min: 35 - Max: 95

2014-12-28 20:40:37 - MWOClient
Frames: 7023 - Time: 180000ms - Avg: 39.017 - Min: 13 - Max: 71

2014-12-28 20:46:39 - MWOClient
Frames: 6130 - Time: 180000ms - Avg: 34.056 - Min: 24 - Max: 57

2014-12-28 20:56:09 - MWOClient
Frames: 7553 - Time: 180000ms - Avg: 41.961 - Min: 25 - Max: 86

2014-12-28 21:12:12 - MWOClient
Frames: 8588 - Time: 180000ms - Avg: 47.711 - Min: 29 - Max: 57

2014-12-28 21:17:44 - MWOClient
Frames: 6604 - Time: 180000ms - Avg: 36.689 - Min: 27 - Max: 52

2014-12-28 21:23:12 - MWOClient
Frames: 7947 - Time: 180000ms - Avg: 44.150 - Min: 23 - Max: 119

2014-12-28 21:27:17 - MWOClient
Frames: 7444 - Time: 180000ms - Avg: 41.356 - Min: 25 - Max: 100

2014-12-28 21:47:09 - MWOClient
Frames: 9543 - Time: 180000ms - Avg: 53.017 - Min: 31 - Max: 99

2014-12-28 21:55:15 - MWOClient
Frames: 7430 - Time: 180000ms - Avg: 41.278 - Min: 22 - Max: 65

2014-12-28 22:01:39 - MWOClient
Frames: 7105 - Time: 180000ms - Avg: 39.472 - Min: 25 - Max: 69

2014-12-28 22:05:45 - MWOClient
Frames: 8013 - Time: 180000ms - Avg: 44.517 - Min: 26 - Max: 101

2014-12-29 17:11:58 - MWOClient
Frames: 8014 - Time: 180000ms - Avg: 44.522 - Min: 18 - Max: 59

2014-12-29 17:21:21 - MWOClient
Frames: 6609 - Time: 180000ms - Avg: 36.717 - Min: 26 - Max: 103

Edited by Bill Lumbar, 29 January 2015 - 11:24 AM.

[Bill Lumbar]

xWiredx, on 29 January 2015 - 11:19 AM, said:

Lets not drag things too off-topic with the monitor bit, but you obviously don't understand how G-sync works. G-sync is definitely a benefit. (well, for us Nvidia users - for Bill, not so much)

IPC has nothing to do with clock speed, either. Haswell-E has a very tiny, barely measurable IPC increase over Haswell/Haswell refresh due to the larger cache (and it's only really measurable at all with specific work loads). Overall per-core throughput is what you're talking about in the quote. Also, most people that are going X99 are going to be using custom loops or higher-end AIOs, and that vast majority of 5820K users are reporting 4.3-4.6GhZ (mine is at 4.37GhZ and I can tell it still has breathing room).

Either way, if you don't intend on running things that can take advantage of 6-12 cores or large amounts of memory or large amounts of memory bandwidth, then the 4790K is the way to go.

I am sorry to bring up the issue with the monitor....but it is gonna be related as I am looking to upgrade and want to make the right choice and I am kinda basing that choice off what improvements I will see in this game with a new one, paired with the right CPU, and graphics card. I have even considered getting a Nvidia card, looking at the 980, not sure yet. I wanted to hold off on the graphics card upgrade till the newer cards come out. I love my 7970, it is a great card, but the problem could be that if I upgrade to the new monitor and Intel system it might not take advantage of some of the features of the monitor I pick out. I am open to suggestions.


http://www.newegg.co...=9SIA24G1XA5336

This is going for $400 right now.

Edited by Bill Lumbar, 29 January 2015 - 11:44 AM.

[johnyboy420]

intel is overrated like you said frames are nothing and this game dose perfer 4 cores wonder why? anyways i own AMD i have friends with over clocked i5's i blow away those quad cores in ANY game that lets me use more then 4 cores get a nice AM cooler some good case fans OC that beast and Start smokeing intels for lunch

Edited by johnyboy420, 29 January 2015 - 11:36 AM.

[Flapdrol]

xWiredx, on 29 January 2015 - 11:19 AM, said:

IPC has nothing to do with clock speed, either. Haswell-E has a very tiny, barely measurable IPC increase over Haswell/Haswell refresh due to the larger cache (and it's only really measurable at all with specific work loads). Overall per-core throughput is what you're talking about in the quote. Also, most people that are going X99 are going to be using custom loops or higher-end AIOs, and that vast majority of 5820K users are reporting 4.3-4.6GhZ (mine is at 4.37GhZ and I can tell it still has breathing room).

Either way, if you don't intend on running things that can take advantage of 6-12 cores or large amounts of memory or large amounts of memory bandwidth, then the 4790K is the way to go.

It's not that tiny, look at this awfully threaded game.

easily beating the 4770K despite much lower clockspeeds, with the very high stock clock of the 4790K it should be about on par, but the haswell E should have more overclocking headroom.

Of course there's the extra cost to consider.

[johnyboy420]

synthetic BM done by sites mean nothing

[Kuritaclan]

Quote

Lets not drag things too off-topic with the monitor bit, but you obviously don't understand how G-sync works. G-sync is definitely a benefit. (well, for us Nvidia users - for Bill, not so much)

An Asus Rog Swift costs pretty much money and you need a nv gpu. Yes i know what g-sync does and the the Hz will be equaly set to the fps - in short words. But a combo of a GTX980+this monitor with g-sync module isn't cheap. And i wouldn't spend the money into this. - First i would see what AMD does with Free Sync, and when this will be "bad" then nv would be a option too.

Quote

IPC has nothing to do with clock speed, either. Haswell-E has a very tiny, barely measurable IPC increase over Haswell/Haswell refresh due to the larger cache (and it's only really measurable at all with specific work loads). Overall per-core throughput is what you're talking about in the quote. Also, most people that are going X99 are going to be using custom loops or higher-end AIOs, and that vast majority of 5820K users are reporting 4.3-4.6GhZ (mine is at 4.37GhZ and I can tell it still has breathing room).

The IPC is linked to the clock speed and so to the performance of the cpu (http://en.wikipedia....tions_per_cycle)
for the record wikipedia quote: "The number of instructions per second and floating point operations per second for a processor can be derived by multiplying the instructions per cycle and the clock speed (measured in cycles per second or Hertz) of the processor in question. The number of instructions per second is an approximate indicator of the likely performance of the processor.", that is why you push up the frequency of the cpu to get a better performance since you multiply the ipc per core (and all cores/threads together the multithreading performance). And yes you are right architecture and things like cache are the thing.

A X99 4.2 Ghz CPU don't have the IPC of a 4.7GHz Soc1150 i7 4790k. And yes with Waterloop you see some more MHz than on air but this is alos true for a i7 4790k. - Pushing CPUs on the X99 into high clock regions needs heavy input and core voltages. I was latly talking with a couple oc-league-people and how long it takes to select a cpu sample to get a really good oc cpu. Too select a good cpu you have to test hundreds of cpus. To get a good Core i7-5960X what has minimum 4.5Ghz under water loop, it takes a really long time and therfore builds like this rig are that expensive: https://www.caseking...kue::30165.html - The 5820k with 2 less cores are more likely to get the 4.5Ghz but many don't reach it with a reasonable 24/7 input/core voltage. Overclocking such a pice of hardware worth of many 100 bucks is a thing no novice should do, or at least should have advice by people who know what they are doing.

Quote

Either way, if you don't intend on running things that can take advantage of 6-12 cores or large amounts of memory or large amounts of memory bandwidth, then the 4790K is the way to go.

Yupp. Totally right.

Flapdrol, on 29 January 2015 - 11:38 AM, said:

It's not that tiny, look at this awfully threaded game.

easily beating the 4770K despite much lower clockspeeds, with the very high stock clock of the 4790K it should be about on par, but the haswell E should have more overclocking headroom.

Of course there's the extra cost to consider.

This won't change any time soon. So a i7k Haswell Refresh is mostelikely faster than a Haswell-E in this game!

But Bill Lumbar stated he does also do:

Quote

"As for my usage of my rig, gaming isn't the only thing I do with it. I make videos, dabble with Shadowruns returns editor to create game content, and yes, I do a lot of multi-tasking with my rig main rig, and many times have several windows running in the back ground even when I play this game."

I would guess a X99 Rig will be an option in this case.

Edited by Kuritaclan, 29 January 2015 - 11:58 AM.

[johnyboy420]

Factors governing IPC

A given level of instructions per second can be achieved with a high IPC and a low clock speed (like the AMD Athlon and Intel's Core Series), or from a low IPC and high clock speed (like the Intel Pentium 4 and to a lesser extent the AMD Bulldozer). Both are valid processor designs, and the choice between the two is often dictated by history, engineering constraints, or marketing pressures.

so Fanbois, intels wads of cash, and games that work better with quads still.

sounds about right

Edited by johnyboy420, 29 January 2015 - 12:00 PM.

[Kuritaclan]

johnyboy420, on 29 January 2015 - 11:58 AM, said:

Factors governing IPC

A given level of instructions per second can be achieved with a high IPC and a low clock speed (like the AMD Athlon and Intel's Core Series), or from a low IPC and high clock speed (like the Intel Pentium 4 and to a lesser extent the AMD Bulldozer). Both are valid processor designs, and the choice between the two is often dictated by history, engineering constraints, or marketing pressures.

so Fanbois, intels wads of cash, and **** games perfer quads still.

sounds about right

AMD Bulldozer is the wrong architekture in the nowadys timeframe. AMD did it wrong they speculated on much more games with heavy multithreading optimization. And the market doesn't delivered many of those games. So Bulldozer CPUs like the AM3+ FX8XXX CPUs arn't good for gaming right now. And the best example to explain why this is the case are games like MWO. So stop hate on Intel. AMD did it wrong Intel did it right. If Zen in 2 years will make up this problem the cards get newly mixed. But until then there is no recommandation for an AMD Rig for Gaming out of my mouth.

Edited by Kuritaclan, 29 January 2015 - 12:04 PM.

[Bill Lumbar]

http://www.newegg.co...N82E16824014372

I think this is the one I am going with for sure... it looks like a winner! I also think I will be going with the Intel I7 4970K and the Asus Z97 hero II board with 16 GB of G.skill Trident or ripjaw 1866 ram. I am also in the works on completely changing up my case and building a new wall mount "case" and reworking my water loop.... making some changes. Wish me luck...

I was looking at this monitor with the 144 refresh rate... but I really just don't think I can get used to going to only 1080P and on a 27" i just can't picture it.

http://www.amazon.co...customerReviews

this is what the idea behind the new wall mount "case will look like or similar to. I like this guys ideas, and I have a few of my own. I believe he used the 3m carbon fiber material to make his wall mounted case, and the guy does some really nice work.

https://www.youtube....ayer_detailpage

https://www.youtube....-yt-cl=85027636

I believe this is his personal build he did for himself. I like it, and I think I am gonna take some of his ideas and run with this.....

https://www.youtube....-yt-cl=85027636

Edited by Bill Lumbar, 29 January 2015 - 03:29 PM.

[Kuritaclan]

I would recomand this RAM: http://www.newegg.co...N82E16820231589 for your i7k. If you wanna dunk the money in the hero it is your choise.

Jus w8 for monitor upgrade until the new amd card generation is up, and then you can choose what you will go to.

[Bill Lumbar]

Kuritaclan, on 29 January 2015 - 03:25 PM, said:

I would recomand this RAM: http://www.newegg.co...N82E16820231589 for your i7k. If you wanna dunk the money in the hero it is your choise.

Jus w8 for monitor upgrade until the new amd card generation is up, and then you can choose what you will go to.

I am now looking into this mother board instead of the Asus Hero II. It looks very solid and is the top of the line for the AsRock boards. They was out of stock on it yesterday, and its back in stock now. What do you guys think of it?

http://www.newegg.co...N82E16813157502

[Kuritaclan]

Well if you wanna a have a ln2 ready oc board you can go for a oc formula. It is ok.It is a usable Board: http://www.tweaktown...7ghz/index.html

[Flapdrol]

Bill Lumbar, on 29 January 2015 - 03:17 PM, said:

http://www.newegg.co...N82E16824014372

I think this is the one I am going with for sure... it looks like a winner

I'd still recommend waiting for freesync screens, or get a gsync screen. There are even 2560x1440 144hz non TN variants in the making.

[Bill Lumbar]

Flapdrol, on 29 January 2015 - 04:03 PM, said:

I'd still recommend waiting for freesync screens, or get a gsync screen. There are even 2560x1440 144hz non TN variants in the making.

Eta on these?

[Flapdrol]

Bill Lumbar, on 29 January 2015 - 04:32 PM, said:

Eta on these?

March, afaik.

[Lancer III]

I love to sit back and read these types of debates. I have two rigs. Both XFX mobos same specs different CPU sockets, one AMD FX-8350 and one Intel i7-4770k. Both rigs exactly the same otherwise. NVidia GTX 970 SC, 16GB corsair vengeance pro, Samsung 850 Evo SSDs. Neither of the systems are OC'd, either CPU or GPU.

I can run both rigs on the highest settings in MWO at roughly the same FPS, usually around 50-60 until the LRMs start flying. Both rigs run at approx. 20% CPU and the GPUs aren't taxed either.

Basically, buy the cheaper CPU, don't cheap out on the GPU or Memory and you are good to go. There are times and places where the CPU matters. This just isn't one of them.

NOTE: My kid has a dual core AMD A4 processor with ATI HD 7870. Still can play MWO on highest settings. It's all just one more example of CPU not being an issue.

[Odins Fist]

Bill Lumbar, on 29 January 2015 - 10:58 AM, said:

Funny.... I have had the cash over the last two years when I bought two new systems, and I went with AMD regardless.

Then you're either a Fan-Boy or Naive..

Overall intel CPUs are better, that's a widely accepted fact across the board.
The only people that do NOT accept that fact are in denial or they have an agenda.

Boot up almost ANY RTS title with tons of units on a map and watch intel literally slap AMD around.

I watched an FX-8350 @4.8ghz go into chug-Lag mode 100% usage, while a 4770k @4.1ghz still had 20% CPU usage left to go and was not chug-lagged out on RTS like Forged Alliance modded, then SOASE modded in the same day at my place.

I don't care about converting video, neither do 99.9999% of the people I know that still argue about AMD CPUs versus intel CPUs..

It amazes me when people actually see an Intel chip NOT OC'd as high as an AMD chip out perform the AMD chip, and they STILL make excuses.

I skipped the ENTIRE FX series, I even still have 2 top end 990-FX Asus Mobos, got them before reviews were out for FX-series CPUs.. As soon as I saw the reviews I waited to see if the update of Bulldozer to Piledriver would make them worth the money to upgrade... IT DIDN'T. I kept my Phenom II thubans clocked them a little higher on water and forgot about FX-series CPUs.

Even AMD admitted that the FX-series CPUs were a flop... What more do you need to know..??

EDIT: I was an AMD guy for a decade, now i'm not.
That should say it all right there.

ALSO edited: 8350 was at 4.8 not 4.9 typo.

Edited by Odins Fist, 29 January 2015 - 05:39 PM.

[xWiredx]

Lancer III, on 29 January 2015 - 05:19 PM, said:

I love to sit back and read these types of debates. I have two rigs. Both XFX mobos same specs different CPU sockets, one AMD FX-8350 and one Intel i7-4770k. Both rigs exactly the same otherwise. NVidia GTX 970 SC, 16GB corsair vengeance pro, Samsung 850 Evo SSDs. Neither of the systems are OC'd, either CPU or GPU.

I can run both rigs on the highest settings in MWO at roughly the same FPS, usually around 50-60 until the LRMs start flying. Both rigs run at approx. 20% CPU and the GPUs aren't taxed either.

Basically, buy the cheaper CPU, don't cheap out on the GPU or Memory and you are good to go. There are times and places where the CPU matters. This just isn't one of them.

NOTE: My kid has a dual core AMD A4 processor with ATI HD 7870. Still can play MWO on highest settings. It's all just one more example of CPU not being an issue.

We've tested what you've stated above to death and you are wrong. Factually wrong. We have lots and lots of numbers to prove it. There are threads with pages and pages of numbers. In fact, the Bill Lumbar you see slightly above your post, the guy posting about possibly building an Intel rig and getting a new monitor, contributed quite a few batches of numbers with his AMD system. He even started out saying the same things you just said.

The fact of the matter is that AMD CPUs lack the brute force to deal with the various things sitting under the hood of the more CPU-intensive settings (shadows, particles). At 4.2GhZ, Haswell showed something like 20-33% better performance than Piledriver at like 4.9 or 5.0GhZ.

[Lancer III]

You still are missing my point. I'm not debating the CPU. I simply saying buy the better GPU. Even a really Crappy CPU will work if the GPU is good.

[Odins Fist]

Lancer III, on 29 January 2015 - 05:55 PM, said:

You still are missing my point. I'm not debating the CPU. I simply saying buy the better GPU. Even a really Crappy CPU will work if the GPU is good.

uh... what..??