147 replies to this topic

[SethAbercromby]

Skimming through that list, I see that I actually picked a good deal with my i5 3470. At a 32 it has close to the best ratios I've seen in the top ranks and that is the best I could have asked for.

Thanks mate!

[Goose]

NikkoChan, on 24 March 2015 - 11:33 AM, said:

this is exactly the kinda system I am talking for someone who dosn't wanna spend a bunch of money and wants to play this game acceptably.

Too bad it fails to be effective: Tell me this fool thing will hold a steady 42fps when using sys_MaxFPS = 42 …

How about thirty …

Find another $200 or go home.

[xWiredx]

Bill Lumbar, on 24 March 2015 - 11:08 AM, said:

Not trying to argue with you here Wired....but my FX-8350 never felt like I was playing a slideshow even at 4.5 ghz OC and on air. This is a very mild over clock for the FX-8350... not something that can't be reached by most that own them. Just saying, seems to be a lot of trash talk about some of the Amd CPU's, and some pretty bold and extreme claims against them. There are also some pretty extreme claims from others regarding just what certain AMD CPU's can do. Either way, a few extreme opinions flying both ways.

If you never saw the slideshow on your FX system, you never entered heavy action. As I described, getting pounded by literally every member of the opposing team last night dropped me down into 10fps territory. I still see dips in the 45-50 range when I'm brawling with a lance (usually with support from my lance, too, meaning 8 people firing feverishly and sometimes overheating). I wouldn't call that a slideshow, but I have a hard time believing that an FX chip is going to keep fps that high in heavy fire situations when even in your testing the mins are 20-40% better. 20-40% is not chump change. I'll take mins of 40 over mins of 20 in heavy fire any day. If you think 20s in heavy action is fine, that's your opinion. The average gamer is not happy with that, and anything below 24 is definitely considered a slideshow.

[Lord Letto]

How interesting, the FX-8320 & the Core 2 Duo E8500 are Tied for Best Value for Money! on the GPU Side, it's a 3 Way tie for Best Value for Money, the R9 270, R7 260X & GTX 460.

With Those in mind, High End Build:
PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor ($137.95 @ SuperBiiz)
CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 Plus 76.8 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler ($19.99 @ Newegg)
Thermal Compound: Arctic Silver 5 High-Density Polysynthetic Silver 3.5g Thermal Paste ($6.89 @ SuperBiiz)
Motherboard: Asus Sabertooth 990FX R2.0 ATX AM3+ Motherboard ($175.85 @ SuperBiiz)
Memory: G.Skill Ripjaws X Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-2133 Memory ($69.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: Samsung 850 EVO-Series 120GB 2.5" Solid State Drive ($69.99 @ Amazon)
Storage: Western Digital Caviar Blue 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($53.49 @ Directron)
Video Card: Sapphire Radeon R9 270 2GB Vapor-X Video Card ($159.99 @ Newegg)
Case: Fractal Design Define R4 w/Window (Black Pearl) ATX Mid Tower Case ($78.99 @ NCIX US)
Power Supply: XFX 550W 80+ Bronze Certified ATX Power Supply ($49.99 @ NCIX US)
Optical Drive: Samsung SH-224DB/BEBE DVD/CD Writer ($14.99 @ Micro Center)
Operating System: Microsoft Windows 7 Home Premium SP1 (OEM) (64-bit) ($89.99 @ NCIX US)
Total: $926.02
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-03-24 16:25 EDT-0400

Low(er) End Build:

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo E8500 3.16Ghz Dual-Core OEM/Tray Processor ($61.99 @ SuperBiiz)
CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 Plus 76.8 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler ($19.99 @ Newegg)
Thermal Compound: Arctic Silver 5 High-Density Polysynthetic Silver 3.5g Thermal Paste ($6.89 @ SuperBiiz)
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-G41MT-S2PT Micro ATX LGA775 Motherboard ($69.99 @ Amazon)
Memory: G.Skill NS Series 4GB (1 x 4GB) DDR3-1333 Memory ($28.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: Western Digital Caviar Blue 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($53.49 @ Directron)
Video Card: Galaxy GeForce GTX 460 768MB Video Card ($115.70 @ Amazon)
Case: Thermaltake VL80001W2Z ATX Mid Tower Case ($22.99 @ Micro Center)
Power Supply: XFX 550W 80+ Bronze Certified ATX Power Supply ($49.99 @ NCIX US)
Optical Drive: Samsung SH-224DB/BEBE DVD/CD Writer ($14.99 @ Micro Center)
Operating System: Microsoft Windows 7 Home Premium SP1 (OEM) (64-bit) ($89.99 @ NCIX US)
Total: $535.00
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-03-24 16:37 EDT-0400

Edited by Lord Letto, 24 March 2015 - 12:37 PM.

[Goose]

Here ya' go, Ace:

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Core i5-4460 3.2GHz Quad-Core Processor ($178.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Motherboard: ECS Z97-PK (V1.0) Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($66.98 @ Newegg)
Memory: G.Skill Trident X Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-2400 Memory ($64.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: Toshiba Product Series:DT01ACA 2TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($72.99 @ NCIX US)
Video Card: PowerColor Radeon R9 270X 2GB PCS+ Video Card ($129.99 @ Newegg)
Case: HEC Enterprise MicroATX Mid Tower Case ($20.39 @ Amazon)
Power Supply: EVGA 500W 80+ Certified ATX Power Supply ($24.99 @ NCIX US)
Optical Drive: Samsung SH-224DB/BEBE DVD/CD Writer ($14.99 @ Micro Center)
Total: $574.31
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-03-24 16:40 EDT-0400

Base Total: $607.32
Mail-in Rebates: -$35.00
Shipping: $1.99
Total: $574.31

Could'a spent another $15 on the CPU for 100MHz; Did spend $10 more on the card, over the GTX 660 NewEgg is sick of looking at; No CPU cooler; Garbage Case (no place to add a fan, AFAICT.)

Good luck with that …

Edited by Goose, 24 March 2015 - 01:24 PM.

[Bill Lumbar]

Yes with my FX-8350 build, I have been in many "heavy" fire situations as you describe, been playing MWO for over a year now, so of coarse I have partook in them. Yes I have seen the "Slide show" I think you are talking about with my FX-8350 system, even at 5ghz OC.... However, when I did see those kinda "Slide shows", it was prior to the Dev's making a serious effort to address the very real lack of optimizations that this game is plagued with, or was plagued worse then now, after the patches. They really wasn't all to often but yes, they did happen. Many others complained of the same issues, with both Intel, and Amd systems.

I really look at the bench numbers as nothing more then a reference,( I know you frown on this to a point Wired), but what really concerns me with any of my rigs if I start seeing "lag, stutters, while looking around" or any other "slow downs" that affect my game play. I might not be as picky as some when it comes to "smooth play", but I am in fact very picky regarding my gaming rigs providing smooth game play. I don't turn a blind eye to crappy game play, I upgrade within my budget as soon as I notice problems, or not happy with my rigs. My FX-8350, regardless of the bench numbers posted by me, 95% of the time provided me with a very good gaming experience in this game, and any other game I have ever played on it with all or most of the eye candy cranked up, even at 1440P on a 32" monitor.

Also, keep in mind, that I have never touched my Con.fig files, never ran core parker, never done many of the things that some of you have done to get even better FPS on your systems in this game. That means my FX-8350 rig would of performed even better then it did, which I would of been more then happy with. As for the FPS I am fine with... I would like to never see below 40, 60+ is fine for me. If I upgrade my monitor yet again, which I doubt I will for a while, then I might not be happy with under 60 with a 120-144hz monitor.

I honestly can say however, If I was going to purchase any AMD's desktop CPU's for gaming right now, I wouldn't touch any of them except the FX-8350. When I bought my Phenom II 960T 2 years ago at Micro center on the cheap with a 970 Asrock ATX board, I could of got the FX-4100 for less or at the same cost. To be honest, I wouldn't touch the FX-4100 for a gaming rig.

Given the info out on the FX line at the time, if one looked beyond the BS and hype that was put on the FX line up, I passed and got the trusty Phenom II 960T instead. I bought it for a media build, and I have MWO installed on it and have played on it. Its been awhile, before the optimization patches since I have played on it, everything is stock, ATI 6870 2gb, 8 gb of ddr3 at 1600hz. If I remember right, game play on my 55" LG LED tv 120hz never felt "choppy" or like a "slideshow" at 1080P. My ex's son plays a lot of FPS games, and he also played MWO on the big screen and that rig, he never complained or noticed the game play being unplayable or that bad either. Like I said, I will get the clean install done on the Phenom II 960T build, and put up some numbers/benches.

Edited by Bill Lumbar, 24 March 2015 - 01:11 PM.

[Lord Letto]

Goose, on 24 March 2015 - 12:43 PM, said:

Here ya' go, Ace:

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Core i5-4460 3.2GHz Quad-Core Processor ($178.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Motherboard: ECS Z97-PK (V1.0) Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($66.98 @ Newegg)
Memory: G.Skill Trident X Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-2400 Memory ($64.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: Toshiba Product Series:DT01ACA 2TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($72.99 @ NCIX US)
Video Card: PowerColor Radeon R9 270X 2GB PCS+ Video Card ($129.99 @ Newegg)
Case: HEC Enterprise MicroATX Mid Tower Case ($20.39 @ Amazon)
Power Supply: EVGA 500W 80+ Certified ATX Power Supply ($24.99 @ NCIX US)
Optical Drive: Samsung SH-224DB/BEBE DVD/CD Writer ($14.99 @ Micro Center)
Total: $574.31
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-03-24 16:40 EDT-0400

Base Total: $607.32
Mail-in Rebates: -$35.00
Shipping: $1.99
Total: $574.31

Could'a spent another $10 on the CPU for 100MHz; Did spend $10 more on the card, over the GTX 660 NewEgg is sick of looking at; No CPU cooler; Garbage Case (no place to add a fan, AFAICT.)

Good luck with that …

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Core i5-4460 3.2GHz Quad-Core Processor ($178.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-H81M-H Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($43.98 @ Newegg)
Memory: G.Skill Ripjaws Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($54.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: Toshiba Product Series:DT01ACA 2TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($72.99 @ NCIX US)
Video Card: PowerColor Radeon R9 270X 2GB PCS+ Video Card ($129.99 @ Newegg)
Case: HEC Enterprise MicroATX Mid Tower Case ($20.39 @ Amazon)
Power Supply: EVGA 500W 80+ Certified ATX Power Supply ($24.99 @ NCIX US)
Optical Drive: Samsung SH-224DB/BEBE DVD/CD Writer ($14.99 @ Micro Center)
Total: $541.31
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-03-24 16:52 EDT-0400



Base Total: $589.32 Promo Discounts: -$5.00 Mail-in Rebates: -$45.00 Shipping: $1.99 Total: $541.31

Why Z97 when Non-K, Save by Getting a H81 (<----Sarcasm. For Future Upgrade Path to -K Series of Course).
2400MHz RAM was to Fast for MOBO, Max Supported is 1600MHz

Edited by Lord Letto, 24 March 2015 - 12:58 PM.

[Goose]

Because Memory

[Revis Volek]

ShinobiHunter, on 08 February 2015 - 08:44 AM, said:

What's up with AMD processors?

yamamoto, on 08 February 2015 - 11:41 AM, said:

Shinobi,
In spite of what everyone says about AMD procs, I play ONLY MWO with one a have no problems at all. My box uses a Phenom II X4 965 BE slightly overclocked by my MSI mobo automatically from 3.4GHz to 3.6GHz, 8G 1333 memory and an MSI GTX 650 Ti Power Edition Cyclone video card. I am always between 35-60FPS with everything on Very High. Everything is gorgeous and playable with no problems. Just my experienced opinion!

The problem is this right here, if you dont OC or throw large lumps of cash at your system (with no dancing) them they seem to be pretty subpar. Not everyone is capable of OC a system at all let alone correctly and not everyone wants to pay the price for an i7 be it in Intel or AMD form.

If you can afford it build your own, I have a rig in the works right now, without the processor I have spent $339 on a nice case, Motherboard (bulk of price so far at $109 on sale http://www.tigerdire...2476&CatId=8586 @ Tiger Direct location near me) some G Skill RAM and a 750W power Supply. Another 100 bucks and i will almost have it ready. Then i need to shell out $350 for a i7 though...

But if you can afford it go Intel but a high end AMD system will do well. Also the User.cfg files in being altered in this game can really help out AMD processors.

Edited by DarthRevis, 24 March 2015 - 02:00 PM.

[Catamount]

xWiredx, on 24 March 2015 - 12:21 PM, said:

If you never saw the slideshow on your FX system, you never entered heavy action.

It's not even just that. The FX8350 may be barely capable of staying in acceptable FPS range, though it sounds like you're saying it isn't even capable of that, but either way, it's a high end FX chip so the fact that you could even quibble about that in the first place is just a dire situation for this line of CPUs. So with FX chips you can either spend a modest amount and have them entirely fail to perform, or you can spend a considerable amount, and the price of an i5, and maybe have it rise to the level of total mediocrity, but also possibly not.

Since neither proposition is remotely good, I'd say that pretty much qualifies as AMD sucking all around in the CPU department, since no purchase gives you anything remotely worthwhile for the money spent. Sorry Bill, but there's just no dancing around this one; AMD CPUs are bad

Edited by Catamount, 24 March 2015 - 01:40 PM.

[ShinobiHunter]

Not trying to argue with anyone, since I am the noob around here, but I was under the impression FX-series CPUs don't get better single core performance as cores increase. IIRC, benchmark scores per core are effectively the same for 4350, 6350 and 8350. So in a single threaded process you will see little to no difference in CPU performance between the 8 core version and 4 core. So claiming the 8350 performs at such and such a llevel, therefore the 6350 and 4350 will be correspondingly worse, is a false assumption. Am I correct?

[Flapdrol]

the 6000 and 8000 FX's have more cache memory, so maybe slightly better per core perfomance compared to the 4000, not that much more though.

Edited by Flapdrol, 24 March 2015 - 03:00 PM.

[Goose]

ShinobiHunter, on 24 March 2015 - 02:16 PM, said:

… I was under the impression FX-series CPUs don't get better single core performance as cores increase.

http://www.anandtech...fx4300-tested/2

That's pretty close to what you are asking, but I don't think anyone, in years, has gotten together a couple different CPUs, changed their speeds to matching Hz, and then sussed out the Instruction Per Clock efficiency …

[Bill Lumbar]

Catamount, on 24 March 2015 - 01:36 PM, said:

It's not even just that. The FX8350 may be barely capable of staying in acceptable FPS range, though it sounds like you're saying it isn't even capable of that, but either way, it's a high end FX chip so the fact that you could even quibble about that in the first place is just a dire situation for this line of CPUs. So with FX chips you can either spend a modest amount and have them entirely fail to perform, or you can spend a considerable amount, and the price of an i5, and maybe have it rise to the level of total mediocrity, but also possibly not.

Since neither proposition is remotely good, I'd say that pretty much qualifies as AMD sucking all around in the CPU department, since no purchase gives you anything remotely worthwhile for the money spent. Sorry Bill, but there's just no dancing around this one; AMD CPUs are bad

Well for that matter what is acceptable to one may not be for another. That by no means makes either ones claims on face true. Anyone can argue all day long, beating the Intel/Amd argument into the ground. As you make your claims that the FX-8350 sucks/is a bad processor, I have to laugh at your claim. In my book, any processor that can convert a 51 gb fraps file, and play MWO at the same time and not have the "slideshow" issue simply can not "suck" or be a "bad one. Think what you like, I know from first hand experience working and playing with both. The truth is that the Intel's for the most part put out better numbers, my I74790K does in fact seem smoother then my FX build, but this in no way suggests or make the claim you are making true. Just because the FX-8350 doesn't "perform" as well as the I7, doesn't mean it sucks for this game or any other task on might use it for. It simply means it performs better then the FX, and at a higher cost for the extra performance.

Edited by Bill Lumbar, 24 March 2015 - 03:41 PM.

[ShinobiHunter]

Sorry to derail your argument, but how accurate is HWmonitor for FX CPU temperatures? I've heard mixed reviews for it...

[Bill Lumbar]

I use core temp..... I have also heard good things about HWmonitor... but then again I have heard that Amd's temp readings are not accurate, as in they show lower then they really are.

[PheonixStorm]

AMD are decent CPUs. I'm running a Phenom II X4 920 w/ 4GB ram and an old GTX 260 and have had no issues until after the patch on the 17th. Now I lag a bit on two maps but I still do very well. Just can't go max graphics (though honestly I haven't tried, may work but who knows).

It is true that Intel cpus are in some ways superior they are by far cheaper and on price just as good as intel. The problem is DIY builds are almost always superior to prebuilt system you can find online. Buying some companies computer comes at a price. They are bloated with useless software that takes up system resources and some of it is hard to get rid of.

[ShinobiHunter]

Thanks Bill.

[ShinobiHunter]

Just in case you're wondering, I'm running HWmonitor and CoreTemp at the same time while stress testing. So far they give identical readings

[ShinobiHunter]

How long should I leave prime95 run before trying to up my multiplier again? I know some people recommend 8 hours, but that seems a bit excessive... What are your thoughts?

Right now I'm sitting at 4.5Ghz with core voltage at 1.432V. My CPU temp is staying right around 57-58 °C