92 replies to this topic

[Kaelin]

Don't forget the most commonly overlooked 'bottleneck' in a computer system;
no point getting all the fancy CPU/GPU if you're still running a SATA1 HDD.

<EDIT> I'm not saying you have to go SSD, but certainly a SATA3 drive will make a difference.

Edited by Kaelin, 12 July 2012 - 01:18 AM.

[Taiji]

Shivus, on 12 July 2012 - 12:21 AM, said:

No one's debating that the i5 is better for its price. It's a fact. What is being debated is whether the performance of the 4100/6100 is worthwhile for its lower price. These arguments could replace AMD FX with Intel i3 and have the same validity because people are arguing "the best" not "the best for the price point and purpose."

To have a sound argument one way or the other you'd need to specify the performance level you want. It can't be said to be worthwhile until the performance it actually achieves is deemed acceptable.

If you had equivalent chips to compare then that wouldn't be the issue. But since you don't then you need to have 'acceptable' specified - No point buying the best bargain that doesn't do the job.

For this reason, if it was me buying, I'd like to see some simple but relevant benchmark comparisons before deciding.

I happen to have an I5 but I also have a 680 - which takes me way above 'acceptable' - so I can't provide anything useful in the way of benchmarks - But hopefully someone else can.

---

If we just wanted a price-point comparison based on other games then maybe look at the I3 2100 vs the FX 6100.

With the I3 you have the advantage of upgrading for cheaper, because you won't have to buy a new mobo to get an I5 in there, so that would seal it for me if the performance was acceptable.

Kaelin, on 12 July 2012 - 01:17 AM, said:

Don't forget the most commonly overlooked 'bottleneck' in a computer system;
no point getting all the fancy CPU/GPU if you're still running a SATA1 HDD.

<EDIT> I'm not saying you have to go SSD, but certainly a SATA3 drive will make a difference.

I've checked the game on my old sata 2 hdd as well as on my sata 3 ssd - The difference is barely noticeable during loading, and mainly not noticeable ingame (not worth paying extra bucks to arrive on the server first, the only difference).

Edited by Taiji, 12 July 2012 - 03:51 AM.

[Dymitry]

Wolf Kerensky, on 11 July 2012 - 12:55 PM, said:

The bottom line is, AMD works better with ATI, and Intel works better with NVIDIA.

Please not this kind of statements again, unless you have professional-grade proof of that (hint: there is not).. I thought this topic http://mwomercs.com/...hardware-guide/ had served its purpose...

[Dymitry]

generalpause, on 12 July 2012 - 01:12 AM, said:

I would recommend budgeting for an i7 ivy bridge if you can. It may add another 12-18 months life cycle on your machine. Graphics card, I have a GTX570 which does the job but the HD7770 looks okay.

I would suggest looking on graphic card comparison sites so you can see the difference in frame rate based on your budget.

Yes, and by doing that it would be obvious what Vulpes and other have said, that saving on the cpu and getting a better gpu will give better performance at little "months of life cycle" costs. Mid range is usually the sweet spot in cpus, where price/performance decay is minimized. But again, there is good data posted on this very same thread (and others) giving informed advice...

[Holywind]

I'm in the same boat as the OP 'cept my system is over 5-yrs old. I did replace the HDD and vid card (currently GeForce 450) but the rest is original. I was just gonna pick up 16-gig of ram but my mobo 780i SLI doesn't support what I wanted to get (1600 clock).

So, in order to get in line Im gonna need a new mobo, cpu, cooler, ram, SSD (want one), vid card and possibly a PSU (750 atm). The case should be fine CoolerMaster S (big but generally works okay).

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Holywind, on 12 July 2012 - 04:27 AM, said:

I'm in the same boat as the OP 'cept my system is over 5-yrs old. I did replace the HDD and vid card (currently GeForce 450) but the rest is original. I was just gonna pick up 16-gig of ram but my mobo 780i SLI doesn't support what I wanted to get (1600 clock).

So, in order to get in line Im gonna need a new mobo, cpu, cooler, ram, SSD (want one), vid card and possibly a PSU (750 atm). The case should be fine CoolerMaster S (big but generally works okay).

Unless you do something other than gaming 16Gb of RAM is overkill 8GB is perfectly fine, and the performance difference between 1333 and 1600 is next to negligible.

Depends on your budget as to your upgrade options

[Stormyblade]

I swear, Vul must be getting kickbacks from AMD - he's always bashing Intel for their supposedly horrible business ethics, their utterly poor performance in CPUs, and the saying how great AMD CPUs are because they are just made for gaming and run ridiculously fast on all of their cores...well, when you overclock them, that is.

Several years ago, and I do mean several, I would have agreed with him -- AMD definitely held the "crown" when it came to gaming rigs...and then the Quad Cores hit the streets. Since then, Intel has beaten out AMD in just about every single benchmark test, across the board, and is 2-3 generations ahead when it comes to technology leads, and has just left AMD struggling to match when it comes to CPU capability. And no, I'm not just pulling out opinion from my arse, I'm reading technical site reviews, PC magazine reviews, and talking with people who build computers. Every single person I know that tinkers with computers as a hobby, and has built several systems over the years has always gone with an Intel CPU because it just performs, and does so in an amazing fashion.

All I would say for those that are looking for a new gaming rig...don't take the word of a couple people here...get on the internet, look some stuff up, read reviews, talk to friends that have computers, or better yet, build computers and see what they use.

[Vulpesveritas]

Stormyblade, on 12 July 2012 - 04:42 AM, said:

I swear, Vul must be getting kickbacks from AMD - he's always bashing Intel for their supposedly horrible business ethics, their utterly poor performance in CPUs, and the saying how great AMD CPUs are because they are just made for gaming and run ridiculously fast on all of their cores...well, when you overclock them, that is.

Several years ago, and I do mean several, I would have agreed with him -- AMD definitely held the "crown" when it came to gaming rigs...and then the Quad Cores hit the streets. Since then, Intel has beaten out AMD in just about every single benchmark test, across the board, and is 2-3 generations ahead when it comes to technology leads, and has just left AMD struggling to match when it comes to CPU capability. And no, I'm not just pulling out opinion from my arse, I'm reading technical site reviews, PC magazine reviews, and talking with people who build computers. Every single person I know that tinkers with computers as a hobby, and has built several systems over the years has always gone with an Intel CPU because it just performs, and does so in an amazing fashion.

All I would say for those that are looking for a new gaming rig...don't take the word of a couple people here...get on the internet, look some stuff up, read reviews, talk to friends that have computers, or better yet, build computers and see what they use.

First off, I give people the best advice I can, because I'm here to help others, for no other purpose do I spend as many hours as I do on this forum.

Second, AMD still holds the statistic price / performance advantage. Do they match up to the upper end Intel quad cores? No, but they don't have to for thier price. Any gamer, once they have a decent CPU, (an i3 or FX 4170/6200/ Phenom II X4) who is in their right mind, will then put the largest amount of their budget into their graphics card in order to make their computer perform as best it can in a game, rather than limiting their system due to having a strong CPU, but no real graphics power behind it.

Third, given that there is a longer upgrade cycle on motherboards with AMD, in all likelyhood there will be more viable CPU upgrades on a CPU socket. Also with this, with the AMD CPUs being less expensive and being able to overclock, they can match many of the lower end i5s in CPU performance after overclocking. But if you want top-of-the-line performance, and you have the budget for it, Intel is the better choice.

As someone who has built computers since he was 6, and done so on a regular basis for two years, has a number of friends who build PCs, and reads reviews daily, I have also done this; I don't blindly follow the opinions of others. I read the reviews, take into account the data, and the pricing of the CPUs, think of where things should be in two years, and I make decisions on what to recommend from all of this. My recommendations are based upon my own opinions after reading data from others.

But that is in itself what I recommend, do your own research, and decide for yourself what the better way to go is - don't blindly follow another's opinion.

As far as the ethics side, Intel has committed a large number of crimes in the past, and found guilty independently by multiple governments. AMD hasn't. Not quite sure how my pointing that out and referencing sources is a problem, other than informing consumers of somthing which may or may not matter to them, and depends on the individual's opinions.

[Khan Warlock Kell]

First thanks for all the advice, Maybe it will help if i give the full details. My old desk top the the motherboard and ram have died so im looking to buy a bare bones system and put my old Blue ray and Dvd drives plus my newish sata drive in. The two systems i looked at i will give below. To be honest i have no interest or desire to overclock them Im at a stage in my life when i just want to do as little as possible to the sytem once its done.

AMD Bulldozer FX-8 Eight Core 8120
GIGABYTE GA-970A-DS3 AMD 970 Motherboard
2 x 4GB DDR3 1333Mhz Memory
PowerStation Black Edition 750W PSU


Intel Core i5 3570K Processor
Intel Z77 Express Chipset
2 x 4GB DDR3 1333Mhz Memory
PowerStation Production 500W PSU

Both systems have the same case and both are about the same price i was also looking at this GFX card

XFX AMD Radeon HD 7770 Super Overclock 1024MB GDDR5

Comments, suggestions total price for the system is £450.00

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Personally with no overclocking, i would be going the intel 3570K route.
The 7770 is ok but its a bit weak its not going to play nicely at high details and resolutions if you could stretch too a 7850/7870 you would be better off.

I would be skeptical of that 500W PowerStation PSU tho...highly skeptical.

[Vulpesveritas]

Given you're using euro pricing, I will assume UK ordering there.
AMD:

Case: http://www.amazon.co...42109340&sr=1-2 30 euro
CPU: http://www.amazon.co...2108702&sr=1-13 100 euro
Motherboard: http://www.amazon.co...42108740&sr=1-8 80 euro
RAM: http://www.amazon.co...2109032&sr=1-24 40 euro
PSU: http://www.amazon.co...42108851&sr=1-2 50 euro
GPU: http://www.amazon.co...42108825&sr=1-7 170 euro
470 euro
or GPU; http://www.amazon.co...42109470&sr=1-7
450 euro



Intel:


Case: http://www.amazon.co...42109340&sr=1-2 30 euro
CPU: http://www.amazon.co...42109609&sr=1-1 90 euro
Motherboard: http://www.amazon.co...42109658&sr=1-4 70 euro
RAM: http://www.amazon.co...2109032&sr=1-24 40 euro
PSU: http://www.amazon.co...42108851&sr=1-2 50 euro
GPU: http://www.amazon.co...42108825&sr=1-7 170 euro

You can probably find individual components for cheaper looking elsewhere, but these will be far faster than what you were looking at gaming wise. (sadly I only know Amazon for the UK)
The 6950 is about 40-50% faster overall vs the 7770.

Edited by Vulpesveritas, 12 July 2012 - 08:20 AM.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Just saying its in pounds not Euros.

The Uk does not subscribe to that sucky currency!

[Vulpesveritas]

.... okay sorry. half-ignorant American here running on three hours of sleep... again..
...
I've really got to stop staying up so late. But the other half of the cool people get on around 3AM.

[bikerbass77]

I would advise not to spend too much on the cpu and ram. To find extra performance you will be far better off looking at your graphics card and drives. An SSD will increase your loading speeds immensly and the graphics card is where 90% of your gaming performance is found. Generally when I build a gaming rig, half the money goes to the graphics card.

I would advise an I5 2500K as a cpu. It is easily overclockable (to speeds above the one you posted as an option) and will give you a few more readies to spend on the graphics card.

If you want to go down the AMD route you will save money although I would recomend going for a Phenom 2 cpu as (also stated by silentD11) the Phenom 2 has far better performance in games/clock than the Bulldozer chips.

The AMD 7770 cards are not very good gaming performers. I would look for something along the same power of the nvidia GTX460 1gb. You can do comparisons on the anandtech.com website using the bench utility. I find this very useful for chosing new gear. Another good source of info is Toms Hardware Guide.

[Vulpesveritas]

Hans Davion, on 12 July 2012 - 08:22 AM, said:

I would advise not to spend too much on the cpu and ram. To find extra performance you will be far better off looking at your graphics card and drives. An SSD will increase your loading speeds immensly and the graphics card is where 90% of your gaming performance is found. Generally when I build a gaming rig, half the money goes to the graphics card.

I would advise an I5 2500K as a cpu. It is easily overclockable (to speeds above the one you posted as an option) and will give you a few more readies to spend on the graphics card.

If you want to go down the AMD route you will save money although I would recomend going for a Phenom 2 cpu as (also stated by silentD11) the Phenom 2 has far better performance in games/clock than the Bulldozer chips.

The AMD 7770 cards are not very good gaming performers. I would look for something along the same power of the nvidia GTX460 1gb. You can do comparisons on the anandtech.com website using the bench utility. I find this very useful for chosing new gear. Another good source of info is Toms Hardware Guide.

*facepalm*
The 7770 is about the same performance as that 460 you know, it's faster than the 550ti by about 30%. Anyhow. The Radeon HD 6950 is 50% faster than the 7770 for 50£, and is the best route to go that I saw for the OP's budget.
And Games/clock doesn't matter when the FX-4170 comes clocked at stock at 4.2ghz, and the OP doesn't want to overclock.

[bikerbass77]

Wolf Kerensky, on 11 July 2012 - 12:55 PM, said:

The bottom line is, AMD works better with ATI, and Intel works better with NVIDIA.

Wrong. As a system builder I can reliably inform you that this is a commonly held misconception brought about by various marketing campaigns which distort the truth.

This is not just my opinion but one that has been confirmed by such publications as Custom PC magazine.

[Khan Warlock Kell]

Simple truth is i cant be arsed to build the system from scratch myself, i used to do it, but these days i just want to buy it already done. im thinking of going with the I5 setup and just putting another PSU in. probably a 550 watt.

Im looking at spending around around a £160 pounds on a grafix card whats peoples view on the best card for that kind of money.

thanks again for all the advice.

[Aidan]

For the CPU, stay with Intel. Why? Tri-gate 3D transistor

For the GPU, flip a coin they are both good.

Edited by Aidan, 12 July 2012 - 08:32 AM.

[grimzod]

silentD11, on 11 July 2012 - 02:39 PM, said:

Cards aren't biased by CPU. The only advantage of AMD completely is that AMD IGP can be combined with AMD discreet GPUs in some cases for a minor performance boost and AMD seems to have less chipset "screw ups" than intel does... though they've had more than their share of CPU bugs since Phenom.

However as things stand TODAY, you'll get better performance on an intel platform. AMDs new CPUs are actually slower than Phenom II clock for clock. Unless you've got something that can use those 8 cores (and games can't) Bulldozer will lose to Phenom II and get smashed by core i5/7.

cryengine 3 uses up to 8 cores...

[Vulpesveritas]

Aidan, on 12 July 2012 - 08:31 AM, said:

For the CPU, stay with Intel. Why? Tri-gate transistor

For the GPU, flip a coin they are both good.

Tri-gate transistors don't help like they were supposed to. The i3s don't have them yet, and the i5s and i7s are only 5% faster clock for clock or so...

Zakius, on 12 July 2012 - 08:31 AM, said:

Simple truth is i cant be arsed to build the system from scratch myself, i used to do it, but these days i just want to buy it already done. im thinking of going with the I5 setup and just putting another PSU in. probably a 550 watt.

Im looking at spending around around a £160 pounds on a grafix card whats peoples view on the best card for that kind of money.

thanks again for all the advice.

170: http://www.amazon.co...42108825&sr=1-7
155: http://www.amazon.co...42109470&sr=1-7

Radeon HD 6950.

Edited by Vulpesveritas, 12 July 2012 - 08:35 AM.