92 replies to this topic

[bikerbass77]

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).

It is not worth upgrading beyond 8gb ram. Usually it is not worth upgrading past 4gb. This is because Windows 7 has a 2gb limit for how much memory can be assigned to each program. I personally have never met the 4gb threshold and the only reason I recomend 8gb is for value of money as ram is so cheap these days.
Also the maximum that Windows 7 Home Premium can use is 16gb.

Edited by Hans Davion, 12 July 2012 - 08:43 AM.

[Aidan]

Vulpesveritas, on 12 July 2012 - 08:34 AM, said:

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...

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

Radeon HD 6950.

The new Tri-gates are a Tick cycle. They are a manufacturing improvement not a micro-architecture advancement. Hence, there is only a marginal performance improvement over the previous generation. They do take less electrical power to run.

[Vulpesveritas]

Aidan, on 12 July 2012 - 08:45 AM, said:

The new Tri-gates are a Tick cycle. They are a manufacturing improvement not a micro-architecture advancement. Hence, there is only a marginal performance improvement over the previous generation. They do take less electrical power to run.

Which hardly really matters unless you need to have a low power consumption system, so I don't see why it would be a big deal to have them for the OP, unless a: he needs a low power consuming system, or B: Electricity is 4x+ more expensive than in the UK vs the USA.

[bikerbass77]

Vulpesveritas, on 12 July 2012 - 08:26 AM, said:

*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.

Check your facts before comenting please. The hd7770 is about 8fps behind the gtx460 1gb in crysis warhead running at 1680x1050. This is from the Anandtech bench utility.

So you can slap face as much as you like. It might sting after a while though...

Edited by Hans Davion, 12 July 2012 - 08:50 AM.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Hans Davion, on 12 July 2012 - 08:49 AM, said:

Check your facts before comenting please. The hd7770 is about 8fps behind the gtx460 1gb in crysis warhead running at 1680x1050. This is from the Anandtech bench utility.

So you can slap face as much as you like. It might sting after a while though...

You know that crysis warhead runs on a different engine right?

So about those facts?

Now if you compare it to Crysis 2 which is the right version of the engine in use the results are still about right for your assessment for Dx9, Direct x 11 however...its much closer

Edited by DV McKenna, 12 July 2012 - 08:59 AM.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Oh and for comparison 7850/7870.

DX 9


DX 11

[bikerbass77]

DV McKenna, on 12 July 2012 - 08:56 AM, said:

You know that crysis warhead runs on a different engine right?

So about those facts?

Now if you compare it to Crysis 2 which is the right version of the engine in use the results are still about right for your assessment for Dx9, Direct x 11 however...its much closer

Which graph shows the 460's lead increase to 14.6 fps at peak rate. Sure I was looking at the older engine, this was because they are related and the bench utility does not show the Cryengine 3 scores.

I must admit I did not think the review for the 7770 would include figures for the 460. And Cryengine 2 is dx 10.1

[Alcatraz968]

Intel I5 is 3570k will blow any AMD chip out of the water. More cores are not always better.

But if your money limited (Guessing by your graphics card choices), a older I5 2500k still kicks but.

As for a better, cheaper GPU.
http://www.microcent...duct_id=0365380 $200

http://www.microcent...duct_id=0394070 $114

http://www.microcent...duct_id=0360190 $150

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Hans Davion, on 12 July 2012 - 09:07 AM, said:

Which graph shows the 460's lead increase to 14.6 fps at peak rate. Sure I was looking at the older engine, this was because they are related and the bench utility does not show the Cryengine 3 scores.

I must admit I did not think the review for the 7770 would include figures for the 460. And Cryengine 2 is dx 10.1

It shows the 460 has the lead in DX 9 gaming, In DX 11 Gaming they are equal. and those results are taken from Crysis 2 on Cry Engine 3 the same as MWO.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Alcatraz968, on 12 July 2012 - 09:10 AM, said:

Intel I5 is 3570k will blow any AMD chip out of the water. More cores are not always better.

But if your money limited (Guessing by your graphics card choices), a older I5 2500k still kicks but.

As for a better, cheaper GPU.
http://www.microcent...duct_id=0365380 $200

http://www.microcent...duct_id=0394070 $114

http://www.microcent...duct_id=0360190 $150

While the 560TI is a better card, i have to question the wisdom of getting the 384 core version for $200 when for an extra $39.99 you can get the 448 version from newegg that is a much better card..

[Aidan]

Vulpesveritas, on 12 July 2012 - 08:47 AM, said:

Which hardly really matters unless you need to have a low power consumption system, so I don't see why it would be a big deal to have them for the OP, unless a: he needs a low power consuming system, or B: Electricity is 4x+ more expensive than in the UK vs the USA.

Because the transistor technology is better. AMD will not have this architecture for a couple of years. Intel has better products, better basic research, and better manufacturing processes. This is really a no brainer.

[Vulpesveritas]

AMD also prices their processors to be competitive. Intel may have superior chips, but AMD still competes in price/ performance.

[darknothing]

An i3 outperforms all amd chips, going amd CPU is a joke look at tomhardware.
Even the core2duo outperform all amd chips CPU wise.
Best amd chip is the fx 4100 based on CPU benchmarks, but dosnt beat any intel chipsets
http://m.tomshardwar...clock,3106.html

I was going to get a fm2 processor when they come out but based on amds past benchmarks I'll pass.
The i5 2500 I will be getting will last a long time before I need an upgrade.

[Dymitry]

Intel's shady business practices over the years have been well proven and documented. That alone, to me and others, is a good reason to give amd a second thought, even when they are not holding the performance edge, like now, and even if they weren't selling at the cheap prices they do, and I do not think that this is not fanboyism nor an arguable point, in honesty.

Thing is, a modern amd build is perfectly capable of giving a great end user experience at any price point, especially in the mid-low sectors. Unless the X user idea of great experience is running synthetic benchmarks and punching his chest.

[silentD11]

darknothing, on 12 July 2012 - 09:39 AM, said:

An i3 outperforms all amd chips, going amd CPU is a joke look at tomhardware.
Even the core2duo outperform all amd chips CPU wise.
Best amd chip is the fx 4100 based on CPU benchmarks, but dosnt beat any intel chipsets
http://m.tomshardwar...clock,3106.html

I was going to get a fm2 processor when they come out but based on amds past benchmarks I'll pass.
The i5 2500 I will be getting will last a long time before I need an upgrade.

I'll save you all some time and sum it up easier. AMD hasn't been worth a warm bucket of spit compared to intel outside of certain server workloads since the core2 duo hit. Unless you're running some very specific software, AMD sucks. Furthermore while intels core2 quad beat Phenom II, intel has only become faster with i5/i7 while AMD has actually gotten worse with Bulldozer. It's a comical and nearly epic fail.

The ONLY advantages of AMD have been slightly more reliable chipsets (p55 and p67 were plauged with problems on release), and the fact that socket AM3/3+ have enabled a far more sensible upgrade path compared to intel's idiotic behavior with constantly changing sockets and chipsets. Of course, intels high end chipsets (x58 and x79) were flawless.

Unless you're absolutely penny pinching there is no reason to use AMD for a desktop or a gaming PC. And if you're that broke PC gaming is far too expensive of a hobby anyways.

Maybe piledriver will fix things, but even AMD admits they have given up in the desktop CPU wars.

[C u j o]

Vulpesveritas, on 12 July 2012 - 07:12 AM, said:

Second, AMD still holds the statistic price / performance advantage.

What planet do you live on?


http://www.tomshardw...ock,3106-2.html

Quote

Pentium G630
It turns out that the budget-oriented Sandy Bridge-based Pentium family performs very well in games. Specifically, Intel's $70 Pentium G630 beat the FX-4100, -6100, and -8120 in our recent sub-200 CPU gaming comparison. In fact, it finished right on par with the Phenon II X4 955.
As a result, Intel displaces AMD at the bottom rung of our recommendation list yet again this month. There's not much else to add, except that if you consider the Phenom II X4 to be a capable gaming CPU, Intel's Pentium G630 is just as viable.

and

Quote

Pentium G860
An extra $30 buys you 300 MHz more compared to the $70 Pentium G630.
This makes enough of a performance difference to push today's $100 processor recommendation out in front of AMD's Phenom II X4 955 in our sub-$200 CPU gaming comparison. Because the LGA 1155-based Core i3s and Pentiums are unfortunately crippled by locked multiplier ratios, paying a little extra for more stock frequency could be worth the added cost in this case.

[C u j o]

Vulpesveritas, on 12 July 2012 - 07:12 AM, said:

Second, AMD still holds the statistic price / performance advantage.



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.

http://www.tomshardw...rk,3120-10.html

Quote

With the sub-$100 Pentiums performing so well, Intel's $125 Core i3-2100 easily beats more expensive Phenom II and FX models. And the $190 Core i5-2400 dominates the sub-$200 landscape without challenge, really. As such, we're almost-shockingly left without an AMD CPU to recommend at any price point.
While it’s true that AMD’s multiplier-unlocked models appeal to tweak-happy power users, the company's overclocked game performance manages to either hang close to or fall just behind Intel's stock Core i3-2100. Pumping up voltage, multipliers, and, consequently, power usage seems like a futile exercise just to keep pace with an efficient $125 budget-oriented chip running at its default settings.

[Shivus]

Tom's flipflops a bit there.

http://www.tomshardw...ock,3106-5.html

According to their own CPU hierarchy chart, the FX-4170 (factory overclocked 4100) and by extension, all FX chips (because they can all reach the same or near the same overclock) are good upgrades to the G series because they would be two tiers above.

And note that they would be correctly placed two tiers below the i5 2500k.

That said if the 8 cores are in your budget, there's no reason to not go for the i5 unless you're running VM's. But the 4100 and 6100 would remain good buys for the price.

Edited by Shivus, 12 July 2012 - 03:16 PM.

[Tori Migaku]

i'm personaly just getting a fx 4100 then upgrading to a 6 or 8 core piledriver when they come out.

[Vulpesveritas]

@c u j o, how many post 2010 games or multithteaded applications did they run? Any cpu load tests? Overclocking?

kind of pointless when the majority of programs they chose to bench arlre dual threaded or less, and the tests were done on a clean system. All those synthetic benchmarks show is single thread performance.