14 replies to this topic

[Tearlach]

So I have been buildng Intel Systems since my first 486 back in the early 90s. Have never used anything but Nvidia either. Just for fun I want to mess around with AMD as strictly a gaming machine. This is what I am proposing on buying and I am pretty much in my budget. Anyone make any changes and still stay at the price point I am at.

CPU:
http://www.newegg.co...N82E16819113286

MB:
http://www.newegg.co...N82E16813157281

GPU:
http://www.newegg.co...N82E16814131473

Mem:
http://www.newegg.co...N82E16820233248

HD:
http://www.newegg.co...N82E16822148868

SPU:
http://www.newegg.co...N82E16829132052

OS:
Windows 7 Professional x64

[Barbaric Soul]

I'd suggest changing the CPU from that 6100 Zambezi core cpu to the 6300 Vishera. Zambezi core are about as fast as the old core2quads/phenom II processors mhz for mhz. The Vishera core cpu is about as fast as Intel's i5's. If you don't know the difference in performance between the two cores, here is a comparison between the eight core 8150 Zambezi and the 8350 eight core Vishera. The difference between the 6100 and the 6300 will be about the same- http://www.anandtech...duct/697?vs=434

[Sen]

Counter swap: substitute an intel i5 3570 for a rather decent performance increase over vizshera 8350, while benefiting from the lower power consumption. i5 3570k is about $219 on newegg, which the same price as the 8350 as well.

[8350, he said FX6100! Why would you recommend something apples to oranges?]

---------answer----------- Because that's the BEST of what AMD has to offer, the price difference is relatively modest [at least for intel] and you're talking HUGE performance gains per dollar spent.


If price is really that tight, here's a less expensive i5 for your consideration:

http://www.newegg.co...N82E16819115089

But in all honesty, you're better off parting with the extra $70 or so in terms of how long your rig will stay "current"

Edited by Sen, 22 November 2012 - 05:55 PM.

[Barbaric Soul]

I guess some people just dont fully read a post before replying. The OP said they wanted to biuld a AMD CPU/GPU system because they never built one before.

Quote

Just for fun I want to mess around with AMD as strictly a gaming machine.

Oh and since you said

Quote

Counter swap: substitute an intel i5 3570 for a rather decent performance increase over vizshera 8350,

Mind providing some proof to back that statement? Because from everything I've seen, the 8350 is equal to the I5 in single threaded performance(mhz to mhz) and equal to a i7 in multithreaded performance. According to Anandtect and thier benchmark results, it looks like the 8350 edges out the 3770k in ALOT of the benchmarks, like 32 out of 37 benchmarks. Maybe not by much, but it does. http://www.anandtech...duct/697?vs=551

Edited by Barbaric Soul, 23 November 2012 - 03:11 AM.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Agreed on the lack of reading comprehension.

It always seems AMD chips lag behind on the gaming benchmarks, which is sad to see.
I do wish AA would drop Crysis Warhead though, and replace with Crysis 2

[Bullseye69]

Change out to this processor it will get you a 8 core and is very overclockable. Would be the best game rig processor with out going up to the 8350. Less than a 50 dollar upgrade from what you had listed and is a better processor.


http://www.newegg.co...N82E16819113285

[Sen]

Well gee, I sure am sorry, i guess I did miss that didn't I? I'm really glad you pointed it out so kindly, though. . really shows what kind of people are floating around on the forums.

But you wanted benchmarks here, so let's throw those down, shall we?

http://www.hitechleg...ll=&limitstart=

http://www.tomshardw...eview,3328.html

http://techreport.co...sor-reviewed/14

Lemme throw a quote from that last link, because it's particularly relevant here:

"Pop over to the gaming scatter, though, and the picture changes dramatically. There, the FX-8350 is the highest-performance AMD desktop processor to date for gaming, finally toppling the venerable Phenom II X4 980. Yet the FX-8350's gaming performance almost exactly matches that of the Core i3-3225, a $134 Ivy Bridge-based processor. Meanwhile, the Core i5-3470 delivers markedly superior gaming performance for less money than the FX-8350. The FX-8350 isn't exactly bad for video games—its performance was generally acceptable in our tests. But it is relatively weak compared to the competition."

But wait, because I *DID* read [and re-read] the O/P's post. . let's review what part he's ACTUALLY LOOKING AT USING:

http://www.newegg.co...N82E16819113286

Vizshera FX 6300

http://www.techspot....6300/page8.html

The relevant text here:

"With AMD's aggressive pricing, the updated FX series isn't necessarily in an indefensible position against Ivy Bridge when purely comparing speed and price, but it's not exactly an open and shut case either. The FX-6300 may offer 22% more performance than the i3-3220 for about the same price, but our Piledriver-powered test rig also consumed around 86% more power than the Ivy Bridge machine (227 watts versus 116 watts).

The bottom line is that the Piledriver FX series provides a quick, affordable upgrade for folks still using lower-end K10 hardware, but there isn't a lot to see for those running high-end Phenom II X4 and X6 processors, regardless of how cheap the new parts may be. For those building a fresh rig from scratch, Ivy Bridge will likely still be more attractive thanks to its superior single thread performance and efficiency."


To O/P, I apologize. I didn't see that it was just a "because I've never done it" post. If you've got the cash to burn and wanna do it, I respect that. When I look at tech, I simply took at cost vs performance and instinct takes over. Doesn't negate the fact that, while vizshera is an improvement over bulldozer, it's not much of an improvement over Thuban, and nowhere NEAR competitive with comparable intel processors [especially after factoring in power consumption]

Edited by Sen, 23 November 2012 - 05:44 AM.

[Vulpesveritas]

First off, if you need 16GB of memory, I wouldn't pay anywhere near that much for it. you won't gain much of anything on non-APU processors beyond 1600mhz at this time either, and most current desktop platforms like AM3+ are only dual-channel anyhow. My recommendation goes to this kit; http://www.newegg.co...N82E16820231489

Second, your sound processing unit is actually less powerful than the Realtek chip on your motherboard.

Third, unless you are looking at a multiple-gpu nvidia setup on your motherboard, an AMD 970 board is fine. Also, that Asrock board only has a 4+1 phase power, whereas this slightly cheaper gigabyte has 8+2 phase for better power delivery / overclocking. http://www.newegg.co...N82E16813128519

Fourth, Powercolor / TUL is fine, though I tend to recommend HIS over them. http://www.newegg.co...N82E16814161426

Fifth, given the money you would save on the above, I would recommend upgrading the cpu up to a 8320 or 8350. As Barberic noted, the 8350 is about as fast as a sandy bridge i5 in single thread performance and slightly faster than an ivy bridge i7 in multi thread, overall making it a better deal for mixed use in my opinion, so I do recommend sticking with AMD.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Sen, on 23 November 2012 - 05:40 AM, said:

Snip

Taking a look at the last link with Crysis 2 because that is the closest bench we can use.



The 8350 which is the same price as a 2500k is right there with it, the 3570k is 2FPS faster for the same price ( you will pay more for comparable Intel motherboards however) so there really is no noticeable difference here based on benchmarks (real world could be different)

For the 8320


Would appear according to guru 3d offer the same performance as the 8350 and 6300, the 3570 in their test offered 10 FPS more at 1080p.
However, the 6300 holds its ground very well considering it is $80 cheaper than the 3570k and the 8320 is $40 cheaper.

Given that all the AMD offerings on discussion, surpass the average 60FPS requirement for gamers, when backed up with an appropriate GPU....the discussion is moot, in this case there is no reason to hate on AMD processors

However a note to the OP, MWO is far from complete or optimized to the level Crysis 2 is.

Edited by DV McKenna, 24 November 2012 - 05:22 AM.

[Aznpersuasion89]

Vulpesveritas, on 23 November 2012 - 05:46 AM, said:

Third, unless you are looking at a multiple-gpu nvidia setup on your motherboard, an AMD 970 board is fine. Also, that Asrock board only has a 4+1 phase power, whereas this slightly cheaper gigabyte has 8+2 phase for better power delivery / overclocking. http://www.newegg.co...N82E16813128519

this is what i have. never had a problem, can recommend.

[Stormscions]

Sen, on 23 November 2012 - 05:40 AM, said:

Well gee, I sure am sorry, i guess I did miss that didn't I? I'm really glad you pointed it out so kindly, though. . really shows what kind of people are floating around on the forums.

But you wanted benchmarks here, so let's throw those down, shall we?

http://www.hitechleg...ll=&limitstart=

http://www.tomshardw...eview,3328.html

http://techreport.co...sor-reviewed/14

Lemme throw a quote from that last link, because it's particularly relevant here:

"Pop over to the gaming scatter, though, and the picture changes dramatically. There, the FX-8350 is the highest-performance AMD desktop processor to date for gaming, finally toppling the venerable Phenom II X4 980. Yet the FX-8350's gaming performance almost exactly matches that of the Core i3-3225, a $134 Ivy Bridge-based processor. Meanwhile, the Core i5-3470 delivers markedly superior gaming performance for less money than the FX-8350. The FX-8350 isn't exactly bad for video games—its performance was generally acceptable in our tests. But it is relatively weak compared to the competition."

But wait, because I *DID* read [and re-read] the O/P's post. . let's review what part he's ACTUALLY LOOKING AT USING:

http://www.newegg.co...N82E16819113286

Vizshera FX 6300

http://www.techspot....6300/page8.html

The relevant text here:

"With AMD's aggressive pricing, the updated FX series isn't necessarily in an indefensible position against Ivy Bridge when purely comparing speed and price, but it's not exactly an open and shut case either. The FX-6300 may offer 22% more performance than the i3-3220 for about the same price, but our Piledriver-powered test rig also consumed around 86% more power than the Ivy Bridge machine (227 watts versus 116 watts).

The bottom line is that the Piledriver FX series provides a quick, affordable upgrade for folks still using lower-end K10 hardware, but there isn't a lot to see for those running high-end Phenom II X4 and X6 processors, regardless of how cheap the new parts may be. For those building a fresh rig from scratch, Ivy Bridge will likely still be more attractive thanks to its superior single thread performance and efficiency."


To O/P, I apologize. I didn't see that it was just a "because I've never done it" post. If you've got the cash to burn and wanna do it, I respect that. When I look at tech, I simply took at cost vs performance and instinct takes over. Doesn't negate the fact that, while vizshera is an improvement over bulldozer, it's not much of an improvement over Thuban, and nowhere NEAR competitive with comparable intel processors [especially after factoring in power consumption]

I3 >? Dual core ? ROFLCOPTER. Maybe in single threaded games... Thorchlight 2 etc you will have 200 instead of 250. Newer games use 6 cores. Planetside 2 , battlefield 3. Other modern gmaes use 4 cores. So no i would not recoment dual core today to anyone... it is ripoff when most smarth phones today go with dual core. 4 core or more with hypethread.

Proble, with 3470 while of great price it does not overclock so it is for people that dont want to do that... 8350 is made for overclocking when overclocked nicely it is much better procesor . It is in the same class as 3570. For sheer gaming 3570 is probably a bit better buy. But for heavy multitasking and productivity and gaming in the same time 8350 is good buy as well. Same goes for 8320.

[xenoglyph]

Vulpesveritas, on 23 November 2012 - 05:46 AM, said:

First off, if you need 16GB of memory, I wouldn't pay anywhere near that much for it. you won't gain much of anything on non-APU processors beyond 1600mhz at this time either

Very good advice. I've got money to burn and I'm only going for decent 1600 RAM. Even synthetic benchmarks don't show huge improvements for faster RAM... for actual use the gains are practically nil.

[xenoglyph]

Stormscions, on 24 November 2012 - 08:50 AM, said:

I3 >Newer games use 6 cores. Planetside 2 , battlefield 3. Other modern gmaes use 4 cores.

As a programmer who's done fairly extensive multithreading work and created several custom low level multithreading systems at the assembly level, developers don't usually try to "target" a certain number of cores. Any properly designed system will scale well with increasing numbers of cores. I think it would actually be more work to try to limit yourself to 4 or 6 core support.

[Sen]

The argument was not that the i3 was good for gaming, the argument was that, after testing the FX6200, gaming performance was found to be on par with that of the i3. If you're so convinced that the benchmarks I've dug up are wrong, how about someone actually providing something based on factual evidence that counters them?

You said "pics or it didn't happen" I delivered: you haven't. I'm not saying you don't have a good point about single vs multi-threaded performance. . well. . I'm not sure if you did or not. . with all the spelling errors I had a hard time reading your post. . but I THINK I understood what you meant, and I agree that the more processor you have. . the more cores and the more threads, the longer your computer will continue to be relevant and the better it will perform, up to the point where the software is utilizing all the hardware it can and you have power to spare.

O/P. . in all honesty, intel/AMD aside. . if you can find one I'd recommend a Phenom II X6 if you can find one. It's a little dated, but still one of the best products AMD has released in years

[Tearlach]

Thanks for all of the advice. I will definitely go with 1600 memory and the 8350. This is just a playing around rig, I don't want to upgrade my main rig now as it is setup for AutoCAD and CADWorks. Getting all my CAD setup transfered and setup on a new drive is about as fun as taking a bullet to the head, so totally new upgrade on my main rig are few and far between.