First Amd Build Review - Suggestions
#1
Posted 22 November 2012 - 06:19 AM
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
#2
Posted 22 November 2012 - 01:05 PM
#3
Posted 22 November 2012 - 05:53 PM
[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.
#4
Posted 23 November 2012 - 03:11 AM
Quote
Oh and since you said
Quote
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.
#5
Posted 23 November 2012 - 05:02 AM
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
#6
Posted 23 November 2012 - 05:34 AM
http://www.newegg.co...N82E16819113285
#7
Posted 23 November 2012 - 05:40 AM
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.
#8
Posted 23 November 2012 - 05:46 AM
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.
#9
Posted 24 November 2012 - 05:19 AM
Sen, on 23 November 2012 - 05:40 AM, said:
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.
#10
Posted 24 November 2012 - 07:57 AM
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.
#11
Posted 24 November 2012 - 08:50 AM
Sen, on 23 November 2012 - 05:40 AM, said:
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.
#12
Posted 24 November 2012 - 11:15 AM
Vulpesveritas, on 23 November 2012 - 05:46 AM, said:
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.
#13
Posted 24 November 2012 - 11:27 AM
Stormscions, on 24 November 2012 - 08:50 AM, said:
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.
#14
Posted 24 November 2012 - 07:38 PM
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
#15
Posted 25 November 2012 - 07:28 PM
7 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 7 guests, 0 anonymous users