1329 replies to this topic

[Wonderful Greg]

Vulpesveritas, on 16 June 2012 - 11:39 PM, said:

Thing is, AM3 works fine on AM3+, which is also receiving Piledriver later this year (which is when we'll see the Phenom II X4s disappear), and then we may be seeing Steamroller cores after that. There is plenty of supply on the X4 chips still in the USA and Canada. On the FX chips, they're not exactly "EOL" given they're currently still in mass production. 10xx series chipsets for AM3+ are coming out later this year with native USB 3.0, but not much more it seems. Given Trinity Piledriver is 5% faster clock-for-clock versus Llano without the likely architecture tweaks and the L3 Cache of Vishera, and the Octo-cores are coming at 4GHZ, this fall / winter AMD will be competing a bit better. For now, they are better if you overclock (and are looking under $200), multitask (and are looking under $300), and / or are looking for a CPU between $150-180.

Ok, man. We seem to not understand each other. I'll try to put things simple.
AM3 is mostly EOL(450/645/945 etc.). With few exception and low supply.
AM3+ is FX series. They are not EOL, but not a good GAMING product. High heat, mostly low performance.
FM1 are A4, A6, A8. Crappy performance with an exception of 3850/3870.

Compatibility:
You can use AM3+ CPU on SOME AM3 boards, but you'll loose in performance. There is no point in upgrading say 945 to 8120. You'll get much better bargain on 1090. In money, heat and performance.
Right now, I would not recommend anyone to buy AM3+ system from scratch(aside some very specific WORKING rigs).
If you have AM3 board and, let's say, 245 CPU – 965 or 1090 would be a good upgrade choice. IF you can buy them.

If you thinking of buying a new rig from scratch AMD is not an option for gaming. Upcoming trinity CPU are FM2 socket based and are NOT compatible with FM1, let alone AM3. Performance wise(compared to FM1), a good integrated GPU boost, but VERY low CPU boost. I would not recommend AMD integrated GPU for gaming. It's a very very good thing for laptop. And if you are using PC for casual stuff(surfing, video, simple games). If you play some good stuff on high resolution, discrete GPU is a MUST.

[Suicidal Idiot]

For anyone looking to upgrade to play, i STRONGLY recommend you just wait until the game comes out. Nothing, but nothing beats real world experience. Once the game is out, there will be literally tens of thousands of people testing.

And, unless the price curves of the last 40 years reverse in the next couple of months, your new rig will also cost a bit less.

[Vulpesveritas]

Wonderful Greg, on 17 June 2012 - 12:06 AM, said:

Ok, man. We seem to not understand each other. I'll try to put things simple.
AM3 is mostly EOL(450/645/945 etc.). With few exception and low supply.
AM3+ is FX series. They are not EOL, but not a good GAMING product. High heat, mostly low performance.
FM1 are A4, A6, A8. Crappy performance with an exception of 3850/3870.

Compatibility:
You can use AM3+ CPU on SOME AM3 boards, but you'll loose in performance. There is no point in upgrading say 945 to 8120. You'll get much better bargain on 1090. In money, heat and performance.
Right now, I would not recommend anyone to buy AM3+ system from scratch(aside some very specific WORKING rigs).
If you have AM3 board and, let's say, 245 CPU – 965 or 1090 would be a good upgrade choice. IF you can buy them.

If you thinking of buying a new rig from scratch AMD is not an option for gaming. Upcoming trinity CPU are FM2 socket based and are NOT compatible with FM1, let alone AM3. Performance wise(compared to FM1), a good integrated GPU boost, but VERY low CPU boost. I would not recommend AMD integrated GPU for gaming. It's a very very good thing for laptop. And if you are using PC for casual stuff(surfing, video, simple games). If you play some good stuff on high resolution, discrete GPU is a MUST.

Where am I recommending Trinity here exactly? Oh wait, I'm not. I'm only recommending FM1 at the very low and, and even then mainly if you are looking to need to run integrated graphics to game, which is a horrible situation to be in.
AM3 socket chips work fine on an AM3+ Socket motherboard. Any AM3 chip runs beautifully on once again, I say an AM3+ board. Upgrading to Vishera-based Piledriver 4/6/8 cores on AM3+ later this year when they are released.

= AM3+ is all AM3 and AM3+ Processors. Not just Bulldozer-based FX 1st Generation.

Suicidal *****, on 17 June 2012 - 12:07 AM, said:

For anyone looking to upgrade to play, i STRONGLY recommend you just wait until the game comes out. Nothing, but nothing beats real world experience. Once the game is out, there will be literally tens of thousands of people testing.

And, unless the price curves of the last 40 years reverse in the next couple of months, your new rig will also cost a bit less.

A number of people are just looking to upgrade so they have a computer that can actually run the game when it comes out, and the devs have already released minimum and recommended hardware requirements.

[Wonderful Greg]

Vulpesveritas, on 17 June 2012 - 12:12 AM, said:

Where am I recommending Trinity here exactly? Oh wait, I'm not. I'm only recommending FM1 at the very low and, and even then mainly if you are looking to need to run integrated graphics to game, which is a horrible situation to be in.
AM3 socket chips work fine on an AM3+ Socket motherboard. Any AM3 chip runs beautifully on once again, I say an AM3+ board. Upgrading to Vishera-based Piledriver 4/6/8 cores on AM3+ later this year when they are released.

= AM3+ is all AM3 and AM3+ Processors. Not just Bulldozer-based FX 1st Generation.



A number of people are just looking to upgrade so they have a computer that can actually run the game when it comes out, and the devs have already released minimum and recommended hardware requirements.

Ok, first of all. A little future telling Vishera-based Piledriver(to my grate sorrow) have not gone far from Boldozer in every aspect(don't ask me how I know that). So I would not put much hope for that upgrade.
Second, and most importantly:
You said "= AM3+ is all AM3 and AM3+ Processors. Not just Bulldozer-based FX 1st Generation."
How you would even end up with AM3+ mobo and AM3 CPU? AM3+ mobos cost quite a sum of money. Only reason I can think of, is that one bought it for future upgrades and installed some 240 CPU as a temporary solution. But in that case there is not much to discuss. You are stuck with that platform. But if one buying AM3+ mobo to install 645 CPU, the person is either unaware or plain stupid.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

The end user will notice no comparable difference between comparable chips from either manufacturer.
Buying an AMD over an I5 2500k or Ivybridge does not suddenly break your gaming rig into worthless scrap as you make it sound.

People can link benchmarks all day long, but if we are talking about rigs for MWO (this is the right forum isnt it?) then crysis 2 becomes more relevant than anything, and chips all the way back to deneb X4 will run the game perfectly fine not to mention pretty close to Intel's newer top of the line.

For a game that runs on this engine you want a good combo of CPU and GPU and the choice purely comes down to price for most people.

Absolutely ridiculous...

Edited by DV McKenna, 17 June 2012 - 01:02 AM.

[sumdumfu]

point of contention with the methodology in this thread; nobody makes buying decisions based on the ENTIRE CPU market. people make purchase decisions based on maximum budget; in other words at any given SINGLE price point, what CPU is the superior performer.

i last built a computer last winter, taking advantage of holiday discounts, and unless something's changed drastically since then (since core duo first came out really) intel has had the decided advantage in gaming performance for a long time. AMD may be cheaper, but if you can at all afford it, get an intel CPU. for my money, my i5-2500k is still the absolute best gaming CPU on the market at $165. I think that pricepoint is where most system builders feel is about the limit for budget gaming, and not only is it the fastest at that price, but it overclocks like WHOA!

i don't think even vulpes can argue with the bolded statement above. as an example the following article lists best cpus per pricepoint, nearly all of which are intels.

http://www.tomshardw...clock,3106.html

i should add that i'm no intel fanboy, just a system builder with nearly two decades of experience. i've built for myself several AMD systems in the past, especially when athlon first came out and scared the living daylights out of intel, but ever since core duo was released, the only reason to buy AMD was if you couldn't afford intel.

Edited by sumdumfu, 17 June 2012 - 02:59 AM.

[Scilya]

why does this guide have FX processors in it,.. there is no way in hell you should be recomending FX processors to anyone
why isent the 960T up there? contestant for the best sub £100 processor you can get
again why are you reccomending the fx processors over the thubans

in reality for a decent gameing expirience all you need is

3Ghz quad core
8GB of ram
and a 6770 or equivelent/higher depending on what you want

i will allways reccomend a 960T if you can get it 3GHZ quad core will OC to 4Ghz easy not to mention cance of unlocking up to 2 cores
i have a 960T in anouther rig thats 6 cores at 4.2Ghz

but to each there own

[Barbaric Soul]

I have a pretty uber 2600k gaming computer myself. Acouple weeks ago, I built a system for my cousin based on the FX6200. To be perfectly honest, aside from the video card difference between to two rigs(5870 crossfireX with 2600k, single 6870 with the FX6200), I did NOT notice a difference in speed between the two. However, when I changed from a xeon 3220(server equivalent to the q6600) to a Q9650, I did notice a siginifacant increase in speed. So yes, I do notice speed differences between different CPU's. All I saying is that AMD does make CPUs that are more than adaquate for a gaming computer. If my 2600k rig was to have a catastrophic failure, with the main components being fried, I'd probably replace it with a AMD FX system.

Edited by Barbaric Soul, 17 June 2012 - 04:50 AM.

[Sundiver]

I can say from experience and not being biased one way or another. My Core 2 Quad 6600 with the exact same ram and gpu as my children's Athlon 2 X4. The Quad 6600 will run games moderately well that their Athlon won't even touch. Why? Don't really care, as an end user all I'm interested in is practical hands on results.

[Barbaric Soul]

Sundiver, on 17 June 2012 - 05:15 AM, said:

I can say from experience and not being biased one way or another. My Core 2 Quad 6600 with the exact same ram and gpu as my children's Athlon 2 X4. The Quad 6600 will run games moderately well that their Athlon won't even touch. Why? Don't really care, as an end user all I'm interested in is practical hands on results.

Uh, what games are you refering to? Anything a Q6600 can run, an Athlon 2 quad should run. You sure your not reffering to one of the original Phenom quad cores, like the 9600?

[The Fridge]

I feel that in the OP it would be more beneficial to those who aren't already knowledgeable about CPUs if you put a pure-performance benchmark, such as this rather than just jumping straight to the price/performance chart. At least in my experience, i found it easier to pick the level of performance I wanted and then go to the price/performance chart. Just food for thought.

[SJ SCP Wolf]

Most of my office, what do I win?

Edited by SJ SCP Wolf, 17 June 2012 - 06:10 AM.

[Barbaric Soul]

Turbo, on 16 June 2012 - 11:41 PM, said:

I have a question for you tech gurus. I currently have 2 EVGA Superclocked GTX 275's. looking to upgrade to DX 11 compatible GPU(s) and get the best possible bang for my buck upgrade, Im really not sure what to do as most stuff im reading says my 275s perform better than 570's. I dont have to stay with a SLI setup, however i really dont want to spend over $500. so what is my best route to go? single 580? 670? pair of 480s? Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

Honestly, I replaced acouple GTX280 cards I was running in SLI with a single 5870, and didn't notice a drop in performance(there probably was one, but it was so insignificant that I didn't notice it). Anything faster than a single 6950 will be atleast a side-grade while giving you DX11 capability.

[Vulpesveritas]

Scilya, on 17 June 2012 - 04:32 AM, said:

why does this guide have FX processors in it,.. there is no way in hell you should be recomending FX processors to anyone
why isent the 960T up there? contestant for the best sub £100 processor you can get
again why are you reccomending the fx processors over the thubans

in reality for a decent gameing expirience all you need is

3Ghz quad core
8GB of ram
and a 6770 or equivelent/higher depending on what you want

i will allways reccomend a 960T if you can get it 3GHZ quad core will OC to 4Ghz easy not to mention cance of unlocking up to 2 cores
i have a 960T in anouther rig thats 6 cores at 4.2Ghz

but to each there own

Because internet retail prices are not under $100, and are deactivated at newegg. (They start at $127 right now according to google.)

[Vulpesveritas]

Wonderful Greg, on 17 June 2012 - 12:26 AM, said:

Ok, first of all. A little future telling Vishera-based Piledriver(to my grate sorrow) have not gone far from Boldozer in every aspect(don't ask me how I know that). So I would not put much hope for that upgrade.
Second, and most importantly:
You said "= AM3+ is all AM3 and AM3+ Processors. Not just Bulldozer-based FX 1st Generation."
How you would even end up with AM3+ mobo and AM3 CPU? AM3+ mobos cost quite a sum of money. Only reason I can think of, is that one bought it for future upgrades and installed some 240 CPU as a temporary solution. But in that case there is not much to discuss. You are stuck with that platform. But if one buying AM3+ mobo to install 645 CPU, the person is either unaware or plain stupid.

One reason is A: Do they have an AM3 processor already perhaps? b : They are at the $125 price point and are looking for something faster than an FX-4100? C: A or B and are looking to upgrade to Vishera or Steamroller when they come out?

sumdumfu, on 17 June 2012 - 02:58 AM, said:

point of contention with the methodology in this thread; nobody makes buying decisions based on the ENTIRE CPU market. people make purchase decisions based on maximum budget; in other words at any given SINGLE price point, what CPU is the superior performer.

i last built a computer last winter, taking advantage of holiday discounts, and unless something's changed drastically since then (since core duo first came out really) intel has had the decided advantage in gaming performance for a long time. AMD may be cheaper, but if you can at all afford it, get an intel CPU. for my money, my i5-2500k is still the absolute best gaming CPU on the market at $165. I think that pricepoint is where most system builders feel is about the limit for budget gaming, and not only is it the fastest at that price, but it overclocks like WHOA!

i don't think even vulpes can argue with the bolded statement above. as an example the following article lists best cpus per pricepoint, nearly all of which are intels.

http://www.tomshardw...clock,3106.html

i should add that i'm no intel fanboy, just a system builder with nearly two decades of experience. i've built for myself several AMD systems in the past, especially when athlon first came out and scared the living daylights out of intel, but ever since core duo was released, the only reason to buy AMD was if you couldn't afford intel.

And if anyone actually bothers to look at my thread, Intel gets performance wins for stock speed advantages at most price points. However, with no Intel e-retailer listings for unlocked CPUs sub-$200, AMD has an advantage for anyone willing to overclock. Then that $150-175 sweet spot has AMD rather nicely, with the FX-6200 being quite a decent gaming chip just about on par with an i3 at stock in low threaded games, doing a bit better in multithreaded games, with multitasking capabilities on par with an Ivy i5, and then the FX-8120 which is a great value chip for multitasking and hard number crunching.

[shroomprince]

Hmm, for those on a tighter budget, 2 newer cards out right now that will allow you to game a good to better settings are the 2Gb version of the HD 7700 from Asus for 160 bucks and a suprise when i checked its specs is the new GeForce gt 640 from NVidia in it's 2 gb flavor for just over 100 bucks. the 640 in particular i like extremely well as it compares well to a 550 Ti/560. Maybe worth looking into if your like me and on a very tight budget.

[Vulpesveritas]

shroomprince, on 17 June 2012 - 07:18 AM, said:

Hmm, for those on a tighter budget, 2 newer cards out right now that will allow you to game a good to better settings are the 2Gb version of the HD 7700 from Asus for 160 bucks and a suprise when i checked its specs is the new GeForce gt 640 from NVidia in it's 2 gb flavor for just over 100 bucks. the 640 in particular i like extremely well as it compares well to a 550 Ti/560. Maybe worth looking into if your like me and on a very tight budget.

True, although the 640 last I checked is expected to come out at $110, and the 7770 is about 30% faster for $130 (starting prices)
Just something to keep in mind.

Though you should keep in mind, not all games like multiple GPUs, and then there is also micro-stuttering to worry about.

Edited by Vulpesveritas, 17 June 2012 - 07:42 AM.

[Barbaric Soul]

SJ SCP Wolf, on 17 June 2012 - 06:09 AM, said:

Most of my office, what do I win?

Nothing until we see MW:O on that huge screen. Then you win the oportunity to host the very first MW:O party, with the whole comunity invited to attend.

[cipher]

Barbaric Soul, on 17 June 2012 - 08:42 AM, said:

Nothing until we see MW:O on that huge screen. Then you win the oportunity to host the very first MW:O party, with the whole comunity invited to attend.

Correction: on that array of 39 screens.

[SJ SCP Wolf]

Each of those screens is 70in, and there is a 150 or so on the larger wall, plus the 39 that make up the larger display. When stuck in the office on Super Bowl sunday, those 39 screens almost make up for it.