1329 replies to this topic

[Vulpesveritas]

RenegadeMaster, on 21 June 2012 - 09:15 PM, said:

Wow, I didn't even know fanless PSUs existed for 400W+. It is too bad 500W+ for fanless is rare and arguably less reliable, as shown in this torture test. Seems like fanless PSU tech has quite a ways to go in terms of development.

well, none of those are for the Kingwin Stryker.http://www.hardocp.c...supply_review/1
http://www.tweaktown...view/index.html
http://www.techpower...ingwin/STR-500/
Which manages to hold up very well, largely due to it's high power efficiency.

[Natedog]

iron wolf, on 18 June 2012 - 12:54 AM, said:

Check out http://www.hardwares....com/page/power

They're easily the best one stop site for PSU reviews. (Since they actually test the PSUs instead of reading the box specs like half of 'reviewers' do. See: http://www.hardwares...com/article/410 "Why 99% of Power Supply Reviews Are Wrong").

And to anyone thinking of skimping on their PSUs, here's a reason not to:

"the “reviewer” gave the product a “Gold Award” to a 750 W power supply that burns if you try to pull more than 450 W from it."

Don't burn the rest of your hard earned money along with it.

I agree with this and will add check out http://www.jonnyguru.com/ They do significant stress testing on their units. If you look around on Newegg.com, Tigerdirect.com, or any site like that you can usually find a good unit for a great price. I picked up a stellar 650W Antec unit for $35 after MIR (only a $20 MIR) that rated high on Jonny Guru.

[Ishtar]

hmm you guys are forgetting MCI, SPRINT,.... I think T-mobile.. and Orange which kinda leeched over here from europe.. Time Warner?

[WoollyMimmoth]

Ishtar, on 12 June 2012 - 08:53 PM, said:

...... 12:48 am and I think I refreshed the damn mwomercs website nearly thousands time.. sorry correction ... Literally a million times.. (LITERALLY)

If you work as as Security guard then its probably a breach of contract to swap out the camera feeds to the monitors so you can post on the forums, watch youtube and play MWO all at the same time instead of actually watching whats going on during those long lonely nights.

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

Most of my office, what do I win?

Die, Demon, DIE!

[Gangben]

Is it worth getting the old optical microsoft Joysticks? I have an old Sidewinder Precision Pro but I am not sure it would work (has the Gameport Connector and I don't have an adapter). I also see Sidewinder Precision Pro 2 Flightsticks on ebay every now and then but they are not exactly cheap and I hear of driver Issues with windows 7. Anyone with experience on that? I used the precision pro extensively and loved it.

[PoPuP]

great thread for those who are undecided, going to stick with a cheapo till i see the prices on Razer's Artemis and the Mek-FU but heavily leaning towards the Artemis if the keep the center display , better yet a touch display.

[Vulpesveritas]

Ishtar, on 22 June 2012 - 03:44 AM, said:

hmm you guys are forgetting MCI, SPRINT,.... I think T-mobile.. and Orange which kinda leeched over here from europe.. Time Warner?

No, MCI will die, sprint will be absorbed by Verizon, and T-mobile will absob Orange and stay terra-only.

[Alareth]

I started out with the x36 from Saitek and moved onto the x45. I used them exclusively for Mechwarrior 4.

I had a single issue with the pot on the rudder for my x45 and after mentioning it on the forums a mod contacted me for my address and a replacement pot and instructions for replacing it showed up in my inbox a week later. I was a little shocked because I'd never gotten good CS treatment like that before from other manufacturers.

I was all set to move to the x52 when it was announced, but was very disappointed by the move to twist rudder and passed on it. The paddle on the throttle was the reason I purchased the original x36. I simply cannot use twist rudder sticks as I have a natural tendency to twist my wrist when I push forward.

Separate pedals would be the solution for me but I can't support the expense at this time.

Edited by Alareth, 22 June 2012 - 09:12 AM.

[Louis Cifer]

I happen to have an old Logitech Extreme 3D pro that I used years ago playing Air Attack. I'll see how it work with MWO and if the game has longevity for me I'll definitely be referring back to this guide if I need an upgrade. Many thanks for the time and effort compiling it all.

[Gwarryn]

I know it's been said but thanks for the Ecellent post. Really helped my stick research.

[Steven McWayne]

I'm a member of a IL-2 flight squadron for around 4 years now and own a Thrustmaster Warthog + Simpeds.
If you do fly in simulations and use these sticks then it's worth the money, if not take the cheaper sticks like X52.
I started with X52 "not pro" variant + Saitek rudders. Useful if you use it once a week but its not that hell accurate around the center, the potis on the sliders are medicore..china quality i would say. The Pedals are full plastic and swing out of their rails if you put to much pressure from above on them.
We got 2 Members with the Logitech G940 and they had to exchange them for the 4th time, just don't buy them.
One of them Exchanged the full Logitech electronics with a custom Bodnar electronics to get it stable working.
The other one just bought a Warthog this week .
The Saitek X65...yeah, the stick isn't movable, it works with force sensing sensors..i wouldn't like it if it doesn't move.
Pedals? I would call the CH pedals "nutcracker", the way from left to right pedal are really tight.
Better get a beginner "Saitek" pedal or more quality Simped, also the russians build a full metal pedal for ~200€+ i guess.

So i would say.
High quality, Thrustmaster Warthog/Cougar + Simpeds or Russian pedals
Med quality, X52pro/X65F + Saitek combat rudder pedals
Low quality, G940, pedals inkluded
Or just get a stick with thrustcontrol and a twist axis

Oh..i played MW2 to 4 all with mouse and keyboard

[Alfred VonGunn]

I laughed a lot.. The X-45 has the best Rudder placement of anything without pedals.. used one for years in flight games and MW... Just picked one up for this game as a stand in until I decide on high end one. But then I hate twist sticks. I shouldn't have to worry about twisting off target because I am turning or aiming..

Edited by Alfred VonGunn, 22 June 2012 - 03:23 PM.

[Beaker]

I would highly recommend the Asus M5A97

Scan (UK) :: Linky @ £67.16

newegg (US) :: Linky @ $94.99

I'm using one of these myself after using them for other people. At present I'm on a running total of 17 boards, with zero RMA or failure to this point. It's a record for me at least with a single model! It was when I got to 8 that I decided it was a good board!

[Vulpesveritas]

Beaker, on 22 June 2012 - 05:24 PM, said:

I would highly recommend the Asus M5A97

Scan (UK) :: Linky @ £67.16

newegg (US) :: Linky @ $94.99

I'm using one of these myself after using them for other people. At present I'm on a running total of 17 boards, with zero RMA or failure to this point. It's a record for me at least with a single model! It was when I got to 8 that I decided it was a good board!

Well, I may add a durability selection later.
I'll do that after the $250 segment.

[LordDeathStrike]

Ishtar, on 12 June 2012 - 08:53 PM, said:

...... 12:48 am and I think I refreshed the damn mwomercs website nearly thousands time.. sorry correction ... Literally a million times.. (LITERALLY)

its so hideious, all those small screens with borders and gaps, fuse them into one 100 inch!

Vulpesveritas, on 19 June 2012 - 08:53 PM, said:

No, Verizon = comstar without guns yet
AT&T is their more evil twin.

verizon = comstar
at &t = WoB

[Lakevren]

Vulpesveritas, on 21 June 2012 - 08:10 AM, said:

yes it would be. But the thing is, games aren't nearly that multithreaded. And those benchmarks are mostly gaming benchmarks those scores are based off of, correct? And the FX-6200 should be approximately 10% faster in lightly threaded tasks vs the 8150p.

Hence my point.

Yeah except even the i5-2500k performs better even with the multithreaded tasks, at least vs. the FX-8150. The two extra "cores", really one extra module that happens to have "two cores".
http://www.bit-tech....x-8150-review/8

So I don't know where some of the multi-tasking advantage that you keep claiming is from.


Source: http://benchmarkrevi...1&limitstart=11

This is why i'm like "Why the hell are you recommending an inferior product?" And the only thing I can think of is your Ethics bias.

Please stop.

I honestly had though the FX-8150 previously had a multitasking advantage until I kept researching. But found out it didn't, even versus the i5 2500k.

And if you look in EVERY OTHER SITE in their FORUMS, they recommend an Intel, not an AMD, because of how POOR the Bulldozer is. Hell, some people even recommend going back to the Phenom II X6 instead.
For Example: http://www.overclock...ce-on-going-amd

Quote

It will game fine... for most games. But not as well as Intel processors. In fact, contrary to your understanding, Intel generally has the price/performance advantage for gamers.

The real competitors to the fx-6100 are the g620 & i3-2100 + h61 or h67 mobo, not the Intel quad-cores. For the vast majority of games, these two processors (which cannot be overclocked) will perform about as well as a heavily overclocked 6100. For some games, they'll be a little worse. For some, they'll be a little better.

And then the Review: www.pcper.com/reviews/Processors/AMD-FX-6200-CPU-Review-Small-Bulldozer-Refresh

Quote

The chip can easily overclock. It is just unfortunate that even when overclocked it barely gets past the performance of many current processors at stock speeds. Still, free performance is free. It is just an interesting part, but not always in a good way.

So in the end is the FX-6200 worth it? Yes and no. It fits the price/performance envelope for a product in its category. It overclocks easily. It is still a 3.8 GHz product that has fair performance across the board. It does not abduct your family or set your house on fire. It just is simply not the budget performer that we were expecting or hoping for. Better luck next time.

Before I researched thoroughly, I really though maybe AMD has something on the sub $200 side. But they really don't.

Feel free to recommend the AMD Graphics cards, because honestly, that's where they pretty much tie up with Nvidia and quite often. Hell, they had severe price to performance advantages as well as power and heat in previous generations, but even Nvidia got the power and heat advantage this time around. The only thing Nvidia is lacking (and curse them for doing so) is a sub $400 line-up, while AMD has all of this. But to recommend an AMD CPU? Good god. I'd only recommend a Llano. I'd even recommend a Phenom II over the FX Bulldozer.

Edit: I completely botched that formatting, somehow.

Edited by Lakevren, 23 June 2012 - 12:02 AM.

[Vulpesveritas]

Lakevren, on 22 June 2012 - 11:47 PM, said:

Yeah except even the i5-2500k performs better even with the multithreaded tasks, at least vs. the FX-8150. The two extra "cores", really one extra module that happens to have "two cores".
http://www.bit-tech....x-8150-review/8

So I don't know where some of the multi-tasking advantage that you keep claiming is from.


Source: http://benchmarkrevi...1&limitstart=11

This is why i'm like "Why the hell are you recommending an inferior product?" And the only thing I can think of is your Ethics bias.

Please stop.

I honestly had though the FX-8150 previously had a multitasking advantage until I kept researching. But found out it didn't, even versus the i5 2500k.

And if you look in EVERY OTHER SITE in their FORUMS, they recommend an Intel, not an AMD, because of how **** POOR the Bulldozer is. Hell, some people even recommend going back to the Phenom II X6 instead.
For Example: http://www.overclock...ce-on-going-amd



And then the Review: www.pcper.com/reviews/Processors/AMD-FX-6200-CPU-Review-Small-Bulldozer-Refresh




Before I researched thoroughly, I really though maybe AMD has something on the sub $200 side. But they really don't.

Feel free to recommend the AMD Graphics cards, because honestly, that's where they pretty much tie up with Nvidia and quite often. Hell, they had severe price to performance advantages as well as power and heat in previous generations, but even Nvidia got the power and heat advantage this time around. The only thing Nvidia is lacking (and curse them for doing so) is a sub $400 line-up, while AMD has all of this. But to recommend an AMD CPU? Good god. I'd only recommend a Llano. I'd even recommend a Phenom II over the FX Bulldozer.

sorry, but a number of benchmarks and reviews disagree. That would be why.
For example here it wins in a good number of multithreaded benchmarks. http://www.anandtech...duct/434?vs=288
http://www.tomshardw...mance,3119.html



looking alright here so long as you are using 7-zip like a normal person XD

http://www.anandtech...d-fx8150-tested does decently in multithread and acts between the i5-2500k and 2600k in multithread.

The trick is sample size. In any case, bulldozer FX is painfully weak in floating point math, but is very strong in integer math - which is what most day to day tasks revolve around.

And I must say it is odd that you're saying that about Phenom II, when it is clearly showing a hexacore Phenom II to be slower in that 'lightwave' test there. Clearly then an i5-2500k must be twice as fast as a Phenom II as well.. wait a minute, that doesn't add up with real life information, or the majority of benchmarks out there. (care to consider why that may be? Such as perhaps a biased benchmark?)

In any case, feel free to believe what you like, but I am going to continue to keep a broad perspective on things and continue to make conclusions based on reading as many reviews on processors as I can, and using data sensibly.

[CynicalCyanide]

Vulpesveritas, on 21 June 2012 - 08:10 AM, said:

yes it would be. But the thing is, games aren't nearly that multithreaded. And those benchmarks are mostly gaming benchmarks those scores are based off of, correct? And the FX-6200 should be approximately 10% faster in lightly threaded tasks vs the 8150p.

Hence my point.

How can you come to the conclusion those are mostly gaming benchmarks, when you just said that "games aren't nearly that (refering to the benchmark) multithreaded." - Those are productivity benchmarks, which seeing as they're fully multithreaded, are skewed towards AMD. And they still don't shine very well!

And as for 'And the FX-6200 should be approximately 10% faster in lightly threaded tasks vs the 8150p." - That just shows that the 8150p is slow, not that the FX-6200 is fast. You have a habit of using awkward combinations of comparisons that make it seem like the AMD chip is somehow faster than Intel chips because they're faster than other AMD chips which are faster than X chip which is only 10% slower than Y chip etc.

So really, "So you would see gaming performance in the middle of the i7 Nehalem and i5 SB processor in gaming for $50 less, and similar multitasking capabilities. Not that bad of a trade off if you ask me." Is flat out false. No AMD chip is $50 less than either the i5/i7, whilst having the same gaming perf. as either the i5/i7 AND having the same multitasking capabilities as either the i5/i7.

For $50 less, that is just not happening.

So you have comments worded like this, and then half of your threads are great concepts, and the other half is AMD advertising. Godamn.

[Vulpesveritas]

iron wolf, on 23 June 2012 - 12:56 AM, said:

How can you come to the conclusion those are mostly gaming benchmarks, when you just said that "games aren't nearly that (refering to the benchmark) multithreaded." - Those are productivity benchmarks, which seeing as they're fully multithreaded, are skewed towards AMD. And they still don't shine very well!

And as for 'And the FX-6200 should be approximately 10% faster in lightly threaded tasks vs the 8150p." - That just shows that the 8150p is slow, not that the FX-6200 is fast. You have a habit of using awkward combinations of comparisons that make it seem like the AMD chip is somehow faster than Intel chips because they're faster than other AMD chips which are faster than X chip which is only 10% slower than Y chip etc.

So really, "So you would see gaming performance in the middle of the i7 Nehalem and i5 SB processor in gaming for $50 less, and similar multitasking capabilities. Not that bad of a trade off if you ask me." Is flat out false. No AMD chip is $50 less than either the i5/i7, whilst having the same gaming perf. as either the i5/i7 AND having the same multitasking capabilities as either the i5/i7.

For $50 less, that is just not happening.

So you have comments worded like this, and then half of your threads are great concepts, and the other half is AMD advertising. Godamn.

The benchmarks he picked for that were all gaming benchmarks, and I simply was pointing out based on clock speed the FX-6200 should be 10% faster than the FX-8150 there in that Techpowerup article.

And in producttivity benchmarks, it flips back and forth depending on threading.

As far as multithread benchmarks being skewed towards AMD, on that logic I can say that lightly threaded benchmarks are skewed towards Intel.

And in Non-CPU intensive titles, as most DX11 titles are , there is no difference in gaming performance between a Core2Quad, FX-6200, or i5 in many cases.

As far as half my threads being "AMD advertising" Umm... okay so let's see my first page here again... oh wait the majority of CPUs there are Intel... and even with most of the AMD chips it is saying that unless you're overclocking Intel is the way to to...
...

As far as others, tech news wise, I will be posting news when the intel ivy i3s come out or have benchmarks out (haven't seen them yet.) When the Gefoce GTX 660 and 650 come out (have yet to hear an exact date on those either). AMD just had two points of news last night.

I do admittably have a bias against criminal organizations like Intel (Committing crimes repeatedly worldwide qualifies I think.), and therefore I do try to recommend AMD where possible. But the simple fact is unless you're multitasking and / or overclocking, at nearly every price point Intel does have an advantage.

Do you disagree?

The simple thing is overclocking an i3 isn't going to be as easy as an FX seires or a Phenom II chip, and won't match it in multithread. THe FX 8 cores beat the i5s in multithread, and the 6 cores perform between the i3s and i5s in multithread at stock. Then the FX-4170 is clocked high enough to beat most i3s, plus it has extra OC headroom, and then there are the good 'ol Phenom II X4/X6 BE chips if you can find them that still have a performance advantage with overclocking sub-$200. And in the end, an i3 or AMD quad core will be fine for the majority of games, and in modern titles other than RTS, they will generally be just as fast for less cost.

Or am I wrong about that as well?

By the gods, I wish I could recommend a third party, but VIA is the only option there, and while they have a quad core, it frankly isn't that great seeing as you can't really add much to it. Sure it beats out Brazos in CPU tasks in multithread... you can't OC it well and it doesn't match a Llano A6.

(Edited. once again, I apolagize for my loss of professionalism in that post)

Edited by Vulpesveritas, 23 June 2012 - 08:27 AM.

[Lakevren]

EDIT: Go to sleep first before you read this, or risk lack of sleep. This also was being written before the previous post, and was meant to be a reply to post #57

You completely ignored the multitasking benchmark from bit-tech.net .

I am going to link that part again: http://www.bit-tech....x-8150-review/8






The lightwave test is actually simulated real-world. Lightwave is a 3D renderer, and if you knew of 3D modeling, you'd know .obj. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightwave

Also, unfortunately, I started ignoring Tom's Hardware after they use ridiculously crappy methodology and poor articles. Not to mention that Intel biased article in 2006. Ever since then, THG has been considered to be unreliable by a good amount of sites and enthusiast. It was sold in 2007, and it never improved. Maybe it got worse.

Here's one explanation: http://hardforum.com...d.php?t=1684234
And another: http://forum.noteboo...ese-days-2.html (though I disagree that Anandtech sucks)


Here's another that was absolutely bad too: http://www.tomshardw...eview,3087.html
Reason? They neglected to put more threads into the CPU Core and Scaling part. They could have used one of the FX processors and/or an i7 2600k for a total of 8 threads. It seemed like there might have been more room for it. Not to mention they didn't put in a dual-core CPU with ONLY two threads. The i3 is 4 threads dual core. The other is neglecting more popular cards on the video card test, such as GTX 560 and GTX 560 Ti, or a 6870. They complete botched the mid-tier graphics card, and went on to the high end and low-end instead. They did 4 similar performing low-end, 2 on each company, when they could have used the other two on the mid tier.

Another article that's pretty bad: http://www.tomshardw...-ITX,13625.html

Quote

Thermaltake Case Has PSU On Bottom, Fans on Top

2:00 PM - October 6, 2011 by Kevin Parrish - source: Thermaltake

REALLY? They had this since... I dunno. 2005? Maybe before?

And then the flawed SSD power methodology: http://blog.laptopma...wer-consumption

It keeps continuing.

It's like relying on CNET for reviews. No one should ever rely on CNET for reviews. In the same way, don't rely on THG for reviews. Or even articles. THG is a joke. I'd find more bad articles, but I never read THG, at least not anymore since 2006.

Feel free to read it, but I wouldn't rely on its reliability or integrity. Lots of others that have better integrity and reliability.

In any case, ok, I take that Anandtech review into consideration. But you still dodged the gaming one, which most people ask for recommendations on, not necessarily multitasking.

Not to mention you said yourself, and even I confirm it, multitasking is not that important in gaming, but you say it has an advantage in it anyways and make recommendations DUE TO IT?

Oh by the way, a broad perspective shouldn't have a bias, even ethics bias.
I used to have an ethics bias, especially against Nvidia. That was absolutely SILLY when I look back on it. If I had continued it, it would have cost me more money.
The only bias I have currently is for the best performance for the price. Even I don't consider the Bulldozer worthy when an i3 2100 can beat most AMD in gaming. An i3 2100 is a mere $120. Why sacrifice single-threaded performance for a multi-threaded one?




And also, sorry to keep you up. But I'd rather be impartial as possible. If I find myself to have some kind of bias, it's going to be in a disclaimer somewhere.

Honestly, if this was 2004, with 2004 processors, I'd agree with you wholeheartedly, at least on performance and such. But I'd still ask you to leave your bias at the door. You did that well with the motherboard guide.

Edited by Lakevren, 23 June 2012 - 01:58 AM.