By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Slimebeast on 29 March 2014
Edit Thread
vivster said:
Eddie_Raja said:
vivster said:
Jizz_Beard_thePirate said:
vivster said:
Is this a joke?
The title says "Monster PC". All I'm seeing is

Last last gen CPU with last last last last gen power
GPU that is a few steps under high end
painfully overpriced RAM
midrange cooler
ridiculously over sized low quality PSU
mainstream SSD

It's a good, functional and almost cost effective build but it is so far from a "Monster PC" that it made me write this post. Please don't tell me someone actually recommended this build to you.

What...?

You silly person, looks like someone doesn't know the lastest amd cards

For the GPU I count at least 2 steps below high end, completely ignoring crossfire builds.

The CPU can't even handle Intel CPUs from 4 generations ago.

I stand correct.

All I can say is litterally everything you said is incorrect.

Moderators?

Please read some benchmarks.

290 is easily beaten by 290X, 780i and any crossfire/SLI build. That's not high end and definitely not "monster".

AMD CPUs can't hold a candle against Intel CPUs when gaming is concerned. That is the case at least since Sandy Bridge. For reference

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-charts-2013/-20-Crysis-II,3175.html

Notice how the highest end AMD CPU is smoked by multiple INTEL CPUS from 4 generations ago.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-overclock,3106.html

Tell me I'm wrong

lol

An AMD R9 290 is "easily beaten" by a 290X? Yes but the difference is less than 10%! And my Gigabyte R9 290 Windforce GPU is already factory clocked from 950Mhz to 1040Mhz so the difference to a stock AMD R9 290X would be unmeasurable.

Even the fastest Nvidia, the Geforce 780 Ti is only 10-15% faster than my AMD R9 290.
(and the reference Geforece 780 Ti at normal clocks is only 5% faster according to Tomshardware
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-r9-290-and-290x,3728-5.html )

About CPU performance, do you realize that in that test you linked to they run Crysis with low settings (only in trying to demonstrate the - very little - effect a CPU has on gaming performance) and you get a "whopping" 122fps from the fastest Intel CPU compared to the "poor" 112fps from my AMD FX-6300. Is that really how you would define "can't hold a candle"?

And if you would run Crysis in normal gaming settings and let the GPU work, the difference would be even less measurable (less than 10%).

So yes, my PC is a monster, even if it's slightly slower than the biggest monster.