By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Slimebeast on 29 March 2014
Edit Thread
Jizz_Beard_thePirate said:
Eddie_Raja said:
Jizz_Beard_thePirate said:
Eddie_Raja said:
Jizz_Beard_thePirate said:

Yea but have u taken a look at the gaming benchmarks? Intel beats amd in all cases and not to mention that there are far more single threaded applications then multi-threaded ones

Omg when will people get out of 2012:

http://www.bf4blog.com/battlefield-4-retail-gpu-cpu-benchmarks/

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/crysis-3-performance-benchmark-gaming,3451-8.html

The issue is that one or two games wheres the cpu performs slightly better isn't as good as a cpu performing better in majority of the games and applications. As I showed and stated that most applications and games aren't as optomized as bf4 and with the i5, he would have gotten superior performance in most games as well as great performance in multi-threaded games. His build is awesome but I do wish he choose a better CPU. Luckly for him, with DX12 and Mantle, it seems as though the CPU bottleneck won't matter very much


Look he is building a PC for 2014. In 2014 games use 8 threads:

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/msi_z87_xpower_review,15.html

http://www.techspot.com/review/615-far-cry-3-performance/page6.html

 

The FX-83xx performs somewhere around an i5 - i7 pretty consistantly, the FX-63xx performs inbetween an i3 and i5, and FX-43xx is as strong as an i3.  Are you one of the people that said the Pentiums were stronger than Phenom II X4's?  You guys made me laugh so hard when all games started using 4 cores in 2012 and caused these intel budget builders to get sub 20 framerates.

P.S. I have an i7-4770K and it kicks ass.  My brother has an FX-8350, and it matches my old i5-3570K.

Yea but the issue, and I continue to say this which you don't seem to understand, is that majority of the applications and games will still run better with the i5 which is even proven on your benchmarks. He spent almost 2k on his PC, he should have went with an i5 so that it can run better on most games instead of the ones that are just multi-threaded... If he was going a sub $1000 or $1200 build, sure, go amd, but above $1200 should be intel or at least the FX-8350 at minimum. And I respect Amd and my first gaming PC had an Amd Phenom II inside of it and I still use it to this day

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/699?vs=702

All those tests are irrelevant to me (and any hardcore gamer). It's laughable when they compare games in settings that nobody plays them in (or rather, it's laughable when people are unable to interpret the numbers for what they are).

For my tasks, an AMD FX-6300 (or a FX-8350 which I originally bought, but it's only marginally faster) works just as well as the strongest Intel CPU you can buy. Why would I waste another $100 for an Intel processor (and who knows how much for a more expensive muthaboard) and gain no more than 10% increased performance in some specific games (like Skyrim and RTS games in end-game scenarios). Plus I refuse to buy Intel since I am an AMD fan.

I don't do video compressing or server tasks or PhotoShop. All I do is casual Windows tasks, browse the internet and play GAMES.

Gaming is not about the CPU, it's all about the GPU.