Constant hate towards AMD

[SuperDuperMe]

Agreed, FPS is subjective. However unplayable has a definition and it means you cannot play it. Especially in first person shooters where accuracy and speed is everything. Also, you must agree that its a common threshold, 30FPS and above is considered playable by most, below that is a massive compromise.

Again, wrong. To you maybe, but i find no problem playing below 30fps. I honestly couldn't care if everyone on this forum suggested that i am unable to play my games, the simple fact is its not true. I own around 70 games, quite a few of them are newer titles, bf3, crysis 2, brink and a plethora of others. The only game i can honestly say that i cannot play at less than 30 fps is brink. Its completely unplayable. Battlefield 3, i drop below 27 fps a few times and its still playable. Crysis 2 hovers around 25-27 still hugely playable. In fact when i used to play it i did well enough online usually coming in the top 3.

You can read all the benchmarks you want, suggest what you want. But in this case i think your simply being closed minded. Yes YOU can get 60fps in game, yes YOU dont want to ever drop as YOU know 60 fps looks amazing. Im sure to YOU 25-27fps is absolute rubbish. But for some of us that "comprimise" to play it have a bit of respect. I cant afford hi end gear, so the 25-27 fps gets me by. And i can honestly say i thoroughly enjoy gaming.

Out of curiosity, dont most console games play at sub 30 fps? Now i know pc gaming is better, but are you going to argue that consoles are unplayable? I mean if you have a look at xbox lives players they seem to find no problem gaming on a console at sub 30.

 

[Okedokey]

I personally prefer AMD, I seen an amd 8 core 3.6ghz processor the other day for £199 and the motherboard to go with it supporting upto 32gb ram for a further £170. I can only imagine what a similar Intel setup would cost you

Well the ram will cost the same. And the 8 core AMD chip is slower than a i3 in most games and about the same cost. So yeah about the same only faster.

 

[Okedokey]

Again, wrong. To you maybe, but i find no problem playing below 30fps. I honestly couldn't care if everyone on this forum suggested that i am unable to play my games, the simple fact is its not true. I own around 70 games, quite a few of them are newer titles, bf3, crysis 2, brink and a plethora of others. The only game i can honestly say that i cannot play at less than 30 fps is brink. Its completely unplayable. Battlefield 3, i drop below 27 fps a few times and its still playable. Crysis 2 hovers around 25-27 still hugely playable. In fact when i used to play it i did well enough online usually coming in the top 3.

You can read all the benchmarks you want, suggest what you want. But in this case i think your simply being closed minded. Yes YOU can get 60fps in game, yes YOU dont want to ever drop as YOU know 60 fps looks amazing. Im sure to YOU 25-27fps is absolute rubbish. But for some of us that "comprimise" to play it have a bit of respect. I cant afford hi end gear, so the 25-27 fps gets me by. And i can honestly say i thoroughly enjoy gaming.

Out of curiosity, dont most console games play at sub 30 fps? Now i know pc gaming is better, but are you going to argue that consoles are unplayable? I mean if you have a look at xbox lives players they seem to find no problem gaming on a console at sub 30.

Consoles are locked to 30FPS for a reason.

DICE developers confirmed via Twitter that the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 versions would run at 720p, as opposed to 1080p, which both consoles support. Furthermore, console versions would run at 30 frames per second, which is considered the bare minimum frame rate for first person shooters.

http://bf3blog.com/2011/06/battlefield-3-to-run-in-720p-30fps-on-consoles/

furthermore

Regarding the frame rate, it’s interesting to note that BF3′s main competitor, Modern Warfare 3 and its predecessors have always run at 60fps, which resulted in the familiar smooth gameplay that Call of Duty is known to deliver on consoles.

And I didnt quote myself. I quoted experts. And yes by all means if <25fps is your thing, go for it. Its a bit like fat chicks.... whatever floats your boat.

 

[SuperDuperMe]

At least we agree on something

Its a bit like fat chicks.... whatever floats your boat.

 

[Okedokey]

indeed

 

[TrainTrackHack]

Relevant
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMnjF1O4eH0

 

[SuperDuperMe]

poor playability does not necessarily imply unplayable.

Thats pretty much what i was getting at and i couldnt agree more.

 

[jon76]

Well the ram will cost the same. And the 8 core AMD chip is slower than a i3 in most games and about the same cost. So yeah about the same only faster.

how did you work that one out for a start I can get the i3 for £80 http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=CP-354-IN&groupid=701&catid=6&subcat=1671 and also it is clearly not faster than the 8 core bulldozer although from what I have heard the Intel would probably be more stable, also I didn't mention the cost of the ram, merely the motherboard to go with the processor which seems to be about £30 cheaper with AMD

 

[TrainTrackHack]

The i3 beats the FX chips in gaming because of its far superior single-threaded performance since a lot of games still use only one or two threads to do the hard lifting and very few scale well beyond 4 threads (which the i3 supports through HT). Of course, it doesn't really stand a chance against the 8-cores in properly threaded software.

 

[Okedokey]

The i3 beats the FX chips in gaming because of its far superior single-threaded performance since a lot of games still use only one or two threads to do the hard lifting and very few scale well beyond 4 threads (which the i3 supports through HT). Of course, it doesn't really stand a chance against the 8-cores in properly threaded software.

exactly, and since gaming doesn't require more than 4 cores at best, the bulldozer is a complete fail.

 

[Okedokey]

Thats pretty much what i was getting at and i couldnt agree more.

yeah like walking with 1 leg isnt falling over

 

[Okedokey]

how did you work that one out for a start I can get the i3 for £80 http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=CP-354-IN&groupid=701&catid=6&subcat=1671 and also it is clearly not faster than the 8 core bulldozer although from what I have heard the Intel would probably be more stable, also I didn't mention the cost of the ram, merely the motherboard to go with the processor which seems to be about £30 cheaper with AMD

yeah save 30 quid for a slow processor and a dead socket. that makes sense.

 

[jon76]

I used to have a dual core cpu, it was noticeably slower with everything

 

[Okedokey]

what a 33MHz single core chip from 1983? I doubt it.

The point is cores means little. Its the amount of calculations per clock cycle that counts in games. So having 8 cores (even though bd only really has 4 real cores) that are slow, is much much worse than even 2 with a higher IPC.

 

[jon76]

yeah save 30 quid for a slow processor and a dead socket. that makes sense.

to get one of the better Intel cpu's you are talking nearly £800, is that really worth an extra £600? for that price they can shove that.

if I had an abundance of money I would rather have the intel i7 but for the average person who doesn't have unlimited money it's just not worth paying the extrortionate prices they charge

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=CP-393-IN&groupid=701&catid=6&subcat=1672

 

[Okedokey]

are you tripping?

i3 and motherboard = 155 quid

and its faster for gaming than bulldozer and can be upgraded all the way through i5, i7 and ivy bridge.

 

[jon76]

yes, we have established the i3 is cheap, it's upgrading to the i7 that is expensive take a look at the price of the one I put in the link

 

[Okedokey]

yes, we have established the i3 is cheap, it's upgrading to the i7 that is expensive take a look at the price of the one I put in the link

different socket, different chip, completely irrelevant.

the i3 is a similar price and spanks a bulldozer, that was the point.

how did you work that one out for a start I can get the i3 for £80 http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=CP-354-IN&groupid=701&catid=6&subcat=1671 and also it is clearly not faster than the 8 core bulldozer ..

 

[jon76]

different socket, different chip, completely irrelevant.

the i3 is a similar price and spanks a bulldozer, that was the point.

I have a friend who has the i3 who admits it is not as good although he plans to upgrade to some of the better, that was enough to put me off. But then there will always be people with a biased opinion of what they have, take a look up the forum list, the vast majority have the intel setup and will get uptight about anyone arguing the point that amd is better value for money

 

[Okedokey]

Bias is looking at facts and interpolating something else. That is what you have done, not me. I do note that you have an AMD system, interesting.

I simply pointed out where you were factually wrong, nothing more. AMD has some great alternatives, but to say an 8 core BD chip is better for gaming is simply ignorant.

Btw, your friend can upgrade to something better, a i5 2500k which is still the best gaming chip of all time. He can sell his i3 for 50 quid and pay another 100 for the best chip for gaming. Unfortunately for you though, if you were to purchase a gaming graphics card of note, or require more horsepower form your system, your upgrade potential is a lot less. Significantly less and significantly more expensive than your friends, to get the same performance. That was my point. But we have gone (yet again) off track. 8 core BD is rubbish period.

An indication for the lack of importance on cores for gaming is shown here. Between the 1090T and i3 2100.