Gaming CPU

Ive owned the amd fx 8150 with an asus crosshair v formula. It sucked. Windows 7 isnt even designed for 8 core cpus. I also had dual 6990s and they sucked. My gtx 690s absolutely destroy them. Go with a core i7 2700k and a gtx 680.
 
xxmorpheus said:
Ive owned the amd fx 8150 with an asus crosshair v formula. It sucked. Windows 7 isnt even designed for 8 core cpus. I also had dual 6990s and they sucked. My gtx 690s absolutely destroy them. Go with a core i7 2700k and a gtx 680.
Click to expand...

Its not that its not designed for it, its that most programs are not. And that windows does not recognize the modules like AMD wants it to.
 
Now I am not on my phone... :P

The FX chips are perfect for gaming, but it doesn't make them the best, in the same way a Ford is perfect for driving the same as a Ferrari is, but the latter is faster.

Where you may be able to get the 60FPS when paired with a decent GPU, when the Intel chip is cheaper, the AMD is not the best, even though it fits the bill. That isn't contradictory at all, for the purpose, it is perfect because it does what is needed. When compared to other chips, whilst it is fit for purpose, it is not the best option.

You seem to assume I am biased and seem to forget just a few months ago my main system was rocking a Phenom II. You don't seem to realise that of the 4 systems currently running in the house, 2 are AMD, 2 Intel. I don't care what is in the case, I care whether it can perform what is needed and when it comes to buying, that I get the best for the money.
 
xxmorpheus said:
Yeh maybe windows 8 will have better performance.
Click to expand...

it's supposed to, but there are still fundamental flaws with the original fx design, the piledriver coming out from what i've seen mainly will address the power issue which should reduce heat and allow better overclocks possibly, and i think it will do some with the cache issues and the pre-fetching thingy or something(?), but we have to wait for the 3rd gen fx, steamroller, to see the true possibilities of the FX platform, of course it should have been the first gen to really compete with intel
 
So, let me get this right. By the time all the known issues are sorted, they will be competing against either Haswell or Broadwell? Seems like by that time they will be 4 generations behind. But maybe they can pull off a miracle or something out of the blue soon.
 
wolfeking said:
So, let me get this right. By the time all the known issues are sorted, they will be competing against either Haswell or Broadwell? Seems like by that time they will be 4 generations behind. But maybe they can pull off a miracle or something out of the blue soon.
Click to expand...

i think by then they might be close to the 2600k/3770k, i hope, the single threaded is their biggest problem, fix that and then the multi-threaded would kickarse.

It just sucks how the fundamental ideas behind the processor are great and would kill intel if they just had the architecture to back up their design.
 
Dont see them pullin a rabbit out of their hat now...honestly a 20-40 percent increase would be great at the rate their at now.
 
Aastii said:
Let me clarify.

When any of the i series processors outperform their AMD counterparts in the price range, why go AMD when performance is in mind? They can do the same performance tasks the Intel chips can, but there is always a but, be it value for money or performance, Intel pips them the post.
Click to expand...

See this is the thing I dont get. When you say (When any of the i series processors outperform their AMD counterparts in the price range, why go AMD when performance is in mind?)


Thats really false. Forget the FX 8150, since the FX 8120 is unlocked it makes the 8150 pointless. The 8120 is 159 bucks. Your comparing any Intel 159 bucks or lower. You cant forget/leave out of the equation/ignore or say you cant rule it in, that all of the FX are unlocked and really easy to oveclock and meant to be. So to say that any intel in the same price range outperforms the AMD counterparts isnt so. The only way is to ignore the fact the AMD is unlocked. Or somehow it doesnt count just to fit the statement

jonnyp11 said:
it's supposed to, but there are still fundamental flaws with the original fx design, the piledriver coming out from what i've seen mainly will address the power issue which should reduce heat and allow better overclocks possibly, and i think it will do some with the cache issues and the pre-fetching thingy or something(?), but we have to wait for the 3rd gen fx, steamroller, to see the true possibilities of the FX platform, of course it should have been the first gen to really compete with intel
Click to expand...

There wont be much difference in Piledriver/Vishera
other then overcloking a few 100 mhz more and using less wattage. Steamroller is when bigger changes happen.


wolfeking said:
So, let me get this right. By the time all the known issues are sorted, they will be competing against either Haswell or Broadwell? Seems like by that time they will be 4 generations behind. But maybe they can pull off a miracle or something out of the blue soon.
Click to expand...

This is what I am talking about. Constantly over exaggerating the differences. Steamroller is a big design change and should improve IPC alot, plus a big difference in the module setup and should improve multi threaded performance alot. Should be out around late 2nd. or 3 quarter next year. At 28 or 22nm. So would be competing with Haswell. Do I now how much performance difference there will be. No. But I'm not going to act like I know what Haswells will be either.

You do know that even Haswell and Broadwell are a continuation of the Core 2 architecture. Intel hasnt had a true architecture change in 6 years. It looks like to me as far as IPC they have hit a dead end with sandybridge. Ivybridge differences is nothing more then just dropping to 22nm. The tweak in the architecture had little effect. Plus they have had a heat problem jump up at higher mhz. They are nowhere near being 4 generations behind.
 
StrangleHold said:
This is what I am talking about. Constantly over exaggerating the differences. Steamroller is a big design change and should improve IPC alot, plus a big difference in the module setup and should improve multi threaded performance alot. Should be out around late 2nd. or 3 quarter next year. At 28 or 22nm. So would be competing with Haswell. Do I now how much performance difference there will be. No. But I'm not going to act like I know what Haswells will be either.
Click to expand...
I was asking if my statement was right. I don't claim to know AMD. I will strait out say that the only way I will use a AMD system is if someone gave it to me for free. I hate the company. That is not a secret, I have said it many times.


You do know that even Haswell and Broadwell are a continuation of the Core 2 architecture. Intel hasnt had a true architecture change in 6 years. It looks like to me as far as IPC they have hit a dead end with sandybridge. Ivybridge differences is nothing more then just dropping to 22nm. The tweak in the architecture had little effect. Plus they have had a heat problem jump up at higher mhz. They are nowhere near being 4 generations behind.
Click to expand...
So you are saying because intel has been tweaking its designs for 6 years or so that AMD is a winner? That makes no sense to me. They are still out performing AMD, especially when you go OC vs OC. Not bringing price into the issue, because you will always loose bringing price into it, as no 2 places have the same price on anything. At newegg, AMD is clearly cheaper, but to take a 8120 for instance against a 2600k (8 thread and unlocked), I am pretty sure that the AMD will be behind in most apps because of a slower IPC. You get what you pay for.

And Ivy was a tick. A die shrink and very little intended improvement. Haswell is the tock, and should be much improved. At least from what I have seen. Broadwell will be ivy to Haswell, just a die shrink and very little internal change.
 
None of that had anything to do with what I said, or if it did it was just twisted to fit your response. Plus none of that proved what I said was wrong. Plus I dont really care what your opinion is of AMD. It just adds to the point that your opinion is askew. I am not a fanboy of either Intel or AMD I just state facts! If that rattles your cage, means nothing.

AMD stuck with same architecture for 6 or 7 years through the Athlon to the Athlon 64 even the phenom has a tweaked Athlon core. Look at what happen to AMD after 6 years stomping Intel in IPC for 6 years using the same architecture when the Core 2 was released. History has a way of repeating itself.
 
StrangleHold said:
Thats really false. Forget the FX 8150, since the FX 8120 is unlocked it makes the 8150 pointless. The 8120 is 159 bucks. Your comparing any Intel 159 bucks or lower. You cant forget/leave out of the equation/ignore or say you cant rule it in, that all of the FX are unlocked and really easy to oveclock and meant to be. So to say that any intel in the same price range outperforms the AMD counterparts isnt so. The only way is to ignore the fact the AMD is unlocked. Or somehow it doesnt count just to fit the statement
Click to expand...
I know full well that the FX chips can overclock really well, but you really shouldn't have to overclock it in order for it to beat the rival chip which is priced very similarly. At the end of the day, I'd say about 95% of the users don't want to overclock. Look at how many people on this forum come up asking for builds and also mention that they do not want to overclock.

You especially should not have to overclock the newer chips in order for them to beat their predecessors.

Pretty sure Aastii mentioned this earlier.

However, I suppose if you're on a budget and you need/want a chip which overclocks really well, then an FX-4100 is ideal. What would be really nice though is if AMD had something to rival the 2600K or the 3770K, at the moment the FX-8120 is only really rivalling the 2500K and the 3570K and usually the i5s come out faster and they overclock just as well - granted, the 8120 is much cheaper than the 2500K though.
 
Last edited:
wolfeking said:
I may be askew, but at least I am not voting for the looser.
Click to expand...

God its like arguing with a 4 year old of whether Sponge Bob is real or not.

spirit said:
I know full well that the FX chips can overclock really well, but you really shouldn't have to overclock it in order for it to beat the rival chip which is priced very similarly. At the end of the day, I'd say about 95% of the users don't want to overclock. Look at how many people on this forum come up asking for builds and also mention that they do not want to overclock.

You especially should not have to overclock the newer chips in order for them to beat their predecessors.

Pretty sure Aastii mentioned this earlier.
Click to expand...

Same old same old. To be able to fit your argument your willing to disguard a feature of a processor because if you dont your point falls through. There is very few people that come here wanting to (build) a computer that doesnt consider overclocking. Even if they have a lower budget have havent considered/thought of overclocking and might if it was brought up has lowerend Intels cramed down the throat. If some one even mentioned a AMD FX they get nothing but a rant. The only slight truth to what you said would be the (very few) people that come here and say overclocking is out of the equation. My proof of the ranting is look what is happening here just because of what I have said!

Edit.
To make sure my point stays on track I am talking about 160 buck and below processors. Considering all FX are unlocked it makes the Intels not so superior or even not equal in alot of situations
 
Last edited:
StrangleHold said:
God its like arguing with a 4 year old of whether Sponge Bob is real or not.
Click to expand...

pretty sure most of us are saying the same thing...

We get your point but in the end the majority agree intel is still better. I like to think i'm not biased, and comparing an i3 to an 8120, i'd probably take the 8120, but for most people the i3 is the better shoice and it's cheaper, it takes at least 6 threads for them to equal out in performance, in a quad threaded app the i3 wins, and most people won';t be overclocking so that's irrelevant for the majority.
 
StrangleHold said:
God its like arguing with a 4 year old of whether Sponge Bob is real or not.
Click to expand...
WTH is sponge bob?

And you keep argueing that all of teh FX processors are better because they are unlocked. That is not a good idea for an argument. You are saying it is okay to be slow on the IPC as long as you can clock the hell out of it. Argueing price is stupid too as you have to pay to get the best. You pay $160 for a processor, especially a high end one, and all you get is a slow unit.
 
wolfeking said:
WTH is sponge bob?

And you keep argueing that all of teh FX processors are better because they are unlocked.
Click to expand...

For a 160 bucks and below, Yes, prove me wrong. Plus lets consider Intel vs. Intel, is a i5 2500 or a i5 2500K the better processor. For 10 more bucks the i5 2500K is alot better deal. Why, because its unlocked. So to not consider that when compairing Intel vs AMD is nothing but BS to fit your askew fanboy opinion. Which you have already proved.


wolfeking said:
That is not a good idea for an argument.
Click to expand...

Yes it is, But not for you because if you dont your argument falls apart


wolfeking said:
You are saying it is okay to be slow on the IPC as long as you can clock the hell out of it. Arguing price is stupid too as you have to pay to get the best. You pay $160 for a processor, especially a high end one, and all you get is a slow unit.
Click to expand...

I never said any of that, I said because its unlocked it will outperform Intels in the same price range. Another twisted post to have some kind of come back. I swear now you cant consider Price/unlocked/IPC. What a bunch of BS.

Not arguing with you anymore unless you give some kind of reasonable fact based post. Not a I hate AMD fanboy come back that leaves out any advantage that AMD has because if you dont your opinion falls apart.
 
here is exactly what you are saying. AMD is better. Which it is not. They are slower clock for clock. The only way they are better is if you over clock them beyond all reason. And to the average user (obviously not you) will not be able to do that. And still, you are claiming that a 160 dollar processor is better. No part of your argument makes any ****ing sense.


Beside the point. Your advice is useless to me.
 
Fruitz said:
Hello
Want to build a new pc for gaming and video editing and what not
just wondering what CPU would best best for that. My friend said that AMD is good "more bang for your buck" I think he said or should i go for intel?
Im going to guess most people would say choose what your budge allows but I just want to know I don't mind paying a few extra dollars if it helps me in the long run.

Thanks
-Fruitz
Click to expand...

Whatever. I may be a fan of Intel. Maybe that is because I don't want to have to clock it as high as it will go to be better.

To go back to the OP, get a 2100 and you will be okay for gaming. Go to a 3570k and you will have the best gaming CPU on the planet currently. Certainly better than any AMD system around.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top