New Processing CHIP for extreme gaming

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Molly_Millions

That price difference is what drove my choice initially. But around the same time I built that machine, I got a new i5 at work that hauled ass doing fairly simple things compared to my AMD, I reconsidered and built a new gaming rig using an i5 chip. I'm glad I did.

---

My Phenom II X4 has yet to fail me. Among other things, runs FFXIV like a charm >.>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alhanelem

My Phenom II X4 has yet to fail me. Among other things, runs FFXIV like a charm >.>

---

I'm not doubting that there could have been other issues with my rig hindering performance. Again, this is personal experience, and just one pc compared to another. After fiddling with it for a few months to get better performance with ffxiv, I finally gave in and built a machine that performs much better. But that's why you can't trust anecdotes, test data is a far more accurate indicator. All I'm saying is that my personal experience with AMD has not been good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by indira

if its AMD i'll pass there way behind intel.

---

that matters what your wanting most amd labtops blow intels labtops out water (on gaming that is most other thing there behind on still) but most amd desktops cant even get close to the the same scores intel

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Orophin

I think the new AMD chip will run ARR sufficiently since its requirements should be lower overall. If someone is planning on upgrading an older machine and on a budget, it may be worthwhile to look into it.

...

---

That's what I mostly like to know more about. Yeah people will choose based on preferences or their wallet. While Square Enix is developing ARR around a new engine, how would most of you plan a PC build?

A) Build a new PC around new/ expensive technology.

B) Build a new PC around new(but less expensive) alternative.

C) Upgrade partially with better tech.(but less expensive) hardware.

D) Complete UPGRADE around a better(less expensive) alternative.

Only upgrading parts worked for me for over ten years now. But not everyone is tech-savvy enough to replace the mainboard or CPU. Getting the "highend entry" stuff and overclocking a bit is usually the best performance-for-bucks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dhalmel

OP why did you capitalize chip for?

AMD is alright for budget minded consumers, I was a long time user of AMD till Intel's Nehalem.

AMD's apu are pretty impressive, but at the same while you could just buy an Intel i3 + dedicated gpu for a little more.

It will probably run Reborn fine at conservative settings.
If you do plan to go to Trinity be sure to buy 1866MHZ ram, the graphics performance in AMD's APUs are highly influenced by the memory speed.

---

The word "CHIP" has a subliminal message encryption. .You will have a sudden urge to buy Doritos and the new "Doritos Taco" from Taco Bell..
But yeah, economically speaking, some people would design their machine around AMD, much considering the details around it. For some who can afford much more would nik-pick at this choice,idk... Usually if you can technology that's up to standard, people are more comfortable going that route.

Price-wise, would there be benefits to going with AMD compared to Intel. I currently build my machine around a Intel chip myself. It's a Duo-core Quad 2.33GHzs. I have 8Gs of RAM and a NVidia GeForce GTS 450... runs FFXIV quite decently.

The APU is hands down the best thing that has happened to "laptops", For desktops there isn't an IGP in the world that can best a discreet Mid to High Range-Graphics Card.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PSxpert2011

The word "CHIP" has a subliminal message encryption. .You will have a sudden urge to buy Doritos and the new "Doritos Taco" from Taco Bell..
But yeah, economically speaking, some people would design their machine around AMD, much considering the details around it. For some who can afford much more would nik-pick at this choice,idk... Usually if you can technology that's up to standard, people are more comfortable going that route.

Price-wise, would there be benefits to going with AMD compared to Intel. I currently build my machine around a Intel chip myself. It's a Duo-core Quad 2.33GHzs. I have 8Gs of RAM and a NVidia GeForce GTS 450... runs FFXIV quite decently.

---

I would get the Phenom 2 955BE or the Phenom 2 965 BE, both are cheaper than the i3, have more L3 and L2 Buffer and have more cores than the i3. the Intel hype is old if it is not an i7 go with AMD.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Majidah

i5 3570k ivy bridge OC

/thread

---

Yes Ivy Bridge is cool (I'm running AMD Phenom II and Intel i7 right now on 3 machines), but I am waiting for the release of the following components in May 2013
Intel Haswell i9 with
memory: 16GB (4x4GB) Samsung* DDR3-1600 or better
storage: solid state HD 6Gbs or better
video card: GeForce GTX 780 with built in Surround Sound and 3D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coldfire

Don't start making the mistake of thinking TDP means power usage :P
Over the years they always increased the clock speeds while decreasing the structure sizes. Now the clock speeds are at a point where putting them any higher would increase the power consumption a whole lot. Same thing with CPUs.

---

When two cards or CPU of the same series, with the same architecture, have a different TDP, you can easily affirm that the card with the lowest TDP will draw less power. Also when the gap is really high (i.e. 20W TDP vs 250W TDP, you can blindly say that the first card will consume less power :])

Typical case, B3 Kentsfield vs G0 Kentsfield. 105W vs 95W. The G0 could achieve higher clocks with the same amount of power (or same speed with less power :p).

So off course TDP != power drawn from the socket, it's heavily related on the architecture.

Quote:

---

My Phenom II X4 has yet to fail me. Among other things, runs FFXIV like a charm >.>

---

It doesn't change the fact that you have paid for a CPU that have a worse performance/price ratio (and overclocking potential) than its Intel counterparts :s

No one ever said that AMD CPU cannot run XIV well, but it's been a while since AMD was ahead in high end CPU for gaming enthusiast.

Quote:

---

the Intel hype is old if it is not an i7 go with AMD.

---

Well, Sandy Bridge i5 have a better $/performance ratio in games than i7. There is no point to buy a 2600K for gaming, 2500K do just as good (and can be overclocked more easily due to the lack of HT).

The 2500K was $215 at release, the 2600K was $300+... For a gain that was often not even noticeable in any game (<1fps).

Quote:

---

It doesn't change the fact that you have paid for a CPU that have a worse performance/price ratio (and overclocking potential) than its Intel counterparts :s

---

The thing is, you're kind of comparing apples to oranges. Each extra ounce of performance doesn't really have the same value or ability to percieve such performance (and different CPUs in some cases have different features that go beyond simply processing more instructions per second). If the specs of your hardware exceeds what is necessary for optimal performance of the software you're running. I frankly consider the price/performance ratio to be a dubious statistic. all it is is the price over instructions per second, and that value alone is not enough to assess the worth of the CPU.

If you don't need the latest i5/i7, why pay for it? The mainstream AMD CPU is cheaper and will work just as well for most people in most situations. Only if you're a really hardcore user does most of this even matter. Even if you buy the more expensive or better "price/performance ratio" CPU, you're still going to replace it just as / nearly as often, so are you really saving money? Answer: Probably not.

The whole thing is: Why pay more for the function you never use? What is the point of "price/performance ratio" if they are "blank" performance?

tl;dl Buy the CPU that suits your own use. It is always as simple as that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Timotheus

The whole thing is: Why pay more for the function you never use? What is the point of "price/performance ratio" if they are "blank" performance?

tl;dl Buy the CPU that suits your own use. It is always as simple as that.

---

The point is, if you have a set amount of money and can get more for the same price (or the same, for less money), why wouldn't you go for the manufacturer that isn't leading?

No one ever said that you should purchase something that you don't need. Actually I even said the contrary by giving the i5/i7 example for gaming. The performance boost in games offered by the i7 doesn't worth the extra bucks that need to be spent.

Finally, lot of people don't buy a CPU for a month, that's an investment supposed to last couple of years, so you want to consider how long your CPU will last. It's the same with buying a mobo using a socket that is near the end of its life cycle. If you are planning to upgrade, then it means that you will be forced to change mobo.

Don't forget you also need a mainboard that fits the CPU and Intel-based mainboards are usually way more pricey. Also some people don't like supporting companies that play dirty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alhanelem

If you don't need the latest i5/i7, why pay for it? The mainstream AMD CPU is cheaper and will work just as well for most people in most situations. Only if you're a really hardcore user does most of this even matter. Even if you buy the more expensive or better "price/performance ratio" CPU, you're still going to replace it just as / nearly as often, so are you really saving money? Answer: Probably not.

---

You are right if you assume that people upgrade often (which most do, I guess). For me however, I buy once and use it as long as I can. So for me, going with the best price/performance ratio is best.

My Phenom II X4 isn't a bad CPU. It was the best AMD had to offer back then, with Intel's i5 having nearly the same performance and being only marginally more expensive. The only thing that annoys me is that it's running so damn hot and that I'm bound to shitty AMD chipsets which still have problems booting efficiently (aka "I'll stop booting for whatever reason and sit there doing nothing for 15 seconds").

For example, using the same SSD (SATA II) on the same board, with it being attached to the AMD chipset, it would boot in 45 seconds and everything felt sluggish. Attaching it to the Marvell controller didn't make any difference. After disabling the AMD chip, the system suddenly boots in under 30 seconds and feels way faster. This is a known problem since SB750 and they have been working on it since then. It got better (only 5 seconds delay) with the SB950 I'm using now, but it's still annoying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coldfire

Don't forget you also need a mainboard that fits the CPU and Intel-based mainboards are usually way more pricey. Also some people don't like supporting companies that play dirty.

---

Usually it is a bit yes, but it really depends what kind of features you need on your mobo as well and how hardcore you are regarding o/c'ing. When I see people purchasing $200 motherboard to run an i7 @4.4Ghz and not using any of the advanced mobo features, I just don't understand.

If you keep a moderate o/c, don't need anything fancy on your mobo, then both AMD/Intel are really cheap.

Quote:

---

You are right if you assume that people upgrade often (which most do, I guess). For me however, I buy once and use it as long as I can.

---

You know, a lot of people say this, but in reality, the bleeding edge CPU doesn't last that much longer than the less expensive model, making pirce/performance an almost irrelevant statistic.

Quote:

---

I'm bound to shitty AMD chipsets which still have problems booting efficiently (aka "I'll stop booting for whatever reason and sit there doing nothing for 15 seconds").

---

I've never had a problem like this. You must have gotten a bad board or something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alhanelem

I've never had a problem like this. You must have gotten a bad board or something.

---

Definietly not. I tried 4 boards of different manufacturers, all of them had the same weird booting stop.

And I'm definitely not alone on this, just do a "sb750 slow boot" google search, you'll find loads of posts about it. It's more likely you didn't notice the issue because you are used to it.

edit: just an example

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soukyuu

Definietly not. I tried 4 boards of different manufacturers, all of them had the same weird booting stop.

And I'm definitely not alone on this, just do a "sb750 slow boot" google search, you'll find loads of posts about it. It's more likely you didn't notice the issue because you are used to it.

edit: just an example

---

I'm using the SB950 and boot in 13 seconds flat in AHCI, unless i'm using the on board raid then it takes around 7 seconds to initialize each drive plus the 10 second controller initialization time which is typical of all software raids.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valmonte

I'm using the SB950 and boot in 13 seconds flat in AHCI, unless i'm using the on board raid then it takes around 7 seconds to initialize each drive plus the 10 second controller initialization time which is typical of all software raids.

---

Are we talking about the time it takes from pressing the on button to desktop appearing here? I'm not using raid, ssd is the crucial m4. My brother has a similar boot time as you with the same SSD but Intel's Z78 chipset. My booting time is about 24-31 seconds.

AMD's bulldog architecture does not play nice with Windows 7(do to it not being able to properly initiate multi-threading). That being said AMD does promise it is properly optimized for Windows 8. If they can optimize it for Windows 8 then I would say AMD could be a good buy for the buck.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soukyuu

Are we talking about the time it takes from pressing the on button to desktop appearing here? I'm not using raid, ssd is the crucial m4. My brother has a similar boot time as you with the same SSD but Intel's Z78 chipset. My booting time is about 24-31 seconds.

---

yes 13 seconds, until the PC is in the ready state using Intel 320 SSD.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Presbytier

AMD's bulldog architecture does not play nice with Windows 7(do to it not being able to properly initiate multi-threading). That being said AMD does promise it is properly optimized for Windows 8. If they can optimize it for Windows 8 then I would say AMD could be a good buy for the buck.

---

there's nothing wrong with the bulldozers, save for the fact that there more of a Budget Server Processor than an actual Desktop Processor. Ive compared both the FX 4100 and the Phenom 2 x4 965 and found that the FX processors performed better for data crunching but flopped at actual raw data throughput. while the phenom was notably weaker at data crunching it blew the FX-4100 out of the water at raw data throughput.

As a side note the FX series do not multi thread in the same traditional matter as one might expect, its more along the lines of Data Sharing between two cores to get things done faster....kinda like SLI or Crossfire. the FX Line CPU's are interesting in the fact that 2 cores are one thread, its also easy to confuse as one thinks of 4 cores being 4 threads this is not the case with the FX series as the proper Core to thread ratio is 2:1

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Presbytier

AMD's bulldozer architecture does not play nice with Windows 7(do to it not being able to properly initiate multi-threading). That being said AMD does promise it is properly optimized for Windows 8. If they can optimize it for Windows 8 then I would say AMD could be a good buy for the buck.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valmonte

there's nothing wrong with the bulldozers, save for the fact that there more of a Budget Server Processor than an actual Desktop Processor. Ive compared both the FX 4100 and the Phenom 2 x4 965 and found that the FX processors performed better for data crunching but flopped at actual raw data throughput. while the phenom was notably weaker at data crunching it blew the FX-4100 out of the water at raw data throughput.

As a side note the FX series do not multi thread in the same traditional matter as one might expect, its more along the lines of Data Sharing between two cores to get things done faster....kinda like SLI or Crossfire. the FX Line CPU's are interesting in the fact that 2 cores are one thread, its also easy to confuse as one thinks of 4 cores being 4 threads this is not the case with the FX series as the proper Core to thread ratio is 2:1

---

To clarify some more what I meant. According to AMD, Windows 7 doesn’t understand Bulldozer’s resource allocation very well. Windows 7 “sees” eight independent CPU cores, despite the fact that each module shares scheduling and execution resources. Sometimes it makes the most sense to spin threads off to idle cores before scheduling them on cores already busy with something else. Other times, it’s best to spin two related threads off to the same core. Windows 8 will apparently be much more proficient at scheduling workloads where it makes the most sense to execute them. So, whether it is bad design by AMD is certainly disputable it is interesting to not several executives at AMD left right before Bulldozer was launched.

APU's for extreme gaming = nonsence. Is ok for the casual gamer that plays at medium settings. The GPU in that APU is about the same as a 6650 and thats a really cheap entry gaming card.
As for the discussion about AMD vs Intel i run a i7 3930k @4.5ghz my brother runs a AMD phenom 965 @4.0Ghz we both have a 7970 and we get pretty much the same fps on any game.

AMDs are cheap for a reason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Issachar

AMDs are cheap for a reason.

---

there boot leg intel's. funny thing is it true.

Quote:

---

If you don't need the latest i5/i7, why pay for it? The mainstream AMD CPU is cheaper and will work just as well for most people in most situations. Only if you're a really hardcore user does most of this even matter. Even if you buy the more expensive or better "price/performance ratio" CPU, you're still going to replace it just as / nearly as often, so are you really saving money? Answer: Probably not.

---

im running a intel i7 860 @4ghz, 8GB DDR3 dualchannel, 2x 480gtx, and still can run anything maxed out built back in 2008. no way a AMD has ever laster me that long before i started getting jerky frames..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valmonte

yes 13 seconds, until the PC is in the ready state using Intel 320 SSD.

---

That is interesting. Which board do you have? BIOS or UEFI?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by indira

there boot leg intel's. funny thing is it true.


im running a intel i7 860 @4ghz, 8GB DDR3 dualchannel, 2x 480gtx, and still can run anything maxed out built back in 2008. no way a AMD has ever laster me that long before i started getting jerky frames..

---

Phenom cpus are older then that yet my brother's pc maxes everything >.> ppl buying i7's for gaming are just wasting money unless they run crossfire/sli of top cards which a 480 is not. Even when it was lauched the 480 lost against AMD top gpus. Noway quad core phenom would limit that 480 lol. Like i said my brother runs a 7970 which beats yr SLI setup and his cpu doesnt bottleneck the card.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by indira

there boot leg intel's. funny thing is it true.


im running a intel i7 860 @4ghz, 8GB DDR3 dualchannel, 2x 480gtx, and still can run anything maxed out built back in 2008. no way a AMD has ever laster me that long before i started getting jerky frames..

---

No Intel has ever lasted me that long before i started getting jerky frames. Apples and oranges and pears and pomegranites. None of the different CPUs you ever used could be directly compared in any fair unbiased manner. I can't claim that either. User experience is everything. Just because something works for you doesn't mean it will work for everyone else.

Also: What the guy above said.

You're just throwing the brand names around in a fanboy like way.

For strictly gaming CPU's have been giving diminishing returns for awhile now. I don't want to get into it too much right now but pretty much any quad core made in the past 3 years coupled with a good video card can pretty much run any game on max. The difference between CPU's with identical cards will be a few fps at most unless your playing with something ridiculous.

I have always loved AMD. I just hate how expensive Intel is. I can't justify buying Intel when I can get something comparable at 1/2 the cost.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aloysous

I have always loved AMD. I just hate how expensive Intel is. I can't justify buying Intel when I can get something comparable at 1/2 the cost.

---

The i5 series is comparable to AMDs top line chips and the prices are not too off. the only real benefit Intel has over AMD is larger cache's on their chips and better hyper/multi threading tech. For the most part if i was building a windows based pc it would come down to which was on sale at the time(although I would always lean Intel just do to the fact it is better supported[much in the same way AMD Radeon cards have lousy driver support compared to nVidia]).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soukyuu

That is interesting. Which board do you have? BIOS or UEFI?

---

BIOS, i find that UEFI likes to hide many settings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by indira

there boot leg intel's. funny thing is it true.

---

Intel has stolen and used more of AMD's successful cache techniques than i can count. the last Intel "clone" was the am 5x86. AMD had stomped intel for years until intels big break in 02.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valmonte

BIOS, i find that UEFI likes to hide many settings.

---

Depends on the manufacturer, that's why I wanted to know which board (model) you have ^^

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soukyuu

Depends on the manufacturer, that's why I wanted to know which board (model) you have ^^

---

Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD5

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valmonte

Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD5

---

Mine is GA-990FXA-UD3 O_O
There is an annoying 5-7 delay of blinking "_" before it finally switches to "Loading OS...", and no amount of turning off additional components gets rid of it... None of the sort on my brother's GA-Z77X-UD3H

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soukyuu

Mine is GA-990FXA-UD3 O_O
There is an annoying 5-7 delay of blinking "_" before it finally switches to "Loading OS...", and no amount of turning off additional components gets rid of it... None of the sort on my brother's GA-Z77X-UD3H

---

im not sure what to tell you then, mine blows through the bios the moment i hit the power button i literally have to start pressing it before i turn the pc on. after post there are 2 flashes that aren't even a second in between then i'm on the loading windows screen.

here's what i got.
Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD5
Phenom 2 955 @ 3.8Ghz
16GB OCZ Fatlity Series 2133 DDR3 Clocked @ 1800 due to AM2+ Memory controller limit
2x EVGA Superclocked 460's in SLI.
1 intel 320 SSD for OS and OS aplications
1 WD Cavier Black 2TB drive for Games and Storage.
1 Creative X-FI Fatality Series.
1 Intel PCI-E 1000/100/10 Pro

Due to my setup i have no onboard devices enabled save for USB and the AHCI controller.

Well idk, the only thing I have enabled additionally to yours is eSATA and audio. I tried turning everything off and it gave me about 2 seconds difference, the annoying blinking is still there. I even tried disconnecting everything except for the SSD and it's still there. Messaged Gigabyte about it, let's see what they think, but I'm fairly certain that it's the controller's fault...

Anyway, that's mine:

Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD3
Phenom II 965 @ 3.4Ghz
4GB OCZ 1600 7-7-7-24@1.65V
MSI 260GTX preOC
crucial m4 128GB SSD for OS
WD Cavier Black 500GB for storage
USB WLAN
onboard sound


Oh and after updating my E-350 based HTPC, I now have the "CCC doesn't support this driver version" error again.
Why the hell did you pack this version into the driver package in the first place, AMD?!

Gigabyte's UEFI is fine btw (GA-Z77X-UD3H). There are even more settings in it than in the BIOS version imho.