Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

Bottle necking question?

Tags:
  • Intel i5
  • Samsung
  • Graphics
  • Seagate barracuda
  • AMD
  • Nvidia
  • 8350
  • SSD
  • Monitors
  • Radeon
Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
March 29, 2014 4:34:51 AM

Hey guys, I've been advised to get a new monitor and somebody said this in one of my responses,

"Responce time is mostly marketing hype. It has nothing with input lag which can be as high as 40ms. If you going to buy top video card, you need to upgrade your CPU also - its too slow for such high-end video as GTX780. Buy at least i5-3330/i5-3350p instead (i5-4430 if better, ofc)"

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=MO...

Was looking at this monitor and to upgrade to an R9-290.

Specs:

AMD 8350
Asrock Extreme 4 990 Mobo
8GB Hyper X beast 1866 ram
XFX 7870 XT (Esentially a 7930, aria.co.uk exclusive)
XFX 650 watt PSU 80+ Bronze
Samsung 840 EVO SSD
Seagate Barracuda 1TB
Cooler Master Storm Enforcer case

Is this guy talking sense or is he just an intel fanboy?

Thanks guys!


More about : bottle necking question

March 29, 2014 4:47:20 AM

The CPU might be too fast for the GPU and the GPU can't work as fast as the CPU therefore the GPU is a bottneck and that will slow the system down.
m
0
l
March 29, 2014 4:51:44 AM

Rami Zerker Reini said:
The CPU might be too fast for the GPU and the GPU can't work as fast as the CPU therefore the GPU is a bottneck and that will slow the system down.


As in the GPU I'm using now or the GPU I'm planning on upgrading too?
m
0
l
Related resources
March 29, 2014 4:55:38 AM

Fisheth said:
Rami Zerker Reini said:
The CPU might be too fast for the GPU and the GPU can't work as fast as the CPU therefore the GPU is a bottneck and that will slow the system down.


As in the GPU I'm using now or the GPU I'm planning on upgrading too?


R9 290/R9 290x would work pretty much perfectly with FX-8350
m
0
l
March 29, 2014 4:59:37 AM

Rami Zerker Reini said:
Fisheth said:
Rami Zerker Reini said:
The CPU might be too fast for the GPU and the GPU can't work as fast as the CPU therefore the GPU is a bottneck and that will slow the system down.


As in the GPU I'm using now or the GPU I'm planning on upgrading too?


R9 290/R9 290x would work pretty much perfectly with FX-8350


Even with the resolution of the monitor I was looking at? Only thing that's putting me of that monitor is the 6MS response time! But no other monitors are that size and that are less than 5, that I can afford anyway!
m
0
l
a b À AMD
a b Î Nvidia
a b C Monitor
March 29, 2014 5:01:40 AM

ok. first of all that's an intel fanboy.

lets start over with your question.

1) response time plays a significant roll in FPS and is not "marketing hype"...
2) input lag on a modern cpu is insignificant... even with a poor gpu and cpu. An fx8350 is generations too strong for it to even enter into the discussion. Basically the biggest factor with input lag is YOU. Nothing else except for your internet connection will play a significant roll in input lag... to give you an idea... you can take 150-250ms to respond to something you see, if your monitor has a 5ms response time, and your computer/net connection puts in another 10ms we're talking about <10% of your input lag being computer based.
3) for a gaming monitor, a 5ms or less response time is ideal. Understand very few companies report their response times on their monitors accurately. BenQ and Asus are the top monitor manufacturers, not particularly because they make the best monitors... but because they actually report their response times and other important information accurately. They're popular because you can trust your monitor will be what they say it is.

A thing about cpus - if you get a monitor with 60hz refresh rate you'll NEVER be able to tell the difference between an fx6300,8320,8350 and an i5/i7. An fx6300 will get you 60fps on any title out there. In short it's good enough. You start to see a difference between AMD and Intel cpus when you move up to a 144hz monitor... as those AMD cpus will struggle to give you the max 144fps in many titles unless you stick a heavy overclock on them.

Now onto your specific question.

an r9-290/gtx780 would be ideal for that monitor. And at those resolutions with a max frame-rate of 80, you'll never notice you have an AMD cpu. The difference between AMD and intel are more pronounced in low resolution settings... and in multiple gpu settups. a single r9-290 + fx8350 will be within 5% of the performance of an i5/i7 in 99% of titles out there. Get an overclock on that fx8350 up to 4.8ghz and that small difference will vanish.

The moral of this story?

Trust your instincts... don't listen to fanboys.
m
0
l

Best solution

a b À AMD
a b Î Nvidia
a b C Monitor
March 29, 2014 5:03:01 AM

He had a point, but he ruined it with Intel fanboyism.
Response time is mostly marketing hype; companies play with the numbers enough that they can sell 10ms as 2ms on a whim to fit different price points. Really, the exact response time does not matter. You won't notice a difference from 1ms to 5ms, if those numbers even happen to be accurate.

That said, your CPU is fine and he was wrong about needing an i5. Yes, an i5 would perform better, but the FX-8350 is already strong enough that it shouldn't hold you back at all in modern games unless you try to run a pointless framerate like 120 fps or something.
Share
March 29, 2014 5:03:30 AM

Fisheth said:
Rami Zerker Reini said:
The CPU might be too fast for the GPU and the GPU can't work as fast as the CPU therefore the GPU is a bottneck and that will slow the system down.


As in the GPU I'm using now or the GPU I'm planning on upgrading too?


http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/crossfire-sli-scali...

Your current gpu is a nice combo with your processor. As you can see the 8350 slightly bottlenecks at a single 7970/ gtx 680 level.

If you intend to upgrade to a r9 290 then yes you are going to need an intel i5 or better to take full advantage of it's performance.



/sigh again with that myth about 60hz and fps greater than 60...



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gFxi307MV4


YES you can tell the difference, even on a 60hz monitor. There is such a thing as smooth 60fps and stuttering shit 60 fps.

You get better frame times and latencies on the intel cpu's.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=512976


I have personal experience going from an amd to a intel cpu. There is a HUGE difference in game "smoothness".


Especially in cpu bound games, the i5 can be up to 40% faster then a 8350.


On skyrim and far cry 3 I could not believe the damn difference.
m
0
l
a b À AMD
a b Î Nvidia
a b C Monitor
March 29, 2014 5:05:46 AM

maxalge said:
Fisheth said:
Rami Zerker Reini said:
The CPU might be too fast for the GPU and the GPU can't work as fast as the CPU therefore the GPU is a bottneck and that will slow the system down.


As in the GPU I'm using now or the GPU I'm planning on upgrading too?


http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/crossfire-sli-scali...

Your current gpu is a nice combo with your processor. As you can see the 8350 slightly bottlenecks at a single 7970/ gtx 680 level.

If you intend to upgrade to a r9 290 then yes you are going to need an intel i5 or better to take full advantage of it's performance.


Only if he intends to run games way above 60 fps, which is beyond pointless right now.
m
0
l
March 29, 2014 5:06:20 AM

Rationale said:
maxalge said:
Fisheth said:
Rami Zerker Reini said:
The CPU might be too fast for the GPU and the GPU can't work as fast as the CPU therefore the GPU is a bottneck and that will slow the system down.


As in the GPU I'm using now or the GPU I'm planning on upgrading too?


http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/crossfire-sli-scali...

Your current gpu is a nice combo with your processor. As you can see the 8350 slightly bottlenecks at a single 7970/ gtx 680 level.

If you intend to upgrade to a r9 290 then yes you are going to need an intel i5 or better to take full advantage of it's performance.


Only if he intends to run games way above 60 fps, which is beyond pointless right now.


How is it pointless?
m
0
l
a b À AMD
a b Î Nvidia
a b C Monitor
March 29, 2014 5:08:24 AM

Fisheth said:
Rationale said:
maxalge said:
Fisheth said:
Rami Zerker Reini said:
The CPU might be too fast for the GPU and the GPU can't work as fast as the CPU therefore the GPU is a bottneck and that will slow the system down.


As in the GPU I'm using now or the GPU I'm planning on upgrading too?


http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/crossfire-sli-scali...

Your current gpu is a nice combo with your processor. As you can see the 8350 slightly bottlenecks at a single 7970/ gtx 680 level.

If you intend to upgrade to a r9 290 then yes you are going to need an intel i5 or better to take full advantage of it's performance.


Only if he intends to run games way above 60 fps, which is beyond pointless right now.


How is it pointless?


Because it is. The extra resources spent doubling the framerate could be better spent doubling the resolution or doubling the graphics quality. Or just kept, as a degree of future proofing.
m
0
l
March 29, 2014 5:09:57 AM

Rationale said:
Fisheth said:
Rationale said:
maxalge said:
Fisheth said:
Rami Zerker Reini said:
The CPU might be too fast for the GPU and the GPU can't work as fast as the CPU therefore the GPU is a bottneck and that will slow the system down.


As in the GPU I'm using now or the GPU I'm planning on upgrading too?


http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/crossfire-sli-scali...

Your current gpu is a nice combo with your processor. As you can see the 8350 slightly bottlenecks at a single 7970/ gtx 680 level.

If you intend to upgrade to a r9 290 then yes you are going to need an intel i5 or better to take full advantage of it's performance.


Only if he intends to run games way above 60 fps, which is beyond pointless right now.


How is it pointless?


Because it is. The extra resources spent doubling the framerate could be better spent doubling the resolution or doubling the graphics quality. Or just kept, as a degree of future proofing.


I'm not sure if I understand this...
m
0
l
a b À AMD
a b Î Nvidia
a b C Monitor
March 29, 2014 5:13:49 AM

Fisheth said:
Rationale said:
Fisheth said:
Rationale said:
maxalge said:
Fisheth said:
Rami Zerker Reini said:
The CPU might be too fast for the GPU and the GPU can't work as fast as the CPU therefore the GPU is a bottneck and that will slow the system down.


As in the GPU I'm using now or the GPU I'm planning on upgrading too?


http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/crossfire-sli-scali...

Your current gpu is a nice combo with your processor. As you can see the 8350 slightly bottlenecks at a single 7970/ gtx 680 level.

If you intend to upgrade to a r9 290 then yes you are going to need an intel i5 or better to take full advantage of it's performance.


Only if he intends to run games way above 60 fps, which is beyond pointless right now.


How is it pointless?


Because it is. The extra resources spent doubling the framerate could be better spent doubling the resolution or doubling the graphics quality. Or just kept, as a degree of future proofing.


I'm not sure if I understand this...


Running a game at 120 fps takes exactly double the processing power of running a game at 60 fps.
If a person can run a game at 1080p and 120fps, it would take more performance than running the game at 1440p/60fps.
Increasing the framerate past 60 isn't efficient by any means, there are much more effective uses of processing power. Unless, of course, someone happens to have 2 780 TIs in SLI, and i7-4960X, and so much processing power they don't know what to use it for.
m
0
l
a b À AMD
a b Î Nvidia
a b C Monitor
March 29, 2014 5:14:26 AM

Fisheth said:
How is it pointless?

because his monitor only allows a max of 80fps.

simply put his monitor is the bottleneck NOT the cpu.

frankly, if i see one more intel build with a 60hz monitor i'll pull my eyes out. There is no reason to go intel on a gaming build if you're going to get a 60hz monitor.... Its like buying a v8 and putting it in a Nissan Cube. You're just wasting horsepower.
m
1
l
March 29, 2014 5:18:04 AM

ingtar33 said:
Fisheth said:
How is it pointless?

because his monitor only allows a max of 80fps.

simply put his monitor is the bottleneck NOT the cpu.

frankly, if i see one more intel build with a 60hz monitor i'll pull my eyes out. There is no reason to go intel on a gaming build if you're going to get a 60hz monitor.... Its like buying a v8 and putting it in a Nissan Cube. You're just wasting horsepower.


Right, so it's a better buy for me than the 144HZ monitor from Asus I was looking at?

m
0
l
a b À AMD
a b Î Nvidia
a b C Monitor
March 29, 2014 5:29:19 AM

Fisheth said:
ingtar33 said:
Fisheth said:
How is it pointless?

because his monitor only allows a max of 80fps.

simply put his monitor is the bottleneck NOT the cpu.

frankly, if i see one more intel build with a 60hz monitor i'll pull my eyes out. There is no reason to go intel on a gaming build if you're going to get a 60hz monitor.... Its like buying a v8 and putting it in a Nissan Cube. You're just wasting horsepower.


Right, so it's a better buy for me than the 144HZ monitor from Asus I was looking at?



depends...

generally there is no harm going with a 144hz monitor... if it's the same price and resolution... But it's doubtful you'll be able to get to 144fps with a r9-290+8350 at 1440p IN EVERY GAME. You will get to 80fps is pretty much everything... you'll probably only manage 144fps in 70% of stuff out there... in which case you might want to look into an intel down the road... at least there will be a (possibly) perceptible performance increase

(i say "possibly", because many people claim they can't tell the difference for fps over 50-60fps... in my experience i can only tell in a FPS, because when twisting and turning quickly, there is less ghosting, and the image seems sharper as your camera moves. Outside of a fps, i can't tell over 45fps most of the time)

So unless you're a heavy FPS player, the advantage of going with a 144hz monitor is basically non-existent...
m
0
l
March 29, 2014 5:39:10 AM

ingtar33 said:
Fisheth said:
ingtar33 said:
Fisheth said:
How is it pointless?

because his monitor only allows a max of 80fps.

simply put his monitor is the bottleneck NOT the cpu.

frankly, if i see one more intel build with a 60hz monitor i'll pull my eyes out. There is no reason to go intel on a gaming build if you're going to get a 60hz monitor.... Its like buying a v8 and putting it in a Nissan Cube. You're just wasting horsepower.


Right, so it's a better buy for me than the 144HZ monitor from Asus I was looking at?



depends...

generally there is no harm going with a 144hz monitor... if it's the same price and resolution... But it's doubtful you'll be able to get to 144fps with a r9-290+8350 at 1440p IN EVERY GAME. You will get to 80fps is pretty much everything... you'll probably only manage 144fps in 70% of stuff out there... in which case you might want to look into an intel down the road... at least there will be a (possibly) perceptible performance increase

(i say "possibly", because many people claim they can't tell the difference for fps over 50-60fps... in my experience i can only tell in a FPS, because when twisting and turning quickly, there is less ghosting, and the image seems sharper as your camera moves. Outside of a fps, i can't tell over 45fps most of the time)

So unless you're a heavy FPS player, the advantage of going with a 144hz monitor is basically non-existent...


FPS's are the only games I play, the monitor was much cheaper and it's a 1080P monitor, so I was kinda hopeful I'd hit 144FPS on quite a few games.
m
0
l
March 29, 2014 6:22:13 AM

Rationale said:
maxalge said:
Fisheth said:
Rami Zerker Reini said:
The CPU might be too fast for the GPU and the GPU can't work as fast as the CPU therefore the GPU is a bottneck and that will slow the system down.


As in the GPU I'm using now or the GPU I'm planning on upgrading too?


http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/crossfire-sli-scali...

Your current gpu is a nice combo with your processor. As you can see the 8350 slightly bottlenecks at a single 7970/ gtx 680 level.

If you intend to upgrade to a r9 290 then yes you are going to need an intel i5 or better to take full advantage of it's performance.


Only if he intends to run games way above 60 fps, which is beyond pointless right now.


Even IF he ran with vsync he would still get the benefits of lower frame times etc.

The idea that 60fps is some sort of magical yardstick for measuring gaming is wrong. It is an outdated notion.

A 8350 @ 60 fps will not give the same experience as an 4670k @ 60fps.

http://techreport.com/review/23246/inside-the-second-ga...


@ingtar33 If you can't tell the difference after 45fps should you really be giving advice on such matters?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ax8NxWn48tY


You can gain a nice amount of "smoothness" even on 60hz monitors by locking your frames higher to like 72 or 80 fps. You WILL see an difference in the animations etc.
m
0
l
a b À AMD
a b Î Nvidia
a b C Monitor
March 29, 2014 7:14:22 AM

maxalge said:

Even IF he ran with vsync he would still get the benefits of lower frame times etc.

The idea that 60fps is some sort of magical yardstick for measuring gaming is wrong. It is an outdated notion.

A 8350 @ 60 fps will not give the same experience as an 4670k @ 60fps.

http://techreport.com/review/23246/inside-the-second-ga...


@ingtar33 If you can't tell the difference after 45fps should you really be giving advice on such matters?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ax8NxWn48tY


You can gain a nice amount of "smoothness" even on 60hz monitors by locking your frames higher to like 72 or 80 fps. You WILL see an difference in the animations etc.


Ok... that highlighted passage is pure nonsense. I would hope you could explain how 60fps on an AMD is different from 60fps on an intel. I know what you're trying to say but what you actually said is pure sophistry.

As to that article, look at the cpus and testing methodology, as well as the dates. That's hardly applicable to the OP's question.

As to not being able to tell the difference in fps? It's simple. I've built, gamed and worked on pcs for 20+ years. In that time i've learned many things... one of the main things i've learned is people's perceived "experience" of their computer is proportional to the money they spent. People who spent more believe they experience more even if the "more" they experience is not detectable by the human mind.

A wonderful illustration happened a few years ago with two friends of mine. It had to do with the boot times on two similarly set up computers using a standard hard drive and the same OS. one system cost 600 (dual cored phenomII), the other 1200 (nehelam i7)... and the person who spent 1200 couldn't stop talking about the fast boot times of his computer. While the person who spent 600 couldn't stop complaining about the slow boot times in comparison to the person who spent 1200. To my eyes they seemed to start up slower then a 5 year older p4 i was working on, so out of curiosity i took a watch to the three systems to see which one actually started faster. It turned out i was right, the old p4 was almost 2 seconds faster to the password screen on windows7 then the PHII, which was followed by 1 second, the i7.

I kid you not... The system my two friends thought was the fastest was hands down the slowest... and both brand new systems were slower then an archaic single core p4. I fixed the bios settings to speed up the boot times on both systems, and both people were happy about it... but here we had a situation where the $$$ spent changed their perceptions of performance.

Most benches showing differences between computer hardware are portraying measurement sizes the human eye and mind can't detect. Many benches the user would never be able to tell which system was performing faster unless the two systems were sitting next to each-other doing the tasks at the same time.

This is a really round about way to get to my point, but i hope you're still with me. You see I realized decades ago that not all frames per second were the same. I remember noticing it first on betrayal of krondor, when my overclocked 486 was pulling down 30fps... and it actually felt rougher then the 20fps it was getting in a might and magic (4 i think... can't remember which one it was) game. High frame rates are nice, but in a lot of games totally unnecessary as long as the frames come well paced. In many games, well paced frames with a 20fps can look better then poorly paced 40fps in the same title. I don't think I've got some super eyes or anything... i've got a nice computer monitor, and i'll tell you, excepting in fps, or games with a lot of camera movement, i really can't tell the difference between a well paced 45fps and 100fps.

I know people who swear they can in any situation. And maybe they can. But in my experience I think it much more likely they just think they can because they spent a lot of money on a high end monitor and graphics card. If the frames are well paced, the need for a high fps vanishes pretty quickly (that said, there ARE games i can tell the difference up to around 80-90fps... past that point it sorta all looks the same to me, unless there is pacing issues)
m
1
l
March 29, 2014 7:52:40 AM

So, this is what I've possible decided on doing, will it be worth it?

Intel 4650K with a MSI Z87-G45 Motherboard and a R9 290, then buying an Asus 144hz 1080p monitor?

Will that be better than what I have now?
m
0
l
March 29, 2014 8:08:09 AM

Fisheth said:
So, this is what I've possible decided on doing, will it be worth it?

Intel 4650K with a MSI Z87-G45 Motherboard and a R9 290, then buying an Asus 144hz 1080p monitor?

Will that be better than what I have now?


FX-8350 is 16% better than the i5-4670K (If you wanted to know)

People have had problems with MSI MoBos (like that exact one) so I guess you're just going to have to trust MSI :) 
m
0
l
a b À AMD
a b Î Nvidia
a b C Monitor
March 29, 2014 8:11:35 AM

that would be a dynamite system. MSI makes fantastic intel boards (not so good AMD boards). As for the 16% faster comment... I'm not sure where that number comes from, though i'm sure there is a benchmark somewhere that backs that up... in gaming you'll find the intel generally paces or bests the 8350 pretty consistently.

~listen, I started in this thread to say that a fanboy was talking you into buying an intel. I still think swapping from the 8350 to the i5 is not really necessary. But since you plan to go with a 144hz monitor (instead of the original 80hz one), i won't try to talk you out of it. You're going for the best, and want the best. Since you can afford it, thumbs up from me. Enjoy, rock it!

m
0
l
March 29, 2014 8:15:56 AM

Rami Zerker Reini said:
Fisheth said:
So, this is what I've possible decided on doing, will it be worth it?

Intel 4650K with a MSI Z87-G45 Motherboard and a R9 290, then buying an Asus 144hz 1080p monitor?

Will that be better than what I have now?


FX-8350 is 16% better than the i5-4670K (If you wanted to know)

People have had problems with MSI MoBos (like that exact one) so I guess you're just going to have to trust MSI :) 



So my 8350 is better?

Then why would I need an i5 to run at 144hz then? I'm really confused.
m
0
l
a b À AMD
a b Î Nvidia
a b C Monitor
March 29, 2014 8:28:36 AM

Fisheth said:
Rami Zerker Reini said:
Fisheth said:
So, this is what I've possible decided on doing, will it be worth it?

Intel 4650K with a MSI Z87-G45 Motherboard and a R9 290, then buying an Asus 144hz 1080p monitor?

Will that be better than what I have now?


FX-8350 is 16% better than the i5-4670K (If you wanted to know)

People have had problems with MSI MoBos (like that exact one) so I guess you're just going to have to trust MSI :) 



So my 8350 is better?

Then why would I need an i5 to run at 144hz then? I'm really confused.


remember how you started the thread asking about an intel fanboy. welcome to the other side... that's an AMD fanboy.

Listen... the simple fact of the mater is there are a number of games where the fx8350 will generally pace a i5; a handful of games where it will actually beat one too... but the VAST MAJORITY of games out there the i5 will provide a generally superior experience. Remember how i said in 70% of titles you'd get 144fps with that 8350? Well in 99% of titles you'll manage 144fps with that i5. You'd probably have to scale it back to 80fps to say the same about that fx8350... at 60-80fps there is basically no difference going intel or amd... past that point the number of games that don't play well on AMD or are primarily single or duel threaded starts to affect the numbers... and the result is by the time you get to 144fps a significant number of games (1 in 3) will flat out look better on that Intel.

That said, I don't have the money to get an i5... so i'm happy with my fx8320, and if someone were to hand me $300 to upgrade i'd probably spend every last dime on a new gpu, NOT a new cpu. So for me the upgrade to the i5 is UNNECESSARY. However, if you have the cash and are willing to spend it, even though i think it's mostly unnecessary, I won't sit here and tell you that you won't see a difference. Because there is definitely a measurable and perceivable difference in a number of gaming titles. Its a matter of priorities. you want to get the most out of a 144hz monitor? getting an intel cpu is a good place to start.
m
0
l
March 29, 2014 9:11:00 AM

ingtar33 said:
Fisheth said:
Rami Zerker Reini said:
Fisheth said:
So, this is what I've possible decided on doing, will it be worth it?

Intel 4650K with a MSI Z87-G45 Motherboard and a R9 290, then buying an Asus 144hz 1080p monitor?

Will that be better than what I have now?


FX-8350 is 16% better than the i5-4670K (If you wanted to know)

People have had problems with MSI MoBos (like that exact one) so I guess you're just going to have to trust MSI :) 



So my 8350 is better?

Then why would I need an i5 to run at 144hz then? I'm really confused.


remember how you started the thread asking about an intel fanboy. welcome to the other side... that's an AMD fanboy.

Listen... the simple fact of the mater is there are a number of games where the fx8350 will generally pace a i5; a handful of games where it will actually beat one too... but the VAST MAJORITY of games out there the i5 will provide a generally superior experience. Remember how i said in 70% of titles you'd get 144fps with that 8350? Well in 99% of titles you'll manage 144fps with that i5. You'd probably have to scale it back to 80fps to say the same about that fx8350... at 60-80fps there is basically no difference going intel or amd... past that point the number of games that don't play well on AMD or are primarily single or duel threaded starts to affect the numbers... and the result is by the time you get to 144fps a significant number of games (1 in 3) will flat out look better on that Intel.

That said, I don't have the money to get an i5... so i'm happy with my fx8320, and if someone were to hand me $300 to upgrade i'd probably spend every last dime on a new gpu, NOT a new cpu. So for me the upgrade to the i5 is UNNECESSARY. However, if you have the cash and are willing to spend it, even though i think it's mostly unnecessary, I won't sit here and tell you that you won't see a difference. Because there is definitely a measurable and perceivable difference in a number of gaming titles. Its a matter of priorities. you want to get the most out of a 144hz monitor? getting an intel cpu is a good place to start.


I might not be as smart as you but I am not an AMD fanboy, I prefer Intel and GeForce more anyway.
It's interesting to read your text and to learn out of it but I'm not a fanboy.
m
0
l
March 29, 2014 10:55:05 AM

Rami Zerker Reini said:
ingtar33 said:
Fisheth said:
Rami Zerker Reini said:
Fisheth said:
So, this is what I've possible decided on doing, will it be worth it?

Intel 4650K with a MSI Z87-G45 Motherboard and a R9 290, then buying an Asus 144hz 1080p monitor?

Will that be better than what I have now?


FX-8350 is 16% better than the i5-4670K (If you wanted to know)

People have had problems with MSI MoBos (like that exact one) so I guess you're just going to have to trust MSI :) 



So my 8350 is better?

Then why would I need an i5 to run at 144hz then? I'm really confused.


remember how you started the thread asking about an intel fanboy. welcome to the other side... that's an AMD fanboy.

Listen... the simple fact of the mater is there are a number of games where the fx8350 will generally pace a i5; a handful of games where it will actually beat one too... but the VAST MAJORITY of games out there the i5 will provide a generally superior experience. Remember how i said in 70% of titles you'd get 144fps with that 8350? Well in 99% of titles you'll manage 144fps with that i5. You'd probably have to scale it back to 80fps to say the same about that fx8350... at 60-80fps there is basically no difference going intel or amd... past that point the number of games that don't play well on AMD or are primarily single or duel threaded starts to affect the numbers... and the result is by the time you get to 144fps a significant number of games (1 in 3) will flat out look better on that Intel.

That said, I don't have the money to get an i5... so i'm happy with my fx8320, and if someone were to hand me $300 to upgrade i'd probably spend every last dime on a new gpu, NOT a new cpu. So for me the upgrade to the i5 is UNNECESSARY. However, if you have the cash and are willing to spend it, even though i think it's mostly unnecessary, I won't sit here and tell you that you won't see a difference. Because there is definitely a measurable and perceivable difference in a number of gaming titles. Its a matter of priorities. you want to get the most out of a 144hz monitor? getting an intel cpu is a good place to start.


I might not be as smart as you but I am not an AMD fanboy, I prefer Intel and GeForce more anyway.
It's interesting to read your text and to learn out of it but I'm not a fanboy.


Might just keep my 8350 and get the Intel board! So I can run both, haha.

Anyway... will the difference between 144HZ and 120HZbe noticeable? Was just looking into 120HZ monitors, that's all!
m
0
l
March 29, 2014 11:01:21 AM

Fisheth said:
Rami Zerker Reini said:
ingtar33 said:
Fisheth said:
Rami Zerker Reini said:
Fisheth said:
So, this is what I've possible decided on doing, will it be worth it?

Intel 4650K with a MSI Z87-G45 Motherboard and a R9 290, then buying an Asus 144hz 1080p monitor?

Will that be better than what I have now?


FX-8350 is 16% better than the i5-4670K (If you wanted to know)

People have had problems with MSI MoBos (like that exact one) so I guess you're just going to have to trust MSI :) 



So my 8350 is better?

Then why would I need an i5 to run at 144hz then? I'm really confused.


remember how you started the thread asking about an intel fanboy. welcome to the other side... that's an AMD fanboy.

Listen... the simple fact of the mater is there are a number of games where the fx8350 will generally pace a i5; a handful of games where it will actually beat one too... but the VAST MAJORITY of games out there the i5 will provide a generally superior experience. Remember how i said in 70% of titles you'd get 144fps with that 8350? Well in 99% of titles you'll manage 144fps with that i5. You'd probably have to scale it back to 80fps to say the same about that fx8350... at 60-80fps there is basically no difference going intel or amd... past that point the number of games that don't play well on AMD or are primarily single or duel threaded starts to affect the numbers... and the result is by the time you get to 144fps a significant number of games (1 in 3) will flat out look better on that Intel.

That said, I don't have the money to get an i5... so i'm happy with my fx8320, and if someone were to hand me $300 to upgrade i'd probably spend every last dime on a new gpu, NOT a new cpu. So for me the upgrade to the i5 is UNNECESSARY. However, if you have the cash and are willing to spend it, even though i think it's mostly unnecessary, I won't sit here and tell you that you won't see a difference. Because there is definitely a measurable and perceivable difference in a number of gaming titles. Its a matter of priorities. you want to get the most out of a 144hz monitor? getting an intel cpu is a good place to start.


I might not be as smart as you but I am not an AMD fanboy, I prefer Intel and GeForce more anyway.
It's interesting to read your text and to learn out of it but I'm not a fanboy.


Might just keep my 8350 and get the Intel board! So I can run both, haha.

Anyway... will the difference between 144HZ and 120HZbe noticeable? Was just looking into 120HZ monitors, that's all!


Well I'm going to say it's not noticeable since the difference is quite small.
m
0
l
a b À AMD
a b Î Nvidia
a b C Monitor
March 29, 2014 4:20:17 PM

Rami Zerker Reini said:
I might not be as smart as you but I am not an AMD fanboy, I prefer Intel and GeForce more anyway.
It's interesting to read your text and to learn out of it but I'm not a fanboy.


sorry about the fanboy comment. And thank you for the compliment; its nice to hear that you're smart even if it's not true. If i were so smart i would not have thrown around the fanboy comment so freely. I just have decades of work in this field. That just means i have a lot of experience getting it right (and wrong)

Rami Zerker Reini said:
Fisheth said:

Might just keep my 8350 and get the Intel board! So I can run both, haha.

Anyway... will the difference between 144HZ and 120HZbe noticeable? Was just looking into 120HZ monitors, that's all!


Well I'm going to say it's not noticeable since the difference is quite small.


some people will claim they can tell the difference. I'm not one of them. Really once you get past 90 fps I can't really tell the difference in ANY situation. (notice the "I"... you might want to see a 120hz monitor and a 144hz monitor for your self. Just because I can't tell the difference doesn't mean your eyes will agree with me.)
m
0
l
March 29, 2014 11:21:58 PM

ingtar33 said:
maxalge said:



A 8350 @ 60 fps will not give the same experience as an 4670k @ 60fps.


Ok... that highlighted passage is pure nonsense. I would hope you could explain how 60fps on an AMD is different from 60fps on an intel. I know what you're trying to say but what you actually said is pure sophistry.



Intel processors ensure more consistent low-latency frame delivery it is measurable and quite noticeable.
With personal experience in far cry 3 and skyrim and info from various benchmarks to back it up.

Just saying they both deliver at least 60fps average in not enough, you seem to be stuck on this.

http://techreport.com/review/22835/review-intel-core-i7...

It's all about frame times.

You can have smooth 60fps and you can have shit stutter 60fps.
m
0
l
a b À AMD
a b Î Nvidia
a b C Monitor
March 30, 2014 1:05:51 AM

I've read that article... and I told you straight up I basically reject it, as its not comparing piledriver to intel... but rather some low clocked bulldozers. Bulldozer is called faildozer for a reason. frankly, its not surprising a stock PhII crushed every bulldozer in that article.

The OP has a very different cpu from those faildozers... and very different from a stock 1100T. At stock that 8350 is a significantly better chip then that stock 1100T.

This is why i called your argument sophistry.
m
0
l
a b À AMD
a b Î Nvidia
a b C Monitor
March 30, 2014 11:33:51 AM

ingtar33 said:

I kid you not... The system my two friends thought was the fastest was hands down the slowest... and both brand new systems were slower then an archaic single core p4. I fixed the bios settings to speed up the boot times on both systems, and both people were happy about it... but here we had a situation where the $$$ spent changed their perceptions of performance.


Heheh. Reminds me of the time I was arguing with a guy whether his framerate was really 120 fps. He spent about $3000 on a PC and was convinced he was running 120 fps in modded Skyrim. I told him it was impossible. He denied what I said, saying it was too smooth to be less than 120 fps, and that he gets headaches at less than 60 fps. I pressed him on it, got him to benchmark it, and it turned out his average fps outdoors was 40 fps.
m
0
l
a b À AMD
a b Î Nvidia
a b C Monitor
March 30, 2014 12:25:20 PM

Rationale said:
ingtar33 said:

I kid you not... The system my two friends thought was the fastest was hands down the slowest... and both brand new systems were slower then an archaic single core p4. I fixed the bios settings to speed up the boot times on both systems, and both people were happy about it... but here we had a situation where the $$$ spent changed their perceptions of performance.


Heheh. Reminds me of the time I was arguing with a guy whether his framerate was really 120 fps. He spent about $3000 on a PC and was convinced he was running 120 fps in modded Skyrim. I told him it was impossible. He denied what I said, saying it was too smooth to be less than 120 fps, and that he gets headaches at less than 60 fps. I pressed him on it, got him to benchmark it, and it turned out his average fps outdoors was 40 fps.


well the key to the story is I was working on the p4. I had played with the bios of the p4 to speed up the boot times. So it wasn't an even "test"... i mean that p4 was a crappy computer. But both of those new systems were running through every single bios diagnostic... so of course the p4 was faster. (heck if it didn't lose so much time loading windows cause it was so crappy it would have won by a bigger margin)

Getting off topic a bit, I laugh when people talk about boot times, for example, one of the big reasons to go with a haswell and win8 was the "incredible" boot times, well, those boot times sure are amazing without tinkering anything. Yet i can get an older core i or a piledriver to boot damned near as fast... close enough you couldn't tell anyway. There are are loads of bios settings to speed up the boot up... so here is something to think about. If someone went out and got a brand new i7-4770k, overclocked the hell out of it, and suffered with win8 just to get a boot time of 8 seconds on their SSD. Meanwhile I have a cheap overclocked fx8320 (also with an SSD), I tinkered with the bios a bit to speed up the boot times, and am using win7, and load into windows in 13 seconds, how does that time difference matter?

8 seconds or 13 seconds? can you even tell the difference? The people with a haswell and win8 claim they can. But really, is it even an important enough difference to matter? How fast is fast enough? Frankly the bigggest difference from the m5a99x evo to the m5a99x evo r2.0 is an improved boot time. Well i have the m5a99x evo, and i think 13 seconds is more then fast enough. It does make me wonder a bit at how improved the boot times are on the r2.0... could i match a haswell? Thoughts like that pop into my head... but i think it much more likely some of those settings i changed in the bios to speed up the boot times are likely set that was by default to speed up the boot times on the r2.0; in short there probably is no advantage going to the r2.0. JUST like with haswell (yep... that's mostly how intel sped up the boot times with haswell, set some of the optional boot settings in the bios which speed up a boot up to default, to speed it all up)

m
0
l
!