Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Not an AMD fan but....

Last response: in Systems
Share
February 16, 2013 11:06:32 PM

hey guys just want to know what do you think of this build ?
My friend want a gaming rig but doesnt have lot of money to spend on it !

1x Zalman Z9 Plus ATX Mid Tower Case Black 3X5.25 1X3.5 5X3.5INT No PS w/ Fan Controller & Temp Display

1x Corsair CX Series CX600M 600W ATX 12V 80 Plus Bronze Modular Power Supply

1x Gigabyte 990FXA-UD3 AMD990FX ATX AM3+ DDR3 4PCI-E16 2PCI-E1 1PCI SLI SATA3 USB3.0 Motherboard

1x AMD FX-6300 Six Core Processor Socket AM3+ 3.5GHZ 14MB 95W Retail Box

1x G.SKILL Ripjaws X F3-12800CL9D-8GBXL 8GB 2X4GB DDR3-1600 CL9-9-9-24 Memory

1x LG GH24NS95 24X SATA Internal DVD Writer Black OEM

1x Seagate Barracuda 7200.12 500GB 3.5in 16MB Cache SATA3 Internal Hard Disk Drive HDD

1x Gigabyte GeForce GTX 670 OC 980MHZ 2GB 6.0GHZ GDDR5 2xDVI HDMI DisplayPort PCI-E Video Card

Price : 900$ Canadian Dollards

what do you guys think !?

thank you guys !!! :D 

More about : amd fan

February 16, 2013 11:09:32 PM

put a 7970 in there. But that cpu might bottleneck. You could "downgrade" to a 7950 (I put that in quotes since it's 2% weaker than a 670) and get a stronger cpu.
m
0
l
February 16, 2013 11:14:04 PM

7950 should be good ! what cpu should i put ?
m
0
l
Related resources
February 16, 2013 11:22:33 PM

My 8320 runs it pretty well, look into the 3570k though.
m
0
l
February 17, 2013 2:02:59 AM

Your FX 6300 processor will not be a problem . The difference between a FX and an itel i5 is usually only a couple of fps

and if you have to use a cheaper graphics card to afford an i5 then your build would game worse
m
0
l
February 17, 2013 2:09:09 AM

Yippy! Lets hear it for a couple of FPS.



Lets see... FX6300/8350 are around the speed of.... i3 2120. i5s are 30%+. Might want to consider an i5 after all.

Edit to fix tag.
m
0
l
February 17, 2013 2:25:37 AM

Actual benchmarks
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/fx-8350-83...

If we look at the 1080p benchmarks


Batman Arkham City
i5 3570k 73 fps
FX 6300 67 fps

Crysis 2
i5 3570k 62.1fps
FX 6300 60.1

Maybe
FarCry2
will be different?
i5 3570k 131.3 fps
FX 6300 102.5
so thats a big win to the intel!
Hang on ! No its not . An LCD monitor refreshes at 60 Hz . Thats 60 FPS . So if one processor makes 130 fps and another makes 102 fps both computers actually only display 60fps to the person using the computer !
The guy who bought the intel just wasted $90 and got no gain at all
m
0
l
February 17, 2013 3:52:42 AM

you make a really good point Outlander_04 !
m
0
l
February 17, 2013 4:27:59 AM

jay337 said:
you make a really good point Outlander_04 !



I am the voice of reason

but the truth doesnt sell new hardware , only sensational reports and benchmarking does that

But to be clear the i5 is a stronger more powerful processor . But my opinion is that its not worth the extra $90 , and especially not worth the extra $90 when you can get a much better gaming improvement by spending that on a stronger graphics card
m
0
l
February 17, 2013 4:54:26 AM

Outlander_04 said:
I am the voice of reason

but the truth doesnt sell new hardware , only sensational reports and benchmarking does that

But to be clear the i5 is a stronger more powerful processor . But my opinion is that its not worth the extra $90 , and especially not worth the extra $90 when you can get a much better gaming improvement by spending that on a stronger graphics card


An i5 3470 will perform better at stock performance, and H77 mobo's can be found for $75 or less. Keep in mind that the op would have to overclock the 6300 to reach the level of performance of the i5 3470. The op doesn't necessarily need an i5 3570k + z77 mobo. However, if the op wants to overclock past the performance of the i5 (which would cause more heat and power), then the FX 6300 may be the better option. It all depends on if the op is overclocking and if so, how far?
m
0
l
February 17, 2013 5:55:43 AM

plasmaj12345 said:
An i5 3470 will perform better at stock performance, and H77 mobo's can be found for $75 or less. Keep in mind that the op would have to overclock the 6300 to reach the level of performance of the i5 3470. The op doesn't necessarily need an i5 3570k + z77 mobo. However, if the op wants to overclock past the performance of the i5 (which would cause more heat and power), then the FX 6300 may be the better option. It all depends on if the op is overclocking and if so, how far?


You seem to have missed the point completely .

Anytime you are running higher than 60fps , you are not actually running higher than 60fps because the monitor can never run that fast . I doesnt matter which processor make more fps after you get to 60 .

An i5 3570k + $75 motherboard + radeon 7850 costs $455

An FX 6300 + $75 motherboard + Radeon 7870 costs $455

The AMD build will maintain higher fps in the dips and you will be able to turn image settings up higher , or run a higher resolution monitor
m
0
l
February 17, 2013 6:17:42 AM

Outlander_04 said:
You seem to have missed the point completely .

Anytime you are running higher than 60fps , you are not actually running higher than 60fps because the monitor can never run that fast . I doesnt matter which processor make more fps after you get to 60 .

An i5 3570k + $75 motherboard + radeon 7850 costs $455

An FX 6300 + $75 motherboard + Radeon 7870 costs $455

The AMD build will maintain higher fps in the dips and you will be able to turn image settings up higher , or run a higher resolution monitor


What you are saying is correct, but I pointed to the i5 3470 which is $20 -$30 less than the 3570k. So lets do the math:

Intel: $200 CPU + $60 mobo (cheapest B75 mobo)
AMD: $130 CPU + $75 mobo + $30 fan + more power consumption (even more with overclock).

While the Intel build may cost slightly more initially ($260 vs. $235), the more power consumption of an overclocked FX 6300 will result in the FX 6300 being more expensive of an investment (assuming the op overclocks).
The op may want to consider spending an extra bit of cash now to save money later (especially if the op keeps the CPU unupgraded for 3 years+.

Even if the op doesn't get the $30 fan ($205), spending more might be justified depending on long term savings. Try to find ways to fit in a 7870 if you can, otherwise just get the 6300.

In addition, CPU choice can decide if the op will hit 60 fps or not, especially in future games that are more demanding. Again its important for the op to weigh his/her options and see how much money can be saved.
m
0
l
February 17, 2013 8:30:24 AM

Outlander_04 said:
Actual benchmarks
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/fx-8350-83...

If we look at the 1080p benchmarks


Batman Arkham City
i5 3570k 73 fps
FX 6300 67 fps

Crysis 2
i5 3570k 62.1fps
FX 6300 60.1

Maybe
FarCry2
will be different?
i5 3570k 131.3 fps
FX 6300 102.5
so thats a big win to the intel!
Hang on ! No its not . An LCD monitor refreshes at 60 Hz . Thats 60 FPS . So if one processor makes 130 fps and another makes 102 fps both computers actually only display 60fps to the person using the computer !
The guy who bought the intel just wasted $90 and got no gain at all


it's always important to ask: "what games will you be playing?" :) 
because the response to players input is bound to FPS and a players reaction with 130 fps will be always the faster /and more precise/ than the one playing on 100fps - which is no small feat in an competitive FPS, but doesn't matter very much in an casual strategy/rpg.
/and it's the main reason for being called a cheater by under-age kids gaming on 40-50 fps... and also countless bans.../ :) 

also - you should check on 120Hz LCD or CRT monitors - they are able to display way above 100 fps and you get more fluid gaming experience :) 
m
0
l
February 17, 2013 10:21:04 AM

Even if i5 performs so good, that 60Hz display won't show it, then in the future the extra fps is needed, don't think of the present time, there will be games, that need the extra performance. So go with i5
m
0
l
February 17, 2013 12:42:37 PM

Quote:
Actual benchmarks...


Wait, Toms doesn't do real benchmarks? When did that happen.

I agree that for the most part the chips will give you more then 60FPS no matter what. I'd like to point out from the three you listed if you want to do 3D @60FPS you'd need the i5 as the 6300 only does ~100FPS instead of the 120 that the i5 can do.

I guess you need to look at the games you play, at the res you play at, take power/heat into consideration, and as the oracle from "The Matrix" says make up your own damn mind.
m
0
l
February 17, 2013 5:24:14 PM

If you want 3D you need a 120 Hz monitor , and you need the most powerful processor you can get and probably a pair of Radeon 7970's ,GTX 670's or 680's
Immediately you are talking of a different price bracket .
WAY different price bracket
And , yes , you should be using an intel i5 , or i7 for that build


People spending $900 CAD/ $750 US will get all the performance their monitor will ever let them see with an FX processor and a better graphics card .
They will get a better game experience because they will be able to set image details higher and they will suffer fewer drops in frame rates

As for your Toms benchmark chart 4745454b . Take that with a grain of salt . You didnt provide any context to anyone about those results . Test set ups etc . All of which are critically important . Some thing as small as adding AA or AF will make a difference , and there are benchmarks online that show that when you add image post processing the FX starts to shine .
http://www.hardwareheaven.com/reviews/1285/pg1/amd-fx-8...
An older FX 8150 thrashing a 2600K .

And IMO thats a better test than many commonly used .
[ read the forum posts before criticizing the results . Its fun to see the intel fanboys thrash about like fish pulled up on a beach ]

Then consider that the Tomshardware results are always skewed towards more powerful individual threads because of their use of DX 9 games that dont multithread well [ or even at all ] in their benchmark suite . This is also partly why the intel dual cores do so well in those tests .
m
0
l
February 17, 2013 5:39:22 PM

4745454b said:
Yippy! Lets hear it for a couple of FPS.

http://media.bestofmicro.com/F/2/371198/original/Average.png

Lets see... FX6300/8350 are around the speed of.... i3 2120. i5s are 30%+. Might want to consider an i5 after all.

Edit to fix tag.


These results are averaged figures in total of all the games they tested. 3/4 of which were dual core games. The games that utilized four cores the FX and i5 were extremely close.

Even just reading the actual column and looking at the advertisement they install for all the Intel stuff is kind of sad. As always, Tom's blatant biased towards Intel -,-

m
0
l
February 17, 2013 6:15:05 PM

jay337 said:
hey guys just want to know what do you think of this build ?
My friend want a gaming rig but doesnt have lot of money to spend on it !

1x Zalman Z9 Plus ATX Mid Tower Case Black 3X5.25 1X3.5 5X3.5INT No PS w/ Fan Controller & Temp Display

1x Corsair CX Series CX600M 600W ATX 12V 80 Plus Bronze Modular Power Supply

1x Gigabyte 990FXA-UD3 AMD990FX ATX AM3+ DDR3 4PCI-E16 2PCI-E1 1PCI SLI SATA3 USB3.0 Motherboard

1x AMD FX-6300 Six Core Processor Socket AM3+ 3.5GHZ 14MB 95W Retail Box

1x G.SKILL Ripjaws X F3-12800CL9D-8GBXL 8GB 2X4GB DDR3-1600 CL9-9-9-24 Memory

1x LG GH24NS95 24X SATA Internal DVD Writer Black OEM

1x Seagate Barracuda 7200.12 500GB 3.5in 16MB Cache SATA3 Internal Hard Disk Drive HDD

1x Gigabyte GeForce GTX 670 OC 980MHZ 2GB 6.0GHZ GDDR5 2xDVI HDMI DisplayPort PCI-E Video Card

Price : 900$ Canadian Dollards

what do you guys think !?

thank you guys !!! :D 


get a 8350 and a 7950 you can get a good one on newegg that comes with crysis 3 and another game i just did and heres why a 8350 is underated heres my proof http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eu8Sekdb-IE&list=UUNovoA...
m
0
l
February 17, 2013 8:23:25 PM

I watch every episode of Logans and I have seen this and I honestly agree with this video. I just downright love it when you show this video to Intel Fanboi's and they rage and scream B.S. at this video.

But down to a serious point is if you can get a Vishera CPU and get a stronger GPU with it and save money than definitely go for the AMD CPU
m
0
l
February 17, 2013 8:27:48 PM

plasmaj12345 said:
What you are saying is correct, but I pointed to the i5 3470 which is $20 -$30 less than the 3570k. So lets do the math:

Intel: $200 CPU + $60 mobo (cheapest B75 mobo)
AMD: $130 CPU + $75 mobo + $30 fan + more power consumption (even more with overclock).

While the Intel build may cost slightly more initially ($260 vs. $235), the more power consumption of an overclocked FX 6300 will result in the FX 6300 being more expensive of an investment (assuming the op overclocks).
The op may want to consider spending an extra bit of cash now to save money later (especially if the op keeps the CPU unupgraded for 3 years+.

Even if the op doesn't get the $30 fan ($205), spending more might be justified depending on long term savings. Try to find ways to fit in a 7870 if you can, otherwise just get the 6300.

In addition, CPU choice can decide if the op will hit 60 fps or not, especially in future games that are more demanding. Again its important for the op to weigh his/her options and see how much money can be saved.


Lets look at your math

Intel i5 + cheapest B75 motherboard for $60 = $260
AMD $130 + cheapest motherboard for $60 = $190

You try to inflate the AMD price by adding a $30 cooler . Why? It ships with a cooler just the same as the intel does , and it can even OC moderately using the stock AMD cooler .

The $70 price difference is still enough to step up from a radeon 7850 1 gig to a radeon 7870 .
And the AMD still games better



m
0
l
February 18, 2013 12:22:26 AM

So toms uses bad benchmarks because they have ads for Intel products, but youtube vids are ok. I think I see where this is going. (meaning it doesn't matter what I say, your minds are made up.) As one last attempt does this review help?

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-r...

Looking at the low res part Dirt 3 and torchlight 2 the 6300 is close to or passes the lowly 2120. A CPU on newegg right now that is $15 cheaper. When you go to the 1080 benchies it's more or less the same, though SF4 switches over. You don't even need an i5, the 2120 will do. Don't forget that not only is it cheaper, but 30W lower in TDP as well.

Don't get me wrong. I love AMD. But if you are building a gaming machine they aren't the way to go right now.
m
0
l
February 18, 2013 12:37:13 AM

4745454b said:
So toms uses bad benchmarks because they have ads for Intel products, but youtube vids are ok. I think I see where this is going. (meaning it doesn't matter what I say, your minds are made up.) As one last attempt does this review help?

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-r...

Looking at the low res part Dirt 3 and torchlight 2 the 6300 is close to or passes the lowly 2120. A CPU on newegg right now that is $15 cheaper. When you go to the 1080 benchies it's more or less the same, though SF4 switches over. You don't even need an i5, the 2120 will do. Don't forget that not only is it cheaper, but 30W lower in TDP as well.

Don't get me wrong. I love AMD. But if you are building a gaming machine they aren't the way to go right now.


What you dont seem to understand is that by changing some conditions in a machine or game set up you can get wildly different benchmark results . Its absolutely fair to say that Tomshardware benchmarks favor cpu's with stronger individual threads because of the use of DX9 games that cant use multicore processors .
The proof of this is the performance of the intel dual cores which are half as powerful yet game almost as well as intel quadcores .
The question needs to be asked whether this is a good representative benchmark to assess the worth of a processor.
I think it is not .
A worthwhile set of benchmarks would be run at the resolution most will want to game at , using game settings most people will want to play at , and it would use current popular games . Only that would load a cpu as it would be typically used and give an indicative result of its value .
Anything else is hogwash

Have a look at ToKiiNz video link
m
0
l
February 18, 2013 12:48:52 AM

As I tried to say, you want me/us to believe some guy from youtube over Anand, Toms, etc? If that is your attitude/belief I see where this is going. Never heard of "razethew0rld" and he even said his results didn't match with what he's seen online. I can put up a video of a P4 beating something if you want, doesn't make it true.

I get the feeling my sig is going to take over real soon.
m
0
l
February 18, 2013 12:52:43 AM

Its not "some guy"

Rodney Reynolds would have easily the same experience as any of the reviewers at Toms.
And yes he does say the results hes getting dont agree with the kind of benchmarking being run at many tech sites . He also says he repeated his tests multiple times , and that 90% of the time when he was maxing out details in games , and /or streaming the AMD 8 core gave higher FPS than an intel quad .

Thats the experience of a number of people who have actual real world experience using FX processors

So which part of your sig were you thinking of letting take over?
The bit about being the voice of reason I hope
m
0
l
February 18, 2013 7:59:26 AM

Seeing as I failed to include it earlier, the link to the Toms article.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-processor-fr...

Quote:
Its absolutely fair to say that Tomshardware benchmarks favor cpu's with stronger individual threads because of the use of DX9 games that cant use multicore processors .


While this might be a valid point I feel compelled to point out that most games are still DX9. We might have moved onto higher DX levels but consoles haven't and so we are stuck. In that article I linked above there are DX10+ games, and the 2120 still does really well compared to the 6300/8350. Also, seeing as this is for a gaming machine I would think you'd want the best gaming CPU. It would be great if there weren't any more DX9 and lower games out there anymore, but they are still being made to this day. Why get a CPU that only does well in dx10+ games if your DX9 games will suffer?

Quote:
So which part of your sig were you thinking of letting take over?


No, the feeding of the trolls bit. Again, anyone that uses youtube links to prove their point. He doesn't even list the specs of the PCs. Just that AMDs are somehow magically better even though every other review site says otherwise.
m
0
l
February 18, 2013 8:34:18 AM

Speaking of trolls what do you think of intel fanboys that come in to threads about AMD builds and then start insisting that everyone is doing it wrong if they dont use an intel processor?

I dont think any major game studio will be working with DX9 in the future . There is no reason for them to do so .

Now would you care to take another shot at explaining Rodneys video benchmarks that show the FX performing better than the intels when you turn up image settings ? Or is that something you would prefer to just ignore?
m
0
l
February 18, 2013 1:03:45 PM

I ignore plenty of people on the internet. He doesn't even present the info in a good way. Just rattling off numbers that he claims he gets while a game plays in the background. I could do the same thing, does that make me right? We have no info on the game settings, machines, or anything really. Just some guy talking about FPS that he claims he got. And you except that as truth??? Interesting.

I'll be honest. Lets look back at my first post minus any inflammatory stuff.

Quote:
i5s are 30%+. Might want to consider an i5 after all.


Might want to consider an i5. Or if you chose to look at that graph I posted even an i3 would work just as well. If his friend wants to build a good gaming rig he get an i3 2120 and do just as well as his 6300 if you chose to believe the "entire internet" and not some guy on youtube. Or you can a lower end i5 for about the same price as a 6300 and a good cooler to help you OC it. For gaming, they should all be about the same. I would go Intel however as it runs just as fast while using less power. I'm sorry you AMD fanbois have such a problem with that.

I'll take the high road as usual and drop out now. It's great if you think differently, but if you are the only one who thinks something you might want to recheck your facts.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/10/22/amd_fx8350_pi...

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/fx-8350-83...

Quote:
It means that AMD fans enjoying occasional 3D gaming can only appeal to the fact that the actual gaming performance is limited by the graphics sub-system potential, which doesn’t let the CPUs fully shine. Therefore, in real-life situation, the difference between faster and slower processors may be hardly noticeable at all. However, it has to be a pretty weak argument after all. As we can see from the test results, there are games where the processor performance does affect the fps rate even with maximum image quality settings.


Keep drinking the cool aid. Peace.
m
0
l
February 18, 2013 5:51:47 PM

A tests results are only as good as the test .

If we are testing walking then a fish fails miserably .
If we test swimming then the fish is a champion

The point you seem to be unable to grasp is that the tests present by many websites ie low resolution results , and or low image settings naturally favor intels individually stronger threads .
But they are arguably a poor way to test a cpu used by an enthusiast who wants high resolution and good image details . If you do that then the AMD is the winner most of the time .
And even when the intel system makes higher frame rates that is not useful anyway . Any result over 60 fps will not be an advantage to any person using a 60 Hz LCD monitor . A better test of a processor is what resolution and image settings can I get and still run at 60 fps ..and the AMD is the winner most of the time

There just isnt any reason for an enthusiast to not use an AMD FX processor ...except they will need ear plugs to stop the whining of the intel fanboys making them a little deaf
m
0
l
February 18, 2013 10:23:34 PM

I feel like we should start a kickstarter to unbiasedly find out which is best by building 2 similar builds with different CPU's and taking test requests to finally know which one TRULY is better.
m
0
l
February 18, 2013 10:26:29 PM

bogo663 said:
I feel like we should start a kickstarter to unbiasedly find out which is best by building 2 similar builds with different CPU's and taking test requests to finally know which one TRULY is better.



LOL ! good idea

m
0
l
February 18, 2013 10:28:22 PM

Or better yet, get two people who have similar build and have them do the tests and video tape the entire process. You know, that way no one has to pay anything.
m
0
l
February 18, 2013 10:33:20 PM

I chose FX for my current build after using intel for the last 6 years

There are plenty of benchmarks already but little understanding amongst the fans who read tech sites . 140 fps at low resolution is NOT better than 120 fps . In either case the user experience would be identical with the monitor only displaying 60 fps ..... so the cheaper option is better


IMO a worthwhile benchmark is the most recent favorite games run at high resolution and with image settings as high as possible . That is where we want to play
m
0
l
February 18, 2013 10:35:45 PM

At least in a few years, there will be no more CPU brand arguing for gaming enthusiasts since AMD said they are not going to rival Intel anymore.
m
0
l
February 18, 2013 10:37:25 PM

And what you say is true, there is no point in paying extra for a CPU with gaming in mind, there won't be a noticeable difference.However, if you are into 3D modeling or video editing, that changes.
m
0
l
February 18, 2013 10:40:49 PM

bogo663 said:
At least in a few years, there will be no more CPU brand arguing for gaming enthusiasts since AMD said they are not going to rival Intel anymore.


No thats not correct . AMD have never said that .
An editor of Tomshardware suggested that might become their business strategy , but it is not something AMD have ever suggested themselves .
And with the $200 FX8350 spanking the $220 i5 -3570k in many tasks there is no reason for them to adopt that strategy any time soon

If it ever does become true then the whole industry for performance freaks will be a disaster . Intel will have no reason to develop more advanced products because there will be no competition .
m
0
l
!