d1screet

A 10,000 foot runway is better than a 5,000 foot runway.
 
Unless you have to pay for it, and you are only going to land single engine propeller planes.  In which case you can go much smaller and not even notice a difference.
 
If your video card cannot saturate 2.0 x16 then the added capacity of 3.0 x16 simply goes unused.

I think people misread it, thinking that he said that he knows that AMD IS better than Intel, as opposed to him knowing more about AMD products than he does about Intel products.

I think people misread it, thinking that he said that he knows that AMD IS better than Intel, as opposed to him knowing more about AMD products than he does about Intel products.

I think people misread it, thinking that he said that he knows that AMD IS better than Intel, as opposed to him knowing more about AMD products than he does about Intel products.

I'd imagine it would vary greatly from motherboard to motherboard. Why not just invest in a Molex to 4-pin splitter with PWM support? You can draw power straight from the PSU while still maintaining PWM support for RPM readings and fan controls.

I think it's just the wrong tool for a lot of high-end computers. They're relatively cheap power supplies that should suffice for most low-end/budget builds; but people should honestly expect to shell out a bit more money to power their high-end equipment, instead of just cheaping out on the power supply component of their build.
 
 
I think the biggest takeaway is to review the product, not the brand.

Some screencapped numbers or recordings would be nice.
 
If only CS:GO had a benchmark feature that ran a predetermined demo file like CS:S did

Play Terraria.

Lol, people tend to get really heavy-handed with streaming related hardware...
 
Honestly, more often it's your internet bandwidth/upload speed that is going to hold you back long before hardware in terms of stream stability and quality.
 
I think you're overspending, but it's your money; professional quality streaming has more to do with content than hardware.

That's the thing: YOUR games. If it works for games that fully utilize 8 threads, that's just fine.
 
Also, the issue with comparing to your buddies with Intel CPU's is that you failed to mention which CPU's they were using or even the games in general.
 
It'd be so easy to say: "my friend with a Pentium G3258 has more problems with his processor than I do with my FX-8350 in games".
 
People need to start differentiating between 'good-enough/acceptable/etc.' and 'best' within a price category. It's not like FX chips will straight up refuse to run games that a price-equivalent Intel processor would, it's just that a lot of the tested metrics show data in favor of Intel being the BETTER option in many cases, not just simply the only ACCEPTABLE option for a build.
 
People want to buy an FX-6300 for their new budget gaming build? Go ahead, it's your money. Many people here would certainly advise against it, because they could be buying better performance for similar costs. Good-enough isn't good enough for enthusiasts; it may be perfectly fine for an average user, so keep that in mind when seeking advice from enthusiasts. It's like asking biking enthusiasts if a $50 mountain bike from Walmart is a smart buy for the Tour De France, just because it works in getting them across town (I'm terribly sorry for this misleading analogy, but my point still stands).
 
You can buy AMD processors, it's not banned in the forums. But if there are clear reasons given as to why one is advised to buy one processor over the other currently, that does not mean that whoever owns those processors are retarded monkeys that play Smash Bros with a Wiimote stuck up their butt. Everyone wants to validate their purchase, I get it; and in most cases for average users, those purchases are validated, whether it be Intel or AMD, but the difference comes down to what enthusiasts value as BEST.

I'm curious as to see what kind of talent that they'd be looking to attract to Linus Media Group.

I'll just leave this here: http://anandtech.com/bench/product/697?vs=288

It's just time to grab some popcorn at this point...

That's the thing: YOUR games. If it works for games that fully utilize 8 threads, that's just fine.
 
Also, the issue with comparing to your buddies with Intel CPU's is that you failed to mention which CPU's they were using or even the games in general.
 
It'd be so easy to say: "my friend with a Pentium G3258 has more problems with his processor than I do with my FX-8350 in games".
 
People need to start differentiating between 'good-enough/acceptable/etc.' and 'best' within a price category. It's not like FX chips will straight up refuse to run games that a price-equivalent Intel processor would, it's just that a lot of the tested metrics show data in favor of Intel being the BETTER option in many cases, not just simply the only ACCEPTABLE option for a build.
 
People want to buy an FX-6300 for their new budget gaming build? Go ahead, it's your money. Many people here would certainly advise against it, because they could be buying better performance for similar costs. Good-enough isn't good enough for enthusiasts; it may be perfectly fine for an average user, so keep that in mind when seeking advice from enthusiasts. It's like asking biking enthusiasts if a $50 mountain bike from Walmart is a smart buy for the Tour De France, just because it works in getting them across town (I'm terribly sorry for this misleading analogy, but my point still stands).
 
You can buy AMD processors, it's not banned in the forums. But if there are clear reasons given as to why one is advised to buy one processor over the other currently, that does not mean that whoever owns those processors are retarded monkeys that play Smash Bros with a Wiimote stuck up their butt. Everyone wants to validate their purchase, I get it; and in most cases for average users, those purchases are validated, whether it be Intel or AMD, but the difference comes down to what enthusiasts value as BEST.

I'd imagine that importing goods like that over to Europe is only going to get more expensive over time; it's rather unfortunate, but again things should always be considered with price/performance of what you can GET; buying used parts that provide good performance is sometimes too good of an option to pass up. When my sister upgrades her desktop that I built her, I'm claiming that Phenom X4 for myself and just overclocking it for giggles.
 
I think the biggest disparaging aspect of AMD CPU's for me were the lack of quality motherboards with the features that I wanted that were available. It didn't make things any better that the FX line was several years old by now, as well. I think AMD is doing some cool things, especially with stuff like HSA on their APUs or HBM on their new graphics cards; the thing is though, is that it seems to be producing rather lackluster results at the moment, but I have a feeling that could be mostly attributed to them being rather bleeding-edge technology that isn't fully explored or utilized yet. I'm really hoping that AMD's Zen can produce good results without necessarily breaking the bank for many computer enthusiasts.

That's the thing: YOUR games. If it works for games that fully utilize 8 threads, that's just fine.
 
Also, the issue with comparing to your buddies with Intel CPU's is that you failed to mention which CPU's they were using or even the games in general.
 
It'd be so easy to say: "my friend with a Pentium G3258 has more problems with his processor than I do with my FX-8350 in games".
 
People need to start differentiating between 'good-enough/acceptable/etc.' and 'best' within a price category. It's not like FX chips will straight up refuse to run games that a price-equivalent Intel processor would, it's just that a lot of the tested metrics show data in favor of Intel being the BETTER option in many cases, not just simply the only ACCEPTABLE option for a build.
 
People want to buy an FX-6300 for their new budget gaming build? Go ahead, it's your money. Many people here would certainly advise against it, because they could be buying better performance for similar costs. Good-enough isn't good enough for enthusiasts; it may be perfectly fine for an average user, so keep that in mind when seeking advice from enthusiasts. It's like asking biking enthusiasts if a $50 mountain bike from Walmart is a smart buy for the Tour De France, just because it works in getting them across town (I'm terribly sorry for this misleading analogy, but my point still stands).
 
You can buy AMD processors, it's not banned in the forums. But if there are clear reasons given as to why one is advised to buy one processor over the other currently, that does not mean that whoever owns those processors are retarded monkeys that play Smash Bros with a Wiimote stuck up their butt. Everyone wants to validate their purchase, I get it; and in most cases for average users, those purchases are validated, whether it be Intel or AMD, but the difference comes down to what enthusiasts value as BEST.

I think the main problem with these type of threads is that usually people read something and respond to it, but actually have no idea of what they and the other person are talking about...
-What is a bottleneck? 2 fps? 5 fps? 10 fps? 20 fps?/ on 1 game? 5 games? 10 games? all games?
 
-What is "playable frame rates"? Is 60 FPS playable? what if i have a 144hz monitor... what would be playable with a monitor like that?
 
-What is "high end"? The 8350 was launched on October/November 2012... At that time high end was a gtx 680.... are we talking of a 980ti or a 680?
 
-Are your 2 favorite games enough sample size to say the 8350 is just as good as the 4670k?, if not... how many games do we need to test?
 
-What if i dont play much triple A games, but i rather try out every single free to play game there is.... is the 8350 good at those too?
 
I could go on with this list, but just to give a little bit of perspective, the discussion is more complex than it seems... I dont have a favoritism for either intel, nvidia or AMD, but in general i agree that intel is worth the extra cash, when you consider that is good at every single game and situation, while the AMD is good at some of them, falling behind on others.

I'd imagine that importing goods like that over to Europe is only going to get more expensive over time; it's rather unfortunate, but again things should always be considered with price/performance of what you can GET; buying used parts that provide good performance is sometimes too good of an option to pass up. When my sister upgrades her desktop that I built her, I'm claiming that Phenom X4 for myself and just overclocking it for giggles.
 
I think the biggest disparaging aspect of AMD CPU's for me were the lack of quality motherboards with the features that I wanted that were available. It didn't make things any better that the FX line was several years old by now, as well. I think AMD is doing some cool things, especially with stuff like HSA on their APUs or HBM on their new graphics cards; the thing is though, is that it seems to be producing rather lackluster results at the moment, but I have a feeling that could be mostly attributed to them being rather bleeding-edge technology that isn't fully explored or utilized yet. I'm really hoping that AMD's Zen can produce good results without necessarily breaking the bank for many computer enthusiasts.

Hey man, if it was what you could afford at the time and it works for your games, that's great. At the moment, the prices on many i5 processors HAVE gone down, making them a relatively affordable (in the US as far as I know); making them the better choice over similarly priced AMD chips, by looking at performance in most games. Overseas, things may be very different, and that's probably an entirely different discussion on price/performance there.
 
Needless to say, this thread topic is overall misleading and cherry picks results in order to seem favorable. People need to stop with this attitude that this forum hates AMD. There are just real disadvantages with buying an AMD processor lately that are quite hard to ignore for computer hardware enthusiasts.

not trying to knock your cpu lol. there was a time when an FX cpu was a viable option.

I believe the budget for the PC itself is $500. He said he bumped the budget to include OS, peripherals, and a monitor. 

This belongs in the New Builds and Planning section of the forums, not General Discussion.
 
Regardless, here's something for a start:
 
PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant   CPU: Intel Core i3-4160 3.6GHz Dual-Core Processor  ($108.95 @ SuperBiiz)  Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-H81M-S2H Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard  ($49.99 @ SuperBiiz)  Memory: PNY XLR8 8GB (1 x 8GB) DDR3-1600 Memory  ($43.99 @ Newegg)  Storage: Seagate Barracuda 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive  ($46.99 @ NCIX US)  Video Card: Sapphire Radeon R9 280 3GB Dual-X Video Card  ($149.99 @ Newegg)  Case: Fractal Design Core 1100 MicroATX Mini Tower Case  ($37.99 @ SuperBiiz)  Power Supply: EVGA 500W 80+ Bronze Certified ATX Power Supply  ($34.99 @ NCIX US)  Total: $472.89 Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-06-28 02:02 EDT-0400

Honestly, at a $400 budget, I would strongly consider buying used, as there are a good amount of capable hardware for cheap on the used market.

If you have only the cpu , try to find a cheap Z77.
If you can't, sell it.
 
But in term of performance a stock 2500K is still enought to enjoy a nice gaming experience.

Honestly, at a $400 budget, I would strongly consider buying used, as there are a good amount of capable hardware for cheap on the used market.