Jump to content

Faceman

Member
  • Posts

    10,698
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation Activity

  1. Agree
    Faceman reacted to r2724r16 in Final Verdict - $1500 Gaming PC Secret Shopper pt4   
    Final Verdict - Build your own PC
  2. Informative
    Faceman got a reaction from z0rp in [SOLVED] Help me decide! NZXT H440 vs. Phanteks Enthoo Pro.   
    The H440 is notorious for poor airflow.  I have my Enthoo Pro right beside me, hold on I'll measure distance from my face to front of case..... 3 feet away... it is incredible quiet.  I have an app on my phone called Sound Meter Lite, it measure the sound at 46dBa.
     
    My case is jam packed with fans, more than you can actually screw in, and is water cooled.
     
    Most of the time I am rational and unbiased, but this is one of the few products I actually fanboy over.  Your case is such a subjective purchase, that it is difficult to decide.  I love my Pro and recommend it every chance I get.  Because of how big it is, it will give you tons of room for future upgrades, and of course, amazing airflow.
     

      So you can see my case is at eye level, so not on the floor or anything.  If it was a loud chassis, I would surely notice it.  
  3. Agree
    Faceman got a reaction from KnightSirius in A Rant About PWM (in general) & Z97 MBs   
    You really can't handle being wrong.
     
    God forbid I help someone by breaking the CoC.  Just like I did when I posted on the Load-Line Calibration Thread that was over a year old with 200,000 views.  Don't mind me, just posting my personal experience with something that a lot of other people are having problems with on a heavily trafficked thread.
  4. Like
    Faceman got a reaction from BxPHornet in Superlux HD668B Headphone Review -- Gaming Headphones on a Budget   
    I just received my Superlux HD668B Headphones and after a day of heavy use, I wanted to do a review to show people from a non-audiophile, gaming specific perspective that you can get excellent quality headphones without paying $100+.
     
    I bought these headphones from Massdrop for only $30.  It did take almost 2 weeks to arrive, but that is the Massdrop business model.  You can find them on Amazon for $40, or the sister HD681's for $30.
     
    I didn't know what kind of headphones to get. I had high demands and a low budget.  Most people on this forum told me what I wanted couldn't be achieved without spending over $100.  Me being a savvy consumer, knew I would find an acceptable alternative, and thankfully I was pointed in the right direction by @mvitkun.  Going headphone and microphone separately also helped me achieve my goal, and I recommend this path to anyone looking for a "gaming" headset.
     
    Before my purchase, I did some research online and every single website had nothing but rave reviews for the Superlux HD668B.  Here are a few stand out quotes, I will link the full reviews below.
    "On a budget, you'd be hard-pressed to find better sounding headphones for the money."
    "You don't need to be an audiophile to appreciate these headphones."
    "All in all, the HD668B is a kind of headphone that *wows* you the first time you hear it, particularly because of two things: its exceptional sound and its price tag."
     
    Headfonia Review
    Reviewed.com Review
    Innerfidelity Review
    Head-Fi Review
    Amazon Customer Reviews
     
    I also went to different tech stores prior to my purchase to get an idea and compare how headphones sound based on price bracket.  These stores(Best Buy, Tigerdirect) heavily push the Sennheisers as they dominate the display racks it shows because it is one of the most highly recommended headphones, marketing in effect!  I knew I wanted some excellent quality headphones, but I didn't want to pay the Sennheiser price.
     
    On to my opinion:
     
         The packaging on the outside is nothing special, dull and uninviting even.  On the inside though, it is packaged very well within the box, secured well so there is absolutely no moving around during shipment.  It comes with many goodies so you can tailor the cable length and type to your desired length and output.

     
         The headphones themselves aren't very pretty and there is not much in terms of holding it to your head.  I was instantly worried that they would not fit securely on my head.  I was very, very wrong.  With what little "material" there is, it is utilized well.  I can head bang and jam considerably without much wobble.  It is very, very lightweight and comfortable, this is where the minimal design comes into play.  The headphones fit over my entire ear very well and don't feel cramped or compressed.  There is no pressure applied on or around my ears that some headphones use in order to stay put.  I have already worn these for 5+ hours today, and continue to wear them while writing this.  Really impressed with how comfortable and secure they feel considering how minimalistic these headphones look at first glance.


     
         On to durability, they feel very sturdy for how little material is actually used.  I am able to bend and manipulate them with little resistance, but I never get that "be gentle" sensation that comes with some products.  All headphones seem to be susceptible to breakdowns, regardless of price bracket.  That alone makes me very wary of spending so much money on a product type that is easily broken, so I knew I would want to go with a more budget oriented headphone.  If these headphones break down in the future, I will come back to edit this review to be as transparent as possible with my critique.
     
         In terms of sound quality, these headphones are as advertised, excellent audio quality without costing much. I first decided to listen to some music to get an idea of their true design purpose.  The music was crisp, it was like listening to my favorite songs for the first time because I was hearing things I had never heard before.  Definitely top notch and on par with the Sennheisers I tried in-store.  I tried playing different genres of music to get a better idea of its capability, and everything sounded incredible.  From Rock & Roll to Hip Hop to House Music, it was all like a new experience because the sound was that incredible and only sounded better the louder I turned up the volume.  It definitely helps to play around with the Realtek audio pre-set equalizer settings depending on the type of music, but you get the desired end result.
         My brother is a musician, and has been all of his life, he takes it very seriously, so seriously that he has gotten his Master's degree is Music Business.  His opinion on audio is much more credible than mine.  I asked him to try out these headphones to get his more elitist audiophile opinion.  He said they perform almost as well as his favorite top of the line Sony headphones that he spent close to $200 on.  He liked them so much that he went and ordered a pair of these headphones to have as a backup.
     
         For games, which is my intended purpose for these headphones, the quality is still present.  It really helps to be able to hear enemy footsteps or to better hear where gunfire is coming from to get a read on your enemy.  These headphones were meant for night time use only so I don't disrupt others in the house when it is late, but I noticed such a performance advantage by getting that immersive sound quality that I will end up using them more often during the day.  I cannot explain to you the thrill I got the first time I heard an enemy's footsteps behind me and I turn around to shoot him before he can melee me to death.  This would not have been possible with my front mounted Logitech stereo speakers.
     
         I really don't have any cons to add, the only area where I foresee possible future shortcomings is in terms of durability.  If these breakdown in the future, I will come back and revise my review of these headphones. 
    Overall, if you are in need of some headphones, while on a budget, these babies are incredible.  Buy these headphones and a microphone separately and you will be rewarded with performance!
  5. Agree
    Faceman reacted to KemoKa in FX9370 or FX 8320   
    That just strengthens my point. For normal consumer tasks, i3s dash AMD's flagship CPU to pieces. Single threads will be so much faster, not to mention upgrade paths - you will actually have an upgrade path.

    Speaking of which - you're on a Phenom II x4 - those work on AM3 motherboards, you need an AM3+ board, ideally with a 990FX chipset for the FX 8-core CPUs to actually work, so you may as well just go to Intel. Or wait for Zen. Which could be amazing, or could not be, it remains yet to be seen. But I can tell you from personal experience that i3s are wicked fast and damn, do they keep cool.
  6. Informative
    Faceman got a reaction from iishowoff in Kraken G10 - 980 Ti   
  7. Like
    Faceman got a reaction from Simon89 in Should I get Arctic Silver 5 or Arctic MX-4 Thermal Compound?   
    Between those two? MX-4
     

    -Tom's
     
    If you have the money, buy the Gelid GC-Extreme.  It is darn good stuff.
  8. Like
    Faceman got a reaction from Crowes in Best AMD Processor for Gaming?   
    My goal with this post is to help others by avoiding costly mistakes that so many before them have made, and to help educate people on the objective reasoning why you should choose one product over another. After being on this forum for over a year, I am seeing so many users complaining about their gaming experience with FX processors that it is time to put a stop to it, and the best way to do that is nip it in the bud and recommend the correct tool for the job.  To do that, I and a bunch of other forum members created this post as a one-link reference to all of the information we have gathered and continue to gather on the subject.  This is an ever growing and constantly updated post.
     
    The most common problems with the FX processors are unsatisfactory results in games, VRM throttling, and GPU bottlenecking.  In my links below I will show you many different, yet conclusive results compiled from respected hardware reviewers and other members of this forum.  I hope to paint a picture as to why the FX processor is objectively the inferior option and why it is a bad choice for a gaming machine especially when an equally, or lower priced option is available.  I want you to make an educated decision based on information available without taking emotion and bias into this.  I am about to present to you that information.  There are some positives to the FX processors that I will talk about, but gaming is not one of them.
     
    I always advocate the right tool for the job, and for some jobs, the FX processor is the best tool for the job, but you need to be aware of what your priorities are when building your machine.  If your priority is gaming, then Intel is the clear winner regardless of price point.  I have experience with both processors, and have owned both Intel and AMD.  I currently own Intel because it is objectively the better processor.  I don't hate AMD, I don't like Intel.  What I love is facts and the facts are very clear that Intel is the better option at this point in time.
     
    If you enjoy games like MMOs(ArcheAge, WoW, Guild Wars2, World of Tanks, Planetside2 etc..) DayZ, ARMA, GTA V, Dead Rising 3, Indies, RTS, Emulators, etc.. the FX will fall WAY behind the equally and sometimes lower priced Intel processors, and in some instances, become unplayable* unless you are fine with massive, recurring, constant, and noticeable FPS drops when the action starts. 
     
    *Everyone has a different definition of what unplayable is, so don't over analyze and exaggerate my wording.  What is unplayable to me, might not be unplayable to you, but what we can all agree on is that no one likes FPS drops that makes your game hitch, stutter, or freeze, and you shouldn't be ok with those side effects because an Intel processor won't give you those unwanted side effects nearly as often as you get them with FX processors.
     
    Then there are other games that are playable, but no where near as fluid as they would be on Intel because minimum framerates(which are the most important), drop much more significantly with FX processors.  A few examples are: Starcraft, Skyrim, Civilization V, Far Cry 4, Assassin's Creed, Metal Gear Solid etc..
     
    And of course there are a lot of games where the FX will perform similar to Intel because the games just run on anything.  Tomb Raider, Bioshock, CoD:Ghosts, and many more.
     
    For the a lot of games, the FX will be sufficient.  But why would you want to spend more or the same amount of money on an old, and inferior product, when you can get a new and superior product for the same amount of money?  Why play 4 out of 5 games  at an acceptable level, when you could play 5 out of 5 games at an excellent level, with no bottlenecking, lower energy costs, and future upgrade paths while paying the same amount of money.
     
    Minimum FPS is the most important FPS measurement.  Bad minimums mean less fluidity in gameplay.  Sometimes I see FX owners saying, "I hit 60fps just fine".  While you might be capable of hitting 60fps on FX, the minimums are going to be lower, and that results in a noticeable detachment from immersion which is what constant 60+fps feels like.  An Intel processor is often the difference between a fluid experience and a stuttery one.  With Intel, your minimums are much higher, meaning a more fluid and immersive game play experience. 
     
    You will see below that even the Intel i3(costs less) is outperforming the FX6/8/9s in many games, and the locked i5(costs the same) is running away with it.  There have also been a lot of new, modern, multi-threaded games that are performing poorly on the FX platform because of the poor per-core performance.  More on that in some spoilers below.
     
    I hope that when AMD releases Zen in 2016 that it will bring AMD back into high end consumer CPU relevancy.  It doesn't even have to be better than Intel, it just has to be competitive.  If its performance, namely single core, is close to Intel's while remaining at a lower price, then I will likely switch to AMD because I am all about price to performance.  The problem is, price to performance for AMD doesn't exist right now.  I will go over the pricing in detail in spoilers below.
     
     

  9. Like
    Faceman got a reaction from Marinatall_Ironside in Logitech Proteus Core G502 Review   
    You know that you can turn the free spin on and off?
    You can also choose how the weight is distributed by moving around the included weights.
    You can also change the DPI.  There are the presets, and then you can change them to meet your exact needs.  You can also change the polling rate.  Even if you have to set the DPI higher than you would like in the mouse, just change the mouse sensitivity in game.  This is a very simple work around.
     
    I do agree that not having an RGB LED is a major negative for such an expensive mouse, especially with it being the norm now.
     
    I feel like your complaints are ticky tacky.
  10. Like
    Faceman got a reaction from BuckGup in Logitech Proteus Core G502 Review   
    You know that you can turn the free spin on and off?
    You can also choose how the weight is distributed by moving around the included weights.
    You can also change the DPI.  There are the presets, and then you can change them to meet your exact needs.  You can also change the polling rate.  Even if you have to set the DPI higher than you would like in the mouse, just change the mouse sensitivity in game.  This is a very simple work around.
     
    I do agree that not having an RGB LED is a major negative for such an expensive mouse, especially with it being the norm now.
     
    I feel like your complaints are ticky tacky.
  11. Like
    Guest
    Faceman got a reaction from Guest in processor choice!   
    Its not cheaper because you need a higher end motherboard and cooling.  It ends up costing the same as a locked i5, bottlenecks high end GPUs, consumes $10+ more in energy per year and performs worse in every single game.  The amount of misinformation you have been spouting in this thread should be ban worthy.  Moderators, why do you let this shit continue?
     
    People think they are getting a good deal when they buy an FX for gaming, and they are not.
     
    If you enjoy games like MMOs(ArcheAge, WoW, Guild Wars2, World of Tanks, Planetside2 etc..) DayZ, ARMA2, ARMA3, Dead Rising 3, Indies, RTS, Emulators, etc.. the FX will fall WAY behind the equally priced Intel processors, and in some instances, become unplayable unless you are fine with 15-20fps when the action starts.
     
    Then there are other games that are playable, but no where near as fluid as they would be on Intel because minimum framerates(which are the most important), drop much more significantly with FX processors.  A few examples are: Starcraft, Skyrim, Civilization V, Assassin's Creed, etc..
     
    Then there are a lot of games where the FX will perform similar to Intel, provided you're using a 60Hz Monitor and don't see the bottleneck happening.
     
    For the majority of games, the FX will be fine.  But why would you want to spend more or the same amount of money on an old, and inferior product, when you can get a new and superior product for the same amount of money.  Why play 4 out of 5 games well, when you can play 5 out of 5 games well, with no bottlenecking, lower energy costs, and future upgrade paths.  That is what Intel provides.  You will see below that even the less expensive Intel i3 is outperforming the FX8s in many games, and the locked i5 is running away with it.
     
    I always advocate the right tool for the job, and for some jobs, the FX processor is the best tool for the job, but you need to be aware of what your priorities are when building your machine.  If your priority is gaming, then Intel is the clear winner regardless of price point. I don't hate AMD, and I have experience with both processors, and have owned both Intel and AMD. My goal here is to help others by avoiding costly mistakes that so many before them have made.  I see so many users on this forum complaining about their gaming experience with FX processors that it is time to put a stop to it, and the best way to do that is nip it in the bud and recommend the correct tool for the job. The most common problems are unsatisfactory results in certain games, VRM throttling, and GPU bottlenecking.  In my links below I will show you many different, yet conclusive results compiled from respected hardware reviewers and other members of this forum.  I hope to paint a picture as to why the FX processor is the inferior option and why it is a bad choice for a gaming machine.
     

  12. Like
    Faceman got a reaction from ATrollAaaNnnnn in processor choice!   
    Its not cheaper because you need a higher end motherboard and cooling.  It ends up costing the same as a locked i5, bottlenecks high end GPUs, consumes $10+ more in energy per year and performs worse in every single game.  The amount of misinformation you have been spouting in this thread should be ban worthy.  Moderators, why do you let this shit continue?
     
    People think they are getting a good deal when they buy an FX for gaming, and they are not.
     
    If you enjoy games like MMOs(ArcheAge, WoW, Guild Wars2, World of Tanks, Planetside2 etc..) DayZ, ARMA2, ARMA3, Dead Rising 3, Indies, RTS, Emulators, etc.. the FX will fall WAY behind the equally priced Intel processors, and in some instances, become unplayable unless you are fine with 15-20fps when the action starts.
     
    Then there are other games that are playable, but no where near as fluid as they would be on Intel because minimum framerates(which are the most important), drop much more significantly with FX processors.  A few examples are: Starcraft, Skyrim, Civilization V, Assassin's Creed, etc..
     
    Then there are a lot of games where the FX will perform similar to Intel, provided you're using a 60Hz Monitor and don't see the bottleneck happening.
     
    For the majority of games, the FX will be fine.  But why would you want to spend more or the same amount of money on an old, and inferior product, when you can get a new and superior product for the same amount of money.  Why play 4 out of 5 games well, when you can play 5 out of 5 games well, with no bottlenecking, lower energy costs, and future upgrade paths.  That is what Intel provides.  You will see below that even the less expensive Intel i3 is outperforming the FX8s in many games, and the locked i5 is running away with it.
     
    I always advocate the right tool for the job, and for some jobs, the FX processor is the best tool for the job, but you need to be aware of what your priorities are when building your machine.  If your priority is gaming, then Intel is the clear winner regardless of price point. I don't hate AMD, and I have experience with both processors, and have owned both Intel and AMD. My goal here is to help others by avoiding costly mistakes that so many before them have made.  I see so many users on this forum complaining about their gaming experience with FX processors that it is time to put a stop to it, and the best way to do that is nip it in the bud and recommend the correct tool for the job. The most common problems are unsatisfactory results in certain games, VRM throttling, and GPU bottlenecking.  In my links below I will show you many different, yet conclusive results compiled from respected hardware reviewers and other members of this forum.  I hope to paint a picture as to why the FX processor is the inferior option and why it is a bad choice for a gaming machine.
     

  13. Like
    Faceman got a reaction from Demonking in FX 4300 Not good enough for Batman Arkham Origins   
    You should be able to play that game on an FX4...  Maybe your motherboard is causing throttling?  Either way, you will be worlds better off with an i5.
     
     

  14. Like
    Faceman got a reaction from MetaknightXYZ in i5-4690k vs 8350 in Rendering?   
    No, that is wrong.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHQqpIEw7jk#t=405
  15. Like
    Faceman reacted to TwOne in FX-6300 or Core i3-6100 for gaming?   
    So, to confirm, you guys would still pick the i3, even with 4GB RAM and to upgrade the RAM later over the FX with 8GB and overclocking out of the box? Just to be sure. I know both options will be miles ahead of my current set-up, but CPUs are a strange thing to me.
  16. Like
    Faceman reacted to dizmo in Is it worth upgrading from my i5 2500k to a FX8350?   
    I'd stick with the 2500k, but I think you've already figured that out.
    There's no point in upgrading to a dead socket, especially when the chips themselves are based on 3+ year old tech and are basically just refreshes.
    You have the right idea by overclocking.
    I have a friend who's in the same boat as you, his 2500k still works fine for him. If you're just gaming I don't really see the need to upgrade, especially if you're gaming at 1080p.
     
    Save the money, upgrade when you can't run what you want anymore or want to step up to features your motherboard simply doesn't support.
    I'm currently running an i3, and I won't upgrade until the 10c/20t i7's are out and reasonable; likely next year.
     
    The 5820k is considerably more expensive than the FX he was considering
     
    I think the Skylake i5 is also a decent upgrade path.
    The FX isn't that bad, but not ideal, and definitely not in this case. If you get them on sale when they're bundled with motherboards though they can make for a very nice budget system.
     
    You have to try it yourself, every CPU OC's differently. You might not get much of an OC at all.
     
    Haha, well yeah. They're ancient. You have to look at the used market.
  17. Like
    Faceman got a reaction from noremac258 in An issue with people bashing the FX CPUs !   
    People think they are getting a good deal when they buy an FX for gaming, and they are not.
     
    If you enjoy games like MMOs(ArcheAge, WoW, Guild Wars2, World of Tanks, Planetside2 etc..) DayZ, ARMA2, ARMA3, Dead Rising 3, Indies, RTS, Emulators, etc.. the FX will fall WAY behind the equally priced Intel processors, and in some instances, become unplayable unless you are fine with 15-20fps when the action starts.
     
    Then there are other games that are playable, but no where near as fluid as they would be on Intel because minimum framerates(which are the most important), drop much more significantly with FX processors.  A few examples are: Starcraft, Skyrim, Civilization V, Assassin's Creed, etc..
     
    Then there are a lot of games where the FX will perform similar to Intel, provided you're using a 60Hz Monitor and don't see the bottleneck happening.
     
    For the majority of games, the FX will be fine.  But why would you want to spend more or the same amount of money on an old, and inferior product, when you can get a new and superior product for the same amount of money.  Why play 4 out of 5 games well, when you can play 5 out of 5 games well, with no bottlenecking, lower energy costs, and future upgrade paths.  That is what Intel provides.  You will see below that even the less expensive Intel i3 is outperforming the FX8s in many games, and the locked i5 is running away with it.
     
    I always advocate the right tool for the job, and for some jobs, the FX processor is the best tool for the job, but you need to be aware of what your priorities are when building your machine.  If your priority is gaming, then Intel is the clear winner regardless of price point. I don't hate AMD, and I have experience with both processors, and have owned both Intel and AMD. My goal here is to help others by avoiding costly mistakes that so many before them have made.  I see so many users on this forum complaining about their gaming experience with FX processors that it is time to put a stop to it, and the best way to do that is nip it in the bud and recommend the correct tool for the job. The most common problems are unsatisfactory results in certain games, VRM throttling, and GPU bottlenecking.  In my links below I will show you many different, yet conclusive results compiled from respected hardware reviewers and other members of this forum.  I hope to paint a picture as to why the FX processor is the inferior option and why it is a bad choice for a gaming machine.
     

  18. Like
    Faceman got a reaction from Wingfan in LED strips for an Enthoo Pro   
    Yay!  Another Entroo Pro Owner.  Amazing case, eh?
     
    I personally use an NZXT Hue.  Kinda a waste of money to be honest, I only ever use White or Blue, but the range of options is so vast.
     
    If all you want is white, I would get something much less expensive, like NZXT's White LED Strip - $18. 
     
    You MUST get 2 meters in length.  2 Meters was perfect length for me.
  19. Like
    Faceman got a reaction from Vitalius in Best AMD Processor for Gaming?   
    My goal with this post is to help others by avoiding costly mistakes that so many before them have made, and to help educate people on the objective reasoning why you should choose one product over another. After being on this forum for over a year, I am seeing so many users complaining about their gaming experience with FX processors that it is time to put a stop to it, and the best way to do that is nip it in the bud and recommend the correct tool for the job.  To do that, I and a bunch of other forum members created this post as a one-link reference to all of the information we have gathered and continue to gather on the subject.  This is an ever growing and constantly updated post.
     
    The most common problems with the FX processors are unsatisfactory results in games, VRM throttling, and GPU bottlenecking.  In my links below I will show you many different, yet conclusive results compiled from respected hardware reviewers and other members of this forum.  I hope to paint a picture as to why the FX processor is objectively the inferior option and why it is a bad choice for a gaming machine especially when an equally, or lower priced option is available.  I want you to make an educated decision based on information available without taking emotion and bias into this.  I am about to present to you that information.  There are some positives to the FX processors that I will talk about, but gaming is not one of them.
     
    I always advocate the right tool for the job, and for some jobs, the FX processor is the best tool for the job, but you need to be aware of what your priorities are when building your machine.  If your priority is gaming, then Intel is the clear winner regardless of price point.  I have experience with both processors, and have owned both Intel and AMD.  I currently own Intel because it is objectively the better processor.  I don't hate AMD, I don't like Intel.  What I love is facts and the facts are very clear that Intel is the better option at this point in time.
     
    If you enjoy games like MMOs(ArcheAge, WoW, Guild Wars2, World of Tanks, Planetside2 etc..) DayZ, ARMA, GTA V, Dead Rising 3, Indies, RTS, Emulators, etc.. the FX will fall WAY behind the equally and sometimes lower priced Intel processors, and in some instances, become unplayable* unless you are fine with massive, recurring, constant, and noticeable FPS drops when the action starts. 
     
    *Everyone has a different definition of what unplayable is, so don't over analyze and exaggerate my wording.  What is unplayable to me, might not be unplayable to you, but what we can all agree on is that no one likes FPS drops that makes your game hitch, stutter, or freeze, and you shouldn't be ok with those side effects because an Intel processor won't give you those unwanted side effects nearly as often as you get them with FX processors.
     
    Then there are other games that are playable, but no where near as fluid as they would be on Intel because minimum framerates(which are the most important), drop much more significantly with FX processors.  A few examples are: Starcraft, Skyrim, Civilization V, Far Cry 4, Assassin's Creed, Metal Gear Solid etc..
     
    And of course there are a lot of games where the FX will perform similar to Intel because the games just run on anything.  Tomb Raider, Bioshock, CoD:Ghosts, and many more.
     
    For the a lot of games, the FX will be sufficient.  But why would you want to spend more or the same amount of money on an old, and inferior product, when you can get a new and superior product for the same amount of money?  Why play 4 out of 5 games  at an acceptable level, when you could play 5 out of 5 games at an excellent level, with no bottlenecking, lower energy costs, and future upgrade paths while paying the same amount of money.
     
    Minimum FPS is the most important FPS measurement.  Bad minimums mean less fluidity in gameplay.  Sometimes I see FX owners saying, "I hit 60fps just fine".  While you might be capable of hitting 60fps on FX, the minimums are going to be lower, and that results in a noticeable detachment from immersion which is what constant 60+fps feels like.  An Intel processor is often the difference between a fluid experience and a stuttery one.  With Intel, your minimums are much higher, meaning a more fluid and immersive game play experience. 
     
    You will see below that even the Intel i3(costs less) is outperforming the FX6/8/9s in many games, and the locked i5(costs the same) is running away with it.  There have also been a lot of new, modern, multi-threaded games that are performing poorly on the FX platform because of the poor per-core performance.  More on that in some spoilers below.
     
    I hope that when AMD releases Zen in 2016 that it will bring AMD back into high end consumer CPU relevancy.  It doesn't even have to be better than Intel, it just has to be competitive.  If its performance, namely single core, is close to Intel's while remaining at a lower price, then I will likely switch to AMD because I am all about price to performance.  The problem is, price to performance for AMD doesn't exist right now.  I will go over the pricing in detail in spoilers below.
     
     

  20. Like
    Faceman got a reaction from OAcesync in Gaming performance between 4300 & 8350 and 4-threaded performance between AMD & Intel   
    Why haven't moderators helped clean up all the garbage people spew recommending FX processors when hard evidence exists to show how bad of value it really is. If you already own one, that's fine, but don't run around recommending it like it's the best thing since sliced bread.
  21. Like
    Guest
    Faceman got a reaction from Guest in processor choice!   
    Its not cheaper because you need a higher end motherboard and cooling.  It ends up costing the same as a locked i5, bottlenecks high end GPUs, consumes $10+ more in energy per year and performs worse in every single game.  The amount of misinformation you have been spouting in this thread should be ban worthy.  Moderators, why do you let this shit continue?
     
    People think they are getting a good deal when they buy an FX for gaming, and they are not.
     
    If you enjoy games like MMOs(ArcheAge, WoW, Guild Wars2, World of Tanks, Planetside2 etc..) DayZ, ARMA2, ARMA3, Dead Rising 3, Indies, RTS, Emulators, etc.. the FX will fall WAY behind the equally priced Intel processors, and in some instances, become unplayable unless you are fine with 15-20fps when the action starts.
     
    Then there are other games that are playable, but no where near as fluid as they would be on Intel because minimum framerates(which are the most important), drop much more significantly with FX processors.  A few examples are: Starcraft, Skyrim, Civilization V, Assassin's Creed, etc..
     
    Then there are a lot of games where the FX will perform similar to Intel, provided you're using a 60Hz Monitor and don't see the bottleneck happening.
     
    For the majority of games, the FX will be fine.  But why would you want to spend more or the same amount of money on an old, and inferior product, when you can get a new and superior product for the same amount of money.  Why play 4 out of 5 games well, when you can play 5 out of 5 games well, with no bottlenecking, lower energy costs, and future upgrade paths.  That is what Intel provides.  You will see below that even the less expensive Intel i3 is outperforming the FX8s in many games, and the locked i5 is running away with it.
     
    I always advocate the right tool for the job, and for some jobs, the FX processor is the best tool for the job, but you need to be aware of what your priorities are when building your machine.  If your priority is gaming, then Intel is the clear winner regardless of price point. I don't hate AMD, and I have experience with both processors, and have owned both Intel and AMD. My goal here is to help others by avoiding costly mistakes that so many before them have made.  I see so many users on this forum complaining about their gaming experience with FX processors that it is time to put a stop to it, and the best way to do that is nip it in the bud and recommend the correct tool for the job. The most common problems are unsatisfactory results in certain games, VRM throttling, and GPU bottlenecking.  In my links below I will show you many different, yet conclusive results compiled from respected hardware reviewers and other members of this forum.  I hope to paint a picture as to why the FX processor is the inferior option and why it is a bad choice for a gaming machine.
     

  22. Like
    Faceman got a reaction from mattonfire in processor choice!   
    Its not cheaper because you need a higher end motherboard and cooling.  It ends up costing the same as a locked i5, bottlenecks high end GPUs, consumes $10+ more in energy per year and performs worse in every single game.  The amount of misinformation you have been spouting in this thread should be ban worthy.  Moderators, why do you let this shit continue?
     
    People think they are getting a good deal when they buy an FX for gaming, and they are not.
     
    If you enjoy games like MMOs(ArcheAge, WoW, Guild Wars2, World of Tanks, Planetside2 etc..) DayZ, ARMA2, ARMA3, Dead Rising 3, Indies, RTS, Emulators, etc.. the FX will fall WAY behind the equally priced Intel processors, and in some instances, become unplayable unless you are fine with 15-20fps when the action starts.
     
    Then there are other games that are playable, but no where near as fluid as they would be on Intel because minimum framerates(which are the most important), drop much more significantly with FX processors.  A few examples are: Starcraft, Skyrim, Civilization V, Assassin's Creed, etc..
     
    Then there are a lot of games where the FX will perform similar to Intel, provided you're using a 60Hz Monitor and don't see the bottleneck happening.
     
    For the majority of games, the FX will be fine.  But why would you want to spend more or the same amount of money on an old, and inferior product, when you can get a new and superior product for the same amount of money.  Why play 4 out of 5 games well, when you can play 5 out of 5 games well, with no bottlenecking, lower energy costs, and future upgrade paths.  That is what Intel provides.  You will see below that even the less expensive Intel i3 is outperforming the FX8s in many games, and the locked i5 is running away with it.
     
    I always advocate the right tool for the job, and for some jobs, the FX processor is the best tool for the job, but you need to be aware of what your priorities are when building your machine.  If your priority is gaming, then Intel is the clear winner regardless of price point. I don't hate AMD, and I have experience with both processors, and have owned both Intel and AMD. My goal here is to help others by avoiding costly mistakes that so many before them have made.  I see so many users on this forum complaining about their gaming experience with FX processors that it is time to put a stop to it, and the best way to do that is nip it in the bud and recommend the correct tool for the job. The most common problems are unsatisfactory results in certain games, VRM throttling, and GPU bottlenecking.  In my links below I will show you many different, yet conclusive results compiled from respected hardware reviewers and other members of this forum.  I hope to paint a picture as to why the FX processor is the inferior option and why it is a bad choice for a gaming machine.
     

  23. Like
    Faceman got a reaction from Agazed in Best AMD Processor for Gaming?   
    My goal with this post is to help others by avoiding costly mistakes that so many before them have made, and to help educate people on the objective reasoning why you should choose one product over another. After being on this forum for over a year, I am seeing so many users complaining about their gaming experience with FX processors that it is time to put a stop to it, and the best way to do that is nip it in the bud and recommend the correct tool for the job.  To do that, I and a bunch of other forum members created this post as a one-link reference to all of the information we have gathered and continue to gather on the subject.  This is an ever growing and constantly updated post.
     
    The most common problems with the FX processors are unsatisfactory results in games, VRM throttling, and GPU bottlenecking.  In my links below I will show you many different, yet conclusive results compiled from respected hardware reviewers and other members of this forum.  I hope to paint a picture as to why the FX processor is objectively the inferior option and why it is a bad choice for a gaming machine especially when an equally, or lower priced option is available.  I want you to make an educated decision based on information available without taking emotion and bias into this.  I am about to present to you that information.  There are some positives to the FX processors that I will talk about, but gaming is not one of them.
     
    I always advocate the right tool for the job, and for some jobs, the FX processor is the best tool for the job, but you need to be aware of what your priorities are when building your machine.  If your priority is gaming, then Intel is the clear winner regardless of price point.  I have experience with both processors, and have owned both Intel and AMD.  I currently own Intel because it is objectively the better processor.  I don't hate AMD, I don't like Intel.  What I love is facts and the facts are very clear that Intel is the better option at this point in time.
     
    If you enjoy games like MMOs(ArcheAge, WoW, Guild Wars2, World of Tanks, Planetside2 etc..) DayZ, ARMA, GTA V, Dead Rising 3, Indies, RTS, Emulators, etc.. the FX will fall WAY behind the equally and sometimes lower priced Intel processors, and in some instances, become unplayable* unless you are fine with massive, recurring, constant, and noticeable FPS drops when the action starts. 
     
    *Everyone has a different definition of what unplayable is, so don't over analyze and exaggerate my wording.  What is unplayable to me, might not be unplayable to you, but what we can all agree on is that no one likes FPS drops that makes your game hitch, stutter, or freeze, and you shouldn't be ok with those side effects because an Intel processor won't give you those unwanted side effects nearly as often as you get them with FX processors.
     
    Then there are other games that are playable, but no where near as fluid as they would be on Intel because minimum framerates(which are the most important), drop much more significantly with FX processors.  A few examples are: Starcraft, Skyrim, Civilization V, Far Cry 4, Assassin's Creed, Metal Gear Solid etc..
     
    And of course there are a lot of games where the FX will perform similar to Intel because the games just run on anything.  Tomb Raider, Bioshock, CoD:Ghosts, and many more.
     
    For the a lot of games, the FX will be sufficient.  But why would you want to spend more or the same amount of money on an old, and inferior product, when you can get a new and superior product for the same amount of money?  Why play 4 out of 5 games  at an acceptable level, when you could play 5 out of 5 games at an excellent level, with no bottlenecking, lower energy costs, and future upgrade paths while paying the same amount of money.
     
    Minimum FPS is the most important FPS measurement.  Bad minimums mean less fluidity in gameplay.  Sometimes I see FX owners saying, "I hit 60fps just fine".  While you might be capable of hitting 60fps on FX, the minimums are going to be lower, and that results in a noticeable detachment from immersion which is what constant 60+fps feels like.  An Intel processor is often the difference between a fluid experience and a stuttery one.  With Intel, your minimums are much higher, meaning a more fluid and immersive game play experience. 
     
    You will see below that even the Intel i3(costs less) is outperforming the FX6/8/9s in many games, and the locked i5(costs the same) is running away with it.  There have also been a lot of new, modern, multi-threaded games that are performing poorly on the FX platform because of the poor per-core performance.  More on that in some spoilers below.
     
    I hope that when AMD releases Zen in 2016 that it will bring AMD back into high end consumer CPU relevancy.  It doesn't even have to be better than Intel, it just has to be competitive.  If its performance, namely single core, is close to Intel's while remaining at a lower price, then I will likely switch to AMD because I am all about price to performance.  The problem is, price to performance for AMD doesn't exist right now.  I will go over the pricing in detail in spoilers below.
     
     

  24. Like
    Faceman got a reaction from cesrai in Best AMD Processor for Gaming?   
    My goal with this post is to help others by avoiding costly mistakes that so many before them have made, and to help educate people on the objective reasoning why you should choose one product over another. After being on this forum for over a year, I am seeing so many users complaining about their gaming experience with FX processors that it is time to put a stop to it, and the best way to do that is nip it in the bud and recommend the correct tool for the job.  To do that, I and a bunch of other forum members created this post as a one-link reference to all of the information we have gathered and continue to gather on the subject.  This is an ever growing and constantly updated post.
     
    The most common problems with the FX processors are unsatisfactory results in games, VRM throttling, and GPU bottlenecking.  In my links below I will show you many different, yet conclusive results compiled from respected hardware reviewers and other members of this forum.  I hope to paint a picture as to why the FX processor is objectively the inferior option and why it is a bad choice for a gaming machine especially when an equally, or lower priced option is available.  I want you to make an educated decision based on information available without taking emotion and bias into this.  I am about to present to you that information.  There are some positives to the FX processors that I will talk about, but gaming is not one of them.
     
    I always advocate the right tool for the job, and for some jobs, the FX processor is the best tool for the job, but you need to be aware of what your priorities are when building your machine.  If your priority is gaming, then Intel is the clear winner regardless of price point.  I have experience with both processors, and have owned both Intel and AMD.  I currently own Intel because it is objectively the better processor.  I don't hate AMD, I don't like Intel.  What I love is facts and the facts are very clear that Intel is the better option at this point in time.
     
    If you enjoy games like MMOs(ArcheAge, WoW, Guild Wars2, World of Tanks, Planetside2 etc..) DayZ, ARMA, GTA V, Dead Rising 3, Indies, RTS, Emulators, etc.. the FX will fall WAY behind the equally and sometimes lower priced Intel processors, and in some instances, become unplayable* unless you are fine with massive, recurring, constant, and noticeable FPS drops when the action starts. 
     
    *Everyone has a different definition of what unplayable is, so don't over analyze and exaggerate my wording.  What is unplayable to me, might not be unplayable to you, but what we can all agree on is that no one likes FPS drops that makes your game hitch, stutter, or freeze, and you shouldn't be ok with those side effects because an Intel processor won't give you those unwanted side effects nearly as often as you get them with FX processors.
     
    Then there are other games that are playable, but no where near as fluid as they would be on Intel because minimum framerates(which are the most important), drop much more significantly with FX processors.  A few examples are: Starcraft, Skyrim, Civilization V, Far Cry 4, Assassin's Creed, Metal Gear Solid etc..
     
    And of course there are a lot of games where the FX will perform similar to Intel because the games just run on anything.  Tomb Raider, Bioshock, CoD:Ghosts, and many more.
     
    For the a lot of games, the FX will be sufficient.  But why would you want to spend more or the same amount of money on an old, and inferior product, when you can get a new and superior product for the same amount of money?  Why play 4 out of 5 games  at an acceptable level, when you could play 5 out of 5 games at an excellent level, with no bottlenecking, lower energy costs, and future upgrade paths while paying the same amount of money.
     
    Minimum FPS is the most important FPS measurement.  Bad minimums mean less fluidity in gameplay.  Sometimes I see FX owners saying, "I hit 60fps just fine".  While you might be capable of hitting 60fps on FX, the minimums are going to be lower, and that results in a noticeable detachment from immersion which is what constant 60+fps feels like.  An Intel processor is often the difference between a fluid experience and a stuttery one.  With Intel, your minimums are much higher, meaning a more fluid and immersive game play experience. 
     
    You will see below that even the Intel i3(costs less) is outperforming the FX6/8/9s in many games, and the locked i5(costs the same) is running away with it.  There have also been a lot of new, modern, multi-threaded games that are performing poorly on the FX platform because of the poor per-core performance.  More on that in some spoilers below.
     
    I hope that when AMD releases Zen in 2016 that it will bring AMD back into high end consumer CPU relevancy.  It doesn't even have to be better than Intel, it just has to be competitive.  If its performance, namely single core, is close to Intel's while remaining at a lower price, then I will likely switch to AMD because I am all about price to performance.  The problem is, price to performance for AMD doesn't exist right now.  I will go over the pricing in detail in spoilers below.
     
     

  25. Like
    Faceman reacted to STRMfrmXMN in New KeyCaps for Cherry Switches, Ducky Shine Legend   
    NO NO NO NO NO
    Plastidip is very, very hard to localize into a small target. You would be hard-pressed to find someone who wouldn't become infuriated with this process. 1/203498394078534908 would not recommend. Even a light coat is just not going to be a good idea and eventually it will wear off and become ugly and gross.
     
     
    Ah gotcha, transparent is a bit hard to find but here are some options. This has exactly the right number of caps if you're ok with a pale white http://www.amazon.com/Vortex-Translucent-Doubleshot-backlit-Keycaps/dp/B00XABE3MC
×