Jump to content

Why is there a constant flame war on this thread?

QuadNine

Don't even start.

 

Sorry, just screwing around. I have been using AMD CPUs forever until now that I'm on LGA 1150: my AMD-K6, Athlon XP 1800+, Athlon 64x2 4000+, and Phenom II x4 965 Black were awesome in their day. I have high hopes for them with Zen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Where I live is a cheaper option for amd , where a store has it for only $119, so I guess I'm just lucky.

You cannot compare just the processor.  You need a 6+2 VRM phase motherboard as well, which costs a lot more than what is required for Intel.  Just scroll down this page, you will see two or three people complaining of VRM throttling because they are using low end motherboards with FX chips.

 

Add in $10+ per year just on electricity, even more if you overclock.  Add in cooler as well if you want to OC.

"I genuinely dislike the promulgation of false information, especially to people who are asking for help selecting new parts."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

/thread

and i do hate my 8320 a bit
mainly because it's a dead platform 

 

 

"A bit"?

 

Are you becoming fond of it? lol

System: Thinkpad T460

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

actually if you read the threads its the same 3 guys bashing amd any chance they get. fate,faa,and faceman.

 

i game on my 8350 and its awesome! its better than 70% of cpus out there and anyone saying they arent great for gaming never played any games on one.

 

i know people who has 2 290x crossfired with one 8350 and they say they havent come into a bottle neck yet and if they did it still ran at great performance. it will definitely not bottleneck one 970 or 290x people who say it will are gonna show some old crappy poorly optimized game for proof that it does..(skrim,starcraft..the same game benchmarks every intel fanboy post)  but in new gen gaming its perfectly awesome! and i got mine for 119.00 on amazon for the cyber mondays deal!

cpu:i7-4770k    gpu: msi reference r9 290x  liquid cooled with h55 and hg10 a1     motherboard:z97x gaming 5   ram:gskill sniper 8 gb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is an example:

 

Someone says they want to buy a new GTX670 or 7850, when for the same price, they can get a much newer, and better GPU.

 

See what I mean?

"I genuinely dislike the promulgation of false information, especially to people who are asking for help selecting new parts."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

"A bit"?

 

Are you becoming fond of it? lol

I'm think i'm gonna kill it by OC

got 1.3V at 3.8GHZ on stock cooler 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

actually if you read the threads its the same 3 guys bashing amd any chance they get. fate,faa,and faceman.

 

i game on my 8350 and its awesome! its better than 70% of cpus out there and anyone saying they arent great for gaming never played any games on one.

 

i know people who has 2 290x crossfired with one 8350 and they say they havent come into a bottle neck yet and if they did it still ran at great performance. it will definitely not bottleneck one 970 or 290x people who say it will are gonna show some old crappy poorly optimized game for proof that it does..(skrim,starcraft..the same game benchmarks every intel fanboy post)  but in new gen gaming its perfectly awesome! and i got mine for 119.00 on amazon for the cyber mondays deal!

67506.png

 

 

 

67507.png

 

67510.png

"I genuinely dislike the promulgation of false information, especially to people who are asking for help selecting new parts."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

You cannot compare just the processor.  You need a 6+2 VRM phase motherboard as well, which costs a lot more than what is required for Intel.  Just scroll down this page, you will see two or three people complaining of VRM throttling because they are using low end motherboards with FX chips.

 

Add in $10+ per year just on electricity, even more if you overclock.  Add in cooler as well if you want to OC.

the 990fxa-ud3 rev.4 mother i have has a 8+2 power phase and is one newegg for around 120 sometime down to 108. you can buy them off ebay for 80 bucks.

cpu:i7-4770k    gpu: msi reference r9 290x  liquid cooled with h55 and hg10 a1     motherboard:z97x gaming 5   ram:gskill sniper 8 gb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites



You cannot compare just the processor. You need a 6+2 VRM phase motherboard as well, which costs a lot more than what is required for Intel. Just scroll down this page, you will see two or three people complaining of VRM throttling because they are using low end motherboards with FX chips.

Add in $10+ per year just on electricity, even more if you overclock. Add in cooler as well if you want to OC.

Well a 100$ 8+2 Motherboard + the 119 FX 8320cpu + Hyper 212 evo 30$ = 250$ Intel Core i5 4690K 230$ I can do calculations too ...

Also I live with my parents so I really don't pay for electricity, and when I am out on my own I should have an i7 by then

SHAMEFUL DISPRAY

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

67506.png

 

 

 

67507.png

 

67510.png

thats comparing the two using direct x. show us a benchmark of the fx using mantle instead..it outperforms the 4790k using dx11...dont lie

cpu:i7-4770k    gpu: msi reference r9 290x  liquid cooled with h55 and hg10 a1     motherboard:z97x gaming 5   ram:gskill sniper 8 gb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

the 990fxa-ud3 rev.4 mother i have has a 8+2 power phase and is one newegg for around 120 sometime down to 108. you can buy them off ebay for 80 bucks.

PCPartPicker part list: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/KXcf7P

Price breakdown by merchant: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/KXcf7P/by_merchant/

CPU: AMD FX-8350 4.0GHz 8-Core Processor  ($169.95 @ SuperBiiz)

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD3 ATX AM3+ Motherboard  ($113.99 @ SuperBiiz)

Total: $276.95

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-29 01:26 EST-0500

 

Vs.

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/V3z4Bm

Price breakdown by merchant: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/V3z4Bm/by_merchant/

CPU: Intel Core i5-4690K 3.5GHz Quad-Core Processor  ($214.99 @ NCIX US)

Motherboard: ECS Z97-MACHINE ATX LGA1150 Motherboard  ($71.99 @ Newegg)

Total: $286.98

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-29 01:26 EST-0500

 

You saved all of $10 that is quickly negated within the first 12 months of use, less if you overclock, while still underperforming and bottlenecking!

"I genuinely dislike the promulgation of false information, especially to people who are asking for help selecting new parts."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

actually if you read the threads its the same 3 guys bashing amd any chance they get. fate,faa,and faceman.

 

i game on my 8350 and its awesome! its better than 70% of cpus out there and anyone saying they arent great for gaming never played any games on one.

 

i know people who has 2 290x crossfired with one 8350 and they say they havent come into a bottle neck yet and if they did it still ran at great performance. it will definitely not bottleneck one 970 or 290x people who say it will are gonna show some old crappy poorly optimized game for proof that it does..(skrim,starcraft..the same game benchmarks every intel fanboy post)  but in new gen gaming its perfectly awesome! and i got mine for 119.00 on amazon for the cyber mondays deal!

GUARANTEE if you go through every single one of my 2,000+ posts you won't find a SINGLE comment of me bashing AMD. Why? Because AMD is one of my favorite companies in the PC market.

You don't get it, people (me) don't hate AMD, they dislike FX

If I hated AMD, I wouldn't have more of their products than Intel + Nvidia combined (the latter of which I don't own a single product of) and I wouldn't recommend their products every single day (like I do). 

WaitForMeImOnDialUp you're the guy who completely disregards every single benchmark there is proving you absolutely wrong (mainly about the 290x/970 sli bottlenecks) and continues to insult me. It's ridiculous and it needs to stop. 

You need to grow up and realize that because someone disagrees with you, does not automatically make them a fanboy, AMD hater, idiot, etc. 

 

Sorry for the rant guys, it needed to be said.

RIP in pepperonis m8s

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

thats comparing the two using direct x. show us a benchmark of the fx using mantle instead..it outperforms the 4790k using dx11...dont lie

How about some multiplayer benchmarks?  Mantle?  Mantle?  Talking about Mantle that is usable in very few games and also benefits Intel?

 

It takes the FX8 to be overclocked to 5Ghz to match an i5-4440 in multiplayer with an R9 290X.

 

bf4_cpu_radeon.png

"I genuinely dislike the promulgation of false information, especially to people who are asking for help selecting new parts."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

We bash AMD so that we can have better competition and encourage AMD to not stop making CPUs, it has been a while now...

CPU AMD FX-8350 @ 4.0GHzCooling AMD StockMotherboard AsRock 970 Extreme4RAM 8GB (2x4) DDR3 1333MHz GPU AMD Sapphire R9 290 Vapor-XCase Fractal Define R5 Titanium 


Storage Samsung 120GB 840 EVO | PSUThermaltake Litepower 600WOS Windows 8.1 Pro 64-bit


Upgrading to - Intel i7 - New motherboard - Corsair AIO H110i GT watercooler -  1000W PSU


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

How about some multiplayer benchmarks?  Mantle?  Mantle?  Talking about Mantle that is usable in very few games and also benefits Intel?

 

It takes the FX8 to be overclocked to 5Ghz to match an i5-4440 in multiplayer with an R9 290X.

 

bf4_cpu_radeon.png

those benchmarks are a lie i get 80-120 fps on 64 player maps with a 280x. also, another benchmark without mantle

cpu:i7-4770k    gpu: msi reference r9 290x  liquid cooled with h55 and hg10 a1     motherboard:z97x gaming 5   ram:gskill sniper 8 gb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well a 100$ 8+2 Motherboard + the 119 FX 8320cpu + Hyper 212 evo 30$ = 250$ Intel Core i5 4690K 230$ I can do calculations too ...

Also I live with my parents so I really don't pay for electricity, and when I am out on my own I should have an i7 by then

 

So because you don't personally pay for it, that means it is free?  No.

 

A locked i5 will outperform the highest of overclocked FXs in games.  It costs $215 for a locked i5.

"I genuinely dislike the promulgation of false information, especially to people who are asking for help selecting new parts."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats just a snippet of the amount of research I've done into this.  I have a much bigger, in depth explanation if you would like to see it.

may I ask why?

 

As mentioned above, there is you, and 2 other LTT members, who tend to Paste large amount of work for proving that Intel is better at gaming

My problem is that I do not understand why, as personally I do not feel such "love" or passion for proving people right or wrong

 

I reckon you could improve your argument with some 270X or some other more budget oriented graphics card, to show that you are not trying to say that AMD is not good at all, but not good at high end gaming. I think this is the biggest problem with you 3 guys argument, that usually it is a big NO for AMD, with Cons only, not showing that you know about pros (multitasking). And there are some guys, like myself, who tries to sneak in, quietly, that hey, if you already have it, then use it, OC- it and enjoy it,, it is not unplayable(except some heavily CPU bound games), and if you already have it, you might get the best out of it, and I usually get flamed down, as I am not a heavy gamer myself( gaming is a comfortable extra for me.... as I do not have freetime)

 

I think if you guys try to make your argument a little more friendly you will have a greater success

 

 

The reason for my monolouge is simple: I think/hope that you might actually want to help people, not being Flame Trolls, and with some minor changes, you might be friendlier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

H93GZC3.png

---

batman.png

---

civilization.png

---

http--www.gamegpu.ru-images-stories-Test

Even this supposedly very good multi-threaded game, Call of Duty:Advanced Warefare runs better on an i3 than an FX9

http--www.gamegpu.ru-images-stories-Test

---

5aJTp.png

---

60-Bioshock-R9-295X2.png

---

65-DiRT-3-R9-295X2.png

---

arma3_1920.png

---

arma3_1920n.png

---

bf4mp_1920.png

---

bf4_cpu_radeon.png

You have to OC an FX8 to 5Ghz just to match an i5-4440 at stock in BF4 multiplayer with an R9 290X.

---

civ_1920.png

---

csgo_1920.png

---

crysis3_1920_2.png

---

fc3_1920.png

---

starcraft_1920.png

---

gta4_1920.png

---

rome2_1920.png

---

witchercpu_1920.png

This one above is Witcher 2

---

assassin_1920n.png

---

fsx_1920n.png

---

"I genuinely dislike the promulgation of false information, especially to people who are asking for help selecting new parts."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

repost pic, this is my 8350 at stock 4.2 turbod with stock 280x playing bf4 ultra everything inclucing aa and all while i surf the web and play music videos from youtube at the same time i avg 80-120 sometime more sometimes less...so whoever says its not awesome for gaming is missing out.

 

1zzoyrr.jpg

cpu:i7-4770k    gpu: msi reference r9 290x  liquid cooled with h55 and hg10 a1     motherboard:z97x gaming 5   ram:gskill sniper 8 gb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

may I ask why?

 

As mentioned above, there is you, and 2 other LTT members, who tend to Paste large amount of work for proving that Intel is better at gaming

My problem is that I do not understand why, as personally I do not feel such "love" or passion for proving people right or wrong

 

I reckon you could improve your argument with some 270X or some other more budget oriented graphics card, to show that you are not trying to say that AMD is not good at all, but not good at high end gaming. I think this is the biggest problem with you 3 guys argument, that usually it is a big NO for AMD, with Cons only, not showing that you know about pros (multitasking). And there are some guys, like myself, who tries to sneak in, quietly, that hey, if you already have it, then use it, OC- it and enjoy it,, it is not unplayable(except some heavily CPU bound games), and if you already have it, you might get the best out of it, and I usually get flamed down, as I am not a heavy gamer myself( gaming is a comfortable extra for me.... as I do not have freetime)

 

I think if you guys try to make your argument a little more friendly you will have a greater success

 

 

The reason for my monolouge is simple: I think/hope that you might actually want to help people, not being Flame Trolls, and with some minor changes, you might be friendlier.

     I want to help people, proving people wrong is not the goal.  When people outright lie and recommend an old tool for the job, I get irate because we all know better.  Its like saying leech sucking is still an excellent tool in the medical community.  Technological advancements have been made!

 

     Just today there were 3 people I saw who have to buy new motherboards because their budget FX compatible motherboards throttle even for stock speeds.  These people end up wasting money because some people are still running around saying the FX is great! It costs less! It works just as well in all games! When it is an outright lie.  I was helped a lot by this forum when I first came here, and I am trying to pay it forward.  It becomes brash and hostile because these people are claiming cigarettes don't cause lung cancer when it has been proven that they do!

 

Why buy a processor that only allows you to play 4 out of 5 games, without upgradability, while paying more when a locked i5 costs less, performs better, plays all of the games, and is upgradable. 

 

     You are right that pairing an FX processor with a mid range GPU won't bottleneck, I even mention this in my long post if you care to read through it all.  But you are still going to be limited to those same 4 out of 5 games because every once in awhile, you run into a game that is CPU bound.  Nothing irks me more than people recommending the FX processors for people who specifically say they play MMOs or ARMA3, or DayZ or something else that is proven to run better on strong Intel cores.  The are recommending the wrong tool for the job!  What about when they want to upgrade?  Just the other day someone moved from a GTX760 to a GTX970 and complained that their fps remained almost the same.  Quick look at their profile, an FX8.  Boom.  That's the problem.  They are stuck on an old platform, with no solution other than an entire switch because the architecture and IPC behind the FX is weak.  All of this could have been avoided if they went with the locked i5 from the start. 

 

     This is the mess we are trying to avoid by helping people go with the option that performs better from day one, as well as being upgrade ready.  You can't say the same for FX processors. You are essentially buying FX4 performance.  Adding more cores doesn't help when games don't benefit from more cores, and higher clock speeds only help so much.  Even these newer games which were promised to have better multi core optimization are running better on i3s and i5s than FX8s and 9s. It takes an overclock of 4.7Ghz+ just to come within margin of error of a locked i5, and even then it is still falling behind.  Do you know how much it costs to overclock an FX processor to 4.7Ghz?  We're talking 990FX motherboards, high end CPU cooler, silicon lottery luck that you get a CPU even capable of doing 4.7Ghz, all while racking up the electricity bill which is not as small as you would think.  I address the power consumption in my post below.

 

     Here is the spiel, and I do show where the FX is strong, and that is for video editing and rendering.  Take the time to read it.  Read it all, every post, from every reviewer, from every link.  You will see that there is a consensus reaction that AMD's FX processors are not as good as less expensive Intel options even from past generations.  Say it with me: Architecture, IPC, this is what matters.

 

----------------------------------------------

 

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 making them unplayable(at least by my standards), sometimes even dropping to 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.  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.

 

H93GZC3.png

---

batman.png

---

civilization.png

---

http--www.gamegpu.ru-images-stories-Test

Even this supposedly very good multi-threaded game, Call of Duty:Advanced Warefare runs better on an i3 than an FX9

http--www.gamegpu.ru-images-stories-Test

---

5aJTp.png

---

60-Bioshock-R9-295X2.png

---

65-DiRT-3-R9-295X2.png

---

arma3_1920.png

---

arma3_1920n.png

---

bf4mp_1920.png

---

bf4_cpu_radeon.png

You have to OC an FX8 to 5Ghz just to match an i5-4440 at stock in BF4 multiplayer with an R9 290X.

---

civ_1920.png

---

csgo_1920.png

---

crysis3_1920_2.png

---

fc3_1920.png

---

starcraft_1920.png

---

gta4_1920.png

---

rome2_1920.png

---

witchercpu_1920.png

This one above is Witcher 2

---

assassin_1920n.png

---

fsx_1920n.png

---

 

These are just a few games, and obviously skewed towards Intel, but my point is to try and illustrate that some games run very poorly on the weak cores on FX processors.  Why buy a processor that can only play 4 out of 5 games, when you can pay the same and play 5 out of 5 games?

 

 

Benchmarks:

http://www.hardcorew...-4340-review/2/

http://www.hardwarep...8-games-tested/

http://www.tomshardw...cpu,3929-7.html

http://www.anandtech...w-vishera-95w/3

http://techreport.com/review/23750/amd-fx-8350-processor-reviewed/14

http://pclab.pl/art57842.html

 

 

"To put it nicely, the FX-8370E is a true middle-of-the-road CPU. Using it only makes sense as long as the graphics card you choose comes from a similar performance segment.

Depending on the game in question, AMD’s new processor has the potential to keep you happy around the AMD Radeon R9 270X/285 or Nvidia GeForce GTX 760 or 660 Ti level.

A higher- or even high-end graphics card doesn’t make sense, as pairing it with AMD's FX-8370E simply limits the card's potential."

 

"This is a huge result – it wasn’t until we used a Haswell core CPU that the R9 280X  was able to deliver consistent frame times and a 60 FPS frame rate in Assassin’s Creed IV. All three AMD CPUs we used – even the FX 8350 – and the Ivy Bridge Core i3 would deliver a sub 60 FPS frame rate, with frame spikes throughout the benchmark run.

In this case, the Core i3 4340 allows the R9 280X GPU to run at maximum potential, just like the Core i5 (and Core i7 would)."

 

"Pop over to the gaming scatter, though, and the picture changes dramatically. There, the FX-8350 is the highest-performance AMD desktop processor to date for gaming, finally toppling the venerable Phenom II X4 980. Yet the FX-8350's gaming performance almost exactly matches that of the Core i3-3225, a $134 Ivy Bridge-based processor. Meanwhile, the Core i5-3470 delivers markedly superior gaming performance for less money than the FX-8350. The FX-8350 isn't exactly bad for video games—its performance was generally acceptable in our tests. But it is relatively weak compared to the competition.

This strange divergence between the two performance pictures isn't just confined to gaming, of course. The FX-8350 is also relatively pokey in image processing applications, in SunSpider, and in the less widely multithreaded portions of our video encoding tests. Many of these scenarios rely on one or several threads, and the FX-8350 suffers compared to recent Intel chips in such cases. Still, the contrast between the FX-8350 and the Sandy/Ivy Bridge chips isn't nearly as acute as it was with the older FX processors. Piledriver's IPC gains and that 4GHz base clock have taken the edge off of our objections.

The other major consideration here is power consumption, and really, the FX-8350 isn't even the same class of product as the Ivy Bridge Core i5 processors on this front. There's a 48W gap between the TDP ratings of the Core i5 parts and the FX-8350, but in our tests, the actual difference at the wall socket between two similarly configured systems under load was over 100W. That gap is large enough to force the potential buyer to think deeply about the class of power supply, case, and CPU cooler he needs for his build. One could definitely get away with less expensive components for a Core i5 system."

 

"The FX-8370E stretches its legs a little in terms of minimum frame rates, particularly in SLI, however it is handily beaten by the i3-4330."

 

"Average frametimes did not do AMD’s processors any justice either. As we already said the game was fluid with i7 and i5’s, and somewhat playable with the i3 processor line. When we switched to FX CPUs not only did we have worse framerate but the gameplay was simply put, laggy."

 

 

The architecture behind the FX CPUs cannot keep up with high end graphics cards that require strong cores to consistently feed the card.  Monitor your GPU load in your games and you will quickly see that your GPU is not running at 90%+ if you own a high end graphics card paired with an FX processor.  Use an FX with a mid range GPU all you want, that is fine and you won't limit the card's potential and makes for a much more balanced rig. If you get into the upper echelon of GPUs, that is when you are holding your card back by the FX that has worse IPC than Conroe which dates back to 2005.

 

When AMD sends out R9 290Xs for review, or release new drivers they send out Intel i7s along with them because they know their FX processors can't power their high end GPUs to their max potential.

-Source

TDLx2vT.png

 

Check out LTT's own Cinebench Scores:

lNd4Usb.png

 

 

2obWCLw.png

 

-LTT's Cinebench Database

These FXs are overclocked to 4.8Ghz and 5.3Ghz! and still fall well behind Intel's offerings.

 

Even when you pair the FX with a mid range GPU, it doesn't change the fact that some games are largely CPU bound and require strong IPC.  Parallelism doesn't exist in games.  There are not many, if any highly repetitive calculations going on in games that the CPU can guess what is coming next like in video editing or rendering.  They have tricked you into thinking that more cores and higher Ghz is what matters for your CPU, when it all comes down to the architecture and instructions per cycle. 

 

Websites like cpubenchmark.net have a suite of synthetic benchmarks that they run each processor through to spit out a score.  Going by this, the FX8 outperforms the i5 because those synthetic tests are highly repetitive calculations that benefit from more cores.  People see that result and automatically think "Oh, the FX8 is a much stronger processor than the i5."  And in some tasks it is, gaming is just not one of them.

 

Gaming performance aside, the vast majority of daily tasks are single threaded.  Everything you do on your desktop, booting up your computer, loading a simple program such as iTunes is going to be faster on Intel because these are single threaded tasks and the performance per core is so much more powerful which results in a more snappy overall experience.  There are very few tasks that benefit from 8 cores.  A program that really benefits from all the cores you throw at it is a real niche area, often reserved for content creation and calculations-not games.

 

This is PCMark 7, it is a FutureMark benchmark that "is a complete PC benchmark that measures overall system performance during typical desktop usage across a range of activities such as handling images and video, web browsing and gaming. This is the most important test since it returns the official PCMark score for the system."

PCMark7.png

This shows that while the performance in daily workloads is similar, Intel is still ahead.  Also consider that these are older generation Intel processors that have since been improved upon, only further increasing the result in Intel's favor for daily tasks.  Think multi-tasking is better on the FX8 because of all those cores?  Nope.

multi-fps.gif

 

Some more productivity benchmarks for your enjoyment:

photoshop.png

---

premiere.png

---

aftereffects.png

---

lightroom.png

---

winrar.png

---

x264.png

---

photo_cs6_op.png

---

blender.png

---

3dmax.png

---

autocad.png

---

The FX processors do have some strengths, just make sure that you are using a program that maximizes those strengths.  Also, in my opinion the gaming benefits of a locked i5, far outweigh the productivity(certain programs) benefits of the FX8.

 

Sources:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core-i3-4340-4330-4130_6.html#sect0

http://pclab.pl/art57691-12.html

 

I also want to throw in these power consumption graphs.

 

Top graph is power draw during Far Cry 3.  This is a good example because Far Cry 3 hits both the CPU and GPU adequately.   Some games will draw more power, some less, so this is a good middle of the road example.

power_load.png

 

The Below graph is during a x264 Encoding Benchmark with all processors at stock speeds.  This is hitting the CPU to the max 100%, and you can see when both an i5 and FX8 are hit to the max, there is a 100W+ difference.

x264-power-peak.gif

 

Power consumption is another aspect of the FX CPU that needs to be talked about.  It draws so much more power than the Intel equivalent, that in just 2-3 years of use, the FX will end up costing you even more money.  Of course some places it is less expensive for energy than others, but you cannot deny that there is a 100W+ difference between an FX8 and an i5.  This power disparity only grows the further you overclock the FX.

 

I will use the average price of residential electricity in the U.S., which is $0.1294c per KWh according to EIA in September 2014.  I wish I could exclude Hawaii, because the electricity there kinda skews things unfavorably, so for this example, we will assume the average price is a flat $0.12 per KWh.  We will also assume that the overclocked FX power draw is 100W higher than the stock i5.  Lastly, lets assume that the average gamer plays for two hours per day, with an additional 2 hours of regular use(non-gaming), so lets just call it 3 hours a day to make it easy.

 

Power Consumption = 100W

Hours of Use Per Day = 3

Energy Consumed Per Day = .3 KWh

Price Per Killowatt Hour = $0.12

 

Energy Cost Per Day = $0.036

Energy Cost Per Month = $1.08

Energy Cost Per Year = $13.14

 

With our quick and dirty calculation, we see that the difference between the FX and i5 is going to add up to over $10 per year, and that is a conservative, no-overclock estimate.  With most of us wanting to keep our components as long as possible before having to upgrade, owning components for 2-3 years, and sometimes even longer, is not out of the question and that energy cost per year really starts to add up.

 

 

If you would like to calculate this for yourself, you will need to find out what the cost of energy is where you are located, and these two formulas:

Energy consumption calculation

The energy E in kilowatt-hours (kWh) per day is equal to the power P in watts (W) times number of usage hours per day t divided by 1000 watts per kilowatt:

E(kWh/day) = P(W) × t(h/day) / 1000(W/kW)

Energy cost calculation

The energy cost per day in dollars is equal to the energy consumption E in kWh per day times the energy cost of 1 kWh in cents/kWh divided by 100 cents per dollar:

Cost($/day) = E(kWh/day) × Cost(cent/kWh) / 100(cent/$)

 

Temperatures:

I hear the argument that AMD runs cooler than Intel, and this is a really silly misconception.  I can understand why someone would think that it does, but the temperatures from AMD processors are inaccurate.  They don't measure the cores, they measure the socket, cores tend to be hotter than the socket by a fair amount, and its an algorithm, not a direct measurement like with Intel. It is against the laws of physics for an FX processor to be less hot than an Intel one.  The FX draws much more power.  At stock, the FX8 draws 125W compared to 84/88W of an i5. The FX processor heats up the room much more as well.  I know in my friends' house who owns the FX, his room is sweltering after just an hour of gaming.

 

"Concerning your question regarding the temperatures with your processor. The maximum temperature threshold is 62 Celsius which set for the internal die (core) temperature of the chip. The core temperatures have an equational offset to determine temperature which equalizes at about 45 Celsius thus giving you more accurate readings at peak temperatures. The hindrance in this is the sub ambient idle temperature readings you speak of.

 

 The silicon and adhesives used in manufacturing these processors has a peak temperature rating of 97+ Celsius before any form of degradation will take place. The processor also has a thermal shut off safe guard in place that shuts the processor down at 90 Celsius.

The Cpu temperature is read form a sensor embedded within the socket of your motherboard causing about a 7-10 Celsius variance form the actual Cpu temperature, which may be what you are reading about on the net.

 I hope I was able to answer your questions, If you have any more inquiries don't hesitate to contact us.

 You can use an application called AMD overdrive, that will allow you to monitor your temperatures accurately.

 As long as your core temperature has not exceeded the high side of the 60 degree mark for extended periods of time you should be ok. 62 degrees holds a generous safety net to begin with.

 Thank You

 Alex Cromwell

 Senior Technology Director

 Advanced Micro Devices

 Fort Collins, Colorado

 2950 East Harmony Road

 Suite 300

 Fort Collins, CO"

 

-Source

 

 

You should really read through the link above, it is a great and detailed read. Here is the conclusion.

 

"Conclusion

 

If you've made it this far, congrats and thank you very, very much for reading. I appreciate it genuinely.

 

Okay, so let's conclude. Yes, Intel won 5-2, but that's meaningless. Looking at benchmarks for the sake of looking at benchmarks doesn't

help us. What helps us is seeing where the 4670K wins massively and where the 8350 wins massively. 

 

Gaming

In gaming, the 4670K wins. This is said by Linus, said by AnandTech, said by Bit-Tech, said by Tom's Hardware, said all around the internet

except for at Tek Syndicate. If you are going for a gaming PC, go with the 4670K.

 

Video Editing and 3D Rendering

Yes, there are benchmarks where the 8350 beats the 4670K, however, what is important is that these two are almost neck and neck.

Some sites have the 8350 ever so slightly faster, some have the 3570K/4670K as ever so slightly faster. At the end of the day, it's too close to call.

However, the extra IPC that Haswell offers should help in a wider variety of situations, so I would award this to the 4670K. 

 

Calculations

This one goes to the 8350 which demonstrates a higher performance with calculations throughout due to its higher core count. It beats Intel convincingly

in most calculation benchmarks. 

 

So, what does this mean?

 

This has been said in the introduction, but I will say it again. I am not an Intel fanboy, which is why I went out to research instead of screaming that Intel

is better. I have suggested AMD in the past, their Athlon 64 was better than the Pentium 4, their Athlon 64 x2 was better than the Pentium D. However,

I genuinely dislike the promulgation of false information, especially to people who are asking for help selecting new parts. 

 

If you're an AMD fanboy, you're not going to like it, but Intel's 4670K is better than AMD's 8350. Regardless of however you look at it, in most situations,

the 4670K wins, but it isn't just that, its far superior IPC gives it such an advantage in most every day tasks, which are mostly still single-threaded. 

 

The AMD 8350 is good for certain workloads, but apart from those workloads, it is simply terrible. Its IPC, which is weaker than the i7 920's, which is

5 years old, is simply too weak to put it as any sort of real competition to the 4670K. 

 

I hope that this clears up some of the misconceptions here. Yes, AMD had their time, their Athlon 64 was better than the Intel Pentium 4, however,

those days are well and truly over. If, in this day and age, you recommend an AMD processor for any usage apart from calculations, you are either

being a fanboy or just plainly ignorant of the facts which say that the 4670K is superior. 

 

Of course, this is not to say that nobody should use AMD, but, if you suggest an AMD build for someone else, especially if you suggest an 8350

against a 4670K, know that you are suggesting a worse option, especially for a gaming PC. To argue that the 8350 is competitive with the 4670K

across the board is delusional and just plainly wrong. Yes, you are wrong. 

 

So that's it guys, for most people, the 4670K is the better option compared to the 8350 and the information shows it. 

 

Once again, thank you for taking the time to read my little article. I hope I have helped you see what the statistics say about these two processors.

I appreciate you taking the time to read what I have written. Cheers :)"

 

This video is the most meticulous head to head comparison of the FX8 and i5.  Its lengthy, but it is the most comprehensive and in-depth review of the FX8 and i5-4670k in a myriad of scenarios pitted against each other.  Single player, multiplayer, 1080p, 1440p, power consumption, min/max/avg framerates, daily tasks, rendering, editing, streaming, mid level GPUs, high level GPUs, multi-threaded games, single core games, this video covers it all.

 

Also, when people say that the FX8 is a less expensive option, they are wrong.  In order for the FX8 to be viable, it needs to be overclocked, which means you need a motherboard with at least 8+2 VRM phase design, and more expensive cooling solution.  You can squeeze by on a 6+2, but you aren't going to get as consistent results as an 8+2, also overclocking results drop with the 6+2.  This makes it cost the same, if not more than a locked i5 processor which will beat the FX8 in every single game, no matter how high the FX is overclocked.  I'm not arguing that the processor is less expensive on AMD's side, but the ancillary components needed end up making it cost the same as a locked i5.

 

 

You can forget about small form factors because there are no AM3+ motherboards available with sufficient VRM phase design that are smaller than ATX.

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/jsYCzy

Price breakdown by merchant: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/jsYCzy/by_merchant/

CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor  ($132.98 @ OutletPC)

CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler  ($26.75 @ OutletPC)

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3P ATX AM3+ Motherboard  ($75.99 @ SuperBiiz)

Total: $235.72

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-27 20:17 EST-0500

 

Vs.

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/c7WWt6

Price breakdown by merchant: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/c7WWt6/by_merchant/

CPU: Intel Core i5-4440 3.1GHz Quad-Core Processor  ($169.99 @ SuperBiiz)

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-B85M-DS3H Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard  ($45.98 @ OutletPC) <-- You could even save an additional $10 by going with a motherboard with only 2 DIMM slots, which is all you really need.

Total: $215.97

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-11 17:20 EST-0500

 

Germany:

PCPartPicker part list: http://de.pcpartpicker.com/p/rzHNP6

Price breakdown by merchant: http://de.pcpartpicker.com/p/rzHNP6/by_merchant/

CPU: Intel Core i5-4430 3.0GHz Quad-Core Processor  (€160.82 @ Hardwareversand)

Motherboard: ASRock H81M-DGS Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard  (€42.49 @ Home of Hardware DE)

Total: €203.31

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-27 01:51 CET+0100

 

Vs.

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://de.pcpartpicker.com/p/ZhVQD3

Price breakdown by merchant: http://de.pcpartpicker.com/p/ZhVQD3/by_merchant/

CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor  (€124.90 @ Caseking)

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3P ATX AM3+ Motherboard  (€79.78 @ Hardwareversand)

Total: €204.68

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-27 01:49 CET+0100

 

 

Australia:

 

Limited selection on PcP

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://au.pcpartpicker.com/p/WYvZcf

Price breakdown by merchant: http://au.pcpartpicker.com/p/WYvZcf/by_merchant/

CPU: Intel Core i5-4570 3.2GHz Quad-Core Processor  ($228.00 @ CPL Online)

Motherboard: ASRock H81 Pro BTC ATX LGA1150 Motherboard  ($39.00 @ PLE Computers)

Total: $267.00

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-12 22:47 EST+1100

 

Vs.

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://au.pcpartpicker.com/p/MDtBGX

Price breakdown by merchant: http://au.pcpartpicker.com/p/MDtBGX/by_merchant/

CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor  ($182.00 @ CPL Online)

Motherboard: MSI 970 GAMING ATX AM3+ Motherboard  ($129.00 @ CPL Online) <-- Any less expensive motherboards only have 4+1 VRM phase design, which is not adequate.

Total: $311.00

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-27 11:52 EST+1100

 

New Zealand:

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://nz.pcpartpicker.com/p/fZTrrH

Price breakdown by merchant: http://nz.pcpartpicker.com/p/fZTrrH/by_merchant/

CPU: Intel Core i5-4440 3.1GHz Quad-Core Processor  ($272.00 @ Paradigm PCs)

Motherboard: ASRock H81M-HDS Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard  ($72.44 @ PB Technologies)

Total: $344.44

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-27 13:53 NZDT+1300

 

Vs.

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://nz.pcpartpicker.com/p/MytJxr

Price breakdown by merchant: http://nz.pcpartpicker.com/p/MytJxr/by_merchant/

CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor  ($207.00 @ 1stWave Technologies)

Motherboard: Asus M5A97 R2.0 ATX AM3+ Motherboard  ($149.95 @ Computer Lounge)

Total: $356.95

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-27 13:52 NZDT+1300

 

Canada:

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://ca.pcpartpicker.com/p/VCGVFT

Price breakdown by merchant: http://ca.pcpartpicker.com/p/VCGVFT/by_merchant/

CPU: Intel Core i5-4440 3.1GHz Quad-Core Processor  ($186.96 @ Newegg Canada)

Motherboard: ASRock H81 Pro BTC ATX LGA1150 Motherboard  ($39.99 @ Memory Express)

Total: $226.95

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-12 06:52 EST-0500

 

Vs.

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://ca.pcpartpicker.com/p/ZhVQD3

Price breakdown by merchant: http://ca.pcpartpicker.com/p/ZhVQD3/by_merchant/

CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor  ($157.90 @ DirectCanada)

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3P ATX AM3+ Motherboard  ($106.00 @ Vuugo)

Total: $263.90

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-26 19:53 EST-0500

 

United Kingdom:

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/p/f39ZZL

Price breakdown by merchant: http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/p/f39ZZL/by_merchant/

CPU: Intel Core i5-4440 3.1GHz Quad-Core Processor  (£131.20 @ Aria PC)

Motherboard: MSI H81M-P33 Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard  (£32.17 @ Scan.co.uk)

Total: £163.37

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-27 00:54 GMT+0000

 

Vs.

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/p/ZhVQD3

Price breakdown by merchant: http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/p/ZhVQD3/by_merchant/

CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor  (£103.00 @ Amazon UK)

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3P ATX AM3+ Motherboard  (£63.54 @ Aria PC)

Total: £166.54

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-27 00:54 GMT+0000

 

Italy:

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://it.pcpartpicker.com/p/f39ZZL

Price breakdown by merchant: http://it.pcpartpicker.com/p/f39ZZL/by_merchant/

CPU: Intel Core i5-4440 3.1GHz Quad-Core Processor  (€173.38 @ Amazon Italia)

Motherboard: MSI H81M-P33 Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard  (€41.17 @ Amazon Italia)

Total: €214.55

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-12 13:03 CET+0100

 

Vs.

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://it.pcpartpicker.com/p/ZhVQD3

Price breakdown by merchant: http://it.pcpartpicker.com/p/ZhVQD3/by_merchant/

CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor  (€131.67 @ Amazon Italia)

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3P ATX AM3+ Motherboard  (€87.62 @ Amazon Italia)

Total: €219.29

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-27 01:55 CET+0100

 

Spain:

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://es.pcpartpicker.com/p/f39ZZL

Price breakdown by merchant: http://es.pcpartpicker.com/p/f39ZZL/by_merchant/

CPU: Intel Core i5-4440 3.1GHz Quad-Core Processor  (€163.00 @ Amazon Espana)

Motherboard: MSI H81M-P33 Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard  (€42.20 @ Amazon Espana)

Total: €205.20

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-27 01:56 CET+0100

 

Vs.

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://es.pcpartpicker.com/p/ZhVQD3

Price breakdown by merchant: http://es.pcpartpicker.com/p/ZhVQD3/by_merchant/

CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor  (€130.83 @ Amazon Espana)

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3P ATX AM3+ Motherboard  (€87.83 @ Amazon Espana)

Total: €218.66

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-27 01:55 CET+0100

 

Want to try and find a cheaper option for AMD?  Be my guest.  Here is the AM3+ Motherboard Phasing Guide.  You need at least 6+2, but recommended 8+2.

 

If you don't like numbers and want pure user experience without benchmarks and stats, check out Suika's 30 Day Journal of his experience going from an FX8350 + GTX 780 to an i7-4790k + GTX780. Like many others on this forum, he noticed that he was being held back in many games with his FX8, and his expensive GPU wasn't being fully utilized.  Here is a pure experience based review from a forum member on his experience going from FX to Intel. 

 

Suika is one of many users here on LTT who were previously using FX processors with high end GPUs thinking it was a good match, only to realize in the end that it was not a good balance.

 

I am aware that an i7 is much more expensive than an FX8, but the performance in games between an i5 and i7 is nearly identical, especially when at the same clock speed.

 

With the AM3+ platform, there is nothing to upgrade to.  Going from an FX6 to FX8 to FX9 doesn't yield much performance gains because they all use the same architecture, which has horrible single core performance.  If you tried to go from FX8 to FX9, you're going to have to spend even more on super high end 990FX motherboard, and at least a $60 CPU Cooler.  Just throwing money at a bottomless pit of poor gaming performance.  Basically, you're stuck with what you have if you decide to go FX.

 

With Intel, upgrading is easy.  You can go from an i5 to an i7 or Xeon, even if you're on one of the less expensive, and older motherboards.  All that is necessary is a BIOS update, which is easy to do as long as you already have a Haswell processor, which you would have if you went this route.  Even the soon to be released Broadwell processors should be compatible with H81 motherboards.  They are going to be compatible with Devil's Canyon motherboards, which are also LGA1150, so they will fit in the same socket as these motherboards, so in theory all that is necessary is a BIOS update.  Going this route, you won't be able to overclock using the multiplier, but you can always squeeze an extra 1-300Mhz by BCLK overclocking.  Good thing Intel processors at stock already blow the doors off the highest overclocked FX chip out there. At least the option for truly increased performance is there with Intel, unlike with AMD.

 

Referring to the FX as the budget option, or good for its price needs to stop.  $200 equals $200 but the performance of one does not equal the other in games.

"I genuinely dislike the promulgation of false information, especially to people who are asking for help selecting new parts."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

So because you don't personally pay for it, that means it is free?  No.

 

A locked i5 will outperform the highest of overclocked FXs in games.  It costs $215 for a locked i5.

Ok well for my area, and needs the Fx 8320 seems to be the logical choice. and it is there I stop posting on this topic

SHAMEFUL DISPRAY

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Also add up that quite a lot of FX users buy a low end motherboard thinking it is fine, only to experience VRM throttling, have to buy a new motherboard, all the while spending way more than a locked i5 + H81 motherboard that will perform much better than even the highest overclocked FX in every game.

 

Yes I am one of them. Look at my signature, I want out.

CPU AMD FX-8350 @ 4.0GHzCooling AMD StockMotherboard AsRock 970 Extreme4RAM 8GB (2x4) DDR3 1333MHz GPU AMD Sapphire R9 290 Vapor-XCase Fractal Define R5 Titanium 


Storage Samsung 120GB 840 EVO | PSUThermaltake Litepower 600WOS Windows 8.1 Pro 64-bit


Upgrading to - Intel i7 - New motherboard - Corsair AIO H110i GT watercooler -  1000W PSU


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

may I ask why?

 

As mentioned above, there is you, and 2 other LTT members, who tend to Paste large amount of work for proving that Intel is better at gaming

My problem is that I do not understand why, as personally I do not feel such "love" or passion for proving people right or wrong

 

I reckon you could improve your argument with some 270X or some other more budget oriented graphics card, to show that you are not trying to say that AMD is not good at all, but not good at high end gaming. I think this is the biggest problem with you 3 guys argument, that usually it is a big NO for AMD, with Cons only, not showing that you know about pros (multitasking). And there are some guys, like myself, who tries to sneak in, quietly, that hey, if you already have it, then use it, OC- it and enjoy it,, it is not unplayable(except some heavily CPU bound games), and if you already have it, you might get the best out of it, and I usually get flamed down, as I am not a heavy gamer myself( gaming is a comfortable extra for me.... as I do not have freetime)

 

I think if you guys try to make your argument a little more friendly you will have a greater success

 

 

The reason for my monolouge is simple: I think/hope that you might actually want to help people, not being Flame Trolls, and with some minor changes, you might be friendlier.

Because Hippy, I don't want people to make the same mistakes many other people have. It's not that I'm trying to win an argument, or prove anybody else wrong, it's just that every single day I see people complaining about their 83xx and how it's bottlenecking, slow, dropping frames (low minimums), etc. How many do I see about i5's? None. 

Yea maybe I should be friendlier, I realized that a few days ago that I should just stop responding to people who are seriously insulting me because me insulting them back does nothing but create a bad forum environment. I even went back and removed some of my posts because they were just not suitable for this forum.

 

 

Help me guys I need a new processor for $170 or less.

 

It is imperative that I don't go over that limit. I'm not allowed to borrow either.

 

AMD or Intel. Please help.

 

Thanks :)

For gaming? i3. 

Rendering, photo editing, etc? 6300.

RIP in pepperonis m8s

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to help people, proving people wrong is not the goal.  When people outright lie and recommend an old tool for the job, I get irate because we all know better.  Its like saying leech sucking is still an excellent tool in the medical community.  Technological advancements have been made!

 

-snip-

I read it and saw it thank you

 

I see your motivation and I like it although personally I think you should modify it/add more details to it with middle range cards, as many many people, who probably "lurking" in this forums, cannot afford a high end (280X/GTX 770 and above) card. So for someone, who has small money for GPU, and wants to do some work on a PC as well, an 8 core FX might be a good option ( for example in 3rd world countries, someone wants to learn photoshop and videoediting, and has no money for a good CPU, you get my idea)

 

 

Because Hippy, I don't want people to make the same mistakes many other people have. It's not that I'm trying to win an argument, or prove anybody else wrong, it's just that every single day I see people complaining about their 83xx and how it's bottlenecking, slow, dropping frames (low minimums), etc. How many do I see about i5's? None. 

Yea maybe I should be friendlier, I realized that a few days ago that I should just stop responding to people who are seriously insulting me because me insulting them back does nothing but create a bad forum environment. I even went back and removed some of my posts because they were just not suitable for this forum.

 

 

I see your reason, but please, read my previous paragraph

 

yeah, insults are usually lead to flaming(will be edited)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

fate acts like i insulted him,but he was the one getting mad cursing and writing all caps lol...i still love all pc users so cmon guys...brohug.

cpu:i7-4770k    gpu: msi reference r9 290x  liquid cooled with h55 and hg10 a1     motherboard:z97x gaming 5   ram:gskill sniper 8 gb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.


×