"RedCluster" My personal AMD gaming rig (SOON)

[i_build_nanosuits]

yeah.. i see FX chips perform similar to equally priced intel parts...

let me help you out!!! see that 10 years old duo 8500?!

 

 

yeah, that's right baby...intel CPU's from 10 years ago have GREATER IPC than AMD FX!!!!!!!!!

[manikyath]

let me help you out!!! see that 10 years old duo 8500?!

yeah.. i see a core2duo running at almost twice its stock speed...

[i_build_nanosuits]

yeah.. i see a core2duo running at almost twice its stock speed...

still a 10 years old CPU @ 4.6GHZ is performing the same as a 5.876ghz AMD FX.!!! how can you still even argue with me about this?!

how well do you think a CPU like that FX is performing in games?!...remember i OWNED one!

[Wolf_Lbh]

yeah.. i see a core2duo running at almost twice its stock speed...

Wow a 200% overclock and it runs for 10 years? You amd guys are total losers!

[manikyath]

still a 10 years old CPU @ 4.6GHZ is performing the same as a 5.876ghz AMD FX.!!! how can you still even argue with me about this?!

you know, maybe learning how processors work would be a good start.

 

i suggest going back to being enthousiastic about gaming and being a "geomatician" instead of arguing with someone that has done IT studies.

[manikyath]

Wow a 200% overclock and it runs for 10 years? You amd guys are total losers!

err huh?

i know as good as you that that guy didnt OC that thing 10 years ago.

[i_build_nanosuits]

you know, maybe learning how processors work would be a good start.

 

i suggest going back to being enthousiastic about gaming and being a "geomatician" instead of arguing with someone that has done IT studies.

so...MR. IT i study and i'm brilliant...how do you explain that ALL the review outlets are saying it: AMD CPU's are based on very old technologies and are NOT good performers?! they are ALL wrong?!

[manikyath]

so...MR. IT i study and i'm brilliant...how do you explain that ALL the review outlets are saying it: AMD CPU's are based on very old technologies and are NOT good performers?! they are ALL wrong?!

i'm not saying they're the end all be all of computing. i'm saying they perform equal to similarly priced intel parts, and are a very valid choice for those who are gonna use those cores, or those who want to build an amd system just for the heck of it.

[i_build_nanosuits]

i'm not saying they're the end all be all of computing. i'm saying they perform equal to similarly priced intel parts, and are a very valid choice for those who are gonna use those cores, or those who want to build an amd system just for the heck of it.

fair enough.

That does not mean that a 200$ intel i5-4460 and h97 motherboard won't outperform it across the board in games...and this is cheaper than the FX-9590 the OP plan to buy ALONE...

can you link me to just ONE gaming benchmark in which ANY AMD CPU outperform a core i5 from intel from as old as sandy-bridge or newer?! please...find me ONE...only ONE!!! ...ANY GAME...go ahead!

[Wolf_Lbh]

err huh?

i know as good as you that that guy didnt OC that thing 10 years ago.

It was a joke. I'm saying the result is sketchy as hell.

[manikyath]

It was a joke. I'm saying the result is sketchy as hell.

you need an /s there, sarcasm doesnt translate trough the internet

[i_build_nanosuits]

It was a joke. I'm saying the result is sketchy as hell.

feel free to check the other results then

LTT community is sketchy?! that's what you are saying here?

[Wolf_Lbh]

you need an /s there, sarcasm doesnt translate trough the internet

I thought given how illogical that was the sarcasm didn't need pointing out

I mean just look at what would need to happen to make that possible:

1. A chip from 10 years ago would need to still be functional. Not that unlikely but still it narrows things down a bit.

2. The chip would have to be capable to support a 200% overclock. That's definitely rare, even more so for an aged chip.

3. The chip would need to be cooled so it doesn't go supernova in your tower. Cooling to support a 200% overclock probably means phase changing and not just some simple prebuilt $50 watercooling option.

So all in all... someone would have had to have taken a budget chip from 10 years ago that still worked and was the jesus christ superstar of chips that could still function on a 200% overclock and on top of that... put their cheap ass chip in an incredibly expensive cooling system.

I can't see that as anything more than a 1 off for the lulz to see if it would even work. Certainly not a stable or at least practical home environment. I find it far more likely someone fudged their test scores somehow. Anyways even assuming the score is legit the price of the cooling system clearly required to run that setup eliminates it as a practical example for a budget build discussion.

[i_build_nanosuits]

 Certainly not a stable or at least practical home environment. I find it far more likely someone fudged their test scores somehow. Anyways even assuming the score is legit the price of the cooling system clearly required to run that setup eliminates it as a practical example for a budget build discussion.

of course this was a one run suicidal attempt...most of these top runs are BTW...these results are achieved by the forum's best overclockers...these guys do own top end cooling and they do manage to do this for the kick and for the lolz....they do have other CPU's and motherboard for daily use...this was of course a golden sample and not something you see everyday and NO i'm not saying the 10 years old core 2 duo is a superior chip to the AMD FX...this was ONLY to show you and the others, that intel had CPU's back in 2007 that had greater IPC than current AMD FX CPU's...that's all !

 

now, how much do you think intel improved things with`penryn, nehalem, westemere, sandy-bridge, ivy-bridge, haswell and now skylake?!

5%?

 

HINT:

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core2-Duo-E8500-vs-Intel-Core-i5-4460/m13vs2310

 

... --­] and this is only a mid-range, last gen CPU that goes for 170$...so, 75$ cheaper than the FX-9590 the OP plan to purchase...cheaper than the FX...you can get the i5 AND a brand new motherboard for it for less money than the FX-9590 or FX-9370 ALONE!

[manikyath]

I thought given how illogical that was the sarcasm didn't need pointing out

I mean just look at what would need to happen to make that possible:

1. A chip from 10 years ago would need to still be functional. Not that unlikely but still it narrows things down a bit.

2. The chip would have to be capable to support a 200% overclock. That's definitely rare, even more so for an aged chip.

3. The chip would need to be cooled so it doesn't go supernova in your tower. Cooling to support a 200% overclock probably means phase changing and not just some simple prebuilt $50 watercooling option.

well, since this thread is being ravaged by fanboys right now, illogical is kind of the name of the game sadly

anwyays:

1: i have a 20 year old chip thats still perfect, and a whole range between that thing and today thats also still functional, that said, its 8 yeard old, not 10. (huge difference, 10 = P4 era)

2: the chips that last longer are usually the better "silicon lottery" ones. that said, i wont be overclocking my 120MHz pentium any time soon.

3: probably most of the benchmarks in there are "suicicde runs" just for the street cred.

[i_build_nanosuits]

3: probably most of the benchmarks in there are "suicicde runs" just for the street cred.

they are, as i said in my previous post...same goes for the FX scores you can see in the spread sheet including my FX run BTW.

[Wolf_Lbh]

they are, as i said in my previous post...same goes for the FX scores you can see in the spread sheet including my FX run BTW.

I don't think a lottery is any way to decide what is best. For all we know the tears of god fell on some yet to be tested fx chip and it can support a 300% overclock with proper cooling. That doesn't improve the performance of that chip or that brand as a whole.

For a practical discussion the focus should be the average performance, not the outliers.

[i_build_nanosuits]

For a practical discussion the focus should be the average performance, not the outliers.

Again, feel free to check the OTHER results in the spreadsheet mate

or, just about ANY other benchmarks and test reviews you can find on the whole internet BTW.

FX was not competitive with intel core i5 even at launch versus sandy-bridge (almost 5 years old tech) so how in the world can you think it would compete in any way shape or form with current intel quad-core CPU's?!

[Benji_w]

still a 10 years old CPU @ 4.6GHZ is performing the same as a 5.876ghz AMD FX.!!! how can you still even argue with me about this?!

how well do you think a CPU like that FX is performing in games?!...remember i OWNED one!

 

So you owned one and had a bad experience, so all of them are now bad? What motherboard did you pair it with? What heatsink? what VRM cooling? Socket cooling? What about Ram speed and latency? I'd love to go really in depth with you on those specs because I can game all day on my 8350, even on shit games like Arma II DayZ mod and get frames close to that of my intel counterparts.

 

I'm sorry but you've shit all over this thread and it's incredibly rude and disrespectful to the OP who just wanted to build a fucking PC, You're a 33yr old man acting like a pre pubescent child ruining someone else's fun to push his own agenda and it's incredibly unjustifiable. You've been not only rude to me but several other members, I expect this behaviour from high school children, not an adult. You should be ashamed of yourself.

 

Now do us all a favour and leave the thread you have ultimately destroyed, we've all had enough.

[Benji_w]

Again, feel free to check the OTHER results in the spreadsheet mate

or, just about ANY other benchmarks and test reviews you can find on the whole internet BTW.

FX was not competitive with intel core i5 even at launch versus sandy-bridge (almost 5 years old tech) so how in the world can you think it would compete in any way shape or form with current intel quad-core CPU's?!

 

[airdeano]

dunna know if those commenters understand, the OP exactly asked not to impede

with their opinions on certain platforms, but somehow injected their thoughts into

the conversation. by definition, that is trolling. we do not allow trolling on these forums.

 

if you cannot lend to the conversation as per the OP request, then do not comment

shoulda or, coulda. they'd asked not to participate.

 

stop the trolling!

[Wolf_Lbh]

Again, feel free to check the OTHER results in the spreadsheet mate

or, just about ANY other benchmarks and test reviews you can find on the whole internet BTW.

FX was not competitive with intel core i5 even at launch versus sandy-bridge (almost 5 years old tech) so how in the world can you think it would compete in any way shape or form with current intel quad-core CPU's?!

I never said it was. Once again, I'm an Intel fanboy. I find they generally offer better performance but at what can sometimes be far greater cost. But you said that it was a lottery and that a lottery winning Intel run proved it was better because you did a single Fx run. That isn't how lotteries work and proves nothing. The example you pointed out had no relevance to the discussion. Telling me to check the average performances was relevant, of course you only did that after I told you it was.