Overclocking compatibale

[Totally-A-Hero]

I live in southern California and i dont know exact except it costs like 300 a month if we run AC wich we normally do because it is always hot as balls here lol.

[i_build_nanosuits]

I live in southern California and i dont know exact except it costs like 300 a month if we run AC wich we normally do because it is always hot as balls here lol.

 

Electicity is cheap enough all over the united states you won't notice 8$ more a year for running the FX overclocked chip...this is a non-issue...i just try to size wich would be the best pick for you...do you have basics knowledge on overclocking or you just begin?

[Priller]

I live in southern California and i dont know exact except it costs like 300 a month if we run AC wich we normally do because it is always hot as balls here lol.

 

I run my 8350 quite abit and have my 8150 as a dedicated server. I notice no difference in my electric bill with 1 or both of them running.

[i_build_nanosuits]

I run my 8350 quite abit and have my 8150 as a dedicated server. I notice no difference in my electric bill with 1 or both of them running.

 

i agree and i'm aware of that, it's just this gentlemen can't choose wich one to go with so i try to hit him with secondary pros or cons to help him make a better decision...

 

The obvious so far are :

 

Intel better single threaded performance by quite a bit, cost 40$ more for the unlocked chip + cheaper motherboard, run's cooler and uses less electricity.

 

AMD better multi-threaded performance a little bit, cost 40$ less with a better motherboard, run's hotter and require an hyper 212 cpu cooler, use more electricity.

 

Both chips will benefit greatly from overclocking, both will heat up and use more power once overclocked.

 

Both board will allow for CFX/SLI.

 

Both will play modern games on highest settings provided they are paired with a good GPU

 

Intel will play old tech single threaded ugly MMO's much better than the AMD chip...

 

am i missing something obvious?

 

oh, both will be on a dead socket when they will need a replacement for gaming so this is not to be considered.

 

OH, and the intel can be upgraded to a core i7-4770K at any time but by the time this will be required for gaming (if it ever do) such a chip will still be worth 350$ on ebay so a new mobo+ up to date CPU will be a better choice once again.

[Totally-A-Hero]

Electicity is cheap enough all over the united states you won't notice 8$ more a year for running the FX overclocked chip...this is a non-issue...i just try to size wich would be the best pick for you...do you have basics knowledge on overclocking or you just begin?

My first build ever no knowlege of much of anything besides what linus vidoes and various other vidoes have tought me.I figured i would just grab the bull by the horns and go for it!

[Totally-A-Hero]

I also have a 212 to OC and cool.good reviews. I might upgrade to that dual fan noctua 1 in the future but will probably never water cool.From what i can telll it is kinda unecassary and a waste of money for just gaming.

[i_build_nanosuits]

Liked both post, you can get a very descent overclock with both chips under a 212 cooler...not the MAX OC, but a GOOD OC.

[Priller]

Liked both post, you can get a very descent overclock with both chips under a 212 cooler...not the MAX OC, but a GOOD OC.

 

For as cheap as a 212 is it usually takes a H80 or H100 to outperform it. Airflow is key tho. 

[Totally-A-Hero]

I think im gonna go with the AMD it looks like good value and will perform great,expecally overclocked. 

 

For as cheap as a 212 is it usually takes a H80 or H100 to outperform it. Airflow is key tho. 

I got a Corsari 500r it has good airflow i also am window modding it and but all blue LED fans. its gonna look good.

[Priller]

I think im gonna go with the AMD it looks like good value and will perform great,expecally overclocked. 

 

I got a Corsari 500r it has good airflow i also am window modding it and but all blue LED fans. its gonna look good.

 

Or you could wait alittle longer, Get a Z97 board and a 4790K. It will cost more money but it will perform better both in single core and multi threaded applications.  It should overclock very good too.

[Totally-A-Hero]

Or you could wait alittle longer, Get a Z97 board and a 4790K. It will cost more money but it will perform better both in single core and multi threaded applications.  It should overclock very good too.

Im 14 and have no job the $200 price point of the AMD is very appealing.If i wanted to get that CPU/MOBO it would likely take me about a half a year to save up the extra money.

[Leonard]

So i honestly hav absoulutley have NO idea on what this overclocking compatible is. Im looking at the 8320 and 8350 and i wanna know if any of the motherboards can overclock .http://www.microcenter.com/site/products/amd_bundles.aspx

 

EDIT:How well are these boards for overclocking.

Overclocking compatible in this case means that the motherboard should have all the necessary features in order to get the best potential of the CPU. You can also have motherboard A being able to OC but not as good as motherboard B even though both motherboards are "OC compatible". Some motherboards in both Intel and AMD do not support OCing so you won't be able to carry your CPU further than the stock frequency.

[-iSynthesis]

So preety much in most games (AAA titles ) i wont even notice a difference so save $40 and buy the AMD?

Not much at least. Maybe 5 FPS less or more depending on the game.

[i_build_nanosuits]

Not much at least. Maybe 5 FPS less or more depending on the game.

...and those FPS we are talking about here are in the order of 105FPS instead of 112FPS...since most people play 1080p and 60FPS and won't likely have a GPU good enough to run games on high settings above 100FPS there's no difference, so unless you run SLI GTX780ti and aim for 120FPS to run a 120hz display on medium/high settings they perform the same in games...except as we mentionned already in badly optimised single-threaded MMO's where even the core i5-4670K overclocked get like 32FPS in battle and the FX overclocked will give you 24FPS...won't change anything both results are ugly, unplayable and uninteresting...

 

Also, the multi-threaded performance of the FX is better, so in anything (games or apps) that will use 6 heavy threads or more the FX will regain those FPS.

[deathjester]

Im 14 and have no job the $200 price point of the AMD is very appealing.If i wanted to get that CPU/MOBO it would likely take me about a half a year to save up the extra money.

 

A budget is a budget. You have to stick to the budget. We have all been there. It all depends on the games you want to play. I keep saying this. Other people keep saying this.  

 

For my brother in law a 8320 was fine. I built him the 8320 with that motherboard we showed you earlier. He doesn't play MMO's. He plays MXGP, single player games/console ports maybe an occasional triple A shooter. Now I can tell you that the 8320 when I bought if for my brother in law was 99 bucks. It was at this price all January, February or something like that at Microcenter. I imagine it may drop again to that price soon with the new Intel's coming out. The AMD motherboards prob won't drop. That newegg price on the UD3P is prob the lowest you are going to see.

 

Only a 6 FPS difference in an MMO though? That is BS. You might see a 6 fps difference in a smaller raid between a OC AMD and a non overclocked Ivy Bridge I5 (Haswell is faster single core). In LARGE raids however...

 

This is the only video I even see anyone attempting to record a pvp zerg (and zergs get way bigger then this) in Guild Wars 2 on a AMD 8350 and it is over 4.6ghz and water cooled on a very expensive Sabertooth mb. He goes to the teens starting at about 3:20. I never see south of 30 on my 4770k at 4.5 ghz and that is in much bigger zergs. If you watch the AMD it is completely fine with minimal people on screen (most games have minimal people on screen). When it gets killed by an Intel is when there are a lot of people on screen. That is when performance tanks because you are limited to one core. You will see the same thing in a zerg or a town in Day-Z, Rust or a 40 man raid in Wild Star, or in a 25 man raid in WoW. The 25 man raid in WoW is not in the teens at least though. The Wildstar raids? You will see FPS just as low, which is why the forum is exploding with AMD owners complaints from the open beta.

 

 

It literally depends on the games you play. The AMD can be a good and a bad choice. Now if you play console ports, console shooters, the AMD can do just as well or close to the Intel. It is also COMPLETELY FINE in league of legends, Starcraft 2. If you want to play MMO's and MASSIVE multiplayer games? Save up some pop cans and get the I5 K. 

 

"Triple A" games from consoles? Yup AMD is completely fine. Triple A games from the PC? It can suck. This should start to change in early 2013 (hopefully) since the first DirectX 12 game comes out Holiday 2012. This is when (hopefully) all these super large multiplayer PC games start to optimize their game engine on DirectX 12. 

 

Is AMD to blame? Nope. An I7-920 at 4ghz should be able to run these games, which is how the AMD's perform. Are the game devs to blame? Nope. Our current Direct X deserves the blame, because you can use 16 threads on a Haswell-E in a game if you want, but it doesn't matter. You are still going to be limited to how fast you are on one core with a lot of people on the screen in these games. That is the entire reason AMD made Mantle, which pushed Direct X. 

 

Crysis 3 doesn't have a lot of people on screen. Battlefield 4 has a max of 64 and they are never on screen at once. Planetside 2? Intel is better than the AMD in cpu bound situations and Planetside 2 is as well optimized for the AMD as you can get after the OMFG patch.

 

"CPU bound" has nothing to do with having a big core chip in these games. It has to do with you being reliant on one core to do one big job and the slower the core the worse the game performs. Wild Star uses all the threads on my I7. It is still reliant on one core in a big raid and an I5 performs exactly the same. WoW will use all the threads as well. Still reliant on one core as far as FPS lows. The optimization people want on these games is simply impossible atm.

 

Star Citizen (thankfully) is AMD Mantle, so the 8320 with a AMD GPU should be fine. I have no idea if the game is going to be as aggressive as say Eve Online with units on screen, but if it is? AMD CPU's will benefit greatly from Mantle. 

[i_build_nanosuits]

Star Citizen (thankfully) is AMD Mantle, so the 8320 with a AMD GPU should be fine. I have no idea if the game is going to be as aggressive as say Eve Online with units on screen, but if it is? AMD CPU's will benefit greatly from Mantle.

Star citizen is being built upon Cryengine 3.0 and will use many threads (up to 8 distinct heavy threads) so it will run flawlessly on the AMD cpu's, mantle or not...

Developpment of games using age old single-threaded game engines is done at this point in time, from now on we will only see games that will use 4 main threads or more even in MMO's and PC exclussive, some indi's might still stick to some old source engine for a little while though but those are generely not very CPU intensive...

Games built on unreal engine for example are a thing of the past.

I agree with you, directx11 is archaic and must be replaced fast to allow developpment of better games,it is not normal that a 4.5ghz i7-4770K gets CPU limited and allow for 30FPS in ANY games...really.

[deathjester]

Star citizen is being built upon Cryengine 3.0 and will use many threads (up to 8 distinct heavy threads) so it will run flawlessly on the AMD cpu's, mantle or not...

Developpment of games using age old single-threaded game engines is done at this point in time, from now on we will only see games that will use 4 main threads or more even in MMO's and PC exclussive, some indi's might still stick to some old source engine for a little while though but those are generely not very CPU intensive...

Games built on unreal engine for example are a thing of the past.

I agree with you, directx11 is archaic and must be replaced fast to allow developpment of better games,it is not normal that a 4.5ghz i7-4770K gets CPU limited and allow for 30FPS in ANY games...really.

 

Crysis 3 does not have tons of player/units on screen in multiplayer. Star Citizen might. 

 

"Development of games using age old single-threaded game engines is done at this point in time."

 

You literally have no idea what you are talking about. Crysis 3 CAN get cpu bound on one core as well. It just doesn't have tons of players on screen with the main task being overloaded. Like I said Planetside 2 was optimized specifically for AMD CPU's with the OMFG patch so that they could put it on PS4 (which they still haven't managed to do).

 

This is what would happen in Crysis 3 if there were a ton of players on screen like there are in Planetside 2. Am I CPU bound on total CPU usage? Nope. I am at 25 percent total usage. My 4770k could handle 4 PS2 clients with perfect optimization (that doesn't exist on our current DX).  Am I CPU bound on one core as far as FPS lows? Sure am. This is why AMD performs worse in that game even after optimization as good as it gets on our current Direct X. BF4 has nowhere near the players on screen that Planetside 2 can have. This is after a ton of money and half a year of Sony optimizing the game. This is what happens in a big battle in Planetside 2. In a small battle or in a area without a lot of players? You will see more even distribution and the game looks "well optimized".

 

 

Here is Crysis 3 getting CPU bound. I5> 8350 on FPS lows.

 

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/crysis-3-performance-benchmark-gaming,3451-8.html

 

Now you can link me BS GPU benchmarks of Crysis 3 in a non CPU intensive area, but sorry, I don't fall for that. Neither should anyone else with a clue. You could test Guild Wars 2 single player (which some moron did on youtube) with no one around and no one firing off abilities and make the AMD look like a good CPU in that game, even though it is awful for endgame (which is large PvP combat).

[i_build_nanosuits]

hey hey hey, calm down!

i know that a single core can get taxed to the point where it will slow down a game to a crawl, i've been working in game developpment long enough to know how this works, i'm just saying that a game engine like cryengine for example can run multiple threads and that will greatly help the developpers to not have all the physics and caracter actions and animations to be processed on a single core like it is being done in planetside2 ATM for example, now, yes if a thread overload a cpu core this can have major impact on the end result, yes...but this is what the devs are trying to avoid now in games and it will be done with multi-threaded game engines and even more with the help of a low level access API like dx12 is supposed to be...i won't link any benchmark you don't have to be mean or that sufficient toward me i know all that stuff already and i probably was aware of that even before you where born my friend.

[dev893]

Yes noob compatibility is appreciated here. lol. So those asrock boards are fine? What is the difference beetween the 2?

I'm Using an ASrock board and I love it everything is really easy to use and OC is pretty easy as well.

[i_build_nanosuits]

I'm Using an ASrock board and I love it everything is really easy to use and OC is pretty easy as well.

Yes but you are running an AMD APU on an FM2 motherboard, that has nothing to do with our friend here who wants to run an high-end FX 8 core overclocked on an AM3+ motherboard...ASrock won't have any board good enough to really allow OCing of such a chip...their best effort is the ASrock 990FX extreme 3 wich only has a 4+1 power phase design...

[deathjester]

hey hey hey, calm down!

i know that a single core can get taxed to the point where it will slow down a game to a crawl, i've been working in game developpment long enough to know how this works, i'm just saying that a game engine like cryengine for example can run multiple threads and that will greatly help the developpers to not have all the physics and caracter actions and animations to be processed on a single core like it is being done in planetside2 ATM for example, now, yes if a thread overload a cpu core this can have major impact on the end result, yes...but this is what the devs are trying to avoid now in games and it will be done with multi-threaded game engines and even more with the help of a low level access API like dx12 is supposed to be...i won't link any benchmark you don't have to be mean or that sufficient toward me i know all that stuff already and i probably was aware of that even before you where born my friend.

 

"i've been working in game development long enough to know how this works". So now you are a game developer? I think I am done here. 

 

MMO using Crysis 3 engine (Archage). Go like 44 minutes in.

 

Oh look. Same teens FPS that the 8350 gets in Guild Wars 2. Wonder why. His GPU settings are obviously on low lol. When many people aren't around? He spikes up to 50-60. WoW and Wild Star use multiple threads. Guild Wars 2 uses multiple threads. WoW and Wild Star use all my threads. There is no difference with HT on or off, and I am still limited to one core for FPS lows.

 

 

Bummer huh? Translate the Russian comments. They say to go Intel. Guess the Crysis 3 engine couldn't perform the miracles you claimed. What a shocker. So let's add Crysis 3 to the list of "anti-AMD" engines. They obviously have an agenda against AMD owners just like Blizzard, Arenanet, NCSOFT. Or? Our API sucks, and it is gonna be this way for years and if you want to play these games not in the teens? Go Intel. 

[i_build_nanosuits]

man, sry, but you have a problem, you have a raging inferno inside your chest you should really do something about it instead of dumping your frustration on your keyboard...and NO i'm not a game developer but i have been assistant level designer at Ubisoft Montréal studio (wich is a GAME DEVELOPER), i worked in the assassin's creed series and prince of persia level disigning mostly, some Far cry levels as well...that does not make me a game developer or a ''coder'' by any means but that makes me quite a bit knowledgeable with game engines and mapping...AND COMPUTERS HARDWARE IN GENERAL.

[deathjester]

man, sry, but you have a problem, you have a raging inferno inside your chest you should really do something about it instead of dumping your frustration on your keyboard...and NO i'm not a game developper but i have been assistant level designer at Ubisoft Montréal, i worked in the assassin's creed series and prince of persia level disgning mostly, some Far cry levels as well...that does not make me a game developper or a ''codder'' but that makes me quite a bit knowledgeable with game engines and mapping...AND COMPUTERS HARDWARE IN GENERAL.

 

I am not the one claiming to have worked in game development, while being ignorant of the fact that game developers only have access to 6 cores on the SDK on a "next gen game" on a next gen machine. I also am not ignorant of the fact that the consoles are both using low level API's that we don't have and that will not be mainstream for years, outside of AMD Mantle games which aren't that many in number.

 

You are trying to compare a high level API to a low level API (you can't) and cores that are super weak and needed in a bigger number (because they are weak) to cores that blow them away on a desktop. Comparing the cores on the mobile AMD CPU at 1.6-1.7 ghz to a Intel I5 is laughable.  

 

I have showed that your Crysis 3 engine argument is bogus. Watch Dog's benchmarks will show that Ubisoft's I7 recommendation is bogus, just like Thief and Wolfenstein benchmarks did (also recommended an I7). If you want to stop being corrected? Stop posting silly, inaccurate statements and the false advertising and pumping up of consoles on a PC forum.

 

PC gaming is not console gaming. The closest thing we have is AMD Mantle titles and the I5 is faster than a 8350 which makes all your arguments look even more ridiculous as far as "future recommendations". The I5 gets faster on a low level API, not slower. It doesn't gain as much as a 8350, but it doesn't need to. It was way faster before that...If you want an Intel CPU that gains a ton on a low level API? You are looking at a I3. That chip? The 8350 can beat on a console like API in 64 player BF4. Hooray 8350. Anything but 64 player? I don't care about. You are GPU bound. You might as well be running a GPU benchmark. 

 

http://pclab.pl/art55953-3.html

 

If you want to recommend a CPU for future gaming as being needed, then the 8350 should be listed under the I5 and the I7 should be listed if you really want max FPS past 60. Game devs aren't going to make games where only people with I7's can play. They are going to target the 8350 and I5 and probably the 6300fx and I3 as well, since both do pretty damn well in Mantle.

 

Basically? You are selling fairy tales, over and over and over again.

[i_build_nanosuits]

basicaly, short answer ok, don't want to discuss all that with you, all you do is put words in my mouths, but :

 

Core i7 MULTI-THREADED performance > FX-83xx MULTI-THREADED performance > Core i5 MULTI-THREADED performance > Core i3 MULTI-THREADED performance

 

Future GAMES = MULTI-THREADED GAMES so Core i7  > FX-83xx  > Core i5  > Core i3 for future games whether you like it or not.

 

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AlC81MjwelBgdEZNV3l6aHl1eUNwSUR4Rml0MXMzN1E&usp=sharing

 

Game devs aren't going to make games where only people with I7's can play. They are going to target the 8350 and I5 and probably the 6300fx and I3 as well, since both do pretty damn well in Mantle.

that is true, they will make games that EVERYBODY will be able to play:

core i3 : Low/medium settings

Core i5, FX-6300 : Medium/high settings

FX-83xx, Core i7 : High/Ultra settings

Anyway this discussion is meaningless, all those future games will most likely be 100% GPU bound anyway like all the modern games that are on the shelfs ATM..

[Totally-A-Hero]

My posts always turn into huge AMD vs Intel flame wars. I think AMD will be fine for me guys,if i ever play a MMO fine i will take the perfromance hit but i dont plan on it so i dont care. Overall saving $40 means getting my build faster.Also it performs great in the games i wanna play like Bf4 and BF3 so im not gonna be dissapointed.The only thing that really left a bad taste in my mouth when talking about it is all the watts it takes up.I ended up going with a 750 w though so its alright. So stop fighting guys.