Streaming!

[hak4fun]

I couldn't tell you exactly but I see a lot more shadowplay news/improvements coming out.

 

You could use OpenCL on amd cards though, should work well enough- that's how I stream locally.

Okay. Well I think I am going to reprice a AMD rig with a 8320 or similiar Sense 8320/8350s have proved your decency for streaming. I really don't think things have changed much sense tek syndicate especially benchmarked them for xsplit streaming. I wish there was a straight answer, get rid of this stupid AMD vs intel battle.

[harrynowl]

Okay. Well I think I am going to reprice a AMD rig with a 8320 or similiar Sense 8320/8350s have proved your decency for streaming. I really don't think things have changed much sense tek syndicate especially benchmarked them for xsplit streaming. I wish there was a straight answer, get rid of this stupid AMD vs intel battle.

I'd say QuickSync would be faster, and the Tek Syndicate benchmarks have been criticized by many for showing results opposite to many other sources.

[hak4fun]

I'd say QuickSync would be faster, and the Tek Syndicate benchmarks have been criticized by many for showing results opposite to many other sources.

I trust tek syndicate more than anybody else..... I don't know. I will continue to do research.

[D2ultima]

I spend months finding the right parts for a sub $600 machine for streaming, and....... It won't even stream if I build it. 

http://pcpartpicker.com/p/LhZwHx 

Well thanks for the help! I guess I will be saving up another 100-200.

A "sub-$600 machine" for streaming will only work if you do not plan to game on it, and can push the money into the CPU. You cannot cheap-out on EVERYTHING, no matter what many PC master race people may tell you.

 

Not trying to threadjack (sorry OP), but you've got me wondering about my CPU on my new rig I'm building soon after you said acceptable quality would require the likes of a 5820K. Would an i7 4790K be fine for acceptable streaming quality?

i7-4790K is fantastic for streaming, especially if you OC it, though a hexa- or octocore from intel would of course be better.

 

Pretty outdated architecture which will not perform well in single and dual threaded games, which are the most popular. I owned an 8350 before my 5820K and i was dropping A LOT of frames  even at 480p60fps.

As far as STREAMING is going, the FX-8350 is not a pushover really. But you need to OC it to perform decently. 4.8GHz should be the minimum to compete with a 3.5GHz haswell i7 as far as OBS is concerned.

 

a lot of miss-information here...yes you can use shadow play to stream using GPU accelerated and also if you go with an intel i5 cpu you can use the integrated HD4600 IGPU to stream using H264 encoding.

Shadowplay and Quicksync both work, but AMD has a function similar to shadowplay and I believe it could be used for streaming too, though you may have to fight a little to get it working. Either way, the compression SUCKS on all of these, and even halfway decent CPU compression which the i5 he's listed could probably handle will produce a better looking stream. Nobody should use those to stream (especially with the low bitrates we need to use on twitch and hitbox) unless it's a last resort, or a game that cannot be streamed without using it (such as Battlefield 4, which uses a LARGE amount of CPU, leaving very little for CPU compression, and which runs worse by having other programs use the CPU whether or not the CPU is maxing out).

 

will it lessen the performance hit?

 

I have, but everytime I ask for advice. Just to make sure I am not spending money where I don't need to. The fanboys sweep in, and won't even think about why I am going AMD, what I am doing with it. automatically "AMD sucks, go intel" So I finally caved because nobody would actually give me a dang answer. So I am trying to go intel. So if you are a intel fanboy, STOP IT!! Everything has a purpose.

 

Uh.... Cuz I enjoy doing youtube, and streaming! I don't care If I have 5 people watching, or 5mil watching. I enjoy streaming, and doing youtube so I do it. and getting a more powerful CPU isn't a bad idea. it will help with 3d rendering, video editing, animation, and all dat stuff! So other than cost theres no reason not to get a higher powered CPU.

1 - Yes. But read the reply to the above quote for more details.

 

2 - AMD will perform all-right with some OCing as I listed in my reply to a quote above yours in this post. Read that for details. As far as GAMING goes, any single- or dual-threaded applications will be severely hampered by using AMD, due to the low IPC of their processors. Extra cores are worthless if a program does not take advantage of it. For example: if you got a haswell dual-core chip (say the Pentium G3258) to 4.5GHz then played terraria (a PURELY single-threaded game) then my i7-4800MQ with its max single-core OC of 4.1GHz would actually perform worse. But in a game like BF4, my max 4-core multiplier of 3.9GHz will rip apart that dual-core 4.5GHz Pentium like nobody's business. It's all about the programs you're going to use, that's all.

 

3 - Getting a good CPU is fine, just don't cheap-out at first. Saving up some extra money is a good idea. As for the i5 versus i7, I can tell you this: An i5-4670K needs to be clocked to 4.4GHz to get comparable power (as far as OBS is concerned) to my i7-4800MQ at 3.5GHz. In games which do not care for hyperthreads, it is not a problem. In games which DO care, the hyperthreads will give a similar boost. So it's up to you what you want to buy; just make sure you give yourself some breathing room. If you're grabbing an i5, at least get the unlocked one and a good cooler like the hyper 212+ or hyper 212 Evo etc so that you can handle some OCing. Also, get some decent thermal paste no matter what you buy: I suggest "Gelid GC Extreme", "IC Diamond" or "Arctic Céramiqué 2" for the thermal pastes.

[hak4fun]

A "sub-$600 machine" for streaming will only work if you do not plan to game on it, and can push the money into the CPU. You cannot cheap-out on EVERYTHING, no matter what many PC master race people may tell you.

 

i7-4790K is fantastic for streaming, especially if you OC it, though a hexa- or octocore from intel would of course be better.

 

As far as STREAMING is going, the FX-8350 is not a pushover really. But you need to OC it to perform decently. 4.8GHz should be the minimum to compete with a 3.5GHz haswell i7 as far as OBS is concerned.

 

Shadowplay and Quicksync both work, but AMD has a function similar to shadowplay and I believe it could be used for streaming too, though you may have to fight a little to get it working. Either way, the compression SUCKS on all of these, and even halfway decent CPU compression which the i5 he's listed could probably handle will produce a better looking stream. Nobody should use those to stream (especially with the low bitrates we need to use on twitch and hitbox) unless it's a last resort, or a game that cannot be streamed without using it (such as Battlefield 4, which uses a LARGE amount of CPU, leaving very little for CPU compression, and which runs worse by having other programs use the CPU whether or not the CPU is maxing out).

 

1 - Yes. But read the reply to the above quote for more details.

 

2 - AMD will perform all-right with some OCing as I listed in my reply to a quote above yours in this post. Read that for details. As far as GAMING goes, any single- or dual-threaded applications will be severely hampered by using AMD, due to the low IPC of their processors. Extra cores are worthless if a program does not take advantage of it. For example: if you got a haswell dual-core chip (say the Pentium G3258) to 4.5GHz then played terraria (a PURELY single-threaded game) then my i7-4800MQ with its max single-core OC of 4.1GHz would actually perform worse. But in a game like BF4, my max 4-core multiplier of 3.9GHz will rip apart that dual-core 4.5GHz Pentium like nobody's business. It's all about the programs you're going to use, that's all.

 

3 - Getting a good CPU is fine, just don't cheap-out at first. Saving up some extra money is a good idea. As for the i5 versus i7, I can tell you this: An i5-4670K needs to be clocked to 4.4GHz to get comparable power (as far as OBS is concerned) to my i7-4800MQ at 3.5GHz. In games which do not care for hyperthreads, it is not a problem. In games which DO care, the hyperthreads will give a similar boost. So it's up to you what you want to buy; just make sure you give yourself some breathing room. If you're grabbing an i5, at least get the unlocked one and a good cooler like the hyper 212+ or hyper 212 Evo etc so that you can handle some OCing. Also, get some decent thermal paste no matter what you buy: I suggest "Gelid GC Extreme", "IC Diamond" or "Arctic Céramiqué 2" for the thermal pastes.

Well I wanted the cheapest machine that will run current games at medium to high settings at at least playable framerates (30fps is playable in my book for most games) I did my research and a i5 4460, and a r9 280 should do that well, and maybe excede medium to high settings at playable framerates. I enjoy streaming and doing gaming videos, So i was trying to work that in. I would rather build a decent machine, and than upgrade it when I have the cash than not have a computer other than a crappy netbook. 

 

That is true, but aren't more and more games starting to use more cores, than using fewer more powerful cores? And wouldn't it do better for multi-core tasks? like video editing, and rendering? Like I see all you intel fanboys points. You are paying for more powerful cores, which is useful for gaming. Yet I would rather drop some frames than have a intel CPU at the same pricepoint, yet can't handle my other tasks like video editing, and streaming. 

 

What I am saying is this isn't going to be a purely gaming rig. It needs to be able to do other tasks like rendering, and CAD software. 

[D2ultima]

Well I wanted the cheapest machine that will run current games at medium to high settings at at least playable framerates (30fps is playable in my book for most games) I did my research and a i5 4460, and a r9 280 should do that well, and maybe excede medium to high settings at playable framerates. I enjoy streaming and doing gaming videos, So i was trying to work that in. I would rather build a decent machine, and than upgrade it when I have the cash than not have a computer other than a crappy netbook. 

 

That is true, but aren't more and more games starting to use more cores, than using fewer more powerful cores? And wouldn't it do better for multi-core tasks? like video editing, and rendering? Like I see all you intel fanboys points. You are paying for more powerful cores, which is useful for gaming. Yet I would rather drop some frames than have a intel CPU at the same pricepoint, yet can't handle my other tasks like video editing, and streaming. 

 

What I am saying is this isn't going to be a purely gaming rig. It needs to be able to do other tasks like rendering, and CAD software. 

1 - The point is that getting a gaming/streaming machine does not get to be cheap. If you built a machine for streaming (like console) or editing video etc, you don't need a powerful GPU. If you need a PC for playing games, it can be cheap as well. But doing both at the same time is a very intensive task, depending on the games you plan to stream.

 

2 - How many cores a game uses is dependent on its engine more than anything else. Source barely uses more than 3 cores. Source 2 may not, however that remains to be seen. Frostbite can use any amount, if I remember correctly. Cryengine 3 caps at about 5 cores. Lots of indie games on weaker or 2D engines don't use more than 1 core (as with my mentioned example Terraria). You can't assume. The last-gen consoles were using hexacores the whole time. Dual-threaded PC games still were the norm for many years after those came out. You can't guess.

 

3 - There is no AMD CPU on the market that can beat a 4GHz haswell i7 without clocking to well over 5GHz in any program that takes advantage of all cores and all hyperthreads (because there ARE programs which take all cores but do not use hyperthreads). Do not fool yourself. AMD CPUs are WEAK. They aimed for weak IPC (instructions per clock; essentially the "worth" of the clocks) and opted to negate this by adding many many more cores, which bit them in the butt when programs clung dearly to single- and dual-threaded natures, and when everybody stopped bothering with advancing game engines to take modern hardware properly and instead opting to churn out AAA-level games on 7+ year old engines every year because with such a demanding cycle they have no time and don't want to waste the money to explore new engines. In other words, AMD took a gamble and lost. It is what it is. No fanboyism here. If you want to make a machine that does a lot of multi-threaded applications and you want a cheaper CPU, then fine. AMD is pretty good for that. If you want to do a lot of single-threaded or dual-threaded applications, you are better off with even an i3 due to the stronger IPC. Intel just charges a premium for their products. Intel isn't without problems either, don't mistake that.

 

Finally, I know you don't want a "purely gaming rig". This is why spending so little on it is not a good idea. A purely gaming rig would be cheaper. A purely editing/streaming rig would be cheaper. An "all-in-one" machine that you want decent performance from is different. Finally, if you think 30fps on medium settings is acceptable for you... wait until you finish this rig (whichever CPU you choose) and play some games on high at high framerates for a while... see how long you think 30fps on low is fine .