MSI 970 gaming Mobo with AMD FX-6300

[dandrix]

NO..that was just there to proove to you that i actually OWNED THAT CHIP since you where complaining that faceman and others havnt owned one...well i'm just telling you i did owned one and it was very disappointing to say the least.

As far as i'm concerned AMD owes me 300$

The AMD FX-8350 at this point in time should be a 99$ CPU and it should come with a free 8+2 power phase motherboard in the box for it to be worth anything to a budget gamer..that's all there is to say about it.

Sounds like a bias opinion to me, anyway how you managed to get into AMD, dump it and jump straight up to flagship consumer i7 ?

[i_build_nanosuits]

Sounds like a bias opinion to me, anyway how you managed to get into AMD, dump it and jump straight up to flagship consumer i7 ?

i'm currently making over 120 000$ canadian dollars a year mate...i can afford whatever tech i want.

I will most likely buy a titan X and a 1440p swift monitor when it comes out.

[dandrix]

i'm currently making over 120 000$ canadian dollars a year mate...i can afford whatever tech i want.

I will most likely buy a titan X and a 1440p swift monitor when it comes out.

Why are you not rocking an X99 or even Xeon then ? Why cheap out on regular i7 if money aint a problem ? Youre a complicated man.

[i_build_nanosuits]

Why are you not rocking an X99 or even Xeon then ? Why cheap out on regular i7 if money aint a problem ? Youre a complicated man.

useless.

i rather buy motocross parts and a turbo for my car instead.

[Rian]

All them amd haters

[Dabombinable]

All them amd haters

Note hating them per-say, just their failure to actually innovate and produce a new CPU.

[Dubesta11]

Guys like you and @Faceman are abomanitation of LTT, you spread hate on AMD any way you can with made up facts from 3rd party unreliable sources. Time to expand my ignore list.

 

It has been know as public knowledge that new games are becoming very CPU intensive with heavy physics and such, and require strong cores instead of lots of weak cores. For the same price, an i3 would be a much better purchase than a 6300, both for performance and upgradablity (6300 is just about the best performing CPU on that socket, while an i5 or i7 works on an i3 socket). So no, we don't hate AMD, we just don't recommend their CPUs because of the lack of performance for the money.

[Faceman]

All them amd haters

 

If I'm an AMD hater, does that make you a logic and reasoning hater?  Life is going to be haaard for you.

 

[Rian]

If I'm an AMD hater, does that make you a logic and reasoning hater? Life is going to be haaard for you.

[/quote/]

Nah I don't disagree with you as I know the fact that Intel cpus are more powerful and stable. It's just the crazy amount of "haters" AMD is having. I don't exactly hate the reasonings as I always learn and experience new stuffs everytime there's a comparison like this going on

[HEU7Hwhu7]

Had it,the USB 3.0's where UNRELIABLE. Had to do random reboots. DO NOT get it.

[Dacoolioman]

PcPartpicker, and yea, BF4 multiplayer might be the only game that plays better on an FX6 than i3.

 

not sure where you got that but there is no way the difference should be that high between the i7 and the 8350 other benchmarks ive seen have them much much closer

[Faceman]

not sure where you got that but there is no way the difference should be that high between the i7 and the 8350 other benchmarks ive seen have them much much closer

A number of reasons why that could be.

It could be that its a single player benchmark

it could be that it only shows the highs, not the lows

I have plenty more benchmarks showing how poor the FX8 is, just ask.

[FLUFFYJELLO]

That only further proves that an Intel option is better if you are saying it is cheaper.

No matter, even if the FX6 is $10-$20 more expensive initially, that gap will be recouped in energy cost over 2-3 years, and the performance of an i3 is vastly superior to the FX6 in all games. The minimum FPS is so much better, resulting in a much more fluid game.

Spaghetti, it can be eaten with a spoon, its not ideal, but it can be done. Why would you eat with a spoon when you can use a fork that is much better suited for that task?

It costs the same, price is not an argument anymore.

Please watch that video "AMD vs Intel -does AMD really wreck your power bill?" And stop being a misinformed fanboy. After watching this you will no longer be ignorant, and from this point on if you make the "power consumption" argument you will be idiotic. So don't do it. Please, just stop.

[i_build_nanosuits]

I'm kinda sick and tired of people saying "energy costs" this and that. Jayztwocents already did this video, the increase cost per year is 3-4 cents (USD). Hm, $10-20? Divide by .03 is anywhere from 300-600 years before the cost difference makes a dent in your wallet. Holy cow, I'm pretty sure 3-4 years is substantially less than three to six HUNDRED. Please watch that video "AMD vs Intel -does AMD really wreck your power bill?" And stop being a misinformed fanboy. After watching this you will no longer be ignorant, and from this point on if you make the "power consumption" argument you will be idiotic. So don't do it. Please, just stop.

depending on evergy cost it's around 8 to 10$ difference per year if you use your system 3 hours per day everyday (i made this calculation back when i was using an FX-8320)...it's really not much but after 3 or 4 years it starts to add-up and for an old CPU like that that underperform from day one...will end up costing the same as a core i5 haswell once you factor in a proper motherboard for such a power hungry chip and a good CPU cooler.

[EvilWiffles]

I'd personally go for the Intel Pentium G3258 & Asus Z97-A combo but I'm a little bias towards multi-core performance vs single core performance.

It's a pretty good start if you need an upgrade later down the road though...

 

 

I had the FX-6300 & Gigabyte GA-78LMT-USB3 combo once, it was pretty decent but had micro-stutters in GTA 4 and Dark Souls 2. I blame the motherboard for that though. FX-6300 is pretty good for what it is, did a great job with rendering on the side <3.

 

In all honesty though, AMD is an incredible deal if you do any video rendering. So if you ever consider doing that, then go with AMD. An i3 and i5 won't do you that much good budget wise.

[Faceman]

I'm kinda sick and tired of people saying "energy costs" this and that. Jayztwocents already did this video, the increase cost per year is 3-4 cents (USD). Hm, $10-20? Divide by .03 is anywhere from 300-600 years before the cost difference makes a dent in your wallet. Holy cow, I'm pretty sure 3-4 years is substantially less than three to six HUNDRED. Please watch that video "AMD vs Intel -does AMD really wreck your power bill?" And stop being a misinformed fanboy. After watching this you will no longer be ignorant, and from this point on if you make the "power consumption" argument you will be idiotic. So don't do it. Please, just stop.

Jayztwocentz did his calculation wrong. Please go read the actual energy consumption calculation in my long post. I cover it in detail. In the U.S. at 12 cents per Kwh, using an FX8 vs.I5-4670k, stock to stock, the FX8 consumes 100w more. By using your CPU just 3 hours a day, factoring in load time and idle time, you are spending $13 more per year. That is a conservative, no overclock number done with a correct formula and average US price per Kwh. Dont be ignorant, do more research

[i_build_nanosuits]

Jayztwocentz did his calculation wrong. Please go read the actual energy consumption calculation in my long post. I cover it in detail. In the U.S. at 12 cents per Kwh, using an FX8 vs.I5-4670k, stock to stock, the FX8 consumes 100w more. By using your CPU just 3 hours a day, factoring in load time and idle time, you are spending $13 more per year. That is a conservative, no overclock number done with a correct formula and average US price per Kwh. Dont be ignorant, do more research

no absolutely your figures are right i made this calculation with our energy cost here in quebec (it's much cheaper here..8 cents per Kwh right now) and i was averaging around 9$ extra a year...not factoring in the nasty overclock i had on that thing...factoring in the OC i'm sure i was at like 15 to 20$ extra a year.

[FLUFFYJELLO]

depending on evergy cost it's around 8 to 10$ difference per year if you use your system 3 hours per day everyday (i made this calculation back when i was using an FX-8320)...it's really not much but after 3 or 4 years it starts to add-up and for an old CPU like that that underperform from day one...will end up costing the same as a core i5 haswell once you factor in a proper motherboard for such a power hungry chip and a good CPU cooler.

Not everyone runs their computer on 100% load for 3 hours a day. Especially not 100% CPU load. All is well and good when talking about hypothetical calculations, but even when gaming on my OD'd 4690k I rarely get above 50-60% usage with maxed settings on Far Cry 4. On my old 6350 I was getting roughly 55-65% usage. Am I going to see some 8-10 dollar gap in my power bill since I switched? Heck no. And neither will the average person. I'm not saying the energy difference isn't there. That would be dumb of me. I'm saying that unless you're stressing your CPU day in and day out, every day of the year, the reflection on your power bill will be negligeable, less than a dollar per year most likely. Because I know very few people that even get to use their computers 365 days a year unless it's their job to do so. And even then they aren't able to game 3-4 hours a day.

Under those extreme circumstances I can see how your power bill may come into question, but those are exactly that: extreme circumstances.

[i_build_nanosuits]

Not everyone runs their computer on 100% load for 3 hours a day. Especially not 100% CPU load. All is well and good when talking about hypothetical calculations, but even when gaming on my OD'd 4690k I rarely get above 50-60% usage with maxed settings on Far Cry 4. On my old 6350 I was getting roughly 55-65% usage. Am I going to see some 8-10 dollar gap in my power bill since I switched? Heck no. And neither will the average person. I'm not saying the energy difference isn't there. That would be dumb of me. I'm saying that unless you're stressing your CPU day in and day out, every day of the year, the reflection on your power bill will be negligeable, less than a dollar per year most likely. Because I know very few people that even get to use their computers 365 days a year unless it's their job to do so. And even then they aren't able to game 3-4 hours a day.

Under those extreme circumstances I can see how your power bill may come into question, but those are exactly that: extreme circumstances.

even if i give you that point, the FX still lacks a lot of performance especialy when it comes to gaming....it must run on a better quality motherboard and require you to have good cooling solution, it's also on a dead socket that is missing key features such as pcie 3.0 namely...it's a very bad buy outside of home server/budget workstation use in this day and age.

[FLUFFYJELLO]

Jayztwocentz did his calculation wrong. Please go read the actual energy consumption calculation in my long post. I cover it in detail. In the U.S. at 12 cents per Kwh, using an FX8 vs.I5-4670k, stock to stock, the FX8 consumes 100w more. By using your CPU just 3 hours a day, factoring in load time and idle time, you are spending $13 more per year. That is a conservative, no overclock number done with a correct formula and average US price per Kwh. Dont be ignorant, do more research

I'm curious, how many people with full time jobs do you know that can game 365 days/year for 3+ hours/day? Because I'll say again, hypothetical usage for some round about calculation is not real world usage, it's guesstimating using made up numbers. Any statistic can sound great under the right circumstances, but do your research on everything, not just how much wattage each system draws, and some cockamamie number of hours people game, and then try and say they're gaming for 365/365 days? No, the average person will not be doing that. The statistic means nothing as it will not reflect real world use. It is a hypothetical chart of misinformation. Props on your equation, it's top notch, really. But you're not applying it correctly.

[FLUFFYJELLO]

even if i give you that point, the FX still lacks a lot of performance especialy when it comes to gaming....it must run on a better quality motherboard and require you to have good cooling solution, it's also on a dead socket that is missing key features such as pcie 3.0 namely...it's a very bad buy outside of home server/budget workstation use in this day and age.

And I'm not going to disagree with you there, the main reason why my current build (4690K) is because for my purposes I needed something with a little more oomph than my 6350. I'm just not alright with misinformation. Intel is greater than AMD in petty much everything, but the power consumption argument needs to stop, because only under hypothetical circumstances does that even make a difference.

That being said, the other reason I switched from my 6350 to the 4690K was because my motherboard got fried do to an unfortunate series of events involving paint and a poorly taped tarp. Tax refund gave be an opportunity to upgrade.

[i_build_nanosuits]

And I'm not going to disagree with you there, the main reason why my current build (4690K) is because for my purposes I needed something with a little more oomph than my 6350. I'm just not alright with misinformation. Intel is greater than AMD in petty much everything, but the power consumption argument needs to stop, because only under hypothetical circumstances does that even make a difference.

That being said, the other reason I switched from my 6350 to the 4690K was because my motherboard got fried do to an unfortunate series of events involving paint and a poorly taped tarp. Tax refund gave be an opportunity to upgrade.

we usualy dont even have to rely on the power consumption argument around here to discredit the AMD FX line-up...don't worry!

[FLUFFYJELLO]

we usualy dont even have to rely on the power consumption argument around here to discredit the AMD FX line-up...don't worry!

In reality AMD just needs to release a new line of processors.. Or graphics cards.. Or something. No competition means higher prices for all, and that's not good.

[Dabombinable]

In reality AMD just needs to release a new line of processors.. Or graphics cards.. Or something. No competition means higher prices for all, and that's not good.

What AMD needs to do is actually innovate, because not doing so has caused most of their current issues.

[Faceman]

Not everyone runs their computer on 100% load for 3 hours a day. Especially not 100% CPU load. All is well and good when talking about hypothetical calculations, but even when gaming on my OD'd 4690k I rarely get above 50-60% usage with maxed settings on Far Cry 4. On my old 6350 I was getting roughly 55-65% usage. Am I going to see some 8-10 dollar gap in my power bill since I switched? Heck no. And neither will the average person. I'm not saying the energy difference isn't there. That would be dumb of me. I'm saying that unless you're stressing your CPU day in and day out, every day of the year, the reflection on your power bill will be negligeable, less than a dollar per year most likely. Because I know very few people that even get to use their computers 365 days a year unless it's their job to do so. And even then they aren't able to game 3-4 hours a day.

Under those extreme circumstances I can see how your power bill may come into question, but those are exactly that: extreme circumstances.

Im using my phone so im not able to link you directly the numbers. Im not talking 100% load. Im talking gaming load. The difference between an i5-4670k w/ GTX 780 Vs. FX8350 w/ GTX 780, stock to stock, the difference is just over 100w. Full load the difference is much more. This has been calculated. Follow the link I provided earlier in this thread. I have done the math based on all of the information available through many different sources in many different scenarios. I combined both gaming and idle use into my calculations. I jave done the math, all you provide is conjecture. Don't come back until you have done the requisite research because I have.

People use their computers every single day. If you think that they don't, you're past reasoning with. They might not game every day, but the computer is in use. 3 hours is an average. 12c is an average. Some states pay 30c per kwh! I am in my 24s with a full time job, and I still game daily and long sessions on the weekend. Even still, if someone does less than that 3hours per day, my equation is a lot closer to the real dollar amount per year than JayzTwoCentz saying it costs pennies. Even if it cost $8-$10, per year, that is not nothing and must be accounted for.