Why people buy Nvidia and Intel (Gamegpu.ru review)

[Dabombinable]

nope and nope.

"And at the time the GTX 970 cost less than the R9 290X while performing as well and even better at times."

I live in Australia, it would have cost another $100 and I'd only just gone from 1024x768 to 1080p.

"the entire FX line is shit"

It is, should have stayed in the server market and had K10 become the FX line, its performance most of the time is woeful.

"I could afford an i5 4440 and upgrade to a 4790K-both of which are far better for games"

I know it hurts, but even a 5.3GHz FX 8350 isn't as good in games, and gets flogged by a stock 4790K.

[don_svetlio]

"And at the time the GTX 970 cost less than the R9 290X while performing as well and even better at times."

I live in Australia, it would have cost another $100 and I'd only just gone from 1024x768 to 1080p.

"the entire FX line is shit"

It is, should have stayed in the server market and had K10 become the FX line, its performance most of the time is woeful.

"I could afford an i5 4440 and upgrade to a 4790K-both of which are far better for games"

I know it hurts, but even a 5.3GHz FX 8350 isn't as good in games, and gets flogged by a stock 4790K.

a 4.5GHz 8350 outperforms a i5 4690 in terms of raw power. When you have a heavily multi-threaded application the 8350 @ 4.5 is pretty much on par with a i7 3770

@Morgan MLGman has benches proving otherwise

[Whorax]

War Thunder is completely Nvidia biased. This entire thing is null and void as far as I'm concerned.

[App4that]

War Thunder is completely Nvidia biased. This entire thing is null and void as far as I'm concerned.

That's just it, they're not. They're potato biased, like completely. They could give a fuck about your choice in AMD or Nvidia. They just want you to buy Premium time and gold. And there are more people with potatos than expensive rigs sporting Nvidia's finest.

[Dabombinable]

a 4.5GHz 8350 outperforms a i5 4690 in terms of raw power. When you have a heavily multi-threaded application the 8350 @ 4.5 is pretty much on par with a i7 3770

@Morgan MLGman has benches proving otherwise

Talking about games here. At 5.3GHz an FX 8350 is still slower single threaded than an i5 4440, ergo its better for gaming. And I'm also talking about a 4790K.

 

 

That's just it, they're not. They're potato biased, like completely. They could give a fuck about your choice in AMD or Nvidia. They just want you to buy Premium time and gold. And there are more people with potatos than expensive rigs sporting Nvidia's finest.

I love the fact that I could run it off my i5 4440's iGPU.

[PlayStation 2]

I decided to review this again and realized damn near EVERYTHING about this is fucking bullshit. Why is the 5960X being beat out by a fucking i3? Why is the R9 295X2 being beat by the 290X? Or the 8350 beating out the 6300 by an unreasonable margin? Or the 970 beating the 290 by 18 (!) FPS.

[VagabondWraith]

nVidia does what AMDon't.

[PlayStation 2]

nVidia does what AMDon't.

Not when you realize half the damn chart is bullshit. 7950 being beat by the 950? No.

950 beating the 670?

370 being 2FPS behind the 7870?

[App4that]

Talking about games here. At 5.3GHz an FX 8350 is still slower single threaded than an i5 4440, ergo its better for gaming. And I'm also talking about a 4790K.

 

 

I love the fact that I could run it off my i5 4440's iGPU.

I ran it off my HP laptop :lol: . For the longest time you couldn't enable higher settings and stay competitive. So it was meaningless to have the ability to run them.

[Whorax]

That's just it, they're not. They're potato biased, like completely. They could give a fuck about your choice in AMD or Nvidia. They just want you to buy Premium time and gold. And there are more people with potatos than expensive rigs sporting Nvidia's finest.

Of course. Really when it comes down to it anything will run WT, but as of this new engine update the game does tend to favor Nvidia hardware.

[Whorax]

For the longest time you couldn't enable higher settings and stay competitive. So it was meaningless to have the ability to run them.

Kinda like how low settings turned off all the damn trees and shrubs in tank battles giving the low settings users a massive advantage? Hahaha

[Dabombinable]

I ran it off my HP laptop :lol: . For the longest time you couldn't enable higher settings and stay competitive. So it was meaningless to have the ability to run them.

You would have had the edge since there was no grass on minimum settings you could spot enemies easier.

[App4that]

Of course. Really when it comes down to it anything will run WT, but as of this new engine update the game does tend to favor Nvidia hardware.

The graph is bullshit, complete bullshit. And even if you want to entertain it how many people playing War Thunder use anything past a 60hz monitor? As I worked for Gaijin as I have repeatedly brought up so as to drive the point home to the level of bullshit this is, I will tell you it's laughable how few people use anything past a 60hz monitor. So even if you want to entertain this bullshit, it's meaningless bullshit.

[Whorax]

The graph is bullshit, complete bullshit. And even if you want to entertain it how many people playing War Thunder us anything past a 60hz monitor? As I worked for Gaijin as I have repeatedly brought up so as to drive the point home to the level of bullshit this is, I will tell you it's laughable how few people use anything past a 60hz monitor. So even if you want to entertain this bullshit, it's meaningless bullshit.

I'm one of the few WT players using a 144Hz monitor I'd assume. Actually I have them both set to 60Hz atm because Fallout 4 gets wacky cookey with my monitors. I've got a well over $2000 setup and I primarily play War Thunder. Money well spent comrade, da? :lol:

 

I think I remember you saying something about how bullshit it was over at Gaijin in a post a while ago. Being an outsider and just a player of the game I can only hope to imagine what chaos goes into the  game's development. Oh what marvelous chaos it must be.

[Dabombinable]

The graph is bullshit, complete bullshit. And even if you want to entertain it how many people playing War Thunder use anything past a 60hz monitor? As I worked for Gaijin as I have repeatedly brought up so as to drive the point home to the level of bullshit this is, I will tell you it's laughable how few people use anything past a 60hz monitor. So even if you want to entertain this bullshit, it's meaningless bullshit.

TBH, very few people who play FTP games actually use high end gear. I for example am one of those few-though since I've been at 1080p for less then 2 years, and my old 1024x768 LCD monitor still works after 11 years, it will be at least another 10 years before I get rid of this screen for a 1440p 144Hz panel, or 4k 144Hz if it exists- I'd also upgrade my computer about then as well (aka in just over 8 years time I'm upgrading).

[App4that]

I'm one of the few WT players using a 144Hz monitor I'd assume. Actually I have them both set to 60Hz atm because Fallout 4 gets wacky cookey with my monitors. I've got a well over $2000 setup and I primarily play War Thunder. Money well spent comrade, da? :lol:

 

I think I remember you saying something about how bullshit it was over at Gaijin in a post a while ago. Being an outsider and just a player of the game I can only hope to imagine what chaos goes into the  game's development. Oh what marvelous chaos it must be.

The rabbit hole goes deeper than anyone is allowed to comment on. But my hands aren't tied enough that I can't call bullshit :lol: . Honestly Ive seen and had to deal with worse on a professional level. Hmmm, lets just say that both visit the others camps regularly, and that smoke and mirrors like this are common place.

 

I could give two shits about War Thunder, it's the fact people will spin this into a Nvidia AMD thing, when it's clearly not. It's a *Gaming War* thing

[Morgan MLGman]

a 4.5GHz 8350 outperforms a i5 4690 in terms of raw power. When you have a heavily multi-threaded application the 8350 @ 4.5 is pretty much on par with a i7 3770

@Morgan MLGman has benches proving otherwise

I did the video of how the gameplay works in several triple-A games on a 8350 @ 4,5gHz and an OC'd GTX 970, no bottlenecks there, by no bottlenecks I mean GPU usage at 99%.

FX series are perfectly capable for gaming, they are, some people here just need to get over it. They're obviously not the best CPUs if you solely game, but talking from first-hand experience here, I would personally NEVER choose an i3, even over a FX-6XXX series, let alone the 8XXX series.

If I get my lazy-ass flatmate to help me, I'll do a first-hand comparison between his i5-4690k and my 8350 in games using my R9 290X. I'll put my RAM sticks as well to his system, run both CPUs at stock speeds with turbo boosts turned off to do an apples-to-apples comparsion with as few variables as possible. Since I'm no pro in benchmarking stuff, I'll just use in-game benchmarks that are included in some AAA titles like Shadow of Mordor for instance. Of course I would create a thread with the results here.

Intel is good, but it's overpriced, as it proves with the 6700k being more expensive than the 5820k which is retarded cause no doubt the 5820k is a better CPU. For a price of a Haswell i3 (i3-4130) you can get a FX-8320 here in Poland.

 

Talking about games here. At 5.3GHz an FX 8350 is still slower single threaded than an i5 4440, ergo its better for gaming. And I'm also talking about a 4790K.

An overclocked 8350 is around 10% slower in single-threaded workloads than 4440, and up to 70% faster in multithreaded ones.

If we're talking about games here, any CPU demanding game and even the 4440 gets behind 8350 quickly, bottlenecking any higher-end GPU. I've seen The Witcher 3 take up to 96% of CPU usage in a location called Novigrad. I wonder how your 4440 would be "better" there cause I've seen a 4690 (non-k) get to 100% at all 4 cores there. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

Of course there's no doubt that an Intel CPU is going to be a few frames ahead of the FX in GPU demanding games or places, but as far as pricing goes, the FX series, especially the 6300 and 8320/E are reasonably priced and if somebody is on a budget, these are perfectly fine choices for multiple usage scenarios. If I manage to do what I mentioned above this week after I'm back at my place, I'll definitely remember to tag you with the results cause you clearly exaggerate gaming performance of the FX line. It's not ideal, but they're capable of gaming and not bottleneck GPUs up to a 390X level at least. (Talking fairly recent AAA titles here that are truly GPU demanding, not MMORPGs or older games)