10 Biggest Mistakes People Make When Designing a Gaming PC

[KuJoe]

Just now, Trik'Stari said:

Battlefield 4. If that doesn't do it, Star Citizen or Minecraft will.

 

AMD CPU's have fewer Instructions-per-clock

Thanks, I'll check them out and see if I can finally find a reason to upgrade or overclock my FX-6300.

[Trik'Stari]

Just now, KuJoe said:

Thanks, I'll check them out and see if I can finally find a reason to upgrade or overclock my FX-6300.

Longevity is a damned good reason. Sooner or later, you will find a game you want to play, but can't, because your CPU is a potato.

 

It will happen to everyone, but sooner to current AMD CPU's because of how outdated they are.

[KuJoe]

Just now, Trik'Stari said:

Longevity is a damned good reason. Sooner or later, you will find a game you want to play, but can't, because your CPU is a potato.

The same can be said about any CPU ever. Sooner or later something will come along that your current CPU cannot handle, that's how life works.

[Trik'Stari]

Just now, KuJoe said:

The same can be said about any CPU ever. Sooner or later something will come along that your current CPU cannot handle, that's how life works.

Yes, but right now, that FX 6300 will hit that point, sooner than my 4690k. That's what I mean by longevity

[LordHood77]

2 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

Longevity is a damned good reason. Sooner or later, you will find a game you want to play, but can't, because your CPU is a potato.

 

It will happen to everyone, but sooner to current AMD CPU's because of how outdated they are.

"Your _____ is a potato" The bane of any PC gamer anywhere.

[Trik'Stari]

Just now, LordHood77 said:

"Your _____ is a potato" The bane of any PC gamer anywhere.

I'm sorry but the FX 6300 actually is a potato.

[Dash Lambda]

3 hours ago, KuJoe said:

Can you give me more details? I'm genuinely interested in what I can do to make my CPU bottleneck. I was originally told if I ran CS:GO at full settings and recorded at 1080p 60 FPS it would bog down my CPU but it didn't. Then I was told if I ran Fallout 4 with max settings while recording it would bog down my CPU but it didn't. I don't play a lot of other games (mostly HoTS and Far Cry 3 these days) and I don't run more than 3 VMs at a time so I always have plenty of CPU available but when people tell me an Intel CPU would be better for me I don't see the point because if I don't have performance issues now then why spend money to still not have performance issues?

 

Telling people not to buy AMD without having any real concrete reasons doesn't help the community at all. Your comment about new tech they don't support are good reasons, but only for people who need that type of tech (and the reason of "old looking heatsinks" is a good example of a bad reason).

Not sure what you describe as "bogging down" your CPU...

In your specific situation, I'm not too familiar with older GPUs so I don't know how well a 6300 pairs with a 7970. A bigger discussion of numbers has a bigger scope than I'd like to start in this thread, but there are plenty of other threads where people have discussed this in depth.

 

The "old looking heatsinks" guy definitely isn't offering a strong argument there...

[LordHood77]

Just now, Trik'Stari said:

I'm sorry but the FX 6300 actually is a potato.

I agree with you, I'm just saying that having any gamer's equipment called a potato is an ultimate insult.  

[Trik'Stari]

Just now, Dash Lambda said:

Not sure what you describe as "bogging down" your CPU...

In your specific situation, I'm not too familiar with older GPUs so I don't know how well a 6300 pairs with a 7970. A bigger discussion of numbers has a bigger scope than I'd like to start in this thread, but there are plenty of other threads where people have discussed this in depth.

 

The "old looking heatsinks" guy definitely isn't offering a strong argument there...

That wasn't my only point you know. I just added that in there because AMD's motherboard line up does include some mobo's that look old as dirt. Although I guess that could have it's own appeal.

[Dash Lambda]

33 minutes ago, ybriK said:

Oh I'm sorry I forgot to add /s to my previous comment. Sorry I hurt your feelings. Feel better now?

How snide.

Even if I had an AMD component in my system, I strain to imagine myself offended...

 

24 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

That wasn't my only point you know. I just added that in there because AMD's motherboard line up does include some mobo's that look old as dirt. Although I guess that could have it's own appeal.

I was just poking fun, your other points were fine~

There really is a stark contrast in aesthetic, though... Which actually is a good point because it's indicative of the larger issue of age.

[Trik'Stari]

Just now, Dash Lambda said:

I was just poking fun, your other points were fine~

There really is a stark contrast in aesthetic, though... Which actually is a good point because it's indicative of the larger issue of age.

That's how I've always felt when looking at AMD Motherboards. They look old, which to me suggests how outdated they are.

 

Although, it could just be a design choice. Going for a "Retro" feel or something. Which is perfectly acceptable, until you realize how much new technology is missing from the boards.

[KuJoe]

2 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

Yes, but right now, that FX 6300 will hit that point, sooner than my 4690k. That's what I mean by longevity

And an Intel Atom 230 will hit that point sooner than my FX 6300, your point is not really valid. Comparing how long a CPU released in 2014 will last compared to a CPU released in 2012 makes no sense.

4 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

I'm sorry but the FX 6300 actually is a potato.

I am really concerned about what your french fries look like. 

5 minutes ago, Dash Lambda said:

Not sure what you describe as "bogging down" your CPU...

In your specific situation, I'm not too familiar with older GPUs so I don't know how well a 6300 pairs with a 7970. A bigger discussion of numbers has a bigger scope than I'd like to start in this thread, but there are plenty of other threads where people have discussed this in depth.

 

The "old looking heatsinks" guy definitely isn't offering a strong argument there...

I'm just struggling to understand why "AMD has no place in a new PC" when it can perform just as good as Intel for the end user since not every single use case is considered. You have made some valid arguments (more so than any other anti-AMD CPU person I've met on this forum) but it still boggles my mind when I read stuff like this and think that I'm either extremely lucky to have gotten an FX-6300 that beats every other AMD CPU out there or I'm missing a key piece of information somewhere.

[SImoHayha]

2 minutes ago, KuJoe said:

And an Intel Atom 230 will hit that point sooner than my FX 6300, your point is not really valid. Comparing how long a CPU released in 2014 will last compared to a CPU released in 2012 makes no sense.

I am really concerned about what your french fries look like. 

I'm just struggling to understand why "AMD has no place in a new PC" when it can perform just as good as Intel for the end user since not every single use case is considered. You have made some valid arguments (more so than any other anti-AMD CPU person I've met on this forum) but it still boggles my mind when I read stuff like this and think that I'm either extremely lucky to have gotten an FX-6300 that beats every other AMD CPU out there or I'm missing a key piece of information somewhere.

Bruh a bloody i5 2500k and Phenom II CPU's can beat the FX series in single core performance... hell am probably going to find a Phenom II too at my nearby PC recycle place.

[KuJoe]

1 minute ago, Ramamataz said:

Bruh a bloody i5 2500k and Phenom II CPU's can beat the FX series in single core performance... hell am probably going to find a Phenom II too at my nearby PC recycle place.

I don't get it, can you elaborate how that translates to real world usage for me so I can understand better?

[Trik'Stari]

6 minutes ago, KuJoe said:

And an Intel Atom 230 will hit that point sooner than my FX 6300, your point is not really valid. Comparing how long a CPU released in 2014 will last compared to a CPU released in 2012 makes no sense.

Your thought process makes no sense.

 

Your FX-6300 will reach a point where it's no longer supported by a majority of games, much sooner than my 4690k. That pattern repeats for most of AMD's lineup, because of how outdated the technology inside them is. They don't have a strong IPC, and most games don't support more than two cores. Either their CPU's will not be supported, or because of the weakness of the cores, they will perform horribly, much sooner than Intel cores.

 

And that's the point here. AMD's crop of CPU's is so very far behind. Hopefully they've woken up and gotten their shit together with Zen, we can't be certain.

 

Don't mistake this for brand loyalty. I would like to see AMD come back strong with something that makes Intel actually try again. Why? Because competition means more power for a lower price, for all of us. The simple overall fact is that right now Intel is on top, and AMD looks like a sinking ship. They keep rebranding stuff, making more cores instead of more powerful cores, and focusing on a platform no one really cares about (APU's).

[SImoHayha]

2 minutes ago, KuJoe said:

I don't get it, can you elaborate how that translates to real world usage for me so I can understand better?

Faster performance in games, better performance, less stuttering with stuff like youtube videos and other stuff.

[Trik'Stari]

Just now, Ramamataz said:

Faster performance in games, better performance, less stuttering with stuff like youtube videos and other stuff.

Multi-tasking, etc.

[LordHood77]

8 minutes ago, KuJoe said:

I'm just struggling to understand why "AMD has no place in a new PC" when it can perform just as good as Intel for the end user since not every single use case is considered. You have made some valid arguments (more so than any other anti-AMD CPU person I've met on this forum) but it still boggles my mind when I read stuff like this and think that I'm either extremely lucky to have gotten an FX-6300 that beats every other AMD CPU out there or I'm missing a key piece of information somewhere.

AMD's have no place because they have decided, wrongly, that more core's (they are not called cases btw) equals more compooters or some sh*t. The individual cores themselves are underpowered compared to Intel's. And when it comes to desktop computing, (to an extent) less cores, but more speed is better than more cores, but at a slower speed.

[AshleyAshes]

2 minutes ago, Ramamataz said:

Faster performance in games, better performance, less stuttering with stuff like youtube videos and other stuff.

...Thanks to hardware accelerated video decoding, YouTube runs like silk even on a microwave oven...

[Dash Lambda]

3 hours ago, KuJoe said:

I'm just struggling to understand why "AMD has no place in a new PC" when it can perform just as good as Intel for the end user since not every single use case is considered. You have made some valid arguments (more so than any other anti-AMD CPU person I've met on this forum) but it still boggles my mind when I read stuff like this and think that I'm either extremely lucky to have gotten an FX-6300 that beats every other AMD CPU out there or I'm missing a key piece of information somewhere.

It's hard to notice a difference without changing your platform. When paired with mid-high end current-gen hardware, Intel CPUs just handle better than their AMD counterparts- That's more of a numbers thing that your can look up than a qualitative thing that I should explain.

(Also worth reiterating is that I'm not sure where the 7970 sits --I'm not familiar with older GPUs.)

 

I think you've said it best yourself, that comparing a CPU from 2014 to a CPU from 2012 makes no sense. Would you put a CPU from 2012 in a new machine?

[Trik'Stari]

Just now, LordHood77 said:

AMD's have no place because they have decided, wrongly, that more core's (they are not called cases btw) equals more compooters or some sh*t. The individual cores themselves are underpowered compared to Intel's. And when it comes to desktop computing, (to an extent) less cores, but more speed is better than more cores, but at a slower speed.

The only time more cores = better, is when the software running on those cores is programmed to make use of said cores. Since it's easier for a programmer to design something to use fewer cores, fewer, more powerful cores = better

[LordHood77]

9 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

Don't mistake this for brand loyalty. I would like to see AMD come back strong with something that makes Intel actually try again. Why? Because competition means more power for a lower price, for all of us. The simple overall fact is that right now Intel is on top, and AMD looks like a sinking ship. They keep rebranding stuff, making more cores instead of more powerful cores, and focusing on a platform no one really cares about (APU's).

This is more to KuJoe. I have an i5 6600K. But, I have a R9 390. I like AMD's GPU's. But I hate their CPU's. I'm not "brand loyal" on GPU's because in that department, AMD's doing pretty well these days. More VRAM than the 970 on the 390. The Memory Bus on HBM is INSANE, making the high end cards compelling. The difference is, with GPU's, they're actually innovating, and not taking steps back, or holding themselves back. 

[Trik'Stari]

18 minutes ago, LordHood77 said:

This is more to KuJoe. I have an i5 6600K. But, I have a R9 390. I like AMD's GPU's. But I hate their CPU's. I'm not "brand loyal" on GPU's because in that department, AMD's doing pretty well these days. More VRAM than the 970 on the 390. The Memory Bus on HBM is INSANE, making the high end cards compelling. The difference is, with GPU's, they're actually innovating, and not taking steps back, or holding themselves back. 

This is why I plan on going with AMD for my next GPU upgrade (whenever that is).

[LordHood77]

3 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

This is why I plan on going with AMD for my next GPU upgrade (whenever that is).

Also, that Fury X with a stock watercooler looks badass to me. And the Nano is so damn cute!

[Dash Lambda]

3 hours ago, Trik'Stari said:

This is why I plan on going with AMD for my next GPU upgrade (whenever that is).

Unless you know exactly what card you're gonna get and you're gonna get it soon, it's a bad idea to pick sides --Especially with brand new architectures around the corner.

... Especially with Pascal and Polaris around the corner, which are die-shrinks with HBM. You just can't predict how they're going to compare.