Best-looking AMD Motherboard?

[Prysin]

1 hour ago, patrickjp93 said:

Well, you can throw all the threads you want at the problem. The choke point is how much of the program you can parallelize. Only 95%? Then 20 threads is all you ever want (Amdahl's Law).

i think you misunderstood my post.

I was saying the parrallell execution is shit, because the scaling between two CPUs are so drastically different compared with other software that is KNOWN to scale. This is why i brought up the 16 thread 5960X. We know the disparity between that and the 4790k in synthetics, which is highly optimized for multi thread (in the case of CBR15). So one should expect that a game using 16 threads too (Claims made by Total Biscuit based on his own testing of GTA V), one should expect that teh scaling should be reasonably close, although the margin of error is larger with games due to game devs being the ones to code it.

 

In theory, one shouldnt see much of a difference in MT scaling disparity between a 4790k and a 5960X if software was properly optimized. However we know that GTA V uses up to 16 threads, but it seems like it only actually uses 4-6, and the remaining 10-12 threads does fuck all

[Nena Trinity]

4 hours ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

if i had to build a gaming rig for myself and there was only 2 CPU's available on the face of the earth: i3-6100 or FX-8320...i would for sure pick the FX...i do think it's better than a core i3 overall for gaming...in MOST games...at least in MANY games the required overall multi-threaded performance in modern games is indeed too great for the core i3 to handle...the AMD FX will not have amazing minimum FPS...and in some single-threaded heavy games it will slow down to a crawl...but at least it's a consistent crawl...and it will not stutter it's way out and piss you off...

 

BUT, the core i3 can be upgraded to the world's fastest processors without you needing a new motherboard, RAM etc...it's on a much newer and much better platform, more efficient, better features, faster etc. so for a new computer because of the fact that you can upgrade it to an i5-6500, i7-6700 and soon the i7-7700...for that very reason the i3-6100 is STILL a much better choice than locking yourself into a grossly outdated AMD platform in 2016.

 

PLEASE...think...do not counter argue this...do not disagree...cause if you do, you'll be answering the question i always wanted to ask you.

*hi5!* I agree with this but I feel like there is very few games that uses much single-threaded loads. True I jumped into PC gaming with my FX-8370 far later than the early customers and most likely got a much better experience than them because of that, sure there are some games using much on a single thread. Such as Grey Goo, DayZ(pre-patch) & H1Z1/Planetside 2(can be fixed by disabling shadows) which in my book is not many games. Yet I am not able to have EVERY GAME ON THE PLANET TO TEST! I most say all the negatives I heard about the FX CPU was rarely a issue for me at all. (fun fact Grey Goo actually runs better on FX chips with more cores even if its majority load is still on one core, probably because it puts less work on the main core then...)

[dave909904]

Is the Asus Z170 PRO a good board? I can get for $50 cheaper than the A model.

[Sintezza]

Asus 970 Pro Gaming Aura.

The best 970 chipset board on the market today.

[stefangtx70]

2 hours ago, dave909904 said:

Is the Asus Z170 PRO a good board? I can get for $50 cheaper than the A model.

Go for it bro. At least it's a Z170 board. Do some research and see your self though about that motherboard.

[MahtXL]

7 hours ago, Morgan MLGman said:

BTW I played BF4 on FX-8350 @4,53gHz + a heavily OC'd R9 290X combo, which is more or less identical to your setup (290X is faster clock for clock than the 390, as it's got the same chip as present in the 390X)

 

And the game ran flawlessly. As @i_build_nanosuits mentioned, BF4 is one of those games that work really, really well with the FX line, JayzTwoCents has a video on that, that when he moved from an FX-8350 to an i7-3770K, there was literally 0 difference in BF4. So something in your setup/settings/drivers is wrong, and you should look into that more.

nah, ive formatted windows, ddu'd drivers, and done all sorts of garbage. Im not saying the game runs bad, it runs at 70 to 80 fps (capped so the fps drops to 60 arent as noticeable), on ultra, its just the fps drops when things explode, or theres a lot of players in one area etc drive me nuts, i hate running at 80 then dropping to 50/60, its very noticeable in terms of mouse sensitivity when that fps drop occurs. and thats all the 8350s garbage single core. 6700k in 3 weeks, so problem solved.

 

On the subject of moving from an 8350 to a 3770k, not surprised there was no difference, the 3770k is the intel equiv of the 8350, single core perf on both is very close, and multi core is very close, they are similar cpus power wise, there shouldnt be much of a difference, and the 3770k has 8 threads. So thats not really a shocker.

 

And no nothing in my setup is wrong, its running better than any of my friends rigs hands down, even the few friends who have slightly better hardware than me have more issues over all day to day, game to game, you just cant make excuses when it comes to the ipc of pile driver, its bad, theres no getting around the fact that the fps dropping to the mid 50s low 60s is the 8350s fault. Time and time again benchmarks show that FX cpus have way lower minimum framerates, and worse latency when it comes to frame time. These are just facts. And its the IPC thats to blame. Its been a great chip for the last 4 years, but ive outgrown it and need more performance than it can physically give. I need minimum frame rates of no less than 90 (in competitive/online shooters), and the FX line just cannot deliver that in most titles without me sacrificing graphical settings, which would be silly since im running a 390 and shouldnt have to.

[Morgan MLGman]

1 hour ago, MahtXL said:

nah, ive formatted windows, ddu'd drivers, and done all sorts of garbage. Im not saying the game runs bad, it runs at 70 to 80 fps (capped so the fps drops to 60 arent as noticeable), on ultra, its just the fps drops when things explode, or theres a lot of players in one area etc drive me nuts, i hate running at 80 then dropping to 50/60, its very noticeable in terms of mouse sensitivity when that fps drop occurs. and thats all the 8350s garbage single core. 6700k in 3 weeks, so problem solved.

 

On the subject of moving from an 8350 to a 3770k, not surprised there was no difference, the 3770k is the intel equiv of the 8350, single core perf on both is very close, and multi core is very close, they are similar cpus power wise, there shouldnt be much of a difference, and the 3770k has 8 threads. So thats not really a shocker.

 

And no nothing in my setup is wrong, its running better than any of my friends rigs hands down, even the few friends who have slightly better hardware than me have more issues over all day to day, game to game, you just cant make excuses when it comes to the ipc of pile driver, its bad, theres no getting around the fact that the fps dropping to the mid 50s low 60s is the 8350s fault. Time and time again benchmarks show that FX cpus have way lower minimum framerates, and worse latency when it comes to frame time. These are just facts. And its the IPC thats to blame. Its been a great chip for the last 4 years, but ive outgrown it and need more performance than it can physically give. I need minimum frame rates of no less than 90 (in competitive/online shooters), and the FX line just cannot deliver that in most titles without me sacrificing graphical settings, which would be silly since im running a 390 and shouldnt have to.

FYI, i7-3770K has around 40% faster single-threaded performance than the FX-8350. This is not "very close". Multithreaded is around 10% in favor of the i7 as well. But a 40% difference in single-threaded performance is very significant.

 

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-3770K-vs-AMD-FX-8350/1317vs1489

 

390 isn't THAT fast though, it's good for 1080p and it can max out a vast majority of games with no issues, but still.

 

Watch this video, I highly advise you do in its full entirety, he's talking about lots interesting things, and he's right. I've used both, AMD and Intel and I can confirm every single word he says.

[Hunter259]

Used. Buy used if you are really that tight for cash. You can get some excellent deals.

[MahtXL]

On 8/1/2016 at 7:58 PM, Morgan MLGman said:

FYI, i7-3770K has around 40% faster single-threaded performance than the FX-8350. This is not "very close". Multithreaded is around 10% in favor of the i7 as well. But a 40% difference in single-threaded performance is very significant.

 

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-3770K-vs-AMD-FX-8350/1317vs1489

 

390 isn't THAT fast though, it's good for 1080p and it can max out a vast majority of games with no issues, but still.

 

Watch this video, I highly advise you do in its full entirety, he's talking about lots interesting things, and he's right. I've used both, AMD and Intel and I can confirm every single word he says.

(also dont use cpu bench, synthetic tests, not real world. an 8350 at 4.5 can easily best a 3770k's single thread perf, the 3770 is a good cpu, but its not almost double the single core perf good, its actually just barely 25 percent better Stock v Stock. My chip kicks its butt in cinebench single thread fyi so, wanna talk about why synthetics arent reliable, you present synths that show it to be worse, i have synths to show that it isnt. unreliable at best, dont use synthetic tests to prove a point, because a lot of synth tests do have a brand bias)

 

Anyways on to the main point.

390 is on par with a 980, which is VERY fast. no its not the best 1440p or 4k card, but 5.1 tflops is nothing to sneeze at. And i dont need to watch any video you just confirmed it yourself, the FX lines single core is garbage, and there are still a lot of games that will suffer because of that. BF4, GTA V, ARMA 3, etc While some of those titles may show multiple core use not every load on every core even if all cores showed the same percentage of use is equal (a game maxing out a core, and prime 95 maxing out a core for example, prime 95s 100 percent load would be a more stressful one). This is proven in GTA V a game that runs very heavy code on the first 3 cores, and lets the rest finish the work. It shows what looks like even multi core use across all 8 threads, but if you disable those first 3 cores you will find out very quick that isnt the case. In any case im not going to sit here and argue about it, because you've even admitted it yourself, the 8350 is my problem, if its single core perf is "40 percent worse than a 3770k" Than what does that say about its chances to run those massive multiplayer games like battlefield, arma, GTA V, etc. (Ill give you a hint, it says that sure it can run them, but very poorly) And in my experience thats exactly what you get, its performance may be passable sure, but it certainly isnt up to par.

 

I still find it funny someone actually wants to defend a now 4 year old cpu. There are tons of benchmarks out there by now for this thing, if you really still dont believe me that overall the FX line has some of the worst minimum frame rates of any cpu on the market right now. And thats where my issue lies. Not its overall performance which is still pretty decent, its the fps drops also known as The Minimum Frame Rate.

 

Heres a nice little thread from the very website we are on. If you search FX CPU tons of threads come up with people un happy with the perf, whether that be the fps drops, overall fps not being great, some games just running like absolute dogs. The list goes on and on. Look i dont hate AMD or the FX lineup, dont get me wrong at all check some of my post history ive been there, ive defended this chip to the death, but in mid 2016 it just cant cut it anymore, and no excuses, circular logic, straw manning or otherwise will change the fact that my pc would be better off with an intel. Im probly losing 25 to 30 percent of my perf game to game because of this cpu.

 

[Morgan MLGman]

9 hours ago, MahtXL said:

(also dont use cpu bench, synthetic tests, not real world. an 8350 at 4.5 can easily best a 3770k's single thread perf, the 3770 is a good cpu, but its not almost double the single core perf good, its actually just barely 25 percent better Stock v Stock. My chip kicks its butt in cinebench single thread fyi so, wanna talk about why synthetics arent reliable, you present synths that show it to be worse, i have synths to show that it isnt. unreliable at best, dont use synthetic tests to prove a point, because a lot of synth tests do have a brand bias)

 

Anyways on to the main point.

390 is on par with a 980, which is VERY fast. no its not the best 1440p or 4k card, but 5.1 tflops is nothing to sneeze at. And i dont need to watch any video you just confirmed it yourself, the FX lines single core is garbage, and there are still a lot of games that will suffer because of that. BF4, GTA V, ARMA 3, etc While some of those titles may show multiple core use not every load on every core even if all cores showed the same percentage of use is equal (a game maxing out a core, and prime 95 maxing out a core for example, prime 95s 100 percent load would be a more stressful one). This is proven in GTA V a game that runs very heavy code on the first 3 cores, and lets the rest finish the work. It shows what looks like even multi core use across all 8 threads, but if you disable those first 3 cores you will find out very quick that isnt the case. In any case im not going to sit here and argue about it, because you've even admitted it yourself, the 8350 is my problem, if its single core perf is "40 percent worse than a 3770k" Than what does that say about its chances to run those massive multiplayer games like battlefield, arma, GTA V, etc. (Ill give you a hint, it says that sure it can run them, but very poorly) And in my experience thats exactly what you get, its performance may be passable sure, but it certainly isnt up to par.

 

I still find it funny someone actually wants to defend a now 4 year old cpu. There are tons of benchmarks out there by now for this thing, if you really still dont believe me that overall the FX line has some of the worst minimum frame rates of any cpu on the market right now. And thats where my issue lies. Not its overall performance which is still pretty decent, its the fps drops also known as The Minimum Frame Rate.

 

Heres a nice little thread from the very website we are on. If you search FX CPU tons of threads come up with people un happy with the perf, whether that be the fps drops, overall fps not being great, some games just running like absolute dogs. The list goes on and on. Look i dont hate AMD or the FX lineup, dont get me wrong at all check some of my post history ive been there, ive defended this chip to the death, but in mid 2016 it just cant cut it anymore, and no excuses, circular logic, straw manning or otherwise will change the fact that my pc would be better off with an intel. Im probly losing 25 to 30 percent of my perf game to game because of this cpu.

 

A few clarifications:

1. 390 is not on par with a 980, 390X is closer to it, but still not quite there at 1080p, 390X only beats it at 1440p and above.

2. No, 8350 cannot best 3770k's single core performance, if you look at my signature, I've got an i7-3770 at 3,9gHz with boost to 4,3gHz, I swapped from an FX-8350 @4,5gHz. Singlethreaded performance is nowhere near the 8350. In the CPU-Z singlethreaded bench, stock FX-8350 does 1199 points, whereas my CPU does 1674 points. This is just around 40% faster, coincidence?

3. Now, an FX-9590 does 1376, note that it's at 4,7gHz with boost to 5gHz. Now this is STILL over 20% faster with my non-oc'able 3770. Overclock the 3770K and you're at 40%+ again. So no real-world overclocking will help in "besting" 3770k's single threaded performance.

4. userbenchmark.com is the most reliable benchmarking site there is out there, as it gets its scores from thousands of people benchmarking their OWN PC's with the software you can download there and calculates the average score for each piece of hardware based on those scores. There is no more reliable way to calculate performance differences. And everyone on this forum will tell you so.

5. Now I've used the FX-8350 for a little less than a year, had it paired with a GTX 970 and later my current R9 290X. GTX 970 is a little slower than the 390, 290X is a little faster than the 390, one is Nvidia, one is AMD. I've had no issues with gaming performance in all but one game. The game was Blade & Soul, which is a poorly optimized PoS and still stutters on my current i7. I've played tons of AAA titles during that time including The Witcher 3, Batman Arkham Knight, Rise of the Tomb Raider, CoD: Black Ops 3 and many more.

6. You know why people have issues with the FX line? Very often because they don't know how to choose their parts properly. They pick a crappy motherboard with little to no VRM cooling and complain about FPS drops, while their CPU is throttling due to overheating VRMs. Another thing is the ability to set up the rig properly so it works to its best, some people have no idea how to do that, and that's by no means a hardware problem.