New PC
Page 3 of 3 Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
Werelds
Special Little Man



Posts: 15098
Location: 0100111001001100
PostPosted: Tue, 5th Nov 2013 20:26    Post subject:
StrEagle wrote:
SEASONIC SS-750KM3 Gold, 750W 80%

By 80PLUS standards, that unit is respectively 88%/92%/88% for 20%/50%/100% load. That CM Silent Pro Gold was rated to the EXACT same standard. If the SS is 80% to wherever you got that from, so is the CM. They are both 80PLUS Gold certified.

The Seasonic in this case is a better unit; under higher temperatures (realistic ones, inside your case) it maintains better efficiency. Stick with Seasonic, that's the better unit.
Back to top
Mister_s




Posts: 19863

PostPosted: Sat, 9th Nov 2013 11:48    Post subject:
Okay I just build the PC, WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH THE AMD STOCK COOLER!?!?!? I have never witnessed such a loud cooler in all these years. Even on the lowest profile in the BIOS, it's LOUD Mind Is Full Of Fuck
I think I'm going out to buy a Hyper Evo 212 right now, because I can't do this to anyone. It's torture.
Back to top
Stige




Posts: 3545
Location: Finland
PostPosted: Sat, 9th Nov 2013 11:58    Post subject:
Mister_s wrote:
Okay I just build the PC, WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH THE AMD STOCK COOLER!?!?!? I have never witnessed such a loud cooler in all these years. Even on the lowest profile in the BIOS, it's LOUD Mind Is Full Of Fuck
I think I'm going out to buy a Hyper Evo 212 right now, because I can't do this to anyone. It's torture.



Wait a minute, did I just understand that properly? You bought a AMD CPU?
WHY GOD WHY???

Evo 212 is nothing amazing, Thermalright TrueSpirit beats it and should be even cheaper.
Back to top
Mister_s




Posts: 19863

PostPosted: Sat, 9th Nov 2013 13:05    Post subject:
The FX-8320 performs as good as Intel in games and it's 150 euros cheaper to build. The Evo was the only good price/performance cooler I could get within an hour.
Back to top
Werelds
Special Little Man



Posts: 15098
Location: 0100111001001100
PostPosted: Sat, 9th Nov 2013 13:44    Post subject:
Get the CM Seidon 120M Mister_s.

I stuck that on my cousin's 8320 - thing is dead silent and temperatures are mighty fine. And it's only like €45. I know it stretches the budget, but I found it worth it for him Smile

And yes, Stige, an 8320 performs just like an i5 in games; I tested my cousin's PC with my own 680 in there, see the Fire Strike thread for results. This is purely games we're talking about and frankly, an 8320 is a bloody fantastic bargain if that's the only thing you care about.
Back to top
Mister_s




Posts: 19863

PostPosted: Sat, 9th Nov 2013 14:16    Post subject:
I already bought the Evo, it's silent finally. The AMD CPU cooler was really bad, the worst I have seen.
Back to top
Mister_s




Posts: 19863

PostPosted: Sat, 9th Nov 2013 21:51    Post subject:
Now that I have installed my own 7970, I compared Sleeping Dogs on my PC and the AMD PC I've built. I see no difference at all. I guess a system based on FX-8320 is very good for the price if you only care about gaming. The CPU does run pretty hot compared to mine, but I expected that. There also seems to be something off with throttling, it takes a couple of secs before the system realizes its idle. Might be something with the mobo though. Anyway, the PC is gone, not my problem.
Back to top
Stige




Posts: 3545
Location: Finland
PostPosted: Sun, 10th Nov 2013 15:26    Post subject:
Werelds wrote:

And yes, Stige, an 8320 performs just like an i5 in games; I tested my cousin's PC with my own 680 in there, see the Fire Strike thread for results. This is purely games we're talking about and frankly, an 8320 is a bloody fantastic bargain if that's the only thing you care about.


Except in any game that actually supports less than 8 cores.

1x Core on an i5 is basicly worth two cores on a 8320 performance wise.

Any game that uses less than 8 cores, i5 will easily outperform the AMD CPU any day.
And will in any game pretty much, especially if you overclock them both.

Just no point buying AMD CPUs as things are right now really.
Back to top
Werelds
Special Little Man



Posts: 15098
Location: 0100111001001100
PostPosted: Sun, 10th Nov 2013 15:55    Post subject:
Stige wrote:
Except in any game that actually supports less than 8 cores.

1x Core on an i5 is basicly worth two cores on a 8320 performance wise.

Any game that uses less than 8 cores, i5 will easily outperform the AMD CPU any day.
And will in any game pretty much, especially if you overclock them both.

Just no point buying AMD CPUs as things are right now really.

No, you couldn't be more wrong. I tested Fire Strike, Heaven, Valley, Battlefield 4 and Batman: Arkham Origins. Results are literally almost identical in all of them, where Fire Strike has a pure GPU test, a pure CPU test and a combined test - GPU test was the same, combined test was the same, CPU test was won by AMD.

http://www.nfohump.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=2115860#2115860

There's my result in Valley for example; on the AMD setup I got 1774 in score. Heaven was the same, BF4 performed the same as does Batman. Furthermore, 1 i5 core is not worth 2 of those cores, that's a gross exaggeration.

And last but not least: if a game/engine scales so hugely with CPU, that means one of two things:
- It is a shit engine (I'm looking at you, Dunia 1+2)
- You're running it at a low resolution, causing a CPU bottleneck.

Fact is, as long as you're GPU bound (which you should be in all games, ideally), it makes no difference. And for a budget system, that means AMD is a fantastic choice. Because do keep in mind that both Mister_s and I used that CPU for a BUDGET system. Please point me to an Intel setup that costs that little and still gives you headroom to grow - all the Intel CPUs at that pricepoint offer 0 overclocking.
Back to top
Breezer_




Posts: 10833
Location: Finland
PostPosted: Sun, 10th Nov 2013 18:36    Post subject:
Play Starcraft II with AMD processor and then with i5, and report me back if the FPS is the same. You also seem to compare the vishera to your old i5, compare it atleast to SB, and you are gonna see differences.

SC2 bench from finnish site (this game is very CPU bound, uses mainly 2 cores). ivy i5 is like nearly 30% faster than FX-8350.

Back to top
Mister_s




Posts: 19863

PostPosted: Sun, 10th Nov 2013 19:17    Post subject:
So you took just one graph from one review to make your point? If you don't believe our own experiences, read more reviews. If you can build a proper game pc with a 7970 for 650 euros, I'd like to see that suggestion.
Back to top
Breezer_




Posts: 10833
Location: Finland
PostPosted: Sun, 10th Nov 2013 20:35    Post subject:
My point was when game is heavily CPU bound and doest use 8-core the AMD will be getting asshanded to Intel CPU´s. But anyway, i can put more graphs, usually MMOs etc.. are very CPU heavy.





Once again these are extreme situations, but as you can see (no matter how you twist it) Intel is going to slap AMD hard when game is not heavily multithreaded. Im not saying its a bad purchase, but if we be honest, 8-core FX costs pretty much the same as ivy/Haswell i5? But as we have seen since next-gen dursoles uses 8-core CPUs, games will be multithreaded in future, so 8-core FX might be good option.
Back to top
sabin1981
Mostly Cursed



Posts: 87805

PostPosted: Sun, 10th Nov 2013 20:41    Post subject:
Breezer_ wrote:
Im not saying its a bad purchase, but if we be honest, 8-core FX costs pretty much the same as ivy/Haswell i5?


Naw, the 8320 is £120 and the 8350 is £150. The i5-3750k is £175 and the i5-4670k is £185. Quite a difference between them, especially when you factor in the motherboard. There's no doubt the SB/SBE/IVY/HAS chips are the best, nobody is contesting that, but if you're on a budget then the AMD 8320 and 8350 are amazing value for the money.
Back to top
Werelds
Special Little Man



Posts: 15098
Location: 0100111001001100
PostPosted: Sun, 10th Nov 2013 20:45    Post subject:
Breezer_ wrote:
Play Starcraft II with AMD processor and then with i5, and report me back if the FPS is the same. You also seem to compare the vishera to your old i5, compare it atleast to SB, and you are gonna see differences.

SC2 bench from finnish site (this game is very CPU bound, uses mainly 2 cores). ivy i5 is like nearly 30% faster than FX-8350.


I suppose you missed the part where I said this:
Werelds wrote:
And last but not least: if a game/engine scales so hugely with CPU, that means one of two things:
- It is a shit engine (I'm looking at you, Dunia 1+2)
- You're running it at a low resolution, causing a CPU bottleneck.


In SC2 it's because Blizzard did it wrong. They do far too much on the CPU. It's CPU bound for no other reason other than the game not actually requiring much of a GPU. It falls in the same category as Dunia.

Please though, allow me. All of the below are from Techspot.

Crysis 3 on Medium:


Oh look, the 8350 performs on par with an i7 that is almost twice as expensive, let alone the motherboard that goes with it.

Battlefield 4:

DEM DIFFERENCES Me Gusta

And for comparison's sake:


DIFFERENT SO BIG!

And even in the cases where the per-core performance *does* matter, the difference is still negligible. Here's Bioshock: Infinite to show that; that does not scale well with cores *at all* (think it uses 3 at most) and yet the 8350 keeps up just fine (meaning an 8320, which costs about 60% of what the popular i5's cost, will as well since the only difference is 300 Mhz):
[img]http://static.techspot.com/articles-info/655/bench/CPU_03.png[/gim]


Fact is, for games, they keep up just fine. So does that mean there are no games where Intel doesn't have a huge advantage? No, of course not. SC2 is one example, FC3 is another example (as pretty as FC3 is, Dunia 2 is a piece of crap), the majority of UE3 titles are another (because they get CPU bound relatively quick because a good GPU can easily hit 80-100 FPS in them). But those are generally the cases where you may as well argue that one of Intel's Extreme editions is a FANTASTIC upgrade as well, since those will deliver much better performance than the "standard" i5's and i7's too.

Does that mean I will be recommending AMD? Generally, no. But if you're on a tight budget, fuck yes. An Intel i5 CPU+Motherboard combo will set you back an easy 335-350 Euros. i7 is just ridiculous at another easy 100 on top of that. AMD meanwhile happily sits at 230-270 Euros depending on whether you go 8320 or 8350 for the amazomg 300 MHz. If you are on a budget, an 8320 is a fantastic bargain. In the majority of games it will perform identical to an Intel set up and in the few where it doesn't it's generally because of a shit (or old) engine with CPU bottlenecks. The kind that makes an Intel Extreme look good.


Edit: and as for this:
Breezer_ wrote:
You also seem to compare the vishera to your old i5, compare it atleast to SB, and you are gonna see differences.

Except I don't see any difference between my good old i5 and Sandy. I get the same framerates as I see in reviews, generally speaking. Aeon and I compared BF4 (same GPU, he's on Sandy), 0 difference. So no, that is a gross exaggeration. I have no intention of replacing my (currently dying Sad) CPU with anything up to and including Haswell because none of them offer ANYTHING worth upgrading for.
Back to top
Breezer_




Posts: 10833
Location: Finland
PostPosted: Sun, 10th Nov 2013 20:53    Post subject:
How does those graphs make those what i posted ones any better? You just picked up games which are known to play the same nearly on every CPU (a.k.a they are done properly and arent CPU heavy). I know there are shit engines, but for that we cannot do anything if developers cant optimize their engines or use CPUs efficiently.
Back to top
Werelds
Special Little Man



Posts: 15098
Location: 0100111001001100
PostPosted: Sun, 10th Nov 2013 20:58    Post subject:
How does that validate your argument though? Oh gee, you can get 180 FPS instead of 140. Again, by your logic, an Intel Extreme CPU is a good buy too, since they provide the same performance boost as Intel would over AMD.

I'll say it again: if you're on a tight budget AMD is a still a fine choice. The games where it falls behind are generally the games where you're getting more than 60 FPS to begin with.
Back to top
sausje
Banned



Posts: 17716
Location: Limboland, Netherlands
PostPosted: Sun, 10th Nov 2013 21:02    Post subject:
Mister_s wrote:
If you can build a proper game pc with a 7970 for 650 euros, I'd like to see that suggestion.


I was trying, but it's impossible Razz

This is how far i got before i went over budget Sad

 Spoiler:
 


Proud member of Frustrated Association of International Losers Failing Against the Gifted and Superior (F.A.I.L.F.A.G.S)
Back to top
Breezer_




Posts: 10833
Location: Finland
PostPosted: Sun, 10th Nov 2013 21:04    Post subject:
There is like 20-30€ difference in Finland for decent AMD FX 8-core setup vs 4670K setup. Anyway my comparisons were only for CPU heavy games which does not affect all games (where Intel does win with pretty big difference). Both setups are great, but i would still strech budget more atleast in here Finland.
Back to top
Breezer_




Posts: 10833
Location: Finland
PostPosted: Sun, 10th Nov 2013 21:22    Post subject:
sausje wrote:
Mister_s wrote:
If you can build a proper game pc with a 7970 for 650 euros, I'd like to see that suggestion.


I was trying, but it's impossible Razz

This is how far i got before i went over budget Sad

 Spoiler:
 


My try from Germany, not the most optimal choices, but still pretty fine setup Very Happy (HDD/SSD from scrapyard Very Happy)

Back to top
proekaan
VIP Member



Posts: 3650
Location: Finland
PostPosted: Sun, 10th Nov 2013 22:15    Post subject:
My try from the same site. Razz



AMD Ryzen 9 7900X 4,7 GHz
Asrock X670E Steel Legend
G.Skill Trident Z5 32 GB DDR5 6400Mhz
Asus TUF RTX 4090 24 GB GDDR6X
NZXT Kraken Z73 RGB
Corsair HX1500i Platinum
NZXT H7 Flow
Back to top
StrEagle




Posts: 14059
Location: Balkans
PostPosted: Wed, 13th Nov 2013 01:24    Post subject:
my new pc is up and running Very Happy


Lutzifer wrote:
and yes, mine is only average
Back to top
StrEagle




Posts: 14059
Location: Balkans
PostPosted: Sun, 8th Dec 2013 18:40    Post subject:


I've set cpu core and uncore voltage to NORMAL as suggested by a russian guide

wonder if I should set it to 1.100V as it currently goes to 1.165V - 1.2727V

as suggested by:



he runs 4.2GHz at 1.050V - 1.080V

maybe I should try that or 1.100V - no harm in under-voltage right?


Lutzifer wrote:
and yes, mine is only average
Back to top
Werelds
Special Little Man



Posts: 15098
Location: 0100111001001100
PostPosted: Sun, 8th Dec 2013 18:52    Post subject:
Undervolting never hurts Smile

Currently playing with my CPU as well, see how well this thing overclocks. put it at 1182mV with no extra juice on the ring, only 0.16 on the SA (probably not even necessary). 4.3's been stable for 20 minutes now, topping out at 65 degrees.

Haswell is such a bad overclocker lol wut
Back to top
StrEagle




Posts: 14059
Location: Balkans
PostPosted: Sun, 8th Dec 2013 19:03    Post subject:
when I set the fixed voltage at 1.050V it doesn't get throttled back when Idle even when the CPU drops to 800Mhz

should I use -0.500 offset or something? Confused
or try force enabling the power saving modes?


Lutzifer wrote:
and yes, mine is only average
Back to top
Werelds
Special Little Man



Posts: 15098
Location: 0100111001001100
PostPosted: Sun, 8th Dec 2013 20:29    Post subject:
No, you don't want a fixed voltage if you want it to drop when idle, so offsets is what you want I think Smile

Still wrapping my head around this UEFI crap and all the new options myself Razz
Back to top
Stige




Posts: 3545
Location: Finland
PostPosted: Mon, 9th Dec 2013 06:26    Post subject:
Here is a funny thought: Why run underclocked, just max out your clocks at default voltage instead?

I know my 3570K does 4.6GHz on just 1.192V but requires 1.504V for 5GHz, there seems to be exponential leap on Ivy in terms of voltage required at some point.
Back to top
Werelds
Special Little Man



Posts: 15098
Location: 0100111001001100
PostPosted: Mon, 9th Dec 2013 08:31    Post subject:
All CPUs have that. You always have to find the balance between frequency and voltage, at least until you hit the point where higher voltage is unsafe.
Back to top
Stige




Posts: 3545
Location: Finland
PostPosted: Mon, 9th Dec 2013 09:15    Post subject:
Werelds wrote:
All CPUs have that. You always have to find the balance between frequency and voltage, at least until you hit the point where higher voltage is unsafe.


Was a different story with Sandy Bridge, or atleast the 2500K.

The voltage raise was constant, there were no exponential jumps or anything unlike there is on Ivy and newer.
One of the reasons I thought I got a godly chip at first when I got this to run at 4.6GHz with only 1.192V.
Back to top
StrEagle




Posts: 14059
Location: Balkans
PostPosted: Mon, 9th Dec 2013 12:08    Post subject:
That's exactly what the russian guys recommended:

In BIOS on AUTO the MB will rise the voltage if you clock your CPU, so you put the voltage on NORMAL and then clock your CPU - the voltage won't exceed the default values, and your CPU will be clocked - they ran at x42 multiplier, I'm running at x40 on CPU and x39 on Cache (UNCORE - better gaming if -100MHz from CPU clock) with stock voltage and a very good air - CPU doesn't go over 56C.

PS: it's interesting that my NB is running 3.8GHz no matter what..


Lutzifer wrote:
and yes, mine is only average
Back to top
StrEagle




Posts: 14059
Location: Balkans
PostPosted: Thu, 23rd Oct 2014 15:33    Post subject:


Lutzifer wrote:
and yes, mine is only average
Back to top
Page 3 of 3 All times are GMT + 1 Hour
NFOHump.com Forum Index - Hardware Zone Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
Signature/Avatar nuking: none (can be changed in your profile)  


Display posts from previous:   

Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB 2.0.8 © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group