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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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 ) CPU with anything up to and including Haswell because none of them offer ANYTHING worth upgrading for.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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..
Signature/Avatar nuking: none (can be changed in your profile)
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