primexx Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 yes but for gaming? not entirely necessary. true. that's why i install most of my games on the HDD. But few people actually use their fancy new computer exclusively for gaming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
giantpotato Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 I didn't have benchmarks to back up what I said, but you provided me with some. Good job on that one, I'm all about efficiently proving what I say is true... Before I go on, let us restate what I said: for gaming it doesn't really matter if you get an AMD CPU because the CPU doesn't tend to be the bottleneck. Now, let's decipher your results for you. You'll notice how on all of the results where the GPU is NOT bottlenecked (low settings) there is a high variation in performance (i.e. on FPS >> 60). This is true of every single processor in the mix. Because, these are the times when the CPU/memory end up being bottlenecks. But, you know what? We don't even care because the performance is very far above the monitor refresh rate already. Now look at the results in your link where the performance is less than 60 FPS. Here I'll link both your benchmarks and ones I found: http://www.extremetech.com/computing/170023-amd-vs-intel-the-ultimate-gaming-showdown-5ghz-fx-9590-vs-i7-4960x/2 http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/62166-amd-fx-9590-review-piledriver-5ghz-15.html Notice how the performance is very similar? Notice the inconsistencies in whether Intel or AMD is better? Guess what happens if you throw an i5 and i7 in the mix together? The same thing (Scroll up because I already linked those benchmarks earlier in this thread). Now let's bring it all home. Given a sufficiently decent professor and sufficiently decent main memory speeds, you are generally not going to see a bottleneck on your CPU if you are taxing your GPU. I.e. to clarify, you are not going to see much of a performance difference. The only real cases where the CPU and memory bottlenecks come into play is when the GPU isn't doing much of anything. And the times when the GPU isn't doing much of anything is FPS >> 60. tldr; FPS >> 60 == CPU/memory bottleneck. FPS < 60 FPS == GPU bottleneck. Corner cases can and do exist, but that is generally the case with most games. EDIT: Praetor let me know if you agree with my assessment here. EDIT2: I corrected one of my >> because I put the wrong symbol... Ok, you have shown, and I agree that in many cases with gaming the CPU will not be a bottleneck. If and only if the CPU is the bottle neck in a game, you will get better performance with Intel, otherwise you will get similar performance. So, given the option of having better performance in cpu-bottlenecked games, why would you choose the slower option? OP's budget limits him to a R9 280X, or a GTX 770 both for ~$350. The next step-up from those are ~ $550. Getting a cheaper AMD will not save $200 to get a better GPU. To top it off, AMD's run hot and are horribly power inefficient. Compare the power consumption of the i7-4770K, to the FX-9590. The AMD uses 100-150W more power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Praetor Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 AMD's consume more power, that's for sure, but when a gamer has several disks, dual or triple gfx cards and a very potent PSU, power isn't exactly his main concern... or second. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snaphat (Myles Landwehr) Member Posted December 5, 2013 Member Share Posted December 5, 2013 Ok, you have shown, and I agree that in many cases with gaming the CPU will not be a bottleneck. If and only if the CPU is the bottle neck in a game, you will get better performance with Intel, otherwise you will get similar performance. So, given the option of having better performance in cpu-bottlenecked games, why would you choose the slower option? OP's budget limits him to a R9 280X, or a GTX 770 both for ~$350. The next step-up from those are ~ $550. Getting a cheaper AMD will not save $200 to get a better GPU. To top it off, AMD's run hot and are horribly power inefficient. Compare the power consumption of the i7-4770K, to the FX-9590. The AMD uses 100-150W more power. The argument is purely monetary: you don't pay for a better CPU for gaming if it isn't going to give you better performance where it counts. Anything above 60 FPS is meaningless in terms of performance since the refresh rate of modern monitors is 60 hertz. Also, I wasn't ever arguing that the OP should get an AMD. He just shouldn't spend a bunch of money on an expensive CPU for no reason. I could care less whether he gets an AMD or Intel as long as it is a wise decision money wise and performance wise for gaming. And of course that AMD runs hot/uses more energy... it is an octa core machine... the Intel is a quad core. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Praetor Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 And of course that AMD runs hot/uses more energy... it is an octa core machine... the Intel is a quad core. And real men use real cores, not "virtual" ones... that argument alone should make the OP buy an AMD. snaphat (Myles Landwehr) 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snaphat (Myles Landwehr) Member Posted December 5, 2013 Member Share Posted December 5, 2013 And real men use real cores, not "virtual" ones... that argument alone should make the OP buy an AMD. I roll my eyes at piledriver ;-) I honestly don't really understand that 8 core (or rather piledriver/bulldozer in general). It really should be something like 1.5-2x better than the 4770 he is comparing to at CPU bound tasks. Even though the single thread performance is worse, you'd think the higher clock would make up for that. I mean the 4770's HT is not making it anywhere near an 8 core equivalent machine; it just schedules more efficiently on its 4 cores. It just goes to show AMD has really slipped in the last 4-5 years. Good thing their mid-range offerings are more cost effective in many cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andre S. Veteran Posted December 5, 2013 Veteran Share Posted December 5, 2013 I don't plan on spending a lot on RAM. I've decided on purchasing 8GB. I feel like 16GB is too much for gaming. And I'd rather use that money for a better video card or a higher-storage SSD. RAM requirements are growing up very quickly because of the new consoles. Some titles released this year require 6GB of RAM which was unheard of. 8GB will be the bare minimum to play newer titles comfortably in the future. That said, if you have a tight budget, the extra money is probably still better spent on a faster graphics card, but you might want to add more RAM eventually. Just something to keep in mind. +Mirumir 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Praetor Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 I roll my eyes at piledriver ;-) I honestly don't really understand that 8 core (or rather piledriver/bulldozer in general). It really should be something like 1.5-2x better than the 4770 he is comparing to at CPU bound tasks. Even though the single thread performance is worse, you'd think the higher clock would make up for that. I mean the 4770's HT is not making it anywhere near an 8 core equivalent machine; it just schedules more efficiently on its 4 cores. It just goes to show AMD has really slipped in the last 4-5 years. Good thing their mid-range offerings are more cost effective in many cases. Yes, AMD did slipped and deceived expectations with Bulldozer / Pilledriver, but honestly have you ever seen the budget AMD has comparing to Intel? It's a world apart. So we are talking two different companies, one that innovates but since it's the current market leader, it practices expensive prices; the other one tries to keep up but investing billions into investigation and production is hard to justify. Still i expect to AMD to continue to concur against Intel, if they stop then it's very bad for the consumer as this two are the only companies that are able to produce x86 CPUs. snaphat (Myles Landwehr) 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ryoohki Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 Next gen console only have access to 5gig of ram (one) and 6 (ps4). That is including the video ram, at 1080p it use between 1 and 1.5gig of videoram generally so we are talking 4gig of system ram usage top + windows so about 6 gigs. Ac4 use 1gig of ram, and bf4 about 3 in 64players maps Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ryoohki Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 About win 8.1, if you're gonna play bf4 it's a must IMHO, it get rid of the shuttering and some people had nice boost in performance. Most games gain some fps using that os. So all the games coming with frostbite 3 will be coded for win8 as a minimum like bf4 is. You can dual boot it with win7 and test it yourself once you have your machine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
giantpotato Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 Yes, AMD did slipped and deceived expectations with Bulldozer / Pilledriver, but honestly have you ever seen the budget AMD has comparing to Intel? It's a world apart. So we are talking two different companies, one that innovates but since it's the current market leader, it practices expensive prices; the other one tries to keep up but investing billions into investigation and production is hard to justify. Still i expect to AMD to continue to concur against Intel, if they stop then it's very bad for the consumer as this two are the only companies that are able to produce x86 CPUs. AMD's roadmap had shown that they're pretty much abandoning the "High-End" FX line and will focus on their lower power APU's. If AMD themselves don't have faith in their own product why should consumers? They have good products in their APU line but it boggles my mind how people can objectively recommend AMD for the High-End. They're using a 2 year old architechture and the only thing they have done is increase the clocks for the past 2 years. This is exactly what happened with the Pentium 4. The only advantage they have is price and their latest products (9590) are not even price-competitive. +Mirumir 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yusuf M. Veteran Posted December 5, 2013 Author Veteran Share Posted December 5, 2013 RAM requirements are growing up very quickly because of the new consoles. Some titles released this year require 6GB of RAM which was unheard of. 8GB will be the bare minimum to play newer titles comfortably in the future. That said, if you have a tight budget, the extra money is probably still better spent on a faster graphics card, but you might want to add more RAM eventually. Just something to keep in mind. True. I can always upgrade the RAM later so 8GB is sufficient for now. About win 8.1, if you're gonna play bf4 it's a must IMHO, it get rid of the shuttering and some people had nice boost in performance. Most games gain some fps using that os. So all the games coming with frostbite 3 will be coded for win8 as a minimum like bf4 is. You can dual boot it with win7 and test it yourself once you have your machine As I said before, I'll upgrade to Windows 8.1 eventually. I'd rather not spend $99 on the OS when I can use that money to buy a faster video card. Anyway, here's what I'm looking at so far: Intel Core i5-4670K (no price because I plan on buying it as part of a bundle with a CrossFireX motherboard) AMD Radeon R9 270X - $219.99 (I chose MSI because it will come bundled with Battlefield 4) I've decided on the R9 270X because of this: http://www.techspot.com/review/734-battlefield-4-benchmarks/page3.html 61 FPS at 1920x1200 is good enough for me. The GTX 770 gets 67 FPS and it costs $150 more. The R9 280X gets 75 FPS but I don't want to spend $120 more for an extra 14 FPS. Later on, I can purchase an additional R9 270X and by then the price will have dropped. Also, the R9 270X seems to be the sweet spot I was looking for. Compared to the R9 280X, it has 80% of the performance at roughly 60% of the cost. I plan on playing a lot of Battlefield 4 so that's why I'm basing my video card decision around that game. snaphat (Myles Landwehr) 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snaphat (Myles Landwehr) Member Posted December 5, 2013 Member Share Posted December 5, 2013 Sounds like good decision making to me! Yusuf M. 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andre S. Veteran Posted December 6, 2013 Veteran Share Posted December 6, 2013 Also, the R9 270X seems to be the sweet spot I was looking for. Compared to the R9 280X, it has 80% of the performance at roughly 60% of the cost. I plan on playing a lot of Battlefield 4 so that's why I'm basing my video card decision around that game. By the time you buy, perhaps the Mantle patch will have been released. We should see even more of an advantage for the R9 270X then, compared to NVIDIA's offerings. I can vouch for the MSI Gaming version, the cooler is amazingly quiet, I run two of those in SLI (GTX 760s) with barely any noise. Incidentally that model also has the best rating on newegg currently. Yusuf M. 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yusuf M. Veteran Posted December 6, 2013 Author Veteran Share Posted December 6, 2013 By the time you buy, perhaps the Mantle patch will have been released. We should see even more of an advantage for the R9 270X then, compared to NVIDIA's offerings. I can vouch for the MSI Gaming version, the cooler is amazingly quiet, I run two of those in SLI (GTX 760s) with barely any noise. Incidentally that model also has the best rating on newegg currently. Yeah, Mantle is a bonus and I'm excited for it. I plan on using a stock cooler for my CPU so a quiet video card will be nice. I just hope I can get the R9 270X for $150-$180 on Boxing Day. :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yusuf M. Veteran Posted December 19, 2013 Author Veteran Share Posted December 19, 2013 I just bought the Zalman Z12 Plus case for $59.99 ($39.99 with $20 MIR). My best friend has the Z9 and highly recommended it. It comes with 2x USB 3.0 ports at the top which is what I wanted. I was expecting to pay at least $80 for a good case. The process to create my fine gaming machine has begun. I haven't felt this excited about PC gaming since I built my first rig back in September 2007. :D +Mirumir 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ryoohki Posted December 20, 2013 Share Posted December 20, 2013 Good luck with building your pc, its always fun but cable management is a bitch Lolllllllllll. Check all the deal, weight in shipping.. Etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yusuf M. Veteran Posted December 21, 2013 Author Veteran Share Posted December 21, 2013 I'm scrapping the build and postponing it until December 2014. I cracked the screen on my Windows Phone 8 device (HTC 8S). :cry: I just ordered a 32GB Google Nexus 5 with a grey bumper case for $433.99 CAD + shipping and tax. The total came to $512.90. That's a huge chunk of my budget and I'd rather have a good smartphone and an ancient gaming PC than a gaming PC and a bad phone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psionicinversion Posted December 21, 2013 Share Posted December 21, 2013 yah fair enough and itll be better for you because youll get better deals on components and the best gfx cards of today will be cheaper tomorrow and seeing as star citizen could be released any time from then till 2nd quarter of 2015 youll need the best gfx card you can afford cus that game is going to lay the smack down on gfx cards! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psionicinversion Posted December 21, 2013 Share Posted December 21, 2013 I'm scrapping the build and postponing it until December 2014. I cracked the screen on my Windows Phone 8 device (HTC 8S). :cry: I just ordered a 32GB Google Nexus 5 with a grey bumper case for $433.99 CAD + shipping and tax. The total came to $512.90. That's a huge chunk of my budget and I'd rather have a good smartphone and an ancient gaming PC than a gaming PC and a bad phone. OMFG check this out.... https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/transmission/13445-Inside-CIG-Dogfighting-Update 5:57 what the universe looks like, 7:20ish showing a ship flying through space. but watch the whole video every single bit of a ship can be blown off from little panels to weapons to engines this game is the NEXT GEN of gaming, this will be the benchmark on how a game should be and if they need more time for there dogfighting module they can have it when this is the type of work they are delivering On a side not id use the next year to save up for a xfire/sli setup cus itll need it :P I am :D:D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yusuf M. Veteran Posted February 4, 2014 Author Veteran Share Posted February 4, 2014 I went ahead and built it over the last couple of days. Specs: Intel Core i5-4570 @ 3.2 GHz (turbo: 3.6 GHz) ASUS Z87-A motherboard ASUS DirectCU II TOP R9 270X (factory overclocked) Crucial M500 240GB SSD Zalman Z12PLUS ATX Mid Tower case Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Livin in a box Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 We want actual pics, not stock ones :p A nice build you've picked out though! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moeburn Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 Does nobody buy AMD/ATI video cards anymore? My 5 year old FX 5770 can still handle the latest games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason S. Global Moderator Posted February 5, 2014 Global Moderator Share Posted February 5, 2014 Does nobody buy AMD/ATI video cards anymore? My 5 year old FX 5770 can still handle the latest games. yeah lots of people... i used to have dual 5770s and they couldnt handle anything with decent settings... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Method Man Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 Does nobody buy AMD/ATI video cards anymore? My 5 year old FX 5770 can still handle the latest games. They're all being bought up to mine LiteCoin now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts