Advice on i5 or an AMD piledriver

ALXAndy · 19 Jan 2014 at 17:33

almighty15 said:
Mate I've run all the decent AMD chips under phase, Including some FX chips.

I've played with them at clock speeds most of the tools in here can only dream of running 24/7

The motherboard that I used a lone cost more then Andy's CPU and mobo combined..

Oh wow quick every one bow down to god ! for he clearly knows his onions if he spent a fortune on a motherboard.

ALL HAIL GOD.

ALXAndy · 19 Jan 2014 at 17:33

Martini1991 said:
And the R9 290 and 780 are about the same performance, Phix switched from an FX83 to an Intel because the FX83 bottlenecked his 780.

So.....

So an Intel what? I7?

Martini1991 · 19 Jan 2014 at 17:35

ALXAndy said:
So an Intel what? I7?

He did, but you don't need an i7 to get the most out of an R9 290, I was maxing it with my i5 4670K quite easily.

ALXAndy · 19 Jan 2014 at 17:36

Martini1991 said:
He did, but you don't need an i7 to get the most out of an R9 290, I was maxing it with my i5 4670K quite easily.

So he wasted his money then?

Either way it's an upgrade.

Martini1991 · 19 Jan 2014 at 17:38

I wouldn't say wasted money, but it's going to be the minority of cases there's a real difference, I bought an i7 too in the end as it cost me 50 quid from my i5.

ALXAndy · 19 Jan 2014 at 17:39

Martini1991 said:
I wouldn't say wasted money, but it's going to be the minority of cases there's a real difference, I bought an i7 too in the end as it cost me 50 quid from my i5.

Well it was a good move, because as we've established, the I7 is uniformly faster than the FX series.

gpuerrilla · 19 Jan 2014 at 17:41

Martini1991 said:
And the R9 290 and 780 are about the same performance, Phix switched from an FX83 to an Intel because the FX83 bottlenecked his 780.

So.....

What has Phix got to do with this? What game was it? How much did Phix outlay? :rolleyes:

Martini1991 · 19 Jan 2014 at 17:43

Th0nt said:
What has Phix got to do with this? What game was it? How much did Phix outlay?

And you're completely missing the point, not that it surprises me.

gpuerrilla · 19 Jan 2014 at 17:44

ALXAndy said:
Well it was a good move, because as we've established, the I7 is uniformly faster than the FX series.

Which martin forgets that i5's are dearer than FX's yet it takes an i7 to step up to the next performance bracket - except the i7 is in a different league in both price and performance to the FX. Just because his i5 maxed a card out - doesnt mean Joe Public will have the same outcome. :rolleyes:

Martini1991 said:
And you're completely missing the point, not that it surprises me.

Well it takes one to know one.

ALXAndy · 19 Jan 2014 at 17:45

Martini1991 said:
And you're completely missing the point, not that it surprises me.

Well maybe he does have a point, and maybe this guy was chasing the dragon?

It's not exactly uncommon in the world of PC upgrading really. You buy a part, knowing there's a better one, see a game only do X and then think by spending lots of money you can make improvements. And you usually can, but the gains don't explain the cost....

ALXAndy · 19 Jan 2014 at 17:47

Th0nt said:
Which martin forgets that i5's are dearer than FX's yet it takes an i7 to step up to the next performance bracket - except the i7 is in a different league in both price and performance to the FX. Just because his i5 maxed a card out - doesnt mean Joe Public will have the same outcome.

Well it takes one to know one.

I'm not blaming Martini. He and I have bashed heads numerous times now and always come to the same conclusion. Only the I7 can unequivocally beat the FX 8s, and you pay for it.

It's his 'mate' that doesn't seem to understand it. But then hey, he's god and spent over £370 on a motherboard alone, so we should bow down to him (if we can do so without drowning in the pond full of BS he spouts).

gpuerrilla · 19 Jan 2014 at 17:53

ALXAndy said:
Well maybe he does have a point, and maybe this guy was chasing the dragon?

It's not exactly uncommon in the world of PC upgrading really. You buy a part, knowing there's a better one, see a game only do X and then think by spending lots of money you can make improvements. And you usually can, but the gains don't explain the cost....

NO!

That would make sense Andy. :rolleyes:

Martin just thinks I'm an idiot, not that I care. He would gain far more respect if he stopped being condescending with his posts. He is quite adept at ducking and selecting strengths to his arguments, he is definitely not always right though.

As to the other plastic variety, I can't really say.

gpuerrilla · 19 Jan 2014 at 18:02

Archieisted said:
I'm totally new to PC building but I've finally decided to build one of my own. I've got ~£700 to spend and I'm a little unsure on which processor to get.

OK lets try this another way. Martin says the 290 will bottleneck an FX (but that's not always a bad thing considering you will be getting the most out of the CPU and if mantle is any cop make this point moot). Oh and not in every game right?

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/productlist.php?catid=56&groupid=701&sortby=priceAsc&subid=1752

Cheapest is £335 so that leaves you with 365 for the rest of the system. Hmm, so that wont really buy you an i5 setup so any GPU that's cheaper you could build an FX system anyway as you wont 'max it out'.

Martini1991 · 19 Jan 2014 at 18:03

I wasn't the one who said the OP's budget was 800 quid or he could fit in an R9 290, that would be you.
I was saying Phix switched because of a bottleneck using an FX83 with an equally powered GPU (Which would be there on an FX83 system versus an i5 one)

700 quid is firmly R9 280X ground.

And it's FX will bottleneck the R9 290 (Which is a bad thing)

So now Phix isn't an AMD owner, he's a nut justifying his upgrade? Fickle bunch you lot

Phil2008 · 19 Jan 2014 at 18:13

ALXAndy said:
Please do your research on what you claim before you go making silly statements like that. Overclocked the AMD will be more than good enough for Skyrim. In fact, it's a butt old game now so any CPU is good enough for Skyrim.

My old intel coreduo e8400 system could handle Skyrim with ease.

gpuerrilla · 19 Jan 2014 at 18:20

Martini1991 said:
I wasn't the one who said the OP's budget was 800 quid or he could fit in an R9 290, that would be you.
I was saying Phix switched because of a bottleneck using an FX83 with an equally powered GPU (Which would be there on an FX83 system versus an i5 one)

700 quid is firmly R9 280X ground.

And it's FX will bottleneck the R9 290 (Which is a bad thing)

So now Phix isn't an AMD owner, he's a nut justifying his upgrade? Fickle bunch you lot

Nah that would be twisting words here as I am as intrigued to Phix (don't recall calling him a nut) and this switch, was it a post, was it private discussion? Either way one example, all it proves is if he had to get an i7 to improve then he misjudged the origninal build to his requirements.

As you say 700 is 280X, I would like to see where an overclocked FX is bottlenecked by this card. Again the ball is in your court. It's over there next to all them other balls that you have yet to return!

Doomedspeed · 19 Jan 2014 at 18:26

You got it wrong again. The CPU bottlenecks the card, though I dont fully agree with martini on this one.

I think here the price point is an issue. £700-£800 is high end AMD vs Mid range Intel. Personally id pay for mid range Intel, die to the chips performance in all title, as I plat a broad range.

Though if the budget was less, AMD all the way.

I have been saying this all along by the way.

ALXAndy · 19 Jan 2014 at 18:27

Phil2008 said:
My old intel coreduo e8400 system could handle Skyrim with ease.

I'm aware of that. So could my old Phenom 2, so tbh it shouldn't even be in question with a unlocked Piledriver.

ALXAndy · 19 Jan 2014 at 18:31

Doomedspeed said:
You got it wrong again. The CPU bottlenecks the card, though I dont fully agree with martini on this one.

I think here the price point is an issue. £700-£800 is high end AMD vs Mid range Intel. Personally id pay for mid range Intel, die to the chips performance in all title, as I plat a broad range.

Though if the budget was less, AMD all the way.

I have been saying this all along by the way.

Mid range Intel are all locked at tragic clock speeds. The 6300 is the best mid range chip. 8320 and 4670k mid high and then the I7s dominate the high end.

Whilst some love to 'show off' the I3 beating the FX 8 they can only do so with a tiny handful of poorly threaded, and or very old, games, and then the comparison is always done at stock speed.

There are no reviews showing off what the FX CPUs can do when overclocked with the unlock. The closest you will come is PCper.

http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Proces...view-Vishera-Breaks-Cover/Power-Overclocking-

Read the conclusion...

So what do we actually get with this release? Well, it is a bittersweet release for AMD. The pricing on these parts is not only competitive, it undercuts Intel by a significant amount across the board. The 8350 is very competitive with the 3570K, and it can be had for $30 less. The 6300 will walk all over the Intel products that exist at the $132 price point, and in fact is more competitive in terms of performance with the $185 Intel products. Again, we get a nice $50 discount for essentially the same performance. In these cases though, expect the AMD CPU to consume more power. Would it be enough to make one nervous about energy bills? Not really.

The FX 6300 absolutely dominates the mid range. Intel have nothing to offer,which is their fault for locking their cheaper CPUs.

joeyjojo · 19 Jan 2014 at 18:35

Martini1991 said:
How? If you've bottlenecked why would buying the better GPU be better?
If we're using the "AMD gives playable FPS" why would you ever want a better GPU?

It's a fallacy, we wouldn't run the GPU set ups we run if we didn't want the performance out of them.

Well obviously if you've got playable FPS then you don't need to upgrade

(IMO, plenty of people get upgrade anxiety!)

I'm just saying that if you can get good FPS (e.g. 70 min in the link above) with the AMD CPU, then money on the (faster) Intel CPU would be money wasted.