Associate
- Joined
- 31 Mar 2012
- Posts
- 1,737
This has about as much credibility as Richard Branson pitching up in his local job centre asking for unemployment benefit. Well done Boom.
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
This has about as much credibility as Richard Branson pitching up in his local job centre asking for unemployment benefit. Well done Boom.
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 Jan 2012
- Posts
- 12,414
- Location
- UK.
Why in bold though? It's like you are shouting which is just shake head time!
Ha, just joking thread seemed to be getting a bit serious..
Haha, thank you.
Being serious for a sec, the FX 8320 is ok for around £110, but I do think it's worth the extra to go with an i5, Xeon or i7 on the 1150 platform. Especially with newer chips coming to that platform in the future. Not sure it's worth buying into the FX platform as it stands now. LGA 1150 is newer, better supported.. having the performance edge, imho it has to Intel right now..
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Jul 2005
- Posts
- 21,105
- Location
- Officially least sunny location -Ronskistats
Whilst that is fine by brand blinkers, you can have it for far under if you put in some searching effort. OcUK have had this CPU at £106 I think recently, but seriously you can build a full AMD system for a great price only the motherboard makes any movement towards the intel defence territory.
With the great motherboard features and overclocking headroom it makes perfect sense though. At the end of the day if money was no object then we wouldn't need to post. Quite frankly why martin and the intel tattoo brigade argue when budget dictates in this value category is beyond me, it's like they see his budget at £1000 while the rest of us are seeing £700.
Both AMD and intel are dead at current, you will need to see into 2015 for a better step up. What people time after time overlook is the guys are on a budget. £700 wont buy you an i7 with a decent GPU so it is out of the picture.
Thanks for the benchmarks. Everyone should remember though that min, avg, and max FPS all need to be taken in context. The min is the only one that looks different there, suggesting the FX is cack, but it could be that it just dropped to that low FPS momentarily never to return. This is why good reviews include various percentile frame times, or charts of FPS (because you want to know the distribution of FPS, not just the range).
Metro's benchmark is erratic at best. You usually always get a spike and then a drop which creates the minimum FPS. It's completely unavoidable. Thankfully actual gameplay is usually far better without the drops or stutters.
Ed. Just realised that's a FRAPs recording. Surprised to see minimums that low tbh.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Jul 2005
- Posts
- 21,105
- Location
- Officially least sunny location -Ronskistats
Which is why more testing is needed. It's the same counter-argument to people who use the 'cherry pick BF4' statement. They say it's one game that plays well on FX, some games require looking at as to why the minimums drop. It does happen there is no denying that, however is it just down to the CPU or is something else contributing to the issue?
There's quite a few of us with games now that would be happy to test further.
There's quite a few of us with games now that would be happy to test further.
Man, the bottom line is having the hardware yourself to pass judgement on. Reviews for me never, ever made any sense. What I mean is I would buy a cooler expecting my CPU to hit certain temps and then find out that my temps differed completely from those I had seen in reviews. Then I come to find that nearly all of the publications I read test on an open bed in an air conditioned office
There are way too may variables in computing to get any solid accurate data. I've seen reviews that just don't make sense. I asked about what drivers were being used and it turns out they had forgotten to update them before they started testing. Asked them to test again, get told no can't be bothered.
The problem is that all the time you are leaving it to humans the more and more errors you will see creeping into the mix.
Software is updated pretty much daily. You could review a GPU running, say, Batman one day and the next an update or updated driver could turn the entire thing on its head.
Proof is always in the pudding for me. I pay very little attention to reviews now as they are just sales patter any way from some little corporate droid who does what he's told for some free hardware.
OP,
If you have ~700 pounds to spend, the best choice for you is the FX chip + the best deal you can find on a video card. The 40-50 pounds difference between the chips isn't noticeable but the same amount is certainly noticeable for mid range video cards.
Ignore the "AMD sucks" rants from the usual suspects.
If you have ~700 pounds to spend, the best choice for you is the FX chip + the best deal you can find on a video card. The 40-50 pounds difference between the chips isn't noticeable but the same amount is certainly noticeable for mid range video cards.
Ignore the "AMD sucks" rants from the usual suspects.
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Jul 2005
- Posts
- 21,105
- Location
- Officially least sunny location -Ronskistats
Sounds like someone.. just can't quite remember who...
Holy smoke best answer of the day! It is what a few of us have been saying all along except the intel dyed in wool boyo's like to stoke up a tangent. Thing is if your face doesnt fit no matter how many times you say this your just an AMD fanboy regardless of it actually being the only sensible option for the money being discussed.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 14,583
I don't think anyone is ranting "AMD sucks"...it's more about people saying i5 is better as an "all-rounder". However with a £50 price premium, it's up to to individuals to decide if it is worth to cough that up for what they play- in a way similar to how people cough up the extra cost to go green for the sake of PhysX and other Nvidia specific features, and in this case for Intel- the "feature" of better performance in the less heavily threaded games.
The £50 price different would make a bigger difference to frame on the CPU or the graphic card is totally depend on the games in question and setting used.
So there's no "one-size fit all" answer...to spend extra £50 on CPU or on graphic card, it's completely down to each individual carefully considering what games he's going to play the most and how many threads the games would use, and what level of graphic details will he uses.
Last edited:
If you look hard enough now you can get the FX 8 for around £105. The 4670k is £172. So that's £68. That £68 is the difference between a 270x to 280x. Or 760 to 770.
It's something that many around here just don't seem to get. THE most important part in any gaming machine is the GPU. CPUs are not designed for gaming, GPUs are. It really is as simple as that. The FX 6300 is even cheaper still, £80. Eighty pounds for a CPU that can and will do everything *in gaming* that the £172 Intel does.
Yet the attitude around here is spend more on the CPU, for games.
I just don't get why some people could hate something so much that they just could not bear to see sense and recommend it. Cat and I exchanged a few emails this morning and the general consensus was that the 6300 was the best CPU money can buy at the moment for what it costs and the performance it provides. When overclocked you'd be really, really surprised how capable it is.
It's like people spending other people's money in some sort of twisted scheme to deny AMD a sale.
And it's only really this forum that seems to be like that. Linus'? the 6300 and 8320 are hugely popular over there. The 8320 is £105 or so, yet, when it gets used properly it can easily sail past any I5 and sit just under the I7s. For £105, yet some would rather chop of their own manhood than suggest some one buy one.
What's also weird is that AMD users can accept reality, yet you get these mindless plebs going around prepared to severely embarrass themselves to deny AMD a sale.
Madness.
Two opposites and things go to pot.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 30,506
- Location
- Dormanstown.
You'd have to be a complete tool to pick an i5 4670K with R9 270 over an FX83 with R9 280X, but unfortunately a lot of people seem to be doing recently >.< (I've noticed at least 3 and bit my lip and facepalmed very recently.)
But my arguing again wasn't really about the OP and the budget, more the being dragged into something over doomed's term of nosedive (Which no one seems to successfully rename given the of going from i7 performance to below i3).
But my arguing again wasn't really about the OP and the budget, more the being dragged into something over doomed's term of nosedive (Which no one seems to successfully rename given the of going from i7 performance to below i3).
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Feb 2012
- Posts
- 6,586
You couldn't possibly have had a straight face when you posted that? Surely?
Why such strong feelings for people you've never met? The world has become unbalanced.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 30,506
- Location
- Dormanstown.
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Feb 2012
- Posts
- 6,586
Because an i5 with an R9 270X for gaming isn't as good as the other options available
I'd go for a 4670k and 270X, over an AMD and 280X. The games i play are mainly single/lightly threaded, and require next to no GPU grunt.
Though to be fair, i'd rather spend the money on second hand parts are get the best of both.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 30,506
- Location
- Dormanstown.
Oh well
I'd consider it too much of a compromise, that said, I'm 9/10 going to work the budget to get an R9 280X and i5 4670K lol.
I'd consider it too much of a compromise, that said, I'm 9/10 going to work the budget to get an R9 280X and i5 4670K lol.
Because an i5 with an R9 270X for gaming isn't as good as the other options available
Perhaps but will it make the world a better place? As I never thought it would still be possible adults are getting so heated over hardware.
Reading most of this thread is like watching nerdy teenagers go at each others throats. A lot of control freaks than calm rational guidance.