I haven't seen any differences in FSX. When you talk about the differences what percentage of difference is there? Is it really worth it to spend a lot of money, to then get very similar results.
-
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.
Going from FX8350 to 4770k
- Thread starter Choimaloy75
- Start date
I haven't seen any differences in FSX. When you talk about the differences what percentage of difference is there? Is it really worth it to spend a lot of money, to then get very similar results.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 30,515
- Location
- Dormanstown.
In FSX there should be massive differences
FSX being a single threaded application.
And Th0nt, I don't think you know what an i5 can do at all (I don't think you have any experience of a modern i5 or i7 at all in fact, neither does Andy), there's only a very small list of games that an i7 is an upgrade from an i5 (BF4/BF3/Crysis 3/RTW2 to name a few), in the vast amount of games that aren't so heavily threaded an i5 and i7 are nigh on the same performance, me having owned an i5 4670K and now a 4770K.... (And in pretty much most cases, higher performing than FX's)
Also, no one's twisting Panos's words at all, the only one who's trying to do anything to Panos's post is you, let me have a whack at taking something from his post.
See this quote from him ;
And he's being far more blanket than I've ever been, except you flame me when I'm giving a logical and rational reasoning (Derp)
I wouldn't put an i5 with R9 290X's (No one suggested that, but an i5 Haswell over an FX83 is an upgrade, as it's a better gaming CPU, it's seemingly only you and Andy that don't see that)
Most games not using more threads than an i5 has cores (This is FACT) so the i7 only benefits in a small amount of games total.
An i7 isn't a foolproof solution to not bottlenecking, it's just the best option of a bad situation (If you play a 4 threaded game, bottlenecked with an i5, the i7 isn't going to do diddly, but both will be far and above what the FX83 will give out)
Last edited:
Yup I'm running a [email protected] with a 7990 and it's fine for me
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Jul 2005
- Posts
- 21,107
- Location
- Officially least sunny location -Ronskistats
I do not disagree with you all the time martin, categorising me with andy is definitely derp though.
I just frown upon your 'facts' as one minute it's 99% of games (which is obviously incorrect) the next your saying an i7 steams the FX which is should do as it's £200+ dearer.
Now lets get down to it, have you owned an FX83x0? I know you owned a Thuban but that is getting tiring now.
Panos is one example of about four guys you keep spouting - fair enough I never disagree with them or moogley (cant remember the other two). Two facts spring out though:
1) They are wanting performance from specific games and what I would class as higher tier gamers - the average guy buying a new cpu would not notice the fps differences, spikes, implosions or whatever you call it as let's face it anything upto a 280x it will handle just fine.
2) They have the money to just go and buy another CPU/mobo etc, some of us are not so rolling in the cash. You seem to forget the FX is £100 which is why I immortalised your post in my sig as it took you ~ 3 months to admit it.
You always ignore alex_123_fra which is odd as I seem to see you go quiet when he presents the opposite pole of i7/fx user saying his experience is great.. there's bound to be more guys like him I have just not counted them.
Just remember all people on these forums or at least read them will need to get an i5/i7 as there is plenty of evidence to suggest the AMD route in not a disaster as some on here make out.
Sorry dude according to martin this cannot happen. But as I am jusy like Andy we flame him and have zero knowledge of computers.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 30,515
- Location
- Dormanstown.
You're always taking things out of context (Just like you're doing now, which is why I struggle to take you seriously)
No one's saying they don't run "fine" (Ignoring the fact how subjective saying something is running fine is) but factually, it is and will get bottlenecked (How much vastly depends on the games and resolution)
The reason I ignore Alex, as frankly what he says flys in the face of next to everyone else who have used the set ups (Like now, you've got Panos, Aveneged etc, all using set ups, all noticing differences, instead you go to Alex, who sees "No difference", even on WoW, which will see a difference, regardless of how many time he says they're the same FPS) but what's the point in bringing this up? It'll just get discounted as everything else does, wouldn't even say I'm spouting Panos, he's posted in this thread, his experience, it's on topic and you've said you believe his opinion (Which again, makes no sense, because he's mentioned about bottlenecking a 79XX Crossfire, but given your response to Beasty means you don't believe it at all)
No one says you get a bad experience with FX83 point blank (Well maybe Boomstick, but I've had him on ignore for about a year anyway
), no one at all, it's only your twisting that means it seem that way.
I mean hell, given that little snippet in your sig, it's silly to even try and take my comments out of context, I'm a big fan of the value they represent, they've changed the scope on what you can get on a budget CPU wise. But that doesn't mean I'm going to pretend they're more than they are, (And I've been saying how good price/performance it is since it launched in October 2012,)
I rarely ever mention the i7 in comparison to the FX, unless it's very high end GPU set ups (Because the i5 doesn't cut it when we're getting to the heavier hitters which are more threaded, which need that extra GPU grunt really, even though it's only a small amount of games, it may/should grow in future)
Whereas you seem to hate the i5, and refuse to suggest it over an FX83 point blank (While calling me an Intel preacher, this that and the other) you completely flat out ignore just how many times I'm happy to suggest AMD rigs, here's one I did earlier ; http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18586026
I literally have no bias, perhaps that's why I'm so outspoken, because I can't understand brand loyality, you go where the numbers take you, that's what I care about, the pure numbers, not what sticker it has on it.
As for "owning" an FX83, I haven't, but I've used an FX83 and an FX63 in builds I've done.
And you can't really downplay Thuban, given how Humbug's just had an 1100T (Still lower clocked than I had my Thuban at) beating a 4.6GHZ FX6300 in Cinebench (FPU performance) Highly clocked Thuban chips will still ride with the highest end of AMD stuff in far, far more games than they don't.
OP's mentioned his i7 4770K and board is arriving Tuesday, so we'll see if he notices differences.
End of the day, I have you on ignore for a reason, and should stop reading your comments, it's just full of contradictions and u-turns and your "opinion" changing like the wind in what you say (Or at least it seems that, one minute you're saying you can't see the FX83 bottlenecking a 7990 and we're all obviously lunactics, then in the first sentence you're saying you need something more than an FX83 to get the most out of an R9 290X, which has less grunt than the 7990. Which then doesn't make sense, as you never see a point of the i5 over the FX83, so that'd mean you'd be pimping out the i7 with the R9 290X, as the i5 is "Not worth it" over the FX83 as you've said many a time......)
No one's saying they don't run "fine" (Ignoring the fact how subjective saying something is running fine is) but factually, it is and will get bottlenecked (How much vastly depends on the games and resolution)
The reason I ignore Alex, as frankly what he says flys in the face of next to everyone else who have used the set ups (Like now, you've got Panos, Aveneged etc, all using set ups, all noticing differences, instead you go to Alex, who sees "No difference", even on WoW, which will see a difference, regardless of how many time he says they're the same FPS) but what's the point in bringing this up? It'll just get discounted as everything else does, wouldn't even say I'm spouting Panos, he's posted in this thread, his experience, it's on topic and you've said you believe his opinion (Which again, makes no sense, because he's mentioned about bottlenecking a 79XX Crossfire, but given your response to Beasty means you don't believe it at all)
No one says you get a bad experience with FX83 point blank (Well maybe Boomstick, but I've had him on ignore for about a year anyway
), no one at all, it's only your twisting that means it seem that way.I mean hell, given that little snippet in your sig, it's silly to even try and take my comments out of context, I'm a big fan of the value they represent, they've changed the scope on what you can get on a budget CPU wise. But that doesn't mean I'm going to pretend they're more than they are, (And I've been saying how good price/performance it is since it launched in October 2012,)
I rarely ever mention the i7 in comparison to the FX, unless it's very high end GPU set ups (Because the i5 doesn't cut it when we're getting to the heavier hitters which are more threaded, which need that extra GPU grunt really, even though it's only a small amount of games, it may/should grow in future)
Whereas you seem to hate the i5, and refuse to suggest it over an FX83 point blank (While calling me an Intel preacher, this that and the other) you completely flat out ignore just how many times I'm happy to suggest AMD rigs, here's one I did earlier
; http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18586026I literally have no bias, perhaps that's why I'm so outspoken, because I can't understand brand loyality, you go where the numbers take you, that's what I care about, the pure numbers, not what sticker it has on it.
As for "owning" an FX83, I haven't, but I've used an FX83 and an FX63 in builds I've done.
And you can't really downplay Thuban, given how Humbug's just had an 1100T (Still lower clocked than I had my Thuban at) beating a 4.6GHZ FX6300 in Cinebench (FPU performance) Highly clocked Thuban chips will still ride with the highest end of AMD stuff in far, far more games than they don't.
OP's mentioned his i7 4770K and board is arriving Tuesday, so we'll see if he notices differences.
End of the day, I have you on ignore for a reason, and should stop reading your comments, it's just full of contradictions and u-turns and your "opinion" changing like the wind in what you say (Or at least it seems that, one minute you're saying you can't see the FX83 bottlenecking a 7990 and we're all obviously lunactics, then in the first sentence you're saying you need something more than an FX83 to get the most out of an R9 290X, which has less grunt than the 7990. Which then doesn't make sense, as you never see a point of the i5 over the FX83, so that'd mean you'd be pimping out the i7 with the R9 290X, as the i5 is "Not worth it" over the FX83 as you've said many a time......)
Last edited:
- Joined
- 13 Jan 2013
- Posts
- 1,047
- Location
- County Durham
They are arriving tommorow i7 4770k,gigabyte z87oc m/b and new ek waterblock as my koolance 380 doesn't have intel fittings and getting the fittings from the US will cost £30 in shipping for a £6 part which is ridiculous but I will report back tommorow with my findings.i have noticed though that I do get gpu spikes when monitoring in afterburner and crysis 3 isn't as smooth as I would have thought with 290x xfire.
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2012
- Posts
- 11,698
- Location
- Surrey
Afterburner does not report load for Hawaii well. Use GPU-Z and itl be much smoother.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 30,515
- Location
- Dormanstown.
In the latest beta, he's changed the algorithm, I don't know how accurate it is, but it seems far, far better.
GPUZ isn't really good, as it does min/average/max doesn't it? So it isn't really helpful
Don't mind us OP... 
Except when "if he says he notices a difference, that's all I need"
What's impressive there I think is not that the 1100T keeps up, but that the FX63 does so well for what it is. At launch the 1100T was $260, the FX6300... $132. It has 3 modules = only 3 floating point units. So half the price, half the FPUs, but still a good compute option, approx. as good as the best of the previous generation.
It's a bit like a Nehalem i3 (if there were such a thing) going neck-and-neck with a QX9xxx.
Except when "if he says he notices a difference, that's all I need"
What's impressive there I think is not that the 1100T keeps up, but that the FX63 does so well for what it is. At launch the 1100T was $260, the FX6300... $132. It has 3 modules = only 3 floating point units. So half the price, half the FPUs, but still a good compute option, approx. as good as the best of the previous generation.
It's a bit like a Nehalem i3 (if there were such a thing) going neck-and-neck with a QX9xxx.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 13 Jan 2013
- Posts
- 1,047
- Location
- County Durham
I've been using beta 18 if that's the latest?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 30,515
- Location
- Dormanstown.
Don't mind us OP...
Except when "if he says he notices a difference, that's all I need"
Well that's a bit selective.
But I think you're just attempting to wind me up again tbh.
EDIT : Just tested Fifa 14 with MSI Afterburner, R9 290, seems to work fine now.
Last edited:
Permabanned
- Joined
- 15 Dec 2008
- Posts
- 3,417
My at the time 4.8Ghz 2600k bottlenecked my at the time 7950 at 1080p and anyone saying an FX would easily push a 280x or faster at 1080p is deluded.
Even my current 5Ghz 3770k bottlenecks my R290 is a few games, Case in point Crysis 1. That game reduces my FPS to low to mid 40's with the GPU use dropping to 75-80% at those points.
And that's at 2560x1440 too!!!
As Intel releases newer CPU's that offer more performance the performance per pound goes down on the FX.
Haswell can be a good 15-20% faster per clock then a Sandy Bridge CPU and yet a 4770k is no more expensive then a 2600k was at the time.
Intel maybe more expensive but every time they release a new CPU they keep the pricing inline with the previous generation.
2600k, 3770k and 4770k all released at the same price point so every time Intel release a new CPU performance per pound rating goes up.
Heck the way Intel is going a similarly priced and locked Quad-Core could end up smacking an overclocked FX around in the not too distant future.
Even my current 5Ghz 3770k bottlenecks my R290 is a few games, Case in point Crysis 1. That game reduces my FPS to low to mid 40's with the GPU use dropping to 75-80% at those points.
And that's at 2560x1440 too!!!
As Intel releases newer CPU's that offer more performance the performance per pound goes down on the FX.
Haswell can be a good 15-20% faster per clock then a Sandy Bridge CPU and yet a 4770k is no more expensive then a 2600k was at the time.
Intel maybe more expensive but every time they release a new CPU they keep the pricing inline with the previous generation.
2600k, 3770k and 4770k all released at the same price point so every time Intel release a new CPU performance per pound rating goes up.
Heck the way Intel is going a similarly priced and locked Quad-Core could end up smacking an overclocked FX around in the not too distant future.
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Jul 2005
- Posts
- 21,107
- Location
- Officially least sunny location -Ronskistats
Well to hand there was Teppic - yet another guy you seem to rag up on the forums (is there a pattern emerging here?) but quite honestly I don't beat myself up over it, I should just ignore you but I am too mature to block people on a forum where people should know better.
I do believe it. It is in certain situations and games, which all I have said is prove it to me.. which you don't really do - but that doesn't constitute I am ignorant. Now you are the one taking me out of context, I owned a 7990 before it went to RMA land, for me it worked great but then again my monitor is holding this system back. I think you are confusing me with Andy who you had some proper childish ding dongs with which is why people don't take you too seriously. I can already see joeyjojo is taking to you - there is a reason for this, it is your attitude!
But you never benched/tested them even though you had a chance, which is strange as you seem to be so passionate about knocking the performance - you didn't bother. I think you want me to hate the i5, the difference being is if you can afford one then buy one, again out of context. There is a difference defending a budget choice which I have done in the past, in fact it is only you who takes up the soap box as I think you enjoy it, or enjoy trying to make others seem stupid.
A few times I did, see above for why (budget).
Anyway whilst I enjoy our discrepancies, I do not have the time to go around the same old head bangers with you. If you dislike me enough to ignore me and openly take time to tittle tattle then I guess I will have to live with that.
It's a shame really as you seem an intelligent guy but your debating skills need maybe another 5+ years to get peoples respect, not just here but in life. I know you are a young lad so I will take it with a pinch of salt.
Apologies to the OP as it veered off course after the sell one gpu for monitor suggestion!
Almighty your the only person i know that has a decent CPU bottlenecked by you dual card setup, yet i had no such problems with my i5 2500K, you want to check and make sure your core are unparked and are not running too many background apps, there are many other reason you might get a drop in usage whilst gaming
Still amazed by how many think that the i7 is better than the i5 at GAMING, this is a myth, there is so little in it that its not even worth mentioning, physics is about the only thing it copes with better in games, otherwise there is little difference at high resolution gaming that translates in to FPS
If you do more than game then yes i7 might be a better choice
Still amazed by how many think that the i7 is better than the i5 at GAMING, this is a myth, there is so little in it that its not even worth mentioning, physics is about the only thing it copes with better in games, otherwise there is little difference at high resolution gaming that translates in to FPS
If you do more than game then yes i7 might be a better choice
Permabanned
- Joined
- 15 Dec 2008
- Posts
- 3,417
Dude I had a 2500k... then moved to a 2600k and now this 3770k..
There's a bottleneck there so open your eyes...
My system is running more then fine.. And im not the only person to have a limitation on an i7 with dual cards.... People that know and understand what a CPU limitation is say they have them.
And Battlefield, Crysis 3 and a few others all show the i7 is superior then the i5... I know I noticed a dent jump when moving form a 2500k to a 2600k in a decent amount of titles.
There's a bottleneck there so open your eyes...
My system is running more then fine.. And im not the only person to have a limitation on an i7 with dual cards.... People that know and understand what a CPU limitation is say they have them.
And Battlefield, Crysis 3 and a few others all show the i7 is superior then the i5... I know I noticed a dent jump when moving form a 2500k to a 2600k in a decent amount of titles.
I think what he is trying to get across is whilst you still only game at 1080P you have not really gained any thing as a single 290X would have done just the same job in the majority of games out there
if you had a 120hz screen then maybe had a good case, but for what its worth two 280X and a 1440P screen would have served you just the same
think from what i have read so far it just seems to me you have done thing a little arse backwards so to speak, or at least gone a different path than the rest of us would have
Personally i would have stuck with what you had and used a single 290X or 780ti and got a 1440P screen
Good luck with your new hardware, be interesting to see if you think it was worth it, after all thats all that matters
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Jul 2005
- Posts
- 21,107
- Location
- Officially least sunny location -Ronskistats
/applauds
/bows
Yes, thank you Tazoo that is what I was getting at. You would spend zero money and get a balanced system (so you can save up for a better planned out solution next time round). I'l get my coat with my lack of knowledge on i5/7's hat on the way out!
Permabanned
- Joined
- 15 Dec 2008
- Posts
- 3,417
I think what he is trying to get across is whilst you still only game at 1080P you have not really gained any thing as a single 290X would have done just the same job in the majority of games out there
if you had a 120hz screen then maybe had a good case, but for what its worth two 280X and a 1440P screen would have served you just the same
think from what i have read so far it just seems to me you have done thing a little arse backwards so to speak, or at least gone a different path than the rest of us would have
Personally i would have stuck with what you had and used a single 290X or 780ti and got a 1440P screen
Good luck with your new hardware, be interesting to see if you think it was worth it, after all thats all that matters
I did things the same way as the OP... got the GPU horse power first then got a 1440p monitor,
My eyes are open thank you and im not wasting time arguing with you, if you call the below results as superior then i guess your right and im wrong, but by definition this is far from superior, i only know of 2 games that are better optimized for 8 core, i know of ZERO game that use hyperthreading, waste of money just for gaming, but if thats floats your boat then bang tidy
Crysis 3
1920 x 1080, max details, max AA, max AF fps Index
Core i7-4770K Stock 21.2 100.00 %
Core i7-4770K 4.5G 21.8 102.83 %
Core i5-4670K Stock 21.6 101.89 %
Core i5-4670K 4.5G 21.4 100.94 %
BF3
1920 x 1080, max details, max AA, max AF fps Index
Core i7-4770K Stock 82.0 100.00 %
Core i7-4770K 4.5G 82.0 100.00 %
Core i5-4670K Stock 81.2 99.02 %
Core i5-4670K 4.5G 81.6 99.51 %
Farcry 3
1920 x 1080, max details, max AA, max AF fps Index
Core i7-4770K Stock 31.6 100.00 %
Core i7-4770K 4.5G 32.6 103.16 %
Core i5-4670K Stock 32.2 101.90 %
Core i5-4670K 4.5G 32.8 103.80 %
Unigine Heaven 4.0 Extreme Preset
Extreme Preset Points Index
Core i7-4770K Stock 1192 100.00 %
Core i7-4770K 4.5G 1207 101.26 %
Core i5-4670K Stock 1192 100.00 %
Core i5-4670K 4.5G 1204 101.01 %
http://www.ocaholic.ch/modules/smartsection/item.php?page=0&itemid=1061
Crysis 3
1920 x 1080, max details, max AA, max AF fps Index
Core i7-4770K Stock 21.2 100.00 %
Core i7-4770K 4.5G 21.8 102.83 %
Core i5-4670K Stock 21.6 101.89 %
Core i5-4670K 4.5G 21.4 100.94 %
BF3
1920 x 1080, max details, max AA, max AF fps Index
Core i7-4770K Stock 82.0 100.00 %
Core i7-4770K 4.5G 82.0 100.00 %
Core i5-4670K Stock 81.2 99.02 %
Core i5-4670K 4.5G 81.6 99.51 %
Farcry 3
1920 x 1080, max details, max AA, max AF fps Index
Core i7-4770K Stock 31.6 100.00 %
Core i7-4770K 4.5G 32.6 103.16 %
Core i5-4670K Stock 32.2 101.90 %
Core i5-4670K 4.5G 32.8 103.80 %
Unigine Heaven 4.0 Extreme Preset
Extreme Preset Points Index
Core i7-4770K Stock 1192 100.00 %
Core i7-4770K 4.5G 1207 101.26 %
Core i5-4670K Stock 1192 100.00 %
Core i5-4670K 4.5G 1204 101.01 %
http://www.ocaholic.ch/modules/smartsection/item.php?page=0&itemid=1061