[Kathy]

 486DX2, on 11 May 2013 - 12:38 PM, said:

Regardless, running either of those processors at stock speeds should get you tried in the Hague.

Please expain.

[DustFalcon85]

 486DX2, on 13 May 2013 - 04:57 PM, said:

Who makes the PSU? Is it by a company like Antec? Or a company like Dai Yao Ai Gong Ping?

It's a ThermalTake TR2-600W. I'm having a feeling that you're gonna tell the the PSU sucks right?

[Person of Color]

It's good, not great. But it's free, so who gives a shit?

[DustFalcon85]

 Hendricks266, on 27 December 2012 - 06:13 AM, said:

In 2012, AMD is pretty awful. Their latest processor, FX (Bulldozer) performs worse than their previous lineup and does not compete with Intel performance-wise.

I came up with a name for them: the "Alternative Microprocessor Distributor" to Intel.

Does the FX Piledriver series apply to AMD's awfulness, Hendricks?

Anyways my i5-3570K has arrived. The next step is finding a MB (w/ optional OC) and a suitable Computer Case and (probably) PSU. Thinking a/b making another topic a/b suggestions to the parts.

[You]

.

[Person of Color]

 DustFalcon85, on 16 May 2013 - 10:42 AM, said:

Does the FX Piledriver series apply to AMD's awfulness, Hendricks?

Anyways my i5-3570K has arrived. The next step is finding a MB (w/ optional OC) and a suitable Computer Case and (probably) PSU. Thinking a/b making another topic a/b suggestions to the parts.

The Piledrivers are good but I don't like the price.

At Micro Center, they are an okay deal, I guess, but I liked the Phenoms a lot more. Thing is, Micro Center sells them at a loss.

The FX series are bukkake'd with transistors. There's a billion of 'em. That shit ain't cheap.

[DustFalcon85]

 486DX2, on 27 May 2013 - 08:21 PM, said:

The FX series are bukkake'd with transistors. There's a billion of 'em. That shit ain't cheap.

I like your sense of humor 486!

[DustFalcon85]

Intel has now rolled out w/ their new 4th Generation "Haswell" Processors. A successor to the "Ivy Bridge" microarchitecture. Is anyone upgrading those "Haswell" processors in the future? I wonder what AMD's "Steamroller" microarchitecture will be like? Will it still come nowhere near close to Intel's "Haswell"?

[Mr.Deviance]

The decision for me has been simple in the last 8 years or so.
Intel = fast cpus but very expensive, (many times, much more expensive than the performance you get for the money)
Amd = slow cpus but much cheaper

The decision is up to you.
I myself prefer Intel but I don't buy the absolute most expensive models.

[DustFalcon85]

 Mr.Deviance, on 06 June 2013 - 07:51 AM, said:

The decision for me has been simple in the last 8 years or so.
Intel = fast cpus but very expensive, (many times, much more expensive than the performance you get for the money)
Amd = slow cpus but much cheaper

The decision is up to you.
I myself prefer Intel but I don't buy the absolute most expensive models.

Not to mention the Intels are more energy efficient than AMD's. An i5-3570K (which I got for my new computer build) uses 77 watts, while the AMD FX's uses 95-125 watts.

[Mr.Deviance]

 DustFalcon85, on 06 June 2013 - 08:32 AM, said:

Not to mention the Intels are more energy efficient than AMD's. An i5-3570K (which I got for my new computer build) uses 77 watts, while the AMD FX's uses 95-125 watts.

Well I didn't mention that because I never look for energy efficiency when I buy a product.
All my means of selection relate to high performance and price ratio.

[Person of Color]

 DustFalcon85, on 06 June 2013 - 05:57 AM, said:

I wonder what AMD's "Steamroller" microarchitecture will be like?

I can see the headlines now:

"AMD's new Steamroller architecture gives PC owners a Cleveland Steamer." -Tom's Hardware

Although they got some new chip guys in recently like the legendary Jim Keller so it will be really cool to see what happens a few generations from now.

[High Treason]

 Mr.Deviance, on 06 June 2013 - 07:51 AM, said:

The decision for me has been simple in the last 8 years or so.
Intel = fast cpus but very expensive, (many times, much more expensive than the performance you get for the money)
Amd = slow cpus but much cheaper

The decision is up to you.
I myself prefer Intel but I don't buy the absolute most expensive models.

I don't usually get in on these threads, but price is becoming irrelevant now. The i5 3570 and FX 8140 are around the same price now, as are other cpus accross the two series. Intel has finally closed the gap on price/performance.

At least, from what I've seen, I only really watch the Xeon processors these days since the Opteron fell off the chart and I have no use for desktop processors.

[Person of Color]

It's better to just buy an i5 and overclock it than to waste your money on a Xeon.

[High Treason]

Try saying that in the film industry. Xeons have a much better feature set and are far more future proof. Stability is mandatory, overclocking is not an option.

Edit: That's not to say this isn't a viable option for a desktop or gaming computer.

[Person of Color]

I've personally overclocked tons of things, from PC's to cell phones, and I've never had long term stability issues. I overclocked my friend's i5 to 4.5GHz, it's stable as a rock and has been for months, and it tested Prime95 stable for 12+ hours.

Proper hardware + proper cooling + proper stability testing = Stable as a stock, off the shelf build.

I fucked up that one time with my current board, but everyone makes mistakes. Still, it took me ten years.

[High Treason]

Doesn't all this additional cooling and stuff cost a lot of money, thus invalidating the whole argument? Overclocking can be fun but it simply isn't tolerated in a professional environment. In short, you're using a different machine for a different task in a different environment.

People said I wasted my money when I spent 3K on the current machine 8 years back, funny thing is, I didn't spend much more to keep it running whereas they had to spend thousands on new systems over those years and are the sort to mess with overclocking, my board doesn't even have options for it.

To clarify, I'm not saying what you suggest is wrong, I am merely saying it isn't right for me. My setup probably wouldn't be right for you though.

[Kathy]

I never overclock and probably never will. I'd rather have stable and cool cpu. I actually underclocked my Phenom II a bit so that it wouldn't overheat too much. Don't know if MB was applying wrong voltage or my heatsink suck despite me double checking and reassembling everything.

[Forge]

i run an athlon II X2 (which can apparently be unlocked into a phenom II or X4 if i bother to flash my bios and access ACC) & a 9800 gtx+ (both old & outdated, but still working the same as when i purchased it brand new according to cpuZ)

i can play most properly designed polymer maps without a hitch or lag

[sheridanm962]

I'd say mainly AMD but I don't really see why choose one over the other.

Both are great and if you had the right money Intel has some really good CPU's. But regarding Overclocking the Ivy Bridge and Haswell have had the worst heat spreader experience so overclocking is out of the question unless you want to do some DIY and fix that shit. Other than that I'd say Sandy-E or if an Ivy-E comes out that'll be good. For Graphics cards I'd pick AMD over Nvidia since both are relatively the same given the leapfrog factor and price (AMD being good for budget builds and Nvidia being best for Anti Aliasing and Vsync).

But I'm not really here to say "Hurr this is better because blah blah blah :words:", I want to point out that it doesn't matter between AMD or Intel for CPU's you choose, it's the factor of whether or not you can afford it and what your needs are pretty much works really. Also the CPU isn't the main part in which should be the most expensive, generally the Graphics card is. So with that in mind let me give you an example:

If I got an i5 CPU with only one Graphics Card I'll have some pretty well spoken performance overall (Given the PSU is good quality too).

But if I got an i3 or AMD CPU (Phenom, FX etc) and got two graphics cards (Yes the same as above but times two), you'll yield better performance in games (And really who the fuck needs a good CPU for browsing the web???? Not anyone).

Also 8GB of RAM is kind of pushing it far. I'd say 2-4GB Minimum and 16GB as an upgrade in the future (for Affordability sake).

So yeah, that pretty much does it for this debate over Intel vs AMD, they both win fuck the fanboy's.

[Kathy]

With current amount of RAM in new consoles I'd say 8GB rapidly becomes minimun for a gamer.

[sheridanm962]

 Cathy, on 11 June 2013 - 08:57 AM, said:

With current amount of RAM in new consoles I'd say 8GB rapidly becomes minimun for a gamer.

Well for games coming out now it's certainly going to become a necessity.

[Person of Color]

 sheridanm962, on 11 June 2013 - 03:13 AM, said:

I'd say mainly AMD but I don't really see why choose one over the other.

Both are great and if you had the right money Intel has some really good CPU's. But regarding Overclocking the Ivy Bridge and Haswell have had the worst heat spreader experience so overclocking is out of the question unless you want to do some DIY and fix that shit.

The heat spreader is really terrible, but honestly I have my friend's 3570k running at 4.5GHz on a cheap $30 Hyper212 EVO cooler. I forget what it hits under load, but I'm pretty sure it's low 70's. There's no need to get rid of it.

The temps with Ivy are deceptive though, because even though the core temps are very high, the heatsink remains cool to the touch. The 3D transistor design traps in heat as well. Getting the heat out of the core is a bigger problem.

[DustFalcon85]

 486DX2, on 06 June 2013 - 09:29 PM, said:

"AMD's new Steamroller architecture gives PC owners a Cleveland Steamer." -Tom's Hardware

Impressive!

[DustFalcon85]

Intel kicked AMD's dick 3-1. Intel is winner! *makes Intel's trademark noise* wwwwhhhhheeeewwww Dun-dun-dun-DUN!!!!

[Gamers]

Frankly speaking I like AMD FX better than Intel I7 series. It gives better game play experience.

[Person of Color]

 Gamers, on 18 July 2013 - 11:19 PM, said:

Frankly speaking I like AMD FX better than Intel I7 series. It gives better game play experience.

I'd love to hear this explained.

[DustFalcon85]

 Viper The Rapper, on 19 July 2013 - 09:51 PM, said:

I'd love to hear this explained.

Yeah tell him why IYO that the FX series is shit. BTW Viper (aka 486DX2) Just bought this laptop w/ an Intel w/ NVidia GTX 660M. I'm also a few steps away from finishing my i5-3570K PC build and then I'm ready to roll!

 Hendricks266, on 27 December 2012 - 06:13 AM, said:

In 2012, AMD is pretty awful. Their latest processor, FX (Bulldozer) performs worse than their previous lineup and does not compete with Intel performance-wise.

I came up with a name for them: the "Alternative Microprocessor Distributor" to Intel.

Then check out the AMD FX's Bulldozer's true performance!:

[Person of Color]

That laptop is fantastic. MSI makes terrible motherboards but their video cards and laptops are some of the best in the industry.

I was looking at getting an MSI as well but I got that Asus three and a half years ago, refurb, for $800. I practically stole it.

[DustFalcon85]

AMD just released it first ever 5GHz FX-9590. Details here. Too much power consumption at 220-watts! I'll pass on this one.