|51 posts found|
OP 4/02/13 9:10:33 PM#21
I will reconsider AMD but I know they tend to be lacking in gaming performance...or I just wait for new intel socket since 1155 is already at the end of it's cycle, I think.
4/02/13 9:21:37 PM#22
Originally posted by Gdemami
You're forgetting that person B is going to buy two more new cards before person A gets his next one. You should count those, too.
If your next CPU upgrade after this one is the same percentage upgrade as what you're planning on this time, it will take you about three upgrade cycles to end up with something competitive with an FX-6300. At $65 CPU + $55 motherboard + $40 memory + $100 OS license, that's $260 for this upgrade, and presumably about that for your next two, for about $780 in total. Make that $140 CPU + $70 motherboard + $60 memory + $100 OS license this time and you get the same end performance, much better performance today, and spend less than half as much as you would have in total with a smaller upgrade.
You say that games don't benefit from more than two cores. Often that's because the video card is a bottleneck first. Often it's because the game doesn't need much CPU power. The latter can easily happen when game developers feel the need to keep hardware needs down so that people still running an aging dual core can play the game.
But what happens when game developers start feeling comfortable with assuming that customers have at least a quad core? That could happen soon, as even tablets and cell phones are starting to commonly get quad core processors, let alone desktops. The dual core Pentium could completely choke. The FX-6300 will still be plenty good, as it has six cores.
A Pentium G2020 may well be able to run nearly everything decently today. But then, even your old processor from 2006 can run the bulk of games decently today. What do you think will happen five years from now? It's a near lock that five years from now, there will be a ton of games that run very well on an FX-6300 but poorly on a Pentium G2020, and essentially none the other way around. If you buy an FX-6300 today, you'll be able to still use it then. If you buy a Pentium G2020, you'll need to have replaced it at least once long before then.
For that matter, in games that scale well to many cores, an FX-6300 can roughly keep pace with the enthusiast standard Core i5-3570K--whether you're comparing stock clocks to stock clocks or max overclock of each. Making a game scale well to many cores isn't hard to do, and future games that need a lot of CPU power will probably mostly do it.
4/02/13 9:28:55 PM#23
Originally posted by Gdemami
What I think you're doing is comparing a high end Intel part to a high end AMD part, seeing that Intel wins at the high end, and assuming that a low end Intel part also beats a high end AMD part. To put it in video card terms, it's like seeing that a GeForce GTX Titan beats a Radeon HD 7970 GHz Edition, concluding that Nvidia cards are all better than AMD cards, and then going out and buying a GeForce GT 640, thinking that it must be a lot faster than, say, a Radeon HD 7870, because it has an Nvidia sticker on it.
It's the particular part that matters, not the brand name on the label. Atom offers absolutely dismal gaming performance, in spite of the Intel sticker. Recent Intel architectures offer higher IPC than recent AMD architectures, which means better performance at the same clock speed. That's why a Core i5-3570K will beat an FX-8350 in single-threaded performance, in spite of being clocked slightly lower.
But that's something that you can make up for with higher clock speeds, if the clock speed gap is big enough. And an FX-6300 at 4.2 GHz (max turbo) might well beat a Pentium G2020 at 2.9 GHz even in purely single-threaded performance, as that's a pretty big gap in clock speed. For comparison, the max turbo on the Core i5-3570K is something like 3.8 GHz or 3.9 GHz, and it also has a lot more cache than the Pentium G2020.
4/02/13 11:23:54 PM#24
If we are getting into "Just Sayin'", there was a GTX 5870...
But yeah - a ~mostly~ hypothetical example using ~mostly~ hypothetical cards - it's rare that a top-tier card doesn't cost ~$500 at release, the actual AMD 5870 was somewhat of an exception.
And to follow up to the OP - yeah, your forgetting about the 2-3 more cards that Player B would continue to purchase, while Player A would continue to play very happily on their second card, and enjoy better performance over all the entire time until Player B finally catches up on their 3rd-4th card. It's a perpetual circle, at least until you decide you want out of the PC gaming racket and go do something silly like grow up and stop playing video games (or sigh softly and give in to the dark side of the console).
But all in all, it's your money, and this thread has pretty much degenerated into trollbait, and I'm partially ashamed that I fell for it.
OP 4/03/13 4:57:17 PM#25
No, I should not.
The way I put the numbers together is correct. The difference is that cycle of more frequent upgrades will be longer(ie. 500 USDF card will last me 3 years before next upgrade but 3 continuous upgrades will last me 4 years).
Your numbers are totally off. There is no reason to replace MB and RAM all the time, you only replace CPU and even if I was silly enough to buy OEM, I will only need 1 in 2-3 upgrade cycles, not each one. Also, my system will be most likely moving due work to linux distro anyway.
Then again, smaller upgrades cycles are longer.
OP 4/03/13 5:03:03 PM#26
Hm...I am not sure why you get such impression. Only what concerns me is value for money which means I pretty much ignore any high end, it's awful in that regard. What matters is stuff I can buy for my budget.
4/03/13 5:54:43 PM#27
I think you are worried too much about what a chart says =)
I am not a pro like some of the other people that post here, but I have been building my own computers for many many years.
IMO if you want to do incremental upgrades then its your money to do as you wish. But its a waste of money in the end and your only getting a small upgrade each time. Your money is better spent actually buying something decent from the start instead of upgrading an old cpu with a slightly less old outdated cpu ( or gpu for that matter).
You posted asking for advice and dont seem to want to listen to what anyone else advises lol.
Its your money so spend it how you wish, throw good money after bad is your right.
OP 4/03/13 6:27:38 PM#28
Yeah, that 120 USD spent on E2160 serving me well for 6 years is surely wasted money. Instead, I should have been spending +300 USD and needed to upgrade today anyway...
4/03/13 6:45:57 PM#29
Originally posted by Gdemami
If that served you well for 6 years then you must have low needs & expectations out of a computer. And with that in mind the $300 better cpu would probably still be serving you well with what little needs you do have.
If your happy with that kind of performance and it fits your needs then all good =) But for most of us incremental upgrading is not a viable or cost saving way to spend money on computers. And when it comes down to it its your money and time. You asked for advice so people gave it. Sorry most of it does not agree with you.
Good luck to you with whatever you choose =)
OP 4/03/13 6:57:02 PM#30
Yep, my "low needs & expectations" make me fine with 80 FPS instead of 200(yes, I care that you can't tell a difference) but then do not speak about cost savings, please...
Q6600 was priced just around those 300 USD in 2007 when I bought E2160 for 120 USD. That means that I have 180 USD left in this time span where I can:
1) Purchase same Q6600 today for 100USD(or less), saving 80 USD.
Hard Core Member
4/03/13 7:40:50 PM#31
Originally posted by Gdemami
Out of my experience, you need the following:
4 cores or more is absolute a must !
AMD is cheaper, Intel is not essential needed, im on a amd-8150, 8-core at 4,2ghz, but im compiling a lot on Linux, gamers dont need 8 cores, 4 cores is perfectly fine.
Intel CPUs are real powerpacks. For my AMD8150 i payed 199.-€, a comparable intel chip is 350.-€ upwards.
Dont go with the ultracheap, you get mobo's for 25.-$, avoid that, its shit.
Instead try to find the right mainboard for the CPU you selected, speak to your e-tech dealer.
Plan on 60-120.-$ for a mobo.
Common is DDR3-1600mhz.
I use a 1866mhz Corsair Dominator because my CPU supports the ram speed and the mobo (Bios!) does as well.
Have a look at what your upcoming CPU supports as well as your motherboard.
You are on the line with your PC, to get over it, you need to get rid of the shit.
Dont use hybrid mobo's supporting DDR2 and DDR3, go for the native new way of life.
8GB is pretty mutch enuff, while 4GB is a little low on 64bit systems, your game wants 4GB already.
Well, you propably need a new PSU as yours may miss some needed wires.
While 500w might be enuff, you should drop some bucks to a new one because PSU's tend to have losses over the years.
Calculate another 60.-$ for that.
Im using an Arctec water cooler for the first time and i think thats a cute little piece.
The standart fan's can barely deal with the (AMD) CPU heat, mine has 7°C as i write this now.
It has ~30°C under full load. I think it was ~80.-€ for the watercooler.
Oh well yeah, thats a evergreen, people discuss for ages between Nvidia and AMD(ATI).
I had bad experience with the only ATI card i ever had, so i was using Nvidia for at least the last 15 years.
Now, i got a 560ti what i bought for ~180.-€ but i bet, the new 6xx cards are cheaper, so if you choose Nvidia, go absolutly with a 6xx because of the new FXAA.
One more reason i use Nvidia is, they are very Linux friendly.
Everything works incredible faster from a SSD.
The effect is that big, that i copy the game im actually playing the most, to my SSD.
Classical HDDs slow down the whole PC significantly !
All that is a little more expensive then what you may have in mind.
For me, it was not doable in one go, i collected all the parts over about 6 months.
All that is stored in a 30 years old and pretty solid IBM bigtower, the ones with 1,5mm sheet metal instead of 0,5mm like todays 20.- bucks cases.
My PC runs perfectly fine with everything.
Try to avoid using the healthy but old parts.
It has cost about 800.-€ and ruffly 10 hrs education as i had to learn what i need and what was realistic.
Then, there is this new 27" 2ms Tera screen for cheap 200.-€. Full and real native HD1080, its bombastic!
The problem you are running into is, you cannot use your old parts on your new computer and you cannot use the new parts on your old computer.
Money seems to be a marker, so i really suggest you get the (slightly better) parts over the time instead of carry 1k dollars to your dealer.
Good luck on your voyage ^^
4/03/13 7:44:05 PM#32
Originally posted by Gdemami
Now I know you are trolling.
Getting 80 fps on what game exactly? baldurs gate ? and at what settings? lowest?
Nothing released in the past 4-5 years for sure. If your fine with what your getting then good for you I say.
If you want to get pissy and throw insults then thats on you friend. The only one who looks like a dumbass is you.
OP 4/03/13 8:01:12 PM#33
No, you just do not know what you talk about...
To measure an impact of your CPU on games, you fit the best VGA you can get and then run games at minimal settings. That way you completely rule out VGA and all measurement will be related to CPU.
When you do so, you will find out that regardless of CPU used, your frame rate is pretty high.
That is because games simply do not need much CPU power to run(exception are RTS games that use AI heavily, stressing CPU a lot and to some extent FPS games because of their complex physics modeling).
I appreciate all advice given but when I point you out why some advice is bad or I disagree with, either discuss or leave it. There no point trying to make me look like an ass/stupid when it's you who's arguments and assumptions are fallacious.
4/04/13 2:11:00 AM#34
I"ve been watching this thread and at times I felt like offering advice but to be quite frank the OP seems to already knows what is best for him/herself and any sensable advice given is treated as if those providing said advice are the ones who dont' know what they are talking about, regardless of their proven past history of logical sound advice for others (here is a hint, you can look up EVERYONE's post history), so I refrained. Which leads to wonder, why ask for advice if you yourself aren't willing to accept perhaps your own thought process might be whats wrong to begin with?
While I don't actually think the OP is a troll it's obvious they are not at all interested in becoming educated on the most cost effective way to purchase computer parts thanks to some preconceived notion that completely ignores basic economics. That is all...
P.S. OP you do realize not all games are actually optimized for GPU's over CPU's don't you? While that number is significantly smaller than the other way around there are enough well known games that easily get bottlenecked by the CPU long before a GPU upgrade would provide any benefit you can't just ignore it and make blanket statements like your last one. And now I am done...
OP 4/04/13 6:11:53 PM#35
Another chart for CPU performance in games I found, although it is a bit more difficult to read since it is in Polish.
The best value for money CPU in whole test is Intel G860 which is just slightly slower and more expensive G2020 thus should get even better ratio.
Anyone can provide some insight?
4/04/13 7:20:43 PM#36
Originally posted by Gdemami
The best you could do to prove your point is a chart in some foreign language in which your processor of choice (an Ivy Bridge Pentium dual core) gets crushed by a bunch of AMD models? If there was any doubt before that you were trolling, that pretty much settled it. At this point, I'm more concerned with preventing some forum lurker who is too shy to ask for help himself (which is what you should do, Mr. Forum Lurker) from thinking you're serious than with helping you.
Anyway, if you can always upgrade a processor without needing a new motherboard, memory, or OS license, then why are you looking to replace the motherboard and memory this time?
While you may be able to find a Core i5-3570K used in four years, it won't cost much less than buying it new today. And it will be crippled by the cheap junk motherboard you're looking at, as that will disable overclocking entirely and probably even throttle back turbo boost.
LGA 1155 in particular is set to be replaced by a different socket for Haswell in about two months. The entire industry will move to DDR4 memory in about a year, and that will mean a new socket for everything.
Hard Core Member
4/04/13 7:42:52 PM#37
The OP is asking for advice and getting very good feedback, but he/she is telling everyone that they are wrong. LMAO
4/05/13 12:38:09 AM#38
Originally posted by Quizzical
Thanks for that bit of info, I am looking to get a new computer for my wife, with no huge rush, but sometime this year, and while I usually buy higher end stuff so it use to last a good 2-3 years (3 usually), but the current one has lasted and given her good performance for about 5-6 years...So I usually do not change out parts, as I usually give the old computer to my mom, her parents, or a friend with lower requirements, I will probably wait for the new chips/motherboards, so it will atleast be a little more capable for the upgrade....Unless they try to kill you on price. I knew the chips were coming out from reading here, but I missed the new socket.
4/05/13 12:57:29 AM#39
Originally posted by Xthos
Intel Haswell will use a new socket, and be a little faster than the Ivy Bridge processors that you can buy today, but not a lot faster. Furthermore, that's likely to be a short-lived socket, as it's still going to be DDR3.
Intel Ivy Bridge-E is coming later this year, and will presumably use the same socket as Sandy Bridge-E, but will be very expensive.
AMD Kaveri is coming late this year, and it's not known whether that will use a new socket or not. AMD might decide to have both a Socket FM3 version with DDR4 memory and also a Socket FM2 version with DDR3, much like what they did with having both DDR2 and DDR3 versions of Deneb (Phenom II). But half of the point of Kaveri will be the integrated graphics, so that's probably not what you want.
Intel Broadwell is coming next year, but rumors say that it may or may not even have a socketed version at all. Rumors also say that it's not going to offer much PCI Express bandwidth, either, which makes it sound like an Ultrabook chip, not an interesting desktop chip. Broadwell is going to be the first chip on Intel's upcoming 14 nm process node. That's a much bigger shrink from the previous 22 nm than foundries are normally willing to try in a single jump, so it wouldn't be the least bit surprising if process node troubles delay it considerably.
While AMD hasn't announced this, I'd expect them to make a chip with a bunch of Steamroller cores (same cores as Kaveri) and no integrated graphics next year. That will probably have DDR4 memory and use a new Socket AM4 or some such. AMD might also offer a Socket AM3+ version of it that would drop into current motherboards. AMD is promising big performance gains from Steamroller cores, though I doubt that they'll catch Intel in single-threaded performance. Even so, if they're not that far behind, say, Ivy Bridge, in single-threaded performance, getting 8 or 10 of those cores without having to spend a fortune could be a very nice product that will last a very long time. Thus far, Intel hasn't been willing to offer more than four cores without charging an arm and a leg for it, and they aren't rumored to change that approach anytime soon.
Apart from that, you'll likely be waiting until 2015. By then, everything new should be using DDR4 memory. DDR4 was originally supposed to be widely used last year, but got delayed for a variety of reasons.
OP 4/05/13 1:49:55 AM#40
In that case, you either cannot read graphs or posts you reply to, or both...