Computer purchasing advice

[GT182]

Spike, if you have a Tiger Direct store near you head ove there. The guys on the floor will give you an hand on putting together a really good desktop.

I have the same case as you and it's the best I've ever bought.... even better than the Thermaltake XaserIII I bought a few years ago.

[V13dweller]

Try the AMD Phenom II, they are much more powerfull than an i5, and they are just as effective as a. I7.
Like everything intel makes, they charge way to much for it.
My Phenom II x6 3.4 ghz plays games like sh5 without breaking a sweat (not literally)
And you can pick one up for around 100-250 Australian dollars.

[Arclight]

Sandy or Ivy Bridge i5 absolutely crushes Phenom II. Generally that won't make much difference since most games are limited by the GPU, but where the CPU is the bottleneck it isn't even a contest.

[V13dweller]

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/25...rmance-account This page can help Intel fanbois. Just saying. http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/272094-28-hate-guys We also have to take into account the price range, and the fact the Phenom II is three years old now. And AMD has newer processors to take on Intel's new ones. http://media.bestofmicro.com/W/M/369...leneck2013.png Look at these figures, the difference is marginal. This is what most people want to see, in Battlefield 3 http://media.bestofmicro.com/W/U/369...leneck2013.png

[Arclight]

... Fanboi? You don't think I might kinda know what I'm on about? Citing cherry-picked sources here isn't going to help you convince anyone.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/288?vs=146

I'll stand by my previous statement of it depending on the game. A lot of times it won't really matter; once you hit a comfortable framerate it doesn't really matter if it's 60 or 120. But to say Phenom II can get even close to Sandy or Ivy Bridge, strictly CPU performance wise, is outright nonsense.

[V13dweller]

There is no point going on, we all know this will go nowhere. (Just like politics)

There is enough Biased information wherever you go.
Unless Toms Hardware is not a reputable source, then I don't know then.

More Information, of the I7 Vs the Phenom II.

http://media.bestofmicro.com/W/I/369...leneck2013.png

This picture shows the difference is marginal.

http://media.bestofmicro.com/W/L/369...leneck2013.png

This image shows my point once again.

Here are some more of the I7 against AMD's latest FX 8350.

http://media.bestofmicro.com/L/F/367...md-oc-1920.png

Here is intel's I7

http://media.bestofmicro.com/L/I/367...intel-1920.png

Here are the 3D benchmark tests.
http://media.bestofmicro.com/W/I/369...leneck2013.png

These differences only make a very small impact on your gaming experience.
And the cost differences of these is much larger then the gap in their gaming performance.
The cost gap is usually 200-250 Dollars in most Australian Retailers.


I am not trying to change your opinion, because that is not what we are here for, but these figures are to show that these Processors are very, very close when it comes to performance and if you want to pay that extra $200, so be it.

[Arclight]

Originally Posted by V13dweller

These differences only make a very small impact on your gaming experience.

That's pretty much what I've been saying, with the noted exception that CPU-bound games will see a big difference. For pretty much everything but gaming, an i5 can be anything between 10-60% faster depending on the application. Single core performance is much higher than Phenom II.

This is what you were saying:

Originally Posted by V13dweller

Try the AMD Phenom II, they are much more powerfull than an i5, and they are just as effective as a. I7.

Which is blatantly false.


You're right, this isn't going anywhere. I feel that it is through no fault of mine though.

[V13dweller]

From all reviews I have read, Multi threaded applications (Like Sh5) run better on the AMD Phenom II x6, because they utilise all six cores.

This one from CPU-World.com shows that the Un-overclocked Phenom II runs Slightly better. http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/372...5_i5-2400.html

My AMD Phenom II X6 runs at 4 Ghz like a breeze, no problems, the doesn't even need to spin up for more demanding games, like Sh5, Crysis 3.

The Phenom II (Tested by me) can run Crysis 3 at 90-150 FPS solid and they core's ave not even got over 50%.

[Arclight]

... You've really lost the plot now, mate. Games are notoriously hard (or excessively expensive) to multi-thread. Single-core performance is still preferable over core count, let alone back in 2010.

Since you seem to appreciate Tom's; http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/...ard-core-gamer

Note the thread title. See how he points out he's not a "hard-core" gamer in a thread about multi-threading? That's because he knows games don't thread well and he wants to point out it is not a concern for that system. Topics like that where this is not specified always get the same response I gave you: single-core performance is more relevant to gaming.

[V13dweller]

I just use my Nvidia card to enable multi threading for any of my games, and Bam, Core load is balanced perfectly, took my SH5 core load from core 1 from about 40% and balanced it across all my cores perfectly.

And as the previous images I have linked you before, they only show a slight difference in gaming performance.
All my games seem to support Multicore, because all the load is balanced across all my cores, and this allows me to achieve very high frame rates on all my games.
I run Sh5 at Max Video setting and with 45 mods and my cores have the load balanced perfectly, I am able to use Time compression over 2000.
I have never had lag in any game I play.
The most my processor has ever got to is 45% on all cores, no core runs higher then others.

My GPU is the only thing that limits how effective my CPU is.
My Gpu can be working 50% and more while my CPU is just plodding along at at 20% average.

And I would not be here debating this if I had "Lost the Plot" My Friend.
This thread is about purchasing advice, not about maliciously defending your preferred Processor manufacturer.

[Arclight]

Let's get something straight: I'm not defending Intel. At no point did I say Intel is better than AMD, while you stated "Like everything Intel makes, they charge way too much for it.". So who exactly is "maliciously defending" their "preferred Processor manufacturer" here?

I have given you a straight up, all-round comparison between a i5 2500K and a AMD Phenom II X6 1090T. The AMD has a 2 core advantage there, and the i5 comes out with a clear lead. You flat out ignored it.

I gave you facts about game engines. You ignored them.

I don't much care what your experiences are with AMD; we covered that with acknowledging that a better CPU doesn't necessarily translate to better gaming, except where the game is CPU-bound. The fact is your statements contradict reality, and that's why I'm debating this: I can't stand misinformation, and I know from experience there's an awful lot of it floating around.