add arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up authorcheckmark clipboard combo comment delete discord dots drag-handle dropdown-arrow errorfacebook history inbox instagram issuelink lock markup-bbcode markup-html markup-pcpp markup-cyclingbuilder markup-plain-text markup-reddit menu pin radio-button save search settings share star-empty star-full star-half switch successtag twitch twitter user warningwattage weight youtube

Comments

Comments

Comment reply on Forum Topic "AMD VS Intel"

  • 72 months ago
  • 3 points

Despite not being a fanboy and claiming you know how they actually work, every benchmark seems to contradict your conclusion.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/836?vs=697

I can spot a grand total of 2 out of dozens of benchmarks that show the 8350 overtaking the 4770k. Hyperthreading is a very powerful tool, and unless you have a program that specifically refuses to play nice with it, you are going to see the i7 pull ahead by very wide margins.

And what you said about memory speed is plainly wrong if you aren't using integrated graphics. The performance gains are rarely worth the cost above 1600MHz.

http://techreport.com/review/20377/exploring-the-impact-of-memory-speed-on-sandy-bridge-performance/2

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/memory/2011/01/11/the-best-memory-for-sandy-bridge/5

Comment reply on Eschaton's Completed Build: Old Iron Reforged

  • 72 months ago
  • 1 point

Haha, I spend a good night of googling to get it to work. I saw the wikipedia article that said most network cards listen on port 7* or 9, and I just tried both until I got it to work.

I use a WoL app on my android phone. Punched in my public IP, MAC, port, and hit go.

Comment reply on Eschaton's Completed Build: Old Iron Reforged

  • 72 months ago
  • 2 points

Ah, I see. I know my two motherboards support WoL by listening for the magic packet on port 8 or 9, so I'm able to WoL from outside the network.

As for everything else, I can see how the Pi would be useful. I'm guessing you have some sysadmin background?

Comment reply on Eschaton's Completed Build: Old Iron Reforged

  • 72 months ago
  • 1 point

Very cool. I like your implementation of the Pi, but why would you need it for WoL? AFAIK you just need an open port and a static IP.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "i7 4770K vs i7 4820K opinions wanted."

  • 72 months ago
  • 1 point

CPU Boss only lists specifications. You'll be hard pressed to find useful real-world data to actually compare the two.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "APU / GPU question & crossfire"

  • 72 months ago
  • 3 points

It's not worth it. For the cost of AMD dual graphics, you are much better getting a higher end dedicated graphics card. Dual graphics is a niche product that is only really useful when space, power, or budget constraints are an issue, such as in laptops and thin clients.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "My first build-tips and suggestions welcome! :)"

  • 73 months ago
  • 1 point

Good start. I'd only make two changes.

  1. If you are looking to overclock, you'll need a k-series processor. If you are only gaming and don't plan to stream/render video/etc, I'd get an i5-4670k and improve the graphics card.

  2. You chose a very high end chassis for the amount of hardware you are putting into it. I'd choose something that suits your taste from my favourites list around the 50-70£ range.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "AMD FX- 8350 vs. Intel i5 4570"

  • 73 months ago
  • 2 points

For gaming, the high per-core performance of the i5 series usually wins out over the higher thread count on the FX-8350.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "ssd vs ssd and hdd"

  • 73 months ago
  • 1 point

Only number 3 and sort of number 9 describes sequential data transfer like I was talking about. Everything else is random data, which I said in the original comment is good with an SSD. And number 9 assumes the rendering bottleneck is I/O, which it rarely is.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "ssd vs ssd and hdd"

  • 73 months ago
  • 1 point

Maybe disk to disk transfers, but the average user won't ever see a difference with loading those files into memory for watching a movie or caching.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "ssd vs ssd and hdd"

  • 73 months ago
  • 1 point

You should always go with an SSD+HDD combo. The only time you are going to need a large capacity SSD is if programs (random data) you install are going to take up that much space. Storing files like pictures and videos (sequential data) doesn't improve speed on an SSD, and should be stored on a HDD.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "GTX 760 CPU"

  • 73 months ago
  • 1 point

If they can fit that into the budget, that's probably the best performing processor today for gaming that doesn't go overboard.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "CPU first or motherboard?"

  • 73 months ago
  • 1 point

Here's a great resource for starting a build if you don't know where to begin:

http://www.choosemypc.net/

Comment reply on Forum Topic "GTX 760 CPU"

  • 73 months ago
  • 2 points

What I'm saying is that buying a processor and planning on upgrading it after longer than 12 months is foolish, because it's rarely worth the money because there's a newer, better processor will be out on a new socket that makes more sense to buy.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "GTX 760 CPU"

  • 73 months ago
  • 1 point

Nono, I'm saying the 7970 is the bottleneck. Not in games like Battlefield and Crysis, but games where there is very little emphasis on CPU power like Tomb Raider.

I should also mention that the Q6600 is overclocked.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "GTX 760 CPU"

  • 73 months ago
  • 1 point

By the time it becomes worthwhile to upgrade, it will be ancient. I know people still rocking Q6600s and are still seeing bottlenecks with high end GPUs like the 7970.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "GTX 760 CPU"

  • 73 months ago
  • 1 point

In addition to what voxelnoose has said, most games will benefit from the jump from a hyperthreading dual core (i3) to a six-core (FX-6300).

Comment reply on Forum Topic "GTX 760 CPU"

  • 73 months ago
  • 2 points

Unless you are planning to upgrade in the next year, it's almost never worth it. By the time the i3 has fallen behind the times enough to warrant a CPU upgrade, you will get a far better value out of a modern CPU than by upgrading within an ancient socket.

Just like how right now if I had a Nehalem (1st gen) i3 and wanted to upgrade it to a Nehalem i7, I'd much rather get a current gen i5 with a new motherboard for the same price.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Refreshed Haswell on its way"

  • 73 months ago
  • 1 point

But it works. And your original post saying "outrageous RAM requirements" applies to every single Intel SKU since 2007.

And if you desperately need to run those sticks at 1.65V, it's a simple matter of picking an XMP profile and hitting f10 in the BIOS.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Refreshed Haswell on its way"

  • 73 months ago
  • 1 point

So you've got some random guy that used the Asus AI overclocker utility, and someone who actually did the proper tests and made sure his overclocks were stable with LinX. I should also mention that these two overclocks were done at wildly unsafe voltages. I get nervous when I push my 3930k past 1.4V as a 24/7 OC.

So, let's say these two tests were 100% valid (which I don't believe), you see a measely 10% increase in clock speed. The improvement in core architecture (~15%/generation) more than makes up for the difference.

And before you decide to be snarky with your "lmgtfy", maybe you should actually do the google search. The top FIVE results all say 1.65V RAM works with Haswell. It'll just downclock to the highest speed the sticks support at 1.5V which is what they've been doing since Sandy Bridge.

Edit: strong language. Viewer discretion is advised.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Refreshed Haswell on its way"

  • 73 months ago
  • 1 point

Since when did anyone do what was recommended? Whether intel suggests it or not it usually doesn't work.

Can you point to a trend or official statement that shows 1.65V RAM not working? Please link.

I'd like to see some facts as right now you are speculating. Either way haswell still overclocks like crap. 5ghz was easy on an i5 2500k now you can barely hit 4.5ghz on an i5 4670k.

Source?

Intel is taking steps forward in power consumption, and steps back in overclocking. All while not even increasing performance by a measly amount compared to previous generations.

The reason they haven't been taking leaps forward in performance is mostly due to the poor competition from AMD. Unless AMD can come up with some SKUs that actually compete with the high end i5/i7 architecture, they have no reason to innovate. We didn't see a big performance boost for a long time in the Core 2 era until AMD came out with the Phenom II. Shortly after that is when Nehalem and Sandy Bridge launched, which was the last 2 times we've seen any meaningful changes from Intel. Don't blame them. Blame the poor competition from AMD in the enthusiast and high end market.

The one market where AMD is creaming Intel is the low-power and budget market, which is why Intel has been focusing much of its R&D on reducing power and improving integrated graphics performance.

EDIT: "Crysis 3 shows Haswell as the clear winner." A 2-5 FPS difference if not less is not enough across a generation.

The reason for this is because the tests are GPU bound. You can see in the document below, where I personally ran benchmarks at various clock speeds with a varied number of cores activated. If you look at the Tomb Raider benchmark, you'll see that there is literally no difference between a 3930k running with 4 cores 4 threads at 2.0 GHz and the same processor running with 6 cores 12 threads at 4.5 GHz.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0ArvTXe6MGFbLdEpNRmVCY2lfQ0Rqa2ZkbzB1RTNSU0E&usp=drive_web#gid=0

Comment reply on Forum Topic "i7 4770K or i7 4930K"

  • 73 months ago
  • 1 point

Indeed. And sometimes the ECC memory in enterprise level applications can be incredibly useful.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Refreshed Haswell on its way"

  • 73 months ago
  • 0 points

Um? The low voltage RAM does effect the desktop segment. The RAM has to be 1.5 volts or below.

The recommended voltage has been 1.5V since Sandy Bridge. You can run the memory voltage just about as high as your want, but you risk damaging the on-board memory controller. Intel even officially suggests 1.65V RAM for Haswell i5s:

https://www-ssl.intel.com/content/www/us/en/gaming/gaming-computers/core-i5-processor-memory-datasheet.html?

They are the same clock for clock. But Ivy bridge/ and more so sandy bridge overclock high than haswell. http://vr-zone.com/articles/intel-haswell-i7-4770k-vs-ivy-bridge-4-6ghz-overclocked-gaming-performance/33614.html

Nearly all of those tests are GPU bound. You won't find performance differences unless you are looking at a benchmark that is CPU bound. In fact, the only two I see on that list that are physics-heavy enough to show a difference are Battlefield 3 and Crysis 3. BF3 gives inconsistent results, and Crysis 3 shows Haswell as the clear winner.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "i7 4770K or i7 4930K"

  • 73 months ago
  • 2 points

Another option is the Intel Xeon E5-2420 v2, which can sometimes be found for significantly cheaper than the 4930k. You don't get to overclock it, but you get ECC capability with the right motherboard and save a bit of money. Just as a quick price check, Amazon is currently selling it at $440, which is $120 cheaper than the 4930k. You can also get the E5-1650 V2 for the same price as a 4930k with the same clock speed or the E5-2440 V2 with 16 threads of processing for around $800.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "i5 vs amd for gaming"

  • 73 months ago
  • 2 points

Most real-world benchmarks point toward the i5 as being the superior processor. You'll find the two processors are matched or see the 8350 slightly edge out the i5 by a small margin when comparing games that can take advantage of all 8 cores available to the 8350. However, most games do not use all available cores and you'll see the higher single-thread performance of the i5 absolutely dominate the 8350 in most scenarios.

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/61451-intel-haswell-i7-4770k-i5-4670k-review-18.html http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/61451-intel-haswell-i7-4770k-i5-4670k-review-19.html

Comment reply on Forum Topic "i5 vs amd for gaming"

  • 73 months ago
  • 1 point

CPUboss is a horrible site for anything related to comparing computer hardware, unless you are looking up specs. The ONE benchmark they show that is even remotely relevant to gaming is 3DMark, and it's a synthetic benchmark. You need to go to actual hardware review sites like anandtech and toms hardware to get real results.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Best AMD CPUs?"

  • 73 months ago
  • 1 point

It really depends on what you are doing, and what budget you are working with. If you are gaming, then the FX-8350 would be best bet. If you are doing a task that would benefit from having many concurrent threads like engineering or rendering, then something like the Opteron 6386 SE is a 2.8 GHz 16-core beast that'll cost more than most people's gaming computers on its own.

So, give us a budget, intended use, and a good reason why we shouldn't consider an Intel processor as well.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Refreshed Haswell on its way"

  • 73 months ago
  • 1 point

Likely nothing. It takes many many years in obsolescence before you see significant drops in CPU prices.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Refreshed Haswell on its way"

  • 73 months ago
  • 1 point

What is wrong with them? Bad temps. Terrible overclocking.

That's what people said about Sandy Bridge when they were used to Nehalem. And what people said about Ivy Bridge when we got used to Sandy Bridge. It's a step forward, and no benchmark I've ever seen shows consistently better performance out of overclocked SB/IB over Haswell.

Outrageous RAM requirements.

The processors that required low voltage RAM were the mobile and embedded chips. Everything else was standard. I'll grant you that the low voltage thing was nonsense, but it didn't affect the desktop segment.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "***!!! GHz or Cores !!!***"

  • 73 months ago
  • 1 point

Although the FX-6300 is the superior option, the easiest way to determine which processor would be better for you would be to look at benchmarks.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/the-vishera-review-amd-fx8350-fx8320-fx6300-and-fx4300-tested/5

Comment reply on Forum Topic "AMD CPU Question"

  • 73 months ago
  • 1 point

Kaveri is the name you're looking for. And I still doubt it'd be a worthwhile upgrade. You won't get a significant processing boost, and you can get a much better graphical improvement with a dedicated GPU at the ~$180 those A10s go for.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "8350 or 4570?"

  • 73 months ago
  • 1 point

My bad, that should've been a 1230 v3.

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant / Benchmarks

Type Item Price
CPU Intel Xeon E3-1230 V3 3.3GHz Quad-Core Processor $244.30 @ SuperBiiz
Motherboard Gigabyte GA-B85M-D3H Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard $74.24 @ Amazon
Memory Kingston 8GB (1 x 8GB) DDR3-1600 Memory $69.99 @ Best Buy
Total
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available. $388.53
Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-02-14 11:23 EST-0500

Comment reply on Forum Topic "8350 or 4570?"

  • 73 months ago
  • 1 point

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant / Benchmarks

Type Item Price
CPU Intel Xeon E3-1220 V3 3.1GHz Quad-Core Processor $203.94 @ SuperBiiz
Motherboard Gigabyte GA-B85M-D3H Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard $74.24 @ Amazon
Memory Kingston 8GB (1 x 8GB) DDR3-1600 Memory $63.99 @ Amazon
Total
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available. $342.17
Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-02-13 15:10 EST-0500

Something like this?

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Would like a max 470£ build for purely gaming World of Warcraft, League of Legends and CS:GO inclusive monitor."

  • 73 months ago
  • 2 points

At this price point, overclocking is only going to eat up budget that needs to go to other components.

This is the best I could do.

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant / Benchmarks

Type Item Price
CPU AMD Athlon X4 750K 3.4GHz Quad-Core Processor £55.84 @ CCL Computers
Motherboard Asus F2A85-V ATX FM2 Motherboard £58.46 @ Ebuyer
Memory Kingston Value 4GB (2 x 2GB) DDR3-1333 Memory £24.00 @ Amazon UK
Storage Seagate Barracuda 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive £39.98 @ Aria PC
Video Card Sapphire Radeon R9 270X 2GB Video Card £144.00 @ Amazon UK
Case NZXT Source 210 Elite (Black) ATX Mid Tower Case £38.65 @ Scan.co.uk
Power Supply Corsair CX 500W 80+ Bronze Certified Semi-Modular ATX Power Supply £46.27 @ Amazon UK
Monitor AOC e2343F 23.0" Monitor £79.91 @ Amazon UK
Total
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available. £487.11
Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-02-13 17:54 GMT+0000

Comment reply on Forum Topic "12 Low-Clocked Cores vs 8 High-Clocked Cores?"

  • 73 months ago
  • 2 points

It all comes down to the workload. If you are running a program that can take advantage of all 12 cores, then it will outperform the 8-core significantly. If you are using 8 or less, then the processor with higher clock speed/faster architecture will win out.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "8350 or 4570?"

  • 73 months ago
  • 1 point

If you're not going to be gaming at all, then the higher thread count on the 8350 will be your biggest boon when it comes to Lightroom. Your browser won't ever see benefits from a 4 vs 8 core processor, and Audacity will see a very small benefit.

Another processor to consider is the Xeon E3-1230 V3. It hyperthreads like an i7, but is much closer to the i5's price point. The only downside is that it does not have integrated graphics and cannot overclock.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "best CPU for gaming with gtx 770"

  • 73 months ago
  • 2 points

It all depends on your budget. Depending on how much you want to spend, I'd consider these CPUs in order of ascending cost.

  1. AMD Athlon X4 750k
  2. AMD FX-6300
  3. AMD FX-8320
  4. Intel Core i5-4430
    5. Intel Core i5-4670k
  5. Intel Xeon E3-1230 V3
  6. Intel Core i7-4770k
  7. Intel Core i7-4930k

I believe the 4670k to be your best option. Not many games will use the hyperthreading present in the i7s and you are able to overclock the i5 to eke a little more power out of it down the road.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Best cheap CPU to go with an R7 260X?"

  • 73 months ago
  • 1 point

It all depends on how much you want to spend. The X4 760k or the FX-6300 would both be good pairs.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "AMD CPU Question"

  • 73 months ago
  • 1 point

No integrated graphics.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "AMD CPU Question"

  • 73 months ago
  • 3 points

Upgrade path? Upgrading your CPU is pretty much useless, unless you're going from something like a Celeron to and i5 or i7 in the same socket. By the time his CPU is outdated, nothing in the same socket will be a worthwhile upgrade.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Crossfire with an APU???"

  • 73 months ago
  • 2 points

Pretty much any dedicated GPU with an FX series or Intel processor will crush a dual graphics setup at the same price. APUs aren't really meant for high end gaming. They're supposed to be a low cost solution to graphically intensive tasks when the build's budget can't fit a dedicated card.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "fx-300"

  • 73 months ago
  • 1 point

The R9 270 is roughly equivalent to the 7850, but a little more powerful. You should expect your graphics card to perform like this on Ultra with no AA: http://gamegpu.ru/images/remote/http--www.gamegpu.ru-images-stories-Test_GPU-Action-Battlefield_4-test-1920.jpg

And the FX-6300 is shown here: http://gamegpu.ru/images/remote/http--www.gamegpu.ru-images-stories-Test_GPU-Action-Battlefield_4-test-bf4_proz_2.jpg

So, given your GPU as the bottleneck, you should expect to get about 45 FPS on average in Battlefield 4, Ultra Quality, at 1080p.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "fx-300"

  • 73 months ago
  • 1 point

I'm assumsing you mean the FX-6300. If so, yes, it is a good partner for the R9 270.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "New build, CPU/RAM usage low but running slow"

  • 73 months ago
  • 3 points

As far as I can tell after some quick googling, AVG and ZoneAlarm aren't compatible. I wouldn't suggest using either antivirus anyways. The best free antivirus is Microsoft Security Essentials, and if you want the best of the best you need Kaspersky Pure.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "LOW power CPU for video transcoding."

  • 73 months ago
  • 1 point

Depending on how much you want to spend, the Xeon E3-1265L V2 works in most 1155 motherboards and is a 45W quad core with integrated graphics. The $325 price tag might scare you off though. If you want a cheaper solution, the i3-4130T is a hyper threading dual core and runs at 35W for about $120.

Alternatively, you can always run PLEX off a NUC, which uses a lighter mobile processor. Many NUC models coem with internet SATA ports or can use an external NAS to deliver data.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Crossfire with an APU???"

  • 73 months ago
  • 2 points

To be honest, it's not worth it. You are better off spending money on a higher end GPU than chasing the dual graphics thing. If you look at benchmarks, you'll find the performance very underwhelming.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Opteron 3380"

  • 73 months ago
  • 1 point

Unless you have already purchased that processor, I wouldn't even consider it. It's too expensive, and clocks in extremely low compared to the FX-6300 or 8350. You are better off with a desktop Intel or AMD processor.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Help someone who has no idea what they're doing"

  • 73 months ago
  • 1 point

To answer all your questions: look at benchmarks. If you're curious about a processor type "[name of processor] benchmarks" into google and you'll see how they all perform compared to eachother. If you're building a rig from scratch, then you have to consider your overall budget, and how to balance the amount you spend on your GPU vs CPU. My rule of thumb for gaming machines is that you should be spending at least double on your GPU vs. CPU.

These are the CPUs I'd consider best in their price category in order of ascending cost.

  1. AMD Athlon X4-750k
  2. AMD FX-6300
  3. AMD FX-8320
  4. Intel Core i5-4430 (non-overclocking)
  5. Intel Core i5-4670k (overclocking)
  6. Intel Xeon E3-1230 V3
  7. Intel Core i7-4770k
  8. Intel Core i7-4930k

Sort

add arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up authorcheckmark clipboard combo comment delete discord dots drag-handle dropdown-arrow errorfacebook history inbox instagram issuelink lock markup-bbcode markup-html markup-pcpp markup-cyclingbuilder markup-plain-text markup-reddit menu pin radio-button save search settings share star-empty star-full star-half switch successtag twitch twitter user warningwattage weight youtube