System Builder Marathon, Q4 2013: $1600 Enthusiast PC

[prudhvirazz]

Is there any survey to fill out or what? I filled my personal details and it says completed. no other survey questions?

 

[elbert]

This is an awesome PC. Only item I would change is the dvd. A blu ray reader dvd burner drive instead would make a more rounded system. I would like future builds of the 2 highend systems to test video playback for blu ray.

 

[masmotors]

the 4670k is great with gaming but for the cheapo person the fx 6100 games almost as good witha good gpu and good ram i would like to pair my 4670k with a r9 290 at tax time

 

[10tacle]

This is sort of off topic, but I can't find a better place to post it. Why doesn't Tom's have daily deal links anymore? I've bought several PC-related components from their links, including big ticket items, and the links provided were among the best deal around.

 

[hasten]

I noticed you guys used the Corsair TX 750 watt PSU and wanted to ask if that's enough to power 2 GTX 770's without any problems??

I have 2 EVGA GTX 670 FTW editions in SLI using the Corsair HX 750 (80+ gold) & have been pondering wither or not that would be enough to power 2 GTX 770's without issue. To me it seems 750 watts would be too little & a nice branded 800-850 would be more efficient.

What are your thoughts?

I've been running 2 770s with a Seasonic x750 since the 770s launched with no problems. I also have them both OC'ed to 1250mhz and a 4770k @ 4.5ghz. My UPS never has registered more than 600w which includes a BenQ XL2420TE and router/modem - in game BF4 usually is running between 450 - ~530w, peaks a bit higher at times, but I haven't noticed anything concerning.

I think my profile has updated specs but - 3 ssds, 1 hdd, H80, 5 fans, Asus Maximus board, Trident 16gb 2400mhz...

Hope that helps.

 

[fl-gators-fan]

^^^^ Hasten - Thank you very much for your input

I'm running an OC'ed 3570K @ 4.0 GHz, 2 GTX 670s, H80i with 2 Corsair SP120s, 2 SSDs, 1 HDD & 2 Corsair AF140s on a Corsair HX750 (80+ gold) and have never had a hiccup.

Of course your specs outmatch mine. Especially with the 4.5 GHz OC & overclocked 770s, but do you think an HX750 would be good enough to power 2 770s? Your honest opinion would be great as I'm certainly not an expert....lol

 

[RedJaron]

A few questions / comments on this:

• 
  ■ What was the price of the Z87 Extreme4 at day of purchase? Right now it's $20 less than the Z87-Plus
  ■ Why would you even consider a case without USB 3.0 on the front panel?
  ■ Speaking of the case, $35 isn't saving money when you need to spend $15 extra on fans. Plenty of $50-$60 cases have sufficient cooling and offer USB 3.0 front panels.
  ■ I know VRAM isn't everything, but are you worried only 2GB might limit triple-display performance?
  ■ Why spend extra on 1866 RAM when the benefits over 1600 is so minimal?
  ■ I'm not complaining about the Enermax cooler, but since it's the same price range, how does it compare with the 212 in cooling and noise?

I think with the savings on RAM and possibly mboard, you could have grabbed an Antec One, Three Hundred Two, Corsair 300R, NZXT 210, or similar.

 

[Crashman]

A few questions / comments on this:

• 
  ■ What was the price of the Z87 Extreme4 at day of purchase? Right now it's $20 less than the Z87-Plus
  ■ Why would you even consider a case without USB 3.0 on the front panel?
  ■ Speaking of the case, $35 isn't saving money when you need to spend $15 extra on fans. Plenty of $50-$60 cases have sufficient cooling and offer USB 3.0 front panels.
  ■ I know VRAM isn't everything, but are you worried only 2GB might limit triple-display performance?
  ■ Why spend extra on 1866 RAM when the benefits over 1600 is so minimal?
  ■ I'm not complaining about the Enermax cooler, but since it's the same price range, how does it compare with the 212 in cooling and noise?

I think with the savings on RAM and possibly mboard, you could have grabbed an Antec One, Three Hundred Two, Corsair 300R, NZXT 210, or similar.

You do know that the original Three Hundred is a higher-quality case than the Three Hundred Two, no? Is the Illusion version still available?

 

[RedJaron]

You do know that the original Three Hundred is a higher-quality case than the Three Hundred Two, no? Is the Illusion version still available?

No argument there, but both those still only have USB 2.0 panels. I thought you considered USB 3.0 a requirement now, just like you prefer HD Audio connectors instead of AC'97.

 

[Crashman]

You do know that the original Three Hundred is a higher-quality case than the Three Hundred Two, no? Is the Illusion version still available?

No argument there, but both those still only have USB 2.0 panels. I thought you considered USB 3.0 a requirement now, just like you prefer HD Audio connectors instead of AC'97.

I thought they updated it, maybe I was wrong. I have trouble these days remembering anything that "recent"

 

[RedJaron]

I thought they updated it, maybe I was wrong. I have trouble these days remembering anything that "recent"

On their site, Antec still lists the Three Hundred with only USB 2.0. I think the Two was supposed to be the updated revision.

No worries on remembering new stuff. I still have to look up specs to remember which R9 cards are rebranded 7000s. But I can tell you every part in my WinXP machine ( from the OCd XP 2600+ to the blue Chieftec Dragon case, ) and my old Win98 machine ( PIII Katmai, 128MB RAM, 32MB TNT2, and 12MB Voodoo2! ) Ahh, nostalgia . . .

 

[Onus]

My wife's Three Hundred Two has USB3.0 ports in front. I think that was one of my requirements too when I picked that one. It's a nice case.

 

[hasten]

I noticed you guys used the Corsair TX 750 watt PSU and wanted to ask if that's enough to power 2 GTX 770's without any problems??

I have 2 EVGA GTX 670 FTW editions in SLI using the Corsair HX 750 (80+ gold) & have been pondering wither or not that would be enough to power 2 GTX 770's without issue. To me it seems 750 watts would be too little & a nice branded 800-850 would be more efficient.

What are your thoughts?

^^^^ Hasten - Thank you very much for your input

I'm running an OC'ed 3570K @ 4.0 GHz, 2 GTX 670s, H80i with 2 Corsair SP120s, 2 SSDs, 1 HDD & 2 Corsair AF140s on a Corsair HX750 (80+ gold) and have never had a hiccup.

Of course your specs outmatch mine. Especially with the 4.5 GHz OC & overclocked 770s, but do you think an HX750 would be good enough to power 2 770s? Your honest opinion would be great as I'm certainly not an expert....lol

My personal opinion is that you would be perfectly fine. I'm sure there are many that would argue for a more powerful PSU though. I prefer and have always recommended Seasonic PSUs, and although I believe that HX is a Channel Well build (previous HX generations were Seasonic) its still a very high quality PSU.

I have always preferred quality over quantity and never been one to go overkill on PSU wattage. Overkill provides most people with peace of mind, but 90%+ of the people on these forums are going way overboard with PSU requirements... published requirements are going to be very conservative so some kid doesn't throw a Diablotek 450w in a rig powering a 780 and wonder why it went up in smoke.

If it helps any more, I have a small form factor pc running a 450w sfx psu (bronze) that's powering a 2500k @ 4ghz, cooler master seidon 120 water cooler, 7870 with a small ~100mhz OC (voltage locked), 16gb 1866 Samsung shorties, 1 hdd, and 1 ssd and it doesn't break a sweat. I would be comfortable putting a much "bigger" gpu in it...

Edit: Even if it wasn't sufficient, I can't imagine a scenario it would crash and burn. If you were to start getting bsod and nothing changed but the GPUs (and you tested each to make sure they were stable) then you would likely need a new PSU... I wouldn't have qualified this, but I don't want you to get them and have issues and think "that a-hole"!!

 

[Isaiah4110]

I noticed you guys used the Corsair TX 750 watt PSU and wanted to ask if that's enough to power 2 GTX 770's without any problems??

I have 2 EVGA GTX 670 FTW editions in SLI using the Corsair HX 750 (80+ gold) & have been pondering wither or not that would be enough to power 2 GTX 770's without issue. To me it seems 750 watts would be too little & a nice branded 800-850 would be more efficient.

What are your thoughts?

^^^^ Hasten - Thank you very much for your input

I'm running an OC'ed 3570K @ 4.0 GHz, 2 GTX 670s, H80i with 2 Corsair SP120s, 2 SSDs, 1 HDD & 2 Corsair AF140s on a Corsair HX750 (80+ gold) and have never had a hiccup.

Of course your specs outmatch mine. Especially with the 4.5 GHz OC & overclocked 770s, but do you think an HX750 would be good enough to power 2 770s? Your honest opinion would be great as I'm certainly not an expert....lol

My personal opinion is that you would be perfectly fine. I'm sure there are many that would argue for a more powerful PSU though. I prefer and have always recommended Seasonic PSUs, and although I believe that HX is a Channel Well build (previous HX generations were Seasonic) its still a very high quality PSU.

I have always preferred quality over quantity and never been one to go overkill on PSU wattage. Overkill provides most people with peace of mind, but 90%+ of the people on these forums are going way overboard with PSU requirements... published requirements are going to be very conservative so some kid doesn't throw a Diablotek 450w in a rig powering a 780 and wonder why it went up in smoke.

If it helps any more, I have a small form factor pc running a 450w sfx psu (bronze) that's powering a 2500k @ 4ghz, cooler master seidon 120 water cooler, 7870 with a small ~100mhz OC (voltage locked), 16gb 1866 Samsung shorties, 1 hdd, and 1 ssd and it doesn't break a sweat. I would be comfortable putting a much "bigger" gpu in it...

Edit: Even if it wasn't sufficient, I can't imagine a scenario it would crash and burn. If you were to start getting bsod and nothing changed but the GPUs (and you tested each to make sure they were stable) then you would likely need a new PSU... I wouldn't have qualified this, but I don't want you to get them and have issues and think "that a-hole"!!

Hasten definitely knows his stuff. +1 to his response here with a little addition:

There are two things that a more powerful PSU can get you as long as you aren't sacrificing quality for the extra wattage.

If you've ever looked at the efficiency curve of any power supply you will notice PSUs are most efficient at 50% of their rated power. In order to experience this ideal efficiency you want your typical operating power to place you in that range. (I'm not sure exactly how the crazy Prime95 stress test power usage will compare to the "typical draw" of any given system though.)
I've always heard you will get a shorter lifespan out of a PSU if you are constantly running above 80% of its rated capacity. I've never tested this, but in theory it makes sense as electronic parts typically burn out sooner the more you strain them.

That said, I do agree with hasten. I can't see how your specs could be slightly lower than his and the same model PSU he uses wouldn't be able to power your PC.

 

[Onus]

PSUs run at high loads (i.e. >80%) tend to run hotter. Some manufacturers (e.g. CWT) use a lot of 2nd-tier capacitors in their units that are only rated for 85C (e.g. Samxon). They'll degrade quickly under those conditions. Better OEMs like Seasonic and Superflower use all-Japanese, 105C capacitors that won't have a problem in this scenario. Read PSU reviews at sites like HardwareSecrets, Jonnyguru, and HardOCP to see what capacitors a given PSU uses.
Get as many real-life data points as you can on power use. The SBM cycles are great for that, since all three builds now include power usage. Measure your own rig(s) under strenuous but typical conditions too, using a Kill-a-watt meter (~$20) or your UPS. This will help you decide how much power is needed. Recommendations from AMD and nVidia are always overstated, as they attempt to account for the liar-labeled junk out there (e.g. Diablotek, Apevia, Logisys) that isn't good for what's on its label.

 

[fl-gators-fan]

Thank you very much to all 3 of you!! I'll defiantly check out those sites Onus. Thanks for sharing them!

It's not 100% a given at the moment to upgrade to x2 GTX 770s, but it's something I've thought a lot about. My 2 GTX 670s are still holding strong, but feature only 2gb VRAM and if I was to upgrade to SLI 770s I would be interested in the 4gb models.

I appreciate all the help guys!! That's why I started using Tomshardware a few years ago and have never been let down by any advice.

LOL @ Hasten for the A-Hole comment!!

 

[Crashman]

I am absolutely SICK and TIRED

Could be a vitamin D deficiency, maybe you should get out more?

Tom's Hardware ONLY showcasing

This isn't a showcase, it's a competition

Intel machines.

Well, nobody wants to lose, did you look at the benchmark set?

I have a $2700 AMD machine

So you're saying you have an AMD bias?

that will walk up and down ALL OVER an intel i5-i7.

So your $2700 machine outperforms a $1600 machine? Congrats!

And GUESS WHAT??... I have a SHITload of EXTRAS that would have just been spent on a CPU and a MoBo.

It's good to know you didn't spend all of that $2700 on an AMD processor and motherboard

And even WHEN you post and AMD comparable, it is the absolute DOG

That's why they're so cheap

a 965BE can keep up with a 2nd and 3rd 2500k with a 0.3 overclock.

But what happens when you add the same 0.3 O/C to the 2500k?

You MUST have gotten some Intel perks for all your loyalty

That would be nice, maybe I could afford to replace my 17-year-old mini van!

(yes B I A S E D) reviews on Intel and AMD.

This isn't a review, it's a competition

I am unsubscribing after being a user since (originally) 2002 and again in 2008-present.

Really? Because I noticed there were two time stamps on the two copies of your message.

GREAT place for information and also to share (take a LOOK at my current badges).

That's great, we could use more people like in the forums to help AMD builders!

I am however DONE w/ tom's hardware.

Sad to see you go, but it looks like I can't change your mind. Please feel free to stop by the forums if you'd really like to help some of the other readers with their AMD configurations.

 

[Isaiah4110]

I really get tired of all these "Tom's Hardware has such a _______ (really, insert AMD, nVidia, or Intel here because I've seen it all) bias" comments, and I imagine you guys probably do as well Crashman.

Random thought on that note: You know what would actually be pretty interesting would be to see the next SBM be specifically targeting the AMD CPU builders. Use the exact same limits you did this time and require each build to use an AMD CPU. Then compare each AMD machine (or at least the $1600 and $2400 machines) not just to the previous quarter's build at the same level, but to all three previous quarter builds.

Doing something like this would [hopefully] accomplish two things: 1) Stop people from insisting TH has an Intel bias by putting the benchmark data, dollar for dollar, right there on the front page, and 2) give those who want to build with AMD CPUs a starting point/idea of what they can get at each price point. I would actually be really interested to see what a $2400 PC with an AMD processor would look like and how it would perform as a whole against the $2400 and $1600 builds from this quarter.

 

[ingtar33]

I have an AMD build... I've built plenty of recent intel machines. It's not bias when intel wins a benchmark. Intel makes incredible chips. As does AMD. Coming in second doesn't mean AMD sucks.

Simply put, as long as programmers continue to write "mostly" single threaded apps, you'll never see AMD win a majority of benches. That doesn't mean there isn't situations an AMD cpu makes as much or more sense then an intel. It just means AMD cpus tend to be limited to certain budgets and builds.

The fellow who dropped $2700 on an AMD build actually spent his cash poorly. It's pretty simple math. In order for an AMD cpu to make sense over an intel, you need to be able to translate the $$ saved into a part that puts the AMD cpu on par with or better then the comparable Intel build. What complicates the math is overclocking... but you can make certain assumptions.

1) generally you can expect piledriver cpus to overclock up to 4.6-4.7ghz on a basic air cooler like a hyper evo.
2) generally 4.8ghz-4.9ghz is where an 8 core piledriver will give you better then non-k intel cpu performance; and in PROPERLY multithreaded tasks will pace or beat most i5s/i7s no matter what the overclock.
3) generally every piledriver overclocked up to 4.0ghz will give you 60fps in ANY game at 1080p... and generally every piledriver will hit 4.0 on any motherboard and the stock cooler

SO

a) if you have a 60hz monitor
b) don't mind a little overclocking (up to 4.0ghz)

you will get basically indistinguishable from intel gaming performance out of piledriver. In fact, if all you're shooting for is 4.0ghz overclock, you pretty much will get a better gaming experience from an AMD build as you'll have a clear $$ advantage going for AMD, allowing you to buy better video cards and supporting parts.

It gets a lot murkier as you search for better overclocks AND as your budget goes up. because as the budget goes up the % of your budget spent on your cpu/mb/cpu cooler goes down. the advantage for going amd gets smaller and smaller the more money you have to throw at a build... as the main advantage of going AMD (getting a better video card) really is a limited advantage after a certain point. observe.

fx 6300 + cheap AM3+ motherboard + stock cooler = roughly $160
i5 3350 + cheap lga 1155 motherboard + stock cooler = roughly $230

230-160 = $60

With $60 in your pocket you should be seeing an advantage going AMD up to the $300 mark on video cards... because you can always go a step higher with a video card up until you reach the gtx770 or pre-bitcoin mining craze 7970/280x. after that point you CANT get a better video card for $60 or less. So if you set a $260 budget for case, psu, ram, and hard drive, 300 for the gpu and 160 for the cpu/mb you'll hit the max $$ an amd build will make clear cut sense over an intel (in gaming); which means $720 is the point it stops making clear cut sense to go AMD.

If building a gaming machine over $720 it gets murky... depending on overclocks, needs of the user, and other things it starts to make less and less sense to go AMD... by the time you reach a $1000 budget, its almost impossible to justify an AMD cpu over an Intel.

now remember, this math only works at 1080p and 60hz for your monitor. if someone is on a 144hz monitor at resolutions at or above 1080p, there is almost no build you can make that makes sense with an AMD. If you're planning on more then 2 video cards, there is no build that makes sense on an AMD... so on and so forth.

 

[RedJaron]

Simply put, as long as programmers continue to write "mostly" single threaded apps, you'll never see AMD win a majority of benches. That doesn't mean there isn't situations an AMD cpu makes as much or more sense then an intel. It just means AMD cpus tend to be limited to certain budgets and builds.

With Intel's superior IPC right now, AMD would still be behind even if the majority of games now used four threads. Using your comparison of 3350 and 6300, the AMD won't pull ahead unless you highly overclock it or use more than four threads.

Your $700 price point I agree with. I usually slide it closer to the $600 - $650 range, because I'm willing to give up a little graphical prowess if it means a cooler, quieter system.

 

[ingtar33]

Simply put, as long as programmers continue to write "mostly" single threaded apps, you'll never see AMD win a majority of benches. That doesn't mean there isn't situations an AMD cpu makes as much or more sense then an intel. It just means AMD cpus tend to be limited to certain budgets and builds.

With Intel's superior IPC right now, AMD would still be behind even if the majority of games now used four threads. Using your comparison of 3350 and 6300, the AMD won't pull ahead unless you highly overclock it or use more than four threads.

Your $700 price point I agree with. I usually slide it closer to the $600 - $650 range, because I'm willing to give up a little graphical prowess if it means a cooler, quieter system.

my comparison was under a very specific set of circumstances. according to most benches i've seen, a 6 core or more piledriver clocked to 4.0ghz will pretty much always give you a min frame-rate of 60fps at 1080p... this is why it doesn't MATTER for the most part what cpu you get for gaming if you're going to use a 1080p 60hz monitor.

That's why the 6core fx6300 makes a suitable comparison under that situation... it doesn't matter if the i5-3350 will give me 100fps while the piledriver (at 4.0ghz) will give me 70... because the monitor can't show that difference. My system is a fx 8320, clocked up to 5.0ghz, it's an amazing chip, with a lot of power. but frankly, since i'm on a single 1080p 60hz monitor i'll probably never see all that clock speed or core advantage. someone with a fx6300 sitting at 4ghz will get as good an end user experience in games.

Well, most games... there are some exceptions... but they're few and far between.

setting aside that small miscommunication, i agree that 600-800 is the sweet point for an AMD build. past that point it gets pretty questionable. And once you crack 1k it gets very hard to justify anymore. (under 600 it gets sorta murky too, as depending on your needs you may or may not want an AMD cpu... there certainly are plenty of sub $500 builds that make more sense to go intel then AMD at least)

 

[RedJaron]

my comparison was under a very specific set of circumstances. according to most benches i've seen, a 6 core or more piledriver clocked to 4.0ghz will pretty much always give you a min frame-rate of 60fps at 1080p... this is why it doesn't MATTER for the most part what cpu you get for gaming if you're going to use a 1080p 60hz monitor.

That's why the 6core fx6300 makes a suitable comparison under that situation... it doesn't matter if the i5-3350 will give me 100fps while the piledriver (at 4.0ghz) will give me 70... because the monitor can't show that difference. My system is a fx 8320, clocked up to 5.0ghz, it's an amazing chip, with a lot of power. but frankly, since i'm on a single 1080p 60hz monitor i'll probably never see all that clock speed or core advantage. someone with a fx6300 sitting at 4ghz will get as good an end user experience in games.

Well, most games... there are some exceptions... but they're few and far between.

setting aside that small miscommunication, i agree that 600-800 is the sweet point for an AMD build. past that point it gets pretty questionable. And once you crack 1k it gets very hard to justify anymore. (under 600 it gets sorta murky too, as depending on your needs you may or may not want an AMD cpu... there certainly are plenty of sub $500 builds that make more sense to go intel then AMD at least)

I too am on a single screen for gaming ( having two asymmetrical displays. ) I agree, on a single 1080p display, it largely doesn't matter what CPU you have once you pass the FX-4300 or i5-3350P. The performance difference is largely impossible to see or feel ( yet some people still want to say they can "see" and "feel" the difference between 60 fps and 100fps. Please. ) As I said on the $800 build thread, at that point, the GPU becomes the limiting factor. A faster CPU might bump a few frames, but a faster GPU will bump it by tens, if not more.

 

[Isaiah4110]

I have an AMD build... I've built plenty of recent intel machines. It's not bias when intel wins a benchmark. Intel makes incredible chips. As does AMD. Coming in second doesn't mean AMD sucks.

Simply put, as long as programmers continue to write "mostly" single threaded apps, you'll never see AMD win a majority of benches. That doesn't mean there isn't situations an AMD cpu makes as much or more sense then an intel. It just means AMD cpus tend to be limited to certain budgets and builds.

The fellow who dropped $2700 on an AMD build actually spent his cash poorly. It's pretty simple math. In order for an AMD cpu to make sense over an intel, you need to be able to translate the $$ saved into a part that puts the AMD cpu on par with or better then the comparable Intel build. What complicates the math is overclocking... but you can make certain assumptions.

1) generally you can expect piledriver cpus to overclock up to 4.6-4.7ghz on a basic air cooler like a hyper evo.
2) generally 4.8ghz-4.9ghz is where an 8 core piledriver will give you better then non-k intel cpu performance; and in PROPERLY multithreaded tasks will pace or beat most i5s/i7s no matter what the overclock.
3) generally every piledriver overclocked up to 4.0ghz will give you 60fps in ANY game at 1080p... and generally every piledriver will hit 4.0 on any motherboard and the stock cooler

SO

a) if you have a 60hz monitor
b) don't mind a little overclocking (up to 4.0ghz)

you will get basically indistinguishable from intel gaming performance out of piledriver. In fact, if all you're shooting for is 4.0ghz overclock, you pretty much will get a better gaming experience from an AMD build as you'll have a clear $$ advantage going for AMD, allowing you to buy better video cards and supporting parts.

It gets a lot murkier as you search for better overclocks AND as your budget goes up. because as the budget goes up the % of your budget spent on your cpu/mb/cpu cooler goes down. the advantage for going amd gets smaller and smaller the more money you have to throw at a build... as the main advantage of going AMD (getting a better video card) really is a limited advantage after a certain point. observe.

fx 6300 + cheap AM3+ motherboard + stock cooler = roughly $160
i5 3350 + cheap lga 1155 motherboard + stock cooler = roughly $230

230-160 = $60

With $60 in your pocket you should be seeing an advantage going AMD up to the $300 mark on video cards... because you can always go a step higher with a video card up until you reach the gtx770 or pre-bitcoin mining craze 7970/280x. after that point you CANT get a better video card for $60 or less. So if you set a $260 budget for case, psu, ram, and hard drive, 300 for the gpu and 160 for the cpu/mb you'll hit the max $$ an amd build will make clear cut sense over an intel (in gaming); which means $720 is the point it stops making clear cut sense to go AMD.

If building a gaming machine over $720 it gets murky... depending on overclocks, needs of the user, and other things it starts to make less and less sense to go AMD... by the time you reach a $1000 budget, its almost impossible to justify an AMD cpu over an Intel.

now remember, this math only works at 1080p and 60hz for your monitor. if someone is on a 144hz monitor at resolutions at or above 1080p, there is almost no build you can make that makes sense with an AMD. If you're planning on more then 2 video cards, there is no build that makes sense on an AMD... so on and so forth.

First off, nice avatar ingtar.

Secondly, extremely well written post. I think that pretty much sums up the argument/evidence disproving the claim that TH has an Intel bias simply because they are always using Intel CPUs.

I don't know if this initial post was in response to my last post, but - just for clarification - I never thought TH had an Intel bias. I also still think a direct comparison SMB next quarter, simply switching the builds to AMD, would be very interesting. It would be really cool to see what kind of performance difference we would actually see.

 

[Onus]

...Secondly, extremely well written post. I think that pretty much sums up the argument/evidence disproving the claim that TH has an Intel bias simply because they are always using Intel CPUs.

I don't know if this initial post was in response to my last post, but - just for clarification - I never thought TH had an Intel bias. I also still think a direct comparison SMB next quarter, simply switching the builds to AMD, would be very interesting. It would be really cool to see what kind of performance difference we would actually see.

I agree with both of these. Ingtar's post was very good. I think some of the numbers are open for discussion, but the concept is sound. One point not addressed though is minimum frame rate.
I have two decent systems, one Intel and one AMD. Both provide an enjoyable experience in any of my games (not among the latest and greatest, most demanding). I've been running the AMD rig lately since I wanted to "feel" the effect of a CPU upgrade (970BE to 8320), and I do indeed notice a difference.
That said, the Intel rig "feels" smoother in some titles (e.g. GW2); I'll probably switch back to it soon. I think you've found a good rule of thumb though; if $70 more spend on a graphics card will make a notable difference, it may be worth getting the AMD rig. Just be careful not to go too cheap on the mobo, especially if you intend to overclock.

 

[ingtar33]

First off, nice avatar ingtar.

Secondly, extremely well written post. I think that pretty much sums up the argument/evidence disproving the claim that TH has an Intel bias simply because they are always using Intel CPUs.

I don't know if this initial post was in response to my last post, but - just for clarification - I never thought TH had an Intel bias. I also still think a direct comparison SMB next quarter, simply switching the builds to AMD, would be very interesting. It would be really cool to see what kind of performance difference we would actually see.

thanks for the love for the avatar =D

no... my post wasn't really a responce to your post... mostly to the nearly automatic reply by fanboys in ANY article about intel/amd/nvidia/android/apple/samsung/m$... I get loving the hardware you've got. Frankly I love my 8320, it is clocked up to a nice stable 5.0ghz... and while some people might say you can't possibly tell it's at 5ghz, i can assure you i could tell when it hit 5ghz after playing around with it at 4.8ghz. seemed like the little push it needed for the single core performance to smooth out and blitz anything i through at it. It was worth every hour i spent working on getting it up to 5ghz and perfectly stable.

That said it doesn't change reality.

the reality is quad cored intel cpus are generally faster then this beastly 8 core at most stuff... fast in a way most humans will never be able to tell without a stopwatch... but still faster then AMD. I'm happy with my chip even knowning it's not the fastest kid on the block. because it was in my budget (129.99?!!! for an octo-core?!! sign me up!), because i already had the motherboard (was on a phII x4 965be) i'd need... and the cpu cooler i'd need... so all it was, was a question of finding the xmas sale and upgrading the cpu. I'm even happier to find my 8320 hits 5ghz on a medium quality overclocking motherboard (m5a99x evo)... but that's luck of the draw, not indicative at all of what others might be able to get with a piledriver. In the end, you can be happy with your cpu, love your cpu and computer even, but that doesn't mean it's the best thing out there. And no wishing will make it so.

I'll tell you what made the biggest difference from a user standpoint this xmas. It wasn't the fx8320 upgrade... oh it was a noticeable improvement, don't get me wrong. Noticeable at stock even... though the fx8320 at stock was slower on a core per core basis then my 965be, it felt faster thanks to the 8 cores... but no. the biggest and most important user experience change was getting the SSD

So i'll go even further and say if getting an AMD fx cpu allows you to get an SSD, then it's a good purchase, as cpus have been bottlenecked by mechanical hard drives for the better part of a decade now... an SSD is basically required, or you won't really be able to tell the difference between the fx cpu, a core i5 cpu or a 5 year old core2duo.

I agree with both of these. Ingtar's post was very good. I think some of the numbers are open for discussion, but the concept is sound. One point not addressed though is minimum frame rate.
I have two decent systems, one Intel and one AMD. Both provide an enjoyable experience in any of my games (not among the latest and greatest, most demanding). I've been running the AMD rig lately since I wanted to "feel" the effect of a CPU upgrade (970BE to 8320), and I do indeed notice a difference.
That said, the Intel rig "feels" smoother in some titles (e.g. GW2); I'll probably switch back to it soon. I think you've found a good rule of thumb though; if $70 more spend on a graphics card will make a notable difference, it may be worth getting the AMD rig. Just be careful not to go too cheap on the mobo, especially if you intend to overclock.

agreed. the problem rookie AMD builders have out there is they think "am3+" and don't realize something crucial. Piledriver is not a PhenomII... and it's not an Intel Core I cpu... my old PhII actually drew more vcore at 4.0ghz then this fx8320 draws at 5.0ghz... yet when my phII was sucking down 1.48+vcore, the VRM heatsinks never were even warm to the touch. My piledriver at stock (1.31 vcore), without stress testing made those heatsinks too hot to touch with my bare hand.

Piledriver beats the hell out of vrm/nb on your motherboard. Particularly the 8 core variety. getting a board with poor quality VRM and no heatsinks is only an option if you don't plan to do more overclocking then hitting 4.0ghz on stock voltage... and even then without proper airflow over it, you'll run the risk of blowing the VRMs out (particularly with an 8 core).

I've built enough 6 core piledrivers to know the heat coming off the motherboard is greatly reduced from that of the 8 cores... but still significant enough to need special care if you're really going to drive the voltages and clocks high. Cheap boards with crappy vrms might be fine on an intel or phenomII build... but for piledriver, for actual overclocking a piledriver you need something better...