New Gaming PC Config....Suggestions / Advice.

[NoasArcAngel]

*www.techspot.com/articles-info/642/bench/CPU_03.png

*www.techspot.com/articles-info/615/bench/CPU_01.png


Not that bad as you are describing is it?

Now if you factor in a better quality supporting chipset ( compare a B75 mobo with a 970 based M5A97) and thus a feature rich motherbaord and some overclocking which wont be possible with the Intel (NonK and Z) in any of the mentioned aspects, not bad at all. And then comes the upgradability part and the future. Haswell will play doom to 1155 but steamroller wont. Keeping those aspects in mind and multi core gaming in mind for the future (which you will disagree at present) I dont think we should write off AMD as a value offering at present in that particular segment.

as far as steamroller is concerned :
1. based on bulldozer
2. 28nm fab
3. releasing 2014 ( no exact date )
4. AMD is targeting a 15% performance increase every year.. at least thats what they said...

*www.brightsideofnews.com/Data/2013_3_6/Analysis-AMD-Kaveri-APU-and-Steamroller-x86-64-Architectural-Enhancements-Unveiled/AMD_high_performance_core_roadmap.jpg

the i7 also ahead of amd's flagship processor by 2x in computational scores, with the release of haswell, the scenario with steamroller in 2014 will be the same as it is now.

yes multicore gaming is, but what you are missing is that no game is going to require a 8 core cpu soon enough, even if it does the fx8350 is not cut out for that job simply for the fact that its a weak quadcore. overclocking will give a max 25% boost (and 25% is with like considering WTF moments in performance it will be more in the 10-15% range) with a need for a good amount of cooling. also the i5 already leaps in terms of computational performance. You mean to say that amd's new line of CPU's which will be competing with haswell wont be based on the same socket?

apart from that , the benchmarks you posted are bogus, since they only represent max fps.

*media.bestofmicro.com/O/M/375430/original/Crysis3-CPU.png
*media.bestofmicro.com/9/G/364516/original/CPU-scaling.png

read this again, im posting this the second time on this thread, and this is visible for the third time on this thread, if you bothered to read only this page from the starting you would have seen the point im trying to make

also considering that, your benchmarks look rigged. Please for gods sake, post accurate results. because an i3 2100 is beating a fx8350 in FC3 cpu scaling

 

[Cilus]

In the above config, change the following things:-
MOTHERBOARD : Asus M5a990fx r2.0 @ 10.2k
HDD: Toshiba 2 TB
PSU: Seasonic S12II 620

Also the price of the gpu is not 20k, it is 21.5k including VAT

NoacArcAngle, even the avg fps is also higher in Crysis 3 with the higher core processors. What are you trying to prove?
In FC3, both 3570 and fx-8350 are neck to neck and the 3k extra price isn't justified. In Crysis 3, Fx8350 is ahead. In fact, Crysis 3 is happy to use 12 threads of 3960X and really scaling well in all the cores.

 

[NoasArcAngel]

In the above config, change the following things:-
MOTHERBOARD : Asus M5a990fx r2.0 @ 10.2k
HDD: Toshiba 2 TB
PSU: Seasonic S12II 620

Also the price of the gpu is not 20k, it is 21.5k including VAT

NoacArcAngle, even the avg fps is also higher in Crysis 3 with the higher core processors. What are you trying to prove?
In FC3, both 3570 and fx-8350 are neck to neck and the 3k extra price isn't justified. In Crysis 3, Fx8350 is ahead. In fact, Crysis 3 is happy to use 12 threads of 3960X and really scaling well in all the cores.

wait are you saying that the fx-8350 beats the i5 in crysis 3?

what i am looking at here says otherwise :

*img.techpowerup.org/130221/Crysis3.png

lol. its hardly using 6 cores. and thats fully maxed out.

@cilus its noasarcangel

i think it can be safely determined that in crysis 3 the gpu brings the pc to the knees, and in no way is the processor capping the performance.

*www.legionhardware.com/images/review/Gigabyte_GeForce_GTX_Titan/Crysis_01.png

*pclab.pl/zdjecia/artykuly/chaostheory/2013/02/crysis3/crysis3_cpua_evil_1024.png

*pclab.pl/zdjecia/artykuly/chaostheory/2013/02/crysis3/crysis3_cpu_evil_1024.png

*pclab.pl/zdjecia/artykuly/chaostheory/2013/02/crysis3/crysis3_cpua_jungle_1024.png

*pclab.pl/zdjecia/artykuly/chaostheory/2013/02/crysis3/crysis3_cpua_human_1024.png

*www.pcgameshardware.de/screenshots/original/2013/02/Crysis-3-Test-CPUs-VH-720p.png


it also seems that the crysis 3 is biased towards amd cpu architecture, its a good thing for amd but its bad on the whole because its ironically only the one game where a fx8350 comes close to a i7 3690 and more ironically the reason why it comes close is "grass"

 

[Cilus]

Yes. FX 8350 is just behind i7 3770k

 

[NoasArcAngel]

In the above config, change the following things:-
MOTHERBOARD : Asus M5a990fx r2.0 @ 10.2k
HDD: Toshiba 2 TB
PSU: Seasonic S12II 620

Also the price of the gpu is not 20k, it is 21.5k including VAT

NoacArcAngle, even the avg fps is also higher in Crysis 3 with the higher core processors. What are you trying to prove?
In FC3, both 3570 and fx-8350 are neck to neck and the 3k extra price isn't justified. In Crysis 3, Fx8350 is ahead. In fact, Crysis 3 is happy to use 12 threads of 3960X and really scaling well in all the cores.

but is the 1k price difference justified for a 8 core processor?

Yes. FX 8350 is just behind i7 3770k

i think the 3450/3470 also beats the fx 8350?


@cilus, think people here have the wrong idea... fx8350 is a quad modul processor .it has 8 cores but 2 cores share the same l2 cache. So not truly 8 core afterall ?

Piledriver is still based on the same basic design as Bulldozer, with the ‘8-core’ chip containing four Piledriver modules, each of which contains a pair of integer cores. While AMD markets these as individual CPU cores, each module’s pair of integer cores shares a number of resources, including the fetch and decode units, a Floating Point scheduler (FPU) and 2MB of L2 cache. This is part of AMD’s design philosophy of focusing on multi-threaded performance, with each module able to process two threads simultaneously. As we found last year though, this comes at the cost of single-threaded performance and with the down-side that relatively few applications are able to make use of four cores in multi-threaded workloads, let alone eight

*www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2012/11/06/amd-fx-8350-review/1


ohh and i checked, crysis 3 cpu scaling for the fx 8350 is 74.5% per core ( if you consider it an 8 core ) and for the i7 its 44%, having said that its necessary to realize that crysis 3 is not making use of Hyperthreading on intel processors and also its using a max of 8 threads .

*www.overclock.net/content/type/61/id/1302786/width/350/height/700/flags/LL

*www.overclock.net/content/type/61/id/1302784/width/350/height/700/flags/LL




so cilus, im waiting to see

In fact, Crysis 3 is happy to use 12 threads of 3960X and really scaling well in all the cores.

 

[summers]

Guys, chill...

Plz don't fight over whether Intel is better of AMD....

@NoasArcAngel : I m not an AMD fanboy as you said earlier. I am a fan of what provides more value for money i spend, in present as well as future scenarios, be it Intel or AMD. I've had three computers till date, all intels right from Pentium to Core 2Duo to Core i3.

I was more inclined towards an AMD configuration because it provides me a performance level almost comparable to an i5 at a much lesser price. I want a smooth working experience on my new pc, be it games, regular work, watching hd movies etc. Most of us buy computers to enjoy games and not for benchmarks.
IMO with a decent GPU, both the processors are able to play almost all games at respectable frame rates. My point is, it doesn't matter whether i get 80 fps with intel or 70 fps with amd coz i won't be able to differentiate the 10 fps difference during game play,. What matters is whether i am getting decent frame rates to make the gameplay enjoyable.

Hmmm... this is getting intresting.....

@op what did you decide about overclocking??

Get i5 3450 and a good b75 mobo and 7870(or higher) and you are ready to take on any game for next 2-3 years......

oc'ing is a hassle dont get into it.........

8350 is a value for money processor which is being proved useless here for no reason whatsoever..... everyone knows that it is not good for gaming and is just below i7 when it comes to multi threaded stuff so it is meant for those who have works like photoshop and all and also play some games on a limited budget......

@smn abusing cilus

what **** did he post??

I'll Overclock.

 

[NoasArcAngel]

Guys, chill...

Plz don't fight over whether Intel is better of AMD....

@NoasArcAngel : I m not an AMD fanboy as you said earlier. I am a fan of what provides more value for money i spend, in present as well as future scenarios, be it Intel or AMD. I've had three computers till date, all intels right from Pentium to Core 2Duo to Core i3.

I was more inclined towards an AMD configuration because it provides me a performance level almost comparable to an i5 at a much lesser price. I want a smooth working experience on my new pc, be it games, regular work, watching hd movies etc. Most of us buy computers to enjoy games and not for benchmarks.
IMO with a decent GPU, both the processors are able to play almost all games at respectable frame rates. My point is, it doesn't matter whether i get 80 fps with intel or 70 fps with amd coz i won't be able to differentiate the 10 fps difference during game play,. What matters is whether i am getting decent frame rates to make the gameplay enjoyable.





I'll Overclock.

its not that, the point is that one should have correct knowledge about what is what.
secondly today a 10 fps gap may be there, but when more demanding games arrive, then the difference will be more pronounced.
no the fx8350 is kind of next to useless, you can choose the 3470 / 3450 the only differnce in the whole 34xx and 35xx series is that of the clock.

so what have you decided ? amd or intel ?
no benchmarks are not what you buy a computer for, but how do you judge its performance? tomorrow if you go and buy a car.. its purpose is for driving, but you will also have a look at its specifications? wont you? specially "kitna deti hai"

in simple words, benchmarks are for pc's what specifications are for cars.

i agree, but even if I get 10 fps for the same amount of money, ill consider that VFM .

and im not fighting with anyone, im just showing to the other person where he is wrong, or waiting for him to show me where i am wrong. Thats all

 

[Cilus]

NoasArcAngel , just tell me one thing: If Crysis 3 is not using more than 4 to 6 threads, how it is scaling better in a 6 Core/12 Thread SandyBridge-E CPU than a Ivy Bridge 4 Core /8 thread i7 3770K CPU?
*www.techspot.com/articles-info/642/bench/CPU_03.png

You have posted too much jargons here, I am just showing you a clear picture, i7 3770K is giving around 64 FPS whereas FX-8350 is giving around 61 FPS at the 1080P resolution, the resolution which most gamers use. Now i7 3770K is almost twice as costly than FX-8350. Please explain it in simple words.

 

[hitesh]

NoasArcAngel , just tell me one thing: If Crysis 3 is not using more than 4 to 6 threads, how it is scaling better in a 6 Core/12 Thread SandyBridge-E CPU than a Ivy Bridge 4 Core /8 thread i7 3770K CPU?

That's a mere 3 fps difference. 3960 ahead by 4.6% only.
If Crysis 3 uses a little bit of extra core/thread just to squeeze out 4% more performance, then it does not mean that it uses 12 threads

 

[NoasArcAngel]

noasarcangel , just tell me one thing: If crysis 3 is not using more than 4 to 6 threads, how it is scaling better in a 6 core/12 thread sandybridge-e cpu than a ivy bridge 4 core /8 thread i7 3770k cpu?
*www.techspot.com/articles-info/642/bench/cpu_03.png

you have posted too much jargons here, i am just showing you a clear picture, i7 3770k is giving around 64 fps whereas fx-8350 is giving around 61 fps at the 1080p resolution, the resolution which most gamers use. Now i7 3770k is almost twice as costly than fx-8350. Please explain it in simple words.

take a look at this : again

*www.overclock.net/content/type/61/id/1302786/width/350/height/700/flags/LL

dont twist the facts,
lets be clear with the facts :

1. crysis 3 is not using more than 8 threads, so it already invalidates half of what ever you have posted here, and i was for one moment seriously considering wether you even take the pain to do background checks before posting here.


2. isnt it common sense? the more the threads, the better the scaling?
have you considered the 4 core processor you are talking about has 1 mb L2 cache and 8 MB L3 cache
the 6 core has 1256KB L2 cache and 15MB L3 cache.

you are the software engineer, tell me if cache size does not make a difference then what does?


LOL, what tech jargon bro ? its plain and simple english, google terms if you dont understand them

thats what i have been telling you, the fx 8350 is only ahead in crysis 3. and that too your benchmark is rigged.

ill make you a deal.

you explain to me this :



*pclab.pl/zdjecia/artykuly/chaostheory/2013/02/crysis3/crysis3_cpua_evil_1024.png
and ill prove anything i said here.



now your side of the bargain does not hold up does it? forget FULL HD, the 7970 is suffering at 1024x768.. its crawling


you only have 1 benchmark to prove your point, while i have posted about 10.... .so you decide.

ahahahahha, why do you even bother to reply? you dont even have the courage to admit you are wrong and edit your statement, and you still want to argue with me about threads

:ROFL:

 

[The Incinerator]

aaah Not again.......


@ OP

Simple Economics. If you want to spend Rs 16000 for a Processor and Mainboard and want to overclock, its best to side with AMD. That is get a FX8350 + Asus M5A97. If you do that with Intel ,you will end up with a i5 3470 and a B75 Motherboard,which cant overclock ,is built to cost (read Cheap) and is mATX! I believe NAA hasnt seen the boards side by side

NAA is getting unnecessarily nervous here for nothing. A 5/7 FPS wont play doom when all the proccys are doing below 40FPS anyway. So jusr overlook his Trash Posts and decide for yourself.

NAA if you see closely over the 10 to 15% increase AMD is covering YoY on new releases ,I wonder what better Intel is doing if you compare a 2500K with a 3570K. Whom are you taking for a ride here?

 

[NoasArcAngel]

aaah Not again.......


@ OP

Simple Economics. If you want to spend Rs 16000 for a Processor and Mainboard and want to overclock, its best to side with AMD. That is get a FX8350 + Asus M5A97. If you do that with Intel ,you will end up with a i5 3470 and a B75 Motherboard,which cant overclock ,is built to cost (read Cheap) and is mATX! I believe NAA hasnt seen the boards side by side

NAA is getting unnecessarily nervous here for nothing. A 5/7 FPS wont play doom when all the proccys are doing below 40FPS anyway. So jusr overlook his Trash Posts and decide for yourself.

NAA if you see closely over the 10 to 15% increase AMD is covering YoY on new releases ,I wonder what better Intel is doing if you compare a 2500K with a 3570K. Whom are you taking for a ride here?

damn right bro, not again.... !!! dont post stupid comment which you have no proof of... ( Specially since your arse benchmarks have been extinguished, go and replenish them.... )

yes OP, go for the amd fx8350, and when you get frame drops, dont complain to me go to him. bro who are you kidding? as if AMD has done some magic? even amd has hardly managed a 15% performance gain.

i think you are the one getting uneasy here bro. does it matter to me which processor OP takes? NO its his money, his pc. i can only suggest him something.

because now you are all out of options to jack benchmarks from your arse, you are trolling. Really dude, get a life and more importantly start reading lol.

and built to cost, tell me which product isnt built to cost ? we arent shopping for a 2Lakh Rig that Op has to use only certified (read noob certified ) premium components .

and you are saying as if the motherboards crack after a few days usage. i couldnt control myself.


lol the famous 40 fps argument................................wow thinkdigit.com/forum/users/noobs/no1. - > the incinerator

remember anything :

what res is your display?



yes but you are so naive you missed the whole point, its 17 fps more on avg, considering that.... it still less than 45 fps... which is the minimum required for smooth gameplay.. so the question is that are you suggesting him to spend more on a processor just for that extra 17 fps? knowing very well that even then the game will be choppy. think about it before you reply.

Proc: i5 3450 - 11k
Mobo: MSI H61M-P20 (G3) Motherboard @ 2.7k
Sapphire HD7870 - 16k
Corsair value 4GB - 1.3k / Gskill ripjaws 4GB - 1.7k
Corsair 430w - 2.5k

Total: 35k ( dream config, still wont run crysis 3 @ >30fps )

also you forgot to factor in a better gpu... consider this : in that graph its the same gpu... so if i change my gpu which is more powerful than the 7970 20% extra ill get a somewhat fps boost upto 7-8 fps... so its really 25 fps versus 30 fps... and i think if you can save 2k by avoiding a quad core then its a good buy...

just look at that graph, thats a gtx 680 = more than ops total budget paired with a 3550 and even then its struggling with minimum fps < 60... i think at least 45 fps is bare minimum and 60 fps is just about recommended if you really want to play a game properly... people say that anything above 30 does not matter... its bullshit.. when you play at 60 fps, you notice the difference.

So lets say even if op gets a 3450 + hd 7850 where will it land him ? with an 3220 + hd 7870 its the same case... whatever config he decides to chose he will be on the same platform... i.e. the difference in the FPS of both the systems will not be much... so why not save money by getting a cheaper config? because unless he gets ready to shell out 60k hes still stuck on the same FPS level...

*media.bestofmicro.com/U/0/354888/original/BF3.png

*media.bestofmicro.com/U/1/354889/original/DiRT.png

 

[The Incinerator]

How much pain you must be going through to prove a point which is a non point. You are acting like Intel Fanboy. OP wants to over clock at that budget and wants a good all round system with better upgradability path , you always get things wrong. You are suggesting him against his requirements ,even he made it clear. Stop posting the same pretty pictures again and again,man. What are working so hard for 5 to 7fps drop in some specific games which wont matter at the end of the day.??? Nobody goes to anybody if theres a framedrop They only go when the computer conks out ha ha ha ha.

And why the hell are you getting abusive and personal. Whats your insecurity?

 

[summers]

Guys, this will be an unending debate on Intel Vs. AMD.....!!

After due consideration, i've decided to go with FX-8350. I've gone through the reviews on net and its the best processor i can get at that price point. Moreover, i've the option of future upgrade to Steamroller too with the AM3+ mobo.

Now, the Asus M5A990FX PRO R2.0 is listed @ Rs. 11232 in flipkart. Would this be a better choice than MSI 990FX-GD65 (Rs. 9348)..? One more thing i've noticed is that Asus Sabertooth 990FX R2.0 is giving 5 years warranty.

 

[NoasArcAngel]

How much pain you must be going through to prove a point which is a non point. You are acting like Intel Fanboy. OP wants to over clock at that budget and wants a good all round system with better upgradability path , you always get things wrong. You are suggesting him against his requirements ,even he made it clear. Stop posting the same pretty pictures again and again,man. What are working so hard for 5 to 7fps drop in some specific games which wont matter at the end of the day.??? Nobody goes to anybody if theres a framedrop They only go when the computer conks out ha ha ha ha.

And why the hell are you getting abusive and personal. Whats your insecurity?

abusive ? lol. i think thats your insecurity.

Guys, this will be an unending debate on Intel Vs. AMD.....!!

After due consideration, i've decided to go with FX-8350. I've gone through the reviews on net and its the best processor i can get at that price point. Moreover, i've the option of future upgrade to Steamroller too with the AM3+ mobo.

Now, the Asus M5A990FX PRO R2.0 is listed @ Rs. 11232 in flipkart. Would this be a better choice than MSI 990FX-GD65 (Rs. 9348)..? One more thing i've noticed is that Asus Sabertooth 990FX R2.0 is giving 5 years warranty.

good decision OP, stick with the fx 8350 although the overclock wont make a big difference, and as far as the future is concerned, youll have to get a new motherboard and cpu just because of the gpu.

best of luck ! post the pics when you buy the rig.

 

[gagan_kumar]

A 5/7 FPS wont play doom when all the proccys are doing below 40FPS anyway.

well that 5-7 fps will be a great difference in the future highly demanding games.......


@noasarcangel please don't stress it out ok....

one time u make ur suggestion and give out the reason is enough...

 

[The Incinerator]

Guys, this will be an unending debate on Intel Vs. AMD.....!!

After due consideration, i've decided to go with FX-8350. I've gone through the reviews on net and its the best processor i can get at that price point. Moreover, i've the option of future upgrade to Steamroller too with the AM3+ mobo.

Now, the Asus M5A990FX PRO R2.0 is listed @ Rs. 11232 in flipkart. Would this be a better choice than MSI 990FX-GD65 (Rs. 9348)..? One more thing i've noticed is that Asus Sabertooth 990FX R2.0 is giving 5 years warranty.

The Sabertooth can be had for Rs 13500 and I think its better to pay the little extra and getting it over the Asus M5A990FX PRO R2.0.
Then comes the Asus CrosshairV Formula Rs 15600.

 

[gagan_kumar]

Guys, this will be an unending debate on Intel Vs. AMD.....!!

After due consideration, i've decided to go with FX-8350. I've gone through the reviews on net and its the best processor i can get at that price point. Moreover, i've the option of future upgrade to Steamroller too with the AM3+ mobo.

Now, the Asus M5A990FX PRO R2.0 is listed @ Rs. 11232 in flipkart. Would this be a better choice than MSI 990FX-GD65 (Rs. 9348)..? One more thing i've noticed is that Asus Sabertooth 990FX R2.0 is giving 5 years warranty.

nice choice dude at your budget i think u won't regret it....

but u have to buy the gpu at the time of ur purchase (the same case happened with me and i had to go wid i7 because of that)

 

[The Incinerator]

well that 5-7 fps will be a great difference in the future highly demanding games.......

In future if things go the way FarCry 3 and Crysis 3 are going its better to have the FX8350. I somehow believe the FX is a better option keeping the future in mind. If steamroller makes it big ,I can just buy the CPU and wont have to throw my Motherbaord along with it. And way the games are using all the cores (4 and more) its good to have the FX which comes for Rs 11,400 and is overclockable and costs Rs 3000 less than a comparable Intel. Now if a I put this Rs 3000 in a better GPU then tell me who is the gainer here?

 

[gagan_kumar]

In future if things go the way FarCry 3 and Crysis 3 are going its better to have the FX8350. I somehow believe the FX is a better option keeping the future in mind. If steamroller makes it big ,I can just buy the CPU and wont have to throw my Motherbaord along with it. And way the games are using all the cores (4 and more) its good to have the FX which comes for Rs 11,400 and is overclockable and costs Rs 3000 less than a comparable Intel. Now if a I put this Rs 3000 in a better GPU then tell me who is the gainer here?

well the thing is the gpu requirement is exponentially rising as u can c in the case of crysis 3 and i think cpu won't be that much of a limiting factor but keeping the the mass in mind the developers won't just shift from 4 cores to 4+ cores just like that.....

in either cases i m not eligible to comment about the architectures of both ivy bridge and pile driver....

both have their pros and cons i choose intel over amd cause of
1. pci-e 3.0 (which is seeming to be necessary seeing the case wid crysis 3)
2. intel igp (which comes handy when ur gpu is not working or u don't have gpu(my case))
3. intel low TDP vs amd's