Budget 41-50k Gaming PC
- Thread starter agefreak
- Start date
I know there is a tendency to view threads as the thread starter's personal property, but I don't completely agree. While the primary purpose for a thread is to help you get the best PC for your money, completely incorrect assertions cannot be let go uncontested as other readers get a wrong impression. Especially by someone who says "Too many Intel Vs AMD fanboy's are giving false info in this forum lately". Even if you get your best PC as a result of this thread, you won't be able to understand why it is best, and to plan your upgrades, if you do not go through other similar threads. Same goes for others, so having correct information here is useful.@amitkher , @Crazy_Eddy
While i find the discussion insightful, it still doesn't help me. I am not into heavy overclocks, and unless the TDP drastically affects my choice of Mobo / PSU, a difference of 40-50 W does not bother me.
Yes, you don't care about 40-50 W difference. But a 90W difference completely changes the PSU, CPU cooler and cabinet choice. 40-50W difference might change the choices, if you are around the limit.
It is difficult to solve problems in multiple threads. A processor with single thread having twice the performance should ALWAYS be preferred to 2 threads. Game developers are trying to use multiple threads, but it is a difficult problem in computer science. Many problems have been proven to be impossible to solve in multiple threads. Strategy games are likely to have problems difficult to solve in multiple threads.
I am talking here about threads instead of cores - because for Intel processors supporting hyperthreading, one "core" can support multiple threads. With that, single thread performance drops but combined performance improves. With AMD FX processors, 2 cores form a module. If you use both cores of a module, single thread performance drops, but combined performance improves. AMD promises to solve this problem in the next generation, but promises are cheap. So the word "core" cannot be used to compare processors across Intel/AMD. Very roughly speaking, 2 AMD FX cores are equivalent to 1 Intel hyperthreading core.
jhononweed
Disciple
You asked for single review and i showed you....busted myth of actual vs synthetic bench mark's.Pointed towards bad reviewing and undesired bias.Quoted real world applications which people use over non -real ones plus showed what is best in certain budget.P.s.: We are all still waiting for the dozens of reviews or even one review showing 25~30W difference. Is it usual for AMD fanbois to throw about exaggerated claims and then call others crazy when they can't back their claims?
And you have failed to provide me how much more will i or any other Fx user will pay if their rig is using say 50W more power than Intel counter part's either in monthly or yearly basis.Got a clue Eddy ??
Tough i am not clubbing you as Fanboy but It's always been same with Intel FANBOY's to point how superior IPC Intel has over AMD which is true but when asked about multi threaded performance they will pin-point towards i7 4coreHT / 6core chips forgetting there is some price vs performance over illogical thinking.Intel is better and will be but when things that a person needs can be obtained for less price then why to spend money for expensive one's? I bet Intel Fanboy's don't have a clue about real world computing needs of people.
By the way i am both Intel & AMD fanboy as i have both.So pick and choose any of them to rant at me but positives vs negatives of each processor have been discussed as regular user.Original poster have choice of spending more for better product for same daily use performance which he can get from relatively less priced product.It's his choice and synthetic results have no meaning on real world , if you dispute that too then you need to test yourself each to find a middle ground.
No offence but you need to take both sides of things.
dovakhiin
Adept
@amitkher , @Crazy_Eddy
While i find the discussion insightful, it still doesn't help me. I am not into heavy overclocks, and unless the TDP drastically affects my choice of Mobo / PSU, a difference of 40-50 W does not bother me.
It would be great if you could give your views on :-
1. Multi Core vs Single Core performance, with an eye on the future (considering the fact that both MS and SOny have incorporated AMD multi-core solutions in their consoles)
2. Choice of mobo for AM3+ (I'm thinking 990FX - but I got a little apprehensive reading the bit about MSI mobos burning out)
3. If not AMD, then which kit in Intel?
Cheers!
Hey, I have a AMD 8350K on a Sabertooth 990FX. I've easily managed to overclock it to 4.7Ghz. The performance is solid. My old processor was a Phenom II 955 BE so my situation was similar to yours.
Just thought I'd share why I chose AMD over Intel.
Reasons why I think you should buy,
Reason 1 - Power consumption is really not that big an issue
Why? -
- You won't be running the PC at full load all day
- You can always use features like AMD Cool'n'quiet to keep the power in check
- Let's assume you do run it at full load a lot, electricity is pretty cheap in India. The savings you'll make on an intel are non-existent or insignificant at best, considering how expensive the intel platform is.
- Not convinced? Let's do the math
Code:
Let's say the 8350K uses 80W extra for 5 hrs a day.
Assume the cost of electricity is Rs 4/unit
80*5 = 400Wh per day = 0.4 units per day = 12 units per month = 12 units * 4 Rs/Unit => Rs. 48 per month
So you will be saving 48 bucks per month with an Intel.
Don't forget that value is exaggerated. 80W are 5hrs of full load are exaggerated. The real value will be lesser.Reason 2- There's is a good chance that the AMD 8350 will catch up to the intel in next-gen games
- Considering that both next-gen consoles are AMD based, next-gen games will definitely be optimized for AMD architectures. We might see gains due to this, but don't expect it to beat intel. It could close the gap a little and that will make it an even sweeter deal
- Also checkout benchmarks for newer games like Far Cry 3 and Crysis 3 which make better use of multi-core processing. AMD either beats the 3770K or comes very close. If this is anything to go by, future games will perform decently well on the AMD
- I've linked a video which shows that AMD does much better when streaming games. If your thinking about using steam big picture mode or something, this might be useful
You should watch this video if you haven't already. It's by these guys from Tek Syndicate. It's the video that convinced me to buy AMD-
I think you should consider the FX options seriously, they might just suit your needs and you'll save a lot of money. The performance is pretty good for the money.
If you're looking for a good VFM board I recommend ASUS M5A99FX Pro Rev2. If that's not within your budget then i'm not sure, maybe other members could suggest something. Just don't buy MSI.
topgear
Adept
seriously do you really have an AMD 8350K ... lol
.. anyway, I'll have a look into that video to see how convincing it is.Power consumption is a huge issue - as in connecting components taking 600 Watts to a PSU capable of supplying only 500 watts reliably can have disastrous consequences. UPS also needs to be bought with power consumption in mind. CPU cooler and cabinet need to be able to dissipate that much power, but maybe these are less important.
Any misinformation about power consumption in a buying help thread is not help. Regardless of how cheap you think power is.
jhononweed
Disciple
1.People tend to give " advice " based on synthetic reviews that are either poorly executed by using one sided s/w's for benching or grossly overlooking basic test system configurations.
2.People here on this forum have tendency to overlook conditions and computing needs of original thread starter and try to force their views by stating " how much fast this product is VS other or how one uses double power consumption and lot other BS. ".Yet they fail to provide real world benching results or fail to understand real world vs synthetic results are not same.
3.Price per Performance is best way to advice someone who has budget to satisfy his buying need's.Yet people forget that and start flame war's about how first product is very best for you considering same performance can be obtained for far less price by buying second product which will perform less than first one.Compromise on few things needs to be done when you are bounded by budget constraint's but who actually understand this other than a buyer.
4. When asked to justify price premium over other , all they have to say is go to this link and read yourself.
When asked again about why we are being advice not to buy second product , they say in long term you will pay more in terms of power consumption& other BS so buy first product and pay premium..........yet they fail to provide how much we are going to pay more for BS & increase power consumption if advice of discarding second product was based on this criteria
5.Every product has it's positive & negatives depending upon usage, somehow this particular fellow can't understand that.
6.Not many users are using both to provide experience of usage and difference hence they rely on reviewing sites.I can vouch if two rig's are put on display a common user wont be able to differentiate which is which.Only real time benching can provide difference....
.
Did you even care to read post in which components are being suggested to OP or trying to outsmart others ?
[quote="amitkher, post: 1878699, member: 34721"
It is difficult to solve problems in multiple threads. A processor with single thread having twice the performance should ALWAYS be preferred to 2 threads. Game developers are trying to use multiple threads, but it is a difficult problem in computer science. Many problems have been proven to be impossible to solve in multiple threads. Strategy games are likely to have problems difficult to solve in multiple threads.
.[/quote]
Twice the performance in gaming ? You must be comparing one of today's generation processor with last decade's.....Now as per tradition of asking for proof , do you have anything to back that theory of yours as per OP's needs ? Kindly provide some twice the gaming performance links.
So game developers of Cyrsis3 / BF3 / Far Cry3 / Metro like them have configured their games and engine based on BOTANY then...because as per you it's not feasible to use multiple threads for gaming because it's difficult and not obtainable in computer science.Right ?
And you are suggesting or providing advice based on " Strategy " games which are badly coded or living in circa 2007 era using single core to a person who is going to play " First person shooting " games ? Wow !!
Both are different architecture , so you can not compare them directly.
Heck if single core performance was needed so badly then it's batter to buy Intel Pentium chip than expensive i5/7.Plus why to bother when someone can trump mighty Fx( Useless junk) with a GOD like chip and live in era of mid 2000's while happily game forever.
For those who crib about how bad power usage/bill need to re-calculate or better have look at compilation done by @dovakhiin
I am sure this will fall on blind eyes of Intel Fanboy's
jhononweed
Disciple
Did you read suggestions given to advice seeker or you jumped they wagon by seeing AMD is being suggested ?
The only BS in this whole thread was this statement by an "unbiased user" :
An unbiased user would have either shown these reviews with 25~30W or corrected the value in his statement. I appeal to the user to address this issue before posting anymore in this thread.
P.s.: User also needs to stop making assumptions. I have not said anywhere in my posts that the OP needs to buy an i7 or that the i7 is going to save him money in electricity bills.
An unbiased user would have either shown these reviews with 25~30W or corrected the value in his statement. I appeal to the user to address this issue before posting anymore in this thread.
P.s.: User also needs to stop making assumptions. I have not said anywhere in my posts that the OP needs to buy an i7 or that the i7 is going to save him money in electricity bills.
The post I replied to did not name any PSU/cabinet/CPU cooler. Just that power consumption is not that "big" an issue. One can mislead by NOT saying some things.
jhononweed
Disciple
Eddy calm down , you should read that i said 25-30W atmost in real world not synthetic benching which you have ignored to understand.Being a MOD you should read before quoting other's post.
Go and read where you asked me to show one review which i politely showed you that uses BF3 which is going to be used by OP.Did you read my last post marked to you in RED font's ?
Power consumption saving done " was/is " not replied to you but i asked you how much saving will it do.
No one is accusing you for suggesting i5/7 but rather i am being accused of being FANBOY instead i am asking you to re-read my original post of power consumption.
PS : I stand by my statement and if you or other poster have dispute regarding that then provide a backing in real life usage/benching.
dovakhiin
Adept
seriously do you really have an AMD 8350K ... lol
Lol
. I thought something was wrong when I typed that. It's AMD FX-8350.True, I was just saying it won't cost you that much in terms in power expenditure. As in the OP shouldn't buy intel expecting to make long term savings on his power bill. I'm not saying that power consumption isn't important. You took my statement a little too literally.
Agreed. Irrelevant, though. I just replied to your statement that power difference between 4770k and FX 8350 is "at best" 25-30 W. Which is PLAIN WRONG given your refusal to explain what you mean by "at best".
I can just reply to one post at a time. I called out on your lie about 25-30 W in an answer to your post about 25-30 W. I corrected another poster on how power consumption is a big deal regardless of cost of power as a reply to that post.Did you even care to read post in which components are being suggested to OP or trying to outsmart others ?
It is a theoretical statement. After your failure in practice (25-30 W? At best? WTF?) you now fail in even comprehending a theoretical computer science statement for what it is.
I can prove that in ANY scenario. A (hypothetical) single-thread processor with 2X the performance in single thread should ALWAYS be preferred over another double-thread processor of X single thread performance. Everything else remaining constant, of course. Regardless of specific needs. How?
The kernel simply switches between multiple threads in the same processor core and modern OSes have minimal overhead. If cache is making switching difficult, "everything else" is not constant. Plus the 2X single thread processor works twice as well for algorithms that cannot be parallelized. Hence proved. Your turn to substantiate "at best 25-30 W".
This is not what I said. Enjoy talking to the straw man.
Right, you've learnt something today. Cheers to that.
No, i5/i7 typically performs better in single thread than pentium. You have a lot to learn still. Keep up hope.
Ok, that makes sense. 8350 has reasonable idle power consumption, so power cost wise it wouldn't matter for people who don't run FOLDING@HOME, or SETI@HOME etc.Lol
True, I was just saying it won't cost you that much in terms in power expenditure. As in the OP shouldn't buy intel expecting to make long term savings on his power bill. I'm not saying that power consumption isn't important. You took my statement a little too literally.
Using BF3 or any other gaming test, reveals a big flaw :-
Notice how the 4 core 5800K is nearly matching the FPS of the 8 core FX 8xxx? What are the additional 4 cores on the 8xxx doing? This is what happens when you add in additional variables into the equation. This obviously looks like the GPU is bottlenecking the CPU. How can this be a "CPU Load test" if only half the cores are properly loaded?
Again I repeat - I have NOT suggested anywhere that the OP buy an i5/i7. Your FX recommendation is fine, but certain facts are off, which we are correcting.
jhononweed
Disciple
One can only mislead by not going through whole thread before posting or quoting other's.It wont take huge effort to read or understand it if you have proper education.Misleading people by dissecting post's will only contradict your views which you have failed to assess when asked upon.
All valid views are irrelevant to you because you have deluded views.
" At Best " mean you will have 25-30W more in real world where actual user's use their system rather than synthetic benchmarks which have no meaning on power bill's or performance in real world.May be you need proper education to understand words.
Don't mislead with your statements.First you posted 90+W usage difference by going through prime s/w then you edited your same post after i showed you it's not 90W+ that you claim rather than 40-50W on prime which is extreme system tester for loads with " yes haswel will have 10W more so still it's more than 25-30W which i posted ".All i can see is you contradicting your post's after post yet fail to provide twice the gaming performance of super chip that has twice per core lead over other chip.Show me a benching review be it synthetic or real...just prove this myth of yours true and then call me liar.You need to back it up to accuse someone if you can't then you are mere " Keyboard Warrior ".
Prove it with actual graphical or in industry mandated practice by quoting how OP will benefit from it for his gaming needs.
Prove it by showing me & others how 4 core cpu with HT will beat 8 core cpu by keeping OP's needs intact.
I can show how delusional you are and how miss informed your level of knowledge is.
Seriously ? Multi threaded applications use out of world technology or they are fooling all then.
You might be knowing that world's best or i rather say every super computer uses multi-threaded platform to perform computing faster rather than use single chip with one core with 2 threads so it's not difficult in computer science.
So you posted this after my this part of my post " So game developers of Cyrsis3 / BF3 / Far Cry3 / Metro like them have configured their games and engine based on BOTANY then...because as per you it's not feasible to use multiple threads for gaming because it's difficult and not obtainable in computer science.Right ? "
Then what did you meant to say because in simple English all i can read is " Multi threaded games/applications are not possible.....so game developers might be doing something out of computer science right ?
For once back your this statement with an intent of proving me or others wrong.
You failed to understand plain English by not referring to read my initial post which you quoted yourself or provide any validation to prove your always contradictory post'.
Did OP said he want's to use his this rig as FOLDING or SETI setup ? So were does power cost comes into picture for OP....i see serious laps of intellectual integrity.
How old are you ? Your level of decoding basic English or i should say reading disorder and perceptions shows in each post's of yours show how low IQ you possess.Kindly change your attitude or else refrain yourself from quoting others because " Little knowledge is too bad ".
Hence try to improve your level education by spending good quality money on it.
Last edited:
jhononweed
Disciple
Eddy CPU load for power consumption which i posted when you asked me to show 25-30W where BF3 was used to show power consumption in that which we users normally use rather than prime.This above graph shows gaming bench mark results with add on card and BF3 uses 4 core which is documented and more core if available is utilized by it.Using BF3 or any other gaming test, reveals a big flaw :-
Notice how the 4 core 5800K is nearly matching the FPS of the 8 core FX 8xxx? What are the additional 4 cores on the 8xxx doing? This is what happens when you add in additional variables into the equation. This obviously looks like the GPU is bottlenecking the CPU. How can this be a "CPU Load test" if only half the cores are properly loaded?
Again I repeat - I have NOT suggested anywhere that the OP buy an i5/i7. Your FX recommendation is fine, but certain facts are off, which we are correcting.
I am again saying this and read properly - I have not advocated that you have proposed i5/i7.You quote'd me on power usage and i asked you how much difference does it makes in real world living with power bills.Which you failed to provide me but kept referring my " 25-30W " in real computing as stand alone verdict vindicating that my suggestion as based on assumptions when being active user of FX& i7 i can politely say that no one can tell a difference b/w either of them when given to do blind a-b comparison .
You know heavy CPU usage only gives that sort of power usage which OP is not going to do hence atmost " 25-30W " more he will be spending over by going FX.I asked you numerous times to re-read my post where i mentioned this but somehow you have ignored that part to conclude i am providing wrong info and topped that with labeling me as FANBOY. You are not correcting but contradicting it by not reading whole post or dissecting each words by words and with your latest post i can see why yet i have not accused you.
Not a way to conduct MOD duty on anonymous forum by making accusations or trying to perceive one is wrong without going through whole comments properly.
This happened in your hallucinations. My original post about 90W has never been edited, and I maintain that the "maximum" difference between 4770k and FX 8350 is at least 90W, as shown by xbitlabs. I use precise words, like "maximum" rather than vague words like "at best".
Me : It is difficult to solve problems in multiple threads
You : Multi threaded games/applications are not possible
I stopped reading here. End of discussion. Learn the difference between difficult and not possible before talking to adults.
jhononweed
Disciple
You can not read as you have reading abnormalities and it is evident from every post that you posted in this thread or other thread just below this one.
Again in this post you failed to back your statements with any credible info which proclaims you as TROLL and ignorant wannabe.
My discussion is finished with you till you come up with some authentic credible information which i asked you to provide in last post marked to you so that other forum member can take your advice seriously.
Till then you have no right to suggest or correct others.
Last edited:
jhononweed
Disciple
Hmmm i can see EDIT part can you ? Seems that someone is really lacking dignity to own up errors or lower his fragile EGO.↑
And i can pull dozen of other reviews were max difference on power consumption b/w i7 and Fx 8350 is ~25-30 W.
Every body forget how Intel's power usage when it's put on Overclock but hey not every chip is same...
Ok then quote the reviews. Your "at best" appeared, prima facie, to be maximum power difference. If you meant "minimum " by "at best", do clarify.
Though if it meant minimum power difference, your point is enormously weakened.
Edit : all chips are different but existence of one pair of 8350 and 4770k chips where power difference is 90 Watts proves that 20-25 W cannot be the maximum difference between any pair of 8350 and 4770k chips.
Last edited: Friday at 10:53 PM
amitkher, Friday at 10:37 PM
Last edited: Friday at 10:53 PM