[V1ceC1ty]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark_Weston pff.. Probably 2 295's, and 2 840's tho. and water cooler for CPU.

That's the most stupid list I've ever seen.

[fonia5]

Quote:

Originally Posted by iZN ok, >cores pls and I don't think he needs it for gaming.

Well if he don't need it for gaming why is he buying such powerful thing's then and my brother as a AMD fx 8 core and he says he rather use Intel all the way because it's much faster better in some way's for gaming etc, also loading time's AMD FX 8 core is also great at rendering like photoshop programs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aldo. Maybe you could think straight if you took Intel's dick out of your mouth.

Think straight? don't be mad because you got a shitty system bro.

Don't get me wrong Fx and Intel are both good but Intel is just better in many way's but not in rendering stuff.

[[WSF]ThA_Devil]

To all the Intel Fanboys -
You CAN NOT GET A BETTER i5/i7 in the price range of FX-8320.
YOU JUST CAN NOT.
Do not COMPARE $500 CPU to a bloody sub $200 cpu.
A better i7 is only Intel Core i7-2600
Which costs almost 2x as much.



And the thread creator is most likely going to use it for gaming. AMD FX-8320 will just work fine.

[fonia5]

Quote:

Originally Posted by [WSF]ThA_Devil To all the Intel Fanboys - You CAN NOT GET A BETTER i5/i7 in the price range of FX-8320. YOU JUST CAN NOT. Do not COMPARE $500 CPU to a bloody sub $200 cpu. A better i7 is only Intel Core i7-2600 Which costs almost 2x as much. And the thread creator is most likely going to use it for gaming. AMD FX-8320 will just work fine.

LOL a better i7 is only intel core i7 2600 you got that wrong!


there both good anyway's but AMD just cheaper. I was thinking of getting a AMD FX 8320 8 core but am not sure between Intel or AMD price rage don't really care to me because i have the money to upgrade my ugly ass AMD 4 core's.

[V1ceC1ty]

Quote:

Originally Posted by [WSF]ThA_Devil To all the Intel Fanboys - You CAN NOT GET A BETTER i5/i7 in the price range of FX-8320. YOU JUST CAN NOT.

You can't get better because Intel don't make anything that bad anymore

[Dr.Einstein]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr.Faqahat I Hope Santa Reads this lol

Man, that signature of yours really made me laugh. Very unique, unlike some other nitwits who quote other people.

[Mauzen]

Quote:

Originally Posted by [WSF]ThA_Devil To all the Intel Fanboys - You CAN NOT GET A BETTER i5/i7 in the price range of FX-8320. YOU JUST CAN NOT. Do not COMPARE $500 CPU to a bloody sub $200 cpu. A better i7 is only Intel Core i7-2600 Which costs almost 2x as much. And the thread creator is most likely going to use it for gaming. AMD FX-8320 will just work fine.

I wanted to stay out of these amd vs intel discussions, but ok


http://www.pcgameshardware.de/FX-832...shera-1032556/ (german)

The top model of that time, i5 3570k, costs about 220$, thats 50% more money for twice the performance.
Impossible to find a price for a new i7-920, but the i5-760 is about 170$ and 15% faster. Thats the very first core-i generation.

I thought the 8320 was just like the 8350, but its much worse. Its a cheapy, greatly reduced version of the 8350, and definitely no CPU for a gaming PC. I hope that this "gaming rig" is a troll now.

[[WSF]ThA_Devil]

Quote:

Originally Posted by V1ceC1ty You can't get better because Intel don't make anything that bad anymore

Yea, you can just pay twice as much to get the same

Reply to Mauzen -
According* to Passmark CPU bench marks
I5-3570k is actually worse than 8320. Oh yea, there's 2 versions of 8320 - 8320 and 8320E ( 95W, lower performance).

Still 8320 should suffice for everything he wants to do.

And what if he has already made AM3(+) platform and is upgrading a cpu. Does it pay off for throwing out rest of components just to get an Intel CPU? Well it does not.

And to Mauzen - If you think that FX-8320 is not enough for gaming, then you must be rocking Intel Xeon E5-2697 with 4 way Titan Z SLI and playing with at least 4k in 3 monitor eyefinity.


I just hate these types of AMD vs Intel threads. Like seriously, It starts by somebody showing a specs of pc, and then the flame/spec wars start. I have nothing against Intel or AMD, they have their own strengths and weaknesses and when looking for a NEW CPU, Affordable price and the performance you get from the price is what matters. You could argue with that, but just look at the statistics, AMD FX-6300 is one of best price/performance CPU's.
Like seriously, BOTH just work fine for WHATEVER you try to do with it. Well if you try to play Battlefield 4 on AMD Athlon 64 it WILL NOT WORK, same goes for Pentium 4.

[Kaperstone]

Quote:

Originally Posted by [WSF]ThA_Devil To all the Intel Fanboys - You CAN NOT GET A BETTER i5/i7 in the price range of FX-8320.

That's because for better quality and performance you need to pay more.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr.Einstein Man, that signature of yours really made me laugh. Very unique, unlike some other nitwits who quote other people.

Funny to hear that from a guy who pretend to be Albert Einstein even in his own community.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fonia5 there both good anyway's but AMD just cheaper. I was thinking of getting a AMD FX 8320 8 core but am not sure between Intel or AMD price rage don't really care to me because i have the money to upgrade my ugly ass AMD 4 core's.

it depends on your needs.

if you seek for performance, then you can take a look at the benchmarks and decide yourself.
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html

3D Design and/or preformance test
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RoYcl0j2ME

After effects test
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNHBVS8tKSw

Video rendering test
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXP6b9wlBCg

differences are little as you can see, but it's totally upon the choice, needs and budget.

If the cpu is for gaming, then go with any you'd like.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvLRZxRL8N8

[Mauzen]

Quote:

Originally Posted by [WSF]ThA_Devil Reply to Mauzen - According* to Passmark CPU bench marks I5-3570k is actually worse than 8320. Oh yea, there's 2 versions of 8320 - 8320 and 8320E ( 95W, lower performance). .

Great, im being dragged even more into that discussion now

Thats because its a synthetic benchmark, getting the theorethical maximum out of a pure CPU test in a certain test scenario (passmark CPU tests are certain mathematic operations, compression, encryption and some other stuff).
The 8320 profits from those tests as it got 8 cores and so can perform more parallel tasks. But barely any game uses more than 3 or 4 cores though, and the single cores of the intel core-i CPUs are MUCH stronger than the AMD fx.
Also, depending on the test, AMDs due to their architecture are faster with integer operations, but slower with floating points. Encryption and compression pretty much are pure integer tasks so the fx-8320 wins there, but floating point operations are much more relevant for games.

So yep, there are certain scenarios in which the 8320 is faster than the 3570, but those scenarios clearly arent games. Why argue with a synthetic score when the actual game benchmarks put the fx-8320 miles behind the i5-3570? This is about a gaming pc!

Quote:

Originally Posted by [WSF]ThA_Devil And to Mauzen - If you think that FX-8320 is not enough for gaming, then you must be rocking Intel Xeon E5-2697 with 4 way Titan Z SLI and playing with at least 4k in 3 monitor eyefinity.

I think its reason enough to say its not a good CPU for a gaming pc today, if it cant handle a 4-year-old game like Starcraft 2 properly.
That performance is far behind what youd expect from a new 1000$ PC.


Edit: Im cutting that discussion with [WSF]ThA_Devil in this thread right here, I really cant stand to mess up threads with those discussions going offtopic without any visible end. Ill continue via PM/visitor messages.

[Classical]

Impressive.

[[WSF]ThA_Devil]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mauzen Great, im being dragged even more into that discussion now Thats because its a synthetic benchmark, getting the theorethical maximum out of a pure CPU test in a certain test scenario (passmark CPU tests are certain mathematic operations, compression, encryption and some other stuff). The 8320 profits from those tests as it got 8 cores and so can perform more parallel tasks. But barely any game uses more than 3 or 4 cores though, and the single cores of the intel core-i CPUs are MUCH stronger than the AMD fx. Also, depending on the test, AMDs due to their architecture are faster with integer operations, but slower with floating points. Encryption and compression pretty much are pure integer tasks so the fx-8320 wins there, but floating point operations are much more relevant for games. So yep, there are certain scenarios in which the 8320 is faster than the 3570, but those scenarios clearly arent games. Why argue with a synthetic score when the actual game benchmarks put the fx-8320 miles behind the i5-3570? This is about a gaming pc! I think its reason enough to say its not a good CPU for a gaming pc today, if it cant handle a 4-year-old game like Starcraft 2 properly.

No CPU can handle Arma II OA (DayZ Mod) properly as well. Well, according to you, no CPU is good cpu since it cannot handle a game ( Arma II OA online ). And your 4 year old argument is invalid since June 29, 2010 ( Release date of Arma II OA ) is 4 years as well. As well, why do you take a benchmark from a game whose developers are unable to multithread physics calculations? If so, every CPU benchmark should run on ARMA II OA multiplayer. Even i7-3770 cannot handle it properly. As well, tell me, what's the use of swapping sockets every second year or so? I mean seriously, upgrading without replacing motherboard? Less likely thing for Intel.

And lets talk truth here. Starcraft 2 is one of those games he is least likely to play, and is not building rig specifically for the game.

And adding to the fact, that game seems to run bad on high end intel as well
http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/8197581213

[Mark_Weston]

Quote:

Originally Posted by V1ceC1ty That's the most stupid list I've ever seen.

Explain.

[V1ceC1ty]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark_Weston Explain.

AMD R9 295's are garbage compared to nVidia's new 900 series GTX's. A GTX 980 is the best performing GPU out of everything and costs half as much as the 295. You'd have to be fucking stupid to get it.

32gb of RAM. Unless you're movie editing or rendering 3D models all day then you only need 16gb MAX.

Then you suggest to Crossfire the 295's and get two 1tb SSD's. Even if you were Bill Gates that would be a stupid choice. $2,200 on GPU's when you could save $1,000 and get SLI GTX 980's instead. SSD's are not even the best to have anymore. I have a M.2 slot on my mobo and will soon be utilising it, not that you know what that is considering you suggested spending over $1,000 on SSD's.

[Dr.Einstein]

Quote:

Originally Posted by xkirill Funny to hear that from a guy who pretend to be Albert Einstein even in his own community.

It is apparent that you have something against me. I don't really have time to waste and talk with you about this matter. Although, it would be kind of nice to have a discussion with you. Do you remember the first time you mentioned me and my community on one of your well-thought posts? If I recall right, my discussing-things-with-you, led you to quickly edit your post before your "friends" could read it.

[Kaperstone]

Quote:

Originally Posted by V1ceC1ty AMD R9 295's are garbage compared to nVidia's new 900 series GTX's. A GTX 980 is the best performing GPU out of everything and costs half as much as the 295. You'd have to be fucking stupid to get it.

AMD R9 295 is more expensive because there are two proccessors inside one - this is what the x2 stands for.
Anyway, it depends on what you're going to use the GPU for.
GTX 900 isn't always better than R9 295x2.

some benchmarks
Without SLI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCKXoAThhPA
With SLI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Q6wO15V9yA

Quote:

Originally Posted by V1ceC1ty 32gb of RAM. Unless you're movie editing or rendering 3D models all day then you only need 16gb MAX.

8GB.
I wonder why you need more.
I have 4GB RAM and I run every game and even few at the same time.
It has it's limit, but I pretty rarely reach it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by V1ceC1ty get two 1tb SSD's.

You can save even more cash and buy an HDD, put on it all the games and the games which you franquely play - put on the SSD.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr.Einstein It is apparent that you have something against me. I don't really have time to waste and talk with you about this matter. Although, it would be kind of nice to have a discussion with you. Do you remember the first time you mentioned me and my community on one of your well-thought posts? If I recall right, my discussing-things-with-you, led you to quickly edit your post before your "friends" could read it.

Bullshit, you have too much time on your hands.

And what do you mean "friends" ? I edited it because I wanted to post my opinion (because someone stated your server is good and I disagree, from my first gameplay experiance it wasn't that great as stated) although I knew the server's head administration will whine about it, like you do (fact, you're trying to insult in your post, which then makes it more of an arguement than "discussion" like you state) and Driftpower who posted my ip on my profile.
http://forum.sa-mp.com/converse.php?u=102543&u2=126674


Last but not least, I don't have anything against, it's just different point of view, the way you accept what is written.

[Aldo.]

Quote:

Originally Posted by [WSF]ThA_Devil And to Mauzen - If you think that FX-8320 is not enough for gaming, then you must be rocking Intel Xeon E5-2697 with 4 way Titan Z SLI and playing with at least 4k in 3 monitor eyefinity.

I'm 1billion percent sure eyefinity is AMD not Nvidia.

Quote:

Originally Posted by V1ceC1ty AMD R9 295's are garbage compared to nVidia's new 900 series GTX's. A GTX 980 is the best performing GPU out of everything and costs half as much as the 295. You'd have to be fucking stupid to get it.

Well no shit Sherlock considering thew GTX 9XX line is brand new so of course they will perform better than a product made to compete with its predecessor but you're too much of a fan boy to use logic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by V1ceC1ty 32gb of RAM. Unless you're movie editing or rendering 3D models all day then you only need 16gb MAX.

Not true.

[V1ceC1ty]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aldo. Well no shit Sherlock considering thew GTX 9XX line is brand new so of course they will perform better than a product made to compete with its predecessor but you're too much of a fan boy to use logic. Not true.

lol. The GTX 900 series are only a few months newer. And yes, very true. If you have 32gb of RAM and you only game, then you're an idiot and have wasted your money. I'm not a fanboy, it's fact that Intel are better. You're just butthurt because you have a fake octacore amd or something.

[Mellnik]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aldo. Not true.

No reason?

[Aldo.]

Quote:

Originally Posted by V1ceC1ty lol. The GTX 900 series are only a few months newer. And yes, very true. If you have 32gb of RAM and you only game, then you're an idiot and have wasted your money. I'm not a fanboy, it's fact that Intel are better. You're just butthurt because you have a fake octacore amd or something.

And the AMD RX 200 series is over a year old yet you still compare them with Nvidia's GTX 900 series because Nvidia GTX 700 series does not beat it, which they were made to compete with. AKA Being a dick riding fanboy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by V1ceC1ty And yes, very true. If you have 32gb of RAM and you only game, then you're an idiot and have wasted your money.

Quote:

Originally Posted by V1ceC1ty 32gb of RAM. Unless you're movie editing or rendering 3D models all day then you only need 16gb MAX.

You said 16GB of ram is more than enough for ANYONE, not only gamers. You're an idiot and you twist your words when you are proven to be one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by V1ceC1ty I'm not a fanboy, it's fact that Intel are better.

Is that why you bring up Intel in a discussion about AMD and Nvidia GPUS?

Quote:

Originally Posted by V1ceC1ty You're just butthurt because you have a fake octacore amd or something.

Yes, I am so butthurt because I have a fake octacore amd or something.