flip-mode wrote: Opinions vary; mobos are pretty interesting things, IMO.
just brew it! wrote:Geonerd wrote:Used 1090Ts are going for $130 ~ $160.
Wow, those have held their value quite well for a CPU chip; that's close to what I paid for a new one around 2 years ago. I guess there must still be demand for these from people trying to squeeze the last bit of performance out of their aging AM2+/AM3 systems.
JohnC wrote:I personally try to not upgrade mobos unless it is necessary, I'd rather expand their capabilities with, well, expansion cards
flip-mode wrote:JohnC wrote:I personally try to not upgrade mobos unless it is necessary, I'd rather expand their capabilities with, well, expansion cards
I try not to upgrade anything unless it is necessary If only there was an expansion card that let me put a Haswell in my AM2+ motherboard. At that point the motherboard itself is the expansion card.
JohnC wrote:No. This is an expansion motherboard for ECS PF88 mobo. There were few of these expansion mobos, each for different type of CPU (Pentium-M, Socket754 and Socket939). Back then both hardware and software companies actually cared about giving consumers as much choice as possible (even if these choices were largely impractical and unused).
You keep saying $500. It's $350. And, again, the additional money is buying additional hardware and additional performance - not just cpu performance - USB and SATA performance.clone wrote:because $145 to $500 vs $100 to $130 is not the same comparison..... $30 difference, meh, $200 + significant and steals from the overall budget.How is it not inconsistent to say "get the cheap cpu" and also "don't get a cheap mobo"?
the FX 8320 is viewed by many enthusiasts as "the cheapest toilet available".
It's irrelevant. I can drop some components into a mobo and hit the power button on a computer and suddenly claim to have "experience" using this or that motherboard, or I can read a review that meticulously examines the motherboard and benchmarks it and evaluates the drivers and BIOS and in the end I'm much more informed by having read the review. You, however, are implying that you - some guy on the internet - can tell me better than a proper review, and I reject that.Flip Mode stating an uncomfortable fact, is not a personal attack and that doesn't mean I'm trying to offend anyone.I must say that I never have real world experience with a mobo until I buy one, but I definitely can read specs and reviews and form my own opinions.
They're opinions, and as such, they are every bit as real as yours. The fact that you think your opinions are more real than other people's is... a problem.saying "AMD demands too many compromises", "AMD's motherboards are so bad the worst Intel is exciting in comparison"... (paraphrasing) these conclusions you profess aren't real
AMD's SATA and USB performance is not as good as Intel's. Cpu performance is not as good as Intels. Power consumption is not as good as Intel's. So, regardless of what I have (being that information pertaining to the hardware I currently have is quite irrelevant to what my opinion is regarding the purchase of hardware released subsequent to 2009), if I was buying today, I'd buy a Haswell 4670k.you've already mentioned that your X4 AMD cpu/mobo is handling everything you ask and the new AMD CPU's/mobo's are superior yet you are applying terms like "compromise" and almost hinting that AMD's SATA performance is broken.
That's great. That's your opinion and your advice. I don't need to invalidate it; there's no reason for me to do so. It's not like it's absurd or clearly poor advice. It's a fine opinion you have there. I just don't feel the same. My opinion is that a FX 8320 is not a good upgrade from a 1090T at 4.1 GHz. My first thought is sit on the 1090T for a bit longer. My second thought is that if an upgrade is nonetheless still desired, then the FX 8320 isn't a significant enough upgrade, and that upgrading to Haswell gives demonstrably better CPU, SATA, USB and power consumption performance. Just like your opinion, my opinion is valid and it's not absurd or clearly poor advice.I'm not saying AMD is perfect, I'm not saying Intel is perfect, I'm saying never forget the money and for heavens sake keep it in context.
sschaem wrote:But one thing..., the OP mentioned the 8230, not even the 8350. And thats only $35 difference. so clearly this was a cost conscious decision.
In the end, yes, the OP could spend over $350, and rebuild his system to get better performance. But clearly that was not the goal.
Yet, from what I can see, going from a 4ghz 1090T to a 4ghz FX-8320 is just not worth it.
flip-mode wrote:8350 power consumption overclocked: 262 watts
http://techreport.com/review/23750/amd- ... eviewed/13
1090t power consumption overclocked: 278 watts
http://techreport.com/review/18799/amd- ... cessors/14
Congratulations on your new hardware. You probably don't want to read the rest of the thread.madmanmarz wrote: I did order the chip before I left. I'm going to have to go back and read it all.
JustAnEngineer wrote:Congratulations on your new hardware. You probably don't want to read the rest of the thread.madmanmarz wrote: I did order the chip before I left. I'm going to have to go back and read it all.
flip-mode wrote:Given what I just saw on ebay you might nearly break even.
JohnC wrote:Bensam123 wrote:I've played 64 person metros WHILE STREAMING and get 60-100fps, usually around 75ish.
The results depend on many different things, dude. Such as different in-game level - for example, my "average" on 64-player Operation Metro is 115FPS (according to FRAPS benchmark which I ran during whole gaming round), but on 64-player "Ziba Tower" it is around 100FPS ("Ziba Tower" is a CQ map with more "destructible" environments). Also depends on a video card. So you cannot compare your own results to the results of the benchmark unless you have same exact (or very close to it) hardware and play on same exact map with same exact number of people
Also, on your stream I've seen your FPS drop to less than 50. Which is close to min FPS of that Russian site's benchmark
Bensam123 wrote:Yup, threads like these degrade whenever you suggest AMD as a good alternative around here
sschaem wrote:Soo.. what did I do wrong ? I'm now afraid to play with both setting. So right now I using a 100% stock setup but:
ronch wrote:I'd hold on to that OC'd 1090T if I were you. The FX-8320 may be a bit faster for most things but I'm not sure it's gonna be worth the upgrade.
Here's a little reference you might find handy.
Bensam123 wrote:Planetside 2 is a steaming PoS when it comes to performance.
Oh, it also uses more then two threads if you watch the distribution of it in resource monitor or take the time to look at the thread count. There are almost no games that run on JUST two threads or less. They may not be evenly balanced, but they most definitely spin off into more, which Windows then distributes around the cores in whatever way it sees fit.
Waco wrote:sschaem wrote:Soo.. what did I do wrong ? I'm now afraid to play with both setting. So right now I using a 100% stock setup but:
Well it sounds like you were changing voltages without doing any stability testing...
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 8 guests