TR Forums

Wow, this thread has exploded, hasn't it!

It seems like pretty much everything has been sorted, though some are understandably questioning my comment on the 660Ti. I was really just trying to point out that with rebates you can almost squeeze it into the budget, and there were some earlier comments about getting as much GPU budget as possible which is the way to optimise gaming performance.

Whether you friend needs all that performance is another matter and it depends on how much of a gamer your friend is, and also what resolution his screen is;
GW2 is not the only game out there, and there are definitely games that need more graphics power.

If money is tight, your best bet is probably an i3 and a 7770, (and don't worry about an aftermarket cooler for the i3 - the retail one is perfectly adequate and also reasonably quiet).
You can probably find him a full-fat motherboard for $80 with extra features and still bring the total to less than $350, whilst the i3 is a solid platform for future GPU upgrades and the 7770 will handle pretty much everything okay for the moment.

.

Ok so after going over the build possibilities, Intel is now on the table, and the budget has been moved up $100

So here is my current build, any thoughts.

Radeon 7850 2gb - $185
Core i-5 3470 with the ASRock Z77 Pro3 Motherboard Combo at Newegg - $277
Corsair Vengeance 8gb (2x4) Ram $52

Puts it right at $525 shipped

It looks to me it should be a nice even blend of a very solid medium CPU and GPU, what you guys think?

Thanks again, you guys have been killing this thread, I love it.

.

Bashiba wrote:

Radeon 7850 2gb - $185
Core i-5 3470 with the ASRock Z77 Pro3 Motherboard Combo at Newegg - $277
Corsair Vengeance 8gb (2x4) Ram $52

Those look like solid choices to me.

Here are a couple more sets of Guild Wars 2 benchmarks:
GPUs:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gui ... 268-6.html

CPUs:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gui ... 268-7.html

clone wrote:

looks fine..... thankfully you didn't push that i3 on him, while AMD isn't great it was the better option at that level.

I agree, I wouldn't go with the i3, but the 3470 looks like it should be quite a nice bump over most of the amd processors, unless someone can sell me on something amd that can keep pace with it. Overclocked 8350 maybe?

clone wrote:

UMMMMMM..... guys?....... that chart JohnC offered up is totally misleading because it only shows the Bulldozer numbers & doesn't reflect the significant improvements that Vishera brought to the table, FX 4300 is superior in games to i3-3220 in every way except power consumption... FX 6300 is even better of course and both are quite compelling once you factor in overclocking potential which i3 lacks.

seriously pushing the op's friend into an i3-3220 is a mistake and the absolute wrong thing to do given it lost every gaming test it was in.

here's Anandtech's review gaming numbers http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/the- ... 0-tested/5

Vishera is actually a pretty decent processor especially in this case where the op's budget is not open to throwing money and caution to the wind.

Where are GW2 results? Why are you posting those random numbers for different games?

With $100 more...yeah. I actually thought of the words 'mission creep' when I was reading this thread, it is bound to happen, the unfortunate thing for consumers now is there aren't really products that break the price/performance curve (within reason - I'm not talking about sub-$50 GPUs). On the GPU front in particular NV and AMD have perfected price performance in the fat part of the mid-range...spend x% more, get x% more performance.

clone wrote:

looks fine..... thankfully you didn't push that i3 on him, while AMD isn't great it was the better option at that level.

Interesting...the Anand article only has two of their games run with the i3 3220. TR's review shows the i3 3225 virtually tied with the FX-8350. Inconclusive..need more data!

*Found some. It includes an i3 3240 instead of a 3220; 3.4 instead of 3.3 GHz, a mere 3% difference. Overall...close enough outside of benchmarks to count as the same? The FX-4300 could get more with an OC of course, but then note that at higher res and settings things level off because of the video card, something we already knew but it's always nice to see confirmation.

The reason online game numbers are rare is because they aren't as reproducible.

On any run-of-the-mill website, your argument would hold water, but this is TR:

Scott and his team basically did a proper, in-depth test, logging actual game benchmarks across a whole range of CPU's when Ivy was released. AMD CPUs were so far behind on gaming smoothness that not only did every Intel chip soundly beat every AMD chip going all the way back to Nehalem's introduction four years ago, but they also proved that AMD took a step backwards and that you were better off buying an older PhenomII for gaming.

Average FPS figures are useful as a very rough indicator of game smoothness, but this is the site that has repeatedly proven how useless average FPS figures really are.
Hell, they're changing the way even the manufacturers thing about gameplay smoothness....

Anyway, to sum it up:

Scott Wasson wrote:

It's worth reiterating here that the FX processors aren't hopeless for gaming—they just perform similarly to mid-range Intel processors from two generations ago. If you want competence, they may suffice, but if you desire glassy smooth frame delivery, you'd best look elsewhere.

Bulldozer/Piledrive architecture is fundamentally not suited to gaming. Like Scott says, it will run games okay - but I think if you want performace from two generations ago for the best price, perhaps eBay and Craigslist are where you should be looking for your answers.
If he buys an AMD then he'll probably be happy, but shame on you guys for basically ignoring the entire focus this site has had on gameplay testing over the last six, world-shattering months. Please take your ignorance/bigotry elsewhere because it's considered little more than trolling on these forums.

Anyway, rant about the i3 still being better than an FX-4170 aside, the i5 is money well spent and the 7850 is serving me well for 1080p gaming.

True, an FX-4300 won't be as good at 99th percentile frames or frametimes over X...the FX-8350 is better than the i3 3225 a little bit at times, but way behind at other times.

.

http://pcpartpicker.com/p/CXkg

I know your mate wanted all AMD, but I felt like this was a pretty great setup. Just loan him a twenty ;3

clone - the OP does say FX-4170, even if the convo later morphed to FX-4300.

.

Just a reminder that the OS needs to be 64-bit to take advantage of all that ram.

Good luck.

edit - the Phenom II is available also, if your friend wants to go the AMD route it would be better than the FX for gaming, corei5 is even faster for gaming though, although more money.

http://www.microcenter.com/product/3258 ... _Processor
http://www.microcenter.com/product/3827 ... _Processor
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... henom%20II

I fail to see how you can dismiss the inside-the-second methodology, that is all.

On the one hand you're trying to help a guy get the best gaming bang for his buck, and on the other hand there was strong encouragement to get a Vishera processor that is inferior at gaming.
Perfectly capable, yes, but still inferior.

As you quoted, even a FX-4170 would be adequate for gaming so Bashiba's friend would likely be happy enough with one, even if it's not the best value. The FX-4300 may prove better, but there isn't a lot of data on it other than average FPS numbers which are, like the 99th percentile frame times, just a metric :\

We do know from TR's last CPU article that AMD's architecture is prone to more stuttering/lagginess/high frame times (use whatever term you want, I just umbrella them all into the category "they're not as smooth") and we know that Piledriver/Vishera really only allowed higher clockspeeds - the basic architecture is largely unaltered.

AMD made some incremental improvements with Piledriver over Bulldozer, but I didn't really see any reviews on the web that indicated it was an IPC enchancement; The biggest bit of news was really that Piledriver reduced power consumption which meant that for desktop parts they could clock it higher for the same 125W TDP. A few sites did clock-for-clock Bulldozer vs Piledriver when Trinity was being compared to Llano, and the actual gains were pretty minimal. Piledriver's advantage is higher clockspeeds.

I hope I'm not being unreasonable in extrapolating from that to say that Piledriver/Vishera processors are still going to suffer the same architectural disadvantages for gaming that Bulldozer/Zambezie did which is why (without conclusive evidence to the contrary) I find it hard to recommend any standalone processor AMD make at the moment. I dunno, maybe I'm missing something obvious or maybe I'm just connecting dots and frustrated that other people aren't connecting the same dots.

It all seems like a moot point now anyway - the increased budget of an i5 blows AMD out of the water and wraps up this thread \o/

I guess it does raises another issue, which is that we'd all like to see an updated Inside-the-second article comparing dual/quad Ivy against dual/quad Vishera; We can extrapolate the results based on what we know of Vishera's upgrades over Zambezie, but we wouldn't even need this discussion if there was a proper like-for-like comparison all housed under one article

.

Guys, this isn't really worth all the fuss. Throw in an i3-3220, a 7850 variation, and some inexpensive RAM and mobo and you're set. Really.

Black Applesauce wrote:

Guys, this isn't really worth all the fuss. Throw in an i3-3220, a 7850 variation, and some inexpensive RAM and mobo and you're set. Really.

It can't possibly be that simple when a horde of OCD computer geeks is involved. (And yes I put myself in the "OCD computer geek" category, so it is not meant as an insult! )

Black Applesauce wrote:

Guys, this isn't really worth all the fuss. Throw in an i3-3220, a 7850 variation, and some inexpensive RAM and mobo and you're set. Really.

You don't get it, do you?

You think this thread is bad? Try clicking the "View history" or "Talk" links on a Wikipedia page sometime.

Heh, Arguing on the internet is like participating in the *Special* Olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded. <-- gollygosh, offensive word ahoy.

Anyway, That was an amusing 45 minute read/distraction whilst waiting in the departure lounge, I look forward to the continued thread-chaos this causes when I land, or maybe after I get some sleep. I've got to be at work in under five hours, supposedly

Roll the cameras!

Clone, are you talking about this article?

The one where AMD's top-end flagship is an encouraging improvement over the older 8150?
The one where in one test it tied with Intel chips (let's ignore the fact that every chip bar one tied in that test anyway)?

I see it as the article where almost every gaming-relevant bar chart, line-graph and scatter plot is a wash of blue Intel victories contrasting against a clump of green AMD defeat.
Also the one that, in its conclusion, has a value scatterplot with a "gaming" button that puts AMD's fastest and most expensive chip dead even with the much cheaper $129 i3 I suggested (actually only $119 after rebate & free shipping).

Either we're misunderstanding each other or you seem to think that article shows the Piledriver-based chips as better value for gaming than current intel chips?
When I read the article, it seemed like a very one-sided contest to me, but just in case I'm accused of being unfair on AMD, let me quote the guy who actually spent weeks getting impartial, unbiased results:

Pop over to the gaming scatter, though, and the picture changes dramatically. There, the FX-8350 is the highest-performance AMD desktop processor to date for gaming, finally toppling the venerable Phenom II X4 980. Yet the FX-8350's gaming performance almost exactly matches that of the Core i3-3225, a $134 Ivy Bridge-based processor.

Hmm, hardly a glowing compliment for a flagship processor....

The FX-8350 isn't exactly bad for video games—its performance was generally acceptable in our tests. But it is relatively weak compared to the competition.

So, the best thing about AMD's most powerful CPU for gaming is that it "isn't exactly bad", but is "generally acceptable".

This is why I don't rate AMD processors for gaming. I agree with TR's testing methodology, I understand how these results were obtained and sadly have to agree that AMD's FX processors (whilst capable of running games smoothly) are awful value for money if you want a gaming PC. Value for money is exactly that - how much value you get for your money. In this case gaming value is smoothness, and money is, well... - it's something you have more of if you buy an i3 instead of an equally-performing FX-8350.

I know The FX-4300 is obviously not in the TR charts, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out that it isn't even in the running; Let's just get a rough idea of what it's like with a few more bar charts to prove my point. Basically, anywhere I read, any way you try to paint it, the FX-4300 isn't really a gaming chip and this is definitely a gaming forum thread. You can call me wrong if you like, but I'm just saying what I see.

I'm trying not to be biased in the AMD/Intel comparisons; I've used both brands both at home and at work going back to the 486 days and like most people with an interest in the PC industry, I don't want to see an Intel monopoly again, but AMD just don't have a gamer's CPU at the moment. If I do have bias, it is towards TR's testing methodology, but that's just because it indentifies flaws with the age-old methods and tries to do things better. Even Scott acknowledges that Inside-the-second testing isn't perfect, but the point is that at least people are trying to get better measurements. I'd follow that kind of open/forward thinking off a cliff as long as I agreed with it. Reminds me of this, actually

just brew it! wrote:

You think this thread is bad? Try clicking the "View history" or "Talk" links on a Wikipedia page sometime.

Please don't remind me about that wretched place... I left it forever after trying to add in some relevant "Critique" information to an article about certain Microsoft software product, which was completely removed because of some silly nonsense about "WP:DUE" and "WP:NPOV" (after a huge discussion on "Talk" page) BUT was re-instated later, by different persons, without any objection from same people who criticized me (that's just single example, there were many different ones similar to this, related to different topics and abused by different "agenda pushers")...

I feel mildly responsible because, although someone would have done it eventually, I was the first to suggest an i3 setup. muahaahaha

So is everyone on board with the current 3470/7850 Build? Or is there a better combination I'm missing?

Microcenter has a crazy good deal on the 3570K, but with gas, tolls, and almost 8% Sales tax it ends up being more expensive than just using Amazon or Newegg. Plus I'm assuming the 3470 will be strong enough that I won't need to overclock it.

Also I don't know jack about the intel motherboards, any better recommendations out there? Assuming 1 - it won't be overclocked, 2 - I can't imagine a dual video card situation, 3 - USB 3 or other ports aren't a big factor, 4 - 4 Ram Slots so we can add more later if need be, 5 - can't break my budget
This still looks pretty good to me for the price - ASRock Z77 Pro3 Motherboard

If you're going with an i5-3470, you don't need a Z77 chipset. I'm not sure if you stated a preference for ATX or if mATX would suffice, but any of these boards should fit in your budget.

Ok thanks for the Motherboard suggestions I will check them out, ya I figured the Z77 was overkill, but found it at a good price, and yes he would like an ATX size motherboard.

Yeah, the i5 is a great gaming chip that should last a while, and the HD7850 is a good all-rounder.

For my home-theatre PC, I can actually afford to underclock my HD7850 most of the time so that it runs silently. It's plenty powerful enough for today's games even running at around half the usual clockspeeds.

.

Figured I'd toss this in since it's hot off the presses. Tomshardware has just published a CPU gaming article that includes Intel Pentium, i3, and i5's as well as a slew of AMD CPUs from the past two generations. It even includes their rudimentary form of frame-latency analysis.

.....too bad TR didn't include the i3 in their article. That article really needs a refresh with Piledriver and Intel i3s. Especially so we can see the possible performance hits while multitasking.