It's not people backing up against you it's that your BF3 thing is just wrong plain and simple, you post a singleplayer FRAPS run to tell the OP its not possible he see's high CPU usage in multiplayer when infact it's common knowledge that singleplayer BF3 benches are pointless as they bear little to no relationship to the multiplayer which does infact utilise all cores available and stress your CPU far more than a short singleplayer recording (as does anything else using that engine). This is why when BF3 came out many forums were full of "OMG low multiplayer FPS" threads where people had aced singleplayer settings but came to a stuttery grindy mess in multiplayer.
I'm perfectly aware of this, the point is that you shouldn't be seeing 90% utilization most of the time on bf3 (if it's just a spike, that's okay, you aren't really clear). Although if you are playing on a lower resolution or graphics settings, that will cause a higher CPU load. You are derailing the thread, this isn't even relevant, and your not even arguing against any point of mine, just a strawman.
I agree with you on the FX but using BF3 as an example that is the CPU usage he can expect and the 2 extra cores are used (that game will even use the 8 threads on an FX 8xxx).
Well BF3 actually only uses 6 cores (the appreciation for 2 more cores, is like how most games appreciate quad cores over 2x/3x - it's windows and background applications being dedicated to other cores as the game focuses on the primary cores). I never said anything about what CPU usage he could expect, only that maxing out utilization consistently during BF3 would be a problem - could be his settings, could be it's just a spike in a 64 player game and he isn't being clear about it, could be his resolution, could be many reasons, but it isn't normal.
Absolutely not, I very much appreciate your input. In fact I even repped your last post. I just thanked him for sharing the same experience as I have had with BF3, but I apologize if I came across as being rude, I didn't really mean to.
It's okay, and thanks for the rep. I've got a lot of experience with amd chips (not to say im an expert or anything, but i have written a few guides on the subject and been doing it for a while with multiple denebs) and I know what I am talking about here. The guy is right, in that singleplayer benches are totally useless, but he's being a bit rabid about something that was in no way meant to be some conclusive evidence for an argument.
The thread can be pretty much be closed up that hitting 3.8 on a 1045t is decent, you need to increase voltages because without doing so you aren't even really overclocking (i mean you can stay on stock voltage, but phenom ii will really appreciate a bump in voltage, there's always a sweet spot with phenoms where some extra voltage will take you far and ahead, and you'll still be under the chips 1.5-1.55-1.6v limit, depending on how you look at it, and the it'll take tons of voltage for very little gain over that), you can hit 4ghz+ if you got a good board (it is a thuban after all), you are hitting your board's fsb limit (most boards top around 250s) and may need some chipset/northbridge (not to be confused with cpu-nb) voltage to go higher in fsb....
and fx is not an upgrade, it's a sidegrade and likely a downgrade (there might be that one or two programs it's better, but its very minor, insignificant, and wont be the same when your comparing oc vs oc). If you want a significant upgrade, get an intel system, i5-2500k/3570k. which really won't be a huge upgrade.
Phenom is a great chip, imo it's the value king over anything else (x4, not x6, but since you already have x6, w/e), it's not like FX has far surpassed it. I wouldn't hold my breath on steamroller or anything either, the 'next big thing' is always 6 months away.Edited by Belial - 1/10/13 at 12:34pm