Overclock.net › Forums › AMD › AMD CPUs › AMD No longer a viable option for mid-high end?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

AMD No longer a viable option for mid-high end? - Page 76  

post #751 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by AMDATI View Post


That chart does not have a 4770k compared in it, only the 3770K.

The 9590 is still a bit slower over all than the 4770k. Let's also keep in mind that the 4770K is not the fastest intel processor out there, but the 9590 is basically the top that AMD has to offer.


There's also some other comparisons that make the 4770K beat the 9590 over all. First, 84w vs 220w......that's a HUGE difference, and after 2 years of running it, that 220w is really going to tack on a couple hundred dollars in energy costs. Second, the price....you'll be paying $300 for just the 9590 processor alone (and that's after they slashed the prices), and at minimum $369 for the processor with liquid cooling kit.

I'm not seeing ANY cost or performance incentives to go with the 9590 over the 4770k, at all. The 9590 will run about on par, but generally a bit slower, but will eat a lot more power and require third party cooling solutions. In the long run, this will mean you'll secretly be paying well over $500-$600 for the 9590 over a 2 year ownership, possibly more. Then there's possibly other costs like needing a new PSU to run the 9590.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hagtek View Post

I really don't have a dog in this fight.

I don't care about either corporation just the better product for the money spent.

I built 2 intel machines late last year and wanted to see what AMD was all about. I couldn't resist an 8320 for $99 at Micro Center so I bought it along with a Gigabyte GA970A-UD3P for a bundled cost of $79.99. For perspective that's the same cost as the 4670K they have on sale.

My intel and AMD builds all run fine. However, even with the AMD overclocked the intels are more powerful and in my book give more for the money spent.

I honestly don't know what to think. If you need the 4770K performance then the $99 priced 8320 isn't a bargain even at that price, in fact it's a waste of money.

I assume AMD is in business to make money (although they lost money last year) and not necessarily to produce high end, high performance cpus.

Their move to APUs could turn out to be a good one for the company and I expect PS4 and XboxOne sales to help them out. I'll watch their first quarter earnings this year.

Hopefully with their work in APUs GPU memory etc...we'll see some performance increase or new ideas with regard to high end cpu design. On the other hand though they could be barking up the wrong tree.

Since the majority of people build PCs for gaming, I do not know one gamer who needs a 4770k. So if you want the best value for the money spent, you buy what you need. I have an 8350 and there is no reason for me to get anything else. Most games aren't even CPU heavy anyways. I also don't know one gamer who needs liquid cooling. No gamer needs to overclock their CPU to the point where spending money on liquid cooling is worth it. Liquid cooling is just for aesthetics for 99.9% of the people who use it. That is fine and all, but I have a feeling that many people spend money on liquid cooling because they turned their CPU on overdrive to get 1 more frame in (insert GPU intensive game here). Now, if we are all talking about non gaming uses, then the 4770k is probably the better of the 2. But for gaming, there is no need to spend $300 on a CPU.

As far as power consumption, who in the world cares about how much power the CPU is using? Get a CM Hyper 212 like I have and you will never have to worry about heat again. That seems to be the number one complaint about power consumption, the heat output. I even have the fan setting on quiet mode on my Hyper 212 all of the time and my temps never get to 60C even when running Prime95. The low wattage of Intel is of no concern to me. And I am not an AMD fanboy at all. I hate many aspects about AMD including their new APU naming scheme and their idiotic bulldozer design that should have been piledriver from the beginning. I am just glad I got the piledriver variant which fixed a few things. But I am budget minded and I know that AMD is fine for gaming and most computer processes out there. If you spend $300 on a CPU and then play Battlefield, then I don't know what to say to you.
Edited by Thready - 3/20/14 at 10:33am
Zen
(17 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5-6600k Gigabyte Z170XP-SLI RX 480 4GB 24 GB DDR4 2133MHz 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Samsung 850 evo OCZ Vertex 4 Crucial MX 500 256GB WD Black 3 TB 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Seagate 1 TB H60 Windows 10 Asus mx27a 
MonitorKeyboardPowerMouse
hp 2009 m Corsair MR Brown Antec Earthwatts 650 Razer Naga 
Audio
Soundblaster Omni 
  hide details  
Zen
(17 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5-6600k Gigabyte Z170XP-SLI RX 480 4GB 24 GB DDR4 2133MHz 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Samsung 850 evo OCZ Vertex 4 Crucial MX 500 256GB WD Black 3 TB 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Seagate 1 TB H60 Windows 10 Asus mx27a 
MonitorKeyboardPowerMouse
hp 2009 m Corsair MR Brown Antec Earthwatts 650 Razer Naga 
Audio
Soundblaster Omni 
  hide details  
post #752 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by cssorkinman View Post

I did straight multi, max turbo speeds for all involved.
Ok, thanks for letting me know. It wasn't like I thought you would do something underhanded.
post #753 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redwoodz View Post

So, here is the end result of Alatar's logic. No one buy an AMD CPU....ever again. How do you think that will end?

That's not what he's advocating. Even Alatar realizes there are situations where an AMD CPU can be the best option.

Still for the sake of argument, if AMD CPUs were never the most suitable option, then they should not ever be bought, and AMD would have to abandon the x86 processor business. This would render Intel a monopoly for a short time, until they were either broken up, forced to license x86 to a company that could be more competitive, steps were taken to reduce the dominance of x86 in the PC space.

I don't like subsidies public, private, or otherwise, and think a survival of the fittest free market will, in the long run, give consumers the best products at the lowest prices. I'll buy whatever is the best value for the task at hand, and if that results in certain companies not having any competition on occasion, so be it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by felon View Post

why is there a 90$ cooler on the amd comparison?

Because you can get a fairly decent OC out of a 4770k on it's stock cooler, but to OC a Vishera to levels where it can compete, you need quite a bit of cooling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by imran27 View Post

we should not take server parts into the discussion meant for desktops. I'm aware of people using server on their desktop but those are just a handful of people. Let's stick to desktop parts only.

We should have another thread for discussion regarding Xeons and Opterons.

Strongly disagree.

There is no reason not to consider Xeons and Opterons for consumer sockets. They are made the same way, generally have the same capabilities and are usually compatible with consumer boards. For most purposes, the only difference is in the name.

Obviously, on newer sockets Xeons are usually ruled out by most of OCN, but only because they don't have unlocked variants. For 1366, there is no reason to not be looking at mostly Xeons as they tend to be plentiful, inexpensive, and functionally identical to high-end i7s.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durquavian View Post

And you are assuming seeing how the chart does not specify whether it is total or just CPU.

TDP does not equal power consumption, but those charts are quite obviously whole system power consumption, and not CPU only.

Typically, true CPU power consumption figures favor Intel more than a straight TDP comparison would. I have yet to encounter an Intel part that reached TDP at stock setting, and have seen many that were much lower, occasionally as low as half of rated TDP at peak stress test loads. Most FX parts I've seen can come very close to their TDP figures, if not surpass them, when stressed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redwoodz View Post

Since the majority of people build PCs for gaming

This is not the case.
Primary
(15 items)
 
Secondary
(13 items)
 
In progress
(10 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
5820K @ 4.3/3.6GHz core/uncore, 1.225/1.2v Gigabyte X99 SOC Champion (F22n) 2x Sapphire R9 290X Tri-X OC New Edition (10036... 4x4GiB Crucial @ 2667, 12-11-12-27-T1, 1.37v 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
Plextor M6e 128GB (fw 1.05) M.2 (PCI-E 2.0 2x) 2x Crucial M4 256GB 4x WD Scorpio Black 500GB Cooler Master Nepton 280L 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 7 Professional x64 SP1 BenQ BL3200PT Filco Majestouch Tenkeyless (MX Brown) Corsair RM1000x 
CaseMouseAudio
Fractal Design Define R4 Logitech G402 Realtek ALC1150 + M-Audio AV40 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
X5670 @ 4.4/3.2GHz core/uncore, 1.36 vcore, 1.2... Gigabyte X58A-UD5 r2.0 w/FF3mod10 BIOS Reference R9 290X w/Stilt's MLU 1000e / 1375m E... 2x Samsung MV-3V4G3D/US @ 2000, 10-11-11-30-T1,... 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
1x Crucial BLT4G3D1608ET3LX0 @ 2000, 10-11-11-3... OCZ (Toshiba) Trion 150 120GB Hyundai Sapphire 120GB 3x Hitachi Deskstar 7k1000.C 1TB 
CoolingOSPowerCase
Noctua NH-D14 Windows 7 Pro x64 SP1 Antec TP-750 Fractal Design R5 
Audio
ASUS Xonar DS 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-6800K @ 4.3/3.5GHz core/uncore, 1.36/1.2v ASRock X99 OC Formula (P3.10) GTX 780 (temporary) 4x4GiB Crucial DDR4-2400 @ 11-13-12-28-T2, 1.33v 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Intel 600p 256GB NVMe 2x HGST Travelstar 7k1000 1TB Corsair H55 (temporary) Windows Server 2016 Datacenter 
PowerCase
Seasonic SS-860XP2 Corsair Carbide Air 540 
  hide details  
Primary
(15 items)
 
Secondary
(13 items)
 
In progress
(10 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
5820K @ 4.3/3.6GHz core/uncore, 1.225/1.2v Gigabyte X99 SOC Champion (F22n) 2x Sapphire R9 290X Tri-X OC New Edition (10036... 4x4GiB Crucial @ 2667, 12-11-12-27-T1, 1.37v 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
Plextor M6e 128GB (fw 1.05) M.2 (PCI-E 2.0 2x) 2x Crucial M4 256GB 4x WD Scorpio Black 500GB Cooler Master Nepton 280L 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 7 Professional x64 SP1 BenQ BL3200PT Filco Majestouch Tenkeyless (MX Brown) Corsair RM1000x 
CaseMouseAudio
Fractal Design Define R4 Logitech G402 Realtek ALC1150 + M-Audio AV40 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
X5670 @ 4.4/3.2GHz core/uncore, 1.36 vcore, 1.2... Gigabyte X58A-UD5 r2.0 w/FF3mod10 BIOS Reference R9 290X w/Stilt's MLU 1000e / 1375m E... 2x Samsung MV-3V4G3D/US @ 2000, 10-11-11-30-T1,... 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
1x Crucial BLT4G3D1608ET3LX0 @ 2000, 10-11-11-3... OCZ (Toshiba) Trion 150 120GB Hyundai Sapphire 120GB 3x Hitachi Deskstar 7k1000.C 1TB 
CoolingOSPowerCase
Noctua NH-D14 Windows 7 Pro x64 SP1 Antec TP-750 Fractal Design R5 
Audio
ASUS Xonar DS 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-6800K @ 4.3/3.5GHz core/uncore, 1.36/1.2v ASRock X99 OC Formula (P3.10) GTX 780 (temporary) 4x4GiB Crucial DDR4-2400 @ 11-13-12-28-T2, 1.33v 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Intel 600p 256GB NVMe 2x HGST Travelstar 7k1000 1TB Corsair H55 (temporary) Windows Server 2016 Datacenter 
PowerCase
Seasonic SS-860XP2 Corsair Carbide Air 540 
  hide details  
post #754 of 1593
To be fair mind there are a lot of threads started with gaming focus in mind.
post #755 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blameless View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redwoodz View Post

So, here is the end result of Alatar's logic. No one buy an AMD CPU....ever again. How do you think that will end?

That's not what he's advocating. Even Alatar realizes there are situations where an AMD CPU can be the best option.

Still for the sake of argument, if AMD CPUs were never the most suitable option, then they should not ever be bought, and AMD would have to abandon the x86 processor business. This would render Intel a monopoly for a short time, until they were either broken up, forced to license x86 to a company that could be more competitive, steps were taken to reduce the dominance of x86 in the PC space.

I don't like subsidies public, private, or otherwise, and think a survival of the fittest free market will, in the long run, give consumers the best products at the lowest prices. I'll buy whatever is the best value for the task at hand, and if that results in certain companies not having any competition on occasion, so be it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by felon View Post

why is there a 90$ cooler on the amd comparison?

Because you can get a fairly decent OC out of a 4770k on it's stock cooler, but to OC a Vishera to levels where it can compete, you need quite a bit of cooling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by imran27 View Post

we should not take server parts into the discussion meant for desktops. I'm aware of people using server on their desktop but those are just a handful of people. Let's stick to desktop parts only.

We should have another thread for discussion regarding Xeons and Opterons.

Strongly disagree.

There is no reason not to consider Xeons and Opterons for consumer sockets. They are made the same way, generally have the same capabilities and are usually compatible with consumer boards. For most purposes, the only difference is in the name.

Obviously, on newer sockets Xeons are usually ruled out by most of OCN, but only because they don't have unlocked variants. For 1366, there is no reason to not be looking at mostly Xeons as they tend to be plentiful, inexpensive, and functionally identical to high-end i7s.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durquavian View Post

And you are assuming seeing how the chart does not specify whether it is total or just CPU.

TDP does not equal power consumption, but those charts are quite obviously whole system power consumption, and not CPU only.

Typically, true CPU power consumption figures favor Intel more than a straight TDP comparison would. I have yet to encounter an Intel part that reached TDP at stock setting, and have seen many that were much lower, occasionally as low as half of rated TDP at peak stress test loads. Most FX parts I've seen can come very close to their TDP figures, if not surpass them, when stressed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redwoodz View Post

Since the majority of people build PCs for gaming

This is not the case.

So first you come into the thread and tell me to use newegg pricing instead of microcenter's for comparison's sake( which I agree with), then you say it's ok to consider xenon's in
the comparison? I assume you mean at newegg prices for the xenons as well?
Ryzen Shine!
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Ryzen 1800X @ 4125mhz 1.432 Volts MSI X370 Titanium   Fury  G.SKILL TridentZ Series 32GB (4 x 8GB) 288-Pin... 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Samsung 850 pro Hp 1260 I liquid unobtanium Koolance 480mm radiator, 39... Win 7 HP/Winspy 10 64bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
24" hp @ 1900x1200 Logitech G19 PC power and cooling 910 watt silencer Thermaltake P5 
MouseMouse Pad
Logitech MX 518 fUnc industries 
  hide details  
Ryzen Shine!
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Ryzen 1800X @ 4125mhz 1.432 Volts MSI X370 Titanium   Fury  G.SKILL TridentZ Series 32GB (4 x 8GB) 288-Pin... 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Samsung 850 pro Hp 1260 I liquid unobtanium Koolance 480mm radiator, 39... Win 7 HP/Winspy 10 64bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
24" hp @ 1900x1200 Logitech G19 PC power and cooling 910 watt silencer Thermaltake P5 
MouseMouse Pad
Logitech MX 518 fUnc industries 
  hide details  
post #756 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeo01 View Post

To be fair mind there are a lot of threads started with gaming focus in mind.

This is true, but the idea that most people are building most PCs with a primary focus on gaming is just not accurate. Even if we limit ourselves to demographics of OCN, I'd still be skeptical that gaming was the prime focus for the majority of builds.
Primary
(15 items)
 
Secondary
(13 items)
 
In progress
(10 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
5820K @ 4.3/3.6GHz core/uncore, 1.225/1.2v Gigabyte X99 SOC Champion (F22n) 2x Sapphire R9 290X Tri-X OC New Edition (10036... 4x4GiB Crucial @ 2667, 12-11-12-27-T1, 1.37v 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
Plextor M6e 128GB (fw 1.05) M.2 (PCI-E 2.0 2x) 2x Crucial M4 256GB 4x WD Scorpio Black 500GB Cooler Master Nepton 280L 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 7 Professional x64 SP1 BenQ BL3200PT Filco Majestouch Tenkeyless (MX Brown) Corsair RM1000x 
CaseMouseAudio
Fractal Design Define R4 Logitech G402 Realtek ALC1150 + M-Audio AV40 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
X5670 @ 4.4/3.2GHz core/uncore, 1.36 vcore, 1.2... Gigabyte X58A-UD5 r2.0 w/FF3mod10 BIOS Reference R9 290X w/Stilt's MLU 1000e / 1375m E... 2x Samsung MV-3V4G3D/US @ 2000, 10-11-11-30-T1,... 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
1x Crucial BLT4G3D1608ET3LX0 @ 2000, 10-11-11-3... OCZ (Toshiba) Trion 150 120GB Hyundai Sapphire 120GB 3x Hitachi Deskstar 7k1000.C 1TB 
CoolingOSPowerCase
Noctua NH-D14 Windows 7 Pro x64 SP1 Antec TP-750 Fractal Design R5 
Audio
ASUS Xonar DS 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-6800K @ 4.3/3.5GHz core/uncore, 1.36/1.2v ASRock X99 OC Formula (P3.10) GTX 780 (temporary) 4x4GiB Crucial DDR4-2400 @ 11-13-12-28-T2, 1.33v 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Intel 600p 256GB NVMe 2x HGST Travelstar 7k1000 1TB Corsair H55 (temporary) Windows Server 2016 Datacenter 
PowerCase
Seasonic SS-860XP2 Corsair Carbide Air 540 
  hide details  
Primary
(15 items)
 
Secondary
(13 items)
 
In progress
(10 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
5820K @ 4.3/3.6GHz core/uncore, 1.225/1.2v Gigabyte X99 SOC Champion (F22n) 2x Sapphire R9 290X Tri-X OC New Edition (10036... 4x4GiB Crucial @ 2667, 12-11-12-27-T1, 1.37v 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
Plextor M6e 128GB (fw 1.05) M.2 (PCI-E 2.0 2x) 2x Crucial M4 256GB 4x WD Scorpio Black 500GB Cooler Master Nepton 280L 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 7 Professional x64 SP1 BenQ BL3200PT Filco Majestouch Tenkeyless (MX Brown) Corsair RM1000x 
CaseMouseAudio
Fractal Design Define R4 Logitech G402 Realtek ALC1150 + M-Audio AV40 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
X5670 @ 4.4/3.2GHz core/uncore, 1.36 vcore, 1.2... Gigabyte X58A-UD5 r2.0 w/FF3mod10 BIOS Reference R9 290X w/Stilt's MLU 1000e / 1375m E... 2x Samsung MV-3V4G3D/US @ 2000, 10-11-11-30-T1,... 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
1x Crucial BLT4G3D1608ET3LX0 @ 2000, 10-11-11-3... OCZ (Toshiba) Trion 150 120GB Hyundai Sapphire 120GB 3x Hitachi Deskstar 7k1000.C 1TB 
CoolingOSPowerCase
Noctua NH-D14 Windows 7 Pro x64 SP1 Antec TP-750 Fractal Design R5 
Audio
ASUS Xonar DS 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-6800K @ 4.3/3.5GHz core/uncore, 1.36/1.2v ASRock X99 OC Formula (P3.10) GTX 780 (temporary) 4x4GiB Crucial DDR4-2400 @ 11-13-12-28-T2, 1.33v 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Intel 600p 256GB NVMe 2x HGST Travelstar 7k1000 1TB Corsair H55 (temporary) Windows Server 2016 Datacenter 
PowerCase
Seasonic SS-860XP2 Corsair Carbide Air 540 
  hide details  
post #757 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by mav451 View Post

Lol if only some of our younger AMD users saw typical Tbird or Palomino idle temps. How things have changed tongue.gif

That said, those chips didn't see as large of an idle/load delta as we see typically these days.

That's true. They ran hot no matter what load you had on them, but they didn't get a lot hotter even if you loaded them down. I had a 1.4 T-bird when it was the fastest x86 CPU in the world, and it took a GlobalWin TAK68 with two Deltas to get it to 1.52. But there was nothing from Intel that could beat it, even at stock. Even a 2GHz P4 had to be overclocked to match a Thunderbird 1400/266 in anything that mattered.

It was more fun when you had the two companies at performance parity, and also made for better prices. That 1.4 T-bird was the 4930K of its time, and you could buy it for $140. Now you can't buy the best stuff for less than a grand, because Intel is only competing against itself on the high end.
     
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD Athlon X4 870K 4700mhz 1.63v ASUS A88X-PRO Radeon HD 6970 G.SKILL Ripjaws X Series 16GB DDR2133 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Kingston V300 Toshiba 2.5" laptop HDD, 1TB Micron C300 SSD Generic 2TB HDD WL2000GSA1672 (external) 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Seagate Momentus XT 500GB ASUS DVD-RW Prolimatech Black Series Megahalems Linux Mint 18 Cinnamon "Sarah" 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 10 ViewSonic VG2030wm IBM Model M Fractal Design Newton R3 600W 
CaseMouseAudioOther
Phanteks Enthoo Pro Logitech Marble Mouse Behringer UCA222 Upgraded Realistic Minimus-7 speakers, Lepai 20... 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core 2 Duo Mobile T9900 Dell 0G848F Intel Mobile 4 series 4GB Crucial DDR2-6400 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
OWC Mercury Electra 3G 44GB SSD stock DVD-RW Linux Mint Cinnamon 17.1 "Rebecca" 1366x768 WXGA 
  hide details  
     
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD Athlon X4 870K 4700mhz 1.63v ASUS A88X-PRO Radeon HD 6970 G.SKILL Ripjaws X Series 16GB DDR2133 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Kingston V300 Toshiba 2.5" laptop HDD, 1TB Micron C300 SSD Generic 2TB HDD WL2000GSA1672 (external) 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Seagate Momentus XT 500GB ASUS DVD-RW Prolimatech Black Series Megahalems Linux Mint 18 Cinnamon "Sarah" 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 10 ViewSonic VG2030wm IBM Model M Fractal Design Newton R3 600W 
CaseMouseAudioOther
Phanteks Enthoo Pro Logitech Marble Mouse Behringer UCA222 Upgraded Realistic Minimus-7 speakers, Lepai 20... 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core 2 Duo Mobile T9900 Dell 0G848F Intel Mobile 4 series 4GB Crucial DDR2-6400 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
OWC Mercury Electra 3G 44GB SSD stock DVD-RW Linux Mint Cinnamon 17.1 "Rebecca" 1366x768 WXGA 
  hide details  
post #758 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durquavian View Post

And you are assuming seeing how the chart does not specify whether it is total or just CPU.

It's the total. It's not just CPU.
post #759 of 1593
If only there were more G43 sockets; there's a ton of cheap Opterons on eBay. That would be nice rolleyes.gif
post #760 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thready View Post


Since the majority of people build PCs for gaming,

This statement is a bit off because it does not do a good job of being clear. First the "majority" of gamers do not build their own PCs. Now the counter however, the majority of people that build their own PC are gamers is probably a pretty fair assessment.

When it comes to building a gaming PC there is a lot of different approaches out there but this forum and other enthusiast forums are usually very focused in a specific area and way of gaming. For example the majority of gamers will be using a 24" or less monitor, this is not however true on this forum. The number of gamers that use multi-monitors is a tiny fraction of the PC gaming world while here the percentage is significantly higher.

In the case of CPUs the truth is that most gamers get a great gaming experience from older chips and lower cost modern chips. I know a guy gaming on one of the EARLY Phenom II 940 chips using AM2+ and yet he runs every game he plays including a lot of current games at 1080 and high detail with no lag or issues with his game play. With this in mind the truth is AMD is a very viable option for gaming usage, however the title of the thread is accurate that at the ultra high, enthusiast end it is not a viable option. For the price of the higher end AMD chips the Intel offerings are just better solutions. Dive under the $175 price point, which is still very solid mid range gaming, and AMD has a much stronger position.

The same reasoning BTW applies in the GPU world as well. For the 95% of the PC gaming world a high end GPU is a 280X or a 770. Anything past that looks great in benchmarks but is all but meaningless in actual play experience. The truth is the 270X is the real sweet spot in gaming cards right now with great 1080 performance and a reasonable price tag.

The problem with a discussion of mid range, or mainstream gaming on this forum is that quite frankly most of the people here do not truly have a clue what that is or means. Tell someone here to game on a 24" TN panel 1080 monitor with a 270X using an APU or I3 for the processor and the majority will cringe as if you have somehow hurt them. In the real world those specs are pretty close to the high end range of the norm.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: AMD CPUs
This thread is locked  
Overclock.net › Forums › AMD › AMD CPUs › AMD No longer a viable option for mid-high end?