Originally posted by Ridelynn He has a bunch of synthetic benchmarks - ok, we expect some disparity in there, and I won't really try to relate them to real world performance because they aren't really that meaningful...The synthetics do a pretty good job of showing just exactly what the cost of saving money on the motherboard chipset is.
You would be stupid to buy FX-8350 or any AMD instead of i5-4460 that goes for 190 USD these days.
It is a no brainer.
The argument for getting an Intel CPU is faster cores. So of course you recommend paying most of the price premium for Intel, but getting lower clocked cores (max turbo of 3.4 GHz, rather than 3.9 GHz for a Core i5 4690, or more with overclocking), so as to give up much of the advantage of buying Intel but still pay most of the price premium. I say that's ridiculous.
If you're going to pay a premium for fast cores, then do it right and get fast cores. Get a Core i5 4690 or get an unlocked version and clock it however you want. If you're not willing to pay what that costs, then get substantial savings by going with something slower, not just $30 or so.
Just to add to the cores thing, Intel uses hyperthreading, which essentially doubles the cores. So 4 physical cores, becomes 8 virtual cores. I haven't actually encountered any particular scenario where physical cores are superior to the virtual cores, but other than my home systems, a lot of my experience in virtual cores is within ESX clusters (which seem not to care at all, one way or another).
...
I use an i7 in my rig, because of SWTOR, since swtor's engine is ridiculously dependant on processor cycles for performance.
Just to clarify, i5 does not use HT. i5 is basically defective i7 with disabled cores and HT.
I play SWTOR wiith maxed graphics on my C2D E8400... The issue with SWTOR was poor optimization, it is not CPU intensive, vast majority of games aren't.
The Core i5 is not a salvage part that had to disable stuff because it was defective. It has stuff turned off because Intel wanted people to have to pay more to get the extra features. It's kind of like how Windows 8 is not a defective version of Windows 8 Pro (or use Windows 7 Home Premium and Windows 7 Professional if you think all editions of Windows 8 are defective), but artificially limited because Microsoft wanted people to have to pay more to get the additional features.
Originally posted by QuizzicalThe Core i5 is not a salvage part that had to disable stuff because it was defective. It has stuff turned off because Intel wanted people to have to pay more to get the extra features.
Yeah, intel is wasting money producing i5 with 6 functional cores and then turn 2 of them off, while still charging for 4 cores only.
Add case up to your likehood. Feel free to spent extra for 97 MB if further upgrade is your concern or w/e you wish to adjust to fit your preference and wallet.
Do I read that wrong, or did you just suggest a computer built with only 1 RAM module?
That's probably the worst of it, but that proposed build has all sorts of problems. For starters, the power supply is Antec's low end, but doesn't come with a low end price tag. The video card is refurbished, and thus out of stock and not likely to come back in stock for long.
That is probably the funniest thing I've ever read on these forums. It crushes "one channel is better than two" and "2 cores are better than 4".
It is not better, it does not matter. It has no impact on performance and since the board supports only 2 slots, it is reasonable to leave 1 available for later upgrade...
So you propose artificially gimping the computer up front by cutting memory bandwidth in half, just so that there is an option to fix the problem later? Would you break a window in your house and then leave it unfixed for months just so that you have the option to upgrade your house later?
CPU memory bandwidth isn't that big of a deal so long as you're not feeding integrated graphics or doing something artificially stupid. But leaving a channel vacant entirely certainly counts as doing something artificially stupid, at least in a high-powered desktop.
Originally posted by Quizzical So you propose artificially gimping the computer up front by cutting memory bandwidth in half, just so that there is an option to fix the problem later? Would you break a window in your house and then leave it unfixed for months just so that you have the option to upgrade your house later?CPU memory bandwidth isn't that big of a deal so long as you're not feeding integrated graphics or doing something artificially stupid. But leaving a channel vacant entirely certainly counts as doing something artificially stupid, at least in a high-powered desktop.
Unless you built gaming machine for benchmarks, it has no practical bearing on performance.
Originally posted by Cramit845 Although right now, I feel like the AMD makes more sense on the price point
It doesn't, it is your bias only. You were leaning towards AMD before you posted here
AMD is simply not a gaming CPU.
In all actuality I've been leaning more Intel than AMD because historically I'm an "intel guy" more than an AMD guy. It's been the thought of possibly upgrading again in 2-3 years that makes me think going with a cheaper setup might be more beneficial after reading everyone's posts.
The intel seems like I would have to go into a higher price range or have to settle for lower end components in other areas to keep the price down. In that case it makes me feel like I don't have the money to make an intel system that would be worthwhile for what I'm doing.
No decision on my part yet, so if you feel Intel is the right way to go, can you offer a system closer to the $800 price point that includes an intel cpu that overall would be better than an AMD build? I'm feeling like I just don't have enough funds to make an intel system worth it, right or wrong in your opinion?
The argument for getting a better CPU up front is twofold:
1) It's easy to upgrade a video card later. Upgrading a CPU later will mean replacing the motherboard and probably memory, as DDR4 will be the standard by the time you upgrade. And that means a new OS license, too. That's a much bigger project than a simple video card upgrade that doesn't require modifying any other hardware.
2) GPUs will continue to make steady and important performance improvements at least until the end of Moore's Law, precisely because graphics workloads trivially scale to arbitrarily many threads and typical CPU workloads don't. CPUs have been advancing at a much slower pace of late, as simply adding more cores doesn't help that much. A high end CPU today might well be a legitimate high end CPU five years from now, while today's high end video card is very unlikely to offer half the performance of the high end in five years.
Following what you're saying, AMD 8 cores have untapped performance, which I agree too, but games are increasingly utilizing multiple cores as even consoles are 8 core now. An 8 core AMD should be solid for 5-7 years, especially if/when all games can utilize all 8 cores.
We can hear that since release of PS3(using 8 core platfrom) in 2006
CPU load distribution does not scale the way you think.
More cores are great for multitasking but do not help much with load of single app where utilization of CPU load is limited.
Also, there is Ahmdal's law.
How much multiple cores can help a single application depends very, very strongly on the application. Some cannot use more than one core at all. Some scale very well to dozens of cores spread across multiple sockets if you have them. Two separate programs both pushing a CPU hard simultaneously is unusual for consumer use.
Originally posted by Quizzical How much multiple cores can help a single application depends very, very strongly on the application. Some cannot use more than one core at all. Some scale very well to dozens of cores spread across multiple sockets if you have them. Two separate programs both pushing a CPU hard simultaneously is unusual for consumer use.
Do you feel smarter when you repeat same thing I say?
So you propose artificially gimping the computer up front by cutting memory bandwidth in half, just so that there is an option to fix the problem later? Would you break a window in your house and then leave it unfixed for months just so that you have the option to upgrade your house later?
CPU memory bandwidth isn't that big of a deal so long as you're not feeding integrated graphics or doing something artificially stupid. But leaving a channel vacant entirely certainly counts as doing something artificially stupid, at least in a high-powered desktop.
Unless you built gaming machine for benchmarks, it has no practical bearing on performance.
Your usual theorycrafting....
So given the choice between getting something worse or getting something better for cheaper, you propose getting something worse on the basis that it's not that much worse? You can get 8 GB as two 4 GB modules for cheaper than $70. For example:
Originally posted by Gdemami Originally posted by QuizzicalHow much multiple cores can help a single application depends very, very strongly on the application. Some cannot use more than one core at all. Some scale very well to dozens of cores spread across multiple sockets if you have them. Two separate programs both pushing a CPU hard simultaneously is unusual for consumer use.
Do you feel smarter when you repeat same thing I say?
I think you were saying that about Hyperthreading.
The Core i5 is not a salvage part that had to disable stuff because it was defective. It has stuff turned off because Intel wanted people to have to pay more to get the extra features.
Yeah, intel is wasting money producing i5 with 6 functional cores and then turn 2 of them off, while still charging for 4 cores only.
/facepalm
So there goes the "thrustworthy" people...
Intel has never made a Core i5 that had six cores with two disabled. Their Core i5 branded chips have always been dies with either two or four cores. Dies with six cores, of which two are disabled, have always been branded as either Core i7 or Xeon.
So given the choice between getting something worse or getting something better for cheaper, you propose getting something worse on the basis that it's not that much worse? You can get 8 GB as two 4 GB modules for cheaper than $70. For example:
1) Provide no performance gain. 2) Leave no room for any further upgrade - MB has only 2 memory slots.
On your crappy H81 motherboard that's true. On a decent Z97 motherboard, which most reasonable people would select for an Intel gaming computer, that would not be true.
The amount you save on the DIMMs would help cover the cost in upgrading to a decent motherboard - it still doesn't fix the rediculous CPU selection or other oversights though.
Unless you built gaming machine for benchmarks, it has no practical bearing on performance.
Your usual theorycrafting....
Exactly how many times have you cited benchmarks as the reason for going Intel over AMD, or Single channel vs Dual channel, or any number of other things, in this very thread, let alone other hot threads this week.
I haven't read through this one, but are we seriously suggesting one stick of RAM over two? While high RAM speeds (e.g. 2400MHz) make no perceptible difference, falling back to 1 channel definitely will.
For midrange I'd probably go for an AMD 8320 (overclocked, they all go to at least 4.4GHz or so with a $30 CPU cooler) and an AMD 290 GPU. A 500W branded PSU is fine.
Getting an i5 will trade blows depending on the game, but almost all will run fine. For midrange I wouldn't go for nvidia.
Dual channels, so overrated. To much of a hassle to install two sticks. Consumes more energy, higher energy bill cost. More chances for a part failure with 2 sticks of ram.......
Originally posted by Ridelynn On your crappy H81 motherboard that's true. On a decent Z97 motherboard, which most reasonable people would select for an Intel gaming computer, that would not be true.The amount you save on the DIMMs would help cover the cost in upgrading to a decent motherboard - it still doesn't fix the rediculous CPU selection or other oversights though.
Really? The difference between kit and single module is 10 USD.
Originally posted by Athisar I haven't read through this one, but are we seriously suggesting one stick of RAM over two? While high RAM speeds (e.g. 2400MHz) make no perceptible difference, falling back to 1 channel definitely will.
Yep, dead serious.
Dual Channel is long lived myth. If you actually check some tests, the performance gain is negligable.
Gaming and general purpose wise, it is relevant when using IGP only.
I haven't read through this one, but are we seriously suggesting one stick of RAM over two? While high RAM speeds (e.g. 2400MHz) make no perceptible difference, falling back to 1 channel definitely will.
Yep, dead serious.
Dual Channel is long lived myth. If you actually check some tests, the performance gain is negligable.
Gaming and general purpose wise, it is relevant when using IGP only.
You have two choices: A and B. Option A both performs better and is cheaper. Option B both performs worse and is more expensive. Which do you choose? Does it even matter how much more performance and how much cheaper?
I haven't read through this one, but are we seriously suggesting one stick of RAM over two? While high RAM speeds (e.g. 2400MHz) make no perceptible difference, falling back to 1 channel definitely will.
Yep, dead serious.
Dual Channel is long lived myth. If you actually check some tests, the performance gain is negligable.
Gaming and general purpose wise, it is relevant when using IGP only.
I have checked. I'm sure if you take averages it might only be 5%, and in many cases it will be more or less 0, but when it does affect things it can be a lot more than that.
Originally posted by Gdemami Originally posted by AthisarI haven't read through this one, but are we seriously suggesting one stick of RAM over two? While high RAM speeds (e.g. 2400MHz) make no perceptible difference, falling back to 1 channel definitely will.
Yep, dead serious.
Dual Channel is long lived myth. If you actually check some tests, the performance gain is negligable.
Gaming and general purpose wise, it is relevant when using IGP only.
I haven't read through this one, but are we seriously suggesting one stick of RAM over two? While high RAM speeds (e.g. 2400MHz) make no perceptible difference, falling back to 1 channel definitely will.
Yep, dead serious.
Dual Channel is long lived myth. If you actually check some tests, the performance gain is negligable.
Gaming and general purpose wise, it is relevant when using IGP only.
You have two choices: A and B. Option A both performs better and is cheaper. Option B both performs worse and is more expensive. Which do you choose? Does it even matter how much more performance and how much cheaper?
Common sense has left the building. Please step outside with your blasphemy as it is not wanted here. Seek your nearest rehabilitation office and talk to a counselor there and get help. Thank You, have a perfect day.
Comments
Enough said.
The argument for getting an Intel CPU is faster cores. So of course you recommend paying most of the price premium for Intel, but getting lower clocked cores (max turbo of 3.4 GHz, rather than 3.9 GHz for a Core i5 4690, or more with overclocking), so as to give up much of the advantage of buying Intel but still pay most of the price premium. I say that's ridiculous.
If you're going to pay a premium for fast cores, then do it right and get fast cores. Get a Core i5 4690 or get an unlocked version and clock it however you want. If you're not willing to pay what that costs, then get substantial savings by going with something slower, not just $30 or so.
The Core i5 is not a salvage part that had to disable stuff because it was defective. It has stuff turned off because Intel wanted people to have to pay more to get the extra features. It's kind of like how Windows 8 is not a defective version of Windows 8 Pro (or use Windows 7 Home Premium and Windows 7 Professional if you think all editions of Windows 8 are defective), but artificially limited because Microsoft wanted people to have to pay more to get the additional features.
Yeah, intel is wasting money producing i5 with 6 functional cores and then turn 2 of them off, while still charging for 4 cores only.
/facepalm
So there goes the "thrustworthy" people...
That's probably the worst of it, but that proposed build has all sorts of problems. For starters, the power supply is Antec's low end, but doesn't come with a low end price tag. The video card is refurbished, and thus out of stock and not likely to come back in stock for long.
So you propose artificially gimping the computer up front by cutting memory bandwidth in half, just so that there is an option to fix the problem later? Would you break a window in your house and then leave it unfixed for months just so that you have the option to upgrade your house later?
CPU memory bandwidth isn't that big of a deal so long as you're not feeding integrated graphics or doing something artificially stupid. But leaving a channel vacant entirely certainly counts as doing something artificially stupid, at least in a high-powered desktop.
Unless you built gaming machine for benchmarks, it has no practical bearing on performance.
Your usual theorycrafting....
The argument for getting a better CPU up front is twofold:
1) It's easy to upgrade a video card later. Upgrading a CPU later will mean replacing the motherboard and probably memory, as DDR4 will be the standard by the time you upgrade. And that means a new OS license, too. That's a much bigger project than a simple video card upgrade that doesn't require modifying any other hardware.
2) GPUs will continue to make steady and important performance improvements at least until the end of Moore's Law, precisely because graphics workloads trivially scale to arbitrarily many threads and typical CPU workloads don't. CPUs have been advancing at a much slower pace of late, as simply adding more cores doesn't help that much. A high end CPU today might well be a legitimate high end CPU five years from now, while today's high end video card is very unlikely to offer half the performance of the high end in five years.
How much multiple cores can help a single application depends very, very strongly on the application. Some cannot use more than one core at all. Some scale very well to dozens of cores spread across multiple sockets if you have them. Two separate programs both pushing a CPU hard simultaneously is unusual for consumer use.
Do you feel smarter when you repeat same thing I say?
So given the choice between getting something worse or getting something better for cheaper, you propose getting something worse on the basis that it's not that much worse? You can get 8 GB as two 4 GB modules for cheaper than $70. For example:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820226217
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820233180
Not sure if serious...
2 modules are not better as they:
1) Provide no performance gain.
2) Leave no room for any further upgrade - MB has only 2 memory slots.
Do you feel smarter when you repeat same thing I say?
I think you were saying that about Hyperthreading.
Intel has never made a Core i5 that had six cores with two disabled. Their Core i5 branded chips have always been dies with either two or four cores. Dies with six cores, of which two are disabled, have always been branded as either Core i7 or Xeon.
On your crappy H81 motherboard that's true. On a decent Z97 motherboard, which most reasonable people would select for an Intel gaming computer, that would not be true.
The amount you save on the DIMMs would help cover the cost in upgrading to a decent motherboard - it still doesn't fix the rediculous CPU selection or other oversights though.
Exactly how many times have you cited benchmarks as the reason for going Intel over AMD, or Single channel vs Dual channel, or any number of other things, in this very thread, let alone other hot threads this week.
I haven't read through this one, but are we seriously suggesting one stick of RAM over two? While high RAM speeds (e.g. 2400MHz) make no perceptible difference, falling back to 1 channel definitely will.
For midrange I'd probably go for an AMD 8320 (overclocked, they all go to at least 4.4GHz or so with a $30 CPU cooler) and an AMD 290 GPU. A 500W branded PSU is fine.
Getting an i5 will trade blows depending on the game, but almost all will run fine. For midrange I wouldn't go for nvidia.
Dual channels, so overrated. To much of a hassle to install two sticks. Consumes more energy, higher energy bill cost. More chances for a part failure with 2 sticks of ram.......
Really? The difference between kit and single module is 10 USD.
What MB you suggest then for the price 60 USD?
Yep, dead serious.
Dual Channel is long lived myth. If you actually check some tests, the performance gain is negligable.
Gaming and general purpose wise, it is relevant when using IGP only.
FX-8320 is at 130 USD at pricepicker. With 30 topped for cooler, you are at 160 USD.
i5-4460 at pricepicker goes for 172 USD.
FX-83220 worthy? I don't think so.
AMD is NOT cheaper!
You have two choices: A and B. Option A both performs better and is cheaper. Option B both performs worse and is more expensive. Which do you choose? Does it even matter how much more performance and how much cheaper?
I have checked. I'm sure if you take averages it might only be 5%, and in many cases it will be more or less 0, but when it does affect things it can be a lot more than that.
http://www.legitreviews.com/images/reviews/1779/3dmark-channel-scaling.jpg
Yep, dead serious.
Dual Channel is long lived myth. If you actually check some tests, the performance gain is negligable.
Gaming and general purpose wise, it is relevant when using IGP only.
I hate paying less for better performance
Common sense has left the building. Please step outside with your blasphemy as it is not wanted here. Seek your nearest rehabilitation office and talk to a counselor there and get help. Thank You, have a perfect day.