Guild Wars 2

Hey everyone,

Until now my girlfriend and I have been playing GW2 on my laptop, but now we’ve finally decided to get a gaming PC.

This is what I’m currently planning on getting:

CPU: Intel Core i5-4670K 3.4GHz Quad-Core Processor
CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler
Motherboard: MSI Z87-G45 Gaming ATX LGA1150 Motherboard
Memory: Corsair Vengeance 8GB (2 × 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory
Storage: Western Digital Caviar Blue 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive
Video Card: Asus GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost 2GB Video Card
OR MSI GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost 2GB Video Card
Power Supply: Corsair Gaming 600W 80 PLUS Bronze Certified ATX12V Power Supply

I would like to know what you all think! Any kind of advice is appreciated.
(Please note that this config is already pushing my budget, which is around $800 or $1000/€770 when you look at EU prices…)

Thank you in advance!

cpu looks pretty low on the benchmark list and for the same price of that cpu you can get better performance from a higher performing cpu – http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html

One site I’ve been having fun lately is with http://www.ibuypower.com/2013/july4th.aspx

I’ve been looking for different rigs myself lately, while most people don’t like that benchmark page because it’s based on using all threads of a cpu, and gw2 doesn’t use all the threads – I use software other than gw2 that can make good use of it…further …the benchmark list gives you a very nice over view of price vs performance. Some of the higher up cpu’s are relatively low priced considering how some of the lower performing cpu’s carry a hefty price tag. anywho – sharing what I’ve found so far. – good luck .

The GTX 650 is a tad weak. If it was me (donning fire suit), I would nix the SSD and put some of the money toward a better video card (like the GTX 650Ti Boost). SSDs are nice but it will only affect loading times.

Also I prefer the Asus P8Z77-V LK as a motherboard. Their both fine and should be within $5-10 of each other.

Don’t forget the Microsoft tax (ie copy of OS).

Ram should be at least DDR3-1600 Cas 9.

Case?

You can also take some of the windfall from nixing the SSD and put it toward a 3rd party CPU cooler like the CoolerMaster Hyper 212 EVO. Overclocking produces more heat and the default Intel cooler isn’t up to the challenge.

That’s why you use charts like this one Ricky (waiting for Tom’s Hardware bashing in 3 … 2 … 1 …). High end video card and testing at low resolution and game settings is so the differences in CPU performance is highlighted.

For those who suspect Tom’s, here’s X-Bit Labs i5 Ivy Bridge review. Remember that the i7-3770K has about a 3% higher clock rate (a wash when OCing), a 1/3rd more L3 memory cache (does help), Hyper Threading (which can hurt or help) but costs $100 more. The average gain there doesn’t warrant the cost IMO so a good choice for the OP.

Some things to remember when building a budget gaming rig.
An SSD is NOT essential, when on a budget… do not get one. Only get one when u have money spare in a budget. An SSD is for convieniance and gives a very very minimal performance boost ingame, to the point most people actualy dont notice any difference even if its there.

The 3570k though still good is now not the current generation i5 u want. Try get the 4670k along with the appropriate motherboard, its roughly 5-10% faster.. its not much but u might aswell get the latest stuff, specialy since its only just released, it means u will get the most of its lifepsan.

The GPU needs uping. The MINIMUM Nvidia card u want is a 650Ti so look for a Ti version of the one u have picked out.

The removal of the SSD should save up more than enough money to upgrade the CPU to the 4670k along with the motherboard. Infact u may have enough to go from a 650 ..skip the 650ti and maybe look at a 650ti Boost edition or a standard 660.

So yea skip getting an SSD for now, u will get much more for that ~$130 if u put it into the CPU motherboard and GPU.

The proc is fine, you could even go for the new version 4670k but it cost a bit more. If i was you i would not take the SSD, and use the extra money on a better GPU (gtx 770/ 760, or go for the last years generation 660ti/670/680 because the price will drop now, since the series 7 is here). If you would tell your budget in numbers we could help even more.

Well the $100 or so they save from dropping the SSD isn’t going to be anywhere close for to get a GTX 770 or even a GTX 660 depending on various other tweaks in prices. Remember he was already to his limit. The “but for only X more” is a kitten slippery slope.

650 = ~$100

The SSD will save ~$130

If u take say ~$30 for the extra cost of the 4670k and its MB over the 3570k and MB
Then ur left with ~$100
So ~$100 onto the $100 of the 650 meanshe/she could get a Nvidia 660 or a standard AMD 7870.
Out of the 2 i would go for the 660 as iirc only the 7870ghz edition and 7870XT/LE edition can beat or match it, the normal 7870 is behind.

But ofc this all depends on the exact pricing of the parts where ever the OP is buying from.

I know Solar, but still no 3rd party heat sink which is why I went with the GTX 650Ti Boost, which is a lot closer to a GTX 660 in performance (within 10%) than the GTX 650Ti (which is 25% slower). And the $40 upgrade ($70 if going from basic 1GB 650 to 2GB OC 650Ti Boost) from the GTX 650 will yield almost twice the performance. Best bang for the buck upgrade IMO for a DIY gamer on a budget.

Plus always good to leave a little cash on the table for unexpected price shifts or other expenses. People tend to forget little things like tax and shipping.

Wow, thanks for all the fast and informative replies, you guys are awesome!

@Filbo
I live in Hungary, and unfortunately the cost of PC parts is nowhere near Newegg’s or even Amazon’s prices. The $800 config in the OP costs about $200 more in Europe. So to be exact, when I used PCPartPicker I drew the line at $800. (I already have a case, an optical drive and an OS.)

@SolarNova
Going with the 4670k is indeed a possibility. I’ve read very mixed review on the matter, many people say that the 3570k is a better deal, especially regarding overclocking. On the other hand my instincts tell me to go with the newer technology, might be smarter on the long run.

@Behellagh
You convinced me (plus others confirmed) that ditching the SSD and getting a better GPU is a good idea, so I’m probably gonna do that. Should I go with the 650 Ti Boost or is the regular 660 worth the extra $40?

EDIT: (just read Behellagh’s new post)
From what you’ve wrote, the 650Ti Boost appears to be the better choice, but I’ll wait for Solar’s reply, since your discussion is so informative.

EDIT2: OP is now up-to-date, this is what I plan to get ATM. Ditching the SSD allowed me to go with the 4670k (and the Z87 version of the mobo) and the 650Ti Boost.

10-15%. An OC 650Ti Boost can narrow that to 5% of a stock clock 660. $30 difference at NewEgg (like that would help you being in Hungary and all).

As Intel keeps lowering the power use of their CPUs, OCing headroom seems to be going away as well. And I can’t find any game comparisons between the i5-3570K and the i5-4670k at my usual chart laden sites. I can’t imagine any game that will be optimized for a Haswell core. The i7-3770K Vs i7-4770K yielded a few % points at most in games at stock speeds so I imagine the comparison between i5s would be similar.

The switch comes out to around $30 between the CPU and motherboard. And overclocking may be “more mature” with the older ivy bridge CPU. Haswell changed up the OC rules again.

Edit: Read new edits, never mind about choice of CPUs.

Behellagh.1468:

As Intel keeps lowering the power use of their CPUs, OCing headroom seems to be going away as well. And I can’t find any game comparisons between the i5-3570K and the i5-4670k at my usual chart laden sites. I can’t imagine any game that will be optimized for a Haswell core. The i7-3770K Vs i7-4770K yielded a few % points at most in games at stock speeds so I imagine the comparison between i5s would be similar.

The switch comes out to around $30 between the CPU and motherboard. And overclocking may be “more mature” with the older ivy bridge CPU. Haswell changed up the OC rules again.

It’s not decided yet! I edited the OP hoping that people will react to that configuration as well.

From what I’ve read, there is a noticeable, but small difference between the 3570k and the 4670k. I would say the small price difference reflects this perfectly. Also, the 4770k/4670k didn’t perform well in OC tests. (I feel there’s a tendency here, I remember people complaining about the 3570k performing worse than the 2500k.)

To be honest, the price difference in Hungary is $20 including the newer motherboard. So it’s not really a question of money, but a question of getting the best performance in the next few years. (Also, I’m not an OC maniac, I just like to keep the door open.)

Ok i purposly overlooked a better cpu cooler becouse it seemed that you were on a tight budget and just wanted to get a gaming rig and be done.

However if u r interested in OC’ing then yes u can get the 650ti to save some money and buy a aftermarket CPU cooler with the remander of ur budget. Somthing like the coolemraster 212 Evo or better so that u can atleast OC the 4670k a tad over stock.

I mean if u want the ‘door open’ then u can stickwith the stock cooler and just buy an aftermarket one when u do want to OC down the road.. that way u can get more performance NOW with getting a 660 GPU.. then OC the cpu later once u got some spare change for a aftermarket cooler.
Ur bassicaly getitng the stock cooler for free anyway so replacing it wont be wasting an money. However getting a 650ti + aftermakret cooler now mean well .u wont be upgrading the GPU any time sooner becouse thats another $200+ .

My advice ..get the 660 ..stick with the stock cooler. .its alot easier to save up ~$30-$80 for a CPU cooler than another $200+ for a better graphics card.

In this case, I would forego the SSD and get a higher quality video card but I think people are overlooking one of the best things about SSD’s in gaming rigs.

When there is a loading screen, the game doesn’t load every little thing into memory to be used. There are some things that pop up unexpectedly that need to be taken from the game archive and loaded into memory.

The faster read speeds on SSD’s allow this needed data to be put into memory faster than a traditional HDD, meaning less of a stutter/pause when this data gets loaded.

Not only does an SSD improve loading screen times, it helps aid in a smoother gaming experience overall.

Honestly the entire machine is great, even the 650 Ti BOOST.
Rather than getting the 660 as some people suggest, go with what it is for now and then later on add another 650 TI BOOST for SLI.

Ricky.4706:

cpu looks pretty low on the benchmark list and for the same price of that cpu you can get better performance from a higher performing cpu – http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html

I’ve been looking for different rigs myself lately, while most people don’t like that benchmark page because it’s based on using all threads of a cpu, and gw2 doesn’t use all the threads -

Then just use this page : http://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html
It will rank the best single thread cpu’s with the price….

I personaly would recommend this one : http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+FX-8350+Eight-Core&id=1780#price

As you can see, it is one of the best performance / $Price. But in single thread it is not that good. But I don’t only play 1 game on a 3000$ pc so I don’t really care.

However hoegarden if you do performance/price for single threaded Passmark numbers it’s a different story. FX-8350 (8.45), i5-3570K (9.17), i5-4670K (9.35), i7-3770K (6.82) and i7-4770K (6.80).

I’m all for bang for the buck, which is why I recommended the GTX 650Ti Boost (e-i-e-i-oh) but most people on the planet aren’t pushing their CPU usage to the point where 8 cores or 8 pseudo cores (i7s) are necessary. And if you’re primary CPU intensive use for your computer is gaming, go Intel and bang for the buck with Intel is an i5.

I’m running an AMD cpu right now and I knew when I got it that it wasn’t the best for gaming. But I needed a replacement quick and it was cheap and gets the job done. Wish I could have spent twice the money and gotten something more game friendly but hey, life gives you lemons, make lemonade.

GTX 670 or HD 7850 I recommend. Now they are good time to buy due the next gen is out.

DJRiful.3749:

GTX 670 or HD 7850 I recommend. Now they are good time to buy due the next gen is out.

Which would be fine if he wasn’t on a tight budget.

@hoegarden
The Mark/$ chart only confirms that the 4670k is a great choice (just like the 3570k). The CPU you suggested is also good, but I’m willing to pay more for a better one, since GW2 is a CPU-heavy game.

@DJRiful
Believe me, I’d love to get one of those but since I’m building this PC from scratch and on a budget, it’s just not an option.

You could even go for a cheaper mobo, and a WD blue or green ( the 7200rpm and 64mb versions). This could bring you some extra money for the gpu.

But overall the PC is nice, the GPU may not be the best but you can still change it later or even go for SLI.

learning a lot from this thread too lol. nice conversation guys.

Question – wouldn’t you want to make the mb the most important part of your computer ? graphics cards / chips constantly upgrade – but the mobo is the foundation of a good upgradeable build ?

@Filbo
Yup, Caviar Blue is fine, I hear the latest 7200RPM, 64MB version performs just as well as the Black, only a lot less noisy. I plan to buy an SSD for the OS/games later on, so the Blue will suffice until then.

I’m still going to get the 650 Ti Boost, if it proves to be too weak, I’ll get another one for SLI. Right now I’m trying to decide between the versions of EVGA, MSI and ASUS. From what I’ve read, EVGA is loud in idle and hot under pressure. MSI’s TwinFrozr and ASUS’ DirectCU II heatsink both seem excellent.

@Ricky
Indeed, there are some very helpful and knowledgeable people around.

As for the motherboard, good point! I happened to stumble upon MSI’s Z87-G45 Gaming motherboard, and I must say it’s very convincing. It costs the same as the ATX version of the ASRock E4, only it’s a little hard to get in Hungary at the moment. Still, I fell in love with it, and decided to get that instead. (The problem with upgrading builds around an expensive mobo is that new processors often come with different sockets, which means you have to upgrade the motherboard as well.)

EDIT
Throwing in an Arctic Freezer Pro 7 Rev. 2 or CoolerMaster Hyper 212 EVO cooler would still allow me to reach my budgetary goal and overclock if necessary.
In next months/years, I can upgrade the PC with an SSD and an additional GPU.

OP updated to reflect the changes in plan.

You get ur motherboard bassed on a few things.
Sata ports.
PCI-E lanes (SLI/Xfire or not)
Overclocking*

*This is the big one, the more power phases, better caps, heatsinks ..the more it can overclock. The really expensive motherboards also have extra overclocking utilities available including hardware ..like voltage measurment points, hardwired on/off button, bios reset swtich, dual bios chip etc etc.

So to be honest u only need to go so far, there is a good middle point with most motherboards where they are good enough quality for most people, with good overclocking ability and enough ports and SLI capability. They usualy cost around $135.

So whilst arguably its the most important part becouse everything plugs into it… everythign also plugs into the PSU ..including the motherboard ..so that is deffiantly the ONE item u do NOT want to skimp on..if the PSU blows. .it could take everything plugged into it with it.
Also keep in mind for intel ..they like to change their chipset every new CPU generation anyway so u will likely change motherboard when u change CPU with intel ..its one of their downsides

@Solar
I did my best to consider all those things while choosing the mobo, but I have to admit my capabilities in the field are very limited. Still, it seemed that the Z87-G45 was ideal for gamers (what a shock, considering it’s sold as a gaming mobo!).

Yeah I wrote the same about new processors requiring new motherboards. That is exactly why I only choose to buy CPU’s with that magical ‘k’ letter.

Ricky.4706:

learning a lot from this thread too lol. nice conversation guys.

Question – wouldn’t you want to make the mb the most important part of your computer ? graphics cards / chips constantly upgrade – but the mobo is the foundation of a good upgradeable build ?

Not as much as you would think. If you aren’t planning on overclocking and don’t require any special motherboard features, then there is no reason not to go with a basic, cheaper motherboard.

All the PCI-E 3.0 graphics cards that recently came out work equally well on PCI-E 2.0, 2.1, and 3.0 motherboards. DDR3 has been around for a long time now and there hasn’t been any talk of motherboards upgrading to using DDR4 or DDR5 (mainly cause the CPU’s can’t support it yet). CPU socket types are staying the same (AM3, LGA1155, LGA2011), and SATA is still mainly SATA 2 and SATA 3.

You can’t really future-proof your motherboard like you can a graphics card or high-end CPU. Unless you want lots of features and exemplary build quality, you don’t have to spend tons of cash on a motherboard. It is best spent on a better CPU or GPU.

Gregorius.2375:

@hoegarden
The Mark/$ chart only confirms that the 4670k is a great choice (just like the 3570k). The CPU you suggested is also good, but I’m willing to pay more for a better one, since GW2 is a CPU-heavy game.

True, it’s just a matter of what you use the pc for. If i can render a scene in 3dsmax faster i will be happy. And those extra cores help a lot. So for my playing the game is not that important. I can run and play it, that is enough for me :P
I could buy an Intel one, but i would ended up with a pc who cost me twice the amount i spend on an AMD one.

hoegarden.4287:

Gregorius.2375:

@hoegarden
The Mark/$ chart only confirms that the 4670k is a great choice (just like the 3570k). The CPU you suggested is also good, but I’m willing to pay more for a better one, since GW2 is a CPU-heavy game.

True, it’s just a matter of what you use the pc for. If i can render a scene in 3dsmax faster i will be happy. And those extra cores help a lot. So for my playing the game is not that important. I can run and play it, that is enough for me :P
I could buy an Intel one, but i would ended up with a pc who cost me twice the amount i spend on an AMD one.

If you need more cores but don’t want to worry about overclocking, then the AMD FX-8350 is the right choice for you. I got one of those and it’s faaaabulouuuuussss

Thanks again for all these replies, everyone!

Only 2 dillemas left (hope I didn’t make any mistakes):

1.) Not sure if I should go with the Asus or the MSI, leaning towards ASUS though.
2.) I really like the idea and extra utilities of a gaming motherboard (MSI Z87 G-45), but according to an expert’s review both the ASRock Z87 E4 and the Gigabyte GA-Z87X-D3H perform better…

If anyone has any idea about these, don’t hesitate!

If all goes well, I’ll order the parts today/tomorrow.

I can vouch for the Gigabyte board, a recent build i done for a family member uses it with a 4770k cpu.
I would also say go for the Asus. The DCUII cooler is very good.

The Gigabyte version of the 650 is nice too ( the windforce coolers are good), and in most shops cheaper then the asus one, if iam not mistaken.

SolarNova.1052:

You get ur motherboard bassed on a few things.
Sata ports.
PCI-E lanes (SLI/Xfire or not)
Overclocking*

*This is the big one, the more power phases, better caps, heatsinks ..the more it can overclock. The really expensive motherboards also have extra overclocking utilities available including hardware ..like voltage measurment points, hardwired on/off button, bios reset swtich, dual bios chip etc etc.

So to be honest u only need to go so far, there is a good middle point with most motherboards where they are good enough quality for most people, with good overclocking ability and enough ports and SLI capability. They usualy cost around $135.

So whilst arguably its the most important part becouse everything plugs into it… everythign also plugs into the PSU ..including the motherboard ..so that is deffiantly the ONE item u do NOT want to skimp on..if the PSU blows. .it could take everything plugged into it with it.
Also keep in mind for intel ..they like to change their chipset every new CPU generation anyway so u will likely change motherboard when u change CPU with intel ..its one of their downsides

Given that the OP has settled on 4th gen OC headroom is limited so a mobo OC ability is not as important when it is limited by the cpu (remember this is a budget build we wont be seeing high end coolers). The OP will most likely not run sli as most ppl who do so only do so on onset. By the time they want/have resourses to upgrade, chances are a new gen will be out and prices will be at a point where replacing the card might be the better option.
TL;DR The base z87 boards will be plenty good enough for what the OP is going to be doing.

Also well worth to note is that the 4th gen uses substantially less power and coupled with a low power gpu, the OP’s PSU choice is not budget oriented. A decent 500w for $30-40 would be more than ample for that system. Yes you can get a quality PSU for less than 50 dollars.

ASUS, Gigabyte and MSI all have excellent, quiet 650 Ti Boost GPU’s, going with ASUS because more people recommended it, and because I get a decent free SD card from a store here, lol.

Decided to go with the mATX version of Asrock Extreme4, because in Hungary it’s $70 (no joke!) cheaper than the ATX version. The Gigabyte motherboard would be a good second choice, but the Asrock seems to have more extra features. (MSI gaming mobo is not even available here ATM…)

The 600W PSU may seem too high, but I really wanted Corsair, however I don’t really trust the Builder series. Also, if for some reason I decide to go SLI, it’s safer choice. (Plus GS has blue LED, I mean come on!)

Ordering the parts in a few hours, but if anyone has any last advice, I’d love to hear!

I thought you guys would appreciate this article! http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20130503174250_Intel_Core_i7_4770K_Haswell_Overclocked_to_7_01GHz_Report.html

I did more research on the above article, and found this page from cpu-z
http://valid.canardpc.com/records.php

the current world frequency oc record is from an amd!! 8.7ghz! and I found out my cpu can be oc’d to 6.1ghz – not worth it though, with what i’d spend on a new board for an old chip, and the cooling system etc ..I may as well just get a new rig!

Yes but every CPU series has a different instruction per cycle value so you can’t simply compare clock speeds of different CPUs to know which is fastest.

Behellagh.1468:

Yes but every CPU series has a different instruction per cycle value so you can’t simply compare clock speeds of different CPUs to know which is fastest.

So we must start comparing cpu’s with the same price too then.
A i5-3570K costs 200€, an amd fx-8530 is 180€…
So what we must do is take a 180€ intel cpu and then compare… I not so sure that a Intel Core i5 4570 is better than the AMD…

other things to consider is how practical is that speed – you’d need liquid nitrogen cooling for those speeds – and most recent benchmarks are holding off giving the 4770k the crown till they benchmark the newer amd fx cpu – interesting fact …Amd Fx holds the Guiness book of world records for fastest cpu – which was clocked at 8.4 – but the above cpu-z chart shows 8.7 – and the chinese have recently unveiled a super computer that blows all the records away – so I expect a revolution soon in cpu speeds if they decide to make that info public – but reports show that they are trying to make it from all authentic chinese parts – so intel will eventually have nothing to do with it. Quantum computing is very close to being a reality as well – so intel and amd both may be nearing the end of their reign soon! – of course we are talking military grade computers – but in about 5 years – amd and intel may not be top contenders – especially if the chinese start issuing consumer versions of their new technology without intel or amd.

http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2013/06/chinas-supercomputer-regains-no-.html

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2278586/dwave-quantum-computer-passes-tests-ahead-of-google-deployment

with all the spy wars going on lately, you can expect computing speeds to change dramatically in the next few years. Our current cpu speeds are but beepers to the near future smartphones lol!

hoegarden.4287:

Behellagh.1468:

Yes but every CPU series has a different instruction per cycle value so you can’t simply compare clock speeds of different CPUs to know which is fastest.

So we must start comparing cpu’s with the same price too then.
A i5-3570K costs 200€, an amd fx-8530 is 180€…
So what we must do is take a 180€ intel cpu and then compare… I not so sure that a Intel Core i5 4570 is better than the AMD…

That’s true to a degree. In cases when running an app that will use the maximum number of cores seen by the OS the FX-8350 will hold it’s own against the i5-3570K. But if the two CPUs are running an app that doesn’t use all the cores the OS sees then the i5-3570K will kick the FX-8350 up and down the block and this includes games.

I’ll keep repeating this until I’m blue in the face. AMD designed their FX “Module”, which contains two cores, to compete head to head with an Intel core with hyper threading only when both are running two threads simultaneously. That was their design goal. Unfortunately when each is only running one thread at a time, the Intel core wins hands down. 30-40% faster running one thread if the two cores had similar performance when running 2 threads.

Right now the FX-8350 does a fair job keeping up with the i7-2600 in heavily multithreaded tasks but now it’s 15-20% slower than the i7-4770 and 10% slower than the i7-3770. But in every case those Intel CPUs will beat it handily when running a game when CPU performance makes a difference, meaning it’s not being limited by video card performance.

Sure if you crank a video card intensive game like Metro 2033 up to it’s max, it really doesn’t matter which CPU you use, you will be within a percent or two in frame rate. But in a game like Civ 5, it will be a noticeable difference.

And if you aren’t cranking the video and resolution settings to 11, the gap will simply grow.

Ricky.4706:

other things to consider is how practical is that speed – you’d need liquid nitrogen cooling for those speeds – and most recent benchmarks are holding off giving the 4770k the crown till they benchmark the newer amd fx cpu – interesting fact …Amd Fx holds the Guiness book of world records for fastest cpu – which was clocked at 8.4 – but the above cpu-z chart shows 8.7 – and the chinese have recently unveiled a super computer that blows all the records away – so I expect a revolution soon in cpu speeds if they decide to make that info public – but reports show that they are trying to make it from all authentic chinese parts – so intel will eventually have nothing to do with it. Quantum computing is very close to being a reality as well – so intel and amd both may be nearing the end of their reign soon! – of course we are talking military grade computers – but in about 5 years – amd and intel may not be top contenders – especially if the chinese start issuing consumer versions of their new technology without intel or amd.

http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2013/06/chinas-supercomputer-regains-no-.html

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2278586/dwave-quantum-computer-passes-tests-ahead-of-google-deployment

with all the spy wars going on lately, you can expect computing speeds to change dramatically in the next few years. Our current cpu speeds are but beepers to the near future smartphones lol!

Not the fastest, the fastest clocked. And clock speed isn’t performance.

Let’s go to hbot which ranks OC CPUs running CPU benchmarks at competitions. Since I’ve been using Cinebench lets compare those results.

FX-8350, 12.52 at 7251MHz.

I7-3770K, 13.02 at 6385MHz.

So the FX-8350 is 3.8% slower than an i7-3770K but with an 13.6% faster clock.

Sure someone got an FX-8350 to boot and run CPU-Z long enough to grab a screenshot of it at 8670MHz. That doesn’t do any good if it can’t run anything else without crashing.

Clock speed isn’t performance across CPU lines.

The prime example of this was back in 2006 (which might be before your time Ricky) when the first Core 2 Duos came out. The slowest Core 2 Duo at the introduction was the 1.86GHz E6300. It consistently tied or beat the 3.6GHz Pentium D 960 and was a touch slower than the 2.2GHz Athon X2 4200+.

I agree, and I understand …was doing research on it because of the massive amounts of cpu’s that intel put out …it’s a bit ridiculous and confusing – they should at least label them business class / gaming class

But even with all that – seems like oc’ng your cpu has become kinda like drag racing lol = the cars aren’t really practical for street driving but it’s still a rush!

I am curious though do you think the best cooling system is ? so far I’ve found corsair double fan / radiator liquid cooling systems to be the best – but I’m still learning about the new stuff out there – i’m surprised I havent found a consumer level nitrogen cooling system, I suppose it’s not a practical thing and the nitrogen gets consumed ..not recycled ?

here we go, this is what we need for wvw!! http://www.tomshardware.com/news/EKWB-LN2-Cooling-CPU,22706.html

Behellagh.1468:

[…]

Right now the FX-8350 does a fair job keeping up with the i7-2600 in heavily multithreaded tasks but now it’s 15-20% slower than the i7-4770 and 10% slower than the i7-3770. But in every case those Intel CPUs will beat it handily when running a game when CPU performance makes a difference, meaning it’s not being limited by video card performance.

Sure if you crank a video card intensive game like Metro 2033 up to it’s max, it really doesn’t matter which CPU you use, you will be within a percent or two in frame rate. But in a game like Civ 5, it will be a noticeable difference.

And if you aren’t cranking the video and resolution settings to 11, the gap will simply grow.

But again, you are telling that a 180€ cpu is 15-20% slower than a cpu who cost 45% more. The i7-4770 costs here around 260€, so I actually expect that one to be better.
We can’t compare apples with peers… So compare a 180€ amd cpu with a 180€ intel cpu. That will give you a fair view of what you get for your money.

Sorry I thought the Civ 5 graph made it obvious since the i5-2500K beat the FX-8350.

The i5 doesn’t use hyper threading like the i7. Therefore the cores can only running one thread at a time. When you are running one thread at a time on an Intel core, it’s performance is far superior to an FX module running one thread on one of it’s cores. So as long as the total CPU load is less than four cores worth, the Intel i5 will outperform an 4 module/8 core FX CPU.

Also baring someone being creative with the rendering loop (as in multthreading it which is difficult for a Dx9 targeted app), the rendering code plus the graphics driver can’t exceed one core’s performance. That becomes the limiting factor. Doesn’t matter how many cores you have or how multithreaded your app may be. Your most time consuming thread can’t ever exceed one core’s performance and that will limit the entire app. And because the rendering code is so tightly coupled to the graphics driver then it’s that pair can’t exceed one core’s performance.

is that what people mean when they say we’ve reached a point of diminishing returns ? Hypothetically from that perspective software developers are rendering moore’s law moot being that they don’t use all cores ?

Moore’s law simply says the number of transistors etched onto a single chip doubles every two years. Since more transistors mean more complicated CPUs it gets wrongly translated into CPU performance doubles every two year.

Problem today is that it’s difficult for a programmer to think about dividing their apps in a way to take advantage of multicore CPUs. Some tasks are easier and multithreading comes naturally, like video and file compression (each core does a frame or file for example).

Anyways we went multicore in PCs because instantaneous performance is more important to the general public than overall performance. Having a spare core or two means the UI is more responsive or an app launches faster or one app isn’t being bogged down by another that’s running. Also remember that the OS is also an app that’s always running.

ahh, k ..I think i get it….meaning I can run more programs at the same time without compromising speed….but more chips doesn’t mean one particular program running on 1 or 2 cores out of 4 will run at blazing speeds – and that’s where the single thread performance matters most. so from that view … AMD is great for multi-tasking being they are 8 core, Intel is Great for fast single software performance with hyper threading and fast single thread benchmarks…but not as affordable in 8 core for multi tasking.

For the most part that’s correct.

Under the OS, a Core i7 is seen as having 8 cores even though it only has four. This is because of Hyper Threading. Now AMD’s goal was to make their 8 core CPU to be able to multitask as well as Intel’s Core i7 when fully loaded down. They sort of achieved that goal by catching up to the i7-2600 with their FX-8350. But any time other than that, 8 cores running fully, Intel i7-2600 wins.