you'd need to go through and set all the timings yourself in bios is what i mean, not like it doesn't work or anything
[QUOTE=Mobon1;36721653]you'd need to go through and set all the timings yourself in bios is what i mean, not like it doesn't work or anything[/QUOTE]
Hmm...So just get this? [url]http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231423[/url]
[img]http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph4503/39737.png[/img]
At the most get 1600, not overpriced garbage just because it's "faster"
if you want to be absolutely sure, look through your motherboard's list of supported ram/look for someone who reported the combination working, but i'm pretty sure it'd be ok
Don't listen to him. Get 8gb of ram 1600. Many applications can use over 2gb at once, and with the cheap price of ram, it's a no brainer.
[QUOTE=QuikKill;36721683]Don't listen to him. Get 8gb of ram 1600. Many applications can use over 2gb at once, and with the cheap price of ram, it's a no brainer.[/QUOTE]
Or 1333...
[QUOTE=faze;36721688]Or 1333...[/QUOTE]
Yes or 1333.
I guess I'll get 8 gigs of this then... [url]http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231423[/url]
Looks like it's just one 4gb DIMM?
[QUOTE=QuikKill;36721683]Don't listen to him. Get 8gb of ram 1600. Many applications can use over 2gb at once, and with the cheap price of ram, it's a no brainer.[/QUOTE]
which is why he'd be getting 4gb, brosef
but yeah i guess it's not that bad since it's only ~20 dollars more, i'm just used to trying to save money
The chart was purely gaming performance, other applications have different uses for RAM and that's when speed comes into play. But for the majority of PC users, it's not enough to justify spending extra.
[editline]11th July 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=faze;36721714]I guess I'll get 8 gigs of this then... [url]http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231423[/url]
Looks like it's just one 4gb DIMM?[/QUOTE]
You're going to want a 2x4 kit to run them in dual channel
[QUOTE=Mobon1;36721716]which is why he'd be getting 4gb, brosef
but yeah i guess it's not that bad since it's only ~20 dollars more, i'm just used to trying to save money[/QUOTE]
Money isn't really slim pickins for me. The OS can use 2gb...which leaves 2 gigs for everything else. Breathing room is nice so my page file doesn't fill up.
[QUOTE=Mobon1;36721716]which is why he'd be getting 4gb, brosef
but yeah i guess it's not that bad since it's only ~20 dollars more, i'm just used to trying to save money[/QUOTE]
My skyrim uses 3gb, that leaves 1gb for windows and any other program running. That's pushing it. On top of that, games are just going to use more and more ram in the future.
[QUOTE=QuikKill;36721736]My skyrim uses 3gb, that leaves 1gb for windows and any other program running. That's pushing it.[/QUOTE]
Ahh forgot about Skyrim...that is quite the resource hog.
[QUOTE=faze;36721741]Ahh forgot about Skyrim...that is quite the resource hog.[/QUOTE]
And a cpu hog, that bulldozer probably isn't going to cut it for certain areas.
[QUOTE=QuikKill;36721754]And a cpu hog, that bulldozer probably isn't going to cut it.[/QUOTE]
4.3ghz quad core? Uhh...I have a 2.8 quad core right now. Skyrim runs as smooth as butter.
[QUOTE=QuikKill;36721736]My skyrim uses 3gb, that leaves 1gb for windows and any other program running. That's pushing it. On top of that, games are just going to use more and more ram in the future.[/QUOTE]
never had issues with games and memory, or memory at all, but i really don't use any other application while playing it at the same time so it's good for me
depends on the end user i guess
clocks and amount of cores have nothing to do with it, it's all about the architecture and efficiency
[QUOTE=HolyCrapAWalrus;36721766]clocks and amount of cores have nothing to do with it, it's all about the architecture and efficiency[/QUOTE]
Never had issues with AMD and gaming. Everything runs fine.
Which in this case, Bulldozer has very poor efficiency and is built on worse architecture than most Intel offerings
[QUOTE=faze;36721758]4.3ghz quad core? Uhh...I have a 2.8 quad core right now. Skyrim runs as smooth as butter.[/QUOTE]
Well I'm glad, but I had a faster amd setup than you did, and it wasn't smooth in a lot of areas. Granted I had it on ultra with 4k textures.
[QUOTE=HolyCrapAWalrus;36721766]clocks and amount of cores have nothing to do with it, it's all about the architecture and efficiency[/QUOTE]
Pretty much this.
[QUOTE=HolyCrapAWalrus;36721774]Which in this case, Bulldozer has very poor efficiency and is built on worse architecture than most Intel offerings[/QUOTE]
It's also half the price of a similar Intel CPU. Board as well.
[QUOTE=faze;36721770]Never had issues with AMD and gaming. Everything runs fine.[/QUOTE]
you have to understand that all amd's aren't the same thing
bulldozer is amd's flop, and yes, it has issues.
[QUOTE=faze;36721783]It's also half the price of a similar Intel CPU. Board as well.[/QUOTE]
You're missing the point. They're [B]NOT[/B] similar, because they're [B]BUILT[/B] differently.
K then find me an Intel board/CPU that is equivalent to what I picked out.
[QUOTE=QuikKill;36721780]Well I'm glad, but I had a faster amd setup than you did, and it wasn't smooth in a lot of areas. Granted I had it on ultra with 4k textures.[/QUOTE]
if you're talking about playing it on release, it was shit back then.
they optimized it a lot (or at least made it better on my rig) and i went from 20-30 fps to a solid 50-60 on ultra everywhere.
[url]http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/289?vs=434[/url]
And i3 2100 which is dual core which costs $120, beats a "eight core" bulldozer at $199.
[QUOTE=Mobon1;36721807]if you're talking about playing it on release, it was shit back then.
they optimized it a lot (or at least made it better on my rig) and i went from 20-30 fps to a solid 50-60 on ultra everywhere.[/QUOTE]
Probably, I had it during release with a oc'd phenom x4 and crossfire 5850s. Ran "alright"
By equivalent you mean priced the same?
Here
CPU - [url]http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115077&Tpk=i3%202120[/url]
Motherboard - [url]http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131793[/url]
[editline]11th July 2012[/editline]
And it'll perform better than all of the Phenom II x4 and Bulldozers in gaming
[QUOTE=HolyCrapAWalrus;36721844]By equivalent you mean priced the same?
Here
CPU - [url]http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115077&Tpk=i3%202120[/url]
Motherboard - [url]http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131793[/url]
[editline]11th July 2012[/editline]
And it'll perform better than all of the Phenom II x4 and Bulldozers in gaming[/QUOTE]
i3? I dunno isn't the i7 superior in every way?
[QUOTE=HolyCrapAWalrus;36721844]By equivalent you mean priced the same?
Here
CPU - [url]http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115077&Tpk=i3%202120[/url]
Motherboard - [url]http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131793[/url]
[editline]11th July 2012[/editline]
And it'll perform better than all of the Phenom II x4 and Bulldozers in gaming[/QUOTE]
That promo: EMCNCJN34, is a steal.
[QUOTE=faze;36721859]i3? I dunno isn't the i7 superior in every way?[/QUOTE]
Yes, but costs more....
[QUOTE=QuikKill;36721861]That promo: EMCNCJN34, is a steal.
Yes, but costs more....[/QUOTE]
How much more? Also, don't want a MicroATX board. I need full sized ATX.
[editline]11th July 2012[/editline]
How about this CPU? [url]http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115089[/url]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
