[QUOTE=RandomGamer342;43754210]You cannot use overclocking as an argument as there's no way to guarantee that you'll have a good stable overclock because of the silicone lottery. [/QUOTE]
I am sorry but this is just a completely idiotic statement. Why does anyone every buy a K series CPU then? why would anyone ever risk buying one with the risk of the silicon lottery?
Seriously? I completely understand where you are coming from, but to get a chip that can't overclock even a tiny bit you would have to be the unluckiest guy on the planet.
I never used overclocking as an argument, I simply stated that he could do it if he wanted to.
[QUOTE=RandomGamer342;43754210]
For that matter, spending money on a cooler completely beats the purpose of a cheaper CPU.[/QUOTE]
I really fail to see how this is the truth? Even combined the CPU cooler and the CPU cost less than any i5, the closest is a 4430/40 which is about £130 and the cooler is only necessary if he wishes to overclock it. If he does, the 8320 would beat the 4430/40 single threaded and multithreaded.
[QUOTE=RandomGamer342;43754210]
Plus, you're using "it has better multithreaded performance" as an argument when the very majority of games aren't. [/QUOTE]
This is very very false statement. Pretty much every game you can get now uses at least 2 cores, with most utilising 4, some, like BF4, use even more than that.
[QUOTE=RandomGamer342;43754210]
The OP needs the computer to be focused on games, so single-threaded performance is key[/QUOTE] No, GPU performance is key. You can have a 750K and a 780Ti and it won't run much slower than an i7 with a 780Ti. Much slower, of course, being relative, and meaning frametimes, not framerates.
[QUOTE=RandomGamer342;43754210] - the only performance advantage AMD's series has is in ARMA and planetside[/QUOTE]
Seriously? I never said it wasn't. To clarify I will say it again. I AGREE. INTEL BEATS AMD. My point is not that AMD beats Intel in performance, but the performance gain of going from something like an 8320 to an i5, is not worth the price premium, when the money could be spelt elsewhere.
[QUOTE=RandomGamer342;43754210]why not get a cheaper i5, as it'll still outperform the FX in [U]games[/U], which is what the OP wants?[/QUOTE]
I think you really are overestimating how much single threaded performance matters in games.
Show me an i5 that is as cheap as a 8320, and I would indeed recommend it over the 8320. But they don't exist.
[QUOTE=Meladath;43754331]I think you really are overestimating how much single threaded performance matters in games.
Show me an i5 that is as cheap as a 8320, and I would indeed recommend it over the 8320. But they don't exist.[/QUOTE]
A [URL="http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/p/2LRyi"]3350P[/URL] or [URL="http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/p/2LRwD"]4440[/URL] can accomodate a better GPU without going above budget.
The importance of single-threaded performance depends hugely on the game you're playing(as i've said multiple times already).
Some games are perfectly multi-threaded, but also use single threads well enough to perform equally with any modern processor capable of running 4 threads. It's irrelevant if you're using a FX fourcore or eight-core or i3 or i5 or i7 in these games, as the performance difference is miniscule. Examples of these kind of games are BF3 and FC3, which run fine with any modern CPU. This is where a better GPU would give better game performance, like you say.
Some games do tons of calculations and use lots of threads, which is where the eight-thread nature of the FX and i7 are supreme. The FX is a lot better for your money in these games compared to i7's, and beat the i5's in performance in these games. The issue is, there's very few games actually working like this - the only ones i know of are ARMA and planetside.
Some games aren't very well optimised for multiple threads and perform most of the important calculations on a single thread or very few. This is where the immensively better single-threaded performance of the intel processors kick in, running circles around any AMD processor. The majority of older games work like this, alongside lots of newer console-ports and non-multithreaded releases. The most blatant example of this is [URL="http://techreport.com/review/23750/amd-fx-8350-processor-reviewed/5"]Skyrim[/URL], where the freaking 60£ Pentium G2120 outperforms the FX-8350
I don't disagree with what you're trying to say about the GPU - in most games, the GPU is going to end up being more important. You seem to have a misconception that the only option in the intel realm is the most expensive i5, which simply isn't true. There's a choice to be made between an i5 and a FX, which is where your argument falls flat.
If you disregard the games that run well on both processors(they're irrelevant to the choice), there's a split between them. The FX will run games like ARMA and planetside better. The i5 will run [I]every other game better[/I]. Making the correct choice here should be obvious, assuming the OP doesn't solely play ARMA3 in his spare time. Cost isn't an argument here, as i5 builds can be made for the same price as a FX build, like i've shown already.
I agree that getting the 4670K with a weaker card is silly if the OP isn't intending to upgrade anytime soon, but that doesn't mean you've got to fall back onto a processor that's significantly inferior for many games like you're suggesting
So should I just go with the very first build you posted then? Or after this discussion would you recommend a different build with a better GPU vs a better CPU?
[QUOTE=Freeze;43759485]So should I just go with the very first build you posted then?[/QUOTE]
I'd recommend the 4440 build in my previous post as it's better than the 3350P and not on a unsupported socket
Well the processor you said is slightly worse than flayne's, but the GPU performance ([url]http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1041?vs=1038[/url]) seems to make up for it. Unless anyone has any other thoughts on this, I think I'll go with that. Thank you.
The processor's clock speed is lower than my current one, but I assume it makes up for it in architecture n such?
[QUOTE=Death_God;43650948]it's not even remotely close what are you talking about[/QUOTE]
I'm assuming that 61C is running at idle, which is extremely high for an idle temperature. Even if it isn't, it's still too high for the Phenom II.
Also the Thermal junction for the Phenom II is 62C, so yes it is almost overheating. Older desktop AMD CPUs are known for having a low TJunct and high TDPs and need beefier cooling to maintain a safe operating temperature.
[QUOTE=Freeze;43759774]Well the processor you said is slightly worse than flayne's, but the GPU performance ([url]http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1041?vs=1038[/url]) seems to make up for it. Unless anyone has any other thoughts on this, I think I'll go with that. Thank you.
The processor's clock speed is lower than my current one, but I assume it makes up for it in architecture n such?[/QUOTE]
Yes. Clock speed and similar values on different chips are irrelevant because of the difference in architecture, which applies to GPU's as well
[QUOTE=GiGaBiTe;43760342]I'm assuming that 61C is running at idle, which is extremely high for an idle temperature. Even if it isn't, it's still too high for the Phenom II.
Also the Thermal junction for the Phenom II is 62C, so yes it is almost overheating. Older desktop AMD CPUs are known for having a low TJunct and high TDPs and need beefier cooling to maintain a safe operating temperature.[/QUOTE]I do think it's too hot, yeah, never overheated though. Idle is more around 50-55 but it's still a bit too hot. I plan to get a cheaper cooling sleeve thing like what flayne posted probably.
Then again if the new CPU I'm getting is Intel, do I really need to? You said it's mostly due to AMD's thing.
[QUOTE=Freeze;43760543]I do think it's too hot, yeah, never overheated though. Idle is more around 50-55 but it's still a bit too hot.[/QUOTE]
At least it's not a Socket 462 Athlon :v:
Those things were an absolute nightmare to cool properly because they had no IHS and the heatsink rested directly on the tiny CPU die. They also had no internal overheat protection (Intel has had overheat protection since the PIII) so if you weren't vigilant and enabled it in the BIOS and didn't install the CPU cooler properly, you could literally end up with the CPU burning and taking out the motherboard or exploding.
Example:
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nU_rvVEna4[/media]
Exploding Duron (Duron is to Athlon like Celeron is to Pentium):
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssL1DA_K0sI[/url]
[QUOTE=Freeze;43760543]Then again if the new CPU I'm getting is Intel, do I really need to? You said it's mostly due to AMD's thing.[/QUOTE]
While Intel CPUs generally have lower TDPs than AMD, the stock coolers for them are godawful.
The current OEM Intel Heatsink design dates back to the beginning of the LGA775 socket. They made the aluminum heatsink block fairly tall to try and cope with the Pentium 4's massive heat output, but it really didn't work. Since the fan didn't (and still doesn't) have any ducting around it, and the fact that it blew straight down, made a toroidal vortex of hot air that recirculated and lead to the fan kicking up to max and screaming; All the while not actually cooling because it was ingesting its own exhaust.
They later cut its height in half when the C2Ds came out, which essentially halved or more its cooling efficiency and made the toroidal vortex exhaust problem that much worse. For the LGA1156 and onward, they just expanded it on the X and Y axis to fit the larger mounting holes and again shortened it further. The end result is a shitty cooler that has trouble with CPUs with more than probably a 55W TDP. I tried using the stock cooler when I built my i5-2400 rig and it would constantly overheat and crash under any appreciable load.
You'll definitely want an aftermarket cooler even if you aren't overclocking. If you don't want an absolutely massive unwieldy cooler, I recommend this Zalman unit:
[url]http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835118128[/url]
It's cheap, easy to install and keeps even high wattage CPUs in check.
Would something like this: [url]http://www.amazon.co.uk/Zalman-CNPS5X-Performa-1155-Sockets/dp/B006344OMM/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1391376980&sr=8-1-fkmr0&keywords=ZALMAN+CNPS5X+Performa+92mm+FSB+%28Fluid+Shield+Bearing%29+Powerful+Cooling+Performance+CPU+Cooler[/url] (since it has to be from the UK, I think it's the same thing but making sure)
Be okay for the build ([url]http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/p/2LRwD[/url]) posted earlier? How easy are they to install? I don't need to buy any extra cables or anything?
It should be compatible and relatively easy to install. You might have to install a brace on the back of the motherboard for the cooler so install the cooler before you put the motherboard in the case.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
