• Xbox One and PS4 are a generation ahead of the best PC, says EA CTO
    275 replies, posted
[QUOTE=OutLawed Blade;40767101]Price estimation, please?[/QUOTE] I'd say around $15,000 forgot the $2500 SSD was in there
[QUOTE=Rika-chan;40767024]How much was that?[/QUOTE] Around $20,000 :v: Well, there was also a 6-monitor array and a speaker setup and other things.
[QUOTE=alien_guy;40767127]why would you even care, its the most ridiculous build imaginable.[/QUOTE] Because imagining how much I'd have to spend on such a monster of a computer amuses me.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;40766079]lol using tek syndicate as a source for anything. Like, I really want AMD to suceed, and I use their GPUs, but they seriously can't compete in the high-end CPU market. Their APUs are nice fir really low-end gaming builds, and jaguar looks somewhat promising, but overall they're doing pretty bad in the CPU-market.[/QUOTE] then why is my performance better.
[QUOTE=Rika-chan;40761541]Walmart [editline]24th May 2013[/editline] Attention EA, this computer with 3 nvidia titans in it is in fact on the market [url]http://www.digitalstormonline.com/comploadaventum.asp?id=674559&price=%2410%2C384[/url][/QUOTE] this doesn't really count as a normal gaming pc because it's [I]ten thousand fucking dollars[/I]. an average person isn't going to pay 10,000 for anything game-related. jesus christ that thing is overkill.
[QUOTE=milkandcooki;40767732]this doesn't really count as a normal gaming pc because it's [I]ten thousand fucking dollars[/I]. an average person isn't going to pay 10,000 for anything game-related. jesus christ that thing is overkill.[/QUOTE] He said any pc on the market
[QUOTE=Bruhmis;40767397]then why is my performance better.[/QUOTE] It doesn't matter what your performance is in one single game - you don't have a standardized set of test equipment, and literally every test from reputable sites out there is saying you're wrong.
[QUOTE=catbarf;40753012]The Xbox 360 performed comparably with capable, dedicated gaming PCs, using only half a gig of RAM, a slow tri-core processor, and a graphics card comparable to a Radeon x1800. The key is in optimization of the system, both on a software level and on a hardware level. Consoles are designed from the ground up to play games. Or do you think a PC from Best Buy with those specs would be able to run Crysis? With a given set of hardware specs, the console will perform far better than a comparable PC. This isn't rocket science here. Given that the specs on these new consoles are comparable to a high-end PC right now, I think it's safe to say that they'll be better at playing games than almost all gaming computers currently out there.[/QUOTE] this man is so right. people are so reactionary and love to feel "special" because they are playing PC when they know nothing about actual hardware other than the base numbers
[QUOTE=Vedicardi;40769122]this man is so right. people are so reactionary and love to feel "special" because they are playing PC when they know nothing about actual hardware other than the base numbers[/QUOTE] people don't understand that developers learn to use the console toolsets more over time
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;40768978]It doesn't matter what your performance is in one single game - you don't have a standardized set of test equipment, and literally every test from reputable sites out there is saying you're wrong.[/QUOTE] tests that were performed before the game was patched to increase AMD hardware performance. I also get much better performance in Max Payne 3, Natural Selection 2, Bioshock infinite, The witcher 2 and resident evil 6 than benchmarks of high end intel processors with the same GPU. saying ''I don't have standardized test equipment'' is pretty dumb since you're basically saying ''these people are doing something different and that's why their performance is worse'' and somehow you're not acknowledging that you've pointed the problem out yourself.
[QUOTE=wewt!;40764129][IMG]http://images01.olx.com.sg/ui/15/12/33/1319355894_268130933_1-Pictures-of--Dell-Optiplex-755-Small-Form-Factor.jpg[/IMG] you made a gaming rig out of this? but it's so small[/QUOTE] The 745/755 is actually really roomy inside. It has two different available angle adapters: #1 angle adapter 2 x full height PCI slots 1 x low profile PCI slot (behind the angle adapter) #2 angle adapter 1 x PCIe 1.1 x16 slot 1 x PCI slot 1 x low profile PCI slot (behind the angle adapter) The only problem is that it uses a BTX motherboard with a proprietary heatsink. You can put up to an E6700 or Q6700 in it though. There are also some better BTX boards you can toss in it, but they're hard to come by.
[QUOTE=Bruhmis;40769538]tests that were performed before the game was patched to increase AMD hardware performance. I also get much better performance in Max Payne 3, Natural Selection 2, Bioshock infinite, The witcher 2 and resident evil 6 than benchmarks of high end intel processors with the same GPU. saying ''I don't have standardized test equipment'' is pretty dumb since you're basically saying ''these people are doing something different and that's why their performance is worse'' and somehow you're not acknowledging that you've pointed the problem out yourself.[/QUOTE] Put up your benchmarks proving what you're saying or just stop posting. Your anecdotes are complete nonsense as of right now, because there isn't a single review site that agrees. I think you're just having buyer's remorse about owning an FX chip and want to tell yourself it was a good decision. [editline]25th May 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Bruhmis;40765058]I suggest you actually do some research on both chipsets instead of looking at some guy's benchmarks. watch some of the videos tek syndicate has made about AMD's processors. I get worse performance in some games still, but they're usually really low end games like neverwinter. case in point when that benchmark isn't even accurate since I have the same GPU and I get 90-120 FPS on absolute max settings (FSAA off, 32x CSAA), yet that bench mark claims my CPU will get 58 average on high. edit: that benchmark was probably also done before last light's AMD patch was released.[/QUOTE] Post a verified CPUID report of your GTX Titan and FX-8150 system, along with your system running the Metro Last Light benchmark tool with verified settings.
[QUOTE=Kaabii;40771273]Put up your benchmarks proving what you're saying or just stop posting. Your anecdotes are complete nonsense as of right now, because there isn't a single review site that agrees. I think you're just having buyer's remorse about owning an FX chip and want to tell yourself it was a good decision. [editline]25th May 2013[/editline] Post a verified CPUID report of your GTX Titan and FX-8150 system, along with your system running the Metro Last Light benchmark tool with verified settings.[/QUOTE] I was having buyers remorse about 4 months ago, I'm pretty happy now. if my processor was giving me even the slightest stutter in games I would be the first to rant about it and call AMD shit but it's not the case. I used to have a phenom, they're shit. I used to have an AMD gpu, they're shit. but I am thoroughly satisfied with the 8150. I don't have a titan, I have a 670. I don't understand how I would *post* ''my system running the Metro Last Light benchmark tool with verified settings''. every site that did benchmarks for metro did them within a week of the game coming out so please tell me why the fuck you think this is relevant to performance after the AMD patch.
[QUOTE=Bruhmis;40772019]I was having buyers remorse about 4 months ago, I'm pretty happy now. if my processor was giving me even the slightest stutter in games I would be the first to rant about it and call AMD shit but it's not the case. I used to have a phenom, they're shit. I used to have an AMD gpu, they're shit. but I am thoroughly satisfied with the 8150. I don't have a titan, I have a 670. I don't understand how I would *post* ''my system running the Metro Last Light benchmark tool with verified settings''. every site that did benchmarks for metro did them within a week of the game coming out so please tell me why the fuck you think this is relevant to performance after the AMD patch.[/QUOTE] You said you had the GPU used in the benchmarks I posted and it was using a GTX Titan. Anyway stop dancing around the issue and playing dumb, and post results from the Metro benchmark tool with a screenshot of the settings you used, and upload a validity test of your system through CPUID. If the devs put out a patch that threw a GTX 670 to 120fps at max settings despite the GPU itself being incapable of it regardless of CPU processing power, I want to see this magical advancement of computing efficiency. Alternatively, admit you're lying and stop posting so you don't have to go through the trouble of running the benchmark only to get a result of 45fps.
[QUOTE=Atlascore;40772040]No they weren't, in their time they were pretty decent processors and were amazing if you didn't have a big PC budget. No they aren't, AMDs GPUs are fine, they can play every game out there just as well or nearly as well as any Nvidia GPU, the drivers have improved too.[/QUOTE] their GPUs stutter in just about every game, ESPECIALLY games that were designed with AMD in mind, and phenom processors basically had less performance than what their clock speeds and number of cores should have provided. I had a 3 GHz quad core phenom and it was seriously like having a 2 GHz dual core from 2003. it was a fucking nightmare. a lot of it is optimization and drivers but it's not everything. they're just behind nvidia. they're better than they were 2 years ago, but that's really not saying anything. the point was, this shit son is trying to tell me the FX series is just bad and anyone who claims otherwise is mad about their purchase. I was mad about my purchase when I had a fucking 5770, and I DID NOT go around saying it was a great GPU.
i wipe my ass with consoles. i wonder if EA's employees have been tested for down syndrome in the past year
[QUOTE=Kaabii;40772116]You said you had the GPU used in the benchmarks I posted and it was using a GTX Titan. Anyway stop dancing around the issue and playing dumb, and post results from the Metro benchmark tool with a screenshot of the settings you used, and upload a validity test of your system through CPUID. If the devs put out a patch that threw a GTX 670 to 120fps at max settings despite the GPU itself being incapable of it regardless of CPU processing power, I want to see this magical advancement of computing efficiency. Alternatively, admit you're lying and stop posting so you don't have to go through the trouble of running the benchmark only to get a result of 45fps.[/QUOTE] oh wow you are seriously delusional. 45 fps? I can easily tell you to stop posting too since all you do is hop on band wagons to bash quality products, then tell people to ''stop posting'' when they say they have said product and are not having the same experience with it. when a bunch of sites run benchmarks on AMD processors, and a week later a patch comes out that improves AMD performance, those benchmarks are no longer relevant. this is a simple concept you're failing to grasp. pre patch I had 45-60. average was about 55. now my average with V-sync off is about 98 during most levels, and it stays around 100-120 while in the metro.
Wow this must be a sick joke or I'm being trolled hard. You just keep going back to other benchmarks being inaccurate which is exactly why I'm giving you a chance to show you're right and they're wrong. You won't even run the benchmark that comes with the game to prove what you're saying, and you keep ignoring that request and the only reason why is because you know the results won't support what you're saying. You are the person here who is seriously delusional, don't try and shift that title to the person here giving a reasonable request for evidence.
[QUOTE=Bruhmis;40772127]their GPUs stutter in just about every game, ESPECIALLY games that were designed with AMD in mind, and phenom processors basically had less performance than what their clock speeds and number of cores should have provided. I had a 3 GHz quad core phenom and it was seriously like having a 2 GHz dual core from 2003. it was a fucking nightmare. a lot of it is optimization and drivers but it's not everything. they're just behind nvidia. they're better than they were 2 years ago, but that's really not saying anything. the point was, this shit son is trying to tell me the FX series is just bad and anyone who claims otherwise is mad about their purchase. I was mad about my purchase when I had a fucking 5770, and I DID NOT go around saying it was a great GPU.[/QUOTE] With FCAT it's basically been shown that stuttering is no longer a problem on this generation AMD GPU - as long as you're not running a CF configuration. And in many cases that applies to NVidia as well. [editline]25th May 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Bruhmis;40772191]oh wow you are seriously delusional. 45 fps? I can easily tell you to stop posting too since all you do is hop on band wagons to bash quality products, then tell people to ''stop posting'' when they say they have said product and are not having the same experience with it. when a bunch of sites run benchmarks on AMD processors, and a week later a patch comes out that improves AMD performance, those benchmarks are no longer relevant. this is a simple concept you're failing to grasp. pre patch I had 45-60. average was about 55. now my average with V-sync off is about 98 during most levels, and it stays around 100-120 while in the metro.[/QUOTE] One thing is a patch that improves performance - a patch made in one week that [I]doubles[/I] performance in a mainly-GPU stressed application without improving the GPU-side of things is [I]impossible[/I], unless the developers had built-in "You're running AMD, that means we cut your FPS in half" on launch. And that's fucking stupid. So stop being angry, and just accept that you're spewing non-sense bullshit right now.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;40775101] One thing is a patch that improves performance - a patch made in one week that [I]doubles[/I] performance in a mainly-GPU stressed application without improving the GPU-side of things is [I]impossible[/I], unless the developers had built-in "You're running AMD, that means we cut your FPS in half" on launch. And that's fucking stupid. So stop being angry, and just accept that you're spewing non-sense bullshit right now.[/QUOTE] I haven't read this whole argument, but I can vouch that the Metro: Last Light Day 3 patch did wonders for me, I went from 5-15 FPS in some areas, to a nice 45-50, IIRC it was just an issue with the game being Nvidia centric. Also, in regard to the facepunch bandwagon hate for AMD. [video=youtube;eu8Sekdb-IE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eu8Sekdb-IE[/video]
[QUOTE=glitchvid;40775952]I haven't read this whole argument, but I can vouch that the Metro: Last Light Day 3 patch did wonders for me, I went from 5-15 FPS in some areas, to a nice 45-50, IIRC it was just an issue with the game being Nvidia centric. Also, in regard to the facepunch bandwagon hate for AMD. [video=youtube;eu8Sekdb-IE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eu8Sekdb-IE[/video][/QUOTE] Hate bandwagon? I run a 6950, and before that a 4830. I have absolutely no dislike for AMD, and honestly I dislike much of what Intel is doing - the various arbitrary limitations on chipsets and CPUs, the focus moving away from the desktop, etc. But that doesn't change the fact that they're doing a better job right now. And I've watched the Tek Syndicate video, and it's seriously not a reputable source. I'm sayign that Piledriver won't do better in some very specific applications right now, but Intel is providing a way more consistent experience, and even in highly multi-threaded applications they tend to do better. Right now single-threaded performance is most important - maybe that'll change in the future, but that's not the case right now. And as far as I can see the update had nothing to do with AMD CPUs, even if it fixed stuff for AMD GPUs. There's a big difference, since I'm in no way arguing against AMD's GPUs.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;40776189] And I've watched the Tek Syndicate video, and it's seriously not a reputable source. I'm sayign that Piledriver won't do better in some very specific applications right now, but Intel is providing a way more consistent experience, and even in highly multi-threaded applications they tend to do better. Right now single-threaded performance is most important - maybe that'll change in the future, but that's not the case right now. [/QUOTE] Yeah, Intel provides a consistent experience (I'm actually getting 2 Xeons in few months), but AMD is much cheaper, and not to terribly worse. As for TekSyn not being reputable, that's not right: they aren't endorsed by AMD (All their rigs are actually Intel) and have always hated fanboys since day 1: they also have follow up video on the response. I think a good example of threaded performance in games is Metro Last light, instead of extensively tieing processes to specific threads, and running everything on pre-determined cores: it throws it onto any thread available, it's one of the reasons it runs so well (Assuming you have medium-high hardware) (I myself have a 6950 too).
[QUOTE=glitchvid;40776230]Yeah, Intel provides a consistent experience (I'm actually getting 2 Xeons in few months), but AMD is much cheaper, and not to terribly worse. As for TekSyn not being reputable, that's not right: they aren't endorsed by AMD (All their rigs are actually Intel) and have always hated fanboys since day 1: they also have follow up video on the response. I think a good example of threaded performance in games is Metro Last light, instead of extensively tieing processes to specific threads, and running everything on pre-determined cores: it throws it onto any thread available, it's one of the reasons it runs so well (Assuming you have medium-high hardware) (I myself have a 6950 too).[/QUOTE] I'm not talking about bias, but rather their testing methods and the like. I don't hate Tek Syndicate or anything like that, I just put them in the comedy box rather than "tech authority".
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;40775101]With FCAT it's basically been shown that stuttering is no longer a problem on this generation AMD GPU - as long as you're not running a CF configuration. And in many cases that applies to NVidia as well. [editline]25th May 2013[/editline] One thing is a patch that improves performance - a patch made in one week that [I]doubles[/I] performance in a mainly-GPU stressed application without improving the GPU-side of things is [I]impossible[/I], unless the developers had built-in "You're running AMD, that means we cut your FPS in half" on launch. And that's fucking stupid. So stop being angry, and just accept that you're spewing non-sense bullshit right now.[/QUOTE] well that's great for AMD GPU users, but that was not the case when I had one. and again, I'm not here to make any claims against AMD, I'm just saying when I had a 5770 it was awful and I did not hesitate to tell people that, so this person's bargain bin logic of ''oh you're just mad because you have one'' is completely invalid, and extremely obnoxious. to be honest, your theory about purposely cutting FPS could be true. it's an Nvidia sponsored game and neither company is beyond paying developers to try to make their competitor look bad. it could be that, or it could just be that they made a mistake and didn't realize it so they corrected it post launch.
[QUOTE=Bruhmis;40772191]oh wow you are seriously delusional. 45 fps? I can easily tell you to stop posting too since all you do is hop on band wagons to bash quality products, then tell people to ''stop posting'' when they say they have said product and are not having the same experience with it. when a bunch of sites run benchmarks on AMD processors, and a week later a patch comes out that improves AMD performance, those benchmarks are no longer relevant. this is a simple concept you're failing to grasp. pre patch I had 45-60. average was about 55. now my average with V-sync off is about 98 during most levels, and it stays around 100-120 while in the metro.[/QUOTE] So you're just gonna keep pretending you have high framerates with your GTX 670 instead of posting benchmarks? Ok.
[QUOTE=Kaabii;40772225]Wow this must be a sick joke or I'm being trolled hard. You just keep going back to other benchmarks being inaccurate which is exactly why I'm giving you a chance to show you're right and they're wrong. You won't even run the benchmark that comes with the game to prove what you're saying, and you keep ignoring that request and the only reason why is because you know the results won't support what you're saying. You are the person here who is seriously delusional, don't try and shift that title to the person here giving a reasonable request for evidence.[/QUOTE] here is me attempting to run the benchmark and getting a black screen for the second time: [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/ykXfMfQ.png?1[/IMG] [editline]25th May 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=paul simon;40776478]So you're just gonna keep pretending you have high framerates with your GTX 670 instead of posting benchmarks? Ok.[/QUOTE] do you even know what a 670 is? it was rated the second best GPU on basically every hardware sight until a few months ago when the titan came out.
[QUOTE=Bruhmis;40776524]do you even know what a 670 is? it was rated the second best GPU on basically every hardware sight until a few months ago when the titan came out.[/QUOTE] Of course I know what a 670 is, and I happen to have a 680 myself. (and a better processor) I've never seen a stock 670 beat a stock 680, and I've never seen an overclocked 670 beat an overclocked 680, if that's what you're implying. I'm also pretty sure the highest end AMD GPUs has it beat.
[QUOTE=paul simon;40776583]Of course I know what a 670 is, and I happen to have a 680 myself. (and a better processor) I've never seen a stock 670 beat a stock 680, and I've never seen an overclocked 670 beat an overclocked 680, if that's what you're implying. I'm also pretty sure the highest end AMD GPUs has it beat.[/QUOTE] are you telling me you get worse performance than me in metro?
[QUOTE=Bruhmis;40776605]are you telling me you get worse performance than me in metro?[/QUOTE] Nope. That would imply I knew what performance you get, but you prefer hiding it.
[QUOTE=paul simon;40776645]Nope. That would imply I knew what performance you get, but you prefer hiding it.[/QUOTE] hiding it by giving statistics numerous times.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.