Godivari core

PS, the oc'd skylake i3 is pretty badass. Takes the i5/7 pretty well for what I do. Other people I'm sure have more demanding needs. But MOST people overestimate what they truly need. The 7850k is decent and will do well for a lot of people.
 
JNavy89GT said:
Lol. Such venom. I've owned i7 920@3.6-4.0ghz, 2600k @4.6ghz. Xeon @4.3ghz(socket 1366), i5 2500k @4.6ghz, AMD 8320@4.3ghz, 7850's@4.3ghz, and now skylake i3@4.525ghz From a pure windows experience outside of benches etc.. The 7850 system was good and will do whatever the common user wants totally fine. In games with a gpu added, I cannot recall anything I've played that has bogged even the 7850k. That said, I don't play new AAA titles. I play csgo which isn't all that demanding; plus 1-2 yr old games that I can buy cheaper. I just cannot justify the cost of.brand new titles when I don't have the time/energy to.devote to them. Any other games I play are a distraction and if they are not as fast as can be I don't care. For those on a budget the 7850 combo is a decent option. The i3 combo is as well, but will add the cost of ddr4 to the mix. Given the choice the i3 will be the more capable solution, but the end user needs to.figure out what their ultimate needs are. Paying for 2,000fps now.so u can play a future title well; is money wasted imo. At least in the expectation that your cpu will last more than a year or two, post purchase. Imo buy enough for now, and upgrade as .needs arise. If u just want an i5/7 that's fine and all, but I would say that 90%+ of our purchases are wants and not needs. Again, that's fine, but admit as much.
Click to expand...

You and I have a lot in common, but you can overclock non k skylake? dang, makes me almost regret my 860k purchase...
 
JNavy89GT said:
Lol. Such venom. I've owned i7 920@3.6-4.0ghz, 2600k @4.6ghz. Xeon @4.3ghz(socket 1366), i5 2500k @4.6ghz, AMD 8320@4.3ghz, 7850's@4.3ghz, and now skylake i3@4.525ghz From a pure windows experience outside of benches etc.. The 7850 system was good and will do whatever the common user wants totally fine. In games with a gpu added, I cannot recall anything I've played that has bogged even the 7850k. That said, I don't play new AAA titles.
Click to expand...


See, my problem is that the only games I play are heavily single-thread bound. World of Tanks, Armored Warfare, Fallout 4, Dragon Age Inquisition, etc. They run poorly on overclocked 8-core FX chips and they run just as poorly on FM2+ chips. I had a golden 860K for a while that would do 4800mhz with less than 1.400V 100% stable under water and it still could only barely struggle out 50% of the fps an i5 could in those games. I tried everything, even finding high-clocked dual-rank DDR3 to give it any edge I could.

At one point I had more money into FM2+ than if I had just bought an X99 system outright, I had 3 different 860K and a 7700K, an Asus Crossblade Ranger, Asus A88X-Pro and a Gigabyte A88X-UP4 along with a 360mm loop with a D5 and EK block/radiator and 5 different kits of RAM trying to get that budget platform to give me some performance.

In the end nothing came of it, its just too slow for the games I want to play. I use a 120hz monitor and the difference between 42 fps and 90fps is pretty damn massive. The only other option was a big hit to things like draw distance/shadows which makes games look like total ass.
 
LigTasm said:
See, my problem is that the only games I play are heavily single-thread bound. World of Tanks, Armored Warfare, Fallout 4, Dragon Age Inquisition, etc. They run poorly on overclocked 8-core FX chips and they run just as poorly on FM2+ chips. I had a golden 860K for a while that would do 4800mhz with less than 1.400V 100% stable under water and it still could only barely struggle out 50% of the fps an i5 could in those games. I tried everything, even finding high-clocked dual-rank DDR3 to give it any edge I could.

At one point I had more money into FM2+ than if I had just bought an X99 system outright, I had 3 different 860K and a 7700K, an Asus Crossblade Ranger, Asus A88X-Pro and a Gigabyte A88X-UP4 along with a 360mm loop with a D5 and EK block/radiator and 5 different kits of RAM trying to get that budget platform to give me some performance.

In the end nothing came of it, its just too slow for the games I want to play. I use a 120hz monitor and the difference between 42 fps and 90fps is pretty damn massive. The only other option was a big hit to things like draw distance/shadows which makes games look like total ass.
Click to expand...

Well that is your problem right there: 120hz. I will only use AMD but I am totally aware that for > 60hz you almost need to go Intel. Thus far I haven't had any issue with the 965BE, 7870k, nor the 8350 getting to that level: 60fps.
 
JNavy89GT said:
Lol. Such venom. I've owned i7 920@3.6-4.0ghz, 2600k @4.6ghz. Xeon @4.3ghz(socket 1366), i5 2500k @4.6ghz, AMD 8320@4.3ghz, 7850's@4.3ghz, and now skylake i3@4.525ghz From a pure windows experience outside of benches etc.. The 7850 system was good and will do whatever the common user wants totally fine. In games with a gpu added, I cannot recall anything I've played that has bogged even the 7850k. That said, I don't play new AAA titles. I play csgo which isn't all that demanding; plus 1-2 yr old games that I can buy cheaper. I just cannot justify the cost of.brand new titles when I don't have the time/energy to.devote to them. Any other games I play are a distraction and if they are not as fast as can be I don't care. For those on a budget the 7850 combo is a decent option. The i3 combo is as well, but will add the cost of ddr4 to the mix. Given the choice the i3 will be the more capable solution, but the end user needs to.figure out what their ultimate needs are. Paying for 2,000fps now.so u can play a future title well; is money wasted imo. At least in the expectation that your cpu will last more than a year or two, post purchase. Imo buy enough for now, and upgrade as .needs arise. If u just want an i5/7 that's fine and all, but I would say that 90%+ of our purchases are wants and not needs. Again, that's fine, but admit as much.
Click to expand...

LOL...nobody is arguing any of your points? Also, you don't play any new AAA titles so that makes your righteous post kind of mute. AMD APU fan boys are claiming more than these cpu's are capable of when compared to better cpu's. Several in here have owned multiple systems with varying performance cpus and know full well what they are capable of.
 
But even if you play new AAA titles the apu does good for what it is, 720p with settings on low with some on medium, and still maintain 30 fps and uses less than 100 watts. I have tried witcher 3 on my apu and it maintained 30 fps. Granted your i7 980 ti combo can do 1080p on ultra and maintain 60 fps, but you are also using 4 times the power and cost 10 times more. That is one problem with hard forum anymore, the elitism so many people from writers to members that cannot accept things for what they are.
 
I don't get APUs unless you are doing a super slim HTPC. Like others mentioned get a 860k and a dedicated GPU. If you're on that much of a budget go used. I sold a 270x for around $50. That would absolutely decimate an APU.

APU is such a super niche area... Zen will likely change that. But I think this is my final thought if you're on a tight budget. 860k + cheap dedicated. I think someone mentioned earlier it's 20% more for 60% more performance.
 
jcg624 said:
Your right it would be better to get an FX cpu. than the APU considering I have an XFX R9 380 four gig GPU on the way.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113284
Click to expand...

There is one thing about the FX that I do prefer over the new APUs: the PCI lanes are not tied to the FSB. FSB OCing is quite the boon to performance on the FX CPUs. I have never been real big on straight up multi OCs. On my chip FSB OCing is also cooler than Multi OC at the same CPU speed. Locked my CPU to 20 multi and run with the FSB to attain the different speeds I wish to run.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top