technology The Glorious PC master race thread

[Celli 4,338]

AFIAK, AMD is better for multi-threaded apps and Intel is better for single-core stuff.

 

The higher-end AMDs are good though, I'm loving this FX-8320(it's a quad-core with eight-threads that runs at 3.5GHz or 4.0GHz when Turbo kicks in)

My brother recently bought a 4 core FX chip. I asked him why he didn't get an 8 core, as I believe they're only slightly pricier.

[FoxyCryptid 4,330]

My brother recently bought a 4 core FX chip. I asked him why he didn't get an 8 core, as I believe they're only slightly pricier.

 

The eight-cores are just quads with extra threads, it's not a true eight-core. 

[Celli 4,338]

The eight-cores are just quads with extra threads, it's not a true eight-core. 

Ah, I did not know that. I still have a lot to learn in PC gaming.

[FoxyCryptid 4,330]

F

 

This wasn't really a problem in the past. You would end up with a low-end Athlon or something sure, but now they're shoving these AMD C/E series CPUs into 17" laptops and even desktops. They're netbook processors that rival old Atom chips. No, no, and no.

 

This WAS recent(2012 or 13, I think) and sitting on display at Wal-Mart. I was like "what the hell, why not put a faster dual-core in it, I doubt very many basic apps are multi-threaded enough to use something like that"

Ah, I did not know that. I still have a lot to learn in PC gaming.

 

I'd still recommend AT LEAST a FX-6300(and preferably a a FX-83xx) though.   

[Azure Envy 1,092]

The eight-cores are just quads with extra threads, it's not a true eight-core. 

 

To be fair, AMD is technically correct, they do have eight integer cores, but only four FPUs each shared between two integer cores.

 

So I guess that's somewhere betweeen HyperThreading and actually having a full complement of eight.

 

Either way, FX-8000 or bust, at these prices.

[Celli 4,338]

This WAS recent(2012 or 13, I think) and sitting on display at Wal-Mart. I was like "what the hell, why not put a faster dual-core in it, I doubt very many basic apps are multi-threaded enough to use something like that"

 

I'd still recommend AT LEAST a FX-6300(and preferably a a FX-83xx) though.   

I'm building my first rig in a few months,  but I'm putting an Intel Core I5 4690k in it. 

[FoxyCryptid 4,330]

I'm building my first rig in a few months,  but I'm putting an Intel Core I5 4690k in it. 

 

Even better. I hear those blow anything AMD out of the water. 

To be fair, AMD is technically correct, they do have eight integer cores, but only four FPUs each shared between two integer cores.

 

So I guess that's somewhere betweeen HyperThreading and actually having a full complement of eight.

 

Either way, FX-8000 or bust, at these prices.

 

So how much better than just a qaud-core is that?

[long gone 8,929]

The Intel Core i7-5960X does have 8 physical cores afaik, but that's a wicked expensive processor at $1000 (or $900 from Microcenter). It also requires an X99 LGA2011-V3 board and DDR4 RAM, so that's not the best choice for the average consumer if they want an 8-core processor.
 

I'm building my first rig in a few months,  but I'm putting an Intel Core I5 4690k in it.

4690K brother!

Edited November 6, 2014 by Daring

[Celli 4,338]

Even better. I hear those blow anything AMD out of the water. 

I was about to put an I5 4670 in it, but Lunatic Envy suggested I upgrade to the 4690k for like $15 more.

[Azure Envy 1,092]

So how much better than just a qaud-core is that?

 

If you're maxing out every core, like for example if you're Twitch streaming while gaming or rendering, an FX will probably pull slightly ahead of a comparable i5. But since 95% of people aren't doing that, the i5 is recommended pretty much everywhere else. But that was before AMD cut pricing on the FX. Honestly in this range, the FX is a great deal and gives you pretty solid multithreaded performance, but if you're after top of the line, then it's Intel all the way.

 

Though I have to respect the existence of the FX-9590. AMD's Hail Mary. Fuck it, we're doing it live and taking your motherboards with us. Any lesser mobos simply go up in smoke. I kinda want one.

[Celli 4,338]

The Intel Core i7-5690X does have 8 physical cores afaik, but that's a wicked expensive processor at $1000 (or $900 from Microcenter). It also requires an X99 LGA2011-V3 board and DDR4 RAM, so that's not the best choice for the average consumer if they want an 8-core processor.

 

4690K brother!

It's $239 on Newegg, not a bad deal.

Is there any point to DDR4 yet? Like, how much better than DDR3 is it? Also, $1000 is a little ridiculous for a CPU. Unless your a real PC enthusiast and you really want to future-proof your rig. Same with something like the Titan Z $1500 and 12GB of GDDR5 ram.

[long gone 8,929]

 

 

Though I have to respect the existence of the FX-9590. AMD's Hail Mary. Fuck it, we're doing it live and taking your motherboards with us. Any lesser mobos simply go up in smoke. I kinda want one.

 If anyone wants to buy that processor, they best contact their local fire department first.

 

 

It's $239 on Newegg, not a bad deal.

Is there any point to DDR4 yet? Like, how much better than DDR3 is it? Also, $1000 is a little ridiculous for a CPU. Unless your a real PC enthusiast and you really want to future-proof your rig. Same with something like the Titan Z $1500 and 12GB of GDDR5 ram.

I actually got my 4690K for $195. Free shipping, too, so I ended up spending less than $200 on it. Not bad.

 

Not yet as it's still expensive and still only supported on X99, but when it gets wider support and drops in price, then yes, DDR4 will be worth it. I can see it being very good friends with an APU, actually, due to its speed while consuming less power.

 

Also, the Titan Z is a workstation card, and you can't actually use that full 12GB RAM (only 6GB) due to limitations of SLI. You don't need 12GB right now anyway, 2 - 4GB is plenty for 1080p - 1440p gaming.

[Celli 4,338]

 If anyone wants to buy that processor, they best contact their local fire department first.

 

 

I actually got my 4690K for $195. Free shipping, too, so I ended up spending less than $200 on it. Not bad.

 

Not yet as it's still expensive and still only supported on X99, but when it gets wider support and drops in price, then yes, DDR4 will be worth it. I can see it being very good friends with an APU, actually, due to its speed while consuming less power.

 

Also, the Titan Z is a workstation card, and you can't actually use that full 12GB RAM (only 6GB) due to limitations of SLI. You don't need 12GB right now anyway, 2 - 4GB is plenty for 1080p - 1440p gaming.

 

Huh. It must have gone up.

 

Also, there isn't really any difference if I were to change to like 1866 or 2300 MHz ram, is there?

 

Is that basically the only use for all models of the Titan?

[long gone 8,929]

Huh. It must have gone up.

 

Also, there isn't really any difference if I were to change to like 1866 or 2300 MHz ram, is there?

 

Is that basically the only use for all models of the Titan?

Actually, it was a sale. Thank you based /r/buildapcsales.

 

Not unless you have an APU or do a lot of heavy editing.

 

No, Titans can be used for gaming, but their primary purpose is workstation use.

[Celli 4,338]

Actually, it was a sale. Thank you based /r/buildapcsales.

 

Not unless you have an APU or do a lot of heavy editing.

 

No, Titans can be used for gaming, but their primary purpose is workstation use.

You didn't buy it on Newegg, did you?

[Azure Envy 1,092]

No, Titans can be used for gaming, but their primary purpose is workstation use.

 

If your IT department outfits workstations with Titan Z's, get rid of them. None of the Titan cards are certified for use in professional apps.

Not saying they won't work. I hear they're very popular for "budget" builds requiring DP compute on the cheap. Bioinformatics.

[long gone 8,929]

You didn't buy it on Newegg, did you?

Bought it on TigerDirect. Not the best site ever, but the order went through just fine. 4690K's just waiting for use now.

[Celli 4,338]

Bought it on TigerDirect. Not the best site ever, but the order went through just fine. 4690K's just waiting for use now.

Ah, well that would explain why it's more

[FoxyCryptid 4,330]

If you're maxing out every core, like for example if you're Twitch streaming while gaming or rendering, an FX will probably pull slightly ahead of a comparable i5. But since 95% of people aren't doing that, the i5 is recommended pretty much everywhere else. But that was before AMD cut pricing on the FX. Honestly in this range, the FX is a great deal and gives you pretty solid multithreaded performance, but if you're after top of the line, then it's Intel all the way.

 

Though I have to respect the existence of the FX-9590. AMD's Hail Mary. Fuck it, we're doing it live and taking your motherboards with us. Any lesser mobos simply go up in smoke. I kinda want one.

 

Yeah, that's why I liked it. It was a pretty beefy CPU that stands up to some of the lower-end i5s for only $140. 

 

Sounds like a mess of a CPU XD.

[Nuke87654 1,849]

220 watts for the FX-9590. Obviously they want to be run on liquid cooling or they'll deep fry your computer otherwise.

[FoxyCryptid 4,330]

220 watts for the FX-9590. Obviously they want to be run on liquid cooling or they'll deep fry your computer otherwise.

 

A high-end cooler, big-case, multiple case-fans, AND liquid cooler(and sitting next to the a/c for good measure)

[Azure Envy 1,092]

A high-end cooler, big-case, multiple case-fans, AND liquid cooler(and sitting next to the a/c for good measure)

$230. Tempting. Though what I save would probably go towards powering it and keeping it from going supernova.

[FoxyCryptid 4,330]

$230. Tempting. Though what I save would probably go towards powering it and keeping it from going supernova.

 

I'm perfectly happy with my FX-8320 right now because it's more power than I need and doesn't summon hellfire XD. 

Edited November 6, 2014 by Shoboni

[long gone 8,929]

lel

 

Well, if any of you want to turn your PC into a space heater for the winter without getting a 220W processor, the AMD R9 290X is now $300.

[Azure Envy 1,092]

Poor AMD. I fear they've all but given up on competing in the enthusiast desktop space.