how-to block ads
|
|
Uniqs:
1360 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
|
 dMarksMelting Faces For FunPremium
join:2007-02-09
Jackson, MI
 ·Comcast
1 edit | reply to matt5
Re: [My Review] Just got a Bulldozer 6 core, it doesn't seem so If I get around to World of Tanks, I'll run it. Personally I only play games I'm interested in and that one wasn't on my list. As for benchmarks, while I understand their relevance on gauging the performance of hardware, it tends to not reflect actual real-world applications a lot of times (and believe me, I've run plenty of benchmarks in my time to gauge the effectiveness of my overclocking attempts).
I never said that AMD was better than the Intel chips. I'll state quite the opposite, in fact. AMD has dropped the ball for a while now. I'm hoping their recent collaborations with IBM to fab their chips will help them regain some consumer confidence in being able to keep up and compete in the consumer market with Intel.
The only thing I'm stating here, is that in my usages and tastes in games, FPS-wise (which is your entire argument in this thread, which I'm providing a counter-point to) I've not been able to see any advantages of the i7 system that I have access to from my own FX build. Not saying that there aren't games out there that will show a clear difference, just that I've not played those games.
As for reviews...I do my own reviews. I don't put my faith in someone else to test something. Not to say that reviews are worthless, since I do read reviews of products before purchasing, but I've found that when dealing with building my own computer systems, sometimes it takes first-hand experience to really get a feel for what something is capable.
I will end with this. Yes, I am biased to use AMD. Been that way for a long time. I've come to respect and believe that Intel has a superior product, but as you have eluded to in your reply, they're selling it for more than what some people (like me) are willing to pay, and since I can build a computer for less money, that does what I need it to do with no visible difference in the applications I run...well, I'm gonna choose to save money here. I am quite confident that my build will last me for a few years. By the time I need to upgrade again, hopefully AMD will have pulled their head out of their rears and provide something that actually is an innovation.
--
Windows 7 64 Professional|AMD FX 8150|Asus Crosshair Formula V Motherboard|8GB G.Skill Sniper Series 1866 DDR3 RAM|EVGA GTX560 Ti (Fermi) DS SuperClocked x2|Corsair CMPSU 850HX 850w Modular|Lian Li Lancool PC-K62 Case | |
pandoraPremium
join:2001-06-01
Outland
kudos:1 Reviews:
 ·ooma
·Google Voice
·Future Nine Corp..
·Comcast
2 edits | reply to matt5
said by matt5:Please run World of Tanks.
I get sick at anything under 60fps (I can not deal with looking at sub 55fps, it is too choppy and I get aheadache).
Matt,
My I7 930 with a 6850 GPU card sometimes goes to 40 FPS in WoW. Overall it's functional, no headaches.
I guess under 30 is a concern for me. Anything running faster than 30 FPS is faster than I perceive.
I don't mind my rig, or faster than necessary frame rates. However, I wouldn't try to justify the expense by claiming development of a medical condition with a lower frame rate.
Really, you get sick at 55 FPS? What happens when you get 24 / 25 FPS at a movie? Does that also cause a headache? Most movies in a theater display at 25 FPS IIRC. I believe even fast refresh TV sets when displaying a movie will display the same frame multiple times, which results in 25 FPS.
The claim that you develop a headache at less than 60 FPS seems a bit unusual, as it would preclude watching many movies.
Note: Edited to be less inflammatory toward Matt.
--
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." | |
matt5
join:2001-10-06
Lagrangeville, NY | Ah you guys make me lol.
Anyway I am going to need to go with, never argue with an idiot as they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
O btw, 3d does not make you sick (after all we see in 3d), anyone seeing a 3d movie or using 3d tech is just telling you a lie, just like I am!
For anyone who reads the thread for info, just remember you got a few random people vs well known sites I linked (don't listen to me! listen to the sites I linked to back up what I said!). IMHO I would put my money on the well known sites, not people who are defending what they own, or incorrect facts (feel free to google how many FPS your eye can really see it's over 30)
Just remember, tvs 60hz, 120hz, 240hz 1 hz = 1 refresh of the screen. a 120hz tv is "120fps". If all these guys are correct, if you look at a 60hz tv and a 120, you should see no difference at all any claim of a better picture is pure FUD... (not)
Also for anyone reading google "image blur" this will explain why a game, (very crisp frames) needs more fps than a tv show or movie (blurry frames) to look at good. You take a "screen shot" of a game in full detail (bmp example) looks PERFECT don't it? What happens if you take a screen shot of 1080p tv? No comparison right? Much much more blurry. | |
pandoraPremium
join:2001-06-01
Outland
kudos:1 Reviews:
·ooma
·Google Voice
·Future Nine Corp..
·Comcast
| said by matt5:O btw, 3d does not make you sick (after all we see in 3d), anyone seeing a 3d movie or using 3d tech is just telling you a lie, just like I am!
Matt,
How did 3D get into this??
As far as I can tell, my HDMI connection can only output 60 FPS. Anything in excess can't be sent to the monitor. I guess a monitor can have a higher frame rate, but it must somehow interpolate the 60 FPS HDMI input to a higher rate.
I don't understand how you think a higher frame rate can be transmitted to most monitors. The limit isn't refresh rate on LCD, but transmission rate of HDMI to the best of my understanding.
--
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." | |
| reply to gaara
Just so we don't lose sight of the fact that for most people,most budgets, and most games, the biggest determinant of fps isn't going to be the cpu but the gpu.
If someone is running a very high end graphics gaming setup the cpu differences will become a bigger issue. It wouldn't be appropriate to buy anything but an i5/i7 for such an environment. For most people the cpu differences will be minor because they will be gpu limited more than cpu limited.
Most cpu benches are run on cards and at resolutions which minimize the gpu bottleneck in order to bring out the cpu differences. Most people aren't running machines under these conditions in the real world though, where the issue becomes balancing bottlenecks within the budget. | | |
|
 pogPremium
join:2004-06-03
Kihei, HI
 ·Hawaiian Telcom
| said by asdfdfdfdfdf :For most people the cpu differences will be minor because they will be gpu limited more than cpu limited.
I agree.
Also, while it's often difficult to draw distinct lines, what's acceptable for so-called "hard core" gamers is extreme overkill for casual gaming by people on tight budgets or with far less stringent visual requirements.
Some choose to ridicule the abilities of budget rigs. Others are probably equal in their disdain of the perceived fiscal irresponsibility on the part of those spending $400+ x2 for a set of power hogging GPUs.
--
My Site | |
pandoraPremium
join:2001-06-01
Outland
kudos:1 Reviews:
·ooma
·Google Voice
·Future Nine Corp..
·Comcast
| said by pog:Some choose to ridicule the abilities of budget rigs. Others are probably equal in their disdain of the perceived fiscal irresponsibility on the part of those spending $400+ x2 for a set of power hogging GPUs.
I feel empathy for the OP, but also for Matt. Some people are on limited budgets, and do very well for themselves within their budget. Others are less restricted.
My concern with Matt is mostly I don't know if HDMI signals can be transferred much faster than 60Hz by any video card to any monitor (at least nothing I know of). Thus any FPS over 60Hz is probably more about ego than anything else.
He also surprised me claiming lower than 60Hz gave him headaches. I specifically mentioned movies, as in cinema. My understanding is 24FPS is the standard for most movies. Even if a screen refreshes the same frame 4 or 5 times, it's still 24 FPS. I don't understand how Matt can get sick watching a movie. This isn't something in my experience.
For those who can afford to play with nice stuff, gratz. For those who manage to get by spending a lot less and getting the most bang for the buck, they get even more respect. It's tougher to get by on less than more in my experience.
--
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." | |
pogPremium
join:2004-06-03
Kihei, HI Reviews:
·Hawaiian Telcom
| said by pandora:Thus any FPS over 60Hz is probably more about ego than anything else. There are different versions of HDMI but, I think from 1.3 and on, they can handle 1080p @ 72/75Hz. However, most (?) TV screens only accept 60Hz signals at full resolution. Higher refresh rates are displayed (120Hz or 240Hz, etc) due to interpolation done by the set's own internal engine.
However, FPS is not really something that directly knocks heads with refresh rates. Have a look at »www.tweakguides.com/Graphics_5.html ...partway down is a great explanation of the two distinct concepts.
--
My Site | |
pandoraPremium
join:2001-06-01
Outland
kudos:1 | Pog,
Thanks very much. That was informative and helpful. | |
matt5
join:2001-10-06
Lagrangeville, NY | reply to pandora
Wow, lrn to read.
Here I'll save you the googling.
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_blur
"In computer animation (2D or 3D) it is computer simulation in time and/or on each frame that the 3D rendering/animation is being made with real video camera during its fast motion or fast motion of "cinematized" objects or to make it look more natural or smoother.
Without this simulated effect each frame shows a perfect instant in time (analogous to a camera with an infinitely fast shutter), with zero motion blur. This is why a video game with a frame rate of 25-30 frames per second will seem staggered, while natural motion filmed at the same frame rate appears rather more continuous"
game =/= tv. 8-) Some people can not deal with seeing jumpy none fluid screens  Hai, that is me. Of course you seem to know better, you know I can not feel ill...
As far as cpus...
A PENTIUM cpu beats a fx cpu.
Um, how much cheaper do I need to find? Anyone?
»www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a···19115077 Too much money? Beats all FX cpus...
How about even less
»www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a···Tpk=g860
It is right in with the pack... $100 too much?
You know seeing as the OP paid 140... both my CPU's come in *under* that and *beat* it. What are you people even on? $20 less... with more fps.
Ya, waste of time here.
I am not going to explain or look up anymore.
I do not care what HDMI can send (since when is a cable FPS limited... pretty sure it is bandwidth, don't care you can look it up) cause all I need is 60fps! (60hz = 60 screen FPS = 60 game fps = 60 happy mez)
Tv shows can be 23.9 fps all they want. The power of motion blur is GREAT allows me an easy *smooth* viewing at a lower FPS! | |
matt5
join:2001-10-06
Lagrangeville, NY | reply to pog
VERY nice link! Explains everything VERY well! | |
pandoraPremium
join:2001-06-01
Outland
kudos:1 Reviews:
·ooma
·Google Voice
·Future Nine Corp..
·Comcast
| reply to matt5
Matt,
I read the links you have provided in this thread, in some depth. I also ran several google searches comparing fx 6100 and Intel I3 and I5.
It's very clear the I5 is a superior CPU, for the I3 there seem to be conflicting results.
However, I came across this - »www.guru3d.com/article/radeon-hd···review/3 which seems to settle the issue.
It's along the lines of comments by another poster in this thread. After meeting a minimal CPU / RAM threshold, it appears GPU is dominant.
In the above link, multiple CPU's across AMD and Intel platforms were tried, with a very high end GPU. The differences in FPS were minimal.
The Intel Core i7 3960X was 1 FPS ahead of the AMD CPU's at high resolution. At mid resolution the difference in FPS was 93 FPS vs 104 FPS on Far Cry 3. The video card used was a Radeon HD 7970.
I believe most if not all consumer HDMI connections support no more than 60 FPS from the video card to the display. Additional display FPS is created internally in the set and is a form of interpolation between frames at best, or just repetition of frames at worst.
The games where the FPS went under 60, for example Metro 2033 - The Last Refuge, at any resolution where FPS was less than 60, the AMD inferior CPU's scored within 1 or 2 FPS of the $1,000 Intel CPU.
Even for a standard like Crysis 2, we get about the same FPS.
First thanks for making me look. Second, if I knew then what I know now, I wouldn't have purchased I7 CPU's. Beyond basic low end AMD or Intel CPU's, it's GPU, maybe enough RAM and certainly SSD.
I could have saved a fortune. My next PC will have one of these inferior processors (Intel or AMD, whichever costs less).
The OP is clearly justified in buying the most cost effective CPU for the money based on the real world benchmarks.
Note, there are a ton of benchmarks that measure performance where the low end CPU's are destroyed by the high end units. Unfortunately, real world performance for HDMI seems capped at 60 FPS from video card to the monitor (I understand one poster suggested 72 or even 75 FPS may be possible, but I could find no hardware that would claim to support this rate on a monitor).
With a cap of 60 FPS, it's much much smarter to buy a lower end CPU, and splurge on video card and if anything is left over SSD.
--
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." | |
Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to matt5
quote:
Some people can not deal with seeing jumpy none fluid screens Hai, that is me. Of course you seem to know better, you know I can not feel ill...
Matt5, the word you are looking for is called "Motion Sickness"
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_sickness
quote:
O btw, 3d does not make you sick
Not true.
»www.nintendo.com/consumer/system···fety.jsp
quote:
WARNING - EYESTRAIN AND MOTION SICKNESS
Playing video games can result in eyestrain after a sustained period of time, and perhaps sooner if using the 3D feature. Playing video games can also result in motion sickness in some players. Follow these instructions to help avoid eyestrain, dizziness, or nausea:
Avoid excessive play. It is recommended that parents monitor their children for appropriate play.
Take a 10 to 15 minute break every hour, or every half hour when using the 3D feature, even if you don’t think you need it. Each person is different, so take more frequent and longer breaks if you feel discomfort.
If your eyes become tired or sore while playing, or if you feel dizzy or nauseated, stop and rest for several hours before.
If you continue to have any of the above symptoms, stop playing and see a doctor.
| |
matt5
join:2001-10-06
Lagrangeville, NY | Yes I know, I was trolling about the 3d because I was being told low FPS can not make someone sick =p
Had no idea it was motion sickness, I have no issues looking at a screen for HOURS on end, so long as it is fluid... interesting...
As far as the cpus and stuff... and i5 is the point for games, not an i7, you get pretty much 0 benefit from a i7 over a i5 for games...
Different games are cpu/gpu limited... most all games at HUGE reses will become gpu limited and the cpu will not matter. Point still stands... »www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/399?vs=289 a-3850 vs i3 2100 kinda goes like this
i3 win,win,win,win,win,win,win,win,win,win,win.
Price of the i3 is the same as the a-3850.
Just saying I see no reason to go amd when you can get a win win win win win... for the same money vs a lose lose lose lose lose... (being real the apu won like 2-3 tests by a very little)
But that is me... if I buy something I want my money to go the furthest... | |
|
