|
| Thread: Does anyone have any gaming computer shopping advice? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 · «PREV |
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted November 16, 2013 02:00 PM |
|
|
mvassilev said:
I'd like a source for the assertion about Linux, as well.
First of all
here
is a Crysis 3 hardware test. It says: Quote:
Der Prozessor hat wenig Einfluss auf die Performance, interessanterweise schneiden in den Benchmarks AMDs FX-CPUs besser ab als Intels Core-Prozessoren.
This says: The CPU has not much influence on performance, but interestingly enough the Benchmarks are better for the AMD FX-CPUs than for the Intel Core CPUs.
Here
the title says it all: AMD FX CPUs dominating Benchmark tests (for Crysis 3).
There are more tests like these, mind you.
Strangely enough there is no English version for the Wiki article about AMD FX processors here. Under 2.1 they say, that the AMD users see a performance leap under Linux (but that's truee for Intel CPUs as well.
This
benchmark table, and especially the second one are interesting as well.
One bottom line of German games magazine is, by the way, that probably the best deal might be buying an FX 8350 and overclocking it. 
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 16, 2013 07:29 PM |
|
|
Here (see bottom graph) you can see the 3770k outperforming the FX-8350. From comparing your results to ones I've seen, I think the 3770k and 8350 are roughly the same for Crysis 3 at stock speeds. Sure, you can overclock the 8350, but you can overclock the 3770k too.  Not to mention that the 4770k is better than the 3770k and so I expect it to outperform the 8350. Looking at other games, the 4770k at stock speeds outperforms an overclocked (!) 8350. Of course, the 4770k is more expensive, but given the budget, I think it's a reasonable buy. Here you can see that the 8350 is also beaten by the cheaper 4670k - and even by the two-year-old 2500k.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 16, 2013 08:21 PM |
|
|
DoubleDeck said:
It's just that I'm a keyboard/mouse player, always have been and always will! Besides I am a Crysis and high tech game player, pushing the graphics to max and anti-aliasing is fantastic for eye candy compared to limited consoles. Well let's see what PS4 can bring to be table, maybe then gaming companies can push their games now and aren't "limited" anymore.
I don't know what players need, 360 games already look impressive. even some PS2 games deliver quite a bit on the graphics department.
didn't crytek admit to care mostly about graphics?
|
|
Miru
Supreme Hero
A leaf in the river of time
|
|
posted November 16, 2013 11:58 PM |
|
Edited by Miru at 23:59, 16 Nov 2013.
|
Regarding maxing games: aside from a few PC exclusives (namely Battlefield 4 and Crysis 3), all video games were largely held back by the fact that the game had to run on the XB360 and PS3. You can easily run Skyrim on max settings with mods on a 600$ PC. Don't worry about this too much.
JoonasTo said:
Speakers should be around $100-250 btw. $250-500 for surround. For low end stuff that's "good enough". Headphones are an option depending on his living circumstances too.
You could not possibly be more wrong. Speakers are the #1 thing in the world I know of where price has nothing to do with quality. Most people burn hundreds to even thousands of dollars on speakers for their car which are absolute crap. Most people have no idea what signal-to-noise-ratio or frequency range is, let alone time response, frequency response, impedance or more specific measurements even mean. The result is there are many very expensive systems which are snow but sell well, and if you know what to look for you can get a great system for 60$. I highly recommend this, I own one and it has better sound quality than nearly any other system I've ever heard including full living room systems.
JollyJoker said:
No matter what you buy, 8 GB of RAM is not enough. RAM isn't that expensive, and even what I'd consider a MEDIUM good gaming rig should have at least 16 GB of RAM. There is no discussion here.
Also, if you go for 16 GB, consider buying one 16-GB chip (instead of 2 8 GB). This will be more expensive, but also allow simple upgrading to 32, without having to waste what you have.
Totally snow. I built my current rig with 8G of ram intending to upgrade it when I used it all. The most I have ever used is 6G and that was running Windows, Firefox, Skyrim, Starcraft 2, and Skype all at the same time. Now that the XBone and PS4 are coming out I expect games will release that can utilize 12G of RAM, but none so far can.
I would like to leave an all-to-relevant note on the Intel vs AMD discussion: while the really high performance cutting edge stuff is debatable (I thought that Intel had a clear advantage in this, but I'm not so sure anymore after reading the links in this thread), for rigs costing less than 1500$, AMD wins. There is no argument there, and there never has been -- when it comes to cheap and good value AMD crushes Intel.
____________
I wish I were employed by a stupendous paragraph, with capitalized English words and expressions.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 17, 2013 12:45 AM |
|
|
Quote:
for rigs costing less than 1500$, AMD wins. There is no argument there, and there never has been -- when it comes to cheap and good value AMD crushes Intel.
Maybe this was true in the past, but it isn't anymore. A comparison of sub-$200 processors (early 2012, so it's a bit outdated, but the comparison largely stands). We see even the i3 outperform all of the sub-$200 AMD processors.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Miru
Supreme Hero
A leaf in the river of time
|
|
posted November 17, 2013 12:50 AM |
|
|
I am skeptical of those results. Intel knows that they are the brand name processor and they can charge more for less performance and still sell better. I don't see why they would suddenly have better value than AMD. That is equivalent to lowering their prices to take customers from AMD, which I assume they never did because they made more money with the prices that they had.
If those benchmarking results aren't biased (which is trivial to do), then I guess Intel is now the way to go.
____________
I wish I were employed by a stupendous paragraph, with capitalized English words and expressions.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 17, 2013 01:06 AM |
|
|
Here is a comparison of the AMD FX-8350 (the modern $200 AMD processor) with the Intel i5 3470 (a last-gen $190 Intel processor). AMD does outperform at heavily multithreaded applications, but for gaming, Intel is better. With a budget in the $1500-$2000 range, it's better to spend more than $200 for a processor, anyway.
AMD is better if you have a low budget and care more about using heavily multithreaded applications (such as video encoding) than about gaming. If you prioritize gaming, or if your budget is higher, Intel is better.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
hippox89
Famous Hero
|
|
posted November 17, 2013 03:40 AM |
|
Edited by hippox89 at 03:57, 17 Nov 2013.
|
My advice to new buyers would be to build the PC yourself even if it's your first time. There's a lot of guides/videos on the internet for helping you out with putting it all together. You'll feel much better when you're done, and you did it yourself. It's about developing a closer relationship with your PC. The experience will be worth it for your next build, too.
Also, I recommend that you do not buy all the most expensive parts because they'll probably also be the worst in terms of time/money/performance in the end. You can use the saved money on buying another PC 2-5 years down the road!
Buying used parts is also an great option if you dare, else consider it the next time when you have more experience.
Also, you should consider buying parts that can overclock well together. Not because you'll be necessarily overclocking right of the bat, but because you want the option when your PC gets older, and you want the experience of overclocking and get a little extra performance out of your money.
I do not recommend spending a lot of money on expensive software, unless you want to support a certain company. M$ is not deserving of direct buys. It's a horrible company. Buy used or whatever. I'll leave it at that.
Also, be aware of strongly advertised hardware products like Razer and others. They're the energy drinks of hardware. The thing is, mostly they make cheap hardware to turn extra profit but they advertise the 'insert bad word here' out of their products and sell them expensively. These products are not meant to last very long. These companies are disgusting.
Very old PS2 keyboards, especially IBM, are great. Even the non-mechanical ones. Headphones, I have a pair from the 80-ties and they sound amazing and are much better build quality than many expensive ones today that you can buy.
Basically, consider buying your keyboard/headphones used and old. Try the flea market. It's fun mixing old and new hardware.
|
|
Miru
Supreme Hero
A leaf in the river of time
|
|
posted November 17, 2013 04:07 AM |
|
|
Please pirate your OS. Every dollar you give to Mircoshaft or Apple is just one wasted. Don't support oligopolists.
____________
I wish I were employed by a stupendous paragraph, with capitalized English words and expressions.
|
|
hippox89
Famous Hero
|
|
posted November 17, 2013 04:16 AM |
|
Edited by hippox89 at 04:34, 17 Nov 2013.
|
DoubleDeck said:
Well let's see what PS4 can bring to be table, maybe then gaming companies can push their games now and aren't "limited" anymore.
Well, gameplay-wise hardware isn't the only limitation. The mindset of the industry is an even bigger limitation. A lot of new games suffer from making them too mainstream and thus dumbed down in many cases. I still play mostly older games. Graphics isn't much to me. Also, look at the CoD franchise. People buy the same game anew every year, over and over. It's ridiculous to me.
Miru said:
Please pirate your OS. Every dollar you give to Mircoshaft or Apple is just one wasted. Don't support oligopolists.
That's a straight way to put it. I say no more. 
When people buy Apple products they support a closed system under the dictatorship of Apple. It's sad. It's scary how advertisement and 'strong' brands affect some people. I'm a supporter of open software.
|
|
idontcare
Known Hero
|
|
posted November 17, 2013 05:58 AM |
|
|
While it seems ridiculous to you, they make ridiculous money with it
Old games had so much more story and flair, why they dont look at what they did great at the old games and transfer those principes 
ontopic:
even a $300 pc could get through the next 5 years, dont get what its all about here, which sane person buys uptodate-hardware o_O
*mindbaffled*
|
|
hippox89
Famous Hero
|
|
posted November 17, 2013 06:15 AM |
|
|
|
Rich people and enthusiast overclockers? Just kidding, that's also a lot of enthusiasts that build PCs as a hobby instead of spending their hard earned money on buying expensive drinks, etc.
|
|
DoubleDeck
Promising
Legendary Hero
Look into my eyes...
|
|
posted November 17, 2013 08:44 AM |
|
|
Fauch said:
DoubleDeck said:
It's just that I'm a keyboard/mouse player, always have been and always will! Besides I am a Crysis and high tech game player, pushing the graphics to max and anti-aliasing is fantastic for eye candy compared to limited consoles. Well let's see what PS4 can bring to be table, maybe then gaming companies can push their games now and aren't "limited" anymore.
I don't know what players need, 360 games already look impressive. even some PS2 games deliver quite a bit on the graphics department.
didn't crytek admit to care mostly about graphics?
Well, Crysis 1 was quite open world...then they ported Crysis 2 & 3 to consoles, and the linear play and easy gameplay came in...great. Crysis 1 was hard, Crysis 2 less hard and Crysis 3 was a breeze.
|
| |
|
|
