Upgrades

[Crow]

Looking to upgrade my potato masher. Any suggestions.

CPU: AMD FX-670K (3.7 GHz, 4 MB cache, 4 cores)
GPU: AMD Radeon R7 240 (2 GB DDR3 dedicated)
HDD: 2TB Seagate
RAM: 16GB Crucial DDR3
Motherboard: MSI MS-7906
PSU: _{^{I have no idea, I'll have to check later.}}

Before you ask, it's an old machine. I've had it for quite some many years and it's served me well.

Once overclocked and completely optimized for my system, I get around an average 25-30 fps on ArmA 3 but sometimes proves unstable.

Edited November 14, 2016 by Crow

[^Connor_K]

i recommend the AMD FX- 8350. its 8 cores and the turbo one clocks at 4.2 GHz. if you water cool it, you can overclock it and get it to like 4.8 or 5.0 GHz before explosion. just make sure its got good water cooling. the reason to get that over any intel, is that intel has less clock speed and some of the i7's are like twice the price for pretty much the same performance . also your gonna want to get a better GPU http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814125901    just make sure everything is compatible and you have a good enough PSU. if you wanna PM and we could talk about shit just hmu.  

[Haych]

In all honestly, sell everything and start a Intel build.

Upgrading to another AMD CPU, especially if the main game you play is Arma, will just be stupid and a waste of money. No matter what AMD CPU you throw at Arma, you simply won't get the frames you want.

11 minutes ago, connor_kehoe said:

i recommend the AMD FX- 8350. its 8 cores and the turbo one clocks at 4.2 GHz. 

No matter what you do to the 8350, you simply won't get much out of it when playing Arma.

If you're looking to upgrade without regarding Arma 3 performance, well just ignore everything I said.

Edited November 14, 2016 by Haych

[Crow]

3 minutes ago, Haych said:

In all honestly, sell everything and start a Intel build.

Upgrading to another AMD CPU, especially if the main game you play is Arma, will just be stupid and a waste of money. No matter what AMD CPU you throw at Arma, you simply won't get the frames you want.

No matter what you do to the 8350, you simply won't get much out of it when playing Arma.

If you're looking to upgrade without regarding Arma 3 performance, well just ignore everything I said.

ive heard that upcoming amd cpus maybe better for lower budgets and get better performance but what do i know, it could be a hoax for all i know lmfao

[Nightfury]

S S D

i have this : 

and i couldnt even log into asylum... i would get kicked cause my hdd was too slow or broken idk. i got an ssd and i dont care what anyone says but it improved my fps as well as i can now change servers like a normal human now without getting kicked or having to restart arma 15 times a day... i also can put my view distance on more that 800m now so thats cool.. but yeah a $40 ssd helped more than i was hoping... i still play in low settings but its so much better than before...

[william]

7 minutes ago, Nightfury said:

S S D

i have this : 

and i couldnt even log into asylum... i would get kicked cause my hdd was too slow or broken idk. i got an ssd and i dont care what anyone says but it improved my fps as well as i can now change servers like a normal human now without getting kicked or having to restart arma 15 times a day... i also can put my view distance on more that 800m now so thats cool.. but yeah a $40 ssd helped more than i was hoping... i still play in low settings but its so much better than before...

yeah ur welcome for the idea of getting an SSD

[.Sean]

1 hour ago, connor_kehoe said:

i recommend the AMD FX- 8350. its 8 cores and the turbo one clocks at 4.2 GHz. if you water cool it, you can overclock it and get it to like 4.8 or 5.0 GHz before explosion. just make sure its got good water cooling. the reason to get that over any intel, is that intel has less clock speed and some of the i7's are like twice the price for pretty much the same performance . also your gonna want to get a better GPU http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814125901    just make sure everything is compatible and you have a good enough PSU. if you wanna PM and we could talk about shit just hmu.  

And is less reliable though i7 u get bang for your buck if it's unlocked and it has a longer life span

[Crow]

Just now, House. said:

And is less reliable though i7 u get bang for your buck if it's unlocked and it has a longer life span

I mean I've had my AMD hardware for 4 years and it's still in mint condition. 

[.Sean]

1 minute ago, Crow said:

I mean I've had my AMD hardware for 4 years and it's still in mint condition. 

That's cool, I'm just saying it's proven that intel software is longer lasting and also considering the amount of money that intel has invested into their processing power research it backs that statement up

[Crow]

2 minutes ago, House. said:

That's cool, I'm just saying it's proven that intel software is longer lasting and also considering the amount of money that intel has invested into their processing power research it backs that statement up

I know, maybe I'm just lucky 

[.Sean]

Just now, Crow said:

I know, maybe I'm just lucky 

You definitely are 

[Crow]

Just now, House. said:

You definitely are 

I'm only looking to spend like $800 on a build tbh, I'm poor as fuck.

[.Sean]

Just now, Crow said:

I'm only looking to spend like $800 on a build tbh, I'm poor as fuck.

I'll pm ya a good build for around 800 if I remember later, I like fucking with pcpartpicker

[^Connor_K]

5 hours ago, Haych said:

In all honestly, sell everything and start a Intel build.

Upgrading to another AMD CPU, especially if the main game you play is Arma, will just be stupid and a waste of money. No matter what AMD CPU you throw at Arma, you simply won't get the frames you want.

No matter what you do to the 8350, you simply won't get much out of it when playing Arma.

If you're looking to upgrade without regarding Arma 3 performance, well just ignore everything I said.

 

3 hours ago, House. said:

And is less reliable though i7 u get bang for your buck if it's unlocked and it has a longer life span

the difference between Intel and amd is that intel i7 are just a little bit better than FX 8350, but i7's are way to overpriced when it comes down to it. people have gotten better fps in arma when it comes to intel but only if youre looking to spend $400 on a cpu. if not get an amd FX 8350 because they are just as good and if not better than an i5 when it comes to clock speeds and performance. you only get better fps in arma because intel and nvidia work well together. in other games though i get 80 fps ultra settings like in bf4. and i have the r9 390. so basically im running a full amd setup but y'all need to learn a thing or two when it comes down to gpu's cpu's and game mechanics. 

[^Connor_K]

5 hours ago, Crow said:

ive heard that upcoming amd cpus maybe better for lower budgets and get better performance but what do i know, it could be a hoax for all i know lmfao

yes the new line of amd that will be coming out soon will definitely put them back into the playing field compared to intel. and pm me so we can talk about a build 

[TheRealLethal]

took the time to build a kind of budget rig that would give you the best possible frames for arma 3

http://pcpartpicker.com/list/ywMWf8

The reason AMD is not so good for arma is because Intel has much much better single core performance, but outperforms intel in most multithreaded applications. But arma only really utilizes one core. 

Edited November 14, 2016 by TheRealLethal

[TheRealLethal]

@Crow i did not inlcude a case, nor Os because im sure you have a case you can use, and im sure you can find an OS. I just saw your post saying your budget is 800, which this build is over by about 100 bucks, you can always go for a 1050 ti for 125 bucks instead of the 1060 or even get a cheaper SSD or cheaper MOBO.. But that CPU will be good for gaming for many many years to come

[Crow]

Just now, TheRealLethal said:

@Crow i did not inlcude a case, nor Os because im sure you have a case you can use, and im sure you can find an OS. I just saw your post saying your budget is 800, which this build is over by about 100 bucks, you can always go for a 1050 ti for 125 bucks instead of the 1060 or even get a cheaper SSD or cheaper MOBO.. But that CPU will be good for gaming for many many years to come

Thanks for the help, haha yeah I got a case and windows 7 pro just here.

[Juice]

On 11/14/2016 at 5:25 AM, connor_kehoe said:

its 8 cores

On 11/14/2016 at 5:25 AM, connor_kehoe said:

is that intel has less clock speed 

Yea because bigger number means better performance 

 

I would recommend not talking to banana boy about pc builds.

Edited November 15, 2016 by Juice

[^Connor_K]

38 minutes ago, Juice said:

Yea because bigger number means better performance 

 

I would recommend not talking to banana boy about pc builds.

i probably know more than you and everyone on this thread combined.

[Juice]

On 11/14/2016 at 11:08 AM, connor_kehoe said:

 

the difference between Intel and amd is that intel i7 are just a little bit better than FX 8350, but i7's are way to overpriced when it comes down to it. people have gotten better fps in arma when it comes to intel but only if youre looking to spend $400 on a cpu

http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i5-4690K-vs-AMD-FX-8350

http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i5-6600K-vs-AMD-FX-8350

Both of these are i5s that cost less than $250 and out perform the 8350 by a long shot

On 11/14/2016 at 11:08 AM, connor_kehoe said:

 

get an amd FX 8350 because they are just as good and if not better than an i5 when it comes to clock speeds and performance. you only get better fps in arma because intel and nvidia work well together.

Perhaps you would get more fps in arma 3 with 8 cores if it actually used all 8 cores.  It no matter how hard you want it to, it wont.  1 core from the 8350 at 4.5ghz  wont have the same performance as 1 core from the 4690k at 4.5ghz.

Intel's core to core performance is much higher than any amd chip on todays market.  

14 minutes ago, connor_kehoe said:

i probably know more than you and everyone on this thread combined.

The fact that you are recommending amd over intel for arma 3 shows this is a complete and utter lie.

[^Connor_K]

23 hours ago, TheRealLethal said:

took the time to build a kind of budget rig that would give you the best possible frames for arma 3

http://pcpartpicker.com/list/ywMWf8

The reason AMD is not so good for arma is because Intel has much much better single core performance, but outperforms intel in most multithreaded applications. But arma only really utilizes one core. 

thats a great build. but what you said about amd is actually somewhat false. yes you do get better frames in arma with intel but thats only because amra is very core hungry when it comes to amd. amd has 8 cores but will use 2 for some games that require it(like arma). since its using 2 cores the processor is working much harder to try and get as much "power" to it as possible. and since intel i5's (which are mostly what people are using) are better at single core performance( which is what you said) you will get a better fps but for other games amd would fuck up intel any other time when it doesnt require 2 cores from amd like bf4. i can get over 80fps in bf4 but 30ish fps in arma.

[TheRealLethal]

Just now, connor_kehoe said:

thats a great build. but what you said about amd is actually somewhat false. yes you do get better frames in arma with intel but thats only because amra is very core hungry when it comes to amd. amd has 8 cores but will use 2 for some games that require it(like arma). since its using 2 cores the processor is working much harder to try and get as much "power" to it as possible. and since intel i5's (which are mostly what people are using) are better at single core performance( which is what you said) you will get a better fps but for other games amd would fuck up intel any other time when it doesnt require 2 cores from amd like bf4. i can get over 80fps in bf4 but 30ish fps in arma.

well lets be realistic. one of the real reasons AMD is behind in my opinion is because alot of game devs opt to focus on optimization for intel architecture. With good reason, just look at the market share over the past decade  

 

[Juice]

10 minutes ago, connor_kehoe said:

thats a great build. but what you said about amd is actually somewhat false. yes you do get better frames in arma with intel but thats only because amra is very core hungry when it comes to amd. amd has 8 cores but will use 2 for some games that require it(like arma). since its using 2 cores the processor is working much harder to try and get as much "power" to it as possible. and since intel i5's (which are mostly what people are using) are better at single core performance( which is what you said) you will get a better fps but for other games amd would fuck up intel any other time when it doesnt require 2 cores from amd like bf4. i can get over 80fps in bf4 but 30ish fps in arma.

Just because you can get 80fps in battlefield doesn't mean amd can "fuck up intel any other time"

core to core performance is much better when it comes to an intel chip vs amd.

 

9/10 times intel beats out amd.  Just how it is

Edited November 15, 2016 by Juice

[^Connor_K]

Just now, TheRealLethal said:

well lets be realistic. one of the real reasons AMD is behind in my opinion is because alot of game devs opt to focus on optimization for intel architecture. With good reason, just look at the market share over the past decade  

 

yes i couldnt agree more but im being mistaken when people think i am recommending amd over intel for arma, im not infact i basically said what everyone else is saying about how intel is better than amd when it comes to arma but in other cases, amd will out perform intel due to its 8 cores and high GHz when intel will only require 1 core and amd will require 2.

[^Connor_K]

Just now, Juice said:

Just because you can get 80fps in battlefield doesn't mean amd can "fuck up intel any other time"

 

9/10 times intel beats out amd.  Just how it is

you don't go to school for this shit so you dont know what you are talking about. AMD FX8350 has 8 cores and arma requires 2 from it. intel has 4 core and arma requires 1 from it. AMD is better at multitasking at a low power usage compared to intel. and i get better fps in bf4 because it doesnt use 2 cores from me like arma does. that is a major flaw that amd has and that they said they will be fixing with there new line of hardware.

[^Connor_K]

26 minutes ago, Juice said:

http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i5-4690K-vs-AMD-FX-8350

http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i5-6600K-vs-AMD-FX-8350

Both of these are i5s that cost less than $250 and out perform the 8350 by a long shot

Perhaps you would get more fps in arma 3 with 8 cores if it actually used all 8 cores.  It no matter how hard you want it to, it wont.  1 core from the 8350 at 4.5ghz  wont have the same performance as 1 core from the 4690k at 4.5ghz.

Intel's core to core performance is much higher than any amd chip on todays market.  

The fact that you are recommending amd over intel for arma 3 shows this is a complete and utter lie.

you are not fucking reading my comments i never said to get AMD over intel for arma 3 and ive stated that you will get better frames with intel. do call my comments a lie when you dont read them. im simply stating the facts that amd can out perform intel in other things some not as useful for others but it is for me. but when it comes to arma intel is where its at. why is everyone getting pissed at me im agreeing with you all. im just stating the facts like WTF. 

[TheRealLethal]

10 minutes ago, connor_kehoe said:

you don't go to school for this shit so you dont know what you are talking about. AMD FX8350 has 8 cores and arma requires 2 from it. intel has 4 core and arma requires 1 from it. AMD is better at multitasking at a low power usage compared to intel. and i get better fps in bf4 because it doesnt use 2 cores from me like arma does. that is a major flaw that amd has and that they said they will be fixing with there new line of hardware.

you would be correct in this statement, but you seem to forget about Hyper Threading which effectively makes a quad core an 8 core. In almost every case (Synthetic benchmarks, In game benchmarks, real world applications such as cinebench and others) Intel will out perform a similiar Spec AMD chip. The only thing AMD really has going for it is price to performance. 

Also, i see you getting upset, there is no reason to be upset.

Edited November 15, 2016 by TheRealLethal

[Juice]

Just now, connor_kehoe said:

you don't go to school for this shit so you dont know what you are talking about. AMD FX8350 has 8 cores and arma requires 2 from it. intel has 4 core and arma requires 1 from it. AMD is better at multitasking at a low power usage compared to intel. and i get better fps in bf4 because it doesnt use 2 cores from me like arma does. that is a major flaw that amd has and that they said they will be fixing with there new line of hardware.

All this information is wonderful but it doesn't make amd better than intel.  Im not trying to say AMD is useless and no one should buy it.  What im saying is that if you're not on a budget, and you can afford an intel processor, you will get better core to core performance.  When it comes to games, higher core count doesn't equal higher fps.  Why do you think i7s dont give much of an advantage over i5s in dx11 and below?  Because games dont utilize multiple cores very well *yet*

 

Just now, connor_kehoe said:

 AMD is better at multitasking at a low power usage compared to intel.

And uuh. *cough* check out the tdps *cough*

Just now, connor_kehoe said:

you don't go to school for this shit so you dont know what you are talking about. AMD FX8350 has 8 cores and arma requires 2 from it. intel has 4 core and arma requires 1 from it.

Suggesting that arma will use more cores on an amd vs an intel?  I dont think you go to school for this either...

 

1 minute ago, connor_kehoe said:

im just stating the facts like WTF. 

you're the biggest meme ive ever seen 

 

Look, I understand that you may believe that more cores is better, and it is most of the time, when you're not gaming.  But in real world applications, intel beats out amd nearly every time.  The only real reason to get an amd is if you cant afford an intel.

 

Theres no reason to get angry over the truth.  Ill just leave these here 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKR04WMP9sw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69IIYyKFJoE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZ_5p9wd2dk

 

[^Connor_K]

5 minutes ago, TheRealLethal said:

you would be correct in this statement, but you seem to forget about Hyper Threading which effectively makes a quad core an 8 core. In almost every case (Synthetic benchmarks, In game benchmarks, real world applications such as cinebench and others) Intel will out perform a similiar Spec AMD chip. The only thing AMD really has going for it is price to performance. 

Also, i see you getting upset, there is no reason to be upset.

no sir im not upset,  i just dont want to be mistaken and when someone says im a liar and says that i said amd is good for arma when i didnt and trys to make me look like an idiot i get offended. and you are right about the hyper threading i just didnt know what it was called.do you got to schooling for this or just a hobby? i just started my program at school and i want to make sure im not screwing something up 

[TheRealLethal]

Just now, connor_kehoe said:

no sir im not upset,  i just dont want to be mistaken and when someone says im a liar and says that i said amd is good for arma when i didnt and trys to make me look like an idiot i get offended. and you are right about the hyper threading i just didnt know what it was called.do you got to schooling for this or just a hobby? i just started my program at school and i want to make sure im not screwing something up 

I dropped out of college after about 1 month so no, i have no formal education on the subject. Just have a passion for anything to do with computers. Mostly hardware related, not really that good on the software side.

[^Connor_K]

8 minutes ago, Juice said:

All this information is wonderful but it doesn't make amd better than intel.  Im not trying to say AMD is useless and no one should buy it.  What im saying is that if you're not on a budget, and you can afford an intel processor, you will get better core to core performance.  When it comes to games, higher core count doesn't equal higher fps.  Why do you think i7s dont give much of an advantage over i5s in dx11 and below?  Because games dont utilize multiple cores very well *yet*

 

And uuh. *cough* check out the tdps *cough*

Suggesting that arma will use more cores on an amd vs an intel?  I dont think you go to school for this either...

 

you're the biggest meme ive ever seen 

 

Look, I understand that you may believe that more cores is better, and it is most of the time, when you're not gaming.  But in real world applications, intel beats out amd nearly every time.  The only real reason to get an amd is if you cant afford an intel.

 

Theres no reason to get angry over the truth.  Ill just leave these here 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKR04WMP9sw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69IIYyKFJoE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZ_5p9wd2dk

 

you are right and im not saying cores equal more power i was trying to talk about hyper threading but i forgot what its called. yes i do go to school for this. ( my program just started BTW). lol i do think amd is better thsn intel but thats my opinion and i can back my opinion with some facts just like you can. you are right in mostly everything you said i just dont want to be misunderstood and im sorry if you thought im saying your stupid but in my mind i believe we are agreeing on the same stuff just have different ways of explaining it.

[Juice]

1 minute ago, connor_kehoe said:

you are right and im not saying cores equal more power i was trying to talk about hyper threading but i forgot what its called. yes i do go to school for this. ( my program just started BTW). lol i do think amd is better thsn intel but thats my opinion and i can back my opinion with some facts just like you can. you are right in mostly everything you said i just dont want to be misunderstood and im sorry if you thought im saying your stupid but in my mind i believe we are agreeing on the same stuff just have different ways of explaining it.

All good man just trying to cover all aspects.  Good luck with your program.

[^Connor_K]

3 minutes ago, TheRealLethal said:

I dropped out of college after about 1 month so no, i have no formal education on the subject. Just have a passion for anything to do with computers. Mostly hardware related, not really that good on the software side.

well shit, you should go back and get certified in COMP TIA+  .  901    and    902. do some research on it and see if it interests you. with your certification that you get from passing the test, it offers a ton of careers and remember, doing it at a younger age gives you more of an advantage over the "elderly" 

[^Connor_K]

Just now, Juice said:

All good man just trying to cover all aspects.  Good luck with your program.

thanks man

[BioHazard]

Hear me out:

AMD = More cores // Less single core performance

Intel = Less cores // much better single core performance, with Hyperthreading and more cache.

Arma = Isn't optimised to use cores well, and instead uses 1-2 cores which is where Intel pretty much destroys AMD. 

[Crow]

Build I'm considering:

CPU - Intel core i5 quad core processor i5-4690k (3.5GHz)

GPU - 4GB NVIDIA GEFORCE GTX 970 

RAM - 16GB Kingston Hyper-x fury dual-ddr3 1600MHz (2x8GB) 

OS - windows 10 professional 

HDD - 1TB 3.5" SATA-III 

SSD memory - 250GB

Motherboard - ASUS H97M-E: micro-ATX

PSU - corsair 650W CS Series modular 80 plus gold

Cooling - corsair H55 hydro series

 

Only because I'm poor  

[Diseasedx]

^ buy the 1070 8gb GPU, everything else looks fine 

[Norwegianviking]

On 16.11.2016 at 3:30 PM, Crow said:

Build I'm considering:

CPU - Intel core i5 quad core processor i5-4690k (3.5GHz)

GPU - 4GB NVIDIA GEFORCE GTX 970 

RAM - 16GB Kingston Hyper-x fury dual-ddr3 1600MHz (2x8GB) 

OS - windows 10 professional 

HDD - 1TB 3.5" SATA-III 

SSD memory - 250GB

Motherboard - ASUS H97M-E: micro-ATX

PSU - corsair 650W CS Series modular 80 plus gold

Cooling - corsair H55 hydro series

 

Only because I'm poor  

 

If you haven't bought the pc yet change that 4690k to to 4690. The K means it's unlocked and your motherboard is an H series meaning it cannot overclock a cpu

[TheRealLethal]

7 hours ago, Norwegianviking said:

If you haven't bought the pc yet change that 4690k to to 4690. The K means it's unlocked and your motherboard is an H series meaning it cannot overclock a cpu

or new mobo