AMD over intel?

what do you think? i7 @ 3.4 Ghz? which is better for Dee Cee Esss???

Intel, hands down.

I have run AMD cpu's for years now and I think they are quite a bit behind Intel at the present. AMD have also reduced it's production and development as far as I know.

(HJ)

My 2500k kills DCS, just saying.

My 2500k kills DCS, just saying.

Ditto

Ditto

I still haven't overclocked mine, running at default speed 3.3Ghz.

what do you think? i7 @ 3.4 Ghz? which is better for Dee Cee Esss???

I think that Intel is more better, then AMD (but I like Phemom X4 :))

My friend had Phenom X4-965BE@4,0 - and his mood improved after replacement Phenom X4-965BE for I7-2600K@4,2.

Intel, period. Now, what was the question again? ;)

Intel, hands down.

More like hands tied behind the back and feet in cement... Sadly. As an old AMD fanboy the decline is a bit painful to see to me, but the simple matter is that except for some very specific applications (like some types of server loads) not even the pricetag rescues AMD anymore. :(

(Well, except for when you need a CPU/GPU combo that actually gives you decent gaming graphics.)

This might change in the future though, I'm led to understand that some of the bigger problems with AMD's newer stuff is that Windows doesn't handle the relatively "weird" architecture right, so a lot of potential gets lost due to bad thread scheduling. But for now, Intel is where you want to go for gaming.

I'm hoping that AMD or someone will put something out in the future to get intel to step it up. Lately they've been slowing down with development. The last 2 genterations of chips are close in speed. Concentration has been made on shrinking die sized more which is good but innovation is nothing like when the 2 were neck and neck.

Hm, well, not sure I agree there. Intel has always followed the "tick-tock" model, where they first release a new architecture on an old process node, and then shrink it. In fact, they did more than usual with Ivy since they also switched to a wholly different type of transistor as well as implemented PCIe 3 on-die.

I agree the performance increases didn't turn out to be huge, but die shrinks have never been huge in that department. They've usually been more about efficiency (and Ivy does well there as long as you don't do the ultra-overclocks).

***HERE***

The following is an option:

Thermaltake MSI Commander Snow edition

AMD Phenom II X4 965 @ 3.4GHz

MOBO BIOSTAR A780L3B with only one PCIex x16 slot and upto 16 GB (8X2 max) 2 RAM slots

But

Card

Gigabyte GeForce GTX 660 Ti OC 2048MB GDDR5 Windforce

A SSD 64 GB

A 5400 RPM notebook HDD in enclosure (for avoiding painstaking process of relocating media to new HDD)

A 600W PSU

A corsair hydro 80 Coolant unit to Mobo and possibly GPU (not really techy, verify pls)..

 

A 5400 RPM notebook HDD in enclosure (for avoiding painstaking process of relocating media to new HDD)

 

You do realize that you will still have to reinstall all of the software that is on that laptop drive? You can't just move the software/disk onto a new Windows install.

You do realize that you will still have to reinstall all of the software that is on that laptop drive? You can't just move the software/disk onto a new Windows install.

No I didn't. Thanks for headsup. What do you think about the setup? Is it good for running world at max settings? I'm inclined to AMD since I've never tried it, and I hear they are made for overclocking, which I know nothing about.

Is it good for running world at max settings? I'm inclined to AMD since I've never tried it, and I hear they are made for overclocking, which I know nothing about.

I have never had an AMD CPU and don't follow them so I could not comment about that part. I am also completely bewildered by the logic in the above statement but its your nickel.

On another subject, I would get a larger SSD since that will barely hold DCS and Windows. I used to have a 60GB SSD system disk. It is now a pocket-sized portable USB drive. ;)

I have never had an AMD CPU and don't follow them so I could not comment about that part. I am also completely bewildered by the logic in the above statement but its your nickel.

 

On another subject, I would get a larger SSD since that will barely hold DCS and Windows. I used to have a 60GB SSD system disk. It is now a pocket-sized portable USB drive. ;)

thanks cic.

Let's put it like this: AMD's latest CPU's, the ones that are currently marketed, are actually worse for games and most definitely DCS than the Phenom II's that were released in 2009... (Hurts to say that - I used to be a diehard AMD fan back in the days, but it's not looking good for them nowadays and the Bulldozer architecture is an epic disappointment. :( SUPERB for integer-heavy server applications though.)

If you want value, purchase a value-range Intel CPU. Even with overclocking the AMD CPU's will be a disappointment - and the Intel K-series CPU's are equal and better than the AMD ones in overclocking anyhow. (Only difference is that there's no K-series parts in the lowest price ranges for Intel processors.)

Let's put it like this: AMD's latest CPU's, the ones that are currently marketed, are actually worse for games and most definitely DCS than the Phenom II's that were released in 2009... (Hurts to say that - I used to be a diehard AMD fan back in the days, but it's not looking good for them nowadays and the Bulldozer architecture is an epic disappointment. SUPERB for integer-heavy server applications though.)

 

If you want value, purchase a value-range Intel CPU. Even with overclocking the AMD CPU's will be a disappointment - and the Intel K-series CPU's are equal and better than the AMD ones in overclocking anyhow. (Only difference is that there's no K-series parts in the lowest price ranges for Intel processors.)

Intel Core i7-3820 3.6GHz LGA 2011 Quad-Core Processor + Intel RTS2011AC Thermal Solution

Intel® Core™ i7-3770K Ivy Bridge 3.5GHz 8MB Cache Desktop Processor

Intel® Core™ i7-2700K Sandy Bridge 3.5GHz Quad-Core Desktop Processor

Intel® Core™ i7-2600K 3.4GHz Processor

Intel® Core™ i5-3570K Ivy Bridge 3.4GHz 6MB Cache Desktop Processor

AMD FX-8150 3.6GHz Eight Core 16MB Processor AM3+

Intel® Core™ i5-2500K 3.3GHz Processor

AMD Phenom™ II X6 1100T 3.3GHz Black Edition

Intel® Core™ i5-3550 Ivy Bridge 3.3GHz 6MB Cache Desktop Processor

Intel® Core™ i5-3470 Ivy Bridge 3.2GHz 6MB Cache Desktop Processor

Intel® Core™ i5-2400 3.1GHz Processor

Intel® Core™ i5-2320 3.0GHz 6MB Cache Desktop Processor

AMD FX-6100 3.3GHz Six Core 14MB Processor AM3+

AMD Phenom™ II X4 965 3.4GHz

AMD A8-3870K Unlocked Llano 3.0GHz 4MB Socket FM1 Quad-Core Desktop APU

AMD FX-4100 3.6GHz Quad Core 12MB Processor AM3+

Also,

GPU's:

MSI Geforce GTX 680 Lightning 2GB GDDR5

ASUS GTX 670 DirectCU II 2GB GDDR5

ASUS GTX 680 DirectCU II Top 2GB GDDR5

MSI Geforce GTX 680 Twin Frozr OC 2GB GDDR5

MSI N580GTX Lightning Xtreme Edition

Gigabyte GeForce GTX 680 OC 2GB GDDR5 Windforce

Gigabyte AMD Radeon HD 7970 OC 3GB GDDR5

Gigabyte AMD Radeon HD 7970 OC 3GB GDDR5

SAPPHIRE HD7970 3GB DDR5

Galaxy GeForce® GTX 670 GC 2GB GDDR5

Gainward GeForce® GTX 670 2GB GDDR5

SAPPHIRE FleX HD 7950 3GB GDDR5

PowerColor AMD Radeon HD 6970 2GB GDDR5

MSI N570GTX Twin Frozr III Power Edition/OC

SAPPHIRE HD 7950 OC 3GB GDDR5 950 MHz Edition Dual-X

EVGA GeForce GTX 660 Ti 2GB GDDR5 + Borderlands 2 Coupon

SAPPHIRE HD 7870 GHz Edition OC 2GB GDDR5

PowerColor AMD Radeon PCS+ HD6950 2GB GDDR5(Vortex II Edition)(Dirt 3 Edition)

Asus HD7850 DirectCU II TOP V2 2GB GDDR5

Gigabyte AMD Radeon HD 7850 OC 2GB GDDR5 Windforce

Kindly, take your picks for maximum DCS performance, taking into account no future CPU upgradeability as well as no GPU upgradeability.

Predilection to GeForce is a must. I am not very fond of ATi's cards anymore...

Also,

the DCS requirements mention :

Recommended system requirements: Operating system 64-bit: Windows Vista and 7; Processor: CPU: Core 2 Duo E8400, AMD Phenom X3 8750 or better; Memory: 4GB; Hard disk space: 7 GB; Video: Shader 3.0 or better; 896MB NVIDIA GeForce GTX260 DirectX 9.0c or better; Sound: DirectX 9.0c - compatible; DirectX: 9.0C; requires internet activation.

With emphasis on AMD Phenom X3 8750 or better; it appears its a typo unless the exact CPU can handle DCS, which you guys seem to contradict ATM.

The recommendation is not "this will run DCS perfectly at highest settings in all battles". The basic System Requirement is "if you don't have this, don't expect it to run at all and we are not responsible if it doesn't work". Recommendation is "to have fun, we recommend you have at least this".

An AMD Phenom X3 8750 can handle DCS, no-one has contradicted that, but you'd not max the game with it. (And buying one of those is bad value today.)

The CPU's you have listed, the best value would be the i5-3570K, IMO. It's not terribly expensive, overclocks fairly well, has PCIe3 natively on-die, a better on-die GPU for whenever that is desirable (can be used for video encode/decode etcetera), compared to i5-2500K. Also costs roughly the same as the AMD FX chip, which the Intel chip absolutely destroys in general gaming, most productivity applications, and definitely in DCS. The difference between them in pretty much anything except pure integer crunching is rediculous. (The Bulldozer architecture failing to deliver is a big reason why AMD is finding itself bleeding money and having to sack 20% of it's workforce. There's even rumblings about them deciding to throw in the towel as far as the desktop performance segment goes.)

The only thing the Bulldozer has going for it is that it has a better integrated GPU on it than the Intel ones, but since you'll be using discrete graphics this is irrelevant. (And that iGPU wouldn't do the job very well anyhow.)

When the FX-8150 is labeled as an "8-core" that is a bit of a marketing move. It has eight integer cores, configured in four pairs of two (termed a "Bulldozer Module") which share FPU, prefetch/decoder etcetera. Add to this that Bulldozer is a "speed-demon" architecture where high clock speeds (well, not really) are achieved through employing a rediculously long pipeline and not much work done in each of those clocks... and things start looking bad.

Quite simply, there is no reason to consider the AMD stuff for gaming right now, with the only exception being things like ultrathin laptops where you want limited gaming capability relying on the iGPU only (because AMD have better iGPUs than Intel). Even in the lower segments you will routinely see even 2-core i3's performing equal-or-better than AMD quads.

Check this out:

That's a multithreaded test. Note how the 4-core i5-2500 does 30-40% better than the 8-core FX-8150 (which barely beat the 2-core i3-2100).

Note 4-core Phenom II's outperforming the FX-8150. And 2-core (non-HT) i3-2100 does better than the FX-8150 too... (ouch)

Barely beats the old Phenom II's, and the i3-2100 is still better...

How many threads you got going on the same questions..? At this rate by the time you are satisfied with all your selections the answers to what is best are apt to change once again. No matter what you get it will not likely be better then what is to come but that is always true. Search for the best value for the dollar. That is the best approach in general.

Intel over AMD? Yes.

Good luck!

Out

I was a big proponent of AMD back in the day also. After reading this statement from the CEO, I will not buy another AMD PC processor until this new philosophy changes.

The company's CEO has taken AMD on a transitional path that appears to be more disruptive than any other event in the company's history, especially in light of the ongoing change in executive management. There is no interest at AMD to continue a processor war with Intel that has lasted decades, but only rewarded AMD with occasional superiority.

“That era is done,” Rory Read said in an interview and added, “There’s enough processing power on every laptop on the planet today.” Uh oh. Those quotes leave room for speculation that is significant enough to upset an entire loyal customer base of enthusiast users and may not have been the smartest choice of words.

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-intel-cpu-apu-processors,15741.html

Bah!.. I got my AMD processor for almost ½ the price of an intel of same spec, when I bought it.. Used to stay away from AMD before.. but couldn't resist, and it were surprisingly good!

Last 2 comps run on AMD.. gave old one to my old mum, so she Could have some fun!

Price vs performance 4 and 2 years ago made me go for AMD. I'm fully aware that if my processor fan stops for 5 seconds my MoBo might melt while processor almost explodes! But it haven't happened yet! :music_whistling:

i5 2500k is a steal! forget about AMD, they need to put in some serious work.

OK, OK!!!

Jeez!!! I've been out of the game since 2004 (excuse my multi-threading)...

It's just the market dramatically changed since 2004 (I know where do I come from?? :)

Anyways, I think I'll go Intel (I've always been intel BTW), i5 2500K OR i5 3570K.

So, about the GPU's... What do you guys recommed for maxing out DCS under the above 2 processors at nominal clock and 16 gigs of ram.

here is the list again:

MSI Geforce GTX 680 Lightning 2GB GDDR5

ASUS GTX 670 DirectCU II 2GB GDDR5

ASUS GTX 680 DirectCU II Top 2GB GDDR5

MSI Geforce GTX 680 Twin Frozr OC 2GB GDDR5

MSI N580GTX Lightning Xtreme Edition

Gigabyte GeForce GTX 680 OC 2GB GDDR5 Windforce

Gigabyte AMD Radeon HD 7970 OC 3GB GDDR5

Gigabyte AMD Radeon HD 7970 OC 3GB GDDR5

SAPPHIRE HD7970 3GB DDR5

Galaxy GeForce® GTX 670 GC 2GB GDDR5

Gainward GeForce® GTX 670 2GB GDDR5

SAPPHIRE FleX HD 7950 3GB GDDR5

PowerColor AMD Radeon HD 6970 2GB GDDR5

MSI N570GTX Twin Frozr III Power Edition/OC

SAPPHIRE HD 7950 OC 3GB GDDR5 950 MHz Edition Dual-X

EVGA GeForce GTX 660 Ti 2GB GDDR5 + Borderlands 2 Coupon

SAPPHIRE HD 7870 GHz Edition OC 2GB GDDR5

PowerColor AMD Radeon PCS+ HD6950 2GB GDDR5(Vortex II Edition)(Dirt 3 Edition)

Asus HD7850 DirectCU II TOP V2 2GB GDDR5

Gigabyte AMD Radeon HD 7850 OC 2GB GDDR5 Windforce

At least 2-2.5 gigs of VRAM (nominal meaning without overclocking, plug-in, standard speed) is what is sought after. Big thanks to everybody and specially EtherealN for the bar charts and reasoning.