Anyone running BS on the new AMD cpu?

[hitman]

Certainly better than 700+. :) Thats only 100 more than mine, but figure in # to $.

[CAT_101st]

I was looking at the top of the line I7,s

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115200

 

And I do agree intel is still king. I just cant aford them

[EtherealN]

The E and Q series are good enough tho, and definitely affordable. :P

[Safari Ken]

The i7's are terrific, and definitely the way of the future, but they just came out, so their value for the money is still a little lacking. Maybe the best thing about them right now, for the average Joe, is how prices on the Core 2's dropped as soon as the i7 came out. Core 2 is still the way to go, I think.

 

The dual-core models especially are very affordable, and on non-multi core applications, they often outperform the quad-cores (fewer cores but higher clock speed). Of course, as time goes by, more and more applications are multi-core, so that advantage is a diminishing one...

[EtherealN]

Aye, and they have the drawback that they are socket 775, not 1366. So going Core2 might limit future upgrade options. But on the other hand they overclock so nicely that a Core2 system with a good aftermarket cooler will most likely be competitive enough for at least a year or two.

[Safari Ken]

I think it might be even longer than that. Maybe it's my imagination, but in general, games aren't becoming as much more advanced from year to year as they used to. I think simply having a multiple-core system, in a 64-bit environment, is the key to longevity, at least for the next few years. At least, I hope so! :music_whistling:

 

Naturally the i7's are better, but isn't it the case with all electronics, that there's always a new model on the horizon that's better.. :) My rule of thumb is to buy second-to-top-of-the-line products. That way, you get a great product, but you don't have to pay the premium for the flagship products. That's especially true with computer equipment.

[EtherealN]

Yup.

 

That's a method I've generally gone for, especially when it comes to graphics cards.

 

Though it does seem that I don't really save much money on it, but that's mainly down to the fact that if I have 2000 dollars and I only spend 1000 dollars on a system, that means I have 1000 dollars left that inevitably gets spent on whatever rediculous peripherals I decide I want. Or extra computers. :P

 

...I don't know of many people that will routinely rig up not one bt two laptops on the table when killing an hour at their favourite pub. I know, I'm just way too nerdy. >.<

[hitman]

One good thing Ive consistently noticed on multicore processors is that the more cores you have, the cooler the chip runs under load. I have yet to get a game or app to run my cpu at above 10%, and my temps barely rise 10c. Didnt have that on any of my old duo core processors.

[EtherealN]

That is actually a pretty interesting point.

 

Though on the other hand, wouldn't that just be a "virtue" of having unused capacity?

[hitman]

Lower temps increase life span. Besides, why would you want a processor that runs at 100% anyways? I have a run down Pentium 3 in the front room, so you can tell the difference between night and day between the 2. It runs at 100% just opening up iexploder. If a processor runs at 100%, it will obviously slow down your system. The less resistance, the better the performance. Thats basically electrical theory in a nutshell.

[EtherealN]

Yes, that's all obvious and nothing new.

 

But if I put it like this then - if you are building a machine for a given purpose, and processor X will run it fine with an 60% total load, whereas processor Y will run it at a 25% load, all other things equal (like heat generation per load level etc) the latter will be clearly the better thing.

 

If the system running Y costs 70% more (I'm using todays prices at my retailer comparing E8500 and the i7 920 there), it's no longer as clear cut. Both systems give the same performance for the application as far as the processor is concerned, but one is more expensive though it might live longer.

 

What I'm basically saying is that if nothing brings you above 10% then according my my own personal standards of performance/dollar, I would consider it a poor purchase unless I have specifically dimensioned the system for longevity, since I would be paying for performance that I will not be using.

 

So really, I wan't contradicting you and saying that anything that doesn't run at 100% load is a waste anymore than any hard drive space you don't currently use is a waste. In fact, you'll see I labelled it a virtue to have extra capacity.

 

The question is how much extra capacity it is a virtue to have, since the extra capacity is also extra dollars.

[hitman]

I never said it was either good or bad. On the performance side, you have more cores to overclock...therefore being able to run more apps at once without much of a performance hit. On the longevity side, you can underclock it, stock clock it, make it last until Bill Gates dies of a self inflicted gunshot wound to the head.

 

Or you can look at it the way I do: you can overclock it to a clock speed faster than the fastest extreme processors at a fraction of their costs with the same lifespan of said processor. :) To me, the extra 100 bucks was worth that itself.

 

But then again Im an optimist.

Edited April 5, 2009 by hitman

[EtherealN]

Fair enough. :)

 

My own OC philosophy is more focused on getting "good" (as opposed to "best" or "high performance") kit at a low price point, not so much about really being in the upper echelons performance wise. If it runs things nicely and I barely paid for it at all, then I'm happy. :P

 

My wet dream for pure gadgeting fun would be an Intel Atom on a nice overclock-friendly mobo, but as yet I haven't really found a good excuse to even try that. :(

[CAT_101st]

Ok I finly ran BS on this setup and I am gitting 45-60FPS. The old CPU AMD x2 6400 was holding back the 8800gt. I am very happy with the new AMD PII 940 I did how ever bring the MH down to 3.79 to stablize the ram (kingston value ram) I know I need better. Will move to 1066 ddr2 whin I get a job agin.:huh:

[Krippz]

I'm running BS on the Phenom II 920 with a Radeon 4830 and 4GB's of RAM; I'm averaging about 40FPS in the cockpit with high details over the cities.

[CAT_101st]

Have you tryed to OC the 920 yeat? I am sure you can get a extra .4gh out of it with no problems. I culd be at 4gh :D now but my ram is holding me back.:huh:

[Krippz]

Have you tryed to OC the 920 yeat? I am sure you can get a extra .4gh out of it with no problems. I culd be at 4gh :D now but my ram is holding me back.:huh:

 

CAT I'm using the stock AMD cooler that came with the 920 so I'm a little hesitant to overclock it to 4GHZ. A small overclock to 3.0 GHZ is in the cards though.

[-Nighthawk-]

How does the Phenom 940+ compare with the Core i7 in terms of DCS? I'm tossing up between these 2, whichever plays DCS / FSX better gets my vote :P

[Krippz]

How does the Phenom 940+ compare with the Core i7 in terms of DCS? I'm tossing up between these 2, whichever plays DCS / FSX better gets my vote :P

 

In terms of performance the i7 has an edge. But you have to take into account the need for a new motherboard and new ram because of the socekt 1366 requirement of the i7. The Phenom II 920 is sufficient IMHO. Just my 0.02.

[K9COP1193]

Hello folks,

 

Doing a complete upgrade specifically for BS (Don't tell my wife, I told here it was for her benefit):thumbup: So this is what I bought:

 

GIGABYTE GA-MA790FXT-UD5P

 

AMD|PH II X3 720 BK AM3 2.8G

 

Sapphire 4870 X2

 

8 gigs of DDR3

 

CORSAIR|CMPSU-650TX 650W PS

 

Vista 64 bit

 

And of course the other odds and ends.

 

Anyway curious to see if the new AMD cpu can run BS, I would imagine, after reading around, the cpu should do around 3.3g fairly easy.

 

 

Curious what you guys think. Fairly inexpensive upgrade as well (relatively that is)

 

 

Sam

 

Why are you running AMD? Intel would be a better choice in my opinion. AMD used to be really good but the preformance is not that good compared to Intel.

[mrbinkels]

Why are you running AMD? Intel would be a better choice in my opinion. AMD used to be really good but the preformance is not that good compared to Intel.

 

I've been with intel since the 90's. The price difference was enough to turn me off to intel this upgrade.

 

 

AMD hit a home run(IMO) with the AM3 cpu. I've seen no REAL world numbers that overwhelmed me enough to pay so much more for an intel system.

[K9COP1193]

I've been with intel since the 90's. The price difference was enough to turn me off to intel this upgrade.

 

 

AMD hit a home run(IMO) with the AM3 cpu. I've seen no REAL world numbers that overwhelmed me enough to pay so much more for an intel system.

 

I totally understand the price issue, but you get what you pay for. Here is a very interesting link that helped me decide when rebuilding my pc.

 

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-intel-pc-processor,2031.html

[CAT_101st]

The AMD AM2+ PII 940 125W 3.00Gh stock Will oc to 3.6 on stock cooler no prob. with a after market cooler 3.8 to 4gh and above that you need liquid. The PII 940 is restricted to the DDR2 1066 ram. and I am still runing the 6400 800Mh value ram. Whin I get some 1066 ram I wil push up to 4gh. As for how it plays I am gitting great frame rates 60max with the 8800gt.

[Krippz]

The AMD AM2+ PII 940 125W 3.00Gh stock Will oc to 3.6 on stock cooler no prob. with a after market cooler 3.8 to 4gh and above that you need liquid. The PII 940 is restricted to the DDR2 1066 ram. and I am still runing the 6400 800Mh value ram. Whin I get some 1066 ram I wil push up to 4gh. As for how it plays I am gitting great frame rates 60max with the 8800gt.

 

And that's the beauty of the Phenom II's they can easily overclock if the enthusiast chooses to go that route. With my sig rig I'm averaging 40 FPS with everything on high (minus heat blur) @ 1680x1050 with 4xAA and 16XAF.

[mrbinkels]

I don't want to sound like a fanboy, but at high res gaming, 1920x1200 or higher, which is what I base ALL of my computers needs off of, intel has none or negligible speed over an AM3. There are plenty of graphs that go either way in this argument.

 

Now we can get into the whole argument about low res settings to take the gpu out of the equation but the fact remains that the FPS improvement does not warrant the price.

 

BTW I use "argument" in the context of a civil conversation as to not fall out of favor with the ones we don't speak of. :)