ScardyBobScardyBobJoin Date: 2009-11-25Member: 69528Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Shadow
<!--quoteo(post=2044327:date=Dec 12 2012, 04:35 AM:name=NeoRussia)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NeoRussia @ Dec 12 2012, 04:35 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2044327"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->ebay is such a hassle.
When I look at TigerDirect's prices and compare them to ebay.ca many times retail is actually cheaper.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> It is, which is why I recommend you don't buy on Ebay unless you can get it at least 25% cheaper.
<!--quoteo(post=2044239:date=Dec 12 2012, 12:57 AM:name=godrifle)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (godrifle @ Dec 12 2012, 12:57 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2044239"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Your posts are scaring me but I'll do as you say!
AMD II X4 635, Quad Core 2.9 Ghz 4 Gigs of Ram Nvidia GTX460, 1 Gig No SSD
I get a minimum of 15 frames in intense firefights (ouch) and 45 fps average.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
460 : 38 fps ($0 - you have it) 7850 : 62 fps = 62-38 / $170 = +0.1412 fps per dollar 7870 : 71 fps = 71-38 / $210 = +0.1571 fps per dollar 7950 : 82 fps = 82-38 / $290 = +0.1517 fps per dollar 7970 : 94 fps = 94-38 / $380 = +0.1474 fps per dollar 670 : 97 fps = 97-38 / $360 = 0.1639 fps per dollar 7970 ghz : 102 fps = 102 - 38 / $450 = 0.1422 fps per dollar 680 2gb : 103 fps = 103-38 / $440 = +0.1477 fps per dollar
1st place : 670 2nd place : 7870 3rd place : 7950 4th place : 680 2gb 5th place : 7970 6th place : 7970 ghz 7th place : 7850
I actually ran like... 5 different charts for you (Crysis2, BFBC2, AVP, etc... ), and when I hit 'post', my login had expired and I lost all the tables. L'Sigh...
I can tell you from what I saw in the other tables, that the general case was : - IF the 670 performs close to a 7970, then your best bet will usually be a 670. - IF the 7950 performs within 85% of the 670, the the best bet will usually be a 7950.
Most charts had the 7950 ahead by a moderate amount, with the BF games having a 670 ahead by a strong margin. Arkham Asylum had a decent spread, so I just re-did that one now...
If you can point me at a GPU review that has NS2 in it, I can run the numbers for that...
460 : 38 fps ($0 - you have it) 7850 : 62 fps = 62-38 / $170 = +0.1412 fps per dollar 7870 : 71 fps = 71-38 / $210 = +0.1571 fps per dollar 7950 : 82 fps = 82-38 / $290 = +0.1517 fps per dollar 7970 : 94 fps = 94-38 / $380 = +0.1474 fps per dollar 670 : 97 fps = 97-38 / $360 = 0.1639 fps per dollar 7970 ghz : 102 fps = 102 - 38 / $450 = 0.1422 fps per dollar 680 : 103 fps = 103-38 / $440 = +0.1477 fps per dollar
1st place : 670 2nd place : 7870 3rd place : 7950 4th place : 680 5th place : 7970 6th place : 7970 ghz 7th place : 7850
I actually ran like... 5 different charts for you, and when I hit 'post', my login had expired and I lost all the tables. L'Sigh...
I can tell you from what I saw in the other tables, that the general case was : - IF the 670 performs close to a 7970, then your best bet will usually be a 670. - IF the 7950 performs within 85% of the 670, the the best bet will usually be a 7950.
If you can point me at a GPU review that has NS2 in it, I can run the numbers for that...
-scheherazade<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Except, NS2 is usually CPU limited rather than GPU limited. To tell, type r_stats into you console in-game and look at the 'waiting for GPU' line. If its consistently below 5ms, its your CPU holding you back.
The OP would be better served by either popping in a better AM3 processor (like the X4 965/X6 1075T or better) or overclocking the one he already has.
<!--quoteo(post=2044568:date=Dec 12 2012, 02:24 PM:name=ScardyBob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ScardyBob @ Dec 12 2012, 02:24 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2044568"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Except, NS2 is usually CPU limited rather than GPU limited. To tell, type r_stats into you console in-game and look at the 'waiting for GPU' line. If its consistently below 5ms, its your CPU holding you back.
The OP would be better served by either popping in a better AM3 processor (like the X4 965/X6 1075T or better) or overclocking the one he already has.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
True
However, I'm just going over the GPU component in post #63.
The CPU/etc suggestion I listed earlier in post #47 and #52, which included just going with a cheap AMD upgrade.
Granted, I didn't give AMD much talk...
An fx 8350 is handily beaten in [cpu intensive] games by an i5 3570k. <a href="http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/697?vs=701" target="_blank">http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/697?vs=701</a> Check towards the bottom.
Take SC2 for example - a CPU dependent game. 68 fps i5 vs 48 fps FX, +41% speed for intel. An FX 8350 upgrade would be $200 An i5 [*with mobo] would be $325 (62% more)
The increase in cost (62%) is not far from the increase in performance (41%). If cost had gone up 41% in line with performance, you'd be paying $282. So the 'switch to intel' premium is $43 (+62% vs +41%)
And you can really feel 68 fps vs 48 fps. I think that kind of a performance difference it worth another $43 into the upgrade budget. IMO.
*Consession that 'worth' is entirely dependent on personal income / level of effort to achieve that income / just how much you care about the game - and I can't speak for the OP, only myself.
Just a tip for everyone having FPS issues. Put textures on medium first. Secondly make sure to open up your video card control panel and edit those settings to override the ingame settings. I see this often times in games where the ingame settings like AA are not the same render type as the video card so the video card chugs along using software rendering as opposed to the much much faster built in hardware rendering. Telling your videocard to override ingame settings will ensure you are using the much faster hardware rendering. Mess around inthere and see what your graphics card can handle.
Also the game is CPU dependant most of the time because the game uses physx and unless you have a dedicated physx card (second nvidia gpu) than it is going to pound on your processor.
<!--quoteo(post=2043311:date=Dec 10 2012, 09:36 PM:name=joederp)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (joederp @ Dec 10 2012, 09:36 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2043311"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I really don't think that system would stand a chance of maintaining 30+ fps in late game combat..<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Kouji_SanSr. Hινε UÏкεεÏεг - EUPT DeputyThe NetherlandsJoin Date: 2003-05-13Member: 16271Members, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
<!--quoteo(post=2044606:date=Dec 12 2012, 08:40 PM:name=Silent331)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Silent331 @ Dec 12 2012, 08:40 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2044606"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Just a tip for everyone having FPS issues. Put textures on medium first. Secondly make sure to open up your video card control panel and edit those settings to override the ingame settings. I see this often times in games where the ingame settings like AA are not the same render type as the video card so the video card chugs along using software rendering as opposed to the much much faster built in hardware rendering. Telling your videocard to override ingame settings will ensure you are using the much faster hardware rendering. Mess around inthere and see what your graphics card can handle.
Also the game is CPU dependant most of the time because the game uses physx and unless you have a dedicated physx card (second nvidia gpu) than it is going to pound on your processor.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->All good ideas, but in the case of NS2 its not a good idea to set Anti-Aliasing to a forced setting. NS2 is using FXAA which is incompatible with any other setting outside of NS2
However, I'm just going over the GPU component in post #63.
The CPU/etc suggestion I listed earlier in post #47 and #52, which included just going with a cheap AMD upgrade.
Granted, I didn't give AMD much talk...
An fx 8350 is handily beaten in [cpu intensive] games by an i5 3570k. <a href="http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/697?vs=701" target="_blank">http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/697?vs=701</a> Check towards the bottom.
Take SC2 for example - a CPU dependent game. 68 fps i5 vs 48 fps FX, +41% speed for intel. An FX 8350 upgrade would be $200 An i5 [*with mobo] would be $325 (62% more)
The increase in cost (62%) is not far from the increase in performance (41%). If cost had gone up 41% in line with performance, you'd be paying $282. So the 'switch to intel' premium is $43 (+62% vs +41%)
And you can really feel 68 fps vs 48 fps. I think that kind of a performance difference it worth another $43 into the upgrade budget. IMO.
*Consession that 'worth' is entirely dependent on personal income / level of effort to achieve that income / just how much you care about the game - and I can't speak for the OP, only myself.
You did not take into account that the 8320 (what I have) is basically the same exact thing as a 8350 and can be bought for about $150-160. In the benchmark thread I noted that my 8320 at stock clocks is getting about 55 FPS avg in NS2, during heavy late game combat I have seen it drop to about 25-30 on a few occasions when there is a ton of grenade launchers , mines, umbra, spores etc going on but very rarely. I only mention it to avoid the 'never drops below 30fps' claim, which honestly NOBODY can claim that - even a $2000 system will get low FPS 'glitches' once in a while with this game.. but 99% of my game is 40+ and 95% is 50+. I have just overclocked it to 4.0 ghz and the game is even smoother now, I have not run a fraps test since fraps is messing with my aim really bad, makes the game unplayable and I can't find anyone who has experienced it before to fix it. But if I had to guess I would say my FPS avg is up towards 60 now. I plan to get an aftermarket cooler (still on crappy stock one) and OC to about 4.5 ghz and see what my avg FPS is then but I'm sure most would agree that an average of 55-60 is perfectly fine to play NS2.
So based on the OP's specifications, the FX 8320 + cooler + overclock to 4 or 4.5 ghz is the obvious choice for performance / value. Intel is the better chip but at double the price, it does not warrant the cost difference. Unless someone wants to argue that its worth spending an extra $300-$400 on a system to go from 55-60fps avg to 65-75fps avg? Maybe if you dress like the monopoly man with money falling out of your pockets.
Edit: I forgot to mention the FX-6300, also a very good value chip if you don't mind missing 2 cores, which honestly NS2 won't even notice them missing.
<a href="http://pcpartpicker.com/p/scWE" target="_blank">http://pcpartpicker.com/p/scWE</a> Build for OP
Also to the people claiming to run at 100+ fps constant or average No idea how you can do that because I run a 6 core intel extreme at 4.8ghz and SLI 590s oced to 740mhz I am CPU bottlenecked as is everyone else who is running a 560 ti or better gpu I get dips to 40fps without fraps and with fraps it can drop as low as 28fps late game This is with AO off everything else turned on
<!--c1--><div class='codetop'>CODE</div><div class='codemain'><!--ec1-->Note : It pains me to recommend intel over AMD, considering how much AMD needs the business right now. I'm not gonna pretend that AMD is a better buy these days... (No matter how much I loved my Athlon back in the day).
BUT
TBH, if it's all the same (be it emotionally, or you are not particularly CPU limited), and you wanna save that few bucks, go with AMD. They could really use the business.<!--c2--></div><!--ec2-->
To be fair, the top end FX competes with the mid range i5 ... and both can overclock.
In general I agree, AMD is cheaper out the door, and it's "good enough" for most things.
However, I wouldn't say that it's cut and dry...
(newegg prices)
i5 bits run : $215 for 3570K $110 decent mobo ($43 if you want rock bottom) Total : $325 total ($258 if rock bottom)
FX bits run : $180 for FX8320 $70 decent mobo ($44 rock bottom) Total : $250 ($224 if you want rock bottom)
If you don't need a mobo, then the intel will cost you an extra of : $145
If you do need a mobo: Rock bottom, intel will cost you an extra : $34 Decent (2+ x16 slots, ~8+ phases, moderate brand recognition), intel will cost you an extra : $75
IMO, those aren't massive premiums. It's a good deal less than the $300-$400 you mention.
If you play something like SC2, 68 fps vs 48 fps is a good performance margin. Much better than the 55-60fps vs 65-75fps you mention.
So what's more important? - "~2 years of sometimes meaningfully lower performance + often equivalent performance" vs - "$34-$75 bucks".
Some performance examples : (http://www.anandtech.com/print/5091)
ScardyBobScardyBobJoin Date: 2009-11-25Member: 69528Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Shadow
Intel has certainly captured the high end overclocking department, but if you're looking for some solid overclocking in a sub-$200 processor, AMD is the way to go.
Note that older series i7s had a problem where running some games with hyperthreading had a negative effect on framerate sometimes. Most of the time when you see AMD CPUs beating out i7s it's for this reason alone.
ScardyBobScardyBobJoin Date: 2009-11-25Member: 69528Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Shadow
<!--quoteo(post=2044721:date=Dec 12 2012, 04:49 PM:name=NeoRussia)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NeoRussia @ Dec 12 2012, 04:49 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2044721"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Note that older series i7s had a problem where running some games with hyperthreading had a negative effect on framerate sometimes. Most of the time when you see AMD CPUs beating out i7s it's for this reason alone.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I used to believe that until I read <a href="http://www.overclock.net/t/671977/hyperthreading-in-games" target="_blank">this thread</a>.
<!--quoteo(post=2044720:date=Dec 12 2012, 05:45 PM:name=ScardyBob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ScardyBob @ Dec 12 2012, 05:45 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2044720"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Intel has certainly captured the high end overclocking department, but if you're looking for some solid overclocking in a sub-$200 processor, AMD is the way to go.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Sure you can overclock an AMD FX cpu to say 5.0ghz but that really wont allow it to beat a stock clock 3570k in gaming performance The IPC is just too poor on those CPUs The phenom line is a bit better but still they compete with cpus like the i5 750 which is from 2009 For the price you cant beat a 2500k/3570k and a 130$~ Z77 board You can overclock them to 4.4-4.5 ghz on a basic 25$ air cooler I would love for AMD to start kicking intels ass again but not sure if it will happen any time soon if ever.
<!--quoteo(post=2044697:date=Dec 12 2012, 06:42 PM:name=scheherazade)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (scheherazade @ Dec 12 2012, 06:42 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2044697"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><!--c1--><div class='codetop'>CODE</div><div class='codemain'><!--ec1-->Note : It pains me to recommend intel over AMD, considering how much AMD needs the business right now. I'm not gonna pretend that AMD is a better buy these days... (No matter how much I loved my Athlon back in the day).
BUT
TBH, if it's all the same (be it emotionally, or you are not particularly CPU limited), and you wanna save that few bucks, go with AMD. They could really use the business.<!--c2--></div><!--ec2-->
To be fair, the top end FX competes with the mid range i5 ... and both can overclock.
In general I agree, AMD is cheaper out the door, and it's "good enough" for most things.
However, I wouldn't say that it's cut and dry...
*Snip*<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Your graphs are out of date, they were clearly produced before the FX-6300, 8320, and 8350. All 3 of those will defeat the 8150 which shows up on the graph. Also, the 8320 can be had for 165, not 180. And the 6300 which is going to compete very closely to the 8320 / 8350 in Ns2, is currently on sale at TigerDirect for 129.99:
So in starcraft2 it seems your argument would be more solid, but startcraft2 appears to be even more CPU demanding than NS2. The 6300, 8320, or 8350 would all run NS2 no problem which would technically make the better (cheaper) choice for the OP looking for a budget system to run NS2. Basically a cost difference of $85 for the intel chip and both would run NS2.
<!--quoteo(post=2044750:date=Dec 12 2012, 09:27 PM:name=joederp)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (joederp @ Dec 12 2012, 09:27 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2044750"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Your graphs are out of date, they were clearly produced before the FX-6300, 8320, and 8350. All 3 of those will defeat the 8150 which shows up on the graph. Also, the 8320 can be had for 165, not 180. And the 6300 which is going to compete very closely to the 8320 / 8350 in Ns2, is currently on sale at TigerDirect for 129.99:
So now its 130 vs 215 and here is an updated graph more relevant to the discussion:
(Image to Link :) <a href="http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph6396/51141.png" target="_blank">http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph6396/51141.png</a>
So in starcraft2 it seems your argument would be more solid, but startcraft2 appears to be even more CPU demanding than NS2. The 6300, 8320, or 8350 would all run NS2 no problem which would technically make the better (cheaper) choice for the OP looking for a budget system to run NS2. Basically a cost difference of $85 for the intel chip and both would run NS2.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Starcraft is a good example, but there are more.
Take a look at the tests in this article (not only the specific page linked) :
Comments
When I look at TigerDirect's prices and compare them to ebay.ca many times retail is actually cheaper.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It is, which is why I recommend you don't buy on Ebay unless you can get it at least 25% cheaper.
AMD II X4 635, Quad Core 2.9 Ghz
4 Gigs of Ram
Nvidia GTX460, 1 Gig
No SSD
I get a minimum of 15 frames in intense firefights (ouch) and 45 fps average.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hard to find NS2 benchmarks in any GPU reviews...
Let's just do an an example for now...
arkham asylum :
<a href="http://www.anandtech.com/bench/GPU12/390" target="_blank">http://www.anandtech.com/bench/GPU12/390</a>
460 : 38 fps ($0 - you have it)
7850 : 62 fps = 62-38 / $170 = +0.1412 fps per dollar
7870 : 71 fps = 71-38 / $210 = +0.1571 fps per dollar
7950 : 82 fps = 82-38 / $290 = +0.1517 fps per dollar
7970 : 94 fps = 94-38 / $380 = +0.1474 fps per dollar
670 : 97 fps = 97-38 / $360 = 0.1639 fps per dollar
7970 ghz : 102 fps = 102 - 38 / $450 = 0.1422 fps per dollar
680 2gb : 103 fps = 103-38 / $440 = +0.1477 fps per dollar
1st place : 670
2nd place : 7870
3rd place : 7950
4th place : 680 2gb
5th place : 7970
6th place : 7970 ghz
7th place : 7850
I actually ran like... 5 different charts for you (Crysis2, BFBC2, AVP, etc... ), and when I hit 'post', my login had expired and I lost all the tables.
L'Sigh...
I can tell you from what I saw in the other tables, that the general case was :
- IF the 670 performs close to a 7970, then your best bet will usually be a 670.
- IF the 7950 performs within 85% of the 670, the the best bet will usually be a 7950.
Most charts had the 7950 ahead by a moderate amount, with the BF games having a 670 ahead by a strong margin.
Arkham Asylum had a decent spread, so I just re-did that one now...
If you can point me at a GPU review that has NS2 in it, I can run the numbers for that...
-scheherazade
Let's just do an an example for now...
arkham asylum :
<a href="http://www.anandtech.com/bench/GPU12/390" target="_blank">http://www.anandtech.com/bench/GPU12/390</a>
460 : 38 fps ($0 - you have it)
7850 : 62 fps = 62-38 / $170 = +0.1412 fps per dollar
7870 : 71 fps = 71-38 / $210 = +0.1571 fps per dollar
7950 : 82 fps = 82-38 / $290 = +0.1517 fps per dollar
7970 : 94 fps = 94-38 / $380 = +0.1474 fps per dollar
670 : 97 fps = 97-38 / $360 = 0.1639 fps per dollar
7970 ghz : 102 fps = 102 - 38 / $450 = 0.1422 fps per dollar
680 : 103 fps = 103-38 / $440 = +0.1477 fps per dollar
1st place : 670
2nd place : 7870
3rd place : 7950
4th place : 680
5th place : 7970
6th place : 7970 ghz
7th place : 7850
I actually ran like... 5 different charts for you, and when I hit 'post', my login had expired and I lost all the tables.
L'Sigh...
I can tell you from what I saw in the other tables, that the general case was :
- IF the 670 performs close to a 7970, then your best bet will usually be a 670.
- IF the 7950 performs within 85% of the 670, the the best bet will usually be a 7950.
If you can point me at a GPU review that has NS2 in it, I can run the numbers for that...
-scheherazade<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Except, NS2 is usually CPU limited rather than GPU limited. To tell, type r_stats into you console in-game and look at the 'waiting for GPU' line. If its consistently below 5ms, its your CPU holding you back.
The OP would be better served by either popping in a better AM3 processor (like the X4 965/X6 1075T or better) or overclocking the one he already has.
The OP would be better served by either popping in a better AM3 processor (like the X4 965/X6 1075T or better) or overclocking the one he already has.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
True
However, I'm just going over the GPU component in post #63.
The CPU/etc suggestion I listed earlier in post #47 and #52, which included just going with a cheap AMD upgrade.
Granted, I didn't give AMD much talk...
An fx 8350 is handily beaten in [cpu intensive] games by an i5 3570k.
<a href="http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/697?vs=701" target="_blank">http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/697?vs=701</a>
Check towards the bottom.
Take SC2 for example - a CPU dependent game.
68 fps i5 vs 48 fps FX, +41% speed for intel.
An FX 8350 upgrade would be $200
An i5 [*with mobo] would be $325 (62% more)
The increase in cost (62%) is not far from the increase in performance (41%).
If cost had gone up 41% in line with performance, you'd be paying $282.
So the 'switch to intel' premium is $43 (+62% vs +41%)
And you can really feel 68 fps vs 48 fps.
I think that kind of a performance difference it worth another $43 into the upgrade budget. IMO.
*Consession that 'worth' is entirely dependent on personal income / level of effort to achieve that income / just how much you care about the game - and I can't speak for the OP, only myself.
-scheherazade
Also the game is CPU dependant most of the time because the game uses physx and unless you have a dedicated physx card (second nvidia gpu) than it is going to pound on your processor.
well deep blue is overkill for ns2 (slightly)
Also the game is CPU dependant most of the time because the game uses physx and unless you have a dedicated physx card (second nvidia gpu) than it is going to pound on your processor.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->All good ideas, but in the case of NS2 its not a good idea to set Anti-Aliasing to a forced setting. NS2 is using FXAA which is incompatible with any other setting outside of NS2
However, I'm just going over the GPU component in post #63.
The CPU/etc suggestion I listed earlier in post #47 and #52, which included just going with a cheap AMD upgrade.
Granted, I didn't give AMD much talk...
An fx 8350 is handily beaten in [cpu intensive] games by an i5 3570k.
<a href="http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/697?vs=701" target="_blank">http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/697?vs=701</a>
Check towards the bottom.
Take SC2 for example - a CPU dependent game.
68 fps i5 vs 48 fps FX, +41% speed for intel.
An FX 8350 upgrade would be $200
An i5 [*with mobo] would be $325 (62% more)
The increase in cost (62%) is not far from the increase in performance (41%).
If cost had gone up 41% in line with performance, you'd be paying $282.
So the 'switch to intel' premium is $43 (+62% vs +41%)
And you can really feel 68 fps vs 48 fps.
I think that kind of a performance difference it worth another $43 into the upgrade budget. IMO.
*Consession that 'worth' is entirely dependent on personal income / level of effort to achieve that income / just how much you care about the game - and I can't speak for the OP, only myself.
-scheherazade<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You did not take into account that the 8320 (what I have) is basically the same exact thing as a 8350 and can be bought for about $150-160. In the benchmark thread I noted that my 8320 at stock clocks is getting about 55 FPS avg in NS2, during heavy late game combat I have seen it drop to about 25-30 on a few occasions when there is a ton of grenade launchers , mines, umbra, spores etc going on but very rarely. I only mention it to avoid the 'never drops below 30fps' claim, which honestly NOBODY can claim that - even a $2000 system will get low FPS 'glitches' once in a while with this game.. but 99% of my game is 40+ and 95% is 50+. I have just overclocked it to 4.0 ghz and the game is even smoother now, I have not run a fraps test since fraps is messing with my aim really bad, makes the game unplayable and I can't find anyone who has experienced it before to fix it. But if I had to guess I would say my FPS avg is up towards 60 now. I plan to get an aftermarket cooler (still on crappy stock one) and OC to about 4.5 ghz and see what my avg FPS is then but I'm sure most would agree that an average of 55-60 is perfectly fine to play NS2.
So based on the OP's specifications, the FX 8320 + cooler + overclock to 4 or 4.5 ghz is the obvious choice for performance / value. Intel is the better chip but at double the price, it does not warrant the cost difference. Unless someone wants to argue that its worth spending an extra $300-$400 on a system to go from 55-60fps avg to 65-75fps avg? Maybe if you dress like the monopoly man with money falling out of your pockets.
Edit: I forgot to mention the FX-6300, also a very good value chip if you don't mind missing 2 cores, which honestly NS2 won't even notice them missing.
Build for OP
Also to the people claiming to run at 100+ fps constant or average
No idea how you can do that because I run a 6 core intel extreme at 4.8ghz and SLI 590s oced to 740mhz
I am CPU bottlenecked as is everyone else who is running a 560 ti or better gpu
I get dips to 40fps without fraps and with fraps it can drop as low as 28fps late game
This is with AO off everything else turned on
It pains me to recommend intel over AMD, considering how much AMD needs the business right now.
I'm not gonna pretend that AMD is a better buy these days... (No matter how much I loved my Athlon back in the day).
BUT
TBH, if it's all the same (be it emotionally, or you are not particularly CPU limited), and you wanna save that few bucks, go with AMD.
They could really use the business.<!--c2--></div><!--ec2-->
To be fair, the top end FX competes with the mid range i5 ... and both can overclock.
In general I agree, AMD is cheaper out the door, and it's "good enough" for most things.
However, I wouldn't say that it's cut and dry...
(newegg prices)
i5 bits run :
$215 for 3570K
$110 decent mobo ($43 if you want rock bottom)
Total : $325 total ($258 if rock bottom)
FX bits run :
$180 for FX8320
$70 decent mobo ($44 rock bottom)
Total : $250 ($224 if you want rock bottom)
If you don't need a mobo, then the intel will cost you an extra of : $145
If you do need a mobo:
Rock bottom, intel will cost you an extra : $34
Decent (2+ x16 slots, ~8+ phases, moderate brand recognition), intel will cost you an extra : $75
IMO, those aren't massive premiums.
It's a good deal less than the $300-$400 you mention.
If you play something like SC2, 68 fps vs 48 fps is a good performance margin.
Much better than the 55-60fps vs 65-75fps you mention.
So what's more important?
- "~2 years of sometimes meaningfully lower performance + often equivalent performance"
vs
- "$34-$75 bucks".
Some performance examples :
(http://www.anandtech.com/print/5091)
Graphs of when to get an i5:
<img src="http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph5091/42338.png" border="0" class="linked-image" />
<img src="http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph5091/42346.png" border="0" class="linked-image" />
<img src="http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph5091/42340.png" border="0" class="linked-image" />
Graphs of when to get an AMD FX:
<img src="http://media.bestofmicro.com/Y/X/313593/original/cpu%20scaling.png" border="0" class="linked-image" />
<img src="http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph5091/42343.png" border="0" class="linked-image" />
<img src="http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph5091/42356.png" border="0" class="linked-image" />
<!--quoteo(post=2044685:date=Dec 12 2012, 06:25 PM:name=flyjum)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (flyjum @ Dec 12 2012, 06:25 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2044685"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><a href="http://pcpartpicker.com/p/scWE" target="_blank">http://pcpartpicker.com/p/scWE</a>
Build for OP<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
+1
-scheherazade
I used to believe that until I read <a href="http://www.overclock.net/t/671977/hyperthreading-in-games" target="_blank">this thread</a>.
Sure you can overclock an AMD FX cpu to say 5.0ghz but that really wont allow it to beat a stock clock 3570k in gaming performance
The IPC is just too poor on those CPUs
The phenom line is a bit better but still they compete with cpus like the i5 750 which is from 2009
For the price you cant beat a 2500k/3570k and a 130$~ Z77 board
You can overclock them to 4.4-4.5 ghz on a basic 25$ air cooler
I would love for AMD to start kicking intels ass again but not sure if it will happen any time soon if ever.
It pains me to recommend intel over AMD, considering how much AMD needs the business right now.
I'm not gonna pretend that AMD is a better buy these days... (No matter how much I loved my Athlon back in the day).
BUT
TBH, if it's all the same (be it emotionally, or you are not particularly CPU limited), and you wanna save that few bucks, go with AMD.
They could really use the business.<!--c2--></div><!--ec2-->
To be fair, the top end FX competes with the mid range i5 ... and both can overclock.
In general I agree, AMD is cheaper out the door, and it's "good enough" for most things.
However, I wouldn't say that it's cut and dry...
*Snip*<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Your graphs are out of date, they were clearly produced before the FX-6300, 8320, and 8350. All 3 of those will defeat the 8150 which shows up on the graph. Also, the 8320 can be had for 165, not 180. And the 6300 which is going to compete very closely to the 8320 / 8350 in Ns2, is currently on sale at TigerDirect for 129.99:
<a href="http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/searchtools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=4904562&SRCCODE=WEBGOOPA&cm_mmc_o=mH4CjC7BBTkwCjCV1-CjCE&gclid=CIqfybqplrQC######d4AodTA4Adg" target="_blank">http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/se...C######d4AodTA4Adg</a>
So now its 130 vs 215 and here is an updated graph more relevant to the discussion:
<img src="http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph6396/51141.png" border="0" class="linked-image" />
So in starcraft2 it seems your argument would be more solid, but startcraft2 appears to be even more CPU demanding than NS2. The 6300, 8320, or 8350 would all run NS2 no problem which would technically make the better (cheaper) choice for the OP looking for a budget system to run NS2. Basically a cost difference of $85 for the intel chip and both would run NS2.
<a href="http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/searchtools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=4904562&SRCCODE=WEBGOOPA&cm_mmc_o=mH4CjC7BBTkwCjCV1-CjCE&gclid=CIqfybqplrQC######d4AodTA4Adg" target="_blank">http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/se...####d4AodTA4Adg</a>
So now its 130 vs 215 and here is an updated graph more relevant to the discussion:
(Image to Link :) <a href="http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph6396/51141.png" target="_blank">http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph6396/51141.png</a>
So in starcraft2 it seems your argument would be more solid, but startcraft2 appears to be even more CPU demanding than NS2. The 6300, 8320, or 8350 would all run NS2 no problem which would technically make the better (cheaper) choice for the OP looking for a budget system to run NS2. Basically a cost difference of $85 for the intel chip and both would run NS2.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Starcraft is a good example, but there are more.
Take a look at the tests in this article (not only the specific page linked) :
<a href="http://techreport.com/review/23246/inside-the-second-gaming-performance-with-today-cpus/3" target="_blank">http://techreport.com/review/23246/inside-...th-today-cpus/3</a>
-scheherazade