I'm gonna stay out of the cache and Ghz parts, I know nothing about them. But I do know alot of other things about this, for my age. Also, what would you recommend for a GPU upgrade in the future. Not super expensive, but i'm willing to splurge.
I'd recommend some GTX 560tis in a 4-way SLI, if your build is trying to accomplish what I think it is.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
i5 4670k @ 4.9GHz - Stock Heatsink - The rest is melted silicon but I think I have a graphics card in there somewhere It surprises me how many people on this forum can't read benchmarks.
I'm gonna stay out of the cache and Ghz parts, I know nothing about them. But I do know alot of other things about this, for my age. Also, what would you recommend for a GPU upgrade in the future. Not super expensive, but i'm willing to splurge.
I like how you keep bringing age up as an excuse when I think you are the same age if not older then a good chunk of the fourm.
Future as in how far and what budget.
I'm gonna stay out of the cache and Ghz parts, I know nothing about them. But I do know alot of other things about this, for my age. Also, what would you recommend for a GPU upgrade in the future. Not super expensive, but i'm willing to splurge.
no, I am younger than you and I know atleast 10x what you do
I'm gonna stay out of the cache and Ghz parts, I know nothing about them. But I do know alot of other things about this, for my age. Also, what would you recommend for a GPU upgrade in the future. Not super expensive, but i'm willing to splurge.
I wrote my comprehensive guide at the age of 14. If you want to learn more, we have a guide stickied that is extremely comprehensive.
I like how you keep bringing age up as an excuse when I think you are the same age if not older then a good chunk of the fourm.
Future as in how far and what budget.
No, no. Most kids have no idea at all what their talking about. I at a bare minimum know a little, but not much.
And as in budget, maybe 250-350 dollars. In the future? No idea. Later, rather than sooner.
Tbh, I like mine better. My cache is higher, and the speed is just a little more. (3.1GHz v.s. 3.3 GHz) Although, the intel does have L1 cache, and mine doesn't.
Also, I'm not only doing gaming. I'm also on the internet, and some benchmarks show that the FX-6100 runs better multi-tasking and such things as the i3, and if i'm lucky, the i5 even. (Doubted.)
My head just exploded. The cache doesn't matter at all, neither does the clock speed, because of different architecture. And besides, it's 0.2ghz more. The i3 still performs better because of different architecture
The 6100 is still a lot faster than the i3 in multithreaded tasks, but most games only use one or two out of the six cores making it lose to the i3 by quite a lot. Running a few browser tabs and antivirus and whatnot do not really change that at all.
Actually no the I3 hyper threading kinda helps its 2 core handicap
The 6100 is still a lot faster than the i3 in multithreaded tasks, but most games only use one or two out of the six cores making it lose to the i3 by quite a lot. Running a few browser tabs and antivirus and whatnot do not really change that at all.
You sir, deserve a cookie. That is exactly how me thinks. My old 2 core (I know, I keep using it as a reference), ran simple games just fine, but trying to multi-task on it was just horrible.
Edit:
Both of you brought up good points. For an extra, what? 10 dollars?, I think it was worth it, over the i3.
You sir, deserve a cookie. That is exactly how me thinks. My old 2 core (I know, I keep using it as a reference), ran simple games just fine, but trying to multi-task on it was just horrible.
Edit:
Both of you brought up good points. For an extra, what? 10 dollars?, I think it was worth it, over the i3.
Yeah, sure that's how you think. Why didn't you mention it before?
I meant the "Running a few browser tabs and antivirus" part, but okay.
Hence the many times I said "Multi-tasking."
You are still missing the point that the i3 2120 is $10 less than the 6100 and still performs better. Having 6 cores doesn't mean bull when you look at how different the architecture is between Bulldozer and Sandy Bridge. Bulldozer assigns 2 cores to each floating point unit while Sandy Bridge assigns a whole floating point unit to each core. This difference alone makes them behave very differently and because of that, you CANNOT use cores or GHz to compare Sandy/Ivy Bridge with Bulldozer. Benchmarks are the only way to properly compare them and the benchmarks show more often that the i3 2120 is more powerful than the FX-6100. Even in multithreaded tasks the i3 often comes out ahead because it has hyperthreading which makes it perform close to a quad core. It also performs more instructions per cycle than the 6100, which is why when they are both at 3.3GHz the i3 will come out ahead.
If you want to defend yourself, put up some actual benchmarks instead of going with what you "feel". You are afraid to admit that going with Intel would have been a better choice because your last processor and your current processor were both AMD. I have an AMD processor and I think it's silly to deny that Intel has better price to performance in nearly every category unless you do very specific tasks for a living in which case Bulldozer comes out ahead.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from TheFieldZy »
Nobody's perfect, so neither is Hannah Montana Linux, but it's pretty great.
Quote from BC_Programming on Operating Systems »
They all suck. They just suck differently. Sort of like prostitutes.
I honestly give up. I'm sick and tired of looking up benchmarks and other things just because of a bunch of damn Intel lovers won't even give me an ounce of credit. All that i've learned from this is AMD is complete **** and it will never will be, and Intel is the be-all, end-all god of CPU's.
I honestly give up. I'm sick and tired of looking up benchmarks and other things just because of a bunch of damn Intel lovers won't even give me an ounce of credit. All that i've learned from this is AMD is complete **** and it will never will be, and Intel is the be-all, end-all god of CPU's.
Intel lovers? We told you that the CPU you chose was not a good choice, and to get a CPU which is fantastic in price:performance, and we're automatically intel lovers? You are an AMD fanboy. We even gave you benchmarks. All we're saying is that intel currently has better CPUs in terms of price:performance.
I honestly give up. I'm sick and tired of looking up benchmarks and other things just because of a bunch of damn Intel lovers won't even give me an ounce of credit. All that i've learned from this is AMD is complete **** and it will never will be, and Intel is the be-all, end-all god of CPU's.
AMD is not complete ****. If that's what you've taken from all of this then you have learned nothing. Intel is currently ahead in most of the desktop CPU department. With laptops and netbooks however, AMD is smoking Intel with their Trinity APU's in price to performance because Ivy Bridge lacks in integrated graphics and often has less battery life than the APU's. If you are looking at building an HTPC for streaming media content and such then an APU is easily the best choice to power it.
You are taking this all the wrong way. In your situtation, Intel comes out ahead. In others, AMD comes out ahead. If you want to boast about your beastly AMD processor, go back to the Athlon generation when AMD was kicking the crap out of Intel. Intel has only really pulled themselves ahead of AMD since the first gen cores series.
Bulldozer is nowhere near as competitive against Intel's lineup as the first and second gen Phenom's were. Those processors actually stood a chance and were idolized as excellent budget processors. Now the tables have flipped to favor Intel, that's just the way it is. So quit your whining, suck it up, and stop being such an AMD fanboy. This is the way things are, deal with it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from TheFieldZy »
Nobody's perfect, so neither is Hannah Montana Linux, but it's pretty great.
Quote from BC_Programming on Operating Systems »
They all suck. They just suck differently. Sort of like prostitutes.
I honestly give up. I'm sick and tired of looking up benchmarks and other things just because of a bunch of damn Intel lovers won't even give me an ounce of credit. All that i've learned from this is AMD is complete **** and it will never will be, and Intel is the be-all, end-all god of CPU's.
Ya I am an Intel lover that's why my computer specs are this.
Desktop
AMD athlon2 x3 3.6ghz
AMD 6970
Ram 8gigs 1333mhz
1.5TB of hardrive space
1440x900
Laptop
AMD Turion x2 2.2ghz
4GB of 666mhz ram
ATI 3200 IGP
1280x800
AMD won't suck forever during the Pentium 3-4 days AMD was destroying Intel to the point Intel had to bribe OEMS just to buy their products. AMD really only sucks in the CPU area their APUs are very good.
AMD has screwed up the first release of their past few CPU archs Piledriver is looking like a good jump over Bulldozer.
AMD won't suck forever during the Pentium 3-4 days AMD was destroying Intel to the point Intel had to bribe OEMS just to buy their products. AMD really only sucks in the CPU area their APUs are very good.
AMD has screwed up the first release of their past few CPU archs Piledriver is looking like a good jump over Bulldozer.
I'm really interested in how their quad core Piledriver with 12MB of L3 cache will perform. Without the L3 cache, Trinity has already shown that Piledriver will be a fairly significant improvement over Bulldozer.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from TheFieldZy »
Nobody's perfect, so neither is Hannah Montana Linux, but it's pretty great.
Quote from BC_Programming on Operating Systems »
They all suck. They just suck differently. Sort of like prostitutes.
I'm really interested in how their quad core Piledriver with 12MB of L3 cache will perform. Without the L3 cache, Trinity has already shown that Piledriver will be a fairly significant improvement over Bulldozer.
Well we know 100% that PD will be at least 15% faster clock for clock because Trinity is and that lacks L3 cache and a few other features.
A person has claimed to have gotten a ES of a 8300 a 3.3ghz 8 core PD cpu and its 10% faster then BD at 3.6 ghz.
It is also 95watts however it could be faked but if someone was to fake someone they probably would have gone for more then just 10% faster a lower clocks.
So if i'm getting this right, the people that like Intel the most use Amd? Hm.. okay then.
I don't think you understand we don't like either company over the other we all buy the best at the time not that long ago AMD had the best low end performance that's why a lot of us have AMD cpus..
I'd recommend some GTX 560tis in a 4-way SLI, if your build is trying to accomplish what I think it is.
It surprises me how many people on this forum can't read benchmarks.
I like how you keep bringing age up as an excuse when I think you are the same age if not older then a good chunk of the fourm.
Future as in how far and what budget.
This is 100% a bad suggestion ignore.
no, I am younger than you and I know atleast 10x what you do
I wrote my comprehensive guide at the age of 14. If you want to learn more, we have a guide stickied that is extremely comprehensive.
Thinking about coming a mod to simply not moderate.
No, no. Most kids have no idea at all what their talking about. I at a bare minimum know a little, but not much.
And as in budget, maybe 250-350 dollars. In the future? No idea. Later, rather than sooner.
My head just exploded. The cache doesn't matter at all, neither does the clock speed, because of different architecture. And besides, it's 0.2ghz more. The i3 still performs better because of different architecture
Actually no the I3 hyper threading kinda helps its 2 core handicap
It is faster but not by much
You sir, deserve a cookie. That is exactly how me thinks. My old 2 core (I know, I keep using it as a reference), ran simple games just fine, but trying to multi-task on it was just horrible.
Edit:
Both of you brought up good points. For an extra, what? 10 dollars?, I think it was worth it, over the i3.
Yeah, sure that's how you think. Why didn't you mention it before?
I meant the "Running a few browser tabs and antivirus" part, but okay.
Hence the many times I said "Multi-tasking."
You are still missing the point that the i3 2120 is $10 less than the 6100 and still performs better. Having 6 cores doesn't mean bull when you look at how different the architecture is between Bulldozer and Sandy Bridge. Bulldozer assigns 2 cores to each floating point unit while Sandy Bridge assigns a whole floating point unit to each core. This difference alone makes them behave very differently and because of that, you CANNOT use cores or GHz to compare Sandy/Ivy Bridge with Bulldozer. Benchmarks are the only way to properly compare them and the benchmarks show more often that the i3 2120 is more powerful than the FX-6100. Even in multithreaded tasks the i3 often comes out ahead because it has hyperthreading which makes it perform close to a quad core. It also performs more instructions per cycle than the 6100, which is why when they are both at 3.3GHz the i3 will come out ahead.
If you want to defend yourself, put up some actual benchmarks instead of going with what you "feel". You are afraid to admit that going with Intel would have been a better choice because your last processor and your current processor were both AMD. I have an AMD processor and I think it's silly to deny that Intel has better price to performance in nearly every category unless you do very specific tasks for a living in which case Bulldozer comes out ahead.
He said that the i3 was the better option, even for minor multitasking like browsing the web with multiple tabs.
Aw, it was just starting to get fun.
Because you found out we were right and no benchmarks actually support your claim?
I support whoever is ahead in benchmarks because, what do you know, they perform better. Has nothing to do with intel or AMD.
For what?
Performance has traded off between AMD and intel. Currently, intel is ahead. In the future, maybe not.
Thinking about coming a mod to simply not moderate.
Intel lovers? We told you that the CPU you chose was not a good choice, and to get a CPU which is fantastic in price:performance, and we're automatically intel lovers? You are an AMD fanboy. We even gave you benchmarks. All we're saying is that intel currently has better CPUs in terms of price:performance.
AMD is not complete ****. If that's what you've taken from all of this then you have learned nothing. Intel is currently ahead in most of the desktop CPU department. With laptops and netbooks however, AMD is smoking Intel with their Trinity APU's in price to performance because Ivy Bridge lacks in integrated graphics and often has less battery life than the APU's. If you are looking at building an HTPC for streaming media content and such then an APU is easily the best choice to power it.
You are taking this all the wrong way. In your situtation, Intel comes out ahead. In others, AMD comes out ahead. If you want to boast about your beastly AMD processor, go back to the Athlon generation when AMD was kicking the crap out of Intel. Intel has only really pulled themselves ahead of AMD since the first gen cores series.
Bulldozer is nowhere near as competitive against Intel's lineup as the first and second gen Phenom's were. Those processors actually stood a chance and were idolized as excellent budget processors. Now the tables have flipped to favor Intel, that's just the way it is. So quit your whining, suck it up, and stop being such an AMD fanboy. This is the way things are, deal with it.
Ya I am an Intel lover that's why my computer specs are this.
Desktop
AMD athlon2 x3 3.6ghz
AMD 6970
Ram 8gigs 1333mhz
1.5TB of hardrive space
1440x900
Laptop
AMD Turion x2 2.2ghz
4GB of 666mhz ram
ATI 3200 IGP
1280x800
AMD won't suck forever during the Pentium 3-4 days AMD was destroying Intel to the point Intel had to bribe OEMS just to buy their products. AMD really only sucks in the CPU area their APUs are very good.
AMD has screwed up the first release of their past few CPU archs Piledriver is looking like a good jump over Bulldozer.
I'm really interested in how their quad core Piledriver with 12MB of L3 cache will perform. Without the L3 cache, Trinity has already shown that Piledriver will be a fairly significant improvement over Bulldozer.
Oh, and were getting netbooks this year at school. One core processor, 2 gigs 800 MHz RAM, Intel onboard graphics.. Well, this is gonna be fun.
Link: http://www.daktech.com/build/179
I don't even
Well we know 100% that PD will be at least 15% faster clock for clock because Trinity is and that lacks L3 cache and a few other features.
A person has claimed to have gotten a ES of a 8300 a 3.3ghz 8 core PD cpu and its 10% faster then BD at 3.6 ghz.
It is also 95watts however it could be faked but if someone was to fake someone they probably would have gone for more then just 10% faster a lower clocks.
I don't think you understand we don't like either company over the other we all buy the best at the time not that long ago AMD had the best low end performance that's why a lot of us have AMD cpus..