But yeah, probably stay with Win7 because I hate Metro or whatever it's called now & they removed the option to boot directly to the desktop, so...yeah.
Whats wrong with the Win8 UI?
Ya o god no I have to move a screen that one button press moves this is why I will ignore all the other work MS did.
If you are in a situation where you have an AMD FX CPU, your system is slightly bottlenecked by it, and you are starting to notice partial lags in new games when running on high settings, would you then upgrade to Windows 8 for the small sum of 40$, and recieve the promised performance boost with the bulldozer CPU's (I'm going to take a guess and say 15% boost), while losing the Windows 7, or would you just stay with what you have and replace it all later on?
I would get Windows 8 regardless also its a 7% boost not a 15%. Losing Windows 7 is not a bad thing.
Unable to Install or run application. the application required that assembly stdole Version 7.0.3300.0 be installed in the global Assembly Cache GAC first
Why do people not get server-grade CPUs for desktop grade applications? What's the difference? For around $230 you can get 4 cores/8 threads with the Xeon E3 1230 V2. The only difference I see is that it's cheaper and there's no integrated graphics. Plus it even goes on the LGA 1155 mobo. So, why not get one of these?
A lot of people with workstations do.
It is also not cheaper its 40$ more then the I7 2600k.
It also is not unlocked.
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 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.
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
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.
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.)
Even in the best situations the 8150 only ties with the Intels in its rage sometimes beating them narrowly.
Bulldozer is just not very competitive in the desktop space for gaming for cheap workstations its a bit of a different story but even then they are not amazing.
I'm gonna say it nicely before someone else gets russeled....cache does not have an effect on gaming performance whatsoever, don't ever use that as a justification for buying something...
Cache is pretty dam important and has an effect on pretty much every single thing that runs on the CPU.
A lot more then size matters I could stick 50GB of Vram on a 660ti but its bandwidth is still going to suck compared to the 670 or the 7950.
Downloading Nvidia beta drivers then opening up the Wow login screen while they had the no frame limiter on it.
Starcraft 2 did the same thing in resulted in a few ruined cards even without the massive driver bug I got.
For people who don't know Nvidia released a Beta driver that killed the fan on the GPU it got recalled in like a hour after release but my card was dead.
0
Whats wrong with the Win8 UI?
Ya o god no I have to move a screen that one button press moves this is why I will ignore all the other work MS did.
0
Ya there is the Athlon2s are broken phenom 2 chips.
2
0
I would get Windows 8 regardless also its a 7% boost not a 15%. Losing Windows 7 is not a bad thing.
0
Error I get when running setup.
0
I have to agree with BC who manually navigates for games just make shortcuts on the startmenu like this
Windows 8 so nice I can just hit windows key and most of my games right there.
or use steam.
0
0
They use ECC ram and most server cpus will be lower clocks and more cores.
0
A lot of people with workstations do.
It is also not cheaper its 40$ more then the I7 2600k.
It also is not unlocked.
0
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..
0
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.
0
Actually no the I3 hyper threading kinda helps its 2 core handicap
It is faster but not by much
0
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.
0
Even in the best situations the 8150 only ties with the Intels in its rage sometimes beating them narrowly.
Bulldozer is just not very competitive in the desktop space for gaming for cheap workstations its a bit of a different story but even then they are not amazing.
Cache is pretty dam important and has an effect on pretty much every single thing that runs on the CPU.
A lot more then size matters I could stick 50GB of Vram on a 660ti but its bandwidth is still going to suck compared to the 670 or the 7950.
0
Starcraft 2 did the same thing in resulted in a few ruined cards even without the massive driver bug I got.
For people who don't know Nvidia released a Beta driver that killed the fan on the GPU it got recalled in like a hour after release but my card was dead.