Choosing a cpu

It doesnt matter if a video card can or cannot satturate 16 full PCI-e lanes. More bandwidth = less latency. less latency = less chance of microstudder and other problems. Therefore, more bandwidth = better.

Does anyone who says PCI-E 3.0 is useless because you cant saturate 2.0 ect... ever think about the future ? people always talk about upgradeability but seemingly forget the fact that if you still have the same CPU & Mobo but want a new GFX card, that PCI-E 2.0 may be restrictive for the next generation or maybe the Gen after that of GFX card. 

And most games are also heavily GPU limited, so talking about CPU's is kind of a moot point.

And my liking cookies is relevant to the thread, how? -_-

And for the record, my old build was an AMD one, Athlon II x4 630 4GB DDR2-1066, Radeon 5830, and no CPU bottlenecking, granted I wasn't running CrossFire. Unfortunately, it met its bitter end in a shipping accident 2 or 3 weeks ago.

Not crossfire, but:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=jV2Voo5h3eU

In my experience, independent reviewers who aren't paid seem to come to the same conclusions about AMD CPU's performing on par with Intel's offerings in gaming. While you provided 2 benchmarks, I really only found one to be relevant, the VR-Zone, since the other is pretty badly dated. However Logans benchmarks are more recent, using more recent games, granted, it's a smaller sample.

*headdesk*

bandwidth =/= latency. Anyone who has ever purchased RAM knows this. Micro stuttering is an inherent artifact in Alternate Fram Rendering, and practically non-existent in single GPU set ups. From Wikipedia: "The effects of micro stuttering varies depending on the application and driver optimizations"

Saw single player... -Stopped watching.

 

Single player is not even remotely a CPU intensive benchmark, Multiplayer really shows who is boss in Battlefield games.

 

LOL i3 compares to i5/i7 in single player.............

first link- FX-8150, wrong CPU that was out preformed by a phenom x6.


second link- states the i7 and FX8350 were both running at 4.8 ghz. achievable on the FX, requires absurd cooling on the ivy i7. also is a year old. newer benches by toms hardware of all people- show frame deltas of around 10fps- not 100fps,


third link- it *does* make a difference- the Phenom and the FX are *COMPLETELY* different architectures. and it was a bad PSU, not a bottleneck.

please use up to date benches, old and irrelevent benches just make you look dumb.

I doubt it is a PSU issue with the GTX 590..... he has not even solved it yet, i have a Phenom II x4 at 4.2GHZ, i tried 480 SLi on it, it was terrible in comparison to my 2500k...

 

FX 8150 and 8350 are not THAT much different, and last of all,  drivers for GPU's do nothing for CPU bottlenecks, or you would see almost the same situation on the intel rigs.

 

AMD are good, i love my AM3 rig, but i know it's limits, as i do with the newer arch.

 

 

Even Phenom II beats FX in single threaded situations.

 

Up to date is the only argument you and others have, yet there is plenty of proof that FX falls behind in Multi GPU setups.

 

Oh look......

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_z4BmrOTmQ

 

 

Now compare to my 2500k with a single GTX 480, and i am recording using MSI afterburner too....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqKkbF0yhVg&feature=youtu.be

http://i.imgur.com/BKIdC6o.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/CzwZG7T.jpg

 

 

 

I cannot run it all maxed, but the difference in quality is negliable, and i have no artifacts....

the future? don't be so ridiculous!! lol nah i jokes. pci.e 3.0 does have it's place just not with gpu's right now. it's has uses else where.

Great then no one should be buying faster ram and motherboard manufactureres can start giving us 4 lane PCI-e slots as default for GPU's. /sarcasum

More lanes = less latency, more bandwidth and less jitter. So ya, you are wrong and you have no idea what you are talking about.

Also, microstudder is not caused by "poor driver optimizations." It's a problem that has everything to do with hardware and with milti gpu systems. It's not "practically non-existant" in single card settups, it IS non-existant. And I've never heard anyone complain about microstudder on X79 platform rigs ever. 

Nice try, that video used outdated drivers... That guy made another video on 13.2 beta 6 drivers and watch it, watch the entire video, you Intel spy and saboteur.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_654865&feature=iv&src_vid=p_z4BmrOTmQ&v=C5tr9V8HPx8

Shut up with this intel shit.

 

And i never saw that vid, cheers for clearing that up.

 

30-60fps on Quad Crossfire 6990...

Seems a little poor to me...

 

But i do not have a pair of 6990's to test.

 

Ok... You first say AMD is the king, then you go trashfest on AMD... Do you have split personalities or something?  anyway...

Never saw that vid? Well at the beggining of the video you suggested there was an annotation that said to watch the other more up to date video... I doubt that Crysis 3 uses all 6990, just 2 of them and its Crysis 3 with some filtering!

Seems a little poor? Crysis 3 can only use 6 cores and 2 GPU's if I am correct... Also its almost maxed out, except for filtering that cripless the performance by a half!?! :S

Seems you lack some sense of humour, because AMD is BOSS and KING!

Obviously..........LOL

I will be using the FX fix from microsoft did you think about that or no....

I will be using the FX fix from microsoft did you think about that or no....

I will be using the FX fix from microsoft did you think about that or no....

OMGHERRRD

MICRO FIXSOFT!!!!!

 

 

 

 

:P

I would want you to look at socket am3+ of AMD.. because that's the only future proofed in my opinion.. the lga 1155 processors were really the same with very minor differences in 2nd and 3rd gen cpus.. so thats why it's supported.. wanna have a good pc for future.. I think amd? because its next cpu (steam roller) is probably on the same socket.. 

the motherboard I'm mamby going to get is sabertooth it has am3+ and all of them are 6GB sata ports no 3GB's there