How good is this computer?

The sticks are basically the same, just different names and different coloured heat sinks
Plus by the end of this year I'll have upgraded to a new CPU, either a newer AMD or one of the Skylake I7's depending on how nicely work pays me

If you're waiting for the end of the year you may as well push it to early next year and get Kaby Lake. 5 GHz and more on air is going to be hard to argue with.
 
6. PC rule of thumb: your PC is only as fast as its slowest component.

I missed that part. It's only true in certain instances.

When doing protein folding using OpenCL your CPU, RAM and storage have absolutely no impact.

When serving database queries your graphics card has no effect.

When serving data to other devices your CPU, RAM and graphics card have no effect.

Etc.
 
[XC] Oj101;18031470 said:
If you're waiting for the end of the year you may as well push it to early next year and get Kaby Lake. 5 GHz and more on air is going to be hard to argue with.

I don't think I'll have the money for one of those. XD
 
Do you mind sharing with us some actual benchmarks showing your "personal experience"? That way your statement will be factual and not hearsay. It's pointless stating someone that flies in the face of everything that has already been proven unless you have factual evidence yourself.

That way you can then look like you want to provide usable information instead of coming across like a chop.

Sure thing, will provide some later when I've played some games with the ints.
 
Real world enough for you?
[video=youtube;6iBhf8rpobo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6iBhf8rpobo[/video]

Looks like the test was done against the slowest possible HDD drive. Who buys 5400RPM 16MB cache drives these days? 7200RPM with 64MB cache is the norm.

SSD will obviously be faster but nowhere near this extent.
 
[XC] Oj101;18031014 said:
I'm assuming "i5-3700K" is supposed to be "i7-3770K," and at 4.5 GHz it is a faster CPU than your i7-4790K at 4.0 GHz - sorry, but one generation is not a large enough IPC increase to make up for a 12.5 % frequency difference.

For what it's worth, a first gen Core i3 with SATA300 ports and an SSD should load faster than an i7-6700K with a mechanical hard drive every single time.





It sounds more like the software was coded to be faster on AMD. Even when AMD was whipping the crap out of Intel at gaming (Athlon Classic, Athlon Thunderbird, Athlon XP and Athlon 64), Intel was always faster at media and scientific calculations/modelling. These days Intel is even further ahead. Look at boincstats to see several hundred thousand computers' results at scientific modelling and calculations - AMD doesn't feature in any top list unless you're talking a 48+ core quad socket setup.

That's certainly possible.
 
Unfortunately I have already bought all the components, as I have spent basically all the money I have saved up so it'll be a while before I can afford a new CPU and Mobo
I'm hoping to be able to play Doom, Just Cause 3, ARK, Battlefield 1 and 4, Evolve Stage 2 on this setup with reasonably high graphics settings

should have posted here before buying that CPU + Mobo.

But good machine. Enjoy!
 
Also in terms of SSD, I have that SSD to put my OS, main games on and I have two WD 2TB drives for the rest of my media
Personally I find an SSD to have a small amount of performance improvement on some games

My SSD is just for my OS as I have a small one 128 GB.

I will never be able to use anything else for an OS :o
 
Looks like the test was done against the slowest possible HDD drive. Who buys 5400RPM 16MB cache drives these days? 7200RPM with 64MB cache is the norm.

SSD will obviously be faster but nowhere near this extent.

WD blue HDD will boot your system in under 20 seconds

should have posted here before buying that CPU + Mobo.

Yip some things could have been changed for the better.

My SSD is just for my OS as I have a small one 128 GB.

That's what your missus said :p :D But then again if you can lick like Lassie you are all good :D
 
So I've had the computer for a few days
It works amazingly, I can see a massive speed difference with load times on the SSD
So far I can see that I definitely need to upgrade to an FX-8350 or better as Doom has some FPS drops
Ark runs perfectly on high
The Nvidia GTX 10** range doesn't work well with the AMD motherboards (Can't get into OC mode because MSI gaming app can't pick it up)
Otherwise it's a good machine
 
So I've had the computer for a few days
It works amazingly, I can see a massive speed difference with load times on the SSD
So far I can see that I definitely need to upgrade to an FX-8350 or better as Doom has some FPS drops
Ark runs perfectly on high
The Nvidia GTX 10** range doesn't work well with the AMD motherboards (Can't get into OC mode because MSI gaming app can't pick it up)
Otherwise it's a good machine

Nice. All that matters is your enjoyment of it - other peoples' opinions, not so much :)
 
So I've had the computer for a few days
It works amazingly, I can see a massive speed difference with load times on the SSD
So far I can see that I definitely need to upgrade to an FX-8350 or better as Doom has some FPS drops
Ark runs perfectly on high
The Nvidia GTX 10** range doesn't work well with the AMD motherboards (Can't get into OC mode because MSI gaming app can't pick it up)
Otherwise it's a good machine

Please do consider Intel, I promise you won't regret it.
 
Please do consider Intel, I promise you won't regret it.

Intel is a bit too expensive right now as I need to invest in a water cooler since my CPU gets too hot and I have frame drops
Other then that I'm now getting a stable 130FPS on doom with everything maxed out
If I get the FX-8370 OR 8350 it'll be more then enough of a power upgrade
Other then that I see no point in getting Intel except for fact that AM3 motherboards can't read subvendor codes of the GTX 10** range meaning no control over your GPU(MSI Gaming App) except on MSI Afterburner
 
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X