The PC Thread - Tips, Benchmarks, Specs, Laptops, Custom Desktops, Pre-Builds and more.

[Notorious Jerry]

Yeah, just the card comparison was a bit cray.

yea it that was a insane comparsion I will burn my pc the day I see a a 560 ti beat a 670 when the cpu's are basically neck and neck theirs basically little to no difference with the i7 3770k and the 3570k in gaming.

 

[itsyoung!!]

Yeah, just the card comparison was a bit cray.

yea it that was a insane comparsion I will burn my pc the day I see a a 560 ti beat a 670 when the cpu's are basically neck and neck theirs basically little to no difference with the i7 3770k and the 3570k in gaming.

you're both wrong

EA doesnt utilize all the cores of the AMD 8350, it stops at 4 cores so the 6th and 8th core are pointless. It would be no different then having an AMD FX-4100 (if the 4 cores are clocked at the same speed), as far as playing battlefield 3 and most games go so far. Which is why intel is killing AMD right now , because the quad core processors is all that games currently utilize.

And EA, keep in mind im singling out EA here, games are more processor intense than video card intense. Other companies that do this are Blizzard and Arena.Net . They share the load and if the game detects a weaker video card they give the processor the larger load to handle. On some processors/video cards in Guild Wars 2 and Battlefield 3 when they came out were struggling because Arena.net and EA couldnt figure out how to properly load the video card load to the processor load and vice versa.

You can run Battlefield 3 on high with an i7-3770k and 560 ti and never dip below 60 FPS.

the i5-3570k might not be the best example because it is still a pretty good processor, I should of used i5-3350 or something it would be way more clear difference.




thats 60 FPS with fraps on
80-120 FPS with fraps off

i7-3770k and 560 TI

ultra settings

Benchmark Results: Battlefield 3 And The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim - System Builder Marathon, August 2012: $1000 Enthusiast PC

i5-3570k and 670 GTX

Average 84 FPS

Ultra settings






YOUR MY BOY BLUE



but you wont win this argument

 

[2gunsup]

you're both wrong

EA doesnt utilize all the cores of the AMD 8350, it stops at 4 cores so the 6th and 8th core are pointless. It would be no different then having an AMD FX-4100 (if the 4 cores are clocked at the same speed), as far as playing battlefield 3 and most games go so far. Which is why intel is killing AMD right now , because the quad core processors is all that games currently utilize.

And EA, keep in mind im singling out EA here, games are more processor intense than video card intense. Other companies that do this are Blizzard and Arena.Net . They share the load and if the game detects a weaker video card they give the processor the larger load to handle. On some processors/video cards in Guild Wars 2 and Battlefield 3 when they came out were struggling because Arena.net and EA couldnt figure out how to properly load the video card load to the processor load and vice versa.

You can run Battlefield 3 on high with an i7-3770k and 560 ti and never dip below 60 FPS.

the i5-3570k might not be the best example because it is still a pretty good processor, I should of used i5-3350 or something it would be way more clear difference.


Battlefield 3 i7 3770k MSI Gtx 560 ti HAWK Ultra Settings VirtuMVP Test - YouTube

thats 60 FPS with fraps on
80-120 FPS with fraps off

i7-3770k and 560 TI

ultra settings

Benchmark Results: Battlefield 3 And The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim - System Builder Marathon, August 2012: $1000 Enthusiast PC

i5-3570k and 670 GTX

Average 84 FPS

Ultra settings






YOUR MY BOY BLUE



but you wont win this argument

I fukks with ya home slice but that youtube is 1600x900 and it has VirtuMVP in the mix.

Spoiler

Here are some benchmarks in 1080P paired with a 2500K on high settings.

Here it is paired with a 3960X

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448 Cores Graphics Card Review - Battlefield 3

Here's a 670 paired with a 2500K

Nvidia GeForce GTX 670 2GB - Battlefield 3 Performance | bit-tech.net

Here's a graph of CPU scaling @ 1080P

Battlefield 3 GPU & CPU Performance > CPU Scaling and Performance - TechSpot

"Now at 1920x1200 all CPUs average between 66 – 68fps, while the minimum frame rate for the most part varies between 51 – 54fps. The only processor tested that dropped behind was the Athlon II X2 265, which dipped to 43fps when measuring the minimum frame rate."

I expect to see a green rep in my cp by noon,

 

[Bboystyle]

im thinking of upgrading my shyt. gonna get a decent Graphics card and definitely a new motherboard. The motherboard i bought the sound doesnt work so i have to waste a PCI slot on a sound card smh

 

[itsyoung!!]

I fukks with ya home slice but that youtube is 1600x900 and it has VirtuMVP in the mix.

Spoiler

Here are some benchmarks in 1080P paired with a 2500K on high settings.

Here it is paired with a 3960X

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448 Cores Graphics Card Review - Battlefield 3

Here's a 670 paired with a 2500K

Nvidia GeForce GTX 670 2GB - Battlefield 3 Performance | bit-tech.net

Here's a graph of CPU scaling @ 1080P

Battlefield 3 GPU & CPU Performance > CPU Scaling and Performance - TechSpot

"Now at 1920x1200 all CPUs average between 66 – 68fps, while the minimum frame rate for the most part varies between 51 – 54fps. The only processor tested that dropped behind was the Athlon II X2 265, which dipped to 43fps when measuring the minimum frame rate."

I expect to see a green rep in my cp by noon,

not a single processor on that bench mark I would even consider for gaming

your best example is an i7-2600k , but the i5-3570k out performs the i7-2600k for battlefield 3 by about 10% and we not even talking i7-3770k

ill take my green rep tomorrow

 

[kash10003]

why do i have so many steam games i would never play brehs

the fukk will i do with them

 

[Liquid]

why do i have so many steam games i would never play brehs

the fukk will i do with them

Don't Think, Just Buy

 

[MaccabeanRebel]

Don't Think, Just Buy

right, when that steam summer sale doe...

 

[daze23]

why do i have so many steam games i would never play brehs

the fukk will i do with them

in the future buy your Steam games as 'gifts'. when you're ready to play, you can add it to your Library, or give it to someone else if it seems like you'll never play the game

 

[Notorious Jerry]

I fukks with ya home slice but that youtube is 1600x900 and it has VirtuMVP in the mix.

Spoiler

Here are some benchmarks in 1080P paired with a 2500K on high settings.

Here it is paired with a 3960X

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448 Cores Graphics Card Review - Battlefield 3

Here's a 670 paired with a 2500K

Nvidia GeForce GTX 670 2GB - Battlefield 3 Performance | bit-tech.net

Here's a graph of CPU scaling @ 1080P

Battlefield 3 GPU & CPU Performance > CPU Scaling and Performance - TechSpot

"Now at 1920x1200 all CPUs average between 66 – 68fps, while the minimum frame rate for the most part varies between 51 – 54fps. The only processor tested that dropped behind was the Athlon II X2 265, which dipped to 43fps when measuring the minimum frame rate."

I expect to see a green rep in my cp by noon,

im bout to kill what hes selling right now...
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIVGwj1_Qno"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIVGwj1_Qno[/ame]
I have no problems maxing any game out with my Fx 8350 HD 7970 With the intel i7 costing 200$ more then the 8350 I hardly call it killing the 8350...

 

[aXiom]

What do you plan on playing this year ?

Games like battlefield are more processor dependent than video card dependent, even though its one of the best looking games.

for instance, a i7-3770k processor with a 560 ti will have battlefield 4 running better than an i5-3570k with a 670 gtx

The fukk? No!

You could have a 2500k and the 560ti would be a bottle neck long before the processor could ever be.

 

[itsyoung!!]

im bout to kill what hes selling right now...
Crysis 3 Benchmarks | AMD FX 8350 vs Intel i7 3770k - Both Overclocked - YouTube
I have no problems maxing any game out with my Fx 8350 HD 7970 With the intel i7 costing 200$ more then the 8350 I hardly call it killing the 8350...

1. thats crysis 3, we are talking about battlefield 3... EA publishes Crysis , but its on a different engine than battlefield 3..

2. at the very beginning he just said the i5 quad core performs almost as well as the 8 core AMD kinda fukks your whole post up

3. with Far Cry 3, the i7-3770k (quad core) out performs the AMD 8350 (8 core) by 30 FPS at 1080p (which is what we all mostly play on) using the same video cards

i7-3770k crossfire 7970s almost 80 fps on far cry 3 1080p
AMD-8350 crossfire 7970s barely 50 fps on far cry 3 1080p

what were you trying to prove with that video other than im right

this aint even battlefield 3 which what I was using for my point, but thanks for proving me right



Lets toss out some other bench marks since you wanna talk about other games

heres a 100x more popular game than crysis 3

AMD fx 8350 and i7-3770k with AMD 7970 graphics card

I bought my i7-3770k months ago for around $310
AMD FX-8350 is $200

I dont see how that adds up to $200 difference

 

[Notorious Jerry]

1. thats crysis 3, we are talking about battlefield 3... EA publishes Crysis , but its on a different engine than battlefield 3..

2. at the very beginning he just said the i5 quad core performs almost as well as the 8 core AMD kinda fukks your whole post up

3. with Far Cry 3, the i7-3770k (quad core) out performs the AMD 8350 (8 core) by 30 FPS at 1080p (which is what we all mostly play on) using the same video cards

i7-3770k crossfire 7970s almost 80 fps on far cry 3 1080p
AMD-8350 crossfire 7970s barely 50 fps on far cry 3 1080p

what were you trying to prove with that video other than im right

this aint even battlefield 3 which what I was using for my point, but thanks for proving me right



Lets toss out some other bench marks since you wanna talk about other games

heres a 100x more popular game than crysis 3

AMD fx 8350 and i7-3770k with AMD 7970 graphics card

I bought my i7-3770k months ago for around $310
AMD FX-8350 is $200

I dont see how that adds up to $200 difference

What happen at 1440p though?
This isn't about amd being better they clearly are not everyone knows that. The Org point was you saying a 560ti can out preform a 670 long as the 560 ti has the better cpu which is clearly wrong... A 560 ti using a 3570k will not be better then a 670 using a 8350....

 

[itsyoung!!]

What happen at 1440p though?
This isn't about amd being better they clearly are not everyone knows that. The Org point was you saying a 560ti can out preform a 670 long as the 560 ti has the better cpu which is clearly wrong... A 560 ti using a 3570k will not be better then a 670 using a 8350....

I said a i7 3770k with a 560 ti will out perform an i5 3570k with a 670 gtx on battlefield 3 (which I admitted pages ago was a bad argument because the i5 3570k is a really powerful processor still and should of said another i5 processor instead) and some how youve fukked that into comparing some of the highest end processors with highest end video cards on entirely different games and engines

 

[Notorious Jerry]

I said a i7 3770k with a 560 ti will out perform an i5 3570k with a 670 gtx on battlefield 3 (which I admitted pages ago was a bad argument because the i5 3570k is a really powerful processor still and should of said another i5 processor instead) and some how youve fukked that into comparing some of the highest end processors with highest end video cards on entirely different games and engines

Now you agreeing with me.... "which I admitted pages ago was a bad argument because the i5 3570k is a really powerful processor"
its not that serious... I simply gave you a legit comparison other then the one you gave. This was never about Amd vs Intel....