A question about computers ? Would BF3 easily work ?

[Azathᴏth]

Also 4 gigs of rams isn't gonna cut it. Bf3 eats up memory, and you want to leave other windows open without having to tolerate choppy gameplay. Web browsers take up a lot of space and it's a pain in the ass to close all those windows. Apps like PS take up a lot of memory and closing a project I'm working on sucks. Get at least 8 gigs. That way you can keep a quite a few apps up without a hassle.

[caskinsro]

Thanks for backing it up... Glad someone has an idea of what they are talking about... Maybe there is hope for this forum after all... lmao

[blader123]

^ Second that.

Amd is shit and they do cut corners... But they are still the best when it comes to working on a budget. Everything about AMD is cheap, including the motherboards.

For about 200$ more you could make a computer that would put the build I said to shame. complete shame.

And to the douche who wants to live up the 550ti. They are shit and always will be. Terrible bit interface, low memory clocks, high temps, and half ass performance.

And since when is the 6900~ series of AMD high end? 7900~ series and 590-680 GTX are "high" end.

Dont talk anymore kid. You have no idea what your talking about.

---------- Post added at 10:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:30 PM ----------



I wouldnt be thanking this kid...

Amd does not compare in turns of gaming. AMD Lacks hyperthreading and logical cores. They run on one core half of the time, whereas Intel will use all 4 and have a much smoother and cleaner running game.

The only good processors AMD made was the Phenom II 945+ series. The rest are total shit, and thats coming from an AMD fan... I love their shit but its just that most of the time... Its just cheap and why I buy it.

dont call me kid, kid
AMD is enough for gaming ur just as biased as ****
I have amd 955 quad core @3,5 and i can play BF3 with max and still have like 60/70% load
when i use youtube/chrome + BF3 + MSN i get max 80% load so i say AMD is enough for most things but if your planing on also working with programs like autoCAD or photoshop etc... intel will beat the shit out of amd

GTX 550 TI aint bad lol get ur damn facts right man for a low budget the GTX 550 TI is excelent
it can run BF3 on ultra on 720P resolution and medium/high on 1080P with min 30FPS

quote the sentence where i said "6900 series are high end"
the 6900 series ( escpecialy the 6950 ) are enough for gaming

AMD 6950 can run BF3 on ultra with an avrg of 30/40FPS but why would you play on ultra if high is 99% the same but with higher FPS?
the 7900 series are damn expensive right now cuz they are new
the 590 is a dual GPU which costs more than his whole budget dude same story to the 680 ( 680 isnt dual GPU )

who needs hyperthreading during games? AMD athlon quad core CPU's can even run BF3 without having 100% load

and 4 GB ram is enough lol i have 4GB ram and i run BF3 + other programs ( browser etc.... ) and i get max 3,8/9GB usage
and i clearly said "get atleast 4GB" we all know more ram is better if your planing on using alot of programs on the same time




Edit:

BTW even a Pentium e6500 dual core would be enough for BF3 lol but ofcourse you will get higher FPS with the quad CPU


Edit2:

Oh btw i just read that you said the 7770 is better than a gtx 560
LOL LOL LOL the 560 is 20/30% faster than the 7770
the only thing good about the 7770 is its watt usage and temps those 2 are better than the ones on gtx 560

[PasterOfMuppets]

hahah, you guys mixing in my head, one says intel one says amd

[blader123]

Just get an amd CPU if ur on low budget and on high budget get intel ( I5 2500K ( or without the K )

[Noovaa]

hahah, you guys mixing in my head, one says intel one says amd

Intel is way better, but AMD is cheap.

[Azathᴏth]

hahah, you guys mixing in my head, one says intel one says amd

AMD causes problems and is generally agreed to be crappy or down right shitty. My friend's an experienced computer techie with over 15 years on the job and he thinks AMD is a piece of shit. Get an Intel i5, or i7 if you have the extra penny, be happy.

[blader123]

AMD causes problems and is generally agreed to be crappy or down right shitty. My friend's an experienced computer techie with over 15 years on the job and he thinks AMD is a piece of shit. Get an Intel i5, or i7 if you have the extra penny, be happy.

Depends on what your main purpose is
i have an amd quad core CPU and its enough for gaming
and its also enough for other programs
we have intel i5 2500 in our pc's at my school and till this day i havent seen any difference in performance

[Azathᴏth]

Depends on what your main purpose is
i have an amd quad core CPU and its enough for gaming
and its also enough for other programs
we have intel i5 2500 in our pc's at my school and till this day i havent seen any difference in performance

You're using ordinary programs and expect to see impacts on performance without any stats.

[blader123]

what kind of programs do you expect people to use? programs which wil let ur CPU run at100% 24/7?

[Azathᴏth]

what kind of programs do you expect people to use? programs which wil let ur CPU run at100% 24/7?

If you have never heard of programs like 3dMark and the like then you shouldn't even be in this discussion.

[blader123]

If you have never heard of programs like 3dMark and the like then you shouldn't even be in this discussion.

3Dmark lol its not that hes gonna run the program everytime he uses his pc

[Azathᴏth]

3Dmark lol its not that hes gonna run the program everytime he uses his pc

Oh my god you are dumb.

[blader123]

here you go

[Azathᴏth]

here you go

Good job proving to me that you have no real knowledge on the subject by throwing out a video that may or may not prove your case.

"one can't simply say one company is better or worse than than the other."

Nope it's pretty easy. One can base this on benchmark results, real world performance, price to performance, and over all customer satisfaction. Intel takes the cake on each of these. Perhaps that's arguable in regards to price to performance.

"AMD at certain price points presents an outstanding value compared to the Intel solutions"

True, and I have supported this. But it has been proven time and time again by statistics you can google up yourself that Intel has better performance overall compared to AMD. So like I have said, you want an economical solution, get AMD. Better bang for the buck, Intel.

"There is no answer it's not that simple."

Nope, it's pretty simple. This guy does a great job throwing smoke and mirrors into your face and and presenting all these what ifs and hypothetical scenarios. But his argument boils down to "individual needs". So if you want an economical solution for basic shit go with AMD and if you want a killer gaming PC go with Intel. Ok that's great. But if you take those 2 pcs and set them side by side, Intel will outperform AMD in most applications processor wise.

Intel Core i7-3820 Quad-Core Sandy Bridge-E CPU Review - HotHardware
AMD FX-8150 vs. Intel i7-2600k CrossFireX HD 6970 x3 Head-to-Head :: TweakTown USA Edition

Here are just to articles that write about the i7 killing the new AMD flagship "Bulldozer" processor. The new processor actually doesn't even out perform the i5.

And since this thread revolves around a processor for a gaming pc, you yourself proved my argument that an Intel should be used with your little video.