Built A Computer. Will It Run It At A Stable FPS?

[Kimberlah 94]

Bullshit show a CPU-Z validation and a screenshot showing that speed prime95 stable at those temps

Impossible with any form of air cooler, hell people with full custom waterloops struggle to get to 4.5GHz on Denebs let alone Thubans...... you claim 5.2 on stock cooler!

1 more problem with your story 70 degrees is beyond the thermal throttle on Phenom II your CPU would have throttled down before it hit that temp if it didn't then it would have died.

You really should do some research before you make things up as your claim is ridiculous.

[christopherwright_75@hotmail.co.uk 109]

Thats photoshopped

1 - The numbers in core speed are not lined up and spaced properly

2 - you get core speed by multiplying the multiplier and bus speed.

Your multipier is 22 your bus is 201.9

so 201.9 X 22 = 4441.8MHz

Your CPU is actually at 4.4GHz before you photoshopped that

[Kimberlah 94]

Thats photoshopped

1 - The numbers in core speed are not lined up and spaced properly

2 - you get core speed by multiplying the multiplier and bus speed.

Your multipier is 22 your bus is 201.9

so 201.9 X 22 = 4441.8MHz

Your CPU is actually at 4.4GHz before you photoshopped that

Your ass is photoshopped.

Edited September 30, 2012 by Kimberlah

[christopherwright_75@hotmail.co.uk 109]

Your ass is photoshopped.

LOL awww kiddie got caught lying and comes up with great response

[Kimberlah 94]

LOL awww kiddie got caught lying and comes up with great response

What? I don't even have PS installed. Tinypic compresses the image, so blame Tinypic for getting that not lined up.

Also, how could you call me a kiddie, while the government states that anyone above 18 is an adult?

[christopherwright_75@hotmail.co.uk 109]

You faked the image its simple as your multiplier and bus speed multiplied do not equal your core speed

You do realise its impossible to argue otherwise as in its actually IMPOSSIBLE for the core speed reading to be real.

Or are you that stupid you still going to insist you didnt fake it.

[Kimberlah 94]

You faked the image its simple as your multiplier and bus speed multiplied do not equal your core speed

You do realise its impossible to argue otherwise as in its actually IMPOSSIBLE for the core speed reading to be real.

Or are you that stupid you still going to insist you didnt fake it.

Call me stupid but thats what CPU-Z gives me.

[christopherwright_75@hotmail.co.uk 109]

Maybe visually you understand better?

[rallye 89]

Intel Core i3 3220

ECS H77H2-M3(1.0) Motherboard

SAMSUNG 8GB DDR3 1600 MV-3V4G3D/US RAM

Seagate Barracuda 7200RPM 500GB HDD

Sapphire Radeon HD 6870 1GB Flex Edition

You went cheap, and you got a PC that will perform that way. Your GPU is the high note, RAM is ok, HDD is what it is, but you skimped out on the mobo and CPU and that's going to hurt you in the long run.

[Kimberlah 94]

Maybe visually you understand better?

So basically you're saying that I'm a liar and a faker, while I just took that screenshot and in 5 minutes a human wouldn't be able to photoshop that as far as I know, so blame CPU-Z, not me.

[christopherwright_75@hotmail.co.uk 109]

So basically you're saying that I'm a liar and a faker, while I just took that screenshot and in 5 minutes a human wouldn't be able to photoshop that as far as I know, so blame CPU-Z, not me.

Well done yes you are indeed a liar and a faker..... a dumb one too as 2 minutes research would have told you your claim is impossible.... also your actual 4.4GHz reading if stable would have been impressive in itself.

Now go join tomshardware forums and post that you have a 5.2GHz Thuban Phenom II, post that screenshot too..... and dont forget to tell em that its on stock cooling running stable at 70 degrees!

[Kimberlah 94]

Well done yes you are indeed a liar and a faker..... a dumb one too as 2 minutes research would have told you your claim is impossible.... also your actual 4.4GHz reading if stable would have been impressive in itself.

Now go join tomshardware forums and post that you have a 5.2GHz Thuban Phenom II, post that screenshot too..... and dont forget to tell em that its on stock cooling running stable at 70 degrees!

That's not the point.

The point is,WHY DO YOU EVEN GIVE A SHIT? IGNORE ME OR SOMETHING. REAL CHILDS GO BITE!

[z-layrex 175]

Everything is what I would recommend except for intel...

I fucking hate intel, you should have gotten an AMD.

We all hate Intel, but when an Intel chip offers far better gaming performance than an equally priced AMD offering, how can you not buy Intel?

[christopherwright_75@hotmail.co.uk 109]

That's not the point.

The point is,WHY DO YOU EVEN GIVE A SHIT? IGNORE ME OR SOMETHING. REAL CHILDS GO BITE!

Coz I like making a lying little worm squirm it's fun

Heres an Idiots guide for you

[Kimberlah 94]

Coz I like making a lying little worm squirm it's fun

Heres an Idiots guide for you

Denied. Blame CPU-Z for giving invalid information, my BIOS shows 5.2 but the multiplier is set higher and the voltage is different.

[si-co_cid@hotmail.co.uk 1]

Well Here's My Rig

Case: Cooler Master Storm Trooper

PSU: Corsair TX 650W V2 PSU - 80plus Bronze Certified

M/B: Asus P8H61-MX

RAM: Corsair 16GB DDR3 1600MHz Vengeance Memory

GPU: Asus GTX 560Ti DirectCU II 1GB GDDR5

CPU: Intel Core i5 2500K 3.3GHz Socket 1155 6MB Cache (O/C to 4.3)

HD 1: Samsung 128GB 830 Series SSD

HD 2: Seagate 1TB Hard Drive SATAII 7200rpm 32MB Cache

HD 3: Seagate 250GB Hard Drive SATAII 7200rpm 16MB Cache

OS: Windows 7 Ultimate 64-BIT

My dayz runs off my SSD combining it with that processor ram an gpu i get about 60+ when i hit cherno or electro drops to about 40+ also taking into consideration that the i5 2500k is the CPU of choice for most gamers i don't see why people say intel aren't good an making CPU's i've used both AMD an INTEL an personally i think intel's the better choice

Also i'm running at 1920 x 1080 on a 32inch HDTV as well

@Kimnerlah

yeah he's right that is photoshopped an the voltage an everything is completely wrong.,..

Edited September 30, 2012 by Commander_Turk

[vtmz 17]

Hey guys, so I got this from /r/buildapc on Reddit.

"They are fantastic for gaming and general computing. The i5 3570k would be ideal for gaming being a true quad core and having the ability to overclock, however the i3 has 4 virtual cores and beats any AMD cpu in gaming.

It's honestly all you need for gaming. It will not bottleneck cards like the 7950 even.

Also I would recommend the i3-3220. It's Ivy Bridge."

He's talking about i3s

[christopherwright_75@hotmail.co.uk 109]

Hey guys, so I got this from /r/buildapc on Reddit.

"They are fantastic for gaming and general computing. The i5 3570k would be ideal for gaming being a true quad core and having the ability to overclock, however the i3 has 4 virtual cores and beats any AMD cpu in gaming.

It's honestly all you need for gaming. It will not bottleneck cards like the 7950 even.

Also I would recommend the i3-3220. It's Ivy Bridge."

He's talking about i3s

He is partially correct the i5's rule the roost gaming...... anyone claiming an AMD CPU can equal something like the 2500k as a gaming chip is deluded.

The i3's beat AMD's in most games by a few frames outside of gaming where core counts matter the i3's will lose out. This small gap though can be closed or beaten by Overclocking the AMD (which is a pretty simple thing to do) you can't effectivley OC an i3 so they can't make up for this.

That means if you're building on a budget a phenom II X4 965BE which costs less than an i3 can be a better buy it will outperform the i3 outside of gaming, can easily be made its gaming equal and you will get a much better featured motherboard for the same price as a relativley basic Intel socket board.

Another thing to be taken in to account is nearly all games are limited by the GPU, now no decently clocked Phenom II X4 or X6, FX81xx, i3 or i5 is actually going to provide any real bottleneck on a single card GPU setup. Keeping that in mind if your budget lets you build a Phenom II X4 with a 660ti OR an i5 with a 560ti the Phenom II based rig is actually going to perform alot better in most of the games out there due to its better GPU.

Also when looking at benchmarks remember some important things

1 - They do most CPU benches with a top end flagship GPU.......... unless your going to use a GTX690 or equivalent you will NOT get the FPS figures in a set of benches..... your lower GPU is the cause of this not the CPU.

2 - Unless you spent alot on a 120Hz monitor your normal monitor displays at maximum of 60Hz. This means it can only display 60FPS doesnt matter if your card is rendering 146FPS that screen is only showing 60FPS and it can only ever show that number as its maximum.

[a4410 10]

It's better than an AMD FX-4100 which my friend has paired with a 6850 and he gets 70-80 FPS on high settings.

Are you sure your friend is telling you the truth? I have an I5 at 3.8 Ghz (overclocked) and a 6870 with 8 gb of ram and I still only get about 28-35 fps on medium settings.

[vtmz 17]

Are you sure your friend is telling you the truth? I have an I5 at 3.8 Ghz (overclocked) and a 6870 with 8 gb of ram and I still only get about 28-35 fps on medium settings.

He sent me a picture of his settings on high and his FRAPS FPS overlay showing 70 something FPS before.

[colekern 1364]

AMD processor are terrible when paired with Arma 2.

[Prototype771 4]

Hate to "bump", but this is what AMD vs Intel comes down to: Gaming vs Rendering (and misc).

Most Intel users "Hate" on the AMDs due to the fact that they [usually] do not perform as well in fields that Intel excels in, and likewise AMD beating Intel. For a gamer's standpoint, Intel is the preferred chip due to the fact games usually run 2 -4 cores. AMD chipsets generally carry threadcounts that allow for the cPU to fake a hex core and etc. Even the i3 3220 has 2 fake cores (threads). I am an Intel user myself, but I would never rule out an AMD. Here's a comparison of each chip for each field based on what I know about each chipset:

AMD: Gaming

-Used in budget builds

-Usually slower than similar intel chips (even when boasting higher GHz speeds)

-Not optimized

Intel: Gaming

-More expensive

-lower clock speeds than AMD (regarding similar chipsets)

-Optimized

AMD builds however aren't always worst. If a builder know exactly what to do, the proper AMD build is relatively fast, and in some cases, faster than the Intel builds. Now, we move on:

AMD: Rendering

-Due to having more cores and usually much more threads than Intel, heavy rendering programs LOVE the AMDs, and these things EXCEL

-Cheap option for rendering

-Optimized

Intel: Rendering

-Higher Price tag

-Lower clock speeds

-Not optimized for JUST dual/quad/hex cores

AMD renders better than Intel in this category Again, there are instances where Intel may outperform, but AMD usually boasts better performance.

For gaming, the Intel i3 3220 actually is a really nice chip for the price, and performs exceptionally well for gaming. i5s are the preferred chip, but for a budget build, the i3 will get the job done. It's in multiplayer that we begin to see the gap between the i3 and i5.

FOR OVERCLOCKERS:

AMDs are nice overclocking machines. You can match the Intel if your machine is well oiled at high clock speeds (i.e over 4.5 ghz). AMDs are neat chips, and the user can learn more about computers as it is much of a hands on build than what Intels chips can be, due to the fact many are locked, allowing for little to none for OCing. Whilst 5.2 may sound unrealistic, it is entirely possible. I know people who have nice machines that boast AMDs running at colossal clock speeds, but keep in mind, cooling is a must. One of the users on here posted a screenshot of "5.2 GHz" I believe this is not a correct calculation, and for stock air cooling, 4.4 is a reasonable speed. Keep in mind 5.2 isnt impossible, but it requires more than stock cooling. Now, whether photoshopped or not, the image may be showing a confliction between bios and Windows. On my Intel rig, Windows overrides my bios and puts it to lower clock speeds. His CPUz may be showing what the bios is showing, but also showing what the computer is actually running (ie volts and stuff)

*Also note, I may have mixed up some info, so take this post with caution, and do the research yourself, But in the end, this is the outcome Intel>AMD in gaming, AMD>Intel Rendering.

[aussiebobby 82]

AMD processor are terrible when paired with Arma 2.

I know this is an old thread,but

Some fanboyism in this thread or what.I wonder how many could tell what cpu was in a pc just by playing Arma2/Dayz game.

Odds are some would "guess" correctly .

[charley-taylor@hotmail.co.uk 39]

Should have gone for an i5 or i7 but will be fine

[colekern 1364]

I know this is an old thread,but

Some fanboyism in this thread or what.I wonder how many could tell what cpu was in a pc just by playing Arma2/Dayz game.

Odds are some would "guess" correctly .

You misunderstood. There's no fanboyism here. A while back, I saw an article showing the differences in performance between AMD processors and Intel processors in Arma 2. With the AMD processors installed, Arma 2 didn't perform nearly as well as with the intel processors installed. I can't remember the link to the article, as I saw it about a month before this thread was made.

I'm not an Intel fanboy at all. I definitely prefer Intel over AMD, as the i5's and i7's have much better architecture, but I never rule AMD out of builds whenever I help someone make a new computer; in fact, most of the time I recommend AMD parts for budget builds.

Edit: I found the article: http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/11/03/amd_fx8150_multigpu_gameplay_performance_review/2#.UVT1wBw3tRU

Intel did quite a bit better in this test.

Edited March 29, 2013 by colekern