>buying anything above i3
>>51408252
>intel
>>51408267
>>51408252
>Caring about what other people buy
Amd
>buying window managers
>>51408294
That's not how you not use meme arrows, you dip.
>>51408329
Underrated post
seriously what is the difference between i3 and i5. im picking parts for a build right now and im wondering if i can go with i3 if i wanna play games at ~medium settings
>>51408399
i3 can use ECC RAM
>>51408252
But anon i3 is GPL
>I can't afford it so others shouldn't either
~/bst/ fag
>2015
>2 cores
>>51408424
Free as in Freedom does not necessarily imply free as in beer.
>2015
>x86
>>51408518
example of a any case of where something that was free as in freedom, was not free as in beer
>>51408294
>>>/Krautchan/
>>51408573
RHEL, obviously.
>Wanna buy cheap but decent computer that can run fallout 4 at a playable framerate and work with hackintosh
>erryone's all "buy i5, buy i5"
>not enough cash dolla
i3? i3?
>>51408581
>RHEL
you are paying for support not for the code
no one sues you for running RHEL
>PC fags
If you can't afford an i5 you should probably reassess your priorities in life.
>>51408600
get a 8350 instead
i3 are memes
>>51408573
Haven and hearth. Client is foss, but playing requires $$$ nowadays.
>>51408600
alternative is wait and save up and see what zen brings in, but thats too far away
another alternative is going on without GPU for now, scale down gaming to integratd and save up just for GPU
but yeah, i3 is the remaining choice
>>51408632
But then I'll have problems with hackintosh
>>51408662
I have a 6850HD. While that's terribly shitty I'm sure it'd be better than integrated GPU, right? Tho bottlenecking hard I'd assume.
>referencing CPUs by class naming convention
congrats OP, you're just as retarded as the average consumer anyway
>>51408662
>>51408627
if the purchase cost of your computer components is how you validate your life choices, maybe you should be the one to stop and think.
>>51408792
>720p
>>51408662
>i3 better than the 8370
Fucking AMD.
>2015
>2 cores
>>51408897
>he doesn't know how cpu testing works.
Lets test cpus at 4k and see what happens.
>humans
>buying amd cpus
Not even fanboys are this retarded, right?
>>51408998
But why do Fallout 4 1080p Benchmarks like >>51408662 or pic related show the i3-4130 performing better than the 8350? I mean don't we want to reflect realistic performance?
>>51408600
Playing fallout 4 on my htpc. fm1 A8 with r7-260x... peeps thinking you need it on max settings. Get a life ya nerds. Ill put the 400$ i save not buying the newest shit on a new quartz countertop and make 10,000 off my homes resale while you fat mouthbreathers talk about slow cpus and spending 100's of hours on a game.
>>51409141
Little fix:
*i3-4360
i3-4130 was in the >>51408662 example
>>51408329
kek
>>51408252
>not funding the future
fucking luddite
>>51408252
I wish arma wasn't such an unoptimized piece of shit and didn't choke on an i3
>>51409141
>I mean don't we want to reflect realistic performance?
You mean like pairing a 980ti with an i3?
The ppint of low resolution benchmarks with monster gpus is to eliminate the gpu from the equation as much as possible. 1080p is still primarily gpu bound.
Otherwise can just as equally say 4k benchmarks are realistic performance scenarios because people do, infact, play at 4k.
>>51408399
i have an i3-4160 and can play fallout 4 on medium 35-50 fps
>inb4 why the shitty fallout game
>>51409226
ARMA chokes on everything as it is hilariously single threaded. An i3 of the same generation as an i7 (and at the same clocks) will only be a fraction slower due to the difference in cache.
>not falling for the xeon meme
>>51409232
>The ppint of low resolution benchmarks with monster gpus is to eliminate the gpu from the equation as much as possible.
Here's the kicker: The GPU is relevant for actually playing the games. I mean it's the same GPU; why should the FX-8350 which is a competitor to i5s/i7s fail to utilize the GPU properly while an i3 is able to do that? We're lacking comparisons with other GPUs here which would be more realistic in an i3 build.
I mean we can enjoy synthetic benchmarks on 720p where we can see AMD being superior to many Intel CPU, but otherwise if the i3 performs better on 1080p (which most people aim playing at I guess since otherwise I could buy a PS4, save money and enjoy something better than 720p), then I guess this stays relevant.
>Otherwise can just as equally say 4k benchmarks are realistic performance scenarios because people do, infact, play at 4k.
Some do, and for them it's relevant. Games scale differently in CPU/GPU usage depending on resolution, that's why you can't call out a winner everytime, like the 720p/1080p thing in this case.
>>51408573
ownCloud mobile client, you can download it for free on f-droid but they still have more than 100,000 users on the play store
>buying anything intel
>>51409404
>I mean we can enjoy synthetic benchmarks on 720p where we can see AMD being superior to many Intel CPU, but otherwise if the i3 performs better on 1080p (which most people aim playing at I guess since otherwise I could buy a PS4, save money and enjoy something better than 720p), then I guess this stays relevant.
Are you retarded? Cpu usage doesn't scale with resolution. A cpu is as fast at 640x480 as it is at 4k.
>>51409606
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/352014-33-usage-higher-resolutions
>Lowering the resolution of a computer game or software program increases the effect on a CPU. As the resolution decreases, less strain is placed on the graphics card because there are fewer pixels to render, but the strain is then transferred to the CPU. At a lower resolution, the frames per second are limited to the CPU's speed.
Tested it with GTA 5 and my i5-4670k. 1914p windowed -> ~15% CPU usage 720p windowed -> ~22% CPU usage
You try remove the GPU as a factor by setting the game to 720p. This results in higher CPU usage, which the AMD can better handle with its 8 cores.
But is this relevant in real world usage? I mean we can assume that one is going to aim for 1080p, and if the i3 actually performs there better than the FX-8350 (which price lies almost in i5 areas) in FO4 and assumingly also in other games, isn't the i3 a better choice?
>>51409291
in multiplayer from my experience it's actually both
needs high clockspeed to produce playable fps
needs strong 3rd and 4th cores or it will have a hiccup every now and then while loading new textures or sounds
>>51408475
I wanna put my dick in it
>>51409758
>But is this relevant in real world usage? I mean we can assume that one is going to aim for 1080p, and if the i3 actually performs there better than the FX-8350 (which price lies almost in i5 areas) in FO4 and assumingly also in other games, isn't the i3 a better choice?
Boy do I have charts for you!
>>51409815
What's that supposed to tell me?
>>51408475
Just a question
How are more cores better? What's in 16, 32 cores that can't be had in just 2?
>>51409815
RISC IS THE FUTURE!
>>51409846
Well the claim is made that the i3 outperforms the 8350 in "real world scenarios" which apparently means primarily 1080p so there is a chart showing the fx chip being faster.
How does an i3-4130 fare in comparison with a Phenom II x4 955 BE?
>>51409888
>>51409815
only if there was a site that actually benchmarks entry level cpus with entry level gpus regularly
I have yet to find one
yo guys
is the i5-4670 still a good enough cpu or should i replace it soon?
I was thinking about building a budget solid i3 rig.
Would it be retarded to get an 3 6320 and a Z170 mob with OC DDR4 like 3200 or so?
Or would it be better to just get an i5 or some shit. Heard the fast RAM makes a noticeable difference for the i3.
Also would these be good paired with a gtx 960/970?
I've been out of the loop since Athlons were king kek.
>>51409920
Yeah thats a real bitch honestly - far too much focus on the top end of hardware.
Bonus chart: the anniversary pentium getting massacred by GTA V.
>>51409939
I'd grab the i5 now and save money by grabbing an AMD card. Unless your going 980ti territory thnn AMD is the way to go GPU wise.
>>51409888
I wrote >assumingly
I was just trying to point out that 720p performance doesn't necessarily need to reflect the 1080p performance. It may (or does) show actual CPU power, but if I'm never going to play on 720p then why should I care about these stats? Future CPU bottlenecks may be a thing to consider, but otherwise if we a certain CPU performs constantly better at 1080p, but falls behind on 720p, wouldn't this certain CPU still be better for me?
The i3 is only a dual core, and personally I would consider an i5 model in comparison to the FX-8350 since the price difference isn't that high there and we also have to consider an i3 is cheaper than a FX-8350. If the choice is only between an i3 and a FX-8350, then yes, the FX-8350 may be a better option. I'm not going to deny it. It's just funny that the FX-8350 (8 cores/4 modules) competes with an i3 (2 cores/4 threads).
>>51410070
> It's just funny that the FX-8350 (8 cores/4 modules) competes with an i3 (2 cores/4 threads).
Only in vidya - in some more professional orientated workloads it is considerably faster
a better cpu will raise your minimum fps in every game.
also consider the lifetime of your pc build in terms of upgrading costs. a potent cpu must not be replaced (see sandy bridge) so often, because most of the time the gpu becomes the bottleneck in games. therefore you can upgrade your graphics card more often and keep the cpu instead of upgrading your cpu when it throttels your graphics card.
>>51410106
Yeah, because "professional orientated workloads" often profits from multi threading, while vidya often does not or is dependent on the GPU performance.
Seems relevant to the thread.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrPA04OgFVk
>>51410148
Dammit. I wanted to go intel, but the 8350 seems like a logical step forward if I want to be able to run games in a few years from now (even at low settings because I give 0 shits about them graphics)
>>51408475
This
>>51408475
So damn cute
>>51410253
You should see techspot's latest article on cpus - you can practically SEE the shekels flowing in as it is so absurd. An i3 beating an 8 core fx chip clocked to 4.6ghz at video encoding (y'know, the long established strength of those fx chips)? That is some bullshit.
http://www.techspot.com/review/1087-best-value-desktop-cpu/
Plus the author is being retarded and has decided an 8370 is a 4 core chip because reasons (the lawsuit isn't going to go anywhere).
>>51409850
Most desktop processors have 4 cores max still. 4 cores 8 threads at best.
>>51410337
I unfortunately don't really trust tech review sites often so it's harder for me to find out whether I'm getting a good deal. I ask my fellas at /g/ because even though there's some mad shilling in here it's still nowhere as likely to completely deceive me.
>>51409141
FO4 is multicore aware but it appears that its scheduler leans heavily on one or two threads. That's why IPC matters a lot, and that's something that AMD currently sucks at.
>>51410337
That's Intel's QuickSync at work.
>>51410448
Even with that the fx is seeing tiny gains from such a massive overclock when video encoding historically responds well to whatever resources you throw at it, like this chart >>51410106 shows.
That makes sense. I should throw out my i7s and Xeons so I can render my 3 million vertice scenes on an i3.
>>51408399
i5 and 7 have MORE CORES
you can never have enough CORES
>>51408475
see men
dee men
>>51409850
4 cores @3.5 GhZ means you actually have 14 Ghz.
>2015
>1 gb vram
>>51410728
No.
>>51408252
Gentoo
>>51410728
Woah my 40ghz 9590 sure is fast.
>ever needing to upgrade your phenom II build from 2011 oc'd to 3.8Ghz
>>51408573
Slavery
>>51408818
kek, you just told him real good bud
>>51410776
it was a meme you dip
>>51411335
No.
>>51410887
/thread
>>51410887
This at 20fps is what I achieve with that.
So yes I need a goddamn fucking upgrade.
>>51408252
>fell for quad core i5 meme
>every program I use barely takes advantage of two cores
>>51410403
>IPC matters a lot
Lol are you retarded? Of course it does
