hartsickdiscipl's forum posts

Avatar image for hartsickdiscipl
hartsickdiscipl

14787

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

45

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 0

#1 hartsickdiscipl
Member since 2003 • 14787 Posts

[QUOTE="horgen123"][QUOTE="NEWMAHAY"] That would be my guess. I see the standard edition between 600-650 dollars. NEWMAHAY
Still too much if you ask me.

The whole flagship being over 600 dollars started this year. It was always around the 500 dollar mark before.

 

That's not true at all.  The 8800GTX and 8800 Ultra were $600+ cards.  GTX 280 was $649 at launch.  Almost every high-end dual-gpu card has been over $600 at launch.  

Avatar image for hartsickdiscipl
hartsickdiscipl

14787

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

45

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 0

#2 hartsickdiscipl
Member since 2003 • 14787 Posts

They say the proof is in the pudding..

Sure, there could be a big deal between Nvidia and Origin making this happen.  However, what they are saying might just be the plain and simple truth.  After building and modifying gaming PCs for nearly 15 years, I came to the same conclusion.  

Avatar image for hartsickdiscipl
hartsickdiscipl

14787

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

45

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 0

#3 hartsickdiscipl
Member since 2003 • 14787 Posts

Your PC is more than capable of running BF4 at settings that will make it considerably prettier than the X360 version.  That's not even getting into the likely gameplay advantages.

Avatar image for hartsickdiscipl
hartsickdiscipl

14787

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

45

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 0

#4 hartsickdiscipl
Member since 2003 • 14787 Posts

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="egger7577"]

BF4 recommended VRAM is 3GB.

egger7577

 

Take those requirements with a lump of salt.  They recommend a 7870, and then recommend 3GB of VRAM.  Show me a 3GB 7870.  

That is true that they don't exist. You can even find a 3gb GTX 660 so I'm not sure why they mentioned a 7870.

 

Because system requirements are always to be taken with a lump of salt.  

Avatar image for hartsickdiscipl
hartsickdiscipl

14787

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

45

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 0

#5 hartsickdiscipl
Member since 2003 • 14787 Posts

BF4 recommended VRAM is 3GB.

egger7577

 

Take those requirements with a lump of salt.  They recommend a 7870, and then recommend 3GB of VRAM.  Show me a 3GB 7870.  

Avatar image for hartsickdiscipl
hartsickdiscipl

14787

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

45

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 0

#6 hartsickdiscipl
Member since 2003 • 14787 Posts

clock for clock the 7950 is faster than a 760, and most of the time the 7950 overclocks better. For skyrim especially the 7950 will be very useful with the bigger mem bandwidth and 3gb vram, alot of users here report really good results with the 7950/7970 and skyrim. Not to mention the 7950 is priced cheaper than a 760 atm makes it a better deal.

Physx isn't a big deal, none of the console manufacturers cared about it when they picked AMD graphics over nvidia, plus it can be run on the CPU with great results.

blaznwiipspman1

 

Anybody with half a brain knows better than to compare GPUs on a "clock for clock" basis.  

Avatar image for hartsickdiscipl
hartsickdiscipl

14787

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

45

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 0

#7 hartsickdiscipl
Member since 2003 • 14787 Posts

I remember reading somewhere that Battlefield 4 has a recommended requirement of 3GB of video memory, and if the cost isn't too high, you might as well go with the 4GB model.Stinger78

 

I would take those BF4 system requirements with a big lump of salt.  They recommended a 7870, and then recommended 3GB of VRAM.  Obviously there is an issue with that.  

Avatar image for hartsickdiscipl
hartsickdiscipl

14787

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

45

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 0

#8 hartsickdiscipl
Member since 2003 • 14787 Posts

[QUOTE="Krigen89"] I just wish they would implement an option for controller users not to face Mouse/KB players online.C_Rule
No. PC community doesn't need to be segregated in such a way. If people want to hinder their gameplay by using a gamepad, in a game more suited to M/KB, that's their own dumb fault.

 

Agreed.

Avatar image for hartsickdiscipl
hartsickdiscipl

14787

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

45

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 0

#9 hartsickdiscipl
Member since 2003 • 14787 Posts

[QUOTE="blaznwiipspman1"]

[QUOTE="jhonMalcovich"]

It´s a very simple choice. If you go with Nividia GPU, then you are better off with an Intel processor. If you go with ATI GPU, then you are better off with an AMD. ;)

jhonMalcovich

 

i go with whatever offers most performance per buck for my needs.  That means intel processor and AMD graphics card....dunno where you pulled that Intel/nvidia bs out of.

Yeh. I forgot that ATI GPU works well with an Intel CPU, too. Anyway, what I am talking about is that there is an optimization that syncronizes CPU with GPU for a better communication between both and hence, a better performance. 

As AMD and ATI is the same company, so it´s logical to expect that AMD CPU worked woderful with an ATI GPU. Intel could have more power, but AMD-ATI combo could have a better optimization.

The worst combo I think would be AMD CPU and Nivida GPU.

I myself was confronted with the TC´s dilema, and in the end I choosed Intel, because I already had an Nvidia GPU, and because of the following reasons:

1.  AMD FX8350 is an 32 nm old tech vs 22nm of Intel. As a result AMD FX8350 consumes almost twice as much of power. So if one goes with AMD FX8350, he would probably need to invest into more powerful power supply and refrigeration.

2. Haswell has better, more advanced set of instructions, and it´s still the most powerful line-up of CPUs on the market.

3. Crysis 3 performs better on I5 4670k by a margin of some 10fps. AMD FX8350 had beaten older versions of I5/7s, but not new Haswell line-up.

4. Next gen consoles won´t use all 8 cores in gaming. As it was explained before, one core will go for OS, another one for background services, leaving only 6 cores for gaming. And I am not even sure if multiplats will use those 6 cores, and not only 4, to keep better compatibility with a huge quad-core user base. As we know, game developers optimize their game for the lowest common denominator.

Even if devs use all 6 cores, don´t forget that those are pretty weak, mobile tech cores.

Quadcore of Intel >>>>>>>>>>>  console  CPU´s 6 cores.

So the conclusion is this:

You are better off waiting for a next gen multi-core 22nm AMD cpu, which maybe will take a year or so to arrive, or go with i5 4670K.

AMD FX8350 is not beating Intel quadcores now, it won´t beat them a year later either.

It´s either waiting 6-12 months for a next AMD cpu or getting an i5 4670K right now. 

 

 

There is no magic or optimization that makes an AMD GPU work better with an AMD CPU.  They work just as well with Intel CPUs.  

Avatar image for hartsickdiscipl
hartsickdiscipl

14787

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

45

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 0

#10 hartsickdiscipl
Member since 2003 • 14787 Posts

It´s a very simple choice. If you go with Nividia GPU, then you are better off with an Intel processor. If you go with ATI GPU, then you are better off with an AMD. ;)

jhonMalcovich

 

No.