This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

FX-6300 and R7 260x

#11OMGWYATTPosted 7/22/2014 6:06:10 AM(edited)
Pengu1n posted...
reincarnator07 posted...
Unless you're looking at APUs, there's pretty much no reason to go with AMD processors in a gaming build.


I have been using AMD processors for years now starting with an Athlon 64 and working up to my current 6 core 6300 and have had no issues running games whatsoever. I really don't know where people are getting their info from that AMD cpu's are rubbish for gaming or that their GPU's have constant driver issues because the people who own them always tend to disagree.

it's almost as if intel fanboys need constant reassurance that they made the right choice in spending loads on a CPU and they do so by spreading lies about AMD and post and re-post benchmark scores time and time again (even though due to intel bias from websites, youtubers and magazines they tend to be over exaggerated or faked in Intel's favour) and that AMD CPU's don't run games or that they explode in a ball of fire just from running minesweeper.

It's like those people who actually spent loads on a monster HDMI cable they need reassurance that it was money well spent and do so by quoting the 'features' of that $100 cable such as 'oxygen free copper shielded cabling'.


Intel's CPU's outperform AMD's at basically every level, they have since Sandy Bridge. Monster Cables are high priced garbage that don't do anything more than a basic cable, and are in no way comparable to Intel cpu's which you actually get what you pay for. AMD's video cards are perfectly fine, the r9 series offer pretty good value. CPU's are a competely different story, they just aren't up to par with the i5/i7's of today and even sandy/ivy bridge series.

It seems you're an AMD fanboy doing the exact thing you're blaming everyone else of doing.

And no, I'm not an intel fanboy.
---
3DS FC: 1263-6701-6748
XBL/PSN: Riotsquad18
#12iiFroZenHeAveNzPosted 7/22/2014 6:18:13 AM
OMGWYATT posted...
Pengu1n posted...
reincarnator07 posted...
Unless you're looking at APUs, there's pretty much no reason to go with AMD processors in a gaming build.


I have been using AMD processors for years now starting with an Athlon 64 and working up to my current 6 core 6300 and have had no issues running games whatsoever. I really don't know where people are getting their info from that AMD cpu's are rubbish for gaming or that their GPU's have constant driver issues because the people who own them always tend to disagree.

it's almost as if intel fanboys need constant reassurance that they made the right choice in spending loads on a CPU and they do so by spreading lies about AMD and post and re-post benchmark scores time and time again (even though due to intel bias from websites, youtubers and magazines they tend to be over exaggerated or faked in Intel's favour) and that AMD CPU's don't run games or that they explode in a ball of fire just from running minesweeper.

It's like those people who actually spent loads on a monster HDMI cable they need reassurance that it was money well spent and do so by quoting the 'features' of that $100 cable such as 'oxygen free copper shielded cabling'.


Intel's CPU's outperform AMD's at basically every level, they have since Sandy Bridge. Monster Cables are high priced garbage that don't do anything more than a basic cable, and are in no way comparable to Intel cpu's which you actually get what you pay for. AMD's video cards are perfectly fine, the r9 series offer pretty good value. CPU's are a competely different story, they just aren't up to par with the i5/i7's of today and even sandy/ivy bridge series.

It seems you're an AMD fanboy doing the exact thing you're blaming everyone else of doing.

And no, I'm not an intel fanboy.


You must be poorly educated. In no shape or form does he specify or reveal that he is an AMD fanboy. He simply said that he has used AMD for many years and have yet to experience any problems, only gratification. He did not bash on your Intel fanboy a** and was open to TC using Intel if he wanted. Here's the thing fanboy trash.. In the real world an FX-8350 runs just as well as most i5's and runs better than some i5's in the $250-300 price range. Oh guess what? I got my 8350 for $150. Oh my gosh that's $100 less. Before you claim yourself as a non-Intel fanboy, how about you show it instead of telling it.. Using your lame biased non-gaming benchmarks does not help. In real life situations where the CPU's are actually used to do something we do everyday, there's not much of a difference. I admit that Intel has more quality stuff but I'm not paying $100 extra for 2-5 more frames. That's just horrible money management. If you have the money, go for it. Buy me a 4790k as well. But if your fanboy self can't then I can live with my AMD processor.

Don't believe me? How about I give you real time situations of CPU usage?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvLRZxRL8N8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4et7kDGSRfc
---
AMD FX-8350 4.0Ghz | Asus M5A97 LE R2.0 | 8GB G.Skill Ares DDR3-1600 | EVGA 770 2GB SC ACX | 1TB WD Blue Caviar | CM HAF 912 |
#13OMGWYATTPosted 7/22/2014 6:29:29 AM
iiFroZenHeAveNz posted...
OMGWYATT posted...
Pengu1n posted...
reincarnator07 posted...
Unless you're looking at APUs, there's pretty much no reason to go with AMD processors in a gaming build.


I have been using AMD processors for years now starting with an Athlon 64 and working up to my current 6 core 6300 and have had no issues running games whatsoever. I really don't know where people are getting their info from that AMD cpu's are rubbish for gaming or that their GPU's have constant driver issues because the people who own them always tend to disagree.

it's almost as if intel fanboys need constant reassurance that they made the right choice in spending loads on a CPU and they do so by spreading lies about AMD and post and re-post benchmark scores time and time again (even though due to intel bias from websites, youtubers and magazines they tend to be over exaggerated or faked in Intel's favour) and that AMD CPU's don't run games or that they explode in a ball of fire just from running minesweeper.

It's like those people who actually spent loads on a monster HDMI cable they need reassurance that it was money well spent and do so by quoting the 'features' of that $100 cable such as 'oxygen free copper shielded cabling'.


Intel's CPU's outperform AMD's at basically every level, they have since Sandy Bridge. Monster Cables are high priced garbage that don't do anything more than a basic cable, and are in no way comparable to Intel cpu's which you actually get what you pay for. AMD's video cards are perfectly fine, the r9 series offer pretty good value. CPU's are a competely different story, they just aren't up to par with the i5/i7's of today and even sandy/ivy bridge series.

It seems you're an AMD fanboy doing the exact thing you're blaming everyone else of doing.

And no, I'm not an intel fanboy.


You must be poorly educated. In no shape or form does he specify or reveal that he is an AMD fanboy. He simply said that he has used AMD for many years and have yet to experience any problems, only gratification. He did not bash on your Intel fanboy a** and was open to TC using Intel if he wanted. Here's the thing fanboy trash.. In the real world an FX-8350 runs just as well as most i5's and runs better than some i5's in the $250-300 price range. Oh guess what? I got my 8350 for $150. Oh my gosh that's $100 less. Before you claim yourself as a non-Intel fanboy, how about you show it instead of telling it.. Using your lame biased non-gaming benchmarks does not help. In real life situations where the CPU's are actually used to do something we do everyday, there's not much of a difference. I admit that Intel has more quality stuff but I'm not paying $100 extra for 2-5 more frames. That's just horrible money management. If you have the money, go for it. Buy me a 4790k as well. But if your fanboy self can't then I can live with my AMD processor.

Don't believe me? How about I give you real time situations of CPU usage?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvLRZxRL8N8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4et7kDGSRfc


what the actual hell are you talking about? Rambling about things I didn't even say, making baseless accusations and throwing empty insults and attempting to act like I'm the one who's being defensive. You are just precious. The fact that you are so angry simply because I disagree with you shows exactly who the "fanboy" is. I didn't mention or provide benchmarks because there isn't a reason to, this isn't a contest, I don't have to prove anything, nor did I claim he "bashed" anyone. You really need to settle down.
---
3DS FC: 1263-6701-6748
XBL/PSN: Riotsquad18
#14ClouddxPosted 7/22/2014 6:42:59 AM(edited)
iiFroZenHeAveNz posted...
OMGWYATT posted...
Pengu1n posted...
reincarnator07 posted...
Unless you're looking at APUs, there's pretty much no reason to go with AMD processors in a gaming build.


I have been using AMD processors for years now starting with an Athlon 64 and working up to my current 6 core 6300 and have had no issues running games whatsoever. I really don't know where people are getting their info from that AMD cpu's are rubbish for gaming or that their GPU's have constant driver issues because the people who own them always tend to disagree.

it's almost as if intel fanboys need constant reassurance that they made the right choice in spending loads on a CPU and they do so by spreading lies about AMD and post and re-post benchmark scores time and time again (even though due to intel bias from websites, youtubers and magazines they tend to be over exaggerated or faked in Intel's favour) and that AMD CPU's don't run games or that they explode in a ball of fire just from running minesweeper.

It's like those people who actually spent loads on a monster HDMI cable they need reassurance that it was money well spent and do so by quoting the 'features' of that $100 cable such as 'oxygen free copper shielded cabling'.


Intel's CPU's outperform AMD's at basically every level, they have since Sandy Bridge. Monster Cables are high priced garbage that don't do anything more than a basic cable, and are in no way comparable to Intel cpu's which you actually get what you pay for. AMD's video cards are perfectly fine, the r9 series offer pretty good value. CPU's are a competely different story, they just aren't up to par with the i5/i7's of today and even sandy/ivy bridge series.

It seems you're an AMD fanboy doing the exact thing you're blaming everyone else of doing.

And no, I'm not an intel fanboy.


You must be poorly educated. In no shape or form does he specify or reveal that he is an AMD fanboy. He simply said that he has used AMD for many years and have yet to experience any problems, only gratification. He did not bash on your Intel fanboy a** and was open to TC using Intel if he wanted. Here's the thing fanboy trash.. In the real world an FX-8350 runs just as well as most i5's and runs better than some i5's in the $250-300 price range. Oh guess what? I got my 8350 for $150. Oh my gosh that's $100 less. Before you claim yourself as a non-Intel fanboy, how about you show it instead of telling it.. Using your lame biased non-gaming benchmarks does not help. In real life situations where the CPU's are actually used to do something we do everyday, there's not much of a difference. I admit that Intel has more quality stuff but I'm not paying $100 extra for 2-5 more frames. That's just horrible money management. If you have the money, go for it. Buy me a 4790k as well. But if your fanboy self can't then I can live with my AMD processor.

Don't believe me? How about I give you real time situations of CPU usage?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvLRZxRL8N8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4et7kDGSRfc


How bout you post some games that are actually CPU bound... Like Guild Wars 2

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/guild-wars-2-performance-benchmark,3268-7.html

Even the 8350 falls far behind any Intel CPU in games that need a good CPU to run well.

There's a 20fps difference b/t the AMD 8350 and the i5-2XXXk, there's also a 10 FPS difference b/t the i3's and the 8350. This just shows you how much AMD CPUs suck.

This is all on the older intel CPUs as well. The newer ones perform even better which would put AMD at more of a disadvantage.
---
i7-920 @ 3.6 // 770 GTX // 12 GB G.Skill Sniper Ram // PS3 // 360
FiiO e9+17 // AD700 + M50 // Deck Legend + 82 // DAS Ultimate S
#15iiFroZenHeAveNzPosted 7/22/2014 6:41:57 AM
Haha what? You called the guy out and said he was an AMD fanboy. You really are uneducated. Please save your money and at least get some community college in. You really do need some.
In fact off of what you read, you accused my argument with anger. It's called debate, boy. Reread your post and see if you DIDN'T bash someone. However, I'm done coddling little single minded fools like you. Rebuttle if you wish but I don't have time for it.

TC: Whatever you do. Do not listen to these Intel fanboys. If you have the money go for an Intel CPU if you wish. I would suggest getting the 4770k but if you are on a budget, there's nothing wrong with going AMD.
---
AMD FX-8350 4.0Ghz | Asus M5A97 LE R2.0 | 8GB G.Skill Ares DDR3-1600 | EVGA 770 2GB SC ACX | 1TB WD Blue Caviar | CM HAF 912 |
#16ClouddxPosted 7/22/2014 6:46:46 AM(edited)
iiFroZenHeAveNz posted...
Haha what? You called the guy out and said he was an AMD fanboy. You really are uneducated. Please save your money and at least get some community college in. You really do need some.
In fact off of what you read, you accused my argument with anger. It's called debate, boy. Reread your post and see if you DIDN'T bash someone. However, I'm done coddling little single minded fools like you. Rebuttle if you wish but I don't have time for it.

TC: Whatever you do. Do not listen to these Intel fanboys. If you have the money go for an Intel CPU if you wish. I would suggest getting the 4770k but if you are on a budget, there's nothing wrong with going AMD.


Nothing wrong with AMD CPUs? Look at the benchmark I posted; it's so bad that even i3s outperform it in CPU intense games.

While you're saying there's nothing more than a 2-5fps difference, and totally misinforming/misleading people. It's okay that you bought the CPU without doing any research and you're happy, but don't let others make the same mistake.

Even my 5 year old intel CPU outperforms the newest AMD CPUs. Pretty sad IMO.
---
i7-920 @ 3.6 // 770 GTX // 12 GB G.Skill Sniper Ram // PS3 // 360
FiiO e9+17 // AD700 + M50 // Deck Legend + 82 // DAS Ultimate S
#17iiFroZenHeAveNzPosted 7/22/2014 6:51:22 AM(edited)
Clouddx posted...
iiFroZenHeAveNz posted...
Haha what? You called the guy out and said he was an AMD fanboy. You really are uneducated. Please save your money and at least get some community college in. You really do need some.
In fact off of what you read, you accused my argument with anger. It's called debate, boy. Reread your post and see if you DIDN'T bash someone. However, I'm done coddling little single minded fools like you. Rebuttle if you wish but I don't have time for it.

TC: Whatever you do. Do not listen to these Intel fanboys. If you have the money go for an Intel CPU if you wish. I would suggest getting the 4770k but if you are on a budget, there's nothing wrong with going AMD.


Nothing wrong with AMD CPUs? Look at the benchmark I posted; it's so bad that even i3s outperform it in CPU intense games.

While you're saying there's nothing more than a 2-5fps difference, and totally misinforming/misleading people. It's okay that you bought the CPU without doing any research and you're happy, but don't let others make the same mistake.


1. Tom's Hardware isn't exactly the most reliable source.
2. The 8350 isn't a AMD Bulldozer CPU.
3. It's running on the newer Piledriver architecture.
4. CPU's run different at different clock rates, of course running an older AMD CPU at 3 Ghz is going to be worse.
5. 8350 =/= Bulldozer
6. How about YOU do more RESEARCH.

Sorry. Your argument was flawed from the very beginning of your post. Go troll the PS4 boards.
---
AMD FX-8350 4.0Ghz | Asus M5A97 LE R2.0 | 8GB G.Skill Ares DDR3-1600 | EVGA 770 2GB SC ACX | 1TB WD Blue Caviar | CM HAF 912 |
#18ClouddxPosted 7/22/2014 6:59:00 AM(edited)
iiFroZenHeAveNz posted...
Clouddx posted...
iiFroZenHeAveNz posted...
Haha what? You called the guy out and said he was an AMD fanboy. You really are uneducated. Please save your money and at least get some community college in. You really do need some.
In fact off of what you read, you accused my argument with anger. It's called debate, boy. Reread your post and see if you DIDN'T bash someone. However, I'm done coddling little single minded fools like you. Rebuttle if you wish but I don't have time for it.

TC: Whatever you do. Do not listen to these Intel fanboys. If you have the money go for an Intel CPU if you wish. I would suggest getting the 4770k but if you are on a budget, there's nothing wrong with going AMD.


Nothing wrong with AMD CPUs? Look at the benchmark I posted; it's so bad that even i3s outperform it in CPU intense games.

While you're saying there's nothing more than a 2-5fps difference, and totally misinforming/misleading people. It's okay that you bought the CPU without doing any research and you're happy, but don't let others make the same mistake.


1. Tom's Hardware isn't exactly the most reliable source.
2. The 8350 isn't a AMD Bulldozer CPU.
3. It's running on the newer Piledriver architecture.
4. 8350 =/= Bulldozer

Sorry. Your argument was flawed from the very beginning of your post. Go troll the PS4 boards.


I would pull up about a dozen other benchmarks, but I guess they'd all be wrong too. Dude you need to stop being so bias.

You're wrong about AMDs CPU performance. It's okay. At this point you're the one that's trolling.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7189/choosing-a-gaming-cpu-september-2013/8

Here again showing AMDs CPU performance lacking in games, but I guess these aren't reliable either right?

It even shows my 920 beating out any AMD CPU. lolz

SO WHAT!? It's the newer architecture, which means it should be faster. Obviously this isn't the case. You only had 2 points to make because 2,3,4 are the same thing said over and over like a drone.
---
i7-920 @ 3.6 // 770 GTX // 12 GB G.Skill Sniper Ram // PS3 // 360
FiiO e9+17 // AD700 + M50 // Deck Legend + 82 // DAS Ultimate S
#19Haley Joel OsmentPosted 7/22/2014 6:55:04 AM
It's hilarious how this board generally hates AMD's excellent GPUs, yet is full of fanboys of their aggressively mediocre CPUs. It's like ****ing bizarro world or something.

I guess you can put it down to people blowing all their cash on a top of the line GPU and then only having enough left for a cheap AMD CPU/motherboard combo, yet still feeling the need to defend and justify their purchasing decisions no matter what.

---
I see dead people.
#20iiFroZenHeAveNzPosted 7/22/2014 7:01:05 AM
Me? Bias? No. If I could I would upgrade to the 4770k or the 4790k. THAT is the better bang for my buck. However I don't have that luxury.

Here's another source favoring your Intel i5-2XXX you listed before.
http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i5-2500K-vs-AMD-FX-8350

It listed the FX-8350 blowing away this CPU in every single category except single threat performance, which is credible because Intel CPU's do a better job on individual threads. But the end result is the FX-8350 barely pulling away. Bias at it's best. Yeah you keep posting unreliable benchmarks and you know what's that going to prove? Your troll a** being on this board. EXPOSED. You should make a TV show about. I could watch this all day. Peasant.

Oh and here's more!
http://www.amazon.com/AMD-FD8350FRHKBOX-FX-8350-FX-Series-Edition/dp/B009O7YUF6/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1406037588&sr=8-1&keywords=fx+8350

http://www.amazon.com/Intel-i5-2500K-Quad-Core-Processor-Cache/dp/B004EBUXHQ

AN AMD CPU THAT RUNS BETTER THAN AN i5 INTEL CPU AT $100 LESS? GASP. OMG LIKE OMG. Go home boy. Just go home.
---
AMD FX-8350 4.0Ghz | Asus M5A97 LE R2.0 | 8GB G.Skill Ares DDR3-1600 | EVGA 770 2GB SC ACX | 1TB WD Blue Caviar | CM HAF 912 |