Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: So about that new computer...

  1. #1

    Default So about that new computer...

    I posted about a month back bout my new computer. Just for a refresher the basic specs were an A55 chipset Gigabyte motherboard, AMD A8-3870K APU, and 8 GB DDR3 1600 MHz RAM(not origional spec, I've upgraded to this from 1333 for the sake of graphics performance). I've finally gone out to get a game: Dragon Age 2. While its not a release from this year, considering its "recomended" video card is a Radeon 5850, and mine is the equivelant of a 5550, well I figured it would be a good start to test the system. I ran the game at FULL graphics settings, and resolution with minimal lag. Turning down the anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering to half (offhand, I want to say 4x and 8x, in order), the game runs lag free ^_^

  2. #2

    Default

    Nice, that's actually pretty impressive considering the built-in graphics. I may have betrayed my long-standing AMD processor support by buying a spectacular Intel offering for my main computer, but I stand by the notion that for a cheap, energy efficient rig for gaming and multimedia playback, it's hard to beat a recent AMD powered system.

  3. #3

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Hobbes View Post
    Nice, that's actually pretty impressive considering the built-in graphics. I may have betrayed my long-standing AMD processor support by buying a spectacular Intel offering for my main computer, but I stand by the notion that for a cheap, energy efficient rig for gaming and multimedia playback, it's hard to beat a recent AMD powered system.
    Now that the BIOS firmware is catching up with the Bulldozer architecture, I think we'll see a lot of improvement out of the FX series chips. Intel had an advantage over them with the i7, and probably still does for now, but I'm hoping AMD can pass them again, because I believe AMD gives you more bang for the buck. I haven't built a system with an Intel processor since the socket 478 Pentium 4 days, and I don't plan on building an Intel rig anytime soon.

  4. #4

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Brickhouse View Post
    Now that the BIOS firmware is catching up with the Bulldozer architecture, I think we'll see a lot of improvement out of the FX series chips. Intel had an advantage over them with the i7, and probably still does for now, but I'm hoping AMD can pass them again, because I believe AMD gives you more bang for the buck. I haven't built a system with an Intel processor since the socket 478 Pentium 4 days, and I don't plan on building an Intel rig anytime soon.
    How do you honestly compare CPU's and their arch types when your dead set on using only one brand for the past like 10 years?

  5. #5

    Default

    Hasn't been a good CPU flamewar in a while.. so:

    AMD always seems best bang for the buck, especially in the low and mid range. Intel generally seems on top in the upper desktop range. One will occasionally have a champion in the others "domain" for a short time, but that always seems to be where things fall eventually. You can compare in the short crossover space where they both compete head to head I guess, but outside of that, imo it just comes down to what kinda box you are building. Low to mid range.. go AMD. Upper end deeper pockets.. go Intel.

  6. #6

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Fire2box View Post
    How do you honestly compare CPU's and their arch types when your dead set on using only one brand for the past like 10 years?
    Plenty of websites compare benchmarks all the time. Intel vs. AMD is the IT version of Coke vs. Pepsi, Ford vs. Chevy, etc. so any site that reviews any computer hardware chomps at the bit to run them head to head whenever one of them comes out with a new architecture.

    To clarify, I'm not "dead set" on AMD. If I could build a good Intel rig as cheap as I can build a good AMD rig it'd be a much harder decision for me, but my AMD builds have never let me down, so why spend more money?

  7. #7

    Default

    I have to say I'm skeptical. While I'd expect AMD integrated graphics to be better than Intel's (after all, they own a graphics card company), I still doubt they can run anything recent maxed out at 4xAA and 8x Ansitropic filtering at what I'd consider an acceptable fps. My desktop 5770 would struggle with that on a game that's maxed out. Maybe you're less senstive to lower framerates (I know some of my friends have no trouble playing games at 20fps), but personally I find games unpleasant when they're running at <=40fps.

  8. #8

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Brickhouse View Post
    Plenty of websites compare benchmarks all the time. Intel vs. AMD is the IT version of Coke vs. Pepsi, Ford vs. Chevy, etc. so any site that reviews any computer hardware chomps at the bit to run them head to head whenever one of them comes out with a new architecture.

    To clarify, I'm not "dead set" on AMD. If I could build a good Intel rig as cheap as I can build a good AMD rig it'd be a much harder decision for me, but my AMD builds have never let me down, so why spend more money?
    well the I5's are less then like 200 on Newegg and thats a fair price for a CPU thats been getting rather fantastic reviews. Its just that your one of the few people who seemingly is saying AMD's worth it if you have the option of going with Intel.



    Quote Originally Posted by Hex View Post
    I have to say I'm skeptical. While I'd expect AMD integrated graphics to be better than Intel's (after all, they own a graphics card company), I still doubt they can run anything recent maxed out at 4xAA and 8x Ansitropic filtering at what I'd consider an acceptable fps. My desktop 5770 would struggle with that on a game that's maxed out. Maybe you're less senstive to lower framerates (I know some of my friends have no trouble playing games at 20fps), but personally I find games unpleasant when they're running at <=40fps.
    Before my PC had it's hard drive fail and the GPU (8800GT) short out. I was forced to play games at low/medium is with no AA or and little AF. It looked better then PS3/360 graphics on the games I like/play but the FPS was in the 26-40 range depending on what it was. But the AMD APU's are still bottom scraping, barely able to play decently unless it's crap like Diablo 3 designed to run on everything from a 3,000 dollar rig to a toaster oven or a 1990's gigapet.

Similar Threads

  1. naming a computer gaming computer
    By cavemans in forum Computers & Gaming
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 14-Sep-2011, 13:49
  2. Got a new computer :)
    By goodnightmoon92 in forum Computers & Gaming
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 19-Jun-2011, 22:01
  3. AFK: Away From Computer
    By Mandy in forum Computers & Gaming
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 15-Feb-2009, 04:09
  4. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 16-Jan-2009, 21:18

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
ADISC.org - the Adult Baby / Diaper Lover / Incontinence Support Community.
ADISC.org is designed to be viewed in Firefox, with a resolution of at least 1280 x 1024.