AM3+ requires an addon card , so isn't suitable for ITX - that leaves FM1/FM2 and FM2+ for ITX duty - with the intergrated HD6670.
you can look it up yourself andy, it has to do with the loss of the crossfire bridge i have a new question btw, how is the 4770k not a quad core?
But they sell FM1/2 boards with pcie slots, so why can't they do AM3+ Intel sell boards designed to be used with a gpu. I'm saying this as someone who's just had to buy a FM2 board wishing he could have bought an AM3+ then a 6/8 core cpu rather than being limited to the APU series.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/ZOTAC-880G-ITX-WIFI-SO-AM3/dp/B004FN1EGW#productDetails aha! edit: I wonder if bindi can shed any light on ASUS M4A88T-I Deluxe and if that can work with AM3+?
Doesn't have a full pcie slot Getting a bit off topic now though. All this thread shows is that most relatively modern cpus have enough oomph for games, and it's gpus where people need to spend the money.
cause it has 4 cores + hyperthreading at least thats how Andy sees it Hyper threading is not a real core though. Its as supported as AMDs multi core system is aka not very much.
Andy.. I think you *think* you're promoting healthy debate... but you're not. You're blinded by your own allegiance to one particular platform in a community of enthusiasts who don't really care which camp comes out on top, but seek the best for their own requirements. At the moment and for many years before, that's been Intel. That hasn't changed, even with the release of BF4 which has been heavily optimised for AMD and is still only comparable at best. Do yourself a favour and think before retort. You're up to your neck in silage and yet you wriggle and call for a bigger spade..
LOL what a terribly dismissive post. It seems you don't like recent news. All the time people like you continually say things like that there are people out there that listen. It's kind of like the Apple virus. Never mind. There you go, I'm bending reality. My GPUs cost half of a Titan, my CPU half of a 4770k. Yet oddly I have scored higher in a benchmark than a rig that would have cost double (or more) than I've spent.
Andy, Sentinel-R1 is right. We are trying to do you a faver by saying you should properly chill out about this.
I always though the AMD chip was similar 4 modules which show as 8 cores but they are not proper full cores as they share parts of the pipeline so in effective aren't 8 full cores either in much the same way as 8 Hyperthreaded cores are't 8 full cores. This is why AMD needed to tweak the windows scheduler to get best performance out of the chip so that it fed 4 modules first for best performance before doubling up on threads per modules. To me that is not a proper 8 core chip IMO if that is what is necessary, no different really to hyperthreading. Any sort of 3dmark showing for comparable performance is laughable as whole system and system configuration come into play.
You are doing it now again. Similarly to this post. You made out you had a massive physics score for your eight threaded monster and you didn't. You barely beat a quad at a lower clock speed... Your system beating a rig with a 4770 and Titan is going to be purely down to your SLI setup which you can thank nvidia for. None of us disagree, once again about the value prospect of the AMD CPU... But most of us have had our CPUs for 2 years or so and there is no compelling evidence that AMD are about to make our purchases look like poor decisions in a modern gaming world... Let alone if you use the CPUs for other tasks normally attributed with the phrase Personal Computer: Photoshop, web development, re-encoding video, excel, word processing, occasional flash gaming and the uber CPU intensive Facebook which I always recommend at least 8 threads for, if not 24. On top of that, even though there is performance points emerging for AMD and it is demonstrated that you can get by with one you wouldn't expect consistent performance from any AMD build at the moment. Games seem to like high IPC. I still honestly believe AMD need to improve their per thread IPC performance by approximately 35% looking at most benchmarks to be on par with the rest of the world. And the real crying shame is that the old k10 still has better single threaded performance than any bulldozer derivative. If you want an Intel Quad, they can be had for around £140~ and you don't need to over clock them. You'll be good for another 2 years probably also... This is along the lines of what I thought. Hyperthreading works because it uses the CPU on unutilised moments to improve efficiency by working on another task in the background. Not really sure about the AMD ones but I was led to believe they are not proper 8 core CPUs. My fx 6300 is in fact a 3 core 6 thread CPU.
it is 6 core - , you have 6 integer cores , with 2 of them sharing a floating point unit (for want of a better word). AMD`s hypothesis being that since the bulk of the work on a cpu is integer based , having stronger int and sharing fp is better. but it is a 6 core. ALXAndy...... hows OCUK nowadays
http://translate.google.com/transla...7810-prestandaanalys-battlefield-4/4#pagehead change settings to medium and the game isn't gpu limited anymore.... or even at 1080P (ultra) , and the real game shows somewhat different scaling to the OP.
GPUs are overclocked, look at the score. I can't overclock mine at all because one spazzes You'll never beat a 3770k with a 8320. I don't know how many times I need to say that.
I was demonstrating overall value AGAIN. Yet every one seems to want to drag it into something else, saying things like I'm deluded enough into thinking that the FX CPUs are world beaters. I'm not going to reply in depth now because I had a really bad night due to what I posted in the ruining your life thread. When I'm more with it I will reply properly.
Look the earth is flat, http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Frequently_Asked_Questions it must be true because I used a link. Do you now see how you have to evaluate information rather than just believe it at face value? But then you must also know that we cannot just cherry pick the information that backs our argument and ignore the rest, don't you.
Not true. It's a combined overall score using the results from the GPUs and the CPU. Yes, I should thank Nvidia but thank them for what? charging me £500 odd for my GPUs or wanting £800+ for the Titan? either way according to what's been said to me my rig should never be able to do that because it has an AMD CPU in it. Yet it does, which only demonstrates what happens when you spend your money in the right places and use the value components, rather than the willy waving ones. Do you understand where I'm coming from now? I do hope so There's more than enough compelling evidence. As I said before I could now write a review with more than enough content and show the 8320 beating the 4670k (by varying amounts, yet beating it all the same) IE - four games (Bit-tech afforded it two) and three or four benchmarks. At which point I could do what they do (use their computer to calculate the results going on price and performance) and easily score it 95% and give it a gold. But I won't. And I won't because reviews are fundamentally flawed. Oh here with go with the "consistent performance" chestnut. The 6300 has more than enough balls, even with only two or four cores being used, to run any game on the market. You may get 90 FPS instead of the 120 you'd get with the Intel but the games would be more than playable unless of course you run a FPS counter in the top corner picking bogeys and eating them. At which point you'd probably complain about the 6300. £145 Intel Quad, 11 months after I bought it - Totally brought to its knees by Crysis 3 and it was locked and I couldn't do anything about it. Eleven months in. Not two years ! Then you were led wrong. It's just another BS rumour spread around.
