AMD FX-8350 Chipset

Intel and intel again

>>51483729
if you're cool you'll just wait for next years processors

nah
>140w tdp on 8350
>piss poor single core performance

>>51483729
Yes and no.
For SLI/XF, there is a tangible benefit.
For anything else, the 990X is all you need.
Howrver, the motherboards that carry the 990FX chipset generally have better components that allow for much greater over clocking potential. Things like better VRMs, larger heatsinks, more capacitors, etc.
This is especially important for a power hungry chip like the 8350

>>51483729
no
I only own it because I bought a sabertooth 990FX before I knew anything about computers and now I'm stuck with it so I may as well be using an 8350

if you own 990FX already sure get an 8350
if you dont get 970 and a 6300 or intel; yes intel are shills and a botnet but they're just straight up better by a large degree when you add the cost of the MOBO to the cost of the CPU

File: speccywankubdgkjee.png (75KB, 686x547px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 686x547px

>>51483729
This is my 1080p machine running World of Warcraft in a 25-player raid at 70 fps ultra. Fallout 4 i get ~5-7c higher and get about 60 fps with some slight drops.

>>51484499
they're not exactly benchmark games mate

>>51484622
no, but they're the only two semi-demanding games i have, because I got the system running just yesterday. Also fallout 4 can be a pretty good benchmark game. A crapload of people are building systems just to play it specifically.

point of my post was the 8350 is a good cpu for gaming at 1080. Best price / performance? Eh probably not. But it works well.

>>51484699
fallout 4's only real requirement is 2GB VRAM; everything else on the 'recommended' list is just a suggestion really. It runs fine on a much older build than bethesda is calling for

>>51484499
What cooler are you using and what are temps in your area?

File: http--www.gamegpu.ru-images-stories-Test_GPU-RPG-Fallout_4-test-vram.jpg (51KB, 630x235px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 630x235px

>>51484752
u fucking wot? If anything the 2GB vram is worthless because the medium textures look exactly like ultra

File: wefsfdtwrtdfher.png (36KB, 667x461px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 667x461px

>>51484884
stock cooler on the cpu believe it or not. Case is a corsair 500r with a fuckload of airflow though.

I took that speccy screenshot this evening when it was about 10C (50F) outside, and it was 21.1C (70F) in my room.

This temp is with just chrome open with some 4chan tabs and a video playing. room is 22c. Yes, It's running colder than room temperature.

>>51484936
medium draws just over 1GB though doesn't it?
in any case I'm stuck running on Low with High view distance (always better than medium all around in my opinion) cause I'm using a 2GB 650 2GB OC (not even a 650 TI)

>>51484967
>cooler than room temperature on idle
>an achievement

Would the fx 9590 be worth buying? (It's like €231) or i5 4690k (€239)

>>51484989
That's everything at High, here's one at Ultra

Literally no difference. A 2GB card is fine at 1080p, that is if a 2GB card could even run this game at 1080p. I don't even know where you're getting that shittier builds run this game fine when people with powerhouse PCs are having trouble with this unoptimized piece of shit.

>>51483729
No, not today. It's five years old.
> No M.2
> No PCIE 3.0
> No chipset USB 3.0
> No integrated video card

File: untitled-1.png (16KB, 687x360px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 687x360px

>>51485024
forgot pic fml

>>51484752
>GB
>>51484936
>GB
>>51484989
>GB
>>51485024
>GB
It's actually GiB.
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html

>>51485024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5Hy5K0LLB4
it'll do medium at 1080p on a 650 TI

>>51485068
Thanks friendly /g/ autist

>>51484996
for a stock cooler it sorta is. Idk they asked, I answered.

>>51485029
why the fuck would you even want an integrated video card if you intend to do any kind of gaming on it? Even the skylake ones only run 2014-2015 games on extremely low settings and probably 1366x768.

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-HD-Graphics-530.148358.0.html

the gpu in the $390 i7 6700k

>>51485024
750ti runs it medium/high at 1080p/60fps - as log as you turn godrays off.

>>51485077
>it'll do
shit?

40fps average with 20fps dips isn't playable in my opinion

>>51485077
for reference apart from running hot as hell and texture pop-in this is more or less what the game is like on console

>>51485068

go fuck yourself in the ass.

i call it red instead of magenta.

watcha gonna do about it.

i also say watcha.

>>51485089
What does godrays do?

>>51485089
>1080p/60fps

A guarantee you that you have dips below 30fps with that card unless you turn shadows (which are the main fps hog after godrays) to points where it looks like they're rendering right in front of you. The other high/ultra/low settings have little to no fps impact. It's all draw distance.

File: img_2459-800x600.jpg (39KB, 800x450px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 800x450px

>>51485122
The proper name is crepuscular rays, pic related but it's a misnomer because God does not really exist. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/God

File: godrays.png (896KB, 1920x1041px) Image search: [Google]

896KB, 1920x1041px

>>51485122
Eat performance and make the game look worse.
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/commoncfm/comparison/indexb2.cfm?id=128600
>>51485123
It's actually fairly stable at 60fps, with dips down to 40 at the absolute worst.

>>51485180
Where's your fShadowDistance? Anything under 8000 looks terrible. Also some areas without Godrays looks like a PS2 game since it handles all the illumination in some places.

>>51485238
mods will fix it

>>51485152
>>51485180
Thanks

>>51485180
Turn off DOF completely.

>>51485122
Nothing.
Its very fucking rare to see god rays irl.

>>51483729
U no Intel be better tho?

>>51485122
FO4's iteration of "God rays" use tessellation and Nvidia's global volumetric illumination to create bouncing sub-pixels of light as an approximation for natural light and how it reflects off of surfaces.

This is different from games in the past because the light shaft effect and the global, reflection based lighting system in FO4 are tied together. It isn't the rays that are a GPU monster (this hasn't been a processing problem since the beyond the Radeon 9800 era), it's the bouncing photons and ridiculous tessellation level of the effect.

>>51485276
>bouncing sub-pixels of light as an approximation for natural light and how it reflects off of surfaces.

This, it's also why I don't understand why people turn it completely off. It takes a toll on the lighting altogether if you do that.

>>51485290
low tho

File: snapshot_21.49_[2015.07.29_01.18.55].png (1MB, 1152x648px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1152x648px

>>51485152
sage

File: fallout-4-god-rays-quality-performance-640px.png (82KB, 640x387px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 640x387px

>>51485276
>>51485290
Maybe that's what it was supposed to do, but that's not what's happening in this game. All you get is some shit like this >>51485180 and a bit clearer transparent textures where godrays are going through, like:
http://images.nvidia.com/geforce-com/international/comparisons/fallout-4/fallout-4-god-rays-quality-interactive-comparison-001-ultra-vs-low.html
or:
http://images.nvidia.com/geforce-com/international/comparisons/fallout-4/fallout-4-god-rays-quality-interactive-comparison-005-ultra-vs-low.html

Otherwise it's a whole lot of nothing, with upwards of a 30% performance hit.
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/commoncfm/comparison/indexb2.cfm?id=128599

>>51485358
No that's actually what it does, you're just using shitty comparisons. The nvidia comparisons are showing low vs ultra which is different from turning it off. I can't read german so I don't know what they're doing with the other site. It seems like they're turning it completely off but their comparisons are too few/limited for you to see the effect.

This video shows is clearly in the debug mode and has the best explanation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZvdbNog-EaA

File: Silverstone_argon_AR01_cpucooler.jpg (65KB, 738x600px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 738x600px

>>51484967
>>51484499
I have a FX8350. I had about the same with a stock cooler. The only downside is that its a lot noisier than it needs to be.
I then installed 2 fans to get linear air flow in the cabinet, and it went down to +6C over room temperature.
Then I got a vertical fan, and aligned it with the airflow.
I don't think its possible to run the computer hot anymore.

>>51485961
The CPU maybe but the NB will.

I would actually suggest that if you're an AMD user, set check the performance impact of the feature at "low" and off, and also to try clamping tessellation via the AMD driver settings to 8x or lower... 16x if you're on Tonga/Fiji.

I have a 285 (Tonga) and I've left it capped to 8x, I haven't gotten FO4 yet, but I've been playing Witcher 3 with hairworks enabled just fine @ 1080p.

So, yeah, if volumetric lighting DOES utilize tessellation, try capping it to check.

>>51486557
huh: I just looked it up and some guy on leddit said:

"If Godrays are turned on, even "low," they are using the volumetric lighting meshes (Gameworks). GamersNexus had them set to Ultra, which is x64 tessellation (if "GR Grid = 64" means what I think it means) at half-res, down-sampled.

Low quality Godrays causes flickering and blurring, since the Godrays are 1/4 res when set below Ultra. Setting tessellation down will probably have the same effect, but may look better at x16 with Ultra preset (half res, 1/4 tessellation) instead of Low with defaults (1/4 res, full tessellation).

Lower levels of tessellation will affect quality of the volumetric lighting (which includes fog). Here is the flickering and blurring (tree branches near the light source) at "Low" preset."

If this is the case, setting it to Ultra then capping the CCC tess setting to 8x should yield a very good compromise of performance and eye-candy.

File: speccy yo.png (118KB, 869x643px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 869x643px

If you run any 8xxx (apart from the 8320e and 8370e) chip above stock 990fx is REQUIRED as the voltage needed once you hit around 4.5ghz is way beyond what 970 boards can provide and once you start closing in on 5ghz beyond most cheap 990fx boards.

The 8320e and 8370e can run with a mild overclock on a quality 970 board due to the drastically lower voltage but still, fx chips are meant to go fast so i'd prefer to slap them on a 990fx board.

Pic related - I actaully can't get my chip stable at 4.8ghz because whatever voltage/LLC setting it wants is beyond my ability to cool my mobo.

>>51484967
>>51484996
>>51485961
>>51484499
lol

fx series give false temps on speccy and most programs, you'd have to look in your motherboard's software or bios to see the real temps. His actual temps are probably ~55c

>>51487243
Intel shill
Go away with your house fires

>>51485003
Just wait for the zen proccessors

>>51489407
>waiting that long

>>51483729
for what?
>gaems
noooot really, 83xx is just enough for modern games but nothing spectacular - and it's certainly better to get for example 4460. You'll be able to play whatever you want comfortably on 83xx at >4ghz, but it's still way better to buy intel if it's just for games
>everyday computing, linux
fuck yeah, eight cores equals awesomeness in linux. fast compilation of big programs (wine), nothing gets laggy no matter how much shit you're doing simultaneously

>>51486972
970 boards can't properly handle anything over 4.2GHz. I know because i have 970 board.

>>51490704

>970 boards can't properly handle anything over 4.2GHz. I know because i have 970 board.

I pushed a 8320 to 4.54ghz on a m5a97 LE rev 2.0. Had to strap the spare stock cpu fan to blow over the un-heatsinked vrms to keep it cool enough under stress tests.

Hell right now i'm pushing an 8320e (I killed the 8320 by short circuiting it due to my own stupidity) on a m5a99fx evo using - again - the stock spare fan to cool the rear of the vrms (shaves a good 10c off temps under torture loads). Has let me get to 4.7ghz on 1.428v under IBT testing. Alas 4.8 requires more voltage than I can cool.

Yes, I do like to live dangerously.

>>51490830
Oh my. My VRMs were throttling everything after few hours of stress test when over 4.2GHz, no matter how well i tried to cool them.

File: fxe.jpg (194KB, 1463x763px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 1463x763px

>>51489188
I have an fx 8350. speccy reports wrong temps.

>>51491515

>that load
>42c

lel no.

Also: AMD sensors don't report temps, they report distance from tjmax and most software cannot into it. AOD reports correctly and iirc so does HWinfo64.

>>51490830
Iwas only able to get 4.3ghz out of mine

File: how.png (29KB, 407x404px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 407x404px

>>51493246
pic related

File: koolaid.png (63KB, 1214x499px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 1214x499px

>>51491620
these also work too

>>51493266

>4.3ghz
>1.392v

Thats pretty damn good anon - feeding that chip 1.45v would probably give you 4.6ghz.

File: k.png (34KB, 491x439px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 491x439px

>>51493479
I was about to get 4.5, but it wasn't stabe with 1.44v

>>51493586
LOL my dual x5470 build gets 812cb at 4.12ghz

File: FX-9590-57.jpg (74KB, 537x568px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 537x568px

>>51493586

Moar, MOAR

It depends on what you're upgrading from. Next generation of GPU's will come with a die shrink and Zen will debut in the time period with better ICP so if you're an AMD shill it's worthwhile waiting but again it depends on what you're upgrading from. And in comparison to the 970, no, it's not really worth the upgrade.

>>51483729

I just replaced a dead Asus 990FX Sabertooth with a MSI 970 Gaming.

There is no reason to go 990FX unless you're running multiple video cards or want to run a 140W CPU. (And I'm not even sure that new 970's cant run 140W CPUs)

>>51493788
It certainly can. Used it in a couple 140W builds.

>>51493788

You'd be insanne to run an overclocked 8 core chip on a 970 chipset and expect it to live, there is a damn good reason why only a handful of boards are rated for the likes of the 9370 and 9590.

>>51493683
what test file did they use? I want to try it.

>>51487243
I have an 8350 and this is 100% true

File: Capture.png (27KB, 624x466px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 624x466px

>>51485003

FX9590 owner here. You need the best air coolers to cool this guy down. I use a cryorig R1. Self contained watercoolers won't do it either!

>>51493880

Not sure, I took the chart from hardwarecanucks 9590 review.

>>51494028
that temp is wrong, use speedfan for your real temp.

File: ko.png (13KB, 354x300px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 354x300px

>>51494028

>>51487243

they don't give "false" values. it's just the raw readout without the correct offset. somehow nearly no program can correctly read-out the offset and show the correct temp. except mobo tools and hwmonitor, but also under mainboard cpu temps and not the direct cpu reading

File: Capture.png (23KB, 489x378px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 489x378px

>>51494243

>>51494414
its 30F here, so its the best time to oc because I have a shit cpu cooler.

File: chernobyl unlocked.png (187KB, 1616x788px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 1616x788px

FO4 semi-idling in the background.