Assembling a computer from 40,000 v.4

MunchkiN 616
I wonder, since when did GTA, suckers and others work better on the FX-83 ** than on the younger i5? This does not correspond to reality, wake up, it looks like you are sleeping. Why they work worse in games - I described (very roughly) above. Games used to work badly on it, but now it is even worse and worse due to the total obsolescence of the architecture and production technology in general. And it doesn't matter that there are more games that can effectively work in more than one or two threads, this, of course, will not save him from obsolescence. Games will not need more than four cores for a long time, since Intel has much more suitcases with money than AMD and such an unofficial monopolist as Intel will bend its line to the end, driving the AMD central processing concern into the coffin. And this is not only bad for AMD, it is very bad for all buyers.
FX-83 ** was created on the architecture of 2011, which already at that time did not carry anything innovative in itself, you probably are not aware of this.

Belomorkanal
Funny!
The FX-8320 was relevant at the start and remains relevant today =)
and with each new AAA it is more and more relevant
Single-core games do not pull at 100 FPS? but in 50+ it takes out calmly /
Besides, the hypocrisy of Intel fanboys easily breaks down into 8 streams of the i7th, why
did you take i7 and not i3 for yourself, because i3 carries 2 nuclear games in the same way as i7 =)

SUSUL1
Really funny. The processor which has been becoming more and more relevant for almost 5 years! It's not just a processor! This is a processor-wine, over the years it only gets prettier and grows in price. Well, they made fun, thanks! Happy New Year!

By the way, if you have not read my previous posts in full, then I inform you that I have two PCs at once on the FX-8300, I know perfectly well its capabilities and I assess them absolutely adequately, as described above, but you, apparently read only "diagonally". And if you do not know how 8300, 8320, 8350, 8370 differ from each other, then I advise you to find out more about this. Yes, they calmly export 50+ FPS and with the former price of 8k they were the best choice against the background of the i5 for 15k, but now they cost the same. Moreover, 50-60 FPS is not enough for everyone, otherwise I was in vain buying a 144HZ monitor.

And those 8 threads that you remembered are HT and in games it does not add performance in any way. Otherwise, there is a slight increase.

MunchkiN 616
And why did we remove the line from the post where it was written that "GTA, suckers and others" began to work better on the FX-83 ** than on the cheapest i5? Did the error come out and was amended? That is, it is better to pretend that nothing happened than to admit that he blurted out without thinking.

Belomorkanal
I did not personally delete my comments. however, I re-read it and corrected the typo.
if I didn’t write or write something, then I’ll repeat that, according to eyewitnesses from the forum, i5 46xx is already beginning to not satisfy the performance of the Gifors 970, and it may not reveal it in games such as Fallout 4 and GTA5. in the new assassins units and syndicates, it can also limit the performance of the described card, but if you compare its work in games directly with fx8350. Those U5 3GHz and Fx8 4GHz work in most games, it is slightly better and almost nowhere worse.
To be fair, my fx6100 (3.3) 3.8GHz NT (2000-2400) 2600MHz without turbo has 4 fps in the fallout in the region of 30-37 in places with a heavy load on the CPU. those are not far from what I saw on the forums about i5
and I'm not saying that you need, for example, to change u5 to fx8xxx-9xxx - God forbid pitch. I say that in the conditions of the crisis and the progress of technology, this leveled these processors as processors of the minimum gaming threshold. but I do not admit the fact that u5 at 1150 is at least an average or powerful game solution. - it is budgetary.
and yes. fx is perfect in terms of efficiency, both in performance per core and overall - a bad processor. I am well aware of this, however, because of the extra thread cores, I put it in budget assemblies rather than u5. but I do not insist on my pitch.

I'll tell you on the topic: Advice to those who have a more or less normal system that pulls all games at the moment. If you are thinking about the idea of ​​updating your system, which was top 2-3 years ago, but is already a bit outdated, but still pulls all games with some slightly lowered settings. Do not rush .. Wait a bit, let the same games come out under dx12. And now we have video cards, such as the next generation, supporting dx12, for which there are no games. The latest video cards of the ninth series are transitional versions, after which they will be better and truly under dx12. I think many of those who have updated or will update the system now to the current top will still regret it when a truly new video card and new games with dx12 are released in the near future. I myself have a "GTX680" graphics card from 2012, which so far runs all games at almost maximum settings. Now, for example, you can change it to the more expensive GTX980 Ti. But I know it will be a waste of money when there are no games under dx12 yet. It's not time yet, let everything come out and see. Again, this is a topic for the owners of still good normal systems. And to insure against the rise in price, change your savings into dollars or euros.

Kanych forever
better
many of those
still good normal
Very informative post, especially considering the following:
1) DX12, as you know, does not add performance. It allows the Direct3D engine's battleneck to be addressed to the GPU. It will make it feel better a) for those who have a deliberately weak (or AMD) percentage, b) in games where, with relatively simple graphics, there is a huge number of objects in the scene (mainly MMOs), c) owners of multi-GPU configs. In other cases, the increase will be very symbolic.
2) In addition, it is also known that there are no additional instructions for the GPU in DX12 compared to DX11, and therefore no shader updates are required to support DX12. Therefore, the DX12 support level of the new cards will be exactly the same as that of the current ones.
3) A PC upgrade, like any consumer decision, is made on the basis of a) the need (in this case, desire) b) the availability of the required amount of funds. In the presence of both, the remaining factors are negligible.

PS Again I am wondering how people on one 680 run all games at almost maximum settings, but I cannot do this on a pair of 290X with overclocking.

Belomorkanal
Not only does wine get better with age, but programmers also gain experience in working with multithread =)

DartMaul
Here we need to remember the very first video cards for DX11. They were "GTX 480 and GTX580" (I don't remember, because I was never interested) So, these initial video cards I don't know why, but they coped very badly with games under DX11. It seems the same, the same DX11 as now, but they are significantly inferior to GTX680 video cards. 780, all the more so 980. And they don't even pull Metro 2033 or The Witcher 2 at maximum settings, let alone the latest innovations. Now the story is the same, it is pointless to change something now or to argue about anything when the time has not come yet. Undoubtedly, now for the current games, the GTX 980 Ti is the most powerful video card that can be safely taken by those who have very weak hardware and cannot handle most of the current games. But not focusing on future games and DX12, which hasn't even arrived.

Kanych forever
I don’t know why
Why speak up if you don’t know?
Fermi was originally made for the first version of DX11 which was in Win8. In Win8.1 there was DX11.1 with an extended set of commands that the above did not support.
http://nvidia.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/3196/~/fermi-and-kepler-directx-api-support


SUSUL1
Dear, it's strange to hear that from you.
The multithreaded algorithm as a concept in programming has been present since the 60s of the last century, who wanted to gain experience for a long time. The only question is that until relatively recently all the processes were single-core, and it made no sense to do anything multithreaded in principle.
In addition, not every function can in principle be parallelized, and even if it can, sometimes an increase in the degree of parallelism is associated with an increase in the length of the algorithm.
In addition, the vast majority of programmers don't bother with the hardware of their code at all. They write in an object-oriented language, which is transferred to the mathematical language by compilers.

DartMaul
And what do you mean by that? What difference does it make on what 480 or 580 worked, they still do not pull and who bought them regretted it. And so it will be with the current top-end video cards, they will quickly become outdated and will no longer be relevant by the time DX12 is released.

Kanych forever
http://forums.playground.ru/hardware/sborka_kompyutera_ot_40_000_v_4-861117/#comment-14385843
Re-read points 1 and 2 carefully.

DartMaul
"PS again wondering how people on one 680 run all games at almost maximum settings, but I can't do this on a pair of 290X overclocked."
Thank you, that was enough for me) Why weren't you so smart when you bought not one, but two video cards that will not pull games at maximum) You seem to understand technology, but for some reason did not realize that two paired video cards are solid a headache, on all fronts, with drivers, with power consumption, and with problems in different games in general. When it is better to put one most powerful video card and not sweat, knowledgeable people will never take two weak video cards, in the hope that they will be better than one of the most powerful)

Kanych forever
hand face.
Let's start with the fact that all cards and their pairs are essentially disposable, their relevance lasts as long as the line is relevant and as long as they are able, in their aggregate, to produce the required level of performance.
therefore the computer of a demanding player looks like this. 2 top video cards for 1 season.
less demanding player - 1 top video card for one season. thus one after the other 580 ... 680 ... 780..980..etc all to the maximum. There are naturally fewer problems with 1HPU in games.
powerful series such as 780 and 980 appeared as a compromise between 1 and 2 video cards in terms of performance and a solution for everything that is larger than the standard full chd. before that, cards like 590, 295 were also niches of these tees in terms of relative performance and price.
the described pattern is an Old Testament axiom and has been fulfilled since 2008.
And as for 680, its performance, for example, was not enough to run Farkray 3 at maximum settings of 1080p. and what was more powerful in nvidia? nothing. only MGPU system. Since then, the absolute system requirements have increased by about 2.5-2.7 times, so that at almost maximum (those instead of mssax8 fhaa, say) 680 can no longer run games. at mid-high low-averages is another matter.
Naturally, this does not negate the fact that the life of the card can be extended by making graphic concessions, or by adding in excess of a margin of performance that no game of the present can use, or playing games after a couple of years, but there is no such point to discuss.
and if we look for something else, the assembly of computers from 40k has turned into an assembly of niche gaming solutions (those below which a comfortable game at maximum or conditionally maximum settings is impossible). however, certain requirements for computers of different levels and the natural planned increase in system requirements have not changed. therefore, let's say 2 980-980, all kinds of radeons seem to be something fantastic or something like that it is not.

MunchkiN 616
What does it all have to do with what you write. You think I don't know all this nonsense that you write. Nobody denies that my 680th will not pull games at maximum now, because I bought it in the summer of 2012. I say that now it makes no sense for me to take a top-end system with a 980 video card, because its life will be short-lived, as it was with the 480th. All of them are initial experimental transitional versions, after which more powerful and stable ones will be released for the dx12 architecture. Or do you think it would be the right decision now to upgrade the hardware and take 980, not being sure how it will behave with the dx12 that has not yet been released? This is at least silly and not judicious. You just have already updated the system and want to sell your opinion that you were not mistaken, that's all. This is marketing babe, you gotta figure it out. If you have a lot of money and have nothing to do with it, go ahead, you can change your hardware 5 times in one generation. Or like me, once every generation. I changed it once in dx9, once in dx-10, once in dx11. Now I will wait for a stable version for dx12. And tell me why change the iron now. For the sake of Follaut4, for the sake of Batman or The Witcher III, which are assembled on a ten-year-old engine.

Kanych forever,
as far as I know, in pascal, for example, there will be a shader model 5.x; therefore, the video card will not support new graphic commands. the only thing because of some architectural features in Pascal will be a number of functions that are currently working in emulation mode. so actually dx12 hangs in perspective on the conscience of software developers and drivers. thus, some functions may not be available for video cards of the previous series. For example, radeon stopped supporting cards 6xxx and below altogether.
Given the specificity of what 6xx, for example, cannot, unlike 7xx, and what 9xx, unlike these chips, can, and what a Pascal can hypothetically, and for that I need to read smart literature. one of the things I'm interested in is conservative rasterization. Have you heard of games with shadows working on conservative rasterization algorithms? me not. and even in popular engines like ye4, the introduction of these technologies is not on the development map. those to the next games with this for more than 2 years.
another NV technology - voxel global illumination - as they say, can be performed both on Radeon cards and on any other video card of the current architecture. but nv seems to assert that it is only for the 900 series cards. are there any live games with this technology? I did not see.
Thus, I believe that the owner of the 980 will not lose anything compared to the owner of the Pascal, except for computing power. and therefore categorically not to buy 980 and suffer waiting for a Pascal, I see no reason.
however, I myself am waiting for a Pascal and need to replace the video card - but I know for sure that I want a card with 8GB or more. and options with the purchase of 970 as a temporary alternative or 390 with 8GB as a temporary card for graphic fun, I rejected for financial reasons. want at least 2 pascals and their theoretical performance level for games and can't afford the extra spend.
how was it with the 480th
and what happened to 480? bought one or two and forgot until the year 2012. The 580 had absolutely nothing but a little more performance and a little more memory. and there were practically no games where it played a role.
and when I wrote that it is better not to buy 980 and wait for 980. and remained unconvinced. the only thing that just came cruzis and the price of 980 for waiting was a bit too high in comparison with those who bought 980 or even two before the crisis. But in fact, I am more than sure that the 980 will be enough for the next generation of cards, but already under the performance level of 30-60fps at 1080p, and 970-980 is no longer there.

Kanych forever
Why weren't you so smart when you bought not one, but two video cards
Well, for starters, I don't play games, I bench. Therefore, I am completely indifferent to whether my computer can handle this or that game or not. It is important to me how many points I will be given on hwbot.
Secondly, for me it is stable (under no circumstances falling below) 60 fps with maximum smoothing. Considering that the benchmarks require very fine tuning of not only the hardware, but also the software of the PC, I am sure that my system works quite well, in any case, in synthetics, I got 97% of the gain from the second card.

PS 290X at the time of purchase was already the most powerful.


I haven't read the rest, but I think that MunchkiN 616 is right, albeit with a lot of inaccuracies)

DartMaul
Yes, I know that many tasks are not parallelized. but as a rule, such projects are not particularly demanding on the hardware. Therefore, they are pulled out even by old processors with a bang.
however, AAA games are not only a code, but also an advertising zoo. And I think that the thugs from the advertising department of Microsoft will catch programmers and cut their fingers lengthwise into 2 or 3 parts if they write AAA games for DX12 with 3 cores.
After all, Microsoft did not do the same for free Dx12. And then you understand the fans of Vin7 got divorced ... "They say Vin10 is raw, it works faster and faster on my seven" ...
It certainly won't be fair, but who is talking about honesty in the marketing department today?

insel260
Well, can you apply this miracle to the photo ?

dobro4insky
You see ... there is such a thing - imagination. It works especially well in the same direction as dreams.

insel260
By the way, shop for suckers. A PC with i5 and GTX970 on board costs 152k - it's just a naedalov festival!

Belomorkanal
Eh, I understand .... (((But I still have a tiny hope of seeing this miracle with my own eyes, because Mr. insel260 costs nothing to take a photo and not take a ride for piz ... Forgive me SV))))