Building a computer to run CLOD, ROF , IL2 fully modded & maxed out

[kendo65]

OK, deep breath...

First up, I don't want this to degenerate into an Intel V AMD dust-up, but TonyD, I checked out both the links you supplied and neither of them come through with glowing recommendations concerning the FX-8350 compared to Ivy Bridge (i5-3570K).

To check further I did a quick scan for other reviews and came up with these (kennel, I've linked to the conclusion pages of each of these as it gets to the point quicker. If you wish you can dig deeper into the body of the reviews).

http://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/c...iver_review/10

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/201...-8350-review/8

However, the overall result, while not as disheartening as the FX-8150, is still a distant second to Intel’s Core i5-3570K and associated Ivy Bridge architecture. It doesn't so much change the status quo as reinforce it.

AMD remains deeply uncompetitive in primarily single threaded applications such as games without offering the significant benefits in multi-threaded applications you’d expect from a chip boasting eight cores. Peak power consumption remains higher than Intel too and it’s these fundamental issues that mean the FX-8350 just isn’t a competitive CPU. Despite the drop in price, there’s almost no reason to opt for the FX-8350 in comparison to the Intel competition; it seems that while AMD’s changed lots of little things about the FX-8350, the end result remains largely the same.

http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/cpu/46...x-8350/?page=8

We believe that a cutting-edge CPU needs to be strong in all areas, not just a few. The AMD FX-8350's heritage means that while it can look really impressive in certain tests, it cannot tick as many desirable checkboxes as the competing Intel Core i5 chips.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...w,3328-17.html

Short summary: go for Intel.

Also found something on the improvements for AMD with Windows 8 versus Win 7 and the findings don't support TonyD's statement above.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...ce,3289-7.html

kennel - on the positive side you have good advice to go for 8GB of RAM and a 600W power supply.

For the processor you'll have to do a bit of reading and then make your own decision. After looking at it all again my advice remains the same - go for the Intel i5-3570K.

----------------------------------------------------

As i said above there is a danger of getting into an Intel V AMD flame war here so I won't be posting again in this thread. My advice is given from a very neutral perspective and based on the reviews I've read and quoted above.

TonyD, are you sure that you're not coming at this from a slight AMD bias?

I note that you only recommend AMD chips and an AMD graphics card?

[TonyD]

Originally Posted by kendo65

OK, deep breath...

First up, I don't want this to degenerate into an Intel V AMD dust-up, but ...

Neither do I, and that wasn’t the OP’s question. My recommendations are based on his enquiry; suggesting that he would require a processor that costs 2 to 3 times the price of his choice to achieve acceptable gaming performance is not true. Processors are generally not that important when it comes to gaming, as long as it’s fast enough performance will be gpu-bound.

If you have another look at the gaming benchmarks in the links I provided, you’ll see an almost imperceptible difference in frame rates between all cpu’s, to the naked eye anyway. Some site’s methodology for testing a cpu’s game performance is fine in theory, but nobody actually plays games at 800 x 600 (or whatever). And so what if cpu A can run a game at 135fps and cpu B can only manage 95 when the average monitor can only display at 60Hz? All my games run in high detail at 1080p limited to 60fps using VSYNC.

I don’t want to get into debating benchmarking procedures since many sites (and people) have their own opinions, my reference is purely to gaming. I have the advantage of having 4 pc’s in my house, 2 Intel and 2 AMD, and can therefore run any comparative tests I like. With my current settings my FX machine is a little quicker than my son’s Core i5 2500k at default – BD needs a 400 to 500MHz clock advantage to do this. A mate has a 2600k with the same graphics card as me, and while benchmark scores are higher on his, game benchmarks and actual game performance are almost identical. A bit of reading on overclockers.com will reveal that the two architectures perform very closely at around 4.50GHz – BD needs higher-than-standard clocks to properly utilise the architecture, Intel’s SB and IB don’t.

I am AMD biased, same as I prefer Audi to BMW cars, or my BMW motorcycle to riceys, but that’s personal preference. If you search some of my posts here you’ll find that I try not to be biased when offering this sort of advice – I have recommended Intel systems to a number of people based on their preferences. The advice offered was based on the OP’s specification, and I didn’t think suggesting that he change to Intel to achieve what he wanted was correct. You would (generally) always achieve higher performance by spending more money, whether it would be noticeable or worth it is up to the purchaser.

And instead of relying on second-hand info found on the always-right internet, how about acquiring one yourself and finding out first-hand – you may be surprised