New to buying computer, a few questions

[carefreewill]

I'm buying a new computer for myself for the first time, and I have a few questions that have come up. I've researched a bit, but I either get "depends what you want to do with it" with a technical explination of differences that I get lost in, or a vague "can have problems". I'm looking to get a good, mid-level gaming PC that'll last me a few years. I don't need it to run anything new at top spec (I'm not aiming to run the new metal gear for example), but I'd like it to be fairly future proof (I've got my eye on XCOM 2, though there's no system requirements out yet)

Thus far, based on my own research and some friends advice I'm getting 8GB of RAM, and I'm aiming to get a 1920 x 1080 resolution monitor. I've got an idea of what level of processor and graphics card to get.

First, for the processor, Intel or AMD? What I've read seems to say AMD is better value in the range I'm looking at, but doesn't work as well with a dedicated graphics card as Intel. I'm leaning more towards Intel in this, but I'd appriciate knowing exactly what is meant by "doesn't work as well with dedicated graphics cards".

Second, nvidia geforce or AMD radeon? My friends have said get nvidia, citing problems with AMD cards, and the online advice is fairly the same as above; radeon is cheaper for equivalent, but "something something" get nvidia. My current system has a radeon card, but I never had any say in that purchase, and I've got no context to understand if a different card would have been better. It's worked fine so far, but based on the current advice I've got I'm leaning towards an nvidia geforce, am I wrong?

Third, is 1GB of RAM on the graphics card going to be enough? I can't spring much beyond to 2GB, and what I've read suggests that less RAM in a better card is prefferable. What is the measure of a "better card" in this regard? I'm looking at the graphics clock and the memory clock right now, but I'm not sure how big a difference between the numbers needs to be for it to outweigh the difference in RAM. Is the GPU cores number listed useful?

Finally, what to do about the hard drive. I've been looking at the options and I've narrowed it down to three options within my budget. I can just get a HDD, the cheapest option, I can get a hybrid SSHD, or I can get a smaller 120GB SSD and a bigger HDD to hold my games. I can't find much on the hybrid drive that isn't marketing fluff, so I'm not sure if it's worth it. Two drives, one solid state and one hard disc is an option I've seen a couple times along with justification, has anyone got that setup. If either of those options is good, I'll do that rather than just a hard disc.

[[AU] Tabris:DarkPeace]

The only good current AMD microarchitecture is Jaguar, and they are reserving that for x86-64 consoles.

The AMD FX and AMD A10/A8 processors just do not do enough work per clock cycle and lack complete CPU cores due to CMT.

Basically they suffer from resource contention within the core, even at high clock speeds.

[Spyder]

Escrito originalmente por vadim:

Escrito originalmente por Spyder:

i3 get more performance then 8 core amd? even if true in ONE game? want a cookie or is bohemia adding certain intel extensions....

First, its well-known fact that all FX CPU has i3 performance level. Too bad you didn't know that. Second, There is NO 8-core AMD PC CPU. Only console (Jaguar-based). FX-8350 has FOUR cores. Fantasies about 8 core is marketing hype and nothing more. Probably you never learned IT. Third, I gave you link - there are 8 game tests in that article. Not "ONE game". Feel the difference?

Well known fact? What do you want me to show you benches of even 8350s challenging i7s?

[vadim]

Escrito originalmente por Spyder:

Well known fact? What do you want me to show you benches of even 8350s challenging i7s?

We are saying abot games here. This is gaming forum. If your favorite game is 7zip archiver that something is very wrong with you...

[Spyder]

Escrito originalmente por vadim:

Escrito originalmente por Spyder:

Well known fact? What do you want me to show you benches of even 8350s challenging i7s?

We are saying abot games here. This is gaming forum. If your favorite game is 7zip archiver that something is very wrong with you...

Yes I understand the word game

http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Processors/AMD-FX-8350-and-FX-6300-Processor-Review-Vishera-Breaks-Cover/Results-Skyrim-and-

[[AU] Tabris:DarkPeace]

AMD FX 8350 gets arse handed to it by a Pentium G:
http://techreport.com/review/23750/amd-fx-8350-processor-reviewed/5

[Spyder]

Escrito originalmente por TabrisDarkPeace:

AMD FX 8350 gets arse handed to it by a Pentium G:
http://techreport.com/review/23750/amd-fx-8350-processor-reviewed/5

1 fps in one game, wow want a cookie?
lol you sintel fanbois are like infants

[vadim]

Escrito originalmente por Spyder:

Yes I understand the word game
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Processors/AMD-FX-8350-and-FX-6300-Processor-Review-Vishera-Breaks-Cover/Results-Skyrim-and-

Skyrim? Look at these test results: http://pclab.pl/zdjecia/artykuly/focus/cpu2013/def/skyrim_1920.png
And be warned - there are no Haswell i3 in CPU list. FX-8350 is slower even than Ivy Bridge i3.

[[AU] Tabris:DarkPeace]

Half my old PCs have been AMD, but ever since the Core 2 Duo the Athlon 64 X2 hasn't quite cut it.

Sadly AMD moved backwards IPC wise and started releasing processors with shared FPUs and CMT.

That said AMD 'Jaguar' microarchitecture kicks ass in consoles and fixes most the problems that AMD FX and AMD A10/A8 processors suffer from.


I'm no fanboy, heck I even owned IBM made Cyrix x86 CPUs back in the day. It's just the sad truth that AMD want to fail on desktop and succeed in console and netbook.

Their console 8 core is a true 8 Core too, not a 4 core sold with CMT as an 8 core. They should make a PC platform based on it, then my next CPU would be AMD that does 8 floating point operations per clock cycle. (Totally unlike their current desktop parts).

[Spyder]

Escrito originalmente por vadim:

Escrito originalmente por Spyder:

Yes I understand the word game
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Processors/AMD-FX-8350-and-FX-6300-Processor-Review-Vishera-Breaks-Cover/Results-Skyrim-and-

Skyrim? Look at these test results: http://pclab.pl/zdjecia/artykuly/focus/cpu2013/def/skyrim_1920.png
And be warned - there are no Haswell i3 in CPU list. FX-8350 is slower even than Ivy Bridge i3.

I have much more reliable sources then.pl thank you

[vadim]

Escrito originalmente por Spyder:

I have much more reliable sources then.pl thank you

In such case you should know that FX CPUs works especially slow in Skyrim. You din't knew that? I understand, you consider site as reliable only if it biased toward AMD :)
No hard feeling, please - you're typical AMD fanboy which hasn't a clue about CPU inner structucture. And who do not trust foreign sites only because that article there are not written in English. ;)

[Spyder]

Escrito originalmente por vadim:

Escrito originalmente por Spyder:

I have much more reliable sources then.pl thank you

In such case you should know that FX CPUs works especially slow in Skyrim. You din't knew that? I understand, you consider site as reliable only if it biased toward AMD :)
No hard feeling, please - you're typical AMD fanboy which hasn't a clue about CPU inner structucture. And who do not trust foreign sites only because that article there are not written in English. ;)

And how many cores does skyrim use may I ask? Or should I post benchs of any kind be they gaming or raw cpu that use more then 4 cores that match i7s?

[vadim]

Escrito originalmente por Spyder:

And how many cores does skyrim use may I ask?

Games don't use any specifical number of cores. That is common misconception. Gameds creates several threads (in some cases a lot of them - more than 40 for original Crysis), but only 1 or 2 of them are ready for execution at a time. Thus, OS can run games on all CPU cores (and scheduler really constantly switch arctive cores), but every core has low utilization and you don't get any FPS gain from additional cores.
For instance, its enough to have 2 cores for Skyrim. It based on the same old Gamebrio Engine + Havoc as Oblivion. Slightly improved, of course. For example, particles systems (smoke, fire) ain't implemented as 2d-sprites anymore. And so on.

[Spyder]

Escrito originalmente por vadim:

Escrito originalmente por Spyder:

And how many cores does skyrim use may I ask?

Games don't use any specifical number of cores. That is common misconception. Gameds creates several threads (in some cases a lot of them - more than 40 for original Crysis), but only 1 or 2 of them are ready for execution at a time. Thus, OS can run games on all CPU cores (and scheduler really constantly switch arctive cores), but every core has low utilization and you don't get any FPS gain from additional cores.
For instance, its enough to have 2 cores for Skyrim. It based on the same old Gamebrio Engine + Havoc as Oblivion. Slightly improved, of course. For example, particles systems (smoke, fire) ain't implemented as 2d-sprites anymore. And so on.

Really?

http://gamegpu.ru/images/remote/http--www.gamegpu.ru-images-stories-Test_GPU-Action-Battlefield_4-test-bf4_proz_2.jpg

Im sorry I thought CPU cores didnt matter you just claimed?

[[AU] Tabris:DarkPeace]

Wow, one game benchmark where the AMD FX 8350 performs well due to months of hand coded development work.

Want a cookie?

[Spyder]

Escrito originalmente por TabrisDarkPeace:

Wow, one game benchmark where the AMD FX 8350 performs well due to months of hand coded development work.

Want a cookie?

ROFL, no just know enough that your fun to toy with, I can pull out dozens already pulled out another but cinebench doesnt count cause it computes raw cpu bandwith of all cores right? Come again?