QuestionMarkNoob wrote:E8400-CV wrote:
For fcks sake... they are not. Take the rather common FX-8350. You need to begin with a 25% OC to even get it near parity with an i5-2500... from 2011. And most FX's are even worse. The one that out of the box is the least un-decent -the FX-9590- is also the one that is most likely to be sitting in an inadequate motherboard. The people with money never bought the FX's to begin with.. so cheapass motherboards are rather commonplace.
It is not about coming close to a certain CPU (like the 2500k) by overclocking, it is about getting a ~230 rated CPU and getting a PLAYABLE experience with little slowdown. This has never been about comparing Intel CPUs with AMD.
i5-2500 is about the bottom for playability, so comparing to that works just fine.
QuestionMarkNoob wrote:Reaching 4.7Ghz should be pretty easy with an FX8350. And hat should result in a CPU rating of about 230 if you have no background tasks. You can do that with many (but not all) CPUs if you overclock. The FX series chips are insanely good overclockers and most people I know, who own an FX system, have overclocked it. There is nothing wrong with many FX CPUs for this game, though they are not great either. When overclocked, they are OK, and that is what this is all about is'nt it?
So they are not fine, except [insert gazillion exceptions].
QuestionMarkNoob wrote:Concerning your Mobo argument: AMD mobos have always had a better value compared to Intel mobos (even now).
Most are just loaded with cheap stuff, you can do the same with a board for Intel CPU's. Just look for a decent NIC on an AM4 board and you already topped the €110 mark...
QuestionMarkNoob wrote:You got considerably more for your money with an AMD chipset compared to Intel. So you cannot really blame anyone for buying AMD over Intel.
You got less for less money, value-wise that is often not that good.
QuestionMarkNoob wrote:Also: Noone pared a 9590 with a bad motherboard,
People did that all the time.
QuestionMarkNoob wrote:because the CPU can only run on very specific mmotherboards without killing the VRMs or the MOSFETs on it.
And the latter part is exactly what happened.
QuestionMarkNoob wrote:The motherboards you could have pared it with are on the same level as Intel X series motherboards, who have to deliver a similar amount of power to the CPU. No further comment there...
Not really. System consumption for i7-4820K is about half compared to FX-9590. And contrary to the Intel X platform, AMD didn't make a hard break between the platforms... which was the cause of CPU's that used too much being combined with motherboards that couldn't deliver in the first place.
QuestionMarkNoob wrote:But that was'nt all! Host a CPU<250 game of any kind and kick anyone over the 250 mark. Then ask what CPUs they have, and you will always have someone with a 230 rated FX CPU in the lobby. And guess what, he will be fine ingame
Haha, you still don't get it. 250 is already sh*t.
Either way; move your AMD preaching elsewhere.