KD7BCH wrote:
I may have been the "Shared Slowest player" keeping right up with i5's just like I said.
E8400-CV wrote:I watched your Youtube clip, and again this one proves none of what you said, lol.
A game that lasts <30 min means nothing.
And the whole time Cel_Veers was lagging in that game, connection lagging. Giving your FX the time to cool down
And in fact, you were at times the shared slowest player.
I may have been the "Shared Slowest player" keeping right up with i5's just like I said.
Isn't that funny? Now you just admit you're bullshitting around in this thread.
KD7BCH wrote:
Meanwhile you guys are maxing out your cpu gaming
Euh, no
KD7BCH wrote:
and I'm doing a encode render on 4 of my cores while gaming on two more than the other 2 are on smoke break so tell me another one.
I'll tell you another one; those 4 cores are as fast as 2 of the i5's, the one running FAF does it a lot faster than your FX.
KD7BCH wrote:
AND AND AND it wasn't me lagging it right? DUH like I said all along, and It doesn't work like that LOL, your cpu doesn't stop processing just because someone else is lagging.
Yes, another bullshit example with too few units and a too short game.
KD7BCH wrote:
I also showed you games, i.e. more than one. that lasted over an hour but you suggested I was non entitled to my opinion backed by video proof which I'll leave as fact that it is in fact true FX-8350 keeps up alright.
Haha, not once have you shown a real late game with some real action going on.
KD7BCH wrote:
So whatever. You have all the proof you need.
Which is me remembering your lag. End of story.
KD7BCH wrote:
Your i5 is also more than 25% more costly than FX and you won't make that back in energy savings unless you plan on keeping your cpu for about 8-10 years.
I already refuted that bullshit above, showing it's more like 3 years.
KD7BCH wrote:
I upgrade on a 3-4 year cycle.
With Intel you don't have to upgrade that often, for the simple reasons you could buy the current AMD performance with Intel >4 years ago. Per-year costs are lower! I bought my i5 2500K in 2011, when your FX wasn't even around. We're four years later and it's still faster in FAF than anything AMD has to offer.
KD7BCH wrote:
Probably will upgrade my FX in 2016 to an intel i7 if they finally put out a 12 core cpu which can keep up with the 6 core cpus. The 6 cpu core chips are all over $400-500 and for $165 I got the FX which delivers about 75% of that performance for lots less money.
Another figure pulled straight from your bullshit-bin. In Cinebench, that one benchmark where your FX is faster than the i5, your FX-6350 gets only 42% of the score the Intel i7 5820 gets. While the Intel system does it with lower Wattage. And guess what, that's a <$400 CPU.
KD7BCH wrote:
Whearas some people are suggesting getting the Pentium G3258 or whatever, which is a dual core and wont get any benefit from DX12, won't be able to keep up with quad/hex/oct core standards which are here in 2015.
None of it relevant for FAF.
KD7BCH wrote:
Furthermore I have shown that FX-8350 never dropped below 0 in any of the tests or videos or gameplays we had, in the game we played which granted did not go long it never dropped more than 2 lower than yours and usually when you were +7 I was +6, so if your i5 made it to 0 mine my be to -1, thing is odds are in an 8 player game or 10 player game there will always be some dumbshit with a core 2 which is already at -1 at 30 minutes so its irrelevant.
When I played with you, you were like -2 with one other guy while all others were 0 or above. That short game you played with Brink showed you slower by 3 at times and again the shared slowest.
It's funny how you first claimed "never <0", then claimed "never slowest" and now claim "well, I was slowest, but it didn't matter, because the game was too short".
Statistics: Posted by E8400-CV — 13 Jul 2015, 04:22
]]>