Forged Alliance Forever Forums
Moderators: FtXCommando, Ze Dogfather
FtXCommando wrote:
need to give him some time to blossom into an aids flower
Endranii wrote:No, honestly man, just send them free CPU's and problem fixed. You will get nowhere with that attitude, as if complaining about people belongings would make them buy better stuff...
E8400-CV wrote:
i5-2500 is about the bottom for playability, so comparing to that works just fine.
E8400-CV wrote:
So they are not fine, except [insert gazillion exceptions].
E8400-CV wrote:
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...
E8400-CV wrote:
You got less for less money, value-wise that is often not that good.
E8400-CV wrote:
People did that all the time.
E8400-CV wrote:
And the latter part is exactly what happened.
E8400-CV wrote:
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.
E8400-CV wrote:
Haha, you still don't get it. 250 is already sh*t.
E8400-CV wrote:
Either way; move your AMD preaching elsewhere.
QuestionMarkNoob wrote:E8400-CV wrote:
i5-2500 is about the bottom for playability, so comparing to that works just fine.
First of all, a 2500 is clearly a good enough chip, and probably will be for the next years. When that Chip is at -1, most others are -1 as well. There is just no denying that,
QuestionMarkNoob wrote: and anyone with with/with experience with that CPU will tell you the same. Secondly, your version of "playable" is’nt defined anywhere and could be everything so yea, nice point.
QuestionMarkNoob wrote:E8400-CV wrote:
So they are not fine, except [insert gazillion exceptions].
Could say that about pretty much anything in any argument at any time. My point is that the most popular Chips of the FX series (8370, 8350 and 8020 (maybe even the 6300)) are still viable. A good theory must be falsifiable
QuestionMarkNoob wrote:E8400-CV wrote:
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...
The first part is a blatant lie. The second is very hard to check since there are like 100 mobos. There has got to be one somewhere... If you search, you will surely find one.
QuestionMarkNoob wrote:E8400-CV wrote:
You got less for less money, value-wise that is often not that good.
The FX 8350 still has around 1.1% market share. That is a lot. Do you really think that all of those people were idiots and just bought what looks shiny and red? If a CPU/mobo combination has a bad value, it will not be bought at all.
By your logic we would see like 0.1% market share for all FX CPUs. That is clearly not the case. FX CPUs had their niche, even though it was not large.
QuestionMarkNoob wrote:E8400-CV wrote:
People did that all the time.
Extremely unlikely, because the CPU is only fully supported by a handful, expensive mobos with insane VRMs and MOSFETs. So again: Blatant lie.
QuestionMarkNoob wrote:E8400-CV wrote:
And the latter part is exactly what happened.
Dumb people exist everywhere. A swift look to the supported CPUs and that would not have happened. You cannot blame anyone for other people’s stupidity
QuestionMarkNoob wrote:E8400-CV wrote:
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.
I was talking about X-series mobos having the ability to serve a high amount of power to the CPU because the mobo HAS TO SUPPORT HIGH POWER CPUs ON THAT PLATFORM.
You name a low-end X-series Intel CPU and claim that my point is wrong… wow. Spoiler: There are Intel CPUs with high power consumption that must be supported by the same range of mobos! You cannot make this stuff up…
QuestionMarkNoob wrote:I also read the rest of that argument and yea… irrelevant.
QuestionMarkNoob wrote:E8400-CV wrote:
Haha, you still don't get it. 250 is already sh*t.
Well that is just like… your opinion man. There is always the option to just host a game yourself and kick those people out… Problem solved? You will still have plenty of players left
QuestionMarkNoob wrote:E8400-CV wrote:
Either way; move your AMD preaching elsewhere.
Could say the same about you, just with Intel. Smart move.
QuestionMarkNoob wrote:Also: You did not even fully respond to my “concept” of kicking people out of your game.
JUST KICK THEM IF YOU DO NOT LIKE THEM
QuestionMarkNoob wrote:It is just too funny how that one argument just tears up your entire post lol. It’s a waste of time even responding to your elitism.
QuestionMarkNoob wrote:But it’s alright. I also like complaining about slow CPUs. But only if they are much slower than the CPU bench says
You have to draw the line somewhere.
E8400-CV wrote:There is. Many of the better games I played my stock i5-2500K was (tied) slowest.
E8400-CV wrote:Also, newer CPU intensive games like Battlefield 1 are handicapped by an i5-2500K.
E8400-CV wrote:I just defined it... didn't I.
E8400-CV wrote:Another example of the attitude problem.
E8400-CV wrote:Yes you are right. They aren't "loaded with" but "scarcely populated with". The second is very easy as there are websites that just list everything. Most AM4 boards have a Realtek NIC that uses four times the CPU resources an Intel NIC does. There are AM4 boards with Intel NIC (i211AT)... and those boards are all >€110 in NL. The S1151 boards with Intel NIC (i219V) beging at a much lower price.
E8400-CV wrote:A large part yes. Most people are too stupid to even calculate TCO.
E8400-CV wrote:No lie, it's a fact. Regardless of the board manufacturer listing the 220W models... they still allowed them boot just fine.
E8400-CV wrote:Actually... I can. Since all the CPU's for the X79 platform we are talking about have a stated TDP of 130W, which is nowhere close to the 220W of the FX-9590.
E8400-CV wrote:Not really. AMD should have kept their partners better in check to not allow them to boot with the high-power FX's if the board couldn't support it at full throttle. By not doing so, they took a hit in public image too. But I guess that was the price for clinging to "are socket is future-proof"
E8400-CV wrote:No, since the -U sh*t smurfs the bench. Don't you ever pay attention?
E8400-CV wrote:I preach whatever is best, can't be bothered by either brand. In 2005 that was the AMD Athlon 64+, in 2006 that was the Intel Core 2 Duo. Only now with Ryzen2 does AMD come close again. But the drawback of reduced memory clocks when using four DIMMs is something a lot of people are going to find out.... later.
E8400-CV wrote:The bench is flawed since it allows -U CPU's to get a fake low number. It's not like that isn't mentioned already plenty here...
I already kicked for high bench number, but the problem is too many low bench numbers that aren't deserved (mostly Intel -U series).
E8400-CV wrote:So having the brains to do a TCO calculation and not buy a slower CPU that ends up being more expensive is elitism now?
E8400-CV wrote:Good, we seem to agree on the -U thing.
QuestionMarkNoob wrote:E8400-CV wrote:There is. Many of the better games I played my stock i5-2500K was (tied) slowest.
This depends on cooling, motherboard quality, voltage ripple of your PSU and most importantly on RAM speed and on your background tasks.
There are too many variables to 100% prove that your CPU is a/the sole cause for this.
Also, when looking at other people’s experience, it really should be fine.
Getting such a lobby depends on pure luck btw so this could just have been an edge case. Since you did not provide any further information about this, it is very hard for me, and anyone else in fact, to validate your argument.
QuestionMarkNoob wrote:E8400-CV wrote:Also, newer CPU intensive games like Battlefield 1 are handicapped by an i5-2500K.
Battlefield 1 is handicapped by my 6600k as well. Or any 4-thread processor in fact.
Why are we talking about BF 1 now… isn’t this in the “General Discussions” section?
QuestionMarkNoob wrote:E8400-CV wrote:I just defined it... didn't I.
You defined what CPU (and nothing else in fact) is playable for you. But not what slow down at which point in the game is.
QuestionMarkNoob wrote:E8400-CV wrote:Another example of the attitude problem.
So, everyone that criticises you has an attitude problem? Nice to know
QuestionMarkNoob wrote:E8400-CV wrote:Yes you are right. They aren't "loaded with" but "scarcely populated with". The second is very easy as there are websites that just list everything. Most AM4 boards have a Realtek NIC that uses four times the CPU resources an Intel NIC does. There are AM4 boards with Intel NIC (i211AT)... and those boards are all >€110 in NL. The S1151 boards with Intel NIC (i219V) beging at a much lower price.
Since I do not know much about NICs, I will give you that one, though I will note that I have never seen anyone complain about this.
The rest of the argument is not verifiable since this depends on both pricing, availability and location. It might be true for you, but certainly not for anyone.
QuestionMarkNoob wrote:E8400-CV wrote:A large part yes. Most people are too stupid to even calculate TCO.
Yes, everyone who bought an FX system is dumb and wrong, and you are right. Sigh…
QuestionMarkNoob wrote:E8400-CV wrote:No lie, it's a fact. Regardless of the board manufacturer listing the 220W models... they still allowed them boot just fine.
Yes, they allowed them to boot. And most of the people who did that regretted it. Probably with dead VRMs.
The thing that bugs me is, that this can be said about everything. If you are not doing what you should do, you will have to live with the consequences. People also put 6950x CPUs in the wrong motherboards and killed their CPU, even though it was said you should not do it (just like with AMD ). You cannot blame a company for having a minority of idiots as their customers.
QuestionMarkNoob wrote:E8400-CV wrote:Actually... I can. Since all the CPU's for the X79 platform we are talking about have a stated TDP of 130W, which is nowhere close to the 220W of the FX-9590.
TDP =/ power consumption. Very, very serious mistake.
QuestionMarkNoob wrote:Also, you have to consider, that the 9590 was pretty much an overclocked CPU. Those Intel CPUs you are talking about are not.
QuestionMarkNoob wrote: After overclocking, you will clearly see that those guys are closer than you might expect.
QuestionMarkNoob wrote:I am not disagreeing that the 9590 consumed more power. It did. But comparing the TDPs of processors and then judging their power consumption, is just a Noob mistake.
QuestionMarkNoob wrote:The TDP is calculated by the BASE CLOCK btw. Since your CPU will boost up anyway, the TDP rating is bullshit in most cases anyway. A 65w CPU will DEFINITELY need a cooler that can handle more than 65w.
QuestionMarkNoob wrote:E8400-CV wrote:Not really. AMD should have kept their partners better in check to not allow them to boot with the high-power FX's if the board couldn't support it at full throttle. By not doing so, they took a hit in public image too. But I guess that was the price for clinging to "are socket is future-proof"
Are you really defending Intel’s habit of shitting on any motherboard that is not the latest anymore?
Is the high amount of support that AMD gives a bad thing, because some people cannot READ?
QuestionMarkNoob wrote:E8400-CV wrote:No, since the -U sh*t smurfs the bench. Don't you ever pay attention?
What does that have to do with 250 CPUs anyway?
Did we not just conclude that those “smurfs” as you call them have extremely low CPU scores? Do you even play attention?
QuestionMarkNoob wrote:1. You were saying that 250 CPUs are shit
QuestionMarkNoob wrote:2. I was saying that they are just fine
QuestionMarkNoob wrote:3. Now you are talking about CPU “smurfs” that have like a 170 CPU rating
QuestionMarkNoob wrote:And you are telling me I cannot read? Are you kidding me?
QuestionMarkNoob wrote:E8400-CV wrote:I preach whatever is best, can't be bothered by either brand. In 2005 that was the AMD Athlon 64+, in 2006 that was the Intel Core 2 Duo. Only now with Ryzen2 does AMD come close again. But the drawback of reduced memory clocks when using four DIMMs is something a lot of people are going to find out.... later.
Yes you are the white knight of the tech community.
QuestionMarkNoob wrote:E8400-CV wrote:The bench is flawed since it allows -U CPU's to get a fake low number. It's not like that isn't mentioned already plenty here...
I already kicked for high bench number, but the problem is too many low bench numbers that aren't deserved (mostly Intel -U series).
I am a Gapper. A map known for its long arty war games, extreme slow down and lag. Are you seriously trying to tell me that these guys completely ruin the CPU bench?
From my experience around ~2% of players that play on maps with considerable slow down have those CPUs. When it happens, it is annoying. But is it really that big of a problem? Probably not.
And since you can just ban those guys and never let them play again…
QuestionMarkNoob wrote:E8400-CV wrote:So having the brains to do a TCO calculation and not buy a slower CPU that ends up being more expensive is elitism now?
Oh yes you are so smart. Smarter than anyone else.
QuestionMarkNoob wrote:E8400-CV wrote:Good, we seem to agree on the -U thing.
Yes, we do since it is a problem.
A very small problem that is hard to solve.
I think after my posts and the comments of other players, I have made my point clear. I will not respond to any of your other posts in any meaningful way now, spamming this thread about things that are not even related to the core topic is not the way to go.
QuestionMarkNoob wrote:If you want to make this game a better place, try to make a post on the FAF suggestions site, and suggest making the “quality of performance” mod ranked, so people would actually use it more which would then result in fewer laggy games. Maybe I will do that anyway.
QuestionMarkNoob wrote:Many of us like complaining about slow CPUs, but in the end, it will not change anyone’s mind.
QuestionMarkNoob wrote:If you have anything meaningful to contribute to this thread, like a suggesting on how to improve this this situation, let us know. I am out otherwise.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest