• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Is it beast enough ?

N

nagzstar

Junior Member
i am going to make a new build PC and i want to run high end games and also record them at 1080p at high FPS with good quality of course, so far the build that i have made is this

http://pcpartpicker.com/uk/p/xy45

Please do tell me on how i can approve and or what requirements ill need to record Planet Side 2/BF3/Blops 2/League of legends, on the best/ 2nd best/ medium quality and still record at 720/1080p at around 60fps

also if you have some benchmarks for the games listen or other games i would love to see them with your build

Also i will probably do lots of streaming/recording/multitasking that is the main reason for the choice in CPU.

And i have a question in the SSD i use, will i have to put both the game there for higher fps and record onto the SSD or will that be too much for the SSD to handle so which would you reccomend...

SSD both records and runs games
SSD records and HDD runs games
SSD runs games and HDD records

Thank you,

Nagzstar
 
Having more cores doesn't benefit in this multitasking context as these cores aren't really that great in performance. You'll do just fine with a quad core Core i5 3570K by setting one of the cores by means of core affinity to the recording software and the remaining 3 is used for gaming.

As for the heatsink, try finding a Noctua NH-D14. SSD doesn't really give you a higher FPS boost in games but it does decrease loading time. Decrease in loading time = less time spent idling while recording = less space consumed.

I would rather set up a RAM disk to store the video files as a cache which is then transferred to the HDD which has a bigger storage capacity. You have 16GB of RAM, I'm betting that you won't even fully utilize 3/4 of it. If you're not too keen on doing this method, I'll pick the 1st or 3rd option.
 
i watched a video on youtube :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eu8Sekdb-IE and it shows the benchmarks of games while using xsplit and also without xsplit also could you explain to me what a ramdisk is since im know the most knowledgeable about this but i do understand stuff when explained

okay i just read up on ram disk but ive i use like 8gb of ram disk that is around 5 minutes of recordings if that so is there a way of me recording with ram disk and then transfering it to HDD as soon as it is able to (during recording so ram disk doesnt become full)
 
Last edited:
nagzstar said:
i watched a video on youtube :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eu8Sekdb-IE and it shows the benchmarks of games while using xsplit and also without xsplit also could you explain to me what a ramdisk is since im know the most knowledgeable about this but i do understand stuff when explained

okay i just read up on ram disk but ive i use like 8gb of ram disk that is around 5 minutes of recordings if that so is there a way of me recording with ram disk and then transfering it to HDD as soon as it is able to (during recording so ram disk doesnt become full)
Click to expand...

Well, I can't watch the video at the moment, but a RAM disk is just a temporary "hard drive" that runs on RAM instead of your regular HDD. It's extremely fast but it's only good for loading a program or two, for example a game. If you were doing something like recording, I doubt you really need to bother with a ram disk. Even if you were to do it, recording on FRAPs takes up huge amounts of space, which you won't fit onto a 6 gb ram disk (you need at least 2gb to keep your system running).
 
Eureka said:
Well, I can't watch the video at the moment, but a RAM disk is just a temporary "hard drive" that runs on RAM instead of your regular HDD. It's extremely fast but it's only good for loading a program or two, for example a game. If you were doing something like recording, I doubt you really need to bother with a ram disk. Even if you were to do it, recording on FRAPs takes up huge amounts of space, which you won't fit onto a 6 gb ram disk (you need at least 2gb to keep your system running).
Click to expand...

When you get a chance to watch the video please do and reply to what you think of my intial CPU and then the intel version but i will do a lot of streaming and recording, also thanks for the Ramdisk advice and i was thinking about it but it just seems too small amount to record on
 
I call his tests a little bit inaccurate. Testing 4 different CPUs with a very obvious GPU bottleneck. A single HD7870? Seriously? With more GPU performance, in a high end GPU or multi GPU setup, you will definitely need more CPU performance.

It is possible that the FPS could be higher but without him showing his testing methodology, it is possible that the difference in FPS is due to a margin of error in recording FPS. I've done FPS testing and without a standardized run, you will not get consistent results.

I would think of the RAM disk as an experiment to see how it fares but as to whether it offers significant benefit is unknown as I have yet to test it. There is a performance overhead to transfer it to the RAM disk and RAM disk to HDD. You could do with direct recording to the HDD, its simple and shouldn't be an issue.

I'm not saying that you would be missing a whole lot by going with the AMD FX-8350. I'm merely suggesting an alternative which costs about the same.
 
dma0991 said:
I call his tests a little bit inaccurate. Testing 4 different CPUs with a very obvious GPU bottleneck. A single HD7870? Seriously? With more GPU performance, in a high end GPU or multi GPU setup, you will definitely need more CPU performance.

It is possible that the FPS could be higher but without him showing his testing methodology, it is possible that the difference in FPS is due to a margin of error in recording FPS. I've done FPS testing and without a standardized run, you will not get consistent results.

I would think of the RAM disk as an experiment to see how it fares but as to whether it offers significant benefit is unknown as I have yet to test it. There is a performance overhead to transfer it to the RAM disk and RAM disk to HDD. You could do with direct recording to the HDD, its simple and shouldn't be an issue.

I'm not saying that you would be missing a whole lot by going with the AMD FX-8350. I'm merely suggesting an alternative which costs about the same.
Click to expand...


Could you give me alternatives or something that is aroun the name price range, i have nothing against intel its just that they are a bit expensive really, i have to go school now so wont reply asap but thanks for the help and ill be looking at more options after school and if you or anyone recommends something ill look into it thanks
 
Intel based options doesn't have to be very expensive if you know the right parts to choose. You could go with this combo and you'll be saving a lot of money. You could still overclock with that combo but it is best to keep it moderate. Another one is this, CPU + motherboard, probably the best combination for a Core i5 3570K.

These 2 alternatives do not cost more than the one you have right now. To make things even or to the advantage of the FX-8350, you could do away with the Asus Crosshair V and go with a mid range that offers almost the same amount of basic features at a lower cost.
 
lol you usually dont need to consume 8 gigs for 5 minutes of recording. I use settings that give me roughly 5MB per minute of video.
 
sm625 said:
lol you usually dont need to consume 8 gigs for 5 minutes of recording. I use settings that give me roughly 5MB per minute of video.
Click to expand...

what if your going to be using fraps and record at the highest settings im sure that will take up a lot of space 😀

Also to the rest of you are you saying that intel are just betting at gaming and recording and doing other tasks like uploading to youtube and editing then the fx8350 then or is it a fanboyish (sorry if that insults you)
 
nagzstar said:
what if your going to be using fraps and record at the highest settings im sure that will take up a lot of space 😀

Also to the rest of you are you saying that intel are just betting at gaming and recording and doing other tasks like uploading to youtube and editing then the fx8350 then or is it a fanboyish (sorry if that insults you)
Click to expand...

Intel has better single threaded performance. Core for core, Intel is faster (and it shows in things like gaming). AMD has more cores, so it's more useful in multi-threaded applications.

Also, is this a desktop you're building? Perhaps it's better moved to general hardware (ask a mod to move, don't create another thread).
 
Eureka said:
Intel has better single threaded performance. Core for core, Intel is faster (and it shows in things like gaming). AMD has more cores, so it's more useful in multi-threaded applications.

Also, is this a desktop you're building? Perhaps it's better moved to general hardware (ask a mod to move, don't create another thread).
Click to expand...

yes it is a desktop i am building (online atm not got the parts) so, do you think for my needs I should go AMD since ill do a lot of stuff and what is threaded applications mean ?

also ill ask a mod to move in a second
 
nagzstar said:
what if your going to be using fraps and record at the highest settings im sure that will take up a lot of space 😀

Also to the rest of you are you saying that intel are just betting at gaming and recording and doing other tasks like uploading to youtube and editing then the fx8350 then or is it a fanboyish (sorry if that insults you)
Click to expand...
In no way am I misleading anyone to purchase based on brand preference. I've waited for Bulldozer for a very very long time, back when Phenom II X6 1055T was in my wish list. Piledriver is not quite there as well. It didn't deliver as promised so I'm left with the best alternative there is in the market that gives me the best value.

If you are compelled to believe that the AMD FX-8350 suits your needs best, go for it. It isn't my money nor am I pointing a gun at you.
 
dma0991 said:
In no way am I misleading anyone to purchase based on brand preference. I've waited for Bulldozer for a very very long time, back when Phenom II X6 1055T was in my wish list. Piledriver is not quite there as well. It didn't deliver as promised so I'm left with the best alternative there is in the market that gives me the best value.

If you are compelled to believe that the AMD FX-8350 suits your needs best, go for it. It isn't my money nor am I pointing a gun at you.
Click to expand...

what do you think of my graphics card ? since i've convinced myself to go with the amd fx 8350 as i think it will be best for having my 2 monitors and doing cpu intensive things like editing and created stuff on adobe
 
Well, I still can't watch videos myself, but I realized that video you're talking about is creating quite a buzz over on the CPU forum.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2295202
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?p=34481454#post34481454

But it's quite obvious, for just gaming, Intel chips are faster:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/the-vishera-review-amd-fx8350-fx8320-fx6300-and-fx4300-tested/5

Even for photoshop, Intel is better:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/the-vishera-review-amd-fx8350-fx8320-fx6300-and-fx4300-tested/4

Now, pretty much all applications are threaded nowadays. It's the idea of splitting a calculation into separate threads which are then run separately on different cycles, or in this case, number of cores. If it's well threaded, it will run the same calculation on as many cores as is available. i5s have only 4C/4T, so it can only split the same calcluation on 4 core. The 8350 has 8C/8T, so it can split the same calcluation onto 8 cores.

Now, this is only if the program you use is written to take advantage of it, and if it's even worthwhile to do it across multiple cores rather than having it done on the same core. In most games, threading isn't particularly useful and having fewer faster cores is more advantageous than more cores.

I'm not as saavy as to where the line should be drawn when deciding between a 8350 and i5, but for my purposes, the i5 has more benefits for me than the 8350, if they are the same price (which in my case it was). And the thing is, while the i5 has much better single-thread performance, the 8350 does not provide greater multi-thread performance.

Also, the 7970 might be overkill for 1080p. I had one running a single monitor at 1920x1200, and I was struggling to find ways to get it below 60 fps. The only times I saw it consistently less than 60fps were in Crysis 1 when I modded the game, and in The Witcher 2 which is just poorly optimized. I don't know how much recording affects GPU performance, it's another question altogether. If it turns out that recording isn't very GPU intensive, a 7870 will serve your needs completely while being half the price. I have never recorded, so that's a question you might want to ask over at VC&G.
 
Last edited:
http://pcpartpicker.com/uk/p/xLnu
due to popular demand we have brought you (jk)... yea i guess everything says thats intel is better so i guess i am going to have to go with intel.

another question the motherboard i chose. i have no idea about so any helpful advice 😀 i need a motherboard that is good (no clue what a good motherboard is)
 
Go with a Z77 board, I believe it is the cheapest chipset you can get that allows you to easily overclock an ivy bridge processor.

Generally they all function similarly, the differences are not usually worth the higher prices unles you are looking for certain features. I go with Asrock/Gigabyte because they are typically cheap but still offer good features, such as voltage fan control and full overclocking abilities. Since you have only one video card, you only need one 16x PCI-e 3.0 slot. Don't waste money on features you don't need.

The D14 combined with the 3770K will prove to be a very strong combination. But you need to combine it with a Z77 board, or it's all moot.

I once again question your need for a 7970. It is definitely the best card out there, but you could probably get by just as well with a 7950 at 1080p, while saving some good money. If you have only one monitor at 1080p, I doubt you will ever notice the difference between the two cards.

And same reasoning between 3770k vs 3570k. In most cases, the extra 4 cores isn't worth the bump in price. That does depend on your application, of course.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top