New rig/pc suggestions

You could, but the point is that the OP's money would be better spent on an Intel CPU. He/she asked the community for advice on a build, and we're trying to steer them in what we think is the best direction.

Understandable. I just don't like people with the attitude of "X is better than Y because reasons." It's dumb and unprofessional. He could have said that Intel/nvidia would be better for the price stand point rather than saying never buy AMD cause they aren't good at anything at all.

Now given my limited understanding, the price you would need for X performance from an Intel/nvidia machine would be just slightly under preforming compared to the AMD set up for the exact same money.

Ah, I see, that's perfectly understandable.
As for price/performance, I actually don't think that's true (you can take a look at my really long post on the last page) but essentially, for the same money, you get more 'overall' performance with an AMD CPU (meaning if you total up all of the cpu cores). However, you get more real-world performance from an Intel CPU because each CPU core is 2-3 times faster.

A CPU is, essentially, a calculator. Everything your computer does is actually a series of many rapid arithmetic operations. The faster these calculations are run, the faster your computer is. And the simple fact of the matter is that Intel's CPUs can do these calculations much faster than AMD's CPUs. AMD just piles more CPUs ('cores') onto a die in an attempt to make up the discrepancy. However, with the way software works, only so many things can be parallelized. And even then, the process is usually still limited by the speed of the core running the main thread. So you get diminishing returns when adding more processors. The best solution is always to make the core faster, rather than to add multiple cores. Hence why Intel CPUs give better real-world performance.

You could build a great rig for that money if you want to run at 1080p.

I'm running an old i7 at 3.8 with a 970, with ultrasampling on.

Getting 60 FPS pretty consistently, never drops below about 45,and then only briefly.

The multi-threading performance appears so much better than it was, got 8 cores working pretty hard most of the time, up to about 80/90% CPU use I think, never GPU locked.

You could build this rig for way under your budget.

You are too subjective. I am not asking him to consider for Intel I am telling him to buy Intel if he want to play all MMO's at ultra with no fps drops. If he want to throw 1200$ to play on medium thats his choice. AMD is just simply bad for MMO's.

With that kind of money I can guarantee that you can build an AMD system that runs this game on Ultra, at 1080p 60 FPS with all of the right parts so again you still have that snide distaste and unfair bias towards AMD. Next you gonna tell me I can't play games with a track ball? Don't go down the slippery slope road, kay mate?

I can have 60 fps on ultra on my sistem too in starting area. Consider ultra on 96+x96+ fights...I can guarantee you cant have 60 fps ultra at 1080p in that fights. I wont argue with fanboy of AMD, I like AMD its cheaper but its crap for MMO's.

That is fine, since he has the budget he should go Intel. Those without the budget (like me when I built this rig), should get an FX-4350/6350/8350/etc.

I highly doubt that his framerate never drops below 60 fps, especially on Ultra. He probably never drops below 30, but when there are literally 300+ players in your area firing guns, your FPS WILL drop below 60. It may not drop as often as an 8350, but it will still drop.

I play on the slowest 4th gen i3 and never drop below 30. except in massive fights but that is because of gpu limitation. my gpu is terrible.

My build is pretty cheap and I get great frames though I'm self-limited to 60 FPS.

my rig runs on an old AMD phenom II (4 years old now, 4 cores) and it sucks. I really intend to upgrade because i get CPU bottlenecked and hit 20-30 fps when fights have more than about 24 people within render distance.

Draw what conclusions you will from this. All my other games run real smooth (even tw3 runs ultra w/ no frame drops). I actually think PS2 was designed for intel cpu's, but i have nothing to back this up.

The Core i3 4160 ($119 newegg) and 4170 ($124 newegg) would give it a serious run for its money. The hyperthreading does a really good job of matching the higher core counts in AMD CPUs and the better architecture does a great job of beating AMD is single thread performance while putting out less than half as much heat. It also has AES-NI. Which is amazing if you do things that involve encryption.

Why would you compare it to the low power and low clock speed 4130T? The T series chips are for mini ITX builds in tiny cases with poor ventilation. Its like you are comparing your Civic SI to a Ford Focus S and ignoring the Ford Focus ST.

Has the op got this new rig yet?.

Update op?. what did you go for?.

Op, if you went for AMD, i will find you, i will run a magnet over your HDD.

I would have suggested AMD if he was on a budget. Thats where AMD thrives. If ya got $1000 to spare, more power to ya. Intel is the clear winner at that level.

I'm GPU locked on a rig with a 5800k AMD processor, no graphics card, and 8 gigs of 1833mhz ram (fast ram for internal GPU). That cost me $300 including the fancy case. Course I'm only running the game on medium but I can watch a video, while recording the game at 30fps. They really did a good job optimizing the game.

Over $500 budget and Intel takes over as the winner. IMO

That's pretty cool. I like that.

Yeah budget APU builds without video cards are the only place where AMD can really overtake Intel. Once you go the separate CPU and GPU route Intel wins pretty much every time.

okay enjoy your future heated slag heap

Edit to clarify I have the 4130. It is better than amd for ps2 and it runs cool and quiet