MK809III Quad-Core Android 4.2 Mini PC TV Stick

NomadAssassin

2013-07-28 23:14

Here is how things stand in short and long answer. If you just want to play games go with AMD, if you want to use your PC for more then Intel. So basically the 8 core AMD is cheaper and wont perform better than more expensive quad core i7 but about the same or little bit less. You wont notice any difference in real life gameplay. AMD's are better CPUs on paper but the current OSs and applications doesn't take any advantage over them. It all depends on the cash you are willing to spend. I would go with FX-8350 if were on you since I play only games and nothing more.

#4627733

bryonhowley

2013-07-29 07:10

Benchmarks aside a FX-8320 or FX-8350 make a great gaming CPU. I have three rigs a FX-8120 FX-8350 and a i5 3570K and for gaming rigs they all work great. I built the i5 rig in January mostly because I read so many post about how bad the FX CPU's were and how I should go intel. When it was all said and done I have a really nice rig but as far as gaming performance it is right on par with my other two rigs. Do not get me wrong I am happy with the build but the fact is it is not all that faster than the two I already had. But you live and learn and what I really found out is performance in gaming mostly comes down to the GPU more so than the CPU. In the end weather you choose AMD or intel comes down to preference more than performance.

#4627836

GeniusPr0

2013-07-29 13:04

Interesting read. http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-future-proofing-your-pc-for-next-gen

One of the people interviewed recommends a TITAN for future games because 6GB is what we will need. LOL OK. There are a few other stupid details. Mostly BS.

#4627839

Pill Monster

2013-07-29 13:11

One of the people interviewed recommends a TITAN for future games because 6GB is what we will need. LOL OK. There are a few other stupid details. Mostly BS.

Nope not bull****. 2 years ago people would have said the same thing about 4GB vram.

#4627869

eclap

2013-07-29 14:00

That article you linked somewhere else Pill, about the new consoles and PC hardware that will be needed to run those next gen games said that a lot of Vram will be used. It's funny, when I bought my 7950 I thought 3gb was so obnoxiously over the top lol, now I'm thinking bring it on devs, give us games that use 3gb+ of Vram. I'm pretty sure I should be fine though, at 1080p and usually don't run AA anyway, so even if the Vram usage goes up dramatically and games will starting to use 3-4gb Vram, I will be ok.

#4627876

NomadAssassin

2013-07-29 14:13

One of the people interviewed recommends a TITAN for future games because 6GB is what we will need. LOL OK. There are a few other stupid details. Mostly BS.

When you need 6GB to play a game, the TITAN gonna be weak as **** because simply won't have the processing power to render the game at adequate FPS.

#4627895

GeniusPr0

2013-07-29 14:45

When you need 6GB to play a game, the TITAN gonna be weak as **** because simply won't have the processing power to render the game at adequate FPS.

Exactly. These types of articles are on the same quality as celebrity gossip 2013. At least it raised a few good points: - More games will be forced to have more parallel processes, which means AMD FX cpus will fair better - PS4 has very fast memory which means ports will have to use different techniques in the meantime. Sure GPUs have 300GB/s but main system memory is around 20MB/s to 40MB/s.

#4627897

eclap

2013-07-29 14:50

When you need 6GB to play a game, the TITAN gonna be weak as **** because simply won't have the processing power to render the game at adequate FPS.

that is most likely true, but some 2gb cards will run out of vram before they run out of power. cards like 2gb 680/770/670 etc might struggle when games start using over 3gb vram. Which could easily happen sooner than later.

#4627902

yasamoka

2013-07-29 15:19

Exactly. These types of articles are on the same quality as celebrity gossip 2013. At least it raised a few good points: - More games will be forced to have more parallel processes, which means AMD FX cpus will fair better - PS4 has very fast memory which means ports will have to use different techniques in the meantime. Sure GPUs have 300GB/s but main system memory is around 20MB/s to 40MB/s.

Which are what we actually took from the article while discarding the rest.

that is most likely true, but some 2gb cards will run out of vram before they run out of power. cards like 2gb 680/770/670 etc might struggle when games start using over 3gb vram. Which could easily happen sooner than later.

A few months ago, you'd have been bashed for that opinion. While 2GB still does the job, and is likely to keep doing the job for some time, you might run into a wall here and there. The problem is that Nvidia is still releasing their GTX770 with 2GB of VRAM @ their standard $400 price point.

#4627908

GeniusPr0

2013-07-29 15:35

Which are what we actually took from the article while discarding the rest.

Ooops, meant to say 20,000MB/s-40,000MB/s for main system memory read speed.

that is most likely true, but some 2gb cards will run out of vram before they run out of power. cards like 2gb 680/770/670 etc might struggle when games start using over 3gb vram. Which could easily happen sooner than later.

Bioshock Infinite/Crysis 3/Tomb Raider All run <60fps before they start using >2GB VRAM. That was on my 7970. The VRAM debate is pointless. Needing dual cards to keep 60FPS in future games will be more of an issue than 670/680 users having 2GB VRAM now.

#4627924

GeniusPr0

2013-07-29 16:30

delete

#4627973

eclap

2013-07-29 18:28

Ooops, meant to say 20,000MB/s-40,000MB/s for main system memory read speed. Bioshock Infinite/Crysis 3/Tomb Raider All run <60fps before they start using >2GB VRAM. That was on my 7970. The VRAM debate is pointless. Needing dual cards to keep 60FPS in future games will be more of an issue than 670/680 users having 2GB VRAM now.

I'm talking about the future games when we get ports from ps4/xbone that will be able to utilize a lot more vram than current ports. Also bf4 alpha easily sails pass 2gb vram usage at 1080p. So while 2gb might be plenty nowadays, give it a year and you might see cards running out of vram before they run out of power.

#4628045

GeniusPr0

2013-07-29 21:44

I'm talking about the future games when we get ports from ps4/xbone that will be able to utilize a lot more vram than current ports. Also bf4 alpha easily sails pass 2gb vram usage at 1080p. So while 2gb might be plenty nowadays, give it a year and you might see cards running out of vram before they run out of power.

Other future games, maybe, just maybe, but we'll have different cards by then. I've seen it happen before where cards with the highest VRAM get honored. E.g. King Kong/Doom 3 on Ultra. BF4 might surpass 2GB VRAM but if the framerate is anything to go by in the alpha benches then those on their single 3-4GB card will be getting 25-40fps which isn't enough.