I5 with Sli or I7

[Smuglebunny]

This thread has become downright hilarious. And guess whats in my rig? i3-4330

 

My rig for swtor and work(remote desktop assistance, remoting into peoples PCs to fix minor issues, clean out malware etc):

Intel i3-4330 3.5Ghz w/hyperthreading so it shows as 4 cores in device manager, but only has 2 physical cores. This processor is comparable to AMDs top of the line CPUs in single threaded performance including the 8350.

Gigabyte mobo 1150 socket, nothing special.

Modular PSU and Small rosewill case(Line-M)

crap dvd drive cuz who cares

Sapphire 7870 OC to 1250Ghz

I had 16GB 1600 DDR3 lying around and an old 1tb WD HDD

plus an INTEL SSD 240GB for the boot drive

 

$597 Newegg Bought on black friday 2013 The i3 was $119 the 7870 was $110.

 

Could I have done better with a 8350 processor? No.

more expensive more heat more power(I'd need a larger PSU)

SO to put any AMD processor in my system in place of one of intels weakest chips would make me spend more on the chip, the power supply, and the motherboard.

Even on black friday going AMD on the processor would ad about 60-80$ to my build for almost no increase in performance. If there would be one.

 

So ACTUALLY AMD is only better on price with GPUs cuz their processors are SUCH crap. And have you seen them? They are HUGE! Its like a graham cracker. My i3 is tiny and I didnt even have to buy an after market cooler...OH I forgot I would need to buy that too to put an AMD chip in my system so It would add like $100 total to my cost.

 

SO there goes your cost argument.

 

AMD = the concealment operatives of the chip making world. (and thats a compliment)

 

Nothing you type will change the reality that AMD is inferior in all ways to nVidia and Intel...for now.

[ZahirS]

Im sorry if you think an i3 is comparable to AMD 7850k, you are clearly not a good buyer.

 

The only chip comparable to 7850k AMD and superior AMD chips is the i7 440k, thats the truth.

 

Intel=Sith Empire of Chips

AMD= People's chips Republic

[Smuglebunny]

Im sorry if you think an i3 is comparable to AMD 7850k, you are clearly not a good buyer.

 

The only chip comparable to 7850k AMD and superior AMD chips is the i7 440k, thats the truth.

 

Intel=Sith Empire of Chips

AMD= People's chips Republic

 

i3 Vs AMD 7850k

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1200?vs=1192

 

i3 has 2 cores 7850k has 4 and a higher clock speed.

 

Still the i3 beats it in single AND multithread performance.

 

here is the i3 v. 8350

8350 barely wins

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/697?vs=1192

 

So i5 or i7 smash all AMD chips. Cuz i3 competes with them so close.

 

AMD is better at being worse.

Edited May 29, 2014 by Smuglebunny

[ZahirS]

i3 Vs AMD 7850k

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1200?vs=1192

 

i3 has 2 cores 7850k has 4 and a higher clock speed.

 

Still the i3 beats it in single AND multithread performance.

 

here is the i3 v. 8350

8350 barely wins

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/697?vs=1192

 

So i5 or i7 smash all AMD chips. Cuz i3 competes with them so close.

 

AMD is better at being worse.

 

I proved that an unreliable source same form Tom's Hardware, CPU world.com is better source just as 3DGuru.

 

i3 would never beat 7850k, that is just biased and unprofesional.

[Malastare]

I proved that an unreliable source same form Tom's Hardware, CPU world.com is better source just as 3DGuru.

 

No. CPU world is not an industry authority. Toms and Anandtech are far more reliable and proven. Even Guru3D doesn't pretend to know more about hardware than Toms and Anandtech. And CPU world doesn't claim to know anything much at all. They haven't changed their website design since 2003. Furthermore, CPU world shows no benchmarks. You're basing your evaluation on CPU world's spec sheets. CPU world doesn't do testing. They don't do benchmarks. I don't think they even get review samples. They just collect spec sheets and news articles from other sites... and do it in a rather mediocre way.

 

Just to pick a single example: CPU world notes the 7850K's higher clock speed as an advantage. It's not. The IPC on a 7850K is so much lower than the i3-4330 that the Intel chip runs applications faster than the 7850K even with a lower clock speed. The whole "clock speed determines CPU power" was proven wrong years ago, when the 3 GHz Pentium IIIs were getting out-performed by ... guess, what... 2GHz AMD chips. Three years later, and the tide had turned: Intel's Core2 chips put the AthlonX2's to shame, as the Athlons simply couldn't match the IPC improvements in the Core2's. Since then, AMD has never matched Intel's IPC, and has needed to have drastically higher clock speeds to pull of similar performance.

 

And as for Guru3D: It says that the 7850K loses out to all the i7's... and since i7's and i5's have similar single-core performance... that puts it behind the i5's, too. And the i3's are just a little further back, about equal to the 7850K... and cheaper.

 

And again:

 

it is an excellent and affordable APU for a HTPC or a mainstream Windows 8.1 PC. Gamers with a high-end dedicated graphics cards will however require a little more in terms of raw processor performance.

 

Guru3D says that the chip is only really good for HTPCs and office use, and not up to gaming use. Of course, it's acceptable for GPU-intensive games, but it would still be a limiting factor. In SWTOR, the 4750K is probably going to hold you back a bit if you try to run a max quality.

[Smuglebunny]

How many ya want?

 

http://wccftech.com/dual-graphics-showdown-amd-a10-7850k-kaveri-intel-i3-4330/

 

http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i3-4330-vs-AMD-A10-7850K

 

http://hothardware.com/News/AMD-Mantle-vs-DirectX-Benchmarks-with-Battlefield-4-and-Star-Swarm/

 

Clobber

http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/177677-dual-graphics-dud-intel-clobbers-amds-apus-in-budget-gaming/1

 

Benchmarks start on pg 3.

http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/cpu/65561-amd-a10-7850k-28nm-kaveri/

[Daekarus]

I recently upgraded from a Phenom II X4 @ 3.5 GHz to a Core i5 @ 3.2GHz because my old motherboard was starting to go. With the same video card (GTX 460) @ 1920x1200 I picked up enough additional performance from the faster RAM and processor to go from no AA to max AA in this game without having to drop any other settings. The only thing I can't do is high shadows, which seems to halve my frame rate no matter what. I think a new video card would be the fix for that but it isn't worth it.

 

I don't know why people buy laptops for gaming - that has always seemed like buying a high-end compressed air rifle for deer hunting when you could get a perfectly decent 30-06 for the same price... it's an option, but it's only something to be considered when you have no choice.

[BuriDogshin]

I don't know why people buy laptops for gaming.

For some people, There Can Be Only One. That said, I have to wonder whether the total price of a mid-level laptop and a competent gaming desktop might not be less than the price of a high-end laptop ...

[Daekarus]

For some people, There Can Be Only One. That said, I have to wonder whether the total price of a mid-level laptop and a competent gaming desktop might not be less than the price of a high-end laptop ...

 

Oh, I understand, I only have one computer - my desktop. I can't imagine when or why I would want a laptop now that I'm out of school, especially since I have a smartphone which is infinitely more portable, has longer battery life, and doesn't need WiFi. To me, the laptop model has never made sense for the masses, only for specific and unusual needs. But hey, I never understand the masses.

[BuriDogshin]

Oh, I understand, I only have one computer - my desktop. I can't imagine when or why I would want a laptop now that I'm out of school ...

And the OP is, indeed, headed off to school.

 

I have a laptop for business travel BTW. And a desktop, of course.

[Satelle]

I have had the same dilemma - choosing between Lenovo y510p and MSI GE60. I really couldn't make a decision but eventually the moment had to come. I picked MSI one and even though it's only been three months since I bought it I can't say a bad word about it (maybe except of overheating issues but it concerns all laptops). From what I've seen people above complained about MSi laptops, I don't know for how long do they possess them but from my experience I can tell you it's all going well so far.

Note: Since Lenovo has GT series graphic card in and MSI one has GTX, trust me - you want to go with GTX.

Also never EVER go for AMD. I've been struggling with AMDs since I was a child and always having some problems.

 

I have a I7 and can run everything on maximum with no lag at all.

 

And now this is an absolute b******t. First - it's not lags but framerate drops you mean and secondly you will ALWAYS have some framerate drops no matter how good your laptop is. I get like 20 average FPS on max settings doing 16m operations on my MSi GE60 i7-4700MQ, GTX 760M 2GB, 1TB HDD, 8GB RAM, Win7 64 bit, FullHD. Haven't tried doing ops on low settings yet so I can't tell you how big increase of the performance might be. Anyway - 20 fps on max settings is bearable and graphics is great.

 

And don't even think of getting i5 that has GeForce 700+ graphic series cards in it. It's a step backwards. It's like putting 20 year old car's engine into a brand new one.

[Transcendent]

I proved that an unreliable source same form Tom's Hardware, CPU world.com is better source just as 3DGuru.

 

i3 would never beat 7850k, that is just biased and unprofesional.

 

So exactly how have you proved Anandtech to be an unreliable source of information?

 

I would really love to here this one. Perhaps you should go read this http://www.anandtech.com/home/about , and learn what methodologies they use. There is a reason they get review samples from major manufacturers, and it's one site that isn't afraid to point out flaws in products, regardless of the manufacturer.

 

I'd also love to know what qualifies you to prove Anandtech as an unreliable source of information?

[ZahirS]

Anadtech is not a reliable source due that its biased intel.

 

Few sites arent biased but one that does work:

 

http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/453/AMD_A10-Series_A10-7850K_vs_Intel_Core_i5_i5-4440.html

 

if it can beat core i5 it does beat core i3 by a lot.

 

AMD 7850k is a bargain that really delivers as CPU quality and graphics (Impressive) for any game.

Edited May 31, 2014 by ZahirS

[BuriDogshin]

Anadtech is not a reliable source due that its biased intel.

 

Yet if you hover over the "presented by AMD: what's this?" area on the top right of

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8067/amd-am1-kabini-part-2-athlon-53505150-and-sempron-38502650-tested/11 you will see:

 

"You've landed on the AMD Portal on AnandTech. This section is sponsored by AMD. It features a collection of all of our independent AMD content, as well as Tweets & News from AMD directly. AMD will also be running a couple of huge giveaways here so check back for those. "

 

If AnandTech is biased as you claim, why is AMD is sponsoring AnandTech?

And as near as I can tell, Intel does not sponsor AnandTech.

[BuriDogshin]

Few sites arent biased but one that does work:

 

http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/453/AMD_A10-Series_A10-7850K_vs_Intel_Core_i5_i5-4440.html

There's not a single benchmark result on that page, it just compares specification sheets and price. As a result, the page by itself is of little value. I know of what I speak: I spent over a decade working as a microprocessor architect.

[Malastare]

Anadtech is not a reliable source due that its biased intel.

 

Wrong. I don't believe you're even familiar enough with Anandtech to even try to justify it. Anandtech has been reviewing hardware for over 14 years. They are respected enough by the industry that they get test samples from both AMD and Intel. As for Intel bias, they actually get accused of the opposite, of inflating AMD benchmarks and selecting games and benchmarks that favor AMD. Nine years ago, it was Anandtech that convinced me to buy a Athlon64, explaining that Intel chips simply couldn't supply the same gaming performance of the 200MHz FSB Athlons.

 

You, on the other hand, have repeatedly failed to understand basic CPU performance metrics. You can't back up your statements with any facts. You haven't even linked to any benchmark that supports your statements. Anandtech has proven its lack of significant bias. You have not. If there is anyone that people should mistrust, it's you.

 

Few sites arent biased but one that does work:

 

If you find that all sites are biased toward Intel, except for two... then perhaps its not bias at all.

 

http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/453/AMD_A10-Series_A10-7850K_vs_Intel_Core_i5_i5-4440.html

 

if it can beat core i5 it does beat core i3 by a lot.

 

There are no scores on that page. There are just simple specs. And again: Higher clock speed isn't "better performance". If you think that it is, then you are missing some fundamental understanding of how CPUs function.

 

AMD 7850k is a bargain that really delivers as CPU quality and graphics (Impressive) for any game.

 

The A10-7850k is a bargain.

The A10-7850k is a decent quality CPU.

The A10-7850k has impressive graphics.... for an integrated graphics solution.

 

However:

 

The A10-7850k has been shown to have worse game performance than the i3-3440... many times, by many different testing groups, ranging from random users to industry standard consumer testing sites.

The A10-7850k has inferior graphics to dedicated graphics cards.

The A10-7850k has noticeably lower single-core performance than Intel chips from 2011, even CPUs running at much lower clock speeds.

The A10-7850k has worse performance in SWTOR than other Intel CPUs that cost less.

[Bugattiboy]

You probably dont know but most sites are intel biased.

It seems someone doesn't actually know the definition of "biased".

unfairly prejudiced for or against someone or something..

But to understand that definition we first need to know the definition of "prejudice".

preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience.

Now since you say all these sites are "Intel biased" they have to have passed judgement without any reason or actual experience, but since that is what they get paid to do is to have experiences and make a reasonable assessment of they we presented with, be it a CPU, GPU, or what have you. So, since they made a judgement based on reason and actual experience it cannot classed as prejudice which therefore means they are NOT biased.

 

See, the amazing things about facts themselves is that they are unbiased, impartial and they don't require your belief in them. If you want to be perpetually ignorant and continue to think AMD makes better CPUs than Intel or that AMD makes better GPUs than Nvidia then please by all means; don't let us stop you. Continue to waste your time, money, and effort on objectively inferior hardware.

 

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html (You might have to scroll a bit to find an AMD CPU)

 

http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html

Edited June 7, 2014 by Bugattiboy

[ZahirS]

It seems someone doesn't actually know the definition of "biased".

 

I do know it, thanks.

But to understand that definition we first need to know the definition of "prejudice".

 

Prejudice is different than Biased has to do with "intent" and "pre-made mis conceptions", Bias is intended by the site, while prejudice is a set a pre made miscoceptions about something, Im doubting youll get it tho.

 

Now since you say all these sites are "Intel biased" they have to have passed judgement without any reason or actual experience, but since that is what they get paid to do is to have experiences and make a reasonable assessment of they we presented with, be it a CPU, GPU, or what have you. So, since they made a judgement based on reason and actual experience it cannot classed as prejudice which therefore means they are NOT biased.

 

I say its biased, because the data is there but the conclusions differ from site to site, in most information AMD vs Intel, AMD is outranking intel in gaming related benchmarks.

See, the amazing things about facts themselves is that they are unbiased, impartial and they don't require your belief in them. If you want to be perpetually ignorant and continue to think AMD makes better CPUs than Intel or that AMD makes better GPUs than Nvidia then please by all means; don't let us stop you. Continue to waste your time, money, and effort on objectively inferior hardware.

 

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html (You might have to scroll a bit to find an AMD CPU)

 

http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html

 

Calling me perpetually ignorant, kinda makes me sad because I know most of the time Im right because I trained my mind since kid to get the truth, so its more likely that you are perpetually ignorantus, because you have a hard time accepting facts.....

Edited June 7, 2014 by ZahirS

[Daekarus]

I do know it, thanks.

 

 

Prejudice is different than Biased has to do with "intent" and "pre-made mis conceptions", Bias is intended by the site, while prejudice is a set a pre made miscoceptions about something, Im doubting youll get it tho.

 

 

 

I say its biased, because the data is there but the conclusions differ from site to site, in most information AMD vs Intel, AMD is outranking intel in gaming related benchmarks.

 

 

Calling me perpetually ignorant, kinda makes me sad because I know most of the time Im right because I trained my mind since kid to get the truth, so its more likely that you are perpetually ignorantus, because you have a hard time accepting facts.....

I just switched from a 3.5GHz Phenom II X4 970 @ 3.5GHz to a Core i5 4570 (4 cores, no HT) @ 3.2 GHz with a much lower thermal ceiling and my framerates are up. Say what you will, Intel's new chips are good, and when paired with a separate GPU they're great for gaming. I love AMD and use them for most builds, but the APUs are not enough for more than mainstream gaming, and the FX processors are fine if you want lots of cores without mortgaging your house. Unfortunately, games don't usually use more than 4 threads.

 

AMD makes a fine product, and I can't complain about the value proposition, but it is wrong to claim they're beating Intel in the absolute speed race. AMD makes chips that are affordable and good enough for 95% of the population - and good enough for the PS4. I like them. But they're not top-tier anymore, and there is no point pretending. Buy their products based on the strengths they have, not the ones you wish they had.

[Malastare]

I say its biased, because the data is there but the conclusions differ from site to site, in most information AMD vs Intel, AMD is outranking intel in gaming related benchmarks.

 

No, its not, and you've never produced any data to show that.

 

All you've shown are spec sheets, and even those don't show AMD having any advantage over Intel. You've shown that the 7850K has more "cores" and a higher clock speed than some Intel chips, but you've utterly failed to understand that:

 

1) Gaming performance is based largely on single-core performance. Even in games that support multi-core execution, the work load cannot be parallelized like encoding/decoding tasks. Thus, having a higher core count doesn't give you better gaming performance... and in general simply having more cores doesn't mean a more powerful chip.

 

2) Clock speed isn't a measure of CPU power. Just because a chip runs at a higher clock speed doesn't mean it will have higher performance. That was true back in 1995. It's not true now. Chips can perform much more work now in a single clock cycle than they did 10 or even 4 years ago. That is why clock speeds have increased only slightly over the last 5 years, but processor performance has continued to grow.

 

Calling me perpetually ignorant, kinda makes me sad because I know most of the time Im right because I trained my mind since kid to get the truth.

 

I find that hard to believe. A number of people have been supplying you with information in this thread. We've provided links to sources that know far more about CPU design and performance than you'll ever know. (And its more than I'll ever know... that's why I go to them for information). You refused to believe those sources. Despite the fact that they have far more education, far more experience, and far more credibility in the industry, you insist that they are wrong and you are right. You don't have any information to back up your beliefs, but you believe they are wrong simply because they're saying things that disagree with you.

 

So how about this: What qualifies you as more knowledgeable than Anandtech, Tom's, Guru3D, Overclockers, and the rest of the enthusiast builder community?

 

I, myself, have a bachelor's degree in computer science and twelve years experience writing software, including OS monitoring software and OS/network analysis software. I've written a number of multi-threaded applications, a few distributed applications, and one distributed-controller application. I've been building PCs since 1997. At work, I deal with everything from Athlon64s and Opterons, to Core2 and Ivy-Bridge Xeons. (We're ditching our Opterons and Athlons, though... their cost/performace ratio is too high... though I bet that's just our accountants being part of the Intel conspiracy....)

 

I have built and used computers with both Intel and AMD chips. I was actually a very strong advocate of the Athlon and Athlon64 chips. I'm not a fan of Intel. I refuse to buy their stock on ethical grounds. But I don't let my ethics and general opinion of the company cloud my judgement of the factual performance of the CPUs they make. That's what being unbiased is about. I dislike the company, but when people ask for the best gaming CPUs, I tell them that Intel has the best high end performance and (at least for now) the best budget performance.

[ZahirS]

No, its not, and you've never produced any data to show that.

 

I did provide the data, you saying otherwise doesnt make it true.

 

All you've shown are spec sheets, and even those don't show AMD having any advantage over Intel. You've shown that the 7850K has more "cores" and a higher clock speed than some Intel chips, but you've utterly failed to understand that:

 

Why decieve people? I never claimed AMD had more cores than intel, which in fact Intel does have more cores, I claimed AMD 7850k is better in gaming than most intel chips, except i7 which is "top of all chips" .

 

]

1) Gaming performance is based largely on single-core performance. Even in games that support multi-core execution, the work load cannot be parallelized like encoding/decoding tasks. Thus, having a higher core count doesn't give you better gaming performance... and in general simply having more cores doesn't mean a more powerful chip.

 

You have no idea what you are saying, AMD core structure and process are two different things AMD cores run on parallell while intel cores work tast per task on linear and very outdated way.

 

2) Clock speed isn't a measure of CPU power. Just because a chip runs at a higher clock speed doesn't mean it will have higher performance. That was true back in 1995. It's not true now. Chips can perform much more work now in a single clock cycle than they did 10 or even 4 years ago. That is why clock speeds have increased only slightly over the last 5 years, but processor performance has continued to grow.

 

I told you this...

 

Anyway, clock speeds dont matter what matters now if how efficient is a chip while working on intensive graphic programs, AMD has this completely even if 7850k is quad-core compared to an Intel icore 5 (5 cores) AMD is faster and more efficient.

 

I find that hard to believe. A number of people have been supplying you with information in this thread. We've provided links to sources that know far more about CPU design and performance than you'll ever know. (And its more than I'll ever know... that's why I go to them for information). You refused to believe those sources. Despite the fact that they have far more education, far more experience, and far more credibility in the industry, you insist that they are wrong and you are right. You don't have any information to back up your beliefs, but you believe they are wrong simply because they're saying things that disagree with you.

 

So how about this: What qualifies you as more knowledgeable than Anandtech, Tom's, Guru3D, Overclockers, and the rest of the enthusiast builder community?

 

I, myself, have a bachelor's degree in computer science and twelve years experience writing software, including OS monitoring software and OS/network analysis software. I've written a number of multi-threaded applications, a few distributed applications, and one distributed-controller application. I've been building PCs since 1997. At work, I deal with everything from Athlon64s and Opterons, to Core2 and Ivy-Bridge Xeons. (We're ditching our Opterons and Athlons, though... their cost/performace ratio is too high... though I bet that's just our accountants being part of the Intel conspiracy....)

 

I have built and used computers with both Intel and AMD chips. I was actually a very strong advocate of the Athlon and Athlon64 chips. I'm not a fan of Intel. I refuse to buy their stock on ethical grounds. But I don't let my ethics and general opinion of the company cloud my judgement of the factual performance of the CPUs they make. That's what being unbiased is about. I dislike the company, but when people ask for the best gaming CPUs, I tell them that Intel has the best high end performance and (at least for now) the best budget performance.

 

Sorry but not buying your a computer scientist, I rather think you are guy with over-inflated ego and like to make facts of things he likes, instead of accepting facts....

 

Good research you did there, I think the days you folks saying Intel "Is the top chip" are over, AMD days are here to stay like always you folks like to contradict facts, now go get info and try to back it up...

Edited June 7, 2014 by ZahirS

[Smuglebunny]

How many ya want?

 

http://wccftech.com/dual-graphics-showdown-amd-a10-7850k-kaveri-intel-i3-4330/

 

http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i3-4330-vs-AMD-A10-7850K

 

http://hothardware.com/News/AMD-Mantle-vs-DirectX-Benchmarks-with-Battlefield-4-and-Star-Swarm/

 

Clobber

http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/177677-dual-graphics-dud-intel-clobbers-amds-apus-in-budget-gaming/1

 

Benchmarks start on pg 3.

http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/cpu/65561-amd-a10-7850k-28nm-kaveri/

 

Do these not exsist? OR are they all anandtech?

[Smuglebunny]

I already PROVED WITH FACTS that an i3 haswell is better than 98% of AMD chips FOR GAMING.

 

All you have done is repeatedly state your provably incorrect ideas about AMD and Intel chips regardless of any information put before you.

 

The AMD 4 core 7850k loses in nearly EVERY benchmark to the 2 core i3 4330.

 

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=amd_kaveri_7850k&num=3

 

this is the slower i3 4130

http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i3-4130-vs-AMD-A10-7850K

 

here are some i3s beating the FX-8350 lol

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core-i3-4340-4330-4130_4.html#sect0

 

 

Its over dude. AMD is in FACT not as good as intel. Only speaking of CPUs.

[Smuglebunny]

Anyway, clock speeds dont matter what matters now if how efficient is a chip while working on intensive graphic programs, AMD has this completely even if 7850k is quad-core compared to an Intel icore 5 (5 cores) AMD is faster and more efficient.

 

You obviously know more than us.

 

 

 

 

 

 

(i5 has 4 cores and it crushes all AMD CPUs, also the intel chips are more efficient with heat, electricity and core speed, regardless of clock)

 

Im done at this point. No person could read this thread and then buy an AMD cpu. And if they do, they deserve it.

Edited June 8, 2014 by Smuglebunny

[Nemesiae]

Hello all,

I have a weird issue when running swtor on my PC. It appears only 1 of the 2 chips (I own an ATI HD 6990) of my GPU is being used when running the game which results in quite a fast overheating of the chip since there's only 1 fan on the GPU which makes half the work of the fan useless.

I also tried configuring the game with raptor for optimization with my system but this didn't solve anything. This far swtor is the only software for which I noticed this effect (I've been playing COD or AC4 for hours without any issues).

 

System info :

CPU : i7 980X

GPU : ATI HD6990

RAM : 12 Gb

MB : Asus X58 Sabertooth (several issues with quickly overheating northbridge)