Will next-gen games run better on AMD 8350 than 3770K?

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

The 8350 stock speed is 4.0GHz.

Also there's a lot to the AMD processors, for example they have very large amounts of slower cache compared to the Intel chips, so if you factor that into your programming you can increase the performance. The total instructions per second of the 8350 is also theoretically higher than a 3770k, provided you can utilise all the cores as a 3770k only has 4 cores + 4 hyperthreaded ones where as an 8350 is closer to 8 real cores.

Another aspect is loads of people don't overclock. Also the FX6300 with a low 3.5GHZ base clockspeed is matching a Core i5 2500K,and only 10% behind a Core i5 3570K. Not bad at all for people who want to run Crysis3.

Hopefully there will be more cases like this,so we are not still stuck with dual cores with HT at £90 to £100. Maybe we will see Core i5 CPUs at closer to £100 instead.

 

[humbug]

Another aspect is loads of people don't overclock. Also the FX6300 with a low 3.5GHZ base clockspeed is matching a Core i5 2500K,and only 10% behind a Core i5 3570K. Not bad at all for people who want to run Crysis3.

Hopefully there will be more cases like this,so we are not still stuck with dual cores with HT at £90 to £100. Maybe we will see Core i5 CPUs at closer to £100 instead.

for sure, i would like to see the 3930K at £230, 3770K at £170 and the 3570K at the £140 mark.

 

[drunkenmaster]

The 8350 stock speed is 4.0GHz.

Also there's a lot to the AMD processors, for example they have very large amounts of slower cache compared to the Intel chips, so if you factor that into your programming you can increase the performance. The total instructions per second of the 8350 is also theoretically higher than a 3770k, provided you can utilise all the cores as a 3770k only has 4 cores + 4 hyperthreaded ones where as an 8350 is closer to 8 real cores.

Its not Bulldozer and PIledriver have a LOWER instruction potential than Intel, by quite some margin, Steamroller will however reverse the biggest bottleneck in the architecture.

Currently each module, not core, share a 4 instruction decoder, that means 4 cores can decode 16 instructions and 8 cores can... still decode only 16 instructions. Phenom 2 was 3 per core, so a quad could do 12, and a hexcore phenom 2 could do 18. Intel has had 4 instructions per core for some time, meaning their quad can do 16, and their hex can do 24.

Steamroller fixes the biggest bottleneck, while also moving then to 28nm, and adding a lot of power saving tech(AMD much like Intel has done a lot of work on saving power on Kabini/Kaveri, but more work on IPC than Intel has done for Haswell), it will be 4 per core, so up to 32 for the hexcore.

Decoding instructions is one thing, its certainly a limit that held back single and multithreaded applications. Remember for effective power management two threads uses less power using 2 cores in one module, than 1 core each in 2 modules, its a fine line between when you want lowest power wasting and best performance. When you had 8 threads though there was no way around it, each thread would be limited by that 4 instruction decoder, 28nm allows that little bit of space to essentially expand the inside of each core, improving performance.

That's why waiting for steamroller is worth it, significant improvement in a variety of situations, and 8 full cores for the same price Intel gives you 4 at, we'll probably have 8 core Steamrollers priced against quad core intel's without HT. If steamroller is good enough, it might push HT using quads into the £150 range, which is good, or make them release some hex's on mainstream platforms, also good, maybe both.

 

[badcompany]

8 core game 8350 will kick arse

 

[whiteshadow]

Do most people reckon waiting to see what AMD do with Steamroller is a better option than upgrading atm?

 

[humbug]

Do most people reckon waiting to see what AMD do with Steamroller is a better option than upgrading atm?

As has been said SR should be a good improvement on PD but its a year off yet.

If you already have an AM3+ Motherboard PD is not a bad option.

 

[drunkenmaster]

If you need something now, like you're struggling along on a dual core... I wouldn't wait, I'm inclined to believe Steamroller will be compatible with anything that runs Piledriver, as I doubt there will be a major socket change till ddr4 maybe sometime towards end of 2014.. though I can't be sure of that.

If you aren't desparate and have any quad core from the past few years, I would absolutely wait for Steamroller. I think it will be far more power efficient, it will likely overclock better(being on 28nm), it should have some huge IPC boosts in quite a few situations.

I've said for a while now, both the console situation, and simply because Steamroller was always going to fix Bulldozer's biggest problems, that a "fixed/tweaked" second gen 8 core £150 chip from AMD was when its out, going to perform pretty incredibly vs an Intel quad core. Thing that really gets me is, Intel have a HUGE process advantage, make much smaller dies, and sell them for a higher cost, their margins are insane. £150 Sandy becomes 30-40% smaller, and gets sold for the same, realistically it should have as previous shrinks years ago, dropped the cost, dropped quad cores to the £100-150 bracket, and introduced hex/octo cores in the £200-400 bracket. I honestly believed they would have to be doing that with Haswell, mainstream hex's, but they are still screwing everyone. A hex or octo Haswell would be awesome, at £200 for a hex maybe, they just can't be bothered as most people will buy whatever they push out anyway.

Without Intel pushing hex/octo into affordable price brackets, Steamroller 8 cores are, for power users, going to offer a ridiculously good, potentially far far more powerful alternative.

The fact that just a decent amount of optimisation and compiling to take advantage of AMD cpu's and, well, you get Crysis 3, where a 8350 performs brilliantly. Bulldozer was never, and has never been a bad architecture, its just not given as much support from the industry as Intel get and optimisation makes a monumental difference.

That is really the most important thing the consoles will bring gamers, massive optimisation for AMD hardware, cpu and GPU and most/all games being AMD optimised.

Look at Sleeping Dogs, a game heavily optimised for AMD, it blows a 680gtx away and Titan, a chip costing 3 times as much with an over 50% larger die is only 10-15% faster.

 

[adolf hamster]

i think the problem amd is going to have, is by the time that optimisation for the consoles filters down into a serious advantage for their chips intel will likely have rolled out an 8 core and still end up demolishing them. god knows intel has the money to do that.

tbh, i think what people claim is amd's BD being 'bad' should be rephrased as 'intel being better at the time'. i'll confess to having a soft spot for amd, and i'm glad despite all the 'benchmarks' that i went with them, only means games in future will actually use all the hardware. its a bit like buying a v8 mustang and taking the HT leads off half the cylinders.

 

[HangTime]

I think as the number of cores increases it will get increasingly harder to properly optimise because in order to be efficient you have to break down all the threads into small enough chunks to share amongst all the cores.

Essentially what happens is you nearly always get a few 'greedy' threads that become the bottleneck - in other words if say 4 threads require more than 50% of the processing power then you can never fully be fully efficient because they other 4 cores can't be fully loaded.

Of course that's not to say that having a stable architecture with 8 cores won't provide a massive incentive for developers (lots of power to unlock) and one could argue that the PS3 and GTA4 was a great example of how new console hardware helped to drive the benefits of having more than dual-core. But optimising for 3 cores is a helluva lot easier than 8.

In summation I'd be surprised if octa-core gave massive advantages over hecta-core in gaming (all else being equal) at least over the next couple of years. Over quad.... possibly, but it is unlikely that 'all else will be equal' in that scenario - a quad that is faster core-for-core is still likely to be very competitive as I see it.

 

[d_brennen]

haha tested it oc not stock lol

chuck in dustbin

i5 3570k is faster in games never mind a 3770k

why cant anyone just do proper reviews? show stock and oc

What are you on about?

 

[eddyr]

I think as the number of cores increases it will get increasingly harder to properly optimise because in order to be efficient you have to break down all the threads into small enough chunks to share amongst all the cores.

Essentially what happens is you nearly always get a few 'greedy' threads that become the bottleneck - in other words if say 4 threads require more than 50% of the processing power then you can never fully be fully efficient because they other 4 cores can't be fully loaded.

To me what's important is whether it's fast enough. For example what you see now on the lower ipc amd hex/octo cores is that those greedy/master threads limit max fps (so if that is your desire -which for some benchers/gamers it is- it is a bottleneck) but is not necessarily a hindrance to making the game enjoyably playable and smooth and putting the extra processing power to added ingame goodness.

 

[wolvers]

why cant anyone just do proper reviews? show stock and oc

Those are at stock you dingbat!

OCd 8350 and 3770k to 4.5ghz and the 8350 is still faster in Crysis3;

http://pctuning.tyden.cz/multimedia...t-naroku-nejkrasnejsi-hry-soucasnosti?start=6

AMD chips have loads of potential, it's just a shame that not enough devs are coding to suit multi-cores. It would benefit ALL cpus and put more competition into the market. However, I do believe that AMD need to be ultra pro-active in making this happen.

I think it's fair to say though that if Intel have a mainstream 8-core CPU waiting to be released they'll easily be stretching their legs again.

 

[humbug]

Those are at stock you dingbat!

OCd 8350 and 3770k to 4.5ghz and the 8350 is still faster in Crysis3;

http://pctuning.tyden.cz/multimedia...t-naroku-nejkrasnejsi-hry-soucasnosti?start=6

AMD chips have loads of potential, it's just a shame that not enough devs are coding to suit multi-cores. It would benefit ALL cpus and put more competition into the market. However, I do believe that AMD need to be ultra pro-active in making this happen.

I think it's fair to say though that if Intel have a mainstream 8-core CPU waiting to be released they'll easily be stretching their legs again.

Hei... nice ^^^

They have a 12 thread 6 core that would do that, all they have to do is drop the price to make it affordable.

 

[olivier renault]

You wont get exclusive access to all cores, or all the memory for that matter. A good portion of both are reserved by the operating system and the file caching.

The new consoles will certainly help AMD bridge the gap and have developers optimise to their architecture. They will favour a more memory bandwidth optimised approach, which again plays in the hand of AMD processors and help them against Intels (who have better branch-prediction / latency / IPC / cache). Wont hurt intels, but will improve things substantially for AMDs.

 

[Marine-RX179]

Those are at stock you dingbat!

OCd 8350 and 3770k to 4.5ghz and the 8350 is still faster in Crysis3;

http://pctuning.tyden.cz/multimedia...t-naroku-nejkrasnejsi-hry-soucasnosti?start=6

AMD chips have loads of potential, it's just a shame that not enough devs are coding to suit multi-cores. It would benefit ALL cpus and put more competition into the market. However, I do believe that AMD need to be ultra pro-active in making this happen.

I think it's fair to say though that if Intel have a mainstream 8-core CPU waiting to be released they'll easily be stretching their legs again.

I think we will still only see selected few big titles under EA would use up to 6-8 cores effectively, while the lesser/lazier publisher/developers would continue to throw poorly threaded/ported games in our faces until the new consoles are launched.

If only the new consoles were out in the next few months...but they are not, so still a long way to go.

 

[humbug]

I think we will still only see selected few big titles under EA would use up to 6-8 cores effectively, while the lesser/lazier publisher/developers would continue to throw poorly threaded/ported games in our faces until the new consoles are launched.

If only the new consoles were out in the next few months...but they are not, so still a long way to go.

Games are becoming more and more sophisticated, there is no more performance to be had from one or two cores, even Intel get huge FPS drops in such games.

To continue on like that is just plain idiotic, the use of more and more cores is the way to go.

Dev's have already recognised that, all of the newer mainstream games released are increasingly well threaded, and they just keep getting better and better.

Crysis3 is just the latest, and so far best instalment.

 

[Ollie1132]

Games WILL use 8 cores and very soon, both consoles have gone for 8 core low power cpu's rather than quad or 8 core high power chips.

Bull. That is all. Consoles operate completely differently to PC's. Those 8 cores? Well they are a lot slower than an i5 will be. They will be doing more towards the end of the consoles lifespan than at the beginning. Multithreading games is a very very hard thing to do. Those 8 cores probably 2-3 of them are going to be used fully. The other 5 will be doing mundane tasks and calculations for quite a while. Probably 3 years. By the time all 8 cores are being used PC architecture would have advanced 3-4 generations in CPU and GPU. This will obviously mean that Quads will probably start to see the 3rd and 4th core being used more often and multi threaded/cored CPU's will start to see a better use of the extra's but thats 3 or so years down the line. Thats a very very long time away.

 

[humbug]

Bull. That is all. Consoles operate completely differently to PC's. Those 8 cores? Well they are a lot slower than an i5 will be. They will be doing more towards the end of the consoles lifespan than at the beginning. Multithreading games is a very very hard thing to do. Those 8 cores probably 2-3 of them are going to be used fully. The other 5 will be doing mundane tasks and calculations for quite a while. Probably 3 years. By the time all 8 cores are being used PC architecture would have advanced 3-4 generations in CPU and GPU. This will obviously mean that Quads will probably start to see the 3rd and 4th core being used more often and multi threaded/cored CPU's will start to see a better use of the extra's but thats 3 or so years down the line. Thats a very very long time away.

This latest gen of Consoles are PC's, deliberately to make porting back and forth easy.

 

[Phixsator]

Bull. That is all. Consoles operate completely differently to PC's. Those 8 cores? Well they are a lot slower than an i5 will be. They will be doing more towards the end of the consoles lifespan than at the beginning. Multithreading games is a very very hard thing to do. Those 8 cores probably 2-3 of them are going to be used fully. The other 5 will be doing mundane tasks and calculations for quite a while. Probably 3 years. By the time all 8 cores are being used PC architecture would have advanced 3-4 generations in CPU and GPU. This will obviously mean that Quads will probably start to see the 3rd and 4th core being used more often and multi threaded/cored CPU's will start to see a better use of the extra's but thats 3 or so years down the line. Thats a very very long time away.

Actually according to the latest PS4 info i could find it would be based on a x86-64 bit CPU. That sounds to me like a move towards the standard PC.

 

[humbug]

As is rumoured the new Xbox ^^^^

Looks like an AMD x86_x64 again.