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

[humbug]

what does it matter if its true ?

simple things it comes down to if you want fastest cpu on the whole for gaming you get a intel.

you have a limited budget for your build but still want a good experience you get amd

thats how simple it is with choosing your gaming cpu.

show as many benchmarks as you want intel is the fastest choice while amd are good for a limited budget. call it hyperboling or whatever you want i call it straight truth

For pepole who play mainly DX11 games @ 1080P or don't have a case stuffed with GTX 690's they can save themselves £70 or use that money for a better GPU and get an AMD CPU, as it makes no diffrance to thier gaming performance.
Well actually for most people a more expensive faster GPU + a cheaper AMD CPU is a better gaming experiance than a more expensive Intel CPU + a slower cheaper GPU.

If its a choice between a 7870 + a 3570K or a 7950 + an FX-8320 which one is the smart choice?

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I don't think anyone can argue that Intel isn't the best choice for gaming if money is no object, but your statement is way too generalised AND over exaggerated. Or as Martini puts it, hyperbolic (I swear that I didn't have to look it up ). It's like saying that Nvidia is faster than AMD 99 percent of the time just because of Titan. Which is true, but again a very generalised statement.

Exactly.

For pepole who play mainly DX11 games @ 1080P or don't have a case stuffed with GTX 690's they can save themselves £70 or use that money for a better GPU and get an AMD CPU, as it makes no diffrance to thier gaming performance.
Well actually for most people a more expensive faster GPU + a cheaper AMD CPU is a better gaming experiance than a more expensive Intel CPU + a slower cheaper GPU.

If its a choice between a 7870 + a 3570K or a 7950 + an FX-8320 which one is the smart choice?

Moreover,it also does not take into account the whole price range below £150 either,or future trends.

The question what would run Crysis3 or BF3 better?? An HD7850 and a Core i3 3220 or a HD7850 an a FX6300,or a Core i5 3350P and a HD7770?? They all cost around the same.

The same goes even down to the AMD APUs against the equivalent Intel ones too and so on and so forth.

 

[ubersonic]

what does it matter if its true ?

simple things it comes down to if you want fastest cpu on the whole for gaming you get a intel.

you have a limited budget for your build but still want a good experience you get amd

thats how simple it is with choosing your gaming cpu.

show as many benchmarks as you want intel is the fastest choice while amd are good for a limited budget. call it hyperboling or whatever you want i call it straight truth

For pepole who play mainly DX11 games @ 1080P or don't have a case stuffed with GTX 690's they can save themselves £70 or use that money for a better GPU and get an AMD CPU, as it makes no diffrance to thier gaming performance.
Well actually for most people a more expensive faster GPU + a cheaper AMD CPU is a better gaming experiance than a more expensive Intel CPU + a slower cheaper GPU.

If its a choice between a 7870 + a 3570K or a 7950 + an FX-8320 which one is the smart choice?

The idea of skimping on the CPU to splurge on the GPU is always a good one as if its done right its great for maximizing performance, however when considering the option of cheaping on the CPU, all options should be considered, i.e why go for a 7950 + FX-8320 when it would be half the price (CPU+MB) to go for a 7950 + used i5 750 (1st gen i5's also have better per core performance than piledriver).

Don't get me wrong I do like AMD and wish they were more competitive with Intel so Intel would be forced to push their envelope like in the Athlon days. But I really don't see the point of buying an 8 core AMD CPU in the hope that software becomes optimized for that many cores before the CPU becomes obsolete due to its performance per core, when you can buy quads today with better per core performance, its basically sacrificing performance today to gamble on future performance.

I just sold a server on the MM with a pair of Core 2 era Xeons (basically a pair of Q9300's) and the performance on all 8 cores was great, it could out fold a newer CPU or GPU costing more than the entire server was worth, however when running software optimised for only a couple of cores the fact that its cores were 2.5GHz and 4 gens old did kinda show. It would be a shame for people to buy 8 core FX's only to find out that by the time software uses 8 cores their CPU's lack the needed grunt per core.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

The idea of skimping on the CPU to splurge on the GPU is always a good one as if its done right its great for maximizing performance, however when considering the option of cheaping on the CPU, all options should be considered, i.e why go for a 7950 + FX-8320 when it would be half the price (CPU+MB) to go for a 7950 + used i5 750 (1st gen i5's also have better per core performance than piledriver).

Why not go for a used FX8320,or a new FX8320 and a used HD7970 or a used FX8320 and a used HD7950?? Why not a used Core i5 750 over a Core i5 3570K??

It goes both ways,unfortunately. However,I don't recommend secondhand parts to people who don't understand the risks associated with them.

You buy new to get a warranty of at least a year to three years.

Look at your Core i5 750 here in Crysis3:

http://cdn.overclock.net/a/a3/a3006fcb_Crysis-3-Test-CPUs-VH-720p.png

http://cdn.overclock.net/7/7d/7d31c35c_proz.jpeg

Lets look at the latest BF3 expansion:

http://gamegpu.ru/images/stories/Test_GPU/Action/Battlefield 3 Armored Kill/test/b3 ac proz 64.png

Its not necessarily the case a Core i5 750 will be instantly the better purchase.

Do you realise,that a £100 FX6300 beats the FX8150 in virtually all games,including multi-threaded ones??

The Core i5 750 is slower in the most intensive part of Crysis3 than a £100 FX6300 with a warranty.

The Core i5 you mentioned has no warranty at all,and neither does do most of the socket 1156 motherboards.

Most of them have been overclocked too. You have no clue how many volts have been pushed though the CPU at all.

So if that motherboard goes kaput in six months time,what happens??

 

[flopper]

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.

To leverage the full power of the PS4/720 or next, whatever it gets called, they will HAVE to use the 8 cores pretty effectively.

This will almost certainly translate into AMD pretty much owning Intel next year in gaming. Optimising for an AMD cpu and optimising for 8 threads. 8 real cores will likely do very very well in terms of scaling. Of course if a game CPU wise works fine on 8 2Ghz cores, 8 4-5Ghz cores might not bring an awful lot of performance, you'll run out of GPU power at some point, but I wouldn't be surprised to see the 8 core Steamroller walk all over Haswell chips from mid 2014 onwards.

I still wouldn't buy a 8350 unless you have to today, I'd be waiting for Kaveri without question, lower power usage, better power saving, much better chip all around with every big flaw fixed.

Not sure they will own Intel but its highly likely consol porting will run better for amd on the PC but if that makes any difference is hard to say today.

 

[Martini1991]

The Crysis 3 results always confuse me.
Bottlenecked even with a stock 3930k with a current gen GPU, throws me everytime.

If it does utilise FMA, then, imagine if Haswell benched higher than the 3970 with a current gen GPU? Now that'd be funny.

 

[humbug]

The idea of skimping on the CPU to splurge on the GPU is always a good one as if its done right its great for maximizing performance, however when considering the option of cheaping on the CPU, all options should be considered, i.e why go for a 7950 + FX-8320 when it would be half the price (CPU+MB) to go for a 7950 + used i5 750 (1st gen i5's also have better per core performance than piledriver).

Yes, if your open to buying used CPU's that are a couple of years old.

But the i5 750 is actually about the same as the FX-8350 in the games that Intel traditionally dominate, (scroll down to WoW / Dawn of war ecte)

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/109?vs=698

And because those games are so low threaded it actually makes no difference if its an FX-8320 or an FX6300

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/109?vs=699

Or an FX-4300

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/109?vs=700

lol ^^^^^ i5 750 / FX-4300 are almost identical...

And because of the Intel brand a used i5 750 is still commanding to close to what a brand new FX-6300 costs.

Its a bit, you know...

 

[Martini1991]

Who'd run an i5 750 at sub 3GHZ though?
Wouldn't buy one now unless I was already 1156 on a clarkdale, or it was easily sourced and cheap.

 

[ubersonic]

Why not go for a used FX8320,or a new FX8320 and a used HD7970 or a used FX8320 and a used HD7950?? Why not a used Core i5 750 over a Core i5 3570K?

Yeah that was pretty much my point, if your going to skimp on the CPU you should really look at all the options.

Yes, if your open to buying used CPU's that are a couple of years old.

But the i5 750 is actually about the same as the FX-8350 in the games that Intel traditionally dominate

Well I did say its per core performance was better, not its overall performance, I was also factoring over clocking (the i5 will have ~ the same performance per core as an FX clocked ~1GHz higher according to Anandtech benches).

lol ^^^^^ i5 750 / FX-4300 are almost identical...

I fail to see how that can be considered a positive point thing as the FX-4300 has a 1.14Ghz clock advantage and costs 1.5x as much used, it may be matching on performance but it isn't on price or on architecture performance.

And because of the Intel brand a used i5 750 is still commanding to close to what a brand new FX-6300 costs.

Correct, if by "close" you mean less than half the price, but admittedly that is closer to it than a used Pentium-D 820 is.

---------

I really don't hate AMD and im not an Intel fanboy even though it may be coming over that way, im just a realist and I honestly wish AMD were more competitive at the moment as it would stop Intel from resting on the laurels like they are at the moment with their "just enough" style improvements, I loved the old days when they were pushing each other to new limits every release cycle.

Just to clarify im not advising people buy old Intel CPU's I was using it as an example of why buying an 8320/8350 is a bad idea unless you absolutely need 8 cores, out of all the CPU's mentioned I would actually be recommending the FX-4300/6300 plus a badass GPU for a purely gaming machine if a decent Intel CPU was out of the price range, however I would also recommend a used or new SB/IB i5/7 before a 8 core FX.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Well I did say its per core performance was better, not its overall performance, I was also factoring over clocking (the i5 will have ~ the same performance per core as an FX clocked ~1GHz higher according to Anandtech benches).

What if you got a secondhand FX6300,then?? If they cost £100 new,then they probably will cost a decent amount less as more secondhand ones hit the market.

Moreover,with the FX6350 being released,I suspect the FX6300 will drop in price too which will also affect secondhand values. Like I said it goes both ways.

Look at the Crysis 3 benchmarks again. In the most intensive part of the game the 3.5GHZ FX6300,has a 28% increase in minimum framerates and a 19% increase in average framerates over a 2.8GHZ Core i5 760.

It does not matter in this case,if the Core i5 760 has potentially faster cores,as the FX6300 overclocks a decent amount,is brand new and has more up to date motherboards too.

On top of this the Core i5 700 series has old instruction set support,which is another black mark against them. Moreover,even the SATA3 controllers(which not all P55 motherboards had),were third party too.

Most socket 1156,motherboards will be years old now,and that alone would put me off recommending it as a "new" platform for a new PC.

You also have no clue how many volts have been pushed through the secondhand CPUs either. This is more an issue with older CPUs. There are people who end up pushing the overclocks on such CPUs,and then finding that over time,they need to keeping slightly pushing the volts up due to EM problems to maintain the overclocks. How do you know whether they are palming off a knackered CPU like that then??

OTH,you might get a CPU which has never been overclocked and has had a very comfortable life.

Its a lottery. This is why people need to know the risks,and considering a lot of people on forums asking for build advice,have not much experience with building PCs,I would err on the side of caution as I am spending their money. They might want to keep the system for the next three to four years even.

They are only really useful as a cheap update to an old computer running a socket 1155 Core i3 or Pentium dual core.

CryEngine 3,id Tech 5 and Frostbite 2.0,all do well on a FX6300 for a £100 CPU. It is most likely UE4 will do the same,as even UE3 can use 4 threads effectively. Those are the big 4 engines which will define many games in the 4 years alone.

What I am interested to see,is if Haswell improves HT further or not.

 

[ubersonic]

Wall of text

I think your misunderstanding what I'm saying, I was not suggesting that people go out and buy used clarkdales, I was simply using it as an example of why the FX series are not the awesome price/performance choices that a lot of people seem to be touting them as, yes the fact that the 8320/8350 have 8 cores and future software will use more cores is a good thing, however considering their poor performance per core it seems reckless spending other peoples money on a CPU in the hope that future software will make better use of it. Hence why I think a FX-4300/6300 is a much better option for a person who cannot afford a 3570K or i7.

I.E the FX-8320 has lower clock for clock performance in the Cinebench single core test than a C2D, how is it right for us to recommend people buy one in the hope that the fact it has 8 cores evens out performance down the line? People used to recommended against buying the 1.5GB 9600GSO because by the time its memory was needed its speed would be a crippling factor and I would say the same applies to the 8320/8350, by the time you can consistently use all 8 of those cores you will want to upgrade anyway.

 

[humbug]

@ ubersonic, i looked for used i5 750's, they go for about £90/£100. An FX-4300 is not;

and costs 1.5x as much used

A brand new FX-4300 is also about £90.
So thats a brand new CPU with similar performance for the price of that used 2+ year old one.

Hell an FX-6300 is only about £105.... (new)

Do you even look at the prices?

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I think your misunderstanding what I'm saying, I was not suggesting that people go out and buy used clarkdales, I was simply using it as an example of why the FX series are not the awesome price/performance choices that a lot of people seem to be touting them as, yes the fact that the 8320/8350 have 8 cores and future software will use more cores is a good thing, however considering their poor performance per core it seems reckless spending other peoples money on a CPU in the hope that future software will make better use of it. Hence why I think a FX-4300/6300 is a much better option for a person who cannot afford a 3570K or i7.

I.E the FX-8320 has lower clock for clock performance in the Cinebench single core test than a C2D, how is it right for us to recommend people buy one in the hope that the fact it has 8 cores evens out performance down the line? People used to recommended against buying the 1.5GB 9600GSO because by the time its memory was needed its speed would be a crippling factor and I would say the same applies to the 8320/8350, by the time you can consistently use all 8 of those cores you will want to upgrade anyway.

I was talking about the FX6300 all along though,and that is the thing. Some of the other people in the thread advocated the FX8320.Even now,the FX6300 is outperforming the Core i5 760 in a number of modern games.

These are the very games based on new generation multi-platform games. Moreover,compared to a Core i3 3220,well it looks even better in many of these games too. What about the Core i5 760 and the Core i3 3220??

Like I also said,it will be interesting to see if Haswell,improves HT performance too,and that some degree of overclocking returns with the Core i3 CPUs.

Now,I only mentioned the FX8320 primarily due to the "lets go secondhand" argument. The problem is it can applied to any CPU or any graphics card.

You can apply "lets find the cheapest socket 1156 Core i5" argument to the Core i5 3570K too which I mentioned also,and make it look "poor" value. You could probably get a secondhand Core i7 2600K or Core i7 3770K for the same as a new Core i5 3570K,making it look worse value,etc. The same goes for graphics cards too,and motherboards and probably a lot of computer parts TBH. Like I said it goes both ways.

Edit!!

Anyway,we a disagreeing,so we might as well stay at that point(agree to disagree),lest we get dizzy!!

 

[Sayso]

Back on topic.

Maybe depends on how the next gen is programmed if as expected they use all 8 cores we could see the 4 module AMD offerings offer good price/performance for gaming.

The thing we will have to wait and see is the final specs of the CPUs used in next gen as they will be custom to a degree, isnt there a rumor of the PS4 using ddr5?

 

[ubersonic]

@ ubersonic, i looked for used i5 750's, they go for about £90/£100.

Try looking on a popular auction site under completed listings, they go there for ~45-65, a used FX-4300 goes for ~1.5x that (and a new FX-6300 is double on OCUK).

I was talking about the FX6300 all along though,

Ahh, I wasn't, hence why I thought when you replied to me that you weren't either, my bad.

Anyway,we a disagreeing,so we might as well stay at that point(agree to disagree),lest we get dizzy!!

I'm with you on that

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

The PS4 uses a 256bit DDR5 memory controller and has at least 170GB/s of memory bandwidth,which means the GPU should not have any issues.It actually potentially has as much bandwidth available as a desktop HD7850 or HD7870. The GPU seems to have 1152 shaders,which is in-between the HD7850 and HD7870. It looks like the GPU is a slower version of the HD7970M.

The system has 8GB of DDR5 available.

The CPU seems to use 8 AMD Jaguar cores. According to a leaked benchmark from SweClockers,a 1.4GHZ quad core Jaguar SOC has around the same CB11.5 score as a 1.4GHZ SB ULV Core i3 dual core with HT:

http://translate.google.com/transla...6597-amd-temash-specifikationer-och-prestanda

 

[Sayso]

is the memory shared with GPU/CPU im sure i read that somewhere..also any info on the new xbox?

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

The memory is shared it seems,but the memory bandwidth is quite large. AFAIK,the CPU and IGP are one chip. Supposedly the PS4 will also use interposers too,like with the GT3 version of Haswell.

The Xbox looks like it will probably use a multicore IBM Power based CPU with an AMD GPU. Rumours,indicate their might be more than one SOC in the system.

 

[humbug]

Try looking on #### under completed listings, they go there for ~45-65, a used FX-4300 goes for ~1.5x that (and a new FX-6300 is double on OCUK).

The cheapest one there BN is £90. no other others due to finish for 18 hours.
Out of a whole bunch of them there was 1 sold for 56 and another sold for 64 (UK) a couple sold for £75 others for £90, the rest did not meet a £90 reserve price.

Someone with enough patience might get lucky and win one for 60 / 70, to guarantee one then your talking about £90, Its up to individuals if they want to pay even 60/70 for an old CPU when you can get one thats just as good for £90 new. i know i wouldn't pay out that sort of money for a CPU that has years of use on it in any situation.
I might fork out twenty quid for one with an old Motherboard as a play thing, but thats about it.
I know others would and do, for me £60 / £70 to much money to burn on something that will have enough age on it for a good chance of it being on its last legs.
Nor would i recommend anyone else do it.

Also, you need to edit your post, Competitor naming...

 

[wolvers]

1st gen i5's also have better per core performance than piledriver

I'm not sure that's true. The 8350/8320s that I've had are the same as the 920 I had so wouldn't I be right in saying that would make the 1st gen i5 slightly slower?

The other thing to consider is that the specs are better I think on the 990fx platform than there were on the 1156 boards.