Just swapped my 1055T for a FX-8350 - underwhelmed!

Davedree · 4 Jul 2013 at 00:14

james_2k said:
because we can?

Justify the price of it when you still have an average over clock on that has well.

james_2k · 4 Jul 2013 at 09:59

justify the price to you?

i dont feel the need to, but its one of the best, if not the best z87 board there is. plus ive always had rog boards. i like them.

ubersonic · 4 Jul 2013 at 10:43

cheesyboy said:
It's like arguing over 120hz or 60hz monitors; the 120 has more potential to be better, but in most peoples' setups under most circumstances there will be no performance difference due to bottlenecks elsewhere.

That's not the best analogy, its more like comparing a 3D monitor to a normal one, the 3D monitor is only better when the software is designed for it, and in this case the 3D monitor does non-3D in CGA lol (Its a ref to piledriver's per core IPC being ~ on par with Core2

)

Scougar · 4 Jul 2013 at 12:07

Trying to dissolve the discussion to 'is it needed for X amount of frames?' or are they 'good for the money' is total rubbish. It's not even on topic.

Googaly spent a fair bit of money thinking he was getting a nice little upgrade (with overclocking in) from his X6, and it turns out it actually performs worse in games like Guild Wars. The is pretty disappointing for him and perhaps some other owners could give some input, or help/advice?

Marine-RX179 · 4 Jul 2013 at 12:24

Scougar said:
Googaly spent a fair bit of money thinking he was getting a nice little upgrade (with overclocking in) from his X6, and it turns out it actually performs worse in games like Guild Wars. The is pretty disappointing for him and perhaps some other owners could give some input, or help/advice?

Already did on the 3rd post. Other than overclocking nut off the FX-8350, there's not much he can do.

I guess he COULD set cores affinity for Guild Wars 2 to using only 1, 3, 5, 7...that way at least the resources won't be split and shared with the other module on the "same core" (or core 2, 4, 6, 8 if want to be specific).

DrBombcrater · 4 Jul 2013 at 13:15

Scougar said:
Googaly spent a fair bit of money thinking he was getting a nice little upgrade (with overclocking in) from his X6, and it turns out it actually performs worse in games like Guild Wars. The is pretty disappointing for him and perhaps some other owners could give some input, or help/advice?

The only real option (short of selling the FX) is probably to overclock the snot out of the thing, with focus particularly on getting the turbo clock up as high as possible. 4.7/4.8GHz is fairly common on recent FXs with good air cooling.

But the benchmarks are pretty clear that GW2 absolutely hates BD/PD based processors, so even if the chip is a good clocker it'll probably still struggle there.

GoogalyMoogaly · 4 Jul 2013 at 13:30

Luckily I don't play GW2 much these days. It just happened to be the game I tried at the time.

I've played Black ops 2 a bit recently and that still hits 60fps. I did get a few slight pauses now and then, but I can't imagien that's the CPU is it? It was online so I'm thinking more likely my connection?

Really not sure why I bothered with the 'upgrade' now, seemed like a good idea at the time. I'll see how it goes, might swap it out for a Haswell setup or just wait until IB-E and demote my SB-E kit to my 2nd/try-stuff-out PC. Did like the idea of having a Intel setup and AMD setup, not really sure why...

Marine-RX179 · 4 Jul 2013 at 14:24

DrBombcrater said:
But the benchmarks are pretty clear that GW2 absolutely hates BD/PD based processors, so even if the chip is a good clocker it'll probably still struggle there.

It's not so much the game "hate" AMD CPU, but more about the games is only using up to 4 cores (which in fact is already better than most mmos/online games out there that are typically only using 2-3 cores i.e. PlanetSide 2, Tribes Ascend, Hawken etc).

With half its cores not being put into use for the game, it's not wonder it's behind CPU like overclocked i5.

As I said, while more and more FPS games (typically by EA) would use 6 cores or more, I simply don't see the trend of mmos using more than 4 cores anytime soon (particularly they won't be multi-platform title, so even if the new consoles using 8 cores for games, I don't see the same likeliness for PC exclusives mmos and strategy games)...as much as I hate to say it.

If people play pretty much only FPS from EA, then it probably won't matter too much going with FX-8 or Intel i5; but for mmos, there's no way in hell I would use FX-8 over Intel i5...not until 6-8 threads became absolute standard for mmos.

james_2k · 4 Jul 2013 at 14:28

and then you would use an i7

Rroff · 4 Jul 2013 at 14:40

If your wanting good gaming performance and good encoding, etc. while staying with AMD then your gonna have to wait for steamroller/kaveri based CPUs which have the ability to prioritise and boost individual threads where appropriate - really wasn't a good time to upgrade IMO.

The piledriver/FX apologists sicken me a bit as you end up with people spending money based on bad advice.

joeyjojo · 4 Jul 2013 at 17:40

Marine-RX179 said:
I guess he COULD set cores affinity for Guild Wars 2 to using only 1, 3, 5, 7...that way at least the resources won't be split and shared with the other module on the "same core" (or core 2, 4, 6, 8 if want to be specific).

This is a very good idea in theory. I'd like to know the results.

DrBombcrater · 4 Jul 2013 at 20:01

Marine-RX179 said:
It's not so much the game "hate" AMD CPU, but more about the games is only using up to 4 cores (which in fact is already better than most mmos/online games out there that are typically only using 2-3 cores i.e. PlanetSide 2, Tribes Ascend, Hawken etc).

There's something more complex going on with GW2 than it simply not using more than 4 cores. I'm begining to wonder if the game isn't spawning threads in an odd way. For example, this chart has all the processors locked at 3GHz:

- Going from 2C/2T to 2C/4T on Intel basically gains no performance, which suggests only 2 threads. But...
- Big jump from 2C to 3C on Llano, and a bigger one going from 2C/4T to 4C/4T with Sandy Bridge. Both of which suggest at least 3 threads.
- But FX results do show significant scaling from 4C to 6C. So > 4 threads?
- From 4C/4T Intel to 6C/12T is an increase minor enough to be accounted for by SB-E's larger caches.

I'm not seeing any obvious pattern there.

Martini1991 · 4 Jul 2013 at 20:26

Being able to use more cores doesn't necessarily mean it can 100% them.
It can offload more minor things so the main core can work without getting bogged down.

But looking at the Pentium performance, it is bizarre.

Rroff · 4 Jul 2013 at 20:38

DrBombcrater said:
- Going from 2C/2T to 2C/4T on Intel basically gains no performance, which suggests only 2 threads. But...
- Big jump from 2C to 3C on Llano, and a bigger one going from 2C/4T to 4C/4T with Sandy Bridge. Both of which suggest at least 3 threads.
- But FX results do show significant scaling from 4C to 6C. So > 4 threads?
- From 4C/4T Intel to 6C/12T is an increase minor enough to be accounted for by SB-E's larger caches.

I'm not seeing any obvious pattern there.

Probably means the workload is such a nature that hyper-threading can't contribute meaningfully to it. Also further confused by the way intel CPUs can boost performance as needed on individual threads so depending on the way GW2 is programmed in some cases effectively reducing the number of threads in flight at any one time, whereas AMD CPUs will have more on the go while the slower ones are waiting to finish.

olivier renault · 4 Jul 2013 at 20:51

You may want to hang on to your FX / 1055T for a while, with the new consoles prioritising multi-threading, with low-IPC cores.

Or you can just say 'Sod It' and get a 4770K

Rroff · 4 Jul 2013 at 21:00

olivier renault said:
You may want to hang on to your FX / 1055T for a while, with the new consoles prioritising multi-threading, with low-IPC cores.

Or you can just say 'Sod It' and get a 4770K

Theres a limit to how much advantage you can get with multi-threading in most game engines.

As a gross generalisation for gaming your far better off - and they missed a trick with jaguar - having say 2-3x 3.2GHz cores and 3-4x 800MHz core than the 8x 1.6GHz core and thats not going to change any time soon. (EDIT: Obviously this adds some logistics to thread management).

AMD's next generation of CPUs will actually be able to boost performance on individual threads when other threads/cores aren't very busy however which will help to close the gap with intel a lot in gaming.

Martini1991 · 4 Jul 2013 at 22:03

Doesn't that already happen with Turbo boost though Rroff?
I can't see any other way they can do it but by making the "busy" cores by running a few Hundred MHZ faster.

d_brennen · 4 Jul 2013 at 22:22

I went from a 4GHz 1055t to a 2500K and was pretty disappointed too tbh. Sold that and got an FX8320 at 4.5GHz with change, no complaints at all. I expect parallelism to pick up speed in the next few years. Seems like only yesterday everyone was saying dual core CPUs were enough and quads were a waste of money

Rroff · 4 Jul 2013 at 22:30

Martini1991 said:
Doesn't that already happen with Turbo boost though Rroff?
I can't see any other way they can do it but by making the "busy" cores by running a few Hundred MHZ faster.

AFAIK AMD's Turbo Core works in 2 ways one it can boost the whole CPU when below a thermal level and the 2nd way turns off extra cores entirely to clock up the busy ones which means they can't also contribute.

Marine-RX179 · 4 Jul 2013 at 22:33

d_brennen said:
I went from a 4GHz 1055t to a 2500K and was pretty disappointed too tbh.

I honestly can't see how you can be disappointed, either you are not talking about gaming performance, or the graphic card you use is too slow to make a difference.