intel i5's vs amd FXs

[gpuerrilla]

And games are commonly poorly made/optimised software...

Have a look at games outside the EA and Ubisoft circles, and look at how many games can even use 4 cores fully/properly...

Almighty already summed it up very nicely:

The Intels are worth the extra money if you play a wide range of games that have various levels of core use, providing you can afford them or are not building £/Perf to a budget that matters.

Fixed for accuracy.

 

[Martini1991]

The recent Ubisoft game ; AC4 isn't going to run stellar on an FX83 over an i5.

It's somewhat contradictory to read Andy's post, commenting on the "whole picture" but only shows the "best case" scenario's.

Someone load up RTW2, that "supports" (Lol...) your FX8's, but it's not going to be painting a pretty picture.
Blanket statements ahoy!

Even the games that are "properly supported" only ever really reach parity with the latest of i5's (The i5 2500K can take some slight losses at a guess, but I don't expect any less from a chip 3 years old, lacking some instruction sets too)

Mantle's going to be changing the landscape by the looks of it in games that run it (And with AMD banging on about Kaveri Quad and mantle, I think it's safe to say that perhaps Teppic was somewhat incorrect)

 

[gpuerrilla]

The recent Ubisoft game ; AC4 isn't going to run stellar on an FX83 over an i5.

Someone load up RTW2, that "supports" (Lol...) your FX8's, but it's not going to be painting a pretty picture.
Blanet statements ahoy!

Even the games that are "properly supported" only ever really reach parity with the latest of i5's (The i5 2500K can take some slight losses at a guess, but I don't expect any less from a chip 3 years old, lacking some instruction sets too)

Had to adjust the reply as martin was still editing.

I have not played these games but I'm sure there is not a gulf of difference that people are letting on.

It's somewhat contradictory to read Andy's post, commenting on the "whole picture" but only shows the "best case" scenario's.

This applies to the majority of you. I have seen a fair amount of cherry picked benchmarks on this forum and it is always the people who own one.

Mantle's going to be changing the landscape by the looks of it in games that run it (And with AMD banging on about Kaveri Quad and mantle, I think it's safe to say that perhaps Teppic was somewhat incorrect)

This was added after my post - can you explain the last part as in what are you highlighting?

 

[ALXAndy]

It's somewhat contradictory to read Andy's post, commenting on the "whole picture" but only shows the "best case" scenario's.

So you think it's fair to use a benchmark (given that, you know? that's how hardware is judged and executed) on an 8 core CPU that only does this?



NB - when zoomed in it's using four cores to a maximum of 23%, the fifth and sixth core use is laughable at a mere 2%

With which to compare hardware?

It's nothing to do with 'best case scenario' - it's a bloody benchmark. If it's ignoring an entire half of a CPU it's about as worth while as a steaming pile of horse macker.

 

[gpuerrilla]

So you think it's fair to use a benchmark (given that, you know? that's how hardware is judged and executed) on an 8 core CPU that only does this?

/snip pitures

NB - when zoomed in it's using four cores to a maximum of 23%, the fifth and sixth core use is laughable at a mere 2%

With which to compare hardware?

It's nothing to do with 'best case scenario' - it's a bloody benchmark. If it's ignoring an entire half of a CPU it's about as worth while as a steaming pile of horse macker.

One thing I will say in your defence Andy is this:

For a guy (not Andy) that builds peoples machines and owns a high end rig with a new 290 I have yet to see any tests that have any tangible meaning. I mean all this hardware at your disposal and no decent comparisons make me laugh.

Jibbing in here and there with the same old spouts and chastising comments is pretty pathetic after all the time since the last round of same old.

 

[slim01]

So you think it's fair to use a benchmark (given that, you know? that's how hardware is judged and executed) on an 8 core CPU that only does this?



NB - when zoomed in it's using four cores to a maximum of 23%, the fifth and sixth core use is laughable at a mere 2%

With which to compare hardware?

It's nothing to do with 'best case scenario' - it's a bloody benchmark. If it's ignoring an entire half of a CPU it's about as worth while as a steaming pile of horse macker.

lol, horse macker. well if other software (eg games) were using the cpu in a similar way to this benchmark, then yeah the other cores are pointless - even if the juice is there, its not getting used.
i can understand why an intel might be better clock for clock, i just think a massively overclocked amd using 4 cores or 8, would easily win hands down at most tasks, single or multi threaded.

we need some more benchies, in game results

 

[Martini1991]

lol, horse macker. well if other software (eg games) were using the cpu in a similar way to this benchmark, then yeah the other cores are pointless - even if the juice is there, its not getting used.
i can understand why an intel might be better clock for clock, i just think a massively overclocked amd using 4 cores or 8, would easily win hands down at most tasks, single or multi threaded.

we need some more benchies, in game results

In single threaded/lightly threaded why would an AMD be faster if its running slower cores ? Sure, at certain price points the performance an fx83 will give you is untouchable by Intel chips at the same price points.

 

[ALXAndy]

lol, horse macker. well if other software (eg games) were using the cpu in a similar way to this benchmark, then yeah the other cores are pointless - even if the juice is there, its not getting used.
i can understand why an intel might be better clock for clock, i just think a massively overclocked amd using 4 cores or 8, would easily win hands down at most tasks, single or multi threaded.

we need some more benchies, in game results

My CPU isn't massively clocked. 4.7ghz is easily achievable on any motherboard with 8+2 vrms, and they start at around the £90 mark. For the truly massive clocks (IE 5ghz and beyond) cooling becomes the issue rather than the board tbh.

Any way, I think CPU tests that actually test the CPU (IE all of it to 100%) are far more accurate than a test that uses four cores to 23%. It's almost like it's derping itself merely to display single threaded performance, and we all know (and have accepted here) that Intel win hands down with that.

As for games? I would say that in a year nothing will use less than 8. In fact, even Intel are planning to release a 6 core desktop CPU (probably because they know they're at a brick wall with die size now, so may as well add and sell more cores, given they'll be well used).

 

[Martini1991]

Right, here's a stock single thread cinebench result for my i7 4770K, I'm running my naff 1600MHZ CL9 RAM, here's the result ;

G]

159.

Look at AMD's 5GHZ single core ; http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=25043971&postcount=2

Even on a freak of nature chip ; http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=25272369&postcount=246

Intel dominating, I think with Turbo my core was at 3.9GHZ there. A Haswell i3 around that price point if 3.5/3.6GHZ (So lets take 10% off my result, we've got 140 to be fair)

So AMD won't be able to beat out an Intel in 1 or 2 threaded situations, AMD just can't get that performance.

Three threaded app's will see them trade blows depending on the application (And the clock of the FX)

It gets more interesting when you can get an i5 with cheap H81 board for nigh on the same price as an FX8320 and board (Which results in the Intel having lower core for core performance due to lower clocks on those chips, but higher multi-threaded)

It also shows how broken Cinebench's 4.4GHZ result is (Which I've mentioned previously)

I hope that clears things up somewhat Slim?

Back to watching Person Of Interest.

 

[gpuerrilla]

Refresher:

Spoiler

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=25214153&postcount=31

 

[Martini1991]

This cinebench is meant to be not biased as opposed the last one, factually AMD's fpu performance is weak.

Even when I actually give some factual basis, it's pointless, which is why I don't bother, there's always an excuse.

Not that I was the one to give this as evidence of a properly supported piece of software

 

[gpuerrilla]

I wouldn't call it excuses martin, there seems to be nuances that are often left out which as some of you are obviously intelligent enough to realise - so I put it down to ignorance, convenience or both.

This cinebench is meant to be not biased as opposed the last one, factually AMD's fpu performance is weak.

I do not deny the fpu performance, nor your single thread points where have I said it's baloney? It is a weak(ish) CPU for it's era however why compare a single core when you have eight? As I point out time again (not often I know) through the intel blinkered haze that some post, you have the chance to add to the debate but choose to sidestep it or cba.

 

[Martini1991]

Because you can't magic software to use all your cores, slim didn't understand how a single threaded situation can be slower on an over clocked fx83, I've shown how it can be, and how by extension lightly threaded software can be slower.

And since gaming be FPU performance, which is slim's op question somewhat.

Which was the purpose of the post.

 

[gpuerrilla]

Because you can't magic software to use all your cores, slim didn't understand how a single threaded situation can be slower on an over clocked fx83, I've shown how it can be, and how by extension lightly threaded software can be slower.

And since gaming be FPU performance, which is slim's op question somewhat.

Which was the purpose of the post.

Yes that true. All gaming performance isn't solely based on having the fastest FPU otherwise the manufacturers wouldn't be adding extra cores (virtual whatever).

You can just look at the mobile phone market to see they are doing the same. Where applications that can take advantage of the number available as opposed to funnelling down the one you can reap the benefits. OK it's not as simple as that but you know what we mean.

The refresher above was to remind you about compiling or tailoring to utilise intel would clearly give them the advantage (not that they need it - but why argue then?), again you know this but do not comment as it's applicable to a lot of scenarios.

The FX may have it's flaws but pointless to kick it down so much when it is a great price and offers a lot. Gaming? well everything I have played on it so far has been a nice experience. If I come across an issue (which is inevitable as it's by no means perfect) the more I play then I will be flagging it up straight away. I just don't tend to believe the haters as we have already exposed a lot of fanboys on here that don't understand what they are posting - merely copying stuff and knee-jerk posting guff as they follow the flock!

Guy: Hey Billie you got a new machine! Why did you get that then?
Billie: The guy on the internet told me it was the bestest!
Guy: Oh so what you going to use it for?
Billie: Just gaming.
Guy: Nice! Did you know there were other brands you could have gone for?
Billie: Intel. nVidia is bestest!
Guy: Did you know computers can do more..
Billie: I don't care I just game
Guy: OK Billie.
Billie: Hey that dude has got an AMD *points and laughs* - it's rubbish
Guy: Why is that Billie?
Billie: 'cos it's not what I have so it's rubbish!
Guy: Did you try that hardware out though Billie?
Billie: Baa... *puts blinkers on and runs away*

 

[Marine-RX179]

Fixed for accuracy.

Except price to performance for FX8 is only good for games that use would use 6 threads or more; for 4 or less games, the price to performance is worse than an i5.

Take Guild Wars 2 for example, a VERY CPU demanding game which only use up to 4 threads:
FX8320= 50% performance at 100% price
i5-K= 100% peroformance at 160% price

That's why I've been saying all along...that's nothing WRONG with the FX8 as a piece of hardware itself...in fact in is a great piece of hardware. However the issue is majority of the games ARE "poorly made/optimised software" that are not heavily-thread enough and making use of 8 cores chip's full potential, and that's the hash reality.

 

[gpuerrilla]

Except price to performance for FX8 is only good for games that use would use 6 threads or more; for 4 or less games, the price to performance is worse than an i5.

Take Guild Wars 2 for example, a VERY CPU demanding game which only use up to 4 threads:
FX8320= 50% performance at 100% price
i5-K= 100% peroformance at 160% price

That's why I've been saying all along...that's nothing WRONG with the FX8 as a piece of hardware itself...in fact in is a great piece of hardware. However the issue is majority of the games ARE "poorly made/optimised software" that are not heavily-thread enough and making use of 8 cores chip's full potential, and that's the hash reality.

Take GW2 and I dunno WoW. Not only are some of these MMO's that are CPU intensive old, but they don't command the player base they used to. By that I mean they are a sample of players which in this example would favour the processor your pushing - some refer to this as 'cherry picking' games to favour the argument on processors. I think it would run acceptably on an FX but would love to see a direct comparison in front of me to believe this chasm of difference people bang on about.

Take for example PS2 - they optimised the game as they admitted it was poor and ran like a dog. After the optimisation the game ran great on many different types of system so whilst I take onboard your pro i5 viewpoint, it is clearly in the developers hands to NOT make these games heavy to so few cores now that 4+ are becoming mainstream.

I ran the game before and after optimisation and quite clearly fantastic to play with the inferior yet cheaper FX. Yet people would read on here they have to buy an intel through recommendations spending more money than they have to.

 

[alex_123_fra]

Except price to performance for FX8 is only good for games that use would use 6 threads or more; for 4 or less games, the price to performance is worse than an i5.

I do actually agree with you although my beef with all this (which is why I came back into the thread earlier), was the mention of a non-K locked i5 (the 4440). If I only played games which are poorly threaded on <4 threads, I would get an i5 4670k any day over an FX CPU.

However when some fellow posters pretend to "know" that a locked i5 (or i3) will perform better than an unlocked overclocked FX 8-core CPU even in low thread situations, I'm afraid I don't buy it. Lets see some benches with locked i5s to compare.

As an aside, and based on Martini's mention of Resident Evil 6 as a reliable bench to compare hardware in poorly threaded situations, I have rerun this in my FX system with the 780 Classi. Will post the results in the next couple of days when I am back home but it showed a significantly higher score with the nvidia GPU than it did with my 7990 (roughly 15,500 vs 14,500). Will post details later in the week.

 

[Martini1991]

I do actually agree with you although my beef with all this (which is why I came back into the thread earlier), was the mention of a non-K locked i5 (the 4440). If I only played games which are poorly threaded on <4 threads, I would get an i5 4670k any day over an FX CPU.

However when some fellow posters pretend to "know" that a locked i5 (or i3) will perform better than an unlocked overclocked FX 8-core CPU even in low thread situations, I'm afraid I don't buy it. Lets see some benches with locked i5s to compare.

As an aside, and based on Martini's mention of Resident Evil 6 as a reliable bench to compare hardware in poorly threaded situations, I have rerun this in my FX system with the 780 Classi. Will post the results in the next couple of days when I am back home but it showed a significantly higher score with the nvidia GPU than it did with my 7990 (roughly 15,500 vs 14,500). Will post details later in the week.

Think you're getting a bit ahead, it's an example, I don't think it's a good example personally, I think it's more representative than BF4 (Which most games are, because BF4 is in a tiny minority)

For fair testing, you'd want a range of games really (Say 50 from the last 3 years)

 

[alex_123_fra]

Take GW2 and I dunno WoW. Not only are some of these MMO's that are CPU intensive old, but they don't command the player base they used to. By that I mean they are a sample of players which in this example would favour the processor your pushing - some refer to this as 'cherry picking' games to favour the argument on processors. I think it would run acceptably on an FX but would love to see a direct comparison in front of me to believe this chasm of difference people bang on about.

You are absolutely right. I play WoW quite a lot still and I also raid. I have played it on a variety of systems over the years including the 2 in my sig (and previously an overclocked 2500k at 4.8GHz paired with 2 GTX 670s). My FX system runs the game splendidly with fantastic minimums in and out of raiding situations. There is no chasm of difference. I honestly cannot tell any difference in Wow in terms of fps between my 3930k, FX and 2500k systems.

 

[~>Dg<~]

and 90 percent of games favour intel. this is what makes me laugh it doesnt matter if it is faster on paper if they don't cater for that architecture then it means nothing !

people are crowing about mantle yet the games its being used on are mainly on frosbite engine which is only used ona couple of decent games.

so same ol same old to come. 90 percent of games still faster on intel forever

i don't get why amd cpu users are mad you get a great bang for buck cpu for good price which performs well. id use one daily and wouldn't be bothered.

just play games and enjoy them !