• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

intel i5's vs amd FXs

Martini1991 said:
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)
Click to expand...

The point is, previously you were happy to use the result I posted with my 7990 to suggest that the FX8320 was bottlenecking this GPU and you compared it to the single GPU result you were able to achieve with your 4670k (if I remember correctly). What I am trying to say is that it isn't a reliable test at all and I suspect GPU differences may have more impact on the score than was previously assumed (as I alluded to earlier in this thread).
 
alex_123_fra said:
The point is, previously you were happy to use the result I posted with my 7990 to suggest that the FX8320 was bottlenecking this GPU and you compared it to the single GPU result you were able to achieve with your 4670k (if I remember correctly). What I am trying to say is that it isn't a reliable test at all and I suspect GPU differences may have more impact on the score than was previously assumed (as I alluded to earlier in this thread).
Click to expand...

I use an AMD GPU too.
Why don't you run the 780 with your Intel CPU too.

I don't have Crossfire, so I can't tell if it has naff Crossfire scaling, so as far as I can see, it is/was a bottleneck from the result, nor do I have a 780/780Ti to test with. I'm good, but I'm not omnipotent.
 
Last edited:
Martini1991 said:
I use an AMD GPU too.
Why don't you run the 780Ti with your Intel CPU too.
Click to expand...

I don't have a 780 ti. Do you mean run the bench on the 3930k system with 1 780 enabled? I can do that yes, later in the week. In theory that should be slower than your score as the IPC of the 3930k should be less than your Haswell (assuming you overclocked yours).

I don't think it is an Nvidia vs AMD GPU difference. I honestly don't know what it is that creates the difference in scores as the bench doesn't split the GPU vs physics scores.
 
I mean 780 :p

My Haswell was at stock clocks.

Keep it simple, your Intel should be beating you AMD in the test (No matter which of two cards you're using, unless it's got a duff crossfire profile)
 
Last edited:
Th0nt said:
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.
Click to expand...
GW2 is only just a little bit over 1 year old.

The point remains that is other than few newer games from EA and Ubisoft that would use 6 or more threads, games that use 4 cores or less are still in vast vast majority, and whether we like it or not, that is the fact which is beyond the control of us the users, and keeping whining about it won't change that.

There's no going around the fact that the i5-K is a better all-rounder performance than the FX8 regardless if a game using 1 thread or up to 8 threads. If making such comment makes me "pro i5" and "cherry-picking example", what does that make the people that keep only going on and on about the best case scenarios game using 8 threads fully as example, and when games that don't use more than 4 threads outnumber the games that use 6-8 threads at around 9 to 1?

I have said this before when giving advice to others...if all they are interested in playing are just newer EA/Ubisoft titles, it make sense to just build around a FX8320 and save the money; if they mainly playing games by lesser developers, particularly for mmos, strategy, Sims type games, it would worth paying the extra for build around the i5-K (particularly for people with 120Hz/144Hz monitors).

In a way, FX8's a bit ahead of its time as there's still only handfuls of games that would properly use the full potential of CPU right now, however the situation would definitely change once we enter 2015, there will be plenty of AAA titles readily available that would possibly use 8 threads fully (thanks to the launch of new gen consoles). If in 2015 AMD can offer a CPU that has 8 cores that actually offer much more powerful per core performance (not the current on par with/slightly better than Phenom II per core performance that FX8's current offering at the moment) at reasonable price, and Intel is still playing the 5-10% IPC performance bumping games and STILL only giving a stingy 4 physical cores for nearly £170+, then Intel would seriously need to GTFO :D
 
Last edited:
What will be interesting is if AMD create a none IGP version of Kaveri with SR cores on FM2+.

Because that'll see a ton of recommendations (Does that mean I move from AMD hater to FX hater?)
 
Marine-RX179 said:
GW2 is only just a little bit over 1 year old.
/snip rest
Click to expand...

I was referring to WoW and some of the older MMO's, GW2 is pretty recent (but still created on an engine a while back I'm guessing).

From reading your post Marine you are absolutely on the correct wavelength and it probably seems I was attacking you whereas I was not meaning to - apologies if you thought that.

Rather than the old boys bickering if you want to put stuff to bed then get playing and benching. My game library isn't large by a long shot, I sold a few keys when I got my latest card. Alex is going to test - thanks by the way - but others need to do the same instead of this IPC balony and stock clocks referencing. No sane person buys the FX and runs it at stock. What's this forum called again?

:D

Marine-RX179 said:
In a way, FX8's a bit ahead of its time as there's still only handfuls of games that would properly use the full potential of CPU right now, however the situation would definitely change once we enter 2015, there will be plenty of AAA titles readily available that would possibly use 8 threads fully (thanks to the launch of new gen consoles). If in 2015 AMD can offer a CPU that has 8 cores that actually offer much more powerful per core performance (not the current on par with/slightly better than Phenom II per core performance that FX8's current offering at the moment) at reasonable price, and Intel is still playing the 5-10% IPC performance bumping games and STILL only giving a stingy 4 physical cores for nearly £170+, then Intel would seriously need to GTFO :D
Click to expand...

I get ya. Problem is by the time it is 2015 and this being an enthusiast forum there will be stuff out/coming out that will make us forget about i5's and FX's. I was holding out for a SR and watch kaveri closely but after reading up and posting here I wasn't going to wait a year before upgrading my ageing hardware.

It's already nearly 3 months since I bought the stuff, how time flies! :eek:
 
Last edited:
I have a huge games library if you have a bash at my Steam list, I just don't have the time to test stuffs, and people are always wanting their rigs quickly :p

I get to overclock that FX83/7950 rig soon like.
 
Just pencil it in then martin (like the old thunderbirds - badum tsst)!

I got Crysis 3, Tomb Raider, Sniper Elite 2 left to add. If I get time to play one that would be awesome! :)
 
I clicked on the walk to the bus. My first chip was some amd athlon, a 64 bit chip single core, a 3400 series I think.
The first time I ever messed with pc's was at a works experience mess up lol, I learnt building with rdram machines, the 533mhz fsb pentiums with HT.

My first actual time building a full new computer was an athlon X2 and then I was Amd till 2011.
 
Th0nt said:
Just pencil it in then martin (like the old thunderbirds - badum tsst)!
Click to expand...

OK so going back to my earlier pun ^..

..you could pencil in I think it was the L1 and bridge some connections to unlock it, gaining multiplier freedom. :D
 
As promised, here are some bench results with a poorly threaded bench (Resident Evil 6). This is mainly to compare the FX 8-core with my Sandybridge E 6-core at the same clocks. I ran the bench at 4.5 GHz on my 3930k and also same clock on the FX8320. GPU in each system was a SINGLE GTX780 at identical clocks of 1176 MHz Core and 6200 MHz memory.

Here are the results.


First up, a reminder of how my FX8320 performed at 5 GHz with a 7990 at 1100 MHz core:




Second up the 3930k (4.5 GHz) system with a single GTX 780:




Now the FX8320 (4.5 GHz) system with a single GTX 780:




Also the FX8320 at 4.8 GHz (my 24/7 settings) with a single GTX 780:




I should also mention that with the 780 clocked to 1300MHz the FX8320 system was able to reach a 15,500 score and I could see no evidence of bottlenecking (GPU usage firmly at 100%). Forgot to press my hotkey for screenshot but will rerun and post tomorrow night. Overall I would say the FX system isn't very far behind in this bench and IPC doesn't make a vast difference here. GPU power/performance has a much higher weighting.
 
alex_123_fra said:
I should also mention that with the 780 clocked to 1300MHz the FX8320 system was able to reach a 15,500 score and I could see no evidence of bottlenecking (GPU usage firmly at 100%). Forgot to press my hotkey for screenshot but will rerun and post tomorrow night. Overall I would say the FX system isn't very far behind in this bench and IPC doesn't make a vast difference here. GPU power/performance has a much higher weighting.
Click to expand...

Just as we thought *cough*.

Firstly I doubt many people will be able to tell any tangible difference if they played this game with both systems behind a screen. The only difference will be the numbers output from the scoring system and quick maths tells me it is something like ~5% which to some will be 'game breaking' or 'destroying' to quote some old posts. :)

Secondly it is still likely a poor benchmark (for our coparison purposes) even though martin endorses it. ;)
 
Th0nt said:
Just as we thought *cough*.

Firstly I doubt many people will be able to tell any tangible difference if they played this game with both systems behind a screen. The only difference will be the numbers output from the scoring system and quick maths tells me it is something like ~5% which to some will be 'game breaking' or 'destroying' to quote some old posts. :)

Secondly it is still likely a poor benchmark (for our coparison purposes) even though martin endorses it. ;)
Click to expand...

Yes Thont, while watching the benchmark on the 2 systems, it was really as small a difference as 5 fps (most often 2-3fps) at points.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom