Advice on i5 or an AMD piledriver

[Martini1991]

I do like the ignoring of the CoD Ghost benchmarks like

 

[ALXAndy]

show real benchmarks that are accurate in gaming ! there is no difference from 8 vs four fast cores at the moment. you choose to eliminate skyrim because you have a fx why because the difference can be 50+ fps from a i5 to a 8 core fx in certain areas lol.

you bring the only benchmarks that favor a 8 core yet we on about gaming ! in gaming sorry i5 is better but a amd 8 core is adequate and a decent performer. there are no games that show a real gain from a i7 to i5 so its all down to budget at end of day.

as said 8320 and oc or i5. be happy both are different.

Sorry, but hat is completely and utterly wrong. I can't be bothered posting benchmarks from the last seven or eight games that support 8 cores. It's widely known what happens in those games.

Your scaremongering is almost as bad as the other bs exaggerations being hurled around here.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

He said this:

Welcome,

Firstly intel vs AMD is a tough choice.

What are you using this PC for? Gaming and if so what games are you playing? and at what resolution?

Aswell you've gone for some odd CPU choices, id suggest you look at deciding between these two instead:

YOUR BASKET
1 x Intel Core i5-4670K 3.40GHz (Haswell) Socket LGA1150 Processor - OEM £169.99
1 x AMD Piledriver FX-8 Eight Core 8320 Black Edition 3.50GHz (Socket AM3+) Processor - Retail £119.99
Total : £299.58 (includes shipping : £8.00).



The 4670k is on the Haswell socket, it is overclockable. While its more expensive it's a better all rounder than the AMD CPU.

The 8320 is basically a 8350 for £30 less (bargain). There is VERY VERY little difference to the 8350, so its a much better buy.. The 8320 will like multi-threaded games like BF4 (it performs a little better than the 4670k in that) but will nose dive in games like Skyrim..
Though it is better for heavy video editing.

Like i say, its down to you're uses and the budget for other components like GPU's and SSDs

You are ignoring his first post. He only added that after ALXAndy posted the link to the TH review.

So, you're ignoring this little snippet ;



Said Doomed.

When Aston villa went from 2-0 to 2-2, would you not call that a collapse?
Same type of situation in a different area.

So a useless E-PEEN noisedive?? So why even mention Skyrim then?? Pointless example.

I have played hundreds of hours of Fallout 3,Fallout:NV and SR which are all Bethesda games and I have done it on a variety of hardware.

Next time,lets find a game where AMD will do 250FPS and Intel does 200FPS and we can say Intel nosedives too. Of course not because no one gives a damn anyway.

I could understand if he talks about a game where AMD got 12 FPS and Intel 30FPS,but anyone reading that would think playing SR on an AMD CPU would be some sort of useless mess. Which it isn't.

Moreover,SR is the last game single player game from Bethesda using the Creation/Gambryo engine.

Fallout 4 is probably using an idTech 5 based engine(they say the game will be powered by an id engine) or at least an iteration.

Lets look at how Rage ran on CPUs:

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph4955/41704.png
http://www.extremetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/RageVT.png

That is the internal benchmark. That is one of the few instances an FX8150 could beat a SB Core i5 at launch and come close to a SB Core i7.

So what do you think the next game in the series after SR will be using??

Yes,a multi-threaded idTech engine.

 

[Martini1991]

You're getting far too emotional Cat.

That's good that rage performs better on an FX8150 than an i5 2500K. (Well, whatever those benchmarks show, which isn't actually frame rate, the only FPS I can see is from Tom's which show a complete GPU bottleneck........)

The next Elder Scrolls game (Ignoring the MMO I have no interest in) may very well be a better threaded engine, and probably going down the path of showing outright parity.

 

[ALXAndy]

Yeah I can testify that RAGE loves a core or 8. Oddly enough it's what I've been playing lately. Good game, hates Crossfire on the latest CATS though.

 

[almighty15]

A load of old poo.

Firstly - yes it will happen overnight. Two consoles show up with 8 cores, games immediately get 8 core support. It's as crushingly simple as that.

Last generation consoles supported 7 and 8 threads respectfully, they made such a difference didn't they? Oh wait..... they didn't.

And console may have 8 core CPU's but let me explain a few things which you obviously don't know

1. They're only clocked at 1.6Ghz which means they have the same IPS as a quad core running at 3.2Ghz, a single FX 4300 will offer more through put as it's clocked much higher and thus offers higher IPS

2. Games will not and do not have access to all 8 cores

3. These cores, as already been proven with developer interviews will not be used for pure CPU related tasks, they'll be used for culling and other things which means actual core count on the PC side will be even less important

What's poo though is how you speak about an AMD not being able to run games unless all of them are being used. This is utter rubbish as I showed you the other day. Stop making off the cuff remarks on forums and make sure you have the data to back up your claims. Remember Arma III? that's exactly my point. There you were saying how they suffer really bad on an AMD yet the reality was actually the complete opposite.

AMD tanks in the ARMA series, the engine is single threaded, get over it already...

So you've gone from AMD being completely useless for everything, to AMD only being any good when all of them are supported.

Would you go care to go through my history and show where I've said AMD are completely useless?

So far, using engines designed for the consoles we have - (remembering that game devs got the console spec, blueprints and dev kits long before the consoles were released)

Far Cry 3. Uses 8 cores.

"The good news for folks with Piledriver-based processors is that the FX-8350 is nearly as quick as Intel's Core i3-2100 (never mind the fact that the Core i3 costs $90 less)"

"Like most of today's games, Far Cry 3 can use four cores or threads, so it's no surprise that dual-core chips suffer, as evidenced by the Phenom II X2 and Athlon II X2. However, core/thread efficiency is also extremely important and this is where the Intel has an edge, with the i7-3770K and i7-3960X topping our chart."

Metro : Last Light. Uses 8 cores.

A 4 generation old 2.6Ghz i7 920 matching an FX8350?

Crysis 3. Uses 8 cores.

Not bad, but Intel is still faster....

COD Ghosts. Uses 8 cores.

If this game uses 8 threads like you claim why is the 3 generations old 2500k beating the FX 8350?

Battlefield 4. Uses 8 cores.

Core i3 1fps behind the mighty FX 8350?

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

You're getting far too emotional Cat.

That's good that rage performs better on an FX8150 than an i5 2500K. (Well, whatever those benchmarks show, which isn't actually frame rate, the only FPS I can see is from Tom's which show a complete GPU bottleneck........)

The next Elder Scrolls game (Ignoring the MMO I have no interest in) may very well be a better threaded engine, and probably going down the path of showing outright parity.

Its the megatexturing benchmark,as idTech5 uses such tech. Its a form texture decompression on the go IIRC.

 

[Martini1991]

Its the megatexturing benchmark,as idTech5 uses such tech. Its a form texture decompression on the go IIRC.

I've been reading up on Rage, and it just seems to scale the IQ to get 60 FPS?

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I've been reading up on Rage, and it just seems to scale the IQ to get 60 FPS?

It means with more CPU horsepower you get better image quality(upto a certain maximum of course).

Fallout 4 is powered by an id engine. So its either idTech5 or idTech6 which probably will use megatexturing especially since the Bethesda titles are multi-platform.

The next game after SR will use the same engine.

Gamebryo/Creation was used in Fallout 3,Fallout:NV and SR.

Edit!!

It also means that the AMD CPUs will be fine for such games too.

 

[almighty15]

I've been reading up on Rage, and it just seems to scale the IQ to get 60 FPS?

RAGE looks like complete ass....... Looks great from a distance but when you get close up to the textures.......yuck!!

 

[gpuerrilla]

Hmm could have predicted dg and martini in this thread.

To cut it short, apart from the chasm of performance difference people like martin claim between the processors the reality is there is a pubic hair width. The guy has had possession of both systems yet doesn't post any findings as he knows there is little. He hides behind the "I didn't have time to test them". Until he posts something of sound proof I will continue to skim over the weird dislike he creates about the brands (or the people with the brands).

There are a few guys on here who own both systems or have had both and they will vouch that for the money involved you wouldn't see any difference. Alex has two decent rigs one of each intel/AMD - he would give you an honest opinion which I would believe over any of these naysayers.

 

[Martini1991]

Well Phix switched to an Intel set up because of the bottlenecks his FX83 caused his GTX780.
So.......

I have nothing to prove, certainly not to you, and certainly not to Andy (Who just spouts complete BS more than half the time) I just don't live in ignorance, whereas it appears you want to.

 

[almighty15]

Hmm could have predicted dg and martini in this thread.

To cut it short, apart from the chasm of performance difference people like martin claim between the processors the reality is there is a pubic hair width. The guy has had possession of both systems yet doesn't post any findings as he knows there is little. He hides behind the "I didn't have time to test them". Until he posts something of sound proof I will continue to skim over the weird dislike he creates about the brands (or the people with the brands).

The problem being is that when proof is posted AMD fanboys start crying and saying it doesn't count or it's unfair....

I remember when I posted my Crysis 1 results.... man the lame excuses and crying the AMD boys did was laughable and pathetic.

 

[gpuerrilla]

Lets not forget - if you want to play games AND stream the Intel 'nosedives'...

AMD wins that one just check Tek Syndicate.

 

[Martini1991]

I don't put any stock at all in Tek Syndicate (And if you did thread prioritising manually, you'd change the frame rates, and the frame rates given by Tek Syndicate for both systems were still pitiful)

But I'd never suggest an i5 for streaming, as they're not up to it to my standards (My friend streams on his 4.4GHZ 2500K, it's far from perfect as he maxes out the i5, but gets far, far better frames than any of the Tek Syndicate results)

EDIT : Aren't those results somewhat redundant now with shadowplay or whatever it's called and then the AMD Radeon equivalent?

 

[almighty15]

Lets not forget - if you want to play games AND stream the Intel 'nosedives'...

AMD wins that one just check Tek Syndicate.

My Intel does just fine and doesn't nosedive at all...

 

[gpuerrilla]

The problem being is that when proof is posted AMD fanboys start crying and saying it doesn't count or it's unfair....

I remember when I posted my Crysis 1 results.... man the lame excuses and crying the AMD boys did was laughable and pathetic.

WTF are you bringing an old game like that into this for? In fact what rock have you crawled from under?

Theres plenty of fan boys on this forum. You have just held up the intel flag, I dont care who you like but threads like this that put down the FX when typically the poster has never used an FX is pathetic.

 

[Martini1991]

Is that meant to be ironic ?

 

[~>Dg<~]

best thing is i have a 8320 rig at side of my i5 i find it funny

its my sons pc its great value for money but just not as quick as a i5. it will play all or most games close to as good for less money so it is very good just not as quick overall. come with all the bm i done em already

 

[almighty15]

WTF are you bringing an old game like that into this for? In fact what rock have you crawled from under?

Theres plenty of fan boys on this forum. You have just held up the intel flag, I dont care who you like but threads like this that put down the FX when typically the poster has never used an FX is pathetic.

Old games exist = Fact

Your attitude and temper over a topic in a FORUM on the INTERNET = Sad and pathetic

Maybe go outside? It's nice out there you know....