What's the score with AMD CPU's these days?

Martini1991 · 1 Oct 2016 at 18:28

Brazo said:
Yes your right and telling me nothing that I don't know already but they do work to provide virtual cores, fooling games that require a quad core.

Well, er, not really.

Couldn't ever recommend an i3 over an FX83 personally, just wouldn't want to be heading into 2017 with a product that should be entry level.
But then I'd be loathed to buy a product that has been long EOL.

Has to be modern i5k's.

h4rm0ny · 1 Oct 2016 at 18:31

Brazo said:
Yes your right and telling me nothing that I don't know already but they do work to provide virtual cores, fooling games that require a quad core.

That's a bit like saying if I fool someone that the computer they're buying from me has 12GB of RAM when it only has 8GB of RAM they'll be okay if they need 12GB.

Note that in my analogy I didn't halve the RAM. Hyperthreading does add a performance benefit in most scenarios, but it still doesn't make it dual-core.

Uriel · 1 Oct 2016 at 19:48

The simple fact is that current i3s are not held back in any significant way for gaming.

Games that require more than 2 threads are fine on an i3. They are not on a Pentium.

I3s still frequently have a performance advantage over even AMD's top CPUs.

There is a place in the gaming market for AMD CPUs. It's just that it's currently below the price of the cheapest i3. That may change with Zen.

joeyjojo · 1 Oct 2016 at 20:57

Was going to ask which games won't run without four (logical) cores, but did a search and apparently Far Cry 4 is one. That's absolutely dreadful software engineering.

Uriel said:
There is a place in the gaming market for AMD CPUs. It's just that it's currently below the price of the cheapest i3. That may change with Zen.

An FX-8300 (£100) is cheaper than the cheapest i3 (£110). There are many cheaper (e.g. 860K, only £66).

h4rm0ny · 1 Oct 2016 at 21:34

Uriel said:
I3s still frequently have a performance advantage over even AMD's top CPUs.

And vice versa. In fact more often the other way around, I'm pretty sure. Some games (usually newer ones) work better with more cores because they're written to use them. Some games (usually older ones where they've never adapted to multi-core) just care about single-threaded speed and little else.

So sure, you can still find games that will run better on a current i3 than an FX-8350, but the question is what games and how representative are they.

Brazo · 1 Oct 2016 at 21:48

Martini1991 said:
Well, er, not really.

Couldn't ever recommend an i3 over an FX83 personally, just wouldn't want to be heading into 2017 with a product that should be entry level.
But then I'd be loathed to buy a product that has been long EOL.

Has to be modern i5k's.

I'd take a decent i3 over any AMD CPU even the bet top end one as the cores are so incredibly weak. Yes they have lots of cores and the few (any?) games that make use of more than 4 the AMD might better it but it only takes an i5 to completely batter any any AMD CPU.

Brazo · 1 Oct 2016 at 21:50

h4rm0ny said:
That's a bit like saying if I fool someone that the computer they're buying from me has 12GB of RAM when it only has 8GB of RAM they'll be okay if they need 12GB.

Note that in my analogy I didn't halve the RAM. Hyperthreading does add a performance benefit in most scenarios, but it still doesn't make it dual-core.

It's a poor analogy. Fact is an I3 works for quad core gaming. I have one and it works. I have an i7, it works better

Brazo · 1 Oct 2016 at 21:52

h4rm0ny said:
And vice versa. In fact more often the other way around, I'm pretty sure. Some games (usually newer ones) work better with more cores because they're written to use them. Some games (usually older ones where they've never adapted to multi-core) just care about single-threaded speed and little else.

So sure, you can still find games that will run better on a current i3 than an FX-8350, but the question is what games and how representative are they.

The concern is (for AMD) that their top end CPUs are at least matched by intels budget ones.

Wait for Zen? Why? Zen performance is available right now and has been for the last 5 years

h4rm0ny · 2 Oct 2016 at 08:18

Brazo said:
It's a poor analogy. Fact is an I3 works for quad core gaming. I have one and it works. I have an i7, it works better

The analogy is fine and by definition, gaming on a dual core is not "quad core gaming" whatever the Hell that means.

NeoWave · 2 Oct 2016 at 10:45

Brazo said:
Wait for Zen? Why? Zen performance is available right now and has been for the last 5 years

To potentially save money? If you don't need a new CPU at this very moment why throw your dosh away when it might be able to go towards something else?

joeyjojo · 2 Oct 2016 at 11:39

Brazo said:
I'd take a decent i3 over any AMD CPU even the bet top end one as the cores are so incredibly weak. Yes they have lots of cores and the few (any?) games that make use of more than 4 the AMD might better it but it only takes an i5 to completely batter any any AMD CPU.

We don't need this kind of hyperbolic, partisan language in this subforum thanks.

You can find any number of real world measurements and recordings that show that most games are GPU-limited, and the CPU makes little difference. Here's the very first one I found with a youtube search for example. Is the AMD being 'completely battered'? Of course not.

Would I recommend someone buy a new system around one in 2016? No, but that's a different question. The reasons for not buying an AMD system (for gaming) aren't really about the performance, it's other considerations like the relatively small £ differential, peripherals, connectivity, etc.

Terrorfirmer · 2 Oct 2016 at 12:18

I love when people cherry-pick game benchmarks like joeyjojo above to prove some kind of point.

The simple fact is, the FX line is terrible now for games. Yes, some games like The Witcher 3 and say, GTA V are fairly CPU friendly and heavily GPU dependent.

But try comparing Fallout 4 on an i5 vs an FX8350 and watch how the FX falls flat on its face, the FX9370 losing to even an i3.

It trails way, way behind Intel in Battlefield 1 as well.

Going AM3 now makes absolutely zero sense, even getting an i3 now is a way smarter option as it can easily be upgraded to an i5 down the line. AM3 is a dead end platform and an incredibly poor choice for gaming in 2016.

Who want's a CPU that flip flops between excellent and poor performance when Intel is rock solid across the board?

joeyjojo · 2 Oct 2016 at 12:22

Terrorfirmer said:
I love when people cherry-pick game benchmarks like joeyjojo above to prove some kind of point.

The simple fact is, the FX line is terrible now for games. Yes, some games like The Witcher 3 and say, GTA V are fairly CPU friendly and heavily GPU dependent.

But try comparing Fallout 4 on an i5 vs an FX8350 and watch how the FX falls flat on its face, the FX9370 losing to even an i3.

Hold on, you can't accuse me of cherry picking (I picked that clip completely at random) and then cherry pick Fallout 4 in response.

OK, youtube, random Fallout 4 comparison:

Try covering up the FPS counters and tell me which one 'falls flat on its face'. Even staring at the FPS counters (if that's how you play games) there's only what, 5 FPS between them either way.

jigger · 2 Oct 2016 at 12:54

Terrorfirmer said:
I love when people cherry-pick game benchmarks like joeyjojo above to prove some kind of point.
The simple fact is, the FX line is terrible now for games.

Only if you have a very twisted perspective on the topic. Otherwise no not really.

keasy · 2 Oct 2016 at 19:31

I'm going to wait and see how the new CPU's pan out.
That will give me time to get some more money together too.
Lucky little kids I have, I'm selling my DSLR and lenses to fund this project!

h4rm0ny · 3 Oct 2016 at 11:09

Terrorfirmer said:
I love when people cherry-pick game benchmarks like joeyjojo above to prove some kind of point.

That's not cherry-picking. It is COMMON for the FX-8350 to be fine for gaming. The bottleneck for the huge majority of people is their GPU. They were just supporting their point with an example of a modern and popular game that ran fine with an FX-8350. Nearly all modern popular games will.

bru · 3 Oct 2016 at 12:40

It is funny that Intels SMT hyperthreading is rubbish according to some AMD fans, what is the betting that next year when AMD has its own SMT system rather than their currant CMT it will be the best thing ever.

h4rm0ny · 3 Oct 2016 at 13:45

bru said:
It is funny that Intels SMT hyperthreading is rubbish according to some AMD fans, what is the betting that next year when AMD has its own SMT system rather than their currant CMT it will be the best thing ever.

If that's directed at me, I've neither said that Intel's HT is "rubbish" and I don't think anyone else has. We've just - correctly - pointed out that it's not equivalent technically or performance wise to having the same number of cores. Threads and cores are not the same thing. And if you think that's a double-standard, you can find posts from me critical of AMD going down this road as well.

If someone specific has said something incorrect or a double-standard, do feel free to point it out.

jigger · 3 Oct 2016 at 13:53

bru said:
It is funny that Intels SMT hyperthreading is rubbish according to some AMD fans, what is the betting that next year when AMD has its own SMT system rather than their currant CMT it will be the best thing ever.

Whats funny is posts like this. Whats this got to do with Nvidia? They don't make CPU's

Martini1991 · 3 Oct 2016 at 14:03

jigger said:
Whats funny is posts like this. Whats this got to do with Nvidia? They don't make CPU's

1.) Where's the Nvidia mention.
2.) I'm pretty sure my Surface 2's running an Nvidia SOC.