AMD Multicore CPUs - whats the crack?

[humbug]

I tell you what guys I can vouch for the 8 core Piledriver. I bought an 8320 last week to replace my aging Xeon and I've been having more fun with it than people realise.

I've been benching against a mate of mine and even with his 2550k at 4.7ghz he's really struggling to get out in front. I'm only running mine at 4.2ghz but I benched off against an I5 3570k earlier (4.3ghz) and beat it in 3dmark (13).

And Crysis 3? well you can beat a 3770k with a £113 CPU, nuff said really.

To those who doubt what Piledriver can do? big mistake. It costs peanuts and give it six months? Athlon XP all over again. Peanuts for a ridiculous gaming chip.

The good bit is you don't need to take my word for it, how does the word of every game developer out there right now sound?

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-future-proofing-your-pc-for-next-gen

Enjoy

We approached a number of developers on and off the record - each of whom has helped to ship multi-million-selling, triple-A titles - asking them whether an Intel or AMD processor offers the best way to future-proof a games PC built in the here and now. Bearing in mind the historical dominance Intel has enjoyed, the results are intriguing - all of them opted for the FX-8350 over the current default enthusiast's choice, the Core i5 3570K.

Very interesting read, what they are basically saying is what some people are suspecting.

The current Game Consoles are the reason for bad core optimisation, the PS3 only has a 1 core 2 thread CPU, I did not know that.
The xBox One and PS4 will change that.
What Developers are saying is it will let them loose and with that the FX-8 Core chips will come into their own in future titles.

 

[ALXAndy]

Very interesting read, what they are basically saying is what some people are suspecting.

The current Game Consoles are the reason for bad core optimisation, the PS3 only has a 1 core 2 thread CPU, I did not know that.
The xBox One and PS4 will change that.
What Developers are saying is it will let them loose and with that the FX-8 Core chips will come into their own in future titles.

Indeed yes. In a physical sense the 8350, when utilised correctly is actually faster than the 3770k. The sheer heft of Intel's faster cores do not make up for AMD's physical cores.

I've been benching against a friend of mine with a 2550k and in most of the tests we've run I've beaten his scores. 3Dmark 13 is one example with Crysis 3 being another. Both of those use AMD's cores properly.

It's not unusual for AMD to do things barse ackwards tbh. They did it with the 64 bit CPU that Intel scoffed and laughed at.. Look at it now, every one is on X64 operating systems.

They've gained a massive advantage by getting into bed with Microsoft and Sony tbh. Either Intel need to join the 'core race' or are going to have to drop the prices of their CPUs to compete. I mean no one is going to pay a £60 premium for a CPU with less cores that is out performed by a £113 8 core CPU.

 

[whyscotty]

And Crysis 3? well you can beat a 3770k with a £113 CPU, nuff said really.

To those who doubt what Piledriver can do? big mistake. It costs peanuts and give it six months? Athlon XP all over again. Peanuts for a ridiculous gaming chip.

The good bit is you don't need to take my word for it, how does the word of every game developer out there right now sound?

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-future-proofing-your-pc-for-next-gen

Enjoy

great article

A real eye opener, thanks

 

[opethdisciple]

All this is pure conjecture at the moment.

Regarding the 8350 beating the 3770k in Crysis 3. Depends on the benchmarks you look at. I have seem reputable sites show that the 3570k and the 3770k have much higher minimums (10fps) compared to the FX chips.

 

[Phixsator]

All this is pure conjecture at the moment.

Regarding the 8350 beating the 3770k in Crysis 3. Depends on the benchmarks you look at. I have seem reputable sites show that the 3570k and the 3770k have much higher minimums (10fps) compared to the FX chips.

Im starting to not trust a lot of those review sites out there. Im not refering to the whole 3x70k vs 8350 war but more like in general. Some sites seems very fond of a specific brand or their method of testing and/or conclusions makes no sense. The usual thing sites forgets is minimum fps and how often it happens. I dont care about maximum fps.. Mins and then average, the rest is garbage.

 

[olivier renault]

Intels will just put their raw power advantage to bridge the gap, AMD architecture will just work as it's suppose to.

Conjectures of course, but the FX8350 is a good chip nonetheless for the money.

 

[Tuvoc]

Im starting to not trust a lot of those review sites out there. Im not refering to the whole 3x70k vs 8350 war but more like in general. Some sites seems very fond of a specific brand or their method of testing and/or conclusions makes no sense. The usual thing sites forgets is minimum fps and how often it happens. I dont care about maximum fps.. Mins and then average, the rest is garbage.

Yes, and low res testing showing 150+ frame rates is useless. Of theoretical interest perhaps, but no use in the real world. With a single GPU and at decent resolutions and quality settings, I think there is little difference between the two CPUs you mention above for gaming