GTA5 CPU Benchmarks (I3 beats FX yet again)

[ALXAndy]

Never expected to see the support of PCI-E 3.0 to be portrayed as a bad thing...

It would be less bad if it was all it was cracked up to be. As it stands it was 3% IIRC. Yes, that's well worth ditching my entire X79 set up and buying X99 for (My Titan Blacks do not allow the PCIE 3 hack to work on my CPU).

If I had used hindsight I would still be using my X58 rig. I had an I7 950 and fell for the hype of Sandybridge, buying an I5 2400. Total side grade. My results all came back absolutely identical to the 950. I could have easily made do with the 950 and my UD3 and then stuck a 5650 in and would have been perfectly current. I run four SATA II SSDs in here in RAID 0 and get a gb r/w. So all I would have needed to do was to buy two decent SSDs and put them in RAID which would have gotten around the SATA III missing issue.

I won't be giving up my X79 rig so easily. Give it a couple of years and there will be fast 8 core Xeons on Ebay for cheap.

 

[mmj_uk]

What difference the API makes, well... just spend a few hours educating yourself before you come in like that making these assertions, no one who understands any of this can take anything you say seriously.

As for the "you should have just bought Intel to start with" assumes that we are in someway unhappy with our purchase.
How one could follow this thread and conclude that is... surprising? to be polite.

Have you just wondered in here having read the thread title and reeled off some junk that you think might get you in with the popular kids?

Thats sure as hell what it looks like.

What's surprising is that you still believe AMD are going to have parity and are presumably prepared to wait yet another 4yrs for it, it's never going to happen outside of GPU bottlenecked situations (for which AMD have been fortunate enough to have with the massive ramp up in resolution over the past year or two) or if they release a CPU with faster cores.

Some workloads benefit from parallel computing, others don't.. gaming is very much the latter. The current consoles struggle to maintain 30fps in a lot of games because they are CPU bottlenecked even with "to the metal" API's with virtually zero overhead, Sony/MS could add another 8 cores to their consoles tomorrow and developers might be able to offload some more threads but still wouldn't be able to get over the fact that their core engine won't be rendered any faster.

For gaming the numbers of cores will always be secondary to the outright performance of cores, you'll always be better off with 4 fast cores than 8 slow ones.

 

[mmj_uk]

It would be less bad if it was all it was cracked up to be. As it stands it was 3% IIRC. Yes, that's well worth ditching my entire X79 set up and buying X99 for (My Titan Blacks do not allow the PCIE 3 hack to work on my CPU).

If I had used hindsight I would still be using my X58 rig. I had an I7 950 and fell for the hype of Sandybridge, buying an I5 2400. Total side grade. My results all came back absolutely identical to the 950. I could have easily made do with the 950 and my UD3 and then stuck a 5650 in and would have been perfectly current. I run four SATA II SSDs in here in RAID 0 and get a gb r/w. So all I would have needed to do was to buy two decent SSDs and put them in RAID which would have gotten around the SATA III missing issue.

I won't be giving up my X79 rig so easily. Give it a couple of years and there will be fast 8 core Xeons on Ebay for cheap.

I get that you don't want to have to 'upgrade' your £800 3970X to Intel's new £300 5820K but that's no reason to be giving out false information to others such as claiming that the 5820K is no good for 2 way SLI when it's ideal.

The 5930K is aimed primarily at 3-way/4-way users.

 

[humbug]

What's surprising is that you still believe AMD are going to have parity and are presumably prepared to wait yet another 4yrs for it, it's never going to happen outside of GPU bottlenecked situations (for which AMD have been fortunate enough to have with the massive ramp up in resolution over the past year or two) or if they release a CPU with faster cores.

Some workloads benefit from parallel computing, others don't.. gaming is very much the latter. The current consoles struggle to maintain 30fps in a lot of games because they are CPU bottlenecked even with "to the metal" API's with virtually zero overhead, Sony/MS could add another 8 cores to their consoles tomorrow and developers might be able to offload some more threads but still wouldn't be able to get over the fact that their core engine won't be rendered any faster.

For gaming the numbers of cores will always be secondary to the outright performance of cores, you'll always be better off with 4 big cores than 8 small ones.

For a Start the 8 Core Jaguar CPU in those consoles have the equivilent performance of one of these

AMD Sempron 2650 1.45GHz Dual Core Processor


Even 'IF' that ^^^

Jaguar is an old Tablet CPU, a quad core one is about 5 Watts, even in Mantle / DX12 the 8 Core Jaguar only has about 25% the performance an FX CPU does in DX11. the whole 8 core CPU makes up the die space of your little finger nail.


The idea of AMD CPU's becoming better with modern games because of the consoles was because of higher workload threading, THAT has largely come true.


An API like Mantle has brought AMD's CPU with parity of Intel, A £450 Intel 6 Core does not get any more performance in DX11 or Mantle than i do in BF4 Mantle unless its 3 or 4 way Mantle CF, maybe not even that.


DX12 will do the same.

 

[gpuerrilla]

Jaguar is an old Tablet CPU, a quad core one is about 5 Watts, even in Mantle / DX12 the 8 Core Jaguar only has about 25% the performance an FX CPU does in DX11. the whole 8 core CPU makes up the die space of your little finger nail.

Shh dont confuse people who only buy intel.

The idea of AMD CPU's becoming better with modern games because of the consoles was because of higher workload threading, THAT has largely come true.

Tick.

An API like Mantle has brought AMD's CPU with parity of Intel, A £450 Intel 6 Core does not get any more performance in DX11 or Mantle than i do in BF4 Mantle unless its 3 or 4 way Mantle CF, maybe not even that.

Tick.

Don't expect ignoramus to acknowledge these points. When you are rationally presenting positive information it is mostly wasted on flag fliers that want to believe AMD is evil and need to die!

 

[Martini1991]

For a Start the 8 Core Jaguar CPU in those consoles have the equivilent performance of one of these

AMD Sempron 2650 1.45GHz Dual Core Processor

Erm.
I'm pretty sure you'll find that CPU you've linked is 2 Jaguar cores, running slower clocks than either of the consoles.

So Erm... Your calculation is massively off.

Which makes Th0nt's comment absolutely hilarious (MMJ also owned an FX83 before you, and Humbug, so lol's there)

It's AMD's current crop of tablet architecture (Even though it's gone nowhere in that market)

Who needs facts when you can pretend everyone else is biased?

 

[Tonester0011]

Don't expect ignoramus to acknowledge these points. When you are rationally presenting positive information it is mostly wasted on flag fliers that want to believe Intel is evil and need to die!

Changed one word and it sums you up perfectly

 

[gpuerrilla]

Why does it make my comment hilarious? I thought it was common knowledge that anyone disregards MMJ's posts as they are even less credible than Dave's.

What makes it hilarious is that he owned an FX. Interpret it the martini way for extra dryness!

 

[Martini1991]

How is it not hilarious?
Humbug's just shown a complete lack of knowledge about AMD products. Flies hilariously in the face of your comment?

Humbug has just stated that the CPU performance in the consoles has the same, if not less performance than the 20 quid chip he linked to. The reality is he's off massively, as it's the consoles that are better, probably to the tune of 5 or 6 (Depending on the console).

 

[gpuerrilla]

Well all I said was don't confuse people? The other two points I agreed with... English, Engrish? Martinigrish.

 

[Scurburg]

Never expected to see the support of PCI-E 3.0 to be portrayed as a bad thing...

Oh come on martini, even you must see thats not actually the point. Its not that supporting it is bad, its just not really a "needed" feature like some are implying. Even you must admit there is little actual benefit over the previous version for most users.

A lot of the features intel chipsets have offered over amd are similar and are in the "nice to have" category rather than a reason to upgrade. Only now are they actually starting to offer "worthy of an upgrade" features, but still that comes at greater cost and is subjective as to whether its worth it for each person.

"MMJ also owned an FX83 before you, and Humbug, so lol's there"
The only thing that shows is that MMJ believed he made the wrong decision to begin with while it goes a fair way in explains his hatred for amd and his "should have just bought Intel to begin with" stance. Theres some buyers remorse, projection and limited perspective going on there IMO.

Having said that, MMJ has made a valid point in reply to ALXAndy's 5820 comment which I'll get to in a sec.

The 5820k is actually useless to me given how few PCIE lanes it has. I run two Titan Blacks, an X2 sound card and soon to be an X4 PCIE SSD.

The 5820k would crumble, it's a mere toy.

Sorry Andy but I think that is misinformation. As MMJ said:
"the difference between 8x/8x and 16x/16x at PCI-E 3.0 is going to be negligible in normal use"

Its actually the same difference as PCIE 2.0 x16 to pcie 3.0 x16 which Andy, I think you were arguing against the benefit of before (?)

Anyway, this all seems WAY off topic. Can we go back to actual user data, suggested tests and comparisons now please?

 

[Martini1991]

MMJ had Intel when he bought an FX83, he just bought it to play with.

 

[gpuerrilla]

Oh come on martini, even you must see thats not actually the point. Its not that supporting it is bad, its just not really a "needed" feature like some are implying. Even you must admit there is little actual benefit over the previous version for most users.

Martini would definitely not upgrade a motherboard for 3% PCI-E increase. Not that he is a features man anyway.

Anyway, this all seems WAY off topic. Can we go back to actual user data, suggested tests and comparisons now please?

Agreed. There are a number of FX and intel co-owners (panos, alex_fra, moogley etc) that have input positively to the debates. I would take this information over the grudging intel poster that has never owned an FX. We do still have chart wars as martini calls them which dont really help any argument.

 

[Dave2150]

It would be less bad if it was all it was cracked up to be. As it stands it was 3% IIRC. Yes, that's well worth ditching my entire X79 set up and buying X99 for (My Titan Blacks do not allow the PCIE 3 hack to work on my CPU).

If I had used hindsight I would still be using my X58 rig. I had an I7 950 and fell for the hype of Sandybridge, buying an I5 2400. Total side grade. My results all came back absolutely identical to the 950. I could have easily made do with the 950 and my UD3 and then stuck a 5650 in and would have been perfectly current. I run four SATA II SSDs in here in RAID 0 and get a gb r/w. So all I would have needed to do was to buy two decent SSDs and put them in RAID which would have gotten around the SATA III missing issue.

I won't be giving up my X79 rig so easily. Give it a couple of years and there will be fast 8 core Xeons on Ebay for cheap.

It must have been user error, if your 'test' of Nehalem vs Sandybridge produced identical results

All the other reputable review websites demonstrated a decent performance increase, as well as hundreds of users on here who echoed the same results.

PEBKAC applies very aptly here.

Out of curiosity, was this comprehensive Nehalem vs Sandy Bridge comparison part of your review website when you attempted to be a professional reviewer? I'd quite enjoy reading through your findings, since you seem to challenge the results of every other review site on the planet (all of which were able to produce non identical results comparing Nehalem to Sandy Bridge).

Oh, and your 4xssd configuration with '1gb/sec writes' would be useless to most, as you have 60GB drives in raid0 as I understand it. You couldn't even install GTA5 on that

 

[Dave2150]

yeah x58 would still be going if it had sata 3 for sure

Still if AMD is perfect for everything i am struggling to see why even the 5820k has caught up and overtaken the 9590 in sales (slight edit for context)

you know since it's such a rip off and full of frivolous carp


jokes aside I do hope AMD actually hurry up and release a replacement for piledriver

Interesting to get inside information from OCUK on sales of these CPU's. Certainly seems to echo the majority of users opinions on these FX CPU's.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

So what is the opinion on the G3258 in this game looking at the terribad results with it? I remember 9 months ago,telling people it was a better bet to get a Core i3 over a G3258 for around £30 more,and a number were quite resistant about it(seem to be all suddenly ignoring that CPU now),especially with the G6950 and Core i3 530 history lesson. Seems history has repeated itself LOL but this time in even less time!!

 

[Scurburg]

MMJ had Intel when he bought an FX83, he just bought it to play with.

Fair enough, I retract my buyers remorse statement then. I still think his perspective seems a little limited regarding the reason people choose AMD over intel but thats irrelevant to the discussion now (I hope).

 

[Tonester0011]

So what is the opinion on the G3258 in this game looking at the terribad results with it? I remember 9 months ago,telling people it was a better bet to get a Core i3 over a G3258 for around £30 more,and a number were quite resistant about it,especially with the G6950 and Core i3 530 history lesson. Seems history has repeated itself LOL.

Not surprised in the slightest.
Dual core no matter the clock speed are dead.

I still bought two of them though, thought they would be fun to overclock...they weren't, both were terrible clockers.

 

[Martini1991]

So what is the opinion on the G3258 in this game looking at the terribad results with it? I remember 9 months ago,telling people it was a better bet to get a Core i3 over a G3258 for around £30 more,and a number were quite resistant about it(seem to be all suddenly ignoring that CPU now),especially with the G6950 and Core i3 530 history lesson. Seems history has repeated itself LOL but this time in even less time!!

The Pentium unlocked was always a bad idea.
Makes me cringe when people pick it over an FX63 bundle.

 

[Tonester0011]

Makes me laugh when someone would pair it with a Titan Black. Lol.