• 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.

GTA5 CPU Benchmarks (I3 beats FX yet again)

Yes of course as usual!

I think there is maybe 15% difference in the benchmarks on my 2 - i have no confidence an I3 could come even close to the 8320 set up properly.

As an aside, i really struggled to get more than 4gb usage reported on GTAV with everything turned up and i wanted to stress the 8gb vaporx (read: justify the 8gb). Even so perfectly playable with 60hz vsync. I also have an asus gaming laptop with a 980m, and that tears more than the "pure amd" setup.
 
Bonjour said:
Settled on some settings now.

Turned Post-FX down to 'Very High', upped the resolution to 3K(VSR) and MSAA 2X. Looks superb and runs great. GPU usage up to the 60s.

I'm not sure an i3 would be able to run these settings on a crossfire setup.
Click to expand...

CapitalOne said:
Yes of course as usual!

I think there is maybe 15% difference in the benchmarks on my 2 - i have no confidence an I3 could come even close to the 8320 set up properly.

As an aside, i really struggled to get more than 4gb usage reported on GTAV with everything turned up and i wanted to stress the 8gb vaporx (read: justify the 8gb). Even so perfectly playable with 60hz vsync. I also have an asus gaming laptop with a 980m, and that tears more than the "pure amd" setup.
Click to expand...

So who's gonna do it?

hm6eGmF.jpg
 
Dave2150 said:
Yeh buddy, there's no other choice now. FX CPU's are shockingly bad.
Click to expand...

Intel PR team tell you that? They are nowhere near as bad as you seem to believe. Doubt you've ever owned one, only people who have owned one can say whether it's bad or not. I don't doubt that Intel is the better option at the moment, but your constant "AMD FX sux" is just nothing but misinformed.
 
I somehow pick up the vibe from his recent posts that he is trying to get a reaction by goading others on this forum. In some way shape or form it is trolling.

Most of the popular posters on here are desensitised to him as there is a few times he has been called out now on inaccuracies. The worrying thing is the irregular posters viewing his bias are probably soaking that opinion which is based on fables.

If anything the thread title should be changed to *false claims* from the many other benchmarks people are inputting reflecting reality.

Mods need to start cleaning this type of repetitive garbage up. Just in case people retract or sit on the fence comments like this are justifying why people like Dave need to grow up or get locked out of the CPU area:

Dave2150 said:
FX CPU's are shockingly bad.
Click to expand...
 
Having owned an FX-8350 myself i can say its one of the better CPUs ive ever owned. Not the fastest but its a very solid piece of silicon. Many keep comparing it to Haswell and before that to Ivy but the FX was never meant to fight those battles yet still does a decent job of it considering its age, the 32nm process and price to performance ratio. Is it king? no its not but its anything but "shocking badly".
 
Looking at other benchmarks, the difference is actually a lot less once you increase the resolution and / or MSAA. At 3K (VSR), which I'm playing, I'd see minimal improvement with Intel.
 
Phixsator said:
Having owned an FX-8350 myself i can say its one of the better CPUs ive ever owned. Not the fastest but its a very solid piece of silicon. Many keep comparing it to Haswell and before that to Ivy but the FX was never meant to fight those battles yet still does a decent job of it considering its age, the 32nm process and price to performance ratio. Is it king? no its not but its anything but "shocking badly".
Click to expand...

I know where your coming from - still have a lot of love for my previous Q9550 (Intel) but reality is even Intel's tablet SoCs are fast creeping up on AMD's desktop CPUs - the next generation isn't going to be hideously slower than the lower end FX models in a 2W TDP package :S (aside from where the AMDs can really flex their extra 4 core advantage).
 
Anyone who has used one or has impartial intelligence knows the FX cpu's are not shockingly bad. To state the i3 "again" beats these chips is just stirring.

If you look at the graph wars from the multiple sites then once again it averages out where the FX are mixing it with the i5's. How on earth you would claim the i3 is muscling in is deluded or just too quick to jump on one biased graph that tells us nothing sensible.

As flopper rightly highlights above, when DX12 kicks into these games you will see the 3fps difference that matters to some flatline making the CPU's almost indistinguishable on common resolutions.

People banging out these 4k ultra settings charts are guys with money to throw at gaming. You wouldn't buy an i3,FX or other low priced cpu bracket if you are rocking Titans and dual 290's or better with TV sized monitors.
 
Yes it would stew!

You don't always have to get the latest hex core i7 to prove a point in a synthetic benchmark.

A quality 1080p monitor and a good GPU will not need a beast of a CPU when you are on a decent API. If you have the money then you can buy what you want, but to ram it down peoples throats you must have an enthusiast grade intel to cut the mustard is not accurate.
 
Glad to see AMD are not as bad as Dave (repeatedly) tries to make out. A few people are accusing him of being a Intel fan boy/salesman but I think its more a hatred of AMD that drives him.

Thankfully many have again shown just how over exaggerated his opinion is, which seems to be based on nothing but cherry picked results and no personal experience. Luckily most are starting to see the pattern and giving his opinion the credit it deserves.

Since by the later supplied benches (that seem less dubious than the first ones supplied), should we now be calling the i5 "shockingly bad" since the AMD appear to be reasonably close? Would you recommend an i3 over AMD dave?

Hopefully once I have both my systems up and running and the game has downloaded (could be a while yet, damn slow connection), I can add some more comparisons with 280X's (no promises though)
 
Shocker as different testing methodologies and settings changes results.
Upmanship galore.
Shortsighted minefield.
Previously used sites now ignored shocker.

Etc etc.

I find the AMD owners to be far far far more bias than Dave frankly (Even though I think he's a bit of a numpty and is irrational and constantly over reaching, but then that's just testament to the discontent I have with people jumping to AMD's defense). Clawing and clawing, constantly.
 
Last edited:
Martini1991 said:
Shocker as different testing methodologies and settings changes results.
Upmanship galore.
Shortsighted minefield.
Previously used sites now ignored shocker.

Etc etc.

I find the AMD owners to be far far far more bias than Dave frankly (Even though I think he's a bit of a numpty and is irrational and constantly over reaching, but then that's just testament to the discontent I have with people jumping to AMD's defense). Clawing and clawing, constantly.
Click to expand...

BIASED BIASED BIASED

ERMERGERD

BIASED

I'm an Intel user, and I think this guy's claims are BS. I'm an AMD user too, but I have 2x 6 core X79 systems (soon to be 3) and an 8320 system.
 
spoffle said:
BIASED BIASED BIASED

ERMERGERD

BIASED

I'm an Intel user, and I think this guy's claims are BS. I'm an AMD user too, but I have 2x 6 core X79 systems (soon to be 3) and an 8320 system.
Click to expand...

Biased.
Happy Spoffle :p?

Most of his claims are BS (Said as much previously), but I still find others to be as bad/worse. While Dave can talk crap (And does), there's an absolute truth in Intel have the higher performing CPU's, and this can come through in games, and while he may try and exaggerate, there's plenty of AMD owners who simply ignore it and pretend there's no truth in anything he'd say. Given the choice these people would take an FX83 over a modern i5 in gaming, despite the i5 being factually better. In order for one to do so, a bias must exist.
 
Last edited:
Possibly Martini. I would be one of your bias defenders from the AMD camp (disregard my ownership of intel since P100 days) but regardless of the side of the fence you think people belong on - Dave has created a thread to stir and naturally you will get people who own them post to say if this statement is accurate!

Stating that the i3 beats them "again" just cements the lack of credibitiliy from the guy but as you put is aptly just read even your thoughts on him.

I want AMD to push performance in the CPU's as much as the next man. You cant win on this forum in the GPU or CPU as if you even oppose one item against intel or an nvidia component then you are a fanboy!

:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom