-
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.
Homeworld: Remastered CPU Benchmarks
- Thread starter Dave2150
- Start date
Andy - we're in a thread talking about CPU's for gaming.
The current Haswell (Devil's Canyon) i5's and I7's come out ahead of the FX series 99% of the time in benchmarks. They are far faster, consume less electricity and produce less heat than the AMD alternative from 2011.
That is simply the truth. It's also true that the I5 4690K with a budget Z97 board only costs around £110 more than the usual FX 8350 and FX chipset motherboard.
Yes, for those who don't want to spend the extra £110, the FX range is the best in that ultra low budget option.
No matter how many walls of text you produce, you cannot change the facts. The i5's and I7's are far superior in every aspect for gaming.
This will only get worse with Broadwell-K, with it's 128MB of l4 cache being released in 2-3 months.
Your correct in that I haven't personally tested an FX series CPU. Why would I buy something that fairs so poorly in gaming in the vast majority of review compared to the competition, has no upgrade path and is dated technology from 2011?
Do you really believe that the most reputable review sites out there are all in on a conspiracy to produce false benchmark results for gaming?
The current Haswell (Devil's Canyon) i5's and I7's come out ahead of the FX series 99% of the time in benchmarks. They are far faster, consume less electricity and produce less heat than the AMD alternative from 2011.
That is simply the truth. It's also true that the I5 4690K with a budget Z97 board only costs around £110 more than the usual FX 8350 and FX chipset motherboard.
Yes, for those who don't want to spend the extra £110, the FX range is the best in that ultra low budget option.
No matter how many walls of text you produce, you cannot change the facts. The i5's and I7's are far superior in every aspect for gaming.
This will only get worse with Broadwell-K, with it's 128MB of l4 cache being released in 2-3 months.
Your correct in that I haven't personally tested an FX series CPU. Why would I buy something that fairs so poorly in gaming in the vast majority of review compared to the competition, has no upgrade path and is dated technology from 2011?
Do you really believe that the most reputable review sites out there are all in on a conspiracy to produce false benchmark results for gaming?
Last edited:
Yup we are. A thread about gaming where the game is loaded to work really well on Intel and make the AMD look bad. Please, don't insult my intelligence by pretending it was anything else.
99% of the time in your loaded, cherry picked benchmarks. I would go and find the rest where the AMD stands up very proudly (Tomb Raider, Crysis 3 on the levels that call for all 8 cores) BF3, BF4 and so on.
But I won't because I'm not like you. I could post a thread absolutely loaded with information and benchmark results that all favour the AMD processor and make the Intel look bad.
The problem is that like your threads and your posts it would be factually incorrect, because as much as I want to pretend that opposite results don't actually exist they do. I could run a few virtual machines to show you just how badly the FX 8 destroys the I5 (because put simply they won't run on the I5 because it is missing the instruction sets needed) and so on.
It's easy dude. So, so easy. Cherry picking is probably THE thing I hate the most, though. Because it's full of half truths.
Want some realism? the I3 is complete crap. It's locked for starters - an absolute insult to enthusiasts. Intel have loaded up their CPUs to rail road people to buy their more expensive ones. It's a common sales trick. Have two expensive products that you actually want to sell, then prop them up with utter crap so that when people sit down and do the maths on prices and performance they make no logical sense.
So what happens? 90% will fork out more for an unlocked CPU that costs a lot more. Locking a CPU costs nothing, it just makes sure that you rail road people into buying more expensive crap.
And do you know what? people fall for it !!! that's why Intel are where they are, and why AMD are where they are. IMO? I'd rather be where AMD are. They certainly have a great way of making their customers happy.
Overclocking my FX 8320 was one of *the* most fun things I have ever had the pleasure of doing in all of my years of hardware. I loved it ! unlocked FSB, unlocked multi. Totally open for squeezing out every last drop of performance.
Unlike Intel who lock up 90% of their product line.
The I3, like all of their other CPUs, are a joke. And it's so funny watching you trying to big one up just because it's made by Intel. Gotta be good right? no dude, no.
Locked. LMAO.
I know. Fantastic isn't it? especially if you're into your server based software. The AMD is £110 cheaper, leaving you to put that into something else like a GPU. In heavily threaded apps the FX will murder the I5.
And yeah, I'm being sarcastic, because you're actually taking a good thing about AMD and trying to make it look bad. Again.
Another great off the cuff insult Dave. You really are good at that.
No actually they're not. As I said, I could sit here and bombard you with data to prove it but I'm not going to waste my time because there's no point. See, when you actually shove actual real world data and figures into the face of an Intel Witness they simply shrug and pretend they didn't see it.
Of all of my experience with my AMD I will quite safely say that they are amazing CPUs for the cash.
In fact, as I've said elsewhere, when I compare my all AMD rig (8320 4.9ghz and 7990) to my beast rig (3970x 4.7ghz TB SLI) I can honestly say that the only difference I've seen is that the Titans can do 8XMSAA in stuff like Crysis 3 without falling apart.
And that's not a CPU issue that's down to the 7990 not being powerful enough.
Other than that? no difference. None at all. I don't run frame counters when I'm playing a game 'cause you know? I'm playing the game, blissfully unaware of how many frames are being spat out. And my ignorance is bliss but I tell you now I cannot stand stutter or slowdown yet I see none on my AMD rig.
It will only get worse for you, Dave.
The rest of us are perfectly happy with what we have for the most part. My 3970x still holds its own with two newer generations of the same iteration from Intel (IE at 4.9ghz, easily done, it pees just as high as the 4930k and 5930k due to their heat issues and lower clocks) so I'm perfectly happy thanks. I strongly doubt that Broadwell will offer me anything new either.
Fact is since Sandybridge Intel have just utterly sucked.
They're chasing small dies and low power consumption for laptops and tablets and that really doesn't do anything for me. And again, fact I'm afraid. Sandy was their desktop swansong IMO. I doubt they'll bother coming back to flog a dead horse again.
As for review sites? pmsl, review sites. I've never, ever, seen so much crap. Coolers that do X degrees C yet when I get one it's 10c hotter than theirs on the same CPU
Listen, mate. There are no review sites and there are no reviewers. They are glorified salesmen and women who comply with their controlling suppliers. How do I know? because I used to run a review site myself. Only difference was, you know? I was me - who I always am - and they didn't like it.
I was sent some memory to test and jesus, it was terrible. So I said so. I got struck off and was sent nothing else - that's how it works.
If you were fooled then shame on you. TTL banging out gold awards for anything Asus make - BOAK.
The only way for me to see what something is like is to basically get one myself. Sure, I've had some right lemons, but then at the same time I've had some right crackers.
You know? like the two FX 8320s I've had. Both were absolute clocking demons.
Last edited:
I fully agree with this post of yours.
Far better to save up for a I5 4690K or a 4790k or a 5820k rather than going for the budget AMD FX CPU, for gaming.
I dont read/view many reviews TTL does, so I decided to look into this theory of yours.
Here's what I found with a 5 second google search:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8DtZDcMrps
Video description:
5820k for gaming? lmao.
You're going on ignore now. As the saying goes -
Never try to argue, or reason with, an idiot on the internet. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience
http://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/gpu_displays/asus_gtx960_strix_review/20
Gold award for a card that's no better than the card it replaced. Bob on !
Your first comments normally include (slight paraphrasing) "amd have horrid performance", "all games are poor on AMD" and "I would advise against anyone purchasing AMD mb+cpu ATM"...followed by your cherry picked results. You have even ventured into the AMD overclocking thread to tell them how bad their CPUs are.
Only after you have been called out for over exaggerating and cherry picking do you then slightly back down and admit AMD are not completely horrid but not once have I seen you actually say AMD are valid for the budget builder. In fact, its one of the things I have had to keep emphasising to you after your initially out bursts.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 30,478
- Location
- Dormanstown.
When dave cherry picks a benchmark, people who rebute him are doing exactly the same thing.
What we need is one article to rule them all.
100 games. All CPU's, resolutions, mins, averages, the frame times, latency and all that jazz, kept up to date. Then and only then will graph wars be valid.
What we need is one article to rule them all.
100 games. All CPU's, resolutions, mins, averages, the frame times, latency and all that jazz, kept up to date. Then and only then will graph wars be valid.
I find it somewhat ironic that you call me an idiot after my previous two posts demonstrated two things: that you were completely wrong about the TTL Asus awards, and that you contradict yourself yourself, since you clearly advocate saving up for better hardware instead of buying the budget option.
At least it's amusing for the other forum members to read
Yeah that's a fair point and I can't argue with most of it. But....
100 games would not be fair to the AMD. Look, I'll be honest with you here. At launch I wouldn't have touched Bulldozer with a barge pole. Not even a 30ft long barge pole. However, things are changing. Looking at recent games? it's actually getting quite hard to cherry pick as they're all pretty much dead even. Yeah yeah, the AMD is like 1-8 FPS behind but who cares when they're cheap as chips?
When the FX launched Windows didn't even support it. Want the proof? take a look at these.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2646060
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2645594
Try and download them, you can't. Bottom line is they didn't work so M$ pulled them. What does that mean? well you can take it for fact that no AMD CPU worked properly in Windows 7. Not a single one of them.
But times have changed. Most benchmarks are still ran within Windows 7 because apparently it's the best OS out there. Personally I totally disagree, but hey, I kinda like Windows 8. Doesn't take much to get it behaving.
But offer up fact like that to Dave and you get this kinda thing -
I don't know if you've ever seen Halloween 3, but it's like he's wearing some sort of mask that controls his thinking and actions.
Jokes aside though? I'm sticking to my arguing on the internet etc quote. There really is no point trying to help Dave see the woods for the trees, he's too far gone. But, by my posting and putting him straight other people get to see the facts.
I agree, such an article would be very interesting to see
Here's a random article I found, testing AMD and Intel CPU's in 8 different modern games:
http://www.hardwarepal.com/best-cpu-gaming-9-processors-8-games-tested/
The I5 beats the AMD CPU's in performance in all 8 games.
The article does mention that some of the AMD CPU's are the best option for those on a very tight budget though - something that I agree with.
I also side with AndyALX on this issue though - I'd still recommend saving up for the best you can afford, so in this case the I5 or I7
Cherry picking time FTW.
First up Tomb Raider.
Intel
AMD
COD Ghosts, which hilariously looks like this.
Totally different to Dave's of course.
Crysis 3
Dying Light.
And I could go on.
The most important thing to note of course ladies and gents is just how much the COD : Ghosts benchmarks differ. And this, my friends, is why you can't trust reviewers, I mean salesmen, on the internet.
Know why? because you get the crap home and your results are a million miles away.
First up Tomb Raider.
Intel
AMD
COD Ghosts, which hilariously looks like this.
Totally different to Dave's of course.
Crysis 3
Dying Light.
And I could go on.
The most important thing to note of course ladies and gents is just how much the COD : Ghosts benchmarks differ. And this, my friends, is why you can't trust reviewers, I mean salesmen, on the internet.
Know why? because you get the crap home and your results are a million miles away.
Cherry picking time FTW.
First up Tomb Raider.
Intel
AMD
COD Ghosts, which hilariously looks like this.
Totally different to Dave's of course.
Crysis 3
Dying Light.
And I could go on.
The most important thing to note of course ladies and gents is just how much the COD : Ghosts benchmarks differ. And this, my friends, is why you can't trust reviewers, I mean salesmen, on the internet.
Know why? because you get the crap home and your results are a million miles away.
Those pictures you linked are simply laughable. The only way you can try and make the FX CPU's look respectable is to compare them to old Intel CPU's, Ivy Bridge 3770K's, or testing with very slow and old GPU's (Geforce 680, really? 7970?).
You're calling the benchmarks I linked cherry picking. How was the latest benchmark I linked cherry picking? They testing 8 different modern games, using the latest hardware from each vendor, and using decent graphics cards.
Your simply highlighting one thing - FX cannot compete unless you compare it to older Intel CPU's, or testing with old and slow GPU's, which don't stress the CPU as much.
Ah OK I get you. So because I posted pics they're laughable.
hahahaha ! brilliant. I just love it when you display such flashes of genius
So you found a site that loves Intel to the max. Good on ya. It isn't hard there are loads. Bit-tech, Anandtech etc etc.
Let's ignore benchmarks because as I've just proven, they're an absolutely unreliable vapid load of old rubbish.
Let's see what the guys who matter had to say about the FX and the new APIs shall we?
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-future-proofing-your-pc-for-next-gen
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.
So let's think about that shall we? Who do we believe? Dave the Intel fanboy or the developers who have to sit down and code the games?
Let's just ponder that for a short while, eh?
I agree, such an article would be very interesting to see
Here's a random article I found, testing AMD and Intel CPU's in 8 different modern games:
http://www.hardwarepal.com/best-cpu-gaming-9-processors-8-games-tested/
The I5 beats the AMD CPU's in performance in all 8 games.
The article does mention that some of the AMD CPU's are the best option for those on a very tight budget though - something that I agree with.
I also side with AndyALX on this issue though - I'd still recommend saving up for the best you can afford, so in this case the I5 or I7
Interestingly if you look at that article you can see in most of the games you would have almost an identical gaming experience between the FX8 OC and i5 OC if using a 60hz screen, bar starcraft and AC (and Metro is only 5 fps diff on the min)
I said they were laughable as most of your benchmarks were comparing the current FX CPU's to old Intel CPU's, that are not the latest available.
I guess I now understand why you failed to be a successful reviewer - your attention to detail is lacking. As is your awareness that using old and slow GPU to test with will narrow the gap between Intel and AMD CPU's.
Compare like for like - what's available now, not 2 years or more ago.
I guess I now understand why you failed to be a successful reviewer - your attention to detail is lacking. As is your awareness that using old and slow GPU to test with will narrow the gap between Intel and AMD CPU's.
Compare like for like - what's available now, not 2 years or more ago.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 30,478
- Location
- Dormanstown.
I don't know how a 680 or 7970 can be considered very slow and old
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 30,478
- Location
- Dormanstown.
No, they wouldn't.
Average frame rate (And in fact frame rate) is not the whole story. Not at all. You know how like Mantle makes the difference? What Mantle does to a game, is the same thing having a superior performing CPU will do over another. I do love that fallacy though, it's one of my favorites.
Last edited:
Drawing attention to the fact that Andy cannot make up his mind. Says he has put me on ignore, then proceeds to spam reply to each post I make.
I was looking at mins TBH as thats the one I thought counted most, if thats a fallacy, then apologies for the error but I'm just not convinced there would be a noticeable diff once the 60hz/fps has been breach by a reasonable margin.
I have just recently snagged a 3930k with mb (because it was silly cheap). Am I really likely to see that much of a noticeable difference, or is that intel CPU too old for a fair comparison?
Last edited: