• 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.

Seemingly inexplicable poor FPS in games

So, at both martini & marine -

The fact I'm now going to have higher clocks PER core versus the 8150, is this not going to have a significant influence on how the CPU performs when only 4 cores are been used? The FX6350 core clock speed is something like 45% faster and with better architecture faster again.

Isn't the 10 - 15% if I was going from 8 core to 8 core? The quicker core clocks not going to have an effect?
 
Martini1991 said:
Where are you getting the higher clocks thing from? You're running 4.8GHZ now, you're likely to hit the same clock speed with the FX6300, MAYBE 5GHZ.
You're not running stock.

The gains you see will be from the minor IPC improvement, when you're video encoding you might actually see a downgrade as that IPC improvement will be lower than that of the cores you've just lost.

If you want a drastic performance improvement with your GTX680, an i5 4670K at 170 quid is the way to go.
Intel don't go high clocks low IPC, that's AMD, but AMD don't outclock Intel (Maybe with Haswell, as Haswell's OC'ing is inconsistent, I run 4.8GHZ though)
The IPC on AMD is MUCH lower than Intel.
I mean a stock FX95 can't really match upto a stock 4770K, let alone an overclocked one, That's forgetting that since Intel chips are lower clocked, their overclocking potential is higher, as are there gains.

Onto SR? I wouldn't be surprised to see a new socket, FM2+'s launching, its base specifications are higher than that of AM3+, which doesn't make sense, especially when you're going to be throwing out your uber chip.
Click to expand...

Higher clocks PER core. Currently I have a total of 4800Ghz, that's sum speed of all 8 cores. They're not 4.8Ghz each. Divide 48 by 8 and you get 5. So, each core is running at 500mhz. A game can use 4, total of 2000mhz.

With the FX6350, at 4.8ghz, it's divide by 6. Total of 800 PER CORE! A game can use 4 so that's 3200mhz total. An increase of around 60%. Say the IPC is 1 so that's 2000 instructions per second currently, versus 3200 instructions per second on the FX. Actual physical processing speed is up by 1200mhz as in 1200 more instructions can be processed every second. This is why I was saying that have bigger core, all be it less of them, is a massive improvement when talk about apps that don't fully utilise all the cores available. I don't do video encoding so it looks like 4 or 6 cores is best for me.

Does that make sense or am I missing something? It just seems like real simple math.
 
Marine-RX179 said:
To clarify something- AMD's approach was higher number cores, IPC remain more or less the same but with the per core performance was pretty much relying on high clock to push it. But what they didn't expect was that Intel's i5 K CPU can hit the same clock frequency (and even higher) on max overclocking, which neglected the advantage of "high clock frequency" which AMD thought it would have over Intel.

Benchmark results of of Crysis 3 and Far Cry 3 (which will use up to 8 cores) has shown that the FX8350 at 4.00GHz is on par with the IvyBridge i5 (4 cores) at 3.20GHz. So what does it mean, if both were overclocked to 4.60GHz? I terms of overclocking headroom, the FX8350 overclocked from 4.00GHz to 4.60GHz would be 15% increase, where as the IvyBridge i5 at overclocked from 3.20GHz to 4.60GHz is a massive 43.75% increase.

So gaming performance wise, under the condition of games using up to 8 cores, a Piledriver FX8 CPU need 25% higher in clock speed to match a IvyBridge i5. So it would look something like this:

IvyBridge i5 3.20GHz=Piledriver FX8 4.00GHz
IvyBridge i5 3.60GHz=Piledriver FX8 4.50GHz
IvyBridge i5 4.00GHz=Piledriver FX8 5.00GHz
Click to expand...

Basically, AMD 8 core sucks for gaming. Better to have more powerful individual cores and less of them. Then the clock speeds are significantly more.
 
Martini1991 said:
The clock speed is per core/all cores.

All 8 cores at 4.8GHZ, except each one of those cores are about massively slower per an Intel core per clock.

And games won't use all cores. With an AMD CPU (PD/BD), especially Bulldozer, due to their modular approach, 2 cores activated on a module is like 85% scaling over the first core, which increases the deficit.
Click to expand...

Holy crap, I'd really suggest you stop buying stuff.
It's 4.8GHZ PER CORE.

I'd start improving my knowledge if I was you.

I'm actually struggling to believe you're not trolling.
Click to expand...

What do you think I'm doing? There's no need to act like a complete jerk! What's with all the extra attitude that's attached to each of your posts? Why can't you just give an answer in an informative and educational manner rather then have to bash people about not knowing stuff when they're asking about stuff to know more?

So, a 5Ghz 6 core is 30Ghz total, and the improvements will come from better design of the chip itself. Not massive gains then.

Have Microsoft released the hotfix to stop Windows screwing up the FX chips?
 
Martini1991 said:
I'm not bashing you, but you've bought stuff, and you haven't the understanding.

That's silly.
Click to expand...

I understand that AMD did a **** poor job of the Bulldozer and it's improved with the Piledriver and that I'll see a gain, no matter how small. 10% is good, it's 3 - 5FPS and it may be more as it'll clock higher and it may be a 15% gain.

I bought my FX8150 with what I knew about AMD which was like 8 years out of date and coming off the back of the Athlon 64 which by all accounts destroyed the Intel. Now, I'm in a situation where I need the best AMD CPU available as I'm not going to go and spend money on a whole new Intel based system. That appears to be the FX63xx from the information in this thread.

What I don't appreciate is being told I'm a troll and everything else derogatory you've thrown in my direction. Try being friendly!

As for the hotfix, yes I think that's it. The scheduler fix. Something to do with AMD's module architecture? I haven't read into it much but Windows wouldn't let the AMD work properly basically?
 
I was under the impression that CPU was like the SLI thing, stuff don't stack! I read on one site that it's total divided by cores, and then you and another site say each core is the clocked speed.

Going off what teppic has said is enough for me to buy the FX63. Reading how poor the Bulldozer is enough for me to buy a FX63. Basically, I bought the fastest Piledriver chip that's best value. The 8 core isn't necessary as I'm not going to utilise all 8 cores, with all my programs open and running, I touch 7 or 8 cores but it's for a fraction of a second and at like 5% if that. So, 6 core will work best for me for work and gaming. Plus Piledriver will get over 5Ghz by all accounts so that's good too.
 
Not to mention the FX63 supports faster memory which is good. I can buy faster memory, see a gain(I hope) and have the 16GB I have now for the 8150 system which will be a secondary work system.
 
Martini1991 said:
Windows does work properly now with AMD, Bulldozer's still crap though.
And the FX6350 isn't AMD's best chip, it's the FX9370, AMD's best chip worth buying is the FX8320 and then overclocking.

The CPU you've bought is worse value than the FX8320.
Click to expand...

9370 is £260 though. Is the performance between that and the FX6350 worth £150??? Bulldozer is crap...from what everyone has said.

How much better is the 8320 then the 6350? Are we down to 1 or 2 FPS better?
 
Martini1991 said:
The FX6350 will have the same IMC as the FX832's so they'll run the same memory speeds.

I don't know why you're randomly spouting stuff that isn't true, while under the guise you're trying to learn.

Stop telling me things as fact when they're not.

The FX8320 has 2 more cores than the FX6350 and it's like ~20 quid more expensive, it has 33% more performance potential.
Click to expand...

What am I trying to tell you? I was saying the piledriver supports faster memory then the bulldozer which can only be a good thing right?

From what I was reading, the 63 has better single core performance which suits me does it not as I'm only using up to 4 cores for 99% of my games?

Erm...the 9590 (not 9570) is many many hundreds of pounds. Not looking at that.
 
Martini1991 said:
In which case it'd be the FX6300, not the FX6350.
And at that point in time you thought it was clock divided by cores for speed.

We can do this all day, but at the end of the day, you impulse bought without the knowledge, if you think that's bashing you, then whatever, but it's the truth.

Since your FX81 was "fine" you should have stuck with it till Steamroller, at least then you'd know AMD's hand.
Click to expand...

I explained why I went with the FX6350, just my superstition for lack of a better word. Not based on anything factual.

How am I going to benefit from 8 cores when what I use doesn't use 6 cores let alone 8 and both will do the same speed and both are built the same are they not?

Steamroller could require a new board, RAM, PSU and the chip itself maybe £400-£500. It may not be affordable or worth it when it comes, so I'l take a £100 hit today to improve my system, even if it is for 6 months. If I build a new system that's better, then this one will become a secondary system.
 
Martini1991 said:
Well, technically, since the FX83 has 4 modules, in a 4 threaded situation, since it won't be using 2 cores on a module and the FX63 does the FX63 will have slightly lower performance in 4 threaded things at the same clock, but with the cache, it might cancel it out, who knows.

And as engines are getting more threaded, the AMD's 8 core will be used.
I'd always pick Intel, as IPC is still king, and my 4670K pushes my 7970 and I've still got 200MHZ left in the tank.
Click to expand...

See what happens in the new year with new hardware etc. I'm open to go with intel but steamroller could be good.
 
teppic said:
This thread has become really unnecessarily rude and unpleasant.

@Th3M8dH8tt3r - from what we were saying yesterday I think you understand that you wouldn't be getting a huge performance boost, and in the few games that only use 1 core, not very much.
Click to expand...

Yup, I've bought the 6350. I'm sure ill notice a gain but I don't think the difference between the 6350 and 8350 would be so noticeable.
 
For 8 core games...I'll turn on my Xbox One. I don't really like FPS on PC because of the controller config. Yes I could get a controller but then I have to have the PC next to my TV, which it already is, but I just prefer having the console for those games...racing, shooters, sports, and the PC for RTS and sim.

I bought the 6350, knowing it's the same as the 6300, because in my head, AMD will pick the better quality chips to overclock stock. Thus, the lottery of getting a good overclocker odds are shortened. It may be insane logic but for £15, I'm happy. I don't see the point in another 8 core as my games don't play it so I'll take the £10 or £13, even though it's more because of my superstition, I'd have to get the 8350 which is £162, and go to the pub!!!

I was wrong about the 60% thing, I was under the impression that the speed was the sum total of all the cores. I was sure I'd seen a program window somewhere that listed the core speeds and they weren't 4.8ghz. NVM...I know better now.

And Martini, some of your comments have been very good but you have to cut through swathe of scathing comments and attitude to get to them. Why the attitude? If this thread annoys you then don't read it. If you're on some ego trip demeaning people who don't know and making out they're tards when they get something wrong or have read someone else on another forum saying something and it's wrong, sucks to be you man! Quit been argumentative. Forums are for discussing, not bitching and d waving.
 
Last edited:
teppic said:
I wouldn't worry, just see how it goes. If you run benchmarks now at 4.5GHz on your BD CPU, then compare at 5GHz on the 6300, you'll see improvements across the board in games. It could be as low as ~15% (taking into account the higher clock speed, IPC gains and additional CPU instructions), but for games that use more than one core it will definitely be higher than that.

As you saw in the Sim City bench, going from Piledriver 4 core to Piledriver 8 core at the exact same clock speed gave a 10% improvement (regardless of the rest). As you can also see here: http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...615-amd-vishera-fx-6300-fx-4300-review-4.html - Civ 5 can make good use of multiple cores too.
Click to expand...

I'll run CineBench and record some games, average out FPS. Be a good experiment.
 
Unfortunately teppic, I think you are now a little off. It'll be 10% per core increase so it's irrelevant if 1 or 6 cores are being utilised. If the program uses 8 cores, I'll probably see a drop BUT, my Xbox is for 8 core games. As, typically, the RTS and Sims aren't 8 core.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom