Seemingly inexplicable poor FPS in games

[Th3M8dH8tt3r]

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

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]

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.

 

[Th3M8dH8tt3r]

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.

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.

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]

I'm not bashing you, but you've bought stuff, and you haven't the understanding.

That's silly, if you were truly trying to learn, you'd have actually sat there and took the time to properly research before buying the FX63 (And then expecting 60% gains)

What hotfix do you mean from Microsoft? They did a scheduler update in Windows 7 which changed core priority to mirror Intels thread priority, that will make sure 2 modules aren't activated unless you're using more cores than there are modules.

 

[Th3M8dH8tt3r]

I'm not bashing you, but you've bought stuff, and you haven't the understanding.

That's silly.

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?

 

[Th3M8dH8tt3r]

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.

 

[Martini1991]

Windows does work properly now with AMD, Bulldozer's still crap though, all the update did was improve AMD's lightly threaded performance slightly.
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.

PD by all accounts doesn't get over 5GHZ.

Which is my point, research, you've jumped in head first and then tried to research it, when told what you've done is silly, you go all off it.

 

[Th3M8dH8tt3r]

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.

 

[Th3M8dH8tt3r]

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.

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]

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.

EDIT : And I mean 9570. That pretend 5GHZ one.

EDIT 2 : That 700 quid PC will now be a 4670K as it's only 170 quid, it'll out game your more expensive rig. I'm trying to tell you bluntly what's the best, without pussy footing around it.
I'd rather settle for the best, rather than "That'll do".

 

[Th3M8dH8tt3r]

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.

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]

I wasn't suggesting you buy the FX9, rather than it's AMD's fastest CPU, for whatever reason you were saying it's the FX6350, which is an example of you telling me things that aren't true.

BD does over 1600MHZ too, so officially the PD may support more, but they'll probably top out near the same, their IMC's aren't as good as Intels either way.

 

[Th3M8dH8tt3r]

I wasn't saying the 6350 was the fastest, I was saying it was the best value to me! It's obviously not the fastest.

 

[Martini1991]

And I quote

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.

You only started through value in later, in which case it would have been the FX6300, not the FX6350 as that starts to lose the value appeal.
The FX6300 tbh could be priced cheaper, as could the FX43.

 

[Th3M8dH8tt3r]

And I quote



You only started through value in later.

Context...the context of the thread is what's the best CPU for me and my needs. I thought it had been made quite clear that I play 4 core games and an 8 core isn't worth it.

 

[Martini1991]

Context...the context of the thread is what's the best CPU for me and my needs. I thought it had been made quite clear that I play 4 core games and an 8 core isn't worth it.

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.

 

[Th3M8dH8tt3r]

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.

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]

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.

 

[teppic]

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.

 

[Th3M8dH8tt3r]

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.

See what happens in the new year with new hardware etc. I'm open to go with intel but steamroller could be good.