The Witcher 3 - Good show for AMD

dacads · 20 May 2015 at 14:48

Shame the same can't be said about the GPUs. Developers are failing badly with optimisation.

Relentless81 · 20 May 2015 at 14:51

18 month old 8350 @ 4.8 on air still cutting the mustard with latest games, good stuff!

stuie · 20 May 2015 at 15:14

joeyjojo said:
Others have already said it, a more fair comparison would be say

YOUR BASKET
1 x AMD Piledriver FX-8 Eight Core 8320E Black Edition 3.20GHz (Socket AM3+) Processor - Retail £109.99
1 x Asus M5A97 EVO R2.0 AMD 970 (Socket AM3+) DDR3 Motherboard £79.99
Total : £199.58 (includes shipping : £8.00 Ex.VAT).

So 72 FPS for £320, or 60-65 FPS for £200. AMD is still the value king when games are well behaved. And in reality that £120 would go on a better GPU, adding another handful of FPS.

(Then again, that Asus TUF is probably overkill)

A more fair comparison is using a cheaper board and cpu than the ones your comparing to the intel kit?

I chose those boards specifically because they are like for like an asus sabertooth to an asus sabertooth if your going to lower the amd board youve got to lower the intel board too, drop the intel down to this board

https://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=MB-129-AK&groupid=701&catid=5&subcat=2811

and your looking at a more like for like compare.

As for cpu the 8320 stock isnt even listed in the benchmarks claiming well buy that and overclock it is fine but overclock the 4670k while your at it.

AMD are not the value king if you compare like for like I get tired of reading they are the value king then people use non fair comparison boards and cpus to justify their claims, of course they are going to be cheaper if you compare a 50 quid board to a 200 quid board.

I dont mean to sound like im singling you out lots of people do this i just get bored of reading that AMD are value king all the time.

A fiat will always be better value than a ferrari if you try to compare the two. I picked like for like boards and like for like cpus both of which were listed in the op's bench screenshot. Apples to apples not tuna to caviar

Vinno · 20 May 2015 at 15:17

I think buying a 2500k was the best decision I ever made. 4 years on and it's still not worth upgrading.

joeyjojo · 20 May 2015 at 17:09

stuie said:
https://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=MB-129-AK&groupid=701&catid=5&subcat=2811

To be fair I did say the Sabertooth was probably overkill. That £80 mobo is on par with the £80 mobo I picked, so the only difference is the £192 vs £110 for CPUs.

But then we're still talking about 70 FPS for the i5 versus 60 for the AMD (both OC), and the AMD does it for £82 less. That's better value if you look at FPS/£.

And £82 added to the GPU budget will probably make up most or all of the difference.

Andy7 · 20 May 2015 at 17:12

Vinno said:
I think buying a 2500k was the best decision I ever made. 4 years on and it's still not worth upgrading.

2600k@ 4.8Ghz here and I also can't see the need to upgrade

Rroff · 20 May 2015 at 17:20

That within 10fps is still a ~20% performance difference - which is actually huge - in a situation where the 9590 is dropping to 50fps the i7s are still more or less holding 60fps - the 4 core "budget" end i5s aren't that much slower.

Looks like the game needs atleast 3 real cores to perform well.

Andy7 · 20 May 2015 at 17:24

Dave2150 said:
Nice to see the dual core Pentium G3258 getting utterly annihilated, as a dual core should in this age

Very nice to see the developers optimized this game for the AMD core module CPU's - solid performance across the board with an overclocked FX @ 5Ghz being within 10 FPS of Intel's best.

If more games had been developed like this, it could have been a major win for AMD, back when the original Bulldozer and then Piledriver were released.

Source: http://pclab.pl/art63116-47.html

Note they tested all these CPU's with both an NVIDIA 970 and an AMD 290. I didn't bother linking the 290x CPU benchmarks, as AMD GPU's are clearly running terribly in this game, whether that's because of 'Gameworks' I'm not sure, however that's an argument best suited for the GPU forum

How can you say it was a good show from AMD when they are 18th on the list behind Intel processors?

Ayahuasca · 20 May 2015 at 17:43

Andy7 said:
How can you say it was a good show from AMD when they are 18th on the list behind Intel processors?

Exactly, brilliant show when their top chip is 18th on the list, behind CPU's that were released nearly 5 years ago.

Martini1991 · 20 May 2015 at 17:59

Yeah, I don't exactly see how it's a good show for AMD. Although it's obvious OP's meant to be facetious.

I'm actually surprised that it's not entirely GPU bottleneck though (Ergo, I'd kind have expected very little difference from an i5/FX/i7).

However, the performance is certainly "good enough".

gpuerrilla · 20 May 2015 at 18:07

Great that people are still using the 9590 for a terrible comparison. Anyone who frequents these boards would plump for the 8320e and whack the huge saving on a far superior GPU to get great results.

As Martini put it the OP is quite renown in these parts for the stirring of the pot.

ginjaninja · 20 May 2015 at 18:19

psychas said:
the difference between between 4790 or even 5820 oc against 2600k oc is shocking, basically no difference at all , just 5 fps

isnt that to be expected on a game fps benchmark.

Scurburg · 20 May 2015 at 20:01

stuie said:
A more fair comparison is using a cheaper board and cpu than the ones your comparing to the intel kit?

Yes, because you only really choose AMD FX-8 new when budget is not enough for the i5, so you save everywhere possible to make it a worth while consideration. Also the boards mentioned are not just random cheapos, they are ones that have a proven record and are recommended for OCing. It really is ALL about the budget when it comes to AMD. Anyone choosing an fx (especially the 9*** series), when their budget is enough for an unlocked i5 without compromising their GPU budget, are just crazy, ill informed or have another reason for the choice. Your comparison highlights this insanity. This is why other have pointed out the comparison is not fair/misleading.

Of course you could save some money on the MB with an i5 too like its been mentioned, but even then there is still likely to be a difference in price. For some that extra performance is totally worth the extra cost, for others it simply isnt, especially if the saving is put towards a better GPU.

Just be glad there is choice and there is some promise with the newer API's etc which can/may shrink the performance gap. Its certainly needed since AMD are not releasing zen till 2017(?).

moogle · 20 May 2015 at 20:45

psychas said:
the difference between between 4790 or even 5820 oc against 2600k oc is shocking, basically no difference at all , just 5 fps

Is it really? The newer cpus aren't that way ahead of the i7-2700 generation cpus. I mean sure they're faster but not fast enough to warrant an upgrade for those with already decent performing systems. It's always the GPU that'll make the major performance difference.

mahius · 20 May 2015 at 21:26

I find it funny how a Z97 chipset CPU can do just as well as a much more pricey X99 CPU. If ppl have any doubt which CPU is best for gaming, the answer is right in those benchmarks

joeyjojo · 20 May 2015 at 21:34

Martini1991 said:
Yeah, I don't exactly see how it's a good show for AMD. Although it's obvious OP's meant to be facetious.

Well, many games recently have put the 4 module AMDs alongside dual core Intels in benchmarks. In this they're at least matching (slower) quad cores, and leaving the dual cores in the dust.

It's not a "good show", but it's "less bad" than many shows!

moogle · 20 May 2015 at 21:37

joeyjojo said:
Well, many games recently have put the 4 module AMDs alongside dual core Intels in benchmarks. In this they're at least matching (slower) quad cores, and leaving the dual cores in the dust.

It's not a "good show", but it's "less bad" than many shows!

That's what should have been in the title, "Less bad show for AMD"

Any praise for them in benchmarks will probably always be taken as insults until they're actually beating Intel I guess. OP didn't come across as a fanboy to me.

Dave2150 · 21 May 2015 at 01:39

Andy7 said:
How can you say it was a good show from AMD when they are 18th on the list behind Intel processors?

IMO it's a good show for AMD, when very inexpensive CPU's (such as the 8320) overclock very reliably to 4.5-4.8Ghz and get within 10 FPS of Intel's CPU's.

I think it's quite impressive that these AMD FX CPU's from 2011, 2012 are competing with Devil's Canyon and Haswell-E, which are much more recent CPU's on a much smaller process node.

I'm not trying to be facetious here at all, we cannot deny AMD CPU's are doing very well in this game, and when compared to other recent games, shows that the developer spent more time to optimize it.

I've started CPU benchmark threads for quite a few new release games lately where AMD CPU's didn't do very well, so I wanted to include this game where AMD do very well

Martini1991 · 21 May 2015 at 07:58

If it was a good show the 2500K OC wouldn't be besting every chip that AMD has, given BD and PD both came out later.

It's far from a good show, it's just "good enough".

gpuerrilla · 21 May 2015 at 08:27

Also I would like to add that the game itself accommodates 'better' for the weaker CPU's. As highlighted, some games the AMD chips seem to offer poor performance. As people are waking up and developing for multi-threaded cores together with better API's it really is more the GPU and development making the difference - not the CPU.