The Witcher 3 - Good show for AMD

[humbug]

Buck for buck though its still intels game and that doesnt include the power saving benefits

4670 @ 72fps

YOUR BASKET
1 x Intel Core i5-4670K 3.40GHz (Haswell) Socket LGA1150 Processor - Retail £191.99
1 x Asus TUF Sabertooth Z97 Mark 2 Intel Z97 (Socket 1150) DDR3 ATX Motherboard £129.95
Total : £321.94 (includes shipping : Ex.VAT).




9590 @ 64.6 fps

YOUR BASKET
1 x AMD Piledriver FX-8 Eight Core 9590 Black Edition 4.70GHz (5.00GHz Turbo) (Socket AM3+) Processor - OEM £184.99
1 x Asus Sabertooth 990FX R2.0 AMD 990FX (Socket AM3+) DDR3 Motherboard £142.99
Total : £327.98 (includes shipping : Ex.VAT).



I know what I'd go for 8fps more for 6 quid less

Asus M5A99X PRO R2.0 AMD 990X £115

AMD Piledriver FX-8 Eight Core 8320E Black Edition 3.20GHz £110

Cooler Master Seidon 120V Ver. 2 AIO CPU Cooler £40

£265 including the cooler.

The 8320E is a better clocker than your 9590

 

[gpuerrilla]

Shows the FX8 matching the i5 to my eye.

In parts yes (it even pulls the odd frame or two better in the open environment) but I am not saying it outperforms one on the whole.

It does however smash the i3 and budget intel chips, which for £100 is obviously the way to go on a budget. Anyone using the 9590 in an argument on the overclockers forum is not seeing the woods from the trees here.

If some DX12 games were here it would be even more interesting..

 

[Dave2150]

Shows the AMD CPU's performing very well, and the G3258 struggling with it's minimum framerates, even in these very CPU light workloads.

I'd love to see a similar video, but during a combat sequence, with a wolf pack for example. The dual core G3258 would suffery very badly there.

Though we have to remember he is running a TitanX, which kinda skews the results a little. Not many would buy a budget AMD/Intel G3258 and use it with a £1000 GPU. Repeat the same test with a midrange card and the G3258 would suffer greatly.

 

[gpuerrilla]

Very true. Equally you would think people would not mix an FX with a TitanX.

It may change IF the vulkan/DX12 API's do what they claim and stop the weaker cpu's from being strangled then you may get away with a cheaper cpu than having to buy an i7 for horsepower comfort.

 

[eddiew]

Yeah those kinds of games are CPU-intensive. I'm now curious as to whether it uses all 12 cores on my desktop, I shall check next time I play it.

I'm rather interested to know the answer! Might actually be a reason to consider an i7, or even hex-core

 

[JonSmith]

The higher end FX chips are no good. If you consider my spec in my sig, I'm using a £70 motherboard with a £28 cooler with an FX-8320, which was £107 from OCUK when I bought it and it happily runs at its 4.5GHz clock. It will go higher but I'm limited by a small case with poor ventilation (it's pushed right into a corner). Overclocking an 8320e is where the money is at these days.

 

[humbug]

The higher end FX chips are no good. If you consider my spec in my sig, I'm using a £70 motherboard with a £28 cooler with an FX-8320, which was £107 from OCUK when I bought it and it happily runs at its 4.5GHz clock. It will go higher but I'm limited by a small case with poor ventilation (it's pushed right into a corner). Overclocking an 8320e is where the money is at these days.

Lower end models are probably low leakage binned which ironically makes them better clockers for everyday use because they are more efficient, where as high end models such as the 9590 are high leakage, that makes them better for extreme overclocking because they can take more volts if you can keep them cool.

The lower leakage parts might do 4.6 - 4.8 -5Ghz max on lower volts than the 9590 where as that might run with 1.8v to get 8Ghz.

Really if you want overclocking for everyday use the lower end part might actually be better, especially the E series CPU's which are binned for power efficiency, low leakage.

PS: there is no way in hell my 9590 will run 4.5 at 1.365v.

 

[mmj_uk]

Good show for AMD

It's clearly GPU bottlenecked at the setting used that's why, of course some of the lower end CPU's are a bottleneck but from about the middle of the chart CPU performance makes hardly any difference - they probably just feed the GPU slightly faster resulting in small gains.

 

[JonSmith]

Lower end models are probably low leakage binned which ironically makes them better clockers for everyday use because they are more efficient, where as high end models such as the 9590 are high leakage, that makes them better for extreme overclocking because they can take more volts if you can keep them cool.

The lower leakage parts might do 4.6 - 4.8 -5Ghz max on lower volts than the 9590 where as that might run with 1.8v to get 8Ghz.

Really if you want overclocking for everyday use the lower end part might actually be better, especially the E series CPU's which are binned for power efficiency, low leakage.

PS: there is no way in hell my 9590 will run 4.5 at 1.365v.

Yeah I got a Feb 2014 batch 8320 so it's probably the same process revision as the 8320e/8370e.

 

[regulus]

why would anyone buy the 9000 series when you can pick up 8320E for 100 or less; I got mine for 94 quid.....its sitting at 5.055Ghz right now with min effect at 1.464 volts.

I could take her higher...and most likely will but not seeing any issues in any games.....and been one of the most fun cpus I've had ocing since maybe the original Athlon.....

would I buy another? heck yea in a heart beat; they are that much value and 8320E seems to be a beast of overclocker....

Who knows. PC fans are a strange animal. Even today I had an intense look at CPUs and upgrading my 8320 but I just can't see the need. 5FPS more or whatever which I'll never notice anyway. I don't need that warm fuzzy feeling or bragging to my imaginary friends online about having whatever is classed as hot this week.

Might have a go at clocking my 8320. My games run so damn well that it never occurs to me to try. However, with my 980 arriving next week, new beginnings and all that, I might try and hit 4.5Ghz for a laugh. Still sitting on stock.

 

[gpuerrilla]

I had a 7990 in here for a while which was overkill for the FX, and now running a 290X which is still hardcore enough for 1080p. No need to jump into 4k until the market settles and prices become sensible and by then the FX will be coming to 4 yrs old and done its job nicely.