Thinking of switching from Intel to AMD

[ALXAndy]

Eh? But in your sig it's an Asrock. Yes of course you can save money by going uber budget line in comparison to a top end board. Instead of £160 (or whatever it is) for the CHFZ you could spend £80 instead and get decent results with a budghet Asus AM3+ board.

£59.99 buys you 4.3ghz. More than enough for any game, new old, crusty bogeys hanging out of its backside.

Does an 1150 board even exist at £59 that can overclock?

 

[ALXAndy]

Utter nonsense?

Look at it this way for someone with a single 290/290x/GTX780, having an overclocked i5 or FX8 ain't gonna make much difference (if at all) in BF4 or Crysis 3; but if using the same setups for playing Starcraft, Total Wars, mmos in general, the FX8 setup will lag VERY noticably behind.

PC games are not only limited to 1st person games (which would support 8 threads) you know.

A PC game is only as good as the last. TBH? the massive complex you have would be quite easily remedied by simply buying an FX CPU and board and you know? seeing the results for yourself.

It's then that you find out that most of the crap doing the rounds (and it is just that, baseless crap) is, well, you know? crap.

Still, you could always post and say things like RAPORZ DESTROYORZ and other things for dramatic effect like some one here.

Sadly it doesn't make it any more true.

Digging up relics of games and using them to oppose a product is just plainly ridiculous.

Tell me, of the many, many people who all bought GPUs recently what game were they buying them for? Starcraft? WOW?

No. That would be Battlefield 4. Am I right or am I right? how many people couldn't wait to feverishly jerk their gherkins over Starcraft benchmarks.

As I said, I would dance with the devil and have a go on an AMD. You never know, you may just have an epiphany.

Oh BTW. You do realise you're comparing the 4670k to the 8320 right? a CPU that costs £113 that you can buy, with a board and be up and running for less than the price of the 4670k? I think the sooner people realise that and stop treating money as no object (especially when it isn't their own) the better..

As for the board argument and that a 2600k and board cost less? (this isn't for you Marine, just that terrible smell that seems to be hanging around here) price me up an I7 with the absolute best of the best motherboard Asus make for socket 1150. A Rampage, Maximus, whatever you like.

 

[Marine-RX179]

Hardly anything runs on just one core, to say 99% of games do is nonsense.

I think you are reading it wrong, he's saying 99% of the games don't use 8 cores, the overclocked i5 2500K would deliver better results than overclocked FX8 when using multi-GPU/feeding it enough graphic grunt.

I myself would be a bit more conservative and say "95%+" of the games not using up to 8 cores.

 

[ALXAndy]

I think you are reading it wrong, he's saying 99% of the games don't use 8 cores, the overclocked i5 2500K would deliver better results than overclocked FX8 when using multi-GPU/feeding it enough graphic grunt.

I myself would be a bit more conservative and say "95%+" of the games not using up to 8 cores.

Again more figures from thin air.

Seriously, take a look at some good unblinkered honest reviews of the 6300 and 8350 (8320 reviews are like hen's teeth hence why I went so overboard with my analysis) and you'll see the same. Nothing but nothing can touch them for the price and the performance they give out.

I don't trust many reviewers, nee' salesmen now. PCPER though? they earned my respect with their badgering and poking at AMD to sort out Crossfire.

The old games you refer to ? are all easily ran on a Vishera running a half decent clock speed.

No one's asking you to use an AMD CPU dude. No one. No one's asking you to like them either. But at least get your facts in order. In BF3 the revelation came around that hey, an AMD FX 6100 could run the game just as well as a I7.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jV2Voo5h3eU

And slowly the penny dropped - bugger me, BF3 actually uses six cores to good effect.

But that's not the issue here is it? you've got one bunch of guys saying how Intel CPUs put slaughter to AMD ones, and the others saying "Hang on a moment, that isn't quite right".

Why play the aggressor? because I guess some people think how much money they spent improves their gaming experience. Hint - it doesn't. I'll tell you what does - disabling FRAPS, stop the frame spotting and sit back and actually enjoy the bloody games without having to spend months dissecting every god damn frame.

 

[Marine-RX179]

Again more figures from thin air.

Seriously, take a look at some good unblinkered honest reviews of the 6300 and 8350 (8320 reviews are like hen's teeth hence why I went so overboard with my analysis) and you'll see the same. Nothing but nothing can touch them for the price and the performance they give out.

I don't trust many reviewers, nee' salesmen now. PCPER though? they earned my respect with their badgering and poking at AMD to sort out Crossfire.

The old games you refer to ? are all easily ran on a Vishera running a half decent clock speed.

No one's asking you to use an AMD CPU dude. No one. No one's asking you to like them either. But at least get your facts in order. In BF3 the revelation came around that hey, an AMD FX 6100 could run the game just as well as a I7.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jV2Voo5h3eU

And slowly the penny dropped - bugger me, BF3 actually uses six cores to good effect.

But that's not the issue here is it? you've got one bunch of guys saying how Intel CPUs put slaughter to AMD ones, and the others saying "Hang on a moment, that isn't quite right".

Why play the aggressor? because I guess some people think how much money they spent improves their gaming experience. Hint - it doesn't. I'll tell you what does - disabling FRAPS, stop the frame spotting and sit back and actually enjoy the bloody games without having to spend months dissecting every god damn frame.

I'm just stating my opinions, and you are turning this personal.

Rather than accusing people pulling figures out of thin-air, how about composing a list of all the games that uses 8 cores?

Also stop turning this into accusing people of "hating" AMD when that's not what it is about. I have nothing against the FX8 and the value it represent...I do however against people giving misleading/inaccurate information about performance of hardware when giving people advise

When talking about hardware, it should involve mentioning both the pros and cons no? Everytime when people mention games that don't use up to 8 cores, you just brush it off as "frame rate is good enough even if it's slower" and keep banging on and on about future games and 8 cores, like it is wrong for people to consider performance for existing/current games, which just so happen most of them don't use more than 4 cores.

You always avoid talking about these existing games and keep generalising them as "dated single core games", despite many of them were released within the last 2 years. You are keen on not pointing out the fact that in these 4 cores (or less) games, the FX8 are essentially no quicker than a FX4, nevermind reminding people that the i5 would be quicker in these situation.

Also quite a lot of double-standard is going on as well: when i5 is a good margin faster than the FX8 at sub 60fps, the response would be "doesn't matter if the CPU is bottlenecking the graphic card, as it is still delivering playable frame rate"; now with FX8 being faster than the Sandy i5 in Crysis 3- which the extra performance won't even be the case if just using a single GPU card, you are making sure that it get highlighted and noticed, despite mentioned "so long as the FX8 can keep the frame rate above 60fps, it doesn't matter how much faster the i5 is" (granted I'm not 100% certain was it you or teppic who said this).

IMO I don't really think you are subjective enough to talk about performance of Intel CPUs (especially with you sensational "FX8 is giving me double the frame rate over i5" claims), because of your (unhappy) experience of using non-K Sandy i5 CPU which cannot be overclocked and (happily) to a highly overclocked FX8. You cannot compare your experience of using a locked i5 2400 to a highly overclocked i5 2500K. Also, nobody who has a clue about gaming performance would tell others to "look at Cinebench, Winzip, Firestrike CPU scores/results". Yes those benches would give good indication of how the CPUs would perform in the context of those applications, but they are just that, and shouldn't be used as representation for gaming performance.

And for the last time, I don't hate AMD. Most of us who you guys keep accusing as Intel fanboys are the probably the ones that want AMD to surprise us with a bang for bucks CPU more than anyone else- equal performance at lower price much like the 290s graphic card comparing to Nvidia's offering...but that is that, this is this- when someone is not giving the facts about the Piledriver/FX8, speaking out doesn't make us an Intel fanboy.

There's definitely no criticising about the performance of FX8 in 8 threaded games for their asking price, HOWEVER, it is only in those specific games- perfect environment of game engine using 8 threads can the CPU be utilised to its full potential. For vast majority of the current games, it DOES NOT use use up to 50%+ of it full capability and no...in lots of these games the FX8 is not capable of holding a solid 60fps.

As it stands at the right now, if current and new 1st person games is all someone interested in, the FX8 would be a good choice; however for anyone that play wide range of different genes of games (particular strategy games and mmos that doesn't has the big publisher's names i.e. EA on them), the i5 will still offer much better performance far more times than it is not at a slight price premium.

Piledriver is actually very much like the Richland APU...it's has made decent progess and toward the right direction, but not quite there yet. Yea come to think of it, what do I care about people blowing money meaninglessly going from i5 to Piledriver? Considering that it would mean more funding for the development on AMD's next gen 8 (or more) cores CPU/platform and has better chance to become better (which I would upgrade to if the performance and price is right), I should encourage people to blow more money on Piledriver meaninglessly more often

 

[ALXAndy]

I'm just stating my opinions, and you are turning this personal.

Rather than accusing people pulling figures out of thin-air, how about composing a list of all the games that uses 8 cores?

I already have yet you seem to have ignored it. Battlefield Bad Company 2 supports six cores. It also supports Quad SLI and Quadfire. BF3 supports six, Crysis 3 and Far Cry 3 use 8, Crysis 2 uses at least six, BF4 uses eight. Metro doesn't bother with the CPU much and neither does Tomb Raider, yet, it does use six. Bioshock Infinite is so easy to run it doesn't matter, and that pretty much covers the entire last year of gaming.











There are some older games for you. As for turning it personal? I think you'll find it's you doing that. Turning up in a thread and talking nonsense with your nonsensical facts and figures. Maybe if some one did that to you you'd take it personally, most likely because it's a terribly rude thing to do. Even more so when it's without any basis.

Also stop turning this into accusing people of "hating" AMD when that's not what it is about. I have nothing against the FX8 and the value it represent...I do however against people giving misleading/inaccurate information about performance of hardware when giving people advise

OK first off you must either hate AMD, or, spend your life going around rubbishing things for another reason. So far everything negative you've said about the FX CPUs is either not true or just spiteful. You do have something against the FX 8 because you've done your level best to rubbish it as much as you can. As for misleading? you haven't posted a single link to back up any of your claims, which you are slowly relinquishing as the pages pass. Tell me, who has done the most work here to prove that what you're saying is baseless and full of lies? oh, that would be the AMD owners you've tarred with your brush of being innacurate.

When talking about hardware, it should involve mentioning both the pros and cons no? Everytime when people mention games that don't use up to 8 cores, you just brush it off as "frame rate is good enough even if it's slower" and keep banging on and on about future games and 8 cores, like it is wrong for people to consider performance for existing/current games, which just so happen most of them don't use more than 4 cores.

I did post the pros and cons. As for considering the future? that is all you can do when even so much as saying the word computer.

You always avoid talking about these existing games and keep generalising them as "dated single core games", despite many of them were released within the last 2 years. You are keen on not pointing out the fact that in these 4 cores (or less) games, the FX8 are essentially no quicker than a FX4, nevermind reminding people that the i5 would be quicker in these situation.

As I've continually said if a game only supports two cores or even one core then it's dated. Whether it's dated by its release date or the fact that the software house who wrote it were too lazy to embrace modern PC hardware? I don't care, as both of them are not down to poor hardware, only poor software support.

Funny how you then go on to add your analogy of how a FX 8 can be no better than a FX 4 yet, don't go on to mention how a 4670k can end up being no better than a two cored Pentium.

However I do take onboard what you've said, but you need to remember that Vishera was a massive step forward over Zambezi and as such finally made the IPC good enough to take care of crap games that only support a couple of cores. Which is why if you can find one you'll see that any honest truthful review shows Vishera as being a great technological step forward.

Also quite a lot of double-standard is going on as well: when i5 is a good margin faster than the FX8 at sub 60fps, the response would be "doesn't matter if the CPU is bottlenecking the graphic card, as it is still delivering playable frame rate"; now with FX8 being faster than the Sandy i5 in Crysis 3- which the extra performance won't even be the case if just using a single GPU card, you are making sure that it get highlighted and noticed, despite mentioned "so long as the FX8 can keep the frame rate above 60fps, it doesn't matter how much faster the i5 is" (granted I'm not 100% certain was it you or teppic who said this).

I benchmarked all of recently released titles going back over the entire year on my CPU. The lowest minimum I saw was out of Crysis 3. 39 FPS.

Personally I tend to agree with science. If a game provides me more than 26.7 FPS as a minimum then it's playable. So I see that as playable.

However, I do find it odd that once you've been shown that a FX CPU (six core or above) does a pretty reasonable job of running any game well you then switch to multiple GPUs. Now we're bottlenecking multiple GPUs. However, my data tends to show that if there is bottlenecking going on with my rigs (plural) then it's either slight or it isn't happening.

If Intel's IPC was as wonderful as people make out I would never have bought an FX in the first place. But then seeing is believing is it not? if it wasn't for the fact that even at closing in on 4ghz my Sandy wasn't cutting it I would have never felt the urge to change it, given I'd only had it 11 months.

I don't really think you are subjective enough to talk about performance of Intel CPUs (especially with you sensational "FX8 is giving me double the frame rate over i5" claims), because of your (unhappy) experience of using non-K Sandy i5 CPU which cannot be overclocked and (happily) to a highly overclocked FX8. You cannot compare your experience of using a locked i5 2400 to a highly overclocked i5 2500K. Also, nobody who has a clue about gaming performance would tell others to "look at Cinebench, Winzip, Firestrike CPU scores/results". Yes those benches would give good indication of how the CPUs would perform in context of those applications, but they are just that, and shouldn't be used as representation for gaming performance.

I've already covered other game results in this thread. But, if you wanted to see more (so that you understand why your older games are less of a worry foir Vishera than you think) then this should do the trick.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIVGwj1_Qno

The other stuff you talk about? is what the AMDs are bloody brilliant at (productivity and encoding, Xsplit and stuff) which I've not even touched on.

And for the last time, I don't hate AMD. Most of us who you guys keep accusing as Intel fanboys are the probably the ones that want AMD to surprise us with a bang for bucks CPU more than anyone else- equal performance at lower price much like the 290s graphic card comparing to Nvidia's offering...but that is that, this is this- when someone is not giving the facts about the Piledriver/FX8, speaking out doesn't make us an Intel fanboy.

When you go around telling porkies and deliberately pulling false figures out of a hat to rubbish something/some one it's usually because you don't like them. So either back up what you are saying with data or don't say it.

I've not seen a single shred of evidence to back up your facts, yet, have spent the duration of this post posting facts about AMD processors for you. Which has slowly led you to stop posting figures and facts out of thin air.

So I'm asking you again - please find me some unblinkered evidence to back up what you are saying or please, stop saying it.

You've said that in older games Vishera suffers. I've posted you data that shows that yes, whilst they may not offer up the same performance as a chip costing more money they can still do everything the Intel does. With aplomb.

There's definitely no criticising about the performance of FX8 in 8 threaded games for their asking price, HOWEVER, it is only in those specific games- perfect environment of game engine using 8 threads can the CPU be utilised to its full potential. For vast majority of the current games, it DOES NOT use use up to 50%+ of it full capability and no...in lots of these games the FX8 is not capable of holding a solid 60fps.

As it stands at the right now, if current and new 1st person games is all someone interested in, the FX8 would be a good choice; however for anyone that play wide range of different genes of games (particular strategy games and mmos that doesn't has the big publisher's names i.e. EA on them), the i5 will still offer much better performance far more times than it is not at a slight price premium.

Piledriver is actually very much like the Richland APU...it's has made decent progess and toward the right direction, but not quite there yet. Yea come to think of it, what do I care people blowing money meaninglessly going from i5 to Piledriver? Considering that it would mean more funding for the development on AMD's next gen 8 (or more) cores CPU/platform and has better chance to become better (which I would upgrade to if the performance and price is right), I should encourage people to blow more money on Piledriver meaninglessly more often

I've based my opinions on the most recent games. That's usually what one tends to do, not dig up games from two plus years ago and say "Hmm not sure it'll run that well !".

Oh and just for good measure.

 

[almighty15]

I love it when AMD fans always post the same games and the same charts.... It's laughable...

 

[almighty15]

Not when new it wasn't. You are also comparing pricing of a top of the range motherboard (CHVFZ) with your asrock? Seriously?

Yes, I'm comparing one the highest end Z68 boards there is on this planet ( Which costs more then the CHVFZ BTW ) to one of the highest end AMD boards...

Some people in here

 

[Marine-RX179]

Andy I'm not gonna bother wasting anymore time with you...I lost count how many times you keep quoting GPU bounded singleplayer games results (mostly FPS). How about get away from just looking at just FPS gene games, and look at games where CPU performance count the most? Sims games such as Flight Simulators, mmos such as Guild Wars 2, strategy games such as Total Wars and Starcraft 2? You do know as popular as FPS gene game is...other game genes do exist which people play where CPU performance over low number of threads count the most?

Sure I could post benchmarks showing the overclocked i5 leaving the overclocked FX8 far behind in Starcraft II, Guild Wars 2, Total Wars Shogun 2 etc...but what would be the point, when I know you won't change your stance regardless, blaming the games for not using up to 8 cores, telling people to stop playing old games or it's perfectly fine to suck it up if the FX8 perform worse than the i5 because it's "playable" etc.

 

[Martini1991]

Someone with an FX83 buy an R9 290 and we'll bench bro.

We'll turn conjecture into facts.

 

[almighty15]

I second that.... Anyone that has a 7950 and wants a crack then step up...

My £240 2600k+Mobo combo will hammer you all...

 

[Martini1991]

I second that.... Anyone that has a 7950 and wants a crack then step up...

My £240 2600k+Mobo combo will hammer you all...

Bit pumped this morning are we ?

If I hated AMD, why would I always buy their GPU's on launch days?

The last AMD CPU I bought was again on launch (Phenom II 1055T)

 

[Marine-RX179]

Someone with an FX83 buy an R9 290 and we'll bench bro.

We'll turn conjecture into facts.

Seems like useless/wasted effort to be put forward for the sake of trying to prove something to someone who keep quoting GPU bounded singleplayer games for the sake of argument and don't even see what's wrong with that...

 

[Martini1991]

Perhaps, but my games roster is extensive

 

[alex_123_fra]

Yes, I'm comparing one the highest end Z68 boards there is on this planet ( Which costs more then the CHVFZ BTW ) to one of the highest end AMD boards...

Some people in here

Yes but it isn't the top of the range board for that chipset so you aren't comparing like for like. You also appear to be ignoring the fact that new, your combination cost quite a bit more (even by your own admission!). So please, engage your brain.

Someone with an FX83 buy an R9 290 and we'll bench bro.

We'll turn conjecture into facts.

Not sure anyone needs to buy an R9 290 and run all the benches again to be honest. We have shown several benchmarks with FX83 processors and 7990s in games which utilise > 6 cores/threads. Results speak for themselves.

 

[gpuerrilla]

I myself would be a bit more conservative and say "95%+" of the games not using up to 8 cores.

Another factoid.. oh the credibility of some folk on here wanes all the time.

Getting back on topic, once some (minority) of people accept the price of the product and stop comparing it to clearly way more expensive offerings then it puts all this into perspective.

I don't accept for one moment a 2500k 'rapes' or destroys it's mere drivel. When some of these games (no matter how badly they are released unfinished) with a patch and driver update they sometimes adjust certain flaws.

 

[Martini1991]

I don't see a massive problem with GPU limited benchmarks to be honest, as long as they're not used incorrectly (To promote a false image)

 

[Martini1991]

Not sure anyone needs to buy an R9 290 and run all the benches again to be honest. We have shown several benchmarks with FX83 processors and 7990s in games which utilise > 6 cores/threads. Results speak for themselves.

OP's getting an R9 290.

It'd be useful if he can see the difference surely?

I was being somewhat sarcastic, I know vUNREALv has one.

 

[gpuerrilla]

I second that.... Anyone that has a 7950 and wants a crack then step up...

My £240 2600k+Mobo combo will hammer you all...

We have someone with a 7950. Just need to remember who it was and we can start talking realistic instead of these benchmark fallacies.

 

[Martini1991]

Well I've got almost 400 games .
It's easily within 1% of them being able to use 8 cores.