Thinking of switching from Intel to AMD

nikki5974 · 14 Nov 2013 at 22:01

At the moment my Ram speed is 2086 timings are 9,10.9,27

Yes i realise fps do drop was saying my max fps with vsync off in WoW max settings is 240fps

Akagi · 14 Nov 2013 at 22:03

nikki5974 said:
At the moment my Ram speed is 2086 timings are 9,10.9,27

Thats nice?

Avenged7Fold · 14 Nov 2013 at 22:06

nikki5974 said:
At the moment my Ram speed is 2086 timings are 9,10.9,27

Yes i realise fps do drop was saying my max fps with vsync off in WoW max settings is 240fps

Sorry, its not that i don't believe you have ram running faster on your fx than you did on the i5, but rather i am sure if you took another i5 or i7, you could prob push the RAM a bit more than on your other chip.

I have always found RAM clocking easier on intels, which is a shame because my three rigs atm are all 8 core fx rigs and my only i5 is out of commission.

Martini1991 · 14 Nov 2013 at 22:08

I'm sure Lynnfield was able to do 2000MHZ RAM. I know on my Thuban I did 1866MHZ CL7.

nikki5974 · 14 Nov 2013 at 22:08

No aint tried on another i5 just got the 1 tbh i think it was duff ram for overclocking

Martini1991 · 14 Nov 2013 at 22:10

So, you used different RAM between the two set ups you had?

nikki5974 · 14 Nov 2013 at 22:13

i used same ram for the i5 and AMD,Gskill ripjaws X just that it seems to overclock more on FX than i5 due to FSB overclocking couldnt do much fsb overclocking on the i5 just a touch but also theres other factors like the mobo im using a Rog board now i5 was same as the OP asrock extreme gen 3 or something like that

Avenged7Fold · 14 Nov 2013 at 22:14

Did you try JUST a memory clock rather than a bus clock?

nikki5974 · 14 Nov 2013 at 22:18

Avenged7Fold said:
Did you try JUST a memory clock rather than a bus clock?

on which cpu ?

Martini1991 · 14 Nov 2013 at 22:20

You can't really overclock the BLCK on socket 1155 Sandy, you're not meant to, it can only do like 106-107.

If that's how you tried overclocking the memory on Sandy, that's why it'll have been poor.

FSB hasn't existed for years too

nikki5974 · 14 Nov 2013 at 22:25

well been awhile since i used an i5 BLCK then ye i meant you could only change it alittle

compared to the bus speed on the amd chip i got confused with FSB cause of the rated

FSB on my boards bios anyway i tried overclocking the ram by uping the speed and

upping the timming etc etc and couldnt push it past 1800 ish

i was also new 2 overclocking back then did manage 5.2 on the i5

rolypolyman · 14 Nov 2013 at 23:32

Mmmm......interesting read this thread. Currently have my trusty i5 2500K purring away as it has since I bought it, best cpu I've ever bought(though the Athlon 64 must be close) and I've had loads going back twenty years or more.(mostly Intel\Amd) Anyway I have a nice shiny FX8320 and AM3+ mainboard just arrived. Would have preferred an I7 3770K but they are too expensive, £197 for cpu and board and I will get most of it back from selling my 2500K etc. Fancied a change anyway and I reckon I'll at least be no worse off but I think I will gain in the next 2-3yrs with the extra cores\threads.

I plan to spend some time gathering some data from benching my 2500k\xfire 7950 on my game collection, not all of them, just my favourite ones ie Crysis 3, FarCry 3, Bioshock Infinite, Tombraider 3, maybe some more. Then when my new setup is in I'll do it all again for comparison, not a BF3\4 fan so you wont see them at all. Anyhow I prefer to compare actual real games as that is mostly what I do on my computer. I doubt it will convince Intel\Amd fanboys either way but I hope some will find it illuminating.

Oh and just for further interest I am dual booting Win 7\8.1 so will test on both os which are both on separate ssd's.

gpuerrilla · 15 Nov 2013 at 00:34

Martini1991 said:
I do love playing Firestike and Cinebench.

Dont we all? Oh yeah 99/100 retort once more and all...

~>Dg<~ said:
any i5 from sandy up is faster than any current 8 core cpu once oc.

benched them and a guy on my ts now has just upgraded from a 8320 @ 4.5 to a i5 3570k he says in games its quite a lot better.

arma is faster on intel as is 99 percent of games.

Unbelievable non-tekkers! Pure FUD. Ignore this guy. ^

Cooper said:
Err...it's well known that on a per core basis, the FX Cpu's are 30-40% slower than the Intels.

As they say, 'you do the math'

I had to lol at troll is troll. 30-40%... pfft (oh and thats ALL 'Intels' by the way). :rolleyes:

Seriously how can you discuss anything with this garbage.

Make · 15 Nov 2013 at 07:24

Th0nt said:
I had to lol at troll is troll. 30-40%... pfft (oh and thats ALL 'Intels' by the way).

Seriously how can you discuss anything with this garbage.

Maybe it's not all intels, but that guy's got a point. Check the single-thread performance in the so-praised Cinebench thread.

5.0Ghz AMD aint even close to many intel CPU's from 2 generation's ago.

I don't like cinebench that much but it does prove that guy's point.

Martini1991 · 15 Nov 2013 at 08:25

A Q9550 at 4.4GHZ was outclassing some of the PD's in single threaded in Cinebench.

joeyjojo · 15 Nov 2013 at 09:13

As everything is moving (finally) towards parallelisation, single-threaded performance is becoming less interesting. Benching a single thread on BD/PD is a bit like benching a single thread on a GPU - you know it's going to do badly as it's not really an appropriate workload. This will be even more true on future heterogeneous chips (Kaveri).

Not to say AMD don't have work to do on efficiency, they still lag way behind Intel on that front, but Steamroller promises to improve on IPC in a big way so we'll see how they manage.

rolypolyman said:
I plan to spend some time gathering some data from benching

Excellent!

ubersonic · 15 Nov 2013 at 09:32

nikki5974 said:
I played WoW,SWTOR on all 3 cpu's i5 ,17 and 8350 with the same gpu and noticed no difference in fps between them all played max settings

What's the GPU a Voodoo 3?

Seriously, as long as your not GPU limited then i7>i5>AMD for WoW, it's that simple. The game heavily favours Intel CPU's and Nvidia GPU's.

*Edit* (Didn't see a second page)

nikki5974 said:
The 7850

The i5 2500k was 24/7 clock @ 4.8 the i7 3820 was around the same speed my AMD is 24/7 clocked @ 5Ghz altho it was run at stock and still showed no difference in wow or swtor.
Only thing that has changed is the Ram quad in the i7

Your not running WoW on max settings with a HD7850, not unless you just stand around Darnassus.

nikki5974 said:
hit 240 fps in wow with vsync off

Turn Vsync on or use the frame limiter, WoW is designed around 60FPS, running higher can cause graphical anomalies.

nikki5974 · 15 Nov 2013 at 09:51

guess im full of **** and must dreaming then

Marine-RX179 · 15 Nov 2013 at 10:53

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=25212426&postcount=1

2600K at just 3.40GHz and matches FX8350 at 4.00GHz in BF4.

2600K: Far superior single-threaded performance/better performance clock for clock, with bigger overclocking headroom and will hit similar max frequency as the FX8 on overclock, cheaper and less hassle to upgrade.

"Thinking of switching from Intel to AMD" Answer: NO

/thread

Martini1991 · 15 Nov 2013 at 11:02

I'd expect people to show you the 2GHZ no bottleneck R9 290X quote.

Techspot have some 2.5GHZ i7 and FX83 results, to be honest, the game is perfectly playable on both with the R9 290X at 2.5GHZ, but there is some bottlenecking (Tiny really).

So it's clear AMD have eeked out more performance of the FX83 by quite a bit, but people are being completely ignorant to how it'd perform now at 2GHZ.

It's definitely an improvement that's for sure, but there's so much ignorance (As always)

But what do I know? I'm obviously justifying my i5 purchase.