• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Thinking of switching from Intel to AMD

almighty15 said:
Yes it does.... Adding extra cores improves performance... If the game could only use 2 cores then adding the third core would not of shown the performance jump that it did.
Click to expand...

doesnt mean that game is using more than 2 cores if you have a dual core cpu and playing a game using 2 cores theres not much room left to have other programs running aswell (will affect game performance), 3 cores however has that spare cpu grunt while using 2 cores for that game and not affecting game performance while background programs are running.
 
Last edited:
almighty15 said:
It is how it works but certain people choose to blame the developers or bad coding when they get poor performance.
Click to expand...

You can't help but have digs can you. The facts are the facts and at least 2-3 of us (with both AMD and Intel CPUs) have seen 2 core utilisation in this benchmark.

You choose to believe it is well-threaded. Your choice but it just isn't. I certainly wouldn't call my performance on this bench bad and I doubt anyone else would. I have also provided another explanation which is that perhaps this bench utilises 2 cores in the bench only but maybe uses more cores during actual gameplay. I don't know. I certainly won't be buying it to find out. The only one around here who could find this out is you as you apparently have the game. So why not enlighten us.
 
alex_123_fra said:
You can't help but have digs can you. The facts are the facts and at least 2-3 of us (with both AMD and Intel CPUs) have seen 2 core utilisation in this benchmark.

You choose to believe it is well-threaded. Your choice but it just isn't. I certainly wouldn't call my performance on this bench bad and I doubt anyone else would. I have also provided another explanation which is that perhaps this bench utilises 2 cores in the bench only but maybe uses more cores during actual gameplay. I don't know. I certainly won't be buying it to find out. The only one around here who could find this out is you as you apparently have the game. So why not enlighten us.
Click to expand...

he then jumped from that resi 6 benchmark to resi 5 using 3 or more cores which we didnt try

but i found this

http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/2190/clipboard02yi.jpg
RE5 with i7. Everything is being used.
 
This thread reminds me somewhat of when a A.I. is asked to resolve pi and it just derps, or something sends it into an infinite loop. Because the i5 and the 8320 are both the better CPU depending on the software used the is no right answer, it just depends what software the user plans on running which is the best for that particular scenario, yet because it's possible for both cases to be proven we have ended up with six pages of this nonsense :P
 
SiDeards73 said:
Going to be buying a 290Pro soon as the Non Refs are out, but ive been increasingly thinking of while im at it, swapping my i5 2500K @4.4ghz and Asrock Ex4 Gen3 mobo + Ram for an AM3 Asus Mobo and an AMD 9370.

*snipped*

Any thoughts on the above and what kinda temps im going to be looking at? the other option is to put something like an Alpenfohn K2 Mount Doom in to cool it all.
Click to expand...



The FX is a good CPU, its cheap, delivers great performance for the <insert currency here> spent, but should not be paired with anything more powerfull than a 7970 in non mantle games(based on the information available stating that mantle reduces the cpu requirements), anything better will bottlenecked more often than not, maybe not much but as an example my 780 has been as low as 65ish % usage in some modern titles..

So my point is, if you want something like the 290 you better have the grunt to support it and even if the 8350 OCed to 4,8 will beat a 2500k its not worth a change to the AM3+ platform at this point, due to multiple reason:

1) The performance increase will not be that big if at all in a lot of games considering your current OC on the 2500k.
2) You will be getting an old chipset, meaning no new features over your 1156 socket.
3) You will experience irregular framerates from time to time in games that have not been optimized with the fx chip in mind(hopefully we will see less of this in the future)

Reasons to buy an FX-x3x0:
1) Need a good/cheap replacement for a dead PC.
2) You are still using something from the Core 2 due days.
3) You are on a budget and you need a new gaming rig and dont currently have a working i5-i7 system.
4) You are into VM and need a cheaper than x79 solution.

I have an FX-8350 sitting next to me(which is basicly a 9370), been darn happy with her running a my main rig at 4,8. She is running as a 8 core server now as of monday the 9th this month. Its a solid piece of tech, but recommending it over something like a 4770k now that z87 boards are so darn cheap even if the 4770k is about 100-120 pounds more(even less since your considering the 9370) is just silly in my head since we are talking a complete platform upgrade anyway. If you had a capable AM3+ board already and only needed the CPU it would be a different story.

I have benched my old 8350@4,8 ghz and my new i7 4770k@stock and as soon as im done with the OCed results as well ill be posting them here and it should be very clear why you do not want to spend money on a 9370 for gaming.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom