• 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.

those 12 core/8 core amd cpus

Golf1.6

Golf1.6

Golf1.6

Associate
Joined
5 Oct 2012
Posts
651
Read the amd vs intel thread and got me thinking, amd have stopped the high end gaming market and focused on energy efficient office computer market for applications etc.

How do the 12 core amd cpus fare against say an intel i5 2500k cpu for multi tasking on say adobe photoshop, fireworks, 24 tab chrome, 15 tab forefox, tv running on tvcatchup.co.uk etc.
 
I run an 8320 at 4.6 and a Xeon E5-1630 @ 3.70 and prior to that a 3770 @ 3.9.

FWIW I can hand on heart say that I notice no difference in daily tasks (game development so pretty CPU intensive) and gaming.
 
P4Clock said:
yep also 16 core, the opteron range would kill an 2500k in multitasking but it more intended for server use. there is 12 cores but there low power.
Click to expand...

That's server though, wouldn't they be pretty useless for everyday household uses like gaming?

But reading on he wants multi tasking so it's ideal presumably.
 
the problem is if the cpu is intended for servers than presumably the socket and motherboard will be built for servers so they might not have a PCIE graphics slot and not even be atx form factor.

Also the PC operating system may not be optimised to distribute the processing between all the cores correctly compared to a server OS which would.
 
Golf1.6 said:
the problem is if the cpu is intended for servers than presumably the socket and motherboard will be built for servers so they might not have a PCIE graphics slot and not even be atx form factor.

Also the PC operating system may not be optimised to distribute the processing between all the cores correctly compared to a server OS which would.
Click to expand...

its just about finding the right board, the cpu's will also be used for business builds like 3d rendering and crap like that.
the X5650 is a server cpu that found it way into gaming pc's.
 
P4Clock said:
its just about finding the right board, the cpu's will also be used for business builds like 3d rendering and crap like that.
the X5650 is a server cpu that found it way into gaming pc's.
Click to expand...

That was some time ago though, Didn't it come close to matching the mainstream cpu's of the day core for core.
 
The X5650 (and its brothers, the X5660 and X5670) was a special case because X58 motherboards used the same socket as servers (LGA 1366) and most of them support Xeons and all the requisite technologies (e.g. QPI). X58 motherboards also allow extensive BCLK overclocking, something that wasn't possible after that until Skylake. The Xeons were sold cheaply because in the server market they were falling behind modern equivalents quite a bit - not only due to IPC improvements since then but also their relatively low clock speeds. The only reason the Bloomfield Core i7s can still compete is because of their huge overclocking headroom but you'd never overclock in a server.

So the X56x0 chips were sold cheaply but for Core i7-920/930 owners they were fantastic because they offered two extra real cores, four extra logical cores, lower temperatures (32 nm instead of 45 nm), and additional overclocking headroom.
 
I got to be absolutely honest with you, but when I saw the Skylake had come out, I jumped at it ,and I went completely OTT went DDR4 and of course New Mobo etc, and yes, its ridiculously great etc etc etc.

My main PC for a fair while now has been an AMD 8350 and I love that PC.

Just before xmas, I knocked up a little ITX system that was an AMD A10 APU thingy, and I absolutely love that too

Now is the last few weeks, I have knocked up a massive AMD Opteron 32Core Dual CPU bugger with 256GB RAM for no real reason other than I really want to know how good multicores are.

All I can say is this...

1 -
In spite of what so many people and so many benchtests actually claim...
My Skylark does NOT play any of my games any better than my AMD 8350 does.
Not one game.

I have no doubt, that at the seriously high end of the scale, if we are talking 4K resolution etc, then it just might, and yeah, probably does, but I dont game at 4K.

I do however do a whole load of Video editting and I help run a couple opf clubs that do a whole load of video camera work, such as our Ghost hunting club, and the local community centre where we also run a video club etc, and with those, I use my PCs to take in all the footage from everyone, and then convert the lot into DVDs so that the whole lcub can share in each others videos, and of course because everyone has different videos and cameras with different formats and media, I do need a fairly decent PC to do all of that work, especially as I could idieally work on multiple videos all at once to speed up the process, and I ahve found, that in most things, the software that I use, dont actually use more than 4 or 8 cores at any one time and so me getting the dual opteron or the XEON Servers going, has been almost a total waste of time. I can however run multiple copies of any given app and have then run in the background, and that does use up all the cores, but still, its a waste of a few grand... Luckily the wife is ignorant to just how much I have spent and anyway, her new Renault that I bought her last year has probably kept her sweet enough to let it go! LOL

The thing I am trying to say is simple multiple cores are ONLY useful if you actually want or need them.

For gaming, my Opteron is horrible.

I have also lost the ability to SLI or Crossfire and so I have dropped to one card, and sure, I could simply buy a much better card, but I am not going to bother, because what I am going to do in the next few days, is buy a new case and re-build the AMD 8350 back up, and put it back into its rightful place as the main Household PC, and I am going to built this Opteron as what it should be, and that is a proper server.

My Skylake is in my LanRoom and out of the way of the kidsand their mates and my little A10 is here as a foot rest running Linux brilliantly next to the server ( soon to be the AMD )

I have tons more PCs but those are some of the ones I have been toying with this last couple of months.

I think that unless you want absolutely the absolutest toppest bestest highest endest of gaming, then sure, go and getyourself the fastest CPU for playing games on the planet and yes, that would be a Skylake right now, and then you will also have to also buy the toppest endest graphics card that exists, and I dont know what card that would be right now, btu by the time you read this, it will be a different one to what I think it is, as it always seems to be these days, and unless you have absolutely the fastest thing on the planet, its not really worth worrying too much about it because in 9 out of 10 things, AMD can do it every bit as good as Intel can.

I also feel that while I7 would be that tiny bit quicker than I5, for gaming I am not too sure that it truly makes too much difference?
 
At 4k res there will be even less of a difference. The cpu workload is the same but graphics wl is a lot higher, shifting the bottleneck to the cards.

I'm running a phenom ii at 4.35 with my 390xs and there isn't much of a difference if any at all between that and my 4960x.
 
i went from a AMD 8350 to a i7 6700k, on GTA5 it made a big difference ,with AMD it would dip to 30fps at times, and would stutter, with the I7 this doesnt happen also rest parts are the same that were used on AMD

FatRakoon said:
I got to be absolutely honest with you, but when I saw the Skylake had come out, I jumped at it ,and I went completely OTT went DDR4 and of course New Mobo etc, and yes, its ridiculously great etc etc etc.

My main PC for a fair while now has been an AMD 8350 and I love that PC.

Just before xmas, I knocked up a little ITX system that was an AMD A10 APU thingy, and I absolutely love that too

Now is the last few weeks, I have knocked up a massive AMD Opteron 32Core Dual CPU bugger with 256GB RAM for no real reason other than I really want to know how good multicores are.

All I can say is this...

1 -
In spite of what so many people and so many benchtests actually claim...
My Skylark does NOT play any of my games any better than my AMD 8350 does.
Not one game.

I have no doubt, that at the seriously high end of the scale, if we are talking 4K resolution etc, then it just might, and yeah, probably does, but I dont game at 4K.

I do however do a whole load of Video editting and I help run a couple opf clubs that do a whole load of video camera work, such as our Ghost hunting club, and the local community centre where we also run a video club etc, and with those, I use my PCs to take in all the footage from everyone, and then convert the lot into DVDs so that the whole lcub can share in each others videos, and of course because everyone has different videos and cameras with different formats and media, I do need a fairly decent PC to do all of that work, especially as I could idieally work on multiple videos all at once to speed up the process, and I ahve found, that in most things, the software that I use, dont actually use more than 4 or 8 cores at any one time and so me getting the dual opteron or the XEON Servers going, has been almost a total waste of time. I can however run multiple copies of any given app and have then run in the background, and that does use up all the cores, but still, its a waste of a few grand... Luckily the wife is ignorant to just how much I have spent and anyway, her new Renault that I bought her last year has probably kept her sweet enough to let it go! LOL

The thing I am trying to say is simple multiple cores are ONLY useful if you actually want or need them.

For gaming, my Opteron is horrible.

I have also lost the ability to SLI or Crossfire and so I have dropped to one card, and sure, I could simply buy a much better card, but I am not going to bother, because what I am going to do in the next few days, is buy a new case and re-build the AMD 8350 back up, and put it back into its rightful place as the main Household PC, and I am going to built this Opteron as what it should be, and that is a proper server.

My Skylake is in my LanRoom and out of the way of the kidsand their mates and my little A10 is here as a foot rest running Linux brilliantly next to the server ( soon to be the AMD )

I have tons more PCs but those are some of the ones I have been toying with this last couple of months.

I think that unless you want absolutely the absolutest toppest bestest highest endest of gaming, then sure, go and getyourself the fastest CPU for playing games on the planet and yes, that would be a Skylake right now, and then you will also have to also buy the toppest endest graphics card that exists, and I dont know what card that would be right now, btu by the time you read this, it will be a different one to what I think it is, as it always seems to be these days, and unless you have absolutely the fastest thing on the planet, its not really worth worrying too much about it because in 9 out of 10 things, AMD can do it every bit as good as Intel can.

I also feel that while I7 would be that tiny bit quicker than I5, for gaming I am not too sure that it truly makes too much difference?
Click to expand...
 
The X5650 and other hexa core Xeons of the era shared architecture with i7 Extremes anyway. The X5650 basically *is* a hex core i7.
 
uscool said:
i went from a AMD 8350 to a i7 6700k, on GTA5 it made a big difference ,with AMD it would dip to 30fps at times, and would stutter, with the I7 this doesnt happen also rest parts are the same that were used on AMD
Click to expand...

It is a progression but you would expect that from a £300 CPU. When analysing this issue it tends to be certain games and not all of them. Having the appropriate game settings makes a difference as does patches and driver release.

Don't get me wrong the intel is a superior chip offering smoother minimums but even a couple of years back when I was benching and gaming you just dont buy an FX and pair it with a monster GPU - its senseless.

I also found the odd game like BF4 (using mantle) it performed better than intels so the argument can be weighted dependant on your angle. I got the 8320 and for £100 it has been dead on for me!

Its also not bad for virtualising stuff, certainly not the worst component(s) I ever bought. :)
 
Golf1.6 said:
the problem is if the cpu is intended for servers than presumably the socket and motherboard will be built for servers so they might not have a PCIE graphics slot and not even be atx form factor.

Also the PC operating system may not be optimised to distribute the processing between all the cores correctly compared to a server OS which would.
Click to expand...

I have 2x 16 core (32 core) opteron (piledriver) overclocked to 3.3Ghz for video encoding.

Board is E-ATX, of course the boards have PCIe, and you can use normal Windows or Linux.

For video encoding (namely x264), AMD are way more cost effective than Intel. But I'd expect the end of CPU video encoding very soon.
 
Golf1.6 said:
Read the amd vs intel thread and got me thinking, amd have stopped the high end gaming market and focused on energy efficient office computer market for applications etc.

How do the 12 core amd cpus fare against say an intel i5 2500k cpu for multi tasking on say adobe photoshop, fireworks, 24 tab chrome, 15 tab forefox, tv running on tvcatchup.co.uk etc.
Click to expand...

If the software is designed to use multiple cores and run operations simultaneously, the 12 core chip will thrash the quad core chip.

AMD make some excellent gaming chips. The desktop 8 cores look very promising when it comes to gaming. For anything that makes proper use of the new API's an AMD rig will probably make a lot more sense than an Intel.
 
jigger said:
If the software is designed to use multiple cores and run operations simultaneously, the 12 core chip will thrash the quad core chip.

AMD make some excellent gaming chips. The desktop 8 cores look very promising when it comes to gaming. For anything that makes proper use of the new API's an AMD rig will probably make a lot more sense than an Intel.
Click to expand...

tht's the crux of the matter. windows 10 and any other traditional desktop OS, let alone professional editing suits do not utilise cores beyond 4 cores. Because 4 cores is a current norm,

as uscool points out his 32 core machine only utilised 4/5 cores. the os would rather exhust the 4/5 cores and hit a computing bottleneck and then slow down than use the other cores.
 
FX-8### CPU's are just not anything like as bad as people make out.

I went from one to a 4670K and bar very few games it made no difference what-so-ever, actually some parts of Crysis 3 the FX-8### is faster.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom