19 replies to this topic

[Kaptain]

Helping a friend put together an i7 system and learning a ton about the new sockets and processors. Another friend would like help building a low budget gaming rig so this has me doing research on AMD and I have a few questions.

When going AMD...
-Is AM3+ still the way to go?
-Looks like 4, 6 and 8 core processors are available... I have heard of people having performance issues with either 6 or 8 core CPUs. Is this still the case?
-The 8 Core processors use CRAZY amounts of power! are they less overclockable than the 6 core processors?
-Do the 200+ watt processors need water cooling?
-Ram speeds... In the Athlon 2 and Core2 days some boards didn't have enough deviders and CPU OC was limited by ram speed. With unlocked multipliers this isn't much of an issue. What do I need to know about DDR3?
-What chip-set is best for overclocking on am3+

Thanks all!

[Shadowfearme]

At the moment I would go against getting an AMD rig due to the performance/cost disadvantage and the fact that Intel is kicking their butts all up the scale according to http://www.cpubenchm..._end_cpus.html. According to the stats on this site AMD's best average CPU Mark score is 10,369 (AMD FX-9590 4.7GHz 8-core @ 220Watts) while just above it is the Intel Core i7-4770k with a score of 10,374 with 8-cores and at just 84W. They're roughly the same price but you can expect the Intel board to be more pricey but you can knock off the difference with a smaller powersupply and less aggressive cooling solution. Low budget doesn't necessarily mean you need to sacrifice performance if you know your stuff .

[Apocalypse Pryde]

As a user of an 8150 AMD based system, it depends. I get pitiful FPS in MWO (25-45), but Titanfall is steady at 60 (capped due to v-sync and my use of an HDTV for monitor). It all depends on what he/she is wanting to do w/said system. That dependency also relies on RAM type/amount... I have dual GTX760 GPUs and 32gb RAM, so my bottleneck is truly the CPU. I personally have about 2k in this sytem, but I built the initial setup when the 8150 first came out, and I also have upgraded the PSU, GPUs, and fans since then to add to that overall total... I honestly wouldn't go less than an i5 based setup, with large amounts of RAM and a good GPU setup to compensate during gaming.


(edited for screen type)

Edited by Apocalypse Pryde, 24 March 2014 - 04:08 PM.

[Bommer]

I have an AMD 9590, with a R9 280X gpu, and I drop to 87 fps in MWO when being rained on by LRM's and an air strike at the same time. During normal play, I run 117 to 121 fps. I run my monitor at 1920x1080. I cannot complain about a single thing !

[Neozero]

it all depends on what games you plan on playing. AMD CPUs out perform intel CPUs when the game is optimized for the multi core chips. Single thread based games are played best on Intel chips. Ironically Cryengine 3 which is what MWO has is one of the best multi threaded game engines out. However PGI has failed to tune it properly to get the full advantages of the AMD chips IMO.

I will say this the FX-8350 performs very well for the price point, and can overclock to 4.5 on air. Ultimately it will come down to the GPU you use. While the CPU is important spending 200+ on a decent card will pay dividends in the end.

I read a an article on Extremetech link as follows that was rather interesting. http://www.extremete...590-vs-i7-4960x

The performance differences between these top two tiers is what pushed me to go AMD the cost of the AMD chips is a fraction of the I7 intel extreme core and gives performance that is within acceptable rates for the cost. Ultimately I went with the AMD FX-9590 but mainly because I got the chip for around 210 dollars on a special sale around Christmas.

[Goose]

I worry about a world where AMD can't keep Intel honest, but we may already be living in it.

Look: If buy-in price isn't first, second and third on your priority lest, or maybe "first, second, and core-count third," then you have to go with Intel. There are tests where the 3-modual part is scrambling to look good compared to a dual-core-plus-hyperthreading i3: As soon as power consumption was mixed in, AMD didn't have a leg to stand on.

If electricity is dirt-cheap in your area, you can let yourself think about AMD. http://www.npr.org/b...y-in-your-state

I've read somewhere an AMD needs to be clocked 50% faster then an Intel to make up for the Instruction Per Clock advantage Intel has had since the i7-920, if not sooner. The overclock needed to do so further damages the power consumption numbers.

There are other Cryengine games out there, and they'd be glad to have four or more cores to play on, but once you have the MHz to keep ca_thread0Affinity happy, you have the MHz to let many of the other threads double-up on a core.

[Goose]

http://www.tomshardw...ock,3106-6.html

[MercJ]

Just going to add my $.02 and repeat what others here are saying - if MWO is the only game you play, you'll have the best experience with Intel. Much as I hate to say it myself I've played MWO with a FX-8320 at 4.6 GHz, FX-6300 @ 4.6, FX-4100 @ 4.2, Phenom B55 @ 3.8, A10-5800K @ 4.4, i3-2120, i5-2500K @ 3.3,4.6 and 5.0GHz, and a Xeon E3 something or other (Core i7, basically). All with a high end graphics card, 280X or above (I like to test different architectures...). The FX's need a 4.6GHz overclock to feel the same as the Intel's at 3.3GHz Most other games/engines it doesn't make much of a difference, but MWO needs that high IPC of the Core series to feel remotely smooth. That's been my experience anyway.

To answer your question specific to AMD though, the FX-6300 is probably the best bang-for-buck, but by the time you invest in the cooling and motherboard to get a 4.6GHz overclock out of it, you might as well have bought a Core i5. I really wish I could say different, but that's been my experience with MWO.

-Is AM3+ still the way to go?s If AMD CPU is only choice, the L3 Cache of the FX CPUs is nice.

-Looks like 4, 6 and 8 core processors are available... I have heard of people having performance issues with either 6 or 8 core CPUs. Is this still the case?s Don't know if I can answer this one, I haven't had any issues with the 6300/8320 that I've used.

-The 8 Core processors use CRAZY amounts of power! are they less overclockable than the 6 core processors? Well, not THAT crazy - ~200W at a 4.6GHz overclock (1.44V), near as I can tell using a Kill-A-Watt. That's at the wall, and an estimate isolating just the CPU...My Core i5 probably runs around 150W at 4.6/5.0GHz, 50W is a bit more heat but not that much more power...in my very own desktop-owning opinion. Of course, the performance per watt between the intel/amd is different entirely.

-Do the 200+ watt processors need water cooling? No, but expect to spend at least $50-70 on aftermarket cooling, doesn't NEED to be liquid - although it is nice to relocate that heat without warming up the board too. The FXs will saturate some of the smaller 120mm tower heatsinks, unless you can REALLY push some air through them = more noise. Also, if you're overclocking, make sure to cool your VRMs!

-Ram speeds... In the Athlon 2 and Core2 days some boards didn't have enough deviders and CPU OC was limited by ram speed. With unlocked multipliers this isn't much of an issue. What do I need to know about DDR3? I don't usually bother messing with RAM - just set it around DDR3-1600/1866 and shoot for CAS of 8 or 9, but this doesn't impact game performance UNLESS you are using the on-board GPU for the APUs...not recommended for MWO (although it is playable at 720p!)

-What chip-set is best for overclocking on am3+ Others can chime in, but I've have good success with the Asus M5A99FX Pro R2.0 for my 8320. Have a Gigabyte GA-78LMT-USB3 that surprised the heck out of me too, got my FX-6300 to 4.6GHz without an issue. You'll probably need a full ATX board to take advantage of the space for better / more power phases (VRMs).

Edited by MercJ, 25 March 2014 - 05:26 AM.

[Summon3r]

do yourself and your friend a huge favor and go to pcpartpicker.com register there and post on the forums obviously the CPU forum in this case, you will get a ton of very useful feedback.... also i5-4670 all the way and if he is an overclocker then 4670k ESPECIALLY if this is meant for MWO.

[Sen]

In this case, less is DEFINITELY more. Less price for more cores, less performance, more power consumption, and a lot more work to attain any kind of parity with intel.

I can't answer most of your AMD specific questions, but I *CAN* tell you that ram speed is still very crucial.

http://www.tomshardw...ng,3209-13.html

http://semiaccurate....th-amds-kaveri/

Was a 5 second search. Of course Vizshera didn't pop up on the first five links, but it should hold true for all AMD modern processors. That's about the best I can do with your specific questions. Sorry it's not more. Maybe, MAYBE I'll re convert with gen 2 or 3 of Kaveri, if they develop it to do what I'd like to see it do. [dont' ask, long story]

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Apocalypse Pryde, on 24 March 2014 - 04:08 PM, said:

As a user of an 8150 AMD based system, it depends. I get pitiful FPS in MWO (25-45), but Titanfall is steady at 60 (capped due to v-sync and my use of an HDTV for monitor). It all depends on what he/she is wanting to do w/said system. That dependency also relies on RAM type/amount... I have dual GTX760 GPUs and 32gb RAM, so my bottleneck is truly the CPU. I personally have about 2k in this sytem, but I built the initial setup when the 8150 first came out, and I also have upgraded the PSU, GPUs, and fans since then to add to that overall total... I honestly wouldn't go less than an i5 based setup, with large amounts of RAM and a good GPU setup to compensate during gaming.


(edited for screen type)

Do you do anything that requires 32GB of RAM? because gaming sure doesn't

[Guardian00]

You can check de Gaming CPU Hierarchy Chart forms Tom's Hardware http://www.tomshardw...ock,3106-5.html and in the same article the Best Gaming CPUs For The Money: March 2014.

in the chart, you can compare CPU form AMD and Intel according with it performance. I have a Phenom II X6 1100T BE and it still in the second row with some i7 models.

I play nice in High @1080 with a Radeon 7850

Edited by Guardian00, 25 March 2014 - 10:05 AM.

[Thorqemada]

The FX8350 at 4 GHz is a very good offer as it usually is not expensive (around 200 Dollars or 155 Euros).
Coupled with the R9 280X i get 60 to 40 FPS in Dx11 at 1920x1200 at Very High Settings + VSyn On + Fullscreen.
VSync Off gives max FPS of close to 100 and with Downtweaks to Shadows and Particles you get easily up to 60% more FPS than i do (in Dx9 i tested it and got up to 130 FPS and even higher Spikes).

Edited by Thorqemada, 25 March 2014 - 02:57 PM.

[Goose]

Read, and understand: http://www.tomshardw...ng-pc,3780.html

Paul Henningsen March 26, 2014 12:00 AM said:

The games we just added are unquestionably less processor-bound.

[WarGruf]

I have run Intel chips and GeForce before but now use AMD...

I run a Phenom II X6 1045t clocked to 3.6Ghz on all cores, 8 Gig of DDR3, Crossfired 7770s and get around the 45 Fps mark in 1440x900 Res during fire-(LRM)-fights. I see around 65-85 Fps out of combat and all settings are Very high or High, no AA, damage glow on, Vsync on, Full screen, Crysis3 Profile in CCC.

Its easily playable in DX9 or 11... I use DX11. Hoping for a real Crossfire update so I can get my usual 85Fps maxed detail 1600x1200 back

I know soonTM right

[Nick Rarang]

For this game at it's current form on a budget I'd have an I5 4440, 8gb ram, and nvidia GTX770 2gb. I have a fx8350 overclocked to 5ghz, 16gb ram and 7970ghz clocked at 1200core / 1600mem and on dx11 very high settings, I'd dip to 13fps on river city night, forest colony, and crimson strait. Since Crytek announced that it would support mantle, the low IPC of my fx8350 might be mitigated.

[Thorqemada]

Do you have a 3 Monitor Setup?

[Project Chaos]

As the owner of an AMD FX 8320, I love it. I also have an R9 270x for a GPU keep that in mind.

I can play games like Planetside 2 (a pretty visually striking game) as well as many other modern games, on nearly maxed settings & hold a solid FPS. In fact, on Counter-Strike Global Offensive I play on Ultra, and get a solid 60FPS (I might get more, but I play with V-sync on, so I don't know)

When it comes to MWO however, I get as low as 28 FPS (in really heavy combat) and average anywhere between 30-50FPS (depending on how I tweak my settings too)

MWO just doesn't seem optimized for AMD at all, as I have a friend who was playing MWO on Intel HD 4000 graphics, and was getting better FPS.

For overall gaming, I love my AMD, because it was so damn cheap. I mean crap, I have an 8-core CPU that runs 3.5GHz stock, for HALF the price of a 6-core Intel that runs at the same speed. Literally I checked, the i5 I wanted, was DOUBLE the price of my FX when I bought it. So, I figured, why not buy a higher-end AMD CPU, and get a better GPU to go with it.

Also, @Nick Rarang I hope you have that thing water-cooled, what are your temps on that 8350 @ 5 GHz? Just asking because I run my 8320 at 3.7GHz and it gets to like 50°C while gaming.

Mine is air cooled though, keep that in mind.

Edited by Project Chaos, 27 March 2014 - 04:20 PM.

[Golrar]

I run a Phenom II x6 1055T OCed to 3.4Ghz (maxes at 50C in MWO) on air cooling. 8GB of DDR3 1600 Crucial on an ASRock 970 Extreme 3 board (should have bought a 990FX, I know). I bought this 3 years ago, just recently OCed because MWO hates anything under 3Ghz (stock is 2.8GHz). GPU is a GTX 650Ti, again, been a while since upgrading. I run DX11 with most settings on Medium, some high (textures) with no AA and I hold pretty steady at 50FPS with no vsync. I dip below that to about 38FPS on Mordor, running 1920x1080. I have not fiddled with my config files at all. Yeah, it's not the best, more middle of the road or low, but it works.

I too notice that in every other game I get much better performance due to the limitations in the coding in MWO. However, I can't justify moving to Intel for one game, even though it is like the only game I play besides Torchlight 2. The setup did very well in BF4 on all high settings, so I know it is not the CPU or GPU holding it back. plus, I usually buy games off Steam on sale, so whatever is current right now is not a big concern for me.

Down to the meat: I am also thinking of upgrading on a budget and I think my next move is the FX-8350 Black edition and a new ASRock Fatal1ty 990FX Killer. Total cost around $350 from Newegg with free shipping. My aftermarket Zalman cooler should work fine with the new Processor as it is only a year old, and my ram will work for a time until I budget that in as well. The only hindrance will then be the older GTX650Ti card, which I think I can deal with since my CPU bottleneck will be somewhat alleviated.

So under $350 for a decent AMD setup if you already have the RAM and GPU. Tack on another $250, so a decent system for under $700.

[Nick Rarang]

@projectchaos my fx8350 @1.46mv 5.06 ghz is cooled by Thermaltake Frio OCK and I have a total of 7 fans in my case 2 x 200, 4 x 120, 1 x 140. My CPU temp is in the low to mid 50's while my GPU is in the high 50's low 60's. Don't get me wrong, I love my system, but this game isn't optimized for AMD CPU's with low IPC no matter the extent of the overclock. It runs BF4 ultra everything @1080p @ 58 fps. There is hope for AMD CPU's because Crytek will now support Mantle so the Cryengine 3 engine of this game might eventually support that API.