6
Flapdrol, on 21 December 2014 - 06:31 AM, said:
We're not talking "many games", we're talking THIS game, and in this game you're better off with the anemic pentium compared to any amd chip, because it only scales well to 2 cores (with settings low-ish). You can blame the code, but that doesn't improve performance.
And nobody is drinking "intel juice", amd's FX cpu's were a massive dissapointment for gamers, in most games the FX8150 was slower than the phenom II x4 and x6, because of reduced per core performance, and those phenom II's were only slightly faster than core2. With the higher uncore and clocks of the x3xx it's a bit faster, but still dissapointing. FX lauched after 2500K, and none of them match the 2500K when it comes to gaming. Competition in the cpu space is dead, the 4790K wastes space on an igp, but is still half the size of an FX, and sells for twice the price.
And nobody is drinking "intel juice", amd's FX cpu's were a massive dissapointment for gamers, in most games the FX8150 was slower than the phenom II x4 and x6, because of reduced per core performance, and those phenom II's were only slightly faster than core2. With the higher uncore and clocks of the x3xx it's a bit faster, but still dissapointing. FX lauched after 2500K, and none of them match the 2500K when it comes to gaming. Competition in the cpu space is dead, the 4790K wastes space on an igp, but is still half the size of an FX, and sells for twice the price.
Look Frapdrol, I completely agree that Amd has had some pretty big flops in their attempts to bring us CPU's that can keep up and surpass Intel's line up. You guys are right in that aspect of what you have said, and are saying. This really is nothing new from Amd in the last 6 years. Case in point, look at the flop they gave us with the first generation Phenom CPU's, the flaws with them, and even a bug in the silicon that people had to install or what was it update their bios to deal with it. Its been so long now I forget what they called it....but it caused a serious performance drop. These first Phenom's was Amd's answer to Intel's C2D and Intels Quad line up. Amd failed that round too, and I would have to agree with you that those first Phenom's were a waste of time and money to buy. I remember I was one of the ones that waited to buy into the Phenom's until they fixed the bug and I picked up a 9850 i believe and later sold it off and upgraded to a Phenom II. My advice to anyone would have been skip them, don't buy them.
Then Amd brought us the Phenom II line, and IMO, redeemed themselves to a point. These Phenom II's wasn't cleaning house with Intel's higher end offerings, and I as much as we all would of liked them to, they did put up good numbers, and could over clock like crazy if one had proper cooling. I bought into that generation, 2 for myself, a 940 B.E. and a 955 B.E. both was very decent CPU's. I think one of Amd's biggest problems as a company is the hype that was sold to us all about the first Phenom's, and the hype we all put on them our selves, to be the new killer of Intel's CPU's and taking back the crown. This is the very same thing that happened with the 8100's series, BD, and when it was released there was even more hype put on the new BD's and as it turned out, they was a flop like the first Phenoms, and should be avoided.
While the **'s and the 8300's series never took the crown from Intel like many wanted to see, or even keep true pace with mid and higher end offerings from Intel, yet another blow to the Amd fan crowd, the 8300's line up is a decent processor for gaming, and many other things. However, it never was the I7 killer many wanted it to be, and felt it needed to be for Amd to stay in the race. What I find funny about the Intel 2 core you brought up is that it in fact also keeps up with I5's and I7's in gaming when over clocked to 4.7-4.8 ghz, so once again, that isn't saying much for the I5's and I7's or it is telling us a bigger picture of the lack of optimization this game and software in general has for ALL CPU's that are more then 2 cores. Its a joke, and once that catches up to the hardware, things should become much clearer on just how good or bad some of the CPU's really are, or are not.
I used to be into reading and studying the very clouded and long books of information on, bench marks, performance reviews, and used to visit Toms often to discuss hardware on their forums. This would of been around 4 years ago. One day after many long debates and threads regarding the Intel vs. Amd topic, which tends to bring out the strongest fan boys, I just walked away from it, and all the very long research it took to shift through the lines of BS, in the race for the "BEST" Cpu and the most fps money can buy. Coming back and seeing the talks on Amd vs. Intel here seems to look about the same as they was 4 years ago to me.
Goose made a very false statement regarding ALL Amd systems, and is telling all to beware. I am concerned with his claim, regardless of any issues Amd systems have, because what he has claimed is in fact BS. This is the kinda Intel Juice I am talking about among some, not all. This is what motivated me to reply in this thread and the other. I agree with you guys, I am sure you are seeing some higher numbers with your Intel rigs, depending on what they are, the specs, etc. etc. My point is that the FX-8350 I purchased runs this game to my expectations, and doesn't "gimp" me. If it did, do any of you really think with what I have said I wouldn't get online on the egg or head up to Chicago's Micro center on the west side, and pick up a new Intel CPU/mother board combo?
I don't know what is going on with the fraps log I submitted here, the 0's seem odd, and so do the dips into the 20's, and they only seem to happen when I first hit the F11 key. All I do know is that even with my ATI 7970 3gb and my FX-8350 at 4.5 ghz I am seeing smooth frame rates, within reason in this game, and not seeing dips on my fps counter in game lower then mid thirties unless I hit the F11 key to run the bench mark. I don't see tearing, any real stutters, or anything that anyone else isn't seeing, and from all reports and word we have all gotten, these issues are on Intel/nVidia rigs, as well as Amd/ATI rigs. Do the Intel rigs push higher fps, no doubt, I am sure they do.
But at the end of the day, my FX-8350 even close to stock clock and 7970 3gb provides me a good gaming experience in this game, and stomps any other game I have played on it with all settings to the max. What more could a gamer ask for? That really is the bottom line, unless you and others are chasing the highest Fps you can obtain in this game. All I can say is good luck with that, I have built computers ranging from $480 bucks all the way to $5000 for clients. In 6 months to a year, if all you care about is the highest scores on bench marks/synthetic tests scores, you will be shelling out another $800-2000 grand to stay at the cutting edge. I have found from my experience, its just not worth it to chase the hardware dragon. You will end up getting burned at some point, or go broke doing it.
About 4 years ago, I made the choice to buy hardware around a cycle or two behind the bleeding edge, this gives time for all the hype to wash out, and allows me to make sound choices when purchasing hardware for my gaming rigs. Plus, It save me a butte load of money on top of it all.
Edited by Bill Lumbar, 21 December 2014 - 10:20 AM.
