239 replies to this topic

[Flapdrol]

Smokeyjedi, on 01 February 2015 - 08:35 AM, said:

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare.php?cmp[]=171&cmp[]=1910
The single thread performance of the FX is 50% higher according to this...........than the Athlon 2 X4 640................I couldnt possibly understand how that could work for you........even of you dropped to 3 of 6 threads on the Vishera @ 3.9ghz technically that would still match IPC/Compute power.......not to mention the lack of memory bandwidth that limited DDR3 speeds carry.

Are you playing in 1920X1080P? What am I missing??

Passmark is best ignored.

Anyway, the athlon II is a phenom II with less cache, obviously it shouldn't perform better, but it doesn't perform that much worse to an FX either.

[Kuritaclan]

You will nearly have the same results of passmark when you use cinebench single core performance test. Or other applications like Hyper PI/Super PI

Edited by Kuritaclan, 01 February 2015 - 10:00 AM.

[Flapdrol]

Kuritaclan, on 01 February 2015 - 09:59 AM, said:

You will nearly have the same results of passmark when you use cinebench single core performance test. Or other applications like Hyper PI/Super PI

In passmark the FX scores 50% higher, in pretty much all other benches it doesn't
http://anandtech.com...duct/188?vs=700

[Smokeyjedi]

X4 640 scores -1032

phenom 2 555 -1140

fx 6350 - 1484

single thread performance..........scores @ stock clocks

[conquistadorst]

Bill Lumbar, on 31 January 2015 - 07:57 AM, said:

The very first Quads they came out with kinda blew compared to Intel's offerings at the time, (Phenom's) The Phenom II's are what I believe you meant?

No no, not the phenoms. My mistake, I said quad core but meant dual core. I didn't realize my mistake until I actually looked up the CPU. I guess I'm getting old. Because you're right, the quads they made were terrible. The last AMD CPU I owned was the AMD 64 X2 3800+.

[Catamount]

Athlon IIs are pretty low-end chips. We have one in a family computer here and it's barely suitable for basic play in Space Engineers, let alone something like MWO, despite an OC into the low/mid 3s somewhere.
My impression was always basically that (Phenom II ~= Piledriver) > Bulldozer. Phenom IIs moderately outstripped Bulldozer when comparing chips of equal numbers of cores (Deneb/Thuban) and modules (Bulldozer) on a clock per clock basis, but so did Piledriver, so I can't see a huge advantage at this point between the old and new AMD chips. No doubt individual benchmarks will swing this way and that, and indeed Piledriver murders at a small selection of benchmarks and software that takes well to the CMT architecture, but my idea has always been that in total AMD has about managed parity with their old stuff, and then boosted the clocks a little. That's precisely the problem though: AMD's new chips have still fundamentally failed to eclipse the Phenom II generation, which as never more than mediocre competition with Nahalem!

Edited by Catamount, 01 February 2015 - 11:33 AM.

[Hammer Fall]

Fake cores? Lord Letto you are confusing the A series with the FX series. The A8 and A10 has 4 Phenom II cores while missing 2 FPU cores. The FX series in 4-6-8 configurations are full Phenom II cores. Unlike Intel with Hyper-Threading where 2 cores show up as 4 under Windows, two physical and two logical the FX is all physical cores. I run MWO on a A10-5700 with no problems and it runs great and looks great. For the money the FX is great. Look at Battlefield 4 videos comparing the i5 and i7 with the FX. The FX looks smoother, shows more particles, better effects, and better colour. You might get a performance boost you won' t notice with Nvidia but AMD/ATI looks better. Intel looks the best with text, Nvidia is the fastest and these days it is becoming a small margin, and ATI has the best colour and contrast. I have used all three and in 14 years of building computers ATI has always looked the best.

Edited by Lord Marauder, 01 February 2015 - 12:26 PM.

[Smokeyjedi]

Catamount, on 01 February 2015 - 11:31 AM, said:

Athlon IIs are pretty low-end chips. We have one in a family computer here and it's barely suitable for basic play in Space Engineers, let alone something like MWO, despite an OC into the low/mid 3s somewhere.
My impression was always basically that (Phenom II ~= Piledriver) > Bulldozer. Phenom IIs moderately outstripped Bulldozer when comparing chips of equal numbers of cores (Deneb/Thuban) and modules (Bulldozer) on a clock per clock basis, but so did Piledriver, so I can't see a huge advantage at this point between the old and new AMD chips. No doubt individual benchmarks will swing this way and that, and indeed Piledriver murders at a small selection of benchmarks and software that takes well to the CMT architecture, but my idea has always been that in total AMD has about managed parity with their old stuff, and then boosted the clocks a little. That's precisely the problem though: AMD's new chips have still fundamentally failed to eclipse the Phenom II generation, which as never more than mediocre competition with Nahalem!

they needed to shrink phenom ii X6 and add another 2 actual cores for 8 full core phenoms @ 32Nm........that would have been 125 actual watts and been a heck of a lot closer IPC to ivy B..................

**EDIT** on second thought they should have used a Phenom ii X4 and modul'ized it.......lol a pair of phenom threads per module would have rocked bad........4 cores of phenom ii X2 555 to make 8 threads.........@ 32NM would smokeshow.

Edited by Smokeyjedi, 01 February 2015 - 12:14 PM.

[Hammer Fall]

Catamount most Windows benchmarks are biased towards Intel. Under Linux the benchmarks show that i7 and FX 8 core are neck to neck. Having used every i7 since the first generation mostly and AMD Phenom II, A10, A8, AMD has caught up. My unbiased ultimate test is compiling programs like LibreOffice and Firefox, the Linux kernel, OpenGL programs, and big complicated programs that require a lot of linking and floating point. Intel is faster here and AMD there. For gaming under Windows I find AMD/ATI more enjoyable. There is depth and colour and particles missing under an Intel/Nvidia set-up. So past price comparision and taking out CPU specific performance features which have no effect on gaming, or compiling, it is mostly subjective. If on a low budget AMD/ATI will serve you well. If you have money to burn and brand loyalty then go Intel/Nvidia. Luckily my brand loyalty is cheap.That said if I had a thousand dollars I would be going high-end i7. At the high end, $1000 for a processor die the i7 is still King.

The Athlon II is useless these days, get an i3. Catamount what AMD did was break up the components and computing tasks into units. So the floating point processing was put into FPU's, memory controller was made into a unit, single point was made a unit, video decoding, etc. Using a more Cell architecture (PS3) the traditional core itself becomes an organizer for the optimized specialized units. So mix and match and off the same line you can make embeded processors, everyday process, server processors, gaming processors. It is a *nix philosophy in hardware.
While Intel continues with the CISC, AMD is going RISC while maintaining CISC x86 and x86-64 compatibility. At first it caused them to lose the price-performance edge to Intel but they are catching up and in the long run it will pay off.

Edited by Lord Marauder, 01 February 2015 - 12:34 PM.

[Hammer Fall]

Sorry about spam. Although the base is a Phenom II for an FX there is much little architectural improvements. Multi-core processing is now over a 100% increase from the old Phenom II brand. Better hardware video decoding, more cipher hardware encrption, etc. The i series for Intel is based on the Core which is based on the crap P4. At the present generations they surely bare little enough resemblance to the architectures and performance of what they are based on to be directly compared. Great thread. :-)

[Goose]

Lord Marauder, on 01 February 2015 - 12:26 PM, said:

The i series for Intel is based on the Core which is based on the crap P4.

Nope … on the second part …

[Goose]

http://www.xbitlabs....itecture_2.html

[Vassago Rain]

Lord Marauder, on 01 February 2015 - 12:21 PM, said:

There is depth and colour and particles missing under an Intel/Nvidia set-up.

Haha, what?

[xWiredx]

Lord Marauder, on 01 February 2015 - 12:26 PM, said:

snip snip snip snip

While some of your technical details are correct, they are undoubtedly copied almost word for word from some of AMD's early hype posts about Bulldozer (I am acquainted with a couple of those guys, one of which no longer has a job there). Further, you get so much other stuff wrong that I can't help but ignore everything you say. Please stop spreading so much misinformation.

I also guarantee that I have more depth, color, and particles running my Intel/Nvidia setup than you do with whatever AMD CPU and GPU or APU you're running.

[michaelius]

It should also be noted that AMD gpus have less efficient drivers so they should absolutly not be combined with slower low end CPUs in a game like this.

i3/any amd cpu should be paired with Nvidia GPUs
i5 preferably overclocked any gpu is fine

[FatYak]

michaelius, on 02 February 2015 - 01:49 PM, said:

It should also be noted that AMD gpus have less efficient drivers so they should absolutly not be combined with slower low end CPUs in a game like this.

i3/any amd cpu should be paired with Nvidia GPUs
i5 preferably overclocked any gpu is fine

Is this actually true or is it one of those old wives tails that hangs around long past its use by date

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Verapamil, on 03 February 2015 - 02:58 AM, said:

Is this actually true or is it one of those old wives tails that hangs around long past its use by date

Wives tale

[Flapdrol]

There's some truth to it.

[mad kat]

Anyone willing to give me a Noobs guide on tweaking my FX-7100 Cpu, there's so much information on here I'm a little lost. Can anything be improved like in the User.cfg without overclocking or is going all out to 3.3ghz the only way?

Rather mess with the game settings than the laptops TBH.

[SappInfernaWulf]

Smokeyjedi, on 30 January 2015 - 09:12 AM, said:

WOW, just wow. http://www.cpubenchm...thlon+II+X4+620

Yo jedi you benchmarked the 620 not the 640 LMFAO if your trying to debunk someone at least bench the processor they posted not what you think they posted LMFAO Now whos owned