92 replies to this topic

[Vulpesveritas]

@Silent
One problem with that is FX is only 5-10% slower per clock vs Phenom II, and IPC means squat without clock speed, and the inverse is also true.

That said, is Intel faster at this time? Sure, if you have a large budget and already have a top end graphics card, or don't multitask or game, and only use low threaded and/or older applications.

[C u j o]

Vulpesveritas, on 11 July 2012 - 02:46 PM, said:

That said, is Intel faster at this time? Sure, if you have a large budget and already have a top end graphics card, or don't multitask or game, and only use low threaded and/or older applications.

From an article at Tomshardware titled: AMD or Intel: Which Offers Better Gaming Performance?

Quote

AMD’s Phenom II X4 955 and FX-4100 could certainly appeal to buyers who insist on the ability to handle four threads at a time. At their $125 and $110 respective price points, however, they’re too close to the Hyper-Threaded Core i3-2100 to earn a distinguished recommendation. In our last sub-$200 gaming CPU round-up, we showed that the Core i3-2100 can match AMD's Phenom II X4 955, even while background tasks run in parallel with a game. So, we couldn't even speculate that Intel's Core-i3 2100 might disappoint in a real-world environment with applications running in the background.

Interestingly, the best in AMD's FX family is its affordable FX-4100. Neither the FX-6100 nor the FX-8120 offer an advantage over this $110 model. Otherwise, things look bleak for AMD enthusiasts hunting for a new gaming rig. You can make the argument that the frame rates offered by FX and Phenom II processors are sufficient, but that's a tough stand to take in light of the competitive benchmarks. Let's be clear; in GPU-bound games, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference. But, to be perfectly frank,are the obvious choice in titles that do demonstrate reliance on host processing power. It simply doesn’t make sense to spend more for less. And, in many games, high-end AMD processors demonstrate a quantifiable performance deficit compared to the Core i3-2100. For $190, a stock Core i5-2400 gets you more gaming prowess than any AMD CPU can hope to deliver right now, even overclocked.

The full article can be read at this link
http://www.tomshardw...hmark,3120.html

Draw your own conclusions based on fact

Edited by C u j o, 11 July 2012 - 04:48 PM.

[Vulpesveritas]

C u j o, on 11 July 2012 - 04:42 PM, said:

From an article at Tomshardware titled: AMD or Intel: Which Offers Better Gaming Performance?
The full article can be read at this link
http://www.tomshardw...hmark,3120.html
Draw your own conclusions based on fact

Fun fact, that conclusion by the reviewer is an opinion, not a fact.


Sadly for their opinions, MWO as well as most future titles of various games favor more cores to single thread performance. And while the i3 is good, an overclocked Phenom II or FX-6200 is a better choice.
Compared to an i5 without an unlocked multiplier, an AMD processor can be faster if overclocked. Sandy only has a 20% higher clock - to - clock, core - to -core performance advantage. A phenom II clocked 25% higher would have an advantage. It's not until the i5-2500k is there an undisputed match there on the CPU end.

Though, that will likely not be the case in the long run, with the AMD octocores having more processing power overall, and games becoming more and more multithreaded, as other applications. Also, I don't know any person who uses their computer only for gaming, and in non-gaming tasks those extra cores will help. Plus, there are applications that run in the background which can take advantage of your extra cores on a hexacore or octacore.

And as time passes with DX11 taking over, less and less load will go on the CPU, and instead move to the GPU, as DX11 allows for GPU computing to take a prominent role in games, physics being a predominant use.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Vulpesveritas, on 11 July 2012 - 07:50 PM, said:

Fun fact, that conclusion by the reviewer is an opinion, not a fact.


Sadly for their opinions, MWO as well as most future titles of various games favor more cores to single thread performance. And while the i3 is good, an overclocked Phenom II or FX-6200 is a better choice.
Compared to an i5 without an unlocked multiplier, an AMD processor can be faster if overclocked. Sandy only has a 20% higher clock - to - clock, core - to -core performance advantage. A phenom II clocked 25% higher would have an advantage. It's not until the i5-2500k is there an undisputed match there on the CPU end.

Though, that will likely not be the case in the long run, with the AMD octocores having more processing power overall, and games becoming more and more multithreaded, as other applications. Also, I don't know any person who uses their computer only for gaming, and in non-gaming tasks those extra cores will help. Plus, there are applications that run in the background which can take advantage of your extra cores on a hexacore or octacore.

And as time passes with DX11 taking over, less and less load will go on the CPU, and instead move to the GPU, as DX11 allows for GPU computing to take a prominent role in games, physics being a predominant use.

Getting boring now, you now want to compare overclocking AMD CPU's against non overclocked Intel models?

At the top end in the immediate future quad core threaded games are it, the odd game or two may make use of more, but not efficiently it also prices gamers out of the market which is not a smooth move for a company looking to make money.

Fact is TH may be biased you might be right, but still they have tested all those chips you have not. The FX series have their place but they are not so dominant as you try to make out in every build that surfaces.

We could take this to any other tech forum, and i can guarentee you this is the only place you will find people suggesting FX series chips as often as they...now for every plank out there there are also very intelligent people that post (as we have some here too).

In the long run, i guess it depends weather posters want to trust the random forum poster, or every tech review site and their paid staff who actually get their hands on all this kit.


The forums here, are as AMD/Asrock biased as TH is Intel biased.

And the 4170 is the best FX chip for a gamer for the money.

Edited by DV McKenna, 11 July 2012 - 11:23 PM.

[Vulpesveritas]

DV McKenna, on 11 July 2012 - 11:07 PM, said:

Getting boring now, you now want to compare overclocking AMD CPU's against non overclocked Intel models?

At the top end in the immediate future quad core threaded games are it, the odd game or two may make use of more, but not efficiently it also prices gamers out of the market which is not a smooth move for a company looking to make money.

Fact is TH may be biased you might be right, but still they have tested all those chips you have not. The FX series have their place but they are not so dominant as you try to make out in every build that surfaces.

We could take this to any other tech forum, and i can guarentee you this is the only place you will find people suggesting FX series chips as often as they...now for every plank out there there are also very intelligent people that post (as we have some here too).

In the long run, i guess it depends weather posters want to trust the random forum poster, or every tech review site and their paid staff who actually get their hands on all this kit.


The forums here, are as AMD/Asrock biased as TH is Intel biased.

And the 4170 is the best FX chip for a gamer for the money.

Okay, so you want to point out a better AMD 990FX board at $150 and 200 for gaming? As well as the other points that I recommend AsRock boards over their competitors? It's not so much AsRock, as other brands with comparable quality (Asus and Gigabyte) don't have boards as well priced as they do as often.

As far as it goes thread count wise, a quad core is great for gaming... on a clean system with no other programs running. Having the extra couple of threads makes real life performance better on an FX-6200 vs an FX-4170. And while they're not GREAT processors, they're good ones. (By good I mean they are able to compete.) And if an individual does tasks other than gaming, the multithread performance of the 6200 is a much better option for overall performance.

And the main point of an Overclocked chip vs a non overclocked one is the non overclocked one is considerably more expensive than the one you can overclock to meet the performance of the other, albeit consuming more power in the process.

As far as your opinions, what do you think is flawed with my recommendations? And your reasoning behind it perhaps?

Edited by Vulpesveritas, 11 July 2012 - 11:35 PM.

[BuffyYasha]

Vulpesveritas, on 11 July 2012 - 07:50 PM, said:

Fun fact, that conclusion by the reviewer is an opinion, not a fact.


Sadly for their opinions, MWO as well as most future titles of various games favor more cores to single thread performance. And while the i3 is good, an overclocked Phenom II or FX-6200 is a better choice.
Compared to an i5 without an unlocked multiplier, an AMD processor can be faster if overclocked. Sandy only has a 20% higher clock - to - clock, core - to -core performance advantage. A phenom II clocked 25% higher would have an advantage. It's not until the i5-2500k is there an undisputed match there on the CPU end.

Though, that will likely not be the case in the long run, with the AMD octocores having more processing power overall, and games becoming more and more multithreaded, as other applications. Also, I don't know any person who uses their computer only for gaming, and in non-gaming tasks those extra cores will help. Plus, there are applications that run in the background which can take advantage of your extra cores on a hexacore or octacore.

And as time passes with DX11 taking over, less and less load will go on the CPU, and instead move to the GPU, as DX11 allows for GPU computing to take a prominent role in games, physics being a predominant use.

I'm not sure from where you get the Information that the AMD FX-8150 has more processing power - i looked at some Techreviews and the FX was always behind the i5-2500k. The the FX has no "real" 8 Cores - it has 4 Moduls - not more.
The FX Series is made for server applications - not really for the final customers (and gaming).
And in many games even the dualcore i3 is better then the FX with his 4 moduls.
Programms running in the background make no difference - look at your CPU usage when you work normally. My CPU never goes over 10% - and I have about 5 Programms open (vlc,word,adobe,firefox...).

But i would advice a AMD Radeon HD 7870/7850 with a Intel Core i5-3570K.
It isn't the cheapest setup - but has enought power for the next years.

(I'm sorry for my bad english - but I am a nativ german)

Edited by BuffyYasha, 11 July 2012 - 11:51 PM.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Vulpesveritas, on 11 July 2012 - 11:33 PM, said:

As far as your opinions, what do you think is flawed with my recommendations? And your reasoning behind it perhaps?

Answer me this why are you AMD's sole champion? Why does no other tech review site agree with your assessments and suggestions?
What makes you more knowledgeable without having tried the products your suggesting?
Why does everywhere else put Intel duel cores I3/Low end Intel Quad cores ahead of every AMD chip?
Is it possibly because they are better chips for now, for old games and most new games (optimized across a range of CPU's and GPU's) and still hold that upgrade potential to Ivybridge in 3+ years time?

Quote

I'm not sure from where you get the Information that the AMD FX-8150 has more processing power - i looked at some Techreviews and the FX was always behind the i5-2500k. The the FX has no "real" 8 Cores - it has 4 Moduls - not more.
The FX Series is made for server applications - not really for the final customers (and gaming).

But i would advice a AMD Radeon HD 7870/7850with a Intel Core i5-3570K.

It isn't the cheapest setup - but has enought power for the next years.

It doesn't very few of the AMD chips can compete but he is good at making arguments that make them appear to be, he is very knowledgeable and has great advice on every subject.
His problem is, his bias shines through when it comes to CPU/Mobo.

At $150-200?
http://www.newegg.co...N82E16813128514
http://www.newegg.co...N82E16813131736
http://www.newegg.co...N82E16813128509
http://www.newegg.co...N82E16813130650
http://www.newegg.co...N82E16813130649

The only place Asrock are clear cut winners, are the less than $150 boards

Edited by DV McKenna, 11 July 2012 - 11:46 PM.

[Shivus]

Comparisons are being made price point to price point here. Most sites also do this but the community tends to forget that fact the instant one flagship has a sound victory. After all, you wouldn't expect a $250 GPU to perform the same as a $150 GPU, and the CPU should be held to no different standard. The amd processors are at the same pricepoint as locked intel dual core i3's and still a bit below locked i5's. To compare these to the i5 2500k is like comparing a volvo to a BMW on city streets. Yes the BMW looks nicer and costs more, but generally the two cars will be forced to travel at the same rate of speed because of the speed limit governing legal travel, the GPU establishes the speed limit, and only when you have a high powered GPU do you see the unlocked intel quads pull ahead since the game shifts more towards cpu power bottlenecking performance. Now there are certain titles that are heavily cpu bound and don't obey the same speed limit like the autobahn but one has to judge on his own if those numbers invalidate the lower price point. It's very much a personal situation: Anyone with a core2quad or phenom II is better off going for the 2500k, waiting to see how piledriver does, or just waiting for haswell and the next generation. Anyone with an older dual core or Phenom I quad core should consider the current quad and hexa core cpu's as lower cost alternatives to the i5's and would certainly see a sizable performance increase assuming their GPU is also up to snuff.

[Vulpesveritas]

BuffyYasha, on 11 July 2012 - 11:35 PM, said:

I'm not sure from where you get the Information that the AMD FX-8150 has more processing power - i looked at some Techreviews and the FX was always behind the i5-2500k. The the FX has no "real" 8 Cores - it has 4 Moduls - not more.
The FX Series is made for server applications - not really for the final customers (and gaming).

But i would advice a AMD Radeon HD 7870/7850 with a Intel Core i5-3570K.
It isn't the cheapest setup - but has enought power for the next years.

(I'm sorry for my bad english - but I am a nativ german)

The FX-8150 has 8 integer cores and 4 floating point cores. The i5 has 4 integer cores and 4 floating point cores. The 8150 dominates in multitasking and integer tasks, the i5 is far superior in floating point math.

The 8150 in any case, is not a gamer chip. The 8120 is a better option for a casual user, or an overclocker looking for pushing threads, and for gaming a 4170 or 6200 is a better option, the 6200 for a computer not solely devoted to gaming.

DV McKenna, on 11 July 2012 - 11:36 PM, said:

Answer me this why are you AMD's sole champion? Why does no other tech review site agree with your assessments and suggestions?
What makes you more knowledgeable without having tried the products your suggesting?



It doesn't very few of the AMD chips can compete but he is good at making arguments that make them appear to be, he is very knowledgeable and has great advice on every subject.
His problem is, his bias shines through when it comes to CPU/Mobo.

As far as the chips go, I notice a lot of reviews out there by professional review sites championing single thread performance. Even when AMD wins in modern games and multithread applications, they tend to herald Intel as the winner. For price / performance, I have yet to see something which shows AMD to be trumped in the $200 and below price segment when overclockers are taken into account, or in multitasking performance. Will older games or low threaded titles favor Intel? Sure. But if a person isn't looking to play only low threaded titles and the CPU they are getting will play older titles at 120+FPS already, why go for the chip that will do poorer for future use over the age of the machine, with low threaded titles becoming ever the minority, and outside of the non-overclockable i5s near $200, Intel has no quad cores sub-$200, and while the i3 has 4 threads, it still isn't as strong as a true quad core Phenom II at this time in multithread. Taking the upper end FX-6200 and 4170 into account, AMD holds strong performance in the sub-$180 range.
Keeping into account most current and so long as things continue to progress to DX11, future titles shall become less and less CPU dependent, with traditional CPU tasks being implemented on the GPU. As games will generally gain more of an advantage from a stronger GPU, why sacrifice gaming performance for that shiny Intel badge and the performance for the past which in most cases you can't realistically see, and the minority of current games?

And once again, can you find motherboards at those price points which would be better? Or any reason, should Odin's figures be true, why you should pay more for a competing brand which has no real statistical advantage in reliability?

Also, I use a Phenom II X4 daily, and for the FX processor I have the many quite happy people I have helped in the past months, both online and in person, who have yet to make a single complaint with their AMD processor. Or anything else really. And I do keep in touch with most of them.

AsRock motherboard wise, I fail to see how any of those boards are "better" at their price points. I will continue that debate in a PM to keep this from going off topic with motherboards.

Edited by Vulpesveritas, 12 July 2012 - 12:44 AM.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Vulpesveritas, on 11 July 2012 - 11:46 PM, said:

As far as the chips go, I notice a lot of reviews out there by professional review sites championing single thread performance. Even when AMD wins in modern games and multithread applications, they tend to herald Intel as the winner. For price / performance, I have yet to see something which shows AMD to be trumped in the $200 and below price segment when overclockers are taken into account, or in multitasking performance. Will older games or low threaded titles favor Intel? Sure. But if a person isn't looking to play only low threaded titles and the CPU they are getting will play older titles at 120+FPS already, why go for the chip that will do poorer for future use over the age of the machine, with low threaded titles becoming ever the minority, and outside of the non-overclockable i5s near $200, Intel has no quad cores sub-$200, and while the i3 has 4 threads, it still isn't as strong as a true quad core Phenom II at this time in multithread. Taking the upper end FX-6200 and 4170 into account, AMD holds strong performance in the sub-$180 range.
Keeping into account most current and so long as things continue to progress to DX11, future titles shall become less and less CPU dependent, with traditional CPU tasks being implemented on the GPU. As games will generally gain more of an advantage from a stronger GPU, why sacrifice gaming performance for that shiny Intel badge and the performance for the past which in most cases you can't realistically see, and the minority of current games?

You don't base a review on something that a small % of the market do (overclocking), we keep hearing this thing about multitasking and it is a bit general and a bit misleading, in general multi tasking playing a game on one monitor, music,skype,internet,youtube whatever open on another AMD does not win, neither does intel any modern day CPU will handle that.

Multi threaded apps is another story, productivity apps yea, AMD has a slight edge there, for straight up gaming though? Your lieing to say AMD processors are better than their comparative Intel ones because its just not true.

Buy a processor you can't get full use of because games are just not there yet (over quad core) or buy a CPU you can get full use from now and the immediate future (Dual/Quad).

Sorry vulp, just not buying it anymore you have not tested these bits of kit side by side for comparison purposes, and all the review sites that have, disagree with you.
But i suppose they have had payments from Intel,or don't care about ethics.

Edited by DV McKenna, 12 July 2012 - 12:00 AM.

[Elkarlo]

Vulpesveritas, on 11 July 2012 - 11:45 AM, said:

For gaming, a much better option would be to go with an AMD FX-6200 and then upgrade that GPU to a Radeon HD 6870 or 7850.

I swapped from a 870 Board with 965 to a 970 Board with a FX6100.
Both Systems with a 6870 1Gb from XFX.
Performance Increase was noteable, and Crysis runs like a Dream on all Details on.

The 970 Chipset is enough for Single Grafiks use, and you get 14-20 Watts LESS powerconsume on the Motherboard. Some Boards supports (Unspected) Dual Grafik but the Performance will Suffer as the 970 only have 32 PCIE lanes so you will have only have 16 and 8 lanes maximum usable for the GPU's. ( You need a Lane for the Southbridge for each Peg Slot etc..) And considerable Cheaper...

The 970 is a real alternative to a 990FX when you want only single Grafikcards Support.

Edited by Elkarlo, 12 July 2012 - 12:03 AM.

[Black Mamba]

Currently the 7800 series are excellent for their price.

Edit: for CPU i'd go with an Intel, specifically the i5 3570K or even the non K ones if you're not into OCing.

Edited by Black Mamba, 12 July 2012 - 12:05 AM.

[Taiji]

The I5 is better for gaming except with games that are well optimised to use more than 4 cores.

... Can anyone think of a game optimised for more than quad core?

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Taiji, on 12 July 2012 - 12:05 AM, said:

The I5 is better for gaming except with games that are well optimised to use more than 4 cores.

... Can anyone think of a game optimised for more than quad core?

Wait for it.

[Vulpesveritas]

DV McKenna, on 11 July 2012 - 11:58 PM, said:

You don't base a review on something that a small % of the market do (overclocking), we keep hearing this thing about multitasking and it is a bit general and a bit misleading, in general multi tasking playing a game on one monitor, music,skype,internet,youtube whatever open on another AMD does not win, neither does intel any modern day CPU will handle that.

Multi threaded apps is another story, productivity apps yea, AMD has a slight edge there, for straight up gaming though? Your lieing to say AMD processors are better than their comparative Intel ones because its just not true.

Buy a processor you can't get full use of because games are just not there yet (over quad core) or buy a CPU you can get full use from now and the immediate future (Dual/Quad).

Sorry vulp, just not buying it anymore you have not tested these bits of kit side by side for comparison purposes, and all the review sites that have, disagree with you.
But i suppose they have had payments from Intel,or don't care about ethics.

While it is a small % of the market, it is something a reasonable % of those who are looking HERE on these forums for this game appear to be interested in doing. I even state over in my CPU guide that if you're not overclocking the i3 is in many cases a better option at $100-150.
And for gaming, how am I lying? More and more games are becoming multithreaded, and taking advantage of four threads is becoming quite commonplace now.
And beyond that, once again for gaming, why sacrifice frames per second in games for that shiny Intel badge?

For more than four cores, optimized yes;

http://en.inpai.com....986&pageid=8150
Well optimized, not really. Though once again, it will reduce the load on your for primary cores running the game to run your background programs on that extra couple of cores.

But oh wait, what's the difference in price between the CPUs then? Oh yeah, between the lowest end i5 for someone who isn't gaming, $190, and the FX-4170, $150, that's a $40 difference. Doesn't seem like a big deal, until you consider that would be a bump up from say, a Radeon HD 7770 to a 6870, or any others of the like. Taking into only unlocked processors, we look at the 2500k at $220, and let's for good measure bump up to the FX-6200. at $160. Now it is a $60 difference; the difference between a Radeon HD 7850 and a 7870, which in itself is about a 15% difference;

Or about 7-10 frames per second different.
Yet, unless you're playing RTS titles or more lightly threaded titles, you won't see a difference. And even in most older lightly threaded titles, you still won't see a difference. In many cases, the AMD CPU with a better graphics card will give you a better overall experience in games.

Have I made any false claims so far? Or are you going to claim that the majority of games that are out now, and will come out, do not tend to be more GPU heavy when compared to CPU heavy?

And with that taken into account, that they wouldn't have a better overall experience with a better GPU?

As far as going from a X4 to an X6 CPU, those extra two cores give extra resources for background programs to use, making any hit on performance in games far more unlikely due to a background program coming into use.

[Shivus]

Black Mamba, on 12 July 2012 - 12:03 AM, said:

Currently the 7800 series are excellent for their price.

Edit: for CPU i'd go with an Intel, specifically the i5 3570K or even the non K ones if you're not into OCing.

I'd still go 2500k before 3570k. Better temps, better overclock ability with comparable speed at those high overclocks. The only pro ivybridge has going for it if you overclock is PCI-E 3.0 and that's only useful if you're using 8x lanes with crossfire or SLI high power GPU's.

But yes, non "K" ivybridges are superior to their sandybridge counterparts.

Taiji, on 12 July 2012 - 12:05 AM, said:

The I5 is better for gaming except with games that are well optimised to use more than 4 cores.

... Can anyone think of a game optimised for more than quad core?

No one's debating that the i5 is better for its price. It's a fact. What is being debated is whether the performance of the 4100/6100 is worthwhile for its lower price. These arguments could replace AMD FX with Intel i3 and have the same validity because people are arguing "the best" not "the best for the price point and purpose."

Also vulpe, if overclocking is on the table, why use the 6200 as a comparison? From what I've seen the 6100 overclocks to the same speeds and saves $20 for an $80 difference.

Edited by Shivus, 12 July 2012 - 12:27 AM.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Vulpesveritas, on 12 July 2012 - 12:20 AM, said:

For more than four cores, optimized yes;

http://en.inpai.com....986&pageid=8150
Well optimized, not really. Though once again, it will reduce the load on your for primary cores running the game to run your background programs on that extra couple of cores.

About as interesting as this one

[Vulpesveritas]

DV McKenna, on 12 July 2012 - 12:57 AM, said:

About as interesting as this one

http://www.guru3d.co...enchmark-test/3
http://www.hitechleg...8/13498?start=2

I'll admit everyone gets different scores, and that the scores for that site may have been from background programs running, and/or from the advantages of thubian over deneb.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

I'll pay no attention to those beta ones, beta benchmarks can be a bit flaky unless they were taken at the end of beta with all the optimizations done.

So we have one game thats fairly decently multi threaded past 4 cores.

[i_dot_jeff]

I would recommend budgeting for an i7 ivy bridge if you can. It may add another 12-18 months life cycle on your machine. Graphics card, I have a GTX570 which does the job but the HD7770 looks okay.

I would suggest looking on graphic card comparison sites so you can see the difference in frame rate based on your budget.