Help with CPU choice

Discussion of all forms of processors, from AMD to Intel to VIA.

Moderators: Flying Fox, morphine

Help with CPU choice

Postposted on Tue Jul 16, 2013 4:30 pm

[Mod's note: Please jump to here for the latest specs. I have decided to merge these 2 threads because this may provide some context to the new direction.]

I have always went the amd route, and have no regrets.At this point I'm building another rig, and need help in deciding what cpu I should use.My FX 6300 is overclocked at 4.4g on 1.35v.Load temps never exceed 42C.I turn off all green stuff in the bios, so my overclock is not affected.I do set up profiles.One for gaming, and one for everyday use.My profile for everyday use on stock speeds is 1.27v.Prime testing it never exceeded 32C, so it runs very cool for simple tasks, and less wear and tear on the circuits.

FX Cpu's

The trade off here seems to be the motherboard, and cooling.Better quality is needed.I'm using a 6300 at 95 Watts, but If I jump to a 8350, I'm looking at 125 watts.Something a found out about power comsumption.TDP is not the maximum that the cpu can consume in watts. Not even close if you read how the TDP is figured.The max current that the cpu can consume even in a stock condition is much less when overclocked. The TDP is the low, not on the high side, for sure in relation to actual watts pulled thru the VRM circuit. TDP is a calculated amount of heat to be put off by the cpu, and removed when loaded to a certain level, and that level is not a 100% load. That is why the users with cheap boards, and 125W TDP cpus have run into issues with the FX processors.

TDP is not the max current draw of the cpu. It is only relative.Overclocking a 8 / 6 core fx processor 24/7 is why some boards fail. Not enough real beans in the VRM circuit of most boards. Especially the entry level boards.

NOT a SINGLE FX processor is designed to run with all cores on, and in WFO mode for any length of time, and yet we adjust the FX processor to run just that way and call it merely overclocking. It is far away from just a plain overspeeding of the cpu, it is hammering the cpu and circuits with ALL cores on all the time. NO wonder the entry level boards cannot push the high overclocks with ALL the cores on, and completely out of the design parameters of the FX processor.

I'm a gamer.I only use 1 24" monitor at 1080p, with GTX 760 /770 depending.I have a 660 FTW SC atm.Going the 8350 route I will need a quality motherboard, and good cooling.The Intel route is were I need all the advice I can get. Go Haswell , IB or AMD.On a side note,I really want to go Intel this time.People compare fps in games between both platforms .(ie) A 8350 is comparable to a i5 3750 and wins in some games.I know the i5 will win hands down.Its not the fps that hurts the fx cpu's in games, but rather frame latencies.
Last edited by silentvoices on Tue Jul 16, 2013 7:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
silentvoices
Gerbil
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:32 am

Re: Help with CPU choice

Postposted on Tue Jul 16, 2013 6:08 pm

I would just stick to your fx6300 and get a better graphics card if frame rate is your problem. I wouldn't run sli 660s with a amd CPU but I am sure it could power a 770 at 1080p with AA and AF and max setting on most every game. I would think you should be able to get by with your 660 at 1080p.

Why do you need to upgrade at this point if your only running1080p?

If you are going to go intel the 4770k can't be beat. Temps are the same as with ivy for the most part and if you want to overclock your going to have to get a good cooler if your going to push the voltage past 1.25volts. But most will hit 4.2-4.4 without raising the voltage. A 30$ hyper 212 evo will probably get you to 4.4 ghz but I like the closed loop AIO water coolers.
2600k HT on@4705mhz 8gb Cas9 1600 mem 2x EVGA GTX770 4gb Classified cards in SLI @1320 mhz core and 2003 mhz mem,mounted in CM HAF922 with a TX-850 PSU 2xHTPC's 2xi3 2120 3.3ghz dual core,1xasus LP HD6570 1xHIS hd7750@1150core1325mem,55"PanyVT30
vargis14
Graphmaster Gerbil
 
Posts: 1186
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2010 6:03 pm
Location: philly suburbs

Re: Help with CPU choice

Postposted on Tue Jul 16, 2013 7:35 pm

I am running a budget board on the FX 6300. The 660 does a great job, as far as game play.No problem with frame rates, but there are limitations.Not all games I play will run on ultra, which is limited by the gpu.Metro last light and Crysis 3 will put any set up to the test.I'm fine with med/ high settings on certain games.

The motherboard is a Gigabyte 970A-UD3.I have 3 of these boards and all run fine, expect one took a dive recently.It has a 8+2 power phase, but the vrm seemed to give out on my oc.6 months 24/7.Everything ran great including temps, so not sure why it crapped out.I use a 212 Evo,and they are great coolers for there price point.Anything over 4.5g I would use water.I only included all that info on FX cpu's to help other people that might have questions.I would turn on some power saving features on my overclock, but CPUz shows the voltage bouncing back and forth like a multimeter gone bad.No affect on the board, but it just bothers me top see that constant fluctuation.Thats why I set a profile for stock speeds at a low voltage.I game 30% of the time, and light task 70%.That set up seems to work out ok. Intel, at least IB has speed step, and offset voltage to throttle down oc voltage more efficiently.

Sure I could upgrade the video card, but just want to build a higher end gaming pc.Haswell would be the logical choice, but just wanted opinions.

Thanks.
silentvoices
Gerbil
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:32 am

Re: Help with CPU choice

Postposted on Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:19 pm

$190 ASRock Z87 Extreme 6 LGA1150 ATX motherboard

$240 -80 combo Intel Core i5-4670K quad-core 3.4 GHz LGA1150 processor
or $350 -100 combo Intel Core i7-4770K quad-core HT 3.5 GHz LGA1150 processor

$140 -25 code "EMCXNWP45" 2x8 GiB PC3-14900 GeIL GEV316GB1866C9DC (DDR3-1866, CAS 9, 1.5 V)

etc.

Does hyper-threading provide $90 worth of benefit?
i7-4770K, H70, Gryphon Z87, 16 GiB, R9-290, SSD, 2 HD, Blu-ray, SB ZX, TJ08-E, SS-660XP², 3007WFP+2001FP, RK-9000BR, MX518
JustAnEngineer
Gerbil God
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 15425
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2002 7:00 pm
Location: The Heart of Dixie

Re: Help with CPU choice

Postposted on Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:29 pm

silentvoices wrote:The trade off here seems to be the motherboard, and cooling.Better quality is needed.I'm using a 6300 at 95 Watts, but If I jump to a 8350, I'm looking at 125 watts.Something a found out about power comsumption.TDP is not the maximum that the cpu can consume in watts. Not even close if you read how the TDP is figured.The max current that the cpu can consume even in a stock condition is much less when overclocked. The TDP is the low, not on the high side, for sure in relation to actual watts pulled thru the VRM circuit. TDP is a calculated amount of heat to be put off by the cpu, and removed when loaded to a certain level, and that level is not a 100% load. That is why the users with cheap boards, and 125W TDP cpus have run into issues with the FX processors.

People with cheap boards run into trouble because they cheaped out on the board.

I've run both an 8150 and an 8320 at 100% load on all cores (Folding@home), on low-mid-range ($100-ish) Asus mobos, with inexpensive HSFs rated for 125W. No problems. CPU temps stay in spec (though the fan does get a little loud), and the system is rock solid stable.

I've also never seen the on-die power monitor on the 8320 ever get above 127W, and even those were only brief spikes. (Didn't check this on the 8150, I was running an older Linux distro on that box which did not report CPU power draw.)

silentvoices wrote:TDP is not the max current draw of the cpu. It is only relative.Overclocking a 8 / 6 core fx processor 24/7 is why some boards fail. Not enough real beans in the VRM circuit of most boards. Especially the entry level boards.

Why is this a surprise? Overclocking on an entry level board is asking for trouble, period. Just because a BIOS setting is there doesn't mean changing it will result in a stable or reliable system.
(this space intentionally left blank)
just brew it!
Administrator
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 37705
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2002 10:51 pm
Location: Somewhere, having a beer

Re: Help with CPU choice

Postposted on Tue Jul 16, 2013 9:24 pm

The GA970-UD3 is about 110.00 give or take a few dollars.Its not a bad motherboard at that price point.Many other cheaper boards that have 4+2 power phases.The ASrock Extreme 3 and the D3 on the Gigabyte boards come to mind.Many people running fx cpus on those boards.Now that a bad choice for overclocking.This is the first UD3 I had go bad out of my 3 boards in 3 years. That's why I chose a 95 watt psu vs a 125 watt psu.I had a 965 125watt oc @ 4g 24/7 for 2 years on a GA970-UD3 with no problems. I am not using that particular board at the moment, but it still works fine. The next step up is at 135 to 150 dollars range.Then your getting the 990 chipset,and slightly better heat sinks.The difference now, is I know what to look for to maintain higher overclocks.Your looking at about 180 - 250 for a quality board .Intel has better choices, and more diversity in motherboards imo.The power requirements are not like fx cpus.Look at the choices in the 1155 socket.
Last edited by silentvoices on Tue Jul 16, 2013 10:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
silentvoices
Gerbil
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:32 am

Re: Help with CPU choice

Postposted on Tue Jul 16, 2013 9:40 pm

silentvoices wrote:Intel has better choices, and more diversity in motherboards imo.The power requirements are not like fx cpus.Look at the choices on the 1155 socket.

Supply follows demand. Most enthusiasts are ditching AMD these days since they've fallen behind the curve, so there's little incentive for mobo makers to go to the trouble of providing a lot of different choices for AM3+. Sad, but true. (And yes, I'm posting this from my 8320!)

APUs are still great bang for the buck in the budget sector, but that doesn't help the power users and gamers.
(this space intentionally left blank)
just brew it!
Administrator
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 37705
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2002 10:51 pm
Location: Somewhere, having a beer

Re: Help with CPU choice

Postposted on Tue Jul 16, 2013 9:40 pm

I will always run an amd system. I love overclocking amd's.Great for multi-tasking too! I plan to build a gaming rig on the Intel platform. Don't count amd out.Once the new gen consoles arrive, games will transfer much better to amd cpu's. The FX 8350 is a great deal for 200 dollars.It has many other uses beside gaming.Then again it can hold its own in most games.The future will tell.AMD needs to step up to the plate and release Streamroller.Look like that is not the game plan for 2014.It all in the mobile sector.I agree those APUs are a great bang for your dollar.
silentvoices
Gerbil
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:32 am

Re: Help with CPU choice

Postposted on Tue Jul 16, 2013 10:27 pm

Snag a 8350 then.

What kind of power supplies are you using Cheap power supplies can kill motherboards and CPUs

Having a good high quality power supply with 150-200 watts of extra power is the way to go so it runs at around 70% capacity when everything is overclocked and maxed out power wise. That way your pretty much guaranteed minimal ripple and voltage droop.
2600k HT on@4705mhz 8gb Cas9 1600 mem 2x EVGA GTX770 4gb Classified cards in SLI @1320 mhz core and 2003 mhz mem,mounted in CM HAF922 with a TX-850 PSU 2xHTPC's 2xi3 2120 3.3ghz dual core,1xasus LP HD6570 1xHIS hd7750@1150core1325mem,55"PanyVT30
vargis14
Graphmaster Gerbil
 
Posts: 1186
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2010 6:03 pm
Location: philly suburbs

Re: Help with CPU choice

Postposted on Tue Jul 16, 2013 11:24 pm

silentvoices wrote:I will always run an amd system. I love overclocking amd's.Great for multi-tasking too!

I will continue to run them until they no longer provide reasonable price/performance in the mid-range (which I consider to be roughly $125-$200). As of today they still do; however power usage is definitely sub-optimal on the FX series (especially under load), which is a concern.

silentvoices wrote:I plan to build a gaming rig on the Intel platform.

A sensible decision.

silentvoices wrote:Don't count amd out.Once the new gen consoles arrive, games will transfer much better to amd cpu's.

This is certainly possible, but it is not a given. Consoles have a fixed hardware configuration, and console games are coded to live within those constraints. Unless you're content to run PC versions of those games which don't add anything beyond the console experience, AMD-based gaming PCs could still end up being CPU limited.

silentvoices wrote:The FX 8350 is a great deal for 200 dollars.It has many other uses beside gaming.

No argument there. The Bulldozer/Piledriver architecture (which facilitates lots of cores, but with somewhat lower per-core performance) works well for server and other heavily multi-process/multi-thread workloads.

silentvoices wrote:Then again it can hold its own in most games.

It would do a lot better if games were more optimized for lots of cores. Unfortunately, writing code that scales well to many cores is still a bit of an art... not something they teach you in school. Most game engine designers haven't gotten it completely right yet.

silentvoices wrote:The future will tell.AMD needs to step up to the plate and release Streamroller.Look like that is not the game plan for 2014.It all in the mobile sector.I agree those APUs are a great bang for your dollar.

Steamroller will probably be too little, too late. I expect it to be primarily a server product (assuming it ever sees the light of day). PC sales are falling, mobile is where it's at; that's where AMD will be putting their (limited) R&D dollars. It is probably unreasonable at this point to expect them to ever recapture the performance crown for desktop PCs.

****

Off-topic: Most people put a space after the period at the end of a sentence. :wink:
(this space intentionally left blank)
just brew it!
Administrator
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 37705
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2002 10:51 pm
Location: Somewhere, having a beer

Re: Help with CPU choice

Postposted on Wed Jul 17, 2013 9:27 am

1) To reiterate some, there is little benefit to be had going from an FX-6300 to FX-8350 for the cost in most cases. It's (unfortunately) still about frequency/IPC after you've got ~4 cores. Also, the GA970-UD3 is by no means a "budget board." It may not be a $200+ OC mobo, but it's no slouch.

2) You're on the right track with an Intel build for gaming. Sounds like you know the reasons behind that, so I wont give any references. How about the Asus Gryphon Z87 for $170 and includes the Gryphon thermal armor for free ($45 value). Pair that up with an i5-4670K and you're set. 8GB RAM is enough for gaming, especially at today's prices.

JustAnEngineer wrote:Does hyper-threading provide $90 worth of benefit?

Not for gaming. (click gaming tab under chart)

just brew it! wrote:Off-topic: Most people put a space after the period at the end of a sentence.

2 spaces actually.
i5-3570K, ASRock Z77 Pro4-m, Asus GTX660 TOP, 120 GB Vertex 3 Max IOPS, 2 TB Samsung EcoGreen F4, 8GB G-Skill @1.25V, Silverstone PS07B
DPete27
Gerbil Jedi
Silver subscriber
 
 
Posts: 1656
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 12:50 pm
Location: Madison, Wisconsin

Re: Help with CPU choice

Postposted on Wed Jul 17, 2013 9:39 am

DPete27 wrote:
just brew it! wrote:Off-topic: Most people put a space after the period at the end of a sentence.

2 spaces actually.

Not any more. Most style guides now recommend against it.
(this space intentionally left blank)
just brew it!
Administrator
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 37705
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2002 10:51 pm
Location: Somewhere, having a beer

Re: Help with CPU choice

Postposted on Wed Jul 17, 2013 11:25 am

Thanks for the input gentelmen.

just brew it - I have been a AMD fan for years. The price performance ratio is always a good value. One major flaw on there FX line is definitely power consumption, and single threaded performance. I always use Corsair power supplies. I never cheap out on psu's. When my motherboard took I dive I noticed the fan was not spinning on the psu, but the power was still on. No sparks or unusual noises. The motherboard would not boot after a restart. This was a TX 650 Bronze. It's designed for the fan to cycle based on heat, so the fan not spinning, does not indicate a bad psu. Its basically a thermal overload switch, and cycles on heat.That's weird. A thermal switch is normally a fail safe switch vs a activation switch. I asked Corsair about how it cycles. I also lost 16g of Corsair Vengence ram. Was it the motherboard or the psu that caused my problem ? Not sure. I always check in CUPID Hardware monitor to look at voltage, and everything seemed in check before this happened. No psu tester. I swapped out power supplies with a working Corsair HX 750 watt psu. Still no love. Then I took out the ram and tested each stick in another pc. All sticks were toast except one dimm. Long story short. Sent the 6 month old psu, and 16g of ram to Corsair on a rma. No charge. They sent me a prepaid shipping label. Fortunately, I had another 4 gigs of G-skill, and used another 970 board, and pc booted fine. Not even sure if its worth the hassle to send Gigabyte the board back on a RMA. It was only 6 months old too.


DPete27- I really had a heck of a time deciding between Haswell vs IB. IB is a dead socket, so why downgrade on technology. It looks like the lottery draw with Haswell cpu's. If I can get a 4.4g oc with reasonable temps I would be very happy. Thanks for the reference to the ASUS GRYPHON Z87. I like those features. Good starting point. I'm only running (1) video card on a (24 ") monitor, but I have no problem paying for a quality board, with a better vrm design and heatsinks.


I have always went with Evga for video cards. The GTX 770 is a very sweet card. It has the dual double bearing quality fans. My 660 FTW SC is very similar, and cooling is great.Here is the drawback though. A 600 watt or greater power supply with a minimum of 42 amps on the +12 volt rail. The 760 only requires 30 amps on a +12 volt rail. Basically, the 770 is a rebranded 680 with higher clock speeds. The 760 is a decent trade off. Its basically a 670. LOL.
silentvoices
Gerbil
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:32 am

Re: Help with CPU choice

Postposted on Wed Jul 17, 2013 12:17 pm

silentvoices wrote:
NOT a SINGLE FX processor is designed to run with all cores on, and in WFO mode for any length of time, and yet we adjust the FX processor to run just that way and call it merely overclocking. It is far away from just a plain overspeeding of the cpu, it is hammering the cpu and circuits with ALL cores on all the time. NO wonder the entry level boards cannot push the high overclocks with ALL the cores on, and completely out of the design parameters of the FX processor.


I'm not sure what you mean. I have an FX-8350 and I sometimes do a lot of transcoding which maxes out the cores to something like 90% of each core's capacity (so the total is still around 90% for the whole CPU). Now I even undervolt this CPU and when I go down too low on the volts the PC hangs up when it's real busy, so I stay a notch above the voltage where the CPU hangs up at full/near full load. Running the CPU at stock settings will most likely not impact reliability as well as long as you have a good cooler.

Perhaps it's a motherboard issue? Obviously if the board wasn't designed very well you will encounter problems when maxing out the CPU. For GPUs it's another matter because there is perhaps no application capable of using all of a GPU's ALUs concurrently, so those TDP figures are probably what they measured in a real world worst use-case scenario, not the theoretical TDP when all transistors are firing up. Of course this can also apply to CPUs but you can't really run a CPU with all trannies firing away anyway. Besides, there's no way AMD, Intel or any other reputable IC design house will start selling a product without vigorously testing them for real-world use-case reliability.
The three pillars of my digital life: AMD FX-8350, Google Nexus 7 (Qualcomm Snapdragon S4 Pro), Intel Core i5-2450M
ronch
Gerbil Elite
 
Posts: 654
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 7:55 am
Location: C:\Program Files\

Re: Help with CPU choice

Postposted on Wed Jul 17, 2013 1:16 pm

Double post.
Last edited by silentvoices on Wed Jul 17, 2013 1:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
silentvoices
Gerbil
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:32 am

Re: Help with CPU choice

Postposted on Wed Jul 17, 2013 1:18 pm

silentvoices wrote:
ronch wrote:
silentvoices wrote:
NOT a SINGLE FX processor is designed to run with all cores on, and in WFO mode for any length of time, and yet we adjust the FX processor to run just that way and call it merely overclocking. It is far away from just a plain overspeeding of the cpu, it is hammering the cpu and circuits with ALL cores on all the time. NO wonder the entry level boards cannot push the high overclocks with ALL the cores on, and completely out of the design parameters of the FX processor.


I'm not sure what you mean. I have an FX-8350 and I sometimes do a lot of transcoding which maxes out the cores to something like 90% of each core's capacity (so the total is still around 90% for the whole CPU). Now I even undervolt this CPU and when I go down too low on the volts the PC hangs up when it's real busy, so I stay a notch above the voltage where the CPU hangs up at full/near full load. Running the CPU at stock settings will most likely not impact reliability as well as long as you have a good cooler.



I meant when your running higher overclocks with no power saving features on. Many people just turn off all the green and oc. Someone I know is using a Asus Crosshair V Formula with a 8350 @ 4.7g. For 24/7 usage he has cool and quiet and the other "green" power saving features in use. Therefore the cpu will jump to 4.7 @ 1.46 cpu v when a task needs it, and will drop to 1400 mhz @ 1.0 cpu v when just browsing.

Lets take my GA-970-UD3 board. It has a 8+2 power phase, but its still a 100 dollar board. When I use the power saving features on this board on 4.4g overclock it works fine, except for one major problem. The vrm fluctuates like a multimeter that cant adjust. I know this by looking at CPUz's, and see the voltage jump back in forth in real time. So whats the difference here. My guess. Cheaper vrm control, smaller heatsinks, and using a 970 chipset vs the 990. I never used any power saving features in the bios because I was afraid of it messing up my overclock. That's not a good Idea for a pc that's running 24/7. Those are my power saving feature results. Then I set up 2 profiles. One for gaming, on my overclock settings, and the other on stock speeds, on lower constant voltage @ 1.27v. I still see a v-droop, but having LLC set to extreme picks up the slack. On my everyday profile, I run at a constant 1.27v on the v-core at stock speeds. No more jumps with the vrm circuit. Even running prime stable for 2 hours it never hits over 32C. My 4.4g @ 1.35v prime results never exceed 42C. Now I found a happy medium using 2 profiles on a cheaper board. Next move. Quality AMD board. Then Quality Intel Board. Last. Pray everything works correct.

Last edited by silentvoices on Wed Jul 17, 2013 4:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
silentvoices
Gerbil
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:32 am

Re: Help with CPU choice

Postposted on Wed Jul 17, 2013 2:31 pm

@silentvoices

Oh, I thought you were talking about the inability of FX CPUs to max out all its cores at stock. Reliability is, of course, not guaranteed when you OC. Again, at stock, things should be just fine assuming your board doesn't suck or your CPU isn't faulty.
The three pillars of my digital life: AMD FX-8350, Google Nexus 7 (Qualcomm Snapdragon S4 Pro), Intel Core i5-2450M
ronch
Gerbil Elite
 
Posts: 654
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 7:55 am
Location: C:\Program Files\

Re: Help with CPU choice

Postposted on Wed Jul 17, 2013 5:53 pm

silentvoices wrote:I have been a AMD fan for years. The price performance ratio is always a good value.

You mean, "was" good value. That's almost entirely gone now, to everyone's sadness.
There is a fixed amount of intelligence on the planet, and the population keeps growing :(
morphine
Gerbil Khan
Silver subscriber
 
 
Posts: 9982
Joined: Fri Dec 27, 2002 8:51 pm
Location: Portugal (that's next to Spain)

Re: Help with CPU choice

Postposted on Wed Jul 17, 2013 7:37 pm

morphine wrote:
silentvoices wrote:I have been a AMD fan for years. The price performance ratio is always a good value.

You mean, "was" good value. That's almost entirely gone now, to everyone's sadness.


AMD = Great Value .

Go asked anyone in Europe what prices are for amd vs Intel.Its savings in the US, but even more abroad.

Lower end FX cpus like the FX-4XXX and FX-6XXX series are very full featured which may be more important to some people than gaming fps. All the FX cpus have AES and full hardware virtualization features. An i3 is missing AES and VT-d. And if you get an Intel K series cpu you are still missing out on VT-d. If you're specifically looking at mutithreaded performance, than oc'ed AMDs compete, but consume quite significantly more power.

Gaming - This is always a hot topic. For years, stupid PC hardware sites have maintained that CPUs have little impact on gaming performance; all you need is a decent graphics card. That position is largely supported by FPS averages, as most GPU tests are run using the most powerful CPU to prevent the CPU from being the limiting factor, but the FPS metric doesn't tell the whole story. Examining individual frame latencies better exposes the brief moments of stuttering that can disrupt otherwise smooth gameplay.

Yes, there is a difference in the gaming performance. Are you going to notice it in more than a couple games, no. The majority of games are going to be limited by your GPU. Long story short no one is going to solve any gaming bottlenecks by going from an 8350 to an i5. Second, you will notice a difference between the two when you start getting into multi-threaded apps.The things that Intel has a clear advantage in right now is per clock performance and power consumption.My 6300 and and a GTX 660 gives my great gaming performance. Sure, I'm not running all games on Ultra, but then again I'm not that anal. My view is amd makes great fx cpus for gaming and multi-tasking for alot less.I can still use my 6300 for so many games.People base all this performance on 5 bleeding edge games. Look at how many pc games came out in the last 5 years.My 6300 can burn through most. Add a Haswell for my next cpu, and that will cover everything else.
silentvoices
Gerbil
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:32 am

Re: Help with CPU choice

Postposted on Wed Jul 17, 2013 7:50 pm

Gaming benchmarks show the $201 Vishera FX-8350 getting stomped by the $200 Ivy Bridge Core i5-3470 and the $200 Haswell Core i5-4570. Where are the huge savings with AMD?

If AMD's processor designs were fabricated on Intel's 22nm process, we might see competition.
i7-4770K, H70, Gryphon Z87, 16 GiB, R9-290, SSD, 2 HD, Blu-ray, SB ZX, TJ08-E, SS-660XP², 3007WFP+2001FP, RK-9000BR, MX518
JustAnEngineer
Gerbil God
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 15425
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2002 7:00 pm
Location: The Heart of Dixie

Re: Help with CPU choice

Postposted on Wed Jul 17, 2013 9:42 pm

silentvoices wrote:Go asked anyone in Europe what prices are for amd vs Intel.Its savings in the US, but even more abroad.


I'm "anyone" and I'm in Europe, but you have it backward:
FX-8350 is the same price as an i5-3470, and the FX-4350 is €10 more than an i3-3220 which is the superior chip in every respect.

At the entry-level, intel's dual-cores are two, dedicated cores with high IPC performance, whilst the more expensive FM2 A4 has only a single "module" with low-IPC.
Further up the scale, AMD are still murdered; the 4-thread i3 is far superior to the 4-thread FX-4xxx series, and the HD4000 is a decent IGP that the FX doesn't even have.
The only place the matchup is even remotely sensible is 8-thread FX-8xxx products against 4-thread i5 products.
<insert large, flashing, epileptic-fit-inducing signature (based on the latest internet-meme) here>
Chrispy_
Gerbil Jedi
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 1881
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 3:49 pm

Re: Help with CPU choice

Postposted on Wed Jul 17, 2013 10:13 pm

In my own personal experience I never have any problems with my FX 6300 @ 4.4g and My GTX 660 SC. I laugh when people say how much Intel stomps AMD. All the haters can dog AMD out as much as they want.It does not lessen my enjoyment in game play. I can play most games on Ultra except for a few.Is there frame latencies. Yes! To bad I cant tell because don't get any stuttering, and game play is smooth.The general rule of is 30 fps is the maximum limitation of the human eye, so if I'm only getting 50 fps on very taxing games with no micro stutter, benchmarks are meaningless.How many of those benchmarks are testing at stock speeds.

Battlefield 3 AMD FX 6300
Multiplayer-Campaign Montage
Ultra settings Full HD 1920x1080
Fps on top right
He is only using stock speed at 3.5g OC that puppy to 4.5g and see even bigger improvement.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wao_4end-KE
Last edited by silentvoices on Wed Jul 17, 2013 11:00 pm, edited 3 times in total.
silentvoices
Gerbil
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:32 am

Re: Help with CPU choice

Postposted on Wed Jul 17, 2013 10:23 pm

silentvoices wrote:Benchmarks are meaningless.
All data are meaningless to the fanatic. Sane people believe in facts.
http://techreport.com/review/24954/amd- ... reviewed/7
i7-4770K, H70, Gryphon Z87, 16 GiB, R9-290, SSD, 2 HD, Blu-ray, SB ZX, TJ08-E, SS-660XP², 3007WFP+2001FP, RK-9000BR, MX518
JustAnEngineer
Gerbil God
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 15425
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2002 7:00 pm
Location: The Heart of Dixie

Re: Help with CPU choice

Postposted on Wed Jul 17, 2013 10:32 pm

JustAnEngineer wrote:
silentvoices wrote:Benchmarks are meaningless.
All data are meaningless to the fanatic. Sane people believe in facts.
http://techreport.com/review/24954/amd- ... reviewed/7


That's very convenient to take my words out of context. As I stated, " The general rule is 30 fps is the maximum limitation of the human eye, so if I'm only getting 50 fps on very taxing games with no micro stutter, benchmarks are meaningless.How many of those benchmarks are testing at stock speeds." I can edit a sentence too, and put a different spin on your words.

Maybe you can comment on this video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eu8Sekdb-IE
silentvoices
Gerbil
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:32 am

Re: Help with CPU choice

Postposted on Thu Jul 18, 2013 7:24 am

silentvoices wrote:In my own personal experience I never have any problems with my FX 6300 @ 4.4g and My GTX 660 SC. I laugh when people say how much Intel stomps AMD. All the haters can dog AMD out as much as they want.It does not lessen my enjoyment in game play. I can play most games on Ultra except for a few.Is there frame latencies. Yes! To bad I cant tell because don't get any stuttering, and game play is smooth.The general rule of is 30 fps is the maximum limitation of the human eye, so if I'm only getting 50 fps on very taxing games with no micro stutter, benchmarks are meaningless.How many of those benchmarks are testing at stock speeds.

Battlefield 3 AMD FX 6300
Multiplayer-Campaign Montage
Ultra settings Full HD 1920x1080
Fps on top right
He is only using stock speed at 3.5g OC that puppy to 4.5g and see even bigger improvement.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wao_4end-KE


I would consider 30 and 50fps to be unplayable in a multiplayer game, but hey, to each their own.

That general rule of the human eye's 30fps limit is bollocks, BTW.
i7 3820 @ 4.4, Custom Water Loop | ASRock X79 Extreme4 | 8GB G.Skill 1600mhz
EVGA GTX 670 FTW | BenQ XL2420T 120Hz | Samsung 840 250GB |WD Black 1TB | Win 8 Pro x64
X-Fi Titanium Fatal1ty Pro | Sennheiser HD555 | Corsair TX850V2 | Fractal Arc Midi R2
Prestige Worldwide
Gerbil XP
 
Posts: 451
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2009 10:57 pm

Re: Help with CPU choice

Postposted on Thu Jul 18, 2013 11:21 am

Prestige Worldwide wrote:
silentvoices wrote:In my own personal experience I never have any problems with my FX 6300 @ 4.4g and My GTX 660 SC. I laugh when people say how much Intel stomps AMD. All the haters can dog AMD out as much as they want.It does not lessen my enjoyment in game play. I can play most games on Ultra except for a few.Is there frame latencies. Yes! To bad I cant tell because don't get any stuttering, and game play is smooth.The general rule of is 30 fps is the maximum limitation of the human eye, so if I'm only getting 50 fps on very taxing games with no micro stutter, benchmarks are meaningless.How many of those benchmarks are testing at stock speeds.

Battlefield 3 AMD FX 6300
Multiplayer-Campaign Montage
Ultra settings Full HD 1920x1080
Fps on top right
He is only using stock speed at 3.5g OC that puppy to 4.5g and see even bigger improvement.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wao_4end-KE


I would consider 30 and 50fps to be unplayable in a multiplayer game, but hey, to each their own.

That general rule of the human eye's 30fps limit is bollocks, BTW.



Looking at the video I don't see see his frame rates low at all. Some parts , very few it dipped to 50 fps for a millisecond.I mentioned frame latencies in my earlier comments. I never said AMD was a better cpu.What I did say is say, " Yes, there is a difference in the gaming performance. Are you going to notice it in more than a couple games, no. The majority of games are going to be limited by your GPU. Long story short no one is going to solve any gaming bottlenecks by going from an 8350 to an i5. Second, you will notice a difference between the two when you start getting into multi-threaded apps.The things that Intel has a clear advantage in right now is per clock performance and power consumption.

Clearly its hard for very bias Intel fans to accept the fact that AMD is a good value. I noticed you never commented on this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eu8Sekdb-IE. What about people that record and stream there games. A 8350 will handle that, and then some.Seems like a really bad value for those people.Looks like Intel lost ground in alot of this testing beside streaming.With AMD cpu's in both next gen consoles, it remains to be seen how thaey will translate over to games.They probably will gain to a certain point, but there be plenty of fan boys screaming Intel wins. I never bought my cpu to fight about benchmarks.I bought it to play games, and it does that very well.

You can ALL comment on how bad AMD sucks, in the real world with a good gpu, the average person will not tell the difference.I brought up a overclocked amd cpu many times, but all your bs benchmarks point to stock speeds.As a AMD fan, I salute you with the big middle finger.No offense. This applies to all the other haters too.
silentvoices
Gerbil
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:32 am

Re: Help with CPU choice

Postposted on Thu Jul 18, 2013 11:59 am

Hold up. I don't understand why you are responding to me and discussing the multi-threaded and per-clock performance of different CPU's when I was never discussing that in the first place? I didn't even discuss the performance or value benefits of Intel or AMD. I never said Intel ruled or AMD sucked.

All I said is that in a multiplayer game, if I'm getting 30fps, or even 50fps, I'm not gonna have a good time.

I also stated that your "general rule" that the human eye has a 30fps limit false. It is dead wrong.

Now, as to why the video you posted still looks smooth despite his frame rate fluctuating anywhere between 30 and 60 fps:

Youtube is going to convert his footage to be a constant 30fps. Youtube accepts 1080 60p and 720 60p uploads but they will process the video to be 30fps and play them back at 30fps. They do not currently support 60fps playback.

As a result of this, there will be no fluctuations in the youtube video regardless of what BF3's frame rate OSD is displaying, so naturally you will not notice any change in the fluidity of his gameplay in the video he posted. It has been processed and exported as a 30fps video and that is all you are going to see.

However, when actually playing a game and not watching somebody else's footage on youtube, I can feel a massive difference in input responsiveness and gameplay fluidity between low and high frame rates. Speaking as a 120hz user, I would recommend you try a 120hz monitor on a rig capable of producing 120 frames per second and you will see that there is a massive difference between 30, 60, and 120fps. Thanks.

Sorry if this is a bit off-topic, but the things you've said in your last couple of posts are misleading and come off as ill-informed.

Back on topic, I agree with you that most games these days are primarily GPU limited in single-gpu rigs. For that reason, I would recommend getting a more powerful GPU before you spend money on a new CPU and motherboard. Most modern quad core CPUs can be considered good enough as long as you have a powerful GPU. If you still feel like you are getting the occasional annoying stutter after a GPU upgrade, then maybe it is time to upgrade.

I lasted 4 years on an i5 750 and it served me well. I did notice BF3 feeling smoother overall in comparison when I upgrade to an i7 3820 x79 setup, but it wasn't as drastic of an improvement as going from a GTX 295 to a GTX 670, or getting a second 670 afterwards.
i7 3820 @ 4.4, Custom Water Loop | ASRock X79 Extreme4 | 8GB G.Skill 1600mhz
EVGA GTX 670 FTW | BenQ XL2420T 120Hz | Samsung 840 250GB |WD Black 1TB | Win 8 Pro x64
X-Fi Titanium Fatal1ty Pro | Sennheiser HD555 | Corsair TX850V2 | Fractal Arc Midi R2
Prestige Worldwide
Gerbil XP
 
Posts: 451
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2009 10:57 pm

Re: Help with CPU choice

Postposted on Thu Jul 18, 2013 12:02 pm

Well, Intel's mainstream processors are quad core; AMD's competing products are eight-core.

In games, and games alone, Intel's products crushingly, embarassingly outperform AMD's as per some of the previous links.
If you pick a niche scenario where any quad-core is suffering because you need more than four high-load threads, then yes - AMD's 8-core products outperform Intel's quads.

That doesn't make AMD the better gaming product, it merely highlights that you can do more simulataneously with an 8-core AMD processor than you can with a quad-core Intel processor.

If you want dumdum analogies, a fast car is slower than a truck in certain situations, like for instance when they're both towing trailers and the trailer is too heavy for the car. In that case the truck is the better solution. Does that mean you should bring a truck to a circuit race full of fast cars? No.
<insert large, flashing, epileptic-fit-inducing signature (based on the latest internet-meme) here>
Chrispy_
Gerbil Jedi
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 1881
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 3:49 pm

Re: Help with CPU choice

Postposted on Thu Jul 18, 2013 12:18 pm

last 2 posters

Most people use a 60hz monitor.120hz is not the norm, so I fail to see a fair comparison here.I never said AMD was a better gaming cpu. Get off your Intel crush horse. I guess you never overclocked a FX cpu and played games.Most people will not notice the difference, but I forgot how Intel crushes everything.There are so many amd users getting great results on higher clocks, but you disregard anything that's said, so why bother.You said, "Intel's mainstream processors are quad core; AMD's competing products are eight-core". Yes and you can get a 8350 for less than a i5. I call that value.
Last edited by silentvoices on Thu Jul 18, 2013 12:43 pm, edited 3 times in total.
silentvoices
Gerbil
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:32 am

Re: Help with CPU choice

Postposted on Thu Jul 18, 2013 12:39 pm

From TR's 8350 review, overall performance:
Image
and gaming:
Image
The 8350 is fine if you don't think there is such thing as gaming performance and need a processor at that specific price point (and don't care about TDP), otherwise, go Intel.
peartart
Gerbil
 
Posts: 41
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 3:01 pm

Next

Return to Processors

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests