AMD CPU speculation... and expert conjecture

[noob2222]

I3 is hardly priced the same as a pentium g and not exactly a dual core.

 

[8350rocks]

Would never recommend a 7850k for a gaming build. A pentium G with a 250x or 260x is a much better solution, for a similar cost.. Hell, even a pentium G with a GTX 730 Gddr5 would be better, and cost less.

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: AMD A10-7850K 3.7GHz Quad-Core Processor ($164.99 @ NCIX US)
Total: $164.99
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-10-23 09:16 EDT-0400

vs

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Pentium G3258 3.2GHz Dual-Core Processor ($69.98 @ OutletPC)
Video Card: XFX Radeon R7 250X 2GB Core Edition Video Card ($90.00 @ Newegg)
Total: $159.98
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-10-23 09:20 EDT-0400

With GTX 730

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Pentium G3258 3.2GHz Dual-Core Processor ($69.98 @ OutletPC)
Video Card: MSI GeForce GT 730 1GB Video Card ($69.99 @ Amazon)
Total: $139.97
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-10-23 09:20 EDT-0400

Keep in mind, the 7850K is about to drop to $140, making it cost the same as your Pentium G + GT730 build, and you can always add a discrete card to the 7850K down the road...

The Pentium G is going to be hopelessly lost in many games and the frame rates will be punishing, even with a GTX 980 + Pentium G. A good GPU only goes so far, and the Pentium G does not hit the "good enough" range...

Now, if you could find something like i5-2500 in that same money range, then there would obviously be no argument about it...but, 4 cores > 2 cores always.

 

[szatkus]

...but, 4 cores > 2 cores always.

Not always. Every game is different.

In mobile space even more visible (Apple A7 vs. 4-8 cores junk).

 

[logainofhades]

Would never recommend a 7850k for a gaming build. A pentium G with a 250x or 260x is a much better solution, for a similar cost.. Hell, even a pentium G with a GTX 730 Gddr5 would be better, and cost less.

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: AMD A10-7850K 3.7GHz Quad-Core Processor ($164.99 @ NCIX US)
Total: $164.99
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-10-23 09:16 EDT-0400

vs

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Pentium G3258 3.2GHz Dual-Core Processor ($69.98 @ OutletPC)
Video Card: XFX Radeon R7 250X 2GB Core Edition Video Card ($90.00 @ Newegg)
Total: $159.98
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-10-23 09:20 EDT-0400

With GTX 730

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Pentium G3258 3.2GHz Dual-Core Processor ($69.98 @ OutletPC)
Video Card: MSI GeForce GT 730 1GB Video Card ($69.99 @ Amazon)
Total: $139.97
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-10-23 09:20 EDT-0400

Keep in mind, the 7850K is about to drop to $140, making it cost the same as your Pentium G + GT730 build, and you can always add a discrete card to the 7850K down the road...

The Pentium G is going to be hopelessly lost in many games and the frame rates will be punishing, even with a GTX 980 + Pentium G. A good GPU only goes so far, and the Pentium G does not hit the "good enough" range...

Now, if you could find something like i5-2500 in that same money range, then there would obviously be no argument about it...but, 4 cores > 2 cores always.

The 750k loses to a pentium G already, as it is, especially when the G3528 is given a bit of an overclock. Kaveri isn't going to help matters much, for AMD. Unless AMD miraculously makes an FX like chip for FM2+, I won't recommend one. Those fortunate enough to live near a microcenter, would be better of with an FX 6300 and a GT 730, vs a 7850k, also. The free, after $10 rebate, GA-78LMT-USB3 is enough for a budget FX 6300 build and can handle up to at least 4.0ghz overclocks. I have been running that board with a 4.0ghz FX 8320 for nearly a year without issue. Kaveri holds absolutely no appeal to me at all.

 

[gamerk316]

...but, 4 cores > 2 cores always.

E8600 > Q9550. Remember those days?

Also, Civ:BE Benchies:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8640/benchmarked-civilization-beyond-earth/2

Mantle makes a negligible impact.

 

[Reepca]

...but, 4 cores > 2 cores always.

Not always. Every game is different.

In mobile space even more visible (Apple A7 vs. 4-8 cores junk).

To be fair, this is a bit like saying "4 cores isn't better than 2 cores when you have 2 cores on the 4-core machine disabled".

Do trolls appear in here often to bash on APUs with little to no substance to their arguments?

 

[con635]

I thought this was put to bed pages ago, yes the a10 7850k doesnt really make sense re cost but the lower a10s/a8s give 90% of the performance without dgpu and 100% with dgpu and light over clock.
I think by now amd should've had some hsa software available to see the 7850k worth the extra dollar but its a niche product now only used by enthusiasts who wanted it and others on forums who use its price for marketing other brands.
An a8 5600k is £60, a light overclock is free, basic system pulls 40-140w from the wall, where is the dcpu and dgpu that beats it? On watts and price?

 

[Ranth]

Also, Civ:BE Benchies:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8640/benchmarked-civilization-beyond-earth/2

Mantle makes a negligible impact.

~10% for the 280/x seems decent considering that the system was using a 4770k.

 

[jdwii]

Well, a Console is a dedicated piece of hardware that do basic non-gaming stuff at best. For 400, the choice of APU/CPU+GPU is the better one for people that actually knows. I'm willing to say that a Console is better for someone that doesn't know (or doesn't have someone that does) and doesn't want to do other things than gaming.

For us, people that know, I'm curious to see under what scenario a Console would be a better choice than a cheap PC alternative.

I'm also talking from experience here. My GF's little brothers had PS3, Wii, XBox and all that from last gen, until we decided to give them a "cheap gaming PC". The consoles are now getting dust and all of their games are in their Steam library. I think the plugged the PS3 again to play GTA V, and then they went back to PC. Hell, I think their Steam library is already bigger than mine, lol.

--

Going back to the Video cards speculation. Is the new "R9 390X" sporting GCN 3? At least, GCN 2.5? The R9 285 is using something like GCN 2, right?

Also, any idea when AMD will release the chipset refresh that supports DDR4? I'm holding to that until I swap my Llano.

Cheers!

I think you said it quite well and i stick to what i claim graphics aren't everything and i doubt anyone can get a better gaming machine from a PS4 if they know what they are doing the money saved on steam games alone can get you a 265 or 270X in the future also keep in mind Mantle and directx 12 will lower CPU usage. Those A10 7850K CPU's have higher IPC compared to a FX 4 core processor to.
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_a10_7850k_apu_review,12.html

Now some games do prefer L3 cache and those games will suffer a bit on these APU's but i think we can all agree those games are rare now a days.

From reading all these post its quite clear the majority here think a 400$ build is a better choice compared to a console. Even if some think a pentium+dgpu is a better choice or not compared to a A10 or vise versa. I used to think the same and the pentium was in my builds as well however in newer games it just sucks i mean sucks bad. For 450$ you can build a Athlon X4 860K(steamroller) and a 260X that would easily beat the A10. Here is some benchmarks comparing the 90$ Athlon to the 60-70$ Pentium
http://digi.takungpao.com/pc/jspc/2014-09/2727979.html
http://www.pcpop.com/doc/1/1039/1039026_all.shtml

 

[szatkus]

...but, 4 cores > 2 cores always.

Not always. Every game is different.

In mobile space even more visible (Apple A7 vs. 4-8 cores junk).

To be fair, this is a bit like saying "4 cores isn't better than 2 cores when you have 2 cores on the 4-core machine disabled".

Do trolls appear in here often to bash on APUs with little to no substance to their arguments?

Everything depends on workload. If you have an application has some heavy computing splitted on two threads OS can scale it on only two cores (or rather 4 cores in 50% or 8 cores in 25% each, because that's how it's usually is). Modern games has usually 2-4 "heavy" threads with some exceptions like Crysis 3.

 

[logainofhades]

Keep in mind, the 7850K is about to drop to $140, making it cost the same as your Pentium G + GT730 build, and you can always add a discrete card to the 7850K down the road...

The Pentium G is going to be hopelessly lost in many games and the frame rates will be punishing, even with a GTX 980 + Pentium G. A good GPU only goes so far, and the Pentium G does not hit the "good enough" range...

Now, if you could find something like i5-2500 in that same money range, then there would obviously be no argument about it...but, 4 cores > 2 cores always.

Even a @ $140 it isn't that great of a deal. Even a 860k and a GT 730 would cost about that much, if you really wanted 4 cores.

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: AMD Athlon X4 860K 3.7GHz Quad-Core Processor ($77.99 @ Newegg)
Video Card: MSI GeForce GT 730 1GB Video Card ($69.99 @ Amazon)
Total: $147.98
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-10-23 15:55 EDT-0400

A Kaveri A10 just doesn't make any sense. I could see a Kaveri, A8 maybe, for some people, but never the A10.

 

[8350rocks]

But the days of dual over quad are behind us. Look how many games are running cryengine these days...tell me you want a dual core to play those...?

 

[szatkus]

But the days of dual over quad are behind us. Look how many games are running cryengine these days...tell me you want a dual core to play those...?

Not yet behind us, there are still a lot of games which simply don't scale beyond 2 cores. I have some more demanding tasks when I work, so 4 cores are great for me, but it's not always 4 > 2.

 

[noob2222]

@szatkus

If you built a machine today specifically for gaming, would you really use a dual core just to limit what games your going to buy?

Yes, there are games that are ok, but what about that online game you want to play soo bad that requires a quad core to get more than 10 fps.

Just because you can get away with it doesn't mean it's a good idea to do it.

 

[Reepca]

...but, 4 cores > 2 cores always.

Not always. Every game is different.

In mobile space even more visible (Apple A7 vs. 4-8 cores junk).

To be fair, this is a bit like saying "4 cores isn't better than 2 cores when you have 2 cores on the 4-core machine disabled".

Do trolls appear in here often to bash on APUs with little to no substance to their arguments?

Everything depends on workload. If you have an application has some heavy computing splitted on two threads OS can scale it on only two cores (or rather 4 cores in 50% or 8 cores in 25% each, because that's how it's usually is). Modern games has usually 2-4 "heavy" threads with some exceptions like Crysis 3.

I'd like to clarify that my comment about trolls was unrelated to your comment, looking back on that it was poorly communicated. I was referring to the people who randomly showed up and started trash talking.

So do you mean that if an application can't bring 2 cores to 100% or near-100% utilization, there isn't really much specific-to-that-appllication performance to be gained by having more cores, to say nothing about whether it's multi-threaded or not? (makes sense to me)

 

[gamerk316]

...but, 4 cores > 2 cores always.

Not always. Every game is different.

In mobile space even more visible (Apple A7 vs. 4-8 cores junk).

To be fair, this is a bit like saying "4 cores isn't better than 2 cores when you have 2 cores on the 4-core machine disabled".

Do trolls appear in here often to bash on APUs with little to no substance to their arguments?

Everything depends on workload. If you have an application has some heavy computing splitted on two threads OS can scale it on only two cores (or rather 4 cores in 50% or 8 cores in 25% each, because that's how it's usually is). Modern games has usually 2-4 "heavy" threads with some exceptions like Crysis 3.

I'd like to clarify that my comment about trolls was unrelated to your comment, looking back on that it was poorly communicated. I was referring to the people who randomly showed up and started trash talking.

So do you mean that if an application can't bring 2 cores to 100% or near-100% utilization, there isn't really much specific-to-that-appllication performance to be gained by having more cores, to say nothing about whether it's multi-threaded or not? (makes sense to me)

In terms of FPS, yes. No matter how many threads a program is using, if two cores can get the work done fast enough where the GPU is the primary bottleneck, you won't see any increase from adding more cores. Latency is another story, since you're application will have its thread(s) booted more often, which is why latency measuring is now a thing.

Point being, a really fast i3 is typically fast enough to keep up with every chip out there, until you start flipping every graphical option on. But for 1080p Medium to High settings? The i3 is still plenty. Its beyond that where the i3 starts to hit a brick wall.

 

[colinp]

Cive:BE benchies:

http://www.legitreviews.com/civilization-beyond-earth-gaming-performance-benchmarked-amd-versus-nvidia_152260/3

Mantle makes a non-negligible impact.

 

[gamerk316]

AC:U minimum specs released

Processor: Intel Core i5-2500K @ 3.3 GHz or AMD FX-8350 @ 4.0 GHz or AMD Phenom II x4 940 @ 3.0 GHz
RAM: 6 GB
Graphics card: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680 or AMD Radeon HD 7970 (2 GB VRAM)

http://techreport.com/news/27261/assassin-creed-unity-pc-requires-6gb-of-ram-gtx-680

I say again: MINIMUM SPECS.

Seriously?

 

[-Fran-]

Cive:BE benchies:

http://www.legitreviews.com/civilization-beyond-earth-gaming-performance-benchmarked-amd-versus-nvidia_152260/3

Mantle makes a non-negligible impact.

Those are impressive gains indeed. I wonder how much work the CPU is actually doing in this game. Also, they should test the 7970/280X as well.

AC:U minimum specs released

Processor: Intel Core i5-2500K @ 3.3 GHz or AMD FX-8350 @ 4.0 GHz or AMD Phenom II x4 940 @ 3.0 GHz
RAM: 6 GB
Graphics card: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680 or AMD Radeon HD 7970 (2 GB VRAM)

http://techreport.com/news/27261/assassin-creed-unity-pc-requires-6gb-of-ram-gtx-680

I say again: MINIMUM SPECS.

Seriously?

Well, the consoles are optimized, but I don't know if they need that as minimum requirements for a cheap port.

AC games are just horrible ports anyway. They are console exclusives because they plain suck in PC, haha.

Cheers!

 

[blackkstar]

AC:U minimum specs released

Processor: Intel Core i5-2500K @ 3.3 GHz or AMD FX-8350 @ 4.0 GHz or AMD Phenom II x4 940 @ 3.0 GHz
RAM: 6 GB
Graphics card: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680 or AMD Radeon HD 7970 (2 GB VRAM)

http://techreport.com/news/27261/assassin-creed-unity-pc-requires-6gb-of-ram-gtx-680

I say again: MINIMUM SPECS.

Seriously?

Ubi has some serious issues with their game engine unless this can really wow us. But looking at WD I am skeptical at best.

I don't get how FX 8350 is both minimum and recommended though. But notice how minimum Intel is a quad and recommended has 8 threads?

It is probably time to stop discussing if dual core or 2m/4c is still relevant for gaming. We have a AAA game coming out where dual core or even 3m/6c does not even meet minimum requirements for a game. I do not think anyone should be recommending new builds in good conscious that are incapable of playing specific games. And yes, I do see a lot of "but you can build a cheap Pentium G/2m4c AMD system for $400", but at this point we're seeing situations where that PC is unable to play a game that a console can. AC:U is a true next gen game that won't run on last gen consoles (or Wii U). And it's not recommended for 2c Intel or 3m/6c AMD.

Although I do expect to see plenty of "look at my Pentium G when i walk down this empty hallway with nothing happening I get 60fps so pentium G is no bottleneck guys!"

Ask yourselves why quad core Intel is minimum yet IB, which was 5% IPC increase, recommends 8 threads.

 

[gamerk316]

So, would you all be interested in Virtual Cores that can run both ARM and X86 instruction sets and outperform both while drawing less power even at a much lower clock?

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/192858-visc-cpu-virtual-core-design-emerges-could-this-be-the-conceptual-breakthrough-weve-been-waiting-for

Interested at this stage, but I'm not in hype mode yet. Impressive in any case.

 

[-Fran-]

From what I could understand from the PR-BS statements, they implemented a Hardware Scheduler with a software layer interface for the kernel. Also, it is intended for low power, but not performance.

That article still doesn't give the important tidbits for the hardware itself, but it's good information none the less.

Cheers!

 

[8350rocks]

That is relevant if it scales upward well. If not...a 350 MHz processor that runs like a 700 MHz processor would have been impressive 15 years ago...

 

[jdwii]

About AC:U i bet the game will perform just fine on lower-end hardware a lot of these dev's are claiming this or that however i was able to play evil within with my 770Gtx fine and i bet even a 6300 will play this game with 30FPS+ at 1080P more then any console.

 

[logainofhades]

AC:U minimum specs released

Processor: Intel Core i5-2500K @ 3.3 GHz or AMD FX-8350 @ 4.0 GHz or AMD Phenom II x4 940 @ 3.0 GHz
RAM: 6 GB
Graphics card: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680 or AMD Radeon HD 7970 (2 GB VRAM)

http://techreport.com/news/27261/assassin-creed-unity-pc-requires-6gb-of-ram-gtx-680

I say again: MINIMUM SPECS.

Seriously?

And I thought EA had issues recommending an i5 for The Sims 4. :lol: