AMD's Piledriver And K10 CPU Architectures Face Off

[ingtar33]

I would've liked to see the Intel results compared in the individual pages, not just summed up at the end. I think it would've made for a much more detailed and informed comparison.

Also, I'm a bit torn on your hardware setup methodology. I understand using a high-end GPU removes any CPU bottlenecks, but you specifically used a budget-priced CPU cooler and only included budget-priced CPUs. Using a GPU that costs more than the rest of the system combined seems a bit odd. Yes, it's nice for benchmarking numbers, but I doubt it's indicative of actual usage experience if the whole system is a "budget build." A budget CPU that barely squeaks by with a 7970 may be on the wrong side of "just good enough" with a less capable GPU.

Finally, anytime OCing is such an important part of a story, I think it reasonable that the "Value" calculations include the cost of aftermarket cooling ( regardless Intel or AMD. ) Really, this would hit AMD more since Intel's stock coolers ( while not great, ) are good enough for mild overclocks. Most AMD coolers seem to be borderline loud even at stock speeds.

they already did the intel part of this article a 3 months ago. you can read it here. As for value calculations here is something to think about.

I can get a 6 core fx 6300 for $115, for $95 more i can get a feature rich 8+2 power phase mb with solid vrm heatsinks for great overclocking (GA 970A-UD3). Stick a hyper evo 212 ($30) onto the cpu and i should be good to go for the price of a new i5-4670k (95+115+30=$240 vs $240). If i want to get crazy i can even bump the cpu cooler up to a NH-14 or corsair h80i and STILL be cheaper then that i5-4670k plus the cheapest MB you can find.

Now you know as good as i that the stock intel cooler won't do for the new Haswell cpus, some even temp throttle at stock settings, but lets just say we go with a cheap z87 mb and the stock cooler. we're looking at the AMD system running in at $270 vs the haswell system coming in at $330; $50 less for the AMD system which need to overclock up to 4.8ghz to pace that haswell at stock settings. Seeing as how it's unlikely you'll get more then stock out of the intel cooler with haswell, i'd say the value is clearly on the AMD side for this hypothetical. That AMD side is even rolling with one of the best coolers around and a feature rich motherboard, plus $50 in its pocket for a better gpu. If it backs the cpu cooler down to a hyperevo 212 it would have closer to $100 more availible for its gpu.

Granted haswell isn't IB, the numbers would be closer with ib, largely due to a slightly lower cpu price and the availability of cheaper z77 mbs. IB also runs a little cooler, which i suspect taken all together is why ib remains a best buy for gaming cpus and haswell isn't on the list.

Overall you can build a fairly cheap feature rich amd gaming system for less then a feature rich intel system. the sweet point right now for an AMD system seems to be around $500-$800 system price minus the OS or peripherals.

 

[Onus]

During the GW2 beta, my systems were configured i5+HD7770 and 970BE+HD7870. The latter could play at significantly higher settings, but the former was definitely smoother; I think the CPUs definitely did make a difference. I then put the HD7870 with the i5 and had it all; high to ultra settings and smooth performance. I've played that game with a variety of CPUs and graphics cards (E6750 up to i5-3570K, HD6670 up to HD7970) and for that game, the CPU makes a pretty big difference for avoiding low minimums and choppiness.

 

[vertexx]

It seems most of the discussion is centered around the FX vs. I5 debate. But it seemed like the intent of the article was to focus more on the lower end 750k vs. Phenom vs. Entry Level FX. Throw in results from the Intel write-up for reference at the end.

What does everyone think about the result at the lower end? For what type of user/build would you recommend a 750k vs. Phenom vs. I3-3220 vs. low end FX?

Seems like the I3 is still a good choice for non-OC'd or SFF build, especially since the stock cooler works will, saving $30 for a better GPU. The Phenom is not as cheap as it was 8-9 months ago; it's getting harder to come by; and it needs a good cooler. The 750k looks like a good but slightly weaker alternative. But my guess is it needs a good aftermarket cooler to get the overclocks attained in this article.

So what's the best entry-level budget CPU here?

 

[ingtar33]

During the GW2 beta, my systems were configured i5+HD7770 and 970BE+HD7870. The latter could play at significantly higher settings, but the former was definitely smoother; I think the CPUs definitely did make a difference. I then put the HD7870 with the i5 and had it all; high to ultra settings and smooth performance. I've played that game with a variety of CPUs and graphics cards (E6750 up to i5-3570K, HD6670 up to HD7970) and for that game, the CPU makes a pretty big difference for avoiding low minimums and choppiness.

Guildwars II definitely likes a good intel cpu... particularly in the world battles. Most MMO gamers would be best advised to stick to intel as most MMOs are single or dual core optimized.

It seems most of the discussion is centered around the FX vs. I5 debate. But it seemed like the intent of the article was to focus more on the lower end 750k vs. Phenom vs. Entry Level FX. Throw in results from the Intel write-up for reference at the end.

What does everyone think about the result at the lower end? For what type of user/build would you recommend a 750k vs. Phenom vs. I3-3220 vs. low end FX?

Seems like the I3 is still a good choice for non-OC'd or SFF build, especially since the stock cooler works will, saving $30 for a better GPU. The Phenom is not as cheap as it was 8-9 months ago; it's getting harder to come by; and it needs a good cooler. The 750k looks like a good but slightly weaker alternative. But my guess is it needs a good aftermarket cooler to get the overclocks attained in this article.

So what's the best entry-level budget CPU here?

Probably the 750k... you can get it for $78 atm. hard to beat that deal for a solid quad core. as you move up the price list you'll run into the 6 core fx6300 at $115 before any i3 anywhere, so i would say that would be the best cost conscientious "enthusiast" level cpu. Then i'd say the fx8320 comes next at $145, then we hit the i5s.

I would only suggest a hyperthreaded i3 if you are an MMO gamer looking for a budget cpu... as most MMOs are single and dual core optimized so you'll definitely see an advantage with one over a vishera cored cpu.

 

[buzznut]

Nice article, its nice to see AMD's architecture is becoming more relevant. They really need to work on efficiency, but it looks much better than when BD first came out.

I'm really happy with my X4 965 @ 4.0Ghz. Never have a problem with it, got it for $80 free shipping.

 

[none12345]

Thanks for this article, its what ive wanted to see for awhile.

I wish there was a 8350 in there but other then that cant complain.

Would be nice to see steamroller along with the above cpus when it comes out.

 

[ingtar33]

Thanks for this article, its what ive wanted to see for awhile.

I wish there was a 8350 in there but other then that cant complain.

Would be nice to see steamroller along with the above cpus when it comes out.

for the titles where the 6350 was about 50% better then the 4350, you can assume the 8350 will be about 33% better then the 6350. for the titles where the 4350 was as fast or faster then the 6350 (cores don't matter) you can assume the 8350 will be the same as them.

there really is no performance difference for vishera between the different models other then core count and possible ghz numbers. Thats part of the reason why the 6300/4300 don't show up in to many cpu roundups. it's because they're basically the same until core count matters to the 8350. you're not gonna find much new in testing them too.

 

[Narcissistic_Martyr]

I'd love to see an fx8350 with half its cores disabled compared to the phenom ii x4.

 

[RedJaron]

they already did the intel part of this article a 3 months ago. you can read it here.

I'm aware of that article, having read and commented on it. Yes, I know I can go read it again. I was saying for comparison's sake it would be handy to have that data integrated throughout this article, not just tacked onto the end. I'll admit, I'm lazy and I don't want to flick back and forth between multiple tabs.

And I didn't say Intel would be the value king if you counted the price of the cooling system. I gave no inference or suggestion of it at all. I simply pointed out that comparing multiple CPUs, some unlocked some not, without considering the cost of aftermarket cooling is unfair to the locked models. No, you may not get extra performance out of them, but you don't have to pay extra to get them to run at their top speeds either.

But going along with your example, yes, I agree you can get a good value AMD system that can turn in some good performance numbers, but you're also ignoring the other half of the story. The AMD system will still run hotter, suck down more power, and lag behind Intel in single- and dual- threaded applications. You may not care about those aspects, but I guarantee other users do.

And don't forget, the vast majority of games lag at least two years behind gaming tech because you can't sell games for systems that haven't been released yet. A few big titles are starting to utilize three and more threads, but the dual-core chip is still the most common in use by far. That means the majority of games will be optimized for one or two threads for at least a few more years. You may call StarCraft poorly coded software, but I say it was intended that way so as many systems as possible can handle it. Yes, a well-threaded program can run on a single core, but few developers will take the extra time and effort to do so if it's comparatively rarely used.

My takeaway from this is the 750k is a bit of a letdown. AMD has yet to tame their power consumption and thermals. It was supposed to be a great option for SFF ( remember the comments for last SBM, ) and this article makes me doubt the heat and power would be a good fit in such a small space.

 

[slicedtoad]

I liked this article, complete and without much bias

 

[Onus]

...
But going along with your example, yes, I agree you can get a good value AMD system that can turn in some good performance numbers, but you're also ignoring the other half of the story. The AMD system will still run hotter, suck down more power, and lag behind Intel in single- and dual- threaded applications. You may not care about those aspects, but I guarantee other users do.

And don't forget, the vast majority of games lag at least two years behind gaming tech because you can't sell games for systems that haven't been released yet. A few big titles are starting to utilize three and more threads, but the dual-core chip is still the most common in use by far. That means the majority of games will be optimized for one or two threads for at least a few more years. You may call StarCraft poorly coded software, but I say it was intended that way so as many systems as possible can handle it. Yes, a well-threaded program can run on a single core, but few developers will take the extra time and effort to do so if it's comparatively rarely used.

My takeaway from this is the 750k is a bit of a letdown. AMD has yet to tame their power consumption and thermals. It was supposed to be a great option for SFF ( remember the comments for last SBM, ) and this article makes me doubt the heat and power would be a good fit in such a small space.

All of this. I thought the 750K was a bit of a letdown too. And, since I have an interest in small systems, the heat output of all of these AMD chips, clocked to where their performance is "good enough," is quite possibly a dealbreaker. Where heat is an issue, the i3-3220 looks like the hidden winner here.

 

[logainofhades]

Considering the fx6350 is the same cpu as the fx6300 only factory overclocked, i would say THG probably should stop recommending the locked multiplier i5s in their gaming cpu roundup.

Once you branch beyond the same three titles they use to bench the cpus in their roundup the advantages to the 6 core vashera really stand out in a toe to toe fight with a stock i5 (something the building community has been saying for 8 months now). That you can now get the 8 core fx8320 for less then any i5 on the market only highlights what a better budget buy these amd chips are in low budget gaming rigs.

Essentially any gaming rig in the $500-$800 budget range should be built with an AMD cpu.

Yes, the i3 and locked i5's shouldn't be on the list anymore except under maybe an honorable mention. This article clearly shows and admits what people have been saying for quite awhile. The FX 6300 > than an i3 for games. A clocked 6350 comes withing striking distance of a 3570k. It would probably pretty much match the lower clocked and locked i5 3350p. An FX 8320 would beat the 3350p. I wouldn't consider anything less than a k series chip from Intel for a gaming rig at this point. If I were to build a new rig for someone now, it would be with an FX 6300 or 8320 unless the budget was so high that an Intel rig made sense.

 

[Onus]

Logain, in a full-sized build (ATX or larger) where heat isn't an issue, you may be right, especially for well-threaded games. In smaller builds however, that "clocked" FX-6350 (or the VRMs of the board) will likely have thermal problems which will either hamstring performance or possibly kill something.
Two hierarchies are needed; one strictly stock (to account for thermal limitations), and one where overclocking is allowed or even required. Where AMD will place on these will be entirely different. The extra power consumption may not be the issue, but the extra heat certainly is.

 

[Marcus52]

Because Intel has pretty much gone nowhere in a couple of CPU updates in terms of gaming, AMD isn't that far off actually taking the performance lead again. I for one would love that!

 

[Traciatim]

Because Intel has pretty much gone nowhere in a couple of CPU updates in terms of gaming, AMD isn't that far off actually taking the performance lead again. I for one would love that!

It certainly would be nice if AMD would fight the performance fight again. It might light a fire under Intel to actually make some CPU performance progress instead of just making them use less power but the same performance. Then I might be able to find something to upgrade to when my 2 year upgrade cycle comes around in the spring. As of now I'm thinking of making it a 3 year upgrade cycle since I can't find much to buy.

 

[Novuake]

Because Intel has pretty much gone nowhere in a couple of CPU updates in terms of gaming, AMD isn't that far off actually taking the performance lead again. I for one would love that!

It certainly would be nice if AMD would fight the performance fight again. It might light a fire under Intel to actually make some CPU performance progress instead of just making them use less power but the same performance. Then I might be able to find something to upgrade to when my 2 year upgrade cycle comes around in the spring. As of now I'm thinking of making it a 3 year upgrade cycle since I can't find much to buy.

You are gonna have to make it 3 year cycle at some stage, we are starting to reach a ceiling with current technology we have for computing, and that will surely slow it down.

 

[Traciatim]

Because Intel has pretty much gone nowhere in a couple of CPU updates in terms of gaming, AMD isn't that far off actually taking the performance lead again. I for one would love that!

It certainly would be nice if AMD would fight the performance fight again. It might light a fire under Intel to actually make some CPU performance progress instead of just making them use less power but the same performance. Then I might be able to find something to upgrade to when my 2 year upgrade cycle comes around in the spring. As of now I'm thinking of making it a 3 year upgrade cycle since I can't find much to buy.

You are gonna have to make it 3 year cycle at some stage, we are starting to reach a ceiling with current technology we have for computing, and that will surely slow it down.

Maybe, I'm sure someone will come out with something interesting that keeps performance moving forward at a good clip. So far my 2 year cycle has worked and kept me pretty happy . . . except the time that it was an AMD 965BE, what a disappointment.

We keep cycling machines downward to the kids, then to the home theater, but now I'm running out of purposes for machines. It's a pretty nice problem to have I suppose, and at some point some of this gear is probably going to start breaking so maybe I'll find room for one more upgrade this spring or maybe do a 2 year multi-machine refresh for the next cycle and skip the main machine upgrade.

Maybe I could spend the money on something other than computer gear . . . nah . . . who would even think of such a crazy plan?

 

[Onus]

I was on a fairly regular upgrade cycle too, until 1) I ran out of people to pass machines down to, 2) I built my last systems with faster/better/more future-resistant parts than I typically use, and 3) parts repurposed from bitmining to gaming have made even my backup system essentially overkill for my needs.
I am, however, considering building a very small, power-sipping "daily driver" able to handle everything I do except intense gaming (but would include any older games and casual games), just because I have most of the parts for it. It would get a discrete HD7750 and I'd probably try it with a G860 I already have; if that didn't cut it I'd get an i3-3220 because I don't want the heat output of an AMD chip in the mini-ITX case I'll be using. It would be very similar to the "$400 Spirit of Mini-ITX" build, but I've already got an ASRock Z77E-ITX and I'd use one of the slim Inwin cases to get a fan and a standard TFX PSU.

 

[none12345]

Ditto that, i was also on roughly a 2 year upgrade cycle for a decade(roughly yearly for graphics cards), then i ran out of places to pass old systems down to. More then that multicore machines have allowed me to consolidate machines. At one point i was running 3 systems at home at one time for just myself, not counting other family members, etc. That has been down sized to 1 system for myself, with multiple monitors. The extra power of multicore and multimonitors allowed me to drop 2 systems.

My last upgrade was a phenom ii x3(from an athlon64 x2), and the progress since then hasnt been enough to make me want to upgrade again. That coupled with the fact that ive run out of things places to put old systems. Except for the fact that i am a user who could make use of a 8 core machine(my 3 core is fully loaded a large portion of the time). But the per core improvements in the last 3 years or so have been so uninspiring ive been waiting.

Hopefully the next generation of cpus from either intel or amd will be a >25%(over the pervious gen) boost, and finally push me to upgrade my main system again. That said ill probably upgrade next cycle regardless, as i could use a 8 thread cpu at this point.

 

[nostall]

Sweet article. My take on the results: get an AMD 6XXX or 8XXX CPU or i5, whichever is least expensive overall, and a mid to top tier video card and you should have a really good system that will last for several years.
Thanks for the tests!

 

[Onus]

...
.
.
.
My last upgrade was a phenom ii x3(from an athlon64 x2), and the progress since then hasnt been enough to make me want to upgrade again...

Have had a couple of Phenom II X3 CPUs (one unlocked to X4), I can assure you that the difference between one of those and an i5 is considerable, especially if you feed it from a SSD.

 

[Novuake]

...
.
.
.
My last upgrade was a phenom ii x3(from an athlon64 x2), and the progress since then hasnt been enough to make me want to upgrade again...

Have had a couple of Phenom II X3 CPUs (one unlocked to X4), I can assure you that the difference between one of those and an i5 is considerable, especially if you feed it from a SSD.

From a user perspective I found the previous release of FM2 socket CPUs to be comparable to the X3 unlocked to X4...
They FEEL exactly the same and its kinda cool to think a 5800K with decent graphics can do this.

 

[ingtar33]

...
.
.
.
My last upgrade was a phenom ii x3(from an athlon64 x2), and the progress since then hasnt been enough to make me want to upgrade again...

Have had a couple of Phenom II X3 CPUs (one unlocked to X4), I can assure you that the difference between one of those and an i5 is considerable, especially if you feed it from a SSD.

From a user perspective I found the previous release of FM2 socket CPUs to be comparable to the X3 unlocked to X4...
They FEEL exactly the same and its kinda cool to think a 5800K with decent graphics can do this.

I would say llano=phenom +hd5570
trinity =fx + hd6570
richland =vishera +6670
kaveri= steamrollar +7750

I think the day is not too far off to find a apu at the bottom of the best graphics card for your money list.

If they can give us Kaveri with 4core steamroller cpu and 7750 gpu power for $120/$130 we'll be there. What i suspect though is you won't see APUs widely accepted till they can game at 1080p. they just aren't there yet. Perhaps one or two more generations and we'll be there.

 

[ingtar33]

It will have to be faster than upcoming consoles, maybe 7730 class gcn.

didn't amd say they were releasing a custom 8 or 12 core jaguar apu, based on the cpu stuck in the ps4? If they can make it work with FM2/FM2+ mb that will be an interesting chip

 

[logainofhades]

Well it can go up to 8 cores since the PS4 is an 8 core jaguar based APU. I don't know beyond that.