[CPU] is AMD's phenom 2 Really not that great for gaming?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

slendermanFTW

Honorable
Oct 27, 2012
39
0
10,530
i was just wondering, and after seeing this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khoTYa3m9u8) it has kinda made me reconsider using intel.
is the video correct?
thanks!!!
 



http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-fx-pentium-apu-benchmark,3120-10.html


The 2400 is about 10% slower than a 3470.


The 2400 is about 36% better in min, and 47% better in max fps than a 965.




The 3470 would be 46%, and 57% better respectively than a 965.



 

I've seen that link so many times, I'm gonna pretend I never saw this post. Its clear form your post you haven't really read a word I said, why should I give you the time of day? And there are plenty of tech site reviews that show Ivy Bridge offers little to no improvement over Sandy Bridge in terms of gaming performance. Its roughly 6-10% average in productivity type apps and synthetics the biggest improvement Ivy brought over Sandy was quicksynch which allows media encoding to be about 30% faster on an Ivy chip than an equivalent Sandy.. I'd link you a few, but I think thats something you should look up yourself.
 



http://techreport.com/review/23246/inside-the-second-gaming-performance-with-today-cpus


 
I have had AMD gaming rigs for many years and have not had any problems with playing any game I what 1080p max. I am running two AMD rigs now a AMD FX-8120 8gig with a Sapphire HD 6950 and a AMD FX-8350 8gig with a Sapphire HD 7950. Both of them can handle every game I have and I have quite a few between Steam Origin and CD/DVD games. Before that I was using a Phenom II 1090t and it to was able to hand everything I played.

With a good quality motherboard and good GPU I think that AMD CPU's can handle gaming just fine. I have been with AMD since the Pentium III mainly because of the price I just could not afford intel. And in my last build had I gone intel I would have had to forgo a few extras that I was able to get by going AMD.
 



I don't care about what you think, obviously you seem to have some sort of chip on your shoulder.

Facts are, there is NO excuse to be telling the OP to waste his hard earned money on a amd gaming rig at the $1000 price point.

You are setting him up for regret and disappointment, based on some sort of misguided vendetta???

There are HUNDREDS of posts on this website from people with amd processors frustrated by their performance when coupled with higher end cards...

Normal people wasting their hard earned dough on a misguided upgrade, bemoaning their fps because of bottlenecking...

Go take a look.
 

Hell, I was expecting too much for you to read my posts, you don't even read your own links that you post to bolster your case

http://techreport.com/review/23246/inside-the-second-gaming-performance-with-today-cpus/6

Yes, we can still discern fine-grained differences between the CPUs with a really tight threshold, but there's really very little "badness" to be sifted out. Also, in a ray of light for AMD, the FX-8150 performs relatively well here. This is one of those cases, though, when nearly any modern CPU will do.
 



Yes.. thats exactly it... I'm so dissapointed with how my computer performs, I want EVERY SINGLE person to buy one just as bad as mine.... Curses, you're figured out my motive.. Seriously.. Are you drunk/high?
 



Are you Obtuse?

"Sadly, with Bulldozer, AMD has moved in the opposite direction. The Phenom II X4 980, with four "Stars" cores at 3.7GHz, remains AMD's best gaming processor to date. The FX-8150 is slower than the Phenom II X6 1100T, and the FX-6200 trails the X4 980 by a pretty wide margin. Only the FX-4170 represents an improvement from one generation to the next, and it costs more than the Phenom II X4 850 that it outperforms. Meanwhile, all of the FX processors remain 125W parts.

We don't like pointing out AMD's struggles any more than many of you like reading about them. It's worth reiterating here that the FX processors aren't hopeless for gaming— they just perform similarly to mid-range Intel processors from two generations ago. If you want competence, they may suffice, but if you desire glassy smooth frame delivery, you'd best look elsewhere."


The one not reading seems to be you.
 




Facts are, there is NO excuse to be telling the OP to waste his hard earned money on a amd gaming rig at the $1000 price point.
 

We're talking about PileDriver here, you're making the same mistake crowe made, posting older articles stuff thats useful from a historian's standpoint.. but bears little relevance to a system build today.. If you had actually bothered to read previous posts, you would see that I already covered this information.

Trails behind. Define "trails"

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/699?vs=362

 

No, the fact is, this is called an "opinion", if you cannot distinguish facts from opinions, you are the kind of person who has no business telling people how to spend money.

I have well over a grand in my system. It depends on what that money has to cover, a simple fact you're clearly ignoring. I have 5TB of hard drive space in my machine for example, 2 monitors, and a fairly high end computer tower.

We also come to the point I made what seems like decades ago in this thread, there are no simple answers, its a question of balancing the budget. There is no one size fits all solution.
 



Yes piledriver, STILL lower IPC than the phenom 2 generation.

You would need to overclock much more, to barely beat them.

We talking 4.5ghz + to begin to overtake the 965 at 4ghz in gaming.



Best bang for fps dollars:


value.gif





 
To slenderman,

If you wish to send me a PM about this computer build, I'll be glad to put together a system be it Intel or AMD. My apologies for contributing to the obvious derailment of your thread. I don't post on these forums as often as I used to, mainly due to what I view as trolling fanboy flamewars such as this one. I just simply have more entertaining things to do with my time. I enjoy offering advice on system builds. Its not a "game" to me, and you can use your own judgement at this point whether you believe I'll offer you objective advice or not. I won't take it personal, I admit I let my temper flare up here..

I'd ask that if you do decide to PM me to fill out this form from the homebuild section, and I'll put something together.

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/353572-31-build-upgrade-advice
 

And not a single one of those dots represent a single piledriver CPU.... I'm gonna go with you're high. Because even when I'm drunk as hell, I have better observational skills than you do.
 



5tb hard drives are relevant to a gaming machine how???


"I have well over a grand in my system", if its the one in your sig, i'm sorry to say you got shafted.

For 1k you can get a 3570k with a z77 mobo, 8gb ram, and a 7950.

Which would annihilate your system.








 



Add 10% to the bulldozers for piledrivers in multi and 5% in single threaded.


http://wccftech.com/amd-vishera-fx8350-x86-piledriver-pitted-fx8150-cpu-benchmarks/

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/57446-fx-8350-cpu-review-amds-vishera-arrives-5.html


Not that it matters, as the phenom 2's are better anyways for most games.



Yes piledriver, STILL lower IPC than the phenom 2 generation.




Obtuse man.
 
First link shows OBR Hardware.. This is an old topic, OBR Hardware is essentially an unknown website in the tech industry, by a guy who amoung other things claimed to have access to "top secret" internal memos from AMD corporate. Now, reputable websites have done their own benches of PD vs BD, those I'll accept, and on average yes, thats about the performance increase they got. Regardless of whether or not OBR Hardware has the same results, I'll accept nothing less than a reputable site. I'm not interested in an anonymous blogger who makes ridiculous claims of having James Bond like ability to access secret information. Just on mere principle alone I will not read anything OBR Hardware has to say. Stick to sites like Tom's Hardware, AandNtech, HARDOCP, Legitreviews, Techspot, etc.

But back to the point, which one of those links show the Phenom IIs being better for most games than PileDriver? Perhaps I am obtuse, but it doesn't appear to be in either of those links, OBR Hardware's credibility notwithstanding.

Incidentally, you've once again stumbled into a case of putting your own foot in your mouth.... Most of those game benches in that hardwarecanuks review actually show the FX-8350 performing on par with i5-3570k
 



Its not strictly a gaming system. I didn't see anywhere where the OP said his machine was strictly for gaming.. Did you?

My system was built to meet my needs. Again, you continue to assume one size fits all. I see no need to dignify that any further... But I will.. I overspent on the RAM, I bought 8GB modules when they first came out, as a result, they cost a bundle. I've admitted that many times on the forums. As far as all the other parts, no.. The price to performance is not out of proportion.

Monitor- $300
2nd monitor is an old one and was a gift from years ago, but it cost about $150
Video Card- $250
CPU- $150
CPU cooler $20
Hard Drives- $340 ish (purchased when hard drives were overinflated due to the flooding in Thailand)
Tower- $130
Power Supply- $105
Motherboard- $170
RAM- $140
Optical Drive- $20
Windows- $100
Mouse- Logitech G500- $50
Keyboard- Microsoft Ergonomic - $40
---

Now tell me all about how I could have gotten a system that meets my personal needs (hard drive space is important to me, yes I actually use the space I have) for that kind of money. And yes, I wanted a decent case and power supply that would last me at lest 2 or 3 builds, thats not negotiable. You owe me a build with 2x 2TB drives and 2x 500GB, an NZXT Phantom at bare minimum. Now shove the 7950 and i5-3570K.. And NO I do not live near a MicroCenter. AND I don't want a chinsy motherboard. Make it a Z77 Sabertooth, I want the 5 year warranty. Keep that Asrock stuff away from me.


Buts lets explore your logic more, and point out how once again you've failed to thoroughly vet your sources, we're going to look at 1080 specfically, because thats in line with what the OP said he wanted to play in.. (or perhaps higher, but unavailable from your link):

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/57446-fx-8350-cpu-review-amds-vishera-arrives-17.html
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/57446-fx-8350-cpu-review-amds-vishera-arrives-18.html

All of the CPUs tested easily exceed the frame rate limitation of a typical 60hz monitor. One of the 6 games tested even shows the FX-8350 slightly, (granted slightly) outperforming the i5-3570K. Skyrim, as I pointed out does indeed take a performance hit from the architecture. You seem to act as though I'm trying to conceal something from the OP, trying to convince him to buy a sub-par CPU for well.. you've already given your ridiculous explanation as to my motive.
 
I think there is a lot of fighting going on over nothing. The budget is high enough to allow the current "champ" Intel CPU. No reason to worry about needing anything else. AMD CPUs do alright for the most part, but I'd get an Intel so I don't have to worry about those few times where AMD doesn't do well.
 


I agree. with a build budget of around 1k usd, you can bite the bullet and get an i5(not much more than a fx 8000 series for a locked one you can pair with a cheaper h77 or b75 mobo). you need to overclock a fx or phenom a ways just to get near an i5 like that. i5 shows no signs of being insufficient for games any time soon. You will thank yourself later.

 


You are correct and wrong at the same time... YES some differences in performance are hard to "see" but what about long term viability? what about when time goes by and games come out that for ex run at 60fps on the intel but at 40fps on the AMD?? I'm sure the user will be able to see the difference then.
And what about getting the best bang for your buck?

I have been an AMD fan for a long as I can remember but I never owned any AMD systems... WHY?? Because every time I would want to buy a new system it just so happened that Intel had the performance edge within my price range... if I would have spent my money on an inferior product just cuz of being an AMD fan I would not be able to live with myself.

I love AMD and yes Intel did some shitty stuff in the past, maybe still do but who knows? at the end of the day it's AMD's fault for what has happened so far...
 
I can't stomach the bickering I think had to have gotten worse in the 20 or so posts I skipped over after starting down the thread, but I'll summarize the situation from the point of view of a realist who has no horse in this race....

1. The current circumstance is such that your GPU is going to have far, far more to do with the FPS performance while gaming than your processor, assuming you have a reasonably modern CPU.

2. The Phenom 965 is still well, well within the definition of being a "performance-level" processor. People are making it sound like there is no difference between the X4 965 and an Athlon X2 250. At stock speed, the 965 is solid enough to not bottleneck anything so badly as to be a real weight around the system's neck.

3. Benchmarks of AMD vs Intel definitely don't account for the fact that the 965 is so easily overclocked, and indeed runs in that configuration when owned by nearly any gamer, that it's hard to get much useful information when their clocks are set between 400-900mhz slower than the real-life application.

4. The Phenom is now $80-90 or so on Amazon and Newegg. Would it be great to have an Intel i7 CPU instead? Of course- but are you paying for the difference in cost even to get to a solid i5 chip? I'm not. Rather dump that into the GPU, where again, most of the gaming numbers come from. If you don't believe me, go search the 3Dmark archieves. There are literally X3 Athlon chips that are posting numbers that crush i7 systems, because the owner somehow decided to pair that CPU with crossfired 7950's or the like.

5. In terms of NON-gaming- in other words, where the CPU is the most vital component- the Phenom is still powerful enough to handle virtually anything you'd throw at it without there being enough lag to even bother trying to upgrade to lessen it. If you run an SSD for OS + apps, everything is still going to feel instantaneous with a Phenom. If you're doing serious video compression and encoding, I suppose there might be a reason to look at spending a good bit more, but that's far off this topic.
 


Fair enough, although I tend to look at computers as having a 3-4 year lifespan. Games really don't evolve that fast in terms of their CPU usage. At least for the PileDriver CPUs, its the games made to the newest standards they do okay in. That would be your DX11 games like Battlefield 3, so I actually don't see the PileDrivers trailing that far behind as time goes on, Skyrim for example (and yes, I do own it), since thats one we've put benches up where it takes a hit. Its actually a console port, and a lousy, hastily done one at that. Just by playing the game, you can tell its made for a console, they didn't even bother to change the menus around to make them more PC-user friendly. Now with the Phenom II,, well its an $85 processor, how much life are you expecting from it? lol

As far as AMD being at fault for their current state of affairs, yes part of it is their fault, but actually Intel is to blame for a large portion of their problems. I know this starts an entirely different discussion/debate. Although theres not much debate about it, Intel has been fined by both the European Union and the Federal Trade Commission, as well as settled a lawsuit paying AMD 1.25 billion dollars. Its not really a debate, its now academic, Intel engaged in illegal competition practices. Intel has a much bigger warchest, and spend far more in Research and Development than AMD makes in profit per year. AMD has had to layoff thousands of workers because of the trouble their in. If it makes me an AMD fanboy by pointing it out, if you think that Intels corporate bullying of computer companies to exclusively carry their CPUs didn't play a role in that, you're kidding yourself.

But once again, back to the topic, just to reiterate, I have no problem putting a system configuration together based on any person's needs. If they prefer an Intel CPU, I have a gold badge in the homebrew section of these forums, I'm interested in giving a person what they want and giving objective advice about the differences between the two.

On the subject of owning Intel CPUs, my family for years bought exclusively Dell computers, they in turn exclusively use Intel CPUs in their desktops and laptops. I personally have owned 3 computers with Intel CPUs, between the 6 members of my immediate family, we've owned more Intel systems than many of you may ever own in your lives. When I was growing up, our family was better off financially, computers were bought more or less yearly.
 

Latest posts