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

[slendermanFTW]

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!!!

 

[noak19]

I don't know if this has already been said but the CPU does not matter a great deal for gaming, more stress is on the GPU and that is what drives the graphics. In short, if you're looking for a better gaming experience, get a better GPU not CPU

 

[maxalge]

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

And yes, mr obtuse, it IS a gaming build because the video the OP posted was about a GAME.

No, it shows a overclocked 8350 @ 4.9ghz still getting beat by a stock i5 3570k by over 11 fps in skyrim,


At stock the FX lost in all games usually by 10fps, by over 20 fps in skyrim, and barely equaled the i5 in dirt 3.



"Unless newer titles end up requiring additional cores for optimal performance, the FX-8350 may not an optimal choice for a gaming-oriented system.

Power consumption is another area where AMD is facing an uphill battle. Performance per watt has certainly increased in the transition from Zambezi to Vishera but the FX-8350 still requires nearly as much juice as Intel’s top of the line twelve thread 3960X. It fares even worse against the latest 22nm Ivy Bridge competitors."






Foot in mouth indeed.

 

[maxalge]

I don't know if this has already been said but the CPU does not matter a great deal for gaming, more stress is on the GPU and that is what drives the graphics. In short, if you're looking for a better gaming experience, get a better GPU not CPU

No, this has been proven incorrect by tom's and many other websites.


Go look in the cpu/gpu forums hundreds of posts on people asking why they have such bad frame rates when they have bought very powerful GPU's coupled with amd cpu's.


Doubly so if you are trying for the "legendary" smooth fps in gaming.


"However, if we crank down the tolerance to 16.7 milliseconds, the equivalent of 60 FPS, then the differences become apparent. The FX processors again fare poorly, relatively speaking.

If you covet glassy smoothness, where the system pumps out frames consistently at low latencies close to your display's refresh rate, then you'll want a newer Intel processor.

In this scenario, no entry in the FX lineup comes as close to delivering that experience as a Phenom II X4 980 or a Core i5-655K."


All amd cpu's are basically 2 generations behind the ivy's in gaming.

 

[nekulturny]

lol... just.. lol fanboyism at its finest. People posting links to graphs and charts with little to no understanding of what they translate to into actual real world experience....

Power consumption is about the only compelling argument to be found in that post at first glance (it really wasn't worth a second one). Too bad that as well has already been mentioned by more informed individuals in this thread.

No, this has been proven incorrect by tom's and many other websites.

.... LOL... wrong again. If what you say is even remotely true, we'd all have Xeon CPUs with GT 430s... Obviously there is a flaw in your statement. Care to revise it? Stronger CPUs do not make weaker video cards perform better.

To demonstrate a poor balance.. faced with two choices.. should someone use an i5-3570K with a 7770? Or should they go cheaper and get a Phenom II which opens up the budget to allow for a better video card like a 7870? Guess what.. The Phenom II will embarrass the crap out of the i5-3570K with the 7770 in more or less EVERY game.

 

[lazyboy947]

No one learns.... its not about the benchmarks and who is better. as long as it gets the job done.....

One thing how is a current fx 8350 that compares to a current i5, 2 generations behind? Im pretty sure in gaming situations with a same gpu that most fx cpus, i7/i5/i3, phenom , apus, will all do the same fps give or take 5-10 fps. Of course not all games

 

[nekulturny]

I just find it amusing how big the arguments get over such petty differences, as if 220 FPS vs only 200 FPS really matters. Even on a high end 120hz monitor, you're still pretty solidly in the black.

 

[lazyboy947]

exactly, im happy with a $80 dynex tv as my monitor and paying $50 for my 6770 and playing bf3 on a mix of high and med around 40 fps, even with a monitor as u mentioned and high fps the difference isnt much and especially at a 60hz monitor lol

 

[maxalge]

lol... just.. lol fanboyism at its finest. People posting links to graphs and charts with little to no understanding of what they translate to into actual real world experience....

Power consumption is about the only compelling argument to be found in that post at first glance (it really wasn't worth a second one). Too bad that as well has already been mentioned by more informed individuals in this thread.

No, this has been proven incorrect by tom's and many other websites.

.... LOL... wrong again. If what you say is even remotely true, we'd all have Xeon CPUs with GT 430s... Obviously there is a flaw in your statement. Care to revise it? Stronger CPUs do not make weaker video cards perform better.

To demonstrate a poor balance.. faced with two choices.. should someone use an i5-3570K with a 7770? Or should they go cheaper and get a Phenom II which opens up the budget to allow for a better video card like a 7870? Guess what.. The Phenom II will embarrass the crap out of the i5-3570K with the 7770 in more or less EVERY game.

Except the lower the resolution the more the cpu matters.... See the flaw?


People that skimp on cpu with a weak GPU get doubly screwed over.


Too bad the OP has a 1000 budget, and your flawed straw man argument gets tossed into the wind.

 

[nekulturny]

Except the lower the resolution the more the cpu matters.... See the flaw?

If you're playing on a 10 year old 800x600 resolution monitor.. Then yes.. I care.. Guess what, I don't. To borrow some of your own words, on a $1000 dollar budget, theres no reason to be playing games at such a low resolution.

People who skimp on the CPU, are not complete idiots, they are picking a system that compliments each other to meet their needs. You continue to act as though there is a one-size-fits-all solution.. There isn't. As far as your blah blah blah... well.. blah blah blah.

 

[nekulturny]

By the way, I'm still waiting for you to build me a configuration that meets my basic demands for $1000 that would "demolish" my computer.

 

[maxalge]

I just find it amusing how big the arguments get over such petty differences, as if 220 FPS vs only 200 FPS really matters. Even on a high end 120hz monitor, you're still pretty solidly in the black.

If only it was as easy as that...



"If you covet glassy smoothness, where the system pumps out frames consistently at low latencies close to your display's refresh rate, then you'll want a newer Intel processor."


http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/134999-measuring-the-impact-of-cpu-choice-on-gaming-performance

 

[maxalge]

By the way, I'm still waiting for you to build me a configuration that meets my basic demands for $1000 that would "demolish" my computer.

Make a thread, I'll be glad to help.


Just quit trolling OP's thread.

 

[slendermanFTW]

Wow, i go away for a few hours and a full fledged AMD vs. Intel fight breaks out.
if i wanted to build with intel, would this work?

i5-3570k
asrock z77 extreme 3 motherboard
8 Gb corsair vengeance 1600
gtx 660 superclocked by EVGA
600-700 watt power supply
60 GB samsung ssd

i don't need a optical drive or hard drive because i was able to salvage them from a friends old Compaq pc.
would it work or not?
and would i get the same performance if i had all the same parts but had amd processor and board.

 

[esrever]

^you'd get better performance with the intel build in gaming.

Everything looks good.

 

[slendermanFTW]

should i go with a 700 watt psu or can i go with a 600 watt?

 

[nekulturny]

Wow, i go away for a few hours and a full fledged AMD vs. Intel fight breaks out.
if i wanted to build with intel, would this work?

i5-3570k
asrock z77 extreme 3 motherboard
8 Gb corsair vengeance 1600
gtx 660 superclocked by EVGA
600-700 watt power supply
60 GB samsung ssd

i don't need a optical drive or hard drive because i was able to salvage them from a friends old Compaq pc.
would it work or not?
and would i get the same performance if i had all the same parts but had amd processor and board.

Yes it would work. Although I have a couple of thoughts about it.

1. SSD.. My advice is if you can't afford at least a 128GB one, to forget it completely. Reasons being, between NTFS formatting, Windows installation, and virtual memory, you're losing at least 20GB of storage space. That leaves you 40GB for games, applications etc. A single game nowadays can easily take up to 10GB. So I think you can see where the problem is going. Yes with an Intel system you can make use of their cache drive feature, although hardly anyone uses, because, its just not as good performancwise as running an SSD as the primary boot. The Samsung SSDs are fine, although I lean towards the Crucial M4s for my recommendations.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820148448

2. Heres a decent power supply, it has more than enough wattage and amps to handle even an SLI setup if GTX 660s if you had the inclination.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817139020

 

[nekulturny]

If only it was as easy as that...



"If you covet glassy smoothness, where the system pumps out frames consistently at low latencies close to your display's refresh rate, then you'll want a newer Intel processor."


http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/134999-measuring-the-impact-of-cpu-choice-on-gaming-performance

And.. to cut to the chase, this article from the very same people who wrote the last one:

http://techreport.com/review/23750/amd-fx-8350-processor-reviewed/14

The overall performance scatter offers some good news for AMD fans: the FX-8350 outperforms both the Core i5-3470 and the 3570K in our nicely multithreaded test suite. As a result, the FX-8350 will give you more performance for your dollar than the Core i5-3570K, and it at least rivals our value favorite from Intel, the Core i5-3470.

AND, you previously made the claim the Phenom IIs outperform the new PileDrivers in gaming, I asked you at least twice to back that up.. now heres a conclusion to the contrary, borrowing yet again, your own source:

Pop over to the gaming scatter, though, and the picture changes dramatically. There, the FX-8350 is the highest-performance AMD desktop processor to date for gaming, finally toppling the venerable Phenom II X4 980. Yet the FX-8350's gaming performance almost exactly matches that of the Core i3-3225, a $134 Ivy Bridge-based processor. Meanwhile, the Core i5-3470 delivers markedly superior gaming performance for less money than the FX-8350. The FX-8350 isn't exactly bad for video games—its performance was generally acceptable in our tests. But it is relatively weak compared to the competition.

And yes, no need to highlight the other quoted information, the "defense" stipulates (as I did in the beginning of the thread) that PileDriver is still behind Intel in certain things.

 

[BobCharlie]

You definitely need a LARGER HD. The last 3 games (BO2 15Gb; AC3 14.5Gb; Hitman Absolution 23.4Gb- includes uPlay and Steam INSTALLED SPACE USAGE) I put on my HD would of already used up ALL of your available space including the space needed to run Win7. You *could* always put Win7 on the 60Gb SSD, then add a 2nd HD to install games on, but you might run into issues as some games don't allow you to install files to non default locations or can be buggy putting them in different directories.

 

[nekulturny]

You definitely need a LARGER HD. The last 3 games (BO2 15Gb; AC3 14.5Gb; Hitman Absolution 23.4Gb- includes uPlay and Steam INSTALLED SPACE USAGE) I put on my HD would of already used up ALL of your available space including the space needed to run Win7. You *could* always put Win7 on the 60Gb SSD, then add a 2nd HD to install games on, but you might run into issues as some games don't allow you to install files to non default locations or can be buggy putting them in different directories.

Yea.. Even a 256GB SSD wouldn't cut it for my hard drive needs, I know not everyone is as much of a packrat as I am, but my main boot drive is a 500GB WD Caviar Blue and I'm constantly managing that one to keep it from filling up. I'm waiting for the 500GB SSDs to go down before I pick one up, or I might do a RAID.

 

[lordvr]

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!!!

Very poor CPU for gaming. It does bottleneck the graphics card in a lot of games. It's not even good enough to play Diablo 3 on 1080P without lag. Also, recently tried Assassin's Creed 3 able to get only 20 fps in crowded city, but up to 40-60 in less open less crowded areas. I'm using a Radeon 5970 2 GB graphics card which is supposed to be pretty good so I'm sure most of the blame falls on the cpu. Personally, after being an exclusive AMD user for so long, I'm fed up with the crap performance and ready to go Intel all the way. My buddy was in the same boat as me with a shitty Phenom II which didn't cut it even with a nice sli setup. He switched to i7 and now none of his games ever lag anymore. I think the cpu is a huge factor in a lot of games. However, keep in mind that neither of us overclocked, so it might be more decent with overclocking, but I have never had success overclocking, not even with a black edition and a board with special overclocking features. Overclocking is always hit and miss, since you don't know what kind of chip you're going to get.

 

[esrever]

Very poor CPU for gaming. It does bottleneck the graphics card in a lot of games. It's not even good enough to play Diablo 3 on 1080P without lag. Also, recently tried Assassin's Creed 3 able to get only 20 fps in crowded city, but up to 40-60 in less open less crowded areas. I'm using a Radeon 5970 2 GB graphics card which is supposed to be pretty good so I'm sure most of the blame falls on the cpu. Personally, after being an exclusive AMD user for so long, I'm fed up with the crap performance and ready to go Intel all the way. My buddy was in the same boat as me with a shitty Phenom II which didn't cut it even with a nice sli setup. He switched to i7 and now none of his games ever lag anymore. I think the cpu is a huge factor in a lot of games. However, keep in mind that neither of us overclocked, so it might be more decent with overclocking, but I have never had success overclocking, not even with a black edition and a board with special overclocking features. Overclocking is always hit and miss, since you don't know what kind of chip you're going to get.

none of this is true.

 

[nekulturny]

Newcomer with 6 posts.. Not even worth the time of day esrever... Blatant trolling throwaway account.

But, what can I say, I'm a glutton for punishment?

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/diablo-iii-performance-benchmark,3195-6.html

Tom's downclocked several different CPUs, which is more of a burden than a heavily populated server. Theres little difference with any CPU

As far as Assassin's Creed 3. Its yet another hatchet job console port, the problem is not exclusive to AMD CPUs. If people would stop buying these trashy console ports, theses gaming companies (like Bethesda) might be motivated in actually putting some effort into a product they're charging $70 bucks for.

http://www.dsogaming.com/pc-performance-analyses/assassins-creed-iii-pc-performance-analysis/

 

[esrever]

Im only really bothering cause I don't want people reading it to be fooled.

 

[nekulturny]

Well. Did what I post help? lol... I'd like to see how Assassins Creed 3 performs on Ivy or Sandys, but I can't seem to find any tech sites that have done it. I found that link easily enough but they used an overclocked C2Q for that, but the guy explained why that was an acceptable test system for that game. And really for a console port it should be, since consoles have far weaker CPUs and GPUs than even mid level gaming systems.

Just because someone is "sure" that the problem is their CPU doesn't make it so. But as you can see from this thread, this is why I don't post here as much as I used to, I keep running into a brick wall of ignorance when I'm just trying to help people out.

Funny thing is, you and I have butted heads over Bulldozer in the past, I criticize when I feel its warranted. But somehow I'm still just a hopeless AMD fanboy to some.

 

[esrever]

It is true, some people are extremely ignorant and some are just trolls. I sometimes just leave threads if the OP doesn't come back or something because I feel its pointless to try and convince a lot of people.

I don't even bother posting support for my comments if I feel like there is no point. Almost every thread just breaks down to a flame war if the OP don't make decisions fast in situations like this. I really get tired of arguing with people sometimes.