FX series CPUs and Gaming in 2015 and beyond

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

cowboy44mag

Guest
Jan 24, 2013
315
0
10,810
I'm posting this and asking the question why do so many "experts" think that FX CPUs can't game?

I have seen many threads of people asking for expert advice and not really getting expert advice so I am posting this to basically ask why. I have seen people who already have a good AMD AM3+ motherboard asking for a good upgrade path and being told to go to i3 Intel. I read that and think what in the world are they thinking??

Lets look at a few facts about PC gaming. Most PC games are developed for console and ported from console to PC as consoles sell vastly more copies of said game than PC does. So for the past 8 years or so games were made for the Xbox 360 and ran on a maximum of 3 cores, however the vast majority of the games made in the last 8 years ran on 2 cores. That made the iCore the legend that it is in the gaming community, as Intel computers have very powerful core per core performance. If Intel has a weakness it is only apparent in heavily multi threaded applications where the i3 and even the i5 struggle a bit.

Now we have wholly new console systems that utilize AMD hardware. The PS4 (most powerful of the consoles) has 8 jaguar cores running at a max of only 2.0Ghz. Developers aren't going to able to just write and code as usual as trying to code for 2 or even 3 cores isn't going to cut it. With the weaker cores at low speeds they are going to have to make highly multi threaded games that spread the workload to as many of the cores as is possible.

In practice we already have a game we can look at that is a true prelude into what video games of the future are going to look like. I am referring to Shadow of Mordor. Minimum requirements Intel i5 quad core or AMD Phenom II 965 quad core Recommended Intel i7 quad core (with 8 threads) or AMD 8320 8 core. Notice that i3 isn't even listed, it can't run the game well enough to be recommended. Yet there are still "experts" recommending people to go to i3 systems for gaming... Really, really bad advice for future gaming.

As games become more and more optimized for the new consoles they are going to be more and more multi threaded. In benchmarks that will test the entire CPU, such as Cinebench R15 the FX series fairs much better than in benchmarks that will only test one or two cores that have dominated the benchmark world for a long time now. In the old standard of benchmarking, where one or two cores are tested even an i3 can out benchmark an FX 8370, but that particular horse has been beat to death for far too long. In Cinebench R15 my FX 8370 @ 4.5Ghz scores 712-725 reported scores of i5 4690k @ 4.5Ghz are in the 690-700 range. So an older socket FX-8370 is outperforming the much newer, more expensive "superior" i5 4690K when more than one or two cores is benchmarked.

Given that games are becoming more and more multi threaded, given that in multi threaded benchmarks the FX 8370 can outperform the i5 4690K, at a better price, why do so many "experts" say that the FX line can't game? Paired with my Sapphire R9 290 there isn't a game out there that my FX 8370 can't play at ultra settings, newer games at really nice FPS. These first round games developed for the new consoles aren't even optimized yet either. Shadow of Mordor never uses more than 6 cores on my FX 8370 and never pushes any core past 60% utilization. Once games can utilize 6-8 cores at 80, 90, 100% utilization things like bottlenecking won't be an issue anymore for the FX line. And how will even the i5 4690K with 4 cores and 4 threads fair in a game optimized for 6, 7, 8 cores and 6-8 threads? I'm sure it will still run the game, but it won't be outperforming a processor with 8 cores 8 threads.

Shadow of Mordor is the writting on wall for future gaming. i3 computers won't game much longer, i5 compters are going to be the minimum required and therefore may not be able to get ultra settings anymore, and i7 computers are going to be the new best gaming system, closely followed by FX 8 core systems (until Broadwell 8+ thread and next gen AMD is released late 2015, 2016).

I think its past time that anyone recommends an i3 as a gaming rig. the much vaunted i5 was the gaming rig of the last generation, this generation its going to be CPUs that can handle 8 threads or more, so your looking at i7 being the very best, for now, with AMD FX 8320+ being the next best choice. Notice I'm not an AMD fanboy, I'm saying that the i7 is going to be the best processor for future games, I'm just pointing out that games are becoming more and more multi threaded and i5s are already being listed as the minimum required. We are going to have at least 6 or 7 more years of game development for the 8 core PS4 before its replaced by the next consoles. In that time we are going to see games utilizing 6+ threads to their full potential.

With that said FX 8370 is a better recommendation than any i3, and will more than likely be a better recommendation than i5. Best budget gamers would have to start with FX 6300.
 
Solution
J
thing is with AMD fx your buying 4 years in the past today .. how much longer can that keep going on ??? face it its a dead platform unless you never had one then you got to think do I want something that's hanging around for 4+ years or go with something that's more to the day like you get with a intel build ??

Sort by date Sort by votes
"poor old 7850 I don't think will bottleneck it .. if so then that's pretty sad for a 8350 like I said all thas been changed is the board and chip the rest was pull off"

I agree, I don't think an 8350 would bottleneck a 7850. Unfortunately games ported from Xbox 360 were very poorly optimized for a processor like FX 8350 as they relied heavily on single core execution. Hopefully games produced from now on will be heavily multi threaded and really take advantage of AMD hardware. It will take developers a while to get the hang of making software / games for the new AMD hardware in the PS4, when that happens we will truly see what processors like the 8350 / 8370 are capable of.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
thing is my fx experance done me in with amd it was never satisfying and a let down - up until am3+ I was always happy with my amd builds , but now they would need to pull a rabbit out of there hats to get me back and if there new cards are a joke in anyway as bad as I want to say this i'll go NVidia as well

then you read stuff like this and wonder whats going on with them ... just falling behind

AMD hasn't released an updated Catalyst Linux driver in three months (sans an early beta posting to Canonical) and their new open-source "AMDGPU" DRM kernel driver has yet to appear that's needed for supporting the Radeon R9 285 and the forthcoming Radeon Rx 300 series and Carrizo APUs. We were told this new kernel driver would likely start surfacing in the winter but we have yet to see that happen. The AMD R9 285 Tonga that's been available for over a half-year now is thus left without any open-source driver support at the moment until this new kernel driver appears.
Meanwhile thanks to Intel's Linux investments, already with the spring distribution releases we're seeing initial Skylake open-source graphics support
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I think the reason for people suggesting the i3 is this. If you have a user with an am3+ platform and a lower end fx cpu, they'll be spending close to $200 for an fx 8350. It might be a little faster than what they had, but amd's never really been at a lack for core count. Most people seem to have 6 or 8 core amd cpu's. If you upgrade from an fx 6300 to an 8350, the gains are slight for just under $200. That's it, end of the line. Once you've dumped close to $200 into an 8320/50 etc, it makes no sense to dump another $200 into a 9750. If you've got an 8320, chances are you're not going to buy an 8350 just like an intel user wouldn't have much point getting rid of their i5 4670 for a 4690k.

The i3 is capable of most games and does pretty well. Paired with a gtx 970/980 or r9 280x/290 much of the gaming load is on the gpu at higher resolutions. It's not a recommendation that the i3 is vastly superior to the 8350, it's more about a budget option that allows people to get a platform that goes somewhere. Fx 8350 is it, end of the line. An i3 user can drop an i5 or i7 or xeon into their rig and if they went with the i3 and the proper motherboard - they're already set up for a painless upgrade.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I was never trying to say that Intel processors are bad, far from that they are very good processors. Its hard to fault AMD too much when one considers they not only make processors but they also make really good GPUs, whereas Intel is much larger, has a lot more money to throw around, and makes processors. I find it funny how AMD is able to keep up with giants like Intel and Nvidia. For as hailed as the i5 4690K is my FX 8370 outperforms it in Cinebench where the entire CPU can be tested. Considering the FX 8370 is only a better binned, tweaked version of what they have had for over 2 years, and the i5 4690K is much newer Haswell. The GTX Titan was shocked to its core not long ago when the AMD R9 290X came to town and outperformed it at half the Titan's $1,000 price tag. AMD is able to shock the computer world from time to time, and given how much smaller they are, that is an impressive feat.

For me, and anyone who currently is on an AM3+ board and wants to future proof their build for the next few years the FX 8370 is a fine processor. With a good GPU (I just upgraded to Sapphire R9 290 Tri-X not long ago) there isn't a game going that I can't play at ultra settings, haven't had any bottlenecks, and have been playing on a 40" 1080p for over a week (I usually use a smaller 19" monitor but have had it hooked up to my 40" to test out the R9 290). Multi media tasks and everyday computing the processor is blazing fast. Building a brand new build either wait for next gen Intel and AMD processors in about a year's time (give or take), go with Intel, or if you don't mind replacing your motherboard and processor in a year or two build an FX gamer (given the current hardware in the consoles you'll be able to game for the next few years without problem).

The post "AMD processors are just to weak to compare with intel in cpu tasks weak cores and weak optimization" sums up why I made this thread to being with. Intel fans can't and won't admit that AMD processors are also good options. Will you get more FPS gaming with Intel (given you didn't blow your entire budget on the processor and got a decent GPU), but an extra 10 FPS over FX doesn't mean that the AMD processor can't give an incredibly enjoyable gameplay experience too. Its funny how those weak AMD processors can out benchmark the i5 4690K in Cinebench.
 
Upvote 1 Downvote
Think of car engines. They mix fuel and air and get energy that's transferred to mechanical energy to power the wheels. Pretty simple. That said, there are different engine types...a Ferrari V-8 engine does the same thing as the 3 cylinder in the old Geo Metro, just a lot better. That's not to say the Ferrari is better than the Metro, it's just a matter of how fast you want to go and other things like fuel efficiency and simplicity.

The same can be said of a processor. They all do the same thing- take 1's and 0's binary code and turn them into images, sounds, etc, but some do it better, faster, more efficiently. This is where we get into the AMD and Intel face-off. It's true that Intel owns the market for mainstream and enthusiast CPU's, and it wasn't always that way. To be fair, AMD once dominated the CPU market with the Athlon chips, which were far superior to anything Intel had until they rolled out the clunky Pentium dual cores with high clock speeds to beat the Athlon. It was all downhill for AMD from there, with newer Intel designs coming out every couple of years...Pentium D, Core Solo, Core Duo, Core 2 Duo, Core ix series, Sandy Bridge, Ivy Bridge, Haswell, and now Broadwell. Each launch was an improvement. The jump from Netburst and the Pentium D to the Core 2 Duo was revolutionary with a 1.8 GHz C2D beating the 3.6 GHz Pentium D 960 in efficiency and per clock performance. AMD didn't really get to the same level as Intel with new chip rollouts, with only slight improvements. Someone might correct me, but AMD was the first mainstream consumer chip with 8 cores, but they stalled in development and couldn't get past the FX's shortcomings, while Intel kept launching more efficient but still fast processors. Even on the server/enterprise side, Xeon is the bog standard while Opterons only sit in a corner of the market.

I think you could sum it up in numbers...AMD has less money. Intel has tons of money. A;though AMD has benefitted from the big component contracts for Sony and Microsoft, and even Nintendo (that Wii has an AMD/Ati chip in it), it still doesn't fully fund their development costs. AMD only owns a small fraction of the commercial/enterprise manufacturer supplier contracts (Lenovo, IBM, Sun, SuperMicro, HP, Dell, Apple, etc.), and you find Intel chips in probably 80% of all PC's and enterprise hardware sold today.

Now, all that said, I like AMD. A lot. I think they are something that Intel isn't, and that's a fantastic value for what you get. Yes, the Core/Haswell are more efficient and do better in single thread task. If you can look past the fact that the 8350 uses more power than the comparable i5/i7 (I am not comparing the i3), and doesn't do as well in single thread tasks (on paper), then you'll see a processor that does the same things as the more expensive Intel chips. Let's be real folks, the average person isn't going to see a difference between an 8350 and a 4690 in day to day computing. If you're someone like a CAD designer, 3D animator, or do video productions and audio mastering/editing, then you have an argument for something like an i7 with hyper threading or a Xeon, where you need the single threaded performance that those applications use, but for Joe Blow just wanting to play games on their PC, then there's no reason not to do an AMD. We like to throw around benchmark figures, but in reality, those numbers are mostly arbitrary, as the seat of your pants feeling will be as little as several seconds slower to decode a file, or a few FPS on a game. For those who gripe about them running too hot, get an air cooler. Most of us toss the stock cooler anyways. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, the AMD 990X chipset has more PCIe lanes than the Intel Z97. To get more you'd have to go X99 LGA 2011, a significant increase in price.

In addition, I totally agree where game development and evolution is going, which is multicore utilization with multiple threaded application. It's funny that CPU technology and capabilities surpasses gaming engines, but that will change as the game development becomes dependent on 4+ processing cores. I think we'll begin to see game platforms fully utilizing 8 core processors, and as long as AMD can keep up with it, I think the will continue to be successful in that area. Also, I think there will be more a shift to APU tech, and AMD owns the market for that technology.

As far as the future for AMD? I think it's anybody's guess. It remains to be seen if they can roll out a refreshed FX line that will bring performance and efficiency that will start to ruffle Intel's feathers. You can look at it any way you want. Intel or AMD. There are a lot of people who like AMD (there are those out there still running the 965 BE and 1100 BE chips), and more using the FX 8350 and FX 6300's. Is there an argument for getting an i3 over something like the 8320? I think it's a matter of preference, like choosing a car. Some prefer Honda, some like Nissan. Some like Porsche, some like Ferrari.
 
Upvote 1 Downvote
I bought my Phenom II X6 1090T in 2010 when it first came out, and replaced my motherboard when it died in 2013 with an AM3+. I have considered upgrading to a 83xx cpu, but it just does not seem worth the money. The FX cpu's are so old now. And Intel has new chips coming out every year. In the future I won't be putting in a 83xx unless I can get one under 100 dollars.

I think anyone building a new system would be wise to stick to Intel, as you can get a good motherboard, and decent processor, and then always upgrade the processor later, if you want or need something stronger.

Maybe AMD will release something decent in the future, that at least competes price wise, but for now what have they done lately?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
An amd 8xxx may outperform an i5 in cinebench, but real world benchmarks show a much different story and that's really what matters. Unless your sole task is acing synthetic benchmarks. It also needs to be noted that everyone just accepts tossing amd's 8 core against intel's 4 core middle of the road chips. To make it fair, let's put amd's best 8 core against intel's 8 core. That would be a fair comparison. To say amd's doing well when their latest platform is 4yrs old, their next 'potential' platform won't be until mid 2016, well after broadwell and skylake and likely another intel release are made, just doesn't make sense. I do prefer intel which I don't think makes me a fanboy. Just means I prefer peformance. I'd be just as pleased with amd if they had it but that's not the case. Having to use twice as many cores to even come close to intel isn't really impressive. Imagine rolling up to the starting line of a race with a v8 muscle car, hoping to at least keep pace with a 4cyl honda.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


Thank you, I couldn't agree more. As I stated I know Intel makes amazing processors and with the vast money reserves they have will always be a top contender if not the top processors on the market. That doesn't mean that an FX AMD CPU isn't going to be able to do everything the normal person is going to need it to do. I do like AMD because they keep companies like Nvidia and Intel honest. Could you imagine how much an i5 4690K or an i7 would cost if AMD was not around? Just look at the initial price release of the GTX Titan from Nvidia $1000- then AMD releases the R9 290X and the titan fell in price like a lead brick. If not for competition none of us would be able to afford a gaming computer. Without some form of benchmark software running in the background two identical computers with the only exception being one is running FX 8370 and one is running i5 4690K it would be a coin toss if you could tell which was which.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


You are of course assuming that Intel is going to stick with their current chipset if you are talking about simple changing CPU upgrades. That was one nice thing with AM3+, it can run everything from Athlon to FX. No Intel chipset can do the same thing. I highly doubt that Broadwell is going to be on the same chipset as Haswell, I know that the next gen AMD high end processor will not be AM3+. Either way to upgrade to the next gen processor from either company will more than likely require a whole new motherboard.

 
Upvote 0 Downvote


When comparing processors the only fair comparison is to compare processors in the same price range. Its the only fair way to compare a car too. My family's old station wagon growing up was a V8, there is no way anyone would try to compare it to a V8 muscle car of the same era, totally different price bracket. If you stack up FX 8 core to Intel i7 8 core your comparing a $150 processor to a $1000 processor, how is that fair? In its price bracket the FX 8370 is actually closest matched by i5 lower than 4690K. Yet in highly multi threaded applications the FX 8370 can trade blows with the more expensive 4960K (when I bought my FX 8370 I paid $150, the i5 4690K was $240).

" Imagine rolling up to the starting line of a race with a v8 muscle car, hoping to at least keep pace with a 4cyl honda" Where have you been? There are a lot of V8 muscle cars that can and will be toasted by 4cyl hondas if those Hondas have $100,000 of modifications and NOS. But again your comparing two cars in vastly different price ranges.

To be fair FX doesn't have a "high end" right now as it has nothing to answer the i7 Intel "high end" as I have mentioned before. AMD focused on mainstream which would be i5 Intel, and their better FX processors do trade blows with the i5 line in everything except single core execution (which everyone already knows and has been beaten into the ground). AMD is doing well in the GPU battle with Nvidia, AMD already announced they aren't in the CPU "high end" race anymore and shifted to mainstream CPU instead. Their APU line is doing well, and FX compared to i5 in same price bracket the average user really isn't going to notice the difference. Not bad considering one is running what is considered to be old tech and the other is running what is supposed to be state of the art.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I feel AMD 's biggest issues is there too dependent on 3ed party .. they have little to nothing ''in house'' or under there full control - so its like AMD is a office full of guys that contract out all there work. seemd like back in there hay days they own there fab's and all not its been sold off.. and I think that Emirate of Abu Dhabi investment into them hurt them overall the most so is it AMD calls the shots or there major stock holders /investors that do ??

to me sometimes I wonder with that strong mid east investors what of any profits they see really go to over there ?? isis ?? thing is you don't know

then I was reading a deal on all the black market AMD chips popping up like on e-bay so your back to that control ,global foundry whats to stop there guys from slipping things out the back door ??

anyway amd seems to have too many spoons in there pot where intel keeps a grip on them selves , and the old saying goes '' if you want things done right you got to do it yourself'''
[opinion]
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I find it odd every time the amd/intel debate comes up regarding cpu's, amd fanboys throw out 'yea but amd makes gpu's too'. What does that have anything to do with it? I think it's absolutely fair to pit core to core other than the fact amd loses badly enough 8 core against 4 core, the single core performance advantage would truly be seen. People think there's very little advantage in core performance which translates to more power throughout the range not just single threaded tasks. It's the basis for a cpu's performance, period. The only reason to compare price is because amd's cpu's can't compete in the performance arena so they've had no choice but to drop their prices. If you can't make it perform better, put it on sale I guess.

Funny, when amd's ahead of the game, they find it fair to compare speed for speed or core for core. When they drop behind, then it becomes a price war. Whatever they can grasp at to spin it for amd. I'm sorry amd's doing poorly as well, it means lack of competition. But if twisting things to try and get the desired outcome or to justify something doesn't scream fanboyism I don't know what does.

It's not that amd has better bang for the buck, they just have less bang for less bucks and it supports the old saying that you get what you pay for. Intel costs more, intel performs more. There's no other reason to cut prices so severely other than your product isn't worth what you initially thought it was and more importantly, your customers don't. If they weren't afraid of their prices there wouldn't be any need to slash prices. Intel hasn't had to cut prices.

When the fx 9590 came out, it was $1000, now it's around $240. That's how much amd's had to cut prices.
http://www.pcper.com/news/Processors/AMD-FX-9590-50-GHz-processor-getting-price-drop
http://www.modders-inc.com/amd-fx-9590-processor-review-2/
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


AMD's op manual is a little different than Intel's. AMD does rely heavily on 3rd party contracts and simply because they don't have the resources. Intel does, and they can better manage their ops more effectively (internally). Until AMD is making enough money to put into desktop processor R&D they will continue to fall behind Intel. As much as I want to see AMD releasing new processors, it will take time to see the benefit as cashflow increases to put into development. Up to now they make the majority of their money on GPU and APU sales.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
true - amd looked at all them nice console contracts and such. and just got desktop as a afterthought for now .. and apu is there path . amd's on chip graphics is better then intels . just too bad you can get the intel chip with the amd graphics on it . then you got something
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
At some point the apu/igpu models (whatever you want to call the on die gpu) are sort of splitting hairs. Amd does have an edge there but the only real things an integrated gpu have to do is provide a good enough display to watch video and provide a display for common tasks such as web browsing. Basic video functionality. Having better on die video is a double edged sword since it adds to the heat factor of the apu die.

Light gaming can likely be done on them but they aren't even comparable to discrete gpu's. It only takes so much performance to power youtube vids or dvd's/streaming video like netflix. Once that's been reached (has been for awhile now back in the day of onboard gpu's on motherboards) it's just falling into an awkward area. More than necessary for common display tasks, not enough for any real gaming and adding extra heat while doing so. I'd say it had a place for things like mobile gaming, but even laptops are featuring single and sli discrete mobile graphics. Considering apu/igpu's aren't anywhere close to being strong enough to replace a discrete card for gaming purposes, how much can they compete really against one another? Does one play youtube vids faster than the other? I don't use intel's igpu since it's not strong enough for gaming but that's any integrated graphics. Looking at the size of current video cards, I doubt it will happen anytime soon. But since intel's igpu is good enough to provide a basic display and hd vids, what's the advantage of having slightly better?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
about size of cards I brought that up above how evga trys to keep that down to help insure better case fit but then you look at most amd offerings I mean 13'' more or less ?? no sale to me I'm not buying new cases for there card or hammer and hacksaw to the ones I got just for them - I was looking at a rumor site for the new card that was on display at a show and folks were remarking on the pc case it was in and used well what they should of realized is that case is long [server-- Chenbro Micom SR10569] so they can get the card in something I bet that card must be 15'' long [390x]

now why if you need to make money build cards that may not fit 40-60% of cases in use ?

but you never know as far as there chips go they may pop up with a new line of cpu's that may replace that old and dated fx line

one more thing is if the fx chips were so good then why did amd fall back to the Athlon line to start off there apu deal ?? way not incorporate it on there ''better fx chip line ??
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


Engineering samples are generally larger then production cards. They include extra test points and connectors for monitoring the card during development and testing.

Until the production models come out we can only guess what the R9-390x will be like. And don't count out the OEMs, they can always make their own shorter PCBs if they want to.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
ya, I see that with the -r- cards [lol] like 11'' is about the shortest one in the 290 ?? 10.24 for the 280 ?? heck evga got 980's just at 10.1''

well for me if it don't work I don't buy air flow and space management is hard enough as it is with out things looking crammed like in a sardine can

if you just go by what the 290[x] cards are it will be a monster -- then add sapphires and giga's 3 fan crap to that
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


You can't even compare any CPU on the market to the 9000 series chips. The low-end i7 absolutely blows away any 9000 series CPU at a fraction of the power consumption, and will run in any LGA 1155/1150 board.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I wanted to put the AMD vs. Intel debate into perspective. For a while, the race between the chipmakers was neck and neck, with Intel countering AMD's new chip releases (Athlon XP, 64, 64 x2) with higher clocked (3.2+ GHz, 3.7 for the Extreme chips) Pentium 4's and later Pentium D's. After Intel launched the new Core architectures, AMD started to fall behind. When Intel was fielding new 45 nm chips, AMD was still making due with 65 nm and even some 90 nm Trinidad dies in 2007/2008. They struggled mightily to keep up with the Intel chips, and eventually fell behind and Intel never looked back. It was kind of the same debate today as it was 10 years ago, where the market was going and the best chip for the job. However, it was a little different as you'd be better to do AMD for single threaded applications like GAMES, and Intel for multithreaded applications like video editing, etc. If you had money to burn, you went with AMD. If you wanted a cheaper, but still a good processor, you got a Pentium 4/D.

Nowadays, we have the FX 6300 and 8350 representing the better value and similar performance. Whereas 9 years ago the $1000 Athlon 64 X2's were king, now the $320 i7's are king.

What's also interesting is the CPU hierarchy that came out of the competition and the leaps and bounds that the gaming/mainstream consumer experienced with technology. The Phenom chips of 2010-2011 were really amazing performers and brought fast quad core and even hexacore processors to the consumer market. It was really neat to watch AMD rolling out those exciting chips. But as cool as that was, when the Sandy Bridge chips launched, the game changed. When Ivy Bridge launched, it changed again, and it continues to do so, at least for Intel.

If you really look at it, a $240 i5 4690 will match or beat the old $1000 i7-990x Extreme chip from 2010 in games. That's a hexacore, 3.6 GHz chip with hyper threading against a quad core, single threaded chip. Amazing stuff.

I really want to see AMD come out with something amazing that will give the Intel chips a run for their money, but sadly, I can't see that happening any time soon. Unless someone graciously dumps a ton of money into AMD's R&D, and they develop new proprietary technology that vastly improves per core performance, I can't see AMD bouncing back from the hole they have inadvertently dug for themselves. While Intel is on cruise control, AMD struggles to get out of 3rd gear. I am seeing the same thing in the GPU market with NVIDIA now...Radeon needs to act fast to counter Maxwell.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom