FX series CPUs and Gaming in 2015 and beyond

[cowboy44mag]

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.

 

[Epic Sasa]

well from a easy perspective i thought i3s were pretty bad and pentiums were bad so AMD puts it down into a new level

 

[synphul]

I just think in terms of the title, fx series cpu's for 2015+ gaming it depends on the games. They may handle 2015 games just fine, maybe even part of 2016. Depending on how intensive and how the new games are coded (all speculation). The fx lineup is pretty much dead, amd's acknowledged this. Not sure what they plan to do, so far the fx series have been about cranking out higher mhz and heat on the same architecture. Their new architecture isn't scheduled until around mid 2016 which leaves more than a year until something really changes. The current fx are about at their limit it looks like, especially considering the 220w 9590. Maybe they'll make a revision between now and then? I'd think if they had any ideas they would have been released rather than rehashing the same old fx chips over and over. I wouldn't expect the fx chips to do any better than they currently are, other than things like improved video drivers I've never seen finite released tech magically become better over time, only worse. Dx12 may help somewhat, but it's going to help all cpu's across the board not just amd's offerings.

 

[junkeymonkey]

if you look at this it close to even but its processing power out side of gaming what hurts amd this is why its mostly said ''amd is good enough for gaming '' -- true it is, but what about the rest of what you may want to do that would rely on chip/core power ?? like single/ mulit core super pi fopr example 8350 does a run at 22-18 sec. same run intel 9 sec. things like this is where amd has a hard time

http://www.tweaktown.com/tweakipedia/58/core-i7-4770k-vs-amd-fx-8350-with-gtx-980-vs-gtx-780-sli-at-4k/index.html

 

[Eximo]

AMD's plan appear to merge their server and enthusiast processor line into one. But don't hold your breath, they are definitely going to do the server line first. When it comes out for the consumer they are talking like twenty cores. So looks like they are going in the wrong direction to please gamers.

 

[junkeymonkey]

one thing that came to mind is that back in the good old amd days when you got a amd board the better top boards were the ones with the NVidia chipsets [nvidias founder was a AMD guy] and all was good .. then NVidia stopped making or got out of the chipset game and left amd to there own chipsets and that's when things started to go down hill [opinion] my last best AMD builds was a 590sli board and it rocked in its day

Jen-Hsun Huang (CEO as of 2013), a Taiwanese-born American, previously Director of CoreWare at LSI Logic and a microprocessor designer at Advanced Micro Devices (AMD).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nvidia

optron, fx ,i7/i5, xeon there just chips. plenty of folks use optron/xeon server chips for gaming .

 

[tightblunt]

The first thing that comes to mind is that your so called experts are Intel fanboys. I know of folks still gaming on Athlon chips. The problem you run into is bottlenecking newer graphics cards. For at least the next few years the higher end FX chips will perform comparably to most Intel chips when it comes to gaming. On the other hand, Intels i5 and i7 chips will smoke any AMD chip ever thought of in multithreading tasks such as photo and video editing.

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.

 

[cowboy44mag]

I've been doing a lot of gaming on ultra lately enjoying my new Sapphire R9 290 Tri-X on ultra, but just wanted to post some things I found out on my smartphone while pretending to watch The Notebook with the wife. I started with trying to figure out just how far behind the i7 series the FX 8370 is, and I found its sweet spot in the i7 2600K Sandy Bridge. A few sources before I go into how I came up with that processor to compare to:

http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i7-2600K-vs-AMD-FX-8350

http://cpuboss.com/cpus/AMD-FX-8370-vs-AMD-FX-8350

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-FX-8370-vs-AMD-FX-8350/2983vs1489

Now first of all, I wanted to show that far from the popular belief that the FX 8370 is nothing more than a higher turbo clocked FX 8350, it is much more than that, the FX 8370 is:
35% more energy efficient
8% faster single core integer speed
14% faster quad core integer speed
10% faster multi core integer speed

So its not on a new process, but the FX 8370 is a nice bump up from the FX 8350, especially in energy efficiency. In fact one could argue that if it was an Intel release if it would have been touted a huge step forward because of it's better power usage alone, but because its an AMD it was laughed at as being the same as the FX 8350.

Now I found that in comparing the FX 8350 to the i7 2600K the two processors were in a pretty much neck and neck for performance (one scoring higher here the other scoring higher there, but neither blowing the other away), with the little bumps that the FX 8370 has over the FX 8350 the FX 8370 is an even better contender to the i7 2600K, which is what one might expect when the 2600K is 2 generations old. But I found this to be rather interesing:

http://www.overclock.net/t/1449288/sandy-bridge-i7-2600k-vs-haswell-i7-4770k-help

http://www.tomshardware.com/answers/id-1696063/updating-computer-haswell-2600k-gpu.html

Now in both of those links all the experts are recommending if you have an i7 2600K there is no point in upgrading to Haswell because there just isn't enough of a performance boost to warrant doing so. Now that leads one to question one thing - just how far is Intel ahead of AMD really? I mean in real world computing how far are they really ahead? Experts everywhere recommend not upgrading from i7 2600K to Haswell, yet the FX 8370 is neck and neck with i7 2600K. Yet no one wants to say that FX 8370 isn't that far behind Haswell. The logic there is simply flawed. I know that Haswell is ahead of the FX line, but in real world computing its not the huge gap that all the fan boys want to make believe it is.

I love how when the experts are comparing the i7 2600K to Haswell they almost scoff at benchmarks saying that you'll only notice a difference in benchmarks not the real world, yet they use those same benchmarks to put down FX all the time. I would also like to point out that Intel isn't the most honest of companies, regularly lying to their customers to make their products look better. Case in point is a couple years ago it came out that their compiler checked for the Genuine Intel mark and if a processor didn't have it the compiler would make sure it was given the slowest instruction set possible thus making Intel processors benchmark far above everyone else even though the hardware wasn't any better. They lost that in court and had to fix it, but have had plenty of time and have plenty of money to do something similar that is harder to find. So just how far is Intel really ahead of AMD in the real world, not the synthetic make believe world of benchmarks?

You simply can't look at the fact that the i7 2600K and the FX 8370 are neck and neck performance wise, Intel guys recommend not upgrading from 2600K to Haswell as its doesn't give enough of a performance boost to warrant it, yet those same Intel guys will tell you the FX 8370 is junk. It simply can't be both ways, and I really wonder just how far Intel goes to keep their superiority either real or made to look real. Just how many benchmarks have cripple AMD code (Intel did it once so we all know they aren't above doing it again if they think they can get away with it)? I also wonder if on popular sites like this and overclockers, ect where people go to get advice from experts just how many are actual consumers like me telling their real world experience with the processor and how many are on Intel's pay roll to keep the appearance of superiority- I personally wouldn't put anything past the dirty business practices of Intel.

 

[cowboy44mag]

As far as the FX 8370 build I have for gaming goes... I have a 1000 watt 80+ gold psu, 16 GB RAM, Sapphire R9 290 Tri-X. I'm sure I'll be gaming on this for at least the next 4 years, and beyond. With the PS4 using all AMD hardware you better believe that the games will not only be heavily multi threaded, but they will also extensively use Mantle as the video card in the PS4 is also AMD, and Mantle will be needed to cope with the 8 2Ghz Jag cores in the PS4. The developers will have no choice but to do those things to make next gen gaming work with the next gen consoles.

 

[xidiliar]

I have a pair of crossfired 290xs. I used to run them with an FX-8350. It would run everything above 60 fps at max settings. I now run them with a 4790k. It runs everything above 60fps at max settings. Yes it's old, but it's not as weak as people like to pretend it is. It's fantastic for the price and if I had to choose between the 8350 or any i3 I would take the 8350 in a heartbeat. Honestly I'd take it over a lot of i5s as well.

 

[cowboy44mag]

I've been doing some research on the new gaming technology and the hardware requirements for soon to be released video games and what games by the end of the year are going to require and have found some very interesting things. First of all, it doesn't take much Google searching to see that there are a lot of i5 owners worried they will no longer be able to play the latest, greatest game on Ultra settings, and it appears that those days are numbered. Witcher 3 set to release soon will have minimum requirements of an i5 recommended CPU i7 (Intel side). In fact most experts are suggesting an upgrade to a CPU with more than 4 cores 4 threads for future games as the games being produced are being produced and optimized for 8 core console systems using basically PC hardware which will make PC ports very easy. And then I read these:

http://wccftech.com/amd-r9-290x-fast-titan-dx12-enabled-3dmark-33-faster-gtx-980/
http://www.eteknix.com/amd-r9-290x-goes-head-to-head-with-titan-x-with-dx12/

Both are quoting the same facts, and are very interesting for a couple of reasons. Firstly all games are developed for either DX or Mantle (mostly DX) and it is very interesting that DX12 can utilize up to 6 physical cores, but doesn't play well with hyper threading on Nvidia or AMD video cards. Now that doesn't bode well for i5 or lower end i7s. The i5 only had 4 physical cores and 4 threads and the lower end i7s have 4 physical cores and 8 threads utilizing hyper threading. If DX12 and the video cards can't take advantage of hyper threading that leaves the lower end i7 with only 4 physical cores and 4 threads just like the i5. Six and eight core FX processors because they have real physical cores can utilize more cores with DX12. It is going to be interesting to see where the benchmarks place FX processors against i5 and lower end i7s when DX12 releases. Mantle enabled games will be even more interesting as they allow up to 8 physical cores to be used. I also find it very interesting in this article that the Nvidia 900 series GPUs expressly designed to be fully compatible with DX12 are being beaten by AMD R9 290X. In fact the 290X is on par with and beating the much more expensive and newer Titan X with DX12 boosts. So once again AMDs hardware is right in the game even though it is a "generation behind" the competition.

Really this shouldn't be a huge surprise with the current consoles boasting AMD hardware. Games are going to have to be developed around AMD processors and video cards to be optimized. Microsoft's DX12 while giving the Nvidia 900 series a good boost actually gives the AMD video cards a much bigger boost (R9 290X). Not really surprising when you consider the Xbox One is sporting an AMD video card so of course Microsoft DX12 had to be designed to give Microsoft Xbox One a big boost.

It would appear that the age of the dual core processor is done. The age of the quad core processor as the best gaming platform is coming to an end. The age of the 8 core processor is on its way in. Its one thing to have game studios recommending huge PC requirements, but it is totally something else when you consider the new APIs are utilizing at least 6 physical cores. The fact that neither Nvidia or AMD video cards play nice with hyper threading is also very interesting. DX12 can use 6 physical cores, but lower end i7s only have 4 physical cores and 8 hyper threaded threads, which neither DX12, Nvidia, or AMD don't play with well. With the release of DX12 it would appear that Intel is going to have bottlenecking issues with i5 and lower end i7 processors, while FX 83XX processors with 8 physical cores aren't going to have such problems. Of course upper end i7 processors with 8 physical cores will still be the very best of the best, for now.

 

[synphul]

Any future changes in game development are speculative, no one can predict the future. It's very skewed trying to compare consoles to pc's all the time, they're not the same. If they were they would make one game for both but they don't. Ford makes cars, pickup trucks and tractors. It doesn't mean they're even remotely similar. If the future of gaming were requiring 6, 8 or more cores as many suggest, why would intel continue developing quad core cpu's?

This is just my take on it, but I think common sense applies. You have intel (or any industry leader in their field) manufacturing products with several purposes in mind, gaming obviously being a major one. If enthusiasts are on tech boards like this one and others you can be sure large corps have done their homework. Then you have the game devs who are developing software to use on said hardware.

If you develop software that has such high specifications it becomes unusable or unobtainable to the vast majority, you're shooting yourself in the foot. Major game devs aren't sitting totally in the dark, they know what tools (hardware) they have to work with obviously. Why would anyone make software that lacks hardware to run it? Why would hardware devs in the know make hardware that is incompatible? I think it's safe to assume the two work hand in hand with one another to some extent in order to make things mesh rather than both blindly wandering different paths. It's a symbiotic relationship much like the oil/fuel industry and auto manufacturers.

I can appreciate the speculations people make about 8 cores, 16 cores or 500 cores (whatever amd is trying this week to attempt performance gains) being the new big thing but common sense disagrees with armchair forecasters who aren't in the industry. It's already been discussed to death and shown that 8 core consoles and 4 or 8 core pc's are two entirely different beasts. Why people keep trying to compare apples to oranges I'm not sure. They'll never compare anymore than an alienware will ever compare to a bitcoin miner. The logic that consoles use amd hardware so amd pcs will be the new gaming beasts is comparable to saying since ford makes tractors, my ford fusion can outpull a chevy pickup.

It will be interesting to see dx12 in full function working as intended, but it's already been referenced that it will lighten the load on the cpu and place more of the work on the gpu in a way which is more efficient similar to gpgpu processing. Why would gaming pc's need to be 'stronger' with more cores when dx12 is lightening the load? That's contradictory.

Going back to common sense, let's forget any amd or intel battle. Call them A and B. Say A has aging hardware which hasn't seen a major upgrade/update in quite some time, the company has even admitted to this and has announced publicly their main focus is in a different market rather than desktop pc's. Company B on the other hand is continuing to innovate and push powerful, efficient and up to date hardware on a regular basis. Why would you make a product that shunned the current company and catered to the one that's been left to stagnate? That would be like an upcoming movie in summer of 2015 not being released on bluray or dvd - rather they're going to produce it and when it comes out for home video, it's coming out on betamax. Pure foolishness. That's not bashing on any particular brand or being a fan of the other it's just business basics 101.

 

[junkeymonkey]

the reason why amd is on pace with intel in gaming is due to the GPU is doing 90% of the work the cpu is not doing so much

now look at processing power pre core / pre watt .. take super pi single or multi threaded - the stock 8350 [8core 125w] may do it in 22-18 sec. this i5 4670 [4core 84w ] 9 sec.

so now you got binary opening and closeing the chips gates 00001110000100010000 --- so do I want a chip that will crunch them numbers in 9 sec or one that will do it in 20 ?? hmmmmmm

single
http://www.superpi.net/Scores/?action=searchScores&test=-12&vendor=&platform=&series=&rpp=100

multi
http://www.wprime.net/Scores/?action=searchScores&test=6&vendor=&platform=Performance+Desktop&series=&rpp=100

amd a little better here but its a memory involved test

http://www.numberworld.org/y-cruncher/

 

[cowboy44mag]

http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/3DMark-API-Overhead-Feature-Test-Early-DX12-Performance

There are similar sites that are all posting the same results. Now first of all, I'm not saying that all of a sudden the FX 83XX processor line is the best option in computing. Far from it, as there is a lot more in computing than just gaming. What I am saying is for many, many years the go to gaming processor was the i5 line with many opting for an i3 vs AMDs lineup. With the "bottlenecked" game development left from the last generation of consoles the i3 and i5 competed very well even against the i7s because very rarely did a game even utilize a full 3 cores of CPU processing power. Today the game has changed, and with Mantle already on the playing field and now with DX12 basically going the same direction as Mantle (supporting many physical CPU cores) the field is changing even more. There are only 2 main APIs that game developers utilize widely Mantle and DX (with most using DX). Now when Mantle came out and AMD GPUs all of a sudden could crush Nvidia counterparts most said well, so what- no one uses Mantle in development anyway. Now there are a few studios supporting Mantle, but most studios support DX, so with DX12 giving the much cheaper R9 290X, R9 290, and r9 285 a nice boost over Nvidia (especially in the same price range) That is something to really pay attention to.

It may be speculation because the DX12 games are not here yet, and apparently DX12 will work best with Windows 10 which is not quite here yet, but we do have the tests and benchmarks to look at for those new technologies. Those benchmarks clearly show very little to no boost with hyper threading. Those benchmarks clearly show a 24% drop going from an 8 core to a 4 core CPU, and a whopping 74% drop going from 8 cores to dual core. Now that drop many not be as big when its an AMD FX 8 core vs 4 core i5 CPU, but the FX 8 core will still have an edge, and at the very least the i5 isn't going to be vastly more powerful as it was with DX10, DX11, and the games developed for the last generation of consoles.

With DX12 on the horizon the go to gaming processor (for those with unlimited budget) will have to shift to upper end i7 with 8 physical CPU cores followed by 6 physical core i7s- both of which are pricey. Hyper threading doesn't boost the performance of DX12 like it did with DX11 so even quad core i7s are going be left at the same gaming level as an i5. I'm not saying that the FX line is going to all of a sudden take over, but more and more for gaming its not looking like a bad choice. In fact for people who can't afford a nearly $1K processor the 8 core FX line may be posed to be the best mid to high level processor. For those with large build budgets i7s with 6 physical cores the best high end and 8 physical core i7s the "Ultra" end gaming rigs.

Its easy to sit back and say its all just speculation, but when every site looking at the new technologies coming about do to game development on Xbox One and PS4 saying the same basic thing it becomes more than just speculation. The game development studios and even the APIs are all working on using more and more physical CPU cores. DX12 supports up to 6 physical cores, and Mantle supports up to 8 physical cores. i5 made its gaming reputation with DX that could only support 4 cores, and games developed for the aged console systems sporting 3 cores. The simple fact is with all the technology being developed for supporting 6-8 physical cores the i5 while still being a great overall computing solution isn't going to be the best gaming processor. Game development studios aren't shooting themselves in the foot so to speak either as those with the i5 will still be able to enjoy the games being produced, just not maxed out on Ultra like they have become use to. The i3s days are probably all but over, but that is something that has been a long time coming and shouldn't be a huge shock to anyone.

Now all I am talking about is PC gaming. When your a professional that requires a processor with the best core per core performance of course Intel is the best choice, this thread is only meant to deal with PC gaming. In the professional world, of course Intel has the undisputed performance edge.

 

[junkeymonkey]

all you can say is how much life amd is getting from AM3+ its not the worst its not the best but it keeps hanging in there .. once you played out the am3+ and went as far as you can with it and you want something new its intel or amd apu , and that amd apu just don't cut it here for me .

I cant see rebuying the past today myself so it was for my first time ever intel and for what my use is I am more satisfied overall with this z87 over any of my am3+ builds -- of course thats all just personal opinion and experience ..

I guess if you had a older am2 or 3 build then going am3+ maybe fine but heck my buddy and I both thought our 939 builds did a better overall job compared to the am3+ [that's sad] I think my old am2 590sli was better for what it was . I do know I got more enjoyment and less issues with it

 

[cowboy44mag]

I also find it worth noting that unlike the last generation of console, the Xbox One and PS4 are the closest consoles have ever been to a PC type platform. That is why people are comparing them more and more. Consoles of curse only have to do one thing well, and can be optimized for the one thing to a level that no PC can be optimized. The fact remains though that gaming up till the release of the new consoles was "bottlenecked" in development because the studios had to program for a console that only had three cores, a weak GPU, and next to no RAM. Do you think it coincidence that all of a sudden games are now recommending up to 6 GB of RAM, high end processors using 8 threads, and beefy GPUs? None of that started until development for the new consoles sporting 8 thread processors, 8GB RAM, and a modern GPU. As much as we like to say they are apples and oranges, the development and system requirements have a clear correlation.

Again I'm not saying that AMD processors will be better than anything Intel has, but when something is optimized for 8 threads or 8 physical cores and there are only 4 available, of course the hardware with 8 is going to perform better than the hardware with 4. Up till now the 8 physical cores of the AMD FX 83XX series were being crippled by software that was optimized for 4 cores and 4 threads meaning that only half the processors power could be used. We are approaching the first time ever that software is being optimized for more than 4 threads, 4 physical cores. The very best processors will still be Intel - i7s with 6 and 8 physical cores.

My early '99 F250 Powerstoke hasn't had any development since '98, it is stagnant technology and by accounts because its stagnant technology isn't good for anything anymore. But you bet your butt it will out haul a brand spanking new Chevy Colorado. It has an old outdated V8 7.3 Powerstroke diesel vs (at best) a V6 brand new freshly designed highly optimized gas engine. Guess what, the old outdated V8 diesel will crush the new V6 in hauling performance every time. But how could that be after all the technology is stagnant- they don't even make the old 7.3 Powerstroke anymore. In your world the old can never be better than the new, but in the real world it happens - A LOT.

 

[junkeymonkey]

not that it has to do with AMD but you brought up consoles I found this comment in a review that I thought interesting ....---

Since this is our first multi-GPU review after new-generation consoles settled into the market, we noticed a worrying trend in game engines (particularly with cross-platform games for new-generation consoles) where deferred rendering doesn't take advantage of multi-GPU setups; in games such as Dead Rising, Assassin's Creed: Unity, or Ryse. A tell-tale sign of such an engine would be the lack of MSAA support. That could spell trouble for not just a SLI setup with affordable graphics cards as it could also hit NVIDIA's enthusiast-grade multi-GPU market hard, including its flagship dual-GPU solutions.

 

[cowboy44mag]

not that it has to do with AMD but you brought up consoles I found this comment in a review that I thought interesting ....---

Since this is our first multi-GPU review after new-generation consoles settled into the market, we noticed a worrying trend in game engines (particularly with cross-platform games for new-generation consoles) where deferred rendering doesn't take advantage of multi-GPU setups; in games such as Dead Rising, Assassin's Creed: Unity, or Ryse. A tell-tale sign of such an engine would be the lack of MSAA support. That could spell trouble for not just a SLI setup with affordable graphics cards as it could also hit NVIDIA's enthusiast-grade multi-GPU market hard, including its flagship dual-GPU solutions.

I think that is something that will be corrected in time. The development studios have really just begun to utilize the new hardware and are still ironing out the kinks so to speak. New game engines will evolve, especially with the upcoming release of DX12.

 

[junkeymonkey]

I wish I knew why when I type a reply and hit submit it kills my internet connection and I loose what I typed here at toms ??

it a pain with a long winded replay all for nothing and got to redo it -well anit worth it sorry

 

[cowboy44mag]

I've been seeing a lot of reviews and benchmarks on different websites where the reviewer is surprised by the fact that with new emerging technologies and software the "aged" FX line of processors is performing better and better. I don't think that is a coincidence.

I remember back when Bulldozer was releasing, before the bad reviews, I was looking at upgrading my older Phenom II until an engineer friend of mine told me not to. He told me that Bulldozer's design was too advanced and to wait for the bugs to be worked out first. Piledriver fixed most of Bulldozer's "bugs" but the biggest bug is just starting to work itself out now. He also told me that the advanced design was going to be hampered from performing well due to software restrictions. It is all making since now. Software companies have developed around using 2-3 threads really maxing themselves out when they can use a whopping 4 threads. An 8 core 8 thread processor with those software restrictions can never get above 50% utilization. The FX line was designed to spread the workload to 8 cores and that could never be done. We are just now seeing where when software can use 6 strings the FX line starts to come to life.

The reason that the FX line is running so much better as the software advances is because it was a design ahead of its time. Just like the first jet engines were prone to lots of problems and took years to not only perfect the bugs but years to make the air frame strong enough to support the engine the FX line is finally getting software that can support its design as software becomes more multi threaded. You can have the best most advanced engine possible but if there is nothing that can support its output, if there is noting that can utilize it then its not worth anything till all the other technology catches up to it. Of course now that the other technologies are finally catching up to it there is a bigger and better Intel processor that also utilizes 8 cores.

 

[junkeymonkey]

Ultimately AMD’s focus on new “growth areas” isn’t the culprit. What has hurt AMD is a big bet on a Bulldozer architecture — in which two CPU integer cores share a floating-point unit and other components — that simply didn’t work out. “Everyone knows that Bulldozer was not the game-changing part when it was introduced three years ago,” then-CEO Rory Read said at a Deutsche Bank event. “We have to live with that for four years [through 2015]

http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/190026-amd-ceo-just-laid-out-companys-two-year-roadmap

so is he saying AM3+ was overall a bad idea ?? and did the refresh really fix the issue ?? then there was to be a 1090fx chipset board that was dropped like a hot potato and just ended up with a few 990fx revisions . I think as like said above they seen a dead end and just kept things patched up until they can get there act together. for me when they came up with them 220w chips I figured it was over as far as that platform was concerned ..

I guess only time will tell on how it all ends up and what rabbit they can pull out of there hats

 

[cowboy44mag]

Ultimately AMD’s focus on new “growth areas” isn’t the culprit. What has hurt AMD is a big bet on a Bulldozer architecture — in which two CPU integer cores share a floating-point unit and other components — that simply didn’t work out. “Everyone knows that Bulldozer was not the game-changing part when it was introduced three years ago,” then-CEO Rory Read said at a Deutsche Bank event. “We have to live with that for four years [through 2015]

http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/190026-amd-ceo-just-laid-out-companys-two-year-roadmap

so is he saying AM3+ was overall a bad idea ?? and did the refresh really fix the issue ?? then there was to be a 1090fx chipset board that was dropped like a hot potato and just ended up with a few 990fx revisions . I think as like said above they seen a dead end and just kept things patched up until they can get there act together. for me when they came up with them 220w chips I figured it was over as far as that platform was concerned ..

I guess only time will tell on how it all ends up and what rabbit they can pull out of there hats

Without a doubt development on the FX line as far as AM3+ goes is done. I don't expect to see another FX refresh and they are working on their next best thing. I was actually very surprised (and incredibly pleased with) when AMD did the 8370(E) refresh. The FX 9XXX series is just..... just really pointless- you can hit 5.0 Ghz overclocks easily on the FX 8370 without the huge TDP, so there is no point in the FX 9XXX. I'm simply stating that the "huge" gap between AMD and Intel - in gaming - isn't nearly as wide as some like to think it is. In fact as games, APIs, operating systems, and software in general becomes more multi threaded that gap is going to be less and less (when comparing an i5 to 8 core FX). It will be interesting to see, even as AMD releases its next line and Intel launches Skylake, how these older FX processors do as the software is pushed to use more cores (threads).

In the meantime the FX line, especially the FX 8370 is a very capable processor and an excellent gaming platform. Anyone looking towards games like Witcher 3 that are recommending an 8 thread processor is going to have a great gaming experience with the FX 8370.

 

[James Mason]

-_-

This thread.

Your first assumption of "most games being console ports" is completely wrong.

People have been saying games are going to be more multithreaded for how many years now? like 6-8? Games are JUST starting to require 4 cores. You're 8 core will go underutilized for another 6 years at this rate.

You don't understand that GHz don't mean anything, and even cores don't mean anything. It's all this other stuff under the hood they don't tell us about that determines how data is actually handled and processed that determine how a CPU performs.

I don't think you even know how long it took for games and programs to actually offer 64-bit, and we had processors ready and waiting for like a decade before they even started think about making them.

You're speculating off no evidence, just trying to justify your purchase, while not understanding what's really going on.

Game system recommendations are fairly off, and mostly just confusing because of how they are written, because they use abstract concepts like an older generation processor, when a newer generation processor of a weaker series is still able to run it fine.

 

[junkeymonkey]

believe me any games that require a 3ed party [steam/origin/uplay] type client installed on my drive I don't own so all my games are from the real pc gaming days - not from this crap fest going on today

what game really is not console port first? console is what sells and there best money pc is now 2ed fiddle .. even john carmack went that way cause its easier to do

http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/916373-pc/67813102

 

[cowboy44mag]

-_-

This thread.

Your first assumption of "most games being console ports" is completely wrong.

People have been saying games are going to be more multithreaded for how many years now? like 6-8? Games are JUST starting to require 4 cores. You're 8 core will go underutilized for another 6 years at this rate.

You don't understand that GHz don't mean anything, and even cores don't mean anything. It's all this other stuff under the hood they don't tell us about that determines how data is actually handled and processed that determine how a CPU performs.

I don't think you even know how long it took for games and programs to actually offer 64-bit, and we had processors ready and waiting for like a decade before they even started think about making them.

You're speculating off no evidence, just trying to justify your purchase, while not understanding what's really going on.

Game system recommendations are fairly off, and mostly just confusing because of how they are written, because they use abstract concepts like an older generation processor, when a newer generation processor of a weaker series is still able to run it fine.

The games are developed for the largest market share which has always been and will always be the consoles. Most of the problems with games running properly on even high end Intel systems is due to a poor console port, so I don't know how you think games aren't developed with the console segment in mind then ported over to the much smaller PC segment. There are a few exceptions, but for the most part that is how its been for a long time.

Past that, I have no reason to need to justify my purchase. I upgraded on an existing AM3+ board and for a fraction of the cost am playing everything at Ultra that my friend plays on his i5 4690K rig at the same FPS. What I am saying is that with games using more physical cores, and they are starting to do so right now, and with the news that DX12 is going to support up to 6 physical cores its a good time to own a processor with 8 physical cores.

 

[synphul]

Even if the 8 cores or 8 threads get fully utilized, amd still really isn't part of the equation. There are plenty of programs aside from games which make use of more than 4 threads and fx 8xxx/9xxx still fall short of intel's 'only' 4 cores on the i5. Do as many things simultaneous as you want, but do them so slowly and the fewer stronger cores will continue to beat it. Even when it comes down to real world multitasking comparisons where double the core count on the amd chips should shine they continue to fall short. Not to say amd's future endeavors may not turn this around but the current status of the am3+ and fx 8 cores is unfortunately stagnating. If anything, dx12 will make things like the quad and 6 core fx and intel i3's more potent rather than needing an 8 core as the 'min requirement'.

Amd's concepts have been innovative, without a doubt. The execution has just been poor. The had the first 64bit cpu's for desktop, but with little to no 64bit software to use it. A feature without a calling. By the time software migrated to 64bit, the initial amd 64bit cpu's were outdated and intel was producing 64bit chips. Amd decided to take off from 4 to 6 and 8 cores for the mainstream desktop pc. Even today intel doesn't really have 8 core options for mainstream desktop setups. X99 is more of an enthusiast/workstation platform. Yet with half the cores intel has been sitting at the front of the pack for years. In theory 8 cores should prove more capable but in reality cpu's with half the core and half the thread count are outperforming which contradicts that more cores are better, either in single core performance or in multithreaded or multitasking situations.

A newly designed 6 or 8 core from amd with better ipc performance would make for improved performance but that's not going to happen until 2016 and the current already aging fx 8xxx/9xxx just aren't going to magically be revived into powerhouses. Chips only continue to show their age, not grow more powerful from the day they're released. No one is running out and digging up first gen i5's/i7's because they're suddenly better, same goes for similarly aged 6 and 8 core i7's. Yes they have the structure but they're dated and tech improvements are continuing to make present day options more potent.