Intel Quadcore Vs. AMD Octacore - Gaming and future octacore-optimized development.

[prankstare]

Hey,

So we all know Intel's architecture is much better and energy/performance efficient per thread/core but how about multi-tasking performance? Also, do you think that, in the near future perhaps, not only games but also most computer programs will all benefit from using 8 actual cores like next-gen consoles are doing for games?

The reason I'm asking this is because I'm a bit torn between buying "faster" but expensive Intel's quadcore solution i5 3570k or "slower" but much cheaper AMD's octacore FX-8350. However, if the future say 8-12 months from now will be eight-core optimized sofware all the way (including games and overall multi-tasking), then I think such "slower" (for now) AMD solution is worth it.

So, any ideas?

Thanks!

 

[8350rocks]

My brothers q9300 8gb ddr3 and r6850 gpu more faster at games then most likely the xbox one cost him to build in total around £250, that includes getting the cpu and motherboard about 4 years ago and the gpu about 1 and a half years ago. You could build a desktop pc better and cheaper then the consoles now anyway at games.

Considering his system would barely run the PS3 game Skyrim that was ported to PC, I tend to think it unlikely it will outperform a 4th gen Console...being as it barely keeps up with the 3rd gen.

 

[8350rocks]

My brothers q9300 8gb ddr3 and r6850 gpu more faster at games then most likely the xbox one cost him to build in total around £250, that includes getting the cpu and motherboard about 4 years ago and the gpu about 1 and a half years ago. You could build a desktop pc better and cheaper then the consoles now anyway at games.

Considering his system would barely run the PS3 game Skyrim that was ported to PC, I tend to think it unlikely it will outperform a 4th gen Console...being as it barely keeps up with the 3rd gen.

lol, a 6850 runs skyrim at ultra 60fps at 1080p. My old acer 5930g plays games better then the ps3.

Anyway a core 2 quad maybe slow now but it still plays games well. Most games run maxed at 60fps at 1080p so its not that bad like codemasters games f1 and dirt series.

What a 6850 can do:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vx4g-cyVX-w

40-48fps on 6850 not bad:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/skyrim-performance-benchmark,3074-6.html

You just said:

lol, a 6850 runs skyrim at ultra 60fps at 1080p. My old acer 5930g plays games better then the ps3.

Then you contradicted yourself showing a PC with similar specs running skyrim @ 40FPS (which is just barely playable)

40-48fps on 6850 not bad:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/skyrim-performance-benchmark,3074-6.html

So...the system barely runs Skyrim...like I said. Which isn't even the newest PC port.

 

[8350rocks]

The GPU in the PS4 is a heavily modified HD 7870.

HD 7870XT > HD 7870 > HD 6950 > HD 6870 > HD 6850.

Now, want to tell me how it is your 6850 is better than hardware a generation newer and using GCN architecture, and a higher rated SKU to begin with, when your 6850 is on VLIW4?

 

[4745454b]

Steamroller will be able to run on the same motherboard as current Amd chips. To be really honest the difference between 8350 and 3570k is maybe 10 fps in the games that favour Intel and in others the 8350 can even outperform the intel. When you factor in that you will not have to change your motherboard when steamroller comes out wheras the 3570k is on a dead board then it seems like a bit of a no brainer to me.

Why would you get the intel when it onlu offers marginal performance gains and costs over 100 quid more if you think of upgrading?

Huh? Have any proof for your outlandish claims? The 3570K (or haswell equivalent) isn't "100 quid" more then the 8350. At least here in the USA its not. This looks like more then 10FPS to me.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-review,3328-14.html

At best the 8350 can keep up. At least according to Toms and Anand. At worst its slower. And not by a frame or two. Some people have problems accepting this.

 

[8350rocks]

Leave it to an intel fan to pick an outlier...

What about all these?

there's a boatload where it makes no difference...

Also, for skyrim, anything over 60 FPS most people wouldn't be able to see a difference because likely 80-90% of PC monitors sitting on a desk in front of a gaming PC are 60 Hz anyway.

 

[4745454b]

Again, at best it keeps up. Which of those did it beat the 3570? And at worst, its slower. And usually not by a little. Why should one spend $190 on the 8350 if they can spend $220 and not worry about the "outlier"

I also take exception to being called an Intel fan. It took me a long time to see the truth when Intel came out with the C2D. I ran AMD chips from the K6-2 days up to my last one which was the 3500+. (there was one P3 @500MHz in that span, otherwise I ran all AMD.) I personally am fan of AMD and ATI and was happily surprised when they merged. I'm not a "fanboy" of any company. What I am is a broke gamer who needs the best performance for his limited money. And I don't really care who gives it to me. That's how even though I went from a 9600AIW, to a 9700Pro, my next card was the 8800GS. Fan of AMD/ATI. But not willing to spend my money just to support a company.

 

[8350rocks]

Again, at best it keeps up. Which of those did it beat the 3570? And at worst, its slower. And usually not by a little. Why should one spend $190 on the 8350 if they can spend $220 and not worry about the "outlier"

I also take exception to being called an Intel fan. It took me a long time to see the truth when Intel came out with the C2D. I ran AMD chips from the K6-2 days up to my last one which was the 3500+. (there was one P3 @500MHz in that span, otherwise I ran all AMD.) I personally am fan of AMD and ATI and was happily surprised when they merged. I'm not a "fanboy" of any company. What I am is a broke gamer who needs the best performance for his limited money. And I don't really care who gives it to me. That's how even though I went from a 9600AIW, to a 9700Pro, my next card was the 8800GS. Fan of AMD/ATI. But not willing to spend my money just to support a company.

Crysis 3 and Tomb Raider, also...

My first gaming rig to run DOOM, Quake 3 and Myst would sound familiar to you:

K6-2 300 MHz
4 MB Kingston RAM (DIMMs too, rare back then)
Seagate 4 GB HDD (IDE then, and Win95 had to partition twice had C:\ and D:\)
32 MB Voodoo 4500 AGP card (Everyone thought AGP was going to be the biggest thing!)
56k Modem
CD Drive (No Burner drives back then...)
3.5" Floppy
Gigabyte Socket 7 motherboard
Creative Labs SoundBlaster Audigy 5.1
17" Trinitron Monitor

 

[prankstare]

Again, at best it keeps up. Which of those did it beat the 3570?

Metro 2033 is a great one to compare, since it's highly multithreaded where the FX8350 really shines.

I am not sure why so many review sites tend to emphasize only one or two games in their benchmarks, shameful really.

 

[whyso]

Again, at best it keeps up. Which of those did it beat the 3570?

Metro 2033 is a great one to compare, since it's highly multithreaded where the FX8350 really shines.

I am not sure why so many review sites tend to emphasize only one or two games in their benchmarks, shameful really.

We are using 4 threads at most, if that.

phenom x4 is ahead of phenom x6

 

[4745454b]

Crysis 3 and Tomb Raider, also...

What about them? 3570 isn't even listed in those games. But based on the 3470 which is listed those would be two games where the 8350 can at best keep up. It isn't faster then the 3570. Or where I think a 3570 would be. Yes, for most of the time you'll never notice the difference between a 8350 and a 3570 when gaming. As mentioned I would buy the 3570 for those few times when you could. It's only $30 more (for us in the USA.) so why not?

Metro 2033 is a great one to compare, since it's highly multithreaded where the FX8350 really shines.

Did you look at the metro graph provided? It sits one frame behind the 3470, so probably two to three frames behind the 3570. Perhaps a different "highly multithreaded" game would be better?

 

[prankstare]

Did you look at the metro graph provided? It sits one frame behind the 3470, so probably two to three frames behind the 3570. Perhaps a different "highly multithreaded" game would be better?

Um, yeah but I don't know where those numbers are coming from. I thought I've seen people reporting they get better framerates or at least lower framerate dips with AMD Vishera processors in comparison to Intel counterparts in that particular game (not the higher end i7's though). Maybe the FX-8350 gets a tad worse framerate averages yes, but with much lower dips which I think in most cases are more important. Or maybe I just confused those benchmark numbers with streaming altogether, where the FX additional cores take a real substantial gain in performance, not sure.

I have someone who has two very similar builds (FX8350 and i5 3570k), with a 7850 though, but let's see if he runs some tests for us. Might come back at this later (maybe).

 

[4745454b]

I have someone who has two very similar builds (FX8350 and i5 3570k), with a 7850 though, but let's see if he runs some tests for us.

And my dad can beat up your dad. I mean you started that post saying you didn't know where the number came from and then end it by saying you'll see about getting numbers from a "friend" so we won't know where they came from? I don't know where those numbers came from either. But I do know it fits the pattern of 8350 performing as well as the 3570. This is what I expect to see most of the time. Other then that one site who posts numbers on his youtube vids, I've never seen the 8350 beat it in gaming. Tie or near tie yes, but never seen it beat it.

 

[prankstare]

I have someone who has two very similar builds (FX8350 and i5 3570k), with a 7850 though, but let's see if he runs some tests for us.

And my dad can beat up your dad. I mean you started that post saying you didn't know where the number came from and then end it by saying you'll see about getting numbers from a "friend" so we won't know where they came from? I don't know where those numbers came from either. But I do know it fits the pattern of 8350 performing as well as the 3570. This is what I expect to see most of the time. Other then that one site who posts numbers on his youtube vids, I've never seen the 8350 beat it in gaming. Tie or near tie yes, but never seen it beat it.

Ohh no you got it all wrong lol. He's no friend or relative or anything, just someone I know who could present with some numbers as well. As opposed to what you might think (or to what my posts might sound like lol), I have no interest whatsoever to favour any platform in here. I'm just as curious as anybody else, and I can be wrong too. Just want to see real world numbers.

 

[prankstare]

but anyways that 7850 will bottleneck both systems so bleeh...

 

[NappySlapper]

Steamroller will be able to run on the same motherboard as current Amd chips. To be really honest the difference between 8350 and 3570k is maybe 10 fps in the games that favour Intel and in others the 8350 can even outperform the intel. When you factor in that you will not have to change your motherboard when steamroller comes out wheras the 3570k is on a dead board then it seems like a bit of a no brainer to me.

Why would you get the intel when it onlu offers marginal performance gains and costs over 100 quid more if you think of upgrading?

Huh? Have any proof for your outlandish claims? The 3570K (or haswell equivalent) isn't "100 quid" more then the 8350. At least here in the USA its not. This looks like more then 10FPS to me.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-review,3328-14.html

At best the 8350 can keep up. At least according to Toms and Anand. At worst its slower. And not by a frame or two. Some people have problems accepting this.

I don't want to start some sort of cpu war but I do want to clarify what I was meaning.

In all the benchmarks shown above, both cpu's remained at playable frame rates of above around 60 fps for the majority of the time. On a 60hz monitor there is no difference between the chips the majority of the time.

Furthermore:
The new steamroller cpu's look like they will be able to use the same motherboard as an 8350. This means that when someone feels the need to upgrade they wont need to upgrade their mobo, just their cpu.

If that same person had gone intel and got a 3570k then they would have to pay for the new chip ASWELL AS the new mobo. This equates to what is roughly £100 more spent on upgrading the intel chip.

People talk about being future proof, if you want to be future proof then amd is seemingly the way to go.
The 100 pounds saved could even be put toward a better gpu if you are going to really think into it.

To me this makes the 8350 a no brainier but I would be interested in the counter argument.

 

[Azn Cracker]

some games out now use 8 threads, but games have such varying load that you will never see 8 cores loaded 100% on every core, so you will not see double the performance of a 4 core cpu. As the number of threads used in games continues to increase, you will see benefits, but they are not a fixed load like if you were encoding video, so you wont see double the performance from double the cores.

just curious, what games use more than 4 exactly? The only one i heard of is battlefield 3 multiplayer whoch only uses 6. But new games come out every week so i guess it changed.

 

[Azn Cracker]

I don't want to start some sort of cpu war but I do want to clarify what I was meaning.

In all the benchmarks shown above, both cpu's remained at playable frame rates of above around 60 fps for the majority of the time. On a 60hz monitor there is no difference between the chips the majority of the time.

Furthermore:
The new steamroller cpu's look like they will be able to use the same motherboard as an 8350. This means that when someone feels the need to upgrade they wont need to upgrade their mobo, just their cpu.

If that same person had gone intel and got a 3570k then they would have to pay for the new chip ASWELL AS the new mobo. This equates to what is roughly £100 more spent on upgrading the intel chip.

People talk about being future proof, if you want to be future proof then amd is seemingly the way to go.
The 100 pounds saved could even be put toward a better gpu if you are going to really think into it.

To me this makes the 8350 a no brainier but I would be interested in the counter argument.

you bring up a good point with the motherboard. No doubt the amd cpu is a better value if you plan on upgrading because you can keep the motherboard. I think most people are just looking at the benchmarks and thinking about the present so they go with intel.

 

[NappySlapper]

As this thread seemed to be on the topic of the future I thought id bring it up. Nobody seems to have posted about it yet so I thought id throw it out there and get some opinions.
I do own an amd 8350 so you could call me bias but when I only paid £138 for it, its hard not to be !

 

[Master467]

As this thread seemed to be on the topic of the future I thought id bring it up. Nobody seems to have posted about it yet so I thought id throw it out there and get some opinions.
I do own an amd 8350 so you could call me bias but when I only paid £138 for it, its hard not to be !

138 quid? So that is exactly 216.04 US Dollars. For a quid more you could get an ivy bridge i5... unless the prices are different there.
I feel bad for people who live in the UK. Everything from clothing to PC parts is more expensive, and you have 1/4th the freedom of the USA. Well, we are loosing our freedom quickly, too... Anyways, How much is an i5 in europe?

 

[NappySlapper]

Not so sure about all that freedom being better stuff, but a cheap I5 3570k here in the UK is about £160 which equates to about $250

 

[4745454b]

What about 3D gaming? 60 might have been the mark before, but if you want 60FPS for each eye, you need to be able to render 120.

My point was after looking at all the reviews, the 8350 keeps up, but falls short every now and then. Why spend similar money to have issues with the odd game? If you can upgrade to the 8350 on the cheap then great. If you already own on a board that will take the 8350 and you can put the ~$125 on the board into a new GPU then for you it makes sense. But for someone buying new parts, why save $30 and risk having a game you like play like crap/worse then if you had the 3570K because you tried to save $30.

 

[NappySlapper]

In none of the benchmarks posted did the amd run bad enough for it to be unplayable , and if you are doing 3d gaming then the 3570k isn't going to be good enough either.
I still dont understand why if you are talking about future proofing the 3570k is even considered. It has no upgrade path and so you have thrown away nearly £100 as soon as you buy it

 

[prankstare]

138 quid? So that is exactly 216.04 US Dollars. For a quid more you could get an ivy bridge i5...

Yes, but let's not forget motherboards are also more expensive, not to mention if you consider upgrading your processor in the future, which means you'll have to upgrade both.

It's no denying, AMD is after all a great value, especially if you are an experienced overclocker.

 

[firemedictj]

This : "The fact that the FX might be slightly less undesirable later isn't a terribly compelling argument given that it's less desirable now."

 

[firemedictj]

Not so sure about all that freedom being better stuff, but a cheap I5 3570k here in the UK is about £160 which equates to about $250

Yipes! Bought my I7-3770k for $239.