Tech Yes Mentality

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Kyle_James

Kyle_James

Reputable
Feb 3, 2016
90
0
4,640
So im blown away by old cpus and also not blown away by AMD..
can someone fill m in?

I currently run a 6850k at 4.3ghz and use basically all the ten series cards and I have a 2080ti on the way. (dont hate please).

Recently i got an 8370 FX Chip for free, and a 4100 for free. they both came out around the time as my last build i did recently on X79. I ran both the 3820 i7 and the 3930K I7 (thing kicks butt)

So I was expecting the 8370 to tag along atleast considering the release date but?? games were stuttering at stock and OC speeds, titles like farcry 5 on a 1070 hybrid in both systems were about 20 fps apart and one was stable one was not (AMD)

I am not a hater just observing the differences, can someone explain whats up with these results?

the 4100 was also so terrible with all 5 cards I own, even OCed at 4.8ghz, the 4100 couldnt make it past 50fps on 1440p (i understand the bottleneck aspect) but I was expecting way more from the AMD Flagship 8370 FX Chip

<moderator edit for language>
 
Solution
Supernova1138
Sort by date Sort by votes
Bulldozer series processors (the 4100) are known to be extremely terrible.
Vishera processors were okay at best (the 8370).

That being said, AMD was not doing well in the market when they were released. They have made massive strides in the right direction with Ryzen, its a well known fact the FX series was not.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


The FX line had a number of fundamental flaws including very poor per core performance and the shared hardware resources often causing bottlenecks inside the processor as the two integer cores were fighting over the FPU or cache inside their module. This led to generally poor performance in anything that wasn't very well threaded and wasn't mostly reliant on integer math. Games up until very recently were very heavily single threaded, and the FX chips would suffer as their per core performance was often only half that of a contemporary Intel chip.

A second problem that could crop up with the 8 core models is VRM throttling. Most sub $100 AM3+ boards have weak VRMs that can't handle the 8 core power draw. The 8 core chips were supposed to be flagship parts that you would only put on a higher end motherboard, but AMD had to keep slashing the prices of FX to try to get them to sell, and they quickly became budget CPUs and people were putting them on budget boards. The end result was these 8 core FX chips would not maintain their full clockspeed under heavy load as the VRMs on the cheap boards would overheat, reduce power to the CPU and force the CPU clocks to drop to 1.4GHz.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Solution
Anything older by AMD isn't going to compete with anything Intel has released since 2011. You have to go with Ryzen to get good AMD CPU performance. The FX 8370 is based on the Piledriver architecture which sacrifices single core performance in favor of more cores. Intel Sandy Bridge which is what you have in the 3820 and 3930k is about 30% to 40% faster per clock than the FX 8370. Games favor single threaded performance which is where AMD was lacking prior to Ryzen. So that's why games seem to favor the older intel chips.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Bulldozer, piledriver and excavator were awful AMD junk. Current gen ryzen is only on par with Haswell, but when you can get them at around $150 like a R5 2600, then it is fairly good bang for the buck. But is it even better when you can get an R5 1600 for essentially $110 with the $30 mobo discount:

http://www.microcenter.com/product/478826/ryzen-5-1600-32ghz-6-core-am4-boxed-processor-with-wraith-spire-cooler

AMD is getting to close to emulating themselves back in the socket A days, when you could get $80 T-Birds/Thoroughbreds/Bartons, and be competitive with Intel P4s that cost nearly twice as much. I do not know why AMD had to drag their feet on pricing ryzen competitively.

 
Upvote 0 Downvote


Im going to have to see some solid evidence of your claim to believe ryzen is only on par with haswell.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i5-4690K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-5-1600/2432vs3919

Ryzen can't even affirmatively beat an old overclocked Sandybridge. Don't just take my word for this, this has all be tested:
https://www.techspot.com/review/1505-intel-core-8th-gen-vs-amd-ryzen/page6.html

https://m.hardocp.com/article/2017/05/26/definitive_amd_ryzen_7_realworld_gaming_guide/13
"
Overall, the Intel Kaby Lake 7700K CPU at 5GHz Z270 system provided the highest performance while gaming. Didn’t matter if it was single-GPU, multi-GPU, 1080p, or 1440p, or 4K, the most wins (at least in terms of raw data) are with the 7700K at an overclocked 5GHz.

Overall, the AMD Ryzen 7 1700X at an overclocked 4GHz provided the same performance and gameplay experience as the Intel 2600K on Z68 at 4.5GHz. It was most competitive with the 2600K CPU with both overclocked to the highest levels.

In terms of gameplay experience we felt the 2600K and Ryzen CPUs "felt" the same while gaming in single-GPU at any resolution. We "felt" the 7700K at 5GHz had an experience advantage at all resolutions, and especially with multi-GPU CrossFire.
"

https://www.techspot.com/article/1496-pairing-cpu-and-gpu-bottlenecking/

http://www.legitreviews.com/cpu-bottleneck-geforce-gtx-1080-ti-tested-on-amd-ryzen-versus-intel-kaby-lake_192585/4
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


So why ignore the 2000 series Ryzen chips that go toe to toe with intel's 8th gen, <5FPS difference in most tests?
https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-7-2700x-review,5571.html
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
The mistake the original post makes is in assuming that AMD and Intel both release competitive products in any given time period, they don't.

Each generation has to be considered on its own, independent of what the other company is doing. It must be considered independently of what the same company did in the previous generation as well. The FX line followed Athlon II and Phenom II, that meant nothing as far as guaranteeing a certain level of performance.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


As per your own link the 2700x is only 1-3 points behind the 8700k, that is entirely respectable.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


And did you look even further down that page in the "Legacy Desktop Processor Hierarchy"
You clearly see Haswell CPUs in the same class. That 3 point difference is why people will see that the Ryzen is only on par with Haswell. You act as if Haswell is bad, but they are NOT, but the fact remains that Ryzen is not the performance leader. The reason to upgrade from Haswell to something more modern is not because haswell CPus are slow, but rather people want all the newer motherboard features, like USB3, Thunderbolt3, NVME M.2, etc.

Sure throw more cores to inflate the multicore scores, but everyone knows Intel can do the same and you can see that in the scores for the 9900K soon too. But none of that multi-core crap helps gaming performance. Win the single core performance and then multiply it out with more core count.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
There is a reason why Bulldozer earned the nickname Faildozer. The whole architecture failed to meet expectations, and hasn't aged well. Sandy Bridge still manages to hold its own, quite well, though. Intel has only made minor improvements, one generation to the next. AMD did nothing substantial for all of FX's lifespan. They focused more on IGP performance, than CPU performance, imo.

I never recommend anyone get something older, than a 1st gen Ryzen, from AMD. Even a lowly 1200 is going to game better than any FX. The 2200g has made the 1200 and 1300x irrelevant, though, given its price.

I don't like to recommend building on an old platform in general, unless necessary. Sometimes I know budget dictates such moves, given ram prices.
 
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