Thruth about AMD CPUs (Inclusing gaming)?

[Ags1]

Surely the AMD approach is more modern and sensible. THe reason chips have traditionally have x number of 'true cores' is simply that Intel and AMD started from single core chips and they simply doubled up. AMD is taking this to the next level by deconstructing the 'true cores' into their various resources and increasing the number of more demanded resources. The integer cores do more work so AMD puts more of them on the chip. IMO, Intel will go down this route too eventually.

On the subject of the performance of hyperthreading, my own benchmarks show hyperthreading 4/8 CPUs scaling linearly up to about four threads, and then performance only going up another 20% or so when you throw more threads at the CPU. That's totally different to FX processors which can catch up to i7's given enough threads - the AMD processors do multithreading better than Intel hyperthreading.

 

[spartansociety]

But while AMD chips have less IPC than Intel chips, they will still be slower than Intel for the vast majority of applications (that use 1-2 cores). I was under the impression that because of the difficulty/expense of writing code that efficiently uses more than a few threads, this situation is only going to improve slowly for non professional applications. Although, it will be interesting to see if the release of the new Xbox and PS4, (with AMD APU's) change this situation dramatically for games.

 

[jaguarskx]

I have bolded my original statement where I have declared that AMD's FX CPUs do in fact have 8 physical cores; in red bolded text.

Technical talk time!

Technically, the second core of a BD module isn't a full "core" in a traditional sense, because as like Intel HTT, it has to share resources with another core. In BD's case, the front end scheduler and FP units are shared between cores on a BD module, so you get about 75% of the performance when the second core of a BD module is used.

Yep. I already pointed that out in my original lengthy post. The FX cores are paired up in module. Each module has a single floating point unit (FPU) which both cores must share.

Still, having 8 physical cores is better than 4 cores + 4 virtual cores as is the case for Intel's Core i7 CPUs.

 

[sarinaide]

You quoted my post, yet you seem to have failed to comprehend what I have stated.

I have bolded my original statement where I have declared that AMD's FX CPUs do in fact have 8 physical cores; in red bolded text.

In the blue bolded text, I stated it is Intel's CPUs which have 4 physical cores and 4 virtual cores.

Sorry, I read it again last night. Apologies good sir.

 

[gamerk316]

Yep. I already pointed that out in my original lengthy post. The FX cores are paired up in module. Each module has a single floating point unit (FPU) which both cores must share.

Still, having 8 physical cores is better than 4 cores + 4 virtual cores as is the case for Intel's Core i7 CPUs.

Performance wise, yes. Implementation wise though, HTT is FAR cheaper to implement. And given how the mere presence of HTT is worth about $100, I'd wager its far more profitable too.

The integer cores do more work so AMD puts more of them on the chip.

In most workloads.

Note: Gaming is NOT such a workload.

 

[stantheman123]

Anyone who says amd cpus are garbage cant play games etc. Are dead wrong. i Admit intel is faster. and anyone with a the budget to afford a good gaming gpu+ i5/i7 should go ahead. However i couldnt be happier with my 6300. payed $134 oc it to 4.5ghz and it just eats them games up. Nothing wrong with amd cpus. I prefer supporting the underdog and i will continue to do. I know intel is faster and i know there power consumption is lower. However someone has to help amd through there hardships. 🙂

 

[sarinaide]

Do you want to know the truth about AMD CPU's? The cold hard truth is that they offer up very good alternatives at the lower price segment. Simple as pie and I love pie.

 

[BuddiLuva]

Do you want to know the truth about AMD CPU's? The cold hard truth is that they offer up very good alternatives at the lower price segment. Simple as pie and I love pie.

1+ for making me laugh

 

[valkain]

Just my personal feedback, there.s nothing wrong with having an AMD for the majority of gaming. With the games that are GPU bound, it might mean a marginal difference in FPS. If your FPS is above 30, then your vision will not be able to notice a whole lot of difference. As long as it's smooth above 30 without any tearing, and stuttering then I'm happy. Some people do prefer around 60, but anything 60+ I can't see as a need.

If you have a CPU bound game, then you might see a noticeable difference. In Tera, during the Nexus event, my FX-8350 gets 6-10 fps. Overclocking it from 4.0 to 4.8 gained me 10-16 fps.

I have friends with an i7 3770k and he tells me he gets 15 fps and had another friend with a i7 3970k that claims 20 fps. So if what they claim is true, they see a a noticiable difference than the AMD...

Then I realize it's sad that in Tera no one can get fps decently during Nexus 😛

So if your wanting bleeding edge go intel. If your gaming on a budget and looking for something reasonable then AMD isn't a bad choice, not the very very best choice.

 

[Robi_g]

Techradar did a youtube vid where an FX8350 beat an i5 3570k in gaming with a gtx670, not sure on the reliability of the test methodology but it add something

 

[BuddiLuva]

Just my personal feedback, there.s nothing wrong with having an AMD for the majority of gaming. With the games that are GPU bound, it might mean a marginal difference in FPS. If your FPS is above 30, then your vision will not be able to notice a whole lot of difference. As long as it's smooth above 30 without any tearing, and stuttering then I'm happy. Some people do prefer around 60, but anything 60+ I can't see as a need.

If you have a CPU bound game, then you might see a noticeable difference. In Tera, during the Nexus event, my FX-8350 gets 6-10 fps. Overclocking it from 4.0 to 4.8 gained me 10-16 fps.

I have friends with an i7 3770k and he tells me he gets 15 fps and had another friend with a i7 3970k that claims 20 fps. So if what they claim is true, they see a a noticiable difference than the AMD...

Then I realize it's sad that in Tera no one can get fps decently during Nexus 😛

So if your wanting bleeding edge go intel. If your gaming on a budget and looking for something reasonable then AMD isn't a bad choice, not the very very best choice.

You can see a difference between 60 and 120 FPS, Seriously why do people still think there is no difference between 60 and 120 FPS

Only if you have a monitor that is higher than 60Hz
Which, to be honest, is unnecessary.

 

[Idonno]

So then, What I've taken from this is:
If don't have much money to spend buy a cheap Intel or AMD it won't matter which.
OR
If you have allot of money to spend and you view your PC as nothing more than an Xbox on steroids buy a top AMD CPU (but sill much cheaper than a top Intel) and use the money you saved to quad SLI 4 Titans and buy 8GB of fast ram.
OR
If you have a lot of money to spend and you don't just want an overgrown Xbox. You want a computer that's great at all the kinds of stuff that computers can do, only SLI 2 Titans and use the money you saved to buy a top Intel CPU, 4 fast SSD's in raid 0 (for an adobe scratch pad) and 64GB of fast ram.

Does that about sum it up? 😀

 

[iplikator3333]

Just my personal feedback, there.s nothing wrong with having an AMD for the majority of gaming. With the games that are GPU bound, it might mean a marginal difference in FPS. If your FPS is above 30, then your vision will not be able to notice a whole lot of difference. As long as it's smooth above 30 without any tearing, and stuttering then I'm happy. Some people do prefer around 60, but anything 60+ I can't see as a need.

If you have a CPU bound game, then you might see a noticeable difference. In Tera, during the Nexus event, my FX-8350 gets 6-10 fps. Overclocking it from 4.0 to 4.8 gained me 10-16 fps.

I have friends with an i7 3770k and he tells me he gets 15 fps and had another friend with a i7 3970k that claims 20 fps. So if what they claim is true, they see a a noticiable difference than the AMD...

Then I realize it's sad that in Tera no one can get fps decently during Nexus 😛

So if your wanting bleeding edge go intel. If your gaming on a budget and looking for something reasonable then AMD isn't a bad choice, not the very very best choice.

You can see a difference between 60 and 120 FPS, Seriously why do people still think there is no difference between 60 and 120 FPS

Only if you have a monitor that is higher than 60Hz
Which, to be honest, is unnecessary.

It's not unnecessary, 120 Hz monitors are much better.

 

[cmi86]

The basic fact of the matter is that all software is coded differently, some will take advantage of different architectures and handling of more or less threads differently. In a business or productivity standpoint I can justify one product over the other because in that environment you purchase the hardware that will run your business software most efficiently there in making you more money. However in a gaming environment even though the fact that different titles will use different arch's more efficiently I think it comes down to more of a BRAGGING RIGHTS issue than anything else. The simple reason for my logic is that most any modern enthusiast class CPU (i series, FX, Phenom) are all more than capable of running most any game at high settings at 60 FPS+ with a capable GPU. Yes the "you can tell the difference in 60 FPS vs 120" argument can be said but this all comes down to individual ocular perception. Some people can see the difference, some cant. That said the current standard for flawless gaming is 60 FPS and although I can personally tell the difference I don't really think my games look or play any better above 60 fps I really don't and I'm sure most gamers would agree. So if you have the monitor to do so and can tell the difference, if you have the cash buy the intel and enjoy your extra 15 fps. But more often than not it's nothing more than bragging rights because I'd wager a bet 80% if not more of gamers are using 60Hz displays and couldn't see the couple extra FPS their more expensive intel puts up over the significantly less expensive and still perfectly capable AMD. But like I said some folks feel the need to have the BRAGGING RIGHTS of being on the absolute bleeding razors edge of performance, these people pony up the extra cash for intel. Others don't really care about bragging rights and invest into a CPU that is (within perception and opinion) going to offer the same exact gaming experience for less money allowing them to invest into additional performance enhancements in other aspects of their system. I am personally one of those people. I could have afforded to buy an intel but the savings in buying my 6300 which clocked at 4.5Ghz I'm hard pressed to tell the difference in day to day usage and allowed to invest into a nice SSD which made much more of an over all system performance impact than having bought an intel and run a conventional system drive.

 

[billhicks85]

But is it possible that the fx 8350 could be the better gaming option for future games given that the new consoles will be using 8 core amd's?
Would that then mean that future multiplat games would be coded to utilise 8 cores?
Doesn't the fx 8350 beat the 3770k in crysis 3?
Is this a telling sign for the future of video games?

 

[8350rocks]

But is it possible that the fx 8350 could be the better gaming option for future games given that the new consoles will be using 8 core amd's?
Would that then mean that future multiplat games would be coded to utilise 8 cores?
Doesn't the fx 8350 beat the 3770k in crysis 3?
Is this a telling sign for the future of video games?

It isn't just possible, it's highly likely...

 

[billhicks85]

Then the only thing stopping me from gettin an fx 8350 is the lack of pci express 3.0 support. True, only multiple GPus see a bottleneck but what about more powerful GPus in the future? Doesn't seem very future proof to only have pci e 2.
I know there is an AMD Mobo that does support it but its more expensive and I've heard it won't give true pci e 3 bandwidth.

 

[8350rocks]

Current GPUs like the HD 7990 can't use all the bandwidth of the PCIe 2.0. So, while it is a nice feature to list on a box, it isn't necessary...yet. AMD will likely have integrated PCIe 3.0 support about the time that their own cards will be able to utilize it (being a GPU and CPU manufacturer gives them the ability to determine when this will be necessity...where as intel does not have that luxury).

 

[billhicks85]

The whole pci express situation confuses me.
Because I hear some people say theres bottlenecks even on the titan and some say no card uses all the bandwidth.
I've seen some benchmarks show slight differences in fps between pci e 2 and 3, but I have also seen some benchmarks show higher fps on pci e 2 over 3!
very confusing.
But my worst nightmare would be if I bought the fx 8350 and a few years down the road I upgrade my gpu and find that its being bottlenecked by pci e 2. Or maybe I'm blowing things out of proportion.
The opinions seem split. Some say you will need pci e 3 and some say dont worry about it.

 

[8350rocks]

The only CPU maker that makes GPUs has not brought their motherboards PCIe 3.0 support yet...what does that tell you? If you made GPUs and they could use more bandwidth, wouldn't you allow your CPUs to use that bandwidth? Simply from a business perspective it doesn't make sense to not offer it if it is truly necessary for your own products.

The GTX Titan and the HD 7990 and GTX 690 can't use all the bandwidth in the PCIe 2.0 yet. They may be getting close to using it all. But those 3 cards are $1000 jobs, and your average gamer isn't dropping that kind of cash on a GPU. The lesser solutions are certainly not bottlenecking with PCIe 2.0.

Don't sweat it.

 

[DukiNuki]

HEy there i have used both INTEL N AMD Quad Core cpus & i most assure you that intel is MUCH much better than AMD right now . amd has HEAT + BOTTLENECK problem which both will slow you down n wont let your VGA card work perfectly !

Quad Cores are best for gaming & amd's Best quad core is nothin compared to intel's 3rd or even 2nd gen i5 CPUS !

 

[PA Systems]

What I'd like to see is a benchmark that compares the AMD Richland APUs crossfired with various Radeon cards compared to the Haswell cpus using Intels onboard video. My own plan is to pair my current 6570 with an A10-6800K. I'd also like to see that benchmark for those processors running Photoshop CS5. There seem to be a number of benchmarks, particularly a few mentioned here, where only one AMD processor is compared to a few "high end" Intel cpus. That doesn't seem a fair comparison. For example, comparing the FX-8150 to some Intel processors and not considering the higher end FX series cpus.

I do appreciate those individuals here who understand the root of the matter is about money. In spite of all the hooplah about the higher performance of Intel, a good number of people such as myself don't have the $$$$ to spend almost triple for Intel over AMD.

I did a search on newegg, confining my search to quad core cpus and core processor speeds.

Here is an Intel
Intel Core i7-4770K Haswell 3.5GHz LGA 1150 84W Quad-Core

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116901

$350

Here's the latest from AMD:

AMD A10-6800K Richland 4.1GHz Socket FM2 100W Quad-Core Desktop Processor - Black Edition AMD Radeon HD 8670D

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113331

$149.

As for the core speeds I couldn't even find a single intel processor that went above 3.5ghz. Then again I've read that AMD does focus on getting more speed out of individual cores. The highest speed overall is achieved by one not listed here. The FX-8350 has EIGHT cores, each getting 4.0ghz. That one costs $199 at newegg but would bust my budget yet is $150 less than the Haswell posted above.

I'd like to see a comparison between these two processors listed above based upon my above criteria using programs I use such as Photoshop CS5. A price/performance rating for each would be useful as well.


I can't, in my right mind, imagine paying more than DOUBLE for an Intel processor in spite of the purported performance levels.

 

[cemerian]

you are all forgetting the main reason why fx are any good andthats the word unlocked processor , you can oc those things like hell i have a fx 8120 @4,66ghz and its running game without any problems

 

[maddogfargo]

Another consideration is that with recent patches and driver updates the gap between the AMD and Intel CPUs has been closing.

In gaming they are VERY close now.

The big thing to know is:

1) What are you going to use your PC for?
2) Which CPU(s) do that well?
3) Is budget a factor?

Certain scenarios will favor Intel, others favor AMD. With very few exceptions this has been the case for 15+ years.