AMD CPU Gaming benchmarks

[Arkaign]

So basically by your standards ANY Intel CPU under a Core i5 is useless too.

I have used the FX6300,SB/IB Core i3 and Core i5 CPUs(my builds and builds I have done for others) and I would say the unless for a subset of games,the Core i3 CPUs are a limitation especially since they cannot be overclocked. I actually ditched my Core i3 for a Core i5 since it had subpar performance in some of the newer games,and yet my mate who had a FX6300 was fine.

Moreover what you fail to realise,is that with an FX6300 you could go with a better graphics card in the first place,and that a gaming rig is determined by both the CPU and GPU upgrade cycles.Unlike the US with is Microcentres,a Core i5 4670K is twice the price of an FX6300 where I live. The difference in price is equal to the difference between an HD7750 GDDR3/GDDR5 and a GTX660TI,HD7870XT/LE,etc.

Yes, an FX6300 is a better buy than an i3 for gaming imho.

However, if one has the budget, you get into i5 or i7, and then AMD makes zero sense for gaming (see the vast majority of benchmarks which show AMD to be lagging in performance in gaming above, with 8350 often losing to ancient i5s from several years ago!).

For you, with prices as you describe, I would indeed choose a 6300 + 660ti vs. an i5 + 7750. Money is not unlimited, and you have to do the best you can. It doesn't change the fact that AMD isn't as good for gaming. They make outstanding GPUs, and mediocre CPUs (outside of specific-case situations where they perform quite well).

 

[USER8000]

Yes, an FX6300 is a better buy than an i3 for gaming imho.

However, if one has the budget, you get into i5 or i7, and then AMD makes zero sense for gaming (see the vast majority of benchmarks which show AMD to be lagging in performance in gaming above, with 8350 often losing to ancient i5s from several years ago!).

For you, with prices as you describe, I would indeed choose a 6300 + 660ti vs. an i5 + 7750. Money is not unlimited, and you have to do the best you can. It doesn't change the fact that AMD isn't as good for gaming. They make outstanding GPUs, and mediocre CPUs (outside of specific-case situations where they perform quite well).

However,the problem with hardware enthusiasts on forums is that they think Core i5 4670K are "minimum" CPUs for gaming,etc.
It seems cheaper CPUs are not capable for running games,which is somewhat tied into a degree of hardware oneupmanship over those who don't spend so much on computer hardware. Instead it only pushes people to consoles more and more as they look more attractive in initial costs.

Yes,a Core i5 is probably the best rounded gaming CPU but it is more expensive for the privilege,and in the world outside forums,Core i5 CPUs(and those level of CPUs) are not as commonly used by most gamers. I expect far more AMD users to have APUs and FX6300 level and below CPUs than FX8120,FX8320,FX8150,FX8350,Phenom II X6 1075T,1090T,1100T,etc.

The Core i3 and similarly priced AMD equivalents are far more common than people think even for gaming rigs.

The funniest thing is the best SC2 player I ever met was in the Diamond League and was "only" using a Phenom II X4 965 and HD6870 which surprised me.

 

[SPBHM]

Moreover what you fail to realise,is that with an FX6300 you could go with a better graphics card in the first place,and that a gaming rig is determined by both the CPU and GPU upgrade cycles.Unlike the US with is Microcentres,a Core i5 4670K is twice the price of an FX6300 where I live. The difference in price is equal to the difference between an HD7750 GDDR3/GDDR5 and a GTX660TI,HD7870XT/LE,etc.

even the cheapest i5 ($180) will beat the overclocked FX 6300 in most games,
and the cheap i5s work extremely well with cheap cooling/MB, the 6300 needs something slightly better specially if overclocked.

but I agree, comparing just CPU vs CPU, the 6300 is much better than the current i3s and a fine CPUs for most usages, the problem is... i5s are even better, and the price difference is not that big... for people buying $200+ VGAs, I think it makes sense to invest also on a better CPU... in some games as we can see on the graphics from the previous page, the difference is big.

 

[USER8000]

even the cheapest i5 ($180) will beat the overclocked FX 6300 in most games,
and the cheap i5s work extremely well with cheap cooling/MB, the 6300 needs something slightly better specially if overclocked.

but I agree, comparing just CPU vs CPU, the 6300 is much better than the current i3s and a fine CPUs for most usages, the problem is... i5s are even better, and the price difference is not that big... for people buying $200+ VGAs, I think it makes sense to invest also on a better CPU... in some games as we can see on the graphics in this page, the difference is big.

However,the cheapest Core i5 where I live is the difference between an HD7770 and an HD7850,GTX650TI Boost or in one case a GTX660 2GB.

That is assuming non-overclocking able setups in both cases. Amazon recently were selling the FX8320 on special offer for the same price as a Core i3 3240.

The thing is that gamegpu is using a dual GPU GTX690. So on one level dual GPU setups are more CPU heavy and secondly you are still going to be more GPU limited in reality for many games out there.

Its two upgrade cycles so, yep, ideally everyone would love a Core i5 K series CPU and a GTX770 or HD7970GE,but ultimately its not always as clear cut as that. I think it is not only dependent on what time of games you play but also what you consider being comfortable with.

I really wish a review site would look into the latter,to see what differences really are noticeable to different gamers done under blind conditions.

 

[AtenRa]

(see the vast majority of benchmarks which show AMD to be lagging in performance in gaming above, with 8350 often losing to ancient i5s from several years ago!).

I would really like to see the same games with HD7950/HD7970GE or TITAN with newer drivers :whiste:

 

[boxleitnerb]

No surprise you don't believe it. Why do we need to rehash this for you? It's like you're driving on the wrong side of the road and not noticing it...again.
Graphics drivers are irrelevant for CPU performance.

 

[AtenRa]

No surprise you don't believe it.

You forgetting I have both FX8350 and Core i7 3770K with HD7950 @ 1GHz :whiste:

 

[SPBHM]

However,the cheapest Core i5 where I live is the difference between an HD7770 and an HD7850 2GB,GTX650TI Boost or in one case a GTX660 2GB.

That is assuming non-overclocking able setups in both cases. Amazon recently were selling the FX8320 on special offer for the same price as a Core i3 3240.



The thing is that gamegpu is using a dual GPU GTX690. So on one level dual GPU setups are more CPU heavy and secondly you are still going to be more GPU limited in reality for many games out there.

Its two upgrade cycles so, yep, ideally everyone would love a Core i5 K series CPU and a GTX770 or HD7970GE,but ultimately its not always as clear cut as that. I think it is not only dependent on what time of games you play but also what you consider being comfortable with.

I really wish a review site would look into the latter,to see what differences really are noticeable to different gamers done under blind conditions.

8320 will require a more expensive motherboard than some i5 (if you go for the lowest possible cost), i5s have no power usage problems with $50 motherboards.


the price difference for these cards can also come from somewhere else, you have to consider then entire build not to save $50 on the CPU (which is going to penalize performance considerably in some cases) and pay more for something else with limited impact, depending on the price range, $50-80 can give you a very limited gain in terms of extra graphics performance you can buy, let's say 7950 vs something else...

I think some of the gameGPU tests are using Titan, and some of the ones I posted 7970GHz and Titan...

I would really like to see the same games with HD7950/HD7970GE or TITAN with newer drivers :whiste:

AMD older drivers didn't work well with their CPUs or what?

 

[boxleitnerb]

You forgetting I have both FX8350 and Core i7 3770K with HD7950 @ 1GHz :whiste:

And you have no idea how to benchmark, we know.
You also consistently ignore games that are rather CPU-bound and in general don't understand that not everyone is content with lower fps, especially in faster games and competitive gaming.

Having certain hardware hardly makes you an expert. Benchmarking and properly assessing performance and performance potential is not trivial and not everyone has the expertise to do it.

 

[USER8000]

8320 will require a more expensive motherboard than some i5 (if you go for the lowest possible cost), i5s have no power usage problems with $50 motherboards.


the price difference for these cards can also come from somewhere else, you have to consider then entire build not to save $50 on the CPU (which is going to penalize performance considerably in some cases) and pay more for something else with limited impact, depending on the price range, $50-80 can give you a very limited gain in terms of extra graphics performance you can buy, let's say 7950 vs something else...

I think some of the gameGPU tests are using Titan, and some of the ones I posted 7970GHz and Titan...

If I was playing BF3,BF4,C3,Metro:Last Light,etc I would rather have an FX6300 and GTX650TI Boost/HD7850/GTX660 than a low end Core i5 and a GTX650TI or an HD7770. This is the price difference where I live. Its not small.

Moreover something like a Core i5 4670K is like $135(if converted into USD) more than a FX6300,and even the cheapest locked Core i5 is nearly $80 more. If you go down the range an Athlon II X4 760K is $115 cheaper than a low end Core i5 ,and around $45 cheaper than a Core i3 3220.
The US is probably lucky to get relatively cheap Intel CPUs and Corsair PSUs.

Yeah,if you had the budget for an HD7970GE,then it would probably make more sense to spread more of the budget to the CPU. However,cheaper CPUs(and indeed graphics cards) exist for the fact there are enough people who don't have the budget or even wish to spend more on components.

I think as hardware enthusiast we at times forget this,as after all DIY computer parts and builds are our hobby!

 

[AtenRa]

AMD older drivers didn't work well with their CPUs or what?

Titan is a new card and i strogly believe that its drivers need a lot of work.

Im sure NVIDIA first optimizes its drivers for Intel and later for the AMD CPUs. Don’t take it as a conspiracy, it just business, Intel CPUs are better above the $200 mark. Actually, there is no AMD Desktop CPU above $200 unless you count the new 220W FX parts.

I don’t believe anyone would pair a Titan with FX6300 or even FX8350. Not because there not working together but people buying Titan will at least have/target a Core i7 (quad or 6-core).

 

[boxleitnerb]

Titan is 4 months old and the same architecture. The only proven influence that Nvidia graphics drivers have is that they perform quite bad with 3-core CPUs. Why that is, hasn't been understood. Everything else about drivers influencing CPU performance, and even making a difference between different CPUs is pure nonsense.

 

[nurturedhate]

If I was playing BF3/4 multiplayer I would MUCH rather have a faster cpu/slower gpu to improve my minimum frame rate. It's easy to change the load placed on a video card. There's not much you can do to change the load placed on a cpu in a 64 player map. I'm there to kill people, not look at pretty graphics at 20fps.

 

[ZGR]

OC

http://pclab.pl/art51730-14.html
http://pclab.pl/art53333-14.html

looking at the core i3 is easy to conclude the game is not using many cores,

Very strange. FSX is definitely the most CPU heavy game I have ever encountered. The fact that the 8350 is so behind means that its single threaded performance is dismal. FSX is definitely not using each core to its advantage.

 

[AtenRa]

And you have no idea how to benchmark, we know.

I havent seen your benchmarking, where are your wonderfull reviews ???

Having certain hardware hardly makes you an expert.

No, but at least I can show you what my hardware can do and report it here. Can you do the same for the FX8350 ?? Can you show us how it perform ???

Didn’t thing so, you just quote a single source (GameGPU.ru) and you make a generalized conclusion. And if anyone just question your conclusion based on its own experience of the hardware he owns, he just not know how to bench and he’s not qualify to run a benchmark.

I forgot, only you know how to bench, it shows on your countless reviews you have done all those years. :whiste:

ps: If having the hardware doesnt make you an expert, then what makes you that doesnt even have the hardware ?? smart ass ??

 

[USER8000]

Very strange. FSX is definitely the most CPU heavy game I have ever encountered. The fact that the 8350 is so behind means that its single threaded performance is dismal. FSX is definitely not using each core to its advantage.

Technically speaking its more software bottlenecked than out and out CPU heavy,as even the Intel CPUs have most of their cores idling. Looking at those results it would mean most gaming PCs would have an issue with it,as most prebuilds are not overclocked,and are not using an HD7970GE level or higher graphics card.

Sins of a Solar Empire could at times do the same thing until it got updated recently and it is now far more smoother.

 

[AtenRa]

If I was playing BF3/4 multiplayer I would MUCH rather have a faster cpu/slower gpu to improve my minimum frame rate. It's easy to change the load placed on a video card. There's not much you can do to change the load placed on a cpu in a 64 player map. I'm there to kill people, not look at pretty graphics at 20fps.

Thats not entirely true, you need good Image quality up to a point. You will spot the enemy farther and quicker. So you do need more than HD7770 for 1080p and at least FX6300/Core i5 in BF3 MP.

 

[SPBHM]

If I was playing BF3,BF4,C3,Metro:Last Light,etc I would rather have an FX6300 and GTX650TI Boost/HD7850/GTX660 than a low end Core i5 and a GTX650TI or an HD7770. This is the price difference where I live. Its not small.

Moreover something like a Core i5 4670K is like $135(if converted into USD) more than a FX6300,and even the cheapest locked Core i5 is nearly $80 more. If you go down the range an Athlon II X4 760K is $115 cheaper than a low end Core i5 ,and around $45 cheaper than a Core i3 3220.
The US is probably lucky to get relatively cheap Intel CPUs and Corsair PSUs.

Yeah,if you had the budget for an HD7970GE,then it would probably make more sense to spread more of the budget to the CPU. However,cheaper CPUs(and indeed graphics cards) exist for the fact there are enough people who don't have the budget or even wish to spend more on components.

I think as hardware enthusiast we at times forget this,as after all DIY computer parts and builds are our hobby!

yes well, but if you are doing some competitive gaming, or playing RTS and others a slower card + i5 could be easy to justify, as the loss in IQ could be less important than the loss in FPS due to the CPU... I guess there is no easy answer, it's a matter of preference, but the potential of a CPU bottleneck at a lower level increase significantly as you can see on the links posted here with slower CPUs, and again $50 up to 100 can or cannot mean very little to the overall price of the entire PC, or to the GPU gains,

Titan is a new card and i strogly believe that its drivers need a lot of work.

Im sure NVIDIA first optimizes its drivers for Intel and later for the AMD CPUs. Don’t take it as a conspiracy, it just business, Intel CPUs are better above the $200 mark. Actually, there is no AMD Desktop CPU above $200 unless you count the new 220W FX parts.

I don’t believe anyone would pair a Titan with FX6300 or even FX8350. Not because there not working together but people buying Titan will at least have/target a Core i7 (quad or 6-core).

I'm little skeptical regarding driver optimization for specific CPUs these days... actually it's not rare to find AMD CPUs performing better with NV GPUs relative to Intel, in comparison with AMD CPUs with AMD GPUs vs Intel CPUs with AMD GPUs (like on that tomshardware CF/SLI test)

but yes... if you go for a higher end card, you shouldn't be saving $50-100 with CPUs imo, I think it's a valid discussion for cheaper stuff, but the 8350 doesn't seem to be the most appealing gaming CPU for it's price range in any way, on the other hand the FM2 X4s and 6300 are, but I always have some doubts because the cheaper i5s are not to far away anyway.

Very strange. FSX is definitely the most CPU heavy game I have ever encountered. The fact that the 8350 is so behind means that its single threaded performance is dismal. FSX is definitely not using each core to its advantage.

if you go to a FSX enthusiast forum you will find that almost everyone is using highly overclocked i7s and i5s, the game is definitely CPU limited, but don't scale well with more cores, as much as it does with higher performing 2-4 cores.

 

[0___________0]

If you're operating with a small budget then I think that a 6300 is a CPU that will be sufficient. By sufficient I mean that you will have an enjoyably playable experience in almost every game. Owning one, I would choose it over an i3 for gaming; I don't think an i3 will be very versatile in gaming, it only has an advantage in games with one or two main bottlenecking threads and it can't be OC'd.

Here in the US you can increase your budget by ~$90 and get an unlocked i5. I have two other rigs with i7 CPU's from the Nehalem (920) and SB lines, and they can easily beat my 4.2ghz 6300 in games like BF3 or lowly threaded ones like Sup Com. The 6300 provides a playable experience, but in BF3 my 560 Ti never sees more than 90% usage, averages something like 80% while the CPU is literally running 100% on every single core. It does keep an average FPS in the 50's with most settings on ultra, and I rarely notice any hitches in gameplay; so I don't think it's necessary that you have an i5 for a good gaming experience. The downside is that my GPU is being held back slightly, but this isn't supposed to be an expensive rig, so I'm ok with that.

If you're going for a top tier GPU and play games like BF3/SC2/Civ V then I would strongly recommend against an AMD CPU, you'd just be wasting the money you spent on that GPU. Perhaps Steamroller will change that, but who even knows if it will be on AM3+, or when the FX based chips will arrive?

 

[ZGR]

Technically speaking its more software bottlenecked than out and out CPU heavy,as even the Intel CPUs have most of their cores idling. Looking at those results it would mean most gaming PCs would have an issue with it,as most prebuilds are not overclocked,and are not using an HD7970GE level or higher graphics card.

Sins of a Solar Empire could at times do the same thing until it got updated recently and it is now far more smoother.

As a Sins of a Solar Empire Trinity player, the games 2 thread limit makes longer games miserable.

GTA IV is another CPU heavy game that I haven't been able to find a good benchmark for the 8350.

After reading about how FSX scales so well with CPU cores, the benchmarks now tell a different story; that only a few cores are used for important things...

 

[SPBHM]

GTA IV is another CPU heavy game that I haven't been able to find a good benchmark for the 8350.

back when the game was released in 2008, it was one of the first games which showed a big benefit going from 2 to 4 cores and made C2Ds look weak, but it also always showed good gains with faster memory/cache

 

[USER8000]

As a Sins of a Solar Empire Trinity player, the games 2 thread limit makes longer games miserable.

GTA IV is another CPU heavy game that I haven't been able to find a good benchmark for the 8350.

After reading about how FSX scales so well with CPU cores, the benchmarks now tell a different story; that only a few cores are used for important things...

I would get Rebellion. Trinity used to slow to a slug fest after 10 hour+ multiplayer matches,and I was using a Core i3 and then a Core i5. After getting Rebellion,it really seems they have improved the game,as even after long matches,it does not seem to slow down anywhere as much, even with mates who have older AMD and Intel CPUs,in the same game.

 

[RussianSensation]

So basically by your standards ANY Intel CPU under a Core i5 is useless too.

For me yes. I would not buy a CPU for games that needs upgrading in 2 years and is struggling in many games. i3s are worthless in many games already and so is the FX6000-8000 series. The goal is to build a rig knowing you'll be upgrading the GPU and spend more $ upfront on parts that can last the longest - case, power supply, monitor and CPU. In the next 4 years GPU performance will increase 2.5-3x.

Moreover what you fail to realise,is that with an FX6300 you could go with a better graphics card in the first place,and that a gaming rig is determined by both the CPU and GPU upgrade cycles.Unlike the US with it Microcentres,a Core i5 4670K is twice the price of an FX6300 where I live. The difference in price is equal to the difference between an HD7750 GDDR3/GDDR5 and a GTX660TI,HD7870,HD7870XT/LE,etc.

I actually did realize it and said it's still worth it to spend more upfront imho. You gotta look at the total system cost here not CPUs only.

If you are looking to upgrade, you are looking at a new CPU + mobo + DDR3 + videocard. Add those up. If say FX6300 was $100 and i5 is $230, by the time you add all those other components, it'll be more like $600 vs. $730.

i5 might be "2x more expensive" but in the context of upgrading parts or a totally new build, it'll be barely more expensive in % terms but vastly superior in games. If right now you get the FX6300 series, it'll be slow in many games and too slow in 2 years. i5 4670K overclocked will last 4 years and at least 2 more flagship GPU upgrades - Maxwell and Volta. Over the course of 4 years, that $130 or even $150 extra works out to only $37.50 per year. Intel CPUs though have higher resale value too. You pay more upfront but when it comes time to upgrade, you can sell Intel CPUs at very good prices.

What's worse, FX6300 won't be able to handle GPU upgrades on 14nm node. It'll become a major bottleneck because by that time those GPUs will have the performance of Titan SLI. People already tried penny pinching on CPUs before (E8400 vs. Q9550) or getting cheaper Phenom II X4s over i5/i7s. E8400 became worthless in no time but those with 9550s @ 3.8ghz managed to last. People who tried to penny pinch with 955-965 CPUs should regret it because they are garbage while i5 750 & 860 @ 3.8-3.9ghz is still pretty good. The same thing will happen with Piledriver vs. Haswell.

I suppose if someone's monthly income is $400-500, then $100-130 extra on the CPU is a lot of $. For people living in 1st world countries, it would cost more long-term to go with an i3/FX6300 than worth the savings. It's better to bite the bullet right away because i5 4670K overclocked will not majorly hold back the next 3 GPU upgrades, but FX series most definitely will.

It also depends on what games you ultimately play. If you play 99% GPU limited games, than sure, save some $ and get the FX. If you play a wide variety of games, including multiplayer FPS, strategy games then for me the entire AMD CPU range is "worthless".

 

[SiliconWars]

People already tried this strategy before by getting cheaper Phenom II X4s over i5/i7s. You can now throw those 955-965 CPUs in the garbage while i5 750 @ 3.8-3.9ghz is still pretty good.

Proof?

 

[SPBHM]

overclocked PII X4/X6 doesn't look to perform much different than Piledriver for gaming, considering it's from 2009/10... not to bad.