AMD CPU Gaming benchmarks

[cmdrdredd]

Proof?

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/362?vs=109

 

[USER8000]

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.



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 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 once because by that time those GPUs will have the performance of Titan SLI.

The problem is though is though you can use the logic of spending 10% more,20% more,etc all time is where do you end up?? Why get a GTX760 when a GTX770 will last longer?? Why get a GTX770 when a GTX780 is faster,etc. You can use it to justify spending more on anything.

This is the same logic which has lead to increasing amounts of personal debt,people over extending their credit cards,spending that extra on a home,etc which is one of the reasons why we are in such economic problems.The whole point of budget components is for people to keep in budget,otherwise they would be spending more in the first place!

Moreover,it also makes consoles look more enticing when people are harping on about how anything other than a high end CPU and GPU,will only last a short time. If you don't overclock,oh!noes! it will last XYZ years less.

Why bother?? Just buy a console,it will last years without needing to be upgraded, is the attitude I can see a decent number gamers taking,and I have known people look on tech forums and think they need top end parts just to play most games,which is not the case. It is the case for modern day hardware enthusiasts and measurebators.I have seen plenty of gamers go over to consoles and ditch their desktops for laptops and tablets which are smaller,quieter and more portable.

It also means an exclusive elitetist DIY PC community where those which don't the have more expensive CPUs and graphics cards are looked down at,or are considered "casual gamers" and yet some of best gamers I have met don't even have the best or most modern PCs.

In fact look at some of the biggest played games like Minecraft,LoL,D3,etc they all scale well to even low end hardware.

Alternatively with other games,as most sane gamers do, they just turn a setting or two down,if they don't have a overclocked Core i5 4670K at 5GHZ and dual GTX780 cards,otherwise they would have to upgrade before they even switched on the PC.

Edit!!

I see you edited your previous answer after I replied.

BTW,here is the same Metro2033 benchmark from a later review from the same website:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/fx-8350-8320-6300-4300/metro.png

I know plenty of people who run SC2 on everything from desktops to laptops. The best player I ever knew was in the Diamond League and had a Phenom II X4. It seems ability is more important for RTS games. The reason why Blizzard games sell in their millions is down to the fact they scale well even to older and slower hardware. Only on computer hardware forums do people actually say that Blizzard games need high end hardware to run.

 

[cmdrdredd]

I think the point was, if you're going to swap out everything and be around $500 already what is another $100 on the CPU? Not too much.

 

[RussianSensation]

Proof?

Did you completely miss benches of i5 760 vs. 955/1100T in posts #15 and #16? Now take that 760 2.8ghz and overclock it to 3.9ghz.

The IPC of Piledriver is terribad. Nehalem/Lynnfield still has higher IPC than Piledriver. So guess what will happen if you take an FX8350 @ 4ghz against i7 860 @ 3.9-4ghz? The FX8350 will still lose in games against a 1st generation i7 unless it's one of the few AMD GE titles where AMD spent considerable time working closely with the developer to optimize for the FX8350.

i5 4670K/4770K overclocked would demolish an FX8350 overclocked in CPU limited games.

I think the point was, if you're going to swap out everything and be around $500 already what is another $100 on the CPU? Not too much.

Exactly. You cannot play games on a CPU. You will most likely need a motherboard, ram, cpu and videocard upgrades. The true real world comparison should be the sum of parts #1 vs. parts #2. It's not $100 vs. $230 CPU.

The problem is though is though you can use the logic of spending 10% more,20% more,etc all time is where do you end up?? Why get a GTX760 when a GTX770 will last longer?? Why get a GTX770 when a GTX780 is faster,etc. You can use it to justify spending more on anything. .

It's not the same at all. You can look at price/performance of 760 vs. 770 vs. 780 easily and assess that 760 is the best value. Similarly, add up the parts for upgrade and compare their price performance. i5 4670K system upgrade is more bang for the buck than FX series. Since GPUs increase in speed at a much faster pace, the minor performance advantage 770 has over 760 now will all but disappear in demanding games. In 2 years we will have 20nm GPUs 50-70% faster, 2 years after 14nm. Will there be a CPU 40-70% faster in 2 years in games over i5 4670K? You need to scrape $150 more over 760 to step up to a 770 for a rather small increase in speed. In CPU limited games, i5-4670K would mop the floor with FX6300 by more than 20%.

You are also not looking at the total cost of ownership of GPUs vs. CPUs. GTX480 was $499 and 2.5 years later HD7850 OC was sub-$200. GTX680 was $500 and now GTX760 nips on the heels for $249 some 18 months later. There is no such thing in the CPU world. If you spend $230 on an i5-4670K, you can sell it in 2 years for a reasonable amount. If you spend $650 on a GTX780, in 2 years you'll lose half. The depreciation is very low on Intel CPUs, while the pace of improvement in CPU speed is very slow. For that reason, it makes more sense to spend more on the CPU upfront and not worry about it. The total cost of ownership of i5-4670K is very low, while it's not as if Skylake will be 50% faster in 2 years. This is the opposite of what happens with GPUs - the cost of ownership and rate of obsolescence is very high. Unless you can easily afford it, going above HD7950/760 becomes a very costly way to futureproof. Spending a bit more upfront for i5 4670K is a 4-year "insurance."

For instance, GTX680 level of GPU performance will be mid-range on 20nm generation. FX6300 already bottlenecks a 680 in CPU limited games.

 

[ShintaiDK]

The only debate for a gamer is if its worth going for the 4770 vs the 4670.

 

[nurturedhate]

You can't talk about debt and only refer to up front costs. Everything is cost over time. I can spend (fake #'s incoming) $700 now and have it last 4-5 years or spend $600 now and have it last 2 years. And at that point have to spend another $350 at the end of that 2 year period. Sans gpu upgrade for both systems I can spend $700 for a 4 year period or spend $950 over 4 years.

 

[Greenlepricon]

As a poor college student, I liked my upgrade from a phenom II to my 8320. I don't see many bottlenecks in games I play when I'm running Fraps, even for things like Starcraft II. I don't think I've ever seen my fps drop below 40, and most of the time it's at 60. That being said, Intel is still superior. I think the thing that gets overlooked most of the time is that AMD is in 99% of cases more than good enough. I don't run my monitor over 60Hz, and if it can run over that there really isn't a problem for me. If the budget allows, I would go for anything between a Sandy Bridge or a Haswell, Otherwise there is nothing wrong with an overclocked FX.

 

[SiliconWars]

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/362?vs=109

Let's see then.

7 games in that, 3 of them are draws (tiny wins for the 980 BE actually), couple more close <20% ones and the 980 loses badly in Far Cry 2 (intel sponsored benchmark). Overall it's a not-massive 9% win for the 750. Ok so you can overclock them both and maybe push that up to 15%. Still not really what I'd call massive, in games that were chosen due to their nature as CPU benchmarks.

I'm not yet convinced.

That said, it shows there is a lot wrong with those gamegpu benchmarks that Russian likes to link because according to those the 760 is 43% faster than the 955, which imo is a crock. It wasn't even 25% faster on release and I see no reason why it would have pulled away unless we are supposed to believe that games are getting less multi-threaded instead of more as the years go by. Those are just dubious results that I'm not seeing elsewhere.

Xbit had the 760 17% faster than the x6 1055 - http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core-i5-760_4.html#sect0

These all seem reasonable as ~20% was around the mark on release. There's simply no way that the 760 is now 40%+ better than the Phenom II's as the years go by unless the benchmark suite is based around only the most single-threaded games available, which in itself would be enough to question the motives and validity of the results.

 

[justin4pack]

The problem is though is though you can use the logic of spending 10% more,20% more,etc all time is where do you end up?? Why get a GTX760 when a GTX770 will last longer?? Why get a GTX770 when a GTX780 is faster,etc. You can use it to justify spending more on anything.

Because some people just dont have it. I should have guessed this would turn into an intel/amd debate. Listen compairing an fx6300 to a high end intel is sensless when i am compairing ONLY amd for.price performance. It needs be cheap but still perform good.

 

[SiliconWars]

Did you completely miss benches of i5 760 vs. 955/1100T in posts #15 and #16? Now take that 760 2.8ghz and overclock it to 3.9ghz.

Yes I did first time around. That said, the 955 would also be pushed to near 4.2 GHz meaning there wouldn't be that much difference while overclocked. It's not like you get linear gains from oc'ing a CPU in gaming benchmarks.

The IPC of Piledriver is terribad. Nehalem/Lynnfield still has higher IPC than Piledriver. So guess what will happen if you take an FX8350 @ 4ghz against i7 860 @ 3.9-4ghz? The FX8350 will still lose in games against a 1st generation i7 unless it's one of the few AMD GE titles where AMD spent considerable time working closely with the developer to optimize for the FX8350.

That's not what you said though. There is an obvious difference between the 8350 vs current i5 battle and the Phenom II vs Lynnfield battle. 4 cores for a start.

i5 4670K/4770K overclocked would demolish an FX8350 overclocked in CPU limited games.

Core limited games, not CPU limited. If games truly used CPU's to their limit then the 8350 would be a monster. There are plenty of reasons to believe that this will be the case quite soon.

Would I buy an 8350 as a gaming machine right now? Still no, but if I could I'd be happy to wait and see. I'd be nervous about buying an i5 as well (if I didn't already have one) in case I ended up with something that was getting beaten more often than not by the 8350.

 

[Abwx]

Did you completely miss benches of i5 760 vs. 955/1100T in posts #15 and #16? Now take that 760 2.8ghz and overclock it to 3.9ghz.

The IPC of Piledriver is terribad. Nehalem/Lynnfield still has higher IPC than Piledriver. So guess what will happen if you take an FX8350 @ 4ghz against i7 860 @ 3.9-4ghz? The FX8350 will still lose in games against a 1st generation i7 unless it's one of the few AMD GE titles where AMD spent considerable time working closely with the developer to optimize for the FX8350.



i5 4670K/4770K overclocked would demolish an FX8350 overclocked in CPU limited games.





Exactly. You cannot play games on a CPU. You will most likely need a motherboard, ram, cpu and videocard upgrades. The true real world comparison should be the sum of parts #1 vs. parts #2. It's not $100 vs. $230 CPU.



It's not the same at all. You can look at price/performance of 760 vs. 770 vs. 780 easily and assess that 760 is the best value. Similarly, add up the parts for upgrade and compare their price performance. i5 4670K system upgrade is more bang for the buck than FX series. Since GPUs increase in speed at a much faster pace, the minor performance advantage 770 has over 760 now will all but disappear in demanding games. In 2 years we will have 20nm GPUs 50-70% faster, 2 years after 14nm. Will there be a CPU 40-70% faster in 2 years in games over i5 4670K? You need to scrape $150 more over 760 to step up to a 770 for a rather small increase in speed. In CPU limited games, i5-4670K would mop the floor with FX6300 by more than 20%.

You are also not looking at the total cost of ownership of GPUs vs. CPUs. GTX480 was $499 and 2.5 years later HD7850 OC was sub-$200. GTX680 was $500 and now GTX760 nips on the heels for $249 some 18 months later. There is no such thing in the CPU world. If you spend $230 on an i5-4670K, you can sell it in 2 years for a reasonable amount. If you spend $650 on a GTX780, in 2 years you'll lose half. The depreciation is very low on CPUs, while the pace of improvement in CPU speed is very slow. For that reason, it makes more sense to spend more on the CPU upfront and not worry about it. The total cost of ownership of i5-4670K is very low, while it's not as if Skylake will be 50% faster in 2 years.

Cinebech is really irrelevant for games estimations since it s
70% SSE2 FP double precision while games are mainly integer
and somewhat single precision FP.

That said , from the site you re quoting :

 

[cmdrdredd]

Let's see then.

7 games in that, 3 of them are draws (tiny wins for the 980 BE actually), couple more close

That was not even the slower 965 that Russian was referring to.

 

[SiliconWars]

That was not even the slower 965 that Russian was referring to.

Yes but still, it's not quite at the "throw out the Phenom II while Lynnfield is pro" point he was making.

There wasn't that much difference to begin with - 20% or so - and as games get more multithreaded the Phenom II should be closing the gap, not seeing Lynnfield double its advantage. There's something quite dubious about those gamegpu benchmarks.

 

[AtenRa]

i5 4670K/4770K overclocked would demolish an FX8350 overclocked in CPU limited games.

Well, we should start making CPU gaming performance conclusions having a Cinebench 11.5 benchmark run from now on.

Exactly. You cannot play games on a CPU. You will most likely need a motherboard, ram, cpu and videocard upgrades. The true real world comparison should be the sum of parts #1 vs. parts #2. It's not $100 vs. $230 CPU.

Well, i have 600.00 euros to spend not 730.00, ill take an FX6300 + HD7950 than Core i5 + HD7790. For two-three years i will enjoy my games at higher image quality than you and after that when i will really need a new GPU i will consider my options at that time. You on the other hand will be all this time with inferior image quality but dont worry, after two-three years you will be able to game at the same settings as i did all those years before you when you will finelly upgrade the GPU.

I believe you got my point, but im sure you will continue tooting about the faster and more expensive CPU.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Well, we should start making CPU gaming performance conclusions having a Cinebench 11.5 benchmark run from now on.




Well, i have 600.00 euros to spend not 730.00, ill take an FX6300 + HD7950 than Core i5 + HD7790. For two-three years i will enjoy my games at higher image quality than you and after that when i will really need a new GPU i will consider my options at that time. You on the other hand will be all this time with inferior image quality but dont worry, after two-three years you will be able to game at the same settings as i did all those years before you when you will finelly upgrade the GPU.

I believe you got my point, but im sure you will continue tooting about the faster and more expensive CPU.

Or you know...wait a couple weeks and put a little more cash in the pot and get both the i5 and 7950

 

[AtenRa]

Or you know...wait a couple weeks and put a little more cash in the pot and get both the i5 and 7950

Why not wait a month and add another 200 and by a GTX780 ?? wait a moment, i could wait a few months and get a Core i7 3930 and the GTX780.

I know i know, why have the GTX780 with a 1080p monitor, wait another two-three months and add 700-1000 Euros and buy a 1440/1600p monitor.

Shall i continue ???

 

[cmdrdredd]

Why not wait a month and add another 200 and by a GTX780 ?? wait a moment, i could wait a few months and get a Core i7 3930 and the GTX780.

I know i know, why have the GTX780 with a 1080p monitor, wait another two-three months and add 700-1000 Euros and buy a 1440/1600p monitor.

Shall i continue ???

Continue making no sense? Yeah go ahead

 

[AtenRa]

Continue making no sense? Yeah go ahead

Well, next time anyone will ask about buying a Celeron/Pentium or any budget CPU i will recommend Core i7 3960X, it is the faster CPU in the above Cinebench run.

Better now ??

 

[cmdrdredd]

Well, next time anyone will ask about buying a Celeron/Pentium or any budget CPU i will recommend Core i7 3960X, it is the faster CPU in the above Cinebench run.

Better now ??

Yeah cause that's totally what we are saying here...exactly it.

 

[AtenRa]

Yeah cause that's totally what we are saying here...exactly it.

And what are you saying here exactly ??? enlighten us :whiste:

Let me tell you whats happening here, Intel doesnt have a better alternative at the FX6300 price and people starts recommending a much more expensive Intel CPU just because according to them it will last 4-5 years.

Not only that, but you even suggested to wait a few weeks just to add more to the pot in order to be able to buy that more expensive CPU.

Did i missed something ??

 

[cmdrdredd]

And what are you saying here exactly ??? enlighten us :whiste:

Let me tell you whats happening here, Intel doesnt have a better alternative at the FX6300 price and people starts recommending a much more expensive Intel CPU just because according to them it will last 4-5 years.

Not only that, but you even suggested to wait a few weeks just to add more to the pot in order to be able to buy that more expensive CPU.

Did i missed something ??

You missed the part where only you are sarcastically mocking the suggestion by further suggesting a 780 and 3930k. Nobody said that. What we are suggesting is an alternative from Intel that would offer higher performance for a marginal cost increase. It's not different than someone looking at a GTX 770 but being offered a suggestion for a 7970 that is slightly higher priced, but offers better performance in different situations.

It's not trolling, thread crapping, or being mean spirited. It's simply a suggestion that can increase performance, backed by evidence, with the side effect of being able to last a bit longer into the future before being outclassed to the point where it is no longer acceptable.

 

[Abwx]

Let me tell you whats happening here, Intel doesnt have a better alternative at the FX6300 price and people starts recommending a much more expensive Intel CPU just because according to them it will last 4-5 years.

I wasnt myself a fan of FX6XXX because i didnt see the point
to not go FX8XXX instead but reading through the forum
convinced me that it has an exceptionnal price/perf ratio
given the slashed pricing.

Guess that one year ago even AMD didnt imagine that it would
end being one of their best offering.

 

[bgt]

The opposite is true - the stronger a graphics card, the less it bottlenecks CPUs, making it easier tell them apart.

Well, then there is something absolutely wrong with benchmarks. I just tested both CPU's with the same OCed 7950 and found the 8350 to be faster in f.i TR And my intension was to give it a fair go with either CPU to see what CPU to use for games.I've spend hours and hours of testing and I played TR with both CPU's and found no difference in gameplay. Anyway...it seems benchmark results are dependent of lot more than just CPU's? And only owners of both CPU's, AMD and Intel, can test and test and find out.
Don't forget Anandtech and other sites use the best motherboards/setups available but for consumers this is a bit different. Consumers test them in a more practical manner with different hardware.

 

[AtenRa]

You missed the part where only you are sarcastically mocking the suggestion by further suggesting a 780 and 3930k. Nobody said that. What we are suggesting is an alternative from Intel that would offer higher performance for a marginal cost increase. It's not different than someone looking at a GTX 770 but being offered a suggestion for a 7970 that is slightly higher priced, but offers better performance in different situations.

It's not trolling, thread crapping, or being mean spirited. It's simply a suggestion that can increase performance, backed by evidence, with the side effect of being able to last a bit longer into the future before being outclassed to the point where it is no longer acceptable.

I just wonder why AMD and Intel release those sub $200 CPUs ?? Everyone could spend $100 or more if they could wait a coudple of weeks to add to the pot

 

[SiliconWars]

You missed the part where only you are sarcastically mocking the suggestion by further suggesting a 780 and 3930k. Nobody said that. What we are suggesting is an alternative from Intel that would offer higher performance for a marginal cost increase. It's not different than someone looking at a GTX 770 but being offered a suggestion for a 7970 that is slightly higher priced, but offers better performance in different situations.

The problem is what is a "marginal cost increase" to you might not be to others. $50 is a big deal to a lot of people. $500 is nothing to a lot of people as well so you are both saying the same thing really.

While I generally think a lot of AMD CPU's are a hard sell for gaming, they are fine when looked at in a price range. Don't keep increasing the price, just look at what is best in a price range and AMD CPU's can do well when matched with a faster graphics card, compared to the faster Intel CPU and slower graphics card.