AMD CPU Gaming benchmarks

[toyota]

look at the bolded parts in my prior posts.

that statement is questionable, if you haven't been reading the comments of the others, pretty much either way you go, you will be good given a powerful enough gpu, so if gaming is the criteria, a higher tier gpu should be sought after even to the potential detriment to single threaded cpu performance.

there you have it, my opinion, which has been stated many times in the thread alone by others.

and what do you think happens when you upgrade from a gpu that already cant be fully utilized or a game is already cpu limited?

if you cant afford to do a higher end gaming pc right then dont bother.

 

[monstercameron]

And yet it took two thread crap posts before you actually said anything relevant.

is this post anymore relevant, arent you thread crapping now?

in any case people have budgets, sometimes $600 becomes $500 if you wait another week or two...you privileged few with massive disposable income shouldn't even comment because you are out of touch...

 

[nurturedhate]

Has the OP even responded after their initial post? I see nothing. No list of software they plan on using. I like pointless conversation about hardware but this is just back and forth between basically three camps, Intel, AMD and Good Enough.

All of this really just boils down to expectations and budget. If you have $125 to spend on a cpu go find a 6300. If you have $225 go find a 4670k. You are going to need a decent HSF for either. To get good performance out of the 6300 you are going to need a decent mb, cost being the same on both in the end. Ram? same. PSU? Buy a quality one, so that's the same also.

Would I personally skimp $100 on a cpu to buy a 7950/70 over a 7870 or the nVidia equivalent? No. Not if I was starting a system from scratch today. Gpu performance increases a lot faster than cpu performance.

Sandy Bridge Released in Jan 2011. GTX 580 was Nov 2010. Now we are at Haswell and GTX 770 with respect to price comparisons. Sandy to Haswell is 15% on a good day. 580 to 770? Around 40%.

If I had to spend extra money on a cpu or gpu I'd pick the part that would have the greatest chance of longevity. And right now that is the cpu.

In the end it's a simple decision if we have all the information. We don't. We know that Intel provides the best performance. We know that the 6300 is a solid performer in it's price range. We know that people disagree with massive amounts of hard data even if it's presented to them logically based on preconceived notions.

The data is there for the OP. The options have been presented and cases made. Until they provide more information on their usage I say we just carry on with this subject. I love reading stories of "Oh my, you are all wrong, my system I built 4 years ago is great and does everything just as well as the new system you built last week" and "I have both cpu's and tested them, I obviously know more than two dozen tech review sites who do this for a living" or "if you say save money til next week you'll be saving money until the end of time" or "dear lord, I posted hard data backing up my claims but you don't listen to logic so I'll post more hard data (my favorite, btw)".

 

[nurturedhate]

is this post anymore relevant, arent you thread crapping now?

in any case people have budgets, sometimes $600 becomes $500 if you wait another week or two...you privileged few with massive disposable income shouldn't even comment because you are out of touch...

If $600 becomes $500 within a week the smart decision is NOT BUYING A $600/500 computer. At that point, go down to gamestop and buy a used ps2 before they stop selling them. Cheap console and even cheaper games. Spend $100 on a console and some games. Or maybe a deck of cards? Gas for your car? Food? Rent/mortgage? If we are penny pinching that much on a LUXURY item then the smart choice isn't buying one at all. And this is a luxury item. This isn't a PC for school use. That is an entirely different conversation.

 

[Obsoleet]

"Oh my, you are all wrong, my system I built 4 years ago is great and does everything just as well as the new system you built last week"

^ This one is actually true.

I use Handbrake, as an HTPC, 3 monitors, software development, 30+ hours of gaming a week and acts as a fileserver, local webserver for development, multiple VMs. I do more than 90% of even hardcore PC users do, and I'm getting along fine.

Speaking just for my own and the not the sum of my household income, I could spend a bit of my $120,000+ a year income on a new build.. but why?
The OP will be well served by whatever he picks, really.

 

[ViRGE]

At 5 pages long this has become absurd. This is a help thread, not a discussion thread.

From here on either respond directly to the OPs questions or do not post at all. If you are not responding to the OP you are not posting. And if you're responding to each other you're definitely not posting. The OP has laid out a general plan of what he wants to do; now use your collective knowledge to help him make an informed decision from the choices he has provided.

-Thanks
ViRGE

 

[bgt]

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.

The FX6300 will be a good choice. If I look at my 8350 I see what it does and I am very content with it. If I put it on 6 cores in bios its still fast enough. And the 6300 is cheap, power consumption is a moot point. 100% load all day is not realistic. Even my 8350 is bearly heating up even if its summer here right now.
Price in euro's here:
8350 171
6300 101
4770K 339

 

[justin4pack]

Has the OP even responded after their initial post? I see nothing. No list of software they plan on using. I like pointless conversation about hardware but this is just back and forth between basically three camps, Intel, AMD and Good Enough.

All of this really just boils down to expectations and budget. If you have $125 to spend on a cpu go find a 6300. If you have $225 go find a 4670k. You are going to need a decent HSF for either. To get good performance out of the 6300 you are going to need a decent mb, cost being the same on both in the end. Ram? same. PSU? Buy a quality one, so that's the same also.

Would I personally skimp $100 on a cpu to buy a 7950/70 over a 7870 or the nVidia equivalent? No. Not if I was starting a system from scratch today. Gpu performance increases a lot faster than cpu performance.

Sandy Bridge Released in Jan 2011. GTX 580 was Nov 2010. Now we are at Haswell and GTX 770 with respect to price comparisons. Sandy to Haswell is 15% on a good day. 580 to 770? Around 40%.

If I had to spend extra money on a cpu or gpu I'd pick the part that would have the greatest chance of longevity. And right now that is the cpu.

In the end it's a simple decision if we have all the information. We don't. We know that Intel provides the best performance. We know that the 6300 is a solid performer in it's price range. We know that people disagree with massive amounts of hard data even if it's presented to them logically based on preconceived notions.

The data is there for the OP. The options have been presented and cases made. Until they provide more information on their usage I say we just carry on with this subject. I love reading stories of "Oh my, you are all wrong, my system I built 4 years ago is great and does everything just as well as the new system you built last week" and "I have both cpu's and tested them, I obviously know more than two dozen tech review sites who do this for a living" or "if you say save money til next week you'll be saving money until the end of time" or "dear lord, I posted hard data backing up my claims but you don't listen to logic so I'll post more hard data (my favorite, btw)".

I have posted a few times. If u sift u can find them. Ps/case/hd/monitor all the same. Games i play or will be playing are anything coming out. Only older games are minecraft/lol/ and maby some poe or d3. Do plan on alot of bf3 and bf4 when released.

 

[ZGR]

I guess it depends on the resolution. At 4K gaming, it will be GPU bottlenecked all the time no matter how shitty a rig you have.

I really want AMD to keep pushing because without a competitor, Intel will keep raising prices and stagnating performance. But Intel dominates the gaming sector at the moment. Will 8-core CPU's grow in demand? I hope that is the case.

The weak single-threaded performance of the AMD FX series compared to Intel is starting to become very obvious. Every heavy threaded game I have seen is dominated by Intel....

Performance-wise, the 8350 is a better deal vs an i5 since the 8350 will beat it in several scenarios. Hopefully Piledriver will keep Intel as a competitor...

 

[nemesismk2]

I have used them both on both CPU's. People should stick to what they like best. I did not notice any benefit from a 3770....but that's my experience. I just don't take results from tests as granted........I have to test it myself. The only truth for me

I think the same as yourself which is why i don't trust review websites 100% because you don't know if they have updated the games with the latest patches or the hardware. I have been reading Anandtech reviews for the last 12 years and i know the Anandtech reviews can be trusted.

 

[USER8000]

I have posted a few times. If u sift u can find them. Ps/case/hd/monitor all the same. Games i play or will be playing are anything coming out. Only older games are minecraft/lol/ and maby some poe or d3. Do plan on alot of bf3 and bf4 when released.

Minecraft,LOL and Path of Exile will run fine on a FX6300,Core i3 or even an older CPU(I know plenty of people who run them on older rigs). Looking at the gamegpu results,with the BF4 Alpha the FX6300 was around 10% slower than a Core i5 2500K(the FX6350 probably would match it).

However,it might be worth waiting until BF4 is released,as it appears the HD9000 series will be released and BF4 is probably going to be bundled with them. At the very least it probably will cause price reductions in some of the AMD or Nvidia cards I suspect,unless AMD prices them too high. On top of this there should be some tests of the final version of the game too.

 

[frozentundra123456]

The FX6300 will be a good choice. If I look at my 8350 I see what it does and I am very content with it. If I put it on 6 cores in bios its still fast enough. And the 6300 is cheap, power consumption is a moot point. 100% load all day is not realistic. Even my 8350 is bearly heating up even if its summer here right now.
Price in euro's here:
8350 171
6300 101
4770K 339

I agree the 6300 is a good choice in its price range. However I think power consumption needs to be considered, especially for the 8350, and if you are planning to over clock. If one games 4 hours per day, which I think some do, assuming a power savings of 50 watts, and a cost of 15 cents per kwh, that would be a savings of app. 11.00 per year. Granted, not a lot of money, but over a 3 or 4 year lifetime, one could recoup the difference between a 3570k and an FX8350 and a fair portion of the difference between the 6300 and a lower end i5, at least based on newegg prices in the US.

 

[USER8000]

The OP could use the price difference between a low end Core i5 and the FX6300 to invest in a better graphics card,which is also going to be important for BF3 and BF4. That way their graphics card would last longer,meaning one upgrade cycle in the PC to worry less about.

Still I wait a bit longer for at least the BF4 Beta results to be released,as DICE have introduced a new engine for BF3,Frostbite 3, and it is already going to be in a number of next generation games too.

However,the OP has not stated a budget so TBH,for all that we know they could easily afford a Core i7 4770K and a GTX780!

 

[cmdrdredd]

I wonder if bf4 and other new titles will stress the CPU more than current titles we have to compare now.

OP: What games are you specifically looking to play?

 

[RussianSensation]

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

Because not everyone is a gamer or uses their PC for multi-tasking? For plenty of people who do not game, something like i3 or FX-6300 is more than sufficient for e-mail, HD video, browsing, internet, and light gaming.

FX-6350 is $140. i5-4430P is $190. $50 difference. I doubt it's 100 Euro between the cheapest i5 and FX-6300 series where you live.

It's pretty funny to me how AMD's weak CPUs continue to be defended. When Athlon XP+ and A64/X2/Opterons were offering either great value or performance vs. Intel's parts, most of us were rocking those. In the last 5 years AMD has not been on the map for gamers. When someone goes out and spends $250-300 on a GPU like HD7950, sure they can go ahead and save another $80-100 and downgrade to an FX6300 but be prepared to lose 20-40 fps in CPU demanding titles. And if you overclock that 7950 another 30-40%, you won't get anywhere that increase because you are CPU limited in many games. This defeats the purpose for HD7950 OC for such a low-end CPU.

You say it's the difference between a system with HD7750 and HD7950? Not sure if serious because the price difference between HD7750 and HD7950 is far more than between FX-6300 series and i5.

As far as me linking GameGPU, I could link plenty of other sites that show the same theme - AMD's CPUs are losing badly to Intel's i5/i7s in gaming.

Go ahead, save your 80-100 EURO and let me know what happens to your system when 20nm and 14nm GPUs come out. I'll be playing on my i5 @ 4.5ghz and your FX-6300 will have crapped its pants many times over in many games forcing you to upgrade your system yet again. BTW, anyone who got an i7 860 @ 3.9ghz or i7 920 @ 4.0ghz still has a faster gaming CPU than any AMD CPU up to now. Those CPUs are from late 2008-2009 periods, which means they lasted 4-5 years. FX-6300 series? Already outdated.

This threads reminds of people who think it's a good idea to pair a Phenom II X4 955-965 with a GTX770/7970GE. They continue to be in denial how slow their CPUs are.

Again, the total cost of ownership over 3-5 years makes Intel i5 a bargain against anything AMD has in the FX6300 or 8000 series. Something like an i5 4670 @ 4.5ghz will support GTX860/GTX960 and even another upgrade. Good luck doing that with your FX6300, or do you plan to not upgrade your GPU for another 3-5 years?

AMD user's argument is like this: Phenom II X4 is more than good enough against i5/i7s. Then once Bulldozer & Piledriver come out, those overclocked CPUs still can't outperform 1st gen i5/i7 overclocked but AMD users still upgrade. I know the game, I've seen it played out on our forums since i7 920 dropped. It'd be a lot easier if people just admitted they prefer buying AMD CPUs because in the end the same individuals end up sending more money upgrading just trying to catch up an i7 920 @ 4.0ghz. In other words, no matter what benches I show you, you will continue to claim that AMD's CPUs are good enough for games, and keep quietly upgrading over the next 3-4 years in hopes of catching up to Haswell i5 overclocked.

If we look at frame times, the situation gets even worse for AMD's CPUs. AMD still does not have anything that can beat an i5 760 for FPS consistency and minimum frames.

Source

You know what else? You can spend $2,000 on Titan SLI if you want, but sooner or later you'll run into some game where a FX8350 CPU is a giant paperweight. Why would I save 100 EURO and worry about getting 50-100% less minimum FPS in some games?

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2013/06/12/intel-core-i5-4670k-haswell-cpu-review/5

Or are we supposed to believe that benchmarks at TechSpot, PCGameshardware, GameGPU, Tech Report, Tom's Hardware and Bit-Tech are made up?

 

[USER8000]

FX-6350 is $140. i5-4430P is $190. $50 difference. I doubt it's 100 Euro between the cheapest i5 and FX-6300 series where you live.

You say it's the difference between a system with HD7750 and HD7950? Not sure if serious because the price difference between HD7750 and HD7950 is far more than between FX-6300 series and i5.

The FX6300 is $120 on Newegg too. Where I live the difference equates to $85 to $90 between a Core i5 4430 and a FX6300. That is also around the same difference as an HD7770 or maybe an HD7790 and a GTX660 2GB,GTX650TI Boost 2GB,HD7850 1GB or 2GB or the occasional GTX660TI 2GB(for a bit more). It might be different in the US. The HD7850 cards tend to be decent overclockers(and the GTX660 2GB has decent stock performance too).

Go ahead, save your 80-100 EURO and let me know what happens to your system when 20nm and 14nm GPUs come out. I'll be playing on my i5 @ 4.5ghz

Now its a Core i5 at 4.5GHZ which is faster than a Core i5 4450. So now you need to add in a more expensive CPU,motherboard and cooler,further increasing the cost.

It still does not change the fact that if the OP is on the budget your Core i5 obssession won't still give higher framerates if their budget cannot stretch to a Core i5 and a decent card. If they can only afford a more basic card(like an HD7770 or HD7790) they will end up having to replace it more often too.

This is why I mentioned the OP needs to clarify what their budget is in the first place.

It also seems you have missed the OP stating they want to play LoL,Dota 2,D3,Path of Exile and BF3 and BF4.

Looking at the BF4 alpha results from Gamegpu the FX6300 is within 10% to 15% of the Core i5 2500K with a Geforce Titan.

 

[Piroko]

I don't get this discussion. If someone doesn't want to spend or can't spend more than 150$ on a cpu, chances are ridiculously high that his PC won't see a GPU worth more than 250$ either during its life. Which in turn means that its useful life is 4 years give or take, no matter if it's an AMD system or an Intel one.

Case in point: A Phenom 2 x3 720 from 2009 coupled with a HD7770 is still perfectly fine for most if not all games. But it probably does lack SATA3, PCIe3 and USB3 (mine does). And that is something that you can't future proof.

 

[PPB]

LoL : Probably you are good with the 6300, but consider in big TFs you will dump into the 50-45 FPS zone just because of the CPU (yeah, LoL is one of those poorly threaded games)
DOTA2: Same picture as LoL, probably a bit more demanding.
BF3/B4: You are good but dont expect mesh quality at ultra and 60 steady fps from the CPU. Mesh quality is a CPU demanding option and as such will really push your CPU at ultra.
PoE: If things didnt get optimized from the last time I played this game then you are probably screwed here. This game really becomes a slideshow when everyone starts casting their 5-Gemmed ranged skills (stay away from parties full of casters, trust me), at least on my AMD cpu. Dont know if things got better in the optimization deparment, you probably should check PoE's forums to find more recent experiences with the game.

 

[USER8000]

Some of my mates play LoL quite a bit and most of them are either using older desktops or laptops,and it does fine. DOTA2 seems to run fine even on a Core2 quad as the same mates play it. If anything the reason why LoL and DOTA2 have tens of millions of players are since they don't need high end hardware to run.

Here are some DOTA2 benchmarks:

http://gamegpu.ru/images/stories/Test_GPU/strategy/Dota%202/dota%202%20proz.png
http://media.bestofmicro.com/G/2/380306/original/CPU.png

Here are some LoL benchmarks:
http://media.bestofmicro.com/R/9/380709/original/CPU.png

Regarding Path of Exile,I have no experience with earlier builds of the game,as I only started playing it with a few mates around a month or so go. So far a Core i5,FX6300 and Phenom II X4 seem OK but I cannot say for larger raids.

However,with these games a decent internet connection is also a must especially with BF3 or BF4,ie,one which has low latency. Also using a wired connection will also help with online FPS games too(less lag in most cases),and a monitor with reasonable response times too(more an issue if the OP is using a very old LCD monitor for example).

Also,at I would say the OP should invest in a resonably sensitive mouse,and some of the multi button ones are helpful as you can map functions to the buttons.

 

[hackerballs]

Wow.............a discussion on nothing...........

The PC just needs to be balanced no matter which CPU you use or GPU you use. There is no sense of buying a 7990 or similar if you are using a 1650 x 900 monitor with 2 gigs RAM or buying an old dual core. All comes down to your Bottleneck and is the PC balanced.

As far as the issue as too which CPU is better for gaming....silly

I run an i7 3770k (OC'ed) and my son runs a AMD 965 Black (stock) and we cannot tell the difference in gaming with the same GPU cards...........sure, nitpick with the benchmarks and Intel has more powerful CPU's but we play games in the real world............miniscule difference .......if the CPU can handle the GPU and with all balanced, then minimal bottleneck

Buy intelligently and all will be fine...keep it balanced

 

[Makaveli]

Because not everyone is a gamer or uses their PC for multi-tasking? For plenty of people who do not game, something like i3 or FX-6300 is more than sufficient for e-mail, HD video, browsing, internet, and light gaming.

FX-6350 is $140. i5-4430P is $190. $50 difference. I doubt it's 100 Euro between the cheapest i5 and FX-6300 series where you live.

It's pretty funny to me how AMD's weak CPUs continue to be defended. When Athlon XP+ and A64/X2/Opterons were offering either great value or performance vs. Intel's parts, most of us were rocking those. In the last 5 years AMD has not been on the map for gamers. When someone goes out and spends $250-300 on a GPU like HD7950, sure they can go ahead and save another $80-100 and downgrade to an FX6300 but be prepared to lose 20-40 fps in CPU demanding titles. And if you overclock that 7950 another 30-40%, you won't get anywhere that increase because you are CPU limited in many games. This defeats the purpose for HD7950 OC for such a low-end CPU.

You say it's the difference between a system with HD7750 and HD7950? Not sure if serious because the price difference between HD7750 and HD7950 is far more than between FX-6300 series and i5.

As far as me linking GameGPU, I could link plenty of other sites that show the same theme - AMD's CPUs are losing badly to Intel's i5/i7s in gaming.

Go ahead, save your 80-100 EURO and let me know what happens to your system when 20nm and 14nm GPUs come out. I'll be playing on my i5 @ 4.5ghz and your FX-6300 will have crapped its pants many times over in many games forcing you to upgrade your system yet again. BTW, anyone who got an i7 860 @ 3.9ghz or i7 920 @ 4.0ghz still has a faster gaming CPU than any AMD CPU up to now. Those CPUs are from late 2008-2009 periods, which means they lasted 4-5 years. FX-6300 series? Already outdated.

This threads reminds of people who think it's a good idea to pair a Phenom II X4 955-965 with a GTX770/7970GE. They continue to be in denial how slow their CPUs are.

Again, the total cost of ownership over 3-5 years makes Intel i5 a bargain against anything AMD has in the FX6300 or 8000 series. Something like an i5 4670 @ 4.5ghz will support GTX860/GTX960 and even another upgrade. Good luck doing that with your FX6300, or do you plan to not upgrade your GPU for another 3-5 years?

AMD user's argument is like this: Phenom II X4 is more than good enough against i5/i7s. Then once Bulldozer & Piledriver come out, those overclocked CPUs still can't outperform 1st gen i5/i7 overclocked but AMD users still upgrade. I know the game, I've seen it played out on our forums since i7 920 dropped. It'd be a lot easier if people just admitted they prefer buying AMD CPUs because in the end the same individuals end up sending more money upgrading just trying to catch up an i7 920 @ 4.0ghz. In other words, no matter what benches I show you, you will continue to claim that AMD's CPUs are good enough for games, and keep quietly upgrading over the next 3-4 years in hopes of catching up to Haswell i5 overclocked.

If we look at frame times, the situation gets even worse for AMD's CPUs. AMD still does not have anything that can beat an i5 760 for FPS consistency and minimum frames.

Source

You know what else? You can spend $2,000 on Titan SLI if you want, but sooner or later you'll run into some game where a FX8350 CPU is a giant paperweight. Why would I save 100 EURO and worry about getting 50-100% less minimum FPS in some games?

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2013/06/12/intel-core-i5-4670k-haswell-cpu-review/5

Or are we supposed to believe that benchmarks at TechSpot, PCGameshardware, GameGPU, Tech Report, Tom's Hardware and Bit-Tech are made up?

agree with you here RS.

In 2009 my choice was to build a Phenom II or go i7 920.

I went the intel route socket 1366 and it still has great performance to this day.

Had I of gone Phenom II I know I would have ended up upgrading to something newer much sooner.

I would be kicking myself right now if I had to be dealing with Cpu limitations in everything because as you also pointed out people swap videos cards far more often and Processors.

When you can get 5 years out of your build I call that a win and its not something that happens often in this industry.

 

[justin4pack]

I am hopeing to get at least a gtx660. We will see how that turns out. It.really depends on how cheap i can go on cpu. Would a fx-6300 with a 660 work out? I will have a ssd and a 720p 26' tv that runs 1360x768 res. Or if i pick up a cheap combo from ebay or here on aat for an i7 1st gen or sb setup. I would say equal performance?

 

[Makaveli]

I am hopeing to get at least a gtx660. We will see how that turns out. It.really depends on how cheap i can go on cpu. Would a fx-6300 with a 660 work out? I will have a ssd and a 720p 26' tv that runs 1360x768 res. Or if i pick up a cheap combo from ebay or here on aat for an i7 1st gen or sb setup. I would say equal performance?

if you are doing a new build don't look for anything older you may aswell start from haswell and see what fits your budget.

The GTX660 looks decent.

What is your budget?

 

[cmdrdredd]

I am hopeing to get at least a gtx660. We will see how that turns out. It.really depends on how cheap i can go on cpu. Would a fx-6300 with a 660 work out? I will have a ssd and a 720p 26' tv that runs 1360x768 res. Or if i pick up a cheap combo from ebay or here on aat for an i7 1st gen or sb setup. I would say equal performance?

A GTX 660 is a decent choice for that resolution. You would mostly be CPU limited though. What that means is your maximum performance will be limited not by the GPU but by how fast your CPU is. So the faster your CPU the better your performance up to a point. However, at that resolution I would wager you'd be perfectly fine with the FX6300. I do tend to recommend going higher performance from the start if it is at all possible. Only because you can not predict the future and some day there may come a game that just needs more CPU muscle or maybe you upgrade to a different monitor or something.

Still at 720p you probably won't have any issues at all. A little overclocking and you should be good to go.

What budget are you looking at total? That is ultimately going to decide everything. How far you can go within your budget, minus the cost of a GTX 660.

 

[erunion]

that's a low resolution, so a gtx 660 should be a good match.

what games do you play?