Do AMD cpus at least give a smoother desktop experience w/more cores?

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

And whose fault was it that AMD had to rely on GlobalFailures to begin with? As with the vast majority of their problems, this one was self-inflicted.

Well, it's not like AMD hasn't started working with other fab partners. TSMC also is struggling with die shrinks, too.

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

What does this even mean? Are you implying that FX CPUs are better at low-FPS gaming?

EDIT: Yeah, I'm ready to let this one die too.

It's simple = 1080p and lower, Intel thumps AMD CPU's due to all that single threaded horsepower.

Once you move up to 4k (and especially noticeable running SLI Nvidia cards) -- it appears the AMD FX CPU's have a performance advantage over their Intel counterparts. It's a shame so few members here are gaming @ 2160p -- because it appears to be the performance sweet spot for the FX octocores.

 

[Yuriman]

It's simple = 1080p and lower, Intel thumps AMD CPU's due to all that single threaded horsepower.

Once you move up to 4k (and especially noticeable running SLI Nvidia cards) -- it appears the AMD FX CPU's have a performance advantage over their Intel counterparts. It's a shame so few members here are gaming @ 2160p -- because it appears to be the performance sweet spot for the FX octocores.

What exactly do you mean? As I understand it, resolution has absolutely nothing to do with CPU load.

 

[TheELF]

Cherrypicking? Seriously? Seems pretty relevant to me considering that H.264 is the most commonly used codec in the world.

Yes it is but x264 command line is not very commonly used, in fact I would risk betting that it is the least used tool to convert something into x264 but the most used for benchmarking.
Most generic frontend converters use ffmpeg or mplayer.

 

[TheELF]

What exactly do you mean? As I understand it, resolution has absolutely nothing to do with CPU load.

Resolutions doesn't but sli means that drivers have to run twice, one for each card,game engine threads will need less speed but graphics drivers might need the same or even more, sli doubles up on this.
So if you have a badly optimized game with high demand on drivers and it has to run them twice a less cored CPU might be on a disadvantage.
Dragons dogma for example has this problem.

http://gamegpu.com/rpg/rollevye/dragons-dogma-dark-arisen-test-gpu.html
nvd3dum.dll = +30% cpu usage,double with sli.

 

[escrow4]

Cherrypicking? Seriously? Seems pretty relevant to me considering that H.264 is the most commonly used codec in the world.

Actually its more like a tie between XviD and x264. Thing about XviD is anything will play it from a Pentium IV (if not a III) to a Raspberry Pi and encoding to it is way faster on shitbox computers compared to x265. Seeing as the world also includes other non first world countries . . . . . .

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

Actually its more like a tie between XviD and x264. Thing about XviD is anything will play it from a Pentium IV (if not a III) to a Raspberry Pi and encoding to it is way faster on shitbox computers compared to x265. Seeing as the world also includes other non first world countries . . . . . .

Xvid isn't even close for overall usage. x264 is to go-to codec for nearly every cell phone and tablet besides being incredibly common on desktops.

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

What exactly do you mean? As I understand it, resolution has absolutely nothing to do with CPU load.

I mean that the FX cpu is usually faster than Intel CPU's with SLI video cards when you are gaming @ 4k.

Look at the 5960x -- it's a much more expensive CPU than the AMD FX. But the Intel stutters more, and that's a 16 thread cpu with some pretty brutal frame time variance issues @ 4k resolutions (being compared to a AMD cpu with half the threads). Once you start playing @ 4k -- the fiercest critics of the FX would likely be silenced..... Because the Vishera is remarkably good at playing games at 4k.

In GTA 5, the stock 5960x dips down to 14 fps -- but the lowest the stock clocked FX 8370 dips to is 32 fps. So I'd rather play that game on an FX. Sure, the max frames are slightly higher on the Intel CPU -- but the difference between 65 and 69 is pretty minimal.
It's the stutters that ruin the experience.

 

[Sweepr]

At 4K you will be GPU limited most of the time so (if anything) the difference will be smaller, but unfortunately FX crap is not any better there either:

Talking about 'smooth', there's a reason why AMD has been a joke among enthusiasts for years, and that's something most websites don't show with their average FPS graphs:

Someone told me Project Cars was seriously CPU-bound. Maybe that was true in older versions of Windows. Maybe Win10 has introduced some magic that changes the math. I dunno. What I do know is that even the slowest CPU here, the FX-8370, spends less than half a millisecond beyond our 16.7-ms threshold. In other words, that CPU pumps out frames at a constant 60Hz throughout almost the entire test run. The faster Intel processors aren't too far from delivering a constant 120Hz.

Stutter fest.
About SLI performance, let's see what TweakTown and not some random blog has to say about it:

Popping in the GeForce GTX 780s into our fresh Core i7-4770K system, we see some decent gains in performance over our cheap-but-awesome AMD FX-8350 setup.

The 4770K beat the FX-8350 in the following benchmarks: GRID : Autosport - 4770K beats the FX-8350 for both minimum and average. Metro: Last Light - 4770K beats the FX-8350 for both minimum and average.

BioShock Infinite - 4770K beats the FX-8350 for both minimum and average. DiRT: Showdown - 4770K beats the FX-8350 for both minimum and average. Batman: AA - 4770K beats the FX-8350 for both minimum and average. So, the 4770K would be the one to go for if you were running GTX 780s in SLI.

How about the FX-8350 versus the 4770K with the GTX 980s in SLI? Let's take a look. GRID : Autosport - 4770K beats the FX-8350 for both minimum and average. Metro: Last Light - 4770K beats the FX-8350 for average FPS, but loses with minimum FPS. BioShock Infinite - 4770K beats the FX-8350 for both minimum and average. DiRT: Showdown - 4770K beats the FX-8350 for both minimum and average. Batman: AA - 4770K beats the FX-8350 for both minimum and average.

So as you can see, the Core i7-4770K is the CPU to get for both GTX 780 and GTX 980s in SLI at 4K. The AMD system only beats out 4770K in one instance: Metro: Last Light and its minimum FPS. But it's not like the pendulum swings all the way in AMD's favor for that one benchmark, so you're better off going for Intel here. The 4770K is priced much closer to the FX-8350 than the 4930K is, but what these benchmarks and articles are highlighting here, is that the CPU isn't doing as big of a job as you think. Most people, not all, would think that sinking $1000+ into a CPU/motherboard combo would obliterate the $319 combo, but I've just shown you that this is completely false. Spending an additional $180, or another 50% or so on top of the AMD combo, results in some decent improvements in frame rate.

www.tweaktown.com/tweakipedia/58/co...-with-gtx-980-vs-gtx-780-sli-at-4k/index.html

And that was before Devil's Canyon and Skylake.

 

[Erenhardt]

At 4K you will be GPU limited most of the time so (if anything) the difference will be smaller, but unfortunately FX crap is not any better there either:

This is a joke. How can you take these numbers seriously when higher clocked fx version gives worse framerates than the lower clocked one. Failersnexus, you are doing it wrong.

Talking about 'smooth', there's a reason why AMD has been a joke among enthusiasts for years, and that's something most websites don't show with their average FPS graphs:

Stutter fest.

No. I not sure if you don't know what stutter means, or if you purposefully spread FUD, but in both scenarios, it is really shameful.
Imagine running all those benchmarks with frametarget at 30 fps. You would have all frames beyond 16.7ms, millions of milliseconds, and still, it would be perfectly smooth.
So yes, FX is slower in those games, but it doesn't tell anything about smoothness. Here you can see a bit more about the frame delivery fasion in this supposed to be stutterfest example of yours:

You know which CPU is the worst for stuttering? i7-5960X as it has the largest disproportion of frametimes. Fx is actually not far from i7-4790 when it comes to frame time distribution. It is slower ofc, but it is almost as smooth.

About SLI performance, let's see what TweakTown and not some random blog has to say about it:

www.tweaktown.com/tweakipedia/58/co...-with-gtx-980-vs-gtx-780-sli-at-4k/index.html

And that was before Devil's Canyon and Skylake.

Just look at the graphs. No reason to quote someones conclusion, make or own. FX makes i7 extreme look like a failwhale from intel. It is not far behind i7-4770. Given a price difference, it is easy to recommend FX to someone building high-end system based on the graphs you provided

 

[Abwx]

At 4K you will be GPU limited most of the time so (if anything) the difference will be smaller, but unfortunately FX crap is not any better there either:

In this graph, and despite being underclocked by this dubbious site the FX do better in the low 0.1% and 1% than the 4790K, so if they are crap the most expensive HW is even more crappy...

We can also see how good is the much hyped 3258, of course given HT bad behaviour they were carefull to not add a i3 in the tests..

 

[Sweepr]

In this graph, and despite being underclocked by this dubbious site the FX do better in the low 0.1% and 1% than the 4790K, so if they are crap the most expensive HW is even more crappy...

We can also see how good is the much hyped 3258, of course given HT bad behaviour they were carefull to not add a i3 in the tests..

Vishera (FX) is a really bad option for most CPU-bound games, where per core performance matters. Have to admit the desperation is funny though, including new metrics like smoothness, running WinRAR in the background or forcing a GPU bottleneck at 4K to make it look better.

Just look at the graphs. No reason to quote someones conclusion, make or own. FX makes i7 extreme look like a failwhale from intel. It is not far behind i7-4770. Given a price difference, it is easy to recommend FX to someone building high-end system based on the graphs you provided

I did, and came to the same conclusion. 2013 Haswell is better than the FX at extreme resolutions, and Skylake isn't included (old article), so another myth busted. Someone investing in a PC to play 4K titles is not going to cheap out going with FX anyway, even AMD employees are using Intel CPUs to demo Fury X. And we already know the results @ 1080p/1440p - most popular resolutions today.

 

[Abwx]

Vishera (FX) is a really bad option for most CPU-bound games, where per core performance matters. Have to admit the desperation is funny though, including new metrics like smoothness, running WinRAR in the background or forcing a GPU bottleneck at 4K to make it look better.

I did, and came to the same conclusion. 2013 Haswell is better than the FX at extreme resolutions, and Skylake isn't included (old article), so another myth busted. Someone investing in a PC to play 4K titles is not going to cheap out going with FX anyway, even AMD employees are using Intel CPUs to demo Fury X. And we already know the results @ 1080p/1440p - most popular resolutions today.

There s no wonder that you had to use PClab and their extremely dubbious tests to try proving a point..

For one SKL didn exist one year ago, second, about PClab relevance, notice the 2600K for reference :

So you have to use doctored and obviously truncated results since Hfr use settings that put more emphasis on the CPU.

 

[TheELF]

There s no wonder that you had to use PClab and their extremely dubbious tests to try proving a point..

For one SKL didn exist one year ago, second, about PClab relevance, notice the 2600K for reference :

So you have to use doctored and obviously truncated results since Hfr use settings that put more emphasis on the CPU.

Crysis 3 is a very different game depending on which level you play,root of all evil compared to welcome to the jungle compared to any other level will give you completely different results so you cannot compare benches from different sites.

 

[Erenhardt]

Crysis 3 is a very different game depending on which level you play,root of all evil compared to welcome to the jungle compared to any other level will give you completely different results so you cannot compare benches from different sites.

PClab openly admitted they look for the places where amd tanks and call it a day.

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

Vishera (FX) is a really bad option for most CPU-bound games, where per core performance matters. Have to admit the desperation is funny though, including new metrics like smoothness, running WinRAR in the background or forcing a GPU bottleneck at 4K to make it look better.

I did, and came to the same conclusion. 2013 Haswell is better than the FX at extreme resolutions, and Skylake isn't included (old article), so another myth busted. Someone investing in a PC to play 4K titles is not going to cheap out going with FX anyway, even AMD employees are using Intel CPUs to demo Fury X. And we already know the results @ 1080p/1440p - most popular resolutions today.

What are you talking about, dude? We're talking about 2160p resolution -- and you posted 5 benchmarks @ 1080p.

I don't play low-res games anymore.

The conversation was about 4k gaming -- don't try to move the goalposts.

Every game is GPU bound at 4K! The AMD FX chips seem to minimize frame time variance better when playing at those 4k resolutions (versus Intel CPU's). This isn't a difficult concept to grasp.

 

[AtenRa]

What are you talking about, dude? We're talking about 2160p resolution -- and you posted 5 benchmarks @ 1080p.

I don't play low-res games anymore. Talk about moving the goalposts.

Every game is GPU bound at 4K! The AMD FX chips seem to minimize frame time variance better when playing at those 4k resolutions (versus Intel CPU's). This isn't a difficult concept to grasp.

Its not long ago when i was debating that the FX8350 is more than fine for 4K CF/SLI and that people would spend less to have 95-99% the performance of the more expensive Intel 6Core 2011-v3 systems.

 

[LPCTech]

Why are we even arguing? Let the AMD people buy the weaker hotter more power hungry chips so we can buy the good intel ones at lower prices.

You are right guys AMD is sooo much better. Make sure to keep buying AMD to keep intel price down.

People thinking AMD is somehow remotely competitive is beneficial to intel people. Let them keep thinking it. Dont argue with them lol.

 

[AtenRa]

Why are we even arguing? Let the AMD people buy the weaker hotter more power hungry chips so we can buy the good intel ones at lower prices.

You are right guys AMD is sooo much better. Make sure to keep buying AMD to keep intel price down.

People thinking AMD is somehow remotely competitive is beneficial to intel people. Let them keep thinking it. Dont argue with them lol.

In NeverLand ??

or did you forgot /sarcasm ???

 

[railven]

In NeverLand ??

or did you forgot /sarcasm ???

Yet some argue if AMD goes out of business Intel's monopoly would be bad for consumers.

So either AMD is keeping Intel prices down or not. Can't have both.

 

[reallyscrued]

This thread was originally about smoother desktop experience...

I bounce back and forth between AMD and Intel machines. I can't notice a difference at all. Biggest bottleneck of desktop experience is usually the hard drive and having an SSD is the biggest factor.

On the contrary to the previous sardonic poster about lowering Intel prices... I rather like that people buy up Intel chips and think so lowly of AMD. Nabbed an FX-6300 Hex core + Motherboard for $130 at MicroCenter. Battlefield 3 is smooth as hell. Comparable Intel hardware starts at $200+.

And you all could use some economics classes. They are *both* keeping each other's prices down. That's how competition works.

 

[TheELF]

PClab openly admitted they look for the places where amd tanks and call it a day.

Cool story bro...

Crysis 3, in the welcome to the jungle level, oscillates between using 2 cores for the gaming mechanics and 5-6 cores for the graphics that's why amd get's such low minimums and any cpu gets such crappy frametime variances,it happens throughout the level including the intro/cinematic you can't avoid it if you want to.
If you look at some sites they show even the celerons hit 60FPS in crysis 3 but that is on the dungeon-crawler levels where the game is dual threaded all the way.
CryEngine 3 example

 

[AtenRa]

Yet some argue if AMD goes out of business Intel's monopoly would be bad for consumers.

So either AMD is keeping Intel prices down or not. Can't have both.

Only where AMD competes, and for the last 2-3 years is in the sub $150 segment.

 

[Abwx]

Crysis 3 is a very different game depending on which level you play,root of all evil compared to welcome to the jungle compared to any other level will give you completely different results so you cannot compare benches from different sites.

You can take whatever at PClab the story will be the same, so ok for crysis but then :

Def is the same at 1080p ultra, and other scenes than the ones used by Hfr are not reproducible according to their reviewer.

And remember, anything Intel below a i7 wont provide those frame without stuttering if there s anything ese that the game activated, with a i3 you couldnt even download a youtube video using wifi while there s a tab open with some flash in the background, all things that are trivial for a FX6.

 

[tweakboy]

Nothing to do with it, leave it alone before you damage something.