Gaming CPU

[AtenRa]

And for $25 or $30 (a couple of percent difference in system price) you can get a 2500K that lays the Derpdozer to waste.

50% greater performance for a 2% price increase. How can you you argue against that?

MicroCenter

AMD Bundle FX8120 + ASUS M5A97 AM3+ motherboard = $194,98
http://www.microcenter.com/specials/promotions/AMDbundlePROMO.html

Intel Core i5 2500K = $169,99
cheapest Z77 motherboard (Gigabyte GA-Z77-DS3H) = $109,99
Total = $279,98
http://www.microcenter.com/single_product_results.phtml?product_id=0354589

http://www.microcenter.com/search/search_results.phtml?N=4294966996+4294939941+4294936811

The difference is $85. If we are budget constrain we can put the extra to a better Graphics Card or SSD or more RAM etc.

NewEgg

AMD FX8120 = $169,99
Cheapest 970 AM3+ Mobo (ASRock 970 PRO3) = 74,99

Total = $244,98

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...961&Tpk=fx8120

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...CE&PageSize=20

Intel Core i5 2500K = $219,99
cheapest Z77 motherboard (ASRock Z77 Pro3) = $99,99

Total = $319,98

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819115072

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16813157297

The difference is $75

Again we can buy a better Graphics card or SSD etc.

I dont know why people continue saying that FX is not price competitive.

 

[AtenRa]

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-fx-pentium-apu-benchmark,3120-10.html



I wonder how AtenRa gonna crawl out of this one. Because instead of getting a FX8120, you are better of with a 68$ (newegg) G630. And we talk 1080p gaming here. But somehow I dont think he gonna recommend it. Because it aint an AMD CPU. Even tho it obviously is the better choice arcording to his own metrics.

I have acknowledge the fact that Intel CPUs are faster in Skyrim and SC2.

Toms review only have 6 games and only 3 of them are DX-11. I will discard the BF3 because they benched the Single Player and we are left with Dirt 3 and Metro 2033 that shows exactly what im saying all along, that most of DX-11 games are GPU limited at 1080p with a high-end CPU.

Why is it so hard to accept that in DX-11 gaming the FX CPUs are competitive to the Intel CPUs in the majority of the DX-11 games. ??

 

[lehtv]

I dont know why people continue saying that FX is not price competitive.

Well, FX-4100 from Microcenter is actually pretty good value. $100 incl. mobo is not bad at all, and it's an overclockable CPU unlike Intel's Pentiums and i3's.

But FX anything above that is not good value because they perform the same in games as FX-4100. AMD has no competition at higher price points.

 

[boxleitnerb]

Shogun 2, CPU benchmark:
http://www.hartware.net/review_1450_7.html

2500K more than double the performance of the 8120. This is what you can see in the game with lots of units. It is a timedemo as well, but much closer to actual gameplay than AtenRa's benchmark. He probably didn't know that there is a GPU and a CPU benchmark in Shogun 2. It is obvious by the achieved framerates that he chose the GPU benchmark.

Here a statement from someone who played the game with the 8150, 1090T and an old i7-950:

I have experience on both a 1090T and an FX8150 from a cousin's pc. imo the fx chip is decent with multithreadded applications and sometimes faster than the 1090T (i got the FX8150 overclocked to 4.6ghz while the 1090T was at 4.1ghz 3ghz NB) but with single threadded work it sucked. I tried playing shogun 2 total war with the FX cpu and it really sucked so much. I was getting about 20-30fps on the fx chip. 30-40fps on the 1090t and 50+fps on this i7 950. they had the same gpu an overclocked asus gtx 580 direct CU

http://www.overclock.net/t/1258737/amd-fx-info/10#post_17272596

This is particularly interesting as it proves what I've been saying all along:
Integrated benchmarks may show much lower CPU usage and higher fps than actual gameplay (in the GPU benchmark the avg fps is around 80fps). That is why AtenRa's benchmarks are mostly useless because they don't accurately represent the performance during gameplay but rather in a synthetic scenario that is unrealistic.

In Lost Planet 2 DX11 no FX can average 60fps, but all i5/k7 can.
http://www.hartware.net/review_1450_7.html
Before someone will complain about no AA: Use a faster card than a 570 and you will get the same results with AA.

 

[AtenRa]

Shogun 2, CPU benchmark:
http://www.hartware.net/review_1450_7.html

2500K more than double the performance of the 8120. This is what you can see in the game with lots of units. It is a timedemo as well, but much closer to actual gameplay than AtenRa's benchmark. He probably didn't know that there is a GPU and a CPU benchmark in Shogun 2. It is obvious by the achieved framerates that he chose the GPU benchmark.

From your link

http://translate.google.gr/#de|en|I...k läuft mit den Qualitätseinstellungen "Hoch".

In Total War Shogun 2, we firstly use the predefined benchmark CPU and the second benchmark runs with the quality settings "High".

From the Total War Shogun 2 interface on Steam

As you can see if you run the CPU benchmark it is only available in DX-9 mode.
I use the Game Settings Benchmark that runs the bench with the actual settings you put inside the game.

They clearly benched Total War in DX-9 mode so you cant compare their benchmarks with mine, not to mention they used a lower resolution of 1680x1050 .

In Lost Planet 2 DX11 no FX can average 60fps, but all i5/k7 can.
http://www.hartware.net/review_1450_7.html
Before someone will complain about no AA: Use a faster card than a 570 and you will get the same results with AA.

For Lost Planet 2, we use the benchmark demo in DX11 mode and in high settings but without AA.

Not only that but they dont state at what resolution they benched Lost Planet 2.

 

[boxleitnerb]

So what if it's DX9 vs DX11? Do you think the CPU has magically alot less to do in DX11? Do you get your 80fps avg in the game battles or significantly lower than that? I bet it is the latter.
The game settings benchmark is not applicable to the realtime battles as those rather tax the CPU, especially with lots of units. To put this nonesense to rest I will install Shogun 2 myself and make some CPU benchmark during actual gameplay.

Please tell me once and for all what exactly you don't understand in the following statement:

A higher resolution and/or AA will lower your fps further. If you have (for your taste) too little fps at 1680x1050 or 1280x720 or without AA, increasing the resolution and enabling AA will not improve your fps. At best they will stay the same (CPU-limit)

Have you finally understood that?

 

[ShintaiDK]

<Random BS>

You are trying to avoid it again. Why buy an FX CPU when a much much cheaper Intel CPU is better? You keep turning and twisting. "Oh please buy one of those shitty FX CPUs that are overpriced, spaceheaters and just crappy performance."

Your own lame argumentation about the FX being enough for some current games must apply to the 68$ Intel CPUs as well. Or wasnt it fun when the FX got even crappier?

 

[boxleitnerb]

1080p, 8xMSAA, DX11, everything maxed that can be maxed (vsync off). HQ-AF forced via the driver.

i7-2600K@2.4GHz and 4GHz
GTX580 3GB SLI@ 783MHz (factory "overclocked" )
Intel SSD510 120GB for Windows
Intel SSD510 250GB for Games (both SATA 6Gb)

I created a custom battle with 20 units for me and selected a single AI.

Location 1:
67% higher clock yields 46% more fps (48.3 vs 33)



Location 2:
67% higher clock yields 40% more fps (32.5 vs. 23.3)



Forces engaging:
67% higher clock yields 53% more fps (25.2 vs 16.5)



Observed worst case at 4 GHz: 20.7fps


So you see, even at 4GHz a 2600K will drop well below 30fps - something that the integrated graphics benchmark never shows. I can only guess how the FX would perform here. Presumably between 30-35% slower. There ARE GPU limits here, depending on where you have the camera at, but that is simply not the whole truth.

Not only fps are important. Especially in Shogun 2, load times are long. I made a save at the beginning of my campaing and loaded it.

2.4 GHz: 27s
4.0 GHz: 17s

At the beginning of the campaign, there is a rebel army nearby. I engaged it and measured the time it took for the battle to load:

2.4 GHz: 51s
4.0 GHz: 33s

 

[lehtv]

Argh, image shack... can you just post the FPS results in text form? Thanks

 

[Phynaz]

MicroCenter

In my local MicroCenter they have a 2500k with board for $224.

Not that I would ever advise anybody to actually use the cheapest board they can find.

Your turn.

 

[boxleitnerb]

Argh, image shack... can you just post the FPS results in text form? Thanks

Yes, no problem. What image hoster should I use in the future?

 

[Don Karnage]

Why is the 2500k still being thrown around? 3570K is the current best gaming chip adding a decent 5% gain over the 2500k for 10 dollars more

 

[AtenRa]

...

Very nice thank you, it seams SLI doesn't work as it should in this game.

System specs

Intel Core i7 920@ 3,2GHz and 4GHz
Motherboard ASUS Rampage GENE II
3x 4GB Kingston DDR-3 1333MHz @ 1533MHz 9-9-9
GPU ASUS HD6950 1GB @ 885MHz Core and 1300MHz for the mem
Intel SSD 320 120GB SATA-II

Edit: Catalyst 12.4 used

Settings used as bellow. In DX-11 Tessellation was enable.

I have recorded a battle with 16 units for each opponent.

As you can see no change from 3.2GHz to 4GHz, the game is GPU Bound even in DX-9.

Please observe that DX-11 is a little bit faster, close to 3-5fps than DX-9

I dont know what happens with SLI or CF but with a single GPU Shogun 2 is GPU limited at 1080p.

 

[Magic Carpet]

In my local MicroCenter they have a 2500k with board for $224.

Not that I would ever advise anybody to actually use the cheapest board they can find.

Your turn.

Cheapest board isn't necessary bad, though. They often lack some features else found in premium products, but build quality is usually very much the same. There are rare exceptions, though. It would be a living hell for an engineer to design boards according to their prices. This 5-times more expensive board is 5-times better, of course not. People who do repairs, know what I mean.

The review sites... usually drive the demand of the premium products, because you need to explain to the layman, what is it, why it costs so much. Heh, you know it.

 

[AtenRa]

In my local MicroCenter they have a 2500k with board for $224.

Not that I would ever advise anybody to actually use the cheapest board they can find.

Your turn.

Could you give me a link for the bundle ??

 

[boxleitnerb]

...

SLI works just fine, thank you.

With your system of course you will be GPU-limited. The 6950 isn't exactly the fastest card while the i7-920 is still 30% faster per clock in lightly threaded applications. What fps you have depends on where you look at or zoom in. It seems suspicious that you managed to produce almost the exact same result over a full 325 seconds. What exactly did you do?

Let's do a little math here as I don't have an AMD CPU:

The FX performs at about 70% per clock compared to my 2600K in lightly threaded apps. Let's be generous here and assume that it reaches 4GHz all the time via turbo. That would put it roughly at 4GHz*0.7=2.8GHz Sandy Bridge.

And look what we have then, a CPU limit (one GTX580, no SLI):






So no, unless you have a really slow graphics card, Shogun 2 is not 100% GPU-limited in 1080p. Nor is it 100% CPU-limited. Where the percentages lie will depend on your play style.

If nothing else you see now, that the benchmark in your blog doesn't represent reality. The fps in the benchmark are significantly higher than the battle you recorded.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Why is the 2500k still being thrown around? 3570K is the current best gaming chip adding a decent 5% gain over the 2500k for 10 dollars more

Well, right now at Microcenter, the 2500K is slightly more than 10% cheaper (169.99 vs 189.99) and will overclock slightly higher, so that more than makes up for the 5% performance increase of the 3570K. The value equatiion may change at other sources.

 

[lehtv]

Yes, no problem. What image hoster should I use in the future?

www.imgur.com

edit: pro tip - once you've uploaded an image, copy the URL for "Linked BBCode", and add ".jpg" to the link and an "s" at the end of the image, like so:

[*URL="http://imgur.com/image"][*IMG]http://i.imgur.com/image.jpg[/IMG][/URL]
-->
[*URL="http://imgur.com/image.jpg"][*IMG]http://i.imgur.com/images.jpg[/IMG][/URL]

That way you get a thumbnail that links directly into the image file. Or just post the image with img tags and let anandtech resize it.

Sorry for OT

 

[lehtv]

Well, right now at Microcenter, the 2500K is slightly more than 10% cheaper (169.99 vs 189.99) and will overclock slightly higher, so that more than makes up for the 5% performance increase of the 3570K. The value equatiion may change at other sources.

As far as pure performance is concerned, I'd say 2500K is better bang for buck. But 3570K consumes less power and has a faster iGPU. These may not be significant at all to a gamer, but they were significant enough for Intel to call Ivy Bridge a tick+.

 

[Don Karnage]

Well, right now at Microcenter, the 2500K is slightly more than 10% cheaper (169.99 vs 189.99) and will overclock slightly higher, so that more than makes up for the 5% performance increase of the 3570K. The value equatiion may change at other sources.

Not really once you factor in power consumption as well. I've had a 5Ghz 2500K and the 3570K is better in everyway. It might take alittle more finesse to overclock but once you get it there it performs admirably.

 

[AtenRa]

If nothing else you see now, that the benchmark in your blog doesn't represent reality. The fps in the benchmark are significantly higher than the battle you recorded.

I have used the HD7970 in my review that is why i have higher fps than the 6950.

Edit: also i have run the same bench of my review with the HD6950 and i get almost the same performance as the battle i recorded.

Consider the following.

Perhaps the GTX580 needs more CPU performance than the HD6950 or the HD7970.


The game is faster with the AMD cards, dont forget it is a Gaming Evolved title.

From the data i have gathered with the HD7970 in those 9 games the conclusion is that most of the Games are GPU limited at 1080p. Now, perhaps if i use a GTX680 the results may be different but the bottom line is that those games when played with the HD7970 are GPU bound.

If i will be able to bench an NVIDIA card with the same systems and same setups i will make a round two with the same games and see what happens.

Edit 2: I will bench the same battle with the FX and the core i5 2500K with the HD6950 in the weekend and ill let you know of the results.

 

[Rvenger]

Not really once you factor in power consumption as well. I've had a 5Ghz 2500K and the 3570K is better in everyway. It might take alittle more finesse to overclock but once you get it there it performs admirably.

When you overclock, who cares about 30 watts. Only advantage I see IVB is PCIe 3.0.

 

[rpglord]

AtenRa you are really funny.
You are comparing price of 2500k when it's clear cheaper intel cpu's are going to be either faster or as fast as an 8120 for example.
Shintai asked you a good question but you didnt answer..what do you think how much intel pentium sb + h61 mobo cost ? I bet its cheaper then 8120 + mobo yet its not slower.
We dont even have to take that low end,dual core cpu into account.
Lets take i5 2400 + h61 mobo for example ,it's not gonna be more expensive then 8120 setup yet it will be faster

 

[AtenRa]

It seems suspicious that you managed to produce almost the exact same result over a full 325 seconds. What exactly did you do?

Once i played the battle i have recorded it. Then in the replay i made the same moves i did when i actually played the Battle. This way i was able to have almost the same run every time. Well as you can see i wasn't able to duplicate it exactly every time but it was close.

 

[AtenRa]

AtenRa you are really funny.
You are comparing price of 2500k when it's clear cheaper intel cpu's are going to be either faster or as fast as an 8120 for example.
Shintai asked you a good question but you didnt answer..what do you think how much intel pentium sb + h61 mobo cost ? I bet its cheaper then 8120 + mobo yet its not slower.
We dont even have to take that low end,dual core cpu into account.
Lets take i5 2400 + h61 mobo for example ,it's not gonna be more expensive then 8120 setup yet it will be faster

The FX8120 is in the same category as the Core i5 CPUs. If you want to see a lower priced CPU review check my FX4100 vs the Core i3 DX-11 gaming evaluation.