AMD 8350 & 7970 Gaming Rig Review

3D Mark Vantage

All AMD Gaming Rig

3D Mark Vantage

Things continue in the same vein in 3D Mark Vantage. So let's move on to some gaming results.

 

«Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next»

Most Recent Comments

09-05-2013, 13:38:43

tinytomlogan
Time to see if a system built entirely around AMD components can finally cut the mustard.

http://www.overclock3d.net/gfx/artic...172823528l.jpg

Continue Reading

09-05-2013, 13:50:15

Roooker
Nice one sir.
I am astonished how much of a difference there is on 3dMark11.
And even in some games like Far Cry 3 or Metro 2033 the amd 8350 bottlenecking the gpu quite a lot.

09-05-2013, 13:51:14

tinytomlogan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roooker View Post
Nice one sir.
I am astonished how much of a difference there is on 3dMark11.
And even in some games like Far Cry 3 or Metro 2033 the amd 8350 bottlenecking the gpu quite a lot.

Bottle neck is a noob word mate wash your mouth out.


Its just titles where the CPU is required more......

09-05-2013, 13:56:49

Roooker
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinytomlogan View Post
Bottle neck is a noob word mate wash your mouth out.


Its just titles where the CPU is required more......




I understood bottle neck as holding something back. So if the CPU slows down the frames, it is holding back the potential frames the GPU could throw out. Isn't it ?

09-05-2013, 14:05:55

F-alienware
Good write up there Tom !

Were you using Windows 8 for this?

09-05-2013, 14:22:32

tinytomlogan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roooker View Post



I understood bottle neck as holding something back. So if the CPU slows down the frames, it is holding back the potential frames the GPU could throw out. Isn't it ?
Some games use the cpu more. doesnt mean its holding the GPU back. Its complicated dude but bottle neck isnt the word.


@ Alien no mate W7. It was worse on W8 with most benches so we went with what looks best and also what a great deal of people seem to be running still.

09-05-2013, 14:43:42

equk
Nice article

I was thinking I should have looked into the 8350 more before buying a 2500k, the benchmarks look pretty close to the intel 2011.

09-05-2013, 14:47:38

howies
are you using the Patch for windows 7 tom? the one which changes the processor scheduling?

09-05-2013, 14:48:11

AverageNinja
Great article, good to see AMD is back in the 'game' for gaming.
Still massively out of my budget though

09-05-2013, 15:15:56

SieB
The 8350 isn't too bad, it gives the 2500k and 3450k a run for their money. performance does lack quite a bit in some games and benches compared to the Intel builds though.

Still, for the cost of the 8350 and the money you save on AMD motherboards, you do still get good bang for your buck.

Shame AMD doesn't have anything to compete against Haswell till late this year, early next year. Would be nice to see some serious competition between AMD and Intel again. It would be good all round and would bring prices down/make them more competitive and give them both reason to release faster and better CPUs, instead of drip feeding us tiny improvements each year.

09-05-2013, 15:26:27

Zoot
To be honest even with all the reviews that completely trashed both Piledriver and even Bulldozer, I've yet to see a scenario in games where the AMD rig is unplayable and the Intel one completely playable, they're both either playable or unplayable.

09-05-2013, 15:37:32

barnsley
In terms of budget builds , I almost always use AMD builds. Intel never really seem to be that viable unless if their is a cpu upgrade planned later on.

The patch for windows 7 is quite good although it doesn't give -that- much of a boost as some people claim. Maybe do it for comparison?

Amazed at metro's performance. I'll have to test it on my rig at one point as it used to run...acceptably on my old i3 system and thus far I've really noticed a boost the 8320 has given me.

Always maintained that they'd get back on the gaming side of things relatively quickly. It'll take them a long time to really catch up in other areas though, I highly doubt their centurion will be able to give a 3770 or higher a run for it's money.

09-05-2013, 15:43:15

MacLeod
TTL, how did you OC that chip? Multi only or did you use as much FSB as possible. FX chips really come to life a lot more with FSB overclocking as opposed to multi only. HT Link bumps really help as well. Just curious.

Nice writeup BTW.

09-05-2013, 20:11:23

S_I_N
hmmm if my 7970's went water cooled I might run the comparision for 2600k vs 8320 lol I have both setups bother with top end boards. 2600 on a Z68-UD7 and the 8320 on a Sabertooth. Might be a thing to do swap in the AMD rig to Switchblade and have a go at it.

09-05-2013, 21:24:54

NeverBackDown
Quote:
Originally Posted by SieB View Post
The 8350 isn't too bad, it gives the 2500k and 3450k a run for their money. performance does lack quite a bit in some games and benches compared to the Intel builds though.

Still, for the cost of the 8350 and the money you save on AMD motherboards, you do still get good bang for your buck.

Shame AMD doesn't have anything to compete against Haswell till late this year, early next year. Would be nice to see some serious competition between AMD and Intel again. It would be good all round and would bring prices down/make them more competitive and give them both reason to release faster and better CPUs, instead of drip feeding us tiny improvements each year.
FX Cpus lack single threaded performance where as Intel Cpus dominate in that area. If a game was coded to better perfer multiple threads at once rather than single than FX would (theoretically) perform better. So that's one way Amd can step up their game, improve thread performance overall.

09-05-2013, 22:30:46

MacLeod
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeverBackDown View Post
FX Cpus lack single threaded performance where as Intel Cpus dominate in that area. If a game was coded to better perfer multiple threads at once rather than single than FX would (theoretically) perform better. So that's one way Amd can step up their game, improve thread performance overall.
I wonder if games will start to take more and more advantage of multiple cores. The PS4 will be using a 8 core AMD chip and since we all know developers build everything to cater to the console first, with them building their games to work best on AMD 8 cores, I wonder if that will translate over to the PC and to where AMD chips will start to be a more attractive gaming chip. A FX-8350 outperforms albeit slightly a i7-3770K in Crysis 3 and Crysis 3 is a good example of the gaming engines we'll be seeing in the future.

Im sure AMD wont be a Intel killer at least not for a good while now but if game's start taking more and more advantage of the FX architecture, AMD might be a very solid competitor to Intel once again.

Meh, but what do I know? I thought texting was just a stupid fad.

10-05-2013, 00:09:50

NeverBackDown
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacLeod View Post
I wonder if games will start to take more and more advantage of multiple cores. The PS4 will be using a 8 core AMD chip and since we all know developers build everything to cater to the console first, with them building their games to work best on AMD 8 cores, I wonder if that will translate over to the PC and to where AMD chips will start to be a more attractive gaming chip. A FX-8350 outperforms albeit slightly a i7-3770K in Crysis 3 and Crysis 3 is a good example of the gaming engines we'll be seeing in the future.

Im sure AMD wont be a Intel killer at least not for a good while now but if game's start taking more and more advantage of the FX architecture, AMD might be a very solid competitor to Intel once again.

Meh, but what do I know? I thought texting was just a stupid fad.
Actually you are dead on. You do know something!

The PS4/720 will be using VERY similiar Cpus and Gpus. ALL Amd hardware(mainly) so if Amd got some type of modified GCN arch in the consoles that would mean devs could code on PC first and do little scaling down and porting to the consoles. All in theory as of now but if this was Amds plan then Intel/Nvidia will need to bring some serious horsepower to cater to more optimized hardware(Amd)...

This is a huge possibility but it all depends on how Devs will go about it. This may be the best gen for PC gamers.

10-05-2013, 07:09:02

SieB
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeverBackDown View Post
FX Cpus lack single threaded performance where as Intel Cpus dominate in that area. If a game was coded to better perfer multiple threads at once rather than single than FX would (theoretically) perform better. So that's one way Amd can step up their game, improve thread performance overall.
I don't know too much about AMD CPUs to be honest, but it sounds like if games were coded like you say that Intel could be in for a shock.

I have read a couple of posts around different forums from people "in the know" that things are changing and game developers are changing things to be better AMD optimized. Whether that is true or not, I don't know. One person who I saw post about it was RAWZ from Aria, he gets to play with things we don't have for months before they are out and i'm guessing he has friends on "the inside" that keep him well informed.

With AMD getting the console deals and more and more games coming out with the powered by AMD logo, it kind of seems more than likely it is going to happen.

I really hope it does, it's pretty bland when you know that the best choice is Intel and you have to pay over the odds, unless you want to save money and go AMD that is.

If AMD make a comeback it will give people better options, make the market more interesting, lower prices and increase competitiveness which is all good for us, the consumer.

10-05-2013, 07:27:59

Tripp
this is the reason i wont upgrade my cpu/motherboard until next year when steamroller is released

10-05-2013, 11:02:35

NeverBackDown
Quote:
Originally Posted by SieB View Post
I don't know too much about AMD CPUs to be honest, but it sounds like if games were coded like you say that Intel could be in for a shock.

I have read a couple of posts around different forums from people "in the know" that things are changing and game developers are changing things to be better AMD optimized. Whether that is true or not, I don't know. One person who I saw post about it was RAWZ from Aria, he gets to play with things we don't have for months before they are out and i'm guessing he has friends on "the inside" that keep him well informed.

With AMD getting the console deals and more and more games coming out with the powered by AMD logo, it kind of seems more than likely it is going to happen.

I really hope it does, it's pretty bland when you know that the best choice is Intel and you have to pay over the odds, unless you want to save money and go AMD that is.

If AMD make a comeback it will give people better options, make the market more interesting, lower prices and increase competitiveness which is all good for us, the consumer.
I haven't been to update on any console forums but it's all pretty common sense and my computer science professor has explained in some detail(just basics for the starters) of what would happen if this trend comes true. So while it does help the market out now, what about the future market? Could intel start losing money? Nvidia? Too much optimization on the PC side for only one team can do more harm than good sometimes.

10-05-2013, 17:14:54

badtaylorx
with Haswell looking like a dog, on top of the whole console programing advantage, this could be a HUGE opportunity for AMD...

Lets collectively hope for a home-run here....not another bulldozer-esque failure

10-05-2013, 17:27:15

seumasbeathan
Quote:
Originally Posted by badtaylorx View Post
with Haswell looking like a dog
Huh? Its a set of cpu's coming in at more a less the same prices as the Ivy chips when they were first released, It offer's 10-20% more performance and looks to overclock like a beast. How is it gonna be a dog?

10-05-2013, 18:14:30

NeverBackDown
Quote:
Originally Posted by seumasbeathan View Post
Huh? Its a set of cpu's coming in at more a less the same prices as the Ivy chips when they were first released, It offer's 10-20% more performance and looks to overclock like a beast. How is it gonna be a dog?
10-20%? Everywhere i have seen has stated around 5% Cpu performance increase but about 10-20% for iGPU...

10-05-2013, 19:06:16

grassman
We always seem to come to minimal performance increases when we get in the 3.5ghz clock range anyhow. More cores or nothing at this point, Information is being bottle necked by circuitry. Make everything a shorter distance apart (which isn't doing much now since everything is already pretty much rammed on to each other..) or add more cores. We won't see better single threaded performance until we get light technology.

btw Good review, gave you shyt not long ago for not giving it the gamers choice. Show's you have character and are honest, While most would have swept it under the rug and ignored it, You had the gonads to give us the real scoop.

10-05-2013, 19:28:49

F-alienware
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeverBackDown View Post
10-20%? Everywhere i have seen has stated around 5% Cpu performance increase but about 10-20% for iGPU...
I guess it depends on what they mean when they say 5%.

Do they mean 5% faster at the same clocks as Ivybridge?

If so then that leaves one thing - oc headroom. 22nm is obviously going to run a lot cooler so you may start to see daily safe overclocks of 5.5ghz or more.

Even if they 'only' clock to 5ghz safe then that's still a fair jump in performance given that most run their 2500/3570ks at 4.5ghz.

10-05-2013, 19:36:54

NeverBackDown
Games stop seeing improvements above 4.4ghz so makes no sense to push it farther.

10-05-2013, 19:41:08

SieB
Well the only Haswell performance benchmarks that has been seen so far are from the performance preview Techpowerup published, which showed Haswell being around 8-10% faster than Ivy.

That's the same difference between Sandy and Ivy, so if you are still on sandy that's around a 16-20% increase before overclocking.

Don't know how legit that preview is, but we had previews for Sandy and Ivy a month or two before release and the figures turned out to be legit. Engineering samples have been floating around for months as well so there is a good chance the preview is legit, a large pinch of salt has to be taken though.

10-05-2013, 19:54:17

F-alienware
Quote:
Originally Posted by SieB View Post
Well the only Haswell performance benchmarks that has been seen so far are from the performance preview Techpowerup published, which showed Haswell being around 8-10% faster than Ivy.

That's the same difference between Sandy and Ivy, so if you are still on sandy that's around a 16-20% increase before overclocking.

Don't know how legit that preview is, but we had previews for Sandy and Ivy a month or two before release and the figures turned out to be legit. Engineering samples have been floating around for months as well so there is a good chance the preview is legit, a large pinch of salt has to be taken though.
Most pre launch rumours turn out to be true tbh. Apart from the quite obviously poorly scribbled GPU graphs that we often get before a launch.

10-05-2013, 21:12:42

NeverBackDown
Well as far as i know the Igpu will be much much better. Will support DX11.

10-05-2013, 21:38:47

MacLeod
Haswell isn't going to be all that much faster because Intel isn't worried about being that much faster. Theyre already the fastest game in town and way more than fast enough for 99% of CPU consumers. I think Haswell is going to concentrate on low energy, battery life and all that kind of thing that appeals to the vast majority of consumers out there that want tablets and laptops. We enthusiasts may be much cooler but we're also in the vast minority. The market is going mobile and so Intel and AMD both are concentrating on that a lot more than they are on having the fastest IPC.

11-05-2013, 01:02:21

NeverBackDown
That's exactly what they are doing And upgrading their Igpu is one of the best ways to improve performance per watt.

11-05-2013, 05:58:43

Master&Puppet
TTL - if you get the chance could you run this test again but on an i5 3570K platform instead? I'm sure that's what most people would be interested in comparing.

The jaguar cores that will be powering consoles later this year will have to rely on multi-threading to achieve any kind of interesting game mechanics. From what I've seen 2 cores will be used for managing background services, downloads and hardware like kinetic which leaves just 6 cores running at 1.5ghz to play the game on. That is not a whole load of IPC.

At the moment it is still very much dependent on the games that you play. With the IPC which intel provides you really need to be running games which support all 8 threads for AMD to be worth investing in - and then it is a great choice.

But there is also a misconception that throwing more cores at it is better. Most DirectX titles rely on one or a few primary thread(s) more than others and therefore if the primary thread(s) is saturated by its workload it doesn't matter how many other cores you throw at it and the result is that IPC is generally still king.

It's great to see titles like Crysis 3 making better use of multi-threading but I do not expect this to be a universal thrend just yet. One of the biggest releases of this year will be Rome Total War 2 and I highly doubt that it will be spreading the vast majority of its workload across more than 2-4 cores (Shogun 2 was highly reliant on a single core although it made use of others). For that reason I would not consider swapping to AMD at the moment.

If I were advising someone who is considering a new build I would say this:
In games which are highly threaded an FX-8xxx will probably produce better frame rates than an Intel i5 but both CPUs will run these games exceptionally well and will almost certainly be GPU limited.
However
When games are not so well threaded an i5 system may be noticeably more powerful than an AMD based system and games are more likely to be CPU limited.
Therefore Intel i5 seems to me the more sensible choice.

11-05-2013, 08:45:35

MacLeod
I don't think this was meant to be a comparison between Intel and AMD. We all know Intel is faster. I think this write up was simple meant to dispel all the crap you see on the internets about FX being a huge bottleneck and you probably wont even be able to boot into Windows with one.

As a long time AMD fanboy, Ive always maintained that while Intel is faster, you can still have a perfectly capable gaming rig with an AMD chip at the helm. And in single card setups running 1920x1080, the performance will be pretty much the same. Its not until you get into the multi GPU and multi monitor systems that the extra horsepower of the Intels will start to come into play.

11-05-2013, 09:04:21

Zoot
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacLeod View Post
I don't think this was meant to be a comparison between Intel and AMD. We all know Intel is faster. I think this write up was simple meant to dispel all the crap you see on the internets about FX being a huge bottleneck and you probably wont even be able to boot into Windows with one.

As a long time AMD fanboy, Ive always maintained that while Intel is faster, you can still have a perfectly capable gaming rig with an AMD chip at the helm. And in single card setups running 1920x1080, the performance will be pretty much the same. Its not until you get into the multi GPU and multi monitor systems that the extra horsepower of the Intels will start to come into play.
The FX's are perfectly capable CPUs for their price. They're a little lacking in single threaded performance compared to Intel and they pull more power (which is of no consequence in terms of cost unless you're stressing the CPU 100% 24/7).

Games care far more about the GPU than they do the CPU. Here's a video with i7 3770k side by side the FX 8350 in gaming, the difference is completely neglible, except for the price that is.

(Skip to 7m 30secs)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewrPDqFuT3Y

It's also worth mentioning the fact that a company the size of AMD (Market Cap ~$2bn) can produce a chip like the FX-8350 that's able to compete with Intels offerings (Market Cap ~ $108bn) given Intels massive R&D budget and their massive advantage in Fabrication is quite an achievement.

11-05-2013, 09:55:15

SieB
Very interesting video that ^^^^

Considering the price difference, there is hardly anything in it between the 3770k and 8350.

Cheapest 8350 I have seen is 150, cheapest 3770k I have seen is 245. That 95 difference is quite big considering the not so big difference in performance.

11-05-2013, 10:23:04

AverageNinja
If only they made a budget CPU that could compete with the i3 at the same (or preferably a lower) pricepoint. So not the FX4300, the i3 destroys it when it comes to higher end GPUs (such as the 7950, the 7870 XT or the GTX 660 (Ti)).

11-05-2013, 11:51:32

NeverBackDown
Quote:
Originally Posted by Master&Puppet View Post
TTL - if you get the chance could you run this test again but on an i5 3570K platform instead? I'm sure that's what most people would be interested in comparing.

The jaguar cores that will be powering consoles later this year will have to rely on multi-threading to achieve any kind of interesting game mechanics. From what I've seen 2 cores will be used for managing background services, downloads and hardware like kinetic which leaves just 6 cores running at 1.5ghz to play the game on. That is not a whole load of IPC.

At the moment it is still very much dependent on the games that you play. With the IPC which intel provides you really need to be running games which support all 8 threads for AMD to be worth investing in - and then it is a great choice.
Do not forget it depends on the final specs and whether or not devs actually will take the time to learn the architecture and find the best possible way for them to run at the least amount of cpu usage possible.

I agree with most of what you stated but assuming 2 cores will be used for this and the 6 others used for that is kind of pushing it to far. Know one knows really. Sony do and maybe some 1st/3rd party devs do but other than that know one.

If all console games move directly into multi threaded programming then the effect on Amd for Pc will be noticable. It's really not bad and i am sure intel can easily change that within a year.

11-05-2013, 22:16:19

Mgutierrez33
Thanks for this review TTL. Honestly makes me feel a bit better about the purchase decision I made for my girlfriend's rig x-). Honestly tho watching my friends play on their 2500K/3570 powered machines, then going over and watching her play on her 8320 powered machine (clocked @ 4.2 Ghz, 1.36V), there really isn't a noticeable difference between them (my friend's GF, however, with her 8150, DOES get noticeably lower framerates than everyone else and she uses their same card). I am very anxious to see how things bode for the future of AMD, and am very pleased that their machines are performing as well as they are now. Better for the market, too, but I guess this comes in phases for all the parts manufacturers. Some go through a period of time in which they're top dog, then they get poo'd on for a while.

12-05-2013, 02:04:44

NeverBackDown
Just a matter of when and how long...

12-05-2013, 04:38:39

vorticalbox
Quote:
Originally Posted by SieB View Post
Very interesting video that ^^^^

Considering the price difference, there is hardly anything in it between the 3770k and 8350.

Cheapest 8350 I have seen is 150, cheapest 3770k I have seen is 245. That 95 difference is quite big considering the not so big difference in performance.
and that is not taking into account AMD has cheaper boards no PCI-E 3 though except the asus sabertooth, which is only 130 anyway.

12-05-2013, 05:21:00

tinytomlogan
FYI everyone the aria i5 with 7870 beat this rig in pretty much everything both benches and games!

12-05-2013, 07:49:33

Roooker
Quote:
Originally Posted by Master&Puppet View Post
TTL - if you get the chance could you run this test again but on an i5 3570K platform instead? I'm sure that's what most people would be interested in comparing.
Linus did a pretty big comparrison:
1
2

12-05-2013, 11:35:27

MacLeod
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinytomlogan View Post
FYI everyone the aria i5 with 7870 beat this rig in pretty much everything both benches and games!
A i5/7870 beats a 8350/7970?

12-05-2013, 11:58:44

NeverBackDown
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacLeod View Post
A i5/7870 beats a 8350/7970?
Shows a lot don't it?

12-05-2013, 12:40:33

MacLeod
That's gotta be a typo. I can't believe a 7870 outperforms a 7970 regardless of what processor it has. No benchmarks show the i5 being that much faster than a 8350. In fact most show the 8350 as being fairly close until you get into the multi gpu/monitor setups.

12-05-2013, 12:47:32

airdeano
you do know that's a 7870 Tahiti..

12-05-2013, 13:02:37

MacLeod
Quote:
Originally Posted by airdeano View Post
you do know that's a 7870 Tahiti..
Shouldn't matter. That's still a slower card than a 7950. All the benchies I've seen show a 8350 hanging in fairly close with a i5 in almost everything and even beating it in a couple newer games. I'm not denying the i5 is the faster chip and when compared using the same card, I know it's faster but I just can't believe that the fastest single card on the market is being held back by a 8350 so much that it's beaten by a card that costs nearly half as much. My GTX670 is matching all the benchmarks I'm seeing in GTX670 reviews using i7's so my Bulldozer which is 10-15% slower than a Piledriver definitely isn't holding my card back.

12-05-2013, 13:29:43

SieB
All I can say is if you look at the videos posted over the past 2-3 previous pages you can see quiet clear that there is not that much of a difference if any. Where there are differences, it's so little that if you had either system you wouldn't be noticing them.

As for benches, well you don't play benchmarks and unless you are buying the CPU to benchmark all day erry day, they mean nothing in terms of real world performance.

As already mentioned as well, the 8350 lacks single thread performance, this is where the i5 pulls ahead, but for anything multi thread the 8350 wins. You also have to give bonus points to the 8350 seen as it's cheaper, yet still faster in a lot of things. It even gives the 3770k a run for it's money in multi thread performance.

TL;DR

The 8350 is actually a good choice for a gaming rig, the differences in performance are not significant enough to even matter and multi thread performance is much better.

Wann save money and still have good performance? Get the 8350.
Want good performance and something that will score high in benchmarks? Get the 3570k.

8350 vs 3570k - Bear in mind the 8350 is 150 and the 3570k is 180

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/697?vs=701

8350 vs 3770k - Bear in mind the 8350k is 150 and the 3770k is 250

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/697?vs=551

12-05-2013, 13:40:07

ObscureParadox
Quote:
Originally Posted by SieB View Post
All I can say is if you look at the videos posted over the past 2-3 previous pages you can see quiet clear that there is not that much of a difference if any. Where there are differences, it's so little that if you had either system you wouldn't be noticing them.

As for benches, well you don't play benchmarks and unless you are buying the CPU to benchmark all day erry day, they mean nothing in terms of real world performance.

As already mentioned as well, the 8350 lacks single thread performance, this is where the i5 pulls ahead, but for anything multi thread the 8350 wins. You also have to give bonus points to the 8350 seen as it's cheaper, yet still faster in a lot of things. It even gives the 3770k a run for it's money in multi thread performance.

TL;DR

The 8350 is actually a good choice for a gaming rig, the differences in performance are not significant enough to even matter and multi thread performance is much better.

Wann save money and still have good performance? Get the 8350.
Want good performance and something that will score high in benchmarks? Get the 3570k.

8350 vs 3570k - Bear in mind the 8350 is 150 and the 3570k is 180

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/697?vs=701

8350 vs 3770k - Bear in mind the 8350k is 150 and the 3770k is 250

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/697?vs=551
Wanna save even more money?? Get a 8320

But yeah I totally agree, I cannot for one second believe that a 7870 XT with an i5 beats a 7970 and 8350 combo, it makes zero sense. Something must have been wrong with his testing methodology because that just doesn't agree with the results that everyone else is getting.

12-05-2013, 14:56:12

MacLeod
I believe it on a couple games. Civilization V and Starcraft 2 for example really give AMD processors fits so a i5 probably could beat it with a slower video card in those games because when compared with the same GPU, Intel wins in those games by a country mile.

But with games like Crysis 3 and BF3 where AMD actually performs slightly better and then all the others where AMD is only a little behind Intel, I don't see how it could.

12-05-2013, 15:22:43

NeverBackDown
Quote:
Originally Posted by ObscureParadox View Post
Wanna save even more money?? Get a 8320
I got my i5 for 179$(117)... I think i win? lol

12-05-2013, 16:26:15

Gurt11
Well, this is interesting thanks for the testing!

13-05-2013, 14:29:00

Zoot
Another video of the FX-6100 vs the i7-3770k in Battlefield 3. Granted it's only one game, but the difference is pretty minimal, except for a large price gap.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jV2Voo5h3eU

13-05-2013, 17:25:36

F-alienware
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoot View Post
Another video of the FX-6100 vs the i7-3770k in Battlefield 3. Granted it's only one game, but the difference is pretty minimal, except for a large price gap.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jV2Voo5h3eU
Then in the case of that test the GPU is obviously doing most of the work.

I'd like to see that test repeated with Hitman : Absolution tbh.

13-05-2013, 18:18:15

SieB
No 6100 benches, but there are 6200 benches. The 3770k beat the 6200 by a good margin, the 8350 proves it's good price to performance once again though.

http://www.techspot.com/review/608-h...rks/page6.html

13-05-2013, 18:42:34

MacLeod
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlienALX View Post
Then in the case of that test the GPU is obviously doing most of the work.

I'd like to see that test repeated with Hitman : Absolution tbh.
It'll depend on the GPU. It doesn't matter how fast the CPU is, your frame rates will only be as high as your GPU can dish out. You can have the fastest processor in the world and you're still not gonna max out Crysis 3 with a 7770.

So a 8350 while being slower than a 3570K is still fast enough to feed a 7970 or GTX680 enough to get it to close to its full potential. Now if you add a 2nd GTX680 then you'll start to see the extra horsepower of the 3570K come into play and the Intel system will start to pull ahead.

But for single card systems at 2560x1600 and below, a 8350 will perform pretty close to a 3570K.

13-05-2013, 19:46:01

F-alienware
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacLeod View Post
It'll depend on the GPU. It doesn't matter how fast the CPU is, your frame rates will only be as high as your GPU can dish out. You can have the fastest processor in the world and you're still not gonna max out Crysis 3 with a 7770.

So a 8350 while being slower than a 3570K is still fast enough to feed a 7970 or GTX680 enough to get it to close to its full potential. Now if you add a 2nd GTX680 then you'll start to see the extra horsepower of the 3570K come into play and the Intel system will start to pull ahead.

But for single card systems at 2560x1600 and below, a 8350 will perform pretty close to a 3570K.
Not sure I agree on that. I have a Xeon E31220 (I5 2400 more cache no IGPU or whatever they call it now) and going on the difference a slight overclock made to Hitman I would imagine the 6100 would struggle something rotten.

That's going on the thread performance, given that Sandybridge still beats Piledriver hands down.

http://forum.overclock3d.net/showthread.php?t=52821

Is basically why I mentioned Hitman : Absolution because it quite clearly needs raw CPU power as well as graphical grunt. Obviously that game is far more CPU dependent than BF3 which is getting on a bit now.

13-05-2013, 19:52:42

Tripp
yeah i can say from experience that hitman is awful on my rig, i think piledriver might be a fair bit better than my bulldozer chip though

13-05-2013, 19:52:50

MacLeod
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlienALX View Post
Not sure I agree on that. I have a Xeon E31220 (I5 2400 more cache no IGPU or whatever they call it now) and going on the difference a slight overclock made to Hitman I would imagine the 6100 would struggle something rotten.

That's going on the thread performance, given that Sandybridge still beats Piledriver hands down.

http://forum.overclock3d.net/showthread.php?t=52821

Is basically why I mentioned Hitman : Absolution because it quite clearly needs raw CPU power as well as graphical grunt. Obviously that game is far more CPU dependent than BF3 which is getting on a bit now.
No I think we're on the same page. I'm not saying the CPU makes no difference, I'm saying if you don't have the GPU muscle, all the CPU speed in the world isn't going to matter.

Your overclock let your GTX670 stretch it's legs a little more but eventually you'd reach a point where your GPU was going as fast as it could and the extra speed of the CPU won't help any.

Now while I agree the 6100 is a horrible chip, a 8350 is not and it's fast enough to feed any single card so that you're getting relatively the same frame rates as with an Intel at least close enough that you wouldn't notice in real world gameplay.

13-05-2013, 19:57:23

F-alienware
Oh yeah of course

I'm hoping to get 4ghz out of my CPU if I ever get a motherboard to put it in.... When I do I will re-run all of the benchmarks to see how much clock speeds affect min FPS (because that's all I really care about tbh).

I also find it interesting that the guy benched BF3 single player, when the 64 player maps are the most taxing.

14-05-2013, 03:26:49

Zoot
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacLeod View Post
Now while I agree the 6100 is a horrible chip, a 8350 is not and it's fast enough to feed any single card so that you're getting relatively the same frame rates as with an Intel at least close enough that you wouldn't notice in real world gameplay.
To be fair, it's not *that* bad given its price. I mean if you were on a budget, you could save on the 6 core FX over an i5 and then a 7870 could become a 7950 for instance, and you'd have a better gaming rig for the vast majority of games on your hands then.

As for Hitman Absolution, Tom's results here have the FX performing pretty well, only a handful of frames behind the socket 2011. Was it a different part of the game to what others have been testing it at or something?

14-05-2013, 10:57:51

MacLeod
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoot View Post
To be fair, it's not *that* bad given its price. I mean if you were on a budget, you could save on the 6 core FX over an i5 and then a 7870 could become a 7950 for instance, and you'd have a better gaming rig for the vast majority of games on your hands then.

As for Hitman Absolution, Tom's results here have the FX performing pretty well, only a handful of frames behind the socket 2011. Was it a different part of the game to what others have been testing it at or something?
No it kinda is pretty awful.

Trust me, I'm probably the biggest AMD fanboy on here and even I can't defend them. Now the 6300's are good. They're faster per clock than Phenom so they're a worthy successor to the X6 Thuban.

The problem with the 6100 is that it's slower per clock than Phenom so unless you overclocked the nads off the thing it would be SLOWER than a X4!

As for price, you do have a point that they have decent value and will be perfectly fine for the majority of consumers but as long as the Phenom II X4 965 is still out there for $85, it's hard to make a case for buying any Bulldozer aside from the 8100's. Now the Piledrivers are a whole other story and all of them are worthy buys.

14-05-2013, 11:12:23

F-alienware
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoot View Post
As for Hitman Absolution, Tom's results here have the FX performing pretty well, only a handful of frames behind the socket 2011. Was it a different part of the game to what others have been testing it at or something?
I doubt it. There's an inbuilt benchmark for Hitman.

It probably addresses 8 cores tbh which wouldn't surprise me given it's one of AMD's evolved titles.

14-05-2013, 11:15:05

tinytomlogan
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlienALX View Post
I doubt it. There's an inbuilt benchmark for Hitman.

It probably addresses 8 cores tbh which wouldn't surprise me given it's one of AMD's evolved titles.

It is...... But the thing to realise is its still behind.

14-05-2013, 11:29:11

MacLeod
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinytomlogan View Post
It is...... But the thing to realise is its still behind.
By only 3 fps while costing much less.

(just going off the text because I can't see the benchmarks because Flash doesn't work on Android 4.1 )

14-05-2013, 13:49:14

Zoot
Just for giggles lets do some power calculations for the AMD systems Vs the Intel ones in gaming. Using Tom's own figures (with a 7970 for the CPU & GPU load), and the current cost per KWh here in Ireland.

Intel i5-3570K + 7970 = 320W Power Draw
Cost = 0.32*€0.1895 = €0.0606/hour.

AMD FX-8350 + 7970 = 370W Power Draw
Cost = 0.37*€0.1895 = €0.0701/hour.

Lets say you do 4 hours gaming per day:
i5 Cost/year = €0.0606*4*365 = €88.53/year
FX Cost/year = €0.0701*4*365 = €102.36/year

Considering the FX is cheaper (about €25 looking at the retailer I get most of my PC hardware from), it'll take me nearly 2 years (discounting inflation etc.) before the Intel actually would save me money on power consumption.

And for the record, I don't game 4 hours a day, somewhere around 10 per week would be a better approximation, then the time is over 6 years.

Of course if you're stressing the CPU 100% 24/7 the picture changes drastically, but I don't really have any interest in doing that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MacLeod View Post
No it kinda is pretty awful.
I suppose I should have mentioned I was really referring to the Piledrivers.

I'll definitely admit to being an AMD fan myself, but in all practicality and bleakness the FX-8350 could be the last AMD processor I have on the desktop. It's extremely hard to know what'll happen to AMD in the future.

14-05-2013, 14:51:36

AverageNinja
^^ that's quite interesting!
Now I don't game every day, but if I do, I game long days and nights
Never thought you could save so much money on power consumption with PCs.
Always good to learn things

14-05-2013, 16:16:54

Zoot
Quote:
Originally Posted by AverageNinja View Post
Never thought you could save so much money on power consumption with PCs.
You don't. That's the point. €12 for the year isn't much of a saving.

It would take the KW/h charge to be significantly higher to present a considerable saving.

Although, using the same figures, a 24/7 load for the whole year on the GPU and CPU would favour Intel to the tune of €116.

14-05-2013, 18:59:19

NeverBackDown
Quote:
Originally Posted by AverageNinja View Post
^^ that's quite interesting!
Now I don't game every day, but if I do, I game long days and nights
Never thought you could save so much money on power consumption with PCs.
Always good to learn things
May i ask how one can game on a PC with the hardware you own? The one in your signature that is

16-05-2013, 12:46:27

eastyy
seem to recall seeing a story about a update for am3+ piledriver processors in june is that true?

16-05-2013, 13:09:30

AverageNinja
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeverBackDown View Post
May i ask how one can game on a PC with the hardware you own? The one in your signature that is
I don't
Well, I only play LoL.
I game on my PS3, and in June, I'm getting a new pc

16-05-2013, 16:56:58

AMDFTW
Awsome

16-05-2013, 20:27:29

MacLeod
Quote:
Originally Posted by eastyy View Post
seem to recall seeing a story about a update for am3+ piledriver processors in june is that true?
There have been rumors but I think theyre just that.

There was something about AMD releasing a 5GHz processor but it was going to be like $800 or something stupid like that. The Tech Report

Then there was the rumor of something else as a CPUZ screenshot of a 8750 or something like that started making the rounds. Pretty sure that was a fake though.

I cant believe AMD would ride out the same old Piledriver chips til next spring when Steamroller is supposed to be released. I hope they are going to be releasing a little refresh chip sometime in June or July cause Haswell will be out in a couple weeks and AMD will need something to give us a reason to care about them. Im not holding my breath though but Im still hopeful.

16-05-2013, 20:40:27

Tripp
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacLeod View Post
There have been rumors but I think theyre just that.

There was something about AMD releasing a 5GHz processor but it was going to be like $800 or something stupid like that. The Tech Report

Then there was the rumor of something else as a CPUZ screenshot of a 8750 or something like that started making the rounds. Pretty sure that was a fake though.

I cant believe AMD would ride out the same old Piledriver chips til next spring when Steamroller is supposed to be released. I hope they are going to be releasing a little refresh chip sometime in June or July cause Haswell will be out in a couple weeks and AMD will need something to give us a reason to care about them. Im not holding my breath though but Im still hopeful.
amen to that

16-05-2013, 20:51:25

SieB
Yep, a CPU-Z of a 8570 has showed up

http://www.eteknix.com/amd-fx-8570-a...pu-z-database/

I read a thread on another random site when googling about it that the CPUZ validation was fake, don't know if it's true or not though. If AMD did have engineering samples of the 8570 around i'm sure there would be news about it though.

For a CPU to be under development, be in the engineering stage and there not be news of it, is not heard of, so unfortunately it looks like it may very well be be fake.

16-05-2013, 21:08:41

MacLeod
Yeah thats kinda what I thought it was, an engineering sample from Steamroller maybe. I hope they do something like they did with the Phenom line when they came out with C3 stepping that made for better overclocks.....lot better overclocks actually.

16-05-2013, 21:28:55

NeverBackDown
Hopefully amd can get the 4xxx/6xxx/8xxx to compete with their respective catergories such as i3/i5/i5 or i7.

18-05-2013, 16:04:52

Zoot
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacLeod View Post
Yeah thats kinda what I thought it was, an engineering sample from Steamroller maybe.
That's pretty unlikely since Steamroller is supposed to be on a different process (28nm).

But then again, who knows?

19-05-2013, 08:20:38

F-alienware
Quote:
Originally Posted by SieB View Post
Yep, a CPU-Z of a 8570 has showed up

http://www.eteknix.com/amd-fx-8570-a...pu-z-database/

I read a thread on another random site when googling about it that the CPUZ validation was fake, don't know if it's true or not though. If AMD did have engineering samples of the 8570 around i'm sure there would be news about it though.

For a CPU to be under development, be in the engineering stage and there not be news of it, is not heard of, so unfortunately it looks like it may very well be be fake.
MB brand - Asrock
MB model - Crosshair VI Extreme.

So basically it's running on a board that doesn't exist on a bios that doesn't exist.

19-05-2013, 11:58:46

MacLeod
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlienALX View Post
MB brand - Asrock
MB model - Crosshair VI Extreme.
HA! What you mean you havent heard yet? ASRock has bought out Asus. It was only a matter of time.

19-05-2013, 12:10:31

NeverBackDown
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacLeod View Post
HA! What you mean you havent heard yet? ASRock has bought out Asus. It was only a matter of time.
That would be ironic considering Asrock broke away from Asus.... And then to buy them back... Wow lol

19-05-2013, 13:26:12

F-alienware
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacLeod View Post
HA! What you mean you havent heard yet? ASRock has bought out Asus. It was only a matter of time.


Now that would be hilarious.

21-05-2013, 06:23:08

ugiboy
Hey, With the recent anoucements about Nvidia's Technical marketing manager and other staff joining AMD the battle should get even closer. Reports say Sean Pelletier, the person mentioned above will be initially concentrating on the GPU side of AMD's business???

21-05-2013, 06:32:10

F-alienware
Quote:
Originally Posted by ugiboy View Post
Hey, With the recent anoucements about Nvidia's Technical marketing manager and other staff joining AMD the battle should get even closer. Reports say Sean Pelletier, the person mentioned above will be initially concentrating on the GPU side of AMD's business???
AMD are making some serious moves. Not only have they pretty much got into bed with nearly every big game creator they're also head hunting everywhere.

It's crazy really. They fired a buttload of staff after the Bulldozer fiasco and have hired people from other companies who really know what they're doing.

21-05-2013, 22:51:44

NeverBackDown
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlienALX View Post
AMD are making some serious moves. Not only have they pretty much got into bed with nearly every big game creator they're also head hunting everywhere.

It's crazy really. They fired a buttload of staff after the Bulldozer fiasco and have hired people from other companies who really know what they're doing.
They also recieved back their top 3 engineers from Apple. The 3 engineers were all hardware junkies so hopefully they can also contribute to AMD. I think they are all in the CPU R&D team.

21-05-2013, 22:59:14

MacLeod
Yep, the last time a lot of these guys were with AMD, Intel was 2nd place. Granted that was half because the Athlon was king but also because Intel dropped the ball with Netburst which was Intel's "Bulldozer". Like I said before, there are a lot of optimistic things AMD fans such as myself can look to and feel pretty good about the future .

22-05-2013, 02:12:39

Zoot
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlienALX View Post
AMD are making some serious moves. Not only have they pretty much got into bed with nearly every big game creator they're also head hunting everywhere.

It's crazy really. They fired a buttload of staff after the Bulldozer fiasco and have hired people from other companies who really know what they're doing.
They've done a huge reshuffling lately, as to whether they'll return to profitability or not is another thing tbh.

Their tablet processor Temash is where I'd see the most hope for them.

22-05-2013, 18:45:35

NeverBackDown
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoot View Post
They've done a huge reshuffling lately, as to whether they'll return to profitability or not is another thing tbh.

Their tablet processor Temash is where I'd see the most hope for them.
On the tablet level they are competing with ARM which owns the tablet market.
Much different then AMD vs. Intel.
Reply
x

Register for the OC3D Newsletter

Subscribing to the OC3D newsletter will keep you up-to-date on the latest technology reviews, competitions and goings-on at Overclock3D. We won't share your email address with ANYONE, and we will only email you with updates on site news, reviews, and competitions and you can unsubscribe easily at any time.

Simply enter your name and email address into the box below and be sure to click on the links in the confirmation emails that will arrive in your e-mail shortly after to complete the registration.

If you run into any problems, just drop us a message on the forums.