Page 1 of 3
1
2
3
LastLast
  1. #1

    AMD Never Settle, the other side of the coin?

    In an intel/AMD discussion on another forum I visit, someone posted this screen.



    The 8350 is beating a 2600k. Of course the IBs are a bit faster so lets assume they are on par or even a bit worse.
    I find this pretty interesting. Crysis 3 is the first set of games (bioshock and tomb raider are still coming) which is part of the never settle reloaded pack.
    Which means that AMD is involved with making sure the game works better on their gpus than Nvidia. However, it never occured to me they could do the same for their cpu's...
    We all know bulldozer uses a module system, which requires programs to understand it to work better. And crysis 3 seems to do just that.
    I kinda hope we see the same with bioshock and tomb raider, altho those games wont be as demanding as crysis 3. But I find it interesting that the 8350 is beating a 2600k in games!

    Who knows, maybe in due time we also see games bundled with our CPU's :P

  2. #2
    Got any more results to back that up? All I find shows the opposite.






    Obviously GPU limited.






    Last edited by n0cturnal; 2013-03-02 at 10:07 AM.
    Intel i5-3570K @ 4.7GHz | MSI Z77 Mpower | Noctua NH-D14 | Corsair Vengeance LP White 1.35V 8GB 1600MHz
    Gigabyte GTX 670 OC Windforce 3X @ 1372/7604MHz | Corsair Force GT 120GB | Silverstone Fortress FT02 | Corsair VX450

  3. #3
    to me it seems Crysis 3 support multi core better than games in general. As you can see the 6 core hyperthreaded CPU's own the leaderboard there with the 2600K coming behind the 8 core AMD CPU. All these tests are done at stock speeds though, a 2600K overclocked to 4GHz like the 8350 is running at, would most likely win that battle.

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by n0cturnal View Post
    Got any more results to back that up? All I find shows the opposite.
    Havent got the time to search for more, but it seems that it isnt the case.
    It was also more an thought I had, Im not trying to imply they did just that. They could try and do it tho.



    Quote Originally Posted by Lemmiwink View Post
    All these tests are done at stock speeds though, a 2600K overclocked to 4GHz like the 8350 is running at, would most likely win that battle.
    You could also OC the 8350 (the 8350 has a turbo to 4.2)

  5. #5
    Here is another comparison between i5-3570k and FX-8350.





    The i5 takes the win by a fraction.

    ---------- Post added 2013-03-02 at 11:22 AM ----------




    These pictures shows that it has some very good support for multi core CPUs though.

    ---------- Post added 2013-03-02 at 11:36 AM ----------

    http://translate.google.com/translat...-FX-1058221%2F

    A small article about CPU performance in patch 1.1 (you need to turn off translation to click the result comparisons)
    Last edited by n0cturnal; 2013-03-02 at 10:41 AM.
    Intel i5-3570K @ 4.7GHz | MSI Z77 Mpower | Noctua NH-D14 | Corsair Vengeance LP White 1.35V 8GB 1600MHz
    Gigabyte GTX 670 OC Windforce 3X @ 1372/7604MHz | Corsair Force GT 120GB | Silverstone Fortress FT02 | Corsair VX450

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by n0cturnal View Post
    Got any more results to back that up? All I find shows the opposite.
    Those numbers are obviously GPU capped with single GTX680, and it seems indeed that Crysis3 is optimized to run on all cores and will benefit from extra cores.

    On the other hand one game when ran on GTX690 or GTXtitan being CPU capped by only 4 cores still does not mean Bulldozers are good for generic gaming, and even less good for WoW. And this is still WoW fansite.
    Never going to log into this garbage forum again as long as calling obvious troll obvious troll is the easiest way to get banned.
    Trolling should be.

  7. #7
    Brewmaster Majesticii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,413
    Seems pretty wierd basing a theory based on a single screenshot. AMD's IPC is still far from Intel's, and in games that don't support >4cores the results are usually far worse.
    Don't get me wrong, i wish they'd bring some competition to the market. The performance gains each new generation of CPU's and GPU's is so damn synthetic that it becomes almost painfully obvious they're just babyfeeding technology since there is no competition (or beaten easily with older GPU's, GK104 instead of GK110 anyone).

    But right now, looking at the evidence from more than just Crysis3, Intel has the upperhand when it comes to gaming. HTPC and rendering/encoding mostly AMD wins budgetwise. This has been the general consensus for some time now, which doesn't mean it shouldn't be debated, but it would be nice to bring more than 1 screenshot before opening this discussion again.

  8. #8
    Legendary! Holo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    6,287
    I was sad when I saw that fugly red team flag when booting Crysis 3 for the first time

    Anyways, I still rather have my 3570k than anything AMD has to offer right now.
    But AMD CPU's are great for their price, I'll give you that.

    i5-3570k @ 4.4GHz|8GB DDR3 1600MHz|EVGA GTX 670 FTW x2 SLI|Samsung 830 128GB SSD

  9. #9
    I assume with the new console generation being based on AMD CPUs we can expect to see much better optimization for AMD architecture compared to what we've seen in the past.

  10. #10
    Titan Synthaxx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Rotherham, England/UK
    Posts
    13,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Zeara View Post
    You could also OC the 8350 (the 8350 has a turbo to 4.2)
    And realistically, the results should mention these turbo's (3.8Ghz for 2600K, 4.2Ghz for 8350) as opposed to the stock speeds. It closes from a 600Mhz lead to 400Mhz when we start talking turbo (which is almost always going to be maxed out during gaming). I'd honestly love to see a clock-for-clock comparison. Run both at 4.2Ghz and see what results we get. I'm guessing that it'll close from a 4 FPS lead down to being roughly even.

    One last thing needs to be considered, and it's a pretty big point; The FX-8350 was introduced in mid-October 2012. The i7-2600K was introduced in early January 2011. There's basically 21 months between releases there.
    Coder, Gamer - IOCube | #Error418MasterRace #ScottBrokeIt
    Knows: Node.js, JS + JQuery, HTML + CSS, Object Pascal, PHP, WQL/SQL

    PC: 750D / 16GB / 256GB + 750GB / GTX780 / 4670K / Z87X-UD4H | Laptop: 8GB / 120GB + 480GB / GTX765M / 4700MQ

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Synthaxx View Post
    And realistically, the results should mention these turbo's (3.8Ghz for 2600K, 4.2Ghz for 8350) as opposed to the stock speeds. It closes from a 600Mhz lead to 400Mhz when we start talking turbo (which is almost always going to be maxed out during gaming). I'd honestly love to see a clock-for-clock comparison. Run both at 4.2Ghz and see what results we get. I'm guessing that it'll close from a 4 FPS lead down to being roughly even.

    One last thing needs to be considered, and it's a pretty big point; The FX-8350 was introduced in mid-October 2012. The i7-2600K was introduced in early January 2011. There's basically 21 months between releases there.




    Done in medium to prevent GPU capping I presume.

    The results vary a bit from test to test and I can only assume that it has something to do with what was shown in the German article about different parts of a map benefiting different CPUs, overall I could only find the benchmark in the OP and Teksyndicates that show AMD a head in some situations.

    Code:
    AMD 8350 - 7970
    Crysis 3 - Stock Clock
    
        1080p - Max - 20.00
        1080p - No Filters - 32.20
        1080p - Crossfire - Max - 35.68
        1080p - Crossfire - No Filters - 54.20
    
        1440p - Max - 13.48
        1440p - No filters - 21.96
        1440p - Crossfire - Max - 22.88
        1440p - Crossfire - No Filters - 39.04
    
     
    Crysis 3 - CPU @ 4.6GHz
    
        1080p - Max - 20.00 (identical result, but separate bench)
        1080p - No Filters - 32.36
        1080p - Crossfire - Max - 36.04
        1080p - Crossfire - No Filters - 56.76
    
        1440p - Max - 13.28
        1440p - No Filters - 22.12
        1440p - Crossfire - Max - 23.52
        1440p - Crossfire - No Filters - 39.52
    
    Intel i7 3770k
    
    
    Crysis 3 - Stock Clock (No Crossfire for Stock Clock)
    
        1080p - Max - 18.72
        1080p - No Filters - 29.80
    
        1440p - Max - 11.16
        1440 - No Filters - 18.32
    
     
     
    Crysis 3 - CPU @ 4.5GHz
    
        1080p - Max - 21.08
        1080p - No Filters - 34.92
        1080p - Crossfire - Max - 36.72
        1080p - Crossfire - No Filters - 59.64
    
        1440p - Max - 13.68
        1440p - No filters - 23.56
        1440p - Crossfire - Max - 23.52
        1440p - Crossfire - No Filters - 40.48
    These are the results from TekSyndicate.
    Last edited by n0cturnal; 2013-03-02 at 05:05 PM.
    Intel i5-3570K @ 4.7GHz | MSI Z77 Mpower | Noctua NH-D14 | Corsair Vengeance LP White 1.35V 8GB 1600MHz
    Gigabyte GTX 670 OC Windforce 3X @ 1372/7604MHz | Corsair Force GT 120GB | Silverstone Fortress FT02 | Corsair VX450

  12. #12
    Banned Korgoth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Barbaria
    Posts
    5,952
    Crysis 3 is GPU bound so of course the CPU won't see a big difference. Especially in the benchmark run. Can anyone link a MP comparison showing min/max Framerate. Also Crysis 3 sucked; so maybe include other game results for the 8350.

  13. #13
    I am Murloc! Cyanotical's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Aurora, Co
    Posts
    5,105
    something to keep in mind, Crysis3 is one of the few games that actually takes advantage of multicore CPUs and depends less on IPC(compared to say wow), there is nothing wrong with the FX8350 beating the 3570k in that situation, if more and more games start to take advantage of multicore CPUs, the days of quad cores being optimal for gaming are done, but everyone knew that already, it's just a matter of if people are willing to accept it

    i7-4790K | Z97 Class. | 8GB DDR3-2133 | GTX-690 Quad SLI | RAIDR | 512GB Samsung 830 | AX1200 | FT02
    Dell U2711 | Ducky Shine3 YoS | Steelseries Sensei Wireless | Xonar Essence One | KRK RP8G2s

  14. #14
    Brewmaster Majesticii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,413
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyanotical View Post
    but everyone knew that already, it's just a matter of if people are willing to accept it
    I think it's not a matter of acceptance, more like waiting for it to become standard. Buying a hex/octo core now to be futureproof is just silly, because by the time it becomes standard there will be better models.

    Also, slightly offtopic. Crysis 3 SP absolutely sucked. Over-cinematic and melodramatic. You can feel they force you to be symphatetic for what happens, but the chacters are so paperthin there is nothing to cause immersion. Also nothing new in terms of gameplay.
    Perhaps the multiplayer is better.
    Last edited by Majesticii; 2013-03-02 at 07:12 PM.

  15. #15
    At this point, knowing that that at least the PS4 will have an 8 core CPU, it would've been great if Intel's Haswell series would've introduced 6-8 core CPUs for LGA 1150 instead of keeping them only for LGA 2011.

  16. #16
    I am Murloc! Cyanotical's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Aurora, Co
    Posts
    5,105
    Quote Originally Posted by Majesticii View Post
    I think it's not a matter of acceptance, more like waiting for it to become standard. Buying a hex/octo core now to be futureproof is just silly, because by the time it becomes standard there will be better models.
    of course, anyone who builds a PC to be future proof is kidding themselves (skulltrail and SR-2, lol), the problem is that there are a million Intel fanboys running around who expect top level performance for $189, and those days may be numbered, graphs like this cause problems from both sides

    part of it is simply psychological, people want to be comfortable with the idea that they made the best decision they could and that means they will harshly defend their position, the possibility of being wrong is not something many people want to accept

    i7-4790K | Z97 Class. | 8GB DDR3-2133 | GTX-690 Quad SLI | RAIDR | 512GB Samsung 830 | AX1200 | FT02
    Dell U2711 | Ducky Shine3 YoS | Steelseries Sensei Wireless | Xonar Essence One | KRK RP8G2s

  17. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyanotical View Post
    if more and more games start to take advantage of multicore CPUs, the days of quad cores being optimal for gaming are done, but everyone knew that already, it's just a matter of if people are willing to accept it
    That's a big if, considering first dual core processors for home use came out nearly ten years ago and most games still don't need more threads than that. If properly multithreaded games can be counted with fingers of one hand after decade, somehow I don't see quad cores being obsolete any time soon.
    Never going to log into this garbage forum again as long as calling obvious troll obvious troll is the easiest way to get banned.
    Trolling should be.

  18. #18
    I am Murloc! Cyanotical's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Aurora, Co
    Posts
    5,105
    Quote Originally Posted by vesseblah View Post
    That's a big if, considering first dual core processors for home use came out nearly ten years ago and most games still don't need more threads than that. If properly multithreaded games can be counted with fingers of one hand after decade, somehow I don't see quad cores being obsolete any time soon.
    it's not really an 'if' as so much as when, current CPU technology is coming up on a ceiling, and the only way to go from there is parallel, all software will have to become multithreaded, but thats around a decade out, in the mean time, how programmers take advantage of next gen console hardware is what will determine how many AAA titles are multithreaded, i would guess that experimental new titles will see more advancements, franchises like CoD will remain the same because it works, the same reason blizzard refuses to overhaul the WoW engine, the risk of breaking something that is stable and works is too high

    i7-4790K | Z97 Class. | 8GB DDR3-2133 | GTX-690 Quad SLI | RAIDR | 512GB Samsung 830 | AX1200 | FT02
    Dell U2711 | Ducky Shine3 YoS | Steelseries Sensei Wireless | Xonar Essence One | KRK RP8G2s

  19. #19
    Brewmaster Majesticii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,413
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyanotical View Post
    part of it is simply psychological, people want to be comfortable with the idea that they made the best decision they could and that means they will harshly defend their position, the possibility of being wrong is not something many people want to accept
    This is true for most discussions on these types of tech-forums. And possibly the reason fanboys exist in the first place.

  20. #20
    The Insane DeltrusDisc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Illinois, USA
    Posts
    15,085
    Quote Originally Posted by Holo View Post
    I was sad when I saw that fugly red team flag when booting Crysis 3 for the first time
    Why? It means AMD are still in.

    If AMD left the gaming GPU market or desktop CPU market, I hope you realize that would do more bad for us than good. Frankly I'm happy to see some more positive stuff for them, and I have an Intel/NVidia system.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •