AMD Reality Check at FX GamExperience

AMD winning at an AMD event.

d31b1_ORIG-cool_story_bro6.jpg
 
pretty interesting, glad to see they took the risk.

xIronCrossx said:
AMD winning at an AMD event.
Click to expand...

true, except none of the people knew what system was the intel or AMD system so its still a risk on their part to even try it.
 
we're talking about bottum of the line onboard graphics basically
big fucking deal
 
Rattle said:
we're talking about bottum of the line onboard graphics basically
big fucking deal
Click to expand...

did you even bother to make an attempt to read the whole article? they did 2 tests, low end with the build in graphics and then a high end test with the i7 2700k and a radeon HD7970 and the FX 8150 with the HD7970..


double-facepalm.jpg
 
pxc said:
I was kidding when I posted this: http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1038208179&postcount=26

It's more sad than notable. Or maybe it is notable for ghetto level gaming. If you buy a low end system with HD 6xxx low end graphics, it gives low end gaming performance. Exciting!
Click to expand...

Welcome back. I've missed your wit.

Interesting to say the least and pretty bold of AMD. Seems like they made great strides ensuring as close to the same setups as possible, even down to the fatality boards.

Complete blind test and it's interesting that the majority picked the FX. Llano obviously would win vs. HD3000. I didn't expect the FX > 2700k with the 7970.

They had this same kinda setup going at Ph2 launch event I attended in Chi. I think it was a Ph2 940 vs. i7 920 and the difference in frames was minimal at best in various games.

Outside of the gaming, heavily-threaded realm the 2700k would own but we all know that. :)
 
As a devout AMD fanboy, I like this. I think its a smart move by AMD's marketing to kinda replenish the Bulldozer rep a little.

Basically is shows that there isnt much of a difference in gaming performance between the two if you consider the "no difference" votes to be Intel votes. And I agree thats pretty much the case with Bulldozer. For gaming, its good enough to push a system close enough to an Intel system that you cant really tell a difference.

Now Id be interested to see the specs for the systems because where Intel WILL pull away and leave the FX procs behind is in a massively powered system running extremely high resolutions. A single 6970 at 1920x1080, will be just fine with a FX-8120 but a pair of 7970's at 5040x1050 powered by a 2600K will run off and leave the FX.
 
The cool story bro thing is stupid and oh so old wtf. So tired of seeing little kids post that shit. I think with todays CPU's you cant really tell most the time in game play unless you have to see the fps meter runing...but I think they used the Fatal1ty Mouse Port to smooth things out some. why els did they switch from the Asus board to this one for hidden demos?
 
sirmonkey1985 said:
did you even bother to make an attempt to read the whole article? they did 2 tests, low end with the build in graphics and then a high end test with the i7 2700k and a radeon HD7970 and the FX 8150 with the HD7970..


double-facepalm.jpg
Click to expand...

Yes i did and I wasn't referring to the second test, I was referring to the landslide voting of the first test obviously. take your double face and palm and stick it :rolleyes:
 
So AMD says look at our cheaper system doing the same thing as Intel's expensive system, but couldn't you compare the same AMD system to a i5-2400 and suddenly the Intel is cheaper?

I'm proud of the Llano systems though :)
 
Rattle said:
we're talking about bottum of the line onboard graphics basically
big fucking deal
Click to expand...

Rattle said:
Yes i did and I wasn't referring to the second test, I was referring to the landslide voting of the first test obviously. take your double face and palm and stick it :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

So why did you not mention the entire article instead of cherry picking just one part? oh wait, you wanted to troll.
 
Why do you care?
The myth that amd CPU's game better is pretty funny to me, maybe about 5-6 years ago this was true.
 
Not saying theyre better, just that theyre just as good for gaming up to a point of course. Like I said, a multi GPU setup at 2560x1600 and above will see the benefit to a 2500K but a single card below 2560x2600 wont see that big a difference and more than likely, not one big enough to be noticed.
 
Is it really that hard for some of you to believe that people really could not tell the difference and in some cases thought the FX was better?
 
jreinlie4 said:
Is it really that hard for some of you to believe that people really could not tell the difference and in some cases thought the FX was better?
Click to expand...

Of course it's easy to belive - there's plenty of games where both cpus are fast enough to become gpu bottlenecked ;)

And the blinded fanboys will be spreading now more fud about how AMD gives same performance for lower prices since they compared to 2700K convieniently ignoring existence of 2500K or 2400.

New AMD slogan:
"Buy our overpriced, power hungry crap, you won't notice it's slower than Intel anyway" ;)
 
jreinlie4 said:
Says the guy with the 2500k.
Click to expand...

So you would get a CPU that consumes almost twice the amount of power for the same gameplay?

It's a lose-lose situation either way. Llano is good though, that has some pretty impressive performance.
 
Honestly, I couldn't give a shit about how much power the CPU consumes and you can't tell me most people here wouldn't run out and buy a fucking 20000 watt power supply if the next CPU was the fastest thing on the planet and consumed power like a LasVegas Casino.

This are probably the exact same people who never shut their computers off too.
 
It looks like in the screen shots they are using BF3 for the high end setup. I thought it was known that while bulldozer performs subpar to intel in most applications in BF3 they make a surprising fight. So I guess it seems to me the conditions of the experiment were almost perfect but still had a slight bias.
 
You guys who are saying this is a bold move for AMD, do remember: AMD and a lawyer both have one thing in common: they already know the answer to the question they are about to ask. AMD selected the components and the games, and they didn't select them by picking scraps of paper out of a hat ;). They didn't assemble the best bang/buck systems you could get for $500, they compared integrated graphics where we all know AMD will outperform Intel in GPU-limited scenarios. They picked BF3 for the game, and as rudy said ^^^ it is an outlier because BD usually does not do that well compared to SB.

I like both AMD and Intel, and I agree about the CPU not being essential when you are at sane resolutions, but just keep it real, that's all I'm sayin'.
 
XacTactX said:
You guys who are saying this is a bold move for AMD, do remember: AMD and a lawyer both have one thing in common: they already know the answer to the question they are about to ask. AMD selected the components and the games, and they didn't select them by picking scraps of paper out of a hat ;). They didn't assemble the best bang/buck systems you could get for $500, they compared integrated graphics where we all know AMD will outperform Intel in GPU-limited scenarios. They picked BF3 for the game, and as rudy said ^^^ it is an outlier because BD usually does not do that well compared to SB.

I like both AMD and Intel, and I agree about the CPU not being essential when you are at sane resolutions, but just keep it real, that's all I'm sayin'.
Click to expand...

duh they are a business what do you expect. but its still a bold move especially when you are primarily dealing with enthusiast gamers. because we know our shit. we spend 100's of hours in front of high end computers a week compared to the average person so in essence we should be able to see the difference before any one else.

um no technically they did it correctly.. other then the motherboard and processor they took every variable out of the equation.. they used the same motherboard manufacture, they used the same ram, power supply and graphic card in the high end system. and of course they didn't get the best bang for the buck system when it came to the low end stuff. they used an average price that OEM's use for both similar system's, duh.

i don't see why everyones getting so pissed about the low end system test, we all fucking knew what the outcome was going to be and we have known it a long time. no matter what the out come wouldn't be any different other then people saying they didn't notice a difference if they used dedicated cards in both systems or not. but then its no longer a 500 dollar system now is it? either way the point they made is sound. for the same price as the intel system you can build an AMD system and actually be able to play games on it without having to get a dedicated card which is a huge deal in the low end and OEM market.

people need to quit finding excuses and faults in shit for no reason, its really starting to get old. if you have no clue what the average desktop buyer wants or needs then just be quiet. not everyone needs some balls out system like we do. the average consumer wants something that can browse the web, use a few applications and maybe some light gaming. the superior processing power of the i3 means dick to them. its not going to make them browse the net faster, its not going to make a difference with their facebook games or flash video's, and it sure as heck isn't going to play CODMW3 or BF3.
 
What did they expect if they don't have games that stress the CPU? Like mmorpg, strategy or rpg (skyrim, cough). Shooters have always been more demanding on the GPU in general. This was a biased setup from the beginning, so that AMD would get at least a draw. Reminds me of the PR embarassment when they portrayed BD 1 fps ahead of a 2600K in BF3...in 1600p. At 20fps...

Fact remains, a Bulldozer is just vastly inferior in gaming when you actually need the power. If you're GPU bound and/or don't play CPU demanding games, of course you will not notice a difference. But WHEN you need the power during an intense action scene with alot of AI, physics etc., Bulldozer lags behind by a very large margin.
 
sirmonkey1985 said:
duh they are a business what do you expect. but its still a bold move especially when you are primarily dealing with enthusiast gamers. because we know our shit. we spend 100's of hours in front of high end computers a week compared to the average person so in essence we should be able to see the difference before any one else.
Click to expand...

Well yeah twisting reality and setting tests for the most optimal scenario for your product is what everyone sane expects from marketing departments. And that's where exactly where enthusiast need to step in to call bullshit when they see it.

um no technically they did it correctly.. other then the motherboard and processor they took every variable out of the equation.. they used the same motherboard manufacture, they used the same ram, power supply and graphic card in the high end system. and of course they didn't get the best bang for the buck system when it came to the low end stuff. they used an average price that OEM's use for both similar system's, duh.
Click to expand...

Yeah and they used $300 Intel CPU to show their product is cheaper for "same" performance knowing well result would be the same with $220 2500K.

for the same price as the intel system you can build an AMD system and actually be able to play games on it without having to get a dedicated card which is a huge deal in the low end and OEM market.
Click to expand...

And for the same price you can get Intel SB pentium with $40-50 GPU and have same performance as AMD rig...

people need to quit finding excuses and faults in shit for no reason, its really starting to get old. if you have no clue what the average desktop buyer wants or needs then just be quiet. not everyone needs some balls out system like we do. the average consumer wants something that can browse the web, use a few applications and maybe some light gaming. the superior processing power of the i3 means dick to them. its not going to make them browse the net faster, its not going to make a difference with their facebook games or flash video's, and it sure as heck isn't going to play CODMW3 or BF3.
Click to expand...

Same logic applies to GPU power of Llano - average buyer doesn't need it to browse the web or read e-mails or play some facebook crap.
 
Just in case you guys aren't buying my assessment ^^^, look at SB versus BD in Battlefield 3, then look at SB versus BD general performance in 20 different benchmarks. Battlefield 3 is an outlier.

Michaelius said:
Well yeah twisting reality and setting tests for the most optimal scenario for your product is what everyone sane expects from marketing departments. And that's where exactly where enthusiast need to step in to call bullshit when they see it.



Yeah and they used $300 Intel CPU to show their product is cheaper for "same" performance knowing well result would be the same with $220 2500K.



And for the same price you can get Intel SB pentium with $40-50 GPU and have same performance as AMD rig...



Same logic applies to GPU power of Llano - average buyer doesn't need it to browse the web or read e-mails or play some facebook crap.
Click to expand...

Thanks for saving my hands from carpal tunnel syndrome. Better you than me as they say. :p

The fact remains that when AMD did internal testing for Llano/BD versus Sandy Bridge with the platforms that it used for the reality check, if they had found that SB gives a higher framerate and a smoother experience (this isn't rocket science, believe me it can be done), they would not have done the reality check, or they would have changed the testing parameters. There is nothing bold about this.
 
Last edited:
Michaelius said:
And for the same price you can get Intel SB pentium with $40-50 GPU and have same performance as AMD rig...
Click to expand...

The low end test was with equal value computers. In that case, adding a $50 GPU would mean the Intel box costs more. There may be situations where getting a cheaper Intel CPU and adding a GPU might have equal performance, but I'm not sure it could be done for the same price and the AMD.
 
rudy said:
It looks like in the screen shots they are using BF3 for the high end setup. I thought it was known that while bulldozer performs subpar to intel in most applications in BF3 they make a surprising fight. So I guess it seems to me the conditions of the experiment were almost perfect but still had a slight bias.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I kind of ignored the cherry picked test. On properly configured systems (being a vendor set up test, I doubt as much effort was put into configuring the competing system), over many games in real game play, the performance would probably be similar or at least not too noticeably different between the two processors despite one CPU generally being significantly faster.

There is a market for the higher end processors, but generally gaming doesn't show the differences in real gameplay, except in contrived circumstances. ex: highlighting game engine/level design framerate issues (oh em gee, one dips to 16fps and the "better" one only dips to 22fps... ok, over how many frames?), running in low graphics or resolution settings, timedemos, etc
 
xIronCrossx said:
AMD winning at an AMD event.
Click to expand...

Haters gonna hate eh fan. No one knew what was in the system other than the booth guy. I played on both system and serious could not tell the difference.

Let me know when or if INTEL does an event like this for gamers.
 
nxcess said:
Haters gonna hate eh fan. No one knew what was in the system other than the booth guy. I played on both system and serious could not tell the difference.

Let me know when or if INTEL does an event like this for gamers.
Click to expand...

This.

First of all I like that AMD is having events like this and reaching out to the enthusiast crowd. All we ever hear is how insignificant we are to the market and who cares what we think. Its nice when somebody like AMD comes in and strokes out egos a little.

And I just dont have a problem with this thing. Its not showing that BD is better than SB, its just proving that you can have equally good gaming performance on a AMD system as you can an Intel system. For guys like me that only use their computers for internet, overclocking and gaming, thats great. Guys like me dont really care that a SB can encode a video 20 seconds faster.
 
Corvette said:
The low end test was with equal value computers. In that case, adding a $50 GPU would mean the Intel box costs more. There may be situations where getting a cheaper Intel CPU and adding a GPU might have equal performance, but I'm not sure it could be done for the same price and the AMD.
Click to expand...

Good, you are using your critical thinking skills (I'm not being sarcastic). Let's see what we can come up with for the same price.

The i3 2105 currently costs $125 at Newegg. Instead of that, you could get the Celeron G530 for $52 and a PowerColor 6670 DDR3 for $70 for about the same price as the 2105 (or better after the rebate and free software). Would this setup outperform the A8-3850? Maybe, maybe not. Would it outperform the i3-2105 in gaming? Hell yes. If you are being really anal about it and the GPU can't be AMD then you could use the nVidia GT440 for $75 and still come pretty close to the 6670.

So yes AMD chose a lopsided configuration (if you are not dependent on integrated graphics).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top