AMD vs Intel – Our 8-Core CPU Gaming Performance Showdown!

cageymaru

cageymaru

Fully [H]
2FA
Joined
Apr 10, 2003
Messages
23,548
It's been pretty common knowledge that Intel's high end CPUs don't fair that well in gaming compared to quad core i5 or even i7 CPUs. I would like to see that test done again with an i5 4690k instead.

I wish I knew exactly what they used to test the FPS (as far as how they played the game) so I can test a few of those games myself on my SLI 970 GTX setup with the above mentioned CPU.
 
Your 4690k would probably fair the same as that rebadged Xeon did seeing as how these results are at 4K, meaning that the situation becomes predominately GPU-bound where the differences in STP between the Vishera and Intel chips becomes almost moot.
 
well.. it was a 8 core vs 8 core CPU so isn't unfair.. but, personally I would have just tested the 5960X with HT disabled.. so it would perform like a truly pure 8 core CPU.

also lol'd badly at the "Ultra High end" GPU configuration used with those crap GTX 970s. with not 980TIs? Why not Titan X?. that's the kind of typical dual GPU setup someone can find in a i7 5960X system not some crap 970s playing at 4K. =/ that's my only complain.
 
cageymaru said:
AMD vs Intel – Our 8-Core CPU Gaming Performance Showdown!
http://www.technologyx.com/featured/amd-vs-intel-our-8-core-cpu-gaming-performance-showdown/

AMD FX-9370 vs Intel i7-5960X at stock and overclocked settings. They are paired with single Nvidia video cards and SLi. Let the numbers tell the tale as to what you get as far as gaming goes by stepping up to Intel's premier platform from AMD's 3 year old platform using modern games.
Click to expand...

5960x is not any better than the current line of i7-4xxx cpus with gaming as has been said. This is no secret and really, there has not been a huge development for CPUs as far as gaming is concerned since Sandy Bridge. If you were to compare the 5960x vs 2600k @ same clocks, you would get similar results.

That being said, these results are a lot closer than any other review of the FX-9370 vs. 4770/4790k. Seems a little strange, but every testing environment is different. While the FX-9370 competes with Intel in some games, other games Intel will blow it away. Its still a great budget processor but has its downfalls as well.

Next, how many games utilize 8 cores? Seriously.... The 5960x is not even marketing to gamers. Its for people who can actually utilize 16 threads and have a need. Would you like me to link you to the i7-4590k beating up your precious AMD 8 core? Because they do exist....

Not sure why you keep trying to push AMD as being the 2nd coming of christ.... The days of our beloved Athlon XP processors are gone.
 
I just linked the article so people can see what performance boost in gaming that users can get by upgrading from an AMD 8 core to an Intel 8 core using modern games. Why people think I have some agenda is beyond me. I even used the article's title as the title of the thread.

What else do you want me to do to remain objective?
 
People who have an 8 core AMD gaming rig wont be upgrading to an Intel 8 core setup. lol
 
cageymaru said:
I just linked the article so people can see what performance boost in gaming that users can get by upgrading from an AMD 8 core to an Intel 8 core using modern games. Why people think I have some agenda is beyond me. I even used the article's title as the title of the thread.

What else do you want me to do to remain objective?
Click to expand...

You do have an agenda, and its obvious to everyone by your posts. You consistently post pro-AMD reviews to make it look like AMD actually competes with Intel these days.

The guy who is looking at an 8-core AMD cpu for gaming is looking at the Intel 4590/4790k (soon to be 6600/6700k). When you look at the 2 processors on paper, hands down a smart man would pick Intel.

Do you really believe people (other than a small percentage of fools) compare the AMD 8 core to the Intel 8 core???? How many games are even optimized for 8 cores (or 6 core for that matter)? They link CS:GO in your article.. Seriously? This is not a CPU bound game. Many of the games they tested are not CPU bound by any means.

So yes, I do believe you have an agenda, as does the writer of the article.
 
doz said:
You do have an agenda, and its obvious to everyone by your posts. You consistently post pro-AMD reviews to make it look like AMD actually competes with Intel these days.

The guy who is looking at an 8-core AMD cpu for gaming is looking at the Intel 4590/4790k (soon to be 6600/6700k). When you look at the 2 processors on paper, hands down a smart man would pick Intel.

Do you really believe people (other than a small percentage of fools) compare the AMD 8 core to the Intel 8 core???? How many games are even optimized for 8 cores (or 6 core for that matter)? They link CS:GO in your article.. Seriously? This is not a CPU bound game. Many of the games they tested are not CPU bound by any means.

So yes, I do believe you have an agenda, as does the writer of the article.
Click to expand...

How dense can you be? The title of the article makes it blatantly clear that it's a 8-core vs 8-core comparison, and the charts say really fucking clearly that it's ALL 4K RESULTS, which means even those SLI 970's will be GPU-BOUND, meaning that the discrepancies between the single-threaded performance of those processors will be rendered mostly moot. I don't see what's so hard to understand about that. It's not propaganda, it's just another use-case scenario.

If you wanna talk about agendas, then how about you cry about the fact that most echo-chamber "tech" sites that do these GPU/CPU reviews are paid reviews bought out by Intel and Nvidia? No one seems to raise a stink over that, especially when websites blatantly fabricate results or websites post appallingly contradictory information. But the moment someone posts something that shows an AMD product not outright sucking, suddenly it's FUD? Get over yourselves lol, jesus.

/rant
 
Here are some more benchmarks. Here from AT, we have the Intel i3 keeping pace with AMD's 8 core: http://www.anandtech.com/show/8316/...the-fx9590-and-asrock-990fx-extreme9-review/8

XBL has the 4670k and 4770k hanging with or destroying AMD 8 core: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/amd-fx-9590-9370_5.html#sect0

And again here at HC, the 4770k doling out the 8 core punishment: http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...66-amd-fx-9590-review-piledriver-5ghz-15.html


So again, what is the point of compared AMD 8 core vs. Intel 8 core? They are not even in the same league.... They are not made to do the same thing. AMD marketed its 8 core towards gaming (at one point, not sure if they still do??). I dont think Intel has ever marketed its 8 core towards gaming. You are trying to compare apples to oranges here. Whats next, comparing an NV quadro vs. AMD R9 390x for gaming?
 
Lets let the AMD fans do their thing. We need them to get better so Intel gets back on their toes.
 
I completely agree. 6700k is supposed to release @ $350 which is starting to creep up, every damn release... I am just saying its pointless to try and compare the 2.

Just like AMD needs to do a bit better job on the graphics side of things as well.
 
Calling me a fool for linking a damn article. An article the Steve posted on the damn front page of [H]ardocp. Yes, that's where I saw it first because you know; I like reading tech news. Does that make both of us fools?

Hell I even annotated an image of the front page so that you can see for yourself.

zy4P3VZ.png
 
Lots of shit is posted on the front page that is worthless.... Just because its posted on the front page news, does not mean its worthwhile.
 
Skillz said:
People who have an 8 core AMD gaming rig wont be upgrading to an Intel 8 core setup. lol
Click to expand...

Actually I would upgrade to a 6 core x99 if I were to go Intel. I need more of a performance bump before I do that though.
 
doz said:
Lots of shit is posted on the front page that is worthless.... Just because its posted on the front page news, does not mean its worthwhile.
Click to expand...

Then maybe you should start writing tech articles so that I can read and link those also. Mr. Objective.
 
cageymaru said:
Actually I would upgrade to a 6 core x99 if I were to go Intel. I need more of a performance bump before I do that though.
Click to expand...

Why would you upgrade to a 6 core x99 if the CPU you currently have rocks the 8 core? :rolleyes:
 
Because everything is totally GPU limited this article is totally pointless. They could just as easily have compared either to a i5 2500k and gotten the same results. The results wouldn't even be that different with an i3.
 
doz said:
5960x is not any better than the current line of i7-4xxx cpus with gaming as has been said. This is no secret and really, there has not been a huge development for CPUs as far as gaming is concerned since Sandy Bridge. If you were to compare the 5960x vs 2600k @ same clocks, you would get similar results.

That being said, these results are a lot closer than any other review of the FX-9370 vs. 4770/4790k. Seems a little strange, but every testing environment is different. While the FX-9370 competes with Intel in some games, other games Intel will blow it away. Its still a great budget processor but has its downfalls as well.

Next, how many games utilize 8 cores? Seriously.... The 5960x is not even marketing to gamers. Its for people who can actually utilize 16 threads and have a need. Would you like me to link you to the i7-4590k beating up your precious AMD 8 core? Because they do exist....
Click to expand...
Good points.

Clock speed and #cores actually being used to full potential are the caveats to this review. The AMD chips are gaining a little ground on the Intel's here due to being clocked slightly higher than the Intel's. The number of cores makes zero difference here also. If you are going to compare performance based on number of cores, at least use programs that can use it. Not one of the games being tested can use 8 cores, and we won't see much improvement in this area till DX12 is shown in a fully working game.

The other thing they are doing that is fishy is using a GTX 960 mid range card (first couple pages). Most games are GPU limited anyways, so in a way they are potentially introducing an artificial frame rate cap. Not only that, they use the GTX 960 on games that aren't very GPU intensive to begin with (CS:GO. DOTA2, seriously?) then proceed to not test those same games with the more powerful GPU's later on. Would it make any real world difference on these games if they had? No, but it would show the difference that more CPU power can do, especially since AMD FX cpu's have been known to bottleneck multiple video cards in the past. Sure DX12 will alleviate some of this bottleneck, but mentioning DX12 is an irrelevant counterpoint to this when the article only uses DX11 and older games.

So this review only serves 2 functions.
1. To make the toes curl on idiot fanboys and give them more fodder to misinterpret to make their non-objective points.
2. To tell the rest of the intelligent crowd the same thing we have always known: You don't have to have a $1000 CPU to play games well.


rive22 said:
Lets let the AMD fans do their thing. We need them to get better so Intel gets back on their toes.
Click to expand...

Too bad there aren't a lot of them with money to spend. When a company like AMD gives up trying to lead in the high margin markets (e.g. Server/Workstation, high end gaming) they are stuck with low margin, low end parts and have to move more inventory. With AMD rarely making it into the black, that means they aren't selling enough inventory either.
 
Last edited:
doz said:
Why would you upgrade to a 6 core x99 if the CPU you currently have rocks the 8 core? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Hopefully being able to enable a slower, more intensive OBS rendering profile. Could just build a rendering machine dedicated to it for less though.
 
CaptNumbNutz said:
Good points.

Clock speed and #cores actually being used to full potential are the caveats to this review. The AMD chips are gaining a little ground on the Intel's here due to being clocked slightly higher than the Intel's. The number of cores makes zero difference here also. If you are going to compare performance based on number of cores, at least use programs that can use it. Not one of the games being tested can use 8 cores, and we won't see much improvement in this area till DX12 is shown in a fully working game.

The other thing they are doing that is fishy is using a GTX 960 mid range card (first couple pages). Most games are GPU limited anyways, so in a way they are potentially introducing an artificial frame rate cap. Not only that, they use the GTX 960 on games that aren't very GPU intensive to begin with (CS:GO. DOTA2, seriously?) then proceed to not test those same games with the more powerful GPU's later on. Would it make any real world difference on these games if they had? No, but it would show the difference that more CPU power can do, especially since AMD FX cpu's have been known to bottleneck multiple video cards in the past. Sure DX12 will alleviate some of this bottleneck, but mentioning DX12 is an irrelevant counterpoint to this when the article only uses DX11 and older games.

So this review only serves 2 functions.
1. To make the toes curl on idiot fanboys and give them more fodder to misinterpret to make their non-objective points.
2. To tell the rest of the intelligent crowd the same thing we have always known: You don't have to have a $1000 CPU to play games well.




Too bad there aren't a lot of them with money to spend. When a company like AMD gives up trying to lead in the high margin markets (e.g. Server/Workstation, high end gaming) they are stuck with low margin, low end parts and have to move more inventory. With AMD rarely making it into the black, that means they aren't selling enough inventory either.
Click to expand...

^Good job sir,

With this post this thread should simply End.
 
This might not add to the discussion much, but really who is? I find it really humorous how people on either 'side' get really offended because they feel they have to justify their purchase. I personally find the article informative because rather than break it down into a laboratory experiment playing a game with Titans at 800x600, they show that at commonly used settings and resolutions either CPU can hit the refresh rate commonly used by monitors.
 
I have an FX 8320 and an i7 4930k. Most of the time there are no noticeable differences between the two. The AMD chip certainly cost a lot less. I expected more of a boost from the i7 in certain games, but unless you're pushing multiple GPUs and super high resolutions it just doesn't seem to matter.
 
Maybe this is a little bit hard to believe but comparing the cpu is not going to matter much.
Btw CaptNumbNutz AMD did not give up but the funds for closing the gap on Intel just were not available nor was there any decent plan to tackle this. Having said that Mantle does show people that when the API is not the limiting factor AMD can do well. on higher batch count games FX8350 (or better) can still be very worthwhile processor running Mantle DX12/Vulkan games.
 
Cpu only really matters when your using a mgpu setup or when a game is cpu limited. For example my brother and I own the same exact gpu, a r9 290, but he uses a 8350 and I run a 4690k. When the game is gpu limited, we get almost the exact performance. But in games like Planetside 2 for example, in a big fight I can get a 20-30fps increase over his 8350.
 
Killerxp100 said:
Cpu only really matters when your using a mgpu setup or when a game is cpu limited. For example my brother and I own the same exact gpu, a r9 290, but he uses a 8350 and I run a 4690k. When the game is gpu limited, we get almost the exact performance. But in games like Planetside 2 for example, in a big fight I can get a 20-30fps increase over his 8350.
Click to expand...

Another title that was CPU limited at launch, but is much better after a myriad of developer patches is ARMA 3. At launch it ran like crap on my FX-9370 because it utilized only one thread. After patches it runs very well, and I have zero performance issues with the game. Red Orchestra's performance picked up tremendously after some patching also.

Most of the time nowadays I VSR my games to 4K resolutions as they look great and my R9 290 can handle most titles with ease. Only the most cutting edge games will give me poor performance and usually it takes a couple of developer performance patches for those to work well at higher resolutions. If 4K isn't an option due to performance issues, then I VSR to 1440p. VSR just looks fabulous in general and makes gaming comparisons at higher resolution very relevant for me.

Next purchase will be a Korean Crossover 46" or Wasabi Mango 55" 4K FreeSync monitor. Even if my single R9 290 can't push enough pixels for 4K, I can scale back the resolution to 1440p as all of my games work beautifully at that resolution. But that upgrade won't be until this Winter at the earliest.
 
Deimos said:
WTF? the FX-9370 is a 220W CPU?
Click to expand...

The 8 core AMD's run pretty damn hot and pull lots of power. It's one of the many reasons they get trashed by people like myself. In addition the 990FX platform is fucking archaic at this point.
 
Well maybe you need to revisit pcie 2.0 vs pcie 3.0 with current gpu's and resolutions. Because your own article from a couple years ago didn't show much of a difference.
I do agree that AMD needs to get with current specs, but we all know that will not be until next year. I know I couldn't find any hard core proof that pcie 3.0 really matters that much at this point in time. So what is the purpose of having an negative attitude towards something they probably really doesn't matter a whole bunch.
 
Dan_D said:
The 8 core AMD's run pretty damn hot and pull lots of power. It's one of the many reasons they get trashed by people like myself. In addition the 990FX platform is fucking archaic at this point.
Click to expand...

Modern day Intel chips run really hot too, especially just about anything on the x99 platform. And the x99 chips whore up power just as bad, if not in some cases worse than the AM3+ stuff does. Of course the Intel chips outperform the AMD stuff, but that doesn't change the fact that Intel chips run hot and can pull a lot of power as well.

The 990fx chipset is old as hell (it's literally a rebadged 800 chipset for the most part) but it's not like PCIe 3.0 is a big deal or anything. I'm not sure if they ever made boards that had SATA3 support or not. So "archaic" is only really correct if you're some mega-power user who needs as many PCIe lanes as possible or you're just referring to the age of the platform itself.
 
CaptNumbNutz said:
Too bad there aren't a lot of them with money to spend. When a company like AMD gives up trying to lead in the high margin markets (e.g. Server/Workstation, high end gaming) they are stuck with low margin, low end parts and have to move more inventory. With AMD rarely making it into the black, that means they aren't selling enough inventory either.
Click to expand...

AMD shot themselves in the foot when they said they did not want to compete in the high end market
 
AMD said that because it was the only possible outcome. They were stuck with an underperforming, ill-designed architecture that couldn't scale the way it was meant to scale. You can't just pull an amazing micro-architecture out of your ass at the drop of a hat like that. When they realized they wouldn't be able to bring Steamroller and Excavator to smaller process nodes due to GloFo failing as usual, they could only reorganize their priorities and focus on APU's.

We saw their last shout-out to the high-end with their FX Centurion 9000 series. Yes it was just high-binned, high-clocked Vishera parts, but it was the only thing they could do since they didn't have a suitable process node to move to (for Opteron parts.) With Zen, they are clearly looking to return to the high-end sector. HEDT will get rebranded Opterons marked as FX parts, as per the tradition since the original Athlon 64.
 
doz said:
Lots of shit is posted on the front page that is worthless.... Just because its posted on the front page news, does not mean its worthwhile.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes: Going from an 8 core AMD to a 4 core Intel is a complete waste of money, even with the 6700k. Anything less than the 5820k on the Intel side is not worth the money to upgrade to anymore. If you do not like that, tough.

However, enjoy getting a new mainboard everytime you want to upgrade to the next Intel processor. Personally, I prefer more unbiased articles to Intel biased articles that are out there.
 
Last edited:
doz said:
Why would you upgrade to a 6 core x99 if the CPU you currently have rocks the 8 core? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Guess you are one of those AMD should die in a fire people, eh? Perhaps it is because the 5820k is far better than your 2600k?
 
Last edited:
atom said:
This might not add to the discussion much, but really who is? I find it really humorous how people on either 'side' get really offended because they feel they have to justify their purchase. I personally find the article informative because rather than break it down into a laboratory experiment playing a game with Titans at 800x600, they show that at commonly used settings and resolutions either CPU can hit the refresh rate commonly used by monitors.
Click to expand...

Thank you, finally, someone gets it and actually shows respect to all here. Personally, I am irritable today so seeing folks that own Intel jump on someone just because it does not show their precious processor in the way they want it to be shown annoys me. Now that I think about it, it makes me laugh a bit as well. Guess they need to justify their purchases by talking down to others.

cageymaru said:
Another title that was CPU limited at launch, but is much better after a myriad of developer patches is ARMA 3. At launch it ran like crap on my FX-9370 because it utilized only one thread. After patches it runs very well, and I have zero performance issues with the game. Red Orchestra's performance picked up tremendously after some patching also.

Most of the time nowadays I VSR my games to 4K resolutions as they look great and my R9 290 can handle most titles with ease. Only the most cutting edge games will give me poor performance and usually it takes a couple of developer performance patches for those to work well at higher resolutions. If 4K isn't an option due to performance issues, then I VSR to 1440p. VSR just looks fabulous in general and makes gaming comparisons at higher resolution very relevant for me.

Next purchase will be a Korean Crossover 46" or Wasabi Mango 55" 4K FreeSync monitor. Even if my single R9 290 can't push enough pixels for 4K, I can scale back the resolution to 1440p as all of my games work beautifully at that resolution. But that upgrade won't be until this Winter at the earliest.
Click to expand...

I have been using a 28 inch Samsung 4k monitor and it looks fantastic. Although the newest games will not play at max settings at 4k, it does not need to since they still look fantastic and much better than at 1080p. :)

dcds1 said:
Well maybe you need to revisit pcie 2.0 vs pcie 3.0 with current gpu's and resolutions. Because your own article from a couple years ago didn't show much of a difference.
I do agree that AMD needs to get with current specs, but we all know that will not be until next year. I know I couldn't find any hard core proof that pcie 3.0 really matters that much at this point in time. So what is the purpose of having an negative attitude towards something they probably really doesn't matter a whole bunch.
Click to expand...

I mostly agree but, things like the Intel Nvme based PCIe SSD's requires a 4x PCIe gen 3 slot. There are good reasons for PCIe gen 3, just not as much in the Video card department yet.

NaroonGTX said:
I'm not sure if they ever made boards that had SATA3 support or not.
Click to expand...

All the 990FX chipset's have Sata 3 support. Good thing too because, otherwise, my SSD's would seriously under perform. :D
 
Last edited:
Skillz said:
Lol at people here.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it started to get to me than I realized, chill, it is just a cpu, not the end of the world as we know it. :D Then I read the thread at the bottom of the articles and am getting lots of entertainment value out of it. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top