• A Great friend to the HardForum with a great kid that he is trying to get a scholorship to continue his schooling. Please give hime a vote! Only 24 hours left! Thanks.
    If you have an VOTE FOR KEENAN!

Any amd cpu worth gaming on?

S

SticKx911

2[H]4U
2FA
Joined
Mar 14, 2004
Messages
3,136
I've got an fx4100 and it bottlenecks my gtx480. Sad but true. Games I play right now are just swtor and deusex:hr, so nothing new or super high end.

Desus ex gets choppy and my gpu never peaks over 70% use while my cpu is at 100% at all times.

Why amd again? well I can't afford to redo my whole system. I already have an amX waterblock that I really like, and I'd rather not have to spring for a new one.

Maybe there are CPU intensive things I can turn down?
 
amd is leagues behind intel. the 2500k destroyed them in games.
 
Get a 8320 and overclock it or get a Phenom II X4 and overclock that and you'll have enough cpu horsepower for that 480. The Bulldozer quads are pretty sad. Even me being a fanboy can't deny that.
 
MacLeod said:
Get a 8320 and overclock it or get a Phenom II X4 and overclock that and you'll have enough cpu horsepower for that 480. The Bulldozer quads are pretty sad. Even me being a fanboy can't deny that.
Click to expand...

I'd have to go with this advice as well, only real options, as Bulldozer just isn't really worth it.

dremic said:
amd is leagues behind intel. the 2500k destroyed them in games.
Click to expand...

If he wasn't so set with the AMD blocks, I'd recommend a 2500K as well, or a 3570K (got mine for like $150 on sale at Micro Center). They're just much better for gaming.
 
thanks for the input. I wish I'd have gone intel, but I just can't justify redoing the whole thing when I just re-did this rig a couple months ago.
 
SticKx911 said:
thanks for the input. I wish I'd have gone intel, but I just can't justify redoing the whole thing when I just re-did this rig a couple months ago.
Click to expand...

Right, no point. Just go with a slightly better AMD CPU then. It's not like they're AWFUL, it's just quite there with Intel. You'll still get great frames, as the 480 is a great card too (albeit a bit hot; waterblock on this bad boy too, or?).
 
Yeah you can still have a very capable gaming rig with no bottlenecks by running an AMD chip, just not the FX-4000 chips. Any of the 8000's or old Phenom It's with a decent overclock are plenty to handle any single card system at 2560x1600 and under. Get into the multiple GPU's and multiple monitors, that's when Intel extra performance really starts to come into play.
 
BiH115 said:
Right, no point. Just go with a slightly better AMD CPU then. It's not like they're AWFUL, it's just quite there with Intel. You'll still get great frames, as the 480 is a great card too (albeit a bit hot; waterblock on this bad boy too, or?).
Click to expand...

yea, both on water. :)

x4 965 or spend the extra 100 on a 8xx0?

965 seems like the only x4 still in production.
 
SticKx911 said:
yea, both on water. :)

x4 965 or spend the extra 100 on a 8xx0?

965 seems like the only x4 still in production.
Click to expand...

965 would probably be significantly cheaper, no? I'd probably pony up for the 8xxx and call it a day, keep the PC for a while. If not keeping it for a while, grab the cheaper. IMO.
 
BiH115 said:
965 would probably be significantly cheaper, no? I'd probably pony up for the 8xxx and call it a day, keep the PC for a while. If not keeping it for a while, grab the cheaper. IMO.
Click to expand...


yea, 965 is only 85 at amazon, while the 8xxx's are 180-200.

thanks for the input. I really appreciate it.
 
SticKx911 said:
yea, 965 is only 85 at amazon, while the 8xxx's are 180-200.

thanks for the input. I really appreciate it.
Click to expand...

OC the poo out of the 965 IMO, that's probably the better bet money wise. It'll last a bit.
 
no, i just got off AMD last month. tons and tons of games still run mainly on single or 2 cores. AMD has no leg to stand on with its weak cpus. go i5 ivy
 
bloodhawke83 said:
no, i just got off AMD last month. tons and tons of games still run mainly on single or 2 cores. AMD has no leg to stand on with its weak cpus. go i5 ivy
Click to expand...

Kinda sad that the software developers are so lazy huh? Sometimes there are tweaks you can enable that make games run better. For example in Skyrim, if you enable multicore processing via an .ini file, I go from 50 fps to 90 fps while running a ton of mods. My VRAM usage peaks at 2.5GB.
 
I'd look into selling your motherboard and CPU and upgrading to Intel. The forums here have an awesome market place as well as Craigslist (I've sold more on there than I can imagine). Sell the CPU and motherboard for like $200 then put that $100 you have towards a better CPU for a Z77 motherboard.

Look, AMD doesn't completely suck ass, but they're close. Without any bias or hate what so ever I could never in my right mind recommend an AMD CPU.
 
MacLeod said:
Yep, if you game at 800x600, AMD isn't for you. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

800x600 or 4K same min fps, gpu load doesn't matter when you are cpu limited, ps2 and arma 3 can utilize only 2 cores, AMD cpus are lagging behind in these performance scenarios since conroe came out, the price difference between 3570k and 8350 is also pretty small to justify the latter choice, an i5 750 clocked to 4ghz still does the job while a bulldozer don't, accept the fact or stick with games that actually utilise 4cores+ like crysis 3.
 
MavericK96 said:
Seems as though you don't understand the reason for using those settings to test CPUs... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Nope, I totally understand what it's used for in comparing 1 core to another. However it is totally useless in showing if one CPU is a capable gaming processor.
 
Running my fx6300 at 4.4GHZ and a 7950. Runs crysis/bf3 smoothly. Borderlands gets choppy when there's a lot of physx situations but that's a given.

Depending on your mobo and cooling there's more headroom too. I can game at 4.8ghz with no throttling or temp issues but get throttling while stressing testing, and don't see a significant gain in FPS.

http://www.overclockers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=719556 - decent thread on comparisons of the chips in this range.
 
AMD processors run really well when fed multithreaded software or presented with multiple tasks such as streaming and gaming at the same time. If you only use a couple of it's cores then you're only using 25% of the chip. That's what the problem is and that's a software development / consumer awareness issue. I'm waiting on the next generation to come out before I upgrade again, but the Vishera chips look mighty tempting as they are priced right.
 
MacLeod said:
Nope, I totally understand what it's used for in comparing 1 core to another. However it is totally useless in showing if one CPU is a capable gaming processor.
Click to expand...

Well...if it's significantly slower than another offering, it's not magically going to be faster when you up all the detail settings and resolution...
 
SticKx911 said:
I've got an fx4100 and it bottlenecks my gtx480. Sad but true. Games I play right now are just swtor and deusex:hr, so nothing new or super high end.

Desus ex gets choppy and my gpu never peaks over 70% use while my cpu is at 100% at all times.
Click to expand...

For comparison, maybe it helps you.
I just build an FX8350 and put an old Radeon 5830, both at stock speeds... Deus Ex: HR works butter smooth.
GPU works at like 80% on 1080p, CPU at low % usage.
 
Loser_guy said:
Running my fx6300 at 4.4GHZ and a 7950. Runs crysis/bf3 smoothly. Borderlands gets choppy when there's a lot of physx situations but that's a given.

Depending on your mobo and cooling there's more headroom too. I can game at 4.8ghz with no throttling or temp issues but get throttling while stressing testing, and don't see a significant gain in FPS.

http://www.overclockers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=719556 - decent thread on comparisons of the chips in this range.
Click to expand...

Huh, that's weird. My Borderlands 2 never gets choppy ever at any time and i've got a much slower system then yours. Maybe you need to update your video card drivers or re-test the stability of your overclock.
 
ZodaEX said:
Huh, that's weird. My Borderlands 2 never gets choppy ever at any time and i've got a much slower system then yours. Maybe you need to update your video card drivers or re-test the stability of your overclock.
Click to expand...

He probably runs higher PhysX settings, and considering it's an AMD card...
 
SoFGR said:
800x600 or 4K same min fps, gpu load doesn't matter when you are cpu limited, ps2 and arma 3 can utilize only 2 cores, AMD cpus are lagging behind in these performance scenarios since conroe came out, the price difference between 3570k and 8350 is also pretty small to justify the latter choice, an i5 750 clocked to 4ghz still does the job while a bulldozer don't, accept the fact or stick with games that actually utilise 4cores+ like crysis 3.
Click to expand...

its not just cpu to cpu, going intel requires a new board (an os reinstall) and a new waterblock. that puts me in the $400 range which isn't something I'm going to do just to play 1 game better. I'd just as soon drop the rez.
 
MavericK96 said:
Well...if it's significantly slower than another offering, it's not magically going to be faster when you up all the detail settings and resolution...
Click to expand...

But it exaggerates the difference. Put a 8350 and a 3770K up against each other with each running a GTX680 and running 1920x1080, the performance is going to be about the same. If you base it off only those 15 year old games at resolutions lower than my smart phone, it looks like you couldn't even boot into Windows with a AMD chip.

So those benches are useful for comparing one core's performance against another but its not an accurate representation of how good a gaming processor it will be. Im getting the exact same frame rates in Crysis 3 with my GTX670 and 8150 that [H] got with their GTX670 and i7 at 1920x1080.
 
Found this since I just realized you're mainly interested in Deus ex performance:

[snip] never mind, I guess [H] likes to censor everything that isn't [H]... fx6300 benched at 86 fps, fx 430 benched at 70. 2500k - 105 fps.

And I assume that's at stock speeds, +1GHZ OC would probably be close a stock 2500k/3570. Honestly I think you will be GPU bottlenecked at that point depending on what res you play at.
 
It's only 3 fps difference. Is it worth it to the OP to spend that much money for 3 fps? Is 3 fps going to make the game any more enjoyable?
 
Loser_guy said:
[snip] never mind, I guess [H] likes to censor everything that isn't [H]... fx6300 benched at 86 fps, fx 430 benched at 70. 2500k - 105 fps.
Click to expand...
Nope. If that was true, none of the AT links or even, ugh, Tom's Hardware links would be accessible. Generally when a site is blocked here, if it's a tech site, it usually means they have a habit of breaking NDA early in order to garner more web hits, their owners have been total dicks to HardOCP or they've done something unethical.
 
MacLeod said:
That actually makes my point. Look at those frame rates. The 8350 is neck and neck with the 2600K. The i7 is faster but by a very small margin and not enough to make a difference. You can't compare to the 2011 chips because they're $600 and $1000 vs the $180 FX-8350.
Click to expand...

look @ the graph again, 2500k is clocked 700mhz lower than the 8350. (3.3ghz vs 4.0) get your facts straight
 
SoFGR said:
look @ the graph again, 2500k is clocked 700mhz lower than the 8350. (3.3ghz vs 4.0) get your facts straight
Click to expand...

So what? I know youre just looking for something to argue about but youre gonna have to try harder. It's long been established and everybody agrees that Intel is faster clock for clock. All we're talking about here is if a 8300 is a perfectly capable gaming chip which it is and these benchmarks prove.
 
these benchmarks prove nothing ! AI is a HUGE performance hog right now http://forums.bistudio.com/showthre...e-completely-(instructions-how-to-test-inside)

last time I played ps2 an i5 2500k clocked @ 4.5 ghz was barely adequate to keep the framerates above 40 during massive firefights inside buildings, can the average 8350 clock up to 5.2 ghz ? I think not !

Haven't touched the game since mid february tho, maybe it is more optimized now.
 
No it wont do 5.2 but it'll get up into the upper 4's and at that speed will be close enough to the 2500K that you wont see a difference. While 42 fps vs 39 fps is definitely a win in benchmarks, its not a difference you're gonna pick up in real world gameplay. Again, not saying AMD is faster, just that they're fast enough and are perfectly capable in a gaming rig.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top