Any amd cpu worth gaming on?

I tried to get that argument across, MacLeod, in another thread in the AMD Processors forum.

For example...

If an AMD FX 8350 is pushing a game at 55 to 65 FPS on let's say a Radeon HD 7950 and an Intel Core i7 2500K is pushing the same game at 60 to 70 FPS, isn't the 55 to 65 FPS still playable?

The game is running at a good framerate, and it's not like it's going to kill your ego. If you are too picky over 5 or 10 FPS per second and overly competitive or a diehard enthusiast, then maybe don't use the AMD processor.

However, AMD provides just as much the same playing experience in a game as an Intel processor. And, the ONLY PEOPLE THAT'LL CARE about a few frames or tens of frames of second are those DIEHARD [H} ENTHUSIASTS and [H]ARDCORE PC GAMERS.

But, for everyone else that can't tell the difference or don't care or just want to save some money, then an AMD processor is fine for what it is and for gaming even if it doesn't burn Intel at every benchmark.
 
Exactly. The difference won't amount to anything that you'd notice. Now once you get into the super high resolutions and multiple GPU's then those systems can really utilize Intel's extra horsepower and that's when they'll really start to pull ahead but for single GPU systems at single monitor resolutions, AMD has enough horsepower to run those rigs neck and neck with Intel.
 
Interesting video. I swear having a kid has turned me into such a panzy. I kept thinking "awww what a cute baby". Ugh.

But yeah, about right for what we've been saying. Only thing I'd add is when considering cost, look at the 8320 instead since it's $30 cheaper and since it's unlocked, its the same thing as the 8350.
 
I gotta say I got alot of use out of my 955BE... Phenom II is fairly old now but it still shines if you can get 4.1 or 4.2 ghz out of it. Which is totally doable with C3 chips. I'd say that's the reasonable limit on aftermarket air cooling that costs like $30, though. When I built my system Bulldozer mobos had just come out though the processors themselves weren't yet available, so I had to pick up a placeholder cpu. Little did I know, nearly two years later, that I'd still be using it because I realized that I could get a better overclock out of it than I ever would with an actual Bulldozer. It gives my 6970 everything that it needs at 1920x1080 for sure.
 
I have no doubt that i'd get higher framerates with an intel cpu but my phenom 965 drives my 2 6870s well enough to handle ultra settings on bf3 (without msaa) at 1080p. For the price, i can't complain about the performance.
 
Overclock that sucker! Get it up to 3.8 GHz and get the CPU/NB up to 2600 and you'd have a very potent chip and see a decent improvement in frame rates. Those Phenom II's really come to life when you crank up the CPU/NB. ;)
 
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...

I'm running my fx6300 at 4.0 on stock cooling. Stays amazingly cool and stable. Runs everything I throw at it beautifully.
 
All this talk has me wanting a 8350 now! Damn this hobby and its never ending upgrades. :D
 
SticKx911 said:
Desus ex gets choppy and my gpu never peaks over 70% use while my cpu is at 100% at all times.
Click to expand...
About what are you talking about? I played it on my Wolfdale and the incredibly fast NV 8600 GT without any problem.

Also why didn't you get Vishera? These 6-cores are pretty sweet and cheap.
 
Last edited:
Oh stop with the fucking Intel fanboy bitchin fucking peeps.....

AMD is more than enough to power any fuckin nvidia 480 on earth.

an A10-5800K is fast enough and that is with the IGP turned off.

Stop misleading this OP in to buying overpriced intel shit he isnt going to fully use.

Damn I hate fanboy trolling.

OP the FX4100 is pathetic I wont lie. You need to get one of the 8 core chips or an A10-5800K to really shine. The 4100 might as well have been made to power a simple ftp server because that is about all the power it has.
 
I'm actually an AMD fanboy, and I still would've recommended an Intel CPU, if he hadn't already gotten his AMD setup.

As far as "overpriced Intel shit", does a difference of $45 for a vastly better performing CPU really make the i5 3570k overpriced? If anything, the FX-8000 series is grossly overpriced. It's only better than Intel's closest competing CPUs in special cases, and is rarely on par with them. It pisses me off that AMD ever released this garbage. It's Phenom I all over again, except that time, they were closer to Intel in performance, and were extremely competitive once the Phenom II refresh came out.
 
Last edited:
I'm running an 8350 and a 6870 - I can run every single game both smoothly, and graphically enticing. Maybe I'm doing something wrong. I play a wide variety of games, and I play games every single day. I also like to have a million things open at once, and I like to spend as little $ as possible.
 
Can you point to the part of my post that said that it wouldn't play games smoothly? Next time you would like to disagree with one of my posts, don't attack a strawman. ;)
But, now that you mentioned it, various people's definitions of "smooth" tend to be different than others'. Also, just because it runs your games "smoothly" doesn't mean it's running them as well as it could, given a certain graphics card. (Which you would hope for, right?)

http://anandtech.com/bench/Product/698?vs=701
See the bottom four benchmarks. The Core i5-3570k outperforms the FX-8320 in the games tested by an average of 40%. That's a hell of a lot to give up just for some brand loyalty.

Now, I would like to see AMD release a kick-ass product line of CPUs like back in the Athlon 64 glory days just as much as you would, but until they do, I'm not going to use their products, let alone recommend their products to someone just because I like AMD.

I will say that for a workstation, Vishera isn't bad, (and in some cases, can be quite good) but given how close they are in price to Intel CPUs, the workstation would have to be used for a very specific purpose (which workstations generally are) that Vishera has an affinity to for me to recommend it to a friend, or use it myself.
 
Last edited:
I don't think the Bulldozer is bottlenecking your Graphics card it might be wishfull thinking Deus EX has some problems with stuttering. I have a FX 6300 and it's great for any current game out there plays Planetside 2 like a Champ it's suppose to have Turbo boost the Piledriver series unlike the Bulldozer does not.
 
Joseph F said:
Can you point to the part of my post that said that it wouldn't play games smoothly? Next time you would like to disagree with one of my posts, don't attack a strawman. ;)
But, now that you mentioned it, various people's definitions of "smooth" tend to be different than others'. Also, just because it runs your games "smoothly" doesn't mean it's running them as well as it could, given a certain graphics card. (Which you would hope for, right?)

http://anandtech.com/bench/Product/698?vs=701
See the bottom four benchmarks. The Core i5-3570k outperforms the FX-8320 in the games tested by an average of 40%. That's a hell of a lot to give up just for some brand loyalty.

Now, I would like to see AMD release a kick-ass product line of CPUs like back in the Athlon 64 glory days just as much as you would, but until they do, I'm not going to use their products, let alone recommend their products to someone just because I like AMD.

I will say that for a workstation, Vishera isn't bad, (and in some cases, can be quite good) but given how close they are in price to Intel CPUs, the workstation would have to be used for a very specific purpose (which workstations generally are) that Vishera has an affinity to for me to recommend it to a friend, or use it myself.
Click to expand...

You linked a test of the oldest game engines known to man. Who is playing Dragon Age Origins? At those resolutions? Skyrim if you take the time to enable multithreading gains about 30 fps. Heck let's compare Vishera vs 3770 in Slenderman next then.
 
Joseph F said:
http://anandtech.com/bench/Product/698?vs=701
See the bottom four benchmarks. The Core i5-3570k outperforms the FX-8320 in the games tested by an average of 40%. That's a hell of a lot to give up just for some brand loyalty.
Click to expand...

But just like [H]'s 800x600 benchmarks, those are not indicative of actual real world results. At 1920x1080 with a single video card, the differences would be MUCH smaller.

A single GTX680 would perform about the same with either a 8350 or 3570 at 1920x1080 because even thought the i5 is faster, the FX is still fast enough to feed that GTX680 to where its working at close to its full potential. Now you add a 2nd GTX680 and then you've got a lot more GPU muscle and it can really utilize the i5's extra horsepower so that's when youll see the Intel powered rigs start pulling away.

This is a stupid analogy but here goes - youre stocking shelves at Walmart and youre unloading the truck and handing boxes to a guy that's unpacking them and putting them on a shelf. Now say youre the fastest guy in the company at unloading the truck and handing off boxes, it doesn't matter because the shelves are only going to get stocked as fast as the other guy can unbox them and put them there. Now you add a 2nd guy unboxing and then all your speed at unloading really comes into play and those shelves start to get filled a lot faster. I know its a lot more complicated than that but its still kinda the same principle. A 8350 is fast enough to hand off frames to any single video card as fast as they can put them out. You add a 2nd GPU and then they can start to work faster than the 8350 can hand off. That's where Intel pulls ahead.

And of course there are the handful of games like Civilization V that benefit from Intel because of all the CPU intensive calculations that have to be done so Intel outperforms there even on single video cards.

So bottom line as I see it, if youre going to run SLI or Crossfire, you're better served with Intel. If youre going to run a single card then AMD is just fine. Hell even in dual card setups, AMD is still quite capable. Youre only going to see 40% differences in a handful of games and only when there is a MASSIVE amount of GPU overkill like the ones in your link at 1024x768 with a GTX680. But since almost nobody ever games with that much GPU overkill, I don't think results like that or the others Ive mentioned are relevant in showing how good a gaming chip one is in real world performance.
 
MacLeod said:
But just like [H]'s 800x600 benchmarks, those are not indicative of actual real world results. At 1920x1080 with a single video card, the differences would be MUCH smaller.
Click to expand...

Agreed - people seem to forget that not everyone has $300+ GPUs. Yes intel is almost always faster, however, its also on a different socket than the OP is currently running, and more expensive. AMD works, regardless of what the benchmark junkies would like to tell you. I find ~60FPS a necessity, higher than this becomes a luxury.
 
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.

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?
Click to expand...

please post your full system specs and are you seeing this problem with other games? i would say your issue is more gpu based than cpu... is phyx running on the cpu or gpu?
 
Last edited:
Joseph F said:
Why?
Click to expand...

i want some more information... something that no one in this whole thread has requested.

why cause this has turned into and anti amd thread instead of working the issue the user has and looking at all variables that could cause it.

an fx 4100 should be able to play any game period...

i think his problem may be more software based... drivers perhaps? or more specifically physix which is used in the game he is playing. if he doesn't have a dedicated physix card and if it is turned on it will offload all those calculations to the cpu thus maxing it out. however i need to take his entire rig into account and what driver versions is he running to get a more complete picture

Has their been a bios update for your board?

Are you running windows 7 sp1 and have you installed the hotfixes for your chip http://downloads.guru3d.com/AMD-Bulldozer-hotfix-from-Microsoft-download-2831.html

Are all drivers up to date?

here is what the nv says the game settings should be http://www./Optimize/optimal-game-settings/Deus-Ex-Human-Revolution-NVIDIA-GeForce-GTX-480-OPS for optimal play
http://www./Optimize/optimal-game-settings/Deus-Ex-Human-Revolution-NVIDIA-GeForce-GTX-480-OPS
 
Last edited:
Nice ninja edit. You originally said "reported for trolling". :rolleyes: That's why I asked "Why?".
 
Joseph F said:
Nice ninja edit. You originally said "reported for trolling". :rolleyes: That's why I asked "Why?".
Click to expand...

you where quick for that one :p i figure hey lets try to be useful and work a problem instead of oh its crap should of gone intel or another amd processor and the back and forth flame wars for both views. ...
 
Joseph F said:
Can you point to the part of my post that said that it wouldn't play games smoothly? Next time you would like to disagree with one of my posts, don't attack a strawman. ;)
But, now that you mentioned it, various people's definitions of "smooth" tend to be different than others'. Also, just because it runs your games "smoothly" doesn't mean it's running them as well as it could, given a certain graphics card. (Which you would hope for, right?)

http://anandtech.com/bench/Product/698?vs=701
See the bottom four benchmarks. The Core i5-3570k outperforms the FX-8320 in the games tested by an average of 40%. That's a hell of a lot to give up just for some brand loyalty.

Now, I would like to see AMD release a kick-ass product line of CPUs like back in the Athlon 64 glory days just as much as you would, but until they do, I'm not going to use their products, let alone recommend their products to someone just because I like AMD.

I will say that for a workstation, Vishera isn't bad, (and in some cases, can be quite good) but given how close they are in price to Intel CPUs, the workstation would have to be used for a very specific purpose (which workstations generally are) that Vishera has an affinity to for me to recommend it to a friend, or use it myself.
Click to expand...
In those tests, cant the 8320 go higher then 3.5ghz, to get more?
 
There's no doubt that Intel processors are more powerful. However for a practical gamer playing on one monitor, a good AMD cpu is all you need. For a higher end option and wanting three monitors, you'ld be much better going off Intel.

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.

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?
Click to expand...

You bought the wrong processor. The FX-4100 is terrible for gaming. You would have been better off with a $80 Athlon II X4. The FX-4100 is a good multimedia processor. Not gaming at all. The FX-8XXX series will handle gaming much better, as would most Phenom II or Athlon II AMD chips. If you don't want to change mobos, this FX-8120 would be your simplest solution.
 
maxius said:
you where quick for that one :p i figure hey lets try to be useful and work a problem instead of oh its crap should of gone intel or another amd processor and the back and forth flame wars for both views. ...
Click to expand...

No flame war here. We actually had a civilized discussion on the matter. You can debate the merits of AMD vs Intel without it being a flame war. There was nothing wrong with this thread.
 
FX-6300, FX-8320 or FX-8350 are perfectly good gaming CPUs. More importantly, the trend right now is for all gaming engines to be optimized for multiple cores, and the more cores you have, the more they'll use. Getting a 6 or 8 core AMD Piledriver-based CPU is an absolutely valid choice for both right now and going forward into the next few years. Don't let those Intel die-hards tell you otherwise, as they're probably just worried their 4 core i5 won't run the latest games faster than an AMD 6 or 8 core CPU. They're brainwashed into thinking all games are single or dual-core optimized only, but this isn't true anymore. Battlefield 3, Farcry 3, and Crysis 3 are all going to use more than 4 cores if it finds them, as will all derivative games using these engines, and pretty well all newer games coming out. AMD wasn't chosen to produce the next PlayStation 4, XBOX 720 and Nintendo for no reason. Games are only going to be more and more optimized for AMD CPU and GPU cores. It's inevitable.
 
Last edited:
Deathwish238 said:
There's no doubt that Intel processors are more powerful. However for a practical gamer playing on one monitor, a good AMD cpu is all you need. For a higher end option and wanting three monitors, you'ld be much better going off Intel.

You bought the wrong processor. The FX-4100 is terrible for gaming. You would have been better off with a $80 Athlon II X4. The FX-4100 is a good multimedia processor. Not gaming at all. The FX-8XXX series will handle gaming much better, as would most Phenom II or Athlon II AMD chips. If you don't want to change mobos, this FX-8120 would be your simplest solution.
Click to expand...

If you want a boost in performance, the FX-8350 will provide it.
 
anubis44 said:
FX-6300, FX-8320 or FX-8350 are perfectly good gaming CPUs.
Click to expand...

So, you can participate in this thead: http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1752444 as a control group.

You have 8-core, thus you need to run pack, pack4C, and pack8C. (you could run pack6C at your discretion.)


I need one Bulldozer tester and two Vishera testers (all desktop). Don't forget to post CPU clock as well.

Now a 6-core Vishera needs to run: pack, pack6C, and pack12C. Note that pack12C should be slow, thus you should monitor temperatures on your CPU and terminate test when things would become too hot. (Even pack12C on 6-core should terminate under 20 minutes.)

If you have boost, try to disable it, testing would be more reliable.
 
maxius said:
please post your full system specs and are you seeing this problem with other games? i would say your issue is more gpu based than cpu... is phyx running on the cpu or gpu?
Click to expand...

c drive: 64g SSD (adata 2nd gen ssd)
game drive 80g ssd (intel something)
program drive 300g raptor
+misc storage

8g ddr3 (gskill)
msi 990fxa gd65 (if its anything else, I blame the board)
silverstone 850w modular

gtx480
fx4100

did I miss something? :(

As a side note, my c drive is not performing as it should either and only giving me a 5 in wpi, but I never tried to fix...only mentioning if its a symptom of something else.
 
SticKx911 said:
c drive: 64g SSD (adata 2nd gen ssd)
game drive 80g ssd (intel something)
program drive 300g raptor
+misc storage

8g ddr3 (gskill)
msi 990fxa gd65 (if its anything else, I blame the board)
silverstone 850w modular

gtx480
fx4100

did I miss something? :(

As a side note, my c drive is not performing as it should either and only giving me a 5 in wpi, but I never tried to fix...only mentioning if its a symptom of something else.
Click to expand...

check for a bios update for your board
 
I've found the 8350 comparable to the 2600k in all the games I've played on them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top