Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare. AMD FX 8370 versus Intel Core i7 5960X

[lolfail9001]

the guy who understands what works in reality

You mean the guy who claims that if Zen is not sold at 50% discount compared to equally performing Intel CPU it will flop?

Oh well, guess spending less money on a product that works very well just is not the in thing with some of you guys, enjoy.

Sure, minus the GPU, how much did you spend on your FX rig? Want to verify your claim about "spending less money".

 

[noko]

Well if you bought your FX rig 5 years ago and the Intel boys have been buying rig after rig after rig to please the big blue gods and in the end with current modern games there are virtually no significant play ability or experience advantages - I would say that FX person is a genius. And the Intel guy well lets leave it there.

Of course some of us just have a hobby and have many machines being played with and being used. Now in my case my FX rig went from a 2 core Phenon (not sure if I stuck in the PhenomII X4 which unlocked to 6 core), FX 8120 to a FX 8350 (Awesome chip) to a FX 9590 and built another rig for HTPC with the FX 8350. You know what, unless you have a 4 core hyperthreaded Intel cpu the FX 8350/9590 will slaughter Intel's 4 core or threaded limited cores in video, 3d rendering and the list goes on.

Now if one wants to go small but powerful as in SFF case and a powerful graphics card -> Intel and Nvidia would be my recommendations. For full size systems you do have some options for cost savings other then Intel. Now Zen is close to launch, it maybe just better to wait to see how the high end competes and prices.

 

[noko]

Please give a few examples.

http://www.ocaholic.ch/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=3948&page=3

Look at the 4.5ghz OC results I7 and I5, most games there is a slight higher fps in a more cpu limited resolution. Also more importantly hypo threading gives a slight negative gaming performance disadvantage except maybe for the better threaded game engines but it ain't much. Hypo threading does add a lot more power though to the cpu.

So you could buy an I5 6500 (paid $189) , OC to 4.5ghz and get same performance in games as a 4.5ghz $349 I7 (yeh Intel! Wow great tech!!!). I did it except Intel lock processors suck in that you are stuck at that OC speed. AMD unlock processors are so much more friendlier in buying a lower end and getting virtually same performance of a higher version. For example my 8350 was almost as fast as my 9590 when OC, really not much difference. You could buy a 8320 and OC the hell out of it dirt cheap.

 

[Shintai]

http://www.ocaholic.ch/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=3948&page=3

Look at the 4.5ghz OC results I7 and I5, most games there is a slight higher fps in a more cpu limited resolution. Also more importantly hypo threading gives a slight negative gaming performance advantage except maybe for the better threaded game engines but it ain't much. Hypo threading does add a lot more power though to the cpu.

So you could buy an I5 6500 (paid $189) , OC to 4.5ghz and get same performance in games as a 4.5ghz $349 I7 (yeh Intel! Wow great tech!!!). I did it except Intel lock processors suck in that you are stuck at that OC speed. AMD unlock processors are so much more friendlier in buying a lower end and getting virtually same performance of a higher version. For example my 8350 was almost as fast as my 9590 when OC, really not much difference. You could buy a 8320 and OC the hell out of it dirt cheap.

So you had to use GPU limited cases where we have to look at decimals to find the difference? Also did you bother to check 1440p and 2160p if they show the same? LOL!

Even locked Intel CPUs beat AMD CPUs and you have cheap i3s beating FX CPUs. But again, performance doesn't matter, right? Let me know if you buy Zen. Because if you do, you are nothing but a hypocrite. However considering you even own a 220W turddozer. I am sure you will be preordering as soon as you can with or without benchmarks.

If performance didn't matter, people would still be using 5 year old 2600K CPUs without upgrading. Better than anything AMD ever made. Yet somehow even these people need more performance. Because slower isn't smoother.

 

[lolfail9001]

You know what, unless you have a 4 core hyperthreaded Intel cpu the FX 8350/9590 will slaughter Intel's 4 core or threaded limited cores in video, 3d rendering and the list goes on.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1198?vs=697

You call that slaughter? Heh.

Well if you bought your FX rig 5 years ago and the Intel boys have been buying rig after rig after rig to please the big blue gods and in the end with current modern games there are virtually no significant play ability or experience advantages - I would say that FX person is a genius.

Considering amount of folks who got themselves a Sandy Bridge rig and stayed with it for all those years, the real geniuses are them, let's be honest.

 

[Shintai]

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1198?vs=697

You call that slaughter? Heh.


Considering amount of folks who got themselves a Sandy Bridge rig and stayed with it for all those years, the real geniuses are them, let's be honest.

I am sure he will post more sub 5% usage benchmarks to prove how awesome FX CPUs are and that AMD never needed Zen. Oh wait.

Or that FX is so great AMD didn't even bother to update the ancient platform or move the 2 new cores to it. It was simply that superb!

The entire existence of this thread says it all.

 

[noko]

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1198?vs=697

You call that slaughter? Heh.


Considering amount of folks who got themselves a Sandy Bridge rig and stayed with it for all those years, the real geniuses are them, let's be honest.

LOL, you should check the data first - those comparisons are worthless. Do a comparison with a FX 8370 and a FX 9590. It has the 8370 faster in a number of those benchmarks . Yeah real reliable stuff you link to but jives with your preconceived ideas. AnAndTech original owner was a rather Intel shrill to begin with as well, worked at Intel for awhile. Great place to shrill Intel stuff though - hey how about you go there.

 

[noko]

So you had to use GPU limited cases where we have to look at decimals to find the difference? Also did you bother to check 1440p and 2160p if they show the same? LOL!

Even locked Intel CPUs beat AMD CPUs and you have cheap i3s beating FX CPUs. But again, performance doesn't matter, right? Let me know if you buy Zen. Because if you do, you are nothing but a hypocrite. However considering you even own a 220W turddozer. I am sure you will be preordering as soon as you can with or without benchmarks.

If performance didn't matter, people would still be using 5 year old 2600K CPUs without upgrading. Better than anything AMD ever made. Yet somehow even these people need more performance. Because slower isn't smoother.

Why your precious I7 6700K really doesn't perform better then an I7 6600K in games? I can show you another one that shows the I7 6600K stumping the 6700K at times and more then then just a few fps but you can do some leg work and find those. Google is your friend.

 

[lolfail9001]

LOL, you should check the data first - those comparisons are worthless.

Sorry, but i would not want to "save" money on CPU just to waste them on motherboard, cooler, PSU AND case . So 9590 goes straight out. And 8370 compares just like 8350 http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1198?vs=1709

It has the 8370 faster in a number of those benchmarks

Yep, in WinRAR and synthetic 7-zip bench . Well, that and some other benches, i will give you that. Quite close to none in actual stuff you mentioned.

AnAndTech original owner was a rather Intel shrill to begin with as well, worked at Intel for awhile. Great place to shrill Intel stuff though - hey how about you go there.

So, do you have other numbers? Show me then, i am curious. Though who am i kidding, when someone pulls out shill card, they are out of arguments.

 

[ManofGod]

Why your precious I7 6700K really doesn't perform better then an I7 6600K in games? I can show you another one that shows the I7 6600K stumping the 6700K at times and more then then just a few fps but you can do some leg work and find those. Google is your friend.

I see the person you posted is still going on and on and on and on and........ I owned a 6700k and for me, it was a complete waste of money, I saw no real day to day difference between it and my previous FX 8350. (I am on an FX 8300 at 4.5 GHz now.) Does not make the 6700k junk but it is also not a miracle chip either. It sure is peaceful keeping those folks on ignore.

 

[noko]

I see the person you posted is still going on and on and on and on and........ I owned a 6700k and for me, it was a complete waste of money, I saw no real day to day difference between it and my previous FX 8350. (I am on an FX 8300 at 4.5 GHz now.) Does not make the 6700k junk but it is also not a miracle chip either. It sure is peaceful keeping those folks on ignore.

, I find them some what entertaining to be honest. If gaming is the thing then really an I5 6500 OC to 4.5ghz is what they should recommend for best perf/$ and will perform virtually the same and at times a little bit better then a 4.5ghz I7 6700k. I do other stuff besides gaming hence I7 6700K. In that case they would have a better argument against a FX chip. An I7 6700K is virtually double the price over a 8350 which can be OC easily. The performance in games between the two is not significant in general. Rendering 3d it is not that much better either.

The biggest advantage I see with Intel chips are that they are low power and work well with SFF systems (the quad core ones). Hopefully Zen will take care of that and allow for some potent SFF builds with 8core/16threads.

 

[noko]

Sorry, but i would not want to "save" money on CPU just to waste them on motherboard, cooler, PSU AND case . So 9590 goes straight out. And 8370 compares just like 8350 http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1198?vs=1709

Yep, in WinRAR and synthetic 7-zip bench . Well, that and some other benches, i will give you that. Quite close to none in actual stuff you mentioned.

So, do you have other numbers? Show me then, i am curious. Though who am i kidding, when someone pulls out shill card, they are out of arguments.

I see your understanding of poor testing, inaccurate, inconsistent results mean nothing. Plug in a 8370 and 9590 and tell me with those results why I shouldn't upgrade my 9590 with a 8370. Meaning the validity of those results are poor at best.

Plus I have yet see any tester really know how to push a FX chip or get the max performance out of it. Upping the fsb on a fx increases the L3 speed on the cpu (big improvement on the FX IPC), syncing up the various parts of the board like fsb, HT and northbridge frequency -> this will cut down latency. Upping the fsb also cuts down latency for the memory as well. For those who know how to push things and are able to evaluate results and know what to look for the FX turns out OK after all.

Going from a FX 8350 or faster to an I7 6700K, many will be rather disappointed if that is the only change. Normally a new graphics card, faster memory, SSD etc. is added which are the real noticeable performance enhancers.

 

[lolfail9001]

Plug in a 8370 and 9590 and tell me with those results why I shouldn't upgrade my 9590 with a 8370

Because 9590 is better in about every scenario possible? http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1289?vs=1709

I understand you may lack reading comprehension but in some of tests lower results are better.

Plus I have yet see any tester really know how to push a FX chip or get the max performance out of it.

They don't do that with Intel chips either, fair game.

For those who know how to push things and are able to evaluate results and know what to look for the FX turns out OK after all.

Show me, then! Show me your 9590 beating i3-6100 in single threaded load. Show me your 9590 beating pitiful 4690 that is not even OCd in Handbrake.

If gaming is the thing then really an I5 6500 OC to 4.5ghz is what they should recommend for best perf/$ and will perform virtually the same and at times a little bit better then a 4.5ghz I7 6700k.

You have misspelled 6400 OC to 4.6Ghz.

I owned a 6700k and for me, it was a complete waste of money, I saw no real day to day difference between it and my previous FX 8350.

Oh, for you it was a waste of money to own 980 Ti, you are not using computers for anything but browsing, are you ?

 

[noko]

Because 9590 is better in about every scenario possible? http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1289?vs=1709

I understand you may lack reading comprehension but in some of tests lower results are better.


They don't do that with Intel chips either, fair game.


Show me, then! Show me your 9590 beating i3-6100 in single threaded load. Show me your 9590 beating pitiful 4690 that is not even OCd in Handbrake.

You have misspelled 6400 OC to 4.6Ghz.

Oh, for you it was a waste of money to own 980 Ti, you are not using computers for anything but browsing, are you ?

Lol, ok then how come the following show the 8370 faster then the 9590:

• Linux Bench OpenSSL sign 9590 - 419 but the 8370 got 698? (Higher is better)
• Linux Bench OpenSSL Sign 9590 - 26759 and the 8370 44819 (Higher is better)
• Then you go to the memory ones and right off bat you can see it is not even apple to oranges

Then look at WebXPRT with the 8370 getting 1392 but the 9590 is getting a whopping 148% faster at 2060- hot dang that 9590 small clock increase gives some amazing results!

I can tell you right off the bat that the WinRar one is wrong, at least one of them. Also SunSpider.

In short those are proven to be unreliable and amateurish in verifying consistent data trends. Really worthless in the long run because you really don't know what is right, wrong, configured wrong etc.

Hey I don't own a 980Ti just a 1070 - seems like you just don't see what is obviously in front of your eyes

Aida 64 is a rather good multiThreading benchmark that puts the cpu at it's 100% capacity. It is very easy to show the potential between the cpu's. Sorry the I5 interger math is no match for an AMD 8 core when multi-threading and engaging all the cores. Sorry most programs on the cpu - 95% plus is integer math, while the GPU does almost all the floating type math operations on a PC in graphics.

AMD cpu FP sucks compared to Intel but in real programs, games for the most part that consumers use it is virtually unimportant.

Programs that use only one core or thread and not use the full capacity or ability of any cpu is obsolete, I put very little weight in such a scenario. If you still use dos then that Pentium is perfect for you except one core will not be used but hey your programs will run fast no doubt over a FX processor. Have fun.

 

[lolfail9001]

In short those are proven to be unreliable and amateurish in verifying consistent data trends. Really worthless in the long run because you really don't know what is right, wrong, configured wrong etc.

If those are proven, show me the proof. No, saying they are bullshit does not mean they are bullshit until you back it with actual proof, be it verification or damn counter example in same conditions. You provide neither so far.

Hey I don't own a 980Ti just a 1070 - seems like you just don't see what is obviously in front of your eyes

Quite the opposite, it is you who does not see what is in front of your eyes: it was not directed to you.

Aida 64 is a rather good multiThreading benchmark that puts the cpu at it's 100% capacity. It is very easy to show the potential between the cpu's

It is funny to see someone actually resorting to pure synthetics on [H] of all forums.

Sorry the I5 interger math is no match for an AMD 8 core when multi-threading and engaging all the cores.

Yep, now all that remains of you is to find a real life load that is

A) Purely integer.
B) Has no vectorization.
C) Scales perfectly to any core count.

That's basically 7zip benchmark, the MIPS one. That's about it. Well, that and pure synthetics like AIDA64 and Sandra.

Sorry most programs on the cpu - 95% plus is integer math, while the GPU does almost all the floating type math operations on a PC in graphics.

Sadly, you forget the important part: branch prediction, cache and memory performance and the scaling law. Because performance of majority programs is defined by those, not by abstract synthetic math on random numbers on 8 threads.

AMD cpu FP sucks compared to Intel but in real programs, games for the most part that consumers use it is virtually unimportant.

Yes, cache and memory take over FPU and cache performance on AMD cpus is known to be a joke.

Programs that use only one core or thread and not use the full capacity or ability of any cpu is obsolete, I put very little weight in such a scenario.

Sure, Prime95 is the program that uses any CPU to it's utmost ability. In fact, it has highest IPC and near perfect core scaling of any software on this planet.

http://www.mersenne.org/report_benc...&exbad=1&exv25=1&exv26=1&specific_cpu=4377405
http://www.mersenne.org/report_benc...&exbad=1&exv25=1&exv26=1&specific_cpu=4377131

If you are to stay honest, you have to put the most weight into this piece of software and it's results, simply because it does not get better. Want to bet you will not and will ignore these ?

 

[JustReason]

So I see that these "posters" have relegated the argument to IPC just to derail the Gaming discussion.

Handbrake if I recall correctly uses AVX2 (maybe it was the other one), and if that is the case then obviously Intel would have the advantage as they did with AVX(1) against AMD shared resources. But again This thread is about gaming performance and next to no games use AVX (I think there was one or 2 and I think there is a game coming that will - Claimed needing a i7 to get all effects). This is an attempt to derail the positive FACT that FXs are gaining ground in gaming as the ability to use multiple cores rises. For some reason this leads some of the negative nancies out there to feel that what is being said is AMD is on equal footing with Intel. Obviously to those of us with some actual intelligence we know that is not the case but rather this new trend is alleviating the negatives of FX ownership.

I am not sure why this trend is being met with negativity when what we see is that nearly all gamers can have great or nearly great gaming experiences.

 

[Spirit_Retro]

So I see that these "posters" have relegated the argument to IPC just to derail the Gaming discussion.

Handbrake if I recall correctly uses AVX2 (maybe it was the other one), and if that is the case then obviously Intel would have the advantage as they did with AVX(1) against AMD shared resources. But again This thread is about gaming performance and next to no games use AVX (I think there was one or 2 and I think there is a game coming that will - Claimed needing a i7 to get all effects). This is an attempt to derail the positive FACT that FXs are gaining ground in gaming as the ability to use multiple cores rises. For some reason this leads some of the negative nancies out there to feel that what is being said is AMD is on equal footing with Intel. Obviously to those of us with some actual intelligence we know that is not the case but rather this new trend is alleviating the negatives of FX ownership.

I am not sure why this trend is being met with negativity when what we see is that nearly all gamers can have great or nearly great gaming experiences.

Yea- I think the missed point here is understanding where computing is going.

Whether the marketplace is ready to accept it or not, the future has been and will be additional cores for additional performance. Due to Moore's law, the ability to cram more transistors onto a wafer is decreasing, and new process improvements are incremental regarding performance.

So performance issues now are more complex to suss out. And arguments based only on single threaded performance are failing.

Even old games like World of Warcraft are threaded now. 3D drivers are threaded. Memory management is threaded. Disk drivers are threaded. That all adds to the performance "pile of considerations".

Perspective...

When I started with 3D accelerated video it was 1998 and the 3DFX Voodoo 2 was the card of the day. Back then the measure was a sustained 25fps- arbitrarily chosen because movies were normally presented at 24fps. Which meant gamers used to sit in front of their CRTs in a dark room in order to experience smoother game play.

These days, any of the games I play run fine at 60fps, rarely going below that. Most of them on "ultra" settings.

So these e-peen related arguments seem so ridiculous. Who cares? 5fps difference in a benchmark is supposed to make me yank out my wallet?

Especially when, like many gamers, my computer isn't just for gaming. In fact considering the advances in consoles, it's pretty dubious to own a computer just for gaming. If you game on a computer you're either in the IT field or have a strong interest in computers as a hobby.

That being said... let the e-peen measurement continue....

 

[lolfail9001]

I am not sure why this trend is being met with negativity when what we see is that nearly all gamers can have great or nearly great gaming experiences.

Sure, but pretending that this makes FX CPUs any good is weird to say the least. Also, the trend here is not a trend at all, it's a factual statement that even a $100 i3 or FX cpu is enough for gaming in GPU-bound titles.

the future has been and will be additional cores for additional performance

You know, this statement is right in a way you did not expect. "Additional cores for additional performance" will remain, in fact, in future. For present, about every consumer activity on this planet will remain bound to single thread's speed.

5fps difference in a benchmark is supposed to make me yank out my wallet?

Valid, but the point i, personally, make is that this 5fps difference is indeed nothing, so i will just save myself money not getting an AMD CPU. Since for all intents and purposes, a freaking 6100 delivers similar gameplay experience for less.

In fact considering the advances in consoles

Advances in consoles? That's a phrase i did not expect to hear in 2016.

my computer isn't just for gaming

So is mine, yet funnily enough, parallel algorithms do not really exist in my major.

 

[Spirit_Retro]

Sure, but pretending that this makes FX CPUs any good is weird to say the least. Also, the trend here is not a trend at all, it's a factual statement that even a $100 i3 or FX cpu is enough for gaming in GPU-bound titles.


You know, this statement is right in a way you did not expect. "Additional cores for additional performance" will remain, in fact, in future. For present, about every consumer activity on this planet will remain bound to single thread's speed.

Valid, but the point i, personally, make is that this 5fps difference is indeed nothing, so i will just save myself money not getting an AMD CPU. Since for all intents and purposes, a freaking 6100 delivers similar gameplay experience for less.

Advances in consoles? That's a phrase i did not expect to hear in 2016.

So is mine, yet funnily enough, parallel algorithms do not really exist in my major.

No... my statement is completely right in every way.

All hail the e-peen... see it swagger and sway.

I've never seen anyone type so much and say so little.

 

[lolfail9001]

No... my statement is completely right in every way.

Not really. There is simply no room to grow but wide, true. But more cores allow to do more stuff, not getting it done faster compared to less cores with same theoretical peak performance.

 

[Ruoh]

That's "shill", not "shrill".

 

[ManofGod]

It is cool to see the 8 core finally starting to kick ass and take names in games. Of course, this is not so much the processor but the fact that game developers are finally getting around to making their games multi core aware. I have no reason to upgrade at this time and in fact, enjoy that I do not need run out and spend more money just to have a good gaming experience.

10 years ago, the cpu made a much more significant difference but, they were single core mostly at that point in time.

 

[Spirit_Retro]

It is cool to see the 8 core finally starting to kick ass and take names in games. Of course, this is not so much the processor but the fact that game developers are finally getting around to making their games multi core aware. I have no reason to upgrade at this time and in fact, enjoy that I do not need run out and spend more money just to have a good gaming experience.

10 years ago, the cpu made a much more significant difference but, they were single core mostly at that point in time.

Well- it's been going on for a long time now... Started with the Quake II engine which had an SMP switch. Quake III and Unreal Tournament also had SMP capabilities.

I will submit that threading an app costs more money because the programming is more complex and requires better talent. The only reason we are starting to see it happen more now is due to single threaded performance being tapped out.

That being said- those of us with 8 cores are getting a bonus. The single threaded bandwagon is at an end.

 

[Gideon]

Just took a long time for software to use the extra cores, which of course helps the old AMD chip out since it has cores to spare unlike the Intel chip. If anything AMD brought this chip out too soon for the market and went underutilized until now. IPC is important but not king anymore and I think will see quad core become the lowest core count you can get soon.

 

[noko]

Worrying just about a single core IPC can be short sighted when you have 8 cores or 8 threads or more. While IPC is important but only to a certain extent. In games Intel processors hyper threading can hinder performance at times. For a gaming PC the FX can do fine particularly with a more modern API's and better threaded programming. Some need to learn that dos days are long gone and so are single core cpu's.

That being said one needs to know what are their limitations for games and if significant or not. Each game has a given work load, some actually can run better with AMD then Intel while others the other way around - which can be very interesting and easy for one to focus too much on one game and then try to apply that to all others - like Fallout where the lower IPC cores of the FX does definitely show but then games like COD and others the multi-threading and additional cores of the FX come through relatively well.

GTA V at 3440x1440 runs at around 50fps with Ultra settings and the benchmark indicates only 2 frames are below 30fpm on pass 1 and I3 frames below 30 on pass 3, every other frame is way above that for the most part and this is with a 1070. Yes the minimum may seems bad but in reality the game play is very smooth. Now what is the max fps I could get out of the FX 9590? Using same settings and reducing the resolution it stalls out at around 85FPS average, first pass like 72fps, going to a lower resolution to 720p didn't change the frame rates indicating cpu limited. If I had a Titan X Pascal or SLI I am sure I would never exceed those frame rates. I would be able to max out all the advance options though. I am sure in this case (have not tested yet) the I7 would cream the FX 9590 for this game. Since my monitor is a 60hz monitor -> the FX 9590 is not limiting my game play but it does have a close ceiling though. Those having 144hz monitor the FX 9590 in this game would fall far short. So what I do is run the monitor at 50hz and use adaptive sync (gsync type quality here).

If I went SLI 1070's with my FX 9590, I would most likely would be able to max out this game settings and use adaptive sync at 60hz on the FX 9590. I would get about zero experience improvement with any other processor with my current monitor. Now with Fallout 4 I think I would be more limited and most likely run into cpu limitations but really it is not cpu limitations it is the lack of Fallout 4 to effective use cpu capacity, DX 11 being very thread limited etc. but still I would be limited I do believe - hence run it on the I7 rig . For me Zen I will want the most processing ability whole cpu before I even consider limited core type usage scenarios and I hope it's hyperthreading does not slow it down for games like Intel's.

 

[NKD]

Fucking I would rather go watch politics and crooked hillary and bully trump. Is there a thread that people here don't turn in to intel vs amd. Or Shintai, lolfail vs amd? For fuck sakes find some peace. Hardforum has turned in to everyone thread crapping in AMD section. Like always I make my one post and leave. Peace my friends. Make Hardforum Great again!

 

[Spirit_Retro]

Just took a long time for software to use the extra cores, which of course helps the old AMD chip out since it has cores to spare unlike the Intel chip. If anything AMD brought this chip out too soon for the market and went underutilized until now. IPC is important but not king anymore and I think will see quad core become the lowest core count you can get soon.

This is accurate. What a lot of pure gamers don't realize, is that other gamers (who also have heavy IT workloads) benefited greatly from the FX series. 20 single threaded apps is 20 threads. And 20 threads across 8 integer cores is far better than 4 integer cores. Because now you can use that massive amount of MIPS across the entire workload.

In that sense the FX series has been a win from the beginning, and in today's gaming world it's gaining rather than losing performance.

That's just the way it is.

 

[Spirit_Retro]

Worrying just about a single core IPC can be short sighted when you have 8 cores or 8 threads or more. While IPC is important but only to a certain extent. In games Intel processors hyper threading can hinder performance at times. For a gaming PC the FX can do fine particularly with a more modern API's and better threaded programming. Some need to learn that dos days are long gone and so are single core cpu's.

Just want to back you up on this. Currently, I've only an e-mail client, IRC, and a browser running. And that's 1730 threads which need to be serviced.

When the machine is really being used, game running, netflix playing, three monitors, work apps minimized... the thread count is way higher.

I actually disabled 4 cores in the bios as a test- that lasted about 5 minutes. Totally noticeable performance drop. I'll never do that again.

 

[lolfail9001]

For fuck sakes find some peace.

Oh, come on, read the title of this thread. Peace is the last thing it is good for.

 

[Pieter3dnow]

Oh, come on, read the title of this thread. Peace is the last thing it is good for.

Trollfailcluelesslol ?

 

[Spirit_Retro]

Trollfailcluelesslol ?

Don't forget the ISO9001 cert... He doesn't have it... 9001 would not apply to trolls.

 

[noko]

Here is a comparison using data from source that lolfail9001 likes or think is gospel.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1544?vs=1554
Blue slot is an I5 6600K which has a base clock of 3.5ghz and a turbo clock of 3.9ghz, a 4 core 4 thread cpu. The gold or second cpu is an I7 6700, a hyperthreaded 4 core 8 thread cpu, base clock of 3.4ghz and a turbo clock of 4ghz. Look at the game results. Now I collected the game data using a discrete gpu. Please note which one of these two processor win out more times then not. I went ahead and just collected the data in a more streamline version here:



So for a mostly gaming machine, going with an I5 processor and OCing it as well will get you at the I7 levels of performance. I bought an I5 6500 for $189 which in the bios you can max the cpu ratio to the max turbo speed = 3.6ghz. If you OC by upping the BLCK speed you can definitely get in the 4ghz range, mine went to 4.5ghz without issue. Just be aware that HyperThreading is not always friendly or does cost a little in a number of games. If DX 12 will change this or not is to be seen.

 

[lolfail9001]

Trollfailcluelesslol ?

Infinite Warfare

You are indeed clueless, i'll agree with this.

Don't forget the ISO9001 cert... He doesn't have it... 9001 would not apply to trolls.

True, but you guys'd certainly pass the certification, quality of mental hymnastics for them is amazing. While we're at it, have a very well threaded game. So well threaded, HyperThreading actually improves performance:

http://media.gamersnexus.net/images/media/2016/game-bench/battlefield/cpu/bf1-cpu-benchmark-dx11.png

Please note which one of these two processor win out more times then not.

So, you were denying it is legit bringing up valid points even, and now that you need to prove that having less but faster threads is generally better for gaming, you go ahead and cite it. Dayum.

 

[Spirit_Retro]

True, but you guys'd certainly pass the certification, quality of mental hymnastics for them is amazing. While we're at it, have a very well threaded game. So well threaded, HyperThreading actually improves performance:

Hymnastics?

Christ you're lost.

 

[noko]

So, you were denying it is legit bringing up valid points even, and now that you need to prove that having less but faster threads is generally better for gaming, you go ahead and cite it. Dayum.

Man, did you try to formulate a thought there or what?

Basically in a nutshell, Intel's fastest gaming CPU more times then not is - -> the I5's.. Get it? It goes all down hill the more money you put into Intel's pockets for gaming. For example an Intel 5960x is slower in games (general) than an I7 6700K (Skylake). The I7 6700K is slower then a I5 6600K in general in games clock per clock.

Now I would like to see testing with Kaby Lake I5's, I7's and Broadwell E or Skylake E with SLI Titan X (Pascal version).

Now do I have to put in front of your face comparison game data between the I5 6600K stock and OC and FX in modern games?

 

[noko]

Just want to back you up on this. Currently, I've only an e-mail client, IRC, and a browser running. And that's 1730 threads which need to be serviced.

When the machine is really being used, game running, netflix playing, three monitors, work apps minimized... the thread count is way higher.

I actually disabled 4 cores in the bios as a test- that lasted about 5 minutes. Totally noticeable performance drop. I'll never do that again.

Yep, I've seen this too and when I was using that I5 before the I7 6700K which had less multitasking ability. Now the I5 is in a new build for my daughter.

I would like tests be done like a spyware scan, plus a download in the backgroun and then a game benchmark. This would not be to uncommon type scenario, on the 9590 that would be transparent but on the I5 it is noticeable.

 

[lolfail9001]

Man, did you try to formulate a thought there or what?

Man, did you try to quote the right person there, dammit?

Basically in a nutshell, Intel's fastest gaming CPU more times then not is - -> the I5's.. Get it?

I sure get it but at least be consistent, if you denounce the source, then don't freaking use it to make a point.

The I7 6700K is slower then a I5 6600K in general in games clock per clock.

On average, i7 6700 works out .3% slower than i5-6600k in your tests for GTX980, or about 2% slower if you take out the outlier, where minimums in 1 game for i7 are drastically better. But ultimately these minimums matter, don't they? Anyways, you are correct, so have it.

For example an Intel 5960x is slower in games (general) than an I7 6700K (Skylake)

Contrary to the circlejerk of "gaems start to use moar cores" around here.

Now do I have to put in front of your face comparison game data between the I5 6600K stock and OC and FX in modern games?

Sure do, but using same bench that you have just validated, and same GTX980 i just came up with stat for i7/i5 relationship, i land with about 11% advantage for i5, if i5 is 100% and 14% if fx-8370 is 100%.

And of course there's this: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/1358.

But hey, let's be honest, if you own 290X, all that is irrelevant because oh boy: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/1364

 

[JustReason]

Actually his argument on "moar cores" still holds. His actual point on the i5 / i7 is HT doesn't always work out in games giving the advantage to the i5, although turning off HT would likely even out or rid the negative. As far as FX, being they are actual/physical cores they don't exhibit this behavior.

And because the point has skewed off topic again: What we are seeing is that the FX CPU is no longer far behind in gaming as most games have become far more threaded. This does speak to what AMD thought we would see earlier but alas has taken far more time to surface. Now the question is whether one should/could/would purchase a FX CPU today. It has merit for such an argument while at the same time many others could be made for waiting to see what ZEN brings (I don't hold a great deal of faith in the first iteration being a huge upgrade over current FX other than power efficiency and likely the 2nd mirroring the kind of leap we saw with piledriver over bulldozer) or even purchasing intels current offering to attain a certain performance level necessary for personal requirements.

 

[Spirit_Retro]

Actually his argument on "moar cores" still holds. His actual point on the i5 / i7 is HT doesn't always work out in games giving the advantage to the i5, although turning off HT would likely even out or rid the negative. As far as FX, being they are actual/physical cores they don't exhibit this behavior.

And because the point has skewed off topic again: What we are seeing is that the FX CPU is no longer far behind in gaming as most games have become far more threaded. This does speak to what AMD thought we would see earlier but alas has taken far more time to surface. Now the question is whether one should/could/would purchase a FX CPU today. It has merit for such an argument while at the same time many others could be made for waiting to see what ZEN brings (I don't hold a great deal of faith in the first iteration being a huge upgrade over current FX other than power efficiency and likely the 2nd mirroring the kind of leap we saw with piledriver over bulldozer) or even purchasing intels current offering to attain a certain performance level necessary for personal requirements.

No... I'd not advocate buying an FX today out of hand. But if the price/performance ratio is right... maybe.

I think most of us who still have bulldozer derived processors will admit that the next generation has far more performance value than what we are using. The question is always what a consumer is willing to pay.

In my case, I'd need to replace a main board, processor, and RAM to move to Zen or an Intel proc. Maybe change cooling. That's a $600 to $700 investment to replace a processor, that while not the fastest, is getting faster to due changes in software.

At least for piledriver- it will take a long time before those processors are abandoned since cores now matter.

 

[noko]

Actually the real test

Man, did you try to quote the right person there, dammit?

I sure get it but at least be consistent, if you denounce the source, then don't freaking use it to make a point.

On average, i7 6700 works out .3% slower than i5-6600k in your tests for GTX980, or about 2% slower if you take out the outlier, where minimums in 1 game for i7 are drastically better. But ultimately these minimums matter, don't they? Anyways, you are correct, so have it.

Contrary to the circlejerk of "gaems start to use moar cores" around here.

Sure do, but using same bench that you have just validated, and same GTX980 i just came up with stat for i7/i5 relationship, i land with about 11% advantage for i5, if i5 is 100% and 14% is fx-8370 is 100%.

And of course there's this: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/1358.

But hey, let's be honest, if you own 290X, all that is irrelevant because oh boy: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/1364

Lol yep got me on the first one.

As for using your source to show something everyone can take it for face value. I think the concept of AnAdnTech database is good but in reality there are many variables from updates to game code, drivers etc. which would skew the results when taken at different times and then the cpu's are compared next to each other as a current comparison. So no I don't put that much weight in those values but other sites and benches has shown the I5 beating out the I7's clock per clock in games so something not new for me with hyperthreading. Now does that really make a huge difference in gaming experience? Or even a little? I doubt it.

The other beef I have in general are how obsolete reviews and data become yet those are used to try to prove or show something that would not even be remotely applicable today. Going back a few years on game benchmarks can be much different then what you would really get now. For example AMD initial Doom results compared to now with Vulkan. AMD FarCry 4 benchmarks compared using the first 3 months compared to what you would get now. Maybe it is more reader beware of possible changes and likely changes.

As for the FX, for most folks it comes through and does things good enough for them at the time. How Zen performs will be a whole another discussion.