The AMD Reality Check Challenge

Bootleg Usher said:
Just goes to show that putting too much stock in benchmarks isn't always worth it.
Click to expand...

Battlefield 3 is a very popular game that supports Eyefinity, so it's natural that they'd pick something that has wide exposure and supports the platform. If it happens to perform better on an AMD processor than in Intel, then so what? This particular test by AMD proves one thing: More people found BF3 enjoyable on the AMD system than on the Intel system. THAT'S ALL. Nothing more should be read into it than that. That's what the gamer is going to care about. They're not going to care that the i7 has higher synthetic benchmarks, they're going to care that the AMD chip runs the game they want to play better and costs less doing so.

I would hope that every person on this message board would have understood this by now, but it's clear that some people here just troll the boards and never read any of the performance tests. This is exactly the methodology that Kyle uses in testing "Real World" game performance. The [H] stopped using benchmark software precisely because benchmarks are useless except as to show how well something performs in a benchmark, and because hardware manufacturers were caught trying to pad their benchmark scores in 3DMark. I was overjoyed when Kyle went to the new testing methodology because it changed from "This graphics card or CPU is faster/better" to "this is the experience you can expect to get from this piece of hardware and how it stacks up against other similar hardware in these games". Seriously, am I the only one on this message board that actually reads the reviews on this site and visits the site primarily for that reason?
 
Phoenix333 said:
Battlefield 3 is a very popular game that supports Eyefinity, so it's natural that they'd pick something that has wide exposure and supports the platform. If it happens to perform better on an AMD processor than in Intel, then so what? This particular test by AMD proves one thing: More people found BF3 enjoyable on the AMD system than on the Intel system. THAT'S ALL.
Click to expand...

I'd ad a caveat to that... More people found BF3 enjoyable on the AMD system than on the Intel system, that were both installed, set up, and configured by AMD.
 
Cobalt35 said:
I'd ad a caveat to that... More people found BF3 enjoyable on the AMD system than on the Intel system, that were both installed, set up, and configured by AMD.
Click to expand...

So what you're really saying is that if you want to play BF3 AND torrent pron at the same time, Intel is the way to go?
 
Cobalt35 said:
I'd ad a caveat to that... More people found BF3 enjoyable on the AMD system than on the Intel system, that were both installed, set up, and configured by AMD.
Click to expand...

OR maybe the 8150 is extremely competitive with Intel in BF3 multiplayer, which just happens to be very CPU intensive, even in Eyefinity, which has been proven by every single review site. If anything, this test proved you shouldn't buy anything more expensive than a 2500k for gaming as a 2700k will give you no advantage.
 
Easy way to settle this. Play multiple games on each system and invite both AMD and Intel to the part and let them setup their machines using identical parts except for mobo/cpu. Games not released prior to the event that way noone has an advantage.

Oh wait, this will never happen. Continue on. Im happy with my Intel. Until another "Barton" processor comes along from AMD, Ill stick with Intel even if its slightly slower in BF3 (thats not to say I wont use AMD GPUs :D)
 
^^ unless you hit multi-GPU gaming, which is something that's required for good framerates at max settings for Eyefinity at high resolutions, then AMD's test results would have been completely different.

It's a marketing stunt that proved that under a single GPU the games were GPU limited at Eyefinity resolutions. You're right that people overspend for gaming rigs when they should be putting their money into GPUs or monitors and SSDs, though. 2500K/8150 even at stock are overkill for 1080p. I think what this test showed above all is that AMD still needs work in their marketing department.
 
pelo said:
^^ unless you hit multi-GPU gaming, which is something that's required for good framerates at max settings for Eyefinity at high resolutions, then AMD's test results would have been completely different.

It's a marketing stunt that proved that under a single GPU the games were GPU limited at Eyefinity resolutions. You're right that people overspend for gaming rigs when they should be putting their money into GPUs or monitors and SSDs, though. 2500K/8150 even at stock are overkill for 1080p. I think what this test showed above all is that AMD still needs work in their marketing department.
Click to expand...

I have 6970 CFX with my 8150 @4.68ghz and it keeps both my GPU's at ~90-99% usage in BF3 64 player servers on a single screen @ 1920x1080. The 8150 is hardly bottleneck at all for me, at least in BF3.
 
I definitely agree it was not a fair fight... AMD picked and chose the hardware and software to ensure they got the results they wanted. However, I really doubt they *cheated* by futzing with bios settings and corrupting files on the Intel machine.

It just goes to show you that faster benchmark numbers may not result in user detectable performance gains for THIS PARTICULAR COMBO of SOFTWARE and HARDWARE.

Waah, waah, waah, AMD beat Intel in a carefully controlled comparison with all the parameters set by AMD... therefore AMD must have cheated... meh... get over it, it's just a marketing gimmick.

PS I heard a rumor that AMD put a pea below the cushion of the office chair in front of the Intel machine so it would make the coveted "golden butt" demographic hate the Intel system more. :-O
 
Single screen :p you're one of the folks that overspent on a CPU. Gaming at 1080p with that chip will get you nearly the same results as Thuban, Phenom II, quad core SB or 2-core/4-thread SB, i7 920, etc. When you hit Eyefinity resolutions and add 2 more 1080p monitors and a third 6970 then you'd see that you'd need more CPU power: that's how [H] tests CPUs. AMD showed that with a single GPU and Eyefinity you're GPU bottlenecked, which isn't exactly a revelation. The question you should be asking is why would I spend $270 when I can get nearly the same performance for half of that? Or why not buy a $140 CPU and spend the rest on another GPU so I could get even better framerates on Eyefinity? The test is nonsensical.

They knew exactly what they were doing and it's just another marketing stunt. It's like when Intel faked that recent CES demo of their Ivy Bridge graphics. It doesn't mean squat
 
pelo said:
Single screen :p you're one of the folks that overspent on a CPU. Gaming at 1080p with that chip will get you nearly the same results as Thuban, Phenom II, quad core SB or 2-core/4-thread SB, i7 920, etc. When you hit Eyefinity resolutions and add 2 more 1080p monitors and a third 6970 then you'd see that you'd need more CPU power: that's how [H] tests CPUs. AMD showed that with a single GPU and Eyefinity you're GPU bottlenecked, which isn't exactly a revelation. The question you should be asking is why would I spend $270 when I can get nearly the same performance for half of that? Or why not buy a $140 CPU and spend the rest on another GPU so I could get even better framerates on Eyefinity? The test is nonsensical.

They knew exactly what they were doing and it's just another marketing stunt. It's like when Intel faked that recent CES demo of their Ivy Bridge graphics. It doesn't mean squat
Click to expand...

I'm sorry man, but you really don't know what you're talking about when it comes to this topic. Having high end CFX/SLI on a single screen causes CPU limitations in almost ALL cases. I game with a 120hz monitor so I strive to keep at least a 120fps average. Having a better CPU certainly helps keep the GPU usage up, especially in CPU intense multiplayer, thus producing a higher, more stable frame-rate. In most cases when it comes to CPU's, you give a good argument, but i'm afraid you really don't know what your talking about when it comes to multi-GPU configurations, much less Eyefinity. I have had an eyefinity setup before, aswell as several multi-GPU machines, as well as many hours tweaking settings and finding out what works. When it comes to this, I know what the fuck i'm talking about. The only reason you would need a more powerful CPU in Eyefinity is because of the increased FOV, which stresses the CPU as there is more action on the screen to process. Most of the power has to come from the added GPU's because of the sheer amount of pixel increase. At 1920x1080 6970's are usually overkill and can easily cause a CPU bottleneck, for someone like me who likes a 120+fps average, having a better CPU can certainly help keep the 2 GPU's at a high usage rate, keeping the frame-rate as high as my 6970's can possibly produce.

P.S
I got my 8150 for $240 and dropped it into my 890FXA-GD70, replacing my Phenom II 970. Which yielded very nice fps increases across the board, especially in BF3. In fact, it DOUBLED my GPU usage (from 40-50% to 90-99%) in 64 player servers, DOUBLING my frame-rate. Oh wait, ON A SINGLE SCREEN @ 1920x1080. So, you must be one of those people who doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about.
 
Last edited:
In the end, most casual gamers won't be able to tell the difference. I have an Intel system now but I still think this event was a success for AMD.

If someone can't play a game at 1920x1200 settings, most of them would just be like...hell I'll just lower it to 1280x720. Aaah, still looks the same to me. I'm ok with it.

Most of us here though would be like FUCK IT.
 
The fact that people preferred the AMD system nearly 2:1 is what indicates bullshit. You can rig a test so that it makes no difference, but you can't rig it so AMD is better. There must have been other uncontrolled factors.
 
So this highlights what we knew all along - you can spend a lot less and get adequate performance out of an AMD system.
 
Cobalt35 said:
I'd ad a caveat to that... More people found BF3 enjoyable on the AMD system than on the Intel system, that were both installed, set up, and configured by AMD.
Click to expand...

Aluisious said:
The fact that people preferred the AMD system nearly 2:1 is what indicates bullshit. You can rig a test so that it makes no difference, but you can't rig it so AMD is better. There must have been other uncontrolled factors.
Click to expand...

Would you both be saying this if Intel had done this and the Intel machine came out ahead, or would it be that you would say Intel was obviously faster because AMD sucks? Assumption of bias and proof of bias are very different things. After all, I have no way to prove you are both Intel fanboys, but I could assume it based upon your postings, the same as you assume AMD rigged the test without having any direct evidence. Can you even admit the possibility that the demonstration was not deliberately rigged in AMD's favor, or are you so blinded by fanaticism towards Intel that you are incapable of seeing things from any other point of view?
 
lord_emperor said:
So this highlights what we knew all along - you can spend a lot less and get adequate performance out of an AMD system.
Click to expand...

For majority of people's daily task. Yes.

Then someone will reply...MY DAILY TASK IS ENCODING VIDEOS. Dude.
 
Aluisious said:
The fact that people preferred the AMD system nearly 2:1 is what indicates bullshit. You can rig a test so that it makes no difference, but you can't rig it so AMD is better. There must have been other uncontrolled factors.
Click to expand...

They didnt. If you factor in the "no difference" votes as a vote against the AMD system, it shows that there was really no perceivable difference as the voting was basically 50/50.

I said it in the other thread on this subject and Ill say it here. Obviously Sandy Bridge is a better processor than Bulldozer but for gaming around 1920x1080 with a single video card like 99.9% of gamers do, a FX-8120 is a perfectly fine proc and wont be much different than an Intel. Now if youve put more money into video cards and monitors than I put down on my house, then you need an Intel because it in systems with that much horsepower and that big a resolution demand, that Intel's better performance will show itself.
 
I suspect their was a bong near the AMD tower that isn't shown in the pictures in the second test or as someone as stated the games known to be faster on the AMD chipset were used in the second test. But in all seriousness I have played around on a AMD A8 desktop and it did perform really well.
 
Easy to tell who wasted money on Bulldozer in here...lol.

Clearly the test was skewed toward AMD winning, but I doubt they cheated.
 
I'm disappointed with you guys today again. The [H] throws a free event for people and AMD set's up a test to determine which CPU gives you a better game experience. Why on earth would you think AMD rigged or even set up the test in order to give themselves an advantage? I'd actually like to hear Kyle's opinion on this one seeing as I'm sure he would definitely not allow anything sketchy like rigging an event.

Also it proves one thing for AMD. When it comes to gaming, most people seem happy enough to enjoy the game and if they can't tell the difference then does it hurt those who saved 100-200$ buying a cheaper system? Regardless of what else you could use the CPU for, if you are gaming and you get the same 'experience' from two CPUs, buy the cheaper one.

If you do some work that requires a higher IPC then buy an Intel CPU, if perhaps you need many threads then get an AMD CPU. It's really all about the consumer here. Why is everyone bashing AMD in here?
 
JosiahBradley said:
I'm disappointed with you guys today again. The [H] throws a free event for people and AMD set's up a test to determine which CPU gives you a better game experience. Why on earth would you think AMD rigged or even set up the test in order to give themselves an advantage? I'd actually like to hear Kyle's opinion on this one seeing as I'm sure he would definitely not allow anything sketchy like rigging an event.

Also it proves one thing for AMD. When it comes to gaming, most people seem happy enough to enjoy the game and if they can't tell the difference then does it hurt those who saved 100-200$ buying a cheaper system? Regardless of what else you could use the CPU for, if you are gaming and you get the same 'experience' from two CPUs, buy the cheaper one.

If you do some work that requires a higher IPC then buy an Intel CPU, if perhaps you need many threads then get an AMD CPU. It's really all about the consumer here. Why is everyone bashing AMD in here?
Click to expand...
Inclined to agree. Don't put too much stock on benchmark numbers. There is no nuance in benchmark scores. IRL people aren't going to be able to tell the difference between 50 and 55 fps. 50fps is more than enough to play a game, 60 fps won't make you any better. I'm sorry, but some of you have to get real on this. When I was a youngin' I made due with 15fps and moving up to better systems didn't suddenly make me a ruthless, efficient killing machine. The difference between _your_ performance at 30fps and 60fps is marginal and is attributable to different games, different circumstances... Sometimes you're on fire, sometimes you blow.

Ample performance is ample performance. Just because a particular setup isn't going to be putting out "record" numbers doesn't mean it's a pile that renders games practically unplayable. Same thing for "gaming" mice and keyboards. Oh brother. The rice (forgive me for using an automotive expression) some of you buy in to is hilarious.
 
Always stated that, if one does a blind test between Intel and AMD system, there is no difference in your use of the computer.
That is how powerful todays stuff is.:D
If one wanna rig the system, use a ssd in one system and it will feel so much faster and better then a mechanical HD system.
I love fanboys, people who believe their feelings of buying a specific brand allows them superious stats when in fact none make any difference in the practical use. Its called Placebo you get a feeling for something you make up as real benefit.:p
 
My 8120 runs BF3 just fine without glitches, hitches, or slowdowns. Even when the [H] BF3 thread was full of gloom and doom about 2600K problems with the game, I was just having fun in the game. The amount of people that voted "no difference" is the most telling sign IMO. My next upgrade will be a new monitor as I would like a larger 120hz monitor for sniping.

Glad to see that others experiencing 8150's for the first time had the same experience as me.

:)
 
MavericK96 said:
Easy to tell who wasted money on Bulldozer in here...lol.

Clearly the test was skewed toward AMD winning, but I doubt they cheated.
Click to expand...

or maybe it has more to with people having more common sense then others. everyone has to try to find an angle to anything when it comes to a specific company, be it intel, amd, Nvidia or any other manufacture. its the bullcrap fanboy mentality and its pathetic.

but either way, how could that test possibly be skewed toward AMD? ok sure the low end system i agree you could see it that way, but in reality what they were trying to show is the difference in what you got for 500 dollars with an intel system, vs 500 dollars with an AMD system. sure you could go scavanger hunting for cheaper stuff and maybe fit a dedicated card in there. but the average consumer won't waste their time doing that.. as far as the high end system it was technically skewed more toward intel. both processors had 8 threads, yet Intel's system has far better IPC performance then BD which is important when it comes to games like BF3 which are thread aggressive. IPC performance will always trump clock speeds in those cases. all they were trying to show was that yes BD may not be the best processor in the world. but what you see in text or graph's in a review isn't always the whole picture. maybe intel is faster then BD in BF3, but how many people are going to actually notice it without a frame counter sitting right in front of them? obviously only 40 of those people noticed it and 101 of them didn't.

i mean hell i've done it between both my systems.. had the frame counter turned on with one of them and the other off.. one system had a GTX 260 which had fraps running on it along with the frame rate counter on screen and another had SLI 8800GT's in it running fraps without the frame rate counter on.. played the same game and and same level in single player and thought the game played and looked like shit because i could see the frame rate bouncing around.. then played with the SLI 8800GT's and thought holy crap this is insanely better.. checked the fraps benchmark and low and behold the SLI 8800GT's never even broke 50fps with a 40fps average while the GTX 260 averaged 55fps. so yeah your perception of stuff changes when there isn't something telling you exactly whats going on.
 
You guys who are scratching your heads, rejoice! The answer has already been found, I wrote it in post #13. In other words Bulldozer and Sandy Bridge will probably be identical at Eyefinity resolutions, but at more common resolutions like 1080p Intel still holds the advantage.

Granted that's without factoring in better power efficiency and performance in non-gaming scenarios.
 
sirmonkey1985 said:
or maybe it has more to with people having more common sense then others. everyone has to try to find an angle to anything when it comes to a specific company, be it intel, amd, Nvidia or any other manufacture. its the bullcrap fanboy mentality and its pathetic.

but either way, how could that test possibly be skewed toward AMD? ok sure the low end system i agree you could see it that way, but in reality what they were trying to show is the difference in what you got for 500 dollars with an intel system, vs 500 dollars with an AMD system. sure you could go scavanger hunting for cheaper stuff and maybe fit a dedicated card in there. but the average consumer won't waste their time doing that.. as far as the high end system it was technically skewed more toward intel. both processors had 8 threads, yet Intel's system has far better IPC performance then BD which is important when it comes to games like BF3 which are thread aggressive. IPC performance will always trump clock speeds in those cases. all they were trying to show was that yes BD may not be the best processor in the world. but what you see in text or graph's in a review isn't always the whole picture. maybe intel is faster then BD in BF3, but how many people are going to actually notice it without a frame counter sitting right in front of them? obviously only 40 of those people noticed it and 101 of them didn't.

i mean hell i've done it between both my systems.. had the frame counter turned on with one of them and the other off.. one system had a GTX 260 which had fraps running on it along with the frame rate counter on screen and another had SLI 8800GT's in it running fraps without the frame rate counter on.. played the same game and and same level in single player and thought the game played and looked like shit because i could see the frame rate bouncing around.. then played with the SLI 8800GT's and thought holy crap this is insanely better.. checked the fraps benchmark and low and behold the SLI 8800GT's never even broke 50fps with a 40fps average while the GTX 260 averaged 55fps. so yeah your perception of stuff changes when there isn't something telling you exactly whats going on.
Click to expand...

If AMD keeps resorting to these kinds of gimmicks they might as well fire all of their PR/marketing people.

Seriously anyone can think of such a simple way of "proving" AMD is a better experience. Why bother with getting better performance when you can sandbag people into a blind test?
 
franzius said:
The second test simply proves that in a high-end gaming rig that includes a high-end GPU, the CPU plays second fiddle to the GPU when playing a modern game.

All other attempts at different more satisfying explanations points to the poster's own stance vis-a-vis Intel and AMD.
Click to expand...

I low end GPU would show more similar performance results when comparing CPU's. A high end GPU makes CPU difference more apparent. If that gave some control, such as hard drive specs, windows patches, driver versions, memory, tweaks, etc...of the two systems the results would be explained definitively.
 
Guys no need to strain yourselves wondering what's going on here. Anyone who's ever owned an intel and AMD system knows the story - AMD is "smoother", and that's what is being picked up by the people playing.
 
Damn just reading this thread it's obvious there are some unattended bridges right now.
 
For this testing to have had any merit, all the systems involved would have to be built and setup by an independent third party builder, with no agenda.
Both companies have strengths and weaknesses. This is 'fluff'..
 
AMD's only option is to use marketing gimmicks like this to fool people into buying FX CPUs. While it is true that those systems play this game similarly under Eyefinity, it has nothing to do with the CPU since the game is GPU bound. Not all games are GPU bound though, Starcraft II for example is around 40% faster with a Sandy Bridge. Can't fault AMD marketing for trying, but a reality check this is not.
 
MacLeod said:
And besides, wasnt this a [H]ardOCP, co-sponsored event? If AMD had been cheating and rigging this test, I gotta think [H] wouldve been on them like stink on shit.
Click to expand...
Well considering they have yet to comment on it, I am a little concerned with such test. Hard OCP has been very hard on AMD the past 6 months so I'm sure they have an opinion whether they want to share it or not.

If AMD came out with a video showing that both systems had equal configurations and installations and that both games ran at the same settings etc then it would be more believable. All we know is AMD in one with a slower CPU and Intel in another with a faster CPU, and yet the 'clear winner' was AMD, is sorta fishy.
 
LOL everyone in this thread is so far off its not even funny.

the Intel system was clearly running a Video of the gameplay, ofcourse they are going to say the real game is better on System B.

infact all system A consisted of was a DVD player and a Remote
 
In bf3 my i7 860 gets alot of action across all 8 threads, maybe the 8 cores > 4 cores h/t? I would like to get a new setup in Feb with taxes, I only play tf2 and bf3. Being a long time amd fan I would like to go back. Any other games out that can use 8 or more threads?
Kyle did you play on them? Which do you like better. :confused:
 
danmoody said:
In bf3 my i7 860 gets alot of action across all 8 threads, maybe the 8 cores > 4 cores h/t? I would like to get a new setup in Feb with taxes, I only play tf2 and bf3. Being a long time amd fan I would like to go back. Any other games out that can use 8 or more threads?
Kyle did you play on them? Which do you like better. :confused:
Click to expand...
The Intel box I believe was the new 6 core CPU, which would of been 12 threads. I believe Bulldozer 8 cores is more similar to an Intel quad with HT than actually 8 separate cores. But I don't follow AMD that closely so I don't know for sure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top