Go Back   AnandTech Forums > Hardware and Technology > CPUs and Overclocking

Forums
· Hardware and Technology
· CPUs and Overclocking
· Motherboards
· Video Cards and Graphics
· Memory and Storage
· Power Supplies
· Cases & Cooling
· SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones PCs
· Networking
· Peripherals
· General Hardware
· Highly Technical
· Computer Help
· Home Theater PCs
· Consumer Electronics
· Digital and Video Cameras
· Mobile Devices & Gadgets
· Audio/Video & Home Theater
· Software
· Software for Windows
· All Things Apple
· *nix Software
· Operating Systems
· Programming
· PC Gaming
· Console Gaming
· Distributed Computing
· Security
· Social
· Off Topic
· Politics and News
· Discussion Club
· Love and Relationships
· The Garage
· Health and Fitness
· Merchandise and Shopping
· For Sale/Trade
· Hot Deals with Free Stuff/Contests
· Black Friday 2013
· Forum Issues
· Technical Forum Issues
· Personal Forum Issues
· Suggestion Box
· Moderator Resources
· Moderator Discussions
   

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-20-2013, 01:05 PM   #51
SPBHM
Platinum Member
 
SPBHM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 2,369
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by inf64 View Post
Wow look at the 2C/4T i3
It just shows that recommending i3 for 2013+ "low budget gamer rigs" is getting absurd. This thing should not be recommended to people who want to game on the budget and want intel cpu inside. Lowest QC i5 at the minimum should be recommended and this trend of optimizing newer games for multicore is just starting.
that's only one game, I can provide you some tests showing some new games where the 6300 is as fast or slower than the i3, but sure the 6300 for $10 more is looking like a much nicer choice at the moment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by grimpr View Post
The i3 is simply destroyed by the FX 4300 and the much superior FX 6300, i'd like to see an A10 5800, i3s direct competitor, in these benches.
5800 is slower than the 4300, faster than the 740k
SPBHM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2013, 01:08 PM   #52
Enigmoid
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,291
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by boxleitnerb View Post
PCGH:

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Crysis...hmark-1056578/

Very good results from AMD, unexpected! What is eating so much CPU power that 8 threads can be utilized?
Anyone notice that that was tested with gk 110?
Enigmoid is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2013, 01:15 PM   #53
inf64
Platinum Member
 
inf64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,040
Default

I noticed it . Check PCGH GPU test for Crysis 3 . Too bad resolutions in two reviews don't match so we can't compare Titan's score from low resolution(CPU benchmark) to the numbers from other one.
__________________
ShintaiDK:"There will be no APU in PS4 and Xbox720."
ShintaiDK:"No quadchannel either.[in Kaveri]"
CHADBOGA:"Because he[OBR] is a great man."
inf64 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2013, 01:15 PM   #54
Ventanni
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 818
Default

Glad I went with a 3770k! I'll have to reinstall my Radeon 5850 though when I play it.

I realized that I hardly game anymore. My fiance uses my computer way, way more than I do. So I uninstalled the 5850 and went with the HD4000. For what I have been playing, the HD4000 actually doesn't do too bad of a job of delivering.

She's said on a few occasions that my computer is really, really fast lol.
__________________
Desktop: Core i7 3770k, 8GB, Geforce 560 Ti
HTPC: Core2 Q6600, 4GB, Geforce 285
Ventanni is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2013, 01:50 PM   #55
2is
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,607
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BallaTheFeared View Post
Considering a 7970 can only get 37 fps @ 1080 /w 4xMSAA, and 690 only 58, I'm not really sure you should be using this as an example.

12% more performance at stock for 33% more $, the case is not strong in this one.
Drop your MSAA to 2X or use SMAA instead. From what I've been reading, once you get to 4xMSAA, Crysis 3 REALLY starts kicking the GPU's ass. Even in CF/SLI configurations.
__________________
Intel i7 3770K|240GB Intel SSD 520|Asus P8Z77-V Pro|2x GTX 680 SLI (2GB)|180GB Corsair Force SSD|Corsair TX750|2x8GB DDR3 1600 (1.35v)
2is is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2013, 01:51 PM   #56
Puppies04
Diamond Member
 
Puppies04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 4,637
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ventanni View Post
Glad I went with a 3770k! I'll have to reinstall my Radeon 5850 though when I play it.

I realized that I hardly game anymore. My fiance uses my computer way, way more than I do. So I uninstalled the 5850 and went with the HD4000. For what I have been playing, the HD4000 actually doesn't do too bad of a job of delivering.

She's said on a few occasions that my computer is really, really fast lol.
I hope you know how to turn sliders down, looks like this might be the game that makes me pull out my 560TI and get something beefier, a 5850 is going to get hammered by comparison.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by [B
alkemyst[/B];35121925]I am the real deal while those like yourself threaten while hiding behind the screen.
Puppies04 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2013, 02:17 PM   #57
SPBHM
Platinum Member
 
SPBHM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 2,369
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Puppies04 View Post
I hope you know how to turn sliders down, looks like this might be the game that makes me pull out my 560TI and get something beefier, a 5850 is going to get hammered by comparison.
1080P medium should work well enough for a 5850, no need to upgrade.
SPBHM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2013, 02:27 PM   #58
Sherlockwing
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 38
Default Hyperthreading vs AMD modules

It seems in this game Intel 8T is not scaling as well as AMD 8 cores given that FX-8350 beats 3770K by a large margin in performance per dollar.

I wonder if the game is not as well coded for HT as it is for AMD cores. Otherwise Intel need to considering bringing hexacore down to mainstream to maintain its gaming edge in the future.

Last edited by Sherlockwing; 02-20-2013 at 02:45 PM.
Sherlockwing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2013, 02:42 PM   #59
frozentundra123456
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 5,115
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherlockwing View Post
It seems in this game Intel 8T is not scaling as well as AMD 8 cores given that FX-8350 beats 3770K by a large margin.

I wonder if the game is not as well coded for HT as it is for AMD cores. Otherwise Intel need to considering bringing hexacore down to mainstream to maintain its gaming edge in the future.
I agree Intel should bring out a mainstream hex core, but I don't see where you are saying the 8350 beats 3770k by a large margin. The difference is actually very small. I do think Intel is relying too much on high IP and hyper threading though. They really need to increase clockspeeds and bring out a mainstream hex core.
frozentundra123456 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2013, 02:45 PM   #60
Sherlockwing
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 38
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by frozentundra123456 View Post
I agree Intel should bring out a mainstream hex core, but I don't see where you are saying the 8350 beats 3770k by a large margin. The difference is actually very small. I do think Intel is relying too much on high IP and hyper threading though. They really need to increase clockspeeds and bring out a mainstream hex core.
I call 2 FPS a large margin partially because the difference in cost, so I should rephrased that as "a large margin in performance/$" as some would consider a $300+ CPU losing to a competitor's $200 chip by any margin an embarrassing defeat.

Last edited by Sherlockwing; 02-20-2013 at 02:47 PM.
Sherlockwing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2013, 02:47 PM   #61
fixbsod
Senior Member
 
fixbsod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 383
Default

Umm, 12% more performance for $100. I think **MANY** people would be willing to cough up $100 for 12%. FFS Nvidia is selling their 'real' 680s as a Titan for like $1,000 without much outcry when prev gen was $500.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BallaTheFeared View Post
12% more performance at stock for 33% more $, the case is not strong in this one.
fixbsod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2013, 02:55 PM   #62
BallaTheFeared
Diamond Member
 
BallaTheFeared's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 8,128
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fixbsod View Post
Umm, 12% more performance for $100. I think **MANY** people would be willing to cough up $100 for 12%. FFS Nvidia is selling their 'real' 680s as a Titan for like $1,000 without much outcry when prev gen was $500.
There is considerable outcry over the price

Many did, but that's not 12% from just HT, it's also from more clock speed. Which from what I've seen is the opposite of what happens once we overclock. Meaning on the same cooling solution a non HT i5 or disabled i7 will hit higher clocks at the same voltage and heat levels as one with HT enabled.
BallaTheFeared is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2013, 03:29 PM   #63
djshortsleeve
Member
 
djshortsleeve's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 123
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by grimpr View Post
Doesnt matter since price/performance in this multithreaded game the FX 8350 simply kicks ass for 195$ compared to the 319$ Core i7 2600k
More proof that my 2500k will go down as my best CPU purchase in my life. $219 over 2 years ago...
__________________
Core i5 2500k, ASUS P8P67 Pro, 8GB Corsair Vengeance (2 x 4GB), Crucial C300 128 GB SATA III SSD, MSI TF GTX 780, Thermaltake Dokker
ASUS Nexus 7
HTPC - A8-5600K, ASRock Extreme4-M, Gskill Ripjaws X DDR3-2133 8GB, OCZ Solid 3 SSD, Win8, IN WIN case
djshortsleeve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2013, 05:52 PM   #64
moonbogg
Diamond Member
 
moonbogg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 4,161
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fixbsod View Post
Umm, 12% more performance for $100. I think **MANY** people would be willing to cough up $100 for 12%. FFS Nvidia is selling their 'real' 680s as a Titan for like $1,000 without much outcry when prev gen was $500.
I cried about it before I bought my 670's and we all knew this was going to happen with nvidia charging $500 for the mid range. Anyone who didn't see it coming was in denial. What I didn't see though was the stupinsane (yes, thats a word. I just invented it) $1000 price. I guessed about $700.
__________________
3930K @ 4.3 - 16GB DDR3 @ 1600 - 2X GTX 670 SLI(2GB) - SAMSUNG 830 SSD - 1920X1080 @ 120HZ - WINDOWS 8.1
moonbogg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2013, 06:21 PM   #65
OS
Lifer
 
OS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 15,550
Default

looks like moar coars finally paying off
__________________
www.calguns.net
OS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2013, 06:48 PM   #66
dualsmp
Golden Member
 
dualsmp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: SC
Posts: 1,521
Default

I think the i3 is a bottleneck period for a GTX 690 regardless of whether Crysis 3 is being benchmarked. It's already been established a long time ago that when using SLI or CF it requires at least 4 cores or more.
dualsmp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2013, 07:21 PM   #67
Pheesh
Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 128
Default

how much overclocking headroom does the fx-8350 have above 4.0 ghz typically?

Given how much headroom you have with a 2500k and 2600k you miss some of the picture just looking at the stock frequencies. Good showing from AMD though to be in the neighborhood, even if they have to boost stock frequency and TDP to get there. That has to be encouraging for future games which invariably are going to be making use of more cores.
Pheesh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2013, 07:22 PM   #68
Durvelle27
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Memphis, TN
Posts: 4,102
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pheesh View Post
how much overclocking headroom does the fx-8350 have above 4.0 ghz typically?

Given how much headroom you have with a 2500k and 2600k you miss some of the picture just looking at the stock frequencies. Good showing from AMD though to be in the neighborhood, even if they have to boost stock frequency and TDP to get there. That has to be encouraging for future games which invariably are going to be making use of more cores.
i see ppl hitting 5GHz pretty easily with good Cooling
Durvelle27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2013, 08:56 PM   #69
guskline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Lebanon, PA
Posts: 2,798
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Durvelle27 View Post
i see ppl hitting 5GHz pretty easily with good Cooling
5 Ghz pretty easily? I don't think so. On air up to 4.5/4.6. Water cooling 4.6 to 5Ghz but not easily IF you are concerned about stability.
__________________
3930k @ 4.6 - SaberTh X79 - 780 Classy EVGA Hydro Copper block
16G DDR3-1866 - Intel 530 SSD - 2560x1440 Achieva Shimian
Win 8.1 - PC P&C 950W - CM HAF 932 Adv - Custom WC MO RA3 420 + RX 360+XSPC Twin D5 Bay Res|CM Quick-Fire rapid brown
guskline is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2013, 09:09 PM   #70
BallaTheFeared
Diamond Member
 
BallaTheFeared's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 8,128
Default

Yay AMD, pitty I'm so jaded/sceptical.
BallaTheFeared is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2013, 10:20 PM   #71
boxleitnerb
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,489
Default

As far as I understood the author of PCGHs benchmark, it's the calculations for the grass in Crysis 3, that makes so good use of multithreading.
boxleitnerb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2013, 02:55 AM   #72
Prey2big
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 84
Default

I just watched the video on their site. That bench sequence doest look any good.
I wonder what kind of work-load a big firefight would put on the CPU. Video game-developers needs to put back demo recording and timedemo.
Prey2big is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2013, 07:48 PM   #73
UaVaj
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 1,221
Default

+1 for the full multicore support. performance reallie shines when all core are running at full speed - especially on a slower ipc amd.

+1 for full HT support. added 6fps. i5 to i7

now only
if other games would fully support multicore.
and only
if intel had an affordable 8 core. (pretty sad to see amd 8 core slightly pass intel 4 core)
and only
if nvidia titan was $600.
UaVaj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2013, 08:58 PM   #74
bononos
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 2,492
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Enigmoid View Post
Anyone notice that that was tested with gk 110?
I did, I'd like to see benchmarks with GK104s to see what sort of bottlenecking the vast majority of gamers will face.
bononos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2013, 11:06 AM   #75
Gikaseixas
Golden Member
 
Gikaseixas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,888
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherlockwing View Post
I call 2 FPS a large margin partially because the difference in cost, so I should rephrased that as "a large margin in performance/$" as some would consider a $300+ CPU losing to a competitor's $200 chip by any margin an embarrassing defeat.
That makes the FX 8350 stand out. If this trend continous the FX can become the gamers choice once again.
__________________
Intel i7 4770K @ 4.6ghz | MSI Z87 MPOWER |Samsung 840 Pro 512GB| Corsair Vengeance Pro 2400MHz DDR3 | Sapphire Radeon Vapor-X 7970 | Corsair 850W | Corsair H100i
AMD FX 8350 @ 4.6ghz | GIGABYTE 990FXA UD5 |Samsung 840 Pro 256GB| Corsair DDR3-1866 | Gigabyte Radeon HD 7850 OC | Corsair 750W | Zalman CNPS 12X
Laptop: Sager NP9377 | Intel i7 4810HQ 2.8-3.8ghz | 32GB DDR3 | 256 SSD & 1TB Storage | Nvidia GTX880M 8GB @ 1920 x 1080 res
Gikaseixas is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:40 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.