Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'CPUs and Overclocking' started by Symcy94, Nov 26, 2012.
Playing and recording with fraps on Dual Core= CPU limited
I think you are CPU limited. The question is how much faster the AMD 5600 is going to be since the game only uses two cores. The extra cores might help when you are running the recording program though. I am not saying the 5600 will not do the job, but I think you have to evaluate the CPU based on more than just the number of cores. Total performance is what matters. The safest choice would be an i5, then you would be sure of getting optimal CPU performance. Since you say that is too expensive, you will have to choose between the 5600, an FX which you say is not available, and a hyperthreaded i3. Since you use is sort of unique, you will just have to pick one and take your chances. For gaming alone, I would say the i3 is at least the equal of the 5600, especially in a game that only uses 2 threads, but for recording while gaming, the extra cores of the 5600 might pull it ahead.
Using Bandicam acctually
But I get the point hehe
Well I also think like you said about addictional cores that will help me with recording.
My E8500 atm have 3,17GHz and 6MB L2
A8 5600K have 3,9GHz on turbo and 4MB L2
I guess I would get same FPS in game with no recording.
But when I will record I think I will loose only like ~15 fps on my gameplay upon my atm loose ~60FPS
I just hope the system will put game on first two cores, and recording program to 3rd and 4th core
Because what does that multi core support even mean? Lets say that some aplication support 2 cores. That means it will be able to work on max 2 cores. That's for sure.
But on witch cores? It can work only on first two cores or doesn't matter on what cores it will work? Still can't get that hehe
Get the i3 3220. You gain:
Same multithreaded performance as 5600k.
+50% single threaded performance (great gains in games).
Not worrying about if the games you play are playing well on AMD. MMO's in particular are playing terribly on AMD cpu's (WoW, Guild Wars 2, as the last examples).
And a lot lower power consumption.
But the processor is locked, and I don't even play those new games that you mentioned.
Playing KalOnline sometimes and Crossfire. + recording the gameplay.
And I think that i3 wouldn't be as good for that as A8 5600K
Why? because i3 have 2 cores and in this case aplication + recording program would work on the same 2 cores. That would cause laggs in my gameplay + video that is recording.
I would stick with the A8 and overclock to 4ghz. It will match or beat an i3. This is a quad core CPU, not a dual core with HT. My 6850 does not bottleneck one bit by the A8 and I am confident that even a newer GPU wouldn't either.
If you don't have the money to swing for the i5, then I definitely recommend the A8-5600k. I can honestly say I can sell my Intel system and just keep the A8 for gaming since its perfectly sufficient for what I do.
I also think that A8 5600K can't be that bad.
It can't compare to i5, but handeling same bench like i3 cores shouldn't be such a problem for it.
And may I ask what rating does that CPU get at Windows 7 Index Experience or something (in System, to rate your PC) ?
5600K is unlocked ,meaning you can just use the multiplier and OC it. 4-4.1Ghz on stock Vcore and cooling is common so you gain 12+%. You lose the 95W when you OC but I doubt this will concern you much. And when it comes to multitasking(which is what you basically need), Trinity is better choice due to more dedicated resources it has Vs i3 (and unlocked multiplier which is a big plus).
I would not base any real world applications on the Windows Experience Index.
To me it is difficult to say whether the higher IPC and multithreading of the i3, or the extra "cores" of the A8 will give better performance for what you want to do. Remember, although the A8 is marketed as 4 cores, the cores do share some resources, and the IPC is considerably lower than that of an i3. As I said in my previous post, it is really the overall performance that matters, not the number of cores per se. My best guess is that an i3 would give better performance in gaming alone, while gaming plus recording is anybody's guess.
In contrast to what some posters on these forums say about dual core processors, the i3 with hyperthreading is surprisingly competent, especially in gaming.
Both are 2 cores/4 threads. AMD markets a module as two cores, but in reality both of them are not really 4 cores. I wouldn't count so much on overclocking on stock solutions since my last stock cooler from AMD sounded like an airplane taking off.
Since you play those specific games, save yourself some time and go search for benchmarks in those games.
So you want to say that A8 5600K have acctually 2 cores and 4 threads :O ?
Its 4 cores and 4 threads. Don't let anyone spin it off to something different. The cores share resources to a module so technically its 2m/4c/4t. Its better than hyperthreading and has better multithreading capabilities.
Yeah, Rvenger is correct.
Better or not than hyperthreading, it's irrelevant. It's still NOT native 4 cores, it's 2 modules and AMD markets them as 4 cores. Phenom II x4, I5 2500 etc. are true quad cores.
Multithreaded performance on the A5600k is equal or worse than the i3 2320.
Single threaded performance is a lot worse (-50%) also.
Try not to think by the number of cores (if that was the case, then the Bulldozer, which is supposed to be "8 cores" would not be so much worse than intel 4 cores offerings), but by performance only.
I have a 3220 and i speak from experience. first of all, i care about power consumption and i have the computer open 12 hours a day, and it happens that i game for many of those hours.
I also undervolted the cpu @ stock, and according to my calculations it uses less than 10 watts on idle and 40 watts at load.
I also monitor the cpu and gpu usage across all threads in all games i play, and i know exactly what the bottleneck is. Despite what people say, in general, at least this cpu is required at the minimum to have 60 fps in games.
I had an phenom ii x2 which i unlocked to phenom ii x4 @ 3.5 ghz. In all games the i3 3220 performs better. Here is the a10-5800k at 3.8ghz vs the phenom ii x4 970 at 3.5 ghz
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/675?vs=186 and the phenom ii has a slight edge.
In mainly single threaded games the i3 3220 was 30% faster compared to phenom ii x4 @ 3.5 ghz, while in games that used more than 2 threads the i3 was still 10% faster. The gpu and ram was the same.
Why would you want something weaker performing than na i3 in all cases ? Unless you what ? overclock to 4,5 ghz on the stock heatsink ? Even then, it would give roughly the same performance with 4x the power consumptions and a lot of heat and noise.
I wouldn't use AMD even if you gave it to me for free. Yes even a bulldozer 8350, for a little extra fps i get a lot of extra power consumption, and i have a very small budget every month.
I imagine the i3 will excel in single and dual threaded tasks. With HT it may even be plenty for the OP. The AMD quad will be slower in single and lightly threaded apps, but when three or four threads are used, I wouldn't be surprised if the A8 was faster. And with it unlocked I am sure it can get a nice healthy bump with some overclocking, where the i3 is locked.
I would certainly go with the unlocked AMD quad, if I were the OP. But better yet would be waiting for a deal on a 2500K, if that is available where he is. Those $99 Microcenter deals have me almost ready to take a ride down to Chicago.
As shown in this comparison, the i3 surprisingly is better even in multithreaded tests, and absolutely destroys the AMD in games.
So, add the lower power consumption and there are absolutely zero reasons to prefer AMD
The i3 is surprisingly good... but, I don't agree with the 'absolutely zero reasons to prefer AMD'. The AMD chip is pulling 60FPS+ in every game but one in those benches. The AMD quad is also cheaper, at least on Newegg (I did not scour the internet to look at prices, just went to Newegg). The AMD chip is just a few adjustments of the multiplier away from pulling ahead in many benches, too.
I don't think the OP will go wrong with either choice, but I still think the AMD chip is actually the better option, unless the extra power consumption is a factor.
I posed a reply a few post ago covering this and i will say it again. I don't understand how is the a8-5600k a better value even overclocked. On average it is 20% slower than an i3. Now let's ignore the fuzzy math, when A is 20% slower than B, then it means that B is 25% faster than A. Let's just make it simple, it needs around 20% increase in clock speed so match the i3 3220, so it would be at around 4,3 ghz.
Are you suggesting an overclock of 4,3 ghz on stock cooler just to match an i3 3220 ? But it needs to be faster to have better value, otherwise there is no point, so then what ? A 4,7ghz overclock on stock cooler to be ~10% faster than an i3 on average ? Even if you get an aftermarket cooler, the power consumption is probably 5x that if an i3.
Which one is it ? OC on the stock cooler at 4,3 ghz to MATCH the i3 and have 4x power consumption, and high temperature and noise, or buy an aftermarket cooler, OC to 4,7 ghz and end up spending more than on an i3 3220 just for a 10% performance increase and also deal with even higher power consumption, probably 5x that of an ivy i3, with also an increase in ambient temperature.
The A10/8 beats the PhII in many multithreaded Apps. The module format shares a front end and a floating point processor. Each module has a single floating point core and 2 integer cores. But that shared floating point can execute 2 128bit operations per clock and 1 256bit operation. This is actually the same throughput as 2 PhII cores because a PhII core can only execute 1 128bit operation or 1/2 of a 256bit operation per clock. So the bottleneck is really just the front end. The module method is much much much closer to a dual core CPU than a hyperthreaded intel core. I think either chip will suit him just fine, the i3 or the A10. The i3 might have marginally better fps when playing games, but will take a larger hit to fps when he starts to record his gameplay since it only has 2 cores vs 4. The A10/8 will not be affected much my the recording while the i3 will be, even though the i3 might be slightly faster to begin with. The end result will likely be approximately the same but I'd go with the 4 core chip to ensure there were no hiccups while playing. Also, I like the unlocked nature of the A8 and it's actually a bit cheaper than a high clocked i3.
I am sure you have tested it to back up your claim as well.
There's a link in that post. Click it, then read it.
This is oversimplified, but you can think of it like this:
An A8 is 2 modules, which tends to be about 80% of 4 cores when all of them are fully loaded.
4 * 0.8 = 3.2 "effective cores"
An i3 is a dual core with 50% higher IPC and hyperthreading, which is worth as much as 30% more performance.
2 * 1.5 * 1.3 = 3.9 "effective cores"
The 5600K is clocked slightly higher at stock, but even so a 15% overclock just about evens the playing field between the two when fully loaded. In applications that don't fully utilize 4 threads, the i3 is leagues ahead.
The AMD chip is slightly cheaper though, for what it's worth.
I think we can safely agree now that AMD cpus for gaming = no no. The A5600 can't even get above 35 frames. The supposed "improved in gaming" FX 8350 can't even beat the 4 year old i7 920.
One game?Seriously? By one website? Ok.
You try too hard man,take some time off.