AM3 vs LGA1156 longevity as a gaming platform

[Insomniator]

It doesn't even matter because a high end overclocked quad today will probably run games for like 3 years. AMD x6's maybe even longer. If you are talking strictly gaming, I would think that by the time your socket no longer supported a decent CPU there will be other things that make buying a new motherboard worth it. I just put a Q9550 in my motherboard... Socket 775 is almost 4 years old now.

Can't really make a wrong choice. Personally I kind of prefer spending 100 on a motherboard and getting a new one every 2 years rather than spending 200 and trying to hold on to it as long as possible.

 

[MJinZ]

A few days ago, I got into a little debate with someone at another site. It really started with another member there taking suggestions for his upgrades. He said it plain and simple - no encoding or folding (he doesn't even know what it is), just pure gaming as far as demanding tasks go. Since they were residing outside of US, I figured it would be unwise for them to go for intel CPUs when the price difference was nearly $200 for comparable setups in the gaming context. Then that other guy came along and claimed 1156 is the worst choice now, simply and solely because there is no upgrade path due to intel's intention to kill the platform soon enough. He went on to say that with AM3, you would be set for another upgrade down the road.

Now, these guys are really on budget and have to be pinching pennies to consider a 5770 a huge spending, partly because pricing on parts where they live is substantially higher than it is in the US. I argued that for gaming, you need a GPU upgrade more often than CPU upgrades. There have been some oddball cases like 9700pro or the early stages of GF 8 series in the past where the gain in video performance idled for whatever reason (competition not being strong enough, etc), but for the most part I don't think GPUs ever outlasted CPUs upgrade wise for ideal gaming experience. It is true you won't fare well with an A64 these days, but C2D/C2Q's are still very solid foundation for a gaming PC even these days. At worst, from my own experience and observation of others in general, I think people tend to sell/give away/relegate to a secondary rig more often than they do a drop-in upgrade for the CPU only when they upgrade.

Of course I am no Ms. Cleo and can't tell what the future will exactly hold, but here are some clues that let's me take an educated guess on the likelihood of upgrading just the CPU:

1) GPUs still are the limiting factor at higher resolutions, there isn't much to gain from higher clocked / many-cored CPUs in current games past a certain thresold
2) About the only relevant point of performance for CPUs at the moment, physics calculations, seems to favor GPUs - reglardless of how successful physx becomes. I only see it going two ways - either GPU-based physics takes off and CPUs are further freed from physics calcuations, or physics in gaming continues to maintain status quo more or less and things don't get any more demanding for CPUs in the larger scheme of things
3) If the Bulldozer is truly something revolutionary, I would guess you might need to upgrade the rest of the components to take a full advantage of it. Just a guess. Hybrid systems in the past worked, but not in a stellar fashion.
4) With so many dual/quads out there, are the developers really going to push multicore so hard that the hexas are going to shine big time? So far, there has been all the talk of multi-core being future proof.. The fact is duals still game fine; there are subjective yet repeated accounts of quads being noticeably smoother than duals - something not reflected in fps averages and extreme values. Can hexas have a similar impact in gaming? Doubtful.

So, if you really must put together a new computer now, do you really think i5 750 is such a terrible choice, longevity-wise? Personally I think it provides great value for gaming now, and does perform somewhat better than a comparable AMD setup price/performance factor aside. The chances are you won't need a CPU upgrade for gaming alone either way sooner than you would need a GPU upgrade. I thought AMD has nothing planned on AM3 between the Thurban and the Bulldozer (that, if Bulldozer turns out AM3 compatible)? Why not get a i5 750 now and be done with it for a while? Realistically, PhII is no slouch, especially if your local vendors offer it much cheaper compared to the i5's so that you could pour those savings into GPU dept. The point, however, is that it is not the upgrade path that makes AM3 sooooo much better than LGA1156, is it really?

I could be totally of the mark, will eat my humble pie if proven wrong. I am genuinely curious about what you guys think on the matter.

I am not looking for your advice on what these guys should buy, it is very obvious to anyone given their situation with pricing and I have already told what they needed to hear accordingly. What I am really doing here is questioning the logic behind regarding AM3 more future proof for its ability to accept future AMD CPUs. If you are a gamer (AND on budget), you know GPUs matter more and the trend will most probably continue. Why would you want to upgrade a CPU alone anyway? I just don't think any CPU upgrade on AM3 will beat i5 750 anytime soon, and when the BD is out you might as well get a new and better mobo. I just don't believe in buying stuff for being future-proof looking as far as few years ahead.

LOL... this is pretty hilarious. The AM3 platform is AMD's high end and competes occasionally with the X58. The LGA1156 is a mid-end platform that is effectively DEAD.

WTF is there to argue about? AM3 is the obvious choice for those on a budget. If they remain poor in the future, then can still get some mediocre AM3 CPU that will beat shit out of the i5 750. Is that too hard to imagine?

Even on a budget now, an AM3 board + Phenom II X4 will be much cheaper than any Intel setup.

 

[classy]

methinks you should have read on

Right back at you

I stated

Regardless of how long the platform will last, the money a person would save on the cpu alone would allow them to buy a better video card. Now video cards last longer than cpus. A good video card can provide good gaming for 3-5 years depending on that individual's gaming resolution.

Now as for which platform is most future proof is clearly unknown. My guess is bulldozer will probably find its initial way into AM3 boards. Future products of Intel are always far more expensive than AMD. So a cpu upgrade will more than likely provide some boost in the future and will be cheaper with AMD. Who will be better is unknown.

 

[konakona]

Even on a budget now, an AM3 board + Phenom II X4 will be much cheaper than any Intel setup.

Isn't that what I have been saying all along? Where did I say you need to get a i7 now? All I am saying is get Ph II because it has good bang for buck NOW, not because you will want to upgrade your CPU soon. AMD won't have anything significantly faster until BD comes along, and when that happens you might as well upgrade everything for optimal performance. I just don't make it a habit to bet on uncertain future.

For one, I am not convinced a CPU upgrade will be imminent soon enough to matter. IF one is dead set on a upgrading the CPU for whatever reason (like the guy I was arguing with was), then i5 750 will likely stay dominant for some time to come until BD comes along, nullifying any so-called upgrade on the AM3.

If they remain poor in the future, then can still get some mediocre AM3 CPU that will beat shit out of the i5 750.

do you really see that happening in next few years? are we CPU starved now? what makes you think CPUs will suddenly become the priority over GPUs for upgrades?

 

[classy]

WEll if you are asking the question simply, Is a future CPU upgrade warrant buying AM3 over Intel, then given the situation of gaming on a slim budget, the answer is yes. If they are gaming on a budget, we are already know AM3 is the way to go now. And when you factor in that Bulldozer will probably end up in current AM3 boards makes it even more attractive as a purchase. For it is clear with Intel's tick tock, 1156 and 1366 won't see future cpu upgrades.

 

[konakona]

WEll if you are asking the question simply, Is a future CPU upgrade warrant buying AM3 over Intel, then given the situation of gaming on a slim budget, the answer is yes. If they are gaming on a budget, we are already know AM3 is the way to go now. And when you factor in that Bulldozer will probably end up in current AM3 boards makes it even more attractive as a purchase. For it is clear with Intel's tick tock, 1156 and 1366 won't see future cpu upgrades.

my point is, if you need something to last for just next couple of years, (or tide you over in case BD is successful and becomes a worthy upgrade) the i5 is arguably better performance-wise and will stay that way, certainly no worse than AM3 by any measure

Will a cpu upgrade on AM3 barring BD make it stronger for gaming than i7/1156? My answer is most probably no. Would one ever need such an uprgade? Quite certainly not. That's pretty much the gist of it.

That of course doesn't say anything about what is the better way to spend your money wisely (hence my suggestion to them to go ahead with AM3)

Looking back, I shouldn't have mixed the low budget part with my main contention of AM3 upgradability being moot and hollow. My bad. The budget factor was thrown in only because he made it sound like a CPU upgrade is an inevitable thing to happen before BD, which in turn would make it no cheaper than getting a faster intel CPU now and be done with it for a while. Not that you couldn't have done the same (not upgrade the CPU) with an AMD setup, but oh well. He also went on to say now that thurban is out, i5 750 is obsolete, implying that you want to get ready to upgrade your CPU to something with more cores, when we were clearly discussing exclusively in the gaming context. While I understand people's enthusiasm with the newer hexa core CPUs from AMD for encoding and such, I don't think they will do much for gaming, nor they were meant to. At least not soon enough to matter that you get to appreciate it before your next upgrade. Not being able to use hexa cores on the 1156 doesn't somehow turn it inferior for gaming.

 

[Lonbjerg]

methinks you should have read on

The performance of my socket 1336 will outperform anything AM3 will deliver, you can quote me for that.
Just looking at the socket, while disregarding the performance is not giving the true picture.

 

[Idontcare]

The performance of my socket 1336 will outperform anything AM3 will deliver, you can quote me for that.
Just looking at the socket, while disregarding the performance is not giving the true picture.

What is socket 1336?

And yes, if you are willing to throw thousands of dollars upgrading to the latest extreme CPU Intel rolls out for the socket then you are likely assured that your multi-thousand dollar rig will outperform the multi-hundred dollar rig upgrades that AMD will be selling with 32nm BD.

Just looking at the performance, while disregarding the cost is not giving the true picture.

 

[MJinZ]

Isn't that what I have been saying all along? Where did I say you need to get a i7 now? All I am saying is get Ph II because it has good bang for buck NOW, not because you will want to upgrade your CPU soon. AMD won't have anything significantly faster until BD comes along, and when that happens you might as well upgrade everything for optimal performance. I just don't make it a habit to bet on uncertain future.

Well, you should add to your recommendation that to get Phenom 2, not only for bang for buck NOW but because you can upgrade to some unknown AMD CPU in the future. i5-750 has neither of those benefits, it's basically the worst possible option. High end? i7. Budget? Phenom 2. Crossfire or SLI. Ignore P55 altogether.

For one, I am not convinced a CPU upgrade will be imminent soon enough to matter. IF one is dead set on a upgrading the CPU for whatever reason (like the guy I was arguing with was), then i5 750 will likely stay dominant for some time to come until BD comes along, nullifying any so-called upgrade on the AM3.

Uh, what? If the guy wanted to go Thuban for $100 down the road, it would probably do just as well if not better than i5 750 in gaming. In everything else, probably cream it.

Bulldozer? From Anandtech:

AM3 Bulldozer > Bulldoze all over a puny i5. I'm guessing a $150 Bulldozer would be substantially faster. I would not be surprised if my $300 i7 920 gets creamed.

do you really see that happening in next few years? are we CPU starved now? what makes you think CPUs will suddenly become the priority over GPUs for upgrades?

That's not the point. The point is CPU upgrades, what he does with his money for the GPU is up to him. You can take that out of equation entirely because a Phenom 2 setup that costs $100 less than an i5 setup will get him a 5850 instead of a 5770. That alone already makes him come out ahead in the grand scheme of things.

Conclusion:

P55 blows.

 

[Lonbjerg]

What is socket 1336?

And yes, if you are willing to throw thousands of dollars upgrading to the latest extreme CPU Intel rolls out for the socket then you are likely assured that your multi-thousand dollar rig will outperform the multi-hundred dollar rig upgrades that AMD will be selling with 32nm BD.

Just looking at the performance, while disregarding the cost is not giving the true picture.

That is because there is a fallacy called "bang for buck", that seems to have gained notion, that disregards performance/time and some people seems to think that is the "holy grail", while others see the flaws of that fallacy *shrugs*

Pay less...wait more...yeah "bang for buck" is really a true meassure *chough* :hmm:

 

[konakona]

not only for bang for buck NOW but because you can upgrade to some unknown AMD CPU in the future

I think that's just matter of preference. I could just sell my system and start from the scratch if I need a system overhaul. Again, I can't think of a satisfactory drop-in replacement for CPUs from the past.

Uh, what? If the guy wanted to go Thuban for $100 down the road, it would probably do just as well if not better than i5 750 in gaming. In everything else, probably cream it.

These folks I have been talking about would never do virtually any amount of encoding in their entire life (well maybe some, but raaarely if ever), which is why I keep mentioning the whole thing is for gaming only. The i5 currently has higher IPC, and it seems about even with C3 PhIIs in terms of reasonably attainable max frequency (about 4ghz give or take 100-200mhz). If you assume any boost you get from more core's isn't huge, I don't see thurban being any better. Why spend extra $100 in the future at all? Money just doesn't grow on trees you know Also note that thurban goes for more than that outside of the US, though the i5s are also more pricey.

AM3 Bulldozer > Bulldoze all over a puny i5. I'm guessing a $150 Bulldozer would be substantially faster. I would not be surprised if my $300 i7 920 gets creamed.

I am an AMD fan myself, and I sure hope BD does well for their sake. At the same time I hope it is not a repeat of what happened with the original Phenom (wink wink). While I would love to see things unfold as you say, I am not getting my hopes up this time.

That's not the point.

Well that was the originally intended point of discussion here, GPUs being more important is the truth that hasn't been challenged by anyone here including myself. Note that we are only arguing on principles, not trying to effect a solution for someone that doesn't know what to do.

 

[konakona]

That is because there is a fallacy called "bang for buck", that seems to have gained notion, that disregards performance/time and some people seems to think that is the "holy grail", while others see the flaws of that fallacy *shrugs*

Pay less...wait more...yeah "bang for buck" is really a true meassure *chough* :hmm:

Please try to answer my earlier question. I have seen you mention that time and again, saving time by using intel CPUs? What programs do you run and how much time do you really think you are saving realistically speaking?

 

[Lonbjerg]

Please try to answer my earlier question. I have seen you mention that time and again, saving time by using intel CPUs? What programs do you run and how much time do you really think you are saving realistically speaking?

I encode, compile, virtualization and gaming.
Just encoding saves me ~20-25% as minimum per file time compared to anything AMD got on the market.
I figure the same amount in compiling.
Games like ARMA2 show that settings not alwys comes down the the GPU:
http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,687620/ArmA-2-tested-Benchmarks-with-18-CPUs/Practice/

So at best in games you are equal (single GPU performance) but that is not always the case.
Encoding/compiling I save substantial time and in virtualization i get better performance.

And the gap just keep expanding...tick-tock-tick-tock... (pun intended).

 

[Idontcare]

That is because there is a fallacy called "bang for buck", that seems to have gained notion, that disregards performance/time and some people seems to think that is the "holy grail", while others see the flaws of that fallacy *shrugs*

Pay less...wait more...yeah "bang for buck" is really a true meassure *chough* :hmm:

Everyone values their time differently, surely you are aware of this and can allow that people do factor in their valuation of their time when making price/performance decisions.

 

[Markfw]

Not everybody does encoding, or even uses their computer to make money.

A gamer will never see the difference between 200 fps and 300 fps, they are just numbers, and just cost them money, and save them nothing.

So if you work at McDonalds (as was said above) , you have to save a while to get 200 fps, why wait longer to get the 300 that you will never use ?

 

[Lonbjerg]

Everyone values their time differently, surely you are aware of this and can allow that people do factor in their valuation of their time when making price/performance decisions.

Still, at best AMD's CPU give you equal performance...but that is not always the case.
The opposite is not the case...with Intel you never lag behind.

 

[Lonbjerg]

Not everybody does encoding, or even uses their computer to make money.

A gamer will never see the difference between 200 fps and 300 fps, they are just numbers, and just cost them money, and save them nothing.

So if you work at McDonalds (as was said above) , you have to save a while to get 200 fps, why wait longer to get the 300 that you will never use ?

Nice fallacy, lets try real world now:
http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,687620/ArmA-2-tested-Benchmarks-with-18-CPUs/Practice/

The difference between +30FPS...or below 30FPS.

Nice try though

 

[richierich1212]

Nice fallacy, lets try real world now:
http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,687620/ArmA-2-tested-Benchmarks-with-18-CPUs/Practice/

The difference between +30FPS...or below 30FPS.

Nice try though

And yet they don't show any AMD hex-cores tested, when we all know Arma 2 benefits from more threads. That test was almost from a year ago.

 

[Markfw]

Nice fallacy, lets try real world now:
http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,687620/ArmA-2-tested-Benchmarks-with-18-CPUs/Practice/

The difference between +30FPS...or below 30FPS.

Nice try though

One game, that I have not even heard of. You didn't even listen to my point(or anybody else's here).

 

[MJinZ]

Not everybody does encoding, or even uses their computer to make money.

A gamer will never see the difference between 200 fps and 300 fps, they are just numbers, and just cost them money, and save them nothing.

So if you work at McDonalds (as was said above) , you have to save a while to get 200 fps, why wait longer to get the 300 that you will never use ?

Gamers do not run their systems at above 60 - 80FPS usually.... they will turn up every option they can until they hit minimums they are comfortable. The whole point of a "video" game is the graphics or video.

And we can be sure that current games can turn up every option in the world at high resolutions, and even the 4.4ghz + Triple Crossfire, SLI 5870s/ GTX 480s WILL still choke. Choke choke choke cough. Two 5970s, an i7 980x are the pinacle of power - but Crysis (a 3 year old game now?) and Eyefinity will bring it to its knees.

 

[Lonbjerg]

And yet they don't show any AMD hex-cores tested, when we all know Arma 2 benefits from more threads. That test was almost from a year ago.

Why don't some of you X6 owners test it then?
i might be the X6 actually could score a win and not a loss.

 

[Lonbjerg]

One game, that I have not even heard of. You didn't even listen to my point(or anybody else's here).

Oh, so now it what YOU have heard of that dictates the "box"...nice fallacy.
Try "World in Conflict" then.
Or "Supreme Commander".

 

[richierich1212]

Why don't some of you X6 owners test it then?
i might be the X6 actually could score a win and not a loss.

What's the point? It's not like you'll stop bagging on AMD every chance you get.

 

[VirtualLarry]

That is because there is a fallacy called "bang for buck", that seems to have gained notion, that disregards performance/time and some people seems to think that is the "holy grail", while others see the flaws of that fallacy *shrugs*

Pay less...wait more...yeah "bang for buck" is really a true meassure *chough* :hmm:

That's because "bang for buck" allows you to optimize your rig in ways that you otherwise wouldn't be able to, like being able to afford an SSD, and suddenly, the rig gains an order of magnitude performance increase, even if the CPU is slightly slower than an alternative platform.

 

[Markfw]

Oh, so now it what YOU have heard of that dictates the "box"...nice fallacy.
Try "World in Conflict" then.
Or "Supreme Commander".

You keep picking games that prove your point. I know that CS is lightweight. I could probably find others as well. My point was that (for example) somebody that plays CS might not want or need even a dual-core, or a quad, so they pick a slower CPU and get a great video card and an SSD maybe.