AMD competition for Core i3 (Gamers thread)

[Fox5]

I'd imagine AMD's triple cores will be priced to compete with i3 in the same way their triple cores competed with core 2 duos.

I think it's silly to buy a dual core system at this point. I have two systems, one a fast clocked dual core, another a medium clock tri-core, and in most of the games that are intensive enough to make a difference, the tri-core delivers a better gaming experience.
Quite simply, in most of the games that run better on a dual core versus a triple or quad, the triple/quad still runs well enough. The opposite isn't true, there already exist games that are almost unplayable on less than 3 cores (gta4, arma) and plenty of others that get significant benefit from a 3rd core (pretty much all the console ports). The benefits from going to a quad core are less than going to a triple, but that'll come in time.

Multi core is the future, and there's ever fewer games that depend on fast clocked cores, and ever more that depend on having more cores. Out of the things I play, the only ones I'd choose a fast dual core over a slightly slower triple or quad are the ps2 and gamecube/wii emulators, and the ps2 emulator only renders accurate graphics in software rendering anyway, so a quad (or greater) would be preferred for that anyway.

 

[cbn]

Multi core is the future, and there's ever fewer games that depend on fast clocked cores, and ever more that depend on having more cores. Out of the things I play, the only ones I'd choose a fast dual core over a slightly slower triple or quad are the ps2 and gamecube/wii emulators, and the ps2 emulator only renders accurate graphics in software rendering anyway, so a quad (or greater) would be preferred for that anyway.

Game software needs to catch up and at this moment it doesn't seem to be catching up fast enough.

What happens in 2011 with Haswell? I hope Intel offers a 22nm quad with hyperthreading and 32nm switchable IGP.

Late Adopter FTW????

 

[ilkhan]

Game software needs to catch up and at this moment it doesn't seem to be catching up fast enough.

What happens in 2011 with Haswell? I hope Intel offers a 22nm quad with hyperthreading and 32nm switchable IGP.

Late Adopter FTW????

We'll see mobile quads with IGP with sandy. We'll probably see mobile ULV quads at 22nm though.

AFAIK these are still accurate. sorted by 2c clock speed, sorted by price.

 

[cmdrdredd]

For the same 2 core active clock speed, the quads will cost more.
For the same price, you get less clock speed for the same 2c active.

The price list makes that pretty simple. The quads CAN get to the same clock speed (in some cases), but not for the same value. What turbo does is remove the single threaded disadvantage that occurred with C2Q chips vs C2D chips (IE getting 2 more cores but losing clock speed). Ill repost my chart when I get home, but the breakdown is pretty simple.

Then again you forget that everything is moving to multi threaded apps. So dual cores are left in the dust. /end

 

[cbn]

It is always difficult to make definite statements about a processor in the future that I don't have in my hand.

The 80% already reflects the fact that there are shared resources. With 100% dedicated resources, there is ~20% hit. But there is a big power savings in sharing those resources.

The 10-20% is based off of most server workloads from the customers I talk to. There are client workloads that may scale better, but I am a server guy. The 80% is an aggregate estimate, but should be close enough for most cases. Some may be higher, some may be lower, but they shouldn't vary wildly.

This post is from the AMD "Bulldozer" thread.

80% scaling with Bulldozer hyperthreading?? WOW.

That means I would definitely only need a tiny AMD Bulldozer dual core (preferably on a power efficient mini-dtx mainboard) if this product were sold today.

I just wonder how well the AMD Bulldozer core itself will scale in comparison to Intel?

 

[cmdrdredd]

This post is from the AMD "Bulldozer" thread.

80% scaling with Bulldozer hyperthreading?? WOW.

That means I would definitely only need a tiny AMD Bulldozer dual core (preferably on a power efficient mini-dtx mainboard) if this product were sold today.

I just wonder how well the AMD Bulldozer core itself will scale in comparison to Intel?

Why are you so against quad core systems? Seriously, this is not 2005. A quad can have HT too, i7s do. So that's 8 threads and they will process stuff a hell of a lot faster than any dual core doing the same work.

 

[GaiaHunter]

This post is from the AMD "Bulldozer" thread.

80% scaling with Bulldozer hyperthreading?? WOW.

That means I would definitely only need a tiny AMD Bulldozer dual core (preferably on a power efficient mini-dtx mainboard) if this product were sold today.

I just wonder how well the AMD Bulldozer core itself will scale in comparison to Intel?

Well that Dual "Bulldozer Module" (no more cores talk it seems) is 4 physical threads oppose to the i3 that are 2 physical threads + 2 logical ones (?), so it could be seen as a quad. Guess it depends how tiny/big and how expensive will that Bulldozer Module be.

Why are you so against quad core systems? Seriously, this is not 2005. A quad can have HT too, i7s do. So that's 8 threads and they will process stuff a hell of a lot faster than any dual core doing the same work.

Guess he doesn't like the price.

 

[cbn]

Guess he doesn't like the price.

That and the quad core may actually be worse at the things I am interested in.

Why pay more money for something that is slower? This makes no sense.

Now if we were talking 32nm Core i5 750 vs 32nm Core i3 dual core + IGP the balance shifts. I guess it really depends on which has better overclocking headroom vs demands of multithreaded software.

 

[SunSamurai]

Why are you so against quad core systems? Seriously, this is not 2005. A quad can have HT too, i7s do. So that's 8 threads and they will process stuff a hell of a lot faster than any dual core doing the same work.

People that argue like he does usually really want a quad+ core but cant afford it, or got their 2x core pissed on by some unknown person and now they cant get over defending it to a point of just plain stupidity.

 

[cbn]

Why are you so against quad core systems? Seriously, this is not 2005. A quad can have HT too, i7s do. So that's 8 threads and they will process stuff a hell of a lot faster than any dual core doing the same work.

By the time I need something to run 8 threads the process technology will probably be 16nm.

When that happens the Core i7 860 would be obsolete anyway.

 

[SunSamurai]

That and the quad core may actually be worse at the things I am interested in.

Why pay more money for something that is slower? This makes no sense.

Now if we were talking 32nm Core i5 750 vs 32nm Core i3 dual core + IGP the balance shifts. I guess it really depends on which has better overclocking headroom vs demands of multithreaded software.

You mean the things you want to use arn't updated to take advantage of more tha 2 cores properly?

Thats not the fault of the CPU, and any program worth a damn that can benefit in a meaningful way to more than 2 cores is going to be updated to have that functionality sooner or later.

You should go spam the makers of such software to start supporting more cores rather than this sillyness.

 

[Markfw]

That and the quad core may actually be worse at the things I am interested in.

Why pay more money for something that is slower? This makes no sense.

Now if we were talking 32nm Core i5 750 vs 32nm Core i3 dual core + IGP the balance shifts. I guess it really depends on which has better overclocking headroom vs demands of multithreaded software.

The fastest I can get my E8400 up to is 3.6-3.8. The fastest I can get my C2Q's up to to 3.4-3.5. The fastest I can get my I7 up to is 3.8 to 4.0. They are all close in mhz, but the I7 just kicks everything....Even without it, the quads and the duals are on par speed wise. 100 mhz won't do squat for difference.

 

[cbn]

You mean the things you want to use arn't updated to take advantage of more tha 2 cores properly?

Thats not the fault of the CPU, and any program worth a damn that can benefit in a meaningful way to more than 2 cores is going to be updated to have that functionality sooner or later.

You should go spam the makers of such software to start supporting more cores rather than this sillyness.

You can't blame software makers. They will make programs based on what people want.

 

[cmdrdredd]

That and the quad core may actually be worse at the things I am interested in.

Why pay more money for something that is slower? This makes no sense.

Now if we were talking 32nm Core i5 750 vs 32nm Core i3 dual core + IGP the balance shifts. I guess it really depends on which has better overclocking headroom vs demands of multithreaded software.

No it can never be worse ONLY better. For reasons that are apparent in this thread and on sites available to the public like our own Anandtech.

You're being ridiculous, overclocking headroom? You mean 1.6Ghz overclocks is not good for you? Geeze...

 

[cmdrdredd]

You can't blame software makers. They will make programs based on what people want.

You sure? Is that why companies like Infinity Ward ignore the gamers and remove dedicated servers?

Not having multicore aware apps is laziness, hell even cheap shareware apps and such have multi threaded code.

 

[cbn]

The fastest I can get my E8400 up to is 3.6-3.8. The fastest I can get my C2Q's up to to 3.4-3.5. The fastest I can get my I7 up to is 3.8 to 4.0. They are all close in mhz, but the I7 just kicks everything....Even without it, the quads and the duals are on par speed wise. 100 mhz won't do squat for difference.

You would have to compare 45nm E8400 (wolfdale) to 65nm Q6600 (Kentsfield) in order to make this comparison analogous. (ie, dual core on smaller process vs quad core on larger process)

Sure the Core i7 beats what you are talking about. In fact, I would expect 22nm Haswell to beat 22nm Ivy bridge also. But then we are talking microarchitecture as the sole difference.

 

[cmdrdredd]

So you're like the guy who never buys anything because "in 6 months they will have a better and cheaper version out" and then 6months later "there will be a better and cheaper one in 6 months". Then he dies, never being able to enjoy life.

 

[cbn]

You sure? Is that why companies like Infinity Ward ignore the gamers and remove dedicated servers?

Not having multicore aware apps is laziness, hell even cheap shareware apps and such have multi threaded code.

You are hitting the nail on the head here. Software companies make programs for profit.

Maybe multithreading is too expensive relative to consumer demand?

 

[cbn]

So you're like the guy who never buys anything because "in 6 months they will have a better and cheaper version out" and then 6months later "there will be a better and cheaper one in 6 months". Then he dies, never being able to enjoy life.

No I want the best experience possible.

That means 120 Hz monitors, SSD, Eyefinity......not overkill CPU with a potential that goes completely wasted most of the time.

This CPU decision is an easy one.

 

[sticks435]

Hope you don't want to play Dragon Age. Dual core won't cut it, as it has massive scaling with more than 2 cores. I just went from a E6750 @ 3.2 to a Q9550 stock, and it my fps went from a stuttering 35-45 to a fluid 58-60, with some dips during cut-scene transitions.

http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,...rks-75-percent-boost-for-quad-cores/Practice/

 

[cbn]

Hope you don't want to play Dragon Age. Dual core won't cut it, as it has massive scaling with more than 2 cores. I just went from a E6750 @ 3.2 to a Q9550 stock, and it my fps went from a stuttering 35-45 to a fluid 58-60, with some dips during cut-scene transitions.

http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,...rks-75-percent-boost-for-quad-cores/Practice/

[From the link above] "Regardless of the huge variations in the results a fast dual-core or a small triple-core is enough to play the game smoothly."

A Core i3 dual core would run this game even faster.

 

[Hyperlite]

[From the link above] "Regardless of the huge variations in the results a fast dual-core or a small triple-core is enough to play the game smoothly."

A Core i3 dual core would run this game even faster.

not faster than an i5 or i7.


guys, give up on this thread. This guy isn't going to learn, ever.

 

[cbn]

not faster than an i5 or i7.


guys, give up on this thread. This guy isn't going to learn, ever.

This is a single player RPG? Not an online First person shooter right?

Why do I need every possible frame in this scenario as long as the game plays decently enough?

Smooth enough is smooth enough.....and I am not competing against anyone. This is why I don't care.

 

[Drakcol]

/begin_rant
Really whats the point in arguing anymore?? There are now 2 pages of every one agreeing that quad or more cores is the present and the future. Most applications currently available are able to utilize the quad cores and you will see an improvement with a quad over a dual to say otherwise is just horse pockey. It is also a known fact (by now at least) that Computer Bottleneck wants a dual core, end of story.

All games released these days will take advantage of at least 4 cores if not more therefore having a quad core is the best way to go. After upgrading to the i5 I've only run across one program not utilize multiple cores and that program was last updated in '98.

Is a dual core faster in single thread processes? Possibly but this is more dependent on the core's architecture rather than brute mhz ... but seeing as most programs can fully utilize a quad core processor that means the processor is processing 4 threads instead of two and in math 4 > 2 therefore there would be a speed improvement (unless the 2 threads run at least twice as fast as the 4 threads). I really do not see a i3 running at 8ghz any time soon nor do I feel the upgraded architecture will allow it to process threads twice as fast.

The fact is the i3 will be an entry processor, it not designed to be used in demanding programs or gaming. The i3 is designed to run in systems where browsing the web and occasionally watching movies are the primary applications. I'm sorry Computer Bottleneck but quad cores are the present .. dual cores should only be used by the gamer on a budget and there is nothing wrong with that. Until I got my new job I was a gamer with a tight budget, I was running an Athlon x2 for years, while it does do fine for most applications the processor was my bottleneck and it was holding back my GPU. In Left 4 Dead I saw frame rates of roughly 40fps when I upgraded to the i5 (using the same video card) I was able to achieve 80+fps. That is a massive improvement in my book.
/end_rant

Welp that's my two sense and I'm sorry about the typos (I'm sure this post is filled with them)

Meh, just cause I know bottleneck will bring this up. Yes theoretically hyperthreading allows dual cores to handle 4 threads .. but this is not the same as a true quad core. Hyperthreading (in a dual core cpu) allows 4 processing threads to use 2 processing pipelines. You are thus limited by the pipeline capacity. While hyperthreading does duplicate some hardware it does not duplicate the pipeline. So really it's like shoving 2 gallons of water down a pipe every second that can only handle slightly more than 1 gallon per second. It's this slightly more that gives hyperthreading an advantage. Sure hyperthreading is more complicated but when it comes down to it hyperthreading is limited by the pipeline count. This limitation allows true multi-core/multi-thread processors to have the upper hand.

Oh and if everything I said was incorrect feel free to correct me.

 

[sticks435]

This is a single player RPG? Not an online First person shooter right?

Why do I need every possible frame in this scenario as long as the game plays decently enough?

Smooth enough is smooth enough.....and I am not competing against anyone. This is why I don't care.

Did you not read my post? A dual core didn't play decent. I had stuttering issues just running and turning. Not slide-show or Crysis level, but enough to irritate me and make it unenjoyable. Besides, I picked up my Q9550 for $183 bucks after tax.