AMD competition for Core i3 (Gamers thread)

[Munky]

How old was the PSU?

Also another question I have is do PSUs degrade at a faster rate the more you push them towards maximum?

It was about 2 years old at the time.

 

[cbn]

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3648&p=3

Here is the upcoming Intel mini-itx.

"Both micro-ATX and mini-ITX are being taken a lot more seriously now. With two-chip solutions commonplace on the desktop now, there's no reason we can't be building smaller motherboards"

 

[grimpr]

http://www.basschouten.com/blog1.php/2009/11/22/direct2d-hardware-rendering-a-browser

 

[cbn]

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=28989324&postcount=292

According to this post It looks like the 32nm quad "mini core" dual module Bulldozer will be the same size as 32nm Core i3 CPU.

 

[cbn]

http://www.pconline.com.cn/images/h...926714_bio5.jpg&namecode=diy&subnamecode=home

Here is Resident Evil 5 Benchmark. This game is called Biohazard 5 in China. Quad optimization is not bad here (notice Athlon II x4 beats Phenom II X3)

http://www.pconline.com.cn/images/h...926714_gta4.jpg&namecode=diy&subnamecode=home

GTA IV benchmark. Notice quad optimzation is not as good as Resident Evil 5.

 

[Fox5]

http://www.pconline.com.cn/images/h...926714_bio5.jpg&namecode=diy&subnamecode=home

Here is Resident Evil 5 Benchmark. This game is called Biohazard 5 in China. Quad optimization is not bad here (notice Athlon II x4 beats Phenom II X3)

http://www.pconline.com.cn/images/h...926714_gta4.jpg&namecode=diy&subnamecode=home

GTA IV benchmark. Notice quad optimzation is not as good as Resident Evil 5.

What's your point, CB?

BTW, RE5 is a bit glitched and doesn't always make use of all available cores. On my triple core machine, I had to edit a config file in order to make it use 3 cores instead of just 2.

 

[GaiaHunter]

What's your point, CB?

BTW, RE5 is a bit glitched and doesn't always make use of all available cores. On my triple core machine, I had to edit a config file in order to make it use 3 cores instead of just 2.

Yeah, there are some applications that don't work very well with the tri-core configuration.

 

[cbn]

What's your point, CB?

BTW, RE5 is a bit glitched and doesn't always make use of all available cores. On my triple core machine, I had to edit a config file in order to make it use 3 cores instead of just 2.

http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,...nom-strong-Update-Lynnfield-results/Practice/

Well in this test Phenom II scales whether it is a X2, X3 or X4 version.

 

[AzN]

Obviously Computer Bottleneck has no idea what he's talking about.

Anyone who isn't 100% wanker would realize that if you're building a new computer, regardless of budget, quad-core is the sweet spot. Hell, AMD has a $99 quad-core available.

I don't care what you do with the computer, even if it's just gaming. Why? Here's a newsflash; all of your games are running on a computer that has this new-fangled thing called an "operating system" that, if it's Vista or 7, can take good advantage of multi-core CPUs.

End of story. Case closed.

Get a quad-core CPU for a completely new build. If you don't, you're a fool.

Dual core is the sweet spot far as games go but it is slowly creeping up to multi-cores. Prices came down dramatically on AMD side but not on Intel side yet. I'm still waiting for a $100 quad from intel. Core 2 Quad should be hitting $100 mark yet it's still closer to $200. For a new build definitely build a quad. There's no question about it.

 

[cbn]

Dual core is the sweet spot far as games go but it is slowly creeping up to multi-cores. Prices came down dramatically on AMD side but not on Intel side yet. I'm still waiting for a $100 quad from intel. Core 2 Quad should be hitting $100 mark yet it's still closer to $200. For a new build definitely build a quad. There's no question about it.

I don't think Intel will lower prices much on quad cores for socket 775. Aren't those CPUs close to being discontinued?

 

[GaiaHunter]

Isn't supposed a QX6850 beat a Q8300?

Because in RE5 from PC gamers the QX6850 beats the Phenom II X3 by ~3% while in the pconline bench the Q8300 is beating the phenom II x3 by 13%.

 

[cbn]

Isn't supposed a QX6850 beat a Q8300?

Because in RE5 from PC gamers the QX6850 beats the Phenom II X3 by ~3% while in the pconline bench the Q8300 is beating the phenom II x3 by 13%.

QX6850 is 3 Ghz and 8mb l2 cache while Q8300 is 2.5 Ghz and 4mb l2 cache?

Yep it makes sense QX6850 would be faster.

 

[GaiaHunter]

QX6850 is 3 Ghz and 8mb l2 cache while Q8300 is 2.5 Ghz and 4mb l2 cache?

Yep it makes sense QX6850 would be faster.

Then why is the QX6850 being basically the same speed a X3 720 in the RE5 bench and in the i3 review the Q8300 is just spanking the X3 720 at the same RE5 bench @same resolution?

 

[AzN]

I don't think Intel will lower prices much on quad cores for socket 775. Aren't those CPUs close to being discontinued?

Yeah lately the prices have been going up.

 

[grimpr]

11 Days of DirectX® 11

http://game.amd.com/us-en/content/images/play/gameassets/DICE/DICE_11Days_Interview.pdf

http://blogs.amd.com/how-to/

Legion Hardware : CPU Scaling with the Radeon HD5970.
http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=869&p=23


"There are 2 different areas where we are using DirectX 11 in Frostbite 2. The first is to streamline and optimize the CPU performance; how our engine & games communicate with D3D to take advantage of multiple CPU cores. This has become a bigger and bigger problem with previous D3D versions as GPU performance has been scaling and the CPUs have gotten more cores, but without us being able to utilize them for rendering with D3D.

Now in DirectX 11, with the new support for multi-threading in the API, we can render objects and submit it to the GPU in parallel on all available CPU cores (we’ve tested up to 16 virtual cores). This will be a big performance improvement and allow us to have much more variation and detail on our levels while costing less than before.

The multi-threading support also enables us to get faster loading times by loading shaders and other resources in parallel and to efficiently stream in textures & meshes without stalls, which would otherwise result in unwanted jerky performance in the game.

The second area of DirectX 11 that we are using includes some of the new hardware features such as compute shaders. We use compute shaders for deferred shading, which enables us to have many more all-dynamic light sources than we’ve been able to have before. We also see a big potential for using compute shaders for other future effects and optimization techniques."

 

[cbn]

[Even though this isn't about Core i3 I thought I would post it anyway. Core i5 660 is close enough]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



As far as games go I did these rough calculations with respect to Core i5 660 vs Core i5 750.

Both are $196 processors.

Core i5 660 is a 32nm dual core running at 3.33 Ghz with hyperthreading.

Core i5 750 is a 45nm quad core running at 2.66 Ghz with Turbo mode.

In games scaling 50% with four threads the dual core with hyperthreading is actually faster. (see below)

Core i5 660= 3.33 Ghz x 2 cores at 100% x 2 threads hyperthreading 20%= 7.992 Ghz
Core i5 750= 2.66 Ghz x 2 cores at 100% x 2 cores at 50%= 7.98 Ghz

P.S. If I used these calculations here --->http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=28993997&postcount=325 I could have given the dual core with hyperthreading even more an advantage.

[From the link] "In multi-threading, Bulldozer would act like 0.9 x 2. Hyperthreading is 0.65 x 2, a dual core is 1x2"

 

[ilkhan]

Yeah, those maths are horrible and irrelevant for everything. [crappy grammar to make it simple]

 

[cbn]

Yeah, those maths are horrible and irrelevant for everything. [crappy grammar to make it simple]

You like .65 x 2 better for a hyperthreading core?

Using that calculation dual cores with hyperthreading would do better against quad cores for rough predictions.

 

[Markfw]

You like .65 x 2 better for a hyperthreading core?

Using that calculation dual cores with hyperthreading would do better against quad cores for rough predictions.

I don't agree either, but iuntil the chip actually has benchmarks, we won't know.
Every game is different, but any game that can make use of more than 2 cores, a quad will demolish a dual, even with hyperthreading.

And as for the chip speed, everyone here will be overclocking either chip, so thats another part of your math that won't work. You might get the quad to 4.0 and the dual to 4.3.

The quad will still win.

 

[cbn]

I don't agree either, but iuntil the chip actually has benchmarks, we won't know.
Every game is different, but any game that can make use of more than 2 cores, a quad will demolish a dual, even with hyperthreading.

And as for the chip speed, everyone here will be overclocking either chip, so thats another part of your math that won't work. You might get the quad to 4.0 and the dual to 4.3.

The quad will still win.

In order for the comparison to be fair each CPU would have to use the same cooler and achieve the same noise levels.

Also remember Core i5 will lose Turbo mode at high overclocks limiting its performance where Core i3 shines the most.

 

[Markfw]

In order for the comparison to be fair each CPU would have to use the same cooler and achieve the same noise levels.

Also remember Core i5 will lose Turbo mode at high overclocks limiting its performance where Core i3 shines the most.

Why do they have to use the same cooler ? That has nothing to do with being fair...And who cares about turbo mode when you are over 4 ghz...

 

[cbn]

Why do they have to use the same cooler ? That has nothing to do with being fair...And who cares about turbo mode when you are over 4 ghz...

Well if I was going to buy a Core i5 750 and OC to 4 Ghz I would probably be using a Heat pipe tower cooler with it.

Even though I don't think Core i3 will do as well with heat pipes (due to the asymetric CPU mounting under the heat spreader) I think it should at least get the same LGA 1156 tower cooler.

 

[Markfw]

Well if I was going to buy a Core i5 750 and OC to 4 Ghz I would probably be using a Heat pipe tower cooler with it.

Even though I don't think Core i3 will do as well with heat pipes (due to the asymetric CPU mounting under the heat spreader) I think it should at least get the same LGA 1156 tower cooler.

OK, so you get a cooler that is good for both cpu's, so what ? What does that have to do with the reason you think an I3 can beat a quad in multi-threaded software ??

And I just checked that link. Its just a post from Inteluser2000, and its about 12 and 16 core cpus' that aren't even out yet.

You need to get off this I3 kick, its really annoying.

 

[nyker96]

[Even though this isn't about Core i3 I thought I would post it anyway. Core i5 660 is close enough]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



As far as games go I did these rough calculations with respect to Core i5 660 vs Core i5 750.

Both are $196 processors.

Core i5 660 is a 32nm dual core running at 3.33 Ghz with hyperthreading.

Core i5 750 is a 45nm quad core running at 2.66 Ghz with Turbo mode.

In games scaling 50% with four threads the dual core with hyperthreading is actually faster. (see below)

Core i5 660= 3.33 Ghz x 2 cores at 100% x 2 threads hyperthreading 20%= 7.992 Ghz
Core i5 750= 2.66 Ghz x 2 cores at 100% x 2 cores at 50%= 7.98 Ghz

P.S. If I used these calculations here --->http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=28993997&postcount=325 I could have given the dual core with hyperthreading even more an advantage.

[From the link] "In multi-threading, Bulldozer would act like 0.9 x 2. Hyperthreading is 0.65 x 2, a dual core is 1x2"

interesting math, but speed doesn't add up like. You don't say a 4ghz dual core = a 2 ghz quad. HT as I understand it just a way to saturate IPC not a substiture for physical cores. you don't actually create more cores this way just make your current cores work harder per clock. the implication in terms of speed depends on the software used. some with HT even run slower than without HT.

personally, I will take the 4 physical cores anyday over 2 with HT unless the app I'm running isn't too well threaded. besides i5 7xxx probably can OC to like 80% of i5 6xxx's clock potential making it practically wipe out any HT advantage. but rest assured 32nm quads with HT is coming as well next year, so you don't need to compromise, you can all them all - quad+HT+32nm all in one package. but no HT isn't substitute for real cores.

 

[cbn]

interesting math, but speed doesn't add up like. You don't say a 4ghz dual core = a 2 ghz quad.

4 Ghz dual core without hyper threading would act like a 2 ghz quad only if the software scaled 100% with four threads. If the software scales less than 100% then the dual core can have equivalent performance of a quad clocked higher than 2 Ghz.

Left 4 Dead 2 and Resident Evil 5 scale about 50% more FPS with quad core compared to a dual core of equivalent speed. Dragon Age scales 75% better FPS with quad over dual core in the marketplace benchmark. It really doesn't get any better than these games at the moment.