AMD CPU for gaming

[svenge]

Once DirectX 12 games are optimized for multi-core I think these AMD FX chips are really going to shine. It's only going to be even more pronounced once the new Zen 8 core chips release next year.

Isn't that the same excuse that AMD fanboys have trotted out perennially since Bulldozer's launch and subsequent failure?

"Just wait until <<insert name of magical new innovation here>> comes out, then AMD's chips will beat current-gen i7 CPUs"...

 

[escrow4]

Go for a nice AMD 83xx build for decent performance at a good price. Nothing wrong with supporting the underdog as well. As games and programs continue to become more multi threaded friendly, the more your investment in a budget AMD build will pay its dividends.

Nothing wrong with going Intel either, but i would personally feel more future proof with an 8 core FX CPU, than go with a bottom of the barrel Core i3.

Check GameGPU and PClab FX is a joke for 2015 gaming. Its ancient. The minimums constantly suffered compared to Intel. And there is nothing futureproof. If you want 60FPS min/avg you'll need to spend up annually:

 

[Jeff007245]

Check GameGPU and PClab FX is a joke for 2015 gaming. Its ancient. The minimums constantly suffered compared to Intel. And there is nothing futureproof. If you want 60FPS min/avg you'll need to spend up annually:

I don't think I mentioned anything about being more future proof or comparing to Intel's more expensive products. I will stand by my statement that AMD's FX 8C Cpus will continue to be taken advantage of as games and programs continue to become more multi-threaded friendly.

The graph you pasted has nothing to do with my statement, and it definitely does not explain the full experience of the product as a whole. I've ran this system for years and my experience has been GREAT!

I also have an i5 build and feel no difference for most normal use cases. Also have a Surface Pro 3 with an i5.

Like I said, your graph means squat bro compared to what these CPUs can do and will do for future multi threaded games and programs. CPU's have a life cycle greater than 5 years now. Most modern CPUs can last 10 years for 90% of the population, including a majority of gamers. The OP wants the best bang for his buck since he is on a limited budget. For most general use cases, he will benefit from an FX CPU over an i3 any day of the week.

Isn't that the same excuse that AMD fanboys have trotted out perennially since Bulldozer's launch and subsequent failure?

"Just wait until <<insert name of magical new innovation here>> comes out, then AMD's chips will beat current-gen i7 CPUs"...

Please leave the thread if you have nothing constructive to add...

 

[frozentundra123456]

Yea, dont let the facts confuse you.

 

[blake0812]

Budget (or want to support the underdogs)= AMD
Performance = Intel


Nothing wrong with supporting AMD, might I add.

 

[john5220]

^ there is a lot wrong with supporting AMD, you trick others into buying a useless dead setup. When they could have intel for just a little more.

Stop believing the lie that if you don't support AMD, they will go bankrupt and intel will charge $1000 for a celeron.

Please stop selling this lie to the ones who don't know better. If AMD died it would be better for everyone as no one will be able to fall into their traps of the garbage they sell


Trolling and threadcrapping is not allowed here,
Markfw900

 

[Yuriman]

I'll never understand brand loyalty.

 

[LTC8K6]

Once DirectX 12 games are optimized for multi-core I think these AMD FX chips are really going to shine. It's only going to be even more pronounced once the new Zen 8 core chips release next year.

I just wonder if Intel and AMD will want their older chips to perform well enough to interfere with sales of their newest chips.

Somehow I think the latest chips will have an edge when it comes to Win10 and DX12.

 

[escrow4]

I don't think I mentioned anything about being more future proof or comparing to Intel's more expensive products. I will stand by my statement that AMD's FX 8C Cpus will continue to be taken advantage of as games and programs continue to become more multi-threaded friendly.

The graph you pasted has nothing to do with my statement, and it definitely does not explain the full experience of the product as a whole. I've ran this system for years and my experience has been GREAT!

I also have an i5 build and feel no difference for most normal use cases. Also have a Surface Pro 3 with an i5.

Like I said, your graph means squat bro compared to what these CPUs can do and will do for future multi threaded games and programs. CPU's have a life cycle greater than 5 years now. Most modern CPUs can last 10 years for 90% of the population, including a majority of gamers. The OP wants the best bang for his buck since he is on a limited budget. For most general use cases, he will benefit from an FX CPU over an i3 any day of the week.




Please leave the thread if you have nothing constructive to add...

Just like Bulldozer was the future and apps will be more multi-threaded . . . . . . that worked out well. FX is a bad failure. AMD itself is going back to the drawing board with Zen. AMD KNOWS they failed and need to start from scratch. GTA V is very very well threaded and FX falls over. Again.

 

[sandorski]

Just like Bulldozer was the future and apps will be more multi-threaded . . . . . . that worked out well. FX is a bad failure. AMD itself is going back to the drawing board with Zen. AMD KNOWS they failed and need to start from scratch. GTA V is very very well threaded and FX falls over. Again.

Games are far more Multi-Threaded these days. Some games it still leaves AMD behind, others AMD keeps up reasonably well, single and dual cores are being left behind though.

 

[nenforcer]

I just wonder if Intel and AMD will want their older chips to perform well enough to interfere with sales of their newest chips.

Somehow I think the latest chips will have an edge when it comes to Win10 and DX12.

No your absolutely right - it will be all or nothing for AMD next year when Zen releases and I think their 8 core Zen chips and of course Intel's 8 core Cannonlake will be very close in DX12 / Windows 10 benchmarks. (with probably an edge to Cannonlake due to .14nm)

I know I'll get bashed for saying AMD was ahead of their time - it's just that software wasn't optimized for the multithreaded nature (CMT) of AMD's FX chips when they released in 2011 and obviously their single threaded IPC was dramatically behind Intel and was equal to or worse than their own previous Phenom ][ chips until Vishera came out in 2012.

 

[sandorski]

No your absolutely right - it will be all or nothing for AMD next year when Zen releases and I think their 8 core Zen chips and of course Intel's 8 core Cannonlake will be very close in DX12 / Windows 10 benchmarks. (with probably an edge to Cannonlake due to .14nm)

I know I'll get bashed for saying AMD was ahead of their time - it's just that software wasn't optimized for the multithreaded nature (CMT) of AMD's FX chips when they released in 2011 and obviously their single threaded IPC was dramatically behind Intel and was equal to or worse than their own previous Phenom ][ chips until Vishera came out in 2012.

They foresaw the need for Multithreading, but they lacked in other areas. Why they get mocked with the "moar cores" argument puzzles me. That's the one thing they were 100% correct about.

 

[Ancalagon44]

As much as I would love to say the AMD chips are good value because they are so much cheaper, they are so much worse at single threaded performance, its just staggering.

Keeping my Phenom II X6 1055T for a bit longer then.

 

[VirtualLarry]

They foresaw the need for Multithreading, but they lacked in other areas. Why they get mocked with the "moar cores" argument puzzles me. That's the one thing they were 100% correct about.

I don't think that is was just "moar cores" that they got mocked for, but the fact that each individual core was so weak, due to poor CMT design.

 

[myocardia]

I don't think that is was just "moar cores" that they got mocked for, but the fact that each individual core was so weak, due to poor CMT design.

Exactly. Had AMD released Vishera in 2011, I have the feeling that the "moar cores" moniker would never have materialized.

Keeping my Phenom II X6 1055T for a bit longer then.

I'm not sure if you realize it, but Vishera now finally has higher IPC than your Phenom II, as well as considerably higher clockrates. It would definitely be an upgrade for you now, finally.

edit: Unless you have your Phenom II overclocked fairly high. Also, here is a stock clock to stock clock comparison to a 1045T, by one of our more well-respected members: http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=37528506&postcount=23

 

[sandorski]

I don't think that is was just "moar cores" that they got mocked for, but the fact that each individual core was so weak, due to poor CMT design.

It started out just as "Moar Cores". Some still bring it up these days though, despite it being objectively true.

 

[ShintaiDK]

New reg, hasn't been back since posting. Another troll?

Sure looks so.

 

[LTC8K6]

Exactly. Had AMD released Vishera in 2011, I have the feeling that the "moar cores" moniker would never have materialized.

I'm not sure if you realize it, but Vishera now finally has higher IPC than your Phenom II, as well as considerably higher clockrates. It would definitely be an upgrade for you now, finally.

edit: Unless you have your Phenom II overclocked fairly high. Also, here is a stock clock to stock clock comparison to a 1045T, by one of our more well-respected members: http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=37528506&postcount=23

Looks like Phenom 2 holds on very well against Vishera overall, and still sometimes beats it, even at a lower clock speed:

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/699?vs=203

 

[B-Riz]

As much as I would love to say the AMD chips are good value because they are so much cheaper, they are so much worse at single threaded performance, its just staggering.

Keeping my Phenom II X6 1055T for a bit longer then.

I always wanted a PII X6 1100T, but never got one.

Cheapest on eBay (US seller) right now is $189.00.

So I grabbed an FX-6350 to play with, on sale at Newegg right now.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1281?vs=203

They are not horrible, just no match against Sandy Bridge and above in single threaded benchmarks...

 

[soccerballtux]

Looks like Phenom 2 holds on very well against Vishera overall, and still sometimes beats it, even at a lower clock speed:

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/699?vs=203

something doesn't quite add up though-- when Phenom 2 came it was just barely losing to Megahalems. Then, Vishera came out and clock/clock matched Megahalems.

I think Windows patches interfered.

 

[2is]

8GB for RAM (I think by now everyone is in agreement on that)

i5 (sandy bridge or newer) for the CPU. Yes, there are cases where an AMD FX8 processors are decent, but there are quite a few cases where they're being outperformed by a dual core Intel, and sometimes by a substantial margin. An i5 performs great at everything all the time, and it will do it now and into the future. You don't have to develop false hope that a future technology that will somehow make your processor perform in ways it hasn't before.

I see it all the time on here with AMD CPU recommendations, there's always a claim of a future tech that's going to perform magic. I've been hearing it for about a decade now, it's always a different technology and it always comes and goes without performing the miracles pinned on them.

If you're feeling masochistic, go with AMD. If you want something that will perform well at everything all the time until it becomes obsolete, don't.

 

[ShintaiDK]

something doesn't quite add up though-- when Phenom 2 came it was just barely losing to Megahalems. Then, Vishera came out and clock/clock matched Megahalems.

I think Windows patches interfered.

Say what?

 

[Madpacket]

I recommend an FX-8300 series over a Core i3 (you can find really great deals on them every once in a while and they are better for other tasks), but if you can afford it go with at least an Intel Core i5 if you want an overall smooth gaming rig. I like supporting the underdog as it keeps at least someone in the game (Imagine Intel all by themselves!) so I normally build APU's for F&F as they're fast enough for 99% of what they need them for but for serious gaming Intel really has AMD beat.

I have two pretty beefy rigs (One AMD 8300 with Watercooled Radeon 290X, the Other 4790K with Asus Geforce 970, 16GB RAM, 480GB SSD etc) and do comparisons between them often. For the most part day to day activities they are indistinguishable from each other. And even with many modern games it's hard to tell the difference as the video cards do a good job masking it but you can tell the 8300 struggles to keep up minimum frames in some games.

As other posters have pointed out, it really does depend on the game however there is a strong incentive that the modern consoles will lead to better threading (this is already happening with games like The Witcher 3) which will likely put the 8 core AMD chips on par or possibly ahead of Core i3's.

 

[Ancalagon44]

I'm not sure if you realize it, but Vishera now finally has higher IPC than your Phenom II, as well as considerably higher clockrates. It would definitely be an upgrade for you now, finally.

edit: Unless you have your Phenom II overclocked fairly high. Also, here is a stock clock to stock clock comparison to a 1045T, by one of our more well-respected members: http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=37528506&postcount=23

From the benchmarks I've seen, Vishera still doesn't match Phenom, clock for clock, although it is a lot closer. I believe Kaveri ought to do it. Vishera will beat my Phenom due to its clock speed advantage though.

In any case, I'm not upgrading yet because the price to benefit ratio is not high enough for me. My CPU isn't even overclocked, I'm happy with its performance. I can play the games I want to play. I did overclock it to 3.2 last year, but I had stability issues. It just wasn't worth it to me, having stability issues in exchange for a slightly higher clockspeed.

The problem with upgrading is that I can't just drop in a new processor, I'd need a new motherboard. I have an Asus M4A77TD, which only supports Phenom CPUs (officially). I'd rather not take my luck on anything newer.

And I don't feel that buying a new motherboard and CPU is worth it at this stage for me. I'm going to wait until the middle of next year, so that new games, CPUs and GPUs will be out. Then I'll make a decision about what to do.

 

[sandorski]

8GB for RAM (I think by now everyone is in agreement on that)

i5 (sandy bridge or newer) for the CPU. Yes, there are cases where an AMD FX8 processors are decent, but there are quite a few cases where they're being outperformed by a dual core Intel, and sometimes by a substantial margin. An i5 performs great at everything all the time, and it will do it now and into the future. You don't have to develop false hope that a future technology that will somehow make your processor perform in ways it hasn't before.

I see it all the time on here with AMD CPU recommendations, there's always a claim of a future tech that's going to perform magic. I've been hearing it for about a decade now, it's always a different technology and it always comes and goes without performing the miracles pinned on them.

If you're feeling masochistic, go with AMD. If you want something that will perform well at everything all the time until it becomes obsolete, don't.

Masochism not required. The rig in my sig runs any game at the right settings, other than less than a handful that won't run on a 5870 anyway.

Just to repeat though: If one can afford an Intel 4 Core setup, that's what they should get. If not for some reason and can afford an AMD 4 core or better, then that's what they should get.