amd fx cpus were future proof...

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

It occurs to me just how funny these AMD versus Intel tirades have become. They are usually as productive as all those Chevy Versus Ford threads on automobile forums.

 

[PC Master Race]

It occurs to me just how funny these AMD versus Intel tirades have become. They are usually as productive as all those Chevy Versus Ford threads on automobile forums.

Only that now in days Chevy and Ford are equal ... Intel and AMD are not.

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

Only that now in days Chevy and Ford are equal ... Intel and AMD are not.

Yeah, good luck getting a Ford or GM guy to admit that. They will never be equal according to the subjective opinions.... It's the same for Intel vs AMD people.

 

[PC Master Race]

Yeah, good luck getting a Ford or GM guy to admit that. They will never be equal according to the subjective opinions.... It's the same for Intel vs AMD people.

Well to be honest Intel is allot more advanced than AMD CPUs. Chevy, Ford and Dodge and Toyota are all trading blows pretty well even.

 

[frozentundra123456]

This is why we have benchmarks, which some seen to want to cite as proof when their favorite product is ahead but disregard and use some subjective metric when products from their favorite losees.

 

[PC Master Race]

This is why we have benchmarks, which some seen to want to cite as proof when their favorite product is ahead but disregard and use some subjective metric when products from their favorite losees.

I just rather have a CPU that I never have to worry about it being able to run software and games to my personal satisfaction. With AMD FX I would have had to prey to the tech gods, say ten hail marries, meditate for three weeks, fast for a month, become a monk, stop thinking dirt thoughts while waiting for the sun and moon to be in the correct alignment ... just for AMD FX to perform to an all around high standard.

 

[2is]

DX12 isn't to merely reduce CPU overhead and stop there. It's to reduce CPU overhead to allow developers to make more complex games. As games come out that start taking full advantage of DX12, you aren't going to see less CPU usage. Those CPU resources that are no longer being hogged by overhead are just going to be used to make better games instead of being wasted on overhead for an inefficient API.

 

[TheELF]

DX12 isn't to merely reduce CPU overhead and stop there. It's to reduce CPU overhead to allow developers to make more complex games. As games come out that start taking full advantage of DX12, you aren't going to see less CPU usage. Those CPU resources that are no longer being hogged by overhead are just going to be used to make better games instead of being wasted on overhead for an inefficient API.

This can only happen on pre confined hardware ,like the ps4/xbox , on PC hardware there are so many combinations of hardware that it makes no sense to spend the newly won CPU power on more stuff,of course most games now are console ports so yes,if mantle/dx12 take off games are going to become more demanding.
Of course this will start to happen in a few years so games will be more demanding by then anyway.

 

[DrMrLordX]

on PC hardware there are so many combinations of hardware that it makes no sense to spend the newly won CPU power on more stuff

Uh, what?

Let's just assume for a moment that game designers have "more stuff" they'd like to do with available "CPU power". How can the variability of PC hardware possibly prevent them from actually doing just that?

Odds are their code is going to run on an Intel processor which is exquisitely documented and for which they can easily code using mid-to-high-level programming languages which obviate the need for much hardware-level knowledge. In most cases, they are going to let the compiler take care of differences in target microarchitecture. Is it Haswell? Sandy Bridge? Ivy Bridge? Nehalem? An edge-case oddball like Piledriver? Who cares, let the compiler take care of it.

 

[ShintaiDK]

This can only happen on pre confined hardware ,like the ps4/xbox , on PC hardware there are so many combinations of hardware that it makes no sense to spend the newly won CPU power on more stuff,of course most games now are console ports so yes,if mantle/dx12 take off games are going to become more demanding.
Of course this will start to happen in a few years so games will be more demanding by then anyway.

History shows you are wrong if you are in doubt. But really, what had you expected? CPU requirements to go backwards?

DX12 works on pretty much everything, OS is free upgrade. Whatever it may free it will be used.

 

[TheELF]

Uh, what?

Let's just assume for a moment that game designers have "more stuff" they'd like to do with available "CPU power". How can the variability of PC hardware possibly prevent them from actually doing just that?

I was getting to just the opposite,on PC hardware companies are not restricted at all * ,some crazy company can put out crysis 3 several years before anyone can actually run it.

* except if they want to make money, in which case they make the game as light as possible so it will run on as lowly a hardware as possible

 

[2is]

This can only happen on pre confined hardware ,like the ps4/xbox , on PC hardware there are so many combinations of hardware that it makes no sense to spend the newly won CPU power on more stuff,of course most games now are console ports so yes,if mantle/dx12 take off games are going to become more demanding.
Of course this will start to happen in a few years so games will be more demanding by then anyway.

Uh, no... CPU resources are CPU resources, it doesn't matter what your combination is. There will always be games to push the boundaries of hardware. If the CPU headroom is there, developers will use it. If your system doesn't meet the requirements it will run like shit or not at all. Not any different to how things are now. I'm really not sure what you're getting at, makes no sense at all.

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

Well to be honest Intel is allot more advanced than AMD CPUs. Chevy, Ford and Dodge and Toyota are all trading blows pretty well even.

And AMD is a lot more advanced in GPU's than Intel. I've been burned way too many times with Intel graphics (I still can't even get drivers for the 64 bit version of Windows for my laptop with an Intel Media Accelerator 3600 -- even though the Intel processor itself is 64 bit). It's lame for them to artificially hold back the machine's capabilities.

I know Iris Pro puts up good benchmarks -- but I'd never buy a laptop that doesn't have an Nvidia or Radeon logo on it. I recently tinkered with the Intel HD 4600 for about a week on the new i7 4790K before I dropped in the Nvidia 750 Ti..... Intel's graphics performance is still pretty lousy for its respective price point.

 

[2is]

A lot more? Not so much today, maybe if you're still comparing Sandy Bridge IGP.

For gaming, they still need work, but AMD isn't really very good for that either. For general usage they're fine. For desktop use, I'll take an Intel CPU and a dedicated GPU while taking advantage of quick sync on Intel IGP. For someone like me who needs a discrete GPU in their desktops anyway, the Intel IGP is actually more useful than a more powerful AMD one, add to that the CPU advantages. As far as drivers, I haven't had issues with an Intel drivers personally. Intel is also advancing their IGP far faster than AMD is advancing their CPU's.

Until one or both camps have IGP's that are capable of running more advanced games at higher resolutions with decent performance, it's a moot point, because until that happens, both are good enough for general usage and neither are good enough for a whole lot more than that.

 

[PC Master Race]

And AMD is a lot more advanced in GPU's than Intel.

Uh no they are not. nvidia has 980 which is faster and more efficient than anything from AMD Radeon until AMD leap frogs nvidia.

I've been burned way too many times with Intel graphics

Why do you expect so much from Intel Graphic ?

(I still can't even get drivers for the 64 bit version of Windows for my laptop with an Intel Media Accelerator 3600 -- even though the Intel processor itself is 64 bit). It's lame for them to artificially hold back the machine's capabilities.

Who cares. The Integrated solutions suck and perform the same with or without new drivers.

I know Iris Pro puts up good benchmarks -- but I'd never buy a laptop that doesn't have an Nvidia or Radeon logo on it. I recently tinkered with the Intel HD 4600 for about a week on the new i7 4790K before I dropped in the Nvidia 750 Ti..... Intel's graphics performance is still pretty lousy for its respective price point.

I recently bought and Intel platform with 4690K just before Christmas and I have yet to try out the integrated CPU graphics LOL and why would i when I have a dedicated GPU. Also the 750ti is a POS and how the hell did we get talking about BS Integrated graphics solutions ?

 

[SPBHM]

DX11 games are not going to disappear anytime soon, I think the best case scenario is FX 8 core as good as i5s on DX12 games and the same situation as today continues for the vast majority of other DX11 titles (clear advantage for haswell i5)... I think it will take a long long time for DX11 to go away, and when it happens is very likely that games will be pushing CPUs a lot more (even with the lower overhead for DX12) and way faster CPUs will be available...

so I don't see it as a big win, but somewhat more positive for AMD FX owners during the next 2 years, yes.

 

[PC Master Race]

DX11 games are not going to disappear anytime soon, I think the best case scenario is FX 8 core as good as i5s on DX12 games

That's being ignorant to the fact the the Intel CPUs will also get a performance boost under DX12 so nothing will change ... Intel will be on top and AMD will still struggle behind.

so I don't see it as a big win, but somewhat more positive for AMD FX owners during the next 2 years, yes.

Best case is it might make AMD FX a bit more livable.

 

[SPBHM]

That's being ignorant to the fact the the Intel CPUs will also get a performance boost under DX12 so nothing will change ... Intel will be on top and AMD will still struggle behind.

not it's not, because you are going to be hitting the GPU bottleneck a lot sooner, making them more likely to not be CPU limited and perform the same...

because I don't see a immediate big change to how games are designed, because they still have to run on consoles and lower end hardware with the same gameplay elements...

 

[PC Master Race]

not it's not, because you are going to be hitting the GPU bottleneck a lot sooner, making them more likely to not be CPU limited and perform the same...

because I don't see a immediate big change to how games are designed, because they still have to run on consoles and lower end hardware with the same gameplay elements...

You can;t say that AMD FX is magically going to smarten up and be on par with Intel and make up for a huge IPC and per core performance handicap. The only way to make AMD FX better is to redesign the chip.

 

[2is]

not it's not, because you are going to be hitting the GPU bottleneck a lot sooner, making them more likely to not be CPU limited and perform the same...

because I don't see a immediate big change to how games are designed, because they still have to run on consoles and lower end hardware with the same gameplay elements...

If you believe that then your outlook is extremely short sighted. As I stated before, developers aren't just going to let those free CPU resources go unused.

Why do you think developers wanted a lower level API? Do you really think it was so make AMD more competitive? Or do you think it was so those CPU resources could be used by them to make better games vs being wasted by API overhead?

 

[SPBHM]

You can;t say that AMD FX is magically going to smarten up and be on par with Intel and make up for a huge IPC and per core performance handicap. The only way to make AMD FX better is to redesign the chip.

as I said, it doesn't have to, if the CPU is fast enough and the GPU is a bottleneck, also DX12 should scale better with more threads (which is the only positive thing about the 8 core FX)

If you believe that then your outlook is extremely short sighted. As I stated before, developers aren't just going to let those free CPU resources go unused.

Why do you think developers wanted a lower level API? Do you really think it was so make AMD more competitive? Or do you think it was so those CPU resources could be used by them to make better games vs being wasted by API overhead?

as I said, at first (like first 2 years) I don't expect a big changes, or much higher CPU usage, most games are made for the PS4, the 8350 is well over 2x the PS4 CPU if you exclude the software overhead...

but I agree that in the future game devs are going to start increasing the CPU usage taking advantage of the lower overhead to do nicer things... it's just that, I don't see it happening so soon, for a period the FX 8 core should look better than now (as long as you use DX12 but as I said, many games will continue to use DX11 for a while), and DX12 should help with utilizing those 8 threads without being bottlenecked to early by single thread performance

 

[PC Master Race]

as I said, it doesn't have to, if the CPU is fast enough and the GPU is a bottleneck, also DX12 should scale better with more threads (which is the only positive thing about the 8 core FX)

Sigh it's the game engine then is what needs to be better optimized. It's not all just CPU feeding GPU as allot of times the GPU really don't matter as the CPU will be bogged down the the games graphics engine. This is why you need a strong CPU not just to feed the GPU but to run the game enigen example multiplayer online games.

 

[SPBHM]

Sigh it's the game engine then is what needs to be better optimized. It's not all just CPU feeding GPU as allot of times the GPU really don't matter as the CPU will be bogged down the the games graphics engine. This is why you need a strong CPU not just to feed the GPU but to run the game enigen example multiplayer online games.

you seem to be ignoring DX12 (lower CPU overhead API) as a factor

 

[PC Master Race]

you seem to be ignoring DX12 (lower CPU overhead API) as a factor

You seem to ignore the fact that Intel still offers better performance. If you ran and Intel proc under mantle in place of the AMD APU LOL you would be well north of 60fps average framerate. Just because you need a buffer to make AMD APUs and CPUs run a bit better does not make up for the fact that IPC and per core performance are a flop on AMD CPUs and APUs.

 

[cbn]

You seem to ignore the fact that Intel still offers better performance.

Intel Core i5 has better single thread performance......but the AMD FX eight core has better multithread.

Thanks to DirectX 12’s greatly improved threading capabilities, the new API can greatly close the gap between Intel and AMD CPUs. At least so long as you’re bottlenecking at batch submission.

With that mentioned, tough to say how close AMD FX would be able to get to Core i5. That is a pretty tall order of business.