Are AMD processors worth considering for mid to high end?

[SlowSpyder]

Tell you what, I'll just let readers decide for themselves instead of wasting time responding to your nitpicks.

I know sometimes people can overly defend hardware from a company, but I think his points were all pretty legit there.

That's one of a very few handful of games that runs that poorly on AMD hardware (Intel beats AMD in others too, but generally performance is still quite decent on AMD even when lagging in benches to faster parts). Also, that game appears to run poorly on almost any CPU. AMD even worse, but it's not like a $300+ Intel CPU is really a barn burner either in that game.

 

[AtenRa]

Interesting. How many threads does Ryse can scale to? It must be one of those games... Can't wait to see when you are through

It seems it can use a few

 

[Abwx]

1080 Ultra, No AA, May 2015:

1600MHz RAM for the FXs, to no "disadvantage" the intel 1600MHz RAM CPUs according to the reviewer, actualy a mean he has found to compress the FXs scores in Winrar and 7 Zip..

And thoses scores are on minimalistic system, from Computerbase we know that the i5 would be far from thoses scores.

 

[crashtech]

I know sometimes people can overly defend hardware from a company, but I think his points were all pretty legit there.

That's one of a very few handful of games that runs that poorly on AMD hardware (Intel beats AMD in others too, but generally performance is still quite decent on AMD even when lagging in benches to faster parts). Also, that game appears to run poorly on almost any CPU. AMD even worse, but it's not like a $300+ Intel CPU is really a barn burner either in that game.

All I intended on doing was refuting the wild claims of a drive-by poster:

My $.02: a $1200 9590 + dual r9 290x setup on Arma 3 can net you 60fps @ 5960 x 1080 w/ultra everything and 10k view distance and 10k object distance with 60 ai squads in view (30 v 30)

Are you defending that?

 

[AtenRa]

FX's piss poor ST performance becomes evident in this game. 65W Core i5-5675C @ mid-3GHz demolishes 220W Vishera close to 5GHz.

So, 4GHz Skylake is a joke then because it is beaten by lower clocked Broadwell.

It is obvious the game loves fast Caches, increasing only the CPU clocks gives very little. That is why the OC FX CPUs dont gain much because L3 cache remains at 2000MHz.
I dont have the game to test it but im betting increasing the NB to 2600MHz or higher will have a very nice increase on the FX performance.

 

[Sweepr]

So, 4GHz Skylake is a joke then because it is beaten by lower clocked Broadwell.

It is obvious the game loves fast Caches, increasing only the CPU clocks gives very little. That is why the OC FX CPUs dont gain much because L3 cache remains at 2000MHz.
I dont have the game to test it but im betting increasing the NB to 2600MHz or higher will have a very nice increase on the FX performance.

4C/4T Core i5 6600K still delivers 43% better performance than FX9590 in this game without eDRAM. And since you failed to provide tests comparing Skylake and Vishera using the 'latest patches/drivers' I will take these results over your laughable excuses.

 

[AtenRa]

4C/4T Core i5 6600K still delivers 43% better performance than FX9590 in this game without eDRAM. And since you failed to provide tests comparing Skylake and Vishera using the 'latest patches/drivers' I will take these results over your laughable excuses.

When you will provide any results, I will take you seriously. Until then have a nice stay here in the forums.

 

[Abwx]

What GPU they used for the review by the way ???

- ASUS X99 Deluxe (LGA 2011-v3)
- ASUS P9X79 (LGA 2011)
- ASUS Z97-A (LGA 1150)
- ASUS Sabertooth 990FX R2.0 (AM3+)
- 4x4 Go DDR4-2133 13-13-13 (LGA 2011-v3)
- 4x4 Go DDR3-1600 9-9-9 (LGA 2011)
- 2x4 Go DDR3-1600 9-9-9 (LGA 1150/AM3+)
- GeForce GTX 780 Ti
- SSD Sandisk Ultra II
- Alimentation Corsair AX650 Gold
- Windows 8.1


http://www.hardware.fr/articles/924-7/protocole-test.html

 

[SlowSpyder]

All I intended on doing was refuting the wild claims of a drive-by poster:


Are you defending that?

Not defending that, no. I have no idea what the real FPS is in that game, I've never played it. Personally I doubt it runs at 60FPS on any FX, those patches would have to be pretty substantial. You're right in this context (the drive by poster), my bad.

That said, that game looks like it runs like a dog on everything.

 

[AtenRa]

- ASUS X99 Deluxe (LGA 2011-v3)
- ASUS P9X79 (LGA 2011)
- ASUS Z97-A (LGA 1150)
- ASUS Sabertooth 990FX R2.0 (AM3+)
- 4x4 Go DDR4-2133 13-13-13 (LGA 2011-v3)
- 4x4 Go DDR3-1600 9-9-9 (LGA 2011)
- 2x4 Go DDR3-1600 9-9-9 (LGA 1150/AM3+)
- GeForce GTX 780 Ti
- SSD Sandisk Ultra II
- Alimentation Corsair AX650 Gold
- Windows 8.1


http://www.hardware.fr/articles/924-7/protocole-test.html

thanks,

yea I show that about the 1600MHz.

 

[Sweepr]

When you will provide any results, I will take you seriously. Until then have a nice stay here in the forums.

Sure, if I ever become a reseller I might provide carefully selected results to show certain products in a better light.

 

[2is]

I see the ADF is back to their old tricks. Make believe scenarios that rarely every happen, and when they do, don't give the results they're hoping for.

Guys, it's been over 10 years, and your "if then else" scenarios have not come to fruition. You're done, get over it already.

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

4C/4T Core i5 6600K still delivers 43% better performance than FX9590 in this game without eDRAM. And since you failed to provide tests comparing Skylake and Vishera using the 'latest patches/drivers' I will take these results over your laughable excuses.

Oh yeah -- because a 3 year newer processor running a newer standard of DDR is somehow even a relevant comparison. The fact that 3 - 5 year old CPU's from both manufacturer's still offer smooth gameplay on brand new AAA games -- just shows how much CPU performance has stagnated since AMD backed off designing high end CPU's.

 

[Arachnotronic]

Oh yeah -- because a 3 year newer processor running a newer standard of DDR is somehow even a relevant comparison. The fact that 3 - 5 year old CPU's from both manufacturer's still offer smooth gameplay on brand new AAA games -- just shows how much CPU performance has stagnated since AMD backed off designing high end CPU's.

Lol...

Skylake CPU core design began in 2008 when it was not at all clear that AMD had "backed off" from developing high end CPUs. Skylake really does represent the best Intel could have done subject to the constraints that it faced.

 

[NTMBK]

Yup, people don't seem to grasp how long processor design takes. Same reason that AMD have taken so long to dig themselves out of the Bulldozer mess. Skylake's architecture has nothing to do with AMD's weakness.

However, I have no doubt that Intel's choice of SKUs and pricing was impacted. We would probably have a 4GHz part with eDRAM already if Intel felt at all threatened.

 

[crashtech]

It seems self-evident that we would have lower prices and/or higher performing parts if AMD was able to be competitive. Right now, Intel enjoys a virtual monopoly in certain market segments, though that is small comfort to them in a world where tech evolves so rapidly.

 

[Vortex6700]

Yea, those numbers are completely off. Maybe they don't realize these aren't console games and they need to be configured before playing.

Some more numbers: 60 fps 5760 x 1080 DCS A10C 75k view quick match with all medium unit counts.

Seriously wonder if those benchmarks are with no startup params and no .cfg fiddling. No self respecting pc nut is gonna play a game stock.

 

[ThatBuzzkiller]

Lol...

Skylake CPU core design began in 2008 when it was not at all clear that AMD had "backed off" from developing high end CPUs. Skylake really does represent the best Intel could have done subject to the constraints that it faced.

http://news.techtime.co.il/2015/09/02/intel-4/

Negative, try 2011 ...

As far as "best they could've done with constraints" go in the context of high performance, that is dubious when we are talking about a team here who designed Sandy Bridge which gave fairly modest gains to a relatively good microarchitecture at the time ...

I'm not even sure how Intel managed to make the 6700K have lower turbo and slightly higher TDP than the 4790K when their 14nm transistors have improved capacitance ...

 

[mysticjbyrd]

http://news.techtime.co.il/2015/09/02/intel-4/

Negative, try 2011 ...

As far as "best they could've done with constraints" go in the context of high performance, that is dubious when we are talking about a team here who designed Sandy Bridge which gave fairly modest gains to a relatively good microarchitecture at the time ...

I'm not even sure how Intel managed to make the 6700K have lower turbo and slightly higher TDP than the 4790K when their 14nm transistors have improved capacitance ...

It's simple when you are a monopoly. You just pump out a new one whenever you get about a 5% gain. Ohh and just go ahead and create a new socket too. MB sales have been rather low as of late.

 

[Puffnstuff]

A performance pc requires an intel cpu leaving amd for the bargain models. I've used both over the years to build my pc's and there's no denying that when it comes to performance that intel reigns supreme.

 

[Arachnotronic]

http://news.techtime.co.il/2015/09/02/intel-4/

Negative, try 2011 ...

I'm sorry, what?

 

[jpiniero]

I'm not even sure how Intel managed to make the 6700K have lower turbo and slightly higher TDP than the 4790K when their 14nm transistors have improved capacitance ...

Crappy yield.

Oh yeah -- because a 3 year newer processor running a newer standard of DDR is somehow even a relevant comparison. The fact that 3 - 5 year old CPU's from both manufacturer's still offer smooth gameplay on brand new AAA games -- just shows how much CPU performance has stagnated since AMD backed off designing high end CPU's.

That has more to do with the consoles. Intel could build a processor that was 5 times faster and all you would end up with is 500 fps instead of 100.

 

[Arachnotronic]

Crappy yield.

+1

You nailed it. The yields are still so bad on these high clock SKUs that stock is very scarce and Newegg/Amazon are gouging like crazy.

 

[Arachnotronic]

Yup, people don't seem to grasp how long processor design takes. Same reason that AMD have taken so long to dig themselves out of the Bulldozer mess. Skylake's architecture has nothing to do with AMD's weakness.

However, I have no doubt that Intel's choice of SKUs and pricing was impacted. We would probably have a 4GHz part with eDRAM already if Intel felt at all threatened.

Right. At the SKU level, AMD's fail surely has had an impact. But from an IP/architectural perspective? Zero impact.

 

[ThatBuzzkiller]

I'm sorry, what?

That's not what the VP of Engineering, Shlomit Weiss who was the head of the project says in the link ...

From the description it sounded a whole lot like it was conceptualized before they actually started designing circuits specific to Skylake or it could be an error made on the employee's profile ...