Is AMD FX Bulldozer really that bad for Gaming?

[Don Karnage]

It's not that Bulldozer is "bad" for gaming, it isn't going to prevent you from running at playable FPS in most games, but there are some situations where BD will bottleneck you more than an Intel CPU. And considering that at pretty much every price point less than or equal to $200, Intel CPUs offer better gaming performance, there's really no good reason to get a Bulldozer for a gaming system IMO. For ~$100 a Core i3-2100 will outperform an FX-4100 and for ~$200 an i5-2500K will outperform an FX-8120 or FX-8150. And that's not even factoring in other considerations, like Sandy Bridge's lower power consumption.

Look at the 2100 go. Amazing performer for the money and its only a dual core. The Ivy Bridge I3 is only be better

 

[alexruiz]

"Pro tip" must be you dont need one with Dulldozer.

So you are going to grab a HD7850 to play at 1024 x 768 medium graphic settings?

Guys, how benches at the higher resolutions with the higher details? I know they will be harder to get as many CPU tests are done at lower resolutions with minimal detail to remove the video card as a factor in the result... But if I am grabbing a HD7850, I better be playing at 1080p max everything...

 

[Yuriman]

So you are going to grab a HD7850 to play at 1024 x 768 medium graphic settings?

Guys, how benches at the higher resolutions with the higher details? I know they will be harder to get as many CPU tests are done at lower resolutions with minimal detail to remove the video card as a factor in the result... But if I am grabbing a HD7850, I better be playing at 1080p max everything...

A relevant point, but fact is Bulldozer is a slower chip. If and when you do run into something that is CPU bottlenecked 6 months or 2 years down the road, the Intel chip will give you considerably better performance.

I'm sitting on a 6 year old Q6600 right now which really *does* limit me in some games. Had I said "I'm going to take the AMD option because today it's not a bottleneck and I want to support the underdog", I'd be getting 20fps instead of 30 in the games I try to play and upgrade time would have come that much sooner.

 

[notty22]

This is a story on the issue. It's one angle on it. 1 set of games.
AMD FX Vs. Intel Core i3: Exploring Game Performance With Cheap GPUs

 

[AtenRa]

Is there any major loss If I use AMD Bulldozer for only gaming?

1. Does it affect the FPS in games

2. Does it bottleneck the lastest graphics card.

3.Any other suggestion for a good processor if only using it for gaming and browsing?

First, what Graphics card are you planing on using ??
Second, at what resolutions are you planing on playing ??
Third, what games are you planing on playing ??

For 1920x1080 and up, with filters enable (AA/AF) a 4-4.2GHz Bulldozer will produce the same FPS with any other CPU in 99% of the DX-11 games(with a single GPU).

Now, there are some games (DX-9) like StarCraft II that are faster with Intel CPUs.
Also, Multi-GPU settups with NV cards are better with Intel platforms as of now.

For single GPU setups,
No mater how fast your CPU will be, your bottleneck will always be your GPU in the majority of new(DX-11) games at 1080p(Filters enable) and above.

If you OC your hardware, you better spend less for the CPU and add the saves for a better GPU. (dont overdone it, you still need CPU performance)

A 4.5GHz FX6100 will be sufficient to make even the GTX680/HD7970 be the bottleneck at the majority of DX-11 games at 1080p and above when filters are used.

 

[eternalone]

not even AMD uses Bulldozer to show off theyre Graphics cards they use Intel cpus'. So if AMD dosent use amd cpus why would you??

 

[AtenRa]

not even AMD uses Bulldozer to show off theyre Graphics cards they use Intel cpus'. So if AMD dosent use amd cpus why would you??

That is not true and you know it. AMD uses both AMD and Intel CPUs to test their GPUs.

From the AMD HD7970 Review Guide(page 28)

 

[2is]

I disagree. People still don't understand. The CPU does not render the graphics in a game. CPU does other stuff, and any QUAD processor , you will not be bottlenecking grab a 460 1GB or AMD 5870 , Open up taskmanager and you will see games take 50 or 60 percent off your CPU. There is no bottleneck, I mean fine maybe it will add 3fps but ya QUAD and OC it put a 460 1GB as red is the devils color and enjoy. If you have 300 bucks + grabe a 570 or the AMD equal... gl

You have a fundamental misconception of how CPU and GPUs relate. You can absolutely be CPU bottlenecked on a quad core with a 5870. What if a game doesn't use all 4 cores? Task manager won't show 100% what if it uses all 4 but doesn't scale well? Task manager still won't show 100% and in both cases you quite likely are in fact CPU limited.

And it doesn't matter if you're using task manager or another monitoring application, the above scenario still plays out the same. Which is to say, you'll see less than 100% utilization and still be CPU bound.

 

[nenforcer]

A 4.5GHz FX6100 will be sufficient to make even the GTX680/HD7970 be the bottleneck at the majority of DX-11 games at 1080p and above when filters are used.

This may be true, but the power usage will go through the roof once you put all that effort in to overclocking the chip so that it is competitive with Intel.

I have no problem recomending an AMD AM3+ motherboard along with a Phenom 2 X4 or X6 chip for the time being while you can still purchase them.

I would just skip the Zambezi Bulldozer processors and wait for the Vishera? Piledriver cores before purchasing any AMD FX chip.

 

[BFG10K]

There’s no point to a Bulldozer unless you’re a die-hard AMD fan. Even if you make the argument that you’ll flat-line from GPU limitations, a Sandy Bridge can achieve the same thing while using far less power and generating less heat.

 

[Leyawiin]

There’s no point to a Bulldozer unless you’re a die-hard AMD fan. Even if you make the argument that you’ll flat-line from GPU limitations, a Sandy Bridge can achieve the same thing while using far less power and generating less heat.

There you go.

 

[Jacky60]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Karnage
1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Whats your budget?

This + buy a 2500k.
__________________

This

 

[laputan machine]

Basically a bulldozer will be fine for gaming and you won't notice the difference in most games. However, it sucks up a lot of power if you OC it and it will likely give you sub-par framerates earlier in the future than the comparable intel solutions.
If you want to overclock then get a 2500k, if not get a 2400 or a 2500 if you want a quadcore. Even a 2100 will suit you fine and it's easy on the wallet.

If you really want an AMD, I'd suggest waiting a bit more to see what information trickles down about piledriver (next gen of bulldozer). It may be far better value for money.

 

[Necc]

There’s no point to a Bulldozer unless you’re a die-hard AMD fan. Even if you make the argument that you’ll flat-line from GPU limitations, a Sandy Bridge can achieve the same thing while using far less power and generating less heat.

Spot on! +1

 

[Rifter]

There’s no point to a Bulldozer unless you’re a die-hard AMD fan. Even if you make the argument that you’ll flat-line from GPU limitations, a Sandy Bridge can achieve the same thing while using far less power and generating less heat.

Could not have said it better myself.

 

[AtenRa]

There’s no point to a Bulldozer unless you’re a die-hard AMD fan. Even if you make the argument that you’ll flat-line from GPU limitations, a Sandy Bridge can achieve the same thing while using far less power and generating less heat.

So, from Bulldozer sucks we have come to "BD is more power hungry".

Could you tell me what Intel CPU will have the same performance in DX-11 games with a FX6100 @ 4.5GHz ???

Plz state the CPU model, cost of purchase and any in-game power usage diagrams.

 

[T_Yamamoto]

So, from Bulldozer sucks we have come to "BD is more power hungry".

Could you tell me what Intel CPU will have the same performance in DX-11 games with a FX6100 @ 4.5GHz ???

Plz state the CPU model, cost of purchase and any in-game power usage diagrams.

i3 2100 costing 129.99 I believe will beat any bulldozer.

Benchmarks are everywhere just look at those

 

[richaron]

Benchmarks are everywhere just look at those

I want you to hold evidence in front of my face and kinda move it right-left as I read.

 

[AtenRa]

i3 2100 costing 129.99 I believe will beat any bulldozer.

Benchmarks are everywhere just look at those

I dont see that in my benchmarks (see link in my sig bellow).

 

[amenx]

So, from Bulldozer sucks we have come to "BD is more power hungry".

I think he was just being frank. Personally I dont think BD sucks, I just think its mediocre. Even if it equaled Intel in gaming and even if had same power draw, that still leaves it weaker in performance in majority of other apps/scenarios (vs 2500k). Yes there are the odd few situations where BD does a little better than Intel, but the overwhelming tide of data out there does not look favorably for BD vs other CPUs in its price range. That I am sure has contributed to a negative wide spread perception of BD which imo will be difficult to shake off no matter how the data is re-arranged or cherry picked from.

 

[boxleitnerb]

I dont see that in my benchmarks (see link in my sig bellow).

1. The 6950 isn't exactly the fastest card.
2. As per your description, you tested BF3 in SP. You write about MP but didn't provide a frame diagram?
3. In Dirt 3 you removed the other cars - which would generate CPU load due to AI. Of course benching the CPU is difficult, just try until you have repeatable results instead of reducing load.
4. Built-in benchmarks often don't mirror the actual performance in the game. In F1 2011 you used such a benchmark
5. Shogun 2: see 4.
6. There are other demanding and/or badly optimized games. Sad but true (the second part). Even with the 1.4 patch, Skyrim needs a fast CPU (per thread) in certain areas. Then there are mods, strategy games, SLI/CF and the fact that you want your CPU to last a while. True, forecasting may be difficult as with more threads the FX might close the gap a little. But the past has shown that software developers are slow to adapt multithreading. I wouldn't expect wonders over the next 2-3 years. With the new consoles at the earliest.

So your benchmarks and your conclusion are fundamentally flawed in my opinion. And regarding fps, this is just silly:

Most gamers will find that game (F1 2011) to be playable from 25-30fps and above. Although a fast race game it seems that it doesn’t need very high fps.

Someone who needs only 30fps in a fast racing game has the lowest standards imaginable - I'm not judging, but this is hardly the norm for people considering buying an FX. The people you're talking about probably buy cheaper hardware. Even in Skyrim I need 50+ fps for true fluidity. Also imagine that people with slower graphics cards may lower details settings and/or res to maintain 60fps - and then the CPU becomes important again.

 

[AtenRa]

1. The 6950 isn't exactly the fastest card.
2. As per your description, you tested BF3 in SP. You write about MP but didn't provide a frame diagram?
3. In Dirt 3 you removed the other cars - which would generate CPU load due to AI. Of course benching the CPU is difficult, just try until you have repeatable results instead of reducing load.
4. Built-in benchmarks often don't mirror the actual performance in the game. In F1 2011 you used such a benchmark
5. Shogun 2: see 46.
6. There are other demanding and/or badly optimized games. Sad but true (the second part). Even with the 1.4 patch, Skyrim needs a fast CPU (per thread) in certain areas. Then there are mods, strategy games, SLI/CF and the fact that you want your CPU to last a while. True, forecasting may be difficult as with more threads the FX might close the gap a little. But the past has shown that software developers are slow to adapt multithreading. I wouldn't expect wonders over the next 2-3 years. With the new consoles at the earliest.

So your benchmarks and your conclusion are fundamentally flawed in my opinion. And regarding fps, this is just silly:

Someone who needs only 30fps in a fast racing game has the lowest standards imaginable. Even in Skyrim I need 50+ fps for true fluidity. Also imagine that people with slower graphics cards may lower details settings and/or res to maintain 60fps - and then the CPU becomes important again.

1. I don’t believe you will pair the Core i3 with GTX680, do you ??
2. Have you ever tried to bench BF3 MP ??? Im talking about MP because i playing it and I know what happens and what CPU performance it needs.
3. DIRT 3 can be played with a single car. That is in WRC mode, you run alone against other drivers run time .
4. The F1 2011 build in benchmark mirrors real game performance nicely. Try playing the game and you will see that 30fps are fine. You will not witness any gameplay difference with 60fps over 30fps in this game.
5. Shogun really needs a steady 30fps. You will not feel any difference in game play with 60fps.
6. The review was about DX-11 gaming. Skyrim is a DX-9 game. Have you read the first paragraphs ??

If you like to lower your image quality its fine by me, but when I play im trying to have the best image quality possible every time. Not all games need 60fps. Most of the RTS and Simulator games really need a steady 30fps. Most of FPS games need 60fps.
I also use V-sync in RTS and Simulator games but never in FPS games.

If my review seems flawed to you, then I believe you find 99% of the gaming benchmarks flawed in every CPU review because they never use any filters and usually they measure bellow the 1080p resolution.

 

[Smoblikat]

This + buy a 2500k.

That

 

[AtenRa]

I think he was just being frank. Personally I dont think BD sucks, I just think its mediocre. Even if it equaled Intel in gaming and even if had same power draw, that still leaves it weaker in performance in majority of other apps/scenarios (vs 2500k). Yes there are the odd few situations where BD does a little better than Intel, but the overwhelming tide of data out there does not look favorably for BD vs other CPUs in its price range. That I am sure has contributed to a negative wide spread perception of BD which imo will be difficult to shake off no matter how the data is re-arranged or cherry picked from.

First of all i have never said that BD is the best CPU or the CPU for every situation. But for gaming when OCed it has the same performance as Intel CPUs costing most of the time less and having better platform characteristics at the same price point. Core i5 2500K is a nice CPU but not everyone have or would like to spend $200 for a CPU.

At current prices, BD CPUs are very performance competitive especially the lower end FX4100 and FX6100 if OCed.

 

[coffeejunkee]

Most of the RTS and Simulator games really need a steady 30fps.

That's true, but fps are quite meaningless for rts games. What really matters is simulation speed.

I play Forged Alliance myself, an old game now so no benchmarks for Bulldozer, but I'm fairly sure even a heavily overclocked FX8150 will bog you down in 4v4 multiplayers games. Starcraft II is a little less cpu intensive but I still think Bulldozer wont cut it.

Forged Alliance is available on Steam for cheap, maybe you could add it to your test suite, it has a good build-in benchmark.