Is AMD still undefeated in budget builds?

[2is]

Software changed quite a bit. I have still 32MB hard drive in the closed. Titanfall needs 50 GBs.

Nasa flew to the moon with less processing power than people put in their pockets when going outside, which now is not enough to go through facebook!

Not sure if I understand the point you are trying to make.

We have a couple very good examples in this thread of why AMD fans fail to get any respect. This is one of them. Let me sum it up for you...

You said task manager uses enough resources to make a significant impact
I said I use it regularly and it doesn't
You asked what processor I've run it on
I answered

You replied with storage requirements for Titanfall and saying you don't understand my point..

How can you possible not understand it? It's a debate you brought up and the follow up was a direct answer to a question you asked.

Then we have shady who's taking screen shots of steam while it's loading/updating and thinking that it translates to in-game resource usage.

The fail is strong in this thread and none of it is coming from camp blue.

I for one am glad he thinks AT is so pro Intel, because the statements coming from the AMD side of things are beyond ridiculous. Minimizing cluelessness is a good thing for a forum.

 

[AtenRa]

Well, just because some of you close every process/application when you gaming doesnt mean everyone else does the same.

We did that in the single core era, not anymore.

 

[toyota]

one reason I a bought the 4770k is because in parts of some games my 2500k was already going over 90 and even 95% from just the game. that meant some hitching if I had anything else running while playing.

 

[MongGrel]

We have a couple very good examples in this thread of why AMD fans fail to get any respect. This is one of them. Let me sum it up for you...

You said task manager uses enough resources to make a significant impact
I said I use it regularly and it doesn't
You asked what processor I've run it on
I answered

You replied with storage requirements for Titanfall and saying you don't understand my point..

How can you possible not understand it? It's a debate you brought up and the follow up was a direct answer to a question you asked.

Then we have shady who's taking screen shots of steam while it's loading/updating and thinking that it translates to in-game resource usage.

The fail is strong in this thread and none of it is coming from camp blue.

I for one am glad he thinks AT is so pro Intel, because the statements coming from the AMD side of things are beyond ridiculous. Minimizing cluelessness is a good thing for a forum.

+1

 

[2is]

Well, just because some of you close every process/application when you gaming doesnt mean everyone else does the same.

We did that in the single core era, not anymore.

We don't. We're just smart enough to know that the resource allocation for steam when it loads is just that. Resource allocation for steam when it loads. Not when you play a game.

Maybe if you had processors powerful enough to run task manager while gaming, you'd have known this too.

But thanks for another prime example of the ridiculousness I was referring to... I forgot to add your examples in my previous post.

 

[AtenRa]

We don't. We're just smart enough to know that the resource allocation for steam when it loads is just that. Resource allocation for steam when it loads. Not when you play a game.

Maybe if you had processors powerful enough to run task manager while gaming, you'd have known this too.

If you read more carefully you would see that im not talking about task manager but applications as well. There are Games that you can play and simultaneously run other applications, Civilization is one of them.
But there are also other games that you do need to kill every other application, like BF4 MP.

 

[shady28]

We have a couple very good examples in this thread of why AMD fans fail to get any respect. This is one of them. Let me sum it up for you...

You said task manager uses enough resources to make a significant impact
I said I use it regularly and it doesn't
You asked what processor I've run it on
I answered

You replied with storage requirements for Titanfall and saying you don't understand my point..

How can you possible not understand it? It's a debate you brought up and the follow up was a direct answer to a question you asked.

Then we have shady who's taking screen shots of steam while it's loading/updating and thinking that it translates to in-game resource usage.

The fail is strong in this thread and none of it is coming from camp blue.

I for one am glad he thinks AT is so pro Intel, because the statements coming from the AMD side of things are beyond ridiculous. Minimizing cluelessness is a good thing for a forum.

So ViRGE, you going to fix this?

If you have a problem with the moderation here, you need to take it to Moderator Discussions. Moderator callouts will not be tolerated, and at the rate you're going you are very close to getting a vacation for it.
-ViRGE

 

[2is]

So ViRGE, you going to fix this?

Don't you worry. If Virge sees an issue with my posts, he'll take swift action without your help. If you think he's playing favorites somehow, i'll gladly show you a screenshot of my infractions given to me by Virge himself.

If you read more carefully you would see that im not talking about task manager but applications as well. There are Games that you can play and simultaneously run other applications, Civilization is one of them.
But there are also other games that you do need to kill every other application, like BF4 MP.

This is just where you shift goal posts actually, nothing new here.

When your arguments fall flat over and over again, you'll come back with a fringe example of when a higher/est end AMD might be able to outperform a mid-range Intel. And while it may be an accurate statement for that fringe example that rarely if ever happens, it still doesn't change the fact that your beginning argument is rarely the same as your ending argument.

 

[NTMBK]

The fail is strong in this thread and none of it is coming from camp blue

The fact that we still think of ourselves as "camp blue" and "camp green" is a little sad. Can we not just try to appreciate good processors and good value, regardless of which company built it?

(But yeah, lol at task manager taking up an entire core.)

 

[AtenRa]

This is just where you shift goal posts actually, nothing new here.

When your arguments fall flat over and over again, you'll come back with a fringe example of when a higher/est end AMD might be able to outperform a mid-range Intel. And while it may be an accurate statement for that fringe example that rarely if ever happens, it still doesn't change the fact that your beginning argument is rarely the same as your ending argument.

Spare me the melodramatic and read again what i have said. I believe you do know what a Computer Application is.

Well, just because some of you close every process/application when you gaming doesnt mean everyone else does the same.

We did that in the single core era, not anymore.

Also, it is only you that talks about AMD here. As you can see i havent talk about AMD or Intel for this matter.

 

[2is]

If the reality of your posts seems melodramatic to you, only you can spare yourself from it.

 

[monstercameron]

So...is AMD still undefeated in budget builds? At this rate the world may never know...

But seriously yes.

 

[shady28]

We don't. We're just smart enough to know that the resource allocation for steam when it loads is just that. Resource allocation for steam when it loads. Not when you play a game.
...

You need to go back and look at my post on that. That wasn't right after it loaded, that was after i had watched a video. The task manager graph also shows that it was not a single spike, but a sustained one.

So far every bit of objective information provided shows that 2 cores such as on an i3 is not going to provide a performance advantage unless your intention is to strip your PC down to doing nothing but play a single game - shut down your virus scanner, don't browse the web, shut down steam (which is dumb, 3/4 of games are running off of steam), etc etc.

And, even when you strip down the i3 / FX6350 rigs to just the game, then you only wind up with maybe 1/2 of the games doing better on the i3. And those games show that they are single threaded - many times with the i3 doing better than an i5, because the game makes zero use of multiple cores.

So what is it now, an i3 is better than an i5 ?

If you're talking about a $150 CPU and you want overall performance in any normal use case - which is what this thread is about - AMD is there and Intel has nothing in that price range that beats it.

Why don't you guys try coming up with some factual information and examples, instead of insulting people, distorting the examples they've given, and making fun of them?

That is the thing that has been continually noted in this thread - you guys advocating the i3 over the FX-6350, where's your facts??

 

[2is]

Please show me these games that show an i3 doing better than an i5 "many times"

It also seems like you're translating a configuration issue on your computer to advise on what product is better. Would you like to see my steam CPU usage after watching a video? It's right around 0%

Bad information showing 2 i3 cores isn't adequate is just that... Bad information. (especially considering you weren't running 2 i3 cores) Like I said, I can do the same thing you did and show you different results. To me that looks like incorrect info from someone who has a configuration issue on their computer.

But first thing is first... A link to these many charts that show an i3 outperforming an i5... It sounds made up to me... And please ensure you're comparing like generations.

 

[blackened23]

It's hopeless man. The goalposts are continually moving to something more and more absurd. Every time.

The real question is, are these results real world?

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core-i3-4340-4330-4130_5.html#sect0

But who needs real world objective benchmarks in actual PC games when we can debate wingnut arguments. WHAT can we run in the background to create a case for the AMD CPU. Nevermind that the normal person would close their AV garbage while gaming. And steam stops updating and pauses all downloads when a steam game is run. Nevermind that. Nevermind that on a real system chrome never takes that much CPU usage. Even if it did. Oh it is tough to hit that X in the right hand corner.

Looks like the i3 betters the 8350 in nearly every case. But dang the 8350 sure is good in synthetics, but when it comes to real world games, it falls flat. Loses all games except 2. There you go. What i've been saying all along. These AMD CPUs are inconsistent. Might win 1-2 games but then lose 20 games to an i3 because the IPC is pathetic. Where the goalposts go next, who knows. I'm looking at perfmon now with nothing taking more than 0-1%. But for some odd reason those AMD chips are taking 10% with just chrome. That sure is odd.

You know what , I wouldn't have any problem with anyone trying to state the FX6300 is a decent budget CPU despite some deficiencies. Or the 760k. A richland CPU on sale. I could ever perhaps respect normal rational cases for these CPUs. Decent budget CPUs that won't beat intel every time but are decent for the money. But when it comes to wingnut debates as we're seeing right now. Good grief man. I cannot believe some of the stuff i'm reading. When you have to try THAT HARD to make a case for a CPU, you should just give it a rest and admit the CPU is just flawed because of pathetic IPC. But here we are.

 

[shady28]

Please show me these games that show an i3 doing better than an i5 "many times"

It also seems like you're translating a configuration issue on your computer to advise on what product is better. Would you like to see my steam CPU usage after watching a video? It's right around 0%

But first thing is first... A link to these many charts that show an i3 outperforming an i5... It sounds made up to me... And please ensure you're comparing like generations.

That was this link :

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core-i3-4340-4330-4130_5.html#sect0

Posted here :

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=36280867&postcount=28

And this was the chart :

And here's another chart from that same review:

What they failed to do was look down to other charts like this one :

It's obvious from these (and others in the article) that we have a single-thread game on the top chart, and as games get more multithreaded the i3 (and eventually, the i5) start to lose to the higher core count FX in the other charts.

But an i5 is not a budget build, and I'm not saying that the FX-6XXX is better than an i5, I'm just saying in this price point it's better than an i3.

 

[blackened23]

It's better than the i3 even though THE FX8350 LOST EVERY GAME EXCEPT 2.

LOL. Gotta be kidding me. 6 games. 2 wins for the 8350. That's not even the 6xxx. F-X- 8-3-5-0. LOST 4 out of 6 TO THE intel I3.

But you're telling us the 6xxx is better despite the i3 winning most of the games. Is that with or without the i3 running cinebench in the background while gaming? Antivirus scan? What?

 

[shady28]

It's better than the i3 even though THE FX8350 LOST EVERY GAME EXCEPT 2.

LOL. Gotta be kidding me. 6 games. 2 wins for the 8350. That's not even the 6xxx. F-X- 8-3-5-0. LOST 4 out of 6 TO THE intel I3.

But you're telling us the 6xxx is better despite the i3 winning most of the games. Is that with or without the i3 running cinebench in the background while gaming? Antivirus scan? What?

/Sarcasm on

The i5 LOST 3 out of 6 to the intel i3.

You telling us the i5 is better desipite the i3 winning half the games at a lower price? Is that without the i5 running cinebench in the background while gaming? Antivirus scan? What?

 

[2is]

That was this link :

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core-i3-4340-4330-4130_5.html#sect0

Posted here :

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=36280867&postcount=28

And this was the chart :

And here's another chart from that same review:

What they failed to do was look down to other charts like this one :

It's obvious from these (and others in the article) that we have a single-thread game on the top chart, and as games get more multithreaded the i3 (and eventually, the i5) start to lose to the higher core count FX in the other charts.

But an i5 is not a budget build, and I'm not saying that the FX-6XXX is better than an i5, I'm just saying in this price point it's better than an i3.

And thanks for proving yet again, why people like you cannot and are not taken seriously here at AT... You are looking at a chart between an i3 and i5, which are virtually the same, the single digit difference between them well within the margin of error when benchmarking games.

Please tell me this wasn't your only "many times" example...

As far as your theory about the i5 and multi threading... Yeah, we've been hearing that since Intel launched the Q6600.... AMD advocates scoffed that it wasn't a "native quad core" and did not have an IMC. They were sure that it wouldn't be long before AMD's "Barcelona" came into it's own.

It never happened... At what point does one stop believing their own delusions?

 

[shady28]

And thanks for proving yet again, why people like you cannot and are not taken seriously here at AT... You are looking at a chart between an i3 and i5, which are virtually the same, the single digit difference between them well within the margin of error when benchmarking games.

Please tell me this wasn't your only "many times" example...

As far as your theory about the i5 and multi threading... Yeah, we've been hearing that since Intel launched the Q6600.... AMD advocates scoffed that it wasn't a "native quad core" and did not have an IMC. They were sure that it wouldn't be long before AMD's "Barcelona" came into it's own.

It never happened... At what point does one stop believing their own delusions?

Once again you ignore the content of the post and attack the poster. You have nothing of consequence to add to this post, and dare say I nothing to add anywhere.

Maybe ViRGE will decide to edit this post again, while not editing yours, which just illustrates why these so-called technical forums at this site have such a rep for being overrun by intel fan boys.

Look here. This is an FX-8320 vs i3-4330 vs FX-6300 vs i5-2300. The i5-2300 is here b/c it's the closes thing to the i5-2500S in my iMac.

You can go to the link yourself here :

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/...=on&prod[5765]=on&prod[5946]=on&prod[6661]=on


Here's the image. The thing to look at is the last row, where it says 'Total time of all time based benchmarks'. So in Their battery of tests, the i3-4330 takes 2268s, the FX-6300 takes 1969s, and the FX-8320 takes 1705s.

In other words, running that battery of tests takes more than an extra 5 minutes on the i3 vs an FX-6300. An FX-6350 would be even faster.

Keep telling us how the i3 is better.

I think we're done here.
-ViRGE