Multi-tasking Desktop "Feel" Between AMD/ Intel CPUs

[12andy]

I'm currently on the fence as to what route to go.

Using a Corsair AX850w PSU, so power consumption isn't much of an issue for me; however, being a silencing aficionado, minimizing heat output is of great importance.

At this point, I know most are thinking to grab a 2400/ 2500k, overclock to max that stock volts will allow, and be done with it.

HOWEVER, one bench I came across had the K load temps right in line with a 8150, so I can't help but wonder, "Are Intel's chips simply running hot, or AMD's running relatively cool, considering their power consumption under load?".

This back-and-forth thought brings me to a never-ending duel between the following now:
- AMD 1045t 95w/ possibly 8120 95w for its potential down the road
- Intel i5 2400 (if I decide to o/c this, I only plan to take it to 4.0ghz)

Most of my time will be spent with BF3, so I'm curious if the X6's scale like the BD benches have indicated. I also plan to get into Skyrim soon, and it appears Intel owns AMD in that area (realistically less of an issue, as it's not MP-based).

As I'm currently running an X4 940 @ 3.4 (with 6850 CF), I'd want this upgrade to have a tangible improvement. There have been reports where the X6s provide a... more seamless desktop experience, if you will.

Raw number crunching aside (I can wait 3 extra seconds for something to unrar and such), which CPU provides a better alt-tabbing experience? I typically like to leave Winamp, Live Messenger, Chrome, etc. running in the background.

 

[sm625]

If you can get the 2400 to 4.0GHz it will feel much faster than any amd. The memory bandwidth and all latencies across the board will see to that.

 

[Smartazz]

How would you overclock the 2400 to 4GHz? I'm pretty sure you'd need the 2500K or 2600K to do any significant overclocking beyond just using turbo speeds. As far as multi tasking performance, I've used the 2500K and I can tell you that it's very fast in that regard although I haven't played BF3 and tried.

 

[ed29a]

I am sure if someone does a double blind test they won't notice the difference between two 2-3 year old quad core processors for desktop usage. If both systems have same amount of memory and same hard drive, I doubt anyone could tell which 'feels' faster and that this 'feel' represents the better processor. Current processors have way too much power that simple desktop programs like Chrome, Winamp or Messenger won't be able to bottleneck. I use a 3 year old dual core processor at work and at home a six core, and I don't notice the difference at all for typical desktop usage.

Your mileage might vary.

 

[12andy]

By adjusting the base clock, per the article - http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2011/01/03/intel-sandy-bridge-review/14 - ?

Apparently it's shunned upon though, so maybe I'll leave it at stock and just undervolt for extreme coolage, or shell out the extra for a 2500k for convenience.

 

[Smartazz]

I am sure if someone does a double blind test they won't notice the difference between two 2-3 year old quad core processors for desktop usage. If both systems have same amount of memory and same hard drive, I doubt anyone could tell which 'feels' faster and that this 'feel' represents the better processor. Current processors have way too much power that simple desktop programs like Chrome, Winamp or Messenger won't be able to bottleneck. I use a 3 year old dual core processor at work and at home a six core, and I don't notice the difference at all for typical desktop usage.

Your mileage might vary.

For typical usage this is true, particularly if you have an SSD. However, alt tabbing out of BF3 on a Q6600 can get sluggish, but it's not really of concern to me.

 

[richierich1212]

If you can get the 2400 to 4.0GHz it will feel much faster than any amd. The memory bandwidth and all latencies across the board will see to that.

LOL Good luck trying trying to overclock that. But in all seriousness, memory bandwith and latencies don't mean jack in benchmarks between Intel and AMD processors. If you bump up the Northbridge on AMD processors that bottleneck is eliminated. But a SSD will improve overall Windows experience more than processors themselves.

 

[happy medium]

As I'm currently running an X4 940 @ 3.4 (with 6850 CF), I'd want this upgrade to have a tangible improvement.

You will need better video cards for tangible improvements if your gaming @ 1900x1080p.
I would go with a 2500k @ 4.0 stock voltage and 2 6950's.
Your x4 940 is not bottlenecking a 6850 crossfire setup much.

 

[exar333]

Re-load your OS and/or get a SSD. That will impact 'snappiness' much more than a new processor, unless you are doing substantial multi-tasking all the time.

 

[happy medium]

Re-load your OS and/or get a SSD. That will impact 'snappiness' much more than a new processor, unless you are doing substantial multi-tasking all the time.

and at least 8gb of ram.

 

[exar333]

and at least 8gb of ram.

Good point. What is that these days, like $35?

 

[Tuna-Fish]

By adjusting the base clock, per the article - http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2011/01/03/intel-sandy-bridge-review/14 - ?

Apparently it's shunned upon though, so maybe I'll leave it at stock and just undervolt for extreme coolage, or shell out the extra for a 2500k for convenience.

You can't overclock using base clock over 5% or so. Basically, there is no way to separate the bclock that goes to the CPU from the clocks for the system busses, and SATA will fail if you overclock it more than that. I wouldn't use any bclock oc in day-to-day use on SB.

If that sounds kinda retarded, it's because it is. The whole thing was engineered by Intel to stop people from overclocking low-end parts.

 

[Termie]

Re-load your OS and/or get a SSD. That will impact 'snappiness' much more than a new processor, unless you are doing substantial multi-tasking all the time.

and at least 8gb of ram.

This. If you don't have an SSD and are upgrading primarily for the desktop feel, you're going down the wrong road thinking about putting ~$400 into a CPU and motherboard. Buy a 120GB SSD, load Windows, Skyrim, BF3, and all your other main apps on it, and call it a new computer. It will feel like one, I promise you.

The 8GB of ram won't help quite as much for desktop feel, and if you're using DDR2, the prices aren't great, but it might still be worth doing for BF3 - level loading in particular is improved.

 

[12andy]

I guess I should've mentioned that I SORT of have the SSD thing covered, by means of my Seagate Momentus XT. While I wait for the price-to-capacity ratio to improve for SSDs, this HD has probably made one of the biggest differences in my daily habitual computing. Intel's Z68 SRT has me intrigued now, TBH.

To be honest, my main drive initially for the upgrade was the noted FPS differences in BF3 between the X4 and X6, followed by the 2500k running in line with the X6.

AFAIK, the 6850 CF setup performs similarly to that of the 580, so it's those benchmarks that I'm paying more attention to in terms of CPU scaling differences. Frankly, in certain games, there is a profound difference amongst platforms.

I may be selling my CPU, mobo and RAM to my buddy, so I figured that this is a prime opportunity to start with a new platform, be it AMD (X6/ BD) or Intel, whichever is most cost efficient and "relevant", assuming games will be programmed in similar nature to that of BF3.

 

[Termie]

I guess I should've mentioned that I SORT of have the SSD thing covered, by means of my Seagate Momentus XT. While I wait for the price-to-capacity ratio to improve for SSDs, this HD has probably made one of the biggest differences in my daily habitual computing. Intel's Z68 SRT has me intrigued now, TBH.

To be honest, my main drive initially for the upgrade was the noted FPS differences in BF3 between the X4 and X6, followed by the 2500k running in line with the X6.

AFAIK, the 6850 CF setup performs similarly to that of the 580, so it's those benchmarks that I'm paying more attention to in terms of CPU scaling differences. Frankly, in certain games, there is a profound difference amongst platforms.

I may be selling my CPU, mobo and RAM to my buddy, so I figured that this is a prime opportunity to start with a new platform, be it AMD (X6/ BD) or Intel, whichever is most cost efficient and "relevant", assuming games will be programmed in similar nature to that of BF3.

Have you seen multiplayer benchmarks of BF3 showing the 2500k to be faster than the x4/x6, or the x6 being faster than the x4? I haven't seen anything but the lame singleplayer benchmarks that show dual-cores matching the 2500K: http://www.techspot.com/review/458-battlefield-3-performance/page7.html. Yeah...no.

That being said, your AMD quad is probably fine for BF3. It might be holding back your crossfire setup slightly, but not enough to warrant a system upgrade. If you have a buyer, then go ahead and sell it and pick up a 2500k. That's by far your best long-term investment for games. AMD has not had a good showing lately on gaming potential.

And do yourself a favor and get at least a 64GB SSD to load W7 and BF3 on. You'll thank yourself for doing so...that Seagate is fine for notebooks, but it doesn't offer anything close to an SSD experience. Would make a great data drive, though.

 

[ed29a]

I may be selling my CPU, mobo and RAM to my buddy, so I figured that this is a prime opportunity to start with a new platform, be it AMD (X6/ BD) or Intel, whichever is most cost efficient and "relevant", assuming games will be programmed in similar nature to that of BF3.

Forget AMD, get a 2500K or 2600K depending on your budget.

 

[12andy]

I JUST googled the bench, actually, lol - http://www.sweclockers.com/artikel/14650-prestandaanalys-battlefield-3/5#pagehead. More sites should be benching BF3 like this, as SP-only can be VERY misleading when guiding potential hardware buyers, IMO. The 10+ min-FPS difference was a real eye-opener for me.

I'll probably grab a used 64MB SSD down the road, should I go the Z68 route. For my uses (loading Winamp, etc. on startup, and browsing the net with the odd gaming here and there), I've felt an SSD would be a bit unnecessary, with the XT not only providing near-SSD speeds (for programs commonly used), but dead silent as a mechanical drive as well (when within case).

 

[Termie]

I JUST googled the bench, actually, lol - http://www.sweclockers.com/artikel/14650-prestandaanalys-battlefield-3/5#pagehead. More sites should be benching BF3 like this, as SP-only can be VERY misleading when guiding potential hardware buyers, IMO.

Wow! Now those are some benchmarks! First of all, they prove what many of us knew already - you cannot play BF3 multiplayer on a dual-core. Second, the X4 is getting killed, not only by the 2500k, but also by the X6.

And this brings me to my last point, which is the most surprising - the 2500k gets killed by the 2600k when CPU-limited. Could this be proof that the engine can actually use more than four threads? That would explain the X6's dominance of the X4 when per-core power should be close to equal.

I might post this to one or two of the BF3 threads...hope you don't mind if I build on your google skills!

 

[Maximilian]

I'm currently on the fence as to what route to go.

Using a Corsair AX850w PSU, so power consumption isn't much of an issue for me; however, being a silencing aficionado, minimizing heat output is of great importance.

At this point, I know most are thinking to grab a 2400/ 2500k, overclock to max that stock volts will allow, and be done with it.

HOWEVER, one bench I came across had the K load temps right in line with a 8150, so I can't help but wonder, "Are Intel's chips simply running hot, or AMD's running relatively cool, considering their power consumption under load?".

This back-and-forth thought brings me to a never-ending duel between the following now:
- AMD 1045t 95w/ possibly 8120 95w for its potential down the road
- Intel i5 2400 (if I decide to o/c this, I only plan to take it to 4.0ghz)

8120 bulldozer? It has no potential its rubbish. 1045t is a good CPU though

You cant overclock the i5 2400, only the K series chips overclock, 2500k 2600k etc.

Most of my time will be spent with BF3, so I'm curious if the X6's scale like the BD benches have indicated. I also plan to get into Skyrim soon, and it appears Intel owns AMD in that area (realistically less of an issue, as it's not MP-based).

As I'm currently running an X4 940 @ 3.4 (with 6850 CF), I'd want this upgrade to have a tangible improvement. There have been reports where the X6s provide a... more seamless desktop experience, if you will.

Raw number crunching aside (I can wait 3 extra seconds for something to unrar and such), which CPU provides a better alt-tabbing experience? I typically like to leave Winamp, Live Messenger, Chrome, etc. running in the background.

Honestly though i wouldn't bother if you are already on a quad. I don't believe people when they say they upgraded from *insert decent CPU here* to a 2500k or whatever and it "feels" faster, sounds like BS. Only things that will make the desktop experience faster is getting an SSD or if you didn't have enough RAM before get more RAM, that's unlikely though as memory is so cheap, i havent experienced thrashing on any rig for years.

 

[Maximilian]

Wow! Now those are some benchmarks! First of all, they prove what many of us knew already - you cannot play BF3 multiplayer on a dual-core. Second, the X4 is getting killed, not only by the 2500k, but also by the X6.

And this brings me to my last point, which is the most surprising - the 2500k gets killed by the 2600k when CPU-limited. Could this be proof that the engine can actually use more than four threads? That would explain the X6's dominance of the X4 when per-core power should be close to equal.

I might post this to one or two of the BF3 threads...hope you don't mind if I build on your google skills!

Its nice to see hyper threading actually worth a damn when it comes to gaming

I read frostbite 2 can use up to 8 threads FYI.

 

[DaveSimmons]

I don't believe people when they say they upgraded from *insert decent CPU here* to a 2500k or whatever and it "feels" faster, sounds like BS.

It felt faster because they also reinstalled Windows

A fresh copy of Windows is much faster than one loaded down by checks for updates, phone home licenses, services and processes from programs you've installed.

 

[12andy]

Go ahead Termie! Spread the word.

Here's another one, from when BF3 was in beta - http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/10/11/amd_bulldozer_fx8150_gameplay_performance_review/2

I'd hardly call BD a failure, in this case. Certain mobo/ BIOS configurations have gimped its performance, although it's still a power hog, in comparison to current-gen stuff.

 

[12andy]

And this review puts the BD in a much different light - http://www.kitguru.net/components/cpu/zardon/amd-fx-8150-black-edition-8-core-review-with-gigabyte-990fxa-ud7/

My confusion lies with all the conflicting reviews and forum impressions.

 

[skipsneeky2]

That swedish site had some pretty good info on those processors.

Looks like a 1090t is a good base processor on the amd side if your stuck with a single gpu .

Looks like the x4 980 even with its high clockspeed can't save it from the scaling of the 1090ts 6 slower cores.

From those charts it seems a 1090t is the bare minimum with a 2600k in the lead?

 

[dbcooper1]

By adjusting the base clock, per the article - http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2011/01/03/intel-sandy-bridge-review/14 - ?

Apparently it's shunned upon though, so maybe I'll leave it at stock and just undervolt for extreme coolage, or shell out the extra for a 2500k for convenience.

You can also likely get the 2400 to 3.8Ghz single/3.6Ghz fully loaded with stock voltage and cooling with a Z68 board and adding +4 to the settings. Mine's been running that way since the beginning and it's plenty quick at the desktop and still idles down when not loaded; of course I have an SSD too.