Phenom II x4 960T Zosma Bottlenecking AMD Radeon HD 7850 OC for Gaming?

[richierich1212]

BF3 64 MP is CPU-dependent.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIIOQ6WqeEQ

Seems fine to me, 960T + 560ti using FRAPS.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Even with an overclock you'll still be bottlenecked in CPU-dependent games. Don't let the AMD fanboys tell you otherwise.

Of course they'll point to GPU-dependent games and ignore the fact that AMD is pathetic for SCII MP and other CPU-dependent games where the processor does matter.

I think you're trying to fight a battle that no one is interested in, nor did anyone but you start. I, nor any other post before your's that I saw suggested that a Phenom II is better than Intel's current line up. I saw a lot of posts saying that for that games he specifically listed his 960T will be 'good enough' for a 7850 at his resolution.

I just fired up Diablo III with Fraps, 99% of the time I'm locked at 60FPS.

 

[MentalIlness]

AMD chips bottleneck HD 6850s in CPU dependent games.

Care to back up those claims ?

 

[minitron]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIIOQ6WqeEQ

Seems fine to me, 960T + 560ti using FRAPS.

Nice slideshow. A single 560 Ti cannot run BF3 on ultra with decent FPS regardless of CPU.

Care to back up those claims ?

With a 5870 but you get the idea.

 

[AtenRa]

@minitron

Go troll somewhere else.

 

[WhoBeDaPlaya]

Maybe I'm just getting old or something, but what in the blue **** is with the preponderance of abrasive new posters on AT in the last ~2 years?

 

[Schmide]

Jeez. When did within 5-10% become a bottleneck.

People will do anything to get their rocks off.

 

[tulx]

Don't let the AMD fanboys tell you otherwise.
Of course they'll point to GPU-dependent games [..]

Considering that you yourself are the first to bring up benchmakrs from a game favouring your favourite processors a few posts later, you don't have the right to call anyone a fanboy.

The last two PCs I've built for my friends were Sandy Bridge i5's and i7's because those are great processors at that price point. I myself use an unlocked, overclocked 960t for gaming and that's a great processor as well - there's no game I can't run at the highest settings with a good framerate. (I use two XFX 5870's) That includes BF3 MP with 64 player and highest settings. The CPU is used to about 70~80%, both GPUs to 100%. FPS is around 45.

You shouldn't go out of your way to point out how "pathetic" other peoples choices are if they are just as valid but don't correspont with your opinion.

 

[KingFatty]

I dunno, the chart clearly shows that you'll only get something like 70 FPS with an AMD chip instead of 100 FPS with Intel.

Would that make or break the experience? I mean, would 70 FPS be unacceptably slow to where you couldn't enjoy the game?

I wonder if it matters what your display is, whether you have a 60 hz or 120 hz?

 

[Makaveli]

Currentgen processors that aren't sissy pansy celeron or Sempron will not bottleneck current gen video cards.. Where do you all come up with this stuff?

Are you sure about that there are games which do care. The only ones out of the list that he has provided is BF3 which would be a concern for me. However since everyone here has posted they get good frame rate with that AMD processor in BF3 he shouldn't be worried.

 

[alyarb]

none of the experts have distinguished between average and minimum frames either... so is this thread even about CPUs?

 

[minitron]

Considering that you yourself are the first to bring up benchmakrs from a game favouring your favourite processors a few posts later, you don't have the right to call anyone a fanboy.

The last two PCs I've built for my friends were Sandy Bridge i5's and i7's because those are great processors at that price point. I myself use an unlocked, overclocked 960t for gaming and that's a great processor as well - there's no game I can't run at the highest settings with a good framerate. (I use two XFX 5870's) That includes BF3 MP with 64 player and highest settings. The CPU is used to about 70~80%, both GPUs to 100%. FPS is around 45.

You shouldn't go out of your way to point out how "pathetic" other peoples choices are if they are just as valid but don't correspont with your opinion.

45 FPS with dual 5870s is pathetic. Probably your pathetic Phenom II holding you back.

It's correspond, the interwebs contains spellcheck.

If we're going into pricepoints Intel has better offerings for gaming at every level.

I dunno, the chart clearly shows that you'll only get something like 70 FPS with an AMD chip instead of 100 FPS with Intel.

Would that make or break the experience? I mean, would 70 FPS be unacceptably slow to where you couldn't enjoy the game?

I wonder if it matters what your display is, whether you have a 60 hz or 120 hz?

In FPS the frames do matter. Play CS or BF3 with a constant 100 fps then go to 70 fps. Notice how AMD chips hold back a HD 5870, which isn't the fastest card in the world.

As mentioned above the min FPS will be much worse for AMD chips.

 

[AtenRa]

Notice how AMD chips hold back a HD 5870, which isn't the fastest card in the world.

As mentioned above the min FPS will be much worse for AMD chips.

 

[Ferzerp]

No offense, but with your blatant bias, any data with you as the primary source is suspect. Not sure why you post it.

I'm making no claim on the accuracy of this particular graph. What I am saying is that we cannot trust you to perform any objective testing at all. We know any test you perform is designed to make AMD products look better/less bad.

 

[inf64]

Yes he has an agenda. It's a conspiracy!

 

[KingFatty]

45 FPS with dual 5870s is pathetic. Probably your pathetic Phenom II holding you back.

Can you clarify what you meant, because I don't understand how you could conclude that the fault is with the CPU?

He clearly says that his dual GPUs were at 100% load, but yet you blame that on the CPU? Unlike the fully-loaded GPUs, the CPU was only at 70~80% load.

It worries me that there is this big contradiction between the facts and your interpretation of those facts, you seem to be pretty quick to judge, unless perhaps you made a typo without meaning to say what you did or something?

 

[AtenRa]

No offense, but with your blatant bias, any data with you as the primary source is suspect. Not sure why you post it.

I'm making no claim on the accuracy of this particular graph. What I am saying is that we cannot trust you to perform any objective testing at all. We know any test you perform is designed to make AMD products look better/less bad.

I dont even have to say a word.

 

[minitron]

Go somewhere else with your AMD fanboy blog. Your original post was laughed out of these forums.

I'll take Tom's tests over your doctored garbage any day.

No offense, but with your blatant bias, any data with you as the primary source is suspect. Not sure why you post it.

I'm making no claim on the accuracy of this particular graph. What I am saying is that we cannot trust you to perform any objective testing at all. We know any test you perform is designed to make AMD products look better/less bad.

I'm not the primary source. The trusted review sites like THG and Anand's itself is the source: AMD is bad for gaming.

Yes he has an agenda. It's a conspiracy!

Conspiracy of all the hardware review sites! That's right!

Face if fanboys, overclocked AMD is still behind an i3:

AMD fanboy: "But but but there's not an overclocked X4 on that chart (ignores the 980).

 

[alyarb]

clock speed doesn't seem to do that much in RTS. look at the 4ghz vs 3 ghz i5 are negligibly different.

The big gaps are in going from architecture to architecture. Wide CPUs with great prefetching are at the top and skinny CPUs with poor prefetching are at the bottom.

 

[minitron]

clock speed doesn't seem to do that much in RTS. look at the 4ghz vs 3 ghz i5 are negligibly different.

The big gaps are in going from architecture to architecture. Wide CPUs with great prefetching are at the top and skinny CPUs with poor prefetching are at the bottom.

AMD fanboys won't ever get over their fascination with clock speed and moar coars.

 

[Durvelle27]

Go somewhere else with your AMD fanboy blog. Your original post was laughed out of these forums.

I'll take Tom's tests over your doctored garbage any day.

I'm not the primary source. The trusted review sites like THG and Anand's itself is the source: AMD is bad for gaming.

Conspiracy of all the hardware review sites! That's right!

Face if fanboys, overclocked AMD is still behind an i3:

AMD fanboy: "But but but there's not an overclocked X4 on that chart (ignores the 980).

you would pick SCII benchmark lol ? shame

 

[minitron]

Look on page 1, plenty of benches from legitimate review site to choose from...

 

[alyarb]

I'm just saying, stick with FPS or RTS but a single rule of thumb can't possibly fit both of those types of games.

 

[minitron]

In either case, the i3-21xx will meet or exceed overclocked Phenom IIs.

 

[Durvelle27]

In either case, the i3-21xx will meet or exceed overclocked Phenom IIs.

2 cores vs 4 or 6 core on 64 mp

That dual core would not out perform a Phenom II x4 or x6