Please recommend an AMD Processor for me

[Abwx]

In fact, stock for stock, I think the i3 would win more than it loses.

To think something doesnt make it true...what if i think otherwise.?.

Some numbers would be welcomed when doing such claims.

 

[Arkaign]

Honestly at this point I don't think going with an FX makes any sense for gaming, at all.

The i5 should be your go-to solution. The 990FX chipset is too old. The SATA, USB, PCIe performance is all going to be dramatically superior on the Intel 8 and 9 series chipsets. Going back historically, I think the 990 is around the Intel 6-series or so in feature set.

Now AMD GPUs? Great. AMD APUs for the right scenario? Great. AMD FX? Not in 2014, sorry.

If AMD comes out with a more modern chipset I'm totally open to reconsidering them for modern builds. Looking at the A-series chipsets we know they're capable of it. Even if they have to make a new socket for the FX (though moving them to the FM series socket would be ideal imho). I have an FX6300 and Sabertooth that was my HTPC/light gaming setup until I replaced it with a 4770, and the difference is mind blowing. Power from the wall went down by almost half, it's whisper quiet, and copying things to and from my USB 3.0 SSD is hugely improved. And of course the gaming performance is much better (not that it's really fair to compare a 6300 to a 4770).

 

[frozentundra123456]

To think something doesnt make it true...what if i think otherwise.?.

Some numbers would be welcomed when doing such claims.

Think whatever you want. There are plenty of benchmarks to support what I said. I was just trying not to be pedantic and make absolute statements, as it does vary from game to game.

Just an example BF4 Final Stand

or maybe Far Cry 4

or Advanced Warfare

There you go, need I continue? I am even being charitable and not going back to any older single threaded games where the FX would be humiliated even worse.

 

[AtenRa]

The 990FX chipset is too old. The SATA, USB, PCIe performance is all going to be dramatically superior on the Intel 8 and 9 series chipsets. Going back historically, I think the 990 is around the Intel 6-series or so in feature set.

1: 16x PCIe Gen 2.0 performance is equivalent to 8x PCIe Gen 3.0. It is enough even for the highest performing GPU today and near future.

2: SATA-6 performance is on par with Intel's Z87/97 SATA-6
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2014/08/21/msi-970-gaming-review/6

3: USB-3 performance is on par with Intel's USB-3. (I cant find data now but it is very close)

 

[AtenRa]

Just an example BF4 Final Stand

Nobody will play BF4 with those settings, unless you dont have a clue.

http://gamegpu.ru/action-/-fps-/-tps/battlefield-4-final-stand-test-gpu.html

Edit: Clue not Glue

 

[TheELF]

But they do have "glue" the settings they use for the testing is further down the site.
They test at 100%

and even at 200%

 

[AtenRa]

The one I posted was for the CPU performance test.

Also, Field Of View is set at 70% with the settings they used for the GPU testing (the ones you posted) and for the CPU.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Of course, if AMD looks bad the test must be flawed.

 

[DrMrLordX]

I'm surprised nobody mentioned the 860k? A few people are hitting 4.6-4.8 ghz with those. A few. Hitting those speeds with an A10 is muchly much much harder. Also, these Kaveri chips just beg for a delid. Gloppy TIM and all that.

 

[AtenRa]

Of course, if AMD looks bad the test must be flawed.

Have you played BF4 multiplayer ?? If yes then you would understand why nobody will play with settings like that on that hardware.
Even with slower GPUs it is better to enable 2x MSAA and disable other Image Quality settings.

Not only that, have you seen their Benchmark run ??? they Benchmarked far away from real action. That is not BF4 MP performance indicative. Link bellow.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=aMGTwG6XN_4

 

[Enigmoid]

Have you played BF4 multiplayer ?? If yes then you would understand why nobody will play with settings like that on that hardware.
Even with slower GPUs it is better to enable 2x MSAA and disable other Image Quality settings.

Not only that, have you seen their Benchmark run ??? they Benchmarked far away from real action. That is not BF4 MP performance indicative. Link bellow.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=aMGTwG6XN_4

Otherwise it wouldn't be repeatable and you would need +/- 5-15% error bars on the data.

 

[SlowSpyder]

If you want to get an AMD CPU to mess around with I'd go with a low cost FX8xxx CPU (whether it be an 8300, 8310, 8320, 8320e) and overclock it. Just about any of those could probably get to the mid 4GHz range without too much drama.

 

[AtenRa]

Otherwise it wouldn't be repeatable and you would need +/- 5-15% error bars on the data.

You dont have that deviation.

 

[mrmt]

Why not buy a FX9590?

 

[Enigmoid]

You dont have that deviation.

You would have to do multiple test (3 at least) to average out inconsistencies. Getting in the action means possibly dying which will drastically change the framrate. Things like an airplane exploding randomly one time can drop min fps dramatically. One round a ton of grenades may go off. It would be inconsistent, not because all the tests would be off but because one or two particularly bad or good tests would change a particular CPU's hierarchy significantly.

 

[Abwx]

Think whatever you want. There are plenty of benchmarks to support what I said. I was just trying not to be pedantic and make absolute statements, as it does vary from game to game.

Just an example BF4 Final Stand

or maybe Far Cry 4

or Advanced Warfare

There you go, need I continue? I am even being charitable and not going back to any older single threaded games where the FX would be humiliated even worse.

http://anandtech.com/bench/product/1197?vs=697

That s the fastest i3 in Anand s benches, i dont see the superiority of this chip or should we discard any game where the FX does better.?.

Besides these are minimalist systems, the i3 couldnt even have a wifi connected and get the FPS it has in benches as it has no headroom left, that is, dont forget to close everything before playing games with such CPUs...

 

[tential]

Why not buy a FX9590?

Because in many cases even when OC'd as high as you can get it, it won't beat a 4690k.

So might as well just get the far easier to cool 4690k.

You have to be using pricing different from America (with a much larger premium to intel than we get here), before I'd pick the FX9590 over the 4690k.

 

[mrmt]

Because in many cases even when OC'd as high as you can get it, it won't beat a 4690k.

The guy already has a 2500k, so he doesn't seems to be interested in the best bang for the buck, but in helping the underdog. Why not recommend the most expensive AMD processor available then?

 

[TheELF]

http://anandtech.com/bench/product/1197?vs=697
That s the fastest i3 in Anand s benches, i dont see the superiority of this chip or should we discard any game where the FX does better.?.

Oh you don't??
Whith only 2 physical cores it runs games just as well as the 8350,even bf4 with sli and on nvidia so no mantle.

Sure an FX will be better on some games, but the I3 will be better on a lot of the other games.

 

[Abwx]

Oh you don't??
Whith only 2 physical cores it runs games just as well as the 8350,even bf4 with sli and on nvidia so no mantle.


Sure an FX will be better on some games, but the I3 will be better on a lot of the other games.

You surely noticed the context of my post since i answered to claims that an i3 is significantly superior, i didnt say that the FX was vastly better as well, the single threadd case is indeed in Intel side but it s not like every game is systematicaly single threaded, in this respect the FX seemed to me relevant, moreover when accounting for real rigs that are nowhere as secondary tasks cleared as reviewers quasi cleaned rooms testbeds.

 

[soccerballtux]

The only place an 8310 will be twice as fast as an i3 is in some productivity benchmark that loads all 8 cores. No way in gaming. In fact, stock for stock, I think the i3 would win more than it loses.

it would appear that BF4 proves you wrong...

I will cede that when we are comparing to an overclocked i5 quad core, that's definitely going to be faster; but at my pricepoint of $100 there's just no better performance than the FX-8xxx offerings

 

[soccerballtux]

Oh you don't??
Whith only 2 physical cores it runs games just as well as the 8350,even bf4 with sli and on nvidia so no mantle.

Sure an FX will be better on some games, but the I3 will be better on a lot of the other games.

which is going to grow with the times though? A dual core? Or an 8-core? People were telling me it would make more sense to stay with my e8400 at 3.9ghz than go to Ph2. I got a 720BE x3 that unlocked to quad and OC'd to 3.5ghz. Was it 100fps in single and dual threaded games? no, it was 75. Was there any point to having an e8400 instead? No, because it was over 60fps. Then heavily-threaded games came out and I started performing better than the e8400.

I say that the same will happen here. The FX-83xx will pull ahead eventually. But right now, it's fast enough. In the future, the i3 won't be.

edit: I'm a denier. I see those russian benchmarks and scratch my head. I don't believe that the 8350 is that bad, or the i3 that good. Maybe the games are using an Intel maths compiler. My Handbrake benches over 2x as fast as the i3-2100. There's something funny going on in the code.

 

[john5220]

So a K12 is likely to match a 2500K sandy bridge you guys think?

What of a ivy Bridge?

If it reaches Ivy Bridge performance I would say AMD has done well.

 

[tential]

So a K12 is likely to match a 2500K sandy bridge you guys think?

What of a ivy Bridge?

If it reaches Ivy Bridge performance I would say AMD has done well.

Wild speculation that's pretty much pointless to do.

Also wrong thread

Correct thread:
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2411975

First post in that thread should sum up your expectations of K12...

 

[john5220]

^ yeah I accidentally posted here for some reason.