Price maximization primarily. Market segmentation. Core i5s are really Core i7s with HT disabled; same thing. 6300 vs 8320 vs 8350. In some cases an i5 or 6300 is labeled as such due to defect (that prevents it from being an i7 or 8300), however it's commonly believed that perfectly fine i7s and 8300s are also purposely "crippled" to meet demand.
They aren't worthless, just irrelevant for the majority of desktop users. If you need those extensions, buy a non-K. If you don't need them, even if you don't plan on over-clocking, I believe having the option to OC is more important. IOW, 6 or 12 months down the line most of us will regret not getting an extra 500MHz rather than not having VT-d. Even the promise of TSX is probably a few years out for mainstream usage.
The disabled extensions are also primarily meant for server/IT managed environments, where Intel does not want overclocking - both the the reasons I listed and also to ensure calculation/data integrity. Better to prevent OCing than to deal with OC related crashes and errors and the support/PR issues than come with them. In fact, the majority of posters here will advise you to not OC if you do anything critical on your computer regardless of how stable your OC may seem.
FWIW, I'm currently using a 4771 because I wanted (to play with) VT-d.
Last edited:
AtenRa
Lifer
- Feb 2, 2009
- 14,003
- 3,362
- 136
The reality is that you will be GPU limited in the majority of games at playable 1080p settings with your HD7870. 6-8 core FX or Core i3/5/7 will be fine even with R9 290x even at default clocks. For a single 1080p 60hz monitor, only a few games will need faster CPU, and even those games will produce 60fps with all the above CPUs(there are a few exceptions).
In the end, its all about the budget you are willing to spend. If you can fit the Core i7 in your budget then do it.
In the end, its all about the budget you are willing to spend. If you can fit the Core i7 in your budget then do it.
I agree but in my first post I stated that I already own three Intel (non K versions btw) based computers that take care of my day to day needs.
I am looking for k versions that can be overclocked for gaming and longevity purposes.
Holy crap! I completely forgot about what role my monitor plays in all this. Thanks for mentioning this fact.
Looks like my monitor will hold me back. Its a nice IPS panel and I just got it about a year ago. My monitor could last me 4 years or more...lol!!
This is food for thought now.
Actually his post is flawed. With a 290x you want a better processor, because you are maximizing on FPS. The 8350 isn't going to net you the same FPS as a i5 4670k would, period.
The right AMD CPU-s are ok for gaming.
FX Quads are enough for 1080P resolutions in any game.Paying 25% more or far more for an Intel similar part is useless as it will stay idle in GPU intensive games.
Buying AMD CPU-s since 2002 and all i needed to do was to upgrade the video card most of the time.
The cheapest way to play your games.
Why pay for performance you are not using.
Sure Intel may have some nice performers in some specific tasks ,but for games the video card is what matters.
Put your money in good AMD video cards (as Mantle is the future via consoles porting) and some SSD.
FX Quads are enough for 1080P resolutions in any game.Paying 25% more or far more for an Intel similar part is useless as it will stay idle in GPU intensive games.
Buying AMD CPU-s since 2002 and all i needed to do was to upgrade the video card most of the time.
The cheapest way to play your games.
Why pay for performance you are not using.
Sure Intel may have some nice performers in some specific tasks ,but for games the video card is what matters.
Put your money in good AMD video cards (as Mantle is the future via consoles porting) and some SSD.
AMD from 2002 was a different reality, their CPUs were competitive in pure preformance, now there is a big gap for gaming, you assume everyone here plays only "GPU bound" stuff, which is not at all realistic (some people play MMOs and RTS for example, not to mention that other single player games will show the difference anyway like the latest AC, a no one is forced to run the game with maximum details), prices from the CPUs alone for AMD and Intel are not very different, and you can save money on cooling and motherboards in many comparisons, because of the much lower power draw and newer platform when you compare 1150 with AM3+, and always keep the entire PC cost in mind, not to save 5% and have 40% lower performance in some gaming situations,
Mantle needs to be present in more games, and released as a stable product to be something worth mentioning,
"but for games the video card is what matters"
you should tell that to AMD, why are they wasting their time with mantle and showing slides of huge gains with slow CPUs?
also you need to check some different games if all you play is GPU limited all the time.
I ve seen huge gains with dual card configs on INTEL CPU-s ,very expensive ones , on guru 3d ,the Mantle review for BF 4.
Why should i pay double the money on a CPU when Mantle shows me i can get cheaper and put my money in the video card ,the one that is anyway prone to upgrades often.
The fact that AMD cpu-s are slower than Intel is known since the time i started giving a damn about PC-s ,2002.and long before that situation was similar.
Reading daily the same thing on forums around the web ,for years ,did not made me buy Intel.
Intel always performed better and when AMD had something better the AMD CPU-s prices were to high for many.
So i personally prefer a 10% slower AMD CPU-s if it comes with the right price instead of performer from the blue that costs me an arm and a leg in relation to what the product represents.As i am not a NASA researcher i ignore that 10%.
netxzero64
Senior member
- May 16, 2009
- 538
- 0
- 71
BF4 is not the only basis on which rigs are to be built. Not all pc gamers like BF4. Though mantle did a great job on exposing on how weak AMD processors are by the percent increase of performance when paired with an R9 series card.
I have a friend who used to have a 1090T OC'ed at 4.5ghz paired with an SLI 480s. performance was good and gpu's where smokin at 100c for both cards with 99% gpu load. I said that the cpu is bottlenecked as it is overwhelmed by the power of 2 480s. He then bought an i7 950 and cranked it up all the way to 4.5ghz and he cried over the performance increase he experienced compared to the thuban 4.5ghz 6-cores.
I also was an AMD enthusiast and all the while I was with AMD, I was always feeling that my rig was always coming up short. I switched to intel just this past year as what my sig says and after that, I never felt that same feeling again.
to OP: Buy the best hardware that your money can afford.
I have a friend who used to have a 1090T OC'ed at 4.5ghz paired with an SLI 480s. performance was good and gpu's where smokin at 100c for both cards with 99% gpu load. I said that the cpu is bottlenecked as it is overwhelmed by the power of 2 480s. He then bought an i7 950 and cranked it up all the way to 4.5ghz and he cried over the performance increase he experienced compared to the thuban 4.5ghz 6-cores.
I also was an AMD enthusiast and all the while I was with AMD, I was always feeling that my rig was always coming up short. I switched to intel just this past year as what my sig says and after that, I never felt that same feeling again.
to OP: Buy the best hardware that your money can afford.
I hear yeah, I only ever owned AMD, I though that not only was I purchasing the cheaper processor, but that it matched Intel in performance. The last AMD cpu I owned was the Phenom x4 955. I remember comparing it to the i7 920 and saying that I paid way less and got way more. Years passed and I upgraded to a 2500k, never looked back. The performance difference was night and day. I will never, ever, purchase another AMD CPU for anything gaming or task heavy.
VirtualLarry
No Lifer
- Aug 25, 2001
- 56,571
- 10,207
- 126
You have to admit though, their APUs are pretty slick for daily-driver / web-browser machines. Especially with a SATA6G SSD thrown in.
KingFatty
Diamond Member
- Dec 29, 2010
- 3,034
- 1
- 81
Incorrect. If video card(s) is/are at 99% GPU load, that means the GPU(s) are the bottleneck.
The reason is that the GPUs cannot go any faster, they have reached their limit. You could put the most amazing CPU there, but those GPUs are stuck at 99% and can't push any faster, so the CPU will just sit around waiting on those GPUs.
So if you are CPU bottlenecked, the GPUs will be at less than 99%, because the CPU is holding them back. That's what a bottleneck means, where there is some limitation preventing full flow. A neck of a bottle is narrow, so it slows down the contents of the bottle from pouring out. If you remove the bottleneck, the contents can flow freely out of the container.
A CPU bottleneck would usually show up as the CPU being stressed and unable to increase performance, which holds back the video cards, and the video cards sit at a lower capacity (less than 99%) because the video cards are underutilized and prevented from reaching 99% load.
Don't get me wrong AMD has its place. I would definitely grab a AMD APU laptop to browse, watch video, and play some light games. Its cheap and gets the job done. Anything other than that I gotta stick to Intel.
netxzero64
Senior member
- May 16, 2009
- 538
- 0
- 71
I see. I got your point but why is there a big performance increase when he switched to an i7 950? Same hardware but only 6gb memory compared to the thuban setup which is 8gb? Hyperthreading is disabled.
Same situation on my end before. I was running an athlon II X4 (unlocked X3) at 3.2ghz + GTX 460 and I cannot play sleeping dogs at "high" preset, but when I switched to a core i5 750 running stock (2.66ghz), I was able to play the game on high preset and every game was way faster compared to my athlon setup? GPU load was 99% for both processors.
This is the case of all the benchmarks that every single site does in order to show you how upgrading a processor can give you more fps. This is due to a multitude of things within the CPU architecture. Allow me to show and prove to you, how in the case of your friend the AMD 1090T is an under performer in comparison to the CPU that he upgraded to. Here are DIRECT benches that actually try to tackle the VERY issue you explained.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-phenom-ii-x6-1090t-890fx,2613-9.html
Bench - Radeon 5850
As you can see with a 5850, a better processor will almost ALWAYS net you more fps. Let us examine what happens if you throw a better GPU in the mix.
Bench - Different GPU Test
These benches are AMD 1090T benches, as you can see better GPU's are clearly bottlenecked by the CPU. Whats stranger is that they perform worse than the other slower GPU's.
Okay, so now lets look directly at the GTX 480 that was discussed in the problem.
Bench - GTX 480
As you can see, a clear indication of WHY your friend saw an increase when he upgraded his CPU. The 1090T was bottlenecking him.
crashtech
Lifer
- Jan 4, 2013
- 10,682
- 2,279
- 146
AtenRa
Lifer
- Feb 2, 2009
- 14,003
- 3,362
- 136
I read that review over and over again and i cannot see where the AMD 1090T under perform in gaming at 1080p.
Even without AA the difference between the 1090T and Core i7 930 is 1-2 fps(except in Left For Dead) .
You will get more performance in crysis upgrading your GPU than CPU.
Without AA the Intel CPUs are faster, but do you really care for that game when even with AA enabled you get more than 120fps ??
Even without AA, the AMD 1090T is faster.
Same with this game, 1090T is performing fine.
Now, if someone in 2010 would buy the cheap AMD Phenom II 965 and pair it with HD5850, he/she would have the same Gaming performance at 1080p as any of the above CPUs that cost more than double at that time.
The reality is that if you get a High-End GPU you will enable AA and you will play with the highest Graphical settings possible at 1080p. After all that is the purpose of the Faster GPU, to have better Graphics Quality. In that situation you will be GPU limited in the majority of the games even today.
Yes there are a few exceptions but if you are in a tight budget, spending more for the GPU will get you more performance than having a faster CPU.
I want you to look carefully at using the CPU with more powerful GPU's that is when you can see that the CPU is the limiting factor. For the most part the 5850 is able to maximize its self because the CPU gives it the power to do so. When a more powerful GPU is thrown in the mix, you see that the CPU suffers and is unable to provide the same performance.
Last edited:
netxzero64
Senior member
- May 16, 2009
- 538
- 0
- 71
@jumbie
you just agreed with me in short. thank you! because KingFatty here states that if gpu is 99% load then gpu is the bottleneck while what you have posted proves that even a single 480 will suffocate the 1090T.
you just agreed with me in short. thank you!
because KingFatty here states that if gpu is 99% load then gpu is the bottleneck while what you have posted proves that even a single 480 will suffocate the 1090T.Nope i3 is simply not a good choice against FX 6xxx, let alone FX 8xxx, no matter what anyone says atm. The Mantle preview has shown that it can extend the life of your CPU, for gaming, by at least a year or two however you'll still need 4 true cores(i5 or i7) or 6/8 AMD modular cores for a high end GPU & i3 frankly doesn't make the cut !
Like I said AMD's 6 modular cores(FX 6xxx) should do you no harm but ideally you should get an 8320/8350 depending on the cooling & rest of the components you're looking to put into your rig.
The other thing is you must get an AMD GPU(290/290x) to get that boost from Mantle & eek out some more from that FX cpu.
Obsoleet
Platinum Member
- Oct 2, 2007
- 2,181
- 1
- 0
It depends what you use your computer for, will you benefit from parallelism? Then it's tough to beat AMD@$200. If it's just gaming then a fast Intel quadcore should do the job.
For me in general, at reasonable price/performance ranges I prefer AMD on desktop/server and Intel for mobile or low power unit.
For me in general, at reasonable price/performance ranges I prefer AMD on desktop/server and Intel for mobile or low power unit.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter