Should I get an AMD CPU for gaming?

[moonbogg]

An AMD chip with Mantle in BF4 runs great, and since BF4 is the only game currently available for PC then I see nothing wrong with an AMD chip.

 

[blackened23]

That's all fine and dandy if you play just one game, but an AMD FX CPU with Mantle doesn't do anything unless you pair it with a GPU using Mantle. It all goes back to getting a good experience in one game, a meh experience in another, or an outright bad experience in another game. Consistency is the problem with the AMD FX chips. I can appreciate the FX doing well in BF4. But, again, one game - most people don't play one game and one game alone.

Crashtech, that's a good point, for some it might make sense since the 6320 is a cheap CPU. I think it could make sense for someone with a pre-existing motherboard. For someone in this narrow situation, I can see a strong argument for the 6320. It does well in MT workloads even though most games aren't heavily MT, and generally has good bang for the buck with overclockability on top of it. The i3 obviously can't OC. I can see that being a good argument in favor of 6320, but I still think the i3 would be better overall without a pre-existing motherboard.

The kicker for the i3 being the better overall choice is most existing 8 series motherboards provide an upgrade path to the upcoming intel 4th generation core architecture as well. So the upgrade path for a future i5/i7 would clearly be better with the i3, because you get that as an added bonus - I do know Asus and MSI announced that all of their 8 series boards will support 4th gen core with a BIOS upgrade. It was mentioned on TPU yesterday, I believe.

 

[el etro]

what are you talking about, see my previous post showing "mainstream" newer games and correlating it to older benchmarks comparing the 2500 and 8150 which were compared under GPU bottleneck tests by another user

From Crysis 3/BF4 Multiplayer passing by Skyrim/Diablo/F1 20xx and going to CoH 2/TTR you will have 99% of the kinds of AAA games. FSX is not a example of this. And 8350 costs like a lower tier i5 and should not compared with stronger processors.

8320 to 4570 is $40, and the 4570 is much better (lower power draw) for cheap MBs, for a platform with better cheap MBs, that's a good way of lowering the total cost... the 4570 makes more sense as a gaming CPU for a low cost build than the 8320 IMO, it clearly has a performance advantage in gaming conditions for some games, so if you need $30-$40 for the VGA, I think it would be smarter to find this money somewhere else (other parts), and not sacrificing the CPU, and clearly considering an overall cost of let's say $500, that's not a huge percentage, considering the potential performance implications

Ok. But see what i can do with perf/$ savings count from 6300(forget about 6350) to i5:
Forget about PCIe v3, Sata 3, Support to Ultimate OC Potential. My M5A78L-M LX can drive my FX-4100 to fully stable(despite my stock cooler can't make the 4100 holds is frequency) 4.6Ghz with no overvolt.



AMD Systems:

760G motherboard: $48;
FX 6300: $120;



760G 125w Mobo: $53;
FX 8320: $160;



MSI 990x Mobo: $70;
FX 8350: 199.



Optional - Zalman CNPS5x cooler: $20.



Intel Systems:

i3 3240: $120;
H61 board: $45.



i5 3350p: $180;
Same H61 board: $45.





Cinebench performance of systems(From AT bench):

FX 6300: 4.5
FX 8320: 6,06
i3 3240: 3.30+
i5 3350p: 5.5+
FX 8350: 6.9

Cinebench/$:

FX 6300: 37 dollars per point;
FX 8320: 35 dollars per point;
i3 3240(assuring 3.50 as i3 score): 47 dollars per point;
i5 3350p(assuring 5.30 as i5 score): 42,45 dollars per point;
FX 8350: 39 dollars per point.


This is without overclocking the AMD processors(a thing that every 48a on 12v PSU can do). I found some numbers at CPU overclocking at the webs(estimative numbers because we don't know exact Mobo and AM settings):

FX 8320/8350 4.3Ghz and up: 7.30 and up to 8.
FX 6300 4.5Ghz: ~5.64(compared to Core i5).

FX 8350OC performs close to i7 2600k and FX 6300OC surpasses the i5. Have to made some sacrifices to do this, but have its worth(I used a i5 3570 + GTX 670 on a H61 board with 4GB RAM and had practically no loss of performance).

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7189/choosing-a-gaming-cpu-september-2013/5

I'd love to know where you got your information from, because it really sounds like you just made it up.

In applications where HT in unoptimized.

 

[crashtech]

Now pick a common single-threaded app and see how we do.

 

[el etro]

System performance in 2014 don't relies more on single thread performance. Nor windows kernel(base of system performance) manipulate so bad many threads. The thing now is per-core CPU scaling.

 

[cytg111]

System performance in 2014 don't relies more on single thread performance. Nor windows kernel(base of system performance) manipulate so bad many threads. The thing now is per-core CPU scaling.

I disagree, ST performance is still the number one kicker in terms of general system performance, including games.
given a 4 core cpu with core performance 100 and a 2 core cpu with core performance 150, and Ill take the dual core any day.

 

[beginner99]

This. If someone is hurting that badly for 50-90$ they should not be wasting money on a PC, they should re-prioritize. I don't see the need to go cheap over 90$ when that cheaper processor nets what you pay for it;

Exactly.

even more so if one factors in that the software (games) running on that machine will cost a lot more than $90 but will be limited by worse hardware.

$90 is a joke nowadays for a cpu. You can easily keep it 2 years and more. That would be like max $4 per month for 2 years. If you can't save that, my gosh in the age people pay $50 per month for mobile plans and $100 for internet...not to mention rent and health care...

 

[davie jambo]

Exactly.

even more so if one factors in that the software (games) running on that machine will cost a lot more than $90 but will be limited by worse hardware.

$90 is a joke nowadays for a cpu. You can easily keep it 2 years and more. That would be like max $4 per month for 2 years. If you can't save that, my gosh in the age people pay $50 per month for mobile plans and $100 for internet...not to mention rent and health care...

the world is not just America. $90 in real money is £53.94 which is a weeks messages

For people on a budget you would be mad to chose intel , as I have said before on this thread , any quad core CPU made in the last three years will be actually perfect for gaming. Either intel or AMD.

Put all your money into the GPU and worry not about CPU

 

[el etro]

ST performance is still the number one kicker in terms of general system performance, including games.

That's why i said per-core performance. Per core performance is single thread performance + per core scaling. No AAA software or AAA game more is poorly threaded.

 

[Sweepr]

Trying to dismiss Intel's CPU performance advantage and preteding you dont need a reasonably powerful processor if you want to use high-end GPUs wont change the facts. Just saying.

 

[el etro]

Trying to dismiss Intel's CPU performance advantage and preteding you dont need a reasonably powerful processor if you want to use high-end GPUs wont change the facts. Just saying.

Mantle gains come greater with Intel processors.

And i disagree with the bold statement.

 

[davie jambo]

Mantle gains come greater with Intel processors.

And i disagree with the bold statement.

agreed

You don't need a top of the range CPU to run a top of the range GPU at all

In fact the 6 core £500 intel i7's bottle GPU's according to dice anyway

 

[moonbogg]

90$ is nothing. If someone is in a situation to where 90$ is that critical, new priorities are in order.

I'd have to agree for myself at least. Although perhaps the reason they only have $90 available for a CPU is because their priorities are already in order and they budgeted that amount for playing games in their spare time and no more than that. Looking at your entire family's bank account and seeing $1,000.00 and then spending $300 on a CPU might not be very wise either.
If you spend $100 on a CPU and $600 on a GPU, your priorities aren't just out of order. Your brain might actually be broken.

 

[crashtech]

The sweet spot for gaming seems to be around double the money for a GPU, e.g., if there is $300 available for the two parts, get a $100 CPU and a $200 GPU. It's around that budget level where it's still possible to make a case for AMD.

 

[beginner99]

the world is not just America. $90 in real money is £53.94 which is a weeks messages.

I'm not from US. Whats "a weeks messages"?

 

[crashtech]

I'm not from US. Whats "a weeks messages"?

I think it might be UK slang for groceries?

 

[davie jambo]

I think it might be UK slang for groceries?

Correct

 

[HumblePie]

The sweet spot for gaming seems to be around double the money for a GPU, e.g., if there is $300 available for the two parts, get a $100 CPU and a $200 GPU. It's around that budget level where it's still possible to make a case for AMD.

Ok, what would you buy with $300 only and you had to get a CPU, motherboard, memory, and GPU. Overclocking is OK. Assume everything else is already there and good to go. You are just changing out those parts and you need the best you can do for $300. Also, you need the cpu for gaming MMO games, and doing work related tasks like Visual Studio.

 

[coolpurplefan]

The sweet spot for gaming seems to be around double the money for a GPU, e.g., if there is $300 available for the two parts, get a $100 CPU and a $200 GPU. It's around that budget level where it's still possible to make a case for AMD.

If you get a somewhat powerful CPU, you can more easily change the video card later.

 

[crashtech]

Ok, what would you buy with $300 only and you had to get a CPU, motherboard, memory, and GPU. Overclocking is OK. Assume everything else is already there and good to go. You are just changing out those parts and you need the best you can do for $300. Also, you need the cpu for gaming MMO games, and doing work related tasks like Visual Studio.

I would put the money in a savings account and add to it as funds became available.

Failing that, I might look at an A10 FM2 system, because $300 is not really enough for all those parts AND a dGPU.

 

[crashtech]

If you get a somewhat powerful CPU, you can more easily change the video card later.

Same can be said for the CPU, if a decent platform is selected.

 

[HumblePie]

I would put the money in a savings account and add to it as funds became available.

Failing that, I might look at an A10 FM2 system, because $300 is not really enough for all those parts AND a dGPU.

HAHA, good luck with that. Person lives month to month. Sometimes has the cash for extra stuff and sometimes doesn't. 3 kids and a wife that works on and off tend to make available spending cash hard to come by. Better to have it all spent so when things like medical emergencies come along, they can get assistance proving they have nothing than to save it for a more expensive machine which they don't need anything more than a machine that can play WoW decently. As that is the only form of household entertainment. Yes, one computer, 1 Wow account, all shared among 4 people. The mother doesn't play. He does a lot of free games too.

So no, that isn't a option for them. But nice try. Also, when they save up more, technology would have changed. Not to mention their current setup was failing. Of which I took the older parts they had and helped out the guy buy using it to build a second system for his kids to use. So, don't sit on the high horse and play that game.

But the question still remains. You have $300 right now. You have to buy with those requirements I gave you. You have zero other options but to replace something now. Remember, work and life depend upon it as well for this guy. What do you do? And no more snide remarks.

What I did? I manage to snag an AMD 740 trinity, overclocked it 4.6 Ghz, 8GB of 1600 DDR3 memory, cheapie motherboard, and ATI 7850 video card all for $300. Beat that for that price right now for price versus performance for all that I had to buy.

 

[SPBHM]

And 8350 costs like a lower tier i5 and should not compared with stronger processors.

yes, and the 4570 have no problem beating the 8350 for gaming, while using less power and costing the same (and with better platform/cheap MBs)

Ok. But see what i can do with perf/$ savings count from 6300(forget about 6350) to i5:
Forget about PCIe v3, Sata 3, Support to Ultimate OC Potential. My M5A78L-M LX can drive my FX-4100 to fully stable(despite my stock cooler can't make the 4100 holds is frequency) 4.6Ghz with no overvolt.



AMD Systems:

760G motherboard: $48;
FX 6300: $120;



760G 125w Mobo: $53;
FX 8320: $160;



MSI 990x Mobo: $70;
FX 8350: 199.



Optional - Zalman CNPS5x cooler: $20.



Intel Systems:

i3 3240: $120;
H61 board: $45.



i5 3350p: $180;
Same H61 board: $45.





Cinebench performance of systems(From AT bench):

FX 6300: 4.5
FX 8320: 6,06
i3 3240: 3.30+
i5 3350p: 5.5+
FX 8350: 6.9

Cinebench/$:

FX 6300: 37 dollars per point;
FX 8320: 35 dollars per point;
i3 3240(assuring 3.50 as i3 score): 47 dollars per point;
i5 3350p(assuring 5.30 as i5 score): 42,45 dollars per point;
FX 8350: 39 dollars per point.


This is without overclocking the AMD processors(a thing that every 48a on 12v PSU can do). I found some numbers at CPU overclocking at the webs(estimative numbers because we don't know exact Mobo and AM settings):

FX 8320/8350 4.3Ghz and up: 7.30 and up to 8.
FX 6300 4.5Ghz: ~5.64(compared to Core i5).

FX 8350OC performs close to i7 2600k and FX 6300OC surpasses the i5. Have to made some sacrifices to do this, but have its worth(I used a i5 3570 + GTX 670 on a H61 board with 4GB RAM and had practically no loss of performance).




In applications where HT in unoptimized.

why are you ignoring Haswell? why are you not using 4130 and 4570?

do you really think sata III is irrelevant? as long as you never ever use SSDs it's fine I guess.

cinebench MT scales with as many threads as possibles, unlike you know... gaming.

your OC is impressive, 4.6GHz without investing on cooling? prime stable and all? but it still is a part with only half the modules active compared to the 8 series...

 

[2is]

From Crysis 3/BF4 Multiplayer passing by Skyrim/Diablo/F1 20xx and going to CoH 2/TTR you will have 99% of the kinds of AAA games. FSX is not a example of this. And 8350 costs like a lower tier i5 and should not compared with stronger processors.




Ok. But see what i can do with perf/$ savings count from 6300(forget about 6350) to i5:
Forget about PCIe v3, Sata 3, Support to Ultimate OC Potential. My M5A78L-M LX can drive my FX-4100 to fully stable(despite my stock cooler can't make the 4100 holds is frequency) 4.6Ghz with no overvolt.



AMD Systems:

760G motherboard: $48;
FX 6300: $120;



760G 125w Mobo: $53;
FX 8320: $160;



MSI 990x Mobo: $70;
FX 8350: 199.



Optional - Zalman CNPS5x cooler: $20.



Intel Systems:

i3 3240: $120;
H61 board: $45.



i5 3350p: $180;
Same H61 board: $45.





Cinebench performance of systems(From AT bench):

FX 6300: 4.5
FX 8320: 6,06
i3 3240: 3.30+
i5 3350p: 5.5+
FX 8350: 6.9

Cinebench/$:

FX 6300: 37 dollars per point;
FX 8320: 35 dollars per point;
i3 3240(assuring 3.50 as i3 score): 47 dollars per point;
i5 3350p(assuring 5.30 as i5 score): 42,45 dollars per point;
FX 8350: 39 dollars per point.


This is without overclocking the AMD processors(a thing that every 48a on 12v PSU can do). I found some numbers at CPU overclocking at the webs(estimative numbers because we don't know exact Mobo and AM settings):

FX 8320/8350 4.3Ghz and up: 7.30 and up to 8.
FX 6300 4.5Ghz: ~5.64(compared to Core i5).

FX 8350OC performs close to i7 2600k and FX 6300OC surpasses the i5. Have to made some sacrifices to do this, but have its worth(I used a i5 3570 + GTX 670 on a H61 board with 4GB RAM and had practically no loss of performance).




In applications where HT in unoptimized.

Your cinebench numbers are comparing an i5 which doesn't have HT and only costs $30 more than the 8350 yet beats it in the vast majority of tasks. Please refer to my last link to see how badly a 8 core AMD gets slaughtered compared to an i5 for a cost difference that will be made up for in power savings within 2 years. Sorry, but if your price point is around the FX 8350 mark, there is zero reason to go AMD unless your primary purpose is very specific tasks that it happens to do better in. Like cinebench, and that's before we talk about spending a little more for an i7.

And why do you make up the rules on what to compare? An 8350 can do 8 threads and shouldn't be compared with an i5... See what I did there? Not that it matters, since even an i5 is better.

 

[serpretetsky]

do you really think sata III is irrelevant? as long as you never ever use SSDs it's fine I guess.

I would consider SSD's still very important even with Sata2. In fact, I would even consider SSD's still relevant even with SATA1.

One of the largest performance increases that SSD's provide over mechanical drives is random 4k reads and writes and average latency to read/write data.

Typical 4k read speeds for SSD's are roughly 100MB/s still below SATA1 speeds. Typical 4k read speeds for HDD's when data is not cached is roughly 1MB/s.

For sequential loads, however, I will agree with you.