The CPU Vendor Bias Admission Thread

[DrMrLordX]

Relatively speaking, that is a powerhouse, but it's still pretty far from the mark IMO. ()

My 4790K scores about 2140 and I still don't get the performance I want in Dolphin or other single/dual threaded programs.

Ehm, just how much single-threaded performance do you need for emulators and old games like Warcraft III? What is "the mark", and how do you define it if no current commercially-available CPU gets you there?

As for bias:

I just buy AMD stuff, but I do not often recommend them to others unless they are similarly interested in messing with budget overclock fodder. Intel makes overclocking too expensive, the obvious exception being the G3258. Skylake almost brought it back. Almost.

In any case, I am very glad that I wound up with a heavily-discounted 7700k instead of a G3258.

 

[poofyhairguy]

Ehm, just how much single-threaded performance do you need for emulators and old games like Warcraft III? What is "the mark",

Oh, I would say 5.5-6Ghz with Skylake IPC would do the trick.

 

[John Connor]

Does AMD even out perform an Intel on new releases?

I play a largely CPU orientated game, FS2004. And I have read time and time again you don't want AMD for Flight Simulator. Until AMD can actually compete with Intel in terms of CPU power, I'm sticking with Intel.

If you're on a budget, then by all means go with AMD. What ever floats your boat.

 

[IllogicalGlory]

Ehm, just how much single-threaded performance do you need for emulators and old games like Warcraft III? What is "the mark", and how do you define it if no current commercially-available CPU gets you there?

Whatever allows me to play those games at 60 FPS without dips. For emulators, no dips from native framerate (in games without big problems). Rogue Leader and Lord of the Rings: The Third Age, both GC titles that I enjoy come to mind; they run acceptably, but there are lots of framerate dips. Wii games are absolutely fine though.

Warcraft 3 probably isn't that fair; the regular games and most custom maps run perfectly, but on the other hand some of them are truly unplayable. Literally single digit framerates after an hour or so. 90% the fault of whoever made them, but still. Even removing all the memory leaking myself didn't help.

Oblivion, when heavily modded really stresses the CPU. 60 FPS is generally only consistent in indoor areas. Morrowind could use help too. But Oblivion in particular drops even unmodded when there are many NPCs on screen and during larger battles. Morrowind, I think, displays drops unmodded as well.

50% more performance would be great (compared to my 4.7GHz 4790K), but I'd reckon double or more is necessary for a "perfect" experience. Not going to happen any time soon, I know.

For a more contemporary example: Just Cause 3. That game without any FPS dips would be incredible, but its CPU demands are through the roof. It's practically unplayable on consoles and on PC, drops are all too common in physics-heavy situations.

CPU bottlenecks are just the most infuriating things ever because there is almost nothing you can do about them. If you have a GPU bottleneck, you upgrade or reduce settings. If you have a CPU bottleneck, you can barely upgrade (I could upgrade to a 4.7GHz Skylake and see a decent improvement, but not enough to spend $600) and settings rarely affect CPU usage.

 

[beginner99]

Don't have any real bias but currently I would only buy intel I have the money and Intel CPUs offer far better performance. Heck my 6 year old Intel CPU isn't much worse than AMD current best offerings...

If Zen and it's platform is the better deal than Intel, I will buy that one.

AMD has a huge chance. If Zen delivers they can price the 8-core at 5930k levels and still get many sells.

 

[SPBHM]

Does AMD even out perform an Intel on new releases?

I play a largely CPU orientated game, FS2004. And I have read time and time again you don't want AMD for Flight Simulator. Until AMD can actually compete with Intel in terms of CPU power, I'm sticking with Intel.

If you're on a budget, then by all means go with AMD. What ever floats your boat.

if you are talking about for the money, potentially some FX can outperform some i3 in some game, but that's not what happens most of the time, other than that, AMD is hopelessly far from 6700K performance on most heavily CPU limited gaming scenarios.

FS is mostly limited to 1 or 2 threads, and very heavy, basically you want fast Intel cores for it, I would think a Pentium is better than any AMD CPU at it.

 

[Vortex6700]

I would like to purchase the absolute top performing cpu every year, but I cannot get past intel's illicit behavior. Had they behaved reasonably like many other dominant companies over the past 35 years, you would have more options on that list.

I hope zen is a performer, but I have doubts. Considering thier current position, it would not be in AMD's best interest to fiddle with the cost/benefit balance of a trust allowing them to survive.