• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

[TOM'S] AMD inter-generational CPU shootout

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
AtenRa said:
People that dont have or are not willing to pay $600-700 for a single GPU like the one in your sing.
Click to expand...

Are you mad dude ? 😛 there are tons of better options within ~ $150 which will provide much better gaming experience.
 
Nice graph Aten 🙂, proves that looking just at fluke minimum fps dips is meaningless. We should always have a graph with fps over whole runtime to make a valid conclusions.
 
Slomo4shO said:
Have you played Dota or LOL?
They don't require high end GPUs to play. If all you are playing are low GPU intensity games then what is the practicality in dropping in a discrete card?


I am sure the HD4600 packs enough juice.
Click to expand...

I believe those benches can be extremely misleading.For e.g. when Diablo III came out many sites benched the title and gave their verdict that a mid-range gpu was enough to play the game at highest settings.But when I got into the game and ventured into inferno those benches looked utter trash.When you are playing with four guys with all sorts of of cool affects going on it can stress even a very strong gpu.My 680 sometimes struggled to keep 60 Fps @1080P.
 
AtenRa said:
What part of not being able or not willing to pay an extra $95 for that HD7750 dont you understand ???
Click to expand...

That's not at all what you said. You complained about someone paying an extra $600-700 for a dgpu. I said that it's sort of silly to act like the only options are $600 for a dgpu, or to roll with the igpu.
 
Jaydip said:
I believe those benches can be extremely misleading.For e.g. when Diablo III came out many sites benched the title and gave their verdict that a mid-range gpu was enough to play the game at highest settings.But when I got into the game and ventured into inferno those benches looked utter trash.When you are playing with four guys with all sorts of of cool affects going on it can stress even a very strong gpu.My 680 sometimes struggled to keep 60 Fps @1080P.
Click to expand...

I have had the opposite experience with D3 when I played it. I played the game on the following GPUs: HD 4850, GTS 9600, GTX 650, GTX 660, GTX 660 SLI, HD 7770, HD 7850, HD 7870, HD 7970 xfire. Granted that none of these were integrated graphics but I was not able to find any discernible differences in gaming quality between the different GPUs. However, I must admit that the 1080P display was limited to 60Hz and I didn't bother monitoring the FPS. Nevertheless, the playing experience was similar.

Anecdotal evidence aside, benchmark reviews seems to mirror my experience:

high%201920.png
 
As I said if you play solo on normal/nightmare it is fine but when you team up with three guys and venture into inferno those graphs have little to no value.My friend had to upgrade his 470 as it stuttered like crazy.
 
Jaydip said:
As I said if you play solo on normal/nightmare it is fine but when you team up with three guys and venture into inferno those graphs have little to no value.My friend had to upgrade his 470 as it stuttered like crazy.
Click to expand...

I played through Inferno prior to the patch on SC and played through Act 1 and 2 Inferno HC in groups of 3 or 4. I haven't played in over a year so unless something changed which enhanced the graphics in inferno in comparison to normal/nightmare/hell...
 
Last edited:
Tungsten fillament light bulbs must have been awful for some of you, turning on 25-30 times a second (depending on what part of the world you live in). Did you guys overclock your homes? 🙂

Just picking one of the games they test that I own, other than when I try and make Skyrim slow down, it is smooth as a baby's butt for me. Most of the time that game is locked at 60FPS for me, and very much feels like 60FPS.

I start work on my FX9370 build tonight... so long as I can stay away from playing The Incredible Adventures of Van Helsing for a while, I might even get it to boot up this week. I am confident I'll be happy with the performance. Maybe Balla and I can run some 4.9+GHz benches. 🙂
 
Slomo4shO said:
I played through Inferno prior to the patch on SC and played through Act 1 and 2 Inferno HC in groups of 3 or 4. I haven't played in over a year so unless something changed which enhanced the graphics in inferno in comparison to normal/nightmare/hell...
Click to expand...

Did you run for the keys?
 
Jaydip said:
Did you run for the keys?
Click to expand...

Again... over a year ago... I still fail to see how any new content would be more GPU taxing if no new effects were added to the game (were they? I haven't bothered keeping up with the disappointment that was D3)
 
Jaydip said:
I believe those benches can be extremely misleading.For e.g. when Diablo III came out many sites benched the title and gave their verdict that a mid-range gpu was enough to play the game at highest settings.But when I got into the game and ventured into inferno those benches looked utter trash.When you are playing with four guys with all sorts of of cool affects going on it can stress even a very strong gpu.My 680 sometimes struggled to keep 60 Fps @1080P.
Click to expand...


My thoughts exactly, after benching my HD4600 in Dota 2 I know for a fact Ra was at best laning and none of his 3 minute strip is with a late game 5v5 team fight.

Same with Diablo 3 cpu performance, anything can run you from the start to new trist, now try anything on the bridge in act 3 with a group of friends 🙄


For me I can't accept a processor that is good enough 80% of the time, but 20% is horrendous. The problem for me with AMD is that they can't escape their ST performance and often fail in cpu limited games to meet this personal quota. Same with the i3, I had one I saw the benchmarks seemed like a decent option until I got one and found out just how quickly a need for more than two cores will slow you down. AMD lacks per core, low end Intel lacks cores. Neither option is a good one, imo.


Which is where I see the 6300 vs i3 debate, on one side you can see when a game can use more threads the 6300 makes a compelling choice, then all of a sudden the i3 guy posts the cpu limited games and the 6300 looks bad. I try to stay out of these discussions, because of the price point and the needs of others and yada yada blah blah, but my personal feeling is to save and get the best overall gaming processor for another few hours of work at min wage.
 
Last edited:
Slomo4shO said:
Again... over a year ago... I still fail to see how any new content would be more GPU taxing if no new effects were added to the game (were they? I haven't bothered keeping up with the disappointment that was D3)
Click to expand...

Yeah some new effects for the newly added monsters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top