[TOM'S] AMD inter-generational CPU shootout

[raghu78]

Is it really that bad or do you just like to crap on things for a living?

well said :thumbsup: FX- 6300 is priced at USD 120 and the core i3 3220 at USD 130 (110 with + $20 off w/ promo code 0816STRAGE29, ends 8/19)

the FX-6350 has 10% better min fps than core i3 3225 which is the same CPU as 3220 with better GPU. FX-6300 can easily run at FX-6350 speeds at stock voltage and stock cooling. so in terms of value for money FX-6300 is very good.

 

[Schmide]

Is there a reason you are this emotional over the comments of a user towards the products of a company?

I posted a link to minimums. You made blanket statements that seemed to be out of context. Regardless. I'm rational.

Although I do feel I have responded in a way that you were directly trolling for.

Are you happy now?

 

[raghu78]

Is there a reason you are this emotional over the comments of a user towards the products of a company?

obviously when you compare a USD 120 product with a USD 230 product its obvious to everyone what you are doing. thread crapping. try comparing min fps of core i3 3220 with FX-6300 at 4 Ghz.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

I posted a link to minimums. You made blanket statements that seemed to be out of context. Regardless. I'm rational.

Although I do feel I have responded in a way that you were directly trolling for.

Are you happy now?

Among other things.

Did you even read KingFatty's post before you started blasting away?

 

[USER8000]

well said :thumbsup: FX- 6300 is priced at USD 120 and the core i3 3220 at USD 130 (110 with + $20 off w/ promo code 0816STRAGE29, ends 8/19)

the FX-6350 has 10% better min fps than core i3 3225 which is the same CPU as 3220 with better GPU. FX-6300 can easily run at FX-6350 speeds at stock voltage and stock cooling. so in terms of value for money FX-6300 is very good.

Well I noticed my mates FX6300 had better minimums than my SB Core i3 2120 in a number of newer games,like Crysis3(we had the same graphics card). Its what prompted me to ditch it as quickly as possible and get a Core i5 to replace it. The FX6300/FX6350 are great budget gaming CPUs IMHO.

 

[SPBHM]

this site made a more extensive test (also fresh from today) with a lot more CPUs and different games.
http://pclab.pl/art50000-11.html

translate.google.com works well.

 

[Schmide]

Yes I even clicked on your link and watched a fair amount of it. It was the 3 posts that seemed really overblown and kind of off topic. Ironic that you call me emotional, when your posts seem to stem from bad experiences and brand loyalty.

Again min FPS as a singularity, conspiracy not found or justified.

http://hardocp.com/article/2011/10/11/amd_bulldozer_fx8150_gameplay_performance_review/2#.UhJ9Kj8YPIY

 

[frozentundra123456]

I said FX6300 @ 4GHz which can be obtained even with the default Heat-Sink. At 4GHz it has the ~same performance as FX6350 and it costs half the price of Core i5 3570K.

The 3570k if overclockable as well, so if you compare the FX overclocked to the 3570k, it is only fair to compare to an overclocked 3570k as well, so the difference would be even larger.

The FX 6300 is good competition to an i3, not so much to an i5. On new egg, the i5 is 100.00 more expensive vs the FX6300, so about 10% of the cost of a mid range gaming system.

10% additional cost for 15% better average framerate and 25% better minimum framerate seems like a good value to me. Besides, there are many MMO and strategy games in which the difference would be greater than the games tested by Toms, as hinted at by the poor performance of the AMD chips in SC II.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Yes I even clicked on your link and watched a fair amount of it. It was the 3 posts that seemed really overblown and kind of off topic. Ironic that you call me emotional, when your posts seem to stem from bad experiences and brand loyalty.

Again min FPS as a singularity, conspiracy not found or justified.

http://hardocp.com/article/2011/10/11/amd_bulldozer_fx8150_gameplay_performance_review/2#.UhJ9Kj8YPIY

There you go again with the personal attacks, can you not keep it civil?


Did you really just link a 8150 review?

Did you see their mGPU review with the 8150, I expect you'll enjoy that.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/11/03/amd_fx8150_multigpu_gameplay_performance_review/3

 

[USER8000]

Besides, there are many MMO and strategy games in which the difference would be greater than the games tested by Toms, as hinted at by the poor performance of the AMD chips in SC II.

The problem is though(at least in my experience of playing matches which have lasted days),you will end up with difference late in the game of say the AMD producing 5FPS and the Intel CPU producing 8FPS(basically a faster slideshow).The latter is faster but still a crap experience,and many of these games have other issues too outside CPU usage(RAM bottlenecks being another problem or being 32 bit applications).

Moreover,the best SC2 player I ever met,was using a Phenom II X4(!!) and in the Diamond League,and he had no problem thrashing a couple of use(together),even with our faster rigs.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

this site made a more extensive test (also fresh from today) with a lot more CPUs and different games.
http://pclab.pl/art50000-11.html

translate.google.com works well.

Wow, that was an extensive review, did you see the Overclocked summery?

 

[Slomo4shO]

Athlon II 750K/760K and FX6300 are the best performance/price CPUs.

I wish the 760K was actually available in the states.

this site made a more extensive test (also fresh from today) with a lot more CPUs and different games.
http://pclab.pl/art50000-11.html

Bah it doesn't include data for the 760K. Also, the review doesn't take into account overclocking so it isn't a very accurate reflection of CPU performance potential.

 

[SPBHM]

Bah it doesn't include data for the 760K. Also, the review doesn't take into account overclocking so it isn't a very accurate reflection of CPU performance potential.

760K performs the same as any Trinity/Richland.

it does include a lot of overclocking data, even for locked intel CPUs like i3s with BCLK OC and i5s with turbo + bclk oc.

http://pclab.pl/art50000-54.html

 

[Schmide]

There you go again with the personal attacks, can you not keep it civil?


Did you really just link a 8150 review?

Did you see their mGPU review with the 8150, I expect you'll enjoy that.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/11/03/amd_fx8150_multigpu_gameplay_performance_review/3

Yes but i don't put AMD in the high end category. Most people don't.

Personal attacks not found. Did I call you a bad person or something. I commented on your style of posting and kept it to that dude.

You still haven't even addressed your original min FPS comment because I doubt you even looked at Tom's article!

 

[Gikaseixas]

FPS High Averages (all games tested by Tom's)
FX 6350 - 53.8
i3 3225 - 53.4
i5 3570 -65.1

FPS Min Averages
FX 6350 - 36.3
i3 3225 - 36.6
i5 3570 -50.3

Newegg prices
FX 6350 - $139.99
i3 3225 - $139.99
i5 3570 -$219.99

Granted you can oc the FX 6350 and not the i3 3225, intel looses overall.

An overclocked Athlon X4 750K is generally quicker than a Core i3-3220, and in workloads able to run across six threads, the FX 6300-series stomps Intel's similarly-priced dual-core chip. The shining star in today’s comparison is AMD’s FX-6350, which delivers solid performance in games, while besting Intel's Core i5 in a number of our other benchmark workloads. The cheaper FX-6300 is an even more attractive bargain, so long as you're willing to overclock it.

 

[SPBHM]

FPS High Averages (all games tested by Tom's)
FX 6350 - 53.8
i3 3225 - 53.4
i5 3570 -65.1

FPS Min Averages
FX 6350 - 36.3
i3 3225 - 36.6
i5 3570 -50.3

Newegg prices
FX 6350 - $139.99
i3 3225 - $139.99
i5 3570 -$219.99

3225 performs 100% the same as the 3220.

to bad TH didn't include the $180 i5s.

 

[Slomo4shO]

760K performs the same as any Trinity/Richland.

it does include a lot of overclocking data, even for locked intel CPUs like i3s with BCLK OC and i5s with turbo + bclk oc.

http://pclab.pl/art50000-54.html

I looked through a few pages and the first half of that chart and didn't see any mention of overclocking. I'll take a look again.

Also, it is true that the 760K performs equally to the A10-6800K but the rumors are that it is a slightly better overclocker than the 6800k and substantially better than the 750k.

Edit: I just realized this article is 115 pages long. That is a lot of translating ahead of me

 

[Durp]

Wow, that was an extensive review, did you see the Overclocked summery?

That's just sad.

I tried to look through that review but you can't fully translate the graphs and it won't let me click through the review using the table of contents. I wish there was a review that went into half of this detail in English.

 

[cbn]

Looking at the final gaming graph:

At least two things stand out:

1. The inability of the overclocked Trinity Athlon II x4 750K to match the Core i3-3225. (The same CPU can be had in the $110 Core i3-3220 --> http://www.amazon.com/Intel-i3-3220-...s=Core+i3-3220

Even comparing results in the highly threaded game Crysis 3 here and here, Core i3-3225 (Core i3-3220) wins by a good margin:

Core i3-3225/Core i3-3220 (1920 x 1080, Lowest quality settings):
Average FPS: 60.9
Minimum FPS: 34

Athlon II x4 750K @ 4.3 Ghz (1920 x 1080, Lowest quality settings):
Average FPS: 54.5
Minimum FPS: 32

Athlon II x4 750K (1920 x 1080, Lowest quality settings):
Average FPS: 48.0
Minimum FPS: 23

This is definitely concerning to me as the Core i3-3220 obviously doesn't need any fancy (and expensive) overclocking gear....while the Athlon II x4 750K @ 4.3 Ghz apparently does.

2. The stock FX-6350 is definitely better than the Core i3-3225/Core i3-3220). However, that processor is $20 more expensive ---> http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00CLBZAHY/...xtension-kb-20

The next factor to consider? I think that would be motherboard prices because that affects the total package price.

 

[Schmide]

this site made a more extensive test (also fresh from today) with a lot more CPUs and different games.
http://pclab.pl/art50000-11.html

translate.google.com works well.

Something is seriously wrong with their methods?

Battlefield 3 multiplayer

http://www.techspot.com/review/458-battlefield-3-performance/page7.html

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/battlefield_3_vga_and_cpu_performance_benchmark_test,3.html

 

[Enigmoid]

Kinda disappointing to see the IPC loss from Phenom II to Piledriver.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Something is seriously wrong with their methods

You're comparing SP to MP at different resolutions with different video cards.

 

[mikk]

Something is seriously wrong with their methods?

Battlefield 3 multiplayer

Can you explain why do you think something is wrong?

 

[krumme]

10% additional cost for 15% better average framerate and 25% better minimum framerate seems like a good value to me. Besides, there are many MMO and strategy games in which the difference would be greater than the games tested by Toms, as hinted at by the poor performance of the AMD chips in SC II.

I have seen this type of argument many times and it baffles me how many uses it.
Its like buy a 10% more expensive car and you can acellerate 20% faster.
Its completely ignoring every other component in the computer system or car.
With that logic everyone should buy 3 times as expensive computers.
I know its a personal preference but applied to eg. Cpu or gpu the result of the bad logic is just crazy expensive stuff.

And the real world is just not that simple. You have a more or less tight budget. The answer is then how do i get best playing experience here?

Obvious you just cant double the price of every component just because its a benefit. Its about cost-benefit balance.

 

[Gikaseixas]

The inability of the overclocked Trinity Athlon II x4 750K to match the Core i3-3225

See post #40, the guys who tested it disagree with your conclusion. I'll go with the pro's here