[TOM'S] AMD inter-generational CPU shootout

[Gikaseixas]

Why are you comparing an 750k to the more expensive i3? Should it be more accurate to compare it to the dual core pentiums when based on pricing? Isn't the 750k $85 and the i3 $110?

The i3s should be compared to the fx-6300/6350. That would make more sense because they are price competitively. In that sense, the fx-6300 is faster than an i3-3220. The fx-6300 is $120 and the i3-3220 $110.

You're being too logical dude. Watch, some troll will fire right back saying you're wrong

 

[Gikaseixas]

Yes, I mentioned Core i3-3220 because it has the same CPU cores (dual core 3.3 Ghz with HT) as the Core i3-3325.

The only difference is in the iGPU. The Core i3-3325 comes with the HD4000 whereas the Core i3-3320 comes with the HD2500.

Anyway, if someone is going to be using a discrete GPU card, they can go with i3-3220, save $20, and not lose any of the performance advantage seen by the Core i3-3225 used in the Tom's test.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0093H8H8I/...xtension-kb-20

http://www.amazon.com/Intel-i3-3220-...s=core+i3-3220

Cmon man, we're not talking about iGP here, the cpu cores are the same, we all know that. So i was right, you're talking about the same cpu (just different iGP)
You're right, it's way faster in gaming but it's also about $30-$50 more expensive. The sharp eyes here didn't notice it, how convenient right?

 

[Slomo4shO]

It was a rhetorical question directed to a response by another poster, how does it offend you?

Yes, my sarcastic post pointing out your inability to comprehend what the other poster said was a clear indicator that I was offended by your word :sneaky:

 

[bbhaag]

This is one I've seen before, but I've never actually done it myself

Thanks for the link. I'm a total newb when it comes to OC'ing but that post you linked to seems like a great place to start.:thumbsup:

 

[frozentundra123456]

Yes, my sarcastic post pointing out your inability to comprehend what the other poster said was a clear indicator that I was offended by your word :sneaky:

I clearly understood what that poster was saying, that is why I considered it such an absurd comment that it deserved the response I gave.

 

[frozentundra123456]

PureOC number is only 8% higher than your pic , what s
so surprising.?...It doesnt fit the general impression.?..

It is not the absolute numbers that are surprising. It is the relative ranking of the processors. The gamegpu shows even a 2500k clearly faster than the 8350 while the test in question shows the opposite. In addition, the general direction of test results is that an i5 is as fast or faster than an 8350, thus making the contrary result somewhat dubious.

 

[Sweepr]

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

Kinda sad (PII is also slower clock per clock than the 7-year old Conroe according to Toms), but also shows how PII was very competitive back in 2009 and remains a fairly good processor today.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

No he isn't. He's talking about Athlon X4 750K vs i3 3220

Tom's a hardware website. What's your concept of pro? ABT?

Post #40 has nothing about the 750k though, which I guess is where I got confused.


As far as ABT vs Tom's, my thoughts are this:

For referral links with tags to give Tom's money to items reviewed and a huge list of ads and trackers

they give me 8 games poorly done.

With ABT I get 30 games, and no referral links for profit

.

What baffles me is the constant AMD bash feast even when they offer a compelling alternative such as the FX 6350, a cpu that is priced the same as the Intel, performs similarly in games and better in most of the applications out there.

What baffles me is how people can defend products that produce unplayable results in games. It strikes me because it almost seems as if gamers using the same logic used to defend these products would happily buy a processor that could only yield 15 FPS if it was $20, unbeatable price/perf has it's own drawbacks which seem to be ignored completely, "lol those mins look like a disaster".

 

[Abwx]

It is not the absolute numbers that are surprising. It is the relative ranking of the processors. The gamegpu shows even a 2500k clearly faster than the 8350 while the test in question shows the opposite. In addition, the general direction of test results is that an i5 is as fast or faster than an 8350, thus making the contrary result somewhat dubious.

Only in SPlayer...and no , it is not faster in this case :

http://www.hardwareheaven.com/reviews/1598/pg6/amd-fx-8350-processor-review-battlefield-3.html

http://www.hitechlegion.com/reviews/processors/31312-amd-fx8350?showall=1

As you can see you re just expressing what are more
wishfull thoughts than reality , according to the numbers
of the two sites above.

In MP the FX will have forcibly and advantage , there s nothing
illogical given that it has at least 50% more computing
throughput when all cores are fired.

Remember that in principle it is streamed , wich will add
to the CPU loading.

 

[cbn]

Why are you comparing an 750k to the more expensive i3?

Let me refer to post #44 again --> http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=35394273&postcount=44

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.

Basically, my conclusion is that anything beyond a "mild overclock" for Athlon II x4 750K does not appear to be worth it for gaming purposes. (Although the Core i3-3220 is more expensive processor , the extra parts needing for OCing Athlon II x4 750K will make it more expensive overall)

See pricing example below from this post.

Intel Core i3-3220 (3.3 Ghz dual core with HT) 109.99 with free shipping
Asrock B75M-DGS ($54.99 with $4.99 shipping)

Total= $169.97

AMD Athlon II x4 750K (Trinity based quad core, 3.4 Ghz base frequency with 4.0 Ghz turbo) $79.99 and free shipping
ASRock FM2A75 Pro4-M FM2 ($74.99 plus $5.39 shipping)
Coolermaster Hyper 212 Evo ($33.24 and free shipping)

Total= $193.61.

Even for someone who already owns a tower cooler, I really question if buying a nicer FM2 board with better cooling (for gaming purposes) is worth it.

 

[SlowSpyder]

They really need to get their performance up, you couldn't pay me to suffer such low min fps.

I wish I got paid to game on AMD CPU's, even with their unplayable mins.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

I wish I got paid to game on AMD CPU's, even with their unplayable mins.

 

[Zor Prime]

What baffles me is how people can defend products that produce unplayable results in games.

Most of those processors will net you a minimum of 30 FPS. You are admittedly incapable of playing at those levels but it doesn't mean other people cannot.

 

[inf64]

Too bad for Balla and friends the minimums are just fluke fps dips and rest of the runtime is fine .

 

[bononos]

Most of those processors will net you a minimum of 30 FPS. You are admittedly incapable of playing at those levels but it doesn't mean other people cannot.

Theres the microstuttering issue which Techreport investigated briefly with cpus. And AMD did perform did seem to have trouble iirc.

 

[Zor Prime]

Theres the microstuttering issue which Techreport investigated briefly with cpus. And AMD did perform did seem to have trouble iirc.

I thought that was something related with Radeon 7* series GPU's and it was driver related and was being worked on. I could be wrong.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Only in SPlayer...and no , it is not faster in this case :

http://www.hardwareheaven.com/reviews/1598/pg6/amd-fx-8350-processor-review-battlefield-3.html

http://www.hitechlegion.com/reviews/processors/31312-amd-fx8350?showall=1

As you can see you re just expressing what are more
wishfull thoughts than reality , according to the numbers
of the two sites above.

In MP the FX will have forcibly and advantage , there s nothing
illogical given that it has at least 50% more computing
throughput when all cores are fired.

Remember that in principle it is streamed , wich will add
to the CPU loading.

Another of those gpu limited benchmarks that AMD cpu fans love so much.

Here is a testing of many cpus that are NOT gpu limited: (well at least for the AMD processors)

PC lab BF3 multiplayer.

 

[drikkie]

The picture above from PUREOC is BF3 MP with GTX660....

I meant that the GTX660 in itself can't provide the FPS they are showing in the pureoc graph. This test shows that the max is about exactly there where the 3570K is.... (top end almost 50fps)

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/geforce_gtx_760_msi_hawk_review,16.html

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6276/...-review-gk106-rounds-out-the-kepler-family/10

An any other more precise benches show them in another order too:
In non gpu bound benches:

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Battl...ld-3-Multiplayer-Tipps-CPU-Benchmark-1039293/

 

[AtenRa]

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.

When I bought my Celeron 300A overclocked to 450MHz it was performing like a Pentium III 350 at more than half the price. Nobody cared if you could OC the Pentium. You had a Pentium at a fraction of the cost.

My Celeron 366 OverClocked to 550MHz was faster than a Pentium III 500 at more than half the price. Yes you could also OC the Pentium but nobody cared, the price difference was huge.

My Core 2 Quad 9450 when overclocked at 3.3GHz had the same performance as Core 2 Quad Extreme QX9775 at 1/3 of the price. Sure you could OC the QX 9775 higher but nobody cared.

My Core i7 920 overclocked was faster than Core i7 975 Extreme Edition at 1/3 the price. Yes 975 could be OC more but only extreme OCers cared about.

My Core i7 3770K OCed is faster than Core i7 3930K (MT loads) at half the price. Yes you can OC the 6-core as well but the fact remains that you have the same performance at half the price.

So to sum up, FX6300 OCed to 4GHz is within 10-15% of the Core i5 3570K at HALF the COST. You can even buy a $30 heat-sink and OC to 4.6GHz and have almost the same performance at again a lower price.

That $100 price difference can get you an HD7950 over HD7790. No matter how fast the Core i5 is, any gamer will be way better with FX6300 + HD7950 than core i5 + HD7790.

 

[AtenRa]

See pricing example below from this post.

Intel Core i3-3220 (3.3 Ghz dual core with HT) 109.99 with free shipping
Asrock B75M-DGS ($54.99 with $4.99 shipping)

Total= $169.97

AMD Athlon II x4 750K (Trinity based quad core, 3.4 Ghz base frequency with 4.0 Ghz turbo) $79.99 and free shipping
ASRock FM2A75 Pro4-M FM2 ($74.99 plus $5.39 shipping)
Coolermaster Hyper 212 Evo ($33.24 and free shipping)

Total= $193.61.

Even for someone who already owns a tower cooler, I really question if buying a nicer FM2 board with better cooling (for gaming purposes) is worth it.

Athlon II 750K = $84,99 (free 2 day shipping)
MSI FM2-A75MA-P33 = $49,99 (free 2 day shipping)

= $134,98

You can OC to 4.1GHz with default Heat-Sink and default voltage.

 

[Gikaseixas]

What baffles me is how people can defend products that produce unplayable results in games. It strikes me because it almost seems as if gamers using the same logic used to defend these products would happily buy a processor that could only yield 15 FPS if it was $20, unbeatable price/perf has it's own drawbacks which seem to be ignored completely, "lol those mins look like a disaster".

What if you can only afford $80 for a processor? Or what if the games you play are older and don't require the latest and greatest? You see these reviews exist because there's a audience and because there's a demand for such items. Not everybody buys i7's and Titan's. That's when the Athlon, Pentium or low end FX / i3 buyers come in.
That market exist. I know plenty of people who game perfectly well with Phenom II or Core 2 Quads with GTX 280's. By your logic people who just bought HD 7770 or GTX 650 are dumb because those cards won't perform well in Crysis 3 at Ultra settings.

And your remark about the mins is a really sad attempt to say something negative about a certain brand. Again not everybody plays @1080 and Ultra settings.

 

[Gikaseixas]

Theres the microstuttering issue which Techreport investigated briefly with cpus.

Link please. I would like to know how bad my FX 8350 stutters in games.

 

[AtenRa]

What baffles me is how people can defend products that produce unplayable results in games. It strikes me because it almost seems as if gamers using the same logic used to defend these products would happily buy a processor that could only yield 15 FPS if it was $20, unbeatable price/perf has it's own drawbacks which seem to be ignored completely, "lol those mins look like a disaster".

If i post the following graph, youll make the conclusion that DOTA2 is unplayable with Core i7 3770K and HD4000 because of that 17fps minimum.

But if i will also post the following graph, you will see that the dip to 17fps only happens once in the entire 3min benchmark.

So now you can see that DOTA2 at 1080p IS PLAYABLE with the Core i7 3770K and HD4000.

 

[Jaydip]

That surely looks unplayable to me.Who the hell plays with an igp?

 

[AtenRa]

That surely looks unplayable to me.Who the hell plays with an igp?

People that dont have or are not willing to pay $600-700 for a single GPU like the one in your sing.