[TOM'S] AMD inter-generational CPU shootout

[Idontcare]

Did you bother to read past what you quoted in bold?

Yes I did.

At this point, any software developer that creates a product that caps out 1 or 2 threads is creating an artificial bottleneck and the blame, thus, should be directed at the poor coding and not the lack of resources.

I don't agree. There are a variety of economic reasons why a software developer would create a product that caps out at 1 or 2 threads.

Those economic reasons come down to the consumer who can't be counted on to pay the needed price premium to justify developing a costlier (more threaded) product.

And that's it, full stop.

This isn't about "poor coding" or blaming software companies. They aren't charities, they don't feature enrich their products simply to give them away at cost or at a loss.

The blame falls squarely on the consumers who don't vote with their wallets, or rather they do vote and as such they are getting exactly what they deserve (and there is no blame to be placed at anyone's feet for that).

 

[Slomo4shO]

Again, what are you attempting to expand upon by regurgitating the points of the initial post? I have already expressed that market demand dictates developer investment of resources by illustrating how productivity software coding has been evolving and I also expressed the fact that the enthusiast gamer is a very small market and doest warrant extra investment for high end hardware optimization.

As far as voting is concerned, since when do low information voters make rational decisions? They tend to rely heavily on information sources such as this site and marketing ads that spread propaganda to guide their purchasing decision.

 

[mrmt]

As far as voting is concerned, since when do low information voters make rational decisions? They tend to rely heavily on information sources such as this site and marketing ads that spread propaganda to guide their purchasing decision.

As a matter of fact *big and small* corporations are making the decision of not going full steam ahead with multithreading, or at least not going to levels that would make you happy. Those corporations can afford to actually study the problem, to *measure* the trade off between going single threaded and multithreaded, and assuming that multithreaded software will deliver sizable performance gains which is not always the case, the corporations do not go multithreaded all the time.

Do you think so low of software developers, especially the big ones, to the point of believing they do not make rational decisions and rely on propaganda and AT to make multi-million decisions?

 

[JimKiler]

I have a 955BE, I am debating buying the FX 6350 for $125 after discounts on Newegg and putting my 955BE on eBay. I have a AMD 7770 GPU. Do you think it is worth the upgrade?

 

[Essence_of_War]

Do you, or are you willing to, OC the Phenom?

If you're considering the upgrade for gaming improvements, I don't think you're likely to be bottlenecking the GPU yet, so you probably get better performance by upgrading that first.

 

[monkeydelmagico]

So for a $330 CPU & GPU budget, lets go a step further and include the motherboard into the mix. Let us just assume $70 for the motherboard to bring the balance to $400 for the three components.

CPU: Intel Core i5-4430 3.0GHz Quad-Core Processor ($174.99 @ Amazon)
Motherboard: MSI B85M-G43 Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($74.24 @ Amazon)
Video Card: Sapphire Radeon HD 7850 2GB Video Card ($153.98 @ Newegg)
Total: $403.21

CPU: AMD FX-6300 3.5GHz 6-Core Processor ($117.98 @ Outlet PC)
Motherboard: Biostar TA970 ATX AM3+ Motherboard ($69.99 @ Newegg)
Video Card: Sapphire Radeon HD 7950 3GB Video Card ($199.99 @ Newegg)
Total: $387.96

CPU: Intel Core i3-3220 3.3GHz Dual-Core Processor ($118.99 @ Amazon)
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-B75M-HD3 Micro ATX LGA1155 Motherboard ($64.99 @ Microcenter)
Video Card: Sapphire Radeon HD 7950 3GB Video Card ($199.99 @ Newegg)
Total: $383.97

Each of these 3 builds would have their benefits and weaknesses. One could argue that a particular bundle may be superior at a particular task but arguing that any one of these three are hands down superior to the other two would be a fallacy. Systems are built based on the need of the user. The argument for the general performance of a single component is typically moot in a system build that has a budget and goal in mind.

System #1 is hands down superior. No fallacy-ing required. If history is any indicator in 5-7 years the i5 will still be able to game while the other two will be trying to cling to the bottom of the charts. A GPU upgrade mid cycle is all that will be required.

 

[JimKiler]

Do you, or are you willing to, OC the Phenom?

If you're considering the upgrade for gaming improvements, I don't think you're likely to be bottlenecking the GPU yet, so you probably get better performance by upgrading that first.

Assuming you are replying to me, I tried OC'ing without much success despite buying my 955 BE late and upgrading to 1866MHz RAM. It would work until one day my Diablo 3 was super slow no matter what I did and went away when i went back to stock speeds. But yes my main reason for the upgrade would be games. I suppose i may see an improvement in photo developing as well since ACDSee Pro currently uses all four cores to the max when converting RAW files to JPEG.

 

[Essence_of_War]

Assuming you are replying to me, I tried OC'ing without much success despite buying my 955 BE late and upgrading to 1866MHz RAM. It would work until one day my Diablo 3 was super slow no matter what I did and went away when i went back to stock speeds. But yes my main reason for the upgrade would be games. I suppose i may see an improvement in photo developing as well since ACDSee Pro currently uses all four cores to the max when converting RAW files to JPEG.

Haha, yeah I was.

I guess you could do it, but like I said, I doubt you're CPU is bottlenecking your GPU yet. Also, I don't think that's a drop-in replacement because the FX chips require socket AM3+ while your current MoBo is probably AM3. AM3 supports AthlonII/PhenomII, AM3+ supports those + the FX line. So any upgrade at this point will require a new MoBo also...

 

[JimKiler]

Haha, yeah I was.

I guess you could do it, but like I said, I doubt you're CPU is bottlenecking your GPU yet. Also, I don't think that's a drop-in replacement because the FX chips require socket AM3+ while your current MoBo is probably AM3. AM3 supports AthlonII/PhenomII, AM3+ supports those + the FX line. So any upgrade at this point will require a new MoBo also...

No new mobo required, my original upgrade was a Phemon 2 and AM3 but since the board was flaky i got an AM3+ 2 or 3 years ago so I can definitely put a FX CPU in my rig. I would like to upgrade after seeing this article. Obviously a Core i5 would be better but I am too cheap to spend that much.

 

[crashtech]

System #1 is hands down superior. No fallacy-ing required. If history is any indicator in 5-7 years the i5 will still be able to game while the other two will be trying to cling to the bottom of the charts. A GPU upgrade mid cycle is all that will be required.

So it's superior in your imaginary future scenario, once more money gets spent on it to bring it up to some hypothetical performance level.

But on this day, the i5+7850 will have its ass handed to it by the AMD+7950 system... "hands down."

BTW, if it matters, my gaming rig runs a 2700K.

 

[Dribble]

So it's superior in your imaginary future scenario, once more money gets spent on it to bring it up to some hypothetical performance level.

But on this day, the i5+7850 will have its ass handed to it by the AMD+7950 system... "hands down."

BTW, if it matters, my gaming rig runs a 2700K.

Complexity of the upgrade is key here. It's trivial to replace a gpu. The gpu can just be pulled out, and replaced while the old one goes on ebay. Takes 10 mins.

It's much harder work to replace the cpu. In the AMD case to get something significantly faster you'll almost certainly end up needing a new motherboard, new memory, pull the whole case apart, re-install of all software. The leftover bits then are more hassle to sell on ebay too.

If you are building a new machine on a budget it is always the best idea to make the bits that are hardest to replace the ones that need upgrading the least.

 

[Slomo4shO]

As a matter of fact *big and small* corporations are making the decision of not going full steam ahead with multithreading, or at least not going to levels that would make you happy. Those corporations can afford to actually study the problem, to *measure* the trade off between going single threaded and multithreaded, and assuming that multithreaded software will deliver sizable performance gains which is not always the case, the corporations do not go multithreaded all the time.

Do you think so low of software developers, especially the big ones, to the point of believing they do not make rational decisions and rely on propaganda and AT to make multi-million decisions?

I am unsure where you are getting this idea. I was referring to the consumer, not the developers. Are you insinuating that consumers are not persuaded by marketing and that emotions are not the primary factor driving buying decisions?

As far as my happiness, your assumptions are based around an argument that may or may not reflect my own views. In addition, the multi-threading trends I was referring to were based on developer competition and it didn't mention anything about whether or not corporations are upgrading their software. Performance is a factor in productivity software and the market will typically favor the better performing software at a specific price point.

 

[crashtech]

Complexity of the upgrade is key here. It's trivial to replace a gpu. The gpu can just be pulled out, and replaced while the old one goes on ebay. Takes 10 mins.

It's much harder work to replace the cpu. In the AMD case to get something significantly faster you'll almost certainly end up needing a new motherboard, new memory, pull the whole case apart, re-install of all software. The leftover bits then are more hassle to sell on ebay too.

If you are building a new machine on a budget it is always the best idea to make the bits that are hardest to replace the ones that need upgrading the least.

Giving a dollar limited scenario, you make the case for the i3, then, and that is fine. An i5 or i7 can be dropped in later. I'm just tired of CPU fanatics thinking it's somehow great to pair a higher-end CPU with a mediocre GPU. The fact that this point gets pounded on by fanboys doesn't make it less true in this case. I maintain that at this point in CPU/GPU/game evolution, spending about twice on a GPU than on a CPU makes pretty good sense for games overall.

 

[monkeydelmagico]

So it's superior in your imaginary future scenario, once more money gets spent on it to bring it up to some hypothetical performance level.

But on this day, the i5+7850 will have its ass handed to it by the AMD+7950 system... "hands down."

BTW, if it matters, my gaming rig runs a 2700K.

Yes. The tortoise will surpass the hare and spit on it's bones.

 

[Slomo4shO]

System #1 is hands down superior. No fallacy-ing required. If history is any indicator in 5-7 years the i5 will still be able to game while the other two will be trying to cling to the bottom of the charts. A GPU upgrade mid cycle is all that will be required.

How do you figure a locked CPU has greater longevity?

Complexity of the upgrade is key here. It's trivial to replace a gpu. The gpu can just be pulled out, and replaced while the old one goes on ebay. Takes 10 mins.

It's much harder work to replace the cpu. In the AMD case to get something significantly faster you'll almost certainly end up needing a new motherboard, new memory, pull the whole case apart, re-install of all software. The leftover bits then are more hassle to sell on ebay too.

If you are building a new machine on a budget it is always the best idea to make the bits that are hardest to replace the ones that need upgrading the least.

What flexibility are you afforded going with a B85 board and a locked CPU? The only argument I am seeing is maybe with the bandwidth limitations of PCIe 2.0 in comparison to PCIe 3.0. Otherwise, you are also stuck with a board that has very limited CPU upgrade options. It may be able to accept broadwell but, from observing history, you would likely achieve a 5-10% increase in performance going with Broadwell. Whereas with the 6300 you still have the option to throw on a better cooler to overclock higher or even move to a 8 core CPU which should provide equal performance gain opportunities that are present in the B85 build.

 

[crashtech]

Troll food removed.

 

[crashtech]

Yes. The tortoise will surpass the hare and spit on it's bones.

Ah, I didn't notice your sig. Have you ever heard of confirmation bias?

 

[Slomo4shO]

Ah, I didn't notice your sig. Have you ever heard of confirmation bias?

The Endowment Effect is probably playing a bigger role here

 

[KingFatty]

How safe is it to assume that faster CPUs will be needed in the future, compared to these current CPUs?

I mean, if we are going to be playing future console ports, won't they be more likely to take advantage of multi-threading in order to work effectively on the new multi-threaded consoles?

I guess what I mean is that if future games are better programmed, doesn't that reduce the need to upgrade the CPU even further? Like, your current CPU will get a new lease on life and work exceptionally better on future games compared to current poorly threaded games? This being driven by future games likely to be console ports from consoles with properly multi-threaded CPUs?

If so, then I think it's a poor assumption that the system #1 is hands-down superior to a 6 core CPU for future games.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Perhaps there might be some positive effect for AMD cpus in that regard, however it doesn't address the glaring issue they have with a lot of non console port games.

I think my biggest issue is the concept of a fixed limited budget. The budget is so low, and would perform so poorly in PC centered titles that it makes more sense to buy a console than the PC, imo.

 

[crashtech]

Perhaps there might be some positive effect for AMD cpus in that regard, however it doesn't address the glaring issue they have with a lot of non console port games.

I think my biggest issue is the concept of a fixed limited budget. The budget is so low, and would perform so poorly in PC centered titles that it makes more sense to buy a console than the PC, imo.

But PCs can do things consoles can't. There is still much to be said for the PC's original mission, which is to be a multipurpose machine. Granted, consoles can do a lot these days, and some might go the route of console+mobile device for all their needs, but that is really a personal and subjective decision without much relevance to the discussion of the performance of various PC builds.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Perhaps there might be some positive effect for AMD cpus in that regard, however it doesn't address the glaring issue they have with a lot of non console port games.

I think my biggest issue is the concept of a fixed limited budget. The budget is so low, and would perform so poorly in PC centered titles that it makes more sense to buy a console than the PC, imo.

I agree about the fixed, limited budget scenario. It can be a valid metric, but it can also be used to artificially produce scenarios designed to favor a certain processor. For instance, I think the FX6300 is a good choice for a low/mid range gaming system with something like a 78xx series gpu. But it does not seem reasonable to say that someone who will be spending the money for a 79xx range card or higher will not also be able to afford the extra money for a 3570k or unlocked has well i5. Those are much more well rounded for all types of games, and it seems false economy to pair a high end card with a lessor processor. Even if one is a diehard amd fan, it seems false economy to not move up to an 8350 if you are using a high end discrete card.

 

[crashtech]

I agree about the fixed, limited budget scenario. It can be a valid metric, but it can also be used to artificially produce scenarios designed to favor a certain processor. For instance, I think the FX6300 is a good choice for a low/mid range gaming system with something like a 78xx series gpu. But it does not seem reasonable to say that someone who will be spending the money for a 79xx range card or higher will not also be able to afford the extra money for a 3570k or unlocked has well i5. Those are much more well rounded for all types of games, and it seems false economy to pair a high end card with a lessor processor. Even if one is a diehard amd fan, it seems false economy to not move up to an 8350 if you are using a high end discrete card.

I think this opinion arises partly because it is the established orthodoxy of CPU land. If your goal is x dollars to achieve the best game experience possible, invariably spending more on the GPU produces better results. It doesn't really matter what x is, up to a point. For example, a 3570K will run a 7970 just fine. A 4770K will run twin 770s just fine, etc, etc.

If you can imagine a scenario where a GPU that is cheaper than the CPU will game better than the other way around, present it.

 

[Shephard]

Phenom II is such a great chip. I have tested it with many modern games and it holds up very well.

 

[frozentundra123456]

I think this opinion arises partly because it is the established orthodoxy of CPU land. If your goal is x dollars to achieve the best game experience possible, invariably spending more on the GPU produces better results. It doesn't really matter what x is, up to a point. For example, a 3570K will run a 7970 just fine. A 4770K will run twin 770s just fine, etc, etc.

If you can imagine a scenario where a GPU that is cheaper than the CPU will game better than the other way around, present it.

Where did I say you should spend more on the cpu than the gpu? And you said it yourself "up to a point". All I am saying is that if one is spending 250.00 plus on a gpu and 1000 dollars or more for the entire system, I dont think it is necessary to sacrifice well rounded cpu performance to save 50 to 100.00.