[TOM'S] AMD inter-generational CPU shootout

[crashtech]

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.

This is the CPU orthodoxy and what we are schooled to believe on CPU forums. Saying it's about saving money is irrelevant. Within a given budget, there are numerous permutations. If that saved money goes from the CPU to an SSD, it's an overall win even if it comes at the expense of a "well rounded" CPU. It's not about some skinflint pinching pennies, it's about allocation the dollars for maximum effect.

...it seems false economy to pair a high end card with a lessor processor.

Yes, it seems like it, but it's usually not.

If I can get ahold of something like a 7870 HD for testing puposes, I would love to pull the i3 out of my HTPC to prove a point. I'd run that 3220 paired with my 7970 versus my OCed 2770K paired with the 7870 and see which provides the smoothest game experience at 1080. You already know which one I think will win, do you doubt it?

 

[Topweasel]

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.

Depends on other requirements, performance and size of the boot drive, does it need a storage drive, does it need BD playback, what are the memory requirements, what type of case are you getting, what are you looking for in a PSU. What kind of feature set are you looking at MB wise.

All of those can be just as important as CPU/GPU. For example just by getting an Intel chip does make the MB more expensive and the more features you are looking for in a mobo the more drastic the pricing difference gets. That $100 can really become $150, and an extra $150 dollars can impact the other options in the computer, might have to go with a cheaper case, a lower watt PSU that will be running closer to max power and the fan gets noisier. Cutting back on the BD burner to a BD reader. Having to get an addin wireless card because the Intel based solution is an extra $75. Specially as we head closer and closer to a 95% just enough computing environment, is it really always about getting those last 4-5 FPS. I mean I understood it back in the Voodoo one days, we were struggling to keep even the fastest hardware fast enough for the next big game. But now we have people having to invest thousands into hardware purchases just to push the boundary on GPU requirements, so that they can convince themselves they need a faster card (Eyefinity/NVsurround).

 

[frozentundra123456]

This is the CPU orthodoxy and what we are schooled to believe on CPU forums. Saying it's about saving money is irrelevant. Within a given budget, there are numerous permutations. If that saved money goes from the CPU to an SSD, it's an overall win even if it comes at the expense of a "well rounded" CPU. It's not about some skinflint pinching pennies, it's about allocation the dollars for maximum effect.


Yes, it seems like it, but it's usually not.

If I can get ahold of something like a 7870 HD for testing puposes, I would love to pull the i3 out of my HTPC to prove a point. I'd run that 3220 paired with my 7970 versus my OCed 2770K paired with the 7870 and see which provides the smoothest game experience at 1080. You already know which one I think will win, do you doubt it?

Yea, but you are running a fast cpu AND a fast gpu in your normal rig, right? Point is you spent the resources to have a well matched system. And actually, since it is dual core, even with a 7970 I am not sure an i3 would provide a good experience with something like BF3 (especially multiplayer) or Crysis 3.

I am not going to continue this argument. It is obvious that we are neither one going to change our opinions. All I am trying to say, is that if one invests the money to get a powerful video card in the 300.00 range, it is foolish to get a cpu that will be a limiting factor in certain games. And if I am offending AMD fans, I would not get any intel cpu lower than a 3570k either to pair with such a gpu.

 

[AtenRa]

YI would not get any intel cpu lower than a 3570k either to pair with such a gpu.

And thats the beauty of the FX6300, you can have ~same performance of 3570K at half the cost when Overclocked. That makes you able to get the HD7950 over HD7790/7850 and a nice performance CPU that will be fine for 2-3 years.

If you only playing SC2 then by all means get the i5 and HD7790, but for BF3 i would get the FX6300(OC)+HD7950 every day.

 

[inf64]

If only AMD would reconsider releasing the FM2+ 6T SR based A10s next year. As we can see FX6300 is a great gaming chip in its price range and adding an IPC bump from SR core would just make it much better. They would cover mid range with this part very nicely and parts that don't cut it (bad/defective GPU) could be sold as 6T Athlons or even FX73xx parts. I hope they will eventually release it but sooner the better.

 

[Sweepr]

FX6300 might be an awesome bang for the buck but its not even close to an i5 3570K in CPU limited gaming scenarios.

Average performance @ 8 games running at 1080p:

It also has been replaced by the i5 4570K for quite some time now, and this chip can be overclocked too. In 2-3 years when you decide to replace your current graphics adapter and get a ~2x faster GPU you will need great CPU performance to keep up.

 

[crashtech]

Yea, but you are running a fast cpu AND a fast gpu in your normal rig, right? Point is you spent the resources to have a well matched system. And actually, since it is dual core, even with a 7970 I am not sure an i3 would provide a good experience with something like BF3 (especially multiplayer) or Crysis 3.

I am not going to continue this argument. It is obvious that we are neither one going to change our opinions. All I am trying to say, is that if one invests the money to get a powerful video card in the 300.00 range, it is foolish to get a cpu that will be a limiting factor in certain games. And if I am offending AMD fans, I would not get any intel cpu lower than a 3570k either to pair with such a gpu.

Hey, no hard feelings. I really am tempted to test out my assertions. I do find it sad that you would continue to call certain decisions foolish without presenting any hard evidence. All I want to do is sensitize readers to an idea that has already been partially validated by Ian Cutress in the Anandtech article: "Choosing a Gaming CPU: Single + Multi-GPU at 1440p."

 

[inf64]

I would like us to revisit this topic in 2 years and see how well FX63xx runs games with much faster GPUs available at that time . Granted we will have SR and EX APUs by then but I'm willing to say that FX6350 will be running next gen games with ~2x faster GPUs just fine.

 

[SPBHM]

I would like us to revisit this topic in 2 years and see how well FX63xx runs games with much faster GPUs available at that time . Granted we will have SR and EX APUs by then but I'm willing to say that FX6350 will be running next gen games with ~2x faster GPUs just fine.

console ports at 30FPS? considering the new consoles use slow x86 it's probably going to be OK!?
but for exclusive PC RTS and MMOs, and console ports at a higher frame rate I'm not sure, it's already problematic for that compared to a 3570K right now.

still, you can't deny the 6300 is good value, I would rather have one for the long run than some i3.

but i5s are simply better, even the $180 ones.

 

[Abwx]

If only AMD would reconsider releasing the FM2+ 6T SR based A10s next year. As we can see FX6300 is a great gaming chip in its price range and adding an IPC bump from SR core would just make it much better. They would cover mid range with this part very nicely and parts that don't cut it (bad/defective GPU) could be sold as 6T Athlons or even FX73xx parts. I hope they will eventually release it but sooner the better.

They could theoricaly do a MCM using two dies wich would
provide 8C at least and 1024 SPs.

Given that they ll have hUMA they wouldnt even need
to use a CFX scheme since both GPUs would have direct
memory access and could be seen as a single giant GPU.

Still very theorical , though.

 

[inf64]

I don't care what kind of games will be used for comparison, I just said let us revisit the topic in 2 years and see how FX63xx fares in games at that time(in various titles) with ~2x more powerful GPUs.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Hey, no hard feelings. I really am tempted to test out my assertions. I do find it sad that you would continue to call certain decisions foolish without presenting any hard evidence. All I want to do is sensitize readers to an idea that has already been partially validated by Ian Cutress in the Anandtech article: "Choosing a Gaming CPU: Single + Multi-GPU at 1440p."

I know I said I was not going to comment any more, but that was one of the worst reviews ever on Anand's website. Very limited number of games tested at only one resolution.

 

[frozentundra123456]

FX6300 might be an awesome bang for the buck but its not even close to an i5 3570K in CPU limited gaming scenarios.

Average performance @ 8 games running at 1080p:

It also has been replaced by the i5 4570K for quite some time now, and this chip can be overclocked too. In 2-3 years when you decide to replace your current graphics adapter and get a ~2x faster GPU you will need great CPU performance to keep up.

I agree that the FX6300 is not really in the same league as an i5 for gaming. Only in a few titles is it competitive, and in many it loses badly.

As others said though, it competes well against an i3.

 

[krumme]

FX6300 might be an awesome bang for the buck but its not even close to an i5 3570K in CPU limited gaming scenarios.

Average performance @ 8 games running at 1080p:

It also has been replaced by the i5 4570K for quite some time now, and this chip can be overclocked too. In 2-3 years when you decide to replace your current graphics adapter and get a ~2x faster GPU you will need great CPU performance to keep up.

One of the kids have some of my old rig. A fanless effecttive powersuply that is 9 years old and that is still fanless and effective. And the 500gb wd hd is still in use as second hd. The good kabinet lasted for 13 years.

Quality last. And those component outlasted the cpu 2-3 times.

But where do you want to save your money? Where do you want to skimp on quality?

We might not like a fixed budget, but i think most of us know the experience when budgetting in excell for our new build it yourself rig, putting the numbers for the components in the cells, and discovering the creeping of the sum.
Suddenly the entire rig cost the double of the planned max, and all the individual choices was just just right. Not even expensive, perhaps even modest, but just sane choices. And then the sum just didnt add up.

 

[crashtech]

I know I said I was not going to comment any more, but that was one of the worst reviews ever on Anand's website. Very limited number of games tested at only one resolution.

Well, I don't know about worst, but can agree about the limited selection of games and the use of a resolution that is not representative of the majority. Testing at a lower resolution would likely reveal more CPU dependency, but how much? It is an interesting question. If I do some testing, it will be at 1080.

 

[Topweasel]

FX6300 might be an awesome bang for the buck but its not even close to an i5 3570K in CPU limited gaming scenarios.

It also has been replaced by the i5 4570K for quite some time now, and this chip can be overclocked too. In 2-3 years when you decide to replace your current graphics adapter and get a ~2x faster GPU you will need great CPU performance to keep up.

But a i5 3 generations from now is also going to struggle. Actually probably more so as you see the gaming market shift away from one or two thread games. The way things are going all games will be heavily thread dependent. The question is whether they use static threads, develop a game specifically for the new consoles, and decide that they need between 5-7 threads a have that hard set in the code and just let windows decide which cores handle it. Or do they dynamically create and assign threads as it needs more CPU power. This would be harder but it actually erases any difference. Think about it, if the game needs more CPU power creates another thread so up till one hits its computational limit they would be neck and neck and it would be the i5 that would hit it first. Either way less "cores" less overall computing power. The future of gaming isn't an archaic system like SC2, Its going to be more like BF3.

Basically saying that if you want to talk about aging. The i5 isn't going to age anywhere near as well as the 6k. So buying a 6k now might actually still work better with the new card, who knows maybe you won't even feel the need to replace the CPU, it's anyone's guess at this time. But I think the major point of the debate has been about the idea that an extra 100 for a CPU that is only marginally better in most games, a lot better in a few, and slightly behind in 1 or 2 games, when games are about the only activity now that see's a registrable difference in performance, might not be fully justified. Now compare it the I3 (it's price competitor), it becomes a no-brainer. A DC only CPU that becomes very limited very quickly going forward.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

If the i5 begins to struggle in mulitcore games so too will the x6 and x8 from AMD because the i5 has more computational power than six current AMD cores, it's more like 8 AMD cores to match the i5.

Games can and do consist of far more than 2 threads, even if they only run on two cpu cores. If games are running 48 threads down 2 cores or 6 it won't matter, the i5 will still be faster than the x6. The only difference will be the x6 won't be as bad as it is now, it still won't be as fast as the i5.

There has been no indication yet that the most popular PC titles, such as MOBA, RTS, and ARPG titles will follow the same path as multiplatform titles.


The problem with saying that is the fact that the x6 is slower than the i5 even in applications that use six threads currently. It takes the 8350 just to get similar performance to Intel's true quad.

This is why AMD prices their CPUs the way they do. The 8350 isn't worth $240 because it can only match the i5 in threaded applications, in applications that uses fewer than 8 cores it falls behind, the less cores the app uses, the further it lags.

AMDs current x6 will never be better than an i5, no matter how many cores a program can use. AMD is currently requiring 2 cores to match a single not hyperthreaded Intel core, because of their poor per core performance.

 

[Gikaseixas]

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.

Sometimes one just does not have enough money to spend and thinks about getting the best possible within a certain budget and the best for a gaming rig would be getting a better GPU and decent CPU than the other way around

An honest thread here at AT about someone who's budget is tight:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2338101

 

[Abwx]

If the i5 begins to struggle in mulitcore games so too will the x6 and x8 from AMD because the i5 has more computational power than six current AMD cores, it's more like 8 AMD cores to match the i5.

This is completely wrong and contrary to the results
of all benches where computational power of the FX
are correctly used.

The i5 has vastly lower computational power than a FX8XXX ,
i already pointed that a lot of people are influenced by
unfounded rumors that continue being spreaded unabated
despite all odd evidences.

Check how weak is the i5 compaired to the FX8xxx :

http://techreport.com/review/23750/amd-fx-8350-processor-reviewed/10

Edit : IB and HW i5s are of no help , still way weaker than FX.

 

[Gikaseixas]

The problem with saying that is the fact that the x6 is slower than the i5 even in applications that use six threads currently. It takes the 8350 just to get similar performance to Intel's true quad.

This is not true, my FX performs better than your i5 in most of the multithreaded applications. The 8 cores make up for the awful single thread performance.

 

[Phynaz]

This is completely wrong and contrary to the results
of all benches where computational power of the FX
are correctly used.

The i5 has vastly lower computational power than a FX8XXX ,
i already pointed that a lot of people are influenced by
unfounded rumors that continue being spreaded unabated
despite all odd evidences.

Check how weak is the i5 compaired to the FX8xxx :

http://techreport.com/review/23750/amd-fx-8350-processor-reviewed/10

Edit : IB and HW i5s are of no help , still way weaker than FX.

And then click on "next page" of your link and watch how badly the FX gets smacked down by the i5.

Cherry picking won't get you far here.

 

[Abwx]

And then click on "next page" of your link and watch how badly the FX gets smacked down by the i5.

Cherry picking won't get you far here.

Only in lightly threaded tasks , but whatever , bala was
talking of total computational power , that is ; wich
has the more computational ressources.

So there s no cherry picking there.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

This is not true, my FX performs better than your i5 in most of the multithreaded applications. The 8 cores make up for the awful single thread performance.

Like which?

Edit:

From what I remember, PoV the i5 is faster, Cinebench the i5 is faster, Handbrake the i5 is faster.

What else have we compared?

 

[Topweasel]

If the i5 begins to struggle in mulitcore games so too will the x6 and x8 from AMD because the i5 has more computational power than six current AMD cores, it's more like 8 AMD cores to match the i5.

Not trying to get into a hyperbole war, but I think that your wrong. It might not be by much But I think that the 6k would be faster with it's two extra cores if an application is using it's full power. I am not just talking about using 3 or 4 cores but all 6 on the FX and 4 on the 5. And that is only on a fully dynamic MT environment. I think that most games will end up having static threads, that might have all of them going at 20-30% because they were written for Jaguars, In the end I doubt there will be a big difference but then you are talking about stacking threads on a i5 vs a core per thread for the most part (doubt they will write for 8 the way the xbox/PS4 will eat one for OS, so the question is 7 on 6 and 7 on 4, vs 6 on 6 and 6 on 4).

All at the cost of an 2C I3. Which was the major point of this debate in the first place. Can it be more cost effective and decent gaming machine using a 6k vs. a 5k. Both are more then fast enough to feed a decent GPU and an I3 vs 6k vs an I5 you end up with the possibility that the 6k has better value. It's more then fast enough for current games, it will get stronger not weaker as we head towards future games and because its sufficiently cheaper then the i5 you can get better equipment in the budget including a better GPU by saving the money. The I3 will suffer, maybe not in the short term, by its overall lack of cores, even if it can perform much better in non threaded or lightly threaded tasks and games.

 

[Abwx]

Like which?

Edit:

From what I remember, PoV the i5 is faster, Cinebench the i5 is faster, Handbrake the i5 is faster.

What else have we compared?

It is slower in all thoses tests...

Unless the i5 has more compute throughput than a 3770 or 4770.