[Tom's] CPU Bottlenecking with 7970 CF - 3770k vs. 8350

[Termie]

Tom's Hardware has done a very thorough article on CPU bottlenecking using both 1080p and Eyefinity resolutions using a HD7970 Crossfire setup. They've included both framerate and frametime charts and graphs. Link: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-core-i7-3770k-gaming-bottleneck,3407.html

The results shouldn't be too surprising, although there are a couple games where the 8350 gets very close or actually surpasses the 3770k at certain resolutions:

In other games, like Skyrim, the 3770k has a very large lead:

 

[sm625]

At the end of the article they remark on the fact that the delta between AMD and Intel cpu's is greater on AMD video cards than Nvidia video cards. I can only shake my head. AMD spends $5 billion buying ATI, yet they still have added absolutely nothing to their CPU to make their graphics drivers run faster on their CPUs. I'm just shocked. Not one single instruction was added to their instruction set to accommodate their $5 billion purchase.

Net loss = $1.18 billion, is it any wonder? R.I.P. stupid company.

 

[Rvenger]

Net loss = $1.18 billion, is it any wonder? R.I.P. CPU Division.

FTFY


AMD got their A#$@# handed to them in that review.

 

[sm625]

But its really not their CPU division that failed. It is their whole company, very much including their graphics division. They havent done anything to get radeon cores into the cpu. They havent put the cores in, they havent written totally new drivers. They should have started on a new APU design completely from the ground up, 5 years ago. 1 SIMD per ALU, with each SIMD capable of handling all SSE extensions, as well as all gpu related instructions. After 5 years they should have had a chip on the market that absolutely destroyed their competition in gaming, like 10x the performance. A true gaming processor, with a DX11 DSP right in the core. A unified GDDR5 memory bus. They did none of this. All they did was move the same slow archaic cpu-pcie-gpu interface onto the same silicon, big whoop. It is truly an epic fail for every part of the company. I'm truly shocked they failed this badly.

 

[guskline]

Nothing in this article surprises me. I have a 2500k at 4.5ghz and a 8350 at 4.6 Ghz with the same EVGA GTX670 FTW and in most graphics benchmarks the Intel wins. However, I had a thread comparing the Bulldozer 8150 to the 2500k and both the benchmarks and the feel of the 2500k was faster. Believe it or not the 8350 has narrowed the benchmark gap and significantly narrowed the "feel" gap on the games I play (COD BOII and BF3).

I continue saying that if building from scratch for an all out gamer an Intel 3770k and Z77 mb outperform a 8350 and 990 fx mb. IF you own an AM3+ mb a 8350 makes sense to maximum utilization.

BTW, one of the few areas AMD really improved was setting the retail of the 8350 at $199 versus the 8150 at @$289. The 3770k is @$330 (unless you snag it at Microcenter for $230).

When you are plowing the $$$ into dual highend GPUs, it's very wise to recommend the 3770k.

 

[guskline]

FTFY


AMD got their A#$@# handed to them in that review.

Revenger, seriously that doesn't shock you does it? Comparing a cpu that sells for @$199 with one that sells for at least $100 more? Come on! The outcome was preordained.

I think a better comparison on price would have been a 8350 vs a 3570k. I suppose the Intel would win but at least on price alone there would nearly be parity ( the 3570k is @$30 more but much closer in price to the 8350).

 

[Idontcare]

The only way we can make AMD's FX-8350 look like a better gaming value than Intel's Core i7-3770K (specifically in the games and at the settings we used to test) is if the rest of the system is free. Because the rest of the system is never free, the FX-8350 never serves up better high-end gaming value.

This is the bottom line, just as guskline says. Getting an FX8350 and justifying the lower performance as being acceptable because of a price/performance basis only makes sense if you are somehow getting the rest of the system for free...which is the case when you doing a straight-up upgrade of just your processor (or at most just the CPU+inexpensive mobo).

As soon as the upgrade BoM starts to include DDR3 ram (maybe your existing rig is still DDR2 or not enough DDR3 ram), or an SSD (replace HDD or a larger SSD), or a GPU (replacing that HD5850 or GTX460), the value proposition of trying to save a few bucks with the FX8350 is thrown out the window. You will see yourself net better price/performance from the upgrade by going with the Intel processor.

The one major problem with this approach to the cost-benefit analysis is that this is not how most people approach upgrading or new system building. People don't generally log into Newegg and start buying the best of the best and figure the bank account will cover the tally, whatever it comes to.

Rather, most people generally approach their upgrading plans with a specific budget in mind. "I don't want to spend more than $600 on this upgrade" But they are wise enough to know they shouldn't strictly adhere to a rigorous limit because they may end up losing out on a good deal of performance if say they would have spent $615 instead of forcing their upgrade to fit inside an original $600 budget.

So the budget is bound but has some stretch to it.

And it is with this perspective in mind that price/performance analyses ought to be done. Anyone considering upgrading to either the 8350 or the 3770k is going to be doing so with a similar budget in mind. So they might get the 3770k but in doing so they must make a trade-off or two (no SSD, or less ram, or they take one step down on the class of GPU they are buying)...whereas if they opted for the FX8350 then their overall budget might allow them to buy that SSD, or extra 8GB of ram, or a video card that costs $130 more while delivering higher video performance.

So while I do agree with the conclusions drawn by the Tom's article, I feel they are flawed with respect to factoring in how most people approach price/performance upgrading and as such the conclusions drawn by the article are likely irrelevant to the vast majority of people who are going to read the article.

 

[SPBHM]

since we are talking about gaming, they should compare the 8350 with the 3570k, and I doubt the result would change much, it would only make things worse for the 8350.

but yes, when you consider the overall system cost for one high end gaming PC, the extra $100 for a clearly better CPU makes sense...

 

[guskline]

since we are talking about gaming, they should compare the 8350 with the 3570k, and I doubt the result would change much, it would only make things worse for the 8350.

but yes, when you consider the overall system cost for one high end gaming PC, the extra $100 for a clearly better CPU makes sense...

I think the 3570k would win because my 2500k beats the 8350 in most gaming benchmarks. I hope Toms runs the same test with the 3570k merely to compare like priced cpus.

 

[moonbogg]

Hasen't this kind of been the case since core 2 came out? The article has great value because it highlights the fact that if you are getting two high end cards with an AMD cpu, then you are wasting your money in a big way. A lot of people don't know that, they buy an AMD cpu and then wonder whats wrong with their drivers when their two 7950's don't perform like they should.

 

[Idontcare]

Hasen't this kind of been the case since core 2 came out? The article has great value because it highlights the fact that if you are getting two high end cards with an AMD cpu, then you are wasting your money in a big way. A lot of people don't know that, they buy an AMD cpu and then wonder whats wrong with their drivers when their two 7950's don't perform like they should.

I'm not the kind of guy to shy away from spending more to get more, but one thing that stands out to me in those gaming benches is that while you do get more performance by spending more money you don't necessarily get the kind of performance that you are going to notice.

Are you going to notice that your FX8350 rig is pumping out 80fps verus the 100fps you'd get if you had spent another $150 and got the 3770k rig?

In encoding or other HPC work you could at least say "yes, I can get more work done per hour". But having incrementally higher frames per second in a game does not mean you are benefiting from those extra frames. You aren't if you are running Vsync or using an LCD with a fixed Hz.

Skyrim is the extreme example where it can be shown at a specific resolution the CPU makes the difference between being able to run with Vsync versus not being able to run with Vsync, but it is an outlier and not the norm.

I suspect, but have no way of knowing if this is probable, that if these two rigs were put under the microscope that the TechReport does in doing deeper analyses of the min frame rate and "micro stutter" then we'd see far better examples of how the 3770K enables a more enjoyable gaming experience for the gamer (and that would be where the ROI for the extra $150 comes in). Just my expectation.

 

[pauldun170]

Our benchmark results have long shown that ATI's graphics architectures are more dependent on a strong processor than Nvidia's. As a result, we usually arm our test beds with high-end [COLOR=blue !important][FONT=inherit !important][COLOR=blue !important][FONT=inherit !important]Intel [/FONT][COLOR=blue !important][FONT=inherit !important]CPUs[/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR][/COLOR] when it comes time to benchmark high-end GPUs, sidestepping platform issues that might adversely affect results designed to isolate graphics performance.

Thought that was interesting.

 

[tweakboy]

Couple FPS different from each other. Were not CPU bound guys... Benchmarks are the way we differentiate from cards. We cant actually play the game and give feedback on our thoughts,, using FRAPS ,,,,,,, saying the lowest fps then the highest you saw in what map and what settings 8xAA CSAA 16x AF definite.

Also those high frames mean nothing, cuz to get that you need to turn vsync OFF so image tearing is nasty.... my vsync is ON , and has been for last 15 years......

 

[Fx1]

Truth is that with AMD you can build a PC as so.

6 Core AMD £90
Motherboard £40
Ram £30
PSU £35
Case £30
GPU £150 (7870 2GB)

£375 for a PC that can quite honestly play games at VERY good settings.

Thats console Prices!

Just to compare an intel 3930k i7 costs £455!!!!

 

[AtenRa]

I believe CF is not working as it should in F1 2012 with the FX8350 setup in Toms review. In the same benchmark (same settings) with the FX8350 @4GHz and HD7950 @ 1GHz (1500MHz memory) I get 80fps average and 63fps minimum.
Rest of the system is ASUS M5A97 R2.0, 2x 4GB 2133MHz Kingston ram, 1TB Seagate HDD SATA3. Win 8 64bit and Cat 12:10.

 

[Puppies04]

Truth is that with AMD you can build a PC as so.

6 Core AMD £90
Motherboard £40
Ram £30
PSU £35
Case £30
GPU £150 (7870 2GB)

£375 for a PC that can quite honestly play games at VERY good settings.

Thats console Prices!

Just to compare an intel 3930k i7 costs £455!!!!

Replace that 6 core AMD with an I3 and you have exactly the same kind of value. Sure you can OC the AMD rig but if you are planning on doing that I would strongly suggest you spend more than £40 on a mobo and £35 on a PSU of course once you add £20 to each of those items then you are within about £30 of being able to afford an unlocked I5 which will quite frankly blow the I3 or 6 core FX out of the water even at stock.

As for comparing to a 3930K, I will point out for what must be the 50th time that apart from very limited scenarios 2011 just doesn't give any benefit over mainstream sockets in gaming. Especially when we are talking about machines with £150 GPUs. One could just as easily change what you said to..."Just compare to a Opteron 6272 costs £442!!!!" as it would make about as much sense in this scenario as bringing 2011 into the equation did.

 

[Makaveli]

Truth is that with AMD you can build a PC as so.

6 Core AMD £90
Motherboard £40
Ram £30
PSU £35
Case £30
GPU £150 (7870 2GB)

£375 for a PC that can quite honestly play games at VERY good settings.

Thats console Prices!

Just to compare an intel 3930k i7 costs £455!!!!

Ya but those prices are for no name garbage.

I wouldn't trust a $35 PSU or use a $30 case and $40 dollar motherboard GTFO lmao

Console price and also console performance!

That being said I agree IDC about frame rates and if you will even notice and while in game with 80 vs 100 fps.

 

[zootedd]

Hopefully their Steamroller line can have the same 10-15% ipc bump. That would be nice to see them start to come back in the cpu competition.

 

[Fx1]

Ya but those prices are for no name garbage.

I wouldn't trust a $35 PSU or use a $30 case and $40 dollar motherboard GTFO lmao

Console price and also console performance!

That being said I agree IDC about frame rates and if you will even notice and while in game with 80 vs 100 fps.

That are all branded.

MSI Mobo
Corsair PSU

Also £ isnt a $ its 1.6x

Also how is a 6 core 3.5ghz CPU and a 7870 2gb console performance?

 

[AtenRa]

Replace that 6 core AMD with an I3 and you have exactly the same kind of value. Sure you can OC the AMD rig but if you are planning on doing that I would strongly suggest you spend more than £40 on a mobo and £35 on a PSU of course once you add £20 to each of those items then you are within about £30 of being able to afford an unlocked I5 which will quite frankly blow the I3 or 6 core FX out of the water even at stock.
.

As of today, 1 GB Pound = 1.58 USD

£35 = ~55.00 USD with that you can get a 80+ 450W PSU like the COUGAR RS450.

£40 = ~63.00 USD with that you can get a 970 chipset AM3+ motherboard like the ASRock 970 PRO3 AM3+

No need to add anything

 

[Fx1]

Replace that 6 core AMD with an I3 and you have exactly the same kind of value. Sure you can OC the AMD rig but if you are planning on doing that I would strongly suggest you spend more than £40 on a mobo and £35 on a PSU of course once you add £20 to each of those items then you are within about £30 of being able to afford an unlocked I5 which will quite frankly blow the I3 or 6 core FX out of the water even at stock.

As for comparing to a 3930K, I will point out for what must be the 50th time that apart from very limited scenarios 2011 just doesn't give any benefit over mainstream sockets in gaming. Especially when we are talking about machines with £150 GPUs. One could just as easily change what you said to..."Just compare to a Opteron 6272 costs £442!!!!" as it would make about as much sense in this scenario as bringing 2011 into the equation did.

An i3 is a dual core part! vs a 6 core part? Seriously dont compete do they.

Also you dont NEED to spend more on those parts. they look perfectly capable of running as intended.

Also i put the 2011 CPU in the mix to show how intel are just raping its customers for max profit

 

[Makaveli]

That are all branded.

MSI Mobo
Corsair PSU

Also £ isnt a $ its 1.6x

Also how is a 6 core 3.5ghz CPU and a 7870 2gb console performance?

ahh I missed that.

Fair enough the prices are higher than I originally thought.

Also i put the 2011 CPU in the mix to show how intel are just raping its customers for max profit

And you don't think AMD would do the same if they were number one. They already did in the past. And why would you expect any less Intel has shareholders and they demand profit. They companies aren't charities and have thousand of employee's to pay etc.

AMD woulld stab u in the back in a second to be in their shoes instead of in the red.

 

[Jovec]

Hopefully their Steamroller line can have the same 10-15% ipc bump. That would be nice to see them start to come back in the cpu competition.

I hope so too, but remember that Intel is leaving performance on the board and AMD isn't. Intel is using conservative clocks and voltages while AMD isn't. Intel could easily add 500MHz to their lineup across the board in a week while AMD is doing everything they can to keep their top SKU at 4Ghz. AMD could hit Steamroller out of the park with pure performance and history shows us that Intel will dominate sales.

Another problem is that SMT/HT and CMT will converge to the point where CPUs either have both or where they share so many elements as to make no difference between them, and then Intel will still have the IPC advantage.

Furthermore, die size and older nodes (i.e cost) will soon eliminate AMD's IGP advantage. I'm not sure they currently have one anyway, since Trinity isn't really playable of anything modern at 1080p/medium to begin with.

 

[frozentundra123456]

An i3 is a dual core part! vs a 6 core part? Seriously dont compete do they.

Also you dont NEED to spend more on those parts. they look perfectly capable of running as intended.

Also i put the 2011 CPU in the mix to show how intel are just raping its customers for max profit

Wondered how AMD fans would try to spin this article. Guess diverting attention from the results is the preferred tactic.

Actually Toms was quite charitable in comparing the 8350 to the 3770k because the price/performance would have favored intel much more in comparing a 3570k to the 8350 because in gaming the 3570 is very close to the 3770 at a much lower price. If they had compared to a 3570k and considered the power savings over a lifetime of heavy use, the price/performance would have been much more favorable to intel.

 

[Fx1]

Wondered how AMD fans would try to spin this article. Guess diverting attention from the results is the preferred tactic.

Actually Toms was quite charitable in comparing the 8350 to the 3770k because the price/performance would have favored intel much more in comparing a 3570k to the 8350 because in gaming the 3570 is very close to the 3770 at a much lower price. If they had compared to a 3570k and considered the power savings over a lifetime of heavy use, the price/performance would have been much more favorable to intel.

Im not an AMD fan. i dont own an AMD CPU.

Quite honestly its a stupid comparison.

Amd wins when the CPU saving is a big chunk of the overall system cost. Just like the system i mentioned above saving £60+ on a £375 system is a big percentage saving. That £60 could fund a 7950 upgrade from the 7870 which makes way bigger difference in games than any other component

Quite frankly its a stupid idea to try and save £60 on a £1500 system at the expense of performance.