When is AMD ever a good value?

[Ratman6161]

The original questions was (to paraphrase) "In what scenarios is an AMD CPU a better value"? Most of the discussion seems to be about either gaming or home theater use and seems to be looking at the lower end of the lines. So I'll throw out an alternative where I'm using AMD that seems to work very well. BTW, I use an i7-2600K @ 4.4 Ghz as my main system.

My "other" system:

AMD FX 8320 @ 4.0 GHZ (will do a lot more but when you see my usage this will make sense.
Asrock 990FX Extreme 3 motherboard
32 GB DDR3 1600
LSI 9260-4i PCIe Raid Controller (this is the reason for the 990Fx extreme 3 with lots of PCIe lanes available)
4 Seagate 500 GB SATA3 drives in RAID 5 on the LSI controller
1 160 GB notebook drive as the "OS" drive
1 2TB WD Green drive
Cheap PCIe fanless graphics card
Intel Gigabit NIC

What is this rig good for? Well, with a free version of VMWare ESXi, it makes an absolutely wonderful home lab machine. I can simulate an entire Windows network on there with domain controllers, DB Server, web server, file server and a couple of workstations all running at the same time. Handles it all beautifully.

Of course for this usage, all those servers and workstation virtual machines are not doing much individually or at least not a lot going on at the same time and single thread performance is not that relevant. But giving VMWare a large number of Physical cores and a large amount of RAM makes this all run very smoothly and gets the job done.

Of course I could just as easily have done this with an i7 CPU with 4 physical and 8 virtual cores which would have gotten the job done nicely too. It just so happens that I live near a Microcenter and they had an FX8320 + mother board bundle deal that was too good to pass up. Still have them though with a different MB for $238 for the bundle if you want 990FX or $190 if you can live with 970. Thats for both mb and CPU. Hard to beat when what you want is lots of cores but individual core performance is not that important. All other components would have been the same weather I built on Intel or AMD.

So that, in a nutshell is a scenario where an AMD CPU makes sense.

 

[NTMBK]

APU wasn't getting a consistent 16ms at 720p, but was shooting up to 40ms.
Game. Set. Match.

So a 7950 gives better performance than an APU? Tell me more, wise one!

For goodness' sake, I was talking about pairing an AMD quad core CPU with a dGPU being far better than a Pentium + dGPU. Not trying to argue that an A10 alone gives better performance than a sodding 7950.

 

[AtenRa]

We don't want 40ms so we avoid dual cores.
We don't want 20fps so we avoid IGP's. Common sense for gamers.
However, you seem fine promoting the stuttery mess an IGP provides.

I currently play BF3 MP 64player maps on 720p Low with 60fps with A10-6800K OCed.

 

[AtenRa]

APU wasn't getting a consistent 16ms at 720p, but was shooting up to 40ms.
Game. Set. Match.

G2120 with HigheEnd dGPU is a stuttering mess compared to A10-5800K at 720p Low with iGPU. Dual Cores are not suited for BF3 get over it.

 

[Idontcare]

I found my FX-8350 is "the better value" when using the computational chemistry software program Gaussian for in silico ab initio calculations.

See this post for benchmarking specifics.

(images aren't viewable for a few more days due to bandwidth issues with photobucket, sorry )

 

[tential]

I currently play BF3 MP 64player maps on 720p Low with 60fps with A10-6800K OCed.

This is what surprises me when people say the steam box will fail. This build probably cost (or could cost) similar to a $400 console yet, you get the added functionality of a PC, as well as being able to play with MORE players. Also, the games are cheaper.

It emulates the console experience well, hell probably exceeds it. I don't think that an APU will match PS4/XboxOne at launch, but then again, only people who are early adopters/have money usually buy consoles at launch. The vast majority pick it up a year or two later.

I wouldn't be surprised if AMD had an APU out that could compete with the PS4/XboxOne that was retail ready within that time frame. Well, I hope so. That would throw a steam box type PC into the mix and I'd love to see valve hop into the "console" game with upgradable pcs.

 

[trevor0323]

I have not read the whole thread but the last 5 systems I have built for friends have all been AMD based. Granted I live in Milwaukee and am a 2 hour drive from microcenter I could not find a better deal or justification for building a intel based system.

All of 5 of these systems were for friends just looking for a decent gaming system that could all bring us back to play Diablo3.

2 of the systems were Phenom 965 Blacks that I believe I got a free gigabyte mobo with for $99. The other two the amazing deal is still going on which is the FX6300 with Gigabyte mobo for $119. When that second deal first came out it was $109 with mobo and $10 rebate. That was quite a system for $100 and Intel had nothing in that price range that could compete for gaming.

 

[monstercameron]

I have not read the whole thread but the last 5 systems I have built for friends have all been AMD based. Granted I live in Milwaukee and am a 2 hour drive from microcenter I could not find a better deal or justification for building a intel based system.

All of 5 of these systems were for friends just looking for a decent gaming system that could all bring us back to play Diablo3.

2 of the systems were Phenom 965 Blacks that I believe I got a free gigabyte mobo with for $99. The other two the amazing deal is still going on which is the FX6300 with Gigabyte mobo for $119. When that second deal first came out it was $109 with mobo and $10 rebate. That was quite a system for $100 and Intel had nothing in that price range that could compete for gaming.

no but if you spend another $100-200 you could buy an i5 3570 or 4670 and gotten ~10 extra fps depending on the game...

 

[Silverforce11]

Actually, I was interested to see if an A10 would work in something like an Antec ISK 100. That's why I am leery of the 65W TDP, since there are documented instances of AMD CPUs running well over published specs.

Honestly I've never been attracted to those cube style cases.

The SUGO06 is stunning, the front is like a home theatre system, newer models have USB3 ports at the front, as well as one of the best mITX SFX PSU available, 450W with most of than on the 12V rail. If you want something flatter resembling a sound system: Silverstone ML05, with actual space for a SFX PSU, which they have a modular variant now.

The case design has positive pressure, so all the heat is pushed out the case. I used to have a SUGO05 with my 2500K setup in my sig, with a full blown 7950 OC.. no problems with the 450W PSU.

The A10s I've built recently are all 100W variants, with extra OC headroom for down the road. Cheap rig for HTPC and decent low/medium details gaming (even outputting to 1080p TVs), AMD's APU simply has no worthwhile competition due to its overall value.

 

[AtenRa]

BF3 720p A10-6800K OC youtube

 

[DominionSeraph]

Did you miss the bit where I was advocating an Athlon 750K for this entire thread?

You came into an argument about APU vs CPU+discrete stepping on CPU+discrete in favor of Trinity quad performance.

My G2020+7770 example was already $37 more than the A10, but it came with free Farcry3 so my point is still well made. The 750K is $20 more than the G2020. Do you see where we're now losing the "equivalent price" angle? Do you see that if we changed out the CPU for an $1000 i7-3970X that we completely obliterate the point?

We were not doing an infinity of builds across the budget continuum here.

Don't quote me and disagree with me if you aren't even in the same damned argument.

 

[DominionSeraph]

G2120 with HigheEnd dGPU is a stuttering mess compared to A10-5800K at 720p Low with iGPU. Dual Cores are not suited for BF3 get over it.

And where is your graph showing the Pentium likewise on Low? Please support that none of BF3's graphics settings have any effect on CPU load.

 

[spdfreak]

I build DVR and NVR's exclusively with AMD FM2 components. They have to be powerful enough but anything more than that is a waste. Lots of applications like this where AMD is a better choice.

 

[tential]

no but if you spend another $100-200 you could buy an i5 3570 or 4670 and gotten ~10 extra fps depending on the game...

10 extra FPS isn't worth 100 dollars for a lot of people.

 

[monstercameron]

10 extra FPS isn't worth 100 dollars for a lot of people.

my point exactly...

 

[lilrayray69]

I got a FX-6300 because it was cheaper and had an unlocked multiplier so I could easily overclock if I so wanted. I prefer an unlocked multiplier so to get one from Intel I'd have gone with a 3570k or now a 4670k but that would about double my cost on CPU alone right there. This 6300 has kept up with my other hardware just fine and had no trouble with any game I've played so far.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

10 extra FPS isn't worth 100 dollars for a lot of people.

If it was only 10 FPS it wouldn't be the most popular and most recommended by reviewers for gaming chip on the market.

But I think we all knew that :thumbsup:

 

[bononos]

Its not just the 10fps but micro stuttering which happens less with Intel cpus. TR did an article about cpu affecting framerate latencies and bulldozer did badly. Piledriver seemed to improve it but its its still a drawback.
http://techreport.com/review/23750/amd-fx-8350-processor-reviewed/5

 

[Erenhardt]

Its not just the 10fps but micro stuttering which happens less with Intel cpus. TR did an article about cpu affecting framerate latencies and bulldozer did badly. Piledriver seemed to improve it but its its still a drawback.
http://techreport.com/review/23750/amd-fx-8350-processor-reviewed/5

Looking @ graphs intel chips stutter more. Sure AMD have higher frame latency but that is not stuttering! What you want is even steady frame time line. Not the spiky mess from intel chips.

 

[Vesku]

Its not just the 10fps but micro stuttering which happens less with Intel cpus. TR did an article about cpu affecting framerate latencies and bulldozer did badly. Piledriver seemed to improve it but its its still a drawback.
http://techreport.com/review/23750/amd-fx-8350-processor-reviewed/5

Skyrim is running on a zombie of a game engine. Battlefield 3 results are nothing like Skyrim's.

http://techreport.com/review/23750/amd-fx-8350-processor-reviewed/7

 

[2is]

Looking @ graphs intel chips stutter more. Sure AMD have higher frame latency but that is not stuttering! What you want is even steady frame time line. Not the spiky mess from intel chips.

I count 2 where AMD was better and 3 for Intel. All were pretty close comparing AMDs 8 core to Intels 4 without HT all the while Intel had far better latencies. The silver lining you're looking doesn't exist here.

 

[Erenhardt]

I count 2 where AMD was better and 3 for Intel. All were pretty close comparing AMDs 8 core to Intels 4 without HT all the while Intel had far better latencies. The silver lining you're looking doesn't exist here.

Well... I counted 3 for AMD, 0 for intel and 2 draws.
Comparing AMDs 8 core to intels 4? It is like comparing civic to corvette on public road... both will go with 55mph(?speedlimit in US?). Or do you have any data indicating all 8 cores were utilized?

 

[2is]

Well... I counted 3 for AMD, 0 for intel and 2 draws.
Comparing AMDs 8 core to intels 4? It is like comparing civic to corvette on public road... both will go with 55mph(?speedlimit in US?). Or do you have any data indicating all 8 cores were utilized?

Interesting how we are looking at the same graph and seeing two different things. In any case, not really that important. They were both pretty competitive in those graphs anyway. Your car analogy fails you here, I'm not seeing it. Those graphs are more like a boxing match that goes to decision and win/lose or draw, you can't complain because it was pretty close. Were they weren't competitive is the latencies where Intel was clearly superior. Advantage: Intel

Then of course, there's the actual performance of the game where AMD gets destroyed.

Again, i'm not sure where you're seeing the silver lining. A core advantage and it can only manage a tie in frame times while falling well behind in latencies and actual in game FPS. I personally would not at all be impressed if my processor only managed a draw in one metric and fell well behind in others. And it isn't like an 8xxx series is any cheaper than an Ivy Bridge i5 either. For gaming, there is literally no reason to go AMD if you're looking at something in the price range of an 8xxx series unless of course, you enjoy donating a little extra cash each month to your power utility.

 

[CHADBOGA]

I got a FX-6300 because it was cheaper and had an unlocked multiplier so I could easily overclock if I so wanted. I prefer an unlocked multiplier so to get one from Intel I'd have gone with a 3570k or now a 4670k but that would about double my cost on CPU alone right there. This 6300 has kept up with my other hardware just fine and had no trouble with any game I've played so far.

Have you benched it on Handbrake as per the thread in this forum?

 

[SPBHM]

Well... I counted 3 for AMD, 0 for intel and 2 draws.
Comparing AMDs 8 core to intels 4? It is like comparing civic to corvette on public road... both will go with 55mph(?speedlimit in US?). Or do you have any data indicating all 8 cores were utilized?

do you think the E-350 and the i3 3240 (both dual core) are comparable CPUs?

each AMD core is significantly slower than each i5/i7 core, how much? it really depends on the software, but it can be a huge difference like 40-50%, and real world software performance is not always going to depend on 8 cores... so you know... and even when that's the case (8t load), the quad core can be competitive when both are overclocked.

and when we go back to up to 4t performance, it's a huge advantage for Intel.


if you like less stutter at a lower rate, you can also use a framerate limit (like what Nvidia offers on their control panel, or afterburner and many others)