AMD VS INTEL IN COST PER FRAME RATE (LOTS OF DATA)

[Prysin]

yeah, but good luck playing some of the MMORPG's or RTS games on the 860K...or ARMA 3 or other single-threaded CPU heavy stuff...you're in for a 30FPS struggle.

At any rate it's always better to save a little more and buy a core i3 for example which can play ANY game at a very acceptable rate, old or new, modern game engine or not, MMO or not.

Or worst case, if you plan to STRICTLY play post 2012 games. FX 6300.... only because it is smoother in newers games then the i3. and can be had for cheaper with a mobo able to handle a medium OC (around 4-4.3GHz OC... wont be able to hit over that with those mobos)

 

Although, this strictly relates to newer games (released in the last 12 months or so)

[rentaspoon]

yeah, but good luck playing some of the MMORPG's or RTS games on the 860K...or ARMA 3 or other single-threaded CPU heavy stuff...you're in for a 30FPS struggle.

At any rate it's always better to save a little more and buy a core i3 for example which can play ANY game at a very acceptable rate, old or new, modern game engine or not, MMO or not.

I never had any issue with my Athlon and that's been donated to my dad due to his (dated) pentium not being able to stand up to the task but that is.

My 8350 once again ran fine. As for Arma 3 that game has enough to answer for, personally I don't think unoptimised games are the best to argue about benchmarks and never thought that's fair to blame the CPU. I've seen at certain points a 4690 struggle.

But as I said you could argue about the Pentium. 860k could be better could be worse

[Nena Trinity]

860K = FX-4300

FX-4300 > Pentium

FX-6300 = i3

FX-9590 < i5

Also, about this topic...it's just plain wrong on so many levels...you don't buy into a platform for gaming thinking FPS per dollar and forget about everything that must surround it (ex. motherboards/overclocking ready hardware/aftermarket CPU cooling etc. as mentionned already, cost of the CPU alone won't mean much quite often) and more often than not when it comes to gaming the CPU will have the most impact on SMOOTNESS OF ANIMATION and STUTTER FREE animation and not necesseraly on FPS...average FPS on top of that...those only highlight a very small fraction of what's going on...what about minimum FPS? average frametime variance? 99th percentile latency etc.

No no...

860K is a better version of 4300...

FX-6300 can be OCed and is better(just barely at stock speed)

FX-9590 = i5 (but the i5 is more compatible with games than the FX-9590 and the 9590 is a idiotic choice due to motherboard requirements!)

[i_build_nanosuits]

I dunno the 860K can play War Thunder just fine and I seen people play Planetside 2 on it... (Arma 3 will be hell lol)

with an haswell core i3 processor all those games run perefectly fine, at least equally well as the 860K/FX4300 and up to much better on near max settings with a mid-range GPU. i3 will end up costing the same as your 860K+A88X motherboard+ Aftermarket CPU cooling.

The i3 also consume noticeable less energy than the 860K OC, support more modern features on a more modern platform and can be upgraded to an i7-4790 or Xeon E3-12X1V3 without even having to swap the motherboard.

 

 

Or worst case, if you plan to STRICTLY play post 2012 games. FX 6300.... only because it is smoother in newers games then the i3. and can be had for cheaper with a mobo able to handle a medium OC (around 4-4.3GHz OC... wont be able to hit over that with those mobos)

 

Although, this strictly relates to newer games (released in the last 12 months or so)

Yeah i observed that as well some demanding games such as crysis 3, watchdogs or even battlefield games as well tend to run better on multi-core AMD FX CPU than on hyper-threaded dual-core. But again the FX +OC board + CPU cooling will cost a lot more than a basic i3 setup.. at that price you can have i5-4460+B85

 

personally I don't think unoptimised games are the best to argue about benchmarks and never thought that's fair to blame the CPU. I've seen at certain points a 4690 struggle.

But as I said you could argue about the Pentium. 860k could be better could be worse

Absolutely agree, the GPU is so much better at crunshing the number there is no reason for gaming performance to still rely so much on CPU processing power...especialy when it's mostly strong single-threaded performance dependant.

-860K is a better version of 4300...

-FX-6300 can be OCed and is better(just barely at stock speed)

-FX-9590 = i5 (but the i5 is more compatible with games than the FX-9590 and the 9590 is a idiotic choice due to motherboard requirements!)

-860K does not have level 3 cache onboard at all and this greatly impact it's performance in games, it is performing very similar to the FX-4300 in just anything that require more than 2 threads processing.

-FX-6300 is better in some games but will trail the core i3 in just about any game that require strong single-threaded performance (AKA so many games...most of them in fact.)

-no!! hell no...just no...an overclocked AMD FX is nowhere near the gaming performance and consistency of even an i5-4460...i've tested this over and over again many videos on my youtube page i owned overclocked FX and tested 4 core no HT at MANY speeds in MANY games and i can tell you the i5 is MUCH better.

[Nena Trinity]

with an haswell core i3 processor all those games run perefectly fine, at least equally well as the 860K/FX4300 and up to much better on near max settings with a mid-range GPU. i3 will end up costing the same as your 860K+A88X motherboard+ Aftermarket CPU cooling.

The i3 also consume noticeable less energy than the 860K OC, support more modern features on a more modern platform and can be upgraded to an i7-4790 or Xeon E3-12X1V3 without even having to swap the motherboard.

Actually the i3 is insanely expensive I do not think its worth the price and its better to spare for a i5 if you want to use that much...

[i_build_nanosuits]

Actually the i3 is insanely expensive I do not think its worth the price and its better to spare for a i5 if you want to use that much...

what are you talking about? if this is ''insanely expensive'' to you then you better buy a used PS3 or something?..

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Core i3-4160 3.6GHz Dual-Core Processor ($102.99 @ SuperBiiz)

Motherboard: MSI H81M-P33 Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($41.40 @ SuperBiiz)

Total: $144.39

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-09-03 13:06 EDT-0400

again, this play ANY GAME very well provided you have the appropriate GPU. You will NOT see this CPU being the cause of sub 30FPS in games very often that's for sure.

[santyl]

Someone give this guy a mighty fucking golf clap. For your dollar and the life of your hardware, the i5 is obviously the best cpu for the dollar. Almost reasons the cost of the 980 for jd and beyond gaming too, considering the 150 you save in green.

[Nena Trinity]

what are you talking about? if this is ''insanely expensive'' to you then you better buy a used PS3 or something?..

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Core i3-4160 3.6GHz Dual-Core Processor ($102.99 @ SuperBiiz)

Motherboard: MSI H81M-P33 Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($41.40 @ SuperBiiz)

Total: $144.39

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-09-03 13:06 EDT-0400

again, this play ANY GAME very well provided you have the appropriate GPU. You will NOT see this CPU being the cause of sub 30FPS in games very often that's for sure.

But the i5-4460 is same price as the best i3s...

[79wjd]

But the i5-4460 is same price as the best i3s...

The top end i3's make just as much sense to buy as a 9590, they offer very little performance over a base level i3 for a much higher cost. 

[i_build_nanosuits]

But the i5-4460 is same price as the best i3s...

DID I LINKED AT 160$ DUAL CORE CHIP?! humm...NO!...

 

 

The top end i3's make just as much sense to buy as a 9590, they offer very little performance over a base level i3 for a much higher cost.

exactly!

[Nena Trinity]

DID I LINKED AT 160$ DUAL CORE CHIP?! humm...NO!...

The FX-6300 which is a 95W CPU is better than it still...

 

And 860K is cheaper the only reason to go 1150 is if you will upgrade later but why not grab Pentium first then upgrade to i5 faster with the money saved?

[Prysin]

with an haswell core i3 processor all those games run perefectly fine, at least equally well as the 860K/FX4300 and up to much better on near max settings with a mid-range GPU. i3 will end up costing the same as your 860K+A88X motherboard+ Aftermarket CPU cooling.

The i3 also consume noticeable less energy than the 860K OC, support more modern features on a more modern platform and can be upgraded to an i7-4790 or Xeon E3-12X1V3 without even having to swap the motherboard.

 

 

Yeah i observed that as well some demanding games such as crysis 3, watchdogs or even battlefield games as well tend to run better on multi-core AMD FX CPU than on hyper-threaded dual-core. But again the FX +OC board + CPU cooling will cost a lot more than a basic i3 setup.. at that price you can have i5-4460+B85

 

Absolutely agree, the GPU is so much better at crunshing the number there is no reason for gaming performance to still rely so much on CPU processing power...especialy when it's mostly strong single-threaded performance dependant.

-860K does not have level 3 cache onboard at all and this greatly impact it's performance in games, it is performing very similar to the FX-4300 in just anything that require more than 2 threads processing.

-FX-6300 is better in some games but will trail the core i3 in just about any game that require strong single-threaded performance (AKA so many games...most of them in fact.)

-no!! hell no...just no...an overclocked AMD FX is nowhere near the gaming performance and consistency of even an i5-4460...i've tested this over and over again many videos on my youtube page i owned overclocked FX and tested 4 core no HT at MANY speeds in MANY games and i can tell you the i5 is MUCH better.

 

 

Not neccesarily... ive seen a few tests with this board, it will handle 4.2 to 4.3 GHz

The TX3 is better then the stock cooler by decent enough margin. The stock cooler can handle around 4GHz (gonna be loud as fuck)

 

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: AMD FX-6300 3.5GHz 6-Core Processor  ($90.00 @ SuperBiiz)

CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper TX3 54.8 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler  ($18.00 @ SuperBiiz)

Motherboard: ASRock 970M PRO3 Micro ATX AM3+/AM3 Motherboard  ($57.60 @ SuperBiiz)

Total: $165.60

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-09-03 13:50 EDT-0400

 

 

in comparison..

 

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Core i5-4460 3.2GHz Quad-Core Processor  ($166.95 @ SuperBiiz)

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-H81M-S1 Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard  ($40.50 @ SuperBiiz)

Total: $207.45

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-09-03 13:52 EDT-0400

 

you still got to shell out 42 USD more for the i5... but the FPS you gain in MODERN games arent that big... in older games, or MMOs, yes, for sure those 42 USD is worth it. But say Witcher 3, BF3, BF4, Crysis... you wouldnt get that much of a boost in modern titles to warrant that much increase in cost... 42 USD goes a long way towards a better GPU in the "1080p gaming sweetspot" section. You could easily get a faster R9 380, or maybe even a cheap R9 290 with that added cash. A faster GPU almost always results in better FPS, much more so then CPU...

 

 

As for i3.... its worth it, but i am kinda leaning towards FX 6300... yes AM3+ is kind of "wasted" due to no upgrade path, but the 6300 will be good for another 12 months before it will struggle on a CPU level... it would probably fare better in DX12 with AMD cards, as their overhead would diminish, and some CPU intensive tasks such as AI control would be done with Async Compute.

[Sintezza]

No no...

860K is a better version of 4300...

 

Yeah how silly this might sound, but its indeed true.

THe 860k steamroller has better ipc then the FX4300 vishera / piledriver

[Nena Trinity]

Yeah how silly this might sound, but its indeed true.

THe 860k steamroller has better ipc then the FX4300 vishera / piledriver

Exactly! Steamroller = Piledriver II or Bulldozer III!

[Prysin]

Exactly! Steamroller = Piledriver II or Bulldozer III!

no. Steamroller is steamroller. It is not built like Piledriver or Bulldozer. Its internal structure is changed, quite a bit. while still being CMT.

 

Do not say incorrect things, or worse. make completely incorrect comparisons.

[Prysin]

Yeah how silly this might sound, but its indeed true.

THe 860k steamroller has better ipc then the FX4300 vishera / piledriver

steamroller clocks lower then piledriver. It also overclocks worse, or rather, gets less in return for OCing....

 

FX4300 stock vs stock is slightly behind. But the 4300 will OC much better then the 860k. And it will get more in return for Ocing.

[Sintezza]

steamroller clocks lower then piledriver. It also overclocks worse, or rather, gets less in return for OCing....

 

But the 4300 will OC much better then the 860k. And it will get more in return for Ocing.

 

I think thats a bold statement, because that highly depends on the chip.

[Prysin]

I think thats a bold statement, because that highly depends on the chip.

There was a YT video confirming this...

 

There is also another thing. Steamroller almost NEVER gets past 4.7GHz, some lucky ones get 4.8GHz.... FX isnt unknown (its rare, but not uber 1 in a million rare) to hit 5GHz or maybe even 5.1GHz....

[Sintezza]

There was a YT video confirming this...

 

There is also another thing. Steamroller almost NEVER gets past 4.7GHz, some lucky ones get 4.8GHz.... FX isnt unknown (its rare, but not uber 1 in a million rare) to hit 5GHz or maybe even 5.1GHz....

 

Ehm sorry but i dont know what you are trying to say here?

its still a matter of silicon luck.

[Prysin]

Ehm sorry but i dont know what you are trying to say here?

its still a matter of silicon luck.

yes. Silicon luck is one thing. But the architecture. To achieve that increased IPC, AMD had to sacrifice something, and that was overclocking headroom. The steamroller architecture simply do not OC that well and simply do not get GOOD RETURNS from OCing...

 

There was tests with old Piledriver FM2+ APUs vs NEW FM2+ APUs

[Nena Trinity]

no. Steamroller is steamroller. It is not built like Piledriver or Bulldozer. Its internal structure is changed, quite a bit. while still being CMT.

 

Do not say incorrect things, or worse. make completely incorrect comparisons.

I just dumpified it so EVERYONE could understand...

[i_build_nanosuits]

Yeah how silly this might sound, but its indeed true.

THe 860k steamroller has better ipc then the FX4300 vishera / piledriver

Exactly! Steamroller = Piledriver II or Bulldozer III!

They perform the same:

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-FX-4300-vs-AMD-Athlon-II-X4-860K/2879vs3265

both are rated as being ''Very Poor''

end of discussion.

and @Nena360, for you here is i3-4160 vs FX-6300:

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-FX-6300-vs-Intel-Core-i3-4160/1555vs2816

[Nena Trinity]

They perform the same:

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-FX-4300-vs-AMD-Athlon-II-X4-860K/2879vs3265

both are rated as being ''Very Poor''

end of discussion.

and @Nena360, for you here is i3-4160 vs FX-6300:

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-FX-6300-vs-Intel-Core-i3-4160/1555vs2816

860K

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare.php?cmp[]=2362&cmp[]=1814

FX-6300

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare.php?cmp[]=1781&cmp[]=2317

[FLUFFYJELLO]

-snip-

@i_build_nanosuits linked the 4160, not the 4130. The clock increase makes quite a difference in minimum frames with the i3 chips. You posted two videos about the wrong chip.

[rjfaber91]

AMD started becoming a serious competitor for Intel with K7, they had an absolute golden age with K8 where they beat Intel into the dust in every conceivable way, they were very competitive with K10, and Kaveri is still very competitive at the low end.

 

This then, is the key: Always name your microarchitectures in such a way that those names start with K, and for crying out loud, avoid earth moving equipment.