AMD FX 8370 vs Intel I7 5960x [GTX 970 SLI 4K benchmarks]

[Curufinwe_wins]

I get why max and averages shouldn't change at all, but this is suggesting something fundamentally better on amd's side than Intel at min fps, which doesn't in why situation I have ever seen occur 5960x... I won't call bs, I'm just really surprised and not particularly convinced unless others get in on this. Also do we have like mobo/ram/test system info?

[Donny Stanley]

As the writer of this article, I must first thank the OP for posting it here.. appreciate the feedback and exposure!

 

 

I saw this on my feed for Facebook. Interesting. Can't say I really bothered to look into it since it was sponsored by AMD, so I figured it was a little...tainted.

 

AMD has not ever sponsored any work I've done, including this. They're not an advertising partner nor did they sanction this report. I did request the hardware from them (as well as a few other companies for other components) just as I would with any review or report. That being said, they were never promised the results would be favorable. They shared the link to it on their facrbook simply because they clearly liked the report. I never even asked them to, they found it on their own. 

[Sintezza]

You get an entirely GPU dependent situation and expect to see the CPU render an additional 400 frames or something? I really hate 4K benchmarks in a CPU dependent scenario, it makes no damned sense.

 

 

4k benchmarks indeed dont make that much sense,

wenn you wanne compair a cpu X vs Y in gaming performance basicly.

 

1080p is basicly the best way to test, but you allready know that intel has the adventage of faster cores.

But it just depends from game to game, how big that adventage turns out to be.

And ofc which gpu you are going to use.

[Biggerisbetter]

I don't know why people call BS on something without any info to back up their claim. If your going to call someone's work BS back it up with something other than your opinion. 

[fatfinguh]

I get why max and averages shouldn't change at all, but this is suggesting something fundamentally better on amd's side than Intel at min fps, which doesn't in why situation I have ever seen occur 5960x... I won't call bs, I'm just really surprised and not particularly convinced unless others get in on this. Also do we have like mobo/ram/test system info?

 

INTEL TEST SETUP

 

MOTHERBOARD: ASRock X99 OC Formula CPU: Intel Core i7 5960X MEMORY: 16GB Crucial Ballistix Elite DDR4-2666

 

AMD TEST SETUP

 

MOTHERBOARD: Gigabyte 990FXA-UD3 CPU: AMD FX-8370 MEMORY: 16GB ADATA XPG DDR3-2133

 

SHARED COMPONETS

 

PC CHASSIS: Thermaltake Core V51 CPU COOLER: DeepCool Captain 360 POWER SUPPLY: DeepCool Quanta DQ1250 GRAPHICS CARD 1: EVGA SSC GTX 960 2GB GRAPHICS CARD 2: 2x ASUS STRIX GTX 970 4GB STORAGE: ADATA 1TB Premiere Pro SSD

[BRG_Alex]

Some people simply dont seem to understand at all lol

Which is realy funny.

It's because of all the Intel fanboys. 

"It reeks of bullshit because it is sponsored" Yet Linus has many sponsored by Intel videos but he has no hint of bias. (I am not accusing him of anything just using your logic)  

Let me clear some things up to everyone here, AMD posted this to their Facebook. They sent us hardware and that is it. We have never received any pay from AMD or advertising and in no way shape or form did that "Taint" our results.

Our test benches is in the article itself if you take the time to read it. To many people this may not make sense that we aren't making it a CPU bound environment, but if you are a gamer you never want to be in a CPU bound environment. Please tell me any gamer who wants 400FPS that isn't a competitive CS:GO player or the like.

 

Anandtech and many other outlets put CPUs in synthetic situations that frankly put AMD in a much worse light for gamers than they deserve. The amount of people who assume you need an i5 to play dota because its Intel and "AMD is so much worse" shows how uneducated the masses are. This test is to educate people that you don't need to throw money at your CPU till your games run better. 

If anyone here has some constructive criticism, Donny and myself will be looking through the posts

 

What we'd like to see is suggestions for games etc. Thanks and we're happy you've taken the time to read it.  

 

BTW Sintzza, aren't you from the Teksyndcate forums as well? 

[Curufinwe_wins]

As the writer of this article, I must first thank the OP for posting it here.. appreciate the feedback and exposure!

AMD has not ever sponsored any work I've done, including this. They're not an advertising partner nor did they sanction this report. I did request the hardware from them (as well as a few other companies for other components) just as I would with any review or report. That being said, they were never promised the results would be favorable. They shared the link to it on their facrbook simply because they clearly liked the report. I never even asked them to, they found it on their own.

Here is my question? What could possibly occur that causes the lower .1% for Intel cpus to be lower at 4k when in literally every benchmark outside of 4k the lower .1% is thoroughly dominated by Intel?

Ave fps isn't surprising.

[Curufinwe_wins]

INTEL TEST SETUP

MOTHERBOARD: ASRock X99 OC Formula CPU: Intel Core i7 5960X MEMORY: 16GB Crucial Ballistix Elite DDR4-2666

AMD TEST SETUP

MOTHERBOARD: Gigabyte 990FXA-UD3 CPU: AMD FX-8370 MEMORY: 16GB ADATA XPG DDR3-2133

SHARED COMPONETS

PC CHASSIS: Thermaltake Core V51 CPU COOLER: DeepCool Captain 360 POWER SUPPLY: DeepCool Quanta DQ1250 GRAPHICS CARD 1: EVGA SSC GTX 960 2GB GRAPHICS CARD 2: 2x ASUS STRIX GTX 970 4GB STORAGE: ADATA 1TB Premiere Pro SSD

Yea I saw that afterwards. Thank you. Got theories on the low fps war swap?

Do you think 2011v3 has anything to do with it? I'm just curious. I know bios times on 2011v3 are a good 20 seconds longer than on 1150/1151 (not that I can think of why that would matter).

[BRG_Alex]

Here is my question? What could possibly occur that causes the lower .1% for Intel cpus to be lower at 4k when in literally every benchmark outside of 4k the lower .1% is thoroughly dominated by Intel?

Ave fps isn't surprising.

I'll ask the writer of the article, might have to do with lowerclock speeds. I want to do some follow up stuff comparing to the i5 4690K or Skylake if I get it. Thanks for keeping an open mind.

[Zi6iX]

It's because of all the Intel fanboys. 

"It reeks of bullshit because it is sponsored" Yet Linus has many sponsored by Intel videos but he has no hint of bias. (I am not accusing him of anything just using your logic)  

Let me clear some things up to everyone here, AMD posted this to their Facebook. They sent us hardware and that is it. We have never received any pay from AMD or advertising and in no way shape or form did that "Taint" our results.

Our test benches is in the article itself if you take the time to read it. To many people this may not make sense that we aren't making it a CPU bound environment, but if you are a gamer you never want to be in a CPU bound environment. Please tell me any gamer who wants 400FPS that isn't a competitive CS:GO player or the like.

 

Anandtech and many other outlets put CPUs in synthetic situations that frankly put AMD in a much worse light for gamers than they deserve. The amount of people who assume you need an i5 to play dota because its Intel and "AMD is so much worse" shows how uneducated the masses are. This test is to educate people that you don't need to throw money at your CPU till your games run better. 

If anyone here has some constructive criticism, Donny and myself will be looking through the posts

 

What we'd like to see is suggestions for games etc. Thanks and we're happy you've taken the time to read it.  

 

BTW Sintzza, aren't you from the Teksyndcate forums as well? 

IKR my nephew has a 8350 and gets the same, sometimes more fps in games than me (2500k).

[Curufinwe_wins]

I'll ask the writer of the article, might have to do with lowerclock speeds. I want to do some follow up stuff comparing to the i5 4690K or Skylake if I get it. Thanks for keeping an open mind.

Hmm... So this may be a bizarre thought... But if the overclocking is locked to turbo boost, is it possible that there isn't high enough stress to properly turbo? Idk honestly just spitballing. I mean the latency difference between the ddr3 and ddr4 shouldn't matter much (although idk that actually might affect mins more than ave..)

Hmm intrigued...

Yea if you could get your hands on any 1150/1151 cpu (that isn't a broadwell cpu because edram plays to kill. Haha) I'd love to see the same results. Afterall a 4 core I7 is really closer to the 8 core 8370 (with its physical node sharing. Actually hmm.... Resource pooling... I bet it spends less time communicating under light loads.... Bah I don't know. Just interested to find out.)

[Sintezza]

 

 

BTW Sintzza, aren't you from the Teksyndcate forums as well? 

 

Yes i am

[Sintezza]

It's because of all the Intel fanboys. 

"It reeks of bullshit because it is sponsored" Yet Linus has many sponsored by Intel videos but he has no hint of bias. (I am not accusing him of anything just using your logic)  

 

lol

[BRG_Alex]

Yes i am

By the way the purpose of the testing was to 

 

1.  Explain to anyone that the 5960X is not a good value for gaming. 
2. Most people test CPUs in a CPU bound environment, which we think is fine and is necessary for CPU reviews. We wanted to showcase real world scenarios because I don't know about you guys but I don't like gaming in a CPU bound environment. For the average PC gamer they have no idea what is going on and makes them think that it constitutes performance TODAY. I don't care which CPU runs better in the upper 200s, I care which will be fast enough to keep my GPU from bottlenecking.

[Curufinwe_wins]

By the way the purpose of the testing was to

• Explain to anyone that the 5960X is not a good value for gaming.
• Most people test CPUs in a CPU bound environment, which we think is fine and is necessary for CPU reviews. We wanted to showcase real world scenarios because I don't know about you guys but I don't like gaming in a CPU bound environment. For the average PC gamer they have no idea what is going on and makes them think that it constitutes performance TODAY. I don't care which CPU runs better in the upper 200s, I care which will be fast enough to keep my GPU from bottlenecking.

Agreed statment for both.

Interesting however that some benchmarks "suggest" that in numerous games amd cpus were topping modern games in the 90-100 fps Mark at 1080p which many Gpu setups can drive well above.

And since monitors even for 1440p can go to 144hz and beyond it is interesting if not all that useful to most people to note the difference (well actually only your "ultra high end" would drive that high, not that I personally agree that sli 970 should be considered "ultra high end" but that isn't relevant.)

Btw it's stuff like this

http://wccftech.com/witcher-3-cpu-benchmarks-fx-63008350-i7-4790ki5-4690ki3-4130g3258-oc/

(while I can't see amd cpus on this anymore boo) that confuse me about the 4k swap. Clearly starting at 1m 10s we start to see "massive" differences between the stronger Intel cpus and the weaker ones. Hell (even though the difference is arguably not relevant) you can see the difference between the 4690k and 4790k in draw times during that spasm run.

So why does the amd cpus seem to deal with the struggling gpus better?

I just am intrigued...

Edit: amd test starts at 2:20.

Also while they used a titan x, 90fps is nothing insanely high and is fairly on par to what the 970 sli should average (although ofc the stuttering with sli is much much higher...)

[Clyne]

Cause 4K goes all to GPU and DX12 is GPU......
I remember @sgloux3470 running 980 SLI 4K on his 8370 and it was fine.

[Curufinwe_wins]

Cause 4K goes all to GPU and DX12 is GPU......

I remember @sgloux3470 running 980 SLI 4K on his 8370 and it was fine.

4k explains the averages. It doesn't alone explain the consistent difference in 1%/.1% fps.

[Guest Strangerbob]

Look at all the brand loyalists freaking out in the comments!

 

MILK ME INTEL! PLEASE MILK ME!!!

[Curufinwe_wins]

Look at all the brand loyalists freaking out in the comments!

MILK ME INTEL! PLEASE MILK ME!!!

Not that I haven't posted on this forum a lot, but hopefully my comments show a distinct professional interest more than brand loyalty.

Lol @matemate91 it's kk.

[Linus_torvalds]

This is bullshit, AMDs fanboys bullshit and dreams. In real world AMDs performance would be like 1/3 of this benchmarks!

[SpaghettiCarbonara]

"NOT CPU INTENSIVE LELELEL"

"NOT CPU INTENSIVE LELELEL"

"NOT CPU INTENSIVE LELELEL"

"NOT CPU INTENSIVE LELELEL"

"NOT CPU INTENSIVE LELELEL"

"NOT CPU INTENSIVE LELELEL"

 

Actually, PCPer found that one of these games (at least), GTA V, had an improvement from Sandy Bridge to Skylake at 1440p (not quite 4k, but still more HD than 1080p). Considering the most dramatic results in this post were in the GTA V benchmarks, I think PCPer's findings settle the "BUTT 4K IZ NAT CPU INTENZIV" argument. Yes, the majority of the work is on the GPU, but there is a fair amount of work for the CPU to do in GTA V at >1080p. I can't speak for the other games, however, because I'm too lazy to look up other benchmarks.

 

http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/Skylake-vs-Sandy-Bridge-Discrete-GPU-Showdown/Grand-Theft-Auto-V

https://youtu.be/F2DTWZoO1Ck?t=30m45s

 

Again, not 4k, but 1440p is still more GPU intensive than 1080p and there was an improvement, even though the difference between Skylake and Sandy Bridge is much less dramatic than the difference between the 5960x and the 8370.

 

 

Let's face it guys, DX12 changes shit. A lot.

 

Edit: Just an afterthought. If there is an observable difference between Skylake and Sandy Bridge at 1440p in DX11, shouldn't we see a gargantuan difference between the 8370 and the 5960x, in favor of Intel at 4k? No, we don't and I think that's because it's on DX12. We have to get our minds out of DX11 and open up for new possibilities with DX12, because a lot has changed and it might just favor AMD's architecture. Who knows?

It would actually benefit Microsoft to favor AMD with DX12 since AMD has their hardware in Microsoft's console. Jus sayin.

 

I'm an idiot.

 

In no land does this make sense, the 5960x has lower minimums despite having more cpu horsepower in every aspect. It has more cache more single thread and more cores.

 

The 8370 has 8 cores, just like the 5960x.

 

I don't know why people call BS on something without any info to back up their claim. If your going to call someone's work BS back it up with something other than your opinion.

 

^^^^^

 

Cite your sources, bitches.

[Sintezza]

This is bullshit, AMDs fanboys bullshit and dreams. In real world AMDs performance would be like 1/3 of this benchmarks!

 

I think you have a lack of common sense.

[Curufinwe_wins]

The 8370 has 8 cores, just like the 5960x.

^^^^^

Cite your sources, bitches.

Not to burst bubbles but the 8370 does not have 8 true cores. They are 2x modules with massively shared resources, and indeed some shared computation. (like think where two Intel smt threads give 110-130% performance of one thread, two amd "cores" give 170% [made up number less than 2 greater than 1.5] the performance of one regular thread.)

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6201/amd-details-its-3rd-gen-steamroller-architecture

Any article will do. It's a quite well documented idealogy. Either you call them 4 super cores or 8 gimped cores.

[BRG_Alex]

Agreed statment for both.

Interesting however that some benchmarks "suggest" that in numerous games amd cpus were topping modern games in the 90-100 fps Mark at 1080p which many Gpu setups can drive well above.

And since monitors even for 1440p can go to 144hz and beyond it is interesting if not all that useful to most people to note the difference (well actually only your "ultra high end" would drive that high, not that I personally agree that sli 970 should be considered "ultra high end" but that isn't relevant.)

Btw it's stuff like this

http://wccftech.com/witcher-3-cpu-benchmarks-fx-63008350-i7-4790ki5-4690ki3-4130g3258-oc/

(while I can't see amd cpus on this anymore boo) that confuse me about the 4k swap. Clearly starting at 1m 10s we start to see "massive" differences between the stronger Intel cpus and the weaker ones. Hell (even though the difference is arguably not relevant) you can see the difference between the 4690k and 4790k in draw times during that spasm run.

So why does the amd cpus seem to deal with the struggling gpus better?

I just am intrigued...

Edit: amd test starts at 2:20.

Also while they used a titan x, 90fps is nothing insanely high and is fairly on par to what the 970 sli should average (although ofc the stuttering with sli is much much higher...)

I will take the time to look this over, and talk to the other writer and try to figure it out. Unfortunately its almost 2:30 AM and I've got benchmarking I need to get to...

 

Like I said before you had geniune questions and I really appreciated it  

[BRG_Alex]

This is bullshit, AMDs fanboys bullshit and dreams. In real world AMDs performance would be like 1/3 of this benchmarks!

Hi have you used an AMD CPU before?