4670k vs amd fx 8350

[Vitalius]

Most apps nowadays are coded for at least 2 cores, if they are still spinning on one core you have a bigger problem then just a CPU, that's just very poor judgement from developers, there should be no reason why a modern app cant use at least 2 cores.

 

Talk to the developers of Planetside 2.

you quoted me in the middle of an edit, well played sir. I now rank you Ninja class for catching me offguard... XD

 

-Anubikai

Hahaha, yep.

I even often edit in quotes of people that post after me while editing something. Thereby quoting someone before they have spoken. XD

[Air tree]

These are the two builds i could do intel http://pcpartpicker.com/user/airtree/saved/24VL

                                                        amd http://pcpartpicker.com/user/airtree/saved/2959   Either or i'm sure would be very good, but i'm expecting use of more cores soon so  the amd side is looking good, in the end either or are very good. also it's quite sad that no one makes higher end micro atx boards on the amd side :P In the end i will probably go with the intel side, it's still nice to have more options though.

[Anubikai]

These are the two builds i could do intel http://pcpartpicker.com/user/airtree/saved/24VL

                                                        amd http://pcpartpicker.com/user/airtree/saved/2959   Either or i'm sure would be very good, but i'm expecting use of more cores soon so  the amd side is looking good, in the end either or are very good. also it's quite sad that no one makes higher end micro atx boards on the amd side :P In the end i will probably go with the intel side, it's still nice to have more options though.

 

i would agree that amd is looking better and better for price/performance. i would go with amd, the multi core optimisation is yet to be seen but the amd 8350 is no slouch and the optimisation will arrive sooner or later.....only games intel destroys amd over is in amd ive seen is skyrim, there may be more but you can probably oc your 8350 quite a bit if you get lucky....I personally havent gone past 4.2ghz on my i5 as temps become an issue, they go to 81....still havent got around to repasting my thermal paste as i bugged it up the first time round....i keep my cpu under 80 degrees celsius when oc....but it seems the average 4670k gets is 4.2ghz.......so if your confident you'll be able to oc a 8350 past the performance of a 4.2ghz 4670k then go for it...if you think you wont be able to push a 8350 past intel performance then a 4.2ghz on 4670k is pretty much garunteed...btw my chip is below average.....unless you completely luck out you will be able to get 4.2ghz if not atleast 4ghz.....

 

-Anubikai

 

DISCLAIMER: take the oc advice with a grain of salt, silicon is a b*tch and if you luck out your likely gonna luck out hard

[Xelithium]

Go with Intel if you have the money for it. They have way more features on their motherboards. And honestly, the multi-core optimization rumours are all just that, rumours.

Who knows, we might only get 4 core games on the PC.

[Kuzma]

Go with Intel if you have the money for it. They have way more features on their motherboards. And honestly, the multi-core optimization rumours are all just that, rumours.

Who knows, we might only get 4 core games on the PC.

:/ the multi-core optimisations aren't rumours they're fact...

[Xelithium]

:/ the multi-core optimisations aren't rumours they're fact...

For the console. Not for the PC. Mutli-core doesn't mean usage of 8 full cores. Unless you are using all the power the 8350 has then the Intel processors wipe the floor with them.

[Kuzma]

For the console. Not for the PC. Mutli-core doesn't mean usage of 8 full cores. Unless you are using all the power the 8350 has then the Intel processors wipe the floor with them.

Since the games are made on x86 platforms porting games won't even be needed if they convert the games into assembly.

[Vitalius]

For the console. Not for the PC. Mutli-core doesn't mean usage of 8 full cores. Unless you are using all the power the 8350 has then the Intel processors wipe the floor with them.

Incorrect. Planetside 2 has always had low FPS on the PC due to CPU bottlenecks since it puts all of it's processes on a single thread. The developers have already explained how they are optimizing the game to play on the PS4 and that is by splitting the workload up into multiple threads. 

This optimization is coming directly to PC as well in an update for the game. And it is a game engine level update, meaning it is beyond hardware, drivers, or anything else and simply applies to every system the game would run on, specifically because the PS4/XB1 are x86 along with PCs now.

This is the exact same thing every other game is basically going to do, and applies just the same way.

I imagine that the PS3/Xbox 360 versions of said games will have to be developed separately as they will be very different in how they run. So imo they will not hold back the PC.

[Xelithium]

Incorrect. Planetside 2 has always had low FPS on the PC due to CPU bottlenecks since it puts all of it's processes on a single thread. The developers have already explained how they are optimizing the game to play on the PS4 and that is by splitting the workload up into multiple threads. 

This optimization is coming directly to PC as well in an update for the game. And it is a game engine level update, meaning it is beyond hardware, drivers, or anything else and simply applies to every system the game would run on.

This is the exact same thing every other game is basically going to do, and applies just the same way.

Multiple threads =/= 8 cores. This thread was about 4670k vs 8350. I'm not fucking hating on AMD in any way. Their performance is just crap unless you use all available power. And that is not AMDs fault, they are just a little bit ahead of software.

[Xelithium]

Since the games are made on x86 platforms porting games won't even be needed if they convert the games into assembly.

Pardon me. You clearly work at a game company and you have all the inside knowledge. Making games in Unity is not the same as building a multi-threaded engine from the ground up. Frostbite is multi-threaded already. The performance increase is not that drastic and the 8350 is still getting slapped around by Intel.

[Vitalius]

Multiple threads =/= 8 cores. This thread was about 4670k vs 8350. I'm not fucking hating on AMD in any way. Their performance is just crap unless you use all available power. And that is not AMDs fault, they are just a little bit ahead of software.

Yes, but multiple threads =/= 1 core. I did not say you were. I only said you were incorrect. And that is the intention of the optimizations. To fully utilize the 8 CPU core APU in the consoles. Even if it does not use all 8 cores, it will more than likely use at least 6 of them. 

And FX CPUs work differently than most other CPU cores.

[Xelithium]

Yes, but multiple threads =/= 1 core. I did not say you were. I only said you were incorrect. And that is the intention of the optimizations. To fully utilize the 8 CPU core APU in the consoles. Even if it does not use all 8 cores, it will more than likely use at least 6 of them. 

And FX CPUs work differently than most other CPU cores.

I know FX CPUs are different from other CPU cores. And I have great respect for AMD even attempting to go ahead with this type of architecture. But they are a little ahead of their time. And I'm sad that it hit them as hard as it did.

 

[Kuzma]

Pardon me. You clearly work at a game company and you have all the inside knowledge. Making games in Unity is not the same as building a multi-threaded engine from the ground up. Frostbite is multi-threaded already. The performance increase is not that drastic and the 8350 is still getting slapped around by Intel.

Ummm :/ this has nothing to do with my gaming programming I know how to program. Low level programming (Assembly, the lowest level language second only to binary). I know how progamming works. I have an extensive knowledge in C, C++ , C Sharp and ASM.

The only reason I haven't created my own engine from scratch is because one person creating an engine from 0 is firstly stupid because by the time I finished graphics would have largely progressed. I do however know how to create my own engine from scratch and I know how to multi-thread something.

 

In regards to the Frostbite engine; it's only optimised for 6 cores (Intel extreme), once it's optimised for 8 cores then we'll see. It's still not a heavy multi-threaded load.

[Xelithium]

Ummm :/ this has nothing to do with my gaming programming I know how to program. Low level programming (Assembly, the lowest level language second only to binary). I know how progamming works. I have an extensive knowledge in C, C++ , C Sharp and ASM.

The only reason I haven't created my own engine from scratch is because one person creating an engine from 0 is firstly stupid because by the time I finished graphics would have largely progressed. I do however know how to create my own engine from scratch and I know how to multi-thread something.

 

In regards to the Frostbite engine; it's only optimised for 6 cores (Intel extreme), once it's optimised for 8 cores then we'll see. It's still not a heavy multi-threaded load.

I want sources on it being optimized for 6 cores only.

[Kuzma]

I want sources on it being optimized for 6 cores only.

http://www.techspot.com/review/458-battlefield-3-performance/page7.html

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2011/11/10/battlefield-3-technical-analysis/7

http://chipreviews.com/main-feature/main-news/frostbite-2s-limit-6-core-performance-in-battlefield-3/

[Xelithium]

http://www.techspot.com/review/458-battlefield-3-performance/page7.html

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2011/11/10/battlefield-3-technical-analysis/7

http://chipreviews.com/main-feature/main-news/frostbite-2s-limit-6-core-performance-in-battlefield-3/

Haha, really now? I want to hear this from the Frostbite devs. Not some thirdparty site. Where does it say that it is only optimized for 6 core? All I see is benchmarks and I cba reading.

 

I guess you are young and unknowing, so it's okey.

[Kuzma]

Haha, really now? I want to hear this from the Frostbite devs. Not some thirdparty site. Where does it say that it is only optimized for 6 core? All I see is benchmarks and I cba reading.

 

I guess you are young and unknowing, so it's okey.

If you read the benchmarks then you'd know that they show CPU usage over cores to show only 6 cores are being utilised...

 

p.s.

 

okay*

 

and young and unknowing? you're only 18... I'm 16 in a couple months...

[Xelithium]

If you read the benchmarks then you'd know that they show CPU usage over cores to show only 6 cores are being utilised...

 

p.s.

 

okay*

 

and young and unknowing? you're only 18... I'm 16 in a couple months...

Again young one, I want to hear this from Dice. Not third party sources.

[mgsstar]

If you are on a budget, I would go with the 8350 because the cores are useful for video rendering. If your budget is pretty big, I would go with a 3770K/4770K depending on your budget because they have hyperthreading which will help when you are rendering and the difference between 3770k and 4770k is 5-10%. I would get the 3770K so you can overclock it and the overclock ability of Haswell depends on the chip that you get.

[Kuzma]

Again young one, I want to hear this from Dice. Not third party sources.

Stop calling me young one...

[Vitalius]

Again young one, I want to hear this from Dice. Not third party sources.

Hey bro, I found this Powerpoint directly from dice.se.

It is from 2010 and pretty much lays out everything about the Frostbite engine and Battlefield up to the introduction of APU's (a single heterogeneous processor, which is mentioned on slide number 36). 

The highest thread count mentioned that does not count PC's is on the Xbox 360 and it is 6 threads. The PC is listed to have anywhere from 2-16 threads and on slide number 43, it says this: "The consoles determines our base tech level & focus". 

Now, you have to understand, when it comes to developing games and engines, it obviously takes time. The things it talks about in this powerpoint sounds eerily similar to the new consoles (PS4/XB1) although it never directly mentions them, the whole "heterogenous processor" (heterogeneous meaning it is both CPU and GPU) just screams it. Also, "unified memory" on slide 43 as well. The System RAM and Video RAM for the consoles are one in the same thing which is essentially what unified memory is. 

What I am getting at, is that this essentially, likely, and, imo, definitely describes what the Frostbite engine's goals were back then and describe it's current state as of now (give or take design changes along the way, I doubt they would be overly drastic). I say that because this shows their road map from 2010 and whatever they designed from them is likely coming out around this time. Especially the way they churn out Battlefields (I cannot imagine how Call of Duties' road map looks).

According to that, I think it is a very safe assumption to say that since they say their base specs are on consoles, and that they were designing for 6 threads at most (PC's not being base line but beyond that), due to the Xbox 360 having that many, it is very safe to say that the Frostbite engine is coded to use 6 threads and not more. 

Of course, you can argue that if you want, but that power point heavily implies all that in my personal opinion. And honestly, if you are just going to ignore the data to support Kuzma's claim that Frostbite only uses up to 6 threads, then there is not much else to say. Ignoring factual evidence kinda makes discussion pointless.

@Kuzma, you might want to read that power point in detail. It shows a lot of what designing games for a AAA developer is like and can give insight into the problems they face. There is a lot to be learned from it. Especially in the subject we are discussing now: CPU architecture and how engines interact with it. 

[Kuzma]

Hey bro, I found this Powerpoint directly from dice.se.

It is from 2010 and pretty much lays out everything about the Frostbite engine and Battlefield up to the introduction of APU's (a single heterogeneous processor, which is mentioned on slide number 36). 

The highest thread count mentioned that does not count PC's is on the Xbox 360 and it is 6 threads. The PC is listed to have anywhere from 2-16 threads and on slide number 43, it says this: "The consoles determines our base tech level & focus". 

Now, you have to understand, when it comes to developing games and engines, it obviously takes time. The things it talks about in this powerpoint sounds eerily similar to the new consoles (PS4/XB1) although it never directly mentions them, the whole "heterogenous processor" (heterogeneous meaning it is both CPU and GPU) just screams it. Also, "unified memory" on slide 43 as well. The System RAM and Video RAM for the consoles are one in the same thing which is essentially what unified memory is. 

What I am getting at, is that this essentially, likely, and, imo, definitely describes what the Frostbite engine's goals were back then and describe it's current state as of now (give or take design changes along the way, I doubt they would be overly drastic). I say that because this shows their road map from 2010 and whatever they designed from them is likely coming out around this time. Especially the way they churn out Battlefields (I cannot imagine how Call of Duties' road map looks).

According to that, I think it is a very safe assumption to say that since they say their base specs are on consoles, and that they were designing for 6 threads at most (PC's not being base line but beyond that), due to the Xbox 360 having that many, it is very safe to say that the Frostbite engine is coded to use 6 threads and not more. 

Of course, you can argue that if you want, but that power point heavily implies all that in my personal opinion. And honestly, if you are just going to ignore the data to support Kuzma's claim that Frostbite only uses up to 6 threads, then there is not much else to say. Ignoring factual evidence kinda makes discussion pointless.

@Kuzma, you might want to read that power point in detail. It shows a lot of what designing games for a AAA developer is like and can give insight into the problems they face. There is a lot to be learned from it. Especially in the subject we are discussing now: CPU architecture and how engines interact with it. 

Very interesting power point presentation Vitalius thank you; I will now be required to get an office program on here to read it as I still haven't got one >_<

[Vitalius]

Very interesting power point presentation Vitalius thank you; I will now be required to get an office program on here to read it as I still haven't got one >_<

Openoffice.org

 

Freeware is the best.

[Kuzma]

Openoffice.org

 

Freeware is the best.

xD it's what I use just haven't had a need to install it yet

[TechFan@ic]

I would recommend neither personally, I'd say get an FX 8320 & put what you saved into a more powerful graphics cards.
An 8320 can be overclocked very easily beyond 4.5Ghz from its stock clock of 3.5Ghz, but it's $40 less expensive than the 8350 and significantly less expensive ($80) than a 4670K.
Having 8 cores has benefits in streaming gameplay, video encoding, rendering, editing & file compression.
This also means that you will benefit the most from any optimizations for the next-gen console engines, platforms and games, this is not up for debate game developers have consistently been saying this over the past three to six months and I believe that I have been following and covering this topic in-depth and more frequently than anyone else on the forum.
My coverage: #1 #2 #3

Even without these console optimizations kicking in yet, there are games that are already showing better support for the AMD 8 cores CPUs, games like Crysis 3 & Far Cry 3 .