Prove AMD's Superiority To Me

[Sintezza]

Does not change the fact that a similarly priced i5 system will probably net more. Which is what the whole discussion is about, it's what it's always been about.

Not how bad the FX is, but how meager the performance is in comparison.

 

Thats exactly where this discussion was NOT about

 

People claim that there are games that are "unplayable" on a FX cpu.

Which is just total BS to me.

Because till now i havent seen any.

[Majestic]

Thats exactly where this discussion was NOT about 

 

Actually it was, it's just that people like you have a habit of segwaying it into a discussion you can win by subjective argumentation. Because noone can argue against "I play this game on my fx8350 and it runs fine".

 

Read the first post carefully, you might notice the bold fucking text saying;

 

Why is the FX-8350 better than an i5-4460?

 

It does not say; is the FX-8350 OK-ish for gaming?  No, it clearly asks why one should opt for the FX-8350 instead of an i5. And thusfar, no evidence for this can be found. AMD is always trailing behind, some further than other, but it's never surpassing the i5. So, the answer is simple; there isn't an explanation. it's only people with post-purchase rationalization saying they're OK, and for some reason that should be enough.

 

It isn't. And the fact that this discussion is already been had for years shows just how thickheaded people are in believing stupid shit.

[Columbo]

I just want to point out that the 3570k or 4690K @4.5ghz or higher would not bottleneck even in a tripple SLI with 980GTX cards. I saw a review where they had 4 cards and what it would take to bottleneck an i5 or i7. I should look them up again. 

[Suika]

Thats exactly where this discussion was NOT about

People claim that there are games that are "unplayable" on a FX cpu.

Which is just total BS to me.

Because till now i havent seen any.

You're running an HD 7870 GHz, correct? You will not encounter bottlenecking nowhere near as severe as I do, if you do at all, because the 7870 is almost on par with the 8350 in terms of power.

When a game becomes unplayable, it simply means, we crank our settings up to match the GPU, however, the CPU can't keep up with the GPU because of these changes in settings, and it falls behind significantly. If I can't play a game on settings otherwise suitable for my GPU, the game is unplayable. Metro: 2033? I have absolutely every feature and option on and at the max when I installed my i7. Couldn't do some of it with my 8350, only the primarily GPU dependent features.

Skyrim is a prime example. I had so many mods that my 8350 became a significant bottleneck and rendered the game unplayable, producing 10-20FPS in a lot of areas. When I had my i7 installed, all of those areas are still easy to venture through with mods.

[vlkn´]

but intel tho...

[Sintezza]

You're running an HD 7870 GHz, correct? You will not encounter bottlenecking nowhere near as severe as I do, if you do at all, because the 7870 is almost on par with the 8350 in terms of power.

When a game becomes unplayable, it simply means, we crank our settings up to match the GPU, however, the CPU can't keep up with the GPU because of these changes in settings, and it falls behind significantly. If I can't play a game on settings otherwise suitable for my GPU, the game is unplayable. Metro: 2033? I have absolutely every feature and option on and at the max when I installed my i7. Couldn't do some of it with my 8350, only the primarily GPU dependent features.

Skyrim is a prime example. I had so many mods that my 8350 became a significant bottleneck and rendered the game unplayable, producing 10-20FPS in a lot of areas. When I had my i7 installed, all of those areas are still easy to venture through with mods.

 

i can play skyrim 1080p maxed out at 60 fps no problems at all.

And i even do have some mods. In some area´s i get a little drop to arround 50fps somethimes But thats it.

Skyrim runs totaly fine on my FX, and never became unplayable.

[Suika]

i can play skyrim 1080p maxed out at 60 fps no problems at all.

And i even do have some mods. In some area´s i get a little drop to arround 45fps somethimes But thats it.

I have no idea what your problem is lol, but skyrim runs totaly fine on my FX, and never became unplayable.

You have *some mods.* I have 100+ mods.

That's how it became unplayable on the 8350.

[Sintezza]

You have *some mods.* I have 100+ mods.

That's how it became unplayable on the 8350.

 

Also to note Pistol is a diehard skyrimmer, and her rig is all AMD FX9590 and R9-290X.

She has tons of mods, i think more then most people would have, and she also does live streaming.

Lets say, that she knows what Skyrim is all about. And she never complains about performance at all.

[vlkn´]

why would she complain if she buys a 300$+ processor + 200$+ mainboard

I think the reason why people buy amd is to save money, or not?

[Suika]

Also to note Pistol is a diehard skyrimmer, and her rig is all AMD FX9590 and R9-290X.

She has tons of mods, i think more then most people would have, and she also does live streaming.

Lets say, that she knows what Skyrim is all about. And she never complains about performance at all.

What mods, though? Only some mods in particular make it hell on the CPU (AI and certain area mods), most others are almost entirely GPU dependent (basically every graphical modification). Like my bottleneck wasn't apparent until I installed a few mods in particular.

[Sintezza]

why would she complain if she buys a 300$+ processor + 200$+ mainboard

I think the reason why people buy amd is to save money, or not?

 

She doesnt have too, because the system plays her games totaly fine

My system plays my games totaly fine aswell, But i get GPU limited anyway.

But that doesnt matter, Because wenn i would upgrade to a higherend gpu, my minimum fps wont drop lower as they currently are.

 

That intel cpu´s are better and deliver more stable minim frame rates sure.

But i have never had any game that was not playable due my FX cpu.

Lowering some settings like AA or what not doesnt make a game "unplayable" right?

 

I dont talk about bottlenecks.

I only talk about claims that people make, that games are unplayable on a FX cpu.

Which i say is totaly BULL SHIT.

 

But im not going to discuss this any further, because it doesnt make sense.

The cherry picked becnhmark charts will flow in very quickly.

i can feel that old garbage comming allready

[Priller]

Are Skyrim mods like mods for KSP?

 

A boat load of them made by alot of different people with no guaranty they work correctly?

[Suika]

Are Skyrim mods like mods for KSP?

 

A boat load of them made by alot of different people with no guaranty they work correctly?

Almost all of them are compatible with each other unless they're the exact same mod (in which, of course it wouldn't work). Most of the time the authors of the mods clarify if there are incompatibility issues with other mods in the post, some of them are like, "I wonder why" and others are like, "oh I could see."

 

Like I remember, there was a mod that made rugs look HD and stuff, but it broke my HD water mod. Couldn't explain why, but I was deprived of HD rugs in Skyrim.

[Sintezza]

The only thing i wanne add to this:

 

i dont recommend an FX cpu over an haswell i5 for mainaly gaming.

Because the i5´s are better allrounders forgaming.

Especialy with higherend gpu´s, which getting limited by FX cpu´s in cpu bound or cpu + gpu demending gaming scenario´s

And in terms of price, there is not much of a diffrence anymore.

 

But that was not where this topic was all about.

The main reason why i have my FX, is because its superior in Virtualization.

 

OP asked in which tasks an FX is superior, and that is Virtualization.

I´m going to upgrade my system to X99, because Z97 would be a downgrade for me.

[kpreg]

One reason I don't find a lot is the ease to overclock. It is a cheap chip, but it holds a huge amount of power via overclocking. That being said, the buyer (if overclocking) will have to find a reliable motherboard. It's a good learning expirence for a first time builder.

PS- Is directx 12 only for Maxwell and above?

[Priller]

Almost all of them are compatible with each other unless they're the exact same mod (in which, of course it wouldn't work). Most of the time the authors of the mods clarify if there are incompatibility issues with other mods in the post, some of them are like, "I wonder why" and others are like, "oh I could see."

 

Like I remember, there was a mod that made rugs look HD and stuff, but it broke my HD water mod. Couldn't explain why, but I was deprived of HD rugs in Skyrim.

 

I think Im up to 13 mods in KSP but it crashes quite often and 3 of the packs I really want havent been updated yet and another one just wrecks the whole game if I install more then a few other mods even tho it's been updated. 

[Sintezza]

- The Elder Scrolls V - Skyrim + Update 13
   - Custom Skyrim Launcher by FLR
   - DLC's:
       - Dragonborn
       - Dawnguard
       - Hearthfire
   - Textures:
       - Official High Resolution Texture Pack (DLC)
       - Skyrim HD - LITE 2K Textures
       - Skyrim HD - FULL 4K Textures

   - Mods:
       - SkyUI
       - Climates Of Tamriel
       - Immersive Armors
       - Quality Map - All Roads
       - Stones Of Barenziah Quest Markers
       - Improved Skill Books
       - Faster Vanilla Horses
       - Midas Magic - Spells for Skyrim
       - Bandolier - Bags and Pouches
       - Sounds of Skyrim - The Dungeons
       - Sounds of Skyrim - The Wilds
       - Sounds of Skyrim - Civilization
       - Isilmeriel's LOTR Weapons
       - Hermit's Tree House
       - ApachiiSkyHair
       - Female Facial Animation
       - Spend Dragon Souls For Perks
       - Enhanced Blood Textures 3.5

 

This is what i have running for Skyrim.

Pretty plain but looks good.

Its how i like to play it.

 

My frame rates are totaly fine on 1080p max settings.

It does not become "unplayable" for me.

I had frame issues with the old 13.12 drivers.

But after i updated to 14.9, i get sollid 60 fps.

[Faa]

I dont talk about bottlenecks.

I only talk about claims that people make, that games are unplayable on a FX cpu.

Which i say is totaly BULL SHIT.

People have been saying a few specific games aren't playable on FX CPU's which is right. WoW being one example following by any other MMO, dolphin emulator being a complete slideshow and a bunch of FPS games where it's not capable of providing 120 FPS. I usually get motion blur sickness when I'm way below 120 FPS in fast responsive games.

[Sintezza]

People have been saying a few specific games aren't playable on FX CPU's which is right. WoW being one example following by any other MMO, dolphin emulator being a complete slideshow and a bunch of FPS games where it's not capable of providing 120 FPS. I usually get motion blur sickness when I'm way below 120 FPS in fast responsive games.

 

WoW is totaly playable on a FX.

But sure it will run allot better on intel.

Even on a Athlon 750K its not unplayable.

 

 

Dolphin basicly runs like shit on AMD with some games.

But it higly depends on which games you emulate.

New Supermario Bross Wii runes totaly fine on my AMD.

 

The only games, that not did very well, are those newer Zelda titles.

That are the only Wii games till now, that not worked well for me.

The problem with Dolpin is mainaly, that its only using 2 threads.

 

Still like i said, and i totaly agree with every one.

That haswell i5´s are just simply better allrounders for gaming.

But MMO´s are not "unplayable" on a FX cpu.

 

But op asked in which tasks AMD cpu are superior.

And that is Virtualization.

Thats why i wanne upgrade to X99, Because Z97 has nothing to offer for me.

[MageTank]

People have been saying a few specific games aren't playable on FX CPU's which is right. WoW being one example following by any other MMO, dolphin emulator being a complete slideshow and a bunch of FPS games where it's not capable of providing 120 FPS. I usually get motion blur sickness when I'm way below 120 FPS in fast responsive games.

 

In my eyes, for something to be considered "unplayable" means that it would have to remain under 30fps for noticeable amounts of times, or suffer from severe constant stutters. Depending on which expansion you are playing on WoW (the latest one was optimized to actually use GPU's) the FX will suffer quite a bit, but i have never seen it reach a scenario in which it was "unplayable". Admittingly, i do not play WoW, never liked it, but my little brother is obsessed with it and i have seen him do those raids on my FX machine and he never once complained about it. He also ran WoW on high, using a GTX 750 Ti and an Athlon x2 3000. 

 

This thread was about naming why the FX is superior than current gen haswells, and simply put, they really are not. They barely stood a chance against the sandy bridges in 2012, and expecting them to hold a candle to current haswells is just not fair. However, for the sake of ending this thread, i can name things the FX can do, that the intel's cannot even attempt to do.

 

ID5 would be an example, assuming you do not transcode with your GPU. If you really want to put the FX on a high horse, then : gcc -mtune=native -march=native Archlinux or Gentoo

 

There we go. We are now full circle, and i did what OP asked. I proved two things that work in favor of the FX, that the intel simply cannot win at. 

 

-MageTank

 

/Thread

[Sintezza]

In my eyes, for something to be considered "unplayable" means that it would have to remain under 30fps for noticeable amounts of times, or suffer from severe constant stutters. Depending on which expansion you are playing on WoW (the latest one was optimized to actually use GPU's) the FX will suffer quite a bit, but i have never seen it reach a scenario in which it was "unplayable". Admittingly, i do not play WoW, never liked it, but my little brother is obsessed with it and i have seen him do those raids on my FX machine and he never once complained about it. He also ran WoW on high, using a GTX 750 Ti and an Athlon x2 3000. 

 

This thread was about naming why the FX is superior than current gen haswells, and simply put, they really are not. They barely stood a chance against the sandy bridges in 2012, and expecting them to hold a candle to current haswells is just not fair. However, for the sake of ending this thread, i can name things the FX can do, that the intel's cannot even attempt to do.

 

ID5 would be an example, assuming you do not transcode with your GPU. If you really want to put the FX on a high horse, then : gcc -mtune=native -march=native Archlinux or Gentoo

 

There we go. We are now full circle, and i did what OP asked. I proved two things that work in favor of the FX, that the intel simply cannot win at. 

 

-MageTank

 

/Thread

 

 

Yes like i said FX cpu´s are superiour to haswell in Virtualization.

But in terms of gaming, FX cpu´s simply fall behind.

There is realy nothing to argue about.

But MMO´s arent "unplayable" on a FX.

 

The thing is im personaly not biassed to any brand.

The only thing i care about, is what performs the best for my money.

And for Virtualization it was AMD that time, and now still is, in this price range.

 

But for gaming, yeah intel haswell is simply better.

i´m not biassed to ignore that.

 

But some people should not exaggerate things too much.

[Faa]

WoW is totaly playable on a FX.

Why are you linking this idiotic benchmark which basically is benchmarked at a leveling starting point you actually will never get visit again? You're GPU bound there, anything that matters in that game such as being in high populated capital/raids/40vs40 bg's/world events etc can't be benchmarked. If you haven't wondered, WoW is the most boring game outside of raids/battlegrounds/world events/arena that's what making the game "WoW". 

A G3258;

A 8350 at 4.4GHz;

Same capital, same population, we're getting twice as much FPS. AMD sitting on 18 FPS is completely unplayable.

Pretty sure you've seen those video's, pretty sure you've been bashing hardwarepal for benchmarking Arma 3 at 720p/low settings when you're linking a GPU bound scenario for a game that's CPU limited in the things that matters. There are some Athlon vs Pentium 4 benchmarks for WoW which show no difference, I can tell you that the Athlon could have been easily 50% faster in WoW.

 

 

The problem with Dolpin is mainaly, that its only using 2 threads.

Which actually every game out there almost does.

 

 

But MMO´s are not "unplayable" on a FX cpu.

30 FPS is considered as playable which is not the case for an FX CPU in WoW.

 

But some people should not exaggerate things too much.

Like the 8350's multithreaded performance or it's price/performance isn't exxagerated. I see people pretending that no software has ever took that CPU to its full potential, being so futureproof that it's ready to rock another year of twenty with its IPC that would be 30 years old at that point, that it is faster than a 4930K orsomething or having twice the throughput of a i5 to a point that the i5 is dead. That the 8350's IPC is AWFUL is not exxagerated, its poor IPC will be present in games being again AWFUL.

 

But op asked in which tasks AMD cpu are superior.

And that is Virtualization.

 

Which lacks proof, I see you usually making a claim you can't prove and throw any evidence out. I can make that claim as well; Intel is superior for virtualization. Ask me the proof, I'll tell you to stop BS'ing. That's how you usually respond. Keep in mind that the OP asked "Prove AMD's Superiority To Me" and as far as I've read here I haven't seen a single guy here proving a damn thing other than telling us here "AMD is fine". I can prove AMD's superiority here not even a single Intel fanboy would doubt, but I'm not going to do that and I prefer seeing AMD fanatics here trying hopelessly hard. AMD fanboys are nothing more than entertainment these days, I love them. Also their fanboys are doing PR & Marketing for AMD without getting paid while they're thinking AMD is reducing their prices because they love their fanboys, without them AMD would have been bankrupt a long time ago.

 

 

There we go. We are now full circle, and i did what OP asked. I proved two things that work in favor of the FX, that the intel simply cannot win at. 

Such as? Yeah they're offering a better multithreaded performance/price ratio yeah but price here is subjective. So if I'm rich, there's not a lot superiority coming from AMD. You've only covered one aspect of a CPU's performance or one particular usage for a desktop that will be used more than one purpose, you should prove its superiority as a whole like overall single/multithreaded performance and not just for one specific usage. What am I supposed to do with a CPU that's 10% faster than my i5 in rendering when it's struggling being responsive in my browser/OS? Such a CPU would only make sense to me for a 24/7 folding system that you'll keep in the basement.

[Dabombinable]

Read these articles, they gave me some good insights:
http://www.extremetech.com/computing/116561-the-death-of-cpu-scaling-from-one-core-to-many-and-why-were-still-stuck

 

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/06/03/hard-choices-intels-orrible-new-haswell-chips/

[Sintezza]

Ah right now the benchmarks i linked from WOW have become GPU bound suddently......

 

haha.

 

allright, i gonne take a nice glass of redwine and relax abit.

 

Cheers!

[Faa]

Ah right now the benchmarks i linked from WOW have become GPU bound suddently......

 

haha.

 

allright, i gonne take a nice glass of redwine and relax abit.

 

Cheers!

You're right, the 8350 was bottlenecking with a 50% difference and Intel was GPU limited.