FX CPU?

[Clyne]

REALY!!! You threw that out there. Can you not read the original post??!!!! maybe he don't have enough modem speed. Hrm then it doesn't matter either way.I'm just trying to give him a educated answer other than go this way go that way. Witch a lot spent too much money on the education that they do have and don't make common since that god gave there toothbrush. Power consumption, Intel VS AMD. All are Political Tec Jackasses. Do the research on your own go with what you know and be happy. BTW I have a feeling they are going to half to separate us Mr Martyr.. You DALEK!!!!

Yeah, almost every AMD FX thread turns into a bashing thread i guess.

[tnlich]

Its like they have nothing better to do. Ya know?!!!

[Clyne]

Its like they have nothing better to do. Ya know?!!!

You know you need to quote or tag members so that they get a notification.....

[WaitForMeImOnDialUp]

FX cant run CFX/SLI. ... It's to laggy cause of CPU bottelneck.

 runs my 280x crossfire just fine...although in 1 or 2 things here and there i wish it did better. no lags at all though in most games all ultra im 100+fps, if at worst i could be higher in some things

 

 i admit if i had a i5 i would be chillen  100+fps in all games.

[jousef]

I'd love to get my hands on one of these.

http://steelseries.com/products/audio/steelseries-h-wireless

 

wrong forum

Edited January 20, 2015 by jousef

[tnlich]

ok  and TY

[sgloux3470]

FX cant run CFX/SLI. ... It's to laggy cause of CPU bottelneck.

 

No, FX can't run past 90 FPS. (Depending on game) There's a difference.

 

Throw a CFX/SLI set up powered by AMD into a GPU limited scenario and you'll see full usage.  If you're running multiple cards and you're not GPU limited, you fucked up and are playing 980 SLI on 1080p or something nonsensical.  

 

CPU bottlenecked games like Arma 3 will see crappy usage that's for sure.

[zappian]

 

 

REALY!!! You threw that out there. Can you not read the original post??!!!! maybe he don't have enough modem speed

 

Modem speed? wut

 

 

And yet from my 8320 @ 4.5Ghz i get these results, which were recording using fraps on a BF4 server which was full with 64/64 people in first-person spectator mode.

Graphics settings were set to the "Ultra" preset and was running DX11.

 

I dont know what map you are running or what gpu , those results are useless unless you have an i3 or i5 to compare.

 

thats why there are publications that do the testing for us.

 

 

 

Dear lord youall are so funny. GO Intel !!! GO AMD !!! He has a AMD he wants to NOT I REPEAT NOT SWITCH OUT THE MOTHERBOARD

 

Then the best best is to oc the fx 6300 , the upgrade from 6300-> 8320 is NOT worth the money.

[harrynowl]

Why in gods name is this thread STILL going on?

 

There's NO REAL performance gain from upgrading from a FX6 to FX8...

 

 

 

As you can see there's a couple of FPS between them in most benchmarks... margin of error stuff. This is at sub-1080P where the GPU isn't the main bottleneck in gaming performance.

 

Don't think OP has even responded to his thread... what a waste of time!

[zappian]

 

Why in gods name is this thread STILL going on?

 

There's NO REAL performance gain from upgrading from a FX6 to FX8...

Some people think the 8320 is very gud because it has "eight cores" and since 8>6 is much better herpa derp,

 

Like i said if the op doesnt want to change his mobo the only "upgrade" thats worth it is ocing the cpu.

 

Plain and simple.

[Dabombinable]

Some people think the 8320 is very gud because it has "eight cores" and since 8>6 is much better herpa derp,

 

Like i said if the op doesnt want to change his mobo the only "upgrade" thats worth it is ocing the cpu.

 

Plain and simple.

But that's just it, its not 8 cores but 4 cores 8 modules, very misleading.

[zappian]

 

But that's just it, its not 8 cores but 4 cores 8 modules, very misleading.

 

Thats why i used quotes around eight cores.

 

I woundlt use that cpu in my rig even if it was offered to me , its simply bad at gaming and i dont care for it.

[Dabombinable]

Thats why i used quotes around eight cores.

 

I woundlt use that cpu in my rig even if it was offered to me , its simply bad at gaming and i dont care for it.

Actually, just thinking about it. Isn't it illegal to falsely advertise? Because AMD has been doing it for years, and that could in theory get them a massive lawsuit.

[zappian]

 

Actually, just thinking about it. Isn't it illegal to falsely advertise? Because AMD has been doing it for years, and that could in theory get them a massive lawsuit.

 

I think the architecture has eight cores but each 4 use the same FPU module.

So for floating point math its a quad core but for integer calculation you can call it an eight core( it has eight integer cores)

 

Its complicated and confusing but it its has eight physical cores , its a very ghetto eight core however.

 

Calling a 8320 a TRUE eight core is like calling an i3 a TRUE quad core. 

[Dabombinable]

I think the architecture has eight cores but each 4 use the same FPU module.

So for floating point math its a quad core but for integer calculation you can call it an eight core( it has eight integer cores)

 

Its complicated and confusing but it its has eight physical cores , its a very ghetto eight core however.

 

Calling a 8320 a TRUE eight core is like calling an i3 a TRUE quad core. 

From what I got told about the FX range, they have AMD's physical equivalent of Intel's hyper threading, just without the benefits.

[zappian]

From what I got told about the FX range, they have AMD's physical equivalent of Intel's hyper threading, just without the benefits.«

 

Its slightly better than HT because they are physical cores.

Doesnt mean much since their IPC is from 2005.

[harrynowl]

I think the architecture has eight cores but each 4 use the same FPU module.

So for floating point math its a quad core but for integer calculation you can call it an eight core( it has eight integer cores)

 

Its complicated and confusing but it its has eight physical cores , its a very ghetto eight core however.

 

Calling a 8320 a TRUE eight core is like calling an i3 a TRUE quad core.

It has 4 FlexFPs, it can split into 8 128bit fmac decoders (on zambezi/vishera), when only 1 integer unit is active it can act as a 256bit unit.

 

It's not a true 8 core no, but Intel's hyperthreading and AMDs CMT design aren't really comparable (so calling CMT AMDs equivalent of HT is false).

[thebennyboy]

 

 

I dont know what map you are running or what gpu , those results are useless unless you have an i3 or i5 to compare.

 

thats why there are publications that do the testing for us.

 

And those "publications" i've just proven to be misleading and/or false, where they got them from we'll never know as they too do not state the map that was used. The first benchmark you linked to does not even state what settings or map were used and neither does it state whether their results and min/max/avg FPS, the second benchmark results you posted seem to differ a large amount from what my testing shows and again it does not show the map used so doesn't really allow others to verify their results using their own systems.

 

I agree that you'd need an equivalent system using an i3/i5 to get a proper bearing on the results. I have no intention of starting any flame wars, just showing that a lot of benchmarks listed online are not all what they seem. Perhaps they should provide a bit more detail on what exact settings/map etc they used, allowing others to verify their own results with the benchmarks listed.

[zappian]

It's not a true 8 core no, but Intel's hyperthreading and AMDs CMT design aren't really comparable (so calling CMT AMDs equivalent of HT is false).

 

I never said they were equivalent i just said that calling an amd a true eight core would be as false as calling the i3 a quad core.

 

And those "publications" i've just proven to be misleading and/or false, where they got them from we'll never know as they too do not state the map that was used. The first benchmark you linked to does not even state what settings or map were used and neither does it state whether their results and min/max/avg FPS, the second benchmark results you posted seem to differ a large amount from what my testing shows and again it does not show the map used so doesn't really allow others to verify their results using their own systems.

 

They werent proven misleading or false by anyone , it differs a lot from your testing because they were testing on a different map and maybe were using maxed out filters ( like msaa).

 

They however ran the same becnh run on all cpus.

 

Just because you did a bench run on some map of a probably non demanding scene doesnt mean you disprove anything.

 

Thats not how things work.

[harrynowl]

I never said they were equivalent i just said that calling an amd a true eight core would be as false as calling the i3 a quad core.

not comparable though, software (ht) and hardware (cmt) can't really be compared as to the definition of a 'core'

[Faa]

any game that uses mantle will use all 8 cores/threads.

Prove it with http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb896653.aspx

 

 

And yet from my 8320 @ 4.5Ghz i get these results, which were recording using fraps on a BF4 server which was full with 64/64 people in first-person spectator mode.

Graphics settings were set to the "Ultra" preset and was running DX11.

 

Results

Min: 51

Max: 114

Average: 84

Lovely bottleneck

Dude is getting there like 50% more, averaging at what your maximums were. Write AMD a mail for a refund, what a scam.

[rentaspoon]

Are we still arguing about this? AMD is OK, i5 is better.

[thebennyboy]

 

They werent proven misleading or false by anyone , it differs a lot from your testing because they were testing on a different map and maybe were using maxed out filters ( like msaa).

 

They however ran the same becnh run on all cpus.

 

Just because you did a bench run on some map of a probably non demanding scene doesnt mean you disprove anything.

 

Thats not how things work.

 

How do you know they ran it on a different map? Oh, you don't. Don't claim shit you don't know. I CLEARLY stated it was ran on a server that was full with 64/64 people. Stating that it was ran on a "probably non demanding scene" is BS too; The bench was ran for just under 10 minutes, looking at the files from the bench you would have known that.

[thebennyboy]

 

Lovely bottleneck

Dude is getting there like 50% more, averaging at what your maximums were. Write AMD a mail for a refund, what a scam.

 

 

Shows fuck all apart from how shit DX11 is.

[zappian]

 

 

How do you know they ran it on a different map? Oh, you don't. Don't claim shit you don't know. I CLEARLY stated it was ran on a server that was full with 64/64 people. Stating that it was ran on a "probably non demanding scene" is BS too; The bench was ran for just under 10 minutes, looking at the files from the bench you would have known tha

 

Doesnt prove nothing like i said , maybe they user ubersampling( or whatever is called in bf4) , maybe they used msaa x8 you dont dont neither do i.

What makes the benchmarks valid is that they used the same run as you do when benchmarking components for the same cpus.

 

Your argument that two different publications messed up at the same time doesnt convince me at all.