Why didn't AMD stick with Phenom II?

[D3MON]

He accepted defeat in such a mature way. I applaud.

see if i was like that id probably hate you for having a 970, but i get it.

a graphics card like the 970 can turn 600watts like my 290 during gaming into 500-550??

much more of a difference (especially in sli/cf) than say going from my 8320 to a 3570k would have.

sure imo its not going to save the 50% price premium it carries by the time i come to upgrade it but for shield if you like gaming on a tablet it totally makes sense.

g-sync by any chance? i might actually buy into freesync and i really didnt see myself caring about that (still havent used truaudio) not trying to derail topic any more than it has fwiw.

[D3MON]

Didnt know that , that why i prefaced it with AFAIK.

 

On intel hashwell cpus (locked) the fsb oc is like 200 mhz max i think.

i heard anything beyond 103-105 was lucky with anything sandy and ivy onwards...

linus xeon overclock with the e5 2697 v2(?) gave me hope though.

i had pictures in my mind of e5 2699 v3 18 cores 36 threads in 4p serverboards running a 140FSB getting some stupid cinebench r15 numbers in the (6) thousands.

oh did you think i was an amd fanboy there peeps?

[Interfectorem]

see if i was like that id probably hate you for having a 970, but i get it.

a graphics card like the 970 can turn 600watts like my 290 during gaming into 500-550??

much more of a difference (especially in sli/cf) than say going from my 8320 to a 3570k would have.

sure imo its not going to save the 50% price premium it carries by the time i come to upgrade it but for shield if you like gaming on a tablet it totally makes sense.

g-sync by any chance? i might actually buy into freesync and i really didnt see myself caring about that (still havent used truaudio) not trying to derail topic any more than it has fwiw.

I honestly don't know why I got the GTX 970, I used to have an R9 270, I was aware that I could've gotten a Tri-X R9 290 for $280, but I guess I just wanted a taste for Nvidia. I like it so far, but I agree, it's not a very good value compared to some R9 290s.

[-rascal-]

FSB oc yields very low results afaik.

I had my Phenom II X6 1090T running @ 4.0GHz for 2+ years straight. Overclocking was done only by adjusting the FSB (250MHz x 16). Stock 1090T is 3.2GHz.

[I/O]

I honestly don't know why I got the GTX 970, I used to have an R9 270, I was aware that I could've gotten a Tri-X R9 290 for $280, but I guess I just wanted a taste for Nvidia. I like it so far, but I agree, it's not a very good value compared to some R9 290s.

I would have been one of the crazy people to tell you to go for the R9 290 over the GTX 970 and it looks like I was right once again.

[Interfectorem]

I did not get beat LOL. Lock AMD Phenom CPUs are locked for a reason. Just because you can work around it does not mean it's stable or intended to be done by AMD.

Here you go sir, I spoke, and I delivered. Took out my FX-8320, popped in my brother's AMD Phenom II X6 1045T, went into BIOS, punched in 300 for the Bus speed from the stock 200, left the multiplier at stock 13.5, Target speed of 4060 MHz (Stock 2.7), punched in 1.45v. Opened up all the stuff I mentioned, fired up P95 for 10 minutes, and what do you know? No failed cores. Next time do some research before you speak. Good day sir.

 

http://imgur.com/Knb1zo6,k9QceNn,c9JxpHd,v7bFNwX,cN9UiN4,kY1LrBm,7WYonCU,v4YaB3k,97Ms1b2

[I/O]

Here you go sir, I spoke, and I delivered. Took out my FX-8320, popped in my brother's AMD Phenom II X6 1045T, went into BIOS, punched in 300 for the Bus speed from the stock 200, left the multiplier at stock 13.5, Target speed of 4060 MHz (Stock 2.7), punched in 1.45v. Opened up all the stuff I mentioned, fired up P95 for 10 minutes, and what do you know? No failed cores. Next time do some research before you speak. Good day sir.

 

http://imgur.com/Knb1zo6,k9QceNn,c9JxpHd,v7bFNwX,cN9UiN4,kY1LrBm,7WYonCU,v4YaB3k,97Ms1b2

Good for you but is it 24/7 stable ?

[Interfectorem]

Good for you but is it 24/7 stable ?

Don't know, but nor do I have 24 hours to prove something to you that everyone else seems to know except you. Point is, the 1045T is overclockable and doesn't require "some workaround".

[Hieb]

in well made engines that intel users dont seem to play (league of legends fans huh?)

there's next to no point in overclocking.

http://www.techspot.com/review/712-arma-3-benchmarks/page5.html

arma 1.0 less optimised example (devils advocate here)

so long as you have enough cores at a decent speed you're okay)

YES intel can perform better (in version 1.0 atleast) because its actually still impacted by ipc x clock speed and cpu caches.

thats why a 3.5ghz 3770k beats a 3960x which has more threads, but a 3570k at 3.4 cant keep up with the i7E or the 3770k despite only 100mhz core speed difference. once you see dual cores (noone tests the tri cores eh?) the performance really tails off.

 

 

BF4 single player is just very CPU UN-intensive. It's not that Intel users don't play a lot of games with "good" or "well optimized" engines, it's that most games where the FX CPU is competitive are ones that don't demand much CPU power overall. Because in games that have high CPU load, more often than not the mainthread gets pushed too hard for the FX CPU to keep up. In BF4 multiplayer it's a different story than single player

[I/O]

Don't know, but nor do I have 24 hours to prove something to you that everyone else seems to know except you. Point is, the 1045T is overclockable and doesn't require "some workaround".

Me finks that AMD locked that CPU for a reason.

[I/O]

BF4 single player is just very CPU UN-intensive. It's not that Intel users don't play a lot of games with "good" or "well optimized" engines, it's that most games where the FX CPU is competitive are ones that don't demand much CPU power overall. Because in games that have high CPU load, more often than not the mainthread gets pushed too hard for the FX CPU to keep up. In BF4 multiplayer it's a different story

The AMD fans will claim it's because the game is "unoptimized" and not cause FX has crap IPC and per core performance.

[Hieb]

The AMD fans will claim it's because the game is "unoptimized" and not cause FX has crap IPC and per core performance.

 

Well a game can be better optimized for AMD CPUs, it's just less likely.

I mean if a game could run at 50% on each core of an FX-8350 it would perform just fine. The thing is on any game that has high CPU load, generally 1 or 2 cores get heavier load than the rest that cannot be spread out. Varies depending on the type of things that need to be processed and the specific game.

 

For example in these videos you can see there are 1 or 2 cores that consistently hit higher CPU usage than the others, while the rest are relatively well balanced.

[D3MON]

Me finks that AMD locked that CPU for a reason.

they did, its called market segmentation, why sell 1 cpu when you can sell 8? intel knows this very well..

[I/O]

Well a game can be better optimized for AMD CPUs, it's just less likely.

I mean if a game could run at 50% on each core of an FX-8350 it would perform just fine. The thing is on any game that has high CPU load, generally 1 or 2 cores get heavier load than the rest that cannot be spread out. Varies depending on the type of things that need to be processed and the specific game.

 

For example in these videos you can see there are 1 or 2 cores that consistently hit higher CPU usage than the others, while the rest are relatively well balanced.

Sign even in BF4 which is a best case scenario and highly optimized for AMD ... Intel still wins LOL.

[D3MON]

BF4 single player is just very CPU UN-intensive. It's not that Intel users don't play a lot of games with "good" or "well optimized" engines, it's that most games where the FX CPU is competitive are ones that don't demand much CPU power overall. Because in games that have high CPU load, more often than not the mainthread gets pushed too hard for the FX CPU to keep up. In BF4 multiplayer it's a different story

no its really not, having played bf4 online for the last few hours i can tell you its fine, i locked it down to 3 modules 6 threads and allocated a module purely to fraps for recording, dont know if it made any difference but what can i say im an enthusiast and like to play.

i probably should be running more than 125% resolution scale though because ive got performance spare and while going from high-ultra doesnt interest me aliasing sucks.

[D3MON]

Sign even in BF4 which is a best case scenario and highly optimized for AMD ... Intel still wins LOL.

lol yo, check this guy out....

[I/O]

lol yo, check this guy out....

Says the AMD FX owner and fanboy LOL.

[Hieb]

no its really not, having played bf4 online for the last few hours i can tell you its fine, i locked it down to 3 modules 6 threads and allocated a module purely to fraps for recording, dont know if it made any difference but what can i say im an enthusiast and like to play.

i probably should be running more than 125% resolution scale though because ive got performance spare and while going from high-ultra doesnt interest me aliasing sucks.

 

I would be very interested in your minimum framerates (preferably . I've yet to see a performance test on YouTube where FX CPUs don't drop below 60 fps during intense things like loads of explosions in 64P gameplay.