AMD FX = Bad?

[Fulgrim]

-snip-

Where and when did i state the i3 was a bad chip for gaming mate?

[GoodN1ght]

Were not fanboys. We just value our money by not buying crap

It's not AMD's fault they ''lost'' their bet that devs would unstick the foot up their ass and use more than 1-2 cores. 

Look at shit like Far Cry ffs, all on 1 core. 

[ThE_MarD]

Heyyo,

 

It's not AMD's fault they ''lost'' their bet that devs would unstick the foot up their ass and use more than 1-2 cores. 

Look at shit like Far Cry ffs, all on 1 core.

... Brah, you should go back in time of the Pentium IV vs AMD FX... it was the other way around back then when AMD had the better IPC... but then Intel rebuilt their CPUs from the ground up and released the Conroe (Core2) series CPUs and have been in the lead ever since... that was 2006.

It's AMD's turn to go back to the drawing board and come out with a more efficient CPU instead of just pushing higher clock frequencies on an older architecture and having a TWP up the yang compared to Intel offerings.

Back in the day? Yeah, I had an AMD Athlon64 CPU and it was a single-core CPU. Ever since the age of multi-core though? AMD has been trailing Intel. Hence I sold off that old rig and went for an Intel Core2Duo and then Core2Quad and so-fourth and never looking twice at an AMD CPU. I want performance over cost-effective mid-range. But that's just me. AMD CPUs still have a VERY strong market offering on low and middle end Desktop PC offerings... but they're definitely not the high-end anymore.

I'm not making this stuff up either. Look at SteveGrabowski. He's in the same boat I am in too.

But I hope the crown does go to AMD again, because I'm a longtime AMD buyer (K6-2, Athlon XP 1800+, Athlon 64x2 4000+, Phenom II x4 965 Black) and my current system is the first build I have done with Intel since the mid 90s. But their FX CPUs are indefensible right now for gaming the same way the Pentium 4 was back when the Athlon XP was the monster CPU on the block. AMD went that same route as Intel did back then, hoping high clockspeed numbers would fool people into thinking their CPU was better.

Quoted For Truth.

As for the argument of "Game devs should make their games multi-core optimized"? Well, you start up a game dev studio, make a game and then try to convince your publisher to give you time to optimize the game for multi-core and multi-GPU... see how that goes.

What I'm saying is? DirectX 12 and Vulcan will definitely help much like DirectX 11 was a step in the right direction... but in the end? If it's not cost-effective? Game devs won't always have the budget to get that support in their games unless they're lucky enough to license a great engine with support like that. Luckily? Source Engine, Unreal Engine and CryEngine are relatively cheap to make games on today... but that wasn't so for the past couple years where those engines cost $1 million dollars to get a commercial license...

Prime example of that? Make Something Unreal Contest. The $1 million dollar prize? A free commercial license to the engine. Bam.

[GoodN1ght]

Snip!

Yeah no I'm not saying AMD not weaker right now thats undeniable. I'm just saying they bet big on multicore dev, that didn't happen, their sales went down the drain and now instead of having enough money to launch zen in 2014 or 2015 they have to wait till next year. 

[Faceman]

Sure, you can eat spaghetti with a spoon, but a fork does it better.

-@Fate

[ThE_MarD]

Heyyo,

Yeah no I'm not saying AMD not weaker right now thats undeniable. I'm just saying they bet big on multicore dev, that didn't happen, their sales went down the drain and now instead of having enough money to launch zen in 2014 or 2015 they have to wait till next year.

Part of it is how insanely difficult it is to get all the threads to synchronize too. I remember watching & reading up on Unreal Engine 3 development and how the developers at Epic struggled to get it to work on multi-threaded processors stating how they had to make the first thread act as a synchronizer for the rest of them and they could only effectively achieve multi-threading on stuff like sound, animations and physics. They also stated they couldn't or didn't have the budget/time to set up 3D rendering for multi-threading. Maybe that has changed since the original release of Unreal Engine 3 but right there, one of the most popular game engines couldn't pull it off at first.

Maybe DirectX 12 will definitely help in that department... but we'll have to start seeing games release with it to see if Dx12 is everything they promised so far.

 

Sure, you can eat spaghetti with a spoon, but a fork does it better.

-@Fate

Lol I like it. Quoted for Truth.

[JamesKennedy97]

You better have a really nice motherboard too if you're putting the FX-9590 in it.

 

Crosshair V Formula-Z

[Hieb]

Every time i found a topic about "amd or intel" most of the reply is "fx lineup is dead", "amd is crap" etc.

 

is it that bad?

 

Pretty much... the CPU has really weak cores, so it processes threads slowly. The FX-x300 series has weaker cores than the much older Phenom II series of CPUs. It makes up for this by having many processing units to process a lot of threads at once, however this limits it performing optimally to very specific scenarios. For an FX-6300 or FX-8350 to perform well the software basically needs to use every core fully. These CPUs perform very well in something that pushes every core to 100%, like video encoding. Gaming isn't a parallel workload though, and even when a game can use all of the threads of an FX-6300 or FX-8350, it still benefits from higher single-threaded performance since it results in quicker processing of important things like physics and telling the GPU what it needs to draw (although this part will be multi-threaded come DirectX 12).

 

So if you're doing a lot of video editing or running virtual machines, AMD FX CPUs are unbeatable at their price point. But for gaming, Intel is a better option, especially considering the upgrade path it gives you. People get scared away by number of cores or GHz and stuff like that. 8 cores, turbo to 4.0GHz and overclockable sounds a lot more appealing than a hyper-threaded dual-core at 3.5GHz. But an i3-4330 will outperform an FX-8320 in 99% of games.  Of course the difference will depend on the game, the GPU and the settings the user uses, so in some cases you won't notice a difference between the two at all, while in some cases the i3 can be as much as 50% faster.

[Hieb]

It's not AMD's fault they ''lost'' their bet that devs would unstick the foot up their ass and use more than 1-2 cores. 

Look at shit like Far Cry ffs, all on 1 core. 

 

Battlefield 4 runs the same on an i3 as it does on an FX 8320... and that game uses up to 8 threads.

Don't underestimate IPC, and don't blame devs for a CPU with TERRIBLE architecture performing poorly.

 

It wasn't developers who let down consumers or AMD, it was AMD who released a god awful architecture, so they just put as many cores on as possible so that the CPU could do decent at something, that something being parallel workloads.

[GoodN1ght]

Battlefield 4 runs the same on an i3 as it does on an FX 8320... and that game uses up to 8 threads.

Don't underestimate IPC, and don't blame devs for a CPU with TERRIBLE architecture performing poorly.

 

It wasn't developers who let down consumers or AMD, it was AMD who released a god awful architecture, so they just put as many cores on as possible so that the CPU could do decent at something, that something being parallel workloads.

That's one game and these processors are almost 4 years old. OFC is you compare it to processors released this year it MIGHT look bad...

[Mush Brain]

Every time i found a topic about "amd or intel" most of the reply is "fx lineup is dead", "amd is crap" etc.

 

is it that bad?

For you.

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/277719-phenom-ii-is-still-great/

[Overkilled]

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_lookup.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i5-4590+%40+3.30GHz

According to this its not apparently its better than an i7 4770t and wipes the floor with the 4690k

[Hieb]

That's one game and these processors are almost 4 years old. OFC is you compare it to processors released this year it MIGHT look bad...

 

A processor with half the theoretical multi-threaded performance of the FX-8320. If the argument of devs not optimizing properly is relevant comparing an i3-3220 to an FX-8320, then it's also relevant comparing an i3-4330 to an FX-8320. This just doesn't add up with real world results even in games that are multi-threaded.

 

Assassin's Creed Unity, Far Cry 4, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline... all of these will use a lot of cores, but still perform nearly identically on an i3 and FX-8320/8350.

[GoodN1ght]

A processor with half the theoretical multi-threaded performance of the FX-8320. If the argument of devs not optimizing properly is relevant comparing an i3-3220 to an FX-8320, then it's also relevant comparing an i3-4330 to an FX-8320. This just doesn't add up with real world results even in games that are multi-threaded.

 

Assassin's Creed Unity, Far Cry 4, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline... all of these will use a lot of cores, but still perform nearly identically on an i3 and FX-8320/8350.

Lmao quoting Ubisoft games are you for real?... they're being shot down for being poorly optimized, not using a lot of cores. Far cry 4 was notorious for spiking single cores to 100% for no reason other than being 2 cheap to do their own ports and  subcontracting eastern euros. 

[Hieb]

Lmao quoting Ubisoft games are you for real?... they're being shot down for being poorly optimized, not using a lot of cores. Far cry 4 was notorious for spiking single cores to 100% for no reason other than being 2 cheap to do their own ports and  subcontracting eastern euros. 

 

How many cores do you see being used here?

[i_build_nanosuits]

 

How many cores do you see being used here?

the FPS are still awful though...

[Hieb]

the FPS are still awful though...

 

Yeah that's Ubi for you. My friend's SLI 980s only barely get 60 fps lol

[i_build_nanosuits]

Yeah that's Ubi for you. My friend's SLI 980s only barely get 60 fps lol

because people use the WRONG SETTINGS here's my video about this:

[GoodN1ght]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48osVDXpX78

How many cores do you see being used here?

That's still not correcting the Far Cry 4 hiccup. 

You can't quote on terribly optimized games, you could throw anything at it and the numbers would still suck. Cmon now. 

[Hieb]

That's still not correcting the Far Cry 4 hiccup. 

You can't quote on terribly optimized games, you could throw anything at it and the numbers would still suck. Cmon now. 

 

I'm guessing the only games I can quote haven't been created yet.

[i_build_nanosuits]

That's still not correcting the Far Cry 4 hiccup. 

You can't quote on terribly optimized games, you could throw anything at it and the numbers would still suck. Cmon now. 

Please watch the video i just posted in the post just above yours...and also please note that highly detailed demanding open world video games like ACU are the reason why we PC gamers build very powerful machines to be able to run them on great detail settings at good framerates, otherwise we would all be using core i3's and GTX 760.

 

I'm guessing the only games I can quote haven't been created yet.

right on.

[GoodN1ght]

Please watch the video i just posted in the post just above yours...and also please note that highly detailed demanding open world video games like ACU are the reason why we PC gamers build very powerful machines to be able to run them on great detail settings at good framerates, otherwise we would all be using core i3's and GTX 760.

 

right on.

Lmao AC Unity isnt demanding because its <<highly detailed>> it's demanding because its wasting ressource like nobody's business and Ubisoft does the worst PC ports. 

I didn't say anything about Battlefield... which is fine. I don't know why suddendly non shitty PC port  = games that dont exist.