AMD Athlon X4 750K

[PCBudgetSolutions]

Meh They claim the FX-8350 beats the I5-3570K in Crysis 3 but linus's benchmarks show otherwise: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1PSGh26Ne0XQ0h3NC1VZDVIR0U/edit?pli=1

FX-8350 @ 4.6Ghz is slightly behind an I5-3570K @ 4.2GHz, yet the said the FX-8350 destroyed it and beats the I7-3770K.

[PCBudgetSolutions]

Meh They claim the FX-8350 beats the I5-3570K in Crysis 3 but linus's benchmarks show otherwise: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1PSGh26Ne0XQ0h3NC1VZDVIR0U/edit?pli=1

FX-8350 @ 4.6Ghz is slightly behind an I5-3570K @ 4.2GHz, yet the said the FX-8350 destroyed it and beats the I7-3770K.

I know my I7-2600K is about 15 fps ahead of Linus's FX-8350 running the same benchmark as well.

[91wow]

I know my I7-2600K is about 15 fps ahead of Linus's FX-8350 running the same benchmark as well.

Stream the game tho, you will see less of an FPS loss with the 8350 compared to a I5 or I7. the 8350 is one of the best CPU's for livestreaming gameplay and recording, it's what it's best at.

[berianmol]

i bet you watched Austin's video, before you made this topic. 

[TechFan@ic]

Meh They claim the FX-8350 beats the I5-3570K in Crysis 3 but linus's benchmarks show otherwise: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1PSGh26Ne0XQ0h3NC1VZDVIR0U/edit?pli=1

FX-8350 @ 4.6Ghz is slightly behind an I5-3570K @ 4.2GHz, yet the said the FX-8350 destroyed it and beats the I7-3770K.

The benchmark wasn't my point at all, the game developers, all of them chose the FX 8350 over the 3570K because of what I've been trying to explain which is that threading is a constant in a game engine it isn't variable, which means that if you had two equally powerful processors but one had 4 cores & the other had 2, if the game supports 4 cores it will run faster on the quad core.

It's worth noting as well that depending on the environment Crysis 3 can run better on an FX 8350 or a 3570K, in environments with heavy vegetation an 8350 is faster, because the coding for vegetation physics in Crysis 3 is very multi-threading aware.

[PCBudgetSolutions]

The benchmark wasn't my point at all, the game developers, all of them chose the FX 8350 over the 3570K because of what I've been trying to explain which is that threading is a constant in a game engine it isn't variable, which means that if you had two equally powerful processors but one had 4 cores & the other had 2, if the game supports 4 cores it will run faster on the quad core.

It's worth noting as well that depending on the environment Crysis 3 can run better on an FX 8350 or a 3570K, in environments with heavy vegetation an 8350 is faster, because the coding for vegetation physics in Crysis 3 is very multi-threading aware.

Remember the FX-8350 has 2 cores per module but 1 floating integer per module.  So @ 100% load you really don't get 8 cores of power as you lose alot with only 4 floating integers and each module shares L2 cache rather than have it independently.  But tech we both agree the FX-8350 is a good value against the I5-3570k.  Here is my issue.  He is going for a budget CPU and GPU.  He will be bottlenecked by his HD 7770GHz way before a CPU with a good architecture.  So why get a CPU like a 750K that will perform far more poorly than a G860 in every modern game.  The only scenario where the 750K or A8 OC'ed might beat a G860 or G2120 is if you have a GTX 780.  Even so it will be very little due to poor architecture of the CPU.  A game codded for AMD quad cores will run very well on intel dual cores due to efficiency as I've stated earlier.  I recommend either getting an AM3+ budget CPU or a Intel dual core.  Avoid the FM platform if he plans to upgrade down the road.  Both the I5 and FX-8350 are very good upgrade paths.  No point in getting a terribly designed quad core because "games are designed for them" if your GPU cannot handle more than 2 cores of execution or Intel's case 1 core.

[TechFan@ic]

  So why get a CPU like a 750K that will perform far more poorly than a G860 in every modern game.  The only scenario where the 750K or A8 OC'ed might beat a G860 or G2120 is if you have a GTX 780.  Even so it will be very little due to poor architecture of the CPU.

Well this is simply not true, at the low end a quad core is always better than a dual core (especially a dual core with no hyper-threading) for gaming, that's why both anandtech & tom's hardware almost always recommend AMD quad cores at the 100$ mark.

 

 A game codded for AMD quad cores will run very well on intel dual cores due to efficiency as I've stated earlier.

No, that's not how threading works.

Lets call an intel dual core CPU A & an AMD Quad Core CPU B.

CPU A has two cores each has 100 GFlops of processing power.

CPU B has 4 cores each has 75 GFLOPs of processing power.

when a game is coded to run on 4 threads (like most games are) you will get 200 GFLOPs out of CPU A & 300 GFLOPs out of CPU B, CPU B will run the game 50% faster.

Examples of this : (i3 2100 CPU A, FX 4300 CPU B)

http://gamegpu.ru/action-/-fps-/-tps/crysis-3-test-gpu/graficheskaya-chast.html

http://gamegpu.ru/action-/-fps-/-tps/far-cry-3-v-102-test-gpu.html

 

 

[PCBudgetSolutions]

Now show that test with a hd 7770. That's my theory though and you just proved it. With a high end card that's when a a poorly designed quad core will beat a dual core or a dual core with hyperthreading.