PCIE Gen 2 versus PCIE Gen 3 in the context of Mid-budget builds

[Captain Matt]

Hello!

I was talking with my friend today and I argued that AMD is still relevant as a desktop processor because the money spent on an Intel processor that is not more powerful than an AMD processor is wasted if not spent on a better graphics card because the difference between pcie gen 2 and gen 3 is negligible.

 

For example: 4590 (there is not an unlocked version) versus 8350. Or i3 4130 versus AMD 6300. (I found numerous instances where this was recommended in the new builds section over the 6300). I mean are you really getting much of a bump moving from a 4130 to a 4150 or a 4160?

Flipping through the 'completed builds' section of PCpartpicker, I most often saw the 4130 paired with the 660 or 750ti.

While I saw that the 6300 was most often paired with an R9 270x or 280. Occasionally a 970.

I stand with JayzTwoCentz: The gpu matters more than the cpu for gaming.

 

Another thing that really bugs me in the AMD v. Intel debate is: "The render times are faster".

How often does that person actually render? How long does rendering ACTUALLY take? The bigger question is what program and what graphics card is hat person using?

Example: Sony Vegas can't utilize nVidia gpu's but Adobe Premiere can.

Rendering is faster on the cpu than the gpu.

 

Just between those two things (pcie spec), do you think the AMD 8350 is still relevant?
If so, please explain!

 

I personally use an 8350 @ stock with an ASUS GTX 770 and it's great.

 

 

-Matt

[laxer]

In general,

 

AMD based platforms are better for entry level gaming machines due to the lower cost to performance ratio.

 

In regards to PCI gen 2 vs 3, gen 3 supports roughly 2 times the throughput but it shouldn't really impact any single card system.

 

IMO if you're spending more than $750 on a desktop your better off going with Intel regardless of what your use case is.

[TheKDub]

PCI-e 2.0 16x = PCI-e 3.0 8x.

PCI-e 2.0 8x = PCI-e 3.0 4x.

[Captain Matt]

In general,

 

AMD based platforms are better for entry level gaming machines due to the lower cost to performance ratio.

 

In regards to PCI gen 2 vs 3, gen 3 supports roughly 2 times the throughput but it shouldn't really impact any single card system.

 

IMO if you're spending more than $750 on a desktop your better off going with Intel regardless of what your use case is.

^^^

Yeah... There's like a threshold of sorts for which brand system is worth it.

[Captain Matt]

PCI-e 2.0 16x = PCI-e 3.0 8x.

PCI-e 2.0 8x = PCI-e 3.0 4x.

Yes but the bandwidth of even pcie gen 2 is still MASSIVE. 

[Briggsy]

Its an old argument. AMD Bulldozer/Piledriver CPU's have horrible IPC for gaming and for some single threaded tasks. The AMD cores are packed together in two's, inside a module with shared resources and shared FPU.

 

To boil it down to a simple concept:

 

An Intel core is almost twice as powerful as an AMD bulldozer core. If you have an Intel Core with hyper threading, you can utilize 100% of a core to a single thread, or split the core between 2 threads at any ratio (doesn't have to be 50/50, it can be 25/75 or 1/99).

 

An AMD Bulldozer Module contains 2 cores with shared resources, and can handle 2 threads at once. You cannot utilize 100% of the module to a single thread, and with 2 threads its a 50/50 split. If one core is running a really demanding task while the other core is doing light work, you are not utilizing the full potential of the Module.

 

This is why Intel is currently better for high end builds. For budget builds, you won't see a lot of gain by going intel. The difference between PCI-E 2.0 and 3.0 has nothing to do with the overall performance. In fact, there isn't much of a difference with most graphic cards by jumping to PCI-E 3.0.

 

*edit* as a side note my brother is running a gtx 760 SC with a quad core FX cpu, and I've seen little difference in performance on his PC compared to when I had the 760 paired with a locked sandy bridge i5. 

[Captain Matt]

Its an old argument. AMD Bulldozer/Piledriver CPU's have horrible IPC for gaming and for some single threaded tasks. The AMD cores are packed together in two's, inside a module with shared resources and shared FPU.

 

To boil it down to a simple concept:

 

An Intel core is almost twice as powerful as an AMD bulldozer core. If you have an Intel Core with hyper threading, you can utilize 100% of a core to a single thread, or split the core between 2 threads at any ratio (doesn't have to be 50/50, it can be 25/75 or 1/99).

 

An AMD Bulldozer Module contains 2 cores with shared resources, and can handle 2 threads at once. You cannot utilize 100% of the module to a single thread, and with 2 threads its a 50/50 split. If one core is running a really demanding task while the other core is doing light work, you are not utilizing the full potential of the Module.

 

This is why Intel is currently better for high end builds. For budget builds, you won't see a lot of gain by going intel. The difference between PCI-E 2.0 and 3.0 has nothing to do with the overall performance. In fact, there isn't much of a difference with most graphic cards by jumping to PCI-E 3.0.

Games that are single threaded won't be that demanding in the first place though, correct?

In what application does 'single core performance' matter.

Do you agree with the idea of a threshold of choosing Intel/AMD (see above)?

I couldn't find a definition for IPC. I have an 8350 and it's great for gaming.

[Darkman]

In general,

 

AMD based platforms are better for entry level gaming machines due to the lower cost to performance ratio.

 

In regards to PCI gen 2 vs 3, gen 3 supports roughly 2 times the throughput but it shouldn't really impact any single card system.

 

IMO if you're spending more than $750 on a desktop your better off going with Intel regardless of what your use case is.

Must say the FX6300 paired with something like a 270 makes a really killer budget video editing and live streaming rig.

[laxer]

-Snip-

 

To jump in, I completely agree with his points.

 

IPC is instructions per clock cycle. Which Intel absolutely destroys AMD on. (In other words, you can do way more per clock cycle on an Intel chip than AMD)

 

Note: A processors clock speed is in cycles per second.

 

-----

 

I will let him answer the question about single core performance as it is a can of worms I do not want to open.

[Captain Matt]

To jump in, I completely agree with his points.

 

IPC is instructions per clock cycle. Which Intel absolutely destroys AMD on. (In other words, you can do way more per clock cycle on an Intel chip than AMD)

 

Note: A processors clock speed is in cycles per second.

 

-----

 

I will let him answer the question about single core performance as it is a can of worms I do not want to open.

I agree Intel wins at the higher end. I would be interested to see your response to the idea of a threshold (see above).

[Briggsy]

Games that are single threaded won't be that demanding in the first place though, correct?

In what application does 'single core performance' matter.

Do you agree with the idea of a threshold of choosing Intel/AMD (see above)?

I couldn't find a definition for IPC. I have an 8350 and it's great for gaming.

 

I would agree there is a threshold. I would also agree that newer games of any quality will utilize more threads, and therefore you should be fine up to a point.

 

With your 8350, I would recommend downloading this nifty program called park control, to make sure that none of your cores are being parked. that will also boost performance with single threaded tasks. https://bitsum.com/parkcontrol/ If parking AC and DC are off, and Frequency scaling AC and DC are on, you are golden.

 

*edit* IPC is just instructions per cycle. If your CPU is running at 4.2Ghz, that's 4.2 billion cycles per second. Both an 8350 and 4690k can handle about 28 instructions per cycle maximum across all cores (or so I've heard), but you would need an AMD module running two optimized threads at the same time to match the IPC of an Intel core running a single thread.

[laxer]

The threshold can be pretty subjective so I doubt you will find a solid line.

 

For desktops I would draw the line right around $750 as I stated above. I could see people arguing this up to about $1,200 but I don't think any AMD build is sensible above that.

 

For laptops my line is at $0, for the time being I will never own an AMD laptop. The power and power efficiency is so much better on an Intel based system that there is no competition in my mind.

[Captain Matt]

The threshold can be pretty subjective so I doubt you will find a solid line.

 

For desktops I would draw the line right around $750 as I stated above. I could see people arguing this up to about $1,200 but I don't think any AMD build is sensible above that.

 

For laptops my line is at $0, for the time being I will never own an AMD laptop. The power and power efficiency is so much better on an Intel based system that there is no competition in my mind.

I agree with a lie of about 200 for a processor (right now). Maybe later that can be higher.

I 100% agree with the laptop POV.

 

[laxer]

I agree with a lie of about 200 for a processor (right now). Maybe later that can be higher.

I 100% agree with the laptop POV.

 

I think $200 is a solid line for just the processor.

 

For a point of reference, Prior to my 4770k I had a 1100T which I got for $220 at the time.

[Captain Matt]

I really appreciate everybody posting thoughtful replies in this thread. Thank you!!

[sgloux3470]

The only time PCI-E 2.0 begins to show its age is at x4 speed.  Then you'll see some performance difference.

 

That said, FX supports far more PCI-E lanes than Intel offers in their consumer lineup and there's enough lanes for 2 way PCI-E x16 or 3 way x8. (Although 3 way x4 PCI-E 3.0 is pretty much just as good)

[Glenwing]

It takes a pretty low configuration (Gen2 x4) to see even the slightest performance drop in gaming (10-15% on average even on that) but even ignoring that, Intel does not have any advantage over AMD in terms of PCI Express anyway.

 

Intel Z97 has 16 lanes of PCIe 3.0

AMD 990FX has 32 lanes of PCIe 2.0

 

They're completely even. Any configuration you run on an Intel platform can be mirrored on a 990FX board except PCIe 3.0 x16, which is like four times as much bandwidth as you need anyway, for gaming purposes.

 

On Intel you could run dual cards in Gen3 x8/x8, or on AMD you would run them in Gen2 x16/x16 which is exactly the same thing. AMD is not at any disadvantage in the PCI Express department.

[-rascal-]

- snips -

 

$750 price is arguable.

 

Up across the border, a i5-4690K and a mid-range Z97 motherboard alone will cost $400~$450.

Example: i5-4690K + Gigabyte GA-Z97X-SLI

 

My invoice for my i5-4690K and Maximus VII Hero came up to a grad total of $548.79 after tax and shipping :wacko: .

IMO, for a decent Intel-based system, if you are building completely from scratch with no re-useable parts, you need something closer to ~$1000 to be optimal.

[FruitBasketSilex]

$750 price is arguable.

Up across the border, a i5-4690K and a mid-range Z97 motherboard alone will cost $400~$450.

Example: i5-4690K + Gigabyte GA-Z97X-SLI

My invoice for my i5-4690K and Maximus VII Hero came up to a grad total of $548.79 after tax and shipping :wacko: .

IMO, for a decent Intel-based system, if you are building completely from scratch with no re-useable parts, you need something closer to ~$1000 to be optimal.

You can find WAY cheaper boards than that. You're looking at an actual total of about 350$ with a 220$ 4690k, and a 130$ motherboard and free shipping. It seems pretty reasonable to me. I don't know how you spent 550$ on that, should be about 420$ for those two.

[-rascal-]

You can find WAY cheaper boards than that. You're looking at an actual total of about 350$ with a 220$ 4690k, and a 130$ motherboard and free shipping. It seems pretty reasonable to me. I don't know how you spent 550$ on that, should be about 420$ for those two.

 

You guys have it lucky in 'Murica.

 

Since the day the i5-4690K launched, it has NEVER gone down to $220. It sits in the $300 - $280 range usually.

The Gigabyte GA-Z97X-SLI goes for $160 - $150, but will occasionally go down to $120 - $130.

The Maximus VII Hero is priced at $260-$270, but will drop down to $240-$230 every now and then.

 

NCIX Bundle Deal ASUS Maximus VII Hero Motherboard & Intel i5-4690K -- $479.99

Shipping and handling -- $10.00

Subtotal -- $489.99

7% PST Tax -- $34.30

5% GTS Tax -- 24.50

Grand Total -- $548.79

 

When I got my Processor and Motherboard, there was already about a $80 discount compared to buying them separately -- NCIX bundle.

 

When I was down in Fremont, CA over the summer, Fry's had the i5-4690K and GA-Z97X-SLI combo on sale for $299.

[FruitBasketSilex]

You guys have it lucky in 'Murica.

 

Since the day the i5-4690K launched, it has NEVER gone down to $220. The lowest according to PCPartPicter is ~$260. It sits in the $299 - $280 range usually.

The Gigabyte GA-Z97X-SLI goes for $160 - $150, but will occasionally go down to $120 - $130.

The Maximus VII Hero is priced at $260-$270, but will drop down to $240-$230 every now and then.

 

NCIX Bundle Deal ASUS Maximus VII Hero Motherboard & Intel i5-4690K -- $479.99

Shipping and handling -- $10.00

Subtotal -- $489.99

7% PST Tax -- $34.30

5% GTS Tax -- 24.50

Grand Total -- $548.79

 

When I got my Processor and Motherboard, there was already about a $80 discount compared to buying them separately -- NCIX bundle.

 

When I was down in Fremont, CA over the summer, Fry's had the i5-4690K and GA-Z97X-SLI combo on sale for $299.

Yeah, the state i'm in doesn't even have sales tax, i'm pretty lucky TBH.

[-rascal-]

Yeah, the state i'm in doesn't even have sales tax, i'm pretty lucky TBH.

 

Lucky man. Indeed.

 

Lol now that I think about it. Even if I did by the bundle for $299, converting it back to Canadian currency, and it would still cost less -- given that our currency, at the moment, is like $1 CDN = $0.80 USD. 

[FruitBasketSilex]

Lucky man. Indeed.

 

Lol now that I think about it. Even if I did by the bundle for $299, converting it back to Canadian currency, and it would still cost less -- given that our currency, at the moment, is like $1 CDN = $0.80 USD. 

So I was looking at your sig, you have the only Corsair brand air cooler i've ever seen.

[-rascal-]

So I was looking at your sig, you have the only Corsair brand air cooler i've ever seen.

They used to exist, mang!

Corsair A50 and A70.

Maybe I'm already too old-school.

The A50 supposively performs better than the Hyper 212 Plus...but I don't know how it stacks up against the Hyper 212 Evo, though.

The A50 was cheaper, too, so...why not.

[FruitBasketSilex]

They used to exist, mang!

Corsair A50 and A70.

Maybe I'm already too old-school.

The A50 supposively performs better than the Hyper 212 Plus...but I don't know how it stacks up against the Hyper 212 Evo, though.

The A50 was cheaper, too, so...why not.

That's some old school shit by now. #OGAirCooler