AMD CPUs Will Gain Performance Boosts Due To Next-Gen Consoles According To John Carmack.

[Cryptonite]

why when you can get a 4770k, just because its a 4771 doesnt mean its better(except by default) for gaming. overclocking a 4770k will beat the 4771 in gaming. and they are both probably going to be pretty close in price.

 I wish there was a dislike button since this has absolutely no connection to what this thread is about (aside from the fact that you're comparing CPUs). try reading other comments before commenting yourself, this is in fact an interesting topic and is informative to those who did not know these things, this is a tech TIP site after all.

[EChondo]

In my opinion, we won't be seeing better PC games unless the games are made on PC first then ported down.

 

I see it the same way as video rendering, if you record something in 1280x720, you wouldn't upscale it to 1920x1080 would you?

[xAcid9]

Finally i can make a good use of my 8 corethreads.

[Duda777]

I think I will just wait till the consoles come out and see how new games perfom, before I get into one of these arguments

[Anubikai]

I think this conversation is somewhat irrelevant as both cpu companies have 8 core chips, or at least 4cores/8threads simulating 8 cores which is what everyone is saying will be needed. In the end no game can really max out a 3770k,nothing seriously stresses the cpu to the point it could become a bottleneck and i think the same goes for the 8350 which is also a really good cpu. They are and will be both great for gaming and a lot of other things as well......i don't see why one is better than the other. The intel chips have better single threaded performance but when multi threads/cores are used the 8350 and 3770k are on par with each other and i think thats what matters.......for the foreseeable future even with optimized 4/6/8 core engines i think both the blue and red team will be just fine. either one would be great, it will come down to how much money you want to spend on your cpu, $200 or $300+, the argument of spending more on the gpu can easily be used here....a 8350 will be better with a 7950 than a 3770k with a 7870 but most people have big enough budgets to just go for intel as that seems to be a favorite for gamers.overall i dont think games will become so heavily cpu/core dependent that will make anyone care...at least not anytime soon....

 

-Anubikai

[qwertywarrior]

In my opinion, we won't be seeing better PC games unless the games are made on PC first then ported down.

 

I see it the same way as video rendering, if you record something in 1280x720, you wouldn't upscale it to 1920x1080 would you?

all games are made on pc first

i think you mean "made for PC first"

 

pretty sure u can run every game at 1080p

the problem is low res textures ! argh  i hate it

[Dravic]

I discovered something extremely weird and funny, I need to do research how Dirt Showdown was coded:

 

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/42791-phenom-ii-x6-smokes-many-intel-and-all-amd-cpus-in-dirt-showdown-d/

[Hunter259]

I think this conversation is somewhat irrelevant as both cpu companies have 8 core chips, or at least 4cores/8threads simulating 8 cores which is what everyone is saying will be needed. In the end no game can really max out a 3770k,nothing seriously stresses the cpu to the point it could become a bottleneck and i think the same goes for the 8350 which is also a really good cpu. They are and will be both great for gaming and a lot of other things as well......i don't see why one is better than the other. The intel chips have better single threaded performance but when multi threads/cores are used the 8350 and 3770k are on par with each other and i think thats what matters.......for the foreseeable future even with optimized 4/6/8 core engines i think both the blue and red team will be just fine. either one would be great, it will come down to how much money you want to spend on your cpu, $200 or $300+, the argument of spending more on the gpu can easily be used here....a 8350 will be better with a 7950 than a 3770k with a 7870 but most people have big enough budgets to just go for intel as that seems to be a favorite for gamers.overall i dont think games will become so heavily cpu/core dependent that will make anyone care...at least not anytime soon....

 

-Anubikai

In games the 8350 and 3570k are equal or the i5 is a little better. I7 wipes the floor with the 8350.

[Kuzma]

In games the 8350 and 3570k are equal or the i5 is a little better. I7 wipes the floor with the 8350.

in multi-threaded things the 8350 destroys the i5, and can beat the i7 *looks at 7-zip*

[Hunter259]

in multi-threaded things the 8350 destroys the i5, and can beat the i7 *looks at 7-zip*

One of the rare things it actually can. Plus we arent even bringing in overclocks.

[Kuzma]

One of the rare things it actually can. Plus we arent even bringing in overclocks.

fair enough

[Anubikai]

i just hope that the i5 doesnt start loosing out to the much cheaper amd fx-6300 and below.....that will be a dark day for intel users when multicore optimization brings about a change such as that........then again i can always overclock or buy an i7 so im not too worried =)

 

-Anubikai

[TechFan@ic]

i just hope that the i5 doesnt start loosing out to the much cheaper amd fx-6300 and below.....that will be a dark day for intel users when multicore optimization brings about a change such as that........then again i can always overclock or buy an i7 so im not too worried =)

 

-Anubikai

When these multi-core optimizations start to kick in, I expect intel to enable hyperthreading in i5s and make i7s hexa cores.

This will be possible with 14nm, so this will happen either with Broadwell (probably not) or Skylake (most likely).

[Anubikai]

When these multi-core optimizations start to kick in, I expect intel to enable hyperthreading in i5s and make i7s hexa cores.

This will be possible with 14nm, so this will happen either with Broadwell (probably not) or Skylake (most likely).

 

i doubt i7's will jump to hexa core.....even if the x79 or xeons become 8 or 12cores the i7's wll most likely stay 4 cores with hyperthreading......i would imagine intel would just implement some major performance upgrade....they probably have something ready to implement as amd hasnt been much competition.....the last three intel generations for all intensive purposes have had fairly the same amount of performance...yes 5-10% extra here or there but nothing major with resepect to gaming.......so they will add their hidden trick and BAM!!......intel will try to become top dog...although AMD is doing some crazy stuff....we can speculate all we can, nothing matter till we see cold hard facts.

 

-Anubikai

 

-Anubikai

[SkilledRebuilds]

I was thinking of future products last night...

I'm waiting for the APU with a Quad Module 8Core+ Dual IGPU's

Example - 7800K APU = 8x1.6ghz (3.5ghz Turbo Boost) with 2x 9850 IGPU's @ 960cores @ 850mhz/1000mhz

Then for extra GPU grunt, CrossfireX with any matched dedicated card.

[Anubikai]

I was thinking of future products last night...

I'm waiting for the APU with a Quad Module 8Core+ Dual IGPU's

Example - 7800K APU = 8x1.6ghz (3.5ghz Turbo Boost) with 2x 9850 IGPU's @ 960cores @ 850mhz/1000mhz

Then for extra GPU grunt, CrossfireX with any matched dedicated card.

 

will not work......i doubt they have enough space on 28nm or whatever they are using for a cpu and dual igpus......also igpus are essentially useless to a large majority of users who opt for dedicated anyway...if current igpu gives me 15fps in a game and then dual igpus give me 29fps in the same game....i still wouldn't be happy......a good dedicated will always beat igpu handsdown....plus what your asking will probably take a ton of power and output a lot of heat.....maybe when amd goes to 14nm chips they could but i doubt they will....i would like to see amd giving each core its own resources...as i understand there current architecture has modules, each module has two cores that shares resources......if each core had its own resources then it could effectively double the power of the chip.....that would give intel chips a run for their money and i would gladly pay intl prices for amd if they did that.....

 

-Anubikai

[Dravic]

will not work......i doubt they have enough space on 28nm or whatever they are using for a cpu and dual igpus......also igpus are essentially useless to a large majority of users who opt for dedicated anyway...if current igpu gives me 15fps in a game and then dual igpus give me 29fps in the same game....i still wouldn't be happy......a good dedicated will always beat igpu handsdown....plus what your asking will probably take a ton of power and output a lot of heat.....maybe when amd goes to 14nm chips they could but i doubt they will....i would like to see amd giving each core its own resources...as i understand there current architecture has modules, each module has two cores that shares resources......if each core had its own resources then it could effectively double the power of the chip.....that would give intel chips a run for their money and i would gladly pay intl prices for amd if they did that.....

 

-Anubikai

Essentially, I do not understand why the frock they scraped Phenoms for some stupid modular architecture where Bulldozers were downright slower than Phenoms and piledriver is still slower but they are trying to hide it using higher clocks.

[Kuzma]

i just hope that the i5 doesnt start loosing out to the much cheaper amd fx-6300 and below.....that will be a dark day for intel users when multicore optimization brings about a change such as that........then again i can always overclock or buy an i7 so im not too worried =)

 

-Anubikai

Won't happen; just because more cores are being used doesn't mean the stronger processors with less cores will suffer. i7s make no difference to gaming AT ALL due to the very nature of hyper-threading.

 

When these multi-core optimizations start to kick in, I expect intel to enable hyperthreading in i5s and make i7s hexa cores.

This will be possible with 14nm, so this will happen either with Broadwell (probably not) or Skylake (most likely).

... i5s with hyperthreading would be useless but meh. I think we need i9s :p

[SkilledRebuilds]

will not work......i doubt they have enough space on 28nm or whatever they are using for a cpu and dual igpus......also igpus are essentially useless to a large majority of users who opt for dedicated anyway

 

-Anubikai

I Agree, but still liking the idea of all intergrated yet powerful (I was looking @ 3-5 years from now)

What about the idea of Dual Socket APU, fast memory @ 2400mhz to quicken both GPU's utilizing crossfireX (for boosted openCL rendering & gaming "potential"), while you stated most users opt for dedicated, and I agree, more choice for usage scenario's is better overall as well. It may be overkill, but some people like overkill

[Anubikai]

I Agree, but still liking the idea of all intergrated yet powerful (I was looking @ 3-5 years from now)

What about the idea of Dual Socket APU, fast memory @ 2400mhz to quicken both GPU's utilizing crossfireX (for boosted openCL rendering & gaming "potential"), while you stated most users opt for dedicated, and I agree, more choice for usage scenario's is better overall as well. It may be overkill, but some people like overkill

 

what i would like to see is a dual socket am3+ motherboard....i dont know if its possible and it probably will never happen, i like the idea of two 8350s on one board......also a dual socket 1150 board would be awesome aswell..having two 4770s just charging through stuff....ofcourse both amd and intel have their respective platforms for dual cpu solution but i would like to see a mainstream socket get a bit of dual cpu love...even if it was for only one generation...thats all we need......Just two cpus and a crapton of pci express lanes and some damn good sata controllers.....onboard audio can be sucky as anyone buying these board should be thinking of a soundcard.....ofcourse dual cpus will in no way increase gaming performance by a considerable amount for gamers to seriously consider the option but just having raw compute power makes me happy.....im probably gong x79 in my next build or whatever the respective xtreme platform for intel or amd whatever is better in 5 years time....maybe im dreamnig too much =/

 

-Anubikai

[EPSFBPMOSF]

The same argument can be made for an AMD 6 core processor, an FX 6300 will be more than twice as powerful as an 8 core jaguar CPU, and an FX 6300 costs less than half what an i5 costs.

Why would you as a gamer in this case buy an i5 ? this is the argument that I'm presenting, for each price point you will get more cores with the AMD processors, and now that games can actually utilize the extra cores these AMD processors become an outstanding choice for PC gamers, in terms of performance and price.

one wrote to me

 

"

While I like AMD CPUs a lot, the 4670k blows the 6300 out of the water. It's a hexa core, but it's 6 weaker cores so to say and 99% of the games are single core anyways so you'll be better off with the 4670k.

 

The 280x is somewhat better than the 770 [the 770 is a rebranded 680 the 280x is a rebranded 7970. And I had a lot of trouble with the 680 so personally I'd go with the 280x over the 770 and go with the i5 over the 6300. Yes, Intel CPUs and AMD GPUs work flawlessly (using a i5 2500k and a 290x myself ]"

 

what's your opinion?

[Glenwing]

Please do not necro old threads