AMD FX 8370 vs Intel I7 5960x [GTX 970 SLI 4K benchmarks]

[Yoinkerman]

He starts his scentence with "it's because of all the Intel fanboys". Nothing that comes next is going to be particularly intelligent.

Have you not seen the proliferation of people blindly saying only use Intel amd is trash in every situation, when it demonstrably isn't true? People all the time tell others that an amd 8350 is trash because it gets like 8 fewer fps in a game compared to an Intel. Complete garbage because Intel gets 100 fps and the amd gets 92, and costs 1/2 the price.

[Majestic]

Have you not seen the proliferation of people blindly saying only use Intel amd is trash in every situation, when it demonstrably isn't true? People all the time tell others that an amd 8350 is trash because it gets like 8 fewer fps in a game compared to an Intel. Complete garbage because Intel gets 100 fps and the amd gets 92, and costs 1/2 the price.

 

What demonstrations are you referring to? Because if they're demonstrations like the benchmark in the OP, they're bogus. You're also misrepresenting the argument.

 

Also, have a look at the DX12 benchmark just above your post. Please tell me again how AMD FX CPU's are worth their investment.

[Yoinkerman]

What demonstrations are you referring to? Because if they're demonstrations like the benchmark in the OP, they're bogus. You're also misrepresenting the argument.

Also, have a look at the DX12 benchmark just above your post. Please tell me again how AMD FX CPU's are worth their investment.

http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Systems/Quad-Core-Gaming-Roundup-How-Much-CPU-Do-You-Really-Need

[Majestic]

http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Systems/Quad-Core-Gaming-Roundup-How-Much-CPU-Do-You-Really-Need

 

And the very first graph;

 

already disproves your point.

 

/sigh

[zappian]

4K is very gpu bound.

 

You can make a pentium dual core get the same results as an i7 at that resolution .

[Yoinkerman]

And the very first graph;

already disproves your point.

/sigh

Which point is that, exactly?

[Majestic]

Which point is that, exactly?

 

I have to reprhase your argument? Just how incompetent are you...

 

Here is your comment, in all it's grammatically devoid, zero punctuation, glory.

 

 

People all the time tell others that an amd 8350 is trash because it gets like 8 fewer fps in a game compared to an Intel. Complete garbage because Intel gets 100 fps and the amd gets 92, and costs 1/2 the price. 

[Yoinkerman]

I have to reprhase your argument? Just how incompetent are you...

Here is your comment, in all it's grammatically devoid, zero punctuation, glory.

I don't see a single game that isn't playable?

[Majestic]

I don't see a single game that isn't playable?

 

That's not the point. The point is they're scoring subpar to Intel's offerings, by a fair margin whilst not being cheaper by that same margin. Meaning, they're objectively worse value. It's not that hard to make a rational decision if you really want to.

[Yoinkerman]

That's not the point. The point is they're scoring subpar to Intel's offerings, by a fair margin whilst not being cheaper by that same margin. Meaning, they're objectively worse value. It's not that hard to make a rational decision if you really want to.

Oh, but it is the point. My point was the hype train of calling amd chips trash is demonstrably untrue. Not a single one in the quad(+) core roundup made games unplayable by any stretch. I didn't claim Intel chips weren't better at different price points, or that amd chips aren't objectively worse in a lot of cases.

 

Edit:  I picked up a 8320 on black friday for $99.  Anyone who tries to claim I should have bought an intel instead is out to lunch.

[HalGameGuru]

That graph is showing me some very good price to performance across the board, and a couple situations where a 2 module Athlon is keeping pace with everything and I believe I see an i3  handily outperforming a 4790k. The one thing that graph proves is that where things are CPU bound Intel has a marked advantage in performance, not so much in price, but in relation to this thread, and ITS OP graph, 4K across the board AMD and Intel are neck and neck. As expected. Not everybody has 1500 dollars to spend on a gaming PC, some people have to triage their wallets. And in the end an AMD CPU married to a decent GPU makes sense. Get over it.

[thebennyboy]

 

Anybody want some?

 

All this arguing is why i no longer get involved with these "discussions", they always end up with people attacking each other. You got an i7 4790k? Good for you! You got an FX-8320? Good for you too! 

[MageTank]

Oh, but it is the point. My point was the hype train of calling amd chips trash is demonstrably untrue. Not a single one in the quad(+) core roundup made games unplayable by any stretch. I didn't claim Intel chips weren't better at different price points, or that amd chips aren't objectively worse in a lot of cases.

 

Edit:  I picked up a 8320 on black friday for $99.  Anyone who tries to claim I should have bought an intel instead is out to lunch.

While AMD chips are by no means "trash" they are just inferior to Intel CPU's when it comes to gaming. Sure, both sides can get very respectable high frames, but max frame rates mean absolutely nothing in gaming. The #1 deal breaker, is minimum frame rate. When your frame rate spikes down to 10fps often, it becomes an issue. When this happens, it is hurting your average frame rate too, which is the number 1 part of the graph most average consumers look at. 

 

Before you tell me i am wrong, understand i too own an FX 8320 with a Gigabyte 990FXA UD3, overclocked to 4.2ghz. My Pentium G3258 overclocked to 4.2ghz not only gets more FPS on average, its minimum and even maximum framerates blow the 8320 away. Granted, i mostly play MMO's, and MMO's are heavily single threaded, but the point still stands. The limited IPC of the FX series holds it back when compared to that of even a Sandybridge CPU. If you want proof from me, i can bench any game of your choosing with both my 8320 and G3258. The results will speak for themselves.

[Yoinkerman]

While AMD chips are by no means "trash" they are just inferior to Intel CPU's when it comes to gaming. Sure, both sides can get very respectable high frames, but max frame rates mean absolutely nothing in gaming. The #1 deal breaker, is minimum frame rate. When your frame rate spikes down to 10fps often, it becomes an issue. When this happens, it is hurting your average frame rate too, which is the number 1 part of the graph most average consumers look at. 

 

Before you tell me i am wrong, understand i too own an FX 8320 with a Gigabyte 990FXA UD3, overclocked to 4.2ghz. My Pentium G3258 overclocked to 4.2ghz not only gets more FPS on average, its minimum and even maximum framerates blow the 8320 away. Granted, i mostly play MMO's, and MMO's are heavily single threaded, but the point still stands. The limited IPC of the FX series holds it back when compared to that of even a Sandybridge CPU. If you want proof from me, i can bench any game of your choosing with both my 8320 and G3258. The results will speak for themselves.

 

We agree then, they're not trash.

[patrickjp93]

Oh, but it is the point. My point was the hype train of calling amd chips trash is demonstrably untrue. Not a single one in the quad(+) core roundup made games unplayable by any stretch. I didn't claim Intel chips weren't better at different price points, or that amd chips aren't objectively worse in a lot of cases.

 

Edit:  I picked up a 8320 on black friday for $99.  Anyone who tries to claim I should have bought an intel instead is out to lunch.

i got a 4930K for $240 on a Black Friday. You may proceed to suck it.

[SpaceNugget]

 

 

 

“Starting off our 4K benchmarks, we can see that Crysis 3 plays nearly the same on all configurations with a slightly worse frame time on our 5960X. However, once overclocked our FX-8370 delivers the best experience, never dropping below 30 FPS in terms of frame time variance.”

 

 

 This guy has no idea whats going on. less varience is better.

[bcredeur97]

hmmmm its just that some games are very CPU heavy while other's arent. crysis 3 is kinda-sorta not really. 

 

As a terrible example (cant think right now), minecraft on an 4790K is waaay better than on an FX chip, but thats more of a single core performance title. 

 

idk... it really just depends what the game puts on what threads. If things are broken down between threads very well the FX will be fine(less often), but if not then the intel is better (more often)

[MEC-777]

Lol @ everyone freaking out, claiming this is BS. It's not. It's simply an extremely GPU-bound situation.

 

Run that hardware combination at 1080p and you will see more of a difference (the 5960x pulling ahead).

[Dabombinable]

Lol @ everyone freaking out, claiming this is BS. It's not. It's simply an extremely GPU-bound situation.

 

Run that hardware combination at 1080p and you will see more of a difference (the 5960x pulling ahead).

The way it was done was BS-its the kind of test you do for GPU, not CPU.

[MEC-777]

The way it was done was BS-its the kind of test you do for GPU, not CPU.

 

The results aren't BS. The context in which the test was conducted (to compare CPUs) is BS, yes.

 

I think the point they were trying to make is when it boils down to a pure GPU-bound gaming situation, don't waste your money on a $1000 CPU. However, I'd still much rather buy (and recommend) a mainstream i5 (4460-4690k etc.) over the FX 8-core, personally. 

[Dabombinable]

The results aren't BS. The context in which the test was conducted (to compare CPUs) is BS, yes.

 

I think the point they were trying to make is when it boils down to a pure GPU-bound gaming situation, don't waste your money on a $1000 CPU. However, I'd still much rather buy (and recommend) a mainstream i5 (4460-4690k etc.) over the FX 8-core, personally. 

Re-read.

The way it was done was BS-its the kind of test you do for GPU, not CPU.

[MEC-777]

Re-read.

 

Yes. I was agreeing with you.

[Sintezza]

Lol @ everyone freaking out, claiming this is BS. It's not. It's simply an extremely GPU-bound situation.

 

Run that hardware combination at 1080p and you will see more of a difference (the 5960x pulling ahead).

 

Logan exaly made a video of a 5960X overclocked with GTX980 Sli at 1080p and 1440p.

And you will be suprised how badly the scaling was at 1080p in allot of games.

At 1440p the scaling was allot better, which is logical ofc.

 

But in this case we talk about 4k, in which you are basicly GPU limmited in most scenario´s.

you should see similar scores arround both cpu´s, or atleast tiny diffrences within a margin of error. (depending from game to game)

[patrickjp93]

The results aren't BS. The context in which the test was conducted (to compare CPUs) is BS, yes.

 

I think the point they were trying to make is when it boils down to a pure GPU-bound gaming situation, don't waste your money on a $1000 CPU. However, I'd still much rather buy (and recommend) a mainstream i5 (4460-4690k etc.) over the FX 8-core, personally. 

The result is BS. There's no way the 5960X should get lower minimum frame times. It's a faster chip at literally everything.

[HalGameGuru]

Yeah but the chip itself may not be what caused the lag in frame rendering. It could have been memory controller, it could have been a call on system ram, it could have been a hiccup in t he driver on that architecture, it could have been with the game itself, Patrick, you yourself have made mention of how horrendous game programmers are, there is no coding situation that could lead to a more beneficial outcome on an AMD chip than an Intel one? YOU couldn't write a spat of code that would perform better specifically in an AMD CMT situation than an Intel SMT one?

 

This is one more anecdotal interesting blip to add to the myriad. And it gives us a SUPER interesting follow up to study, WHY did the Intel chip have those frame time issues?