what makes these CPUS better then this one.

[Suffokation]

 

DX12 will use up to 8 cores and 6 is now the standard! The draw calls in DX11 is only from 1-core but in DX12 it will be from 6-cores I would probably keept using my dual-core machine if the requirement of 4 treads "minimum" was not there!

 

He is racist towards logic! (also the FX can beat up to 3rd gen i5 but that depends on the game but now we are at 6th which is yes 2 gens ahead!)

 

6 cores is NOT the standard. Do not be ridiculous! High end Skylake has 4 cores for a reason. 

 

AMD still has an IPC of early i3, i5, i7 products that started production in 2008 and DirectX 12 cannot magically improve this.

[jc980]

-snippy-

 

You just love AMD ain't ya?

[Nena Trinity]

6 cores is NOT the standard. Do not be ridiculous! High end Skylake has 4 cores for a reason. 

 

AMD still has an IPC of early i3, i5, i7 products that started production in 2008 and DirectX 12 cannot magically improve this.

DX12 is gonna increase IPC by drawing it from 5 more sources duh! 6-cores is clearly standard for DX9 to DX11 but only 1-core can do draw calls...

 

You just love AMD ain't ya?

Nope never had a AMD GPU! (yet, lol rig 2 is a work in progress...)

[Suffokation]

DX12 is gonna increase IPC by drawing it from 5 more sources duh! 6-cores is clearly standard for DX9 to DX11 but only 1-core can do draw calls...

 

Nope never had a AMD GPU! (yet, lol rig 2 is a work in progress...)

That is not how IPC works. IPC is physical, it is within the architecture.

Draw calls and IPC are different.

[jc980]

DX12 is gonna increase IPC by drawing it from 5 more sources duh! 6-cores is clearly standard for DX9 to DX11 but only 1-core can do draw calls...

That theory ain't proven yet.

[harrynowl]

Intel CPUs get more work done per clock cycle. A 1GHz AMD chip would be about 60% of a 1GHz Intel chip.

[Nena Trinity]

That is not how IPC works. IPC is physical, it is within the architecture.

Draw calls and IPC are different.

If you think so!

 

That theory ain't proven yet.

Its proven by both DX12 and Vulkan!

[jc980]

-snippy-

On API tests yes, but on real games not yet.

[Suffokation]

If you think so!

This is heavly proven.

My IPT lecturer told my entire class this, 6 months.

[Nena Trinity]

On API tests yes, but on real games not yet.

Yeah and that was a stress test that should be very harsh!

[Hieb]

TLDR:

Intel's CPUs do more in each cycle (Hz) than AMD's do, so an Intel CPU at around 2.8GHz can do what an AMD CPU can do at 4GHz. Also AMD's FX "cores" share a lot of resources, whereas in other CPU architectures each core has its own resources so it doesn't have to share... so an FX six core has a lot less than an Intel six core would have.

 

1. The term "core" is very ambiguous. There's no exact definition or classification for it, it's just the accepted term for the collection of components within a processing unit that contribute to executing the instructions of a thread.

 

What consists of a core is different between the AMD FX lineup and... well, basically every other modern CPU in existence. The FX lineup of CPUs uses what most people call "modules"... basically rather than having one "core", they've got two integer processing units that share a bunch of other resources... decoder, floating point unit, L2 cache. All of these are important to performance. This means that well there are four physical execution units (so four threads can simultaneously be processed), there is a lot of idle time since for each two "cores" there is only a single floating point unit, L2 cache pool and decoder.

 

Basically this just means that it isn't quite what you'd call a quad, six or eight-core respectively. For example the FX-8350 is advertised as an eight-core processor, but those eight cores aren't totally independent so it won't perform quite like an eight-core CPU... however in spite of this AMD's FX CPUs scale pretty well in parallel workloads such as video rendering.

 

Long story short here is that what AMD calls a core in the FX CPUs is what's considered only part of a core in other CPUs... for example an Intel quad core will have more decoders, more pools of L2 cache, more floating point units than an AMD quad core.

 

2. GHz is only a measure of how many cycles the CPU completes per second, but is not a measure of how quickly things are processed.

 

Different CPU architectures will have different "IPC", which is instructions per cycle. Instructions are what are processed to produce results in the software running on the computer. Different CPU architectures have different capabilities for how many instructions can be completed in each cycle (and different types of instructions will rely on different parts of the CPU).

 

The reason Intel's CPUs are so much faster than AMD's, currently, is that Intel's complete many more instructions per cycle. Right now if you put an FX CPU and Intel Haswell or Skylake CPU at the same clock speed, the Intel one is going to be about ~80% faster. This number will vary a bit depending on the instructions being used, and perceivable performance will vary depending on the type of application.

 

ps. sorry if anything didnt make sense im tired :3

[incarnate]

IPC(instructions per clock) which is also why DX12 is now made to draw calls from 6-cores which will boost AMD CPUs IPC x6 in theory!

Those are rumours, but yes, amd does stand to gain performance if true. However the ipc stays the same and Intel stands to gain performance too. And since Intel has much higher ipc, Intel's gains will be greater (proportionately) than amd's.

[Nena Trinity]

Those are rumours, but yes, amd does stand to gain performance if true. However the ipc stays the same and Intel stands to gain performance too. And since Intel has much higher ipc, Intel's gains will be greater (proportionately) than amd's.

Probably and more treads the better! Example the i7(8 treads) will gain a bigger boost than the i5 and and i3(both has 4 treads...)!

[SImoHayha]

I just use the CPU until it no longer can start the game I did fine with a P7550 for 6 years!

If you get a higher i3 it doesn't matter it will still lplow thorugh most fx chips.

[Nena Trinity]

If you get a higher i3 it doesn't matter it will still lplow thorugh most fx chips.

So how come a i3 can bottleneck a 280 while the FX does not?

The FX-6300 does not bottleneck the same card in the same game care to explain?

[cesrai]

The FX-6300 does not bottleneck the same card in the same game care to explain?

It's simple if you read the article.

Using AMD graphics cards with Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare seems to result in an increase in CPU load.

That's why if you were wondering.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-call-of-duty-advanced-warfare-pc-performance

---

Also the video you used got removed so I'm posting it again.

And I don't think the settings are the same between both benchmarks but whatever. Yeah they aren't.

[Nena Trinity]

It's simple if you read the article.

That's why if you were wondering.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-call-of-duty-advanced-warfare-pc-performance

---

Also the video you used got removed so I'm posting it again.

And I don't think the settings are the same between both benchmarks but whatever. Yeah they aren't.

Sure when the i3 cannot play a game then people say the game is broken but when FX cannot be used in Dying Light then the game is not? Sure... (Dying light is 100% incompatible with ANY AMD HARDWARE! Both CPU & GPU!)

[cesrai]

Sure when the i3 cannot play a game then people say the game is broken but when FX cannot be used in Dying Light then the game is not? Sure... (Dying light is 100% incompatible with ANY AMD HARDWARE! Both CPU & GPU!)

1. Read the post.

2. No said game is broken.

3. Dying Light works on AMD hardware http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/dying-light-benchmark-performance-analysis,4060-3.html this is proof that it works on their GPUs and CPUs. Also this is few months back and the game is better now so you will get equal if not better results if you do testing yourself.

4.If you're going to dismiss EuroGamer you shouldn't post their videos and use them. You may deny it or avoid or whatever floats your boat, but what they said in the article is true and feel free to do testing by yourself.

[Nena Trinity]

1. Read the post.

2. No said game is broken.

3. Dying Light works on AMD hardware http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/dying-light-benchmark-performance-analysis,4060-3.html this is proof that it works on their GPUs and CPUs. Also this is few months back and the game is better now so you will get equal if not better results if you do testing yourself.

4.If you're going to dismiss EuroGamer you shouldn't post their videos and use them. You may deny it or avoid or whatever floats your boat, but what they said in the article is true and feel free to do testing by yourself.

If you have a Core i3 - or an alternative offering much the same processing performance - paired with an enthusiast AMD card, the game often hits CPU limits during both cut-scenes and gameplay, resulting in a collapse in frame-rates. It's a state of affairs only amplified by playing with v-sync engaged. In the here and now, we'd rank the AMD R9 280 as the best 'bang for your buck' GPU on the market. It outperforms its Nvidia equivalent - the generally excellent GTX 760 - and it offers an extra 1GB of onboard VRAM on top. It's usually cheaper too. However, owing to the CPU load issue, its performance is considerably throttled when paired with the i3 in Advanced Warfare, to the point where demanding scenarios actually see it bested by Nvidia's sub-£100 GTX 750 Ti.

We saw the same results on both our Core i3 gaming PC, and also when we disabled two cores on our i7, downclocking it to simulate an i3's capabilities. In both cases, the Nvidia cards' performance barely saw any difference at all. Basically, if you're using an AMD card, you'll need a more powerful CPU too - the i5 2500K in the recommended spec, for example.

However, it's one sticking point in what is otherwise a creditable game. PC-specific features that genuinely elevate the experience may be absent, but in an age where next-gen game engines are transitioning across to PC with wildly varied spec recommendations and obvious optimisation issues, Sledgehammer's efforts here are worthy of commendation.

[incarnate]

Probably and more treads the better! Example the i7(8 treads) will gain a bigger boost than the i5 and and i3(both has 4 treads...)!

The i5 would get a bigger boost than an i3, and the i7 wouldn't be that much farther ahead of the i7. Ht is about a 20% increase in performance.

[themaniac]

That costs MORE than FX!  (performance per dollar?)

the cheapest i3 is the 4170 http://pcpartpicker.com/part/intel-cpu-bx80646i34170

and the fx cost more 

 

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

 

CPU: Intel Core i3-4170 3.7GHz Dual-Core Processor  ($113.99 @ NCIX US) 

Motherboard: MSI H81M-P33 Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard  ($47.98 @ Newegg) 

Total: $161.97

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-09-19 19:03 EDT-0400

 

or if you dont want to go h81 route

 

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

 

CPU: Intel Core i3-4170 3.7GHz Dual-Core Processor  ($113.99 @ NCIX US) 

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-H97-HD3 ATX LGA1150 Motherboard  ($70.29 @ Newegg) 

Total: $184.28

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-09-19 19:04 EDT-0400

 

and now the fx

 

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

 

CPU: AMD FX-6300 3.5GHz 6-Core Processor  ($96.99 @ NCIX US) 

CPU Cooler: CRYORIG H7 49.0 CFM CPU Cooler  ($34.50 @ Newegg) 

Motherboard: ASRock 970 EXTREME4 ATX AM3+ Motherboard  ($69.98 @ Newegg) 

Total: $201.47

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-09-19 19:06 EDT-0400

So how come a i3 can bottleneck a 280 while the FX does not?

The FX-6300 does not bottleneck the same card in the same game care to explain?

the i3 does not bottleneck a damn 280, it starts to bottleneck gpus at the 970 and even then its not too major, and when dx12 becomes the standard the i3 will be able to handle even more powerful cards without having to go to higher resolutions even digitalfoundry said that the i3 and 390 were a good pair in dx12 in this video 

[Nena Trinity]

The i5 would get a bigger boost than an i3, and the i7 wouldn't be that much farther ahead of the i7. Ht is about a 20% increase in performance.

No i3 and i5 should have about same bost since both has 4 treads!

 

the cheapest i3 is the 4170 http://pcpartpicker.com/part/intel-cpu-bx80646i34170

and the fx cost more 

 

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

 

CPU: Intel Core i3-4170 3.7GHz Dual-Core Processor  ($113.99 @ NCIX US) 

Motherboard: MSI H81M-P33 Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard  ($47.98 @ Newegg) 

Total: $161.97

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-09-19 19:03 EDT-0400

 

or if you dont want to go h81 route

 

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

 

CPU: Intel Core i3-4170 3.7GHz Dual-Core Processor  ($113.99 @ NCIX US) 

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-H97-HD3 ATX LGA1150 Motherboard  ($70.29 @ Newegg) 

Total: $184.28

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-09-19 19:04 EDT-0400

 

and now the fx

 

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

 

CPU: AMD FX-6300 3.5GHz 6-Core Processor  ($96.99 @ NCIX US) 

CPU Cooler: CRYORIG H7 49.0 CFM CPU Cooler  ($34.50 @ Newegg) 

Motherboard: ASRock 970 EXTREME4 ATX AM3+ Motherboard  ($69.98 @ Newegg) 

Total: $201.47

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-09-19 19:06 EDT-0400

the i3 does not bottleneck a damn 280, it starts to bottleneck gpus at the 970 and even then its not too major, and when dx12 becomes the standard the i3 will be able to handle even more powerful cards without having to go to higher resolutions even digitalfoundry said that the i3 and 390 were a good pair in dx12 in this video 

You do not need a cooler for a FX-6300... (95W and it only need a cooler if you are gonna OC it which that board cannot even do!)

 

Also you people on this forum keeps saying since FX bottleneck in games such as world of tanks which uses 1-core then i3 is better but when the i3 cannot handle the task you people blame the game that is pure fanboyism!

[themaniac]

No i3 and i5 should have about same bost since both has 4 treads!

 

You do not need a cooler for a FX-6300... (95W and it only need a cooler if you are gonna OC it which that board cannot even do!)

 

Also you people on this forum keeps saying since FX bottle neck in games such as world of tanks which uses 1-core the i3 is better but when the i3 cannot handle the task you people blame the game that is pure fanboyism!

4 full cores =/= 2 full cores + 2 weaker threads so they wont have the same boost

 

if you get an unlocked cpu, then you should get a cooler to get every ounce of performance, so yeah i say an after market cooler is mandatory for an unlocked cpu

 

i never blame the game, and the i3 can play any game unless the makers of the game specifically put in the code to prevent i3's from playing it, also how is it fanboyism if its correct that intel cpu's are better

 

also i will continue to hate the fx 6300 no matter what, either get an 8000 series cpu, athlon, apu, or go intel

[Nena Trinity]

4 full cores =/= 2 full cores + 2 weaker threads so they wont have the same boost

 

if you get an unlocked cpu, then you should get a cooler to get every ounce of performance, so yeah i say an after market cooler is mandatory for an unlocked cpu

 

i never blame the game, and the i3 can play any game unless the makers of the game specifically put in the code to prevent i3's from playing it, also how is it fanboyism if its correct that intel cpu's are better

 

also i will continue to hate the fx 6300 no matter what, either get an 8000 series cpu, athlon or go intel

The damn i3 is not better just because it plays freebie MMO games better sheesh! You can even play those MMOs on a toaster!

 

Also for gaming the FX-83X0 is less helpful its just better at work related stuff and 860K is better at MMOs and free2plays but not better at AAAs...

 

Athlon X4 & FX-4300 > Pentium

FX-6300 = i3 (depends on which game both can win also FX-6300 can be OCed!)

FX-8350 < i5 (it may be tie with lower end i5s but with best 4th gen i5 its a lose!)

FX-9590 = i5 (depends on game!)

FX-9590 < i7 & Xeon

[themaniac]

The damn i3 is not better just because it plays freebie MMO games better sheesh! You can even play those MMOs on a toaster!

 

Also for gaming the FX-8370 is less helpful its just better at work related stuff and 860K is better at MMOs and free2plays but not better at AAAs...

 

Athlon X4 & FX-4300 > Pentium

FX-6300 = i3 (depends on which game both can win also FX-6300 can be OCed!)

FX-8350 < i5 (it may be tie with lower end i5s but with best 4th gen i5 its a lose!)

FX-9590 = i5 (depends on game!)

FX-9590 < i7 & Xeon

1. most games dont use more than 4 cores/threads

2. intel cores are better then amd core

3.going by #1. that means that the athlon performs just as well as the 6300 and the 6300 performs just as well as the 8000 series

4. ipc, stronger core, quicksync and many more things make intel better, also  ore cores mean nothing if they have crap ipc

5. an i3 will do just as well if not better on AAA, and with the release of skylake i3, and that pci will be independent from bclk so you will be able to overclock a skylake i3 as long as you watch the memory speeds and qpi and lower them you will be fine 

6. every 9000 series cpu is an 8000 series just overclocked