AMD fanboys.

[Prysin]

1 minute ago, Dabombinable said:

It may be able to utilise quad cores, but Source games still run quite well on the least likely hardware combo. Eg. Celeron M380+Intel 910GML (later upgraded to a Pentium M770 as the Celeron didn't have speedstep).

point is, i told him to find me an actual game, not made by a indy, made after 2008 that was explicitly single threaded.

And truth be told, i'd be damned if he even found one.

[GrokMonkey]

20 hours ago, jslowik said:

Wouldn't classify myself as an AMD "fanboy", but this is the first machine I built that wasn't Intel based. I'm not disappointed.

I'm in exactly the same boat. No complaints for my tower's CPU, and I'm definitely satisfied in its performance for the pricepoint I bought it at. Not anything glamorous, but I haven't been let down by it yet.

[SImoHayha]

3 hours ago, Dabombinable said:

If they'd dedicated cache to each ALU instead of having both share it, we'd probably be seeing greater performance from their CMT implementation-considering there is a noticeable single threaded performance increase when you disable 1 ALU per module and the cache is no longer being shared. Pretty much the wrong CMT implementation at the wrong time.

So disabling some cores equals greater performance?

[byalexandr]

My old Athlon 7750 is more of a novelty than an actual CPU. It's seen better days, that thing is slowww. I used to have an FX 6300 and I overclocked it to 4.2GHz, pretty good but the VRMs were trying to kill themselves  I sold that and got an 1150 platform with an i3 since the FX platform was basically a dead end already.

 

I like AMD's graphics cards way, way more than their processors. Never going back to Nvidia, my old 290 and my current 380 are just so awesome.

[Schyken]

I'm running an AMD A10-7860K in my machine and even though it's not AMD's top-of-the-line APU, I think it's amazing. The 3.6Ghz-4.2Ghz clock is just fine for me and I have experienced no issues whatsoever. In fact, this processor has done me more than a few of my i7s and I'm already considering an FX processor for my new PC because I find AMD's CPU/APUs to be not only functional, but reliable and well-priced. Intel's CPU's fail to provide that price-to-performance spec because of all the marketing schemes and the 'fancy Intel branding'. Honestly, I prefer AMD processors over Intel's because the AMD community seems to be much more supportive and helpful and frankly, less snobbish.

[Howiim16]

I have a friend thats a AMD fanboy and he likes amd because prefrence 

[Humbug]

2 hours ago, byalexandr said:

 

I like AMD's graphics cards way, way more than their processors. Never going back to Nvidia, my old 290 and my current 380 are just so awesome.

yep. Beating nvidia in GPU performance is one thing..

Trying to beat Intel in CPU performance is a whole different level of hard...

[HelplmChoking]

FX-8320 sitting happily at 4.0GHz, and it feels plenty fast. Never hiccups or slows down ever, I'm only held back by my GPU in anything but Cities Skylines. I just ordered an E5-2670 as I need more cores for rendering, but I absolutely adore my 8320 (especially since its the first PC I ever built).

[Kobathor]

Hey! I'm late to the party.

Just replaced my FX-8350 that I've been running since 2012, with a brand-new i7-4790k. Performance is better in all the games I've run so far.

 

Downtown Boston (Fallout 4): Average 57 FPS, compared to anything from 15 FPS to 30 FPS with my 8350.

Garry's Mod DarkRP: Average 52 FPS with 80 people on the server, props everywhere, wiremod in use- compared to my 8350, which could barely muster up 20 FPS at times.

Arma 2: OA Wasteland Utes (30 players): Average 54 FPS, compared to the 30 FPS maximum my 8350 gave me. And 30 FPS is generous, the frame time was so bad that you couldn't tell if it was 30 FPS unless you stared at the FPS counter.

Games like Far Cry 4 and Battlefield 4 are the only games where I barely noticed a difference. On BF4, my performance only rose a few FPS (8 more FPS at best, average 63 FPS) and on FC4 the FPS was more consistent (average 58), but still never went over 60 (as the engine doesn't allow it.)

[Benji_w]

On 3/5/2016 at 0:47 AM, k1ng_alex said:

So even though AMD is been behind in the CPU race I would like to hear from people running AMD cpu's and your overall feel for your cpu.

I started in the good old days of the Q6600 I was too young to value computer power, a while latter i got me an intel 2600 which was great halo CE was a blast.

Fast forward a few years and the death of that PC I was forced to switch to something cheaper for school ( I didn't own a laptop) so i bought a 35$ cpu the classic AMD sempron 140.

And yes that sucked alot but after a few months of using it i didn't really notice the slow performance , my beefy amd 6990 did the heavy lifting.

Fast forward to today im running an amd 4100 @ 4.5GHZ I play all modern games do modern things and even with the cost of all of my upgrades it still would have been cheaper than some "Gamer grade" intel cpu.

 

Mine's at 5ghz, don't see any performance issues on my end, I did at stock however, but I've soon got rid of those issues.

 

7 hours ago, Kobathor said:

Hey! I'm late to the party.

Just replaced my FX-8350 that I've been running since 2012, with a brand-new i7-4790k. Performance is better in all the games I've run so far.

 

Downtown Boston (Fallout 4): Average 57 FPS, compared to anything from 15 FPS to 30 FPS with my 8350.

Garry's Mod DarkRP: Average 52 FPS with 80 people on the server, props everywhere, wiremod in use- compared to my 8350, which could barely muster up 20 FPS at times.

Arma 2: OA Wasteland Utes (30 players): Average 54 FPS, compared to the 30 FPS maximum my 8350 gave me. And 30 FPS is generous, the frame time was so bad that you couldn't tell if it was 30 FPS unless you stared at the FPS counter.

Games like Far Cry 4 and Battlefield 4 are the only games where I barely noticed a difference. On BF4, my performance only rose a few FPS (8 more FPS at best, average 63 FPS) and on FC4 the FPS was more consistent (average 58), but still never went over 60 (as the engine doesn't allow it.)

Wow there was something seriously wrong with your rig, I've never had a problem with Gary's mod, ARMA 2 DayZ mod I got the same FPS as the intel players, not played any others you mentioned but I doubt I'd have issues. 4.5ghz is a weak oc but I suspect the 212 was your issue and the lack luster UD3 thermal throttling it's tits off.

 

14 hours ago, L0gic said:

I have a friend, who bought a AMD FX-8350 and a R9 390 series. 
I bought a i7 6700 and GTX 970.

 

He often complains of his AMD buy, because my pc beats his.

 

Tell him to overclock it and set it up correctly, his complaints will soon go away.

[KingKeith55]

AMD's do not match the performance to Intel's CPUs at all. That doesn't mean anything though, as they're better than i3's at a similar if not cheaper price. This is from my experience though. It's mainly because they render way better than an i3, and the fact that as long as something has multicore support, the FX series outperform the i3s pretty well. I hate to bash the i3 here but really, the FX's are looking a lot better than them (Unless intel made a new i3 that is better).

 

Im running a FX 6300, it gets the job done but it's nothing spectacular at all. I got it simply because it would be way better at rendering and multicore than an i3 (I didn't have much money building this pc) And I realized a lot of games had multicore support, so it would win over the i3 in most games.

 

Honestly the only real point they have for them is they can game and do an alright job at rendering for cheap.

 

Oh and they're really fun to OC.

 

[Dabombinable]

5 hours ago, Ramamataz said:

So disabling some cores equals greater performance?

Greater single threaded performance yes, and AMD's FX line+the APU based off it don't have cores-they are CMT and use modules.

1 hour ago, Benji_w said:

Tell him to overclock it and set it up correctly, his complaints will soon go away.

Until his motherboard gets killed, the VRM throttle, the CPU thermal throttles, or the PSU dies. Straight up while the current setup of your rig works, its actually not practical at all, specifically because of that FX 8350/9590 at 5GHz consuming at least 220W (more than most graphics cards) and puts out a lot of heat while still being beaten by stock i7 4790K, which even at 4.8GHz put out no where near the same amount of heat, consume under half the power and can run on even the cheapest LGA1150 motherboard (that have BIOS support, they also can run at 4.8GHz on Asus H87M Pro fully stable).

[Prysin]

7 hours ago, Benji_w said:

Wow there was something seriously wrong with your rig, I've never had a problem with Gary's mod, ARMA 2 DayZ mod I got the same FPS as the intel players, not played any others you mentioned but I doubt I'd have issues. 4.5ghz is a weak oc but I suspect the 212 was your issue and the lack luster UD3 thermal throttling it's tits off.

Thing is benji, you dont own a 4790k. And whilst the improvements going with Haswell is not all that great. They are there. It is not a question.

I recently did a rerun with my 8320 at 4.62GHz and performance doesnt really increase as much as you'd hope. I added 2400MHz RAM (yes, it works at 2400MHz on the Sabertooth board). Which helps minimums.

 

BUT NOTHING, NOT A FUCKING THING, fixes the stuttering.

 

Ive done frametime comparisons between my 4790k and my FX. FX stutters up to five times more then the 4790k when paired with my R9 295x2

 

5 hours ago, Dabombinable said:

Greater single threaded performance yes, and AMD's FX line+the APU based off it don't have cores-they are CMT and use modules.

Until his motherboard gets killed, the VRM throttle, the CPU thermal throttles, or the PSU dies. Straight up while the current setup of your rig works, its actually not practical at all, specifically because of that FX 8350/9590 at 5GHz consuming at least 220W (more than most graphics cards) and puts out a lot of heat while still being beaten by stock i7 4790K, which even at 4.8GHz put out no where near the same amount of heat, consume under half the power and can run on even the cheapest LGA1150 motherboard (that have BIOS support, they also can run at 4.8GHz on Asus H87M Pro fully stable).

dab, remember that Intel rates their TDP as "typical".... a 4790k at Prime95 loads, with locked stock voltage, do NOT pull "just" 88w, it pulls near 120w. As soon as you start doing rendering or AVX workloads, a Intel CPU is NOT running at their advertised TDPs, they are running way over.

[Dabombinable]

7 minutes ago, Prysin said:

dab, remember that Intel rates their TDP as "typical".... a 4790k at Prime95 loads, with locked stock voltage, do NOT pull "just" 88w, it pulls near 120w. As soon as you start doing rendering or AVX workloads, a Intel CPU is NOT running at their advertised TDPs, they are running way over.

I know what their TDP is under prime 95, and that's just over half what the FX 9590 consumes-and that's without the FX 9590 having AVX instructions-if it did, not a single motherboard would be able to handle it, and it'd need extreme cooling. Still though, under all loads that don't require AVX instructions-which are 99% of them, it still uses well under half the power for greater performance. And I can guarantee-if FX 9590 had AVX, a 4790K would still out perform it while using half the power. BTW, I know all bar the latest of AMD's CMT line uses AVX instead of AVX 2.0, like Haswell and its successors.

[Prysin]

1 hour ago, Dabombinable said:

I know what their TDP is under prime 95, and that's just over half what the FX 9590 consumes-and that's without the FX 9590 having AVX instructions-if it did, not a single motherboard would be able to handle it, and it'd need extreme cooling. Still though, under all loads that don't require AVX instructions-which are 99% of them, it still uses well under half the power for greater performance. And I can guarantee-if FX 9590 had AVX, a 4790K would still out perform it while using half the power. BTW, I know all bar the latest of AMD's CMT line uses AVX instead of AVX 2.0, like Haswell and its successors.

the FX 9590 with AVX should be around 250w.

AMD rates their TDP as PEAK power. meaning the highest peak they see during load testing. They are sure to pump as much power as possible into their chips to get this TDP.

 

I dunno how AMD tests their products, but ive yet to hit 95w with my APU. Iv'e even measured the power draw of my PSU with an amp-meter, accounted for the power loss (80+ Gold... so roughly 15% loss at those loads).

 

Sure, it is half of a 9590. The 9590 is the most retarded product ever.

 

However, look at the truth of things.

Haswell is 22nm FinFet.... If you want to compare power draw, do that with Westmere or Sandy Bridge, as those were 32nm aswell.

 

To give you an idea how "efficient" bulldozer is for its generation, because it sort of is. Shockingly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westmere_%28microarchitecture%29

 

Westmere was released in 2010. So just a year prior to FX.

What we shall look at is clock speed. Because comparing cores to cores is stupid. But clock speed is a direct result of voltage. So higher clocks = higher TDP.

 

the FX 8350 runs at 4GHz base with 4.5GHz Turbo at 0.450v to 1.450v

Meaning 4.5GHz happens around 1.45 volts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_AMD_FX_microprocessors

 

A comparison in power draw would make things more apparent.

a Core i7 Extreme (all i7s were extreme editions back then) 990X, which is a 6 core + HT part draws 130w at 0.800 to 1.375v. Its clock speed is 3.46GHz stock and 3.73GHz Turbo.

Now, i dunno how much more power Hyper Threading incurrs on the CPU. Wikipedia claims it can cause up to 46% increased power draw, if this is true, it must be a worst case scenario.

 

So looking at clock speeds, AMD is able to offer higher clock speeds, at higher voltages, at LOWER TDP.

 

This is also reflected with Sandy Bridge, whilst the IPC of Westmere and FX is not far enough apart to throw and argument about it, the Sandy Bridge parts have better IPC. So here, performance gains vs wattage start to come into play, if even just a little. Although, looking at the Cinebench R15 result of a 8350 vs i7 3860X, shows that single core performance wise, Sandy is around 20-25%....

My own FX scores 110 points in single thread at 4.62GHz, vs 135 for the 3860X in Anandtechs tests.

http://anandtech.com/bench/product/697?vs=443

 

Still, looking at equal nodes, it is obvious that FX CPUs arent AS atrocious as you perhaps would like them to be.

Performance numbers CAN be argued, and rightly so. But for their node (32nm PLANAR), they are not as bad as it seems.

 

However it does make you wonder, what if Piledriver was 28nm? or Steamroller/Excavator was 22nm?

How would things look like if that were the case?

 

 

[n0ah1897]

I'll start off saying I'm not a fanboy, I like AMD, Intel, and nvidia equally. That being said, I have a 8320 and a 280x. I'm currently running @ 4.2GHz on the CPU and have had no problems with a lack of performance in that department. My 280x is also overclocked slightly. It's performance is good enough for me, however my inner enthusiast screams for more power. Overall I'm satisfied with my computer.

[Bhav]

Back when I had an AMD Athlon 4400+ it was awesome. Like a decade ago.

[handymanshandle]

I'm not a fanboy... Of much of anything really.

I guess if I had to choose sides, it'd be Intel CPUs and AMD GPUs.

Right now it doesn't make sense to buy into AM3/AM3+ or FM2/FM2+ because of Zen coming rather soon.

 

[The_Budget_Gamer]

On 05/03/2016 at 8:50 AM, k1ng_alex said:

I just feel the hate all the time , 

My peeve is when someone says " man a core 2 duo is faster than the best amd cpu"

I have Core 2 Duo, the best dual core processor in the world!

[deWaardt]

My Athlon II x4 860k is a nice thing, haven't tried to overclock it very far yet, but it'll come.

It has great performance for what I paid for.

 

On the fanboy side, I'm not a fanboy, I just buy what I think is best with the budget I have, but now running an AMD for a while....
Intel fanboys are just ridiculous, you can't go anywhere without being bashed for running AMD.

 

It's like Intel users are Übermenschen and AMD users are Untermenschen.

They act like it's some sort follow up to what happened to the jews, except they're now hunting down AMD users.

 

I haven't heard quite a lot of AMD over Intel, but there are some ridiculous crapholes that act like AMD is god, which I hate as well.

 

 

It's just as bad as people that take "PC Master Race" seriously and start going full Hitler and bash on ANY living being that uses a console.

[Brezzels]

I love my Sapphire R9290 the only problem AMD makes me mad at them is the lack of driver support for even high end grapiccards. I think amd's GPU's especially are often underatet and like entirely every amd owner, i can't get of the felling that it's often getting slowed down by games because of the developers. Also i had a AMD A10-5800k wich was also pretty nice when it came out.

[Prysin]

2 hours ago, The_Budget_Gamer said:

I have Core 2 Duo, the best dual core processor in the world!

best MS Office & Solitaire at 60FPS CPU released to date.

[Dabombinable]

35 minutes ago, Prysin said:

best MS Office & Solitaire at 60FPS CPU released to date.

Especially when yours can do 4.4GHz at 1.4V (don't worry, mine can't any more after I installed it the wrong way around in my P5K VM)

[Benji_w]

On 3/6/2016 at 10:46 AM, Prysin said:

Thing is benji, you dont own a 4790k. And whilst the improvements going with Haswell is not all that great. They are there. It is not a question.

I recently did a rerun with my 8320 at 4.62GHz and performance doesnt really increase as much as you'd hope. I added 2400MHz RAM (yes, it works at 2400MHz on the Sabertooth board). Which helps minimums.

 

BUT NOTHING, NOT A FUCKING THING, fixes the stuttering.

 

Ive done frametime comparisons between my 4790k and my FX. FX stutters up to five times more then the 4790k when paired with my R9 295x2

 

dab, remember that Intel rates their TDP as "typical".... a 4790k at Prime95 loads, with locked stock voltage, do NOT pull "just" 88w, it pulls near 120w. As soon as you start doing rendering or AVX workloads, a Intel CPU is NOT running at their advertised TDPs, they are running way over.

I own a 4670k that I'm in the middle of setting up, and I have no stuttering on my 5ghz overclock and 4.62 on an 8350 is childs play, I hit 4.7ghz not even knowing what I was doing, very much like yourself...

[JoePro87]

4 hours ago, Benji_w said:

I own a 4670k that I'm in the middle of setting up, and I have no stuttering on my 5ghz overclock and 4.62 on an 8350 is childs play, I hit 4.7ghz not even knowing what I was doing, very much like yourself...

Random side note...I wonder how much I could overclock my 8300...

 

<<<will admit he doesn't know what he's doing.