The Best AMD GPU

[Moonzy]

1 minute ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

no the haswell CPU's are from 2014 if i recall correctly...and intel has insane budget for RND...not AMD...they start from so far back you know...they havnt done something good in years...reaching haswell in one generation would already be an immense feat.

i think haswell-e was from late 2014, the 5960x and the likes

haswell have been here since 2013 according to wiki

 

but yea, AMD have had some internal issues iirc, changing CEO and all or something

[Citadelen]

Just now, i_build_nanosuits said:

that could be good or bad...it would be great to still have those two integer processing units per core though...but so long as it does not mean having a CPU with an IPC figure from 10 years ago like the AMD FX line...

It won't, switching to SMT alone means there won't be shared resources, this is what AMD claims will create a greater than 40% IPC boost.

 

2 minutes ago, Majestic said:

Look at the clockspeeds on that 6700K. 4,7ghz, not a stock 6600K like the DF video. Crysis3 uses HT, so it's hyperthreading (+25-30%) + 30% OC.

 

They're good numbers.

 

Also PClab show's a difference of 25, not 20 I got it wrong earlier.

 

[i_build_nanosuits]

Just now, Moonzy said:

i think haswell-e was from late 2014, the 5960x and the likes

haswell have been here since 2013 according to wiki

 

but yea, AMD have had some internal issues iirc, changing CEO and all or something

budget for R&D is the major problem...AMD is looking to make money, they don't want to spend a fortune on a CPU architecture...but Jim Keller...you know...he made awesome things happen for them...maybe he did his magic once again...i hope he did...otherwise AMD is done, they will sell the radeon division to another company and close doors if zen does not perform.

[Moonzy]

Just now, i_build_nanosuits said:

budget for R&D is the major problem...AMD is looking to make money, they don't want to spend a fortune on a CPU architecture...but Jim Keller...you know...he made awesome things happen for them...maybe he did his magic once again...i hope he did...otherwise AMD is done, they will sell the radeon division to another company and close doors if zen does not perform.

i really hope they do well, for the consumer's sake

having intel be the only vendor for cpu and nvidia for gpu would be hell for consumers

i can already see that intel gettin lazy,

and nvidia is doing w/e they please, breaking their own older architecture and what not with gameworks

[i_build_nanosuits]

3 minutes ago, Citadelen said:

-It won't, switching to SMT alone means there won't be shared resources, this is what AMD claims will create a greater than 40% IPC boost.

-Also PClab show's a difference of 25, not 20 I got it wrong earlier.

 

- So long as they can bring a good potent budget gaming CPU line that we can recommend over the intel core i3 and other shit like that i'm good.

 

- I think we don't care how many FPS it is honestly...we can see that intel's current CPUs are head, shoulders and torso above anything AMD has on the market ATM and that's all that matter...i had the FX-8320 overclocked to 4.6ghz and it was nowhere near fast enough even when paired with the GTX 780 i was using at the time i had to perform a CPU upgrade to get rid of the poor performance in many games...those CPU's are trash if you ask me...good for budget oriented workstation machines for rendering and editing, but for gaming rigs...hell nah even a core i3 is better in many games.

[Majestic]

5 minutes ago, Citadelen said:

It won't, switching to SMT alone means there won't be shared resources, this is what AMD claims will create a greater than 40% IPC boost.

 

Also PClab show's a difference of 25, not 20 I got it wrong earlier.

 

1080p, not 2560x1600. And with 4,7ghz skylake CPU's, not stock haswell's. But given your signature, i'm assuming you dont want the ugly truth to be real.

So you're going to continue looking for benchmarks confirming your theory.

 

In which case were going to be here all night, since plenty of youtubers push out fake benchmarks to pander to exactly your kind. Clicks yo.

Not suggesting this one is, this one is just already written off due to the settings and chosen hardware.

[i_build_nanosuits]

1 minute ago, Moonzy said:

i really hope they do well, for the consumer's sake

having intel be the only vendor for cpu and nvidia for gpu would be hell for consumers

i can already see that intel gettin lazy,

and nvidia is doing w/e they please, breaking their own older architecture and what not with gameworks

agree...but if AMD can't compete anymore, honestly we want them dead...a more potent company will take the place...whether it'll be samsung or apple or microsoft or whatever, this has to end...it's already a problem like you say.

[Citadelen]

Just now, i_build_nanosuits said:

- So long as they can bring a good potent budget gaming CPU line that we can recommend over the intel core i3 and other shit like that i'm good.

 

- I think we don't care how many FPS it is honestly...we can see that intel's current CPU are head, shoulders and torse above anything AMD has on the market ATM and that's all that matter...i had the FX-8320 overclocked to 4.6ghz and it was nowhere near fast enough even when paired with the GTX 780 i was using at the time i had to perform a CPU upgrade to get rid of the poor performance in many games...those CPU's are trash if you ask me...good for budget oriented workstation machines for rendering and editing, but for gaming rigs...hell nah even a core i3 is better in many games.

What games are you playing, most if not all multi-threaded games show the FX CPUs ahead of the i3's.

I'm getting a bit tired of people saying i3's are faster, in games that they are faster, you'll see minute differences in performance from going from an i3 to an i7 because only one core is being used.

[Citadelen]

1 minute ago, Majestic said:

1080p, not 2560x1600. And with 4,7ghz skylake CPU's, not stock haswell's. But given your signature, i'm assuming you dont want the ugly truth to be real.

So you're going to continue looking for benchmarks confirming your theory.

 

In which case were going to be here all night, since plenty of youtubers push out fake benchmarks to pander to exactly your kind. Clicks yo.

Not suggesting this one is, this one is just already written off due to the settings and chosen hardware.

Performance discrepancies will probably scale with resolution changes.

I'm not trying to say that AMD can match or exceed Intel, only that your benchmarks are way off, it's convenient for you to call all of the benchmarks I post false.

I just can't see an obscure site from Poland having more reliable benchmarks that multiple YouTube videos and benchmarks on multiple sites. PClab is an anomaly.

[Majestic]

4 minutes ago, Citadelen said:

I'm getting a bit tired of people saying i3's are faster,

>we wuz

>muh amd

[Moonzy]

Just now, Citadelen said:

What games are you playing, most if not all multi-threaded games show the FX CPUs ahead of the i3's.

I'm getting a bit tired of people saying i3's are faster, in games that they are faster, you'll see minute differences in performance from going from an i3 to an i7 because only one core is being used.

1 minute ago, Majestic said:

1080p, not 2560x1600. And with 4,7ghz skylake CPU's, not stock haswell's. But given your signature, i'm assuming you dont want the ugly truth to be real.

So you're going to continue looking for benchmarks confirming your theory.

 

In which case were going to be here all night, since plenty of youtubers push out fake benchmarks to pander to exactly your kind. Clicks yo.

Not suggesting this one is, this one is just already written off due to the settings and chosen hardware.

lets just agree that core per core, intel wins hands down,

and amd's flagship cpus are having trouble beating intel's mid-range cpu like the i5 6600k in terms of gaming, so theres that

 

2 minutes ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

agree...but if AMD can't compete anymore, honestly we want them dead...a more potent company will take the place...whether it'll be samsung or apple or microsoft or whatever, this has to end...it's already a problem like you say.

well if amd falls, it'll be the dark ages for gaming (pc or console, since they have to use nvidia and intel's techonology)

would be better if a company step up now before that happens, but im an engineering student so i dont know what condition would be best in this kind of situation 

[i_build_nanosuits]

1 minute ago, Citadelen said:

What games are you playing, most if not all multi-threaded games show the FX CPUs ahead of the i3's.

I'm getting a bit tired of people saying i3's are faster, in games that they are faster, you'll see minute differences in performance from going from an i3 to an i7 because only one core is being used.

no denying that...i would still pick my FX-8320 over pretty much any core i3...maybe a skylake i3 would be better...and it has an upgrade path...but yes in the most recent games the FX is doing better than it did in the past with games.

i had the CPU in 2014...back then the newer games were hitman:absolution, assassin's creed 4, far cry 3...all of which had problems and were CPU limited with AMD most of the time...you get pissed off when you run a (at the time) 500$CAD+ GPU...but after that other single-threaded performance dependent games came out...dying light for example still run very poorly on AMD FX CPU's...and if you trow an high-end GPU at it you will see the GPU load all over the place and framerate drops in the 30 to 40FPS range A LOT...even in multi-threaded games...see, the thing is most games will still rely on one or two main threads for the bulk of the processing, and the games will only run as fast as your fastest CPU core can feed the GPU...and lets face it, AMD's fastest CPU core, is really not that fast when compared to intel's modern offerings whether it's haswell or skylake all these chips are much faster.

[Majestic]

1 minute ago, Citadelen said:

it's convenient for you to call all of the benchmarks I post false.

But I didn't. I said it wasn't even remotely using the same parameters, and that's why it was irrelevant.

 

I specifically said "NOT SAYING THIS IS FAKE" to prevent this cheap response.

[Citadelen]

3 minutes ago, Majestic said:

But I didn't. I said it wasn't even remotely using the same parameters, and that's why it was irrelevant.

 

I specifically said "NOT SAYING THIS IS FAKE" to prevent this cheap response.

 

10 minutes ago, Majestic said:

 

Since plenty of youtubers push out fake benchmarks to pander to exactly your kind.

*cough*

[i_build_nanosuits]

1 minute ago, Majestic said:

But I didn't. I said it wasn't even remotely using the same parameters, and that's why it was irrelevant.

 

I specifically said "NOT SAYING THIS IS FAKE" to prevent this cheap response.

benchmarking is irrelevant if you ask me...so many variables and stuff...and they all show the average FPS which is far from representative of the overall experience...you have to dive into minimum FPS, frametime variations, framepacing etc...to see the real difference...a CPU will affect your average ''smoothness'' and animation fluidity a lot more than you think...and average FPS in games mean jackshit.

[byalexandr]

R9 295X2

 

Or a Fury X for single chip cards.

[Majestic]

Just now, Citadelen said:

*cough*

 

11 minutes ago, Majestic said:

Not suggesting this one is, this one is just already written off due to the settings and chosen hardware.

Right beneath it. God, your cherrypicking is incredible. I'm going to save my sanity by flat-out ignoring you from now on.

 

fml.

[Moonzy]

Just now, i_build_nanosuits said:

benchmarking is irrelevant if you ask me...so many variables and stuff...and they all show the average FPS which is far from representative of the overall experience...you have to dive into minimum FPS, frametime variations, framepacing etc...to see the real difference...a CPU will affect your average ''smoothness'' and animation fluidity a lot more than you think...and average FPS in games mean jackshit.

i care more about min framerates than avg, bcoz that determines how stuttery the game is

[Citadelen]

1 minute ago, Majestic said:

 

Right beneath it. God, your cherrypicking is incredible. I'm going to save my sanity by flat-out ignoring you from now on.

 

fml.

I posted two benchmarks, how am I to know which one you're talking about, and going on what you said earlier I suppose this is fake as well.

 

 

[i_build_nanosuits]

2 minutes ago, Moonzy said:

i care more about min framerates than avg, bcoz that determines how stuttery the game is

exactly...and the AMD FX from my own experience do that a lot...if you look at the sky or if noting intensive is happening you get decent framerates and smooth animation...but then something blow up and they start to shoot at you or something and the GPU load drops to 75% and the framerates go down the toilet...you get 32FPS all of a sudden and you wonder why...i paid big money for the FX thinking it would be somewhat ''future proof'' with the more threads it had and stuff...and it was cheaper than a core i5...but it was also much slower in games and like i said even the GTX 780 overclocked gaming at 1080p was in another league for this class of processor...when i see them paired with radeon R9 390/390X GPU's for example, i cringe a little.

[Vellinious]

Oh look....another AMD vs Intel CPU thread gone horribly fan boy stupid.  /smh

[Moonzy]

1 minute ago, Vellinious said:

Oh look....another AMD vs Intel CPU thread gone horribly fan boy stupid.  /smh

just those two, i remain neutral through this argument and always will be lol

 

i wish they would just stop and agree that each company's chip is good for certain purposes

[i_build_nanosuits]

3 minutes ago, Citadelen said:

I posted two benchmarks, how am I to know which one you're talking about, and going on what you said earlier I suppose this is fake as well.

 

 

this is with a GTX 960... mid-lower end GPU...the benchmark you show is ENTIRELY GPU limited...that's why they perform the same...if you are going to use a R9 270/280 or a GTX 760/960...YES an AMD FX will suit you very well..he posted TITAN X benchmarks...which clearly show the AMD FX underperforming in games.

[Majestic]

2 minutes ago, Citadelen said:

I posted two benchmarks, how am I to know which one you're talking about, and going on what you said earlier I suppose this is fake as well.

Never suggested anything was. Loaded question. Also, GTX 960 running low settings and not an overclocked Titan X running high settings. Meaning there are not many drawcalls in the scene and it's most likely GPU bound.  Ever going to bring up something relevant or just going to continue posting random youtube video's to make a vague attempt at an argument?

 

Forget it, I don't care. /out

[Moonzy]

1 minute ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

this is with a GTX 960... mid-lower end GPU...the benchmark you show is ENTIRELY GPU limited...that's why they perform the same...if you are going to use a R9 270/280 or a GTX 760/960...YES an AMD FX will suit you very well..he posted TITAN X benchmarks...which clearly show the AMD FX underperforming in games.

lol no wonder they performed the same, i was like

"wut... i tot gta5 likes fewer cores with higher clock speed"