The Best AMD GPU

[i_build_nanosuits]

1 minute ago, Moonzy said:

lol no wonder they performed the same, i was like

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

trow more GPU horsepower at it, or lower the rendering resolution and you will quickly get into salty issues. been there, done that.

[Moonzy]

1 minute ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

trow more GPU horsepower at it, or lower the rendering resolution and you will quickly get into salty issues. been there, done that.

yea lol, gta5 really likes faster processing cores, rather than core number

 

 

 

[i_build_nanosuits]

3 minutes ago, Moonzy said:

yea lol, gta5 really likes faster processing cores, rather than core number

as most games do, even modern games.

YES they ARE multi-threaded to some extend and will offload some of the workload to other available threads when possible, but like i said earlier the bulk of the processing is done on one or two CPU threads for DX11 games, and the other threads rely on those for performance...so even a perfectly multi-threaded game will still favor faster cores...unless you get really starved in multi-threaded performance such is the case with intel's pentium and core i3 dual core CPU's for example...ideally you want them both to be up to snuff, single and multi-threaded performance for games to run at an optimal level.

[Citadelen]

4 minutes ago, Majestic said:

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

Seeing as there's probably no video or graph on the internet that matches your PClab one's, I'll move over to Crysis 3.

According to PClab the 970 is 7-8FPS ahead of the 390, Digital Foundry disagrees.

 

 

 

[Moonzy]

7 minutes ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

as most games do, even modern games.

YES they ARE multi-threaded to some extend and will offload some of the workload to other available threads when possible, but like i said earlier the bulk of the processing is done on one or two CPU threads for DX11 games, and the other threads rely on those for performance...so even a perfectly multi-threaded game will still favor faster cores...unless you get really starved in multi-threaded performance such is the case with intel's pentium and core i3 dual core CPU's for example...ideally you want them both to be up to snuff, single and multi-threaded performance for games to run at an optimal level.

thats why i recommend people to get i5, which have 4 cores, if they want the rig for purely gaming, since 4 cores is more than enough for most of the games out there

 

but dx12 will improve hyperthreading so the fx series might see the light again hopefully  

[Majestic]

8 minutes ago, Citadelen said:

Seeing as there's probably no video or graph on the internet that matches your PClab one's, I'll move over to Crysis 3.

According to PClab the 970 is 7-8FPS ahead of the 390, Digital Foundry disagrees.

That level is called "welcome to the jungle". PCLAB has similar results in that level, granted the CPU is fast enough (results that aren't v-synced).

Root of all evil, the one you're citing, is much more CPU heavy. If you've actually played the game with Afterburner OSD running, you'd know.

 

 

I know I shouldn't respond because nothing I say will change your mindset. But it just phsyically hurts to see someone be this bad at arguing.

It really worries me that people are this bad at having a discussion, because nothing ever gets resolved like this. It can't be a coincidence everything is as polarising these days, and everyone is as tribalistic as they are.

 

All you've done is post random video's that support your theory, never questioning if they're relevant. The original assertion was that AMD's driver overhead makes CPU impact more relevant. What you're doing is showing independent benchmarks of seperate parts. Not comparing them the way PCLAB does.

 

And AMD's driver overhead isn't a myth. It shows in their overhead tests on DX11 compared to DX12.

[i_build_nanosuits]

ALSO, instead of relying on gaming benchmarks to evaluate CPU performance...here on LTT we have an awesome cinebench benchmarking threads with MANY MANY user submitted results...how about you guys refer to it to compare single-threaded and multi-threaded CPU performance...it's much better than games which have a ton of variables (settings, screen resolutions, GPUs used, drivers etc.) those highlight the critical performance factor for CPU's...these numbers don't lie...i've ran them myself and submitted my results for both intel and AMD processors...another good source is userbenchmark.com they have results for CPU, GPU, ssd etc. this you can also run the benches and submit your score...and they have a guy called ''CPU pro'' posting a global summary for every CPU tested and this guy IMHO is a beast i do not know who he is but it's always sport on...links for both:

 

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-4790K-vs-AMD-FX-8350/2384vs1489

 

 

spreadseet for CB R15 (you can select at the bottom what you want...scores are there for both multi and single threaded results)

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1sxzGshuqVtFe_2zgRhN3gXCraR7d8p-NazJ6z0nsGGc/edit#gid=0

[Moonzy]

1 minute ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

ALSO, instead of relying on gaming benchmarks to evaluate CPU performance...here on LTT we have an awesome cinebench benchmarking threads with MANY MANY user submitted results...how about you guys refer to it to compare single-threaded and multi-threaded CPU performance...it's much better than games which have a ton of variables (settings, screen resolutions, GPUs used, drivers etc.) those highlight the critical performance factor for CPU's...these numbers don't lie...i've ran them myself and submitted my results for both intel and AMD processors...another good source is userbenchmark.com they have results for CPU, GPU, ssd etc. this you can also run the benches and submit your score...and they have a guy called ''CPU pro'' posting a global summary for every CPU tested and this guy IMHO is a beast i do not know who he is but it's always sport on...links for both:

 

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-4790K-vs-AMD-FX-8350/2384vs1489

 

 

spreadseet for CB R15

 

 

yea but that only applies to workload that either only use one core or all cores

 

games use 2~4 cores, and sometimes half of the rest lol

best way to get gaming benchmark is to game!

[i_build_nanosuits]

7 minutes ago, Moonzy said:

yea but that only applies to workload that either only use one core or all cores

 

games use 2~4 cores, and sometimes half of the rest lol

best way to get gaming benchmark is to game!

like i said earlier...gaming benchmarks are NOT representative because 9/10 of them only show average FPS and they don't tell the settings used and drivers etc...gaming benches are good for GPU performance...not CPU.

if you're wise enough, you can look at this spreadsheet and extrapolate what would be a good potent CPU for gaming...if it is ''okay'' for multi-threaded loads but sucks big time for single-threaded loads (IE AMD FX) it's NO BUENO...and if it's doing well in single-threaded performance but rather poor in multi-threaded (ie G3258) this is NO BUENO either...you want BOTH to be somewhat decent or up to snuff.

 

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1sxzGshuqVtFe_2zgRhN3gXCraR7d8p-NazJ6z0nsGGc/edit#gid=0

[Moonzy]

1 minute ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

like i said earlier...gaming benchmarks are NOT representative because 9/10 of them only show average FPS and they don't tell the settings used and drivers etc...

if you're wise enough, you can look at this spreadsheet and extrapolate what would be a good potent CPU for gaming...if it is ''okay'' for multi-threaded loads but sucks big time for single-threaded loads (IE AMD FX) it's NO BUENO...and if it's doing well in single-threaded performance but rather poor in multi-threaded (ie G3258) this is NO BUENO either...you want BOTH to be somewhat decent or up to snuff.

i still think gaming performance can only be determined in game

 

looking at cinebench only tells you half the story

[i_build_nanosuits]

Just now, Moonzy said:

i still think gaming performance can only be determined in game

 

looking at cinebench only tells you half the story

you can then look at both...but if you are linking benchmarks with a GTX 960 with i7-6700K vs FX-8350 and tell me they perform the same i know what the answer will be

[i_build_nanosuits]

OP is long gone now...i will post for him:

 

OP, your CPU is old and outdated, and even with a mid-range GPU you will see limitations in games from time to time, your AMD CPU is nowhere near fast enough for your 650$ budget for a GPU...you will get a BETTER gaming experience with a 300$ CPU/motherboard upgrade and a 350$ GPU such as a GTX 970/R9 390 for example...upgrading only your GPU is an absolute no go unless you aim for 4K 30FPS gaming...get yourself a nice little core i5 CPU along with a mid/higher end GPU...or just upgrade your GPU for now and save money for a platform upgrade...i see you LOVE AMD and it's good i want you to encourage them but in the higher end GPU segment AMD is no match for nvidia...the GTX 980ti is so fast and overclock so well it blow the best AMD GPU out of the water across the board and come with an extra 2Gb of video memory and cost the same...but in the mid/higher end spectrum though AMD with it's previous gen hawaii GPU chips is a very good offering...the R9 390/390X are decently fast and decently priced and are a good alternative to nvidia's GTX 970/980 if you want to help them out...but AMD DX11 driver set is much less CPU efficient and require more CPU overhead in drawcalls heavy scenes (this is not taken out of my ass it's well documented all across the interwebs, google it you'll see) so for AMD GPU's i would recommend a tad higher end CPU if possible... (unlocked core i5/core i7 for example).

Hope this help, do no hesitate if you have any questions you can even PM me.

[Citadelen]

6 minutes ago, Majestic said:

-snip-

Just because I can't find a benchmark that directly compares to what you're posting, it does not mean you are right, and just because someone is good at something, it does not mean everyone else if bad at it. You are obviously very good at using circumstance to your advantage as well as sticking in personal attacks to sure up your argument.
I've also see multiple people say how utter bullshit PClab.pl results are.

[i_build_nanosuits]

3 minutes ago, Citadelen said:

Just because I can't find a benchmark that directly compares to what you're posting, it does not mean you are right, and just because someone is good at something, it does not mean everyone else if bad at it. You are obviously very good at using circumstance to your advantage as well as sticking in personal attacks to sure up your argument.
I've also see multiple people say how utter bullshit PClab.pl results are.

he posted digital foundry's benchmarks...which are well regarded, acclaimed and praised all across the internet, you were done long before the contest even begun.

[Citadelen]

Just now, i_build_nanosuits said:

he posted digital foundry's benchmarks...which are well regarded, acclaimed and praised all across the internet, you were done long before the contest even begun.

He posted benchmarks that contradicted his precious PClab results. I have been posing Digital Foundry benches, it's PClab that I have an issue with.

[i_build_nanosuits]

6 minutes ago, Citadelen said:

He posted benchmarks that contradicted his precious PClab results. I have been posing Digital Foundry benches, it's PClab that I have an issue with.

regardless...intel's offering are head and shoulders above the best you can get from AMD right now, and you'll have to learn to deal with it...if you check my early post in this forum which date back to early 2014 i was defending the AMD FX line of CPU heart and soul...until i got prooved wrong and upgrade to intel myself.

For the price of a decent AM3+ board and an AMD FX chip with overclocking in mind and a CPU cooler for it, one can afford an H97 or H170 motherboard with an i5-4460/4590 or i5-6400/6500 both of which are head and shoulders above across the board and are much more energy efficient and come on a modern platform with support for M.2 and PCIe 3.0 namely and offer an upgrade path...so when it comes to AMD CPU's...unless you cant afford to spend more than 80$ on a CPU the athlon 860K is the better chip...otherwise get yourself an i3 and an ''H'' series board and upgrade to an i5, i7 or xeon chip in the future, end of the story.

 

Don,T get me wrong i LOVE AMD myself...owned MANY AMD CPU and GPU over the years...but for now...decent products AMD have on the market are limited: Athlon 860K, R9 380/380X/390...anything else belong (should belong) to intel and nvidia...pretty much.

[Citadelen]

Just now, i_build_nanosuits said:

regardless...intel's offering are head and shoulders above the best you can get from AMD right now, and you'll have to learn to deal with it...if you check my early post in this forum which date back to early 2014 i was defending the AMD FX line of CPU heart and soul...until i got prooved wrong and upgrade to intel myself.

For the price of a decent AM3+ board and an AMD FX chip with overclocking in mind and a CPU cooler for it, one can afford an H97 or H170 motherboard with an i5-4460/4590 or i5-6400/6500 both of which are head and shoulders above across the board and are much more energy efficient and come on a modern platform with support for M.2 and PCIe 3.0 namely and offer an upgrade path...so when it comes to AMD CPU's...unless you can afford to spend more than 80$ on a CPU the athlon 860K is the better chip...otherwise get yourself an i3 and an ''H'' series board and upgrade to an i5, i7 or xeon chip in the future, end of the story.

Don,T get me wrong i LOVE AMD myself...owned MANY AMD CPU and GPU over the years...but for now...decent products AMD have on the market are limited: Athlon 860K, R9 380/380X/390...anything else belong (should belong) to intel and nvidia...pretty much.

I have ALREADY ACCECPTED the Intel is superior, but they are not 20FPS superior in a heavily threaded game. That is what I am taking issue with.

[i_build_nanosuits]

2 minutes ago, Citadelen said:

I have ALREADY ACCECPTED the Intel is superior, but they are not 20FPS superior in a heavily threaded game. That is what I am taking issue with.

oh they are...they are even more than that if you consider minimum FPS, framepacing and frametime variances in demanding modern AAA games.

if you already own the AMD FX CPU...and you use a mid-range class GPU it's all good...but for anything higher-end ish you will get noticeably better performance across the board with a modern intel chip.

[Citadelen]

Just now, i_build_nanosuits said:

oh they are...they are even more than that if you consider minimum FPS, framepacing and frametime variances in demanding modern AAA games.

if you already own the AMD FX CPU...and you use a mid-range class GPU it's all good...but for anything higher-end ish you will get noticeable better performance across the board with a modern intel chip.

Why are you telling me this, I know.

(I'm not trying to be rude)

[Mr.Meerkat]

2 hours ago, Chimras said:

DONT JUDGE ME, IM GOING TO GET A NEW GPU, I've made allot of threads about the FX series, waiting for the zen right now...

Why not wait for polaris as well?? you have dual 660s which is still fine for games 

[Majestic]

23 minutes ago, Citadelen said:

1) Just because I can't find a benchmark that directly compares to what you're posting, it does not mean you are right,

 

2) and just because someone is good at something, it does not mean everyone else if bad at it.

 

3) You are obviously very good at using circumstance to your advantage as well as sticking in personal attacks to sure up your argument.

4) I've also see multiple people say how utter bullshit PClab.pl results are.

1) No, because you can't find any evidence (or technical explanation) to support your argument, you shouldn't be making it. 

 

2) Not sure what that's supposed to mean. Are you trying to receive empathy for being bad at arguing? Sorry, no participation trophies in the real world.

 

3) The only personal remark was the fact that your ownership of the 9590 might factor in, it seeming like post-purchase rationalization. But that was hardly the sole argument.

 

4) By just as weak of arguments as yours. "they appear fake", "they don't coincide with my personal Bias". Never providing any tangible evidence under the same circumstances and in the same setup, or any technical explanation why they can't be correct. And you're also forgetting DF has the same results. So actually you're the "lol fake" caller here, not me. And you're still confusing DigitalFoundry using a GTX TITAN X, meaning an nvidia card and lower overhead, and PCLAB.pl is comparing Nvidia vs. AMD on different CPU's. On Nvidia cards, the framerate gap is the same as on DF. On AMD cards, it's also the same (rise of the tomb raider 2500K video). But only PCLAB.pl has multiple games lined up.

A 9590 running Crysis 3 on a R9-390, has lower fps than with a GTX 970. Eventhough the 390 is faster. That's why this is important! I'm beginning to think you simply don't understand any of it.

 

You're projecting and using a plethora of fallacies. And you have the audacity to say other people are attacking you and playing the victim card. 

[i_build_nanosuits]

Just now, Citadelen said:

Why are you telling me this, I know.

(I'm not trying to be rude)

i respect everybody on this forum...and i respect EVEN AMD for their very aggressive marketing tactics of more ''cores'' more gigaburtz thingy that have got many users go for them...it's clever...but in the end...what matter to me the most is the well being of the LLT user community and i find VERY HARD to recommend just about any AMD CPU unless it's a 100$ CPU kinda deal...or a budget workstation/rendering machine...when it comes to gaming, intel is way up there...that's just how it is...i don't like it, you don't like it...NOBODY like it...but it is what it is.

[Citadelen]

1 minute ago, Majestic said:

1) No, because you can't find any evidence (or technical explanation) to support your argument, you shouldn't be making it. 

 

2) Not sure what that's supposed to mean. Are you trying to receive empathy for being bad at arguing? Sorry, no participation trophies in the real world.

 

3) The only personal remark was the fact that your ownership of the 9590 might factor in, it seeming like post-purchase rationalization. But that was hardly the sole argument.

 

4) By just as weak of arguments as yours. "they appear fake", "they don't coincide with my personal Bias". Never providing any tangible evidence under the same circumstances and in the same setup, or any technical explanation why they can't be correct. And you're also forgetting DF has the same results. So actually you're the "lol fake" caller here, not me. And you're still confusing DigitalFoundry using a GTX TITAN X, meaning an nvidia card and lower overhead, and PCLAB.pl is comparing Nvidia vs. AMD. On Nvidia cards, the framerate gap is the same as on DF. On AMD cards, it's also the same (rise of the tomb raider 2500K video). But only PCLAB.pl has multiple games lined up.

A 9590 running Crysis 3 on a R9-390, has lower fps than with a GTX 970. Eventhough the 390 is faster. That's why this is important! I'm beginning to think you simply don't understand any of it.

 

You're projecting and using a plethora of fallacies. And you have the audacity to say other people are attacking you and playing the victim card. 

I was complimenting your ability to argue...

When I post benches that don't directly compare and then scale the results accordingly I'm spouting bullshit.

But when you do it everything's all peachy and rainbows.

I have accepted that AMD has a higher driver overhead, and that their CPUs are subpar. But the overhead is not THAT bad, and their CPUs aren't THAT bad.

 

[Mr.Meerkat]

1 minute ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

i respect everybody on this forum...and i respect EVEN AMD for their very aggressive marketing tactics of more ''cores'' more gigaburtz thingy that have got many users go for them...it's clever...but in the end...what matter to me the most is the well being of the LLT user community and i find VERY HARD to recommend just about any AMD CPU unless it's a 100$ CPU kinda deal...or a budget workstation/rendering machine...when it comes to gaming, intel is way up there...that's just how it is...i don't like it, you don't like it...NOBODY like it...but it is what it is.

Everyone who's been interested in computer for long enough will know that currently AMD CPUs are abysmal compared to Intel CPUs but if AMD really can deliver the promises they promise on Zen (such as 40% better IPC) while Intel is only doing their usual 5% CPU performance increase from last year then maybe AMD have a fighting chance against Intel and if their 4 core Zen FX cpu is as powerful as an haswell i5 then AMD is actually back in the game and depending on the price, I will buy it within a heartbeat of it being released (obviously the 8 core version)