AMD Takes The CPU Performance Crown For The First Time in Almost a Decade.

[Reuben]

IPC won't count for squat if they are running an engine they don't understand.

 

Take console 'ports' from the Xbox 360 for example. Given that the architecture only supported two physical cores all console games for the 360 were coded to use two cores. So when translated to the PC ? the PC had a higher IPC, so that was what mattered. Note - mattered, past tense.

 

When you have an 8 core AMD APU to code for then what do you think is going to be the easiest platform to translate it to? obviously an 8 core CPU. For the Intel? it will be made to work but I can guarantee you, it won't work as well. Up until now with PC 'ports' developers simply throw brute force at the problem of getting it to work on PCs. Look at the utter shambles that was GTAIV on PC. When they released it they had to lock out a load of settings in the options screen because it ran so poorly that there wasn't even a GPU set up in the world that could run it at those settings. They came out with a statement to say that, and I quote "High end settings are for future hardware".

 

That was their way of saying "Look, we can't get it to run very well on PC no matter how long we try for so here, have this incomplete mess".

 

So what does it mean? basically if you own an Intel CPU now then you are at the sole mercy of the game devs, and let's face it, they don't exactly have a good rep for bringing well optimised console translations to the PC. There are a couple (like DICE, who have coded in multiple GPU and CPU support since day one) but not that many.

 

Console 'ports' are going to be pretty much ready for an AMD 8 core before they are even finished for the console. It's then a case of whether they can be bothered to make it run on Intel hardware.

 

Hint - have they bothered making it run well on all 8 cores of an AMD before now? the answer to that is no.

 

Therefore if you're gaming on a PC and you bought Intel you just took a massive gamble. Nothing for Intel gaming is going to be guaranteed now, and there's pretty much fuck all Intel can do about it due to AMD wooing all of the game devs and getting them on board with Gaming Evolved. That shit went a lot deeper than just paying the devs some cash to slap their logo on it and give it away with a GPU.

Say all you want, and he may be wrong, but the 9590 requires watercooling to run a stock speeds. The 3970X is clocked at a mere 3.5GHz. We're talking 120W vs 180W. The 9590 is essentially overclocked to the max on stock settings while the 3970X still has a ton of headroom. With both pushed as far as they can go with equal cooling, I am very confident the 3970X could win quite handily.

[Andrew0472]

is it really the crown when bf4 is optimized for amd and the bf4 test wasnt at 1080p so that could be a factor. With raw non biased shit the intel would beat it by alot (inb4 but value for money)

[Leonard]

I am so glad for AMD.

[hehehehhehehehe]

IPC won't count for squat if they are running an engine they don't understand.

 

Take console 'ports' from the Xbox 360 for example. Given that the architecture only supported two physical cores all console games for the 360 were coded to use two cores. So when translated to the PC ? the PC had a higher IPC, so that was what mattered. Note - mattered, past tense.

 

When you have an 8 core AMD APU to code for then what do you think is going to be the easiest platform to translate it to? obviously an 8 core CPU. For the Intel? it will be made to work but I can guarantee you, it won't work as well. Up until now with PC 'ports' developers simply throw brute force at the problem of getting it to work on PCs. Look at the utter shambles that was GTAIV on PC. When they released it they had to lock out a load of settings in the options screen because it ran so poorly that there wasn't even a GPU set up in the world that could run it at those settings. They came out with a statement to say that, and I quote "High end settings are for future hardware".

 

That was their way of saying "Look, we can't get it to run very well on PC no matter how long we try for so here, have this incomplete mess".

 

So what does it mean? basically if you own an Intel CPU now then you are at the sole mercy of the game devs, and let's face it, they don't exactly have a good rep for bringing well optimised console translations to the PC. There are a couple (like DICE, who have coded in multiple GPU and CPU support since day one) but not that many.

 

Console 'ports' are going to be pretty much ready for an AMD 8 core before they are even finished for the console. It's then a case of whether they can be bothered to make it run on Intel hardware.

 

Hint - have they bothered making it run well on all 8 cores of an AMD before now? the answer to that is no.

 

Therefore if you're gaming on a PC and you bought Intel you just took a massive gamble. Nothing for Intel gaming is going to be guaranteed now, and there's pretty much fuck all Intel can do about it due to AMD wooing all of the game devs and getting them on board with Gaming Evolved. That shit went a lot deeper than just paying the devs some cash to slap their logo on it and give it away with a GPU.

Sorry for my short response but I'm out at the moment and on my phone.

1. Since the consoles new architecture that won't water to the same extent, 8 cores will still see better optimisation but intel vs AMD 8 core won't matter.

2.altvough I do use the extra cores for other things the fact next gen games will be optimised for 8 cores is one of the major reasons I went with a 6 core CPU instead of the mainstream haswell CPUs and while it still might not be 8 cores, well neither are your bulldozer modules...

3. Agree

4. Intel still has a much larger user base. It would be in their best interest to make sure it is at least on par with AMD.

5. Disagree due to the above..

[ALXAndy]

Say all you want, and he may be wrong, but the 9590 requires watercooling to run a stock speeds. The 3970X is clocked at a mere 3.5GHz. We're talking 120W vs 180W. The 9590 is essentially overclocked to the max on stock settings while the 3970X still has a ton of headroom. With both pushed as far as they can go with equal cooling, I am very confident the 3970X could win quite handily.

 

Hang on a minute. We are talking about gaming performance here, not power, not what cooling you need. Stop trying to twist this around.

 

Would the 3970x 'win' if both CPUs were fully utilised with software to support them? of course it would. Why? because it costs a fucking fortune. I think you are missing the point here. The 8320 costs £113. It's the same CPU as the 9590 with a lower clock speed.

 

The 3970x costs eight hundred and twenty four pounds. Why? because of the money Intel has invested into their R&D and their manufacturing process. Do you see what I'm getting at? how in the name of fuck can a CPU you can buy for £113 go anywhere near a 3970x in gaming? all you have to do is get a half decent 990FX board, push that £113 CPU to 4.5ghz and you are pissing with the big boys.

 

But look, here is another thing you need to understand. Things are now fully in favour of AMD. They hold all of the trump cards, and they are calling the shots. So whilst it used to be all about how much money you spent, it's now going to be about having the right CPU to understand the games that are translated to it.

 

Yeah, I know, sucks for willy wavers. Never mind,they'll still have their synthetic benchmarks. Gamers however? well we're in for a real treat. £113 for a CPU that can toss those games around like ragdolls.

 

Hurrah !

[ALXAndy]

Sorry for my short response but I'm out at the moment and on my phone.

1. Since the consoles new architecture that won't water to the same extent, 8 cores will still see better optimisation but intel vs AMD 8 core won't matter.

2.altvough I do use the extra cores for other things the fact next gen games will be optimised for 8 cores is one of the major reasons I went with a 6 core CPU instead of the mainstream haswell CPUs and while it still might not be 8 cores, well neither are your bulldozer modules...

3. Agree

4. Intel still has a much larger user base. It would be in their best interest to make sure it is at least on par with AMD.

5. Disagree due to the above..

 

Intel can't do fuck all now it's out of their hands. Maybe they should have gotten more involved in the game industry rather than waving their cocks around over who has the highest IPC?

 

If you are a gamer? watch what happens to that majority now. Gamers don't give a shit what CPU they own as long as it's the best one for gaming.

[atrash]

Reuben, on 04 Oct 2013 - 08:03 AM, said:

The 8350 only beats the 2500K by ~15% in heavily-threaded applications. However, that isn't taking into account overclocking and several other aspects of these processors including board cost and power draw.

 

well +-15% does seem a lot for me as a power user.And I could have spend that extra money for more RAM and have a more future proof pc. I spent close to $250 just for the cpu alone. another $230 for the motherboard.

[hehehehhehehehe]

Intel can't do fuck all now it's out of their hands. Maybe they should have gotten more involved in the game industry rather than waving their cocks around over who has the highest IPC?

 

If you are a gamer? watch what happens to that majority now. Gamers don't give a shit what CPU they own as long as it's the best one for gaming.

anyone else think we have a fan boy on our hands?

[ALXAndy]

well +-15% does seem a lot for me as a power user.And I could have spend that extra money for more RAM and have a more future proof pc. I spent close to $250 just for the cpu alone. another $230 for the motherboard.

 

+ 15% faster than a 2500k is a 4670k. Given of course that Intel like to release new CPUs that are 5-10% better than the last.

[ALXAndy]

anyone else think we have a fan boy on our hands?

 

YAWN. Understand what you are talking about before engaging your fingers.

[Kuzma]

Sorry for my short response but I'm out at the moment and on my phone.

1. Since the consoles new architecture that won't water to the same extent, 8 cores will still see better optimisation but intel vs AMD 8 core won't matter.

2.altvough I do use the extra cores for other things the fact next gen games will be optimised for 8 cores is one of the major reasons I went with a 6 core CPU instead of the mainstream haswell CPUs and while it still might not be 8 cores, well neither are your bulldozer modules...

3. Agree

4. Intel still has a much larger user base. It would be in their best interest to make sure it is at least on par with AMD.

5. Disagree due to the above..

Yeah just stfu, read my thread on AMD cores vs Intel cores and then come back to apologise. One module is two cores! Deal with it.

[Reuben]

Yeah just stfu, read my thread on AMD cores vs Intel cores and then come back to apologise. One module is two cores! Deal with it.

It is 8 cores, but each module shares resources that usually are designated to each core.

[hehehehhehehehe]

Yeah just stfu, read my thread on AMD cores vs Intel cores and then come back to apologise. One module is two cores! Deal with it.

are you getting annoyed at me? Because that's basically what I meant when I was talking about the modules

[Kuzma]

It is 8 cores, but each module shares resources that usually are designated to each core.

 intel processors also share resources, does that make them all one core? 

are you getting annoyed at me? Because that's basically what I meant when I was talking about the modules

you said you went for a 6 core over a haswell CPU and while it may not be 8 cores neither are bulldozer modules when they indeed are 8 cores >_<

[ALXAndy]

are you getting annoyed at me? Because that's basically what I meant when I was talking about the modules

 

Well to me it sounded like you were saying that they were modules and didn't have eight cores. You said -

 

and while it still might not be 8 cores, well neither are your bulldozer modules... 

 

Which isn't correct. The modules are dual core CPUs. That's the simplest way of putting it. An FX 8320  is basically four dual core CPUs sat around a central control point. They're pretty much the same modules AMD have been using for years. Magny Cours equivalents IIRC. The cores haven't changed, the controller has. If Steamroller does come to fruition then it will be the same cores with a better controller.

[hehehehhehehehe]

intel processors also share resources, does that make them all one core?  you said you went for a 6 core over a haswell CPU and while it may not be 8 cores neither are bulldozer modules when they indeed are 8 cores >_<

  

Well to me it sounded like you were saying that they were modules and didn't have eight cores. You said -

 

and while it still might not be 8 cores, well neither are your bulldozer modules... 

 

Which isn't correct. The modules are dual core CPUs. That's the simplest way of putting it. An FX 8320  is basically four dual core CPUs sat around a central control point. They're pretty much the same modules AMD have been using for years. Magny Cours equivalents IIRC. The cores haven't changed, the controller has. If Steamroller does come to fruition then it will be the same cores with a better controller.

Okay, well sorry about that part guys. I was completely misinformed about the architecture..

I do still hold my belief that intel still holds the crown for single threaded tasks.

[Kuzma]

Okay, well sorry about that part guys. I was completely misinformed about the architecture..

I do still hold my belief that intel still holds the crown for single threaded tasks.

This is true, Intel does indeed have better IPC but for tasks that use an even number of cores AMD will be king - as I said before, read my thread

[Reuben]

Things are now fully in favour of AMD. They hold all of the trump cards, and they are calling the shots.

AMD fanboys. As soon as their processors benchmark better in one game (in beta, running at 1050p, and stock Intel vs the 9590), this suddenly means that the market has turned, AMD is now in charge, and they are calling the shots. Yeah right, fanboy.

[hehehehhehehehe]

This is true, Intel does indeed have better IPC but for tasks that use an even number of cores AMD will be king - as I said before, read my thread

Yeah, agreed.

I am right now.

[ALXAndy]

   Okay, well sorry about that part guys. I was completely misinformed about the architecture..

I do still hold my belief that intel still holds the crown for single threaded tasks.

 

Half of the problem is people going around the internet who don't even understand how their, or any other,computer works. All they want to do is talk crap. Intel most certainly does hold the 'crown' if you want to call it that but times are changing. As I mentioned in a previous post, up until now IPC was important. SImply because the garbage we were being fed by the game devs was just that - garbage. Garbage that was coded for a completely different architecture and THEN cobbled together to run on a PC for another pay day.

 

What's changed? absolutely nothing, other than the fact that AMD have pretty much taken a FX 8 core, lowered the clocks and bolted on a GPU. A GPU they inherited from ATI when they bought them. AMD did not buy ATI to compete with Nvidia. Those who believe that are so far from the truth it's unreal. They bought ATI so they could use that technology on APUs. AM3+ is about to be retired. Whether or not we will see 'Steamroller?' no idea. They are going to move over to making pretty much all APUs. Wanna know why? because Intel's GPUs are utter crap and it's THEM AMD are gunning for.

 

At the lower end? hardly anything Intel make is worth touching. Simply because if you even want to mention the word game then you need to buy a GPU, given how crap their onboard stuff has always been. Go to the high end? well AMD have got that covered now. They've even developed an API for the devs to use for console games, one which can then be used on a PC to make their hardware work better. Better than Intel, better than Nvidia.

 

AMD have taken some massive gambles over the past few years, now they are going to pay off.

[Lord Pantaloons]

AMD fanboys. As soon as their processors benchmark better in one game (in beta, running at 1050p, and stock Intel vs the 9590), this suddenly means that the market has turned, AMD is now in charge, and they are calling the shots. Yeah right, fanboy.

^^^

[Kuzma]

Half of the problem is people going around the internet who don't even understand how their, or any other,computer works. All they want to do is talk crap. Intel most certainly does hold the 'crown' if you want to call it that but times are changing. As I mentioned in a previous post, up until now IPC was important. SImply because the garbage we were being fed by the game devs was just that - garbage. Garbage that was coded for a completely different architecture and THEN cobbled together to run on a PC for another pay day.

 

What's changed? absolutely nothing, other than the fact that AMD have pretty much taken a FX 8 core, lowered the clocks and bolted on a GPU. A GPU they inherited from ATI when they bought them. AMD did not buy ATI to compete with Nvidia. Those who believe that are so far from the truth it's unreal. They bought ATI so they could use that technology on APUs. AM3+ is about to be retired. Whether or not we will see 'Steamroller?' no idea. They are going to move over to making pretty much all APUs. Wanna know why? because Intel's GPUs are utter crap and it's THEM AMD are gunning for.

 

At the lower end? hardly anything Intel make is worth touching. Simply because if you even want to mention the word game then you need to buy a GPU, given how crap their onboard stuff has always been. Go to the high end? well AMD have got that covered now. They've even developed an API for the devs to use for console games, one which can then be used on a PC to make their hardware work better. Better than Intel, better than Nvidia.

 

AMD have taken some massive gambles over the past few years, now they are going to pay off.

This so many times, if you read my thread (I really do refer to my threads a bit too often) entitled "APUs and the future of computing" I mention all these points and more - the thread is 1.1k words long so a bit of a wall of text but well worth the read

[DirkaFat]

AMD fanboys. As soon as their processors benchmark better in one game (in beta, running at 1050p, and stock Intel vs the 9590), this suddenly means that the market has turned, AMD is now in charge, and they are calling the shots. Yeah right, fanboy.

It's actually sad for everyone if the market isn't turned soon.

[Glenwing]

Keep things cool, please.

[acepro71]

and i thought 9350 was just an overclocked 8350 things look different now but still i think this result will only come on amd optimised games