| Eddie_Raja said:
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/msi_z87_xpower_review,15.html http://www.techspot.com/review/615-far-cry-3-performance/page6.html
The FX-83xx performs somewhere around an i5 - i7 pretty consistantly, the FX-63xx performs inbetween an i3 and i5, and FX-43xx is as strong as an i3. Are you one of the people that said the Pentiums were stronger than Phenom II X4's? You guys made me laugh so hard when all games started using 4 cores in 2012 and caused these intel budget builders to get sub 20 framerates. P.S. I have an i7-4770K and it kicks ass. My brother has an FX-8350, and it matches my old i5-3570K. |
Games generally don't use 8 cores.
And even when they do, they still in general perform better on Intel's Quad Cores.
If you look at the benchmarks you posted... They don't show substantual gains of Intel's Quads to Hex core processors.
AMD is a little different.
The reason why the scaling is more severe with more cores is because of the CPU's "modular" core design.
Floating point units are shared between 2 cores, each core is a seperate integer entity.
However, if you only had an AMD Quad Core, the execution resources for floating point is cut in half, whilst on the Octo-cores there is enough for the PC to park processing tasks on each module, allowing for more floating point resources for four threads.
AMD's FX processors were primarily designed for the server space, first and foremost. - A massive portion of server related tasks are integer heavy, which AMD is still stupidly competitive against Intel with due to not sharing Integer between cores.
In terms of total performance however, AMD needs a large frequency advantage just to match Intel, the first-gen FX processors per-thread are slower than the Phenom 2 and the Phenom 2 was slower than the Core 2 on a per-threaded basis.
This hammers home the point that in lightly threaded tasks, AMD's processors are woefully inadequate.
However to AMD's credit, the Phenom 2's could really switch into another gear when you overclocked the NB to around 3ghz, which in some situations could increase IPC by roughly 15%, then overclock the CPU to 4ghz-4.2ghz and even today.
Some examples of lightly threaded albeit CPU demanding games is: Sins of a Solar Empire. - Just try and run that in the late stages of a match and expect solid and stable performance on an AMD processor. (Hint: I can't do it on an FX 8320 @ 4.4ghz, my i7 3930K manages it with ease at 4.8ghz.)
Another is StarCraft 2, the AMD processors simply tank when you have units counting in the mid-thousand.
Intel you can at-least feel confident that regardless of how lightly threaded a game is, you are going to still have great performance.
Lets compare the FX 8320 against Intel's Nahalem i7 990X.
It's 4 years old now, has 2 less cores (And AMD calls them "Cores" so the comparison is in AMD's favor.) than the FX, roughly the same clockspeed as the FX, guess who wins?
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/444?vs=698
There is anywhere from 12-30% performance difference, in favor of the old 990X.
Heck, the 8320, with a tiny clock advantage can't beat Intel's old Sandy Bridge Quad Cores:
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/287?vs=698
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/288?vs=698
And for something completely funny...
Let's compare AMD's 2014 model FX 4300 Quad Core against Intels 7 year old Core 2 Quad Q9770.
Well, that's unexpected, performance isn't that different despite AMD having a 600mhz clock speed advantage and being on a newer fabrication process and capable of using turbo to boost itself to 4ghz.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/48?vs=700
AMD CPU's are horrible, but they are "good enough" for most people, you couldn't pay me to go back to AMD in my primary machine, even if it was a dual-socket 16 threaded opteron.
www.youtube.com/@Pemalite
