By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - PC - FX-8350 VS APU 3870k benchmarks - How much a slower CPU bottlenecks a GPU

disolitude on 20 April 2013
Soleron said:

You should have compared CPUs of the same architecture and if possible core count.

The A8-3870K is Llano based which has higher per-core performance than the Piledriver-based FX-8350. The FX has four more cores, but they really aren't used in a 3Dmark type benchmark because the CPU threads for game graphics handling are one or two threads at most.

Your test doesn't show what you want it to show because the results are not comparable.

Sure they are...

It shows that PCIe x4 vs PCIe X16 on the exact same platform has little to no impact.

It also shows that having extra CPU cores which are utilized in 3D mark vantage doesn't yeld a much higher frame rate. 3.6 Ghz on Liano vs 4.0 GHZ on piledriver should be close enough in terms of core vs core considering Liano is sligtly better.  Jane nash test averages 7 frames per second more (10%) on the FX 8350 while on the pure CPU tests it's doing 45% better. This is pretty telling as to where the bottlenecks are when it comes to gaming (GPU) .



Around the Network
disolitude on 20 April 2013
ethomaz said:
@disolitude

Can you disable 4-core of the FX 8350 to make a better comparison? Some time the BIOS have that type of option.

Yep. Will work ont hat later tonight and update the thread. My goal is to get 5.2 Ghz on 4 cores on this FX8350 :)



dahuman on 20 April 2013
Chark said:
With APU set ups the GPU is going to become even more important since it will open the GPU up for processes original done for CPU work. It might be young for APUs still and they look weak by current computer understanding of how separate CPUs and GPUs work, but the design is going to be quite the advancement in processing. I don't see why not our high end CPUs will become incorporated into APU designs in the future.


APU is essentially just embedded graphics, like Intel's IGP where they have things like Quicksync and 3rd party enhancements like Lucid's Virtu MVP. It's basically just a fancy marketing term that came about much like how the term GPU came in from Nvidia when we used to just call them video chipset or 3D chipset lol. :P The point is that integrated video processor assisting the CPU is not anything new and has been in place for a few years already.



Soleron on 20 April 2013
disolitude said:
Soleron said:

...

Sure they are...

It shows that PCIe x4 vs PCIe X16 on the exact same platform has little to no impact.

It also shows that having extra CPU cores which are utilized in 3D mark vantage doesn't yeld a much higher frame rate. 3.6 Ghz on Liano vs 4.0 GHZ on piledriver should be close enough in terms of core vs core considering Liano is sligtly better.  Jane nash test averages 7 frames per second more (10%) on the FX 8350 while on the pure CPU tests it's doing 45% better. This is pretty telling as to where the bottlenecks are when it comes to gaming (GPU) .

The PCIe part of your test I have no problem with.

But on the gaming test you can't tell which of the variables is causing the drop: low CPU thread utilisation, or IPC deficit. I'm interested in the 4-core test; I predict almost no change.

And also, who would buy an FX CPU for GPU-bound workloads anyway? In the FX price range, the Intel CPUs provide faster gaming performance.



dahuman on 20 April 2013
Soleron said:
disolitude said:
Soleron said:

...

Sure they are...

It shows that PCIe x4 vs PCIe X16 on the exact same platform has little to no impact.

It also shows that having extra CPU cores which are utilized in 3D mark vantage doesn't yeld a much higher frame rate. 3.6 Ghz on Liano vs 4.0 GHZ on piledriver should be close enough in terms of core vs core considering Liano is sligtly better.  Jane nash test averages 7 frames per second more (10%) on the FX 8350 while on the pure CPU tests it's doing 45% better. This is pretty telling as to where the bottlenecks are when it comes to gaming (GPU) .

The PCIe part of your test I have no problem with.

But on the gaming test you can't tell which of the variables is causing the drop: low CPU thread utilisation, or IPC deficit. I'm interested in the 4-core test; I predict almost no change.

And also, who would buy an FX CPU for GPU-bound workloads anyway? In the FX price range, the Intel CPUs provide faster gaming performance.

If nothing else, it shows great promise for the Steamroller, unless Intel comes out with something new that'd completely leave AMD in the dust at comparable prices again.



Around the Network
ethomaz on 20 April 2013

dahuman said:

If nothing else, it shows great promise for the Steamroller, unless Intel comes out with something new that'd completely leave AMD in the dust at comparable prices again.

I think Intel is holding tech just to wait AMD close the gap lol the situation is a lot confortable to Intel.

Good times when AMD slapped Intel with K8 and make they more forward to create the first Core.



Soleron on 20 April 2013
dahuman said:
...

If nothing else, it shows great promise for the Steamroller, unless Intel comes out with something new that'd completely leave AMD in the dust at comparable prices again.

Steamroller (Q4) increase should be cancelled by Haswell (Q2) increase. Beyond that, I have seen indications that AMD cancelled future big cores. A company <1/50 the size of Intel can't be working on three independent architectures (ARMv8, Jaguar-next, Excavator).

The new thing that will leave AMD in the dust is the 14nm process node. AMD have no visible plans to go to 20nm never mind 14.



Chark on 20 April 2013
dahuman said:
Chark said:
With APU set ups the GPU is going to become even more important since it will open the GPU up for processes original done for CPU work. It might be young for APUs still and they look weak by current computer understanding of how separate CPUs and GPUs work, but the design is going to be quite the advancement in processing. I don't see why not our high end CPUs will become incorporated into APU designs in the future.


APU is essentially just embedded graphics, like Intel's IGP where they have things like Quicksync and 3rd party enhancements like Lucid's Virtu MVP. It's basically just a fancy marketing term that came about much like how the term GPU came in from Nvidia when we used to just call them video chipset or 3D chipset lol. :P The point is that integrated video processor assisting the CPU is not anything new and has been in place for a few years already.

Is that right? So are APUs just getting a second wind because they seem more relevant now.



Before the PS3 everyone was nice to me :(

dahuman on 20 April 2013
Chark said:
dahuman said:
Chark said:
With APU set ups the GPU is going to become even more important since it will open the GPU up for processes original done for CPU work. It might be young for APUs still and they look weak by current computer understanding of how separate CPUs and GPUs work, but the design is going to be quite the advancement in processing. I don't see why not our high end CPUs will become incorporated into APU designs in the future.


APU is essentially just embedded graphics, like Intel's IGP where they have things like Quicksync and 3rd party enhancements like Lucid's Virtu MVP. It's basically just a fancy marketing term that came about much like how the term GPU came in from Nvidia when we used to just call them video chipset or 3D chipset lol. :P The point is that integrated video processor assisting the CPU is not anything new and has been in place for a few years already.

Is that right? So are APUs just getting a second wind because they seem more relevant now.


They were never out to start with :P It's just that they started putting better ones alongside the CPU and gave it a fancier name. Intel also started to put better GPU into their CPU because of it(HD4000 is actually decent for what it's meant to be) and we all like to have more performance so win-win.



dahuman on 20 April 2013
Soleron said:
dahuman said:
...

If nothing else, it shows great promise for the Steamroller, unless Intel comes out with something new that'd completely leave AMD in the dust at comparable prices again.

Steamroller (Q4) increase should be cancelled by Haswell (Q2) increase. Beyond that, I have seen indications that AMD cancelled future big cores. A company <1/50 the size of Intel can't be working on three independent architectures (ARMv8, Jaguar-next, Excavator).

The new thing that will leave AMD in the dust is the 14nm process node. AMD have no visible plans to go to 20nm never mind 14.

Either way it'd be really shitty if the competition disappears so I hope it doesn't get to be too big a difference, we are not talking about only 1 factor here, AMD is not only "VS. Intel" but is also "VS. Nvidia" so if they go down the shitter then we'd all be in trouble on the consumer end.