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:
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.

Precisely because I am doing GPU bound workloads. I am gaming on 3 screens and when I went from a Phenom II 965 to a 3570k using GTX 670 SLI, I saw around 10% performance improvements for the 3570k in the best case scenario. Most of the time there was less because every game I was playing was GPU bound at 5760x1080.

Also, most of these newer games on Windows 8 and latest drivers show actual performance advantage for an overclocked 8350 Vs 3570k (Crysis 3, Farcry 3) and I expect that trend to continue since consoles will make sure games are 8 core optimized. I am not looking for more than 60 FPS here...and when 3570k beats the FX 8350 on older unoptimized games, its usually in games like Skyrim where its 70 fps vs 120. 70 is plenty for me lol. Finally AM3+ socket will see another CPU where 1155 is done... So there is hope for another 15-20% jump in performance down the road.

I actually have a 3570k with GTX 670 SLi and a BenQ 3D monitor listed for sale right now for $1500. It may even sell today with everyone that's messaging me lol... If it does I'll pocket $400 bucks and have an as good, if not better future performing PC.



Around the Network
disolitude on 21 April 2013

Updated OP with FX 8350 3D Mark Vantage bench and 4 cores disabled.



HoloDust on 21 April 2013

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-processor-frame-rate-performance,3427.html








ethomaz on 21 April 2013
disolitude said:

Updated OP with FX 8350 3D Mark Vantage bench and 4 cores disabled.

Thanks.

Like I said the difference in score was just because the 4 plus core of FX-8350... now the with the same number of core the difference of 1100 points is because the clock.

3.6Ghz to 4.0Ghz = +10%
18,939 to 20,101 = +6%

In fact the APU 3870k seems to have a better IPC than FX-8350 (~3%)... at the same clock and same number of core the APU 3870k will perform ~3% better than FX-8350.

Expected because the core in APU 3870k is a newer revision of the FX-8350.

Anyway the Intel CPUs perform better because the because the IPC difference is bigger... the AMD works better with multi-core but in core clock only the AMD CPUs are way behind.



fillet on 21 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.


Not true.

Yes, at first thought it sounds like the obvious and logical conclusion to come to but the point is this is simply not going to be true for at least 10 years - if ever because of the heat output/transistor count for anything to rival a discrete card.

Also, the logical conclusion (at first thought) that having it integrated on chip means a faster BUS speed is also invalid because as you can see and as has been known for years current top end cards hardly even satisfy the PCI-E 8x connection let alone the 16x.



Around the Network
Heavenly_King on 21 April 2013

so, will there be some kind of problem with the PS4?



Open World-Survival-Game Days Gone

ethomaz on 21 April 2013
Heavenly_King said:
so, will there be some kind of problem with the PS4?

No. The games will be optimized to more core than clock only... I think PC will take advantage from these optimizations a lot more than PS4 itself.



adriane23 on 21 April 2013

And here I was going back and forth on whether or not I would upgrade from an i5 to and i7. The minimal gains (for what I'll be doing anyway), probably won't justify the cost.



I am the Playstation Avenger.

   

ethomaz on 21 April 2013
adriane23 said:
And here I was going back and forth on whether or not I would upgrade from an i5 to and i7. The minimal gains (for what I'll be doing anyway), probably won't justify the cost.

Any i5 quad-core is more than enough for games.



adriane23 on 21 April 2013
ethomaz said:
adriane23 said:
And here I was going back and forth on whether or not I would upgrade from an i5 to and i7. The minimal gains (for what I'll be doing anyway), probably won't justify the cost.

Any i5 quad-core is more than enough for games.

Yeah, I was starting to fall for the "i7 is teh GAMING CPU" hype from Intel.



I am the Playstation Avenger.