I think that technology doubling in power no longer applies to the computer hardware market. Perhaps in the mobile industry but my Core 2 Quad from 2007 hasn't even been 100% surpassed by the latest Intel offerings clock-for-clock. Single-threaded performance of the newest Haswell chips is only like 50% faster than their 2007-2008 family clock-for-clock.
I guess software lagging behind kind of gives us this grace period where the hardware advancements in performance aren't as dramatic and we're so far ahead of the software this time can be taken to primarily focus on things like power consumption and better chipset features etc.
For future proofing considering the next gen consoles use low power, 8 cores from amd, ports will be optimized toward amd. Games such as battlefield 4 already benefit from more cores rather then fewer, more powerful cores.
That's not true. Even in Battlefield 4 the 8350 edges out the i5 by 1FPS. Then the i7 typically beats the 8350 by 1FPS. It is totally plausible for an i5 to beat an i7. No CPU wins out-right in BF4 because there is some level of variance.
Each pair of cores on the 8350 shares a module, which means that each pair of cores shares the same resources. Basically, the listed CPUs are architecturally different, so you can't really do a core count comparison. Per core performance and efficient scheduling can quite easily negate the difference in cores. I really wouldn't base this chip decision on ports from console.
It is also dependent upon devs adopting Mantle. As AMD have said, Mantle is not appropriate for every given game. Low-level APIs don't necessarily allow for certain mathematics and compute tasks, I would assume.
In short, not all games will be compatible with Mantle. For instance, I don't see RTS games using a low-level API. If game devs don't adopt it, Nvidia wouldn't have an incentive.
We shall see. I am excited for more attempts at low-level APIs. Mantle is not the first of its kind, but earlier APIs simply disappeared because they were a closed solution.
It already does in most games that use multiple threads (such as Crysis 3) however in games like Skyrim the i5 beats the FX-8350 a little bit but its usually a negligible amount is more dependent on the graphics card that you are running.
0____o Didn't check this for a few days and .... good god all the comments lol
But anyways you guys bring up some good points. With software as is and developers just adopting to 8 cores and etc.. It really seems like if you have the extra money for the i5 then buy it, and if you don't then get the 8350. It seems like either one will really get the job done.
true, but look at consoles, they're usually quite successful. I love all tech so i don't rly have a negative bias over things except for laptops (mainly because i don't get the power i wish i had, it's WAY expensive for a good one). Consoles are successful because of the hardware not changing for that generation. Because of that, it can be optimized, look at the ps3 and xbox 360 for example, quite a successful set of consoles because the hardware kept improving simply because better programming came along with it during development stages. Look at ps3 during the beginning (uncharted) vs ps3 at the end (The last of us). Two great games with great graphics and the difference is night and day simply because the programming was there.
Imagine 5 years after the titan released and imagine NVidia giving it 100% support all the way till then. I'm pretty sure the performance would increase at least 40% because it will have 5 years of optimization. These hardware manufacturers need to understand that software i more important. Consoles are the proof of that.
to an extend, i mean if multi-threading becomes the focus, then yes amd will get some advantages, but BF4 is the first multi-threaded optimized game, running only @ x64. It's hard to say that AMD will have an advantage over intel, but AMD is focusing multi-threading workloads because they're quite strong in the server market, which is where the architecture came from. So in reality AMD chips were never originally designed for gaming, they're designed for heavy numerical calculations.
So future proofing i doubt it'll ever happen. Consoles are successful because they're on 1 hardware design and designers have 10 years of consistent hardware specs. PC's don't work in the way consoles do because we use dedicated graphics cards and have our own VRAM to deliver performance to graphics. Consoles use APU's which utilize RAM WAY differently. So this is an apples and oranges topic, it'll never be optimized properly.
pretty much. The performance difference between i5, fx-8350, and i7 is quite negligible. we focus those things because we're hardware enthusiasts but in real world scenarios, that's 30 seconds extra render time difference. An extra 5 fps over another even though they're all competitive and work well. I feel like the fanboy field in PC world blows things WAY out of proportion. AMD, Intel, Nvidia all are VERY close to each other in performance and they all create good performing components. You never go wrong, from personal experience it's about purchasing for the needs and value for the performance instead of pure performance. We're going to throw away these parts in 5-10 years.
You'd be surprised but the server market is quite dominant on the AMD market...Opteron outperforms, that's where AMD REALLY shines. I know a ton of IT's that have messed with the 32-core opterons and they swear up and down that they get 20% improvements over the equivalent and higher prices xeons...that's their thing.
FM2+ is still a mystery atm, but it seems like AMD is trying to keep quiet, i think they learned their lesson with Bulldozer and how bad their marketing hyped up the CPU only to rly put a toll on them financially with the market because of the exaggerated expectations. I've met a few engineers that have worked at AMD and i gotta say they have some really intelligent engineers, but if you have a shorted time to produce a product with less money, things are gonna hick up. Intel has unlimited freedom with their time and money on their financial escapades and so they will always have the upper hand. Personally it feels like AMD will announce something by mid year next year, or possibly say something after Kaveri releases, maybe they'll announce Steamroller FX chip on FM2+ or AM3+ socket...a socket dsn't mean much because they can always reallocate pins to work differently, that's not the issue. Maybe they'll announce the 1090fx chipset. I think when they release the next FX chip, we'll see a new chipset...AMD has been doing the tick tock method lately on the APU side, so it's not far fetched.
But games are now being ported from consoles to pc. Not all games, but pc's aren't getting cream of the crop if you know what I mean. So I think you might future proof somewhat if they program for 8 cores for the consoles.
But games are now being ported from consoles to pc
Games have always been ported from console to PC. If the new consoles had 4 cores, would that make them more optimised for Intel? No. Core count really doesn't mean anything.
Unless I have missed what you're trying to say, you're following along the lines of what other people are thinking. Because consoles have 8 cores, then they must be optimised for 8 cores no explanation given.
Well, the additional cores in the consoles are actually used for streaming and running the software and various tasks in addition to the game. So not all of the consoles 8 cores are used to process games.
I don't expect to see any change in the performance given by the FX chips, nor the Intel chips. PCs have dedicated graphics cards that do 80% of the work.
agree, its just what you can afford, FX8350 or i5-4670k or i7-4770K is all fine, and for a gaming rig, the performance diffrence is between the i5 / i7 and the FX8350, is most of the time so close, that there is nothing to call your friends about.im personaly only focussing on the i7 and the FX8350 for my personal needs. but i do also other things then gaming, and in that perspective the FX8350 give me more performance for my dollar, and thats what matters to me. ☺
Yeah I agree both will probably have similar longevity. I personally think we will see the fx8350 winning out in more games (not all by any means) in the future but it will be by like 1 to 3 fps (bf4) and hardly worth mentioning.
I cant really see an 8 core as weak as the one in the ps4 putting much pressure on a chip like the 4670k especially if they only put 6 of the cores to gaming.