So AMD just lanced their new FX cpu's and I am extremely confused how brand new 8 core cpu processors are being out performed by the 4th gen i3 processors according to AnandTech's benchmarks in most cases and when they do perform better than the i3 it is only a marginal difference.
I did have a preference in AMD vs Intel but I would like an explenation on how a low end cpu is out performing high end ones.
The article is here : http://www.anandtech.com/show/8427/amd-fx-8370e-cpu-review-vishera-95w/3
This is partly because these "new" FX processors are the same as what already exists just with a different clock speed (its all still the same 2 year old architecture). But the programs that are being used probably favor stronger single core performance as well
it's just a rehash of the old piledriver architecture no way can it compete in single thread performace against newer processors. i think AMD is trying to dump whatever they have left of the piledriver. also if you look at the CPU benchmarks as opposed to the gaming benchmarks you see that it does a little better http://anandtech.com/show/8427/amd-fx-8370e-cpu-review-vishera-95w/2
in other sites people are getting these chips to 5ghz overclock so that's pretty cool. lets see a i3 do that. the world record for the Core i3 4360 is 4071.3 mhz with dry ice cooling.
Apperently this is also the end of the line for piledriver as an architecture, last I checked AMD said they were rebuilding the FX series from the ground up. This article does contain some speculation so keep that in mind-> http://wccftech.com/amd-discusses-gen-fx-cpus-20nm-gpus-5way-crossfirex-freesync-ddr4/
Those anandtech gaming benchmarks look abit biassed to me.
yes the haswell cpu´s have better single threaded performance, But the games they have tested are all GPU bound games. so the diffrences can never be that huge, i dont believe a single shit of that.
i3 handles a 770 sli realy good?... hahaha i mean realy?
in gpu bound scenario´s maybe.., but trow BF4 in mp with 64 people server on a big map like chaina, and the i3 gets burried alive, for the simple reason that things becomming cpu bound then.. ☺
An i3 will bottleneck a GTX770 Sli as hell. in cpu + gpu bound scenario´s.
Same like all those pentium-G3258 overclocked voodoo magic gaming performance... yeah sure they all do GPU bound scenario testing lol ☺
yeah I had the same thoughts as I was reading the article. Anyone buying those AMD FX processors are going to OC them. Not only that, all we saw was gaming benches...would of liked to see some productivity benchmarks where single threaded performance means nothing.
An i3 just doesn't have the threads that the old piledriver 8 cores have, and cannot overclock even close to the speeds that piledriver can reach.
Hopefully soon, all games will start to use more than 2-3 threads.
I have laptop with i3-2350m and if I want better frame rate I kill explorer.exe. Every program that is running on my computer slows down game. I don't have a 6 or 8 core processor but i suspect that I could skype, listen to music and do other stuff while playing a game without any hit to frame rate while 2 core CPU would not be able to keep it playable.
I've used an i3-3220 for over half a year. Gaming performance is decidedly worse than the FX-8320 I'm running now.
Looking at the game benchmarks, the reviewer must be incompetent. Those games can all run pretty damn well on a Core 2 Duo, none of them are taxing for the CPU in any way. Battlefield: Bad Company 2* or BF4 Multiplayer would be a better way to benchmark CPUs (both of those games scale well for multicore CPUs, and over a sufficiently long testing period, the results should be fairly accurate). Planetside 2, Assassin's Creed IV (to a degree, as it does not run at over 30 or so fps when using an i3), or a modded Skyrim** install are pretty good games for benchmarking CPUs.
*CPU load would have to be compared in this case, as in how many % of the total CPU time is used by the game.
**modded = many scripts, modified Skyrim.ini file such that all cores are properly utilized by the game engine (as it only uses 4 cores by default, but is definitely capable of using over 10).
its all gpu bound. look at the Thief benchmark. there is no diffrence between most of those tested cpu´s. only the A10 falls behind, but that could be causing by the lack of L3 cache for the background applications that are running.
But like i said in a diffrent thread, i personaly dont see the point of those new FX chips, especialy the 8370E, in my opinnion the FX8350 is still the better buy over those new FX chips.
Offcourse it is not a secret that the unlocked haswell i5 / i7 cpu´s are better for cpu + gpu demending games like skyrim, because of intels better per core performance.
But still the 2 year old FX 8 cores put up a good showing against the new intels i5 and i7´s, in those games aswell
yes and not only that, if you use an AMD GPU aswell, you can also use mantle to take some of the overhead away from the cpu, and that also improves performance allot. So the diffrences are becomming smaller and smaller.
Personally I find most reviews are bias. I run an Fx 8350 with ancient dual radeon HD 6870s in crossfire, and that combo has so far handled every modern game I've played on it with mid to high graphics settings. That's being said there are certain graphics settings I almost always turn off because I don't like the effect they have on visual clarity. like fx/msaa, so I probably don't count in this debate since I turn it off for aesthetic reasons, and consequently gain a speed boost for it.
Core 2 Duo can't even play 1080p 60FPS video on youtube (overclocked above 3Ghz = if not stock)..., however it is not in rang of I3's.
It have problems with flash games on facebook (when using Win 6+ systems), only overclocked over 3GHz is "fine". FX-4100 at stock run circles arround that CPU, 1440p 60FPS = no problem, flash games = no problem.
However, with = or above 3GHz, C2D is still fine for web browsing, flash games (facebook), and youtube videos, as long as theya re at 30FPS, or 720p 60FPS max.
