Originally Posted by symmetrical
Originally Posted by cre8ive65
You have a reason to complain about performance if you were like me and had dual 7970's with a 8150, however if you have an 8150 and a GTX650/660/660 TI then you have no reason to complain what so ever, game performance with those level cards or AMD Equivalents will be similar to 3570k due to a GPU bottleneck.
Glad to replace my 8150 with an 3570k in my gaming rig, but I think my studio PC/ Ableton will LOVE the 8 cores, 3 tracks with basic effects hits 21% usage on my 3570k, I get to find out in 2 days.
Maybe with a GTX 650, but since a GTX 660 and 660ti is basically a GTX 580 and up, you can still run into a CPU bottleneck in certain titles. Specifically for me it was Starcraft 2. And it was even worse since it only really utilized 2 threads, so it made my FX-8120 hold it back from getting 60fps.
Then again I am one of those few who are basically anal about getting at least 60fps in all my games. For the vast majority of users they will probably not be bothered with 30fps and an AMD FX CPU will do just fine.
That's because Starcraft 2 is a CPU limited game...Even Ivy Bridge bottlenecks on it iirc, as with most RTS', even the i5 3570k @ 4.2Ghz behind me can't run Sins of a Solar Empire Rebellion at 60fps for an entire game with the max players, etc but it does better than my FX-4170 still.
Originally Posted by Aesir
Originally Posted by KyadCK
... You honestly think a FX-8*** can't handle a 660?
It won't on SC2, my 955 at 4.3GHz couldn't handle a 560ti in SC2 not every game can use 9.001x10^9001 cores, and I don't see that changing any time soon since the pipeline is not so easy to split up. I think the games that do support many threads just offload networking and sound etc off to other threads, but the graphics pipeline is still very sequential and the more crap that gets thrown into it the more that CPU's with poor single threaded performance will suffer unless a solution is found to make many cores act as one, or some way to use many cores to complete the frame.
SC2 has lots going on like all the AI's pathing, physics (if on), networking (going to be a lot since every unit has to be updated between clients) and the graphics pipeline, and stick that with sound onto two threads, slower CPU's have a hard time completing all of that and being able to send the GPU commands at the same time, so yeah it will bottleneck.
Most of it is actually keeping each and every unit on screen and existing/doing something, they probably could multi-thread that fairly well (Make it so each is on a separate thread) but there's not usually much need to since RTS players are used to being CPU bottlenecked all the time anyway, hell, Sins of a Solar Empire still
bottlenecks any modern CPU and it's from 2008.
Originally Posted by ebduncan
SC2 is surprisingly hard to run. Even at 2560x1440 it's CPU bound and just doesn't stop scaling.
ding ding we have a winner. StarCrap 2 is not gpu limited, but cpu limited. It doesn't matter what cpu you have, if you have a faster one you will get more fps. In my book Sc2 stands for Supreme Commander 2 (it was out first) just not as popular.
Starcrap 2 is not a game you build around, because it is a game unlike the others which is actually cpu limited vs gpu. Its poorly coded.
Actually, a lot of games are CPU bottlenecked these days, Minecraft is for example (My girlfriend literally doubles my FPS despite her HD7850 @ stock not being much faster than an 800Mhz GTX 470, it's due to her CPU), The Sims 3 is mainly HDD bottlenecked but when it's on an SSD it really does use your CPU heavily, practically every RTS is also CPU limited and iirc Rollercoaster Tycoon 3 is poorly coded and really relies on your CPU more than anything, Starcraft 2 probably could be threaded a bit better but is actually coded quite well iirc.
Originally Posted by cre8ive65
Sure FX is more money than core i, but the boards for AM3+ are WAYYY cheaper with way more features.
Not if you're smart, you get the FX-4100 or FX-4170 because they're not much slower clock for clock than the FX-6*** and FX-81** in games and cost about as much as an i3.