Originally Posted by Dimaggio1103
I meant they are single core performance reliant vs favoring more threads.
However, You are wrong a FX-6300 will absolutely destroy any loked i5. Im willing to through up benchmarks if need be. I have owned both so I speak from actual experience.
Gaming benchmarks only please. BTW, did the locked i5 vs overclocked fx-6300 thread you were talking about creating with that other poster go anywhere? I was looking forward to that.
Also, its a well know fact of bulldozers failures, so how is AMD saying they are fixing those exact issues worthless? Vishera was a great improvment on a problematic architecture, so now with the archetecture being fixed where it failed before, is a good indication of performance. Bury your head in the sand all you want, its fact.
AMD claimed Bulldozer was going to be the next best thing! New instruction sets! Competing in the high-end gaming processor world. FAIL. AMD claimed Vishera was going to be a huge improvement to Bulldozer. Success! Now what did I say... regardless of whether Steamroller proves to be a big improvement/success, AMD will promise huge gains. My statement is proven by (recent!) history. Personally I hope they get the same gaming gains with Steamroller that they got with Vishera - but who knows? Maybe they already got all the low-hanging fruit & there's not much room for improvement in the architecture. Maybe Haswell will flop, show no gaming benefit over Ivy Bridge & Steamroller will take the gaming performance crown. I'll wait for the reviews & benchmarks and not put my faith in empty marketing promises. It's silly that you choose to do the opposite.
A FX-8350 can perform just as good as a 3570K in multi threaded apps and games.
No. An fx-8350 is not the equivalent as an i5-3570k for gaming. The i5-3570k is superior in more games, by a larger margin when compared to the very few games an fx-8350 shows an advantage in. Your statement would be fair if you said "an fx-8350 can perform just as good as an i5-3570k in most games."
Oh and yes most games are becoming multthreaded.
This years top AAA game titles:
BF3- uses 6 cores
Crysis 2- 6 cores
Black ops 2- 6 cores
Metro 2033 - 4 cores
Crysis 3 alpha- 6 cores
No. You are wrong in general. And wrong in the specifics.
BF3 - yes, for large multiplayer maps this CPU does benefit from 6 cores.
Crysis 2: Benchmarks show zero performance benefit for 6-core processors. In fact, with any kind of half-demanding graphics settings, processor is irrelevant:
Testing done with a GTX 580. Source.
Even when graphics demand is reduced to the point where differences between CPUs in Crysis 2 can be seen, hexa-core CPUs provide ZERO benefit over quad-cores.
Note the difference (lack thereof) between the Phenom II x4 & Phenom II x6 processors. Source
So it is just foolish to recommend paying for a six-core processor if you want to play Crysis 2. Why on earth would you call it a game that uses 6 cores? Because the developer said so? Don't be so naive.
Black Ops 2 is another example of a game that benefits not at all from 6 cores. Heck, it barely benefits from more than 2.
Note the minuscule difference between the Athlon II x2 and Athlon II x4 & i3-3220 and i5-3470. Once again, benchmarks show you are just wrong. Black Ops 2 does not benefit from six cores. And dual-core CPUs run the game just fine.
Just what I have seen myself. If a old revamped game like black ops 2 can use 6 cores
As we see above, it does not. So the question pops up, why did you think it did? Was the answer that the performance tab in task manager showed it doing so? I'm guessing not. But if so, that tab is not capable of displaying the number of cores a program can effectively utilize.
Metro 2033 - yes quad-core is a benefit over dual-core here.
Crysis 3 alpha - why you'd even bring up a game still in alpha is a little puzzling. But yes, Crysis 3 alpha does show some benefit to six cores - though a quad-core with better per-core (single-threaded) performance will still be far preferable to a six-core CPU with lower per-core performance. So the i5 would be expected to be better than the fx-6300 here. Source.
...at least until the alpha is neutered to comply with the demands of consoles. Then all bets are off.
The best part is the 6300 is generally cheaper by alot than a locked i5 ivy as well.
This is true only when one ignores motherboard & cooler costs. As is the case for the OP. Which is why I recommend the fx-6300 for him.Edited by MisterFred - 12/30/12 at 1:06pm