Overclock.net › Forums › AMD › AMD CPUs › AMD No longer a viable option for mid-high end?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

AMD No longer a viable option for mid-high end? - Page 104  

post #1031 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thready View Post

Will an FX 8350 even bottleneck a 780 TI? That just doesn't sound right when I say it out loud to myself here behind my keyboard... If it doesn't bottleneck the best consumer GPU out there, then what is the fuss all about in the first place?

I think you are absolutely right. And I am not an AMD fanboy either.

The original topic is about AMD not being good for mid-high end. Now people are talking about upgrade prices and the cost of replacing CPUs every year. That has nothing to do with the original topic.

Well before any i5 or i7 will, and even those do pretty frequently.

Play SC2 or any other complex game.

FPS usually are simple, with graphics decent, but strategy/mmo/rts are complex and will be cpu bottlenecked all the time.
i7 Sandy
(8 items)
 
Skylake Pentium
(8 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-2600K ASRock Z75 Pro3 GTX 970 16GB 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
250GB Samsung 850 Evo WinXP Pro / Win7 Pro 1080p 60Hz Thermaltake Smart M850W 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Pentium G4400 ASRock H110M-HDV GTX 550 Ti 8GB (2x4) 
Hard DriveOSPowerOther
250GB SSD Windows 7 500W 300Mbps WLAN 
  hide details  
i7 Sandy
(8 items)
 
Skylake Pentium
(8 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-2600K ASRock Z75 Pro3 GTX 970 16GB 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
250GB Samsung 850 Evo WinXP Pro / Win7 Pro 1080p 60Hz Thermaltake Smart M850W 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Pentium G4400 ASRock H110M-HDV GTX 550 Ti 8GB (2x4) 
Hard DriveOSPowerOther
250GB SSD Windows 7 500W 300Mbps WLAN 
  hide details  
post #1032 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadow11377 View Post

Well before any i5 or i7 will, and even those do pretty frequently.

Play SC2 or any other complex game.

FPS usually are simple, with graphics decent, but strategy/mmo/rts are complex and will be cpu bottlenecked all the time.

I play SC2 HOTS with graphics on ultra because they do not stress my HD 7870 too much. But I have never noticed problems with game movement or anything. I might not be looking at the right stuffi n the game to be able to see what is going on. But my FX 8350 is very capable.
Zen
(17 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5-6600k Gigabyte Z170XP-SLI RX 480 4GB 24 GB DDR4 2133MHz 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Samsung 850 evo OCZ Vertex 4 Crucial MX 500 256GB WD Black 3 TB 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Seagate 1 TB H60 Windows 10 Asus mx27a 
MonitorKeyboardPowerMouse
hp 2009 m Corsair MR Brown Antec Earthwatts 650 Razer Naga 
Audio
Soundblaster Omni 
  hide details  
Zen
(17 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5-6600k Gigabyte Z170XP-SLI RX 480 4GB 24 GB DDR4 2133MHz 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Samsung 850 evo OCZ Vertex 4 Crucial MX 500 256GB WD Black 3 TB 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Seagate 1 TB H60 Windows 10 Asus mx27a 
MonitorKeyboardPowerMouse
hp 2009 m Corsair MR Brown Antec Earthwatts 650 Razer Naga 
Audio
Soundblaster Omni 
  hide details  
post #1033 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thready View Post

Will an FX 8350 even bottleneck a 780 TI? That just doesn't sound right when I say it out loud to myself here behind my keyboard... If it doesn't bottleneck the best consumer GPU out there, then what is the fuss all about in the first place?

If you're using it to run emulators with high requirements, it will. Some of the emulated games have really high requirements.
Even a haswell processor (which is proven to perform much better than everything else currently out on emulators of remotely recent systems) has problems running some of the heavy stuff if not overclocked.

There are a dozen or two of emulated games that are affected, so it's not just one exception to the belief that an 8350 is enough.

Now, it could be stated that emulation as a whole is a specific kind of task... and technically it is. But to the end user, playing games on an emulator is no different than using a gaming platform like steam and the likes. On both scenarios, in the end you use an interface to run your games. Heck, it's not all that different compared to other forms of gaming either.
post #1034 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thready View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadow11377 View Post

Well before any i5 or i7 will, and even those do pretty frequently.

Play SC2 or any other complex game.

FPS usually are simple, with graphics decent, but strategy/mmo/rts are complex and will be cpu bottlenecked all the time.

I play SC2 HOTS with graphics on ultra because they do not stress my HD 7870 too much. But I have never noticed problems with game movement or anything. I might not be looking at the right stuffi n the game to be able to see what is going on. But my FX 8350 is very capable.

A single GTX 780Ti or 290X is about 2-3 times the performance of your 7870. Please don't misunderstand. I'm not trying to say your card sucks or anything like that. What I'm saying is that GPU performance has increased a lot with the current generation of cards (780Ti, 290X), and it has reached a point where AMD chips DO bottleneck even a single high-end GPU. Yes, a FX8350 is not going to bottleneck a 7870. Nobody will deny that. But a 290X is quite literally like 2 to 3 7870s.

I have posted numerous benchmarks already to prove this point, it's up to you to interpret them. Put it this way, if you go to Techspot and look at all of the game tests where they have tested CPU performance, you will find that AMD cards bottleneck high-end cards like the 290X about 75% of the time.
5 GHz SFF Box
(18 items)
 
   
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7-2700K @ 5.0 GHz, 1.38V Asus Maximus IV GENE Asus GTX 670 DC II 4x4GB Samsung 30nm @ DDR3-2133 9-9-9-21 1.5V 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Plextor M3 SSD WD Velociraptor 500GB WD Caviar Black 1TB WD Caviar Green 2TB 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Thermalright HR-02 (GT AP-15 Push/Pull) Windows 7 Pro x64 LG 27" 2560x1440 S-IPS (Calibrated with Eye-One) CM Quickfire Rapid 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Seasonic X-750 Silverstone SG09 Logitech MX518 Steelseries QcK 
Audio
Asus Xonar DX + Shure SRH840 
CPUMotherboardRAMHard Drive
Core i5-3570K Gigabyte H61N-USB3 Mini-ITX 2x4GB Samsung 30nm DDR3 Samsung 830 128GB SSD 
Hard DriveOSPowerCase
WD Scorpio Blue 500GB Win 7 Pro x64 Antec 90W DC-DC/Delta power brick Antec ISK 110 
  hide details  
5 GHz SFF Box
(18 items)
 
   
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7-2700K @ 5.0 GHz, 1.38V Asus Maximus IV GENE Asus GTX 670 DC II 4x4GB Samsung 30nm @ DDR3-2133 9-9-9-21 1.5V 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Plextor M3 SSD WD Velociraptor 500GB WD Caviar Black 1TB WD Caviar Green 2TB 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Thermalright HR-02 (GT AP-15 Push/Pull) Windows 7 Pro x64 LG 27" 2560x1440 S-IPS (Calibrated with Eye-One) CM Quickfire Rapid 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Seasonic X-750 Silverstone SG09 Logitech MX518 Steelseries QcK 
Audio
Asus Xonar DX + Shure SRH840 
CPUMotherboardRAMHard Drive
Core i5-3570K Gigabyte H61N-USB3 Mini-ITX 2x4GB Samsung 30nm DDR3 Samsung 830 128GB SSD 
Hard DriveOSPowerCase
WD Scorpio Blue 500GB Win 7 Pro x64 Antec 90W DC-DC/Delta power brick Antec ISK 110 
  hide details  
post #1035 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by 996gt2 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thready View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadow11377 View Post

Well before any i5 or i7 will, and even those do pretty frequently.

Play SC2 or any other complex game.

FPS usually are simple, with graphics decent, but strategy/mmo/rts are complex and will be cpu bottlenecked all the time.

I play SC2 HOTS with graphics on ultra because they do not stress my HD 7870 too much. But I have never noticed problems with game movement or anything. I might not be looking at the right stuffi n the game to be able to see what is going on. But my FX 8350 is very capable.

A single GTX 780Ti or 290X is about 2-3 times the performance of your 7870. Please don't misunderstand. I'm not trying to say your card sucks or anything like that. What I'm saying is that GPU performance has increased a lot with the current generation of cards (780Ti, 290X), and it has reached a point where AMD chips DO bottleneck even a single high-end GPU. Yes, a FX8350 is not going to bottleneck a 7870. Nobody will deny that. But a 290X is quite literally like 2 to 3 7870s.

I have posted numerous benchmarks already to prove this point, it's up to you to interpret them. Put it this way, if you go to Techspot and look at all of the game tests where they have tested CPU performance, you will find that AMD cards bottleneck high-end cards like the 290X about 75% of the time.

Some of those benchmarks would have shown the 9590 to be superior to the intel offerings had they not chosen to exclude it from the charts.
Ryzen Shine!
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Ryzen 1800X @ 4125mhz 1.432 Volts MSI X370 Titanium   Fury  G.SKILL TridentZ Series 32GB (4 x 8GB) 288-Pin... 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Samsung 850 pro Hp 1260 I liquid unobtanium Koolance 480mm radiator, 39... Win 7 HP/Winspy 10 64bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
24" hp @ 1900x1200 Logitech G19 PC power and cooling 910 watt silencer Thermaltake P5 
MouseMouse Pad
Logitech MX 518 fUnc industries 
  hide details  
Ryzen Shine!
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Ryzen 1800X @ 4125mhz 1.432 Volts MSI X370 Titanium   Fury  G.SKILL TridentZ Series 32GB (4 x 8GB) 288-Pin... 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Samsung 850 pro Hp 1260 I liquid unobtanium Koolance 480mm radiator, 39... Win 7 HP/Winspy 10 64bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
24" hp @ 1900x1200 Logitech G19 PC power and cooling 910 watt silencer Thermaltake P5 
MouseMouse Pad
Logitech MX 518 fUnc industries 
  hide details  
post #1036 of 1593
Thread Starter 
When it comes to GPU's I'd pick the r9 290 over the 780ti. The 780ti is a bit better, but it costs about $200 more at its cheapest. That's a clear example of the lack of bias I have.

It does seem kind of ironic that even AMD's own fastest processor bottleneck its own fastest videocards.
Not Yours
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 4790k ASRock Z97E-ITX/AC MSI GTX 1080Ti G.SKILL DDR3  
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
SAMSUNG 830 OCZ Deneva 2R WD Scorpio Noctua U14S 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 10 Acer XB270HU IPS CM Quickfire Rapid Fractal Design 650w 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Node 304 SteelSeries Rival 700 SteelSeries Qck Sennheiser HD598 
  hide details  
Not Yours
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 4790k ASRock Z97E-ITX/AC MSI GTX 1080Ti G.SKILL DDR3  
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
SAMSUNG 830 OCZ Deneva 2R WD Scorpio Noctua U14S 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 10 Acer XB270HU IPS CM Quickfire Rapid Fractal Design 650w 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Node 304 SteelSeries Rival 700 SteelSeries Qck Sennheiser HD598 
  hide details  
post #1037 of 1593
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by cssorkinman View Post

Some of those benchmarks would have shown the 9590 to be superior to the intel offerings had they not chosen to exclude it from the charts.

but the 9590 costs more than than the 4770K, for the processor alone. That doesn't even include a cooling solution which will cost another ~$80. And then there's the cost of a high wattage motherboard to run it, and possibly a higher wattage PSU to run it too....or at least, you can get away with a much cheaper PSU with Intel.

After all is said and done, the 9590 costs about $400+ with cpu and cooling, and $500 if you include the extra cost of mobo/psu (not base cost, extra cost).

At that price, for a little more ($70 or less), you could get an Intel 6 core 3930k that completely rapes the 9590.

If you're going to be spending that much, the extra $70 would be well worth the difference. what.....50% more performance for 15% more cost? yeah, it's a no brainer.
Edited by AMDATI - 3/30/14 at 4:42pm
Not Yours
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 4790k ASRock Z97E-ITX/AC MSI GTX 1080Ti G.SKILL DDR3  
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
SAMSUNG 830 OCZ Deneva 2R WD Scorpio Noctua U14S 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 10 Acer XB270HU IPS CM Quickfire Rapid Fractal Design 650w 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Node 304 SteelSeries Rival 700 SteelSeries Qck Sennheiser HD598 
  hide details  
Not Yours
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 4790k ASRock Z97E-ITX/AC MSI GTX 1080Ti G.SKILL DDR3  
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
SAMSUNG 830 OCZ Deneva 2R WD Scorpio Noctua U14S 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 10 Acer XB270HU IPS CM Quickfire Rapid Fractal Design 650w 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Node 304 SteelSeries Rival 700 SteelSeries Qck Sennheiser HD598 
  hide details  
post #1038 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by AMDATI View Post

but the 9590 costs more than than the 4770K, for the processor alone.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113347

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116901

..?

Well, at least those benchmarks show that the 9590 takes the 4770k head on.
post #1039 of 1593
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by PsyM4n View Post

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113347

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116901

..?

Well, at least those benchmarks show that the 9590 takes the 4770k head on.

one of those includes a cooling solution.....and the other does not.

So yes, out of the box the 9590 is significantly more expensive than the 4770k, and even more so when you consider the other costs associated with having a power hungry CPU, like needing a higher wattage mobo & PSU than you otherwise wouldn't with Intel, and a huge difference in electric bill. Heck the electric savings alone make the 3930k more cost effective than the 9590 in the long run.
Edited by AMDATI - 3/30/14 at 4:55pm
Not Yours
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 4790k ASRock Z97E-ITX/AC MSI GTX 1080Ti G.SKILL DDR3  
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
SAMSUNG 830 OCZ Deneva 2R WD Scorpio Noctua U14S 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 10 Acer XB270HU IPS CM Quickfire Rapid Fractal Design 650w 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Node 304 SteelSeries Rival 700 SteelSeries Qck Sennheiser HD598 
  hide details  
Not Yours
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 4790k ASRock Z97E-ITX/AC MSI GTX 1080Ti G.SKILL DDR3  
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
SAMSUNG 830 OCZ Deneva 2R WD Scorpio Noctua U14S 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 10 Acer XB270HU IPS CM Quickfire Rapid Fractal Design 650w 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Node 304 SteelSeries Rival 700 SteelSeries Qck Sennheiser HD598 
  hide details  
post #1040 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by AMDATI View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by cssorkinman View Post

Some of those benchmarks would have shown the 9590 to be superior to the intel offerings had they not chosen to exclude it from the charts.

but the 9590 costs more than than the 4770K, for the processor alone. That doesn't even include a cooling solution which will cost another ~$80. And then there's the cost of a high wattage motherboard to run it, and possibly a higher wattage PSU to run it too....or at least, you can get away with a much cheaper PSU with Intel.

After all is said and done, the 9590 costs about $400+ with cpu and cooling, and $500 if you include the extra cost of mobo/psu (not base cost, extra cost).

At that price, for a little more ($70 or less), you could get an Intel 6 core 3930k that completely rapes the 9590.

If you're going to be spending that much, the extra $70 would be well worth the difference. what.....50% more performance for 15% more cost? yeah, it's a no brainer.

Not really the point is it?
The 9590 would out perform the 4770k .

Is the 3930K mid high end now er what?
Ryzen Shine!
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Ryzen 1800X @ 4125mhz 1.432 Volts MSI X370 Titanium   Fury  G.SKILL TridentZ Series 32GB (4 x 8GB) 288-Pin... 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Samsung 850 pro Hp 1260 I liquid unobtanium Koolance 480mm radiator, 39... Win 7 HP/Winspy 10 64bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
24" hp @ 1900x1200 Logitech G19 PC power and cooling 910 watt silencer Thermaltake P5 
MouseMouse Pad
Logitech MX 518 fUnc industries 
  hide details  
Ryzen Shine!
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Ryzen 1800X @ 4125mhz 1.432 Volts MSI X370 Titanium   Fury  G.SKILL TridentZ Series 32GB (4 x 8GB) 288-Pin... 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Samsung 850 pro Hp 1260 I liquid unobtanium Koolance 480mm radiator, 39... Win 7 HP/Winspy 10 64bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
24" hp @ 1900x1200 Logitech G19 PC power and cooling 910 watt silencer Thermaltake P5 
MouseMouse Pad
Logitech MX 518 fUnc industries 
  hide details  
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: AMD CPUs
This thread is locked  
Overclock.net › Forums › AMD › AMD CPUs › AMD No longer a viable option for mid-high end?