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 118  

post #1171 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by Insane569 View Post

Now why is it that these CPUs aren't high end? What deems them mid range? You say "decent performance" but last time I checked, they outdo a lot of computers out there.
There still hasn't been a line drawn on CPU ratings. Where is the limit for a mid range. What do you have to cross to be High end?
Don't get me wrong here. Just look at the 9590 and 8350, if you wanted to call the 9590 extreme then the 8350 could be considered high end. BUT and this is the ugly truth: A huge percent of software is going to run better on Intel, and there is a two sided reason for it. First Intel has a huge share of the market 80%+ (Not sure if that's just desktop or whole market, saw a 60% number somewhere) and therefore you have to expect a great portion of that will use ICC (Intel compiler/instruction set) or another tweaked to run more efficiently on Intel being that is what the software is tested on. Many may argue it is the inherent architecture but that only applies when all things are equal. In this case Intels get an even larger advantage because of their market share.

So go back to mid/high end ranges. The FX 4xxx would be Mid/High-low end and the 6xxx would be high-low/low-mid end. You kind of have to look at all the options and unfortunately Intel has flooded the market with a lot of low/mid end CPUs so the bottom is heavy. Mostly the economy and the market has forced this of course. Remember the 8320 was a mid end with the 8350 touching high-mid end.

But this is the part that AMD has the advantage in: ALL FX PARTS ARE UNLOCKED. So it doesn't really matter what designation they start in, you can make them into higher end parts. That 4xxx series can make a great mid-end system and that 6xxx can touch the high-mid end.

Probably the worst part is that reviews do precious little justice when OCing, they generally suck at it, mostly because of the time constraint. FXs take a bit of tweaking to find that performance boost that can make them truly outstanding.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheReciever View Post

So again, why dont we have another bench off?
Ok you first. Fact is that is not gonna be easy. Why? Because even here on OCN the Intel to AMD ratio is high and the fact that a lot of Intel users here have the funds for highend equipment on top of the cost of the CPUs. So we are gonna get seriously skewed results. Just go to the Mantle thread or BF4 and see there is like 30 Intels to 1 or 2 AMD users posting results. Besides Cssorkinman has posted quite a few in this thread alone to show and explain the FXs place.
post #1172 of 1593
We need "BENCHES" of 8350, 4670k and 4770k at their maximum OC on say for example an h100i or the Kraken X60. That is what is related to most OCN users, overclocked performance of a processor does matter here on OCN like Durquavian said. Can somebody volunteer this?

Also, benches must be taken from a software that has been highly optimized for both Intel a.w.a. AMD, may-be we can use separate builds optimized of some open source benchmark suite/software one each for AMD & Intel!

Just some names would be 7-zip, trucrypt, h.264, ffmpeg, etc. these are all open-source so we can re-build them by forcing optimization for specific processors and ISA, like forcing AVX (gcc option -mavx) and similarly forcing FMA3, FMA4, AVX2, MMX, XOP, F16C, TSX, etc. I guess gcc has options for all these ISA. There are results on phoronix website that building open-source by forcing such optimizations and some other options creates a good boost in the scores. Now that's called being fair on both sides, anybody got guts to try it out? (I do, but my heat-sink is damaged so until my X60 arrives I can't turn ON my desktop mad.gif)
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD FX-8150 ASUS M5A97 R2.0 AMD Radeon HD 6670 Corsair  
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Western Digital Caviar Blue Samsung Super WriteMaster AMD FX-8150 Stock Air Cooler Windows 8 PRO x64 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Lenovo 17 inches CRT Lenovo Cooler Master Thunder 500W Cooler Master Elite 311 
MouseMouse PadAudio
Lenovo Lenovo Lenovo 
  hide details  
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD FX-8150 ASUS M5A97 R2.0 AMD Radeon HD 6670 Corsair  
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Western Digital Caviar Blue Samsung Super WriteMaster AMD FX-8150 Stock Air Cooler Windows 8 PRO x64 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Lenovo 17 inches CRT Lenovo Cooler Master Thunder 500W Cooler Master Elite 311 
MouseMouse PadAudio
Lenovo Lenovo Lenovo 
  hide details  
post #1173 of 1593
Personally, I consider my rig with a 6800k and 7950 mid end. With this A10, I can max out Battlefield 4, Tomb Raider, the first two Crysis games, etc. at 1080p. And I bet you guys consider that a "low end chip" tongue.gif
Alienware 15
(11 items)
 
  
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
i7-4710HQ GTX 970M 3GB 16GB 256GB M.2 SSD 
Hard DriveHard DriveOSOS
250GB m.2 SSD 1TB HDD Fedora 23 Windows 10 
MonitorKeyboardMouse
4k IPS Corsair K95 Corsair K65 
  hide details  
Alienware 15
(11 items)
 
  
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
i7-4710HQ GTX 970M 3GB 16GB 256GB M.2 SSD 
Hard DriveHard DriveOSOS
250GB m.2 SSD 1TB HDD Fedora 23 Windows 10 
MonitorKeyboardMouse
4k IPS Corsair K95 Corsair K65 
  hide details  
post #1174 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheReciever View Post

So again, why dont we have another bench off?

There's no point. Vishera will tie or win most benches against the 4670K, lose in almost everything to a 4770K and get annihilated by a 4930K in cpu benchmarks. In gaming benchmarks will keep close with one gpu and get destroyed when you have 2 or more in SLI and crossfire.
Core I7 5960X
(10 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
Intel Core I7 5960X ASRock X99 OC Formula MSI GTX 970 Gaming MSI GTX 970 Gaming 
RAMHard DriveCoolingOS
G. Skill 16GB DDR4 2600 Sandisk Extreme II 240GB SSD Custom 480 Water Setup Windows 10 
PowerCase
AX1500I Corsair 900D 
  hide details  
Core I7 5960X
(10 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
Intel Core I7 5960X ASRock X99 OC Formula MSI GTX 970 Gaming MSI GTX 970 Gaming 
RAMHard DriveCoolingOS
G. Skill 16GB DDR4 2600 Sandisk Extreme II 240GB SSD Custom 480 Water Setup Windows 10 
PowerCase
AX1500I Corsair 900D 
  hide details  
post #1175 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordOfTots View Post

Personally, I consider my rig with a 6800k and 7950 mid end. With this A10, I can max out Battlefield 4, Tomb Raider, the first two Crysis games, etc. at 1080p. And I bet you guys consider that a "low end chip" tongue.gif
I would say it falls in with the 4xxx series at stock, but the difference is that OC potential of that beast. I'd say with the 7950 it definitely becomes a mid end chip. The aforementioned rankings I gave are Based solely on stock and unfortunately those reviews we love to hate. Honestly I wouldn't let it worry you. A Corvette is definitely not considered the same class as a Ferrari but it will give that Ferrari hell on the track.
post #1176 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stay Puft View Post

There's no point. Vishera will tie or win most benches against the 4670K, lose in almost everything to a 4770K and get annihilated by a 4930K in cpu benchmarks. In gaming benchmarks will keep close with one gpu and get destroyed when you have 2 or more in SLI and crossfire.
Wouldn't bet on it. Reviews show that but personal use and with someone that knows how to tweak their system will have better results. Ask RED1776 with his quadfire setup.
post #1177 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durquavian View Post

Wouldn't bet on it. Reviews show that but personal use and with someone that knows how to tweak their system will have better results. Ask RED1776 with his quadfire setup.

I'm talking 1080P, 1440P and 1600P. At eyefinity resolutions it would be closer.


I just pulled this from 3dmark.

9590 + 7990's in Quad Crossfire

http://www.3dmark.com/fs/1458576

4770K + 7990's in Quad

http://www.3dmark.com/fs/792937

Talking like a 30% difference at 1080P
Edited by Stay Puft - 4/1/14 at 6:08am
Core I7 5960X
(10 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
Intel Core I7 5960X ASRock X99 OC Formula MSI GTX 970 Gaming MSI GTX 970 Gaming 
RAMHard DriveCoolingOS
G. Skill 16GB DDR4 2600 Sandisk Extreme II 240GB SSD Custom 480 Water Setup Windows 10 
PowerCase
AX1500I Corsair 900D 
  hide details  
Core I7 5960X
(10 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
Intel Core I7 5960X ASRock X99 OC Formula MSI GTX 970 Gaming MSI GTX 970 Gaming 
RAMHard DriveCoolingOS
G. Skill 16GB DDR4 2600 Sandisk Extreme II 240GB SSD Custom 480 Water Setup Windows 10 
PowerCase
AX1500I Corsair 900D 
  hide details  
post #1178 of 1593
Why compare a stock clocked CPU to an over clocked one??, let both be at stock. I think an overclocked 8350 at 5-5.3 GHz is better than a 9590 at the same freq. Whether this is correct or not someone would have to verify that.
Another point is that there is no native PCIe 3.0 support in AMD FX series so a tri-fire/quad-fire with dual-gpu in each slot I.e. 8x way CF is definitely PCIe bottlenecked. Let's compare it with PCIe 2.0+Haswell
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD FX-8150 ASUS M5A97 R2.0 AMD Radeon HD 6670 Corsair  
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Western Digital Caviar Blue Samsung Super WriteMaster AMD FX-8150 Stock Air Cooler Windows 8 PRO x64 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Lenovo 17 inches CRT Lenovo Cooler Master Thunder 500W Cooler Master Elite 311 
MouseMouse PadAudio
Lenovo Lenovo Lenovo 
  hide details  
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD FX-8150 ASUS M5A97 R2.0 AMD Radeon HD 6670 Corsair  
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Western Digital Caviar Blue Samsung Super WriteMaster AMD FX-8150 Stock Air Cooler Windows 8 PRO x64 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Lenovo 17 inches CRT Lenovo Cooler Master Thunder 500W Cooler Master Elite 311 
MouseMouse PadAudio
Lenovo Lenovo Lenovo 
  hide details  
post #1179 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by imran27 View Post

Why compare a stock clocked CPU to an over clocked one??, let both be at stock. I think an overclocked 8350 at 5-5.3 GHz is better than a 9590 at the same freq. Whether this is correct or not someone would have to verify that.
Another point is that there is no native PCIe 3.0 support in AMD FX series so a tri-fire/quad-fire with dual-gpu in each slot I.e. 8x way CF is definitely PCIe bottlenecked. Let's compare it with PCIe 2.0+Haswell
Tech at same frequency they would operate exactly the same, but 9590 would have the voltage advantage, meaning lower and a more likely higher OC.
post #1180 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by imran27 View Post

Why compare a stock clocked CPU to an over clocked one??, let both be at stock. I think an overclocked 8350 at 5-5.3 GHz is better than a 9590 at the same freq. Whether this is correct or not someone would have to verify that.
Another point is that there is no native PCIe 3.0 support in AMD FX series so a tri-fire/quad-fire with dual-gpu in each slot I.e. 8x way CF is definitely PCIe bottlenecked. Let's compare it with PCIe 2.0+Haswell

To be fair the 990FX is kind of like a re-badged 890FX for AM3 tongue.gif it is slightly old but it's still keeping up pretty well.

I don't think bandwidth matters as much, didn't Tom's Hardware do a report comparing x16 to x8. I think the performance difference was negligible.

Anyway correct me if I am wrong tongue.gif
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?