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 20  

post #191 of 1593
Quote:
GPU's don't bottleneck CPU's. CPU's bottleneck GPU's.

If we have a game where CPU can put out 100fps and GPU can put out 100fps, we call it balanced

If GPU can put out 100fps and CPU can only put out 50, we call it CPU limited, or "bottlenecked"

if CPU can put out 100fps and GPU can only put out 50, it is GPU limited, or "bottlenecked" by GPU, by the same logic~
Insert Name Here
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
6700k Asus Maximus VIII Hero Gigabyte Aorus Xtreme 1080ti Corsair LPX 2x8GB 3200c16 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Old Seagate HDD Samsung 850 EVO Thermalright Silver Arrow SB-E SE Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Asus PG258Q (240hz + Gsync) WASDKeyboards.com v1 semi custom w/ mx browns, ... Superflower Golden Green HX550 Air540 
MouseMouse Pad
Logitech G Pro Qck+ 
  hide details  
Insert Name Here
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
6700k Asus Maximus VIII Hero Gigabyte Aorus Xtreme 1080ti Corsair LPX 2x8GB 3200c16 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Old Seagate HDD Samsung 850 EVO Thermalright Silver Arrow SB-E SE Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Asus PG258Q (240hz + Gsync) WASDKeyboards.com v1 semi custom w/ mx browns, ... Superflower Golden Green HX550 Air540 
MouseMouse Pad
Logitech G Pro Qck+ 
  hide details  
post #192 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by Papadope View Post

Theoretical GFLOPS/TFLOPS do not translate to real world performance.

GPU's don't bottleneck CPU's. CPU's bottleneck GPU's. The number you proposed would have to be calculated for every game as some games are cpu bound and some are gpu bound. I don't think it offers anything better than how we currently measure cpu bottlenecking based on fps and frame times with quality settings set as low as possible. Using one metric like fps does not = actually perceived performance especially in multi gpu setups.
Only some people and these people are wrong for the majority of cases, what you will be getting is better performance per dollar.

I know that, theoretical text doesn't reflect what we actually get. I was just curious about some numbers based on GPU-specs that would help to know whether the GPU will be bottlenecked by the particular CPU.
The current methods of determining bottleneck just works, the numbers it presents have the CPU and GPU/s entangled, we need something which can isolate GPU/s performance for a particular CPU to cause a bottleneck. Bottleneck is caused by pairing a powerful GPU/s with a CPU that cannot handle it, so for a particular CPU, bottlenecking will depend upon only the GPU/s being used with it. It depends on the game too but by just a small amount.
A CPU should not only provide good fps but also be able to feed those big cards that generate these fps numbers.
    
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 #193 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyro999 View Post

If we have a game where CPU can put out 100fps and GPU can put out 100fps, we call it balanced

If GPU can put out 100fps and CPU can only put out 50, we call it CPU limited, or "bottlenecked"

if CPU can put out 100fps and GPU can only put out 50, it is GPU limited, or "bottlenecked" by GPU, by the same logic~

Yes by the same logic but I don't view it that way.The reason why I disagree is because the GPU relies on the CPU to function. The GPU may bottleneck your gaming experience but your CPU can still function in the background processing other threads from other programs. The GPU is not bottlenecking your CPU's ability to function. However, your CPU can bottleneck your GPU's ability to function.
Home Rig
(14 items)
 
Work Rig
(16 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5-2400 Dell Proprietary Sapphire Radeon 5750 16GB Corsair Vengence 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
320GB Seagate HDD DVD Writer Dell Proprietary HSF Windows 7 Professional x64 
MonitorMonitorMonitorKeyboard
Dell U2311H Dell U2311H Dell U2311H Corsair K70 Red 
PowerCaseMouseAudio
Dell Proprietary Vostro 460 Mini Tower Microsoft Sculpt Ergonomic Creative Sound Blaster X-Fi Titanium Fatal1ty 
  hide details  
Home Rig
(14 items)
 
Work Rig
(16 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5-2400 Dell Proprietary Sapphire Radeon 5750 16GB Corsair Vengence 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
320GB Seagate HDD DVD Writer Dell Proprietary HSF Windows 7 Professional x64 
MonitorMonitorMonitorKeyboard
Dell U2311H Dell U2311H Dell U2311H Corsair K70 Red 
PowerCaseMouseAudio
Dell Proprietary Vostro 460 Mini Tower Microsoft Sculpt Ergonomic Creative Sound Blaster X-Fi Titanium Fatal1ty 
  hide details  
post #194 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by Papadope View Post

Yes by the same logic but I don't view it that way.The reason why I disagree is because the GPU relies on the CPU to function. The GPU may bottleneck your gaming experience but your CPU can still function in the background processing other threads from other programs. The GPU is not bottlenecking your CPU's ability to function. However, your CPU can bottleneck your GPU's ability to function.

If you're waiting on GPU to render a frame, CPU load drops. If you're waiting on CPU for a frame to be ready, GPU load drops

I don't see what the difference is, your GPU could function elsewhere and run something else too, it just commonly doesn't. That doesn't mean that it's not "bottlenecking" your cpu's "ability to function" (get loaded more highly and run game at higher FPS)

I don't really get this kind of logic at all, unless you're approaching from the somewhat common habit of making yourself GPU bound by turning up settings, resolution, AA etc until such is the case
Quote:
I don't view it that way

I think it's somewhat personal because likewise i could say CPU is often holding back performance, but be running settings that put GPU at 50% load.

Likewise, i could graphically bind myself so that CPU was only at half load and FPS dropped to half of potential, and say GPU was holding back performance. It's somewhat arbitrary and dependent on point of view because of that. Common themes with buying hardware or setting settings seem to apply less and less the more you deviate from targeting 1080p60 average fps
Edited by Cyro999 - 3/3/14 at 9:21pm
Insert Name Here
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
6700k Asus Maximus VIII Hero Gigabyte Aorus Xtreme 1080ti Corsair LPX 2x8GB 3200c16 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Old Seagate HDD Samsung 850 EVO Thermalright Silver Arrow SB-E SE Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Asus PG258Q (240hz + Gsync) WASDKeyboards.com v1 semi custom w/ mx browns, ... Superflower Golden Green HX550 Air540 
MouseMouse Pad
Logitech G Pro Qck+ 
  hide details  
Insert Name Here
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
6700k Asus Maximus VIII Hero Gigabyte Aorus Xtreme 1080ti Corsair LPX 2x8GB 3200c16 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Old Seagate HDD Samsung 850 EVO Thermalright Silver Arrow SB-E SE Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Asus PG258Q (240hz + Gsync) WASDKeyboards.com v1 semi custom w/ mx browns, ... Superflower Golden Green HX550 Air540 
MouseMouse Pad
Logitech G Pro Qck+ 
  hide details  
post #195 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by Papadope View Post

Yes by the same logic but I don't view it that way.The reason why I disagree is because the GPU relies on the CPU to function. The GPU may bottleneck your gaming experience but your CPU can still function in the background processing other threads from other programs. The GPU is not bottlenecking your CPU's ability to function. However, your CPU can bottleneck your GPU's ability to function.
Especially if CPU is anything low-mid range and GPU is like 780/780 Ti or the 290/X.
All these CPU bottlenecks are solely caused because the GPU used is too powerful for that CPU. And this GPU power is nicely reflected by texel-rate or pixel-rate or it's memory-bandwidth since this is what makes a GPU fast enough to be bottlenecked by a particular CPU
    
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 #196 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyro999 View Post

If you're waiting on GPU to render a frame, CPU load drops. If you're waiting on CPU for a frame to be ready, GPU load drops

I don't see what the difference is, your GPU could function elsewhere and run something else too, it just commonly doesn't. That doesn't mean that it's not "bottlenecking" your cpu's "ability to function" (get loaded more highly and run game at higher FPS)

I don't really get this kind of logic at all, unless you're approaching from the somewhat common habit of making yourself GPU bound by turning up settings, resolution, AA etc until such is the case
I think it's somewhat personal because likewise i could say CPU is often holding back performance, but be running settings that put GPU at 50% load.

Likewise, i could graphically bind myself so that CPU was only at half load and FPS dropped to half of potential, and say GPU was holding back performance. It's somewhat arbitrary and dependent on point of view because of that. Common themes with buying hardware or setting settings seem to apply less and less the more you deviate from targeting 1080p60 average fps

Your absolutely right, but I still think there's more to it.

Lets say your running a game using 100% of the CPU and 50% of the GPU. Then you also want to play a video at the same time, and you have 2 rendering options. CPU and GPU.
With CPU rendering you are getting 5 fps, what is causing the bottleneck? CPU
With GPU rendering you are getting 5 fps, what is causing the bottleneck? CPU

Not lets say your running a game using 50% of the CPU and 100% of the GPU. Then you also want to play a video at the same time, and you have 2 rendering options. CPU and GPU.
With CPU rendering you are getting 30fps.
With GPU rendering you are getting 5 fps.
In this example the GPU is not bottlenecking the CPU's ability to function in another task. The CPU can handle the task of rendering a video entirely on its own.
Home Rig
(14 items)
 
Work Rig
(16 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5-2400 Dell Proprietary Sapphire Radeon 5750 16GB Corsair Vengence 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
320GB Seagate HDD DVD Writer Dell Proprietary HSF Windows 7 Professional x64 
MonitorMonitorMonitorKeyboard
Dell U2311H Dell U2311H Dell U2311H Corsair K70 Red 
PowerCaseMouseAudio
Dell Proprietary Vostro 460 Mini Tower Microsoft Sculpt Ergonomic Creative Sound Blaster X-Fi Titanium Fatal1ty 
  hide details  
Home Rig
(14 items)
 
Work Rig
(16 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5-2400 Dell Proprietary Sapphire Radeon 5750 16GB Corsair Vengence 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
320GB Seagate HDD DVD Writer Dell Proprietary HSF Windows 7 Professional x64 
MonitorMonitorMonitorKeyboard
Dell U2311H Dell U2311H Dell U2311H Corsair K70 Red 
PowerCaseMouseAudio
Dell Proprietary Vostro 460 Mini Tower Microsoft Sculpt Ergonomic Creative Sound Blaster X-Fi Titanium Fatal1ty 
  hide details  
post #197 of 1593
Thread Starter 
Ok, time to bring up something that pretty much obliterates any opposing viewpoints on price to performance ratio.

The Xeon e3-1230 v3. Some of you may know what I already mean, but for those of you that don't -- that is a server CPU released 2 months prior to the i7 4770. It is just a smidge slower than the 4770, without integrated graphics...but here's the kicker....it only costs $250. That's over $60 cheaper than the 4770, and over $120 cheaper than the 9590! It's just no competition. The longevity, the energy savings, the lower cost, far out do the 9590 out of the box, and the 8350 in the long run, but not that long because the savings will pay for themselves in the first year on the energy bill, while getting a much faster product.

It was pretty much impossible to refute Intels price to performance lead before.....and I've just knocked $60 off!! If you can't admit to yourselves that's a pretty darn good deal, then you're just lying to yourself.

I'd also say a good estimate for usable life, is about 2 years longer on the intel side than amd.
Edited by AMDATI - 3/3/14 at 11:41pm
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 #198 of 1593
Xeon E3-1230 v3 thumb.gif, no arguments over that.
    
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 #199 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by AMDATI View Post

Ok, time to bring up something that pretty much obliterates any opposing viewpoints on price to performance ratio.

The Xeon e3-1230 v3. Some of you may know what I already mean, but for those of you that don't -- that is a server CPU released 2 months prior to the i7 4770. It is just a smidge slower than the 4770, without integrated graphics...but here's the kicker....it only costs $250. That's over $60 cheaper than the 4770, and over $120 cheaper than the 9590! It's just no competition. The longevity, the energy savings, the lower cost, far out do the 9590 out of the box, and the 8350 in the long run, but not that long because the savings will pay for themselves in the first year on the energy bill, while getting a much faster product.

It was pretty much impossible to refute Intels price to performance lead before.....and I've just knocked $60 off!! If you can't admit to yourselves that's a pretty darn good deal, then you're just lying to yourself.

I'd also say a good estimate for usable life, is about 2 years longer on the intel side than amd.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AMDATI View Post

Ok, time to bring up something that pretty much obliterates any opposing viewpoints on price to performance ratio.

The Xeon e3-1230 v3. Some of you may know what I already mean, but for those of you that don't -- that is a server CPU released 2 months prior to the i7 4770K. It is just a smidge slower than the 4770, without integrated graphics...but here's the kicker....it only costs $250. That's over $60 cheaper than the 4770, and over $120 cheaper than the 9590! It's just no competition. The longevity, the energy savings, the lower cost, far out do the 9590 out of the box, and the 8350 in the long run, but not that long because the savings will pay for themselves in the first year on the energy bill, while getting a much faster product.

It was pretty much impossible to refute Intels price to performance lead before.....and I've just knocked $60 off!! If you can't admit to yourselves that's a pretty darn good deal, then you're just lying to yourself.

in order for that to be true it would have to provide 2.5 times the performance of the $99 8320 . in the case of cinebench 15 that would require a score of around 1500 at stock speeds for both processors. No difficulty in refuting that claim in the slightest smile.gif
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 #200 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by cssorkinman View Post


in order for that to be true it would have to provide 2.5 times the performance of the $99 8320 . in the case of cinebench 15 that would require a score of around 1500 at stock speeds for both processors. No difficulty in refuting that claim in the slightest smile.gif

8320 is $150-$160.
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?