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 73  

post #721 of 1593
I'm quite happy with my extremely easy to OC FX-6300 which i got for about 40 bucks in microcenter ( after selling free motherboard and retail was about 90 bucks anyways )

why would i pay 200-300 extra dollars for extra 5-8 fps increase maybe 10 tops?

this is also coming from a first time amd user so I am far from fanboy'ism.


seriously people just like to hate for no reason, it all depends on needs, I am only running single 24 inch monitor this is already overkill in my opinion, lots of people with similar needs go overkill and complain when intel counterparts they compare them to only give them extra marginal increase in performance.
post #722 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheReciever View Post

You'll run into motherboard limitations at that point.

You're over-estimating the need for PCIe bandwidth by today's games. 2GB/s gives around the same performance as 8GB/s unless you're doing some very specific bogus calculations that won't really happen in real life scenarios.

With 16 1GB/s lanes on haswell and Ivy bridge processors, you'll be using about half of the available 16GB/s bandwidth. The system memory will also be able to keep up (~20GB/s bandwidth). I can't really see what would the limit be here unless you're using a very broken multiplexer.
post #723 of 1593
As someone who used an FX 6350 and now an i7 4770K, I can say that a lot of the viewpoints expressed here are rather extreme and it has mostly to do with definitions.

What is "viable" ? What is "mid-high end"? What is "competitive" ? How is the performance measured and how well does it reflect user perception? What sort of OC are we talking about and how costly and reliable is it? What is the purpose of the OC (ie competition on HWBOT or just increased performance)?

Going for an i7 was a no-brainer when I decided to go for crossfire, since practically everywhere I looked, there is a very clear performance gap between the 2 architectures.

However, for feeding a single, mid/upper range GPU (<300$ MSRP) the differences aren't so exaggerated in most games. I played Tomb Raider (SP) on both platforms with my 7950 and I honestly don't think I could tell the difference if I wasn't actively looking for it or otherwise measuring it. A few other SP games were also smooth and perfectly playable on the FX 6350, with a mild OC (4.4Ghz) on the stock cooler.

Then there are specific games, like World of Tanks with a totally different story, for example. Huge difference in favor of the i7 there, both in terms of min/avg fps/ frame drops and in terms of overall smoothness. There are some worse cases, like M$ Flight Sim X. But they're pretty rare.

So depending on your definitons, the answer to the question will differ. My answer would be yes for mid-high end and no for enthusiast level rigs (Crossfire/SLI, multi-monitor or 4K setups etc).
post #724 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by PsyM4n View Post

So, in a nutshell, you're saying that you don't need a high end CPU to play games.
'

No, in a nutshel ,what I am saying is different strokes for different folks. 72 pages of debate is an indication that, hey, perhaps AMD actually still is somewhat relevant for mid or high or mid-high (or what have you or whatever you wanna call it).
Mastodon Ryzen
(12 items)
 
HP Z220
(8 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
R7 1800X Asus Crosshair VI Hero Sapphire RX Vega 64 reference Gskill TridentZ 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Pny SSD 240GB Crucial MX100 CM Nepton 280L Win 10 
MonitorPowerCaseMouse
Acer Predator XG270HU Freesync XFX 750W Pro HAF XM Logitech G502 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsCooling
i7 3770 HP Quadro K2000 HP 
OSPowerCaseMouse
Win 7  HP 400W HP CMT RAT 7 
  hide details  
Mastodon Ryzen
(12 items)
 
HP Z220
(8 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
R7 1800X Asus Crosshair VI Hero Sapphire RX Vega 64 reference Gskill TridentZ 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Pny SSD 240GB Crucial MX100 CM Nepton 280L Win 10 
MonitorPowerCaseMouse
Acer Predator XG270HU Freesync XFX 750W Pro HAF XM Logitech G502 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsCooling
i7 3770 HP Quadro K2000 HP 
OSPowerCaseMouse
Win 7  HP 400W HP CMT RAT 7 
  hide details  
post #725 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZaknafeinGR View Post

As someone who used an FX 6350 and now an i7 4770K, I can say that a lot of the viewpoints expressed here are rather extreme and it has mostly to do with definitions.

What is "viable" ? What is "mid-high end"? What is "competitive" ? How is the performance measured and how well does it reflect user perception? What sort of OC are we talking about and how costly and reliable is it? What is the purpose of the OC (ie competition on HWBOT or just increased performance)?

Going for an i7 was a no-brainer when I decided to go for crossfire, since practically everywhere I looked, there is a very clear performance gap between the 2 architectures.

However, for feeding a single, mid/upper range GPU (<300$ MSRP) the differences aren't so exaggerated in most games. I played Tomb Raider (SP) on both platforms with my 7950 and I honestly don't think I could tell the difference if I wasn't actively looking for it or otherwise measuring it. A few other SP games were also smooth and perfectly playable on the FX 6350, with a mild OC (4.4Ghz) on the stock cooler.

Then there are specific games, like World of Tanks with a totally different story, for example. Huge difference in favor of the i7 there, both in terms of min/avg fps/ frame drops and in terms of overall smoothness. There are some worse cases, like M$ Flight Sim X. But they're pretty rare.

So depending on your definitons, the answer to the question will differ. My answer would be yes for mid-high end and no for enthusiast level rigs (Crossfire/SLI, multi-monitor or 4K setups etc).


100% agree its similar to what i was saying 2 post before people in general hate for no good valid reason.

difference between my OC heck even non OC fx6300 to my cousin with similar build except I7 set up ain't that much difference, it all comes down to what its going to be used for and what set ups.(IE: multi monitors/ crossfire or SLI set ups vs non, etc)
post #726 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by PsyM4n View Post

No, actually he doesn't. It's up to the market prices to decide what compares with what.

You might be willing to decide on how to do a counter-argument, by conveniently ignoring some things and conveniently embracing some others, depending on the situation, but reality doesn't work like that.

Proper decisions rely on how close the ones affected are to a global approach of the whole situation. This is nothing close to what happens in this thread.

Some of the things noted:

- I keep seeing comparisons of the initial direct costs involved by the ones who justify what AMD has to offer, while any subsequent costs are blatantly ignored. Is this the "free energy for all" era or something? In that case you can send some of the free energy here if you don't mind.

- The ones who favor AMD interpret the better performance of the FX series (compared to the Intel equivalents) in about 20% of the shown benchmarks as something that makes them competitive. Since when is 1 out of 5 considered competitive? With the same reasoning, an i7 920 is competitive against an FX 8320.

- Some of the ones involved completely disregard the obvious, in order to justify their claims. Take a look at the post above.

Exact quote: "Take a real close look here because apparently you know next to nothing of what you claim to know so much about. Power usage is not so dramatic."
What the "real close look" showed: The FX 9590 @5GHz draws about twice as a 4770k @4.5GHz. That's 150 watts, with the AMD part about at stock, and the intel part having about a 25% overclock.
For that power you run two more stock 4770s or an extra mid-end GPU. Heck, a whole 8 drive RAID array consumes less than that.

I can't counter-argue that. It counter-argues itself.
How about you let go of the fanboism and look at the facts. You said this:
Quote:
Seriously, comparing a CPU that draws 75 watts with one that consumes 3 times that amount is not quite a relevant comparison either.
Then I posted the power consumption chart. Then I informed you TDP is not the same as Power used aka: Watts. And more fun math for you: That load difference is not indicative of daily use and therefore power usage over time is far less and only about 20% more on the AMD side not the 200% you originally stated and the 100% when you vaguely admitted to your own fault.

So try staying with what you know for fact and less in the speculative assumptions. Changing your argument each time someone points out the evident flaws goes only to prove your lack of real knowledge in the subject.
post #727 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by PsyM4n View Post

You're over-estimating the need for PCIe bandwidth by today's games. 2GB/s gives around the same performance as 8GB/s unless you're doing some very specific bogus calculations that won't really happen in real life scenarios.

With 16 1GB/s lanes on haswell and Ivy bridge processors, you'll be using about half of the available 16GB/s bandwidth. The system memory will also be able to keep up (~20GB/s bandwidth). I can't really see what would the limit be here unless you're using a very broken multiplexer.

Tell that to the peeps with issues running BF4 in 3x1600, there was a rather long thread about it recently
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 2670 @ 2.8Ghz m4600 m5100 @ 1100c/1500m 16GB DDR3 1333Mhz 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
c300 128GB SSD 2TB FireCuda 7mm 2TB Firecuda 7mm 1TB 5400rpm 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
750GB 5400rpm Windows 10 x64  1920x1080 @90hz 150w 
Mouse
Corsair M40 
  hide details  
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 2670 @ 2.8Ghz m4600 m5100 @ 1100c/1500m 16GB DDR3 1333Mhz 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
c300 128GB SSD 2TB FireCuda 7mm 2TB Firecuda 7mm 1TB 5400rpm 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
750GB 5400rpm Windows 10 x64  1920x1080 @90hz 150w 
Mouse
Corsair M40 
  hide details  
post #728 of 1593
Quote:
This thread has basically gone "AMD can't compete on the high end!!" to "You need a 9590 for AMD to compete on the high end!" It's at least provided a good laugh.

9590 to compete on the high end.. in multithreaded.. against 3.7ghz haswell
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 #729 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durquavian View Post

How about you let go of the fanboism and look at the facts. You said this:
Then I posted the power consumption chart. Then I informed you TDP is not the same as Power used aka: Watts. And more fun math for you: That load difference is not indicative of daily use and therefore power usage over time is far less and only about 20% more on the AMD side not the 200% you originally stated and the 100% when you vaguely admitted to your own fault.

So try staying with what you know for fact and less in the speculative assumptions. Changing your argument each time someone points out the evident flaws goes only to prove your lack of real knowledge in the subject.

Actually, from the pic you posted it was quite clear that the AMD processor consumed 3 times the power of the Intel one when both at stock. Where exactly is the flaw there?
post #730 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by PsyM4n View Post

Actually, from the pic you posted it was quite clear that the AMD processor consumed 3 times the power of the Intel one. Where exactly is the flaw there?
Not one of those is 3 times. Most are just 2 times and a little bit. But you said 75 watts. Do you see 75 watts on that chart? A lot of those are stock and not one = TDP. You just keep digging that hole.
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?