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 92  

post #911 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by AMDATI View Post

They'll just use it as an excuse to say that the upper end of AMD is 'close enough', completely negating their original argument of it not making a difference.

144fps vs 178fps may not seem like a meaningful difference, until you consider longevity. Frames will fall faster with newer more demanding titles with AMD than they will with Intel. And in actuality, that 144 vs 178 is a difference of 20%, which is pretty significant.

let's say a game comes out that the 4770k + Titan can only get 60fps in. It's reasonable to assume an AMD will get around 20% less, which drops them from 60fps to 48fps with the same exact videocard.

Funny thing is, the 3470 is cheaper or on par with the 8350, yet gets slightly better FPS. So if they want to focus on gaming, they've already lost. Of course that's right about when they'll try to cite non gaming performance, despite having shifted the focus off of it previously to say that it was gaming performance that mattered. Perfect explanation of the hypocrisy.


Do you really think that a future game that won't play acceptably on the 8350 because it gets 144fps vs Intels 178fps that the game will be playable on the Intel processor? I am pretty sure it will be unplayable on both.
post #912 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by 996gt2 View Post

Intel's R&D Budget last year (Just R&D, nothing else): $ 10 billion
http://blog.gsmarena.com/samsung-ranks-second-as-top-rd-spender-intel-and-microsoft-close-by/

AMD's total revenue last year: $ 5.5 billion
http://www.amd.com/us/press-releases/Pages/press-release-2014jan21.aspx

So take the entire amount that AMD made last year from every product they sold across all categories, then double it, and that's Intel's research and development spending.

So, AMD keeping hush hush and suddenly releasing a new processor that's actually competitive with Intel at the >$200 price point? Zero chance, sorry.


Ten years ago things were a lot different. P4's were garbage.
post #913 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisjames61 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by 996gt2 View Post

Intel's R&D Budget last year (Just R&D, nothing else): $ 10 billion
http://blog.gsmarena.com/samsung-ranks-second-as-top-rd-spender-intel-and-microsoft-close-by/

AMD's total revenue last year: $ 5.5 billion
http://www.amd.com/us/press-releases/Pages/press-release-2014jan21.aspx

So take the entire amount that AMD made last year from every product they sold across all categories, then double it, and that's Intel's research and development spending.

So, AMD keeping hush hush and suddenly releasing a new processor that's actually competitive with Intel at the >$200 price point? Zero chance, sorry.


Ten years ago things were a lot different. P4's were garbage.

http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/article/1787/
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 #914 of 1593
Alot of games dont even use multicore and even if they will do that in the future I doubt they will for anything more than 4 cores. We all know AMD superduper-core alreaddy performs worse or equal to intel quads, which tells me something very important. By the time all those games use all those cores the fx 8350 will be too old since its alreaddy behind the i5 3570k in pretty much any game, despite double the core. And even if thats the case, we can always buy old intel hexa cpus and get very good performance. Why do you suddenly think old xeon and x58 stuff has become so expensive and not anything remotely accossiated with AMD in terms of cpus? So no, AMD when it comes to gaming is not gamers choice and even less for the future proofness. And up to this point, intel has been the most future proof systems you can ever get. And yes im looking at it from a gamers perspective. Once my i5 at 4.8ghz is start lacking due to only 4 cores, I will get a old x58 or x79 system and use a high end server hexa core and OC it to 5ghz and blow away anything AMD ever will produce. Heck, I might even get a i7 sandy or ivy with HT for all I care. I wish you could say the same for AMD and be so optimistic....
Edited by PachAz - 3/28/14 at 3:50pm
My PC
(28 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i7 6700K Asus Z170 Pro Gaming KFA2 GTX 1080 Ti EXOC Corsair LPX 16GB (2x8), 2133Mhz 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
Western Digital WD15EADS 1.5TB Samsung 840 250GB Crucial MX100 256GB Alphacool Eisblock XPX 
CoolingCoolingCoolingCooling
Alphacool ST30 360mm Alphacool ST30 140mm Alphacool Eisbecher 150mm Alphacool VPP655 
CoolingCoolingCoolingCooling
Masterkleer (10/13mm) Compression fittings (10/13mm) Corsair SP120 High Performance Phobya 6 Touch 30W 
CoolingCoolingCoolingCooling
Aquacomputer Kryographics Titan X (Pascal) Aquacomputer Active XCS backplate Watercool Heatkiller SW-X MB-Set Alphacool Monsta 240mm 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 7 Professional Retail AOC Agon ag271qx CM Storm Quickfire Rappid-I Fractal Design Newton R3 1000W 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Cooler Master Cosmos II Logitech G502 Steelseries QcK Logitech 5:1 
  hide details  
My PC
(28 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i7 6700K Asus Z170 Pro Gaming KFA2 GTX 1080 Ti EXOC Corsair LPX 16GB (2x8), 2133Mhz 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
Western Digital WD15EADS 1.5TB Samsung 840 250GB Crucial MX100 256GB Alphacool Eisblock XPX 
CoolingCoolingCoolingCooling
Alphacool ST30 360mm Alphacool ST30 140mm Alphacool Eisbecher 150mm Alphacool VPP655 
CoolingCoolingCoolingCooling
Masterkleer (10/13mm) Compression fittings (10/13mm) Corsair SP120 High Performance Phobya 6 Touch 30W 
CoolingCoolingCoolingCooling
Aquacomputer Kryographics Titan X (Pascal) Aquacomputer Active XCS backplate Watercool Heatkiller SW-X MB-Set Alphacool Monsta 240mm 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 7 Professional Retail AOC Agon ag271qx CM Storm Quickfire Rappid-I Fractal Design Newton R3 1000W 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Cooler Master Cosmos II Logitech G502 Steelseries QcK Logitech 5:1 
  hide details  
post #915 of 1593
^yeah when this happens,try to find a motherboard x58 or x79 that will take you far far away in the years to come....
Thanos pc
(15 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
8350 4.9ghz Asus Sabertooth  Gigabyte R290 with Mk-26 Black 2X4gb Kingston hyper x grey 1600mhz DDR3 cl9 + ... 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
WD Caviar aaks WD320gb Ocz Agility III 60gb Coolermaster Nepton 280L Windows 7 Ultimate Sp1 64 bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Samsung SyncMaster 2433BW Microsoft Sidewinder X6 Coolermaster V700 Coolermaster HAF X Nvidia edition 
Mouse
Microstoft Sidewinder Mouse 
  hide details  
Thanos pc
(15 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
8350 4.9ghz Asus Sabertooth  Gigabyte R290 with Mk-26 Black 2X4gb Kingston hyper x grey 1600mhz DDR3 cl9 + ... 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
WD Caviar aaks WD320gb Ocz Agility III 60gb Coolermaster Nepton 280L Windows 7 Ultimate Sp1 64 bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Samsung SyncMaster 2433BW Microsoft Sidewinder X6 Coolermaster V700 Coolermaster HAF X Nvidia edition 
Mouse
Microstoft Sidewinder Mouse 
  hide details  
post #916 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by 996gt2 View Post

For those who say AMD CPUs don't bottleneck high-end GPUs at 1080P, how do you explain this? Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
CPU_01.png

CPU_01.png

CPU_03.png

CPU_001.png

CPU_01.png

CPU_03.png

CPU_01.png

CPU_01.png


Actually would be nice if you gave the link from where these came from. The Thief bench I have seen and you left out the fact that they think something screwy is going on with the code and in no way do they blame it as an AMD performance issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 996gt2 View Post

So what's the point of even pairing an AMD CPU with a high-end GPU like a 780 or 290X if the CPU bottlenecks it in a large # of games anyway? Lots of AMD guys say "Oh, AMD is still relevant for gaming rigs, it won't bottleneck a high end GPU", but obviously that is not the truth.

It would be much smarter to get a 4770K + R9 290 instead of a FX-8320 + R9 290X, for example. The FX is going to bottleneck the 290X anyway. Not to mention the 4770K will still be a relatively good CPU in 3 years, whereas the FX is going to be a pile of junk performance-wise a few years from now. The 4770K will have no issues driving a high-end GPU 3 years from now, but you obviously cannot say that for the FX-8320, since it already bottlenecks high-end GPUs today.

This one is gonna be fun. Maybe you don't get around much, spend too much time Kowtowing to Intel maybe. But here you go:
Mantle:

DX:



8350@4.8Ghz and 290 CF http://www.overclock.net/t/1429303/amd-mantle-discussion-thread/1890#post_21895996

Seems quite capable to me. Besides Mantle makes your argument quite invalid even More so for future use. Besides your single benchmarks, seemingly from a single site, doesn't prove anything other than some are gullible enough to believe anything.

And with every post of yours I begin to believe more and more that you get paid by Intel to spout this biased stuff ( rather have used a different word there but keeping it clean).

I will tell you the same thing I tell any one, if you don't own an AMD processor, at least of the one you speak then you have absolutely nothing to offer in regards to it. Now if you wish to give factual numbers and finding you have with your own setup by all means share. But this fanboy-speak has got to go. The moment you bash the competition with words like trash or junk well that is the moment it is obvious you know little of facts and have absolutely nothing to offer intellectually.
post #917 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by PachAz View Post

If you are building a pc and running anything above a r9 280x or gtx 760 theres no need to buy a AMD cpu because than your budget will be big enough to spend 20 dollars extra on a i5 4670k or a used i5/i7 from sandy or ivy generation, which will be superior overall. I agree that now days, its mostly software holding us back. Hell there are many games out there that benefit little from a top of the line new system and a older one. I still think intel is the way to go for the future. Name one AMD cpu that is still as strong as the i5 2500k (3 years) or the x56xx (5+ years old). Only sad part with AMDs underperformance is that intel now can charge even more money for their cpus and even used intel chips will be more expensive, as we have seen the last 6 months. And even if you would have less money trying to build a system, theres enough time to still pick up those old i5 from sandy generation smile.gif. But be quick, we have alreaddy seen a price increase by 100% for those old x58 stuff like motherboard and those old rusty server cpus, expect those old i5 and i7 will rise in price when people find out that you can OC them to above or equal haswell and next generation intel cpu performance. People want good performance for spent money and no way any "game suitable" AMD cpu does that. Compare the fx 8150 with the i5 2500k for example, which is stronger in games today? Compare the old phenom II 965 with the x56xx cpus and tell me which one has best performance, I mean they are both 5 years old right? Which one would you buy used for a 2014 build?

Also, hope not intel read this thread, otherwise they will increase prices even more.

Edit: some people speak about strategy games? Few of them are optimized good enough to even take advantage of the hardware, let alone do they support multicore so that comment is invalid. Im safe to day that some intel with less cores perform better in multicore games and apps than "plenty-core" AMD, why? Maybe the particular design of the cpu is important, not just the amount of cores. This is why even the old intel xeon 4 and 6 core cpus from the x58 generation, once clocked match the new i5 and i7 cpus in game performance. CPU design...nuff said. I love AMD, but only their gpus. Just like I love hugo boss...for their clothes and not for their watches.
Actually you have it wrong with the bolded part, well mostly. Intels architecture does add to their performance lead but that difference is not as huge as most benches would have you believe. The bigger part is the software. Just like HSA and the $200 A10 Kaveri dusting the 3960K/x or whatever 6 core highend $1000 CPU. Not for a second do either of us believe that AMD suddenly made an Architectural marvel ( aside from the igpu/cpu mating). The sole reason is the software. Seems to be the biggest overlooked reason a great deal of the time. Keep in mind I am not saying they are equal and software is the only reason for the deficit. I know the fact stands that Intel has the advantage. But software can help alleviate that issue ie:Mantle.
post #918 of 1593
Quote:
Once AMD comes out with say 22nm chips, Intel will already be operating on something like 18 or 12nm

it's 14nm q3-4 2014 for mobile and q1 2015 for desktop
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 #919 of 1593
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisjames61 View Post

Do you really think that a future game that won't play acceptably on the 8350 because it gets 144fps vs Intels 178fps that the game will be playable on the Intel processor? I am pretty sure it will be unplayable on both.

at a difference of 20% with the same videocard, yes, it will be playable on one but not the other.

48fps vs 60fps.

22fps vs 30fps

unplayable vs playable.

that's pretty significant just for using different CPU's.
Edited by AMDATI - 3/28/14 at 4:41pm
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 #920 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by AMDATI View Post

at a difference of 20% with the same videocard, yes, it will be playable on one but not the other.

48fps vs 60fps.

22fps vs 30fps

unplayable vs playable.
Unless you can prove that every FX will have those same results then you are dead wrong. A single benchmark says precious little.

When did you ever get the same results as a benchmark? I never have.

AND YOU NEED TO ANSWER THIS: http://www.overclock.net/t/1470614/amd-no-longer-a-viable-option-for-mid-high-end/850#post_22013897
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?