Overclock.net › Forums › AMD › AMD CPUs › A counter point to AMD not being good for mid-high end
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

A counter point to AMD not being good for mid-high end

post #1 of 355
Thread Starter 
With the PS4 and Xbox One going the AMD route and since both of them have 8 core CPUs, I believe gaming is going to start using more cores since PC and console ports of the same game will be built with similar specs in mind now that the PS4 and Xbox One use x86. It will be easier to make games for both systems and PCs at the same time. The problem in the past is that Xbox 360 and PS3 hardware was so different from PC hardware. The PS3 used cell architecture and the Xbox 360 used 3 physical cores (6 logical) in its Xenon CPU. Long into the quad core CPU availability, games still had to be made for the Xenon CPU. PC ports of games had to downgrade their system utilization a lot. Look at most big budget multi-platform games and they have been built with consoles in mind first because that is where the money comes from. COD didn't make its billions from the PC. Now that every system is, for the most part, just PCs inside of a console, game developers will be able to develop games that use more CPU resources, which means that an 8 core FX 8350 will have a longer life inside of my PC. Developers are very good at taking full advantage of console hardware a few years after the consoles launched, so I have faith that they will be able to put as much into the 8 logical cores of the consoles as they can, which means that for PC gamers, the games will be able to perform more complex math algorithms (which is what CPUs do for gaming for the most part) which might mean better utilization of my FX 8350 which in turn means that I will not have to upgrade to Intel in the next few years.

As it stands right now, games only use a few cores because of that console limitation. They can't make a game that works on a console and then completely redo everything to make a better PC game. They have to develop for the lowest common denominator. If you take Far Cry 3 for example, it is doable on an Xbox 360 and PS3, and the only real upgrade to the PC version is the graphics. The CPU elements such as enemy AI are identical in all of the games and I believe it is because the programmers had to use a game engine that would work on the Xbox 360. I realize that most FPSs are not heavy on CPU resources compared to GPU resources, but since most multi platform games now are FPSs, this is the best example I could come up with. And when CPU heavy games are released, the market will make the developers develop for PC hardware that most other developers develop for. Starcraft 3 will be developed for more CPU utilization since that is the direction I believe gaming is going. As for the GPU, they keep releasing new versions and I buy one every 2 years so I am fine in that regard. I am not a GPU expert by any means, nor am I a super smart CPU expert, but I am good at seeing trends in gaming and this is where I think we are going.

This is just my assumption about the future but I think I have a good point here.

EDIT: I put this as a reply but I think it deserves to be on the front page of my post:

Looking back at the OP I made, I think I made some mistakes. Instead of getting theoretical about the future of the 8 core utilization, I think I should have went with the fact that everyone has a different idea of mid-high end and I should have left out the whole future speak because one person brought up the fact that it sounded like wishful thinking. With that being said, I am confident that the general consensus of many people (not necessarily the people on OCN) is that mid-high end is $200-$300 on a CPU and maybe $300 on a GPU. If you compare that caliber CPU and GPU to the vast majority of computers out there, not just DIY but also PCs used in offices, government, workstations, and including laptops and the *cough* Mac... those make up the bulk of PCs out there. If you include them, which I do, then a $200 CPU and a $300 GPU are at least high end. If you get into the ultra niche market where people spend $700-$1000 on a CPU and SLI a 780ti, those make up such a small fraction of the market that, while profitable, they cannot make up more that a few percentage points of the market (This is an assumption on my part but I think this is a nice case to make).

So, in other words, if you make a spectrum with say a Dell Inspiron work computer with an i3 dual core with Intel HD 3000 on one end, and an i7 $1000 CPU with 2 780 ti cards in SLI on the other end, then the $200 AMD FX8350 and Radeon HD 7870 that I have are much closer to that high end than they are to the Dell Inspiron.

If you look at it on a spectrum, then there is NO WAY POSSIBLE that an AMD card can not compete in the high end category. If you want to get nitpicky about benchmarks here and there then yes, an Intel will usually beat out an AMD, but for the vast majority of people who make their PC and use an AMD CPU, they have no problems with their PC and are very happy. I rate a PC like this. If you can get nice framerates at a reasonable price, there is no logical reason to spend more on anything better. My FX 8350 and HD 7870 can play Far Cry 3 on medium-high settings at 40-60 FPS. And to be honest, once you get into a game for an hour or so you do not notice the difference in textures between medium and high. You are more concerned with sniping and planting C4 along the road than you are with the grass' ambient occlusion. Unless the difference is so large that it takes you out of the game, I consider a PC that can give me nice framerates with medium and high quality settings to be mid-high end.
Edited by Thready - 3/25/14 at 9:11pm
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  
Reply
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  
Reply
post #2 of 355

And you couldn't have written this in the thread dedicated to this discussion.....why?

post #3 of 355
That's a valid point..
post #4 of 355
O.o
Gaming Machine
(19 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
Intel i7 3770k Asus z77 P8Z77-LK V Sapphire 290x Sapphire 290x 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Gskill 4x4gb @ 1600mhz Samsung Evo 120gb Samsung Evo 120gb 2TB Seagate Game storage drive  
CoolingCoolingCoolingOS
XSPC Raystorm CPU BLOCK EK Nickle/Acetal 290x Block  2x XSPC 240MM Radiator Windows 8.1  
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Qnix Evolution II  Cooler Master Quickfire Rapid  Cooler Master V1000 Fractal Arc Midi R2 
MouseMouse PadAudio
Logitech G400 steel series qck Logitech G430 
  hide details  
Reply
Gaming Machine
(19 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
Intel i7 3770k Asus z77 P8Z77-LK V Sapphire 290x Sapphire 290x 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Gskill 4x4gb @ 1600mhz Samsung Evo 120gb Samsung Evo 120gb 2TB Seagate Game storage drive  
CoolingCoolingCoolingOS
XSPC Raystorm CPU BLOCK EK Nickle/Acetal 290x Block  2x XSPC 240MM Radiator Windows 8.1  
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Qnix Evolution II  Cooler Master Quickfire Rapid  Cooler Master V1000 Fractal Arc Midi R2 
MouseMouse PadAudio
Logitech G400 steel series qck Logitech G430 
  hide details  
Reply
post #5 of 355
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kinaesthetic View Post

And you couldn't have written this in the thread dedicated to this discussion.....why?
Because that thread turned into a mess of Intel fanboys using the 9590 to bash on,when even AMD enthusiasts know the 9590 isn't a wise choice for a CPU due to the price and a 220W TDP (no offense if you own one).
That would be my 2 cents anyway.
Moar cores!
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD FX 8320 @ 4.0Ghz/4.2Ghz turbo gigabyte 990FXA-UD3 rev. 4.0 Gigabyte Nvida GTX 770OC 2GB/ Gigabyte 970 G1 G... Gskill Sniper 1866Mhz 8GB (4GB x 2) 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
Corsair Neutron GTX 120GB WD Black 1TB Asus 24X CM Hyper 212Evo 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 7 Home X64 HP 22BW 21.5" LED-IPS CM Storm Trigger/MX Brown Corsair TX 650V2 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
CM HAF922 Logitech G500S Steelseries QCK Mini Asus Xonar DX 7.1 
  hide details  
Reply
Moar cores!
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD FX 8320 @ 4.0Ghz/4.2Ghz turbo gigabyte 990FXA-UD3 rev. 4.0 Gigabyte Nvida GTX 770OC 2GB/ Gigabyte 970 G1 G... Gskill Sniper 1866Mhz 8GB (4GB x 2) 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
Corsair Neutron GTX 120GB WD Black 1TB Asus 24X CM Hyper 212Evo 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 7 Home X64 HP 22BW 21.5" LED-IPS CM Storm Trigger/MX Brown Corsair TX 650V2 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
CM HAF922 Logitech G500S Steelseries QCK Mini Asus Xonar DX 7.1 
  hide details  
Reply
post #6 of 355
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavy MG View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kinaesthetic View Post

And you couldn't have written this in the thread dedicated to this discussion.....why?
Because that thread turned into a mess of Intel fanboys using the 9590 to bash on,when even AMD enthusiasts know the 9590 isn't a wise choice for a CPU due to the price and a 220W TDP (no offense if you own one).
That would be my 2 cents anyway.

People vastly under-estimate how much TDP a chip with a lower stock TDP has when overclocked. It seems like there's a large swath of people who believe that their 74w CPUs are still 74w CPUs at 5ghz and +.1vcore.
Tyrant Kuma
(13 items)
 
Starscythe
(13 items)
 
Mobility
(6 items)
 
CPUCPUCPUCPU
Opteron 8431 Opteron 8431 Opteron 8431 Opteron 8431 
MotherboardGraphicsRAMHard Drive
Super Micro h8qme-2+ Sapphire 4870 Samsung DDR2 ECC 667mhz western digital caviar blue 
CoolingCoolingOSPower
FX 8350 stock cooler FX 6300 stock cooler Gentoo Linux 2x Silverstone PSU 
Case
Custom Fabbed Steel Case 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD FX 8350 gigabyte 990FXA-UD5 7970 Mushkin Enhanced Blackline 16GB 
OSOSMonitorKeyboard
Gentoo Linux Windows 7 x64 Yamakasi Catleap Q270 Corsair K90 
PowerCaseMouseAudio
Silverstone Strider Gold Evolution 850W 80 PLUS... Antec 1200 Logitech G9x Asus Xonar D2X 
Other
XSPC RS360 Raystorm with custom radiator mounts 
CPUGraphicsRAMOS
a4 5000 Radeon HD 8330 8GB G. Skill DDR3 1600 9-9-9 Gentoo Linux 
OSOther
Windows 7 Lenovo Thinkpad x140e 
  hide details  
Reply
Tyrant Kuma
(13 items)
 
Starscythe
(13 items)
 
Mobility
(6 items)
 
CPUCPUCPUCPU
Opteron 8431 Opteron 8431 Opteron 8431 Opteron 8431 
MotherboardGraphicsRAMHard Drive
Super Micro h8qme-2+ Sapphire 4870 Samsung DDR2 ECC 667mhz western digital caviar blue 
CoolingCoolingOSPower
FX 8350 stock cooler FX 6300 stock cooler Gentoo Linux 2x Silverstone PSU 
Case
Custom Fabbed Steel Case 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD FX 8350 gigabyte 990FXA-UD5 7970 Mushkin Enhanced Blackline 16GB 
OSOSMonitorKeyboard
Gentoo Linux Windows 7 x64 Yamakasi Catleap Q270 Corsair K90 
PowerCaseMouseAudio
Silverstone Strider Gold Evolution 850W 80 PLUS... Antec 1200 Logitech G9x Asus Xonar D2X 
Other
XSPC RS360 Raystorm with custom radiator mounts 
CPUGraphicsRAMOS
a4 5000 Radeon HD 8330 8GB G. Skill DDR3 1600 9-9-9 Gentoo Linux 
OSOther
Windows 7 Lenovo Thinkpad x140e 
  hide details  
Reply
post #7 of 355
I think that's wishful thinking! I heard the same years and years ago. It made me worry about only being able to afford Athlon II X2 instead of X4, but it did not matter really. It still does not matter today after nearly a decade of quad-core CPUs!

You'd think developers would have already learned how to use at least up to six threads well because of the XBOX 360 CPU and its six threads. It was weak and really should have needed the multithreading. It was still most games not really caring about anything above dual-core for all those years until today.

The cores in the new XBone and PS4 are weak. They are similar performance to what's in a tablet or smartphone, faster because they are built today and because they are allowed to run at higher clocks and use more power than what would be possible in a tablet. It really does not look that much different to me compared to the situation with the PS3 and 360 in the past. They still made the same decisions as in the past to use something weak as CPU, not something with powerful cores like on PC the FX or A-series or i3/i5/i7.

Did you know two of the cores of the XBOX One are sectioned off for the OS that does multimedia stuff separate from the OS in which the games runs? There's only six cores available for games from what I heard.

I bet developers will still slap most of the stuff they do in what fits well for two cores on PC and that's it, same as always.

You should buy whatever is best for what you want to do at this particular moment, not bank on something theoretical from the future. For what I wanted to do, single core things like lowest possible processing time when clicking on "next turn" in Civ on large maps, I had to choose OC'ing something Intel. It was annoying that the Athlon line wasn't continued by AMD, instead something that started off weaker like FX and lost them years of development time for what I would have wanted to really buy. I don't like that stupid scheme from Intel where nearly everything's locked if you don't pay. People might want to overclock their dual-cores.
Edited by deepor - 3/19/14 at 6:14pm
post #8 of 355
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by deepor View Post

I think that's wishful thinking! I heard the same years and years ago. It made me worry about only being able to afford Athlon II X2 instead of X4, but it did not matter really. It still does not matter today after nearly a decade of quad-core CPUs!

You'd think developers would have already learned how to use at least up to six threads well because of the XBOX 360 CPU and its six threads. It was weak and really should have needed the multithreading. It was still most games not really caring about anything above dual-core for all those years until today.

The cores in the new XBone and PS4 are weak. They are similar performance to what's in a tablet or smartphone, faster because they are built today and because they are allowed to run at higher clocks and use more power than what would be possible in a tablet. It really does not look that much different to me compared to the situation with the PS3 and 360 in the past. They still made the same decisions as in the past to use something weak as CPU, not something with powerful cores like on PC the FX or A-series or i3/i5/i7.

Did you know two of the cores of the XBOX One are sectioned off for the OS that does multimedia stuff separate from the OS in which the games runs? There's only six cores available for games from what I heard.

I bet developers will still slap most of the stuff they do in what fits well for two cores on PC and that's it, same as always.

You should buy whatever is best for what you want to do at this particular moment, not bank on something theoretical from the future. For what I wanted to do, single core things like lowest possible processing time when clicking on "next turn" in Civ on large maps, I had to choose OC'ing something Intel. It was annoying that the Athlon line wasn't continued by AMD, instead something that started off weaker like FX and lost them years of development time for what I would have wanted to really buy. I don't like that stupid scheme from Intel where nearly everything's locked if you don't pay. People might want to overclock their dual-cores.

Well we are just talking theory here anyways tongue.gif. I'm not trying to tell people to go out and spend money on AMD or anything, I am just talking theory here. And point taken, BUT, here is something else to consider. Concerning AMD not being viable for mid-high end (which I assume he meant gaming and not things like complex math calculations) I don't think they are ready to abandon us yet. AMD has made many advances in their APU line. I think they took Steamroller and put that into their APUs rather than coming out with another CPU, but I might be wrong because I just heard this on the tech sites. Anyways, in the next year I believe their APU line will be on par with their FX line in terms of pure processing power. Right now you can get a quad core 4.0 GHz APU for a bit less than the cost of an FX 8350, and that says a lot since the APU is newer technology (although it is a quad-core rather than an 8 core). But if you are right and developers and programmers do not fully utilize the CPU, then these APUs might become the next processors to get. Also, AMD allows you to crossfire the APU with a GPU and we all know that is mainly meant for the PC gamer. It seems that AMD has invested more effort and money into their APUs than Intel has into their HD4000s or whatever number they are on now. AMD is looking to be that go-to company for gamers. They provide nice processors for budget minded gamers. They also have nice software and customer support which is something that I don't think enough gamers concern themselves with. I only use AMD parts in my PC and I don't even overclock my FX 8350 because I personally see no need for me to overclock higher than 4Ghz. I have a factory OCed HD 7870 which is perfect for people who don't want to spend more than $300 on a computer part. I make it a rule never to spend more than $300 on a single computer part. I just finished Far Cry 3 and I had most of the settings on medium and a few on high with 2x AA and Vsync on. I had a wonderful heck of a good time. If AMD is not viable for mid-high end gaming, then what the hell am I doing here with my PC?
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  
Reply
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  
Reply
post #9 of 355
Check out later. But I agree you probably should have posted in the other thread.
post #10 of 355
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durquavian View Post

Check out later. But I agree you probably should have posted in the other thread.

I posted something like this in the other thread but the problem was that nobody cared to read it because it was TLDR material. Most people wanted to add in a quick line of an argument and then say something completely unrelated. I thought that by making a new thread I could have a more intellectual discussion about it rather than just having people jump on whatever bandwagon they liked this week.
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  
Reply
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  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: AMD CPUs
Overclock.net › Forums › AMD › AMD CPUs › A counter point to AMD not being good for mid-high end