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 - Page 2

post #11 of 355
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thready View Post

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.
I agree somewhat. I have seen your posts. Funny part is I think some are arguing the exact same point with each other and not realizing they are on the same side. Kind of funny, kind of sad.
post #12 of 355
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thready View Post

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.

Based on what? I hear that argument used to justify people's AMD purchases, but not for much else. As I understand it, out of those 8 cores 2-4 are used for games while the other 4-6 are doing other things.

Titanfall utilizes over 90% on all 8 cores of my 8320 with the graphics settings on high to insane, same with my E3 1230v3. However with all things being equal, it runs just as good if not better on my 4670K, so go figure.
post #13 of 355
Thread Starter 
graphics settings have very low impact on the CPU and much more on the GPU
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 #14 of 355
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thready View Post

graphics settings have very low impact on the CPU and much more on the GPU

Not necessarily.
post #15 of 355
The op has quite some wishful thinking here.

When you keep everything in theory then all is fine and such. Actual implementation though is a whole different story.

Now, I could start being technical and such but it's not gonna be efficient for the discussion.

So instead, I'll point to a real life example:

XBox.

XBox, the original, is essentially computer hardware. It also runs windows and uses the same APIs available to PCs. So, in theory, if you use a PC with the same (or better) hardware, performance will be the same.

Unfortunately in real life, some games ported from XBox performed ridiculously bad on PC. SEGA is a major offender here, with examples like House of the Dead III, Crazy Taxi 3 and Sonic Heroes that had problems performing the same like on XBox on 2 times as powerful hardware.

I remember Sudeki having similar performance issues and I'm quite sure others did too.


In the end a crappy port is a crappy port. Using systems with the same architectures and APIs doesn't save you from yourself if you don't feel like developing your software properly. tongue.gif
post #16 of 355
Quote:
Originally Posted by PsyM4n View Post

The op has quite some wishful thinking here.

When you keep everything in theory then all is fine and such. Actual implementation though is a whole different story.

Now, I could start being technical and such but it's not gonna be efficient for the discussion.

So instead, I'll point to a real life example:

XBox.

XBox, the original, is essentially computer hardware. It also runs windows and uses the same APIs available to PCs. So, in theory, if you use a PC with the same (or better) hardware, performance will be the same.

Unfortunately in real life, some games ported from XBox performed ridiculously bad on PC. SEGA is a major offender here, with examples like House of the Dead III, Crazy Taxi 3 and Sonic Heroes that had problems performing the same like on XBox on 2 times as powerful hardware.

I remember Sudeki having similar performance issues and I'm quite sure others did too.


In the end a crappy port is a crappy port. Using systems with the same architectures and APIs doesn't save you from yourself if you don't feel like developing your software properly. tongue.gif

Isn't a lot of the difference due to consoles not having to work via windows or an OS per say? Hence all the hype over new API's like Mantle and DX 12 (*cough* Mantle + MS)
post #17 of 355
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by PsyM4n View Post

The op has quite some wishful thinking here.

When you keep everything in theory then all is fine and such. Actual implementation though is a whole different story.

Now, I could start being technical and such but it's not gonna be efficient for the discussion.

So instead, I'll point to a real life example:

XBox.

XBox, the original, is essentially computer hardware. It also runs windows and uses the same APIs available to PCs. So, in theory, if you use a PC with the same (or better) hardware, performance will be the same.

Unfortunately in real life, some games ported from XBox performed ridiculously bad on PC. SEGA is a major offender here, with examples like House of the Dead III, Crazy Taxi 3 and Sonic Heroes that had problems performing the same like on XBox on 2 times as powerful hardware.

I remember Sudeki having similar performance issues and I'm quite sure others did too.


In the end a crappy port is a crappy port. Using systems with the same architectures and APIs doesn't save you from yourself if you don't feel like developing your software properly. tongue.gif

1) There's nothing wrong with wishful thinking. Wishful thinking is what led to this sort of stuff in the first place.

2) The majority of games use far more GPU resources than CPU resources and my hypothesis is that the developers have to make sure that the math works on the consoles because consoles are the lowest common denominator. It is well known in the industry that developing for the PS3 was very difficult compared to the Xbox 360 simply due to the cell processing. Also, developing for the Xbox 360 was a hassle because developers were unable to utilize powerful processing because of the limitation. Now that both new gen consoles are using basically regular CPUs (although they are highly customized they are basically PC CPUs in the end) then it becomes much easier to make a game for PC and consoles simultaneously without sacrificing much.

3) the point that I am making in all of this is that to say AMD is no longer viable for mid-high end is wrong because AMD has a lot going for it in that it has both consoles using their hardware and my hope is that because the consoles are 8 core, then they will be able to utilize more cores due to the fact that consoles are good at utilizing their hardware resources, which means that the FX 8350 might have a longer lifespan due to this. This would then negate the idea that AMD is no longer viable at least for mid end and possibly for mid-high end as well.

4) there are always examples where 1, 2, or 3 games don't follow the path of the rest, but for the majority of games, the PC performs better but I think that they will be able to perform even better now that it is not such a difficult task to port games. The reason why porting to the PC was a problem with those Sega games is because they were built for consoles first and then the developers had to basically wing it when it came to how they will be played on PC.

5) for Hagtek, an Intel processor, for the most part, performs better than an AMD processor, but not for each price point. AMD has a wider selection of budget CPUs that work fine when playing games. Ask anyone who knows about PC games and they will tell you that the GPU is much more important than the CPU in shooters and having the graphics settings on high has very little to do with the CPU. This is common knowledge and saying "Not necessarily" with nothing to back it up with doesn't help much.
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 #18 of 355
I can't justify spending more than the $75-85 it costs for an Athlon X4 750K/760K if just gaming.
Light Gamer #1
(12 items)
 
Light Gamer #2
(10 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
i3-6100 ASRock Fatal1ty Z170 Gaming K4/D3 MSI r7850 TFIII OC MSI r7850 TFIII OC 
RAMHard DriveCoolingOS
G,Skill TridentX OCZ Vector 150 TPC-612 Windows 10 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
G105 Rosewill Capstone 550M HAF XB M570 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Athlon 860K MSI A88X-G45 MSI GTX 460 G.Skill RipjawsZ 
Hard DriveCoolingOSKeyboard
PNY Optima Hyper T4 Windows 10 Devastator 2 
PowerCase
Rosewill Valens DIYPC Ranger-R4-R 
  hide details  
Reply
Light Gamer #1
(12 items)
 
Light Gamer #2
(10 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
i3-6100 ASRock Fatal1ty Z170 Gaming K4/D3 MSI r7850 TFIII OC MSI r7850 TFIII OC 
RAMHard DriveCoolingOS
G,Skill TridentX OCZ Vector 150 TPC-612 Windows 10 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
G105 Rosewill Capstone 550M HAF XB M570 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Athlon 860K MSI A88X-G45 MSI GTX 460 G.Skill RipjawsZ 
Hard DriveCoolingOSKeyboard
PNY Optima Hyper T4 Windows 10 Devastator 2 
PowerCase
Rosewill Valens DIYPC Ranger-R4-R 
  hide details  
Reply
post #19 of 355
This isn't so much in response to the thread utilization topic currently being discussed but more in regards to the title of this thread and to that I would have to support the OP. To start with look at my rig, it is the epitome of high mid range/ low high end AMD and it plays every game i have ever thrown at it maxed out at at least 60 FPS (yes even C3) Plus it chews through productivity workloads just fine too. I just don't understand why people act like because you can spend a couple hundred more and run an intel based machine that will net you a whole whopping 6 more FPS (that you will most likely never notice on your most likely 60hz display) That AMD is all of a sudden doing a bad job and is not a viable choice even though it costs hundreds less. In a professional productivity environment where seconds equal dollars and electricity equals overhead then yes I would go with an intel set-up without question. However 99.99% of us are not using our gaming rigs for such a purpose, we are using them for gaming and when it comes down to gaming i see AMD's CPU offerings as excellent due to the being "fast enough" to do their job while saving the builder hundreds to increase more vital systems of their gaming machine such as GPU or SSD or KB/M.
Night Train
(11 items)
 
   
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Athlon II X2 250 asrock n68 vs3 fx Gigabyte 8400 GS Passive 4GB Generic Microcenter RAM 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
250 Cuda 3.5 Pioneer BD/DVD/RW XBMCUbuntu 12.04 55" LED T.V. 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
MS Wireless Athena Power 400w Some HTPC case I cant find the name of  MS Wireless 
Audio
Integrated 
  hide details  
Reply
Night Train
(11 items)
 
   
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Athlon II X2 250 asrock n68 vs3 fx Gigabyte 8400 GS Passive 4GB Generic Microcenter RAM 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
250 Cuda 3.5 Pioneer BD/DVD/RW XBMCUbuntu 12.04 55" LED T.V. 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
MS Wireless Athena Power 400w Some HTPC case I cant find the name of  MS Wireless 
Audio
Integrated 
  hide details  
Reply
post #20 of 355
Quote:
Originally Posted by damric View Post

I can't justify spending more than the $75-85 it costs for an Athlon X4 750K/760K if just gaming.

So basically you only play DX 9 games and can't justify getting a CPU that won't bottleneck mid-high end GPUs. Hmm, I wonder why.
 
NAS4Free Server
(10 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-950 3.8GHz EVGA X58 SLI LE EVGA GTX 970  16GB G.Skill Trident X 2400MHz 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Sandisk II Ultra Plus 960GB SSD Seagate Barracuda 2TB Some Supermicro HSF that is an NH-D12 knockoff Windows 7 Pro 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Crossover 44K 40" 3840x2160 Das Mechanical  Silverstone 500 Watt 80+ Gold Phanteks Enthoo Pro 
MouseAudio
Razer Deathadder 2013 Creative Sound Blaster Z 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD A4-5000 Kabini ASRock QC5000-ITX  Integrated 4GB Corsair Vengeance DDR3-1600 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveOS
2TB Seagate Constellation Nas x2 RAID 1 Samsung 840 Pro 256GB 2TB Toshiba  NAS4Free 
PowerCase
Silverstone Strider 500 Watt 80+ Gold Fractal Design Node 804 
  hide details  
Reply
 
NAS4Free Server
(10 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-950 3.8GHz EVGA X58 SLI LE EVGA GTX 970  16GB G.Skill Trident X 2400MHz 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Sandisk II Ultra Plus 960GB SSD Seagate Barracuda 2TB Some Supermicro HSF that is an NH-D12 knockoff Windows 7 Pro 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Crossover 44K 40" 3840x2160 Das Mechanical  Silverstone 500 Watt 80+ Gold Phanteks Enthoo Pro 
MouseAudio
Razer Deathadder 2013 Creative Sound Blaster Z 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD A4-5000 Kabini ASRock QC5000-ITX  Integrated 4GB Corsair Vengeance DDR3-1600 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveOS
2TB Seagate Constellation Nas x2 RAID 1 Samsung 840 Pro 256GB 2TB Toshiba  NAS4Free 
PowerCase
Silverstone Strider 500 Watt 80+ Gold Fractal Design Node 804 
  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