Originally Posted by Cherryblue
I am a Kaveri User, owning a 7860k oc'd to the moon (4.5ghz) and I'm gpu bottlenecked on Witcher 3 Ultra 2560x1080 (21:9) with a r9 390x.
Remember APU only exist on max 4 cores at the moment. So no, having more than 4 cores I doubt anyone is bottlenecking its gpu with a vishera oc'd.
Core i3 are fast 'cause their IPC is really good, yes. But they still are 2 cores. 4 threads useful when you run only one app, not when you're a power user with multiple applications running. The threads don't do good on different app at the same time. It's the most efficient when running one thing all the way.
We are in 2016. Never would I go back to a dual core, even if it has IPC going to the moon. I use too many apps for that.
Yes AM3+ is dead platform, disappearing at the end of the year. It's still budget and good enough for a lot of people, and "future proof" as 8 cores allow a LOT of things on a computer.
All is not only about gaming, is it? Do you think games will continue being single threaded until the end of times? Do you really think a multi threated bench is giving the edge to a core i3 over a FX? Even with far better IPC, don't think so.
.. and it's dirt cheap for what it is.
You are right about a lot of things: AM3+ is clearly outdated. But well a lot of people don't care about the MB features to begin with.
GPU bottlenecked in TW3 isn't a huge accomplishment. It's pretty demanding on the GPU, and you have max settings at 1080p + 33% width.
I'm not sure you understand what we're dealing with with Bulldozer and its spawn. It's not a good design. There's more details than I'm willing to go into on my phone, but the shared resources aren't just the FPUs. Kaveri's four cores are, in general, preferable to Vishera's eight. Proper multithreading is really hard to do in anything that isn't embarassingly parallel (such as graphics, which is why GPUs have thousands of cores) and fewer, faster cores are much better than more, slower cores. Why else can an FX-8000 at best tie an i5? The i5's powerful cores compensate for the lack of them in multicore, while the better design is far superior in singlecore.
Yeah, and those four threads in an i3? Despite having two cores with SMT, it still beats AMD's with four physical cores. Again, Bulldozer is a really bad design.
Good thing an i3 is a quad-core as far as a good scheduler is concerned. Four threads can be addressed in much the same way as a 2M/4C Bulldzoer chip.
Yeah eight cores are nice, but they're crappy cores. They're dated cores that don't have the newest instructions supported, meaning their adequate-at-best performance simply can't last forever. They're based on a design that basically repeated the Pentium 4, trading per cycle performance for frequency. And we all know how the P4 ended up.
It isn't about gaming obviously, but you're moving the goalposts. "An FX-8350 is really great in things like video rendering!" is an argument I see a lot. But, seriously, what percentage of users do that regularly? If they're doing it for money, then the extra income should let them get a workstation-y chip such as a cheap Xeon. And finally, did you read the article at all? An FX-6350 is under 10% faster than an i3. It has three times the physical cores and is barely any faster. That's pretty embarassing. As for games being multithreaded, as said before, multithreading is really hard. It's not like you can input a value for the num_cores_used function in the dev menu or something. AAA titles can handle it because they have the resources, but don't count on it for Indie games.
People don't care about motherboard features, huh? That explains why nobody buys M.2 SSDs, why nobody cares about NVMe in their new system, why USB is of no concern, why upgrade paths are never mentioned, why nobody cares about expansion slots... At this point I'd argue that the platform and features supported are becoming more important than raw CPU performance.