[Trull]

I have been using Intel's LGA 775 for many years and I decided I would "upgrade" to something newer.

I had a Q9550 OC'd to 3.8GHz and it was bottlenecking my 7850 in BF3 to about 50%. I went ahead and bought an FX-4300 hoping that my bottlenecking issues would be resolved. Not only the FX-4300 didn't resolve any bottlenecking, but it performs even worse than my old Q9550, and I get worse results in all benchmarks (3DMark 11, Cinebench, Fritz...). This is all with the FX-4300 OC'd to 4.8GHz, btw.

Am I missing something or is AMD really this awful?

 

[dixson01974]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trull

I have been using Intel's LGA 775 for many years and I decided I would "upgrade" to something newer.

I had a Q9550 OC'd to 3.8GHz and it was bottlenecking my 7850 in BF3 to about 50%. I went ahead an bought an FX-4300 hoping that my bottlenecking issues would be resolved. Not only the FX-4300 didn't resolve any bottlenecking, but it performs the same and even worse than my old Q9550, and I get worse results in all benchmarks (3DMark 11, Cinebench, Fritz...). This is all with the FX-4300 OC'd to 4.8GHz, btw.

Am I missing something or is AMD really this awful?

4300 is basically a dual core not quad, so Yes your missing this fact.

 

[Cheeseinat0r]

Well you have to realize that the fx 4300 is on the low end for AMD chips. Consider the fact that this is under half the price of what the Q9550 was. Also cinebench is the most unreliable benchmark for intel vs AMD as cinebench purposefully lowers the scores for AMD processors just to make intel look better.

All that aside though, you'd probably see better performance with something like an 8320.

 

[aznever]

you should have gotten at least an fx-6000 series

 

[junkerde]

well, you should've read up the information and benchmarks first before buying..........

 

[DMHernandez]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cheeseinat0r

Well you have to realize that the fx 4300 is on the low end for AMD chips. Consider the fact that this is under half the price of what the Q9550 was. Also cinebench is the most unreliable benchmark for intel vs AMD as cinebench purposefully lowers the scores for AMD processors just to make intel look better.

All that aside though, you'd probably see better performance with something like an 8320.

Say what now? Source please...

As far as I know, cinebench does no such thing. The thing about cinebench is that on single core benchmarks intell IPC will destroy pretty much any AMD equivalent, the gap closes in multithread benches but still, the 8350 is a bit behind the 3770k but it's above the 3570k.

 

[Trull]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dixson01974

4300 is basically a dual core not quad, so Yes your missing this fact.

Care to elaborate further? Las time I checked it was a quad core.

 

[DMHernandez]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trull

I have been using Intel's LGA 775 for many years and I decided I would "upgrade" to something newer.

I had a Q9550 OC'd to 3.8GHz and it was bottlenecking my 7850 in BF3 to about 50%. I went ahead and bought an FX-4300 hoping that my bottlenecking issues would be resolved. Not only the FX-4300 didn't resolve any bottlenecking, but it performs even worse than my old Q9550, and I get worse results in all benchmarks (3DMark 11, Cinebench, Fritz...). This is all with the FX-4300 OC'd to 4.8GHz, btw.

Am I missing something or is AMD really this awful?

I'm sorry to say but you should have done some more research before buying this chip, it's the low end of the vishera line. It's not that it's an awful CPU, it's just unsuited for what you need.

 

[Clairvoyant129]

FX-4300 is pretty awful but at 4.8GHz it should be faster than your Q9550 @ 3.8GHz. Check to make sure your overclock is stable.

 

[aroc91]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cheeseinat0r

cinebench purposefully lowers the scores for AMD processors just to make intel look better.

 

[HeadlessKnight]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clairvoyant129

FX-4300 is pretty awful but at 4.8GHz it should be faster than your Q9550 @ 3.8GHz. Check to make sure your overclock is stable.

Awful? of course it is not as fast as your fancy i7 3930K but it is pretty good for the price, the OP didn't do his homework before buying.

 

[DMHernandez]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trull

Care to elaborate further? Las time I checked it was a quad core.

I think he's referring to the fact that eventhough it's a 4core cput, it has 2 vishera modules, same way the 8320 has 8 core / 4 modules.

Eacho module has indeed 2 cores but they share some resources, I'll let someone more educated in this subject to explain better.

 

[DaveLT]

2 modules doesn't mean 2 core. It's a full-on 4 core just that single threaded-ly it's slower than a 3220. If not explain how multithreaded apps can match the i3-3220, software? I doubt. The i3 has hyper-threading

 

[mwl5apv]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trull

Care to elaborate further? Las time I checked it was a quad core.

Look up information on the buldozer and piledriver architectures. The FX 4xxx are 2 module chips with 2 cores in each module. So it is not actually a "true" quad core like lets say the phenom II predecessors. Although it is not technically a dual core though. It's a completely different type of architecture.

EDIT: ninja'd

 

[Trull]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clairvoyant129

FX-4300 is pretty awful but at 4.8GHz it should be faster than your Q9550 @ 3.8GHz. Check to make sure your overclock is stable.

I have ran Prime95 and the CPU is stable and all 4 cores get 100% load, but in BF3 the cores are around 80-90% only. Could this be related to the overclock? I have made a report with AIDA64 while playing BF3 and these were the results (same file, 2 servers):

http://www.filedropper.com/datos2013-02-2302-39-28log

http://www.filefactory.com/file/7fkkjwlq3y2r/n/Datos_2013-02-23_02-39-28_log.htm

Btw, I had Afterburner on as well and according to it GPU usage was higher than the values reported by AIDA64... don't really know what's going on with that.

 

[Regamaster]

If I were to build a new gaming rig right now I wouldn't be looking at anything else except a 3570K on a Z77 motherboard, but I'm pretty satisfied with my overclocked 1100T.

 

[Trull]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Regamaster

If I were to build a new gaming rig right now I wouldn't be looking at anything else except a 3570K on a Z77 motherboard, but I'm pretty satisfied with my overclocked 1100T.

I know, but my idea was to get something cheap now and upgrade to Intel's new LGA 1150 in June.

 

[Frank33]

OP you can't blame AMD for not doing your HW . Also is you Q9550 really BNking your 7870 this much? in what situation, benchmark, game etc? Your card is nothing that your cpu could chew up.

 

[Trull]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank33

OP you can't blame AMD for not doing your HW . Also is you Q9550 really BNking your 7870 this much? in what situation, benchmark, game etc? Your card is nothing that your cpu could chew up.

Please, read the post. You didn't even get my graphics card right, and what you're asking is already explained.

 

[Frank33]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trull

Please, read the post. You didn't even get my graphics card right, and what you're asking is already explained.

You don't tell the gpu usage% while benchmarking. Also when you say 50% in BF3 is it gpu usage? What map? Big multi player? Also I am very sorry but a 7850 is similar to a 7870 so my point still stand. Your Q9550 shouldnt be Bnking at the 1st place.

What resolution are you playing? And at what details? Does it BN on other game too?