fx-9590 benchmarks surface

[Citizen86]

I am not remotely angry, it's just stupid how much people speak ill of amd, they are the underdog that beat Goliath. They woke the giant and made modern processing power possible.

They deserve credit, not disdain.

They got credit. People who were around for it know that. But far overpricing an overclocked CPU for a cash grab doesn't really deserve credit

 

[stealthy123]

There is no reason to bash them for doing exactly what intel did with the p4.

Mater of fact, intel tried to sell us on RDRAM, so ya, AMD has a long freaking way to go before I get pissy with them.

 

[funkydmunky]

Agreed. Looks like a questionable review. Hopefully [H] will do a review of the chip soon

I hope NOT! This isn't a mass production release. This is a marketing effort JUST like Intel did with the old Pentium EE's (except massive Intel marketing machine had stock and fanboi's buying them) This is a boutique part for people with more $$ then brains.
Some of the stupid comments in this thread would make anyone with more then a two year brain span of the CPU industry, puke in their red bull!
[H] should not review this product because it is ESSENTIALLY a factory OC on a stock part (just like many smart posters have already stated!)
I'm not busting AMD's balls here. I'm hating on all the stupidity that is surrounding this non-release. IT ISN'T A RELEASE! It is a micro bin (essentially a factory OC and nothing more), a marketing stunt? Sure, and good on AMD because apparently %80 of so called "[H] users" don't have the IQ to know whats up?
Yikes, I remember the days when a [H] forum had a better ratio.

 

[Pieter3dnow]

I am not remotely angry, it's just stupid how much people speak ill of amd, they are the underdog that beat Goliath. They woke the giant and made modern processing power possible.

They deserve credit, not disdain.

Well they cater to a special segment and from what you read here on the forums every redneck comes on here and states the same thing over and over without realizing that they are so missing the point of this chip.

This is not to bad considering that the thing what were waiting for is Steamroller and not some overclocked Piledriver, by now all these rednecks must have found out that buying a FX-8350 and a watercooler would allow you to do the same thing.

And yes that is cheaper .
The drawback is that you could have a cpu which does not like to be overclocked by as much as the current offering does, that is all.

.

 

[RanceJustice]

I don't claim to speak for everyone, but I just wanted to clarify something.

Those of us who are disappointed in this chip are not "bashing AMD"; rather, we want to see AMD succeed and this is why it is frustrating when they take a step in the wrong direction. Right now, a win for AMD would be a win for the consumer - especially the enthusiast. Intel has basically zero competition for performance. I have to figure this is one of the reasons why they feel they can 'get away" with things like keeping the prices of hex-core chips high, and taking fucking forever to release the " -E " variants of their chips - at a premium price no less. If AMD would be offering that "10-15% ~ less power all around, hundreds of dollars less price, plus a cheaper platform", then perhaps Intel would be selling Haswell-E (or at least, IB-E) with a pricing scheme similar to the Core i7 920 in its heyday. But they don't have to compete. They can relax with the idea they've the entire market locked up, because AMD's top of the line $900 chip can't even compete seriously with their $200-300 chips (not to mention power savings etc..).

I applaud AMD for their work with GPUs and APUs (though, they're going to have to get some just plain better/more powerful chips for those APUs, with Intel taking a step forward for integrated GPU w/CPU experience in Haswell), but they need to get it together. They don't need to beat Intel performance, but they need to come "close enough" and do it especially cheaply. Leverage those contracts from X86-based consoles. Build something truly next generation. But don't embarrass themselves with this kind of thing. We're counting on them to do better and keep Intel in line (since sadly, nobody else is going to do so.) but that isn't going to happen if Intel thinks they have nothing to fear; which is exactly what they'll conclude from $900 underpowered tech.

 

[octoberasian]

I don't claim to speak for everyone, but I just wanted to clarify something.

Those of us who are disappointed in this chip are not "bashing AMD"; rather, we want to see AMD succeed and this is why it is frustrating when they take a step in the wrong direction. Right now, a win for AMD would be a win for the consumer - especially the enthusiast. Intel has basically zero competition for performance. I have to figure this is one of the reasons why they feel they can 'get away" with things like keeping the prices of hex-core chips high, and taking fucking forever to release the " -E " variants of their chips - at a premium price no less. If AMD would be offering that "10-15% ~ less power all around, hundreds of dollars less price, plus a cheaper platform", then perhaps Intel would be selling Haswell-E (or at least, IB-E) with a pricing scheme similar to the Core i7 920 in its heyday. But they don't have to compete. They can relax with the idea they've the entire market locked up, because AMD's top of the line $900 chip can't even compete seriously with their $200-300 chips (not to mention power savings etc..).

I applaud AMD for their work with GPUs and APUs (though, they're going to have to get some just plain better/more powerful chips for those APUs, with Intel taking a step forward for integrated GPU w/CPU experience in Haswell), but they need to get it together. They don't need to beat Intel performance, but they need to come "close enough" and do it especially cheaply. Leverage those contracts from X86-based consoles. Build something truly next generation. But don't embarrass themselves with this kind of thing. We're counting on them to do better and keep Intel in line (since sadly, nobody else is going to do so.) but that isn't going to happen if Intel thinks they have nothing to fear; which is exactly what they'll conclude from $900 underpowered tech.

It's just unfortunate that consumers get these kind of processors from AMD. I'm holding out hope that Steamroller-modules will be a better and bigger improvement over Piledriver. They're doubling a lot of units in the front and backend, adding a microOP cache like Intel's and hopefully reducing power consumption. The problem now is: Does it translate well into real-world performance?

We know that one of the biggest issues with AMD's current lineup is the low single threaded performance because of the shared nature of their modules. Could doubling some of the units help there?

Then, there's the up-in-the-air Excavator that we don't know much of anything about right now. We know that it'll be using condensed libraries and full implementation of the HSA technology. Can this hybrid CPU-GPU improve AMD's poor FPU and single-threaded performance that will be competitive against Intel's Skylake or Broadwell when released around the same time? There's still supposedly two years (or more) before we see it come to market given that AMD has not mentioned much about it.

AMD needs something competitive against Intel, and consumers probably won't see that something until Steamroller or even Excavator which is going to be a long ways out.

 

[Deleted member 82943]

They beat goliath during the Athlon 64 days but once the core arch came along game over.

 

[Sheppard]

Its Obviously not "game over" like people keep idiotically posting.
I have two gaming pcs in my house, My 3930K system running on a rampage, and my wifes PC running an 8350 on a sabertooth. My computer is down alot because I swap hardware like crazy and I OFTEN use her rig. I gotta tell ya, there is no obvious difference between using the two, Hers doesnt benchmark as high as mine, but real world performance is most certainly there. Battlefield 3 runs great. World of tanks loading times are not long, and kerbal space program is just as fun to play.
Value Wise.... Her computer DESTROYS mine.

And just to show my support for AMD I have just sold my GTX 680, GTX 660, 650ti, all 4 of my gtx 480s, And I have installed a spankin new HD 7990 with another on the way for some quad SLI action. I will continue to do my part to support AMD, because I realize the market NEEDS AMD around to keep Intel in check, and I will do my part to ensure that.

 

[CaptNumbNutz]

I am not remotely angry, it's just stupid how much people speak ill of amd, they are the underdog that beat Goliath. They woke the giant and made modern processing power possible.

They deserve credit, not disdain.

They woke the giant, became the underdog that beat the giant once, then when the giant got back up they realized they couldn't actually fight the giant and decided to imitate it instead. Now there are even more underdogs [ARM] that want a little piece of what AMD and Intel do.

This monstrosity AMD built is a joke. It's like fat George Foreman trying to get back into the boxing ring. It consumes too much, is slow, and will only land significant punches in certain situations. I await the day AMD finally trims the fat and produces lean mean fighting machines again instead of chips so hot they could be glorified hamburger grills.

 

[Sheppard]

Amds bulldozer and piledriver design can in no way be called an immitation of Intel. Their APU design and Now their Kavari design with HSA is an apple that is falling even further from the tree.

It is in fact INTEL who is following AMD down the path of Innovation since the Athlon 64.
Amd was the first the break the 1Ghz barrier back in 2000

In 2003 Amd Unveiled to first 64bit processor catching Intel with their pants down

In 2004 AMD Unveiled the first Dual core processor and in 2005 released the Athlon 64 X2

in 2006 AMD demonstrates the first Native Quad core processor

Even back in 2007 AMD Challenged Intel again with the first Integrated Graphics chipset RS690
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-690-chipset,4384.html

In 2011 AMD Releases the First APU with decently powerful graphics on die forcing intel to reevaluate integrated graphics, arguably the first real major advancment in processors since X86 was introduced.

In 2013 AMD announces first Heterogenerous CPU architechture, Amd delivers First X86 cpu to be used in a gaming Console

Intel will be following AMD in the Innovation department for quite some time.

You have AMD to thank for 64 bit computing, think about that while you are using your 64bit windows 7/8

 

[Deleted member 82943]

What's fascinating is at the end of the day our hobby is driven by the science of numbers. We benchmark for a reason. Intel wins most benchmarks and in return is often the best for daily home use. Do you see Kyle running an Amd chip?

 

[Wascrash]

Use what cpu you want. I was AMD for years. Then a few years back went to Intel quad. didn't really notice a difference. I skipped Phenom 1 and 2 all together. When the new fx cpu's came out I bought the 8120 and now the 8350. They serve me fine. Also if I remember back in the day Kyle may have used AMD for a little while but switched to a P4 as I remember him saying the hyper threading seemed to make things so much more smoother when he had multiple thing running and working.

 

[-Dragon-]

Amd delivers First X86 cpu to be used in a gaming Console

Are you sure that wasn't the original Xbox back in 2001 with a Pentium III in it?

 

[funkydmunky]

Are you sure that wasn't the original Xbox back in 2001 with a Pentium III in it?

Thats true. I forgot about that one as well, but his other points are all spot on. AMD has been forced to innovate, and has a done a great job in doing so.
Unfortunately this CPU release isn't one of those times.

 

[pbassjunk]

Are you sure that wasn't the original Xbox back in 2001 with a Pentium III in it?

You could make an interesting case that the xbox chip was basically off the shelf, while these new amd chips are x86 built specifically for these consoles. Same instruction set but very highly tuned for the job, rather than a general purpose cpu.

 

[Sheppard]

Its not that I agree with this product release, in fact I do not. Its the open disrespect for a company that as enthusiast we owe alot of what we hold dear to. I use a 3930K. I have taken 9 world records with it on HWBOT. I still hold AMD in High regard and choose to use AMD in all my families, and wifes computers WHO ARE NOT BENCHMARKING. I Owe it to AMD for forcing Intel to continue to push the envelope.
That being said. im not saying Purchase an AMD product. Im not saying choose AMD over intel if you want a faster processor. Its perfectly alright to choose to use whatever product is better, the market is built on that.
All im saying is, Think about what AMD has done before you choose to open your pie hole, and spew a bunch of Anti AMD propaganda. Some of the statements I have read on here are downright wrong and disrespectful.
AMD is NOT the market leader. Amd IS the Innovation leader in Desktop processing. I will argue this with anyone.

 

[octoberasian]

You could make an interesting case that the xbox chip was basically off the shelf, while these new amd chips are x86 built specifically for these consoles. Same instruction set but very highly tuned for the job, rather than a general purpose cpu.

Yeah, the PS4 and Xbox One APUs are very customized and tuned to what each company wants. What AMD has done was offer a very modular Jaguar modules (4 cores per module, 2MB L2 cache per module) that can be fit into any SoC a client wants.

The nice thing is that AMD is offering (or going to offer) these Jaguar modules to clients similar to how ARM licenses their ARM processor designs. Thus, there will be more companies possibly making custom SoCs using the Jaguar modules. I hope this works out for AMD like it did for ARM.

 

[Citizen86]

Its not that I agree with this product release, in fact I do not. Its the open disrespect for a company that as enthusiast we owe alot of what we hold dear to. I use a 3930K. I have taken 9 world records with it on HWBOT. I still hold AMD in High regard and choose to use AMD in all my families, and wifes computers WHO ARE NOT BENCHMARKING. I Owe it to AMD for forcing Intel to continue to push the envelope.
That being said. im not saying Purchase an AMD product. Im not saying choose AMD over intel if you want a faster processor. Its perfectly alright to choose to use whatever product is better, the market is built on that.
All im saying is, Think about what AMD has done before you choose to open your pie hole, and spew a bunch of Anti AMD propaganda. Some of the statements I have read on here are downright wrong and disrespectful.
AMD is NOT the market leader. Amd IS the Innovation leader in Desktop processing. I will argue this with anyone.

Now this is spot on. And I definitely agree, that while there is probably nobody on these boards that would consider a $900 FX chip at this time, I'm also no ton the side of the hateful bile that is spewed on these boards for no particular reason other than the CPU is not a good buy.

 

[fanboy]

AMD was the first to use on-die memory contorler.. so all your Intel cpu's useing that tech must thank AMD

 

[octoberasian]

Now this is spot on. And I definitely agree, that while there is probably nobody on these boards that would consider a $900 FX chip at this time, I'm also no ton the side of the hateful bile that is spewed on these boards for no particular reason other than the CPU is not a good buy.

Yup, there is still nothing wrong with an AMD FX processor. It'll still run your games and your other software. It's hard to get that concept through to a lot of people.

Heck, my friend with an FX-8320 loves his system I built for him, and got it under budget. I could not do that for him with an Intel i7 2600K considering all the parts needed for a new build excluding keyboard, mouse and monitor.

It's a good value, and he's still playing above 60FPS in a lot of games we play together through Steam.

It's honestly stupid to argue that these still aren't good processors, but when you ignore the benchmarks, games still play just as good as any Intel-based system when looking at it on your monitor. A 5 to 15 FPS difference above 60FPS between an Intel and AMD processor is not going to kill you or make you resent Raptor Jesus.

AMD was the first to use on-die memory contorler.. so all your Intel cpu's useing that tech must thank AMD

Yup, it's thanks to AMD we got on-die memory controllers and for once, a decent on-die, integrated GPU.

 

[cageymaru]

The really good thing that came out of this discussion is that AMD makes processors that are very capable of running any game or application out now at speeds that are slightly behind Intel processors. On some applications the AMD really shines and passes a comparable Intel processor. I'm glad that this factory overclocked 5GHz overpriced processor has shed light onto these facts.

This particular processor is an overclocked version of the FX-8320 which can be purchased for less than $145 on Amazon. If you're interested in messing around with one, buy one of these and a really good AMD motherboard such as the Asus Sabertooth 990FX Gen3 R2.0. Make sure that it's a Generation 2.0 or 3.0; the first generation boards are great, but don't have all the features for Win 8 64 like the newer revisions do.

For memory you need at a minimum memory module that is certified to run at 1866 or better with an AMD chip. Faster memory makes Win 8 64 seem snappier when you have tons of things open at once like 30+ tabs of Firefox. Intel timings are NOT AMD timings! Asus has a wonderful memory recommendation list for the 990FX Gen3.

Something else to look for is a good cooler comparable to the Corsair H80. If going for extreme speeds then I'd spring for something comparable to the H100. Another good tip is to place a fan that blows directly onto the VRMs on the motherboard. You will save yourself a ton of troubleshooting time trying to push for high overclocks. I use the stock CPU fan to cool the VRM on my Asus Sabertooth Gen 1. It dropped the temps on the VRMs tremendously. The VRM will overheat well before your processor is unstable and make it seem like you've hit your processor's thermal wall. Took me nearly a year to figure this out so I'm saving you a ton of hair pulling time.

And lastly use Win 8 64 with your AMD FX chip if running Windows. It's faster than Win 7 64. Your minimum frame rate in games goes up in comparison to Win 7 64. If you can't stand the look of Metro just mod it.

 

[Stryke1983]

So to get a processor "slightly behind" the Intel equivalent you just need to get a high end motherboard, watercooler and RAM. Thereby probably negating the $40 price savings over a 3570k? Or you could just buy the faster processor initially?

As a side note every review I've seen of Win 8 regarding gaming has shown no improvement over 7.

 

[Deleted member 82943]

I honestly don't understand why some people are so hell bent on supporting the underdog they would blind themselves to the facts but oh well

To each their own

 

[Sheppard]

Because it is we who are not blind. Without us supporting the underdog, your processor would be a fraction of what it is currently.

Consider this. If ford was the last car manufacturer left in the united states, how much better do you think next years technology would be?without the competition forcing them to innovate. they could continue to make exactly the same car incrementally better for years.
The same goes for Intel. Without Amd why should intel make anything new? If there was one guy running the 100m in the Olympics, why should ge train? Hes going to win anyways.

Those of us who are intelligent enough, realize that we need support for both companies to protect our own interests as enthusiasts. The rest are either Ignorant, or Nieve... or stupid

 

[OGOC]

Its Obviously not "game over" like people keep idiotically posting.
I have two gaming pcs in my house, My 3930K system running on a rampage, and my wifes PC running an 8350 on a sabertooth. My computer is down alot because I swap hardware like crazy and I OFTEN use her rig. I gotta tell ya, there is no obvious difference between using the two, Hers doesnt benchmark as high as mine, but real world performance is most certainly there. Battlefield 3 runs great. World of tanks loading times are not long, and kerbal space program is just as fun to play.
Value Wise.... Her computer DESTROYS mine.

There's something to be said for the speed an overclocked 8-core can achieve, and how well it does in certain applications. They are strong CPUs. At the right price, they are great. (That sentence can be said for pretty much anything.)

The efficiency isn't there, though, which is related to price. I'm not overly interested in "being green," but I do care when one chip can literally pay for itself over another due to operating costs. And that means the less-efficient chip needs to be priced accordingly.

Having said all that, I was considering an AMD 8-core simply in part because they have 8 unlocked cores, and 8 unlocked cores are fun.

 

[OGOC]

Consider this. If ford was the last car manufacturer left in the united states, how much better do you think next years technology would be?without the competition forcing them to innovate. they could continue to make exactly the same car incrementally better for years.

That might be a bad analogy if GM is the underdog in that scenario since GM was so poorly run and got so much taxpayer bailout money that it deserves to no longer exist.

I get what you're saying. I just didn't want to pass up a chance to bash GM.

 

[cageymaru]

So to get a processor "slightly behind" the Intel equivalent you just need to get a high end motherboard, watercooler and RAM. Thereby probably negating the $40 price savings over a 3570k? Or you could just buy the faster processor initially?

As a side note every review I've seen of Win 8 regarding gaming has shown no improvement over 7.

Well if you don't want to hit 5.0GHz then you can buy a $99 or cheaper motherboard and an $28 air cooler and still be in the same range as the Intel. Stock it runs at 4.0GHz so a better air cooler should see better returns. I was just saying that if you were interested in making the FX-8320 into a 5.0GHz beast you need the proper tools to do so. A cheap motherboard and air cooler will get you 3770K performance easily but not to 5.0GHz.

Understand now? And yes Win 8 64 raises the minimum frame rate for games which is more noticeable than the spiky fps you get out of Win 7 64 for AMD chips. I don't know what it does for Intel chips.

 

[NaroonGTX]

I honestly don't understand why some people are so hell bent on supporting the underdog they would blind themselves to the facts but oh well

To each their own

What facts? The only fact here is that AMD CPU's are indeed still competitive and still more than enough for the vast majority of users out there today. In actuality when it comes to gaming, I don't know why Intel elitists always try to pull out the "b-b-but teh i5-3570k barly costz moar dan teh 8350~!!!"

An 8350 isn't needed for gaming. If you want eight cores, get the 8320 and overclock it, because they aren't "badly binned" parts (with the exception of the always-present possibility that you get a dud chip) and they will overclock to the same limits that an 8350 will.

The best-valued AMD CPU (not APU) out there is the FX-6300/FX-6350. There's no point in getting a 4300 because the hexacore variant only costs a few pennies more. Might as well get that extra module for $130 and call it a day, because all Vishera FX processors have the same IPC anyway.

Will it play all modern games without issues? Yeah. People today like to pretend that games are still predominately CPU-bound when in reality that hasn't been the case for many years. Usually Intel stalwarts will throw out single-threaded and very-lightly threaded games like Skyrim and SC2 and try to justify how "bad" AMD processors are, but I've seen benchmarks showing otherwise. I remember when the FX-8350 came out, Linus from Linus Tech Tips showed Skyrim on the 8350 (clocked at the stock clock of 4.0 Ghz) paired with a GTX 660 Ti, and it was getting well over 100fps on average. So if the difference between 110~120fps on an AMD CPU vs 130fps on the same Intel CPU is somehow worth any premiums, then sure, go for it. But last time I checked, that's a shitload of FPS that is more than enough for anyone in the first place.

The fanboyism that is prevalent nowadays regarding ANYTHING in the tech community, whether it be CPU's, GPU's, or even consoles, is just fucking ridiculous. People trying to bash companies and products for inane reasons, usually backed up by nothing but lies and their own conjecture that they got from reading lame benchmarks that don't even correlate to real-world performance or something. The bottom line is that you'd expect people who are interested in such a cool-ass industry to be smart enough to just buy what they need and be happy...but of course not. That's just too easy, isn't it?

 

[Pieter3dnow]

Do you see Kyle running an Amd chip?

Does Kyle run Linux
I do a lot of stuff I'm sure Kyle does not do .

Does it bother me , no , do I tell Kyle what to do , no. is this a pointless discussion, yes.

This is the AMD forum section , could it be renamed to pointless arguing with Intel users maybe.

To put it in perspective Michael Jordan basketball star always wear Nike shoes, would it be impossible to run on other brands and have the same outcome?

 

[Stryke1983]

I keep seeing SC2 and Skyrim being dismissed as valid gaming benchmarks for AMD CPUs. The fact is that they are two of the most popular games being played so shouldn't that make them even more important for use in comparisons?

The argument about supporting the underdog is also irrelevant here. The desktop CPU market is such a small part of AMDs revenue that you buying their chips when there are potentially better options from a larger company makes no sense. You can twist it and say that deliberately buying an underdog's products, even when inferior, just encourages that company to continue releasing inferior products. What's the point in trying to improve if you'll just buy their products anyway?

I use my computer for gaming. When I built it Intel offered better value at the point where increased price wouldn't give me increased performance. Buying the nearest AMD equivalents would have either cost me more for lower performance or cost me a little less for notably lower performance. FPS differences at greater than 60fps may not matter now, but my chip will remain competitive for longer.

It isn't fanboyism to buy the better product at a similar price. It is fanboyism to deliberately choose an alternative because you prefer their company, which ironically is what several of the posters above are doing while accusing others of it.

 

[Pieter3dnow]

I keep seeing SC2 and Skyrim being dismissed as valid gaming benchmarks for AMD CPUs. The fact is that they are two of the most popular games being played so shouldn't that make them even more important for use in comparisons?

The argument about supporting the underdog is also irrelevant here. The desktop CPU market is such a small part of AMDs revenue that you buying their chips when there are potentially better options from a larger company makes no sense. You can twist it and say that deliberately buying an underdog's products, even when inferior, just encourages that company to continue releasing inferior products. What's the point in trying to improve if you'll just buy their products anyway?

I use my computer for gaming. When I built it Intel offered better value at the point where increased price wouldn't give me increased performance. Buying the nearest AMD equivalents would have either cost me more for lower performance or cost me a little less for notably lower performance. FPS differences at greater than 60fps may not matter now, but my chip will remain competitive for longer.

It isn't fanboyism to buy the better product at a similar price. It is fanboyism to deliberately choose an alternative because you prefer their company, which ironically is what several of the posters above are doing while accusing others of it.

What if you don't care for popular games you are into games called Y and Z and those games are not very cpu dependant or just not programmed by someone whom uses visual basic.

The thing is that you decide what you want to do with your money you can start your own religion on it and tell yourself it is all good. You can even point to benchmarks and make yourself just feel so much better but what you can't do is to decide for other people what they should or should not do.

you can put a label on it and call it fanboyism and explain to people in the forums that they are fanboys , that is what I and many others in the AMD forums live for.

 

[OGOC]

Does Kyle run Linux

That's probably the most impressive 8350 review I've seen -- some Linux site review. Nearly every application was multi-threaded.

 

[cageymaru]

I keep seeing SC2 and Skyrim being dismissed as valid gaming benchmarks for AMD CPUs. The fact is that they are two of the most popular games being played so shouldn't that make them even more important for use in comparisons?

The argument about supporting the underdog is also irrelevant here. The desktop CPU market is such a small part of AMDs revenue that you buying their chips when there are potentially better options from a larger company makes no sense. You can twist it and say that deliberately buying an underdog's products, even when inferior, just encourages that company to continue releasing inferior products. What's the point in trying to improve if you'll just buy their products anyway?

I use my computer for gaming. When I built it Intel offered better value at the point where increased price wouldn't give me increased performance. Buying the nearest AMD equivalents would have either cost me more for lower performance or cost me a little less for notably lower performance. FPS differences at greater than 60fps may not matter now, but my chip will remain competitive for longer.

It isn't fanboyism to buy the better product at a similar price. It is fanboyism to deliberately choose an alternative because you prefer their company, which ironically is what several of the posters above are doing while accusing others of it.

You can turn on multithreading within Skyrim and the AMD performance goes up a ton. Have you tried doing that? I don't play SC2 so clueless what can be done with that.


Here are some for Skyrim that I found by Googling for 5 seconds.

Multithreading Tweaks:

bUseThreadedBlood=1
bUseTreadedMorpher=1
bUseThreadedTempEffects=1
bUseThreadedParticleSystem=1
bUseMultiThreadedTrees=1
bUseMultiThreadedFaceGen=1
iNumHavokThreads=5
iThreads=9
iOpenMPLevel=10

All of the above settings seem to relate to the use of the GameBryo engine's multithreading capability. Multithreading splits tasks into 'threads' where possible, and runs them in parallel across both cores of multi core or HyperThreading (virtual multi core) CPUs to improve performance. Note that raising the values of the iThreads, iNumHavokThreads and iOpenMPLevel settings very high doesn't automatically mean it uses that many threads - it all depends on how many threads are actually possible based on the information being processed. Experiment with these variables but if you experience problems reset them back to their defaults.

 

[NaroonGTX]

I keep seeing SC2 and Skyrim being dismissed as valid gaming benchmarks for AMD CPUs. The fact is that they are two of the most popular games being played so shouldn't that make them even more important for use in comparisons?

When did I "dismiss" those games as being "valid" for benchmarks on AMD chips? Never. I said it's stupid how people always bring them up as if performance is terrible when it isn't.

I use my computer for gaming. When I built it Intel offered better value at the point where increased price wouldn't give me increased performance. Buying the nearest AMD equivalents would have either cost me more for lower performance or cost me a little less for notably lower performance. FPS differences at greater than 60fps may not matter now, but my chip will remain competitive for longer.

I've used my computers for gaming as well, have been doing so for many years. I've used various AMD processors and they have always gotten the job done. I'm pretty interested in what CPU you have to where an AMD chip would've costed "more" and gave you less performance. Unless you're using an i3, I don't know what the hell AMD CPU would cost more and perform less.

Like I said, CPU isn't nearly as important for gaming today as it was, maybe ten years ago. The GPU does the vast majority of the work. The most intensive thing you'll find the CPU doing nowadays is maybe some physics calculations and maybe, for certain games like RTS games and such, heavy A.I. calculations, but even then the modern AMD chips will work fine. Hell, people have shown how using APU's with a discreet card (non-crossfire) shows that you could game with the settings cranked up and still maintain 60fps.

If I ever got to a point where my frames started to drop, I'd wager I'd replace the GPU before the CPU. There's nothing "ironic" about people buying AMD processors just because they get the job done and then some. I'm not about to buy a whole new MOBO, and a CPU, just to get an extra five or seven frames tops. I buy AMD CPU's and APU's because they, as a company, have never failed me, so I have no reason to jump ship just because I'd get higher benchmark scores or whatever.

Otherwise, no thank you. It's like buying a Porche just to drive it around my small town. Pointless, and would only be doing so to waste money and flaunt the size of the hypothetical pen0r. I see no real good reason to sit there and try to tell people they're silly just because they don't use what you perceive to be the "right" thing to use. Step down off the pedestal.

 

[Deleted member 82943]

Does Kyle run Linux
I do a lot of stuff I'm sure Kyle does not do .

Does it bother me , no , do I tell Kyle what to do , no. is this a pointless discussion, yes.

This is the AMD forum section , could it be renamed to pointless arguing with Intel users maybe.

To put it in perspective Michael Jordan basketball star always wear Nike shoes, would it be impossible to run on other brands and have the same outcome?

Does Kyle get paid to run Intel like MJ did to rock Nike? No. We choose the best and that's that

Especially in the midrange space there's tho competition from AMD

 

[NaroonGTX]

^Why bother even posting if all you're gonna do is spout ignorant nonsense like that?

Especially in the midrange space there's tho [sic] competition from AMD

Just lol.

 

[Deleted member 82943]

There's really no point I guess. In the end everyone is happy with what they have. If you put your money up for a chip then that should be good enough for anyone.

 

[LAiN_OfTheWired]

^Why bother even posting if all you're gonna do is spout ignorant nonsense like that?



Just lol.

Intel considers the 2500K-4670K mid-range. In almost every game made to date and most consumer software, these chips continue to put AMD's top-end offerings to shame. To be technical, Intel even considers the chips with hyperthreading (2600K-4770K) midrange, which makes AMD's best performer look even worse. Can it hold its own in some of the benchmarks everybody runs? Sure, but at a clock speed 20% higher and a power envelope somewhere between 25-45% higher. The fact that it takes that much to be competitive is rather dismaying, and being competitive still only means either coming close to Intel performance and rarely narrowly beating it in select benchmarks.

There seems to be a lot of denial in this thread. I'm glad I sucked up my AMD pride and went from my Phenom II to an i7. As long as AMD can get its shit together and make Steamroller NOT a disappointment I may build a new gaming machine. For now, I'm using a chip 2 generations old that AMD just caught up with and still can't match the efficiency of.

 

[NaroonGTX]

Thing is, most benchmarks are worthless. I'd rather choose parts by doing actual live research, such as watching videos of real performance, seeing how the product handles real apps, or even using the product first-hand. The only reason Intel considers those processors "mid-range" is because they know they can get away with selling "high-end" processors for $1000 to morons dumb enough to buy them. There's no real reason Intel can come up with to justify the prices of their actual hexacore processors. Sure, they pump out great performance, but the price you pay is ridiculous. People just bend over and accept it because Intel has been doing it for ages, and people will buy them anyway, so that's how it is.

Intel's R&D budget dwarfs the shit out of AMD's budget, and when you consider that as well as the hardships AMD went through due to their shitty management (most or all of which has since been purged from the company, and they've brought in some great new and old talent as well since then), it's almost miraculous that AMD is still hanging on and doing as well as they are. Let's not forget Intel's massive market share, which they achieved by using such honorable tactics like bribing companies like Dell with billions of dollars to only use Intel tech inside of their products.

No, there's no denial. I'm just telling it like it is. Both companies have long since gone in different directions when it comes to what their ulterior goals are. Yeah I'm defending AMD, but I'm far from being in denial. Being practical and realistic =/= being in denial. But you're awfully arrogant to suggest that anyone who doesn't worship Intel is in denial for not buying their products.

According to your sig, you have a 2600k. So I don't see why you'd build a new machine just because Steamroller FX would come out, and be a massive improvement to Piledriver (which it will be since Piledriver merely fixed the problems Bulldozer had). Why not just go to Haswell or something? I mean, it'll use less power (at stock clocks, anyway) and be faster no doubt, so I guess you inserted that throwaway comment to not appear as some Intel fanboy?

 

[LAiN_OfTheWired]

I still run 2 AMD machines in my house, and I never went anywhere near implying that not buying Intel products means you're in denial. You're in denial that this product isn't the worst release you've seen in several years. Compared to the price on this new AMD chip, the $1000 tag on the Sandy Bridge 6-core is very justified. When it is replaced by the Ivy-E 6-core for the same price, that will be even more justified. It's a 10% price increase for something that is more than 10% faster.

This chip is pushing the limits of what AMD can release without saying "you need a TEC or a constant supply of dry ice to use this" - yet it uses way more energy than the competition and barely matches up to things the competition does with a lot of remaining headroom. If AMD does everything right with Steamroller, it will be faster than Sandy Bridge, and I won't mind paying money for it. Haswell and Steamroller both mean a complete platform change for me, so the price difference will probably be better to go AMD then. Timetables also matter. If Intel hits DDR4 and Steamroller hasn't appeared, then I'm sticking to that lane. I'm not biased like you are, I simply want my shit to perform, and AMD isn't doing that.