Intel Quadcore Vs. AMD Octacore - Gaming and future octacore-optimized development.

id still get the i5 for now. Dont think there will be a revolution in threads in the near future as most people still have dual cores.

Well here's the thing. in 12 months time, yes there will be a "revolution" in threading (with respect to what the other poster stated I have to disagree).

Now will this push an AMD FX 8350 past an Intel Corei7-3570K? I can't say for sure. What I do know is that games coming out for the PS4 and Xbox 720 will be geared towards 8 threads (and AMDs architecture).

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113284
8350 $200 shipped.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116504
3570K $220 shipped, $10 off if you buy tonight so $210.

How much money are you saving? $20? Big deal. And the 3570k still has four cores. It's not like when we magically figure out how to get around threading problems it will have massive issues because its a single core. At beast I think the 8350 will catch up. Overall not a huge difference.

Yes, it's a fair assumption that games will eventually move more towards 8 threaded loads, because new games will be influenced by the capabilities of the new consoles. The question is when, exactly. I don't think you can simply point to the launch date of the new consoles, or even a year or two later. As time passes, developers will become better and better at getting the most out of console hardware; it ain't gonna happen overnight.

The other wrinkle here is that the i5 is much faster on a per-thread basis than AMD's octacores are. So even if we did start seeing eight-thread games proliferate overnight, it's not obvious that they'd unambiguously favor the AMD platform. All threads aren't necessarily created equal, after all.

As always with tech, I think the safest bet is based on what you know for certain today.

The games will be optimized at launch. How do I know this? The AMD PS4 Dev kit of course: http://www.examiner.com/article/ps4-development-kit-leaked-details-include-hdd-space-video-memory-and-more

Nothing is optimized at launch.

For consoles they are. The dev kit comes not only with the multicore CPU but also the optimized AMD compiler.

Do you know what a compiler is?

Technology moves quickly, by the time multithreaded optimized software becomes mainstream the FX 8350 will be ancient history, so the performance might not stand the test of time and there might be better options out there. Also you would need to wait for 8 or more cores/threads to because a norm in most hoseholds, in 12 months time they'll still mostly likely only be optimizing there software for quad core usage. Yes consoles the next gen consoles running on x86 and multple cores helps a ton, but it still takes time, and when it comes you'll probably be looking into a different platform.

I would go the Intel route for now.

The dev kit comes not only with the multicore CPU but also the optimized AMD compiler.

Do you know what a compiler is?

Click to expand...

Do you know what optimized means? Just because you have a development kit doesn't mean everything is optimized.

by the time multithreaded optimized software becomes mainstream the FX 8350 will be ancient history,

Click to expand...

Kinda like how ATI/AMD had the first tessellator (sp?) but no one wants that card now. I think it will happen a bit faster then you think because of the Infinty/PS4 but yes. It isn't going to be common by next year.

By revolution i mean EVERY new game produced in the near future (next several months) will be optimized to use 8 cores. Doubt that will happen. I am sure many will but even then i think the i5 will outperform the fx by a little.

But they're being optimized to use 8 wimpy Jaguar cores. Who knows how that will translate into FX world.

Those 8 wimpy threads will run fine on any higher end quad core.

I guess it depends on what you mean by multi-tasking performance. I'm sure there's a scenario in which the AMD octacore will perform better. If you wanna batch-apply hardcore Photoshop filters to high-res pictures, encode an AVI into a MP4, play a game and record footage of it all at the same time? Yeah, the octacore might win. (Of course, your system will slow to a crawl, but the octacore might crawl faster in that scenario.)

But the i5 will run just the game better than the octacore can. If we're talking light multi-tasking like running a many-tabbed browser on a secondary monitor, maybe occasionally checking email, and running an MP3 player in the background while you play your game -- you know, standard stuff, then the i5 will still fly.

Again, not all threads, and not all cores, are created equal. Not all programs are heavily multi-threaded. Many programs you might be apt to use for what we call "multi-tasking" effectively don't demand CPU resources constantly or even concurrently with other programs you'd be apt to use.

There will always be give-and-take in discussions like this one, but I feel that the discussion is too focused on core count at the expense of everything else. Right now, the i5 is unambiguously superior for most any gamer who does light computing on the side (either at the same time or separately). The alternative in our little comparison does better at certain tasks than the i5, but they're not tasks that the average gamer values very highly.

The FX might prove to be slightly more future proof in the next 2-3 years. Future proofing is generally a fruitless endeavor, though, and this topic illustrates why: we just don't know exactly what will happen. By the time any of this stuff we're talking about matters, both processors will probably be well aged and generally undesirable. The fact that the FX might be slightly less undesirable later isn't a terribly compelling argument given that it's less desirable now.

All of that said, the FX is not a bad gaming CPU. It's just not as good as the i5 -- as of now and for the foreseeable future, which may or may not encapsulate the timeframe you have in mind for your particular rig.

It's also worth noting that your particular graphics card (650 Ti) will likely bottleneck both CPUs in this discussion; if you have yet to buy any of the parts, I would suggest downgrading from a 3570k (either to a locked i5 or to a cheaper AMD CPU) to put more money into your GPU subsystem. If your primary interest is game performance, it makes no sense to buy the best gaming CPU on the market (or near enough), only to pair it with a low-end video card. Personally, I'd need to be in the market for at least a 650 Ti Boost (Note the "Boost," and yes, that silly little word is important) or an HD 7850 before I even thought about installing a 3570k -- and even then I'd probably end up taking money away from the CPU to upgrade to an HD 7870.

To get a little more detailed, a 650 Ti costs somewhere around $130 on newegg right now. An i5 3570k costs about $230. If you downgrade that 3570k to, say, an i5 3350p, then you'd save about $50.

That $50 increases your GPU budget to ~$180, which buys you a 2GB GTX 650 Ti Boost. If we assume that you would have also bought a ~$30 aftermarket cooler with the unlocked processor (but not with the locked one), then your GPU budget balloons to ~$210, which buys you a GTX 660, or gets you within spitting distance of an HD 7870.

A build with 3350P + GTX 660 or HD 7870 will absolutely smoke a build with a 3570k + 650 Ti in most games.

But the i5 will run just the game better than the octacore can. If we're talking light multi-tasking like running a many-tabbed browser on a secondary monitor, maybe occasionally checking email, and running an MP3 player in the background while you play your game -- you know, standard stuff, then the i5 will still fly.

Click to expand...

This is me. Got 14tabs currently open on my browser, Media monkey will play .mp3s, 10 programs open on my taskbar including a couple of chat programs, and I alt tab to them all while I'm waiting to respawn. My 3570K hasn't had any issues yet. I'm not sure how much CPU you need for this because my i5 750 at stock clocks didn't have any issues either. And I'm sure my 16GBs of ram helps.

Just stop this, please. AMD will not be competing with Intel anymore. They have officaly dropped out of the CPU race. Abandoning a market they know they cannot keep up in.

Also, what makes you think that CONSOLES will affect anything on PC at all? You think that games that can possably take advantage of 5 or more cores will run like crap on a 4 core that is much faster per-core? Look at the past before looking into the future. Can you point to any time in history that consoles affected the PC market at all?

The last 2 generations of consoles affected the PC market greatly and history repeats itself.

Now I have yet to see anyone mention this,
The consoles will be running natively at 1080p minimum.
So what does that have to do with anything?
Well as your resolution rises more of the load is put upon that nifty GPU in your system.
Now that means you will need a powerful GPU with lots of VRam and guess what,
both consoles have powerful GPUs with 8GB Ram/Vram.

That fact allows them to get away with more cores at slower clocks.
So you should be fine with a fast Quad and better with a fast Octa.

The better question would be whether or not GPU's will need to be better.
The answer that it is yes.

I fail to see the correlation here, GPU's "Will need to be better", with or without XBox's and PS's.
i have yet to see one tech. advance that xbox or ps has given to the PC market, you simply stated that one exists.
Bigfoot exists, are you going to just take my word knowing i cannot prove it?

Also, the GPU's they have are APU's, and only a slight upgrade upon the ones avalable now on PC... I still fail to see how this will drive PC games to more cores.
I refer you to the picture attacted to the post you quoted.

http://www.amazon.com/AMD-FX-Series-Eight-Core-Processor-FD8350FRHKBOX/dp/B009O7YUF6/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1371084153&sr=8-1&keywords=fx+8350

$189.99 shipped...

Plus cheaper motherboards

Plus many 990FX MBs support PCIe 3.0 and 32 lanes of PCIe, where Z77 boards support 16 lanes of PCIe and PCIe 3.0

Plus 990FX boards already have 4 USB 3.0 ports

Plus 990FX boards already have 6 SATA3 connectors

Also, there is the 9590 TWKR on the horizon as well...

@OP: If you want to go with AMD, then go ahead...you can't go wrong either way.


EDIT: Correction.

What your telling me is that last generation's hardware, at launch, that was basically miles ahead of the PC's didn't drive AMD, Intel, and Nvidia to step their game up the be able to keep up with the consoles?
360 runs a tricore and PS3 runs a Cell processor which I think has 8 or 9 cores that are equal to a quad core CPU.
That means it was common place in 2006 to have PC's with tri or quad core processors?
Nope.
I am not saying consoles drive all PC advancements but when it consoles to gaming they are basically the law of the land.

Oh my god, this is the funnyest thing i have heard all day. You watch, people will be melting there MOBO's with this thing. You think an 8350 runs hot...
I have been saying this is what they need to do for a year, if it comes in a 250 bucks, and is more then just an OC'd 8350 then maybe, just maybe this will bring them back from the brink.

However, AMD still has glaring issues. They cannot just keep doing this. Ill use cars as an example

>Chevy builds a car that runs on 4 cyl, at half the RPM, with half the displacement and uses half the fuel.
>Dodge builds a car that runs on 8 cyl, at twice the rpm, twice the displacement and uses almost twice as much fuel.
>The Chevy is better in every metric, 0mph-60mph, top speed, stopping distance, handling exc, however not by much.

What one do you want?
If you were Dodge, what would you do? Would you move to a a new design, or just add more Cyl, dump more fuel into it and ramp up the RPM?

Sure, higher clocks and moar cores is a temp. fix for a company that is struggling to get by, but to actually compete with Chevy, Dodge needs to stop patching the old crap and step into the future, or at least the present.

/Rant

8350, I'm not taking your bait. Your posts are so factually in accurate it's really sad.

Plus many 990FX MBs support PCIe 3.0 and 32 lanes of PCIe, where Z77 boards support 16 lanes of PCIe and PCIe 2.0

Click to expand...

Really? My z77 with a 3570K has 16 lanes of PCIe 3.0 and supports both CF and SLI at 8x/8x. When did the 990 gain PCIe 3.0 support?



http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_fx_8350_processor_review,4.html

To my knowledge AMD doesn't have PCIe 3.0 support on any of their CPUs. Even if the board supports it the CPUs don't. Let's not ruin another thread, consider this a warning.

Its like you don't know how to source things.
Please, i try to source as much as i can and it would be very nice of you to at least TRY to source at least one thing.

http://www.asus.com/us/Motherboards/SABERTOOTH_990FXGEN3_R20/

Exclusive AMD PCIe 3.0 Military-Grade Motherboard with TUF Cooling Technology.

•PCI Express 3.0 - The Latest Graphics Standard Now on AMD Boards
•TUF CeraM!X Heatsink Coating Tech. - 50% Larger Area for Heat Dissipation with the Revolutionary Ceramics-coating Technology
•TUF Thermal Radar - Real Time Temp. Detection and Heat Removal
•TUF Components [Alloy Choke, Cap. & MOSFET; Certified by Military- standard] - Certified for Tough Duty
•New DIGI+ Power Control - All-New Digital Power Control for both CPU and DRAM
•USB BIOS Flashback - Easy, Worry-free USB BIOS Flashback with Hardware-based Design

Click to expand...

PCI Express® 3.0

PCI Express® 3.0 (PCIe 3.0) is the latest PCI Express bus standard with improved encoding schemes that provide twice the performance of current PCIe 2.0. Total bandwidth for a x16 link reaches a maximum of 32GB/s, double the 16GB/s of PCIe 2.0 (in x16 mode). As such, PCIe 3.0 provides users unprecedented data speeds, combined with the convenience and seamless transition offered by complete backward compatibility with PCIe 1.0 and PCIe 2.0 devices. PCIe 3.0 will become a must-have feature for users who wish to improve and optimize graphic performance, as well as have the latest technology available to them.

Click to expand...

Expansion Slots
3 x PCIe 3.0/2.0 x16 (dual x16 or x16/x8/x8) *1
1 x PCIe 2.0 x16 (x16 mode, black)
1 x PCI

Click to expand...

That's not x8/x8...that's x16/x16 of PCIe 3.0



Cheers!

EDIT:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/mainboards/display/20130111104316_Asustek_Weds_AMD_FX_Platform_with_PCI_Express_3_0_in_New_Mainboard.html

Asustek Weds AMD FX Platform with PCI Express 3.0 in New Mainboard.

Asus to Release Socket AM3+ Mainboard with PCI Express 3.0
[01/11/2013 10:43 AM]
by Anton Shilov

After Advanced Micro Devices cancelled code-named Komodo processor in favour of Vishera, the company’s high-end desktop platform lost any ability to obtain support for PCI Express 3.0 till at least late 2014. However, Asustek Computer has managed to make impossible possible with its Sabertooth 990FX/Gen3 R2.0 mainboard, which enables PCI Express 3.0 support on AMD FX platform

Click to expand...