does cpu core matters?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
MANUPRATHAPvanamali

MANUPRATHAPvanamali

Honorable
Aug 17, 2013
27
0
10,530
whats the importance of cores regarding cpus.
intel i3 has only 2 cores whereas amd fx 6300 is of 6.
but tom,'s heirarchy lists i3 above fx. why is it so?
 
Solution
Gaidax
The problem with FX 6/8 core line is very simple really. Before I explain - let me link you to the following chart: http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/cpus/?sort=pct

This is a Steam hardware survey they automatically gather from their playerbase. It is updated with Sept.2013 data.

See the issue? 97% of all systems using Steam are based of 4 cores or lower CPUs', out of which most people are actually using Dual Core CPUs' in their gaming!

That's the FX problem right here - any PC game or port that is released to masses now and within next 3-4 years will first of all be optimized for Quad or Dual cores, because that's what 97% of the real player base has and that's where the money is.

And here comes the kicker -...
Sort by date Sort by votes
Nitro192

Nitro192

Distinguished
Jul 7, 2013
541
0
19,360
Intel just generally has more "per core" performance. It's not always a case of cores and frequency, there's many factors that determine the speed of a CPU.

AMD's need more cores and frequency to keep up with intel, not because they're bad CPU's. They just have a different architecture.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
D

Darkresurrection

Honorable
Sep 15, 2013
721
0
11,160

it is not that they can't keep up with intel, this is the way it's meant to be, FX is far better comparing to any i5, it takes time to tell you that 8 cores matter, or on the intel side 4 cores and 4 threads matters, those who criticize single threaded performance of FX series lack provisional visions, yet in single threaded apps fx does an ok job, just play any game on ultra and yet when more processing is needed it provides you with that like crysis 3 that fx outperforms i7 3770k...some guys say in rome tottal wars 2 fx cpus give 44 fps average
and 18minimum, but they never say that i7 3770k gives 19fps minimum and 46fps maximum, 2 frame really!? and yet they consider this as a victory...or they say in this single threaded game fx gives 65 fps, i5 gives 90 fps...in real world terms can you really say the difference!? my opinion either i7 3770k or fx 8350, we either agree that in one year games will be as good as crysis 3 or not if we do look here: http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Crysis-3-PC-235317/Tests/Crysis-3-Test-CPU-Benchmark-1056578/ for those who don't agree and think crysis 3 is 3 years ahead of us look at one of 2014 tittles requirements: http://www.game-debate.com/games/index.php?g_id=4546&ga... it says ultra settings either fx 8350 or i7 3770 k...that shows how multi threading matters in a year from now


 
Upvote 0 Downvote
D

Darkresurrection

Honorable
Sep 15, 2013
721
0
11,160
also in alot of new programs we have have witnessed to superiority of cpus, and none of today games have shown the real power of this beats, hopefully watch dogs will be the first, just look here to see fx 8350 for example outperfroms i5s since these games are multi-threaded, yet they all use 6th cores of fx 8350, if 7th and 8th cores started working, no one would stop this cpu, in crysis 3 forexample, only 20% of 7th and 8th cores were loaded, so even crysis 3 is not the ultimate power of these 8 core beasts
1: http://www.techspot.com/review/601-black-ops-2-performance/page5.html (Call of duty black ops 2)
2: http://www.techspot.com/review/591-medal-of-honor-warfighter-benchmarks/page6.html (Medal of honor war fighter)
3: http://www.hardwareheaven.com/reviews/1598/pg6/amd-fx-8350-processor-review-battlefield-3.html (battlefield3)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Gaidax

Gaidax

Distinguished
Sep 27, 2013
1,024
1
19,965
The problem with FX 6/8 core line is very simple really. Before I explain - let me link you to the following chart: http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/cpus/?sort=pct

This is a Steam hardware survey they automatically gather from their playerbase. It is updated with Sept.2013 data.

See the issue? 97% of all systems using Steam are based of 4 cores or lower CPUs', out of which most people are actually using Dual Core CPUs' in their gaming!

That's the FX problem right here - any PC game or port that is released to masses now and within next 3-4 years will first of all be optimized for Quad or Dual cores, because that's what 97% of the real player base has and that's where the money is.

And here comes the kicker - Intel CPUs' have a famously great single core performance, while FX line single core performance is abysmal, so if you take a game which is optimized for 2/4 cores (which is a bloody every game on PC for the very obvious reasons I stated), Intel CPUs' will simply be better there than AMD and you can see it in just about every CPU review you encounter, simply because Intel 4 cores >> AMD 4 cores and any more cores than that - developers don't really give a damn about optimizing for, since it's for less than 3% of their potential playerbase.

For example - I can assure you - if you will just google "FX-8350 review" and go to the game benchmarks there - Intel will always lead, with some very rare exceptions where it will be a tie and it is exactly because FX-8350 cores amount advantage is not very relevant in gaming with exception for the very rare cherry picked exceptions, proof being the pro-AMD post above which I assure you was cherry picked and STILL FX-8350 ended up being roughly the same as old generation I5, speaks for itself really.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Solution
Gaidax

Gaidax

Distinguished
Sep 27, 2013
1,024
1
19,965
An addendum

The usual rebuttal to my claim above is that the new consoles sport 8 core CPUs', thus developers will be forced to optimize for more cores and this will put FX line in advantage. I believe there is some merit in this claim, however we must remember that console CPU is built with absolutely different architecture than FX and comparing two is not really going to work and ultimately it does not change the fact that any game that will be ported to PC, will still be first and foremost optimized for 4/2 cores due to the very obvious data I brought above.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
D

Darkresurrection

Honorable
Sep 15, 2013
721
0
11,160

Those very rare incidents won't be really rare in a year or two from now, everyone knows that we are entering a new generation, that has got a meaning, that pc owners need to upgrade their pcs, things wont change over night, but it is ridiculous to expect the same game settings in a year from now, and hello, when did call of duty black ops 2 need 8 core cpus!? so why does it perform better on the 8 core!? the game has an open engine, all games now a days are like this, they have this oportunity to make use of as many cores as possible..
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Nitro192

Nitro192

Distinguished
Jul 7, 2013
541
0
19,360
It is a fine CPU, no doubt. But it still isn't looking good, Even in the new Battlefield 4 which apparently is built around the new architecture and designed to be built on a 6-8 core system. It still looks to perform at par with a 2nd gen i5. We'll see how it does in future titles though.

http://cdn.overclock.net/0/04/500x1000px-LL-04d6fd37_bf4proz.jpeg

Although I do believe the 8350 has potential i wouldn't say "FX is far better comparing to any i5" because that's about the only one in the whole line up besides the FX 9590 that is a decent performer when compared to the latest i5's. The 9590 goes for over $500

There's insight that it may become a better performer in the future but it's lack in single core performance still will always be a factor and it doesn't show many signs of a large increase yet, that and no matter what, games will always be more GPU dependent.

Either way it will be interesting to see the benches after the official BF4 release in 2 days.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Gaidax

Gaidax

Distinguished
Sep 27, 2013
1,024
1
19,965


Except that it's not - you brought a comparison between FX-8350 which is the high end AMD cpu and I5-3470 non-K, which is a middle of a pack I5 from old generation, the difference ended up being 4 FPS out of one hundred.

Again, what you are talking about won't happen - Billy and Timmy living in their mom's basement and playing COD won't be upgrading their dual/quad cores any time soon and neither will be the army of guys with awesome I5/7s' and even if that would be bad enough for FX case - all of the new AMD products come as dual and quad core APUs', which is what AMD is currently pushing in aggressively into the market.

So basically AMD and Intel are both pumping out more 4 core CPUs' because that's where the money is, while the 6+ cores solutions are not refreshed and there are no new ones incoming any time soon, thus their market share of 6+ core CPUs' will actually drop instead of increase.

The trend of optimizing for 4 cores won't be going away any time soon, because that's basically all there is out there now and in 2-3 years from now really and I bet that even 4 years from now Quad/Dual core CPUs' will still hold 90%+ of the market.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
D

Darkresurrection

Honorable
Sep 15, 2013
721
0
11,160

First of all techspot favors Intel look at their literature and how hostile they are against AMD, the thing is that they still have some shame that's why they don't tell lies like Toms 2. none of these cpus are overclocked so it doesn't matter k or without k 3. Intel 3470 is stronger than 3570k multi threaded... http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i5-3570K-vs-Intel-Core-i5-3470 4. If they are making 4 core cpus why are they making watch dogs!!? or why is it that Unreal engine 4.0 is being optimized for 8 cores!? why is it that John Cormack is working on the new ID engine based on 8cores, stated in quakecon 2013 ?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Gaidax

Gaidax

Distinguished
Sep 27, 2013
1,024
1
19,965
And just to add a final touch - no I am not AMD hater or something, I'm just stating the obvious.

FX-8350 just came out ahead of it's time. That is the sad reality of things, if it would come out after 5 years from now - it would be amazing, but now we are living in a Dual/Quad Core reality and AMD should have instead pumped out a beefed up Phenom which could be a winner instead of pushing "moar coarz!" now.

The transition from Quad to more cores should have been smoother - first release out a GOOD quad core and then on base of it release a GOOD 6-core. That would be the winner plan, but I guess it's probably because AMD had no money to compete with Intel on their terms (Dual/Quads) so they had to go cheap 6/8 cores now to grab attention.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
D

Darkresurrection

Honorable
Sep 15, 2013
721
0
11,160
As for you Gaidax, I wish you made up your mind, one day you encourage people to buy 8 cores because you say they are future proof in comparison with fx 6350 and the other day you say there is no future proofing in 8 cores!!? this is not good behavior, don't speak out of both sides of your mouth please
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Gaidax

Gaidax

Distinguished
Sep 27, 2013
1,024
1
19,965


Dude, you don't even make sense now... mind telling me how exactly same CPU, but locked and 200 MHz slower is better at multithreading than the faster one?

Also, it does not matter what some dude says - he can be the reincarnation of Jesus for all I care - currently his words are just words, while the facts are facts - namely - 97% of all playerbase is rigged with Dual/Quad cores.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Gaidax

Gaidax

Distinguished
Sep 27, 2013
1,024
1
19,965


That's because I'm unbiased, my dear.

AMD is cheaper and people here are looking for Value - that's where AMD wins, but when we are talking about pure performance at any cost - Intel is a clear winner. If a guy comes here and says "I got 250 bucks - give me a good CPU and motherboard" - I say AMD, if a guy comes and says: "LOL I wanna rock, I use money to wipe my butt!" - I say Intel!

AMD is not a charity organisation - they know they can't beat Intel at performance head on, so they price their CPUs' at dirt prices and that's why they are recommended for budget systems.

Biased person for example will always scream "OMG AMD is teh bestestest!!!1" or "Intel4lyfe!" regardless of circumstances, so that makes them "consistent" with their suggestions, we have quite a few of those here...
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
D

Darkresurrection

Honorable
Sep 15, 2013
721
0
11,160

look here http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i5-3570K-vs-Intel-Core-i5-3470 that's how, I do not say that...Well they won't tell people that can't play overnight, they go medium settings and then low settings, then they can't play, that's when they need to upgrade Don't tell me, you have never seen this before, didn't they make you upgrade your pc when ps2 ended up and changed hands to ps3!? be logical

 
Upvote 0 Downvote
C

con635

Honorable
Oct 3, 2013
645
0
11,010
The new consoles mean that there will be alot more 8 cores sold so we should see a shift in software. These next few years could be interesting its exciting times for pc, real competition among cpu/gpu makers.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
D

Darkresurrection

Honorable
Sep 15, 2013
721
0
11,160

look here: http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i5-3570K-vs-Intel-Co... that's how, I do not say that...Well they won't tell people that can't play overnight, people go medium settings and then low settings, then they can't play, that's when they need to upgrade, Don't tell me, you have never seen this before, didn't they make you upgrade your PC when PS2 ended up and changed hands to ps3!? be logical...I simplified that for you, can you get it now!? :(

 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Gaidax

Gaidax

Distinguished
Sep 27, 2013
1,024
1
19,965


I certainly hope so, the thing I wish the most is for AMD to pull out a killer high end CPU to kick Intel's butt, that would be awesome.

Intel are lazy and they act like Electronic Art$ lately, I just despise them. They are like Apple of the CPU world, their stuff is good, but their attitude and prices are baaaad.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom