How many years will it be until games start to use 8 core processors?
Tags:
-
CPUs
Last response: in CPUs
PotatoeJuiceBox
November 1, 2013 5:26:38 PM
Roughly, because im gonna buy a i7 4770k 3.4 GHz CPU. but at the same time when games start using 8-core processors, i dont want to be left with no money and not be able to upgrade. So i just want to see how long i will be able to play with quad cores instead of 8.
More about : years games start core processors
MD1987
November 1, 2013 5:30:19 PM
Related resources
- How many years will my computer last until I need to upgrade/replace? - Forum
- how many processors in core 2 duo - Forum
- How many years can a gtx 770 4gb play games on ultra? - Forum
- How many cores does windows 7 and 8 make use of? - Forum
- AMD Fx 8350, how many years it can play games.? - Forum
You never know how everything will advance, I would say we're only just hit quad core gaming for about 2 years, I would expect by the time you would require 8 cores to play a game, 8 cores cpus would cost about what 4 cores cost now so I wouldn't worry too much about it.
Also given that the latest consoles only have 8 cores (6ish for games) and they are under powered, the i7 4770k should last you quite a while IMO
Also given that the latest consoles only have 8 cores (6ish for games) and they are under powered, the i7 4770k should last you quite a while IMO
m
0
l
Traciatim said:
If you want an 8 core processor why would you buy a 4 core processor? Also, if you are comparing the 8 cores of the new consoles, keep in mind that those are netbook cores . . . a current gen i3 can pretty much destroy them already. Also keep in mind that games will be optimised for that CPU, so it will perform much better than netbook cores.
m
0
l
JOOK-D said:
Traciatim said:
If you want an 8 core processor why would you buy a 4 core processor? Also, if you are comparing the 8 cores of the new consoles, keep in mind that those are netbook cores . . . a current gen i3 can pretty much destroy them already. Also keep in mind that games will be optimised for that CPU, so it will perform much better than netbook cores.
Even if they optimize it, they won't come near the level of an i5/i7. They're clocked at 1.6ghz, so even if they're heavily optimized, they'll hit a wall eventually. I would say, they could give an i3 a run for its money, but even an FX6300 should beat it handily (since dual cores are on a decline now)
m
0
l
stickmansam said:
JOOK-D said:
Traciatim said:
If you want an 8 core processor why would you buy a 4 core processor? Also, if you are comparing the 8 cores of the new consoles, keep in mind that those are netbook cores . . . a current gen i3 can pretty much destroy them already. Also keep in mind that games will be optimised for that CPU, so it will perform much better than netbook cores.
Even if they optimize it, they won't come near the level of an i5/i7. They're clocked at 1.6ghz, so even if they're heavily optimized, they'll hit a wall eventually. I would say, they could give an i3 a run for its money, but even an FX6300 should beat it handily (since dual cores are on a decline now)
Fair point.
m
0
l
Samuel25
November 2, 2013 2:36:42 AM
JOOK-D said:
stickmansam said:
JOOK-D said:
Traciatim said:
If you want an 8 core processor why would you buy a 4 core processor? Also, if you are comparing the 8 cores of the new consoles, keep in mind that those are netbook cores . . . a current gen i3 can pretty much destroy them already. Also keep in mind that games will be optimised for that CPU, so it will perform much better than netbook cores.
Even if they optimize it, they won't come near the level of an i5/i7. They're clocked at 1.6ghz, so even if they're heavily optimized, they'll hit a wall eventually. I would say, they could give an i3 a run for its money, but even an FX6300 should beat it handily (since dual cores are on a decline now)
Fair point.
that is overlooking facts, it ain't true at all, when it comes to parallel processing, parallel processing is important, it means that you need 8 cores for individual segment, AI runs on one core, Physics runs on another etc...there it odesnt really matter how powerful your cpu is single threaded, the way it is processed is important, now i tell you something, why cant you emulate ps3 games on your i5? or can you play your android games on your pc? they way of processing is imporatnt, now that's why emulators are so slow, because they emulate the way that processor works, as for next gen gaming, pure fact today cpus are much stronger, the only problem goes to reckless, irresponsible ports, that's where similar architecture, the same vendor, and the same codes will come in handy, not that you can't play those games, you have to wait for patches, fixes....even today alot of games run much better on fx8350 comparing to i5s, and in crysis 3 forexample fx 8350 surpasses i7-3770k...yet none of these games have used full potential of this cpu, probably watch dogs in 2014 will be the first
m
0
l
Not even for the forseeable future. Games today already struggle to tap out Haswell i5's 4 cores at 100% load.
AMD processors will see a benefit in 8 core optimization, putting it around the locked Ivy Bridge's i5 performance.
Even with the 8 core hype train BF4 is, an FX 8 core processor doesn't show any benefit over 4 cores, whether they be from AMD or Intel.
http://www.techspot.com/review/734-battlefield-4-benchm...
AMD processors will see a benefit in 8 core optimization, putting it around the locked Ivy Bridge's i5 performance.
Even with the 8 core hype train BF4 is, an FX 8 core processor doesn't show any benefit over 4 cores, whether they be from AMD or Intel.
http://www.techspot.com/review/734-battlefield-4-benchm...
m
0
l
PotatoeJuiceBox said:
Roughly, because im gonna buy a i7 4770k 3.4 GHz CPU. but at the same time when games start using 8-core processors, i dont want to be left with no money and not be able to upgrade. So i just want to see how long i will be able to play with quad cores instead of 8.Go on and buy it, I7-4770K basically rocks any desktop 8 core CPU in existence right now even in games that support 8 cores to begin with. It will easily be a great CPU for the next 3-4 years.
The issue that people fail to see really is that it does not matter what consoles use and how many cores are there - consoles CPUs' based on Jaguar architecture are so weak that just about any proper 100$ desktop CPU can stomp those easy.
Any game ported to PC will first and foremost be optimized for dual/quad cores in the next 5-6 years, reason is very simple and here it is: http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/cpus/
Currently 46.7% of all Steam users game on Dual Core CPUs' and 44.6% use Quad Cores. Add to this single and tri-core solutions and as of now - October 2013 - roughly 97.5% of all Steam gamers got Quad Core or lower rigs.
So in short - any PC game or port coming our in the next 5 years at the very least WILL be aimed and optimized for the Quad/Dual core crowd, since that's where the money is for the devs.
Basically, what this means is while FX is pretty much dependent on Game Developers' graces in supporting multi-cores for PC titles - Intel Quad Cores will be guaranteed to get the best support in the years to come, since that is the real main stream here and I7 is pretty much a top pick in this game dev's darling club.
Other than that - let's not forget the obvious - every single Intel core is much more powerful than FX single core, thus this creates a situation where AMD basically competes only with I5s' and thus prices their CPUs' accordingly. I7 is way out of their reach, since Hyper-Threading is a smart way to boost CPU utilization and efficiency of I5, which is pretty much the same as FX processors (minus not sucking for every single thread friendly process)..
m
0
l
Samuel25
November 2, 2013 11:46:07 AM
Lessthannil said:
Not even for the forseeable future. Games today already struggle to tap out Haswell i5's 4 cores at 100% load.AMD processors will see a benefit in 8 core optimization, putting it around the locked Ivy Bridge's i5 performance.
Even with the 8 core hype train BF4 is, an FX 8 core processor doesn't show any benefit over 4 cores, whether they be from AMD or Intel.
http://www.techspot.com/review/734-battlefield-4-benchm...
Gaidax said:
PotatoeJuiceBox said:
Roughly, because im gonna buy a i7 4770k 3.4 GHz CPU. but at the same time when games start using 8-core processors, i dont want to be left with no money and not be able to upgrade. So i just want to see how long i will be able to play with quad cores instead of 8.Go on and buy it, I7-4770K basically rocks any desktop 8 core CPU in existence right now even in games that support 8 cores to begin with. It will easily be a great CPU for the next 3-4 years.
The issue that people fail to see really is that it does not matter what consoles use and how many cores are there - consoles CPUs' based on Jaguar architecture are so weak that just about any proper 100$ desktop CPU can stomp those easy.
Any game ported to PC will first and foremost be optimized for dual/quad cores in the next 5-6 years, reason is very simple and here it is: http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/cpus/
Currently 46.7% of all Steam users game on Dual Core CPUs' and 44.6% use Quad Cores. Add to this single and tri-core solutions and as of now - October 2013 - roughly 97.5% of all Steam gamers got Quad Core or lower rigs.
So in short - any PC game or port coming our in the next 5 years at the very least WILL be aimed and optimized for the Quad/Dual core crowd, since that's where the money is for the devs.
Basically, what this means is while FX is pretty much dependent on Game Developers' graces in supporting multi-cores for PC titles - Intel Quad Cores will be guaranteed to get the best support in the years to come, since that is the real main stream here and I7 is pretty much a top pick in this game dev's darling club.
Other than that - let's not forget the obvious - every single Intel core is much more powerful than FX single core, thus this creates a situation where AMD basically competes only with I5s' and thus prices their CPUs' accordingly. I7 is way out of their reach, since Hyper-Threading is a smart way to boost CPU utilization and efficiency of I5, which is pretty much the same as FX processors (minus not sucking for every single thread friendly process)..
hoooooooa!!! out of reach!? easy pal...easy.... we beat your i7 beast here http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Crysis-3-PC-235317/Tests/... .... in multi threaded games and apps they are equal...all i7s (3rd or fourth) are top notch...no doubt about it, but what about their prices!? you can buy FX 8350+ the best single gpu in the planet, and that i7 is overkill for the gpu you want to buy...fx 8350+ r9-290 that's all you need, as for steam users they should understand, we are entering new era so why dont you play with your ps2 dude? that is technology, it improves sad for pc after every console generation and we are done with xbox 360 and ps3.... it's the new era, and have you ever asked yourself why every game developer is jumping to 64 bit!? ask and then re-ask...
m
0
l
Which is coincidentally the ONLY example of this happening in existence... which is a moot point since we have Haswell I7s' now
Even in your holy grail of multi-threading, you bring in every thread - Battlefield 4 - I7 stomps FX. Heck, in your very own link you so love to toss around stock I7 nuked the crap out of 5 GHz overclocked FX... Awesome there, haha. http://www.bf4blog.com/battlefield-4-retail-gpu-cpu-ben...
Hope you are not going to claim that your example is not reliable now?
Even in your holy grail of multi-threading, you bring in every thread - Battlefield 4 - I7 stomps FX. Heck, in your very own link you so love to toss around stock I7 nuked the crap out of 5 GHz overclocked FX... Awesome there, haha. http://www.bf4blog.com/battlefield-4-retail-gpu-cpu-ben...
Hope you are not going to claim that your example is not reliable now?
m
0
l
Gaidax said:
Which is coincidentally the ONLY example of this happening in existence... which is a moot point since we have Haswell I7s' now
Even in your holy grail of multi-threading, you bring in every thread - Battlefield 4 - I7 stomps FX.
You must concede that it's pretty impressive what FX can do at the low price point now that some optimisation has come into play. I'm not biased to either AMD or intel, both are great but I feel they are targeted at different markets. It'll be an interesting next few years.
As always though, the biggest factor in gaming performance is the GPU.
m
0
l
Samuel25
November 2, 2013 11:58:42 AM
Gaidax said:
Which is coincidentally the ONLY example of this happening in existence... which is a moot point since we have Haswell I7s' now
Even in your holy grail of multi-threading, you bring in every thread - Battlefield 4 - I7 stomps FX.
ok so we should compare your haswell, which doesnt feel well these days of course with fx 9590....let's run a crysis 3 benchmark huh?! i7 stompppesdad fx i paid money fo i
...dude i7 4770k is for 350$ fx 8350 200$ and that single game is an example for alot of games in the future...about battlefield 4 that level was not a cpu dependent part in battlefield 4 look here http://www.bf4blog.com/battlefield-4-retail-gpu-cpu-ben... overclock you cpu easily to 5ghz and it is 9590, 200 $ and you are on the top...easy, listen to me all you need is a better gpu, fx 8350 is more than enough
m
0
l
JOOK-D said:
Gaidax said:
Which is coincidentally the ONLY example of this happening in existence... which is a moot point since we have Haswell I7s' now
Even in your holy grail of multi-threading, you bring in every thread - Battlefield 4 - I7 stomps FX.
You must concede that it's pretty impressive what FX can do at the low price point now that some optimisation has come into play. I'm not biased to either AMD or intel, both are great but I feel they are targeted at different markets. It'll be an interesting next few years.
As always though, the biggest factor in gaming performance is the GPU.
Yeah for now, even the i5's are still fine for 64man multiplayer in BF4, the real killer game that requires more than 4 cores is not quite here yet
m
0
l
Yes, that is impressive, but really, every sane person would see clear as a day that I7s are simply superior to FX-8350 or whatever FX there is really.
The point is simple - the person here is not sure if I7-4770K is a good investment and the answer is that it damn sure is and bringing some 8 core trash CPUs' which once in a blue moon manage to get close, won't be really helping to calm him down and proceed with a purchase.
The point is simple - the person here is not sure if I7-4770K is a good investment and the answer is that it damn sure is and bringing some 8 core trash CPUs' which once in a blue moon manage to get close, won't be really helping to calm him down and proceed with a purchase.
m
0
l
Gaidax said:
Yes, that is impressive, but really, every sane person would see clear as a day that I7s are simply superior to FX-8350 or whatever FX there is really.The point is simple - the person here is not sure if I7-4770K is a good investment and the answer is that it damn sure is and bringing some 8 core trash CPUs' which once in a blue moon manage to get close, won't be really helping to calm him down and proceed with a purchase.
I won't argue that he should definitely purchase the 4770K, but the FX series is not "trash".
m
0
l
Blaise170 said:
Gaidax said:
Yes, that is impressive, but really, every sane person would see clear as a day that I7s are simply superior to FX-8350 or whatever FX there is really.The point is simple - the person here is not sure if I7-4770K is a good investment and the answer is that it damn sure is and bringing some 8 core trash CPUs' which once in a blue moon manage to get close, won't be really helping to calm him down and proceed with a purchase.
I won't argue that he should definitely purchase the 4770K, but the FX series is not "trash".
FX series could be much better, but AMD simply fell short of delivering what potentially could be the king. I guess the Faildozer made them make a knee-jerk reaction with a half-baked update.
I am frustrated with AMD really, they simply gave up the fight and ran away to please the low end market.
m
0
l
Samuel25
November 2, 2013 12:15:49 PM
Gaidax said:
Yes, that is impressive, but really, every sane person would see clear as a day that I7s are simply superior to FX-8350 or whatever FX there is really.The point is simple - the person here is not sure if I7-4770K is a good investment and the answer is that it damn sure is and bringing some 8 core trash CPUs' which once in a blue moon manage to get close, won't be really helping to calm him down and proceed with a purchase.
Listen pal I never claimed fx 8350 is better than i7 4770k what I am saying is that, fx 8350 is more than capable for the current generation of gaming, and that he can allocate more money on his gpu....am I mistaken here!?
m
0
l
Gaidax said:
Yes, that is impressive, but really, every sane person would see clear as a day that I7s are simply superior to FX-8350 or whatever FX there is really.
The point is simple - the person here is not sure if I7-4770K is a good investment and the answer is that it damn sure is and bringing some 8 core trash CPUs' which once in a blue moon manage to get close, won't be really helping to calm him down and proceed with a purchase.
Listen pal I never claimed fx 8350 is better than i7 4770k what I am saying is that, fx 8350 is more than capable for the current generation of gaming, and that he can allocate more money on his gpu....am I mistaken here!?
No. The FX-8350 can hold its own, and no one is arguing that Intel isn't the best of the best. There's a difference between not being the best and being "trash".
m
0
l
Ladies, let's not forget, that the FX series is of modular architecture - and therefore 4 modules can not be count as 8 cores /even if the marketing division states that/.
AMD module is a little faster than a regular core in multicore apps - something games are not. Even if a game uses more cores, it is not for a single task like winrar, usually there are many different tasks with a core assigned to each one of them. Thus it may seem like a game is using 4 cores, but it works like many single threaded apps...
And since every Intel core is about 1.3-1.4x faster as a whole AMD module in single thread, Intel easily gains lead....
That's all there is to it
PS: i7 is and will be overkill for gaming - if you don't stream your gameplay and cut videos, it is not needed
and won't be for a long time
AMD module is a little faster than a regular core in multicore apps - something games are not. Even if a game uses more cores, it is not for a single task like winrar, usually there are many different tasks with a core assigned to each one of them. Thus it may seem like a game is using 4 cores, but it works like many single threaded apps...
And since every Intel core is about 1.3-1.4x faster as a whole AMD module in single thread, Intel easily gains lead....
That's all there is to it
PS: i7 is and will be overkill for gaming - if you don't stream your gameplay and cut videos, it is not needed
and won't be for a long time
m
0
l
Samuel25
November 2, 2013 12:21:08 PM
Gaidax said:
Blaise170 said:
Gaidax said:
Yes, that is impressive, but really, every sane person would see clear as a day that I7s are simply superior to FX-8350 or whatever FX there is really.The point is simple - the person here is not sure if I7-4770K is a good investment and the answer is that it damn sure is and bringing some 8 core trash CPUs' which once in a blue moon manage to get close, won't be really helping to calm him down and proceed with a purchase.
I won't argue that he should definitely purchase the 4770K, but the FX series is not "trash".
FX series could be much better, but AMD simply fell short of delivering what potentially could be the king. I guess the Faildozer made them make a knee-jerk reaction with a half-baked update.
I am frustrated with AMD really, they simply gave up the fight and ran away to please the low end market.
AMD knows what it is doing, it is vendor of the next gen consoles, it went to 8 cores on consoles because it wanted to start this war, because it wanted games to become multi threaded, their game, their rule...and who said AMD is going to please the low end market!!?
who said that, AMD is focusing on its 8 core APUs from now on...streamroller is the 8 core APUs exaclty like the one on xbox one and ps4
m
0
l
Samuel25 said:
Gaidax said:
Blaise170 said:
Gaidax said:
Yes, that is impressive, but really, every sane person would see clear as a day that I7s are simply superior to FX-8350 or whatever FX there is really.The point is simple - the person here is not sure if I7-4770K is a good investment and the answer is that it damn sure is and bringing some 8 core trash CPUs' which once in a blue moon manage to get close, won't be really helping to calm him down and proceed with a purchase.
I won't argue that he should definitely purchase the 4770K, but the FX series is not "trash".
FX series could be much better, but AMD simply fell short of delivering what potentially could be the king. I guess the Faildozer made them make a knee-jerk reaction with a half-baked update.
I am frustrated with AMD really, they simply gave up the fight and ran away to please the low end market.
AMD knows what it is doing, it is vendor of the next gen consoles, it went to 8 cores on consoles because it wanted to start this war, because it wanted games to become multi threaded, their game, their rule...and who said AMD is going to please the low end market!!?
who said that, AMD is focusing on its 8 core APUs from now on...streamroller is the 8 core APUs exaclty like the one on xbox one and ps4With all the respect - APUs' are the very definition of low end and XBONE and PS4 CPUs' are a pure trash, really.
Wanna argue with that too?
m
0
l
As a response to your reply to me Gaidax, I did mention "at that price point". AMD 83xx series is much cheaper than an i7 and it's amazing that it can deliver similar performance in a game that actually makes use of its potential. The AMD's are certainly not trash, they hold their own and game perfectly well. They're designed for those on a budget who want to work and game, and can do so. If you were now going to praise intel for having the high-end, go for it. They can now stagnate progression as much as they like. For me, an FX is perfect. For 1/2 or 2/3 of the price of an i5/i7 I think I'm definitely getting my money's worth. Maybe if I have money to burn in the future I'll go intel but it's just overkill and unnecessary, for me. However, others might want to pay more to be able to game at extremely high FPS and ridiculously good eye candy, I just can't justify the extra expense.
Also, please don't turn this thread into a full-out flame war, there are enough of those already. Cheers.
Also, please don't turn this thread into a full-out flame war, there are enough of those already. Cheers.
m
0
l
Samuel25
November 2, 2013 1:05:05 PM
Gaidax said:
Samuel25 said:
Gaidax said:
Blaise170 said:
Gaidax said:
Yes, that is impressive, but really, every sane person would see clear as a day that I7s are simply superior to FX-8350 or whatever FX there is really.The point is simple - the person here is not sure if I7-4770K is a good investment and the answer is that it damn sure is and bringing some 8 core trash CPUs' which once in a blue moon manage to get close, won't be really helping to calm him down and proceed with a purchase.
I won't argue that he should definitely purchase the 4770K, but the FX series is not "trash".
FX series could be much better, but AMD simply fell short of delivering what potentially could be the king. I guess the Faildozer made them make a knee-jerk reaction with a half-baked update.
I am frustrated with AMD really, they simply gave up the fight and ran away to please the low end market.
AMD knows what it is doing, it is vendor of the next gen consoles, it went to 8 cores on consoles because it wanted to start this war, because it wanted games to become multi threaded, their game, their rule...and who said AMD is going to please the low end market!!?
who said that, AMD is focusing on its 8 core APUs from now on...streamroller is the 8 core APUs exaclty like the one on xbox one and ps4With all the respect - APUs' are the very definition of low end and XBONE and PS4 CPUs' are a pure trash, really.
Wanna argue with that too?
that's where you are mistaken, APUs, unlike now, wont target low end markets anymore, they are advancing fast, and the future is the fusion, enjoy the era you can assemble your own rigs, we do not have much time, computers are not going to be the same, cpus, gpus, etc..These new APUs are supposed to deliver twice as much power as xbox one and ps4 have to offer now with an unbelievable price range, just wait and see AMD has interesting stories to tell you, AMD said it's enough of comparing AMD with Intel, that shows they have new plans to target a bigger market, 8 core APUs are going to be cheap, with the power they provide you with alot of users will move to those APUs, undoubtedly...
m
0
l
Gaidax said:
FX is a great value, no denying that. If you want to buy a CPU for sub-170$ then AMD is a way to go almost always.However since an OP is already going for I7, then this pretty much eliminates AMD at this point, which is the whole point of my responses here.
Yeah, I know. Just thought I'd point out that they aren't "trash" by any means. BTW don't get in an argument with samuel, this will never end. It's all speculation lacking confirmed facts.
m
0
l
Samuel25 said:
Gaidax said:
Samuel25 said:
Gaidax said:
Blaise170 said:
Gaidax said:
Yes, that is impressive, but really, every sane person would see clear as a day that I7s are simply superior to FX-8350 or whatever FX there is really.The point is simple - the person here is not sure if I7-4770K is a good investment and the answer is that it damn sure is and bringing some 8 core trash CPUs' which once in a blue moon manage to get close, won't be really helping to calm him down and proceed with a purchase.
I won't argue that he should definitely purchase the 4770K, but the FX series is not "trash".
FX series could be much better, but AMD simply fell short of delivering what potentially could be the king. I guess the Faildozer made them make a knee-jerk reaction with a half-baked update.
I am frustrated with AMD really, they simply gave up the fight and ran away to please the low end market.
AMD knows what it is doing, it is vendor of the next gen consoles, it went to 8 cores on consoles because it wanted to start this war, because it wanted games to become multi threaded, their game, their rule...and who said AMD is going to please the low end market!!?
who said that, AMD is focusing on its 8 core APUs from now on...streamroller is the 8 core APUs exaclty like the one on xbox one and ps4With all the respect - APUs' are the very definition of low end and XBONE and PS4 CPUs' are a pure trash, really.
Wanna argue with that too?
that's where you are mistaken, APUs, unlike now, wont target low end markets anymore, they are advancing fast, and the future is the fusion, enjoy the era you can assemble your own rigs, we do not have much time, computers are not going to be the same, cpus, gpus, etc..These new APUs are supposed to deliver twice as much power as xbox one and ps4 have to offer now with an unbelievable price range, just wait and see AMD has interesting stories to tell you, AMD said it's enough of comparing AMD with Intel, that shows they have new plans to target a bigger market, 8 core APUs are going to be cheap, with the power they provide you with alot of users will move to those APUs, undoubtedly...
I am all for it when it happens, but this is not going to happen now and not in half a year either... maybe by the end 2014 some decent APUs' which can scratch mid-range surface will pop up, maybe Kaveri, but the inherent problem with APUs is that they are coming out intentionally crippled if that is with lower cache and lack of L3 cache or lower core count.
APUs' won't be "decent" until AMD decides to make them decent and as I see it - it's not their strategy at the moment.
m
0
l
Gaidax said:
I am all for it when it happens, but this is not going to happen now and not in half a year either... maybe by the end 2014 some decent APUs' which can scratch mid-range surface will pop up, maybe Kaveri, but the inherent problem with APUs is that they are coming out intentionally crippled if that is with lower cache and lack of L3 cache or lower core count.
APUs' won't be "decent" until AMD decides to make them decent and as I see it - it's not their strategy at the moment.
The main thing about APUs right now is there usability in lower end entertainment systems. For small computers like an HTPC or uATX Slim, an APU is perfect as you don't need to add a graphics card to it.
m
0
l
JOOK-D said:
Gaidax said:
FX is a great value, no denying that. If you want to buy a CPU for sub-170$ then AMD is a way to go almost always.However since an OP is already going for I7, then this pretty much eliminates AMD at this point, which is the whole point of my responses here.
Yeah, I know. Just thought I'd point out that they aren't "trash" by any means. BTW don't get in an argument with samuel, this will never end. It's all speculation lacking confirmed facts.
I know, that is actually Darkressurection, I guess he got banned for trolling and cursing and now he is back with his backup plan
m
0
l
Blaise170 said:
Gaidax said:
I am all for it when it happens, but this is not going to happen now and not in half a year either... maybe by the end 2014 some decent APUs' which can scratch mid-range surface will pop up, maybe Kaveri, but the inherent problem with APUs is that they are coming out intentionally crippled if that is with lower cache and lack of L3 cache or lower core count.
APUs' won't be "decent" until AMD decides to make them decent and as I see it - it's not their strategy at the moment.
The main thing about APUs right now is there usability in lower end entertainment systems. For small computers like an HTPC or uATX Slim, an APU is perfect as you don't need to add a graphics card to it.
True, but all those are low-end solutions as I said.
APU line has amazing potential which is held back by AMD due to the costs and target audience, this is unfortunate, but I guess they want to concentrate on a niche area of the CPU business where Intel blows - low end multimedia OEM PCs' and HTPCs', makes most business sense, they can build a name for themselves there and sell a great deal, while Intel is slumbering on their throne.
m
0
l
Samuel25
November 2, 2013 1:20:07 PM
Gaidax said:
Samuel25 said:
Gaidax said:
Samuel25 said:
Gaidax said:
Blaise170 said:
Gaidax said:
Yes, that is impressive, but really, every sane person would see clear as a day that I7s are simply superior to FX-8350 or whatever FX there is really.The point is simple - the person here is not sure if I7-4770K is a good investment and the answer is that it damn sure is and bringing some 8 core trash CPUs' which once in a blue moon manage to get close, won't be really helping to calm him down and proceed with a purchase.
I won't argue that he should definitely purchase the 4770K, but the FX series is not "trash".
FX series could be much better, but AMD simply fell short of delivering what potentially could be the king. I guess the Faildozer made them make a knee-jerk reaction with a half-baked update.
I am frustrated with AMD really, they simply gave up the fight and ran away to please the low end market.
AMD knows what it is doing, it is vendor of the next gen consoles, it went to 8 cores on consoles because it wanted to start this war, because it wanted games to become multi threaded, their game, their rule...and who said AMD is going to please the low end market!!?
who said that, AMD is focusing on its 8 core APUs from now on...streamroller is the 8 core APUs exaclty like the one on xbox one and ps4With all the respect - APUs' are the very definition of low end and XBONE and PS4 CPUs' are a pure trash, really.
Wanna argue with that too?
that's where you are mistaken, APUs, unlike now, wont target low end markets anymore, they are advancing fast, and the future is the fusion, enjoy the era you can assemble your own rigs, we do not have much time, computers are not going to be the same, cpus, gpus, etc..These new APUs are supposed to deliver twice as much power as xbox one and ps4 have to offer now with an unbelievable price range, just wait and see AMD has interesting stories to tell you, AMD said it's enough of comparing AMD with Intel, that shows they have new plans to target a bigger market, 8 core APUs are going to be cheap, with the power they provide you with alot of users will move to those APUs, undoubtedly...
I am all for it when it happens, but this is not going to happen now and not in half a year either... maybe by the end 2014 some decent APUs' which can scratch mid-range surface will pop up, maybe Kaveri, but the inherent problem with APUs is that they are coming out intentionally crippled if that is with lower cache and lack of L3 cache or lower core count.
APUs' won't be "decent" until AMD decides to make them decent and as I see it - it's not their strategy at the moment.
we all wanna play smoothly, he will play smoothly with fx 8350, no need to go with i7 4770k, but instead he can allocate some more money for his gpu, and that's even more important...I think as a being I am done guiding this guy, well I am not going to reach my pocket in the end, so you can listen to both sides and decide yourself in the end, there is no way i pay for i7 4770k, when with an fx 8350 i can buy the best gpu, and max out every single game in the world...different people, different opinion though!!!
m
0
l
lol at benchmarks with stock clocked unlocked multiplier cpu's. show us benchmarks of in intel k@4.5ghz compared to an 8350@5.0ghz. those are the only benchmarks that matter.
anything past a $199 4670k is a waste of money
edit: i forgot not everyone is near a microcenter where they sell them for $199. So $220 or whatever it costs.
anything past a $199 4670k is a waste of money
edit: i forgot not everyone is near a microcenter where they sell them for $199. So $220 or whatever it costs.
m
0
l
And that's just the thing. The target consumer market is not us - most people who have PCs just want to use facebook or watch a movie. I can imagine OEMs jumping all over this, because they are cheap and easy to install. OEM builds are a huge part of the market.
All low budget like you said of course.
All low budget like you said of course.
m
0
l
Of course, most of the consumer market money Intel and AMD makes is not from the enthusiast/semi-entusiast freaks like us that love pretty numbers, it's from the hordes of people who need PC just to download and watch some movies, spam stuff on facebook, read emails and google stuff.
I bet that for Intel - I3 or Pentium line brings in the most consumer market cash, while I7 is like a drop in an ocean.
I bet that for Intel - I3 or Pentium line brings in the most consumer market cash, while I7 is like a drop in an ocean.
m
0
l
Gaidax said:
Which is coincidentally the ONLY example of this happening in existence... which is a moot point since we have Haswell I7s' now
Even in your holy grail of multi-threading, you bring in every thread - Battlefield 4 - I7 stomps FX. Heck, in your very own link you so love to toss around stock I7 nuked the crap out of 5 GHz overclocked FX... Awesome there, haha. http://www.bf4blog.com/battlefield-4-retail-gpu-cpu-ben...
Hope you are not going to claim that your example is not reliable now?

Talk like this cracks me up... man, totally thrashed and stomped by 3 fps omg thats an nuke ass whoopin.
If thats the description for 3 fps difference, what would you describe the 17 fps between the 9590 and the I5 4670k?
m
0
l
noob2222 said:
Gaidax said:
Which is coincidentally the ONLY example of this happening in existence... which is a moot point since we have Haswell I7s' now
Even in your holy grail of multi-threading, you bring in every thread - Battlefield 4 - I7 stomps FX. Heck, in your very own link you so love to toss around stock I7 nuked the crap out of 5 GHz overclocked FX... Awesome there, haha. http://www.bf4blog.com/battlefield-4-retail-gpu-cpu-ben...
Hope you are not going to claim that your example is not reliable now?

Talk like this cracks me up... man, totally thrashed and stomped by 3 fps omg thats an nuke ass whoopin.
If thats the description for 3 fps difference, what would you describe the 17 fps between the 9590 and the I5 4670k?
js, intel outperforms AMD in multiplayer.
m
0
l
The point is that FX-8350 itself loses by 20 fps and EVEN if you stretch it to the limit and overclock it to 5Ghz which is crazy and expensive as far, it is still losing to the stock I7.
If that's not "owned" then I don't know what is.
And that is even before you overclock I7.
Besides, you haven't seen the multi-player benchmark yet, it would make you cry.
If that's not "owned" then I don't know what is.
And that is even before you overclock I7.
Besides, you haven't seen the multi-player benchmark yet, it would make you cry.
m
0
l
Well, there is FX-8350 too, FX-9000 ones showcase that even ultra overclocked and expensive AMD processors fall on their face before the cheaper at that point stock I7.
There will however be those people who want to play on a 120 Hz monitor who will need that super high FPS.
True, though I find those benchmarks useful as a measurement of CPUs' ability in a long term. Besides, those benchmarks are particularly interesting since they are able to finally pierce the shroud surrounding the impact of 8 core CPUs' on performance in the "next-gen" titles.
Lately there is a rumor mill running around that FX-8350 will be a I5 killer in any next gen game, the above benchmarks prove this to be false, really, thus it makes I5 a better long term choice in my eyes, since it let's you enjoy both the current and next gen games to the full potential as opposed to the FX quirks with the less optimized or thread friendly games.
JOOK-D said:
If you're only looking for a smooth, even FPS even the 4300 runs it pretty nicely. Most CPU's are overkill. More dependent on GPU.
There will however be those people who want to play on a 120 Hz monitor who will need that super high FPS. True, though I find those benchmarks useful as a measurement of CPUs' ability in a long term. Besides, those benchmarks are particularly interesting since they are able to finally pierce the shroud surrounding the impact of 8 core CPUs' on performance in the "next-gen" titles.
Lately there is a rumor mill running around that FX-8350 will be a I5 killer in any next gen game, the above benchmarks prove this to be false, really, thus it makes I5 a better long term choice in my eyes, since it let's you enjoy both the current and next gen games to the full potential as opposed to the FX quirks with the less optimized or thread friendly games.
m
0
l
Lessthannil said:
Not even for the forseeable future. Games today already struggle to tap out Haswell i5's 4 cores at 100% load.AMD processors will see a benefit in 8 core optimization, putting it around the locked Ivy Bridge's i5 performance.
Even with the 8 core hype train BF4 is, an FX 8 core processor doesn't show any benefit over 4 cores, whether they be from AMD or Intel.
http://www.techspot.com/review/734-battlefield-4-benchm...
That is a really, really crappy review of CPU speed, worthless. Obviously the speed is being limited by the video card so the processors make almost no difference. Here's a REAL review of BF 4 CPU's:
http://www.bf4blog.com/battlefield-4-retail-gpu-cpu-ben...
Look about 2/3rds down.
You can see the FX8350 & 4670K are almost tied, while the 4770K is a full 30% faster. So, yes, BF4 does indeed use a lot of cores, even the Intel threads. This shows the four cores of the 4670K equal the FX 8350's eight cores. And that's with the 8350 running 500MHz faster.
m
0
l
Samuel25 said:
Gaidax said:
Blaise170 said:
Gaidax said:
Yes, that is impressive, but really, every sane person would see clear as a day that I7s are simply superior to FX-8350 or whatever FX there is really.The point is simple - the person here is not sure if I7-4770K is a good investment and the answer is that it damn sure is and bringing some 8 core trash CPUs' which once in a blue moon manage to get close, won't be really helping to calm him down and proceed with a purchase.
I won't argue that he should definitely purchase the 4770K, but the FX series is not "trash".
FX series could be much better, but AMD simply fell short of delivering what potentially could be the king. I guess the Faildozer made them make a knee-jerk reaction with a half-baked update.
I am frustrated with AMD really, they simply gave up the fight and ran away to please the low end market.
AMD knows what it is doing, it is vendor of the next gen consoles, it went to 8 cores on consoles because it wanted to start this war, because it wanted games to become multi threaded, their game, their rule...and who said AMD is going to please the low end market!!?
who said that, AMD is focusing on its 8 core APUs from now on...streamroller is the 8 core APUs exaclty like the one on xbox one and ps4You seem to forget that the consoles created artificial demand for 8 core processors.
Consoles need 8 cores because they have to keep an OS running in the background and to make up for the abysmal IPC per each core of the CPU.
Desktop prcessors like FX and Haswell has far better IPC than the Jaguars in the consoles, so they don't need to have more cores to prevent the 4 or such that they have from bottlenecking.
m
0
l
babernet_1 said:
Lessthannil said:
Not even for the forseeable future. Games today already struggle to tap out Haswell i5's 4 cores at 100% load.AMD processors will see a benefit in 8 core optimization, putting it around the locked Ivy Bridge's i5 performance.
Even with the 8 core hype train BF4 is, an FX 8 core processor doesn't show any benefit over 4 cores, whether they be from AMD or Intel.
http://www.techspot.com/review/734-battlefield-4-benchm...
That is a really, really crappy review of CPU speed, worthless. Obviously the speed is being limited by the video card so the processors make almost no difference. Here's a REAL review of BF 4 CPU's:
http://www.bf4blog.com/battlefield-4-retail-gpu-cpu-ben...
Look about 2/3rds down.
You can see the FX8350 & 4670K are almost tied, while the 4770K is a full 30% faster. So, yes, BF4 does indeed use a lot of cores, even the Intel threads. This shows the four cores of the 4670K equal the FX 8350's eight cores. And that's with the 8350 running 500MHz faster.
"Indicators of CPU performance in Battlefield 4 were better than expected, even on dual-core models can comfortably play the single player campaign."
m
0
l
Lessthannil said:
babernet_1 said:
Lessthannil said:
Not even for the forseeable future. Games today already struggle to tap out Haswell i5's 4 cores at 100% load.AMD processors will see a benefit in 8 core optimization, putting it around the locked Ivy Bridge's i5 performance.
Even with the 8 core hype train BF4 is, an FX 8 core processor doesn't show any benefit over 4 cores, whether they be from AMD or Intel.
http://www.techspot.com/review/734-battlefield-4-benchm...
That is a really, really crappy review of CPU speed, worthless. Obviously the speed is being limited by the video card so the processors make almost no difference. Here's a REAL review of BF 4 CPU's:
http://www.bf4blog.com/battlefield-4-retail-gpu-cpu-ben...
Look about 2/3rds down.
You can see the FX8350 & 4670K are almost tied, while the 4770K is a full 30% faster. So, yes, BF4 does indeed use a lot of cores, even the Intel threads. This shows the four cores of the 4670K equal the FX 8350's eight cores. And that's with the 8350 running 500MHz faster.
"Indicators of CPU performance in Battlefield 4 were better than expected, even on dual-core models can comfortably play the single player campaign."
Just wait till we have the multiplayer reviews. Probably will need an Intel Hex core.
m
0
l
PotatoeJuiceBox
November 2, 2013 6:05:29 PM
ok so what im getting at here is that the 8350 is good for being like around $130 less then the i7 4770k. and that the gpu plays a big roll here. because if i were to build a intel pc, and not a amd pc, i would be pairing the i7 4770k with the gtx 780. and if i were to get a amd pc, i would pair the 8350 with the r9 290x, which hasnt even released yet. and that i7 right now is overkill, but later on, it wouldnt...right?
m
0
l
PotatoeJuiceBox said:
ok so what im getting at here is that the 8350 is good for being like around $130 less then the i7 4770k. and that the gpu plays a big roll here. because if i were to build a intel pc, and not a amd pc, i would be pairing the i7 4770k with the gtx 780. and if i were to get a amd pc, i would pair the 8350 with the r9 290x, which hasnt even released yet. and that i7 right now is overkill, but later on, it wouldnt...right?Yes. The i7 would dominate in performance in most (if not all) games, but the cheaper 8350 would handle games well too.
m
0
l
- 1 / 2
- 2
- Newest
Related resources
- Solvedfor how many years can i play games with Fx-8320 Forum
- Solvedhow many years i5-4670k CPU can play games.? Forum
- SolvedHow many cores does minecraft use? Forum
- SolvedIs 8gb enough for the next 3 years? and how much ram does Battlefield 4 use? Forum
- Solvedconfusion about how many time we can use windows 8 key when we format our pc Forum
- How many years would this setup last for gaming? Forum
- How many cores do fps games use. Forum
- how many cores video editing and gaming use, at the same time ? Forum
- Solvedhow many gb does windows 8 64 bit use? Forum
- SolvedHow many watts does my gaming system use? Forum
- How do I need to/want to get hiberfil.sys back to use the FastBoot on my Asrock M8. Many failed attempts so far. Forum
- How many years longer will the gtx 660Ti last still run games on ultra if overclocked? Forum
- Solvedjust Wana know which is better fx8350 or the Intel i7 4770k ? I'll mostly use the processor for gaming . For at least 3years Forum
- Solvedi have window 8 vaio laptop with 2 gb ram i3 core processor.it is one year older.Now a days it performs slower than initial da Forum
- SolvedCan games use more than 6gb VRAM? Also AMD 8 core question. Forum
- More resources
!