Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

Cpu for the future? More cores vs core performance (Impact DirectX 12 with play of this)

Last response: in CPUs
Share
June 25, 2014 10:52:13 AM

I am currently wondering which CPU will give me the most longevity. I will be keeping my current graphics card until DirectX 12 and mantle are being utilized frequently. I just need an answer with which CPU would be better for the future of gaming. DirectX 12 is all about spreading the workload. So I think that maybe AMD might be the way to go for the future of a gaming PC. I have always been an Intel guy in the past, but an i7 is out of my budget. Let me know what all of you think?

FX-8350 vs i5-4690 ?

Keep in mind that the price difference between the two is almost nothing and I do not plan on Overclocking.

Best solution

a c 77 à CPUs
June 25, 2014 10:58:56 AM

The i5-4690 is still stronger than the FX-8350, even when all cores are being utilized on both.
Share
a b à CPUs
June 25, 2014 10:59:24 AM

For the future? Go for AMD FX-8350.
m
0
l
Related resources
June 25, 2014 3:34:45 PM

Rationale said:
The i5-4690 is still stronger than the FX-8350, even when all cores are being utilized on both.


Are you sure this is true? Everything i have read says that the FX-8350 is better at multitasking.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
June 25, 2014 3:36:20 PM

It is because it has more cores.
m
0
l
a c 77 à CPUs
June 25, 2014 8:41:26 PM

Tator256 said:
Rationale said:
The i5-4690 is still stronger than the FX-8350, even when all cores are being utilized on both.


Are you sure this is true? Everything i have read says that the FX-8350 is better at multitasking.


The FX-8350's cores are modular and weak, and share resources. In true multithreaded applications, like video editing programs and some benchmarks, the FX-8350 is marginally ahead of the i5-4670, and I check the 4690 below.

Games, however, don't work that way.

99% of games are meant for 4 cores or less, and the i5-4690 is more than twice as powerful as the FX-8350 in those.
In the 1% of games that use 8 cores, they still don't work like the artificial benchmarks. In artificial benchmarks (Passmark, Cinebench, etc) the load is shared from all 8 cores equally. That does not happen in games. In games, different scripts and tasks are run through different cores, and if one core gets bogged down it drags the whole CPU down. The FX-8350's modular cores choke on the inherently inconsistent requirements of games, allowing the i5-4690 to be ahead even in games that use 8 cores.

And, oddly enough, the i5-4690 is such a beast of a CPU that it completely matches the FX-8350 even in artificial benchmarks designed for 8 cores (which normally favor AMD), and destroys the FX-8350 in the other areas. The 4690 also has a marginally better value for the cost/performance ratio.
http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i5-4690-vs-AMD-FX-83...
m
1
l
June 25, 2014 8:57:40 PM

TechCIDLC said:
It is because it has more cores.


No it doesn't.

"Bulldozer has what AMD calls "Modules. Each module features two integer cores and a shared floating point core. So the FX-8150 has 4 modules which consist of 8 integer cores, each pair of integer cores shares 1 floating point core." - maui67

They are not true cores.
m
1
l
a c 77 à CPUs
June 25, 2014 9:01:41 PM

berguy said:
TechCIDLC said:
It is because it has more cores.


No it doesn't.

"Bulldozer has what AMD calls "Modules. Each module features two integer cores and a shared floating point core. So the FX-8150 has 4 modules which consist of 8 integer cores, each pair of integer cores shares 1 floating point core." - maui67

They are not true cores.


Exactly.

I'd also like to point out, AMD's modular cores and Intel's hyperthreading are implemented very differently, but they end up giving similar performance to each second thread. If Intel made an FX-6300, they'd probably call it a tri-core. If AMD made an i3 with HT, they'd probably call it a quad-core.
m
0
l
June 25, 2014 9:05:50 PM

Rationale said:
berguy said:
TechCIDLC said:
It is because it has more cores.


No it doesn't.

"Bulldozer has what AMD calls "Modules. Each module features two integer cores and a shared floating point core. So the FX-8150 has 4 modules which consist of 8 integer cores, each pair of integer cores shares 1 floating point core." - maui67

They are not true cores.


Exactly.

I'd also like to point out, AMD's modular cores and Intel's hyperthreading are implemented very differently, but they end up giving similar performance to each second thread. If Intel made an FX-6300, they'd probably call it a tri-core. If AMD made an i3 with HT, they'd probably call it a quad-core.


It's marketing. However, they are not too similar in the sense that a dual core with hyperthreading can't be called a quad core. The reason being that it's considered false advertising.

The FX series isn't necessarily false advertising because it's still eight "cores," it's just not the same as Intel's cores.
m
0
l
!