Sign-in / Sign-up
Your question
Closed

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

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • Directx
Last response: in CPUs
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.

More about : cpu future cores core performance impact directx play

Best solution

a c 105 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 c 79 à CPUs
June 25, 2014 10:59:24 AM

For the future? Go for AMD FX-8350.
Score
1
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.
Score
0
a c 79 à CPUs
June 25, 2014 3:36:20 PM

It is because it has more cores.
Score
0
a c 105 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...
Score
1
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.
Score
1
a c 105 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.
Score
0
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.
Score
0
February 28, 2015 11:22:56 AM

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


not to be a prick, but i work for a benchmarking start up in italy and that is simply not true. the i5 is better generally because of the higher single core performance, whereas the 8350 is worse on singlecore performance and most applications are not able to utilise all the cores.
however, the moment all of the 8 cores start getting utilised, the 8350 shreds the i5 apart like cotton candy.
I generally go for intel btw, and i did both synthetic and real world benchmarks, and i was very surprised by the 8350's gain in performance once all of its potential is utilized. I'd also like to point out the i5 kept winning in synthetic benchmarks, but the moment you moved to the real world test, BAEM, the 8350 was literally soaring, and surprisingly competed quite well with the i7 as well (which is why i HATE synthetic benchmarks, terribly unreliable).
I know i know, most games only use 4 cores, but we're seeing more games starting to reccomend 6, and once DX12 comes out, i expect the fx series to improve dramatically, seein as how they are working on proper workload division among cores and lower overhead, plus the displacement of bottleneck overload onto the gpu (not too sure about the last part, its not quite clear what they meant by it and whether they'll actually deliver)
Score
0
August 21, 2015 11:34:21 AM

Tator256 said:
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.


I don't think anyone knows the correct answer to your question yet. As of 8/21/2015, only one video game has been released, that uses dx12 natively. Benchmarks have been made, comparing Nvidia, and AMD's top-of-the-line GPU's, AS WELL as comparing two intel CPU's, (one with six cores, the other with four(no hyper-threading)) to see how they preformed using dx12.

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2015/08/directx-12-tested...

There wasn't a significant difference between the CPU of four threads, and the CPU of 12 threads, but if there was a difference, it was usually the four-threaded CPU that had the higher frame-rates.

This really tells us nothing about the future of CPU architecture, and how many cores will be best, because dx12 is so young, and so are the drivers for the hardware running it.
*I should note that AMD's GPU's saw improvements in frame-rate under dx12, while Nvidia's cards actually saw a decline in FR, but I'm sure that this is a matter of software, rather than hardware limitations, and Nvidia will eventually release drivers that see improvement under dx12 as well.

As you mentioned, one of the most exciting prospects of dx12 is its much needed utilization of multiple CPU cores, especially when it comes to "draw calls". I remember seeing a chart somewhere that measured the draw calls/sec of different CPU's, and the conclusion was that more threads meant more draw calls/sec. But I can't find that chart now.

If I was to build a PC at this exact moment, I would probably choose a quad-core CPU that supports hyper-threading. Quad core is going to be here for the foreseeable future, as game developers wouldn't be heartless enough to design a game REQUIRING more than four cores at this point in time, seeing as a very small percentage of PC gamers have a CPU with more than four cores right now.

It might be true that eight-core CPU's eventually preform better under dx12, but we will have to wait and see. Intel just released their "Skylake" architecture, based on the 14nm node, and AMD is soon to release their "Zen" architecture, which I know very little about.
Both should be a viable option if your goal is "future-proof"

Score
0
a c 1128 à CPUs
August 21, 2015 12:24:59 PM

Please do not necro old threads.
Score
0