Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AMD fanboi threatens to defect to intel camp?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
November 7, 2011 9:28:54 AM

Hi guys. Currently running Phenom 1100T and Asus 990FX sabertooth. Being a gamer I am conscious of the need for performance but would prefer to keep a lid on the budget. Have not had the sabertooth long and got the Phenom for a song after upgrading from X4 Athlon. To date I have not had any real reservations with the Phenom or its performance when gaming etc.

My question is this, is it worth waiting for a bulldozer revision, and get the 8 core monster, or even wait for the Piledriver variant which is AM3+ when I want to upgrade my CPU (thinking the games of 2012 are going to just be even gruntier again than presently), OR, should I defect to the intel camp and ditch the Sabertooth and Phenom combo entirely?? Is there that much of a performance gap that I'm limiting my horizons by sticking with the red team?? On another forum someone claimed that my GTX 580 was pointless in an AMD rig since no AMD setup could possibly push it hard enough and it would only bottleneck the thing??

Poke per £, I'm thinking a gamer would always be best served by an AMD rig, after all, allegedly no game really stretches a quad or hex core CPU, games don't use CPUs right? Is the intel performance gap even that large or are we talking 10% on the most crazy games.

I have only got a 22inch monitor might upgrade to 24 so I have no desire or ability to push for a ridiculous res of more than my native resolution at present, so my performance demand isn't that huge really. I have no desire to go wit hthat 3D nonsense or more than one monitor either. I'm just looking for a rig that will run the latest games, at max settings and good solid FPS on a single, simple gaming machine that an idiot like me can A afford and B maintain.
a b à CPUs
November 7, 2011 9:54:19 AM

If you careful read some reviews you will conclude that it's a waste of money to buy the AMD BD for gaming. Since it's IPC is lower than the 6-core and the 4-core Phenom it would be downgrade for games IMO.

Since you have a very reasonable CPU, the smart thing to do is to wait the new Ivy Bridge and the Piledriver, and then, only then, decide if it's a smart choice to buy one or another.

Another thing to think, since you will be playing in 1080p (I suppose this is your monitor resolution), the weight shifts towards the VGA. So, if you want a better system, look for a VGA upgrade.

GTX 580 SLI could be a nice way to go. (or again, wait the new Nvidia and AMD cards)
a b à CPUs
November 7, 2011 10:09:50 AM

FYI,
there's some reviews comparing your 1100T, the FX-8150, i5-2500, i7-2600 (all in stock)

Crysis 2
No difference between them

Arma II and Shogun 2
Arma II:
Minimum fps, comparing to your 1100T -
FX-8150 3,4% faster
i5-2500 45,76% faster
i7-2600 55,93% faster

Shogun 2:
Minimum fps, comparing to your 1100T -
FX-8150 bugged
i5-2500 50% faster
i7-2600 50% faster

F1 2011 in 1080p
Average fps, comparing to your 1100T -
FX-8150 6,29% faster
i5-2500 48,38% faster
i7-2600 50,36% faster

WoW in 1080p
Average fps, comparing to your 1100T -
FX-8150 2,73% faster
i5-2500 39,45% faster
i7-2600 40,21% faster
Related resources
a b à CPUs
November 7, 2011 10:53:30 AM

^^ Proving why Crysis 2 is a horrible CPU benchmarking tool...
a b à CPUs
November 7, 2011 11:09:57 AM

Arma II GTX 580 SLI & Tri-SLI
Comparing FX-8150@4,6Ghz and i5-2500k@4,8Ghz all in 1200p

GTX 580 SLI
500 view distance
min fps - i5-2500k is 366,67% faster
avg fps - i5-2500k is 73,86% faster

3000 view distance
min fps - i5-2500k is 250,00% faster
avg fps - i5-2500k is 61,81% faster

10000 view distance
min fps - i5-2500k is 366,67% faster
avg fps - i5-2500k is 66,87% faster


GTX 580 Tri-SLI
500 view distance
min fps - i5-2500k is 167,50% faster
avg fps - i5-2500k is 61,82% faster

3000 view distance
min fps - i5-2500k is 183,33% faster
avg fps - i5-2500k is 65,29% faster

10000 view distance
min fps - i5-2500k is 500,00% faster (1 fps to 6 fps.. blah)
avg fps - i5-2500k is 64,94% faster

It really looks that intel 2nd generation can provide more power to Sli (Duo and Tri) systems comparing to FX-8150
a b à CPUs
November 7, 2011 11:17:52 AM

Are you having trouble running games? No? Then what would be the point of upgrading?
a b à CPUs
November 7, 2011 11:28:45 AM

FinneousPJ said:
Are you having trouble running games? No? Then what would be the point of upgrading?


Well, if I hadn't any problems running games now.

The point of upgrading would be:
- Cause I can.
- Cause I just want something better.
- Cause I don't want to buy a game within 6 months and it don't run in max settings.
- Cause I can't run Witcher 2 with Ubersampling activated (actually this is true, a single GTX 580 can't do that)
November 7, 2011 11:48:46 AM

My general approach to upgrades is, don't replace the part until it can't perform at the level you expect. For me, that means full resolution on medium settings. Once there are game I can't handle, I upgrade. My last PC lasted almost 6 years, but then again I sorta stopped buying new PC games over the last two years.

Upgrading to a i5/7 would be extremely expensive ($300 minimum) for what Tom's calls a two tier step (in their best gaming CPU for the money article). If you aren't overclocking, then you could upgrade to a X4 955 for almost nothing (sell the X6) and you'd move up one tier. I don't know which overclocks higher, but my guess is the X4 since less cores = less heat.

Personally, I'd wait and see what AMD puts out next year and then possibly upgrade to that for a cost effective upgrade.
a b à CPUs
November 7, 2011 12:19:09 PM

Yeah I agree with nordlead.
a c 473 à CPUs
November 7, 2011 1:16:01 PM

Games do not use more than 4 cores currently. The increase in performance from 3 cores to 4 cores is rather small; on average only 6% based on an Anandtech article I've read earlier this year. Therefore, going for a future CPU that has 6, 8, or 12 cores for a gaming PC is a waste of money. As long as your PC gives you acceptable performance, then I would not bother upgrading.

Start saving up your money for that rainy day when you finally do become disappointed with your PC's performance.
November 7, 2011 1:26:33 PM

I'm even more mystified about what to do now. I don't think another 580 in SLI is worth the hassle yet, thats £400 a lone for a new card. A mobo and intel CPU would be nearly as much, but the gain and future proofing would be worth it.

I'll wait and see how AMD shape up over then coming months. Hopefully piledriver will pull something out of the bag.
a b à CPUs
November 7, 2011 1:33:48 PM

Well, if ur games running ok.
Definitely it's better to wait. :) 
a b à CPUs
November 7, 2011 1:35:11 PM

That doesn't make sense. Having money on a bank account for a future upgrade is the best future proofing you can do. Not upgrading when you don't need to.
a b à CPUs
November 7, 2011 2:59:15 PM

imostlydomurder said:
I'll wait and see how AMD shape up over then coming months. Hopefully piledriver will pull something out of the bag.


Considering that you already waited a long time for BD, then what's a few more months?

OTOH it seems AMD fans are always playing the waiting game. However you might want to check out AMD's change in direction that they are supposed to announce Wednesday. If they back off desktop, that would imply you might be waiting a long time for PD.

Myself, I'm waiting on Ivy Bridge and a 28nm high-end GPU. I read this morning that TSMC is claiming up to 45% improvement for their 28nm process, which should lower power and up the speed over the 40nm versions.
November 7, 2011 3:17:53 PM

as it stands, that 1100t is probably amd's best gaming chip at the moment. i have to believe the fx-8150 will be after they release the next stepping version, especially with 5.5ghz overclocks. do you overclock your 1100t? you definitely should.
!