Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Interesting Page i stumbled upon (BF3 Benchmarks AMD vs Intel)

Last response: in CPUs
Share
a b à CPUs
June 26, 2012 3:51:21 PM

Quote:
they accualy showed the REAL results where as anymore no one does...


If you are looking at places with no "real" results, your looking at the wrong websites.

Most legitimate websites have similar performance results for hardware and games.

Not too sure where/what your trying to get at with this post.
June 26, 2012 3:55:41 PM

Chainzsaw said:
Quote:
they accualy showed the REAL results where as anymore no one does...


If you are looking at places with no "real" results, your looking at the wrong websites.

Most legitimate websites have similar performance results for hardware and games.

Not too sure where/what your trying to get at with this post.


Idk those benchmarks are all over tomshardware...saying the 6100 and 6870's get owned by a 2600k or 2500k,Or bulldozer gets destroyed in gaming...i laugh at that because i own one...And all im gettin at in this post is..I find it funny EVERYONE hates on bulldozer but it competes the same in games...thats all. :sol: 
Related resources
a b à CPUs
a b å Intel
a b À AMD
June 26, 2012 4:03:24 PM

from that article, it does seem like the always-gpu-bound bf3 single player mode(doesn't say otherwise) performs the same with any cpu as long as it's a capable 4 core.
however, i did notice that the amd cpus are working harder i.e. cpus' usages are higher, despite providing marginally lower fps than intel cpu which are barely flexing their cpu muscles (from task manager cpu usage graphs). strangely, athlon ii x4 and fx4100 are working equally hard. lol.
a b à CPUs
June 26, 2012 4:07:05 PM

Your beating a dead horse, this topic has been created and destroyed many times on TH.

Most modern CPU's from AMD and Intel can run anything well.

I don't hate on bulldozer. But in hindsight it was marketed/hyped to be something it wasn't.

So saying everyone hates on it is completely false.

Heck the FX lines are very good for what they cost.
June 26, 2012 4:27:34 PM

Chainzsaw said:
Your beating a dead horse, this topic has been created and destroyed many times on TH.

Most modern CPU's from AMD and Intel can run anything well.

I don't hate on bulldozer. But in hindsight it was marketed/hyped to be something it wasn't.

So saying everyone hates on it is completely false.

Heck the FX lines are very good for what they cost.


I admit i should have said Most people hate on bulldozer but but yes and most people are to blind to see that.Sure it was hyped alot but still it keeps up with intel's newer chips in gaming.
June 26, 2012 4:30:55 PM

de5_Roy said:
from that article, it does seem like the always-gpu-bound bf3 single player mode(doesn't say otherwise) performs the same with any cpu as long as it's a capable 4 core.
however, i did notice that the amd cpus are working harder i.e. cpus' usages are higher, despite providing marginally lower fps than intel cpu which are barely flexing their cpu muscles (from task manager cpu usage graphs). strangely, athlon ii x4 and fx4100 are working equally hard. lol.


True,Amd needs to step it up on their 4 cores,I think they were so focused on the 6 and 8 core cpu's they just threw the 4100 together and called it a 4 core lol.But one thing i noticed is that say in games like GTA4 i ran the benchmark and i only use 42% of my 6100 where as the 2500k uses 72%
a b à CPUs
a b å Intel
a b À AMD
June 26, 2012 4:50:29 PM

^^ there is only one bulldozer cpu die. fx 8xxx cpus are the only fully featured i.e. every core/module/cache enabled cpus. the rest of the cpus are simply derivatives of fx 8xxx cpus.
@thread - this topic is discussed so much that it's useless to do it again. this is my last post.
edit: i couldn't care less about either intel or amd. but vs threads like these turn into bickering, arguing and trolling real quick. i am bailing before it happens. :)  no offense meant.
a b à CPUs
June 26, 2012 5:24:07 PM

Oh boy, here we go.

Those are Single player benchmarks. In Multi-player (that's how most of us play BF3 right?) the Bulldozer performs horribly compared to a Intel quad core and nothing even similiar to what those benchmarks show.

If you want to go on about how awesome your overclocked bulldozer is in gaming, check this out. A stock i3-2100 is as fast or faster than a FX4100/6100 even when overclocked to 4.5ghz.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-fx-pentium-a...

Those are the facts. End of discussion.
June 26, 2012 5:43:38 PM

Hurray!

I love proving my point!

That's what this post is about... justifying what you want to buy...

Dry
a c 141 à CPUs
a b À AMD
June 26, 2012 5:50:26 PM

geekapproved said:
Oh boy, here we go.

Those are Single player benchmarks. In Multi-player (that's how most of us play BF3 right?) the Bulldozer performs horribly compared to a Intel quad core and nothing even similiar to what those benchmarks show.

If you want to go on about how awesome your overclocked bulldozer is in gaming, check this out. A stock i3-2100 is as fast or faster than a FX4100/6100 even when overclocked to 4.5ghz.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-fx-pentium-a...

Those are the facts. End of discussion.


Exactly right. In games in general the Bulldozer get's beaten out by the little dual core I3. My guess is you also believe AMD's marketing hype that the 8100 is really an 8 core CPU, 6100 is a six core and 4100 is a quad core. Echo how about you look at some real benchmarks.








" alt="" class="imgLz frmImg " />" alt="" class="imgLz frmImg " />
June 26, 2012 5:53:20 PM

I just hate to ask, but they always say that the FX 8xxx can keep up with an i7 in certain task, but I have no idea what those are?

Anyone know?

Dry
a b à CPUs
June 26, 2012 6:36:10 PM

As has been stated: SP BF3 is horrendously GPU limited. MP is a different story.
a c 82 à CPUs
June 26, 2012 7:31:13 PM

DryCreamer said:
I just hate to ask, but they always say that the FX 8xxx can keep up with an i7 in certain task, but I have no idea what those are?

Anyone know?

Dry


The 8 core FX models can keep up with the i7s in certain heavily threaded tasks that leverage all 8 cores on the CPU. Games aren't among these, it's mostly productivity software that is that heavily threaded. So the FX can hold it's own in stuff like Video Encoding, Adobe Creative Suite, stuff like that. When you get into programs that use only 1 or 2 threads, FX just tanks in performance, because AMD chose to push core count rather than instructions per clock cycle.
June 26, 2012 8:33:36 PM

And these are those made up benchmarks i was talking about earlier! Hahaha I just find it so funny that these are getting outperformed by a dual core? Yeah okay...Love to see a dual core max out bf3,gta4,crysis...Oh and also they are real cores you asshats...Look in the bios,Look in task manager,Look in Hwmonitor look in Cpu monitor on the desktop ALL CORES oh no they share the load,But that doesnt make them half the cores you idiot...Lol why is tomshardware so overridden with intel fanfags...But whats funny is that if my 6100 is a 3core then why do i stack up to a 2600k and 2500k in gaming? why do i get the same if not better fps in bf3 comare to a 2500k? using all the same gpu...Jesus you people are so narrow minded...I dont hate intel but when people say amd cant keep up with gaming they are idiotic.
a c 141 à CPUs
a b À AMD
June 26, 2012 8:41:33 PM

Yea because more cores is automatically better right. Guess you also believe AMD's marketing hype that the 8100's are true 8 core processors. Ugh AMD fanboys are so pathetic. Toms hardware benchmarks aren't fake despite what you try to tell us. Bulldozer is that bad get over it. Yes it get's beaten out by the I3 I5 and I7 in gaming. To me you sound like a noob trying to justify your buy but the only one you're fooling is yourself. :pfff: 
a c 533 à CPUs
a b å Intel
a c 235 À AMD
June 26, 2012 8:46:04 PM

This thread has reached it's end of life.
!