Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

[CPU] is AMD's phenom 2 Really not that great for gaming?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
December 4, 2012 11:22:31 PM

i was just wondering, and after seeing this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khoTYa3m9u8) it has kinda made me reconsider using intel.
is the video correct?
thanks!!!
a c 78 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
December 4, 2012 11:26:34 PM

Exactly what in that video makes you think the Phenom II is not good for gaming?

The guy is running a 560 non-TI.....
m
0
l
December 4, 2012 11:29:33 PM

I've just heard soooo many people saying "oh Intel's the way to go, don't get amd!!" and i just wanted to see if it was true, sorry if i worded the question weird.
m
0
l
Related resources
a b à CPUs
December 4, 2012 11:29:56 PM

AMD CPUs are good processors = they do what CPUs do, not as good as Intel CPUs, but damn well good enough. Especially if you overclock them!
m
0
l
a c 78 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
December 4, 2012 11:30:42 PM

lol... Well, you be asking a question that many have asked before and has been met with fierce debate on both sides..

All I can say is, I'm quite happy with the "gaming machine" in my signature. It does everything I ask of it. And yes, BF3 is occasionally one of those things.
m
0
l
December 4, 2012 11:33:18 PM

ya, my friend has his phenom up to ~3.8 and he says in runs dirt 3 at 100fps, he also runs 8 gigs of ram and 2 7770's in crossfire. he completely insisted Intel uses synthetic benchmarks and that those numbers don't matter
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 4, 2012 11:40:14 PM

Numbers do matter but, for the price you pay for AMD, you get a lot. I just wished it was still possible to buy brand new Phenom II X6 BEs ._.
m
0
l
a c 78 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
December 4, 2012 11:44:16 PM

Synthetic benchmarks do have their place honestly. And yes, Intel does have an advantage in terms of better and more efficient CPU design. They wouldn't make the synthetic programs if they didn't serve a purpose.

But there are some things that people overlook either willingly or lack of knowledge.. For example... If you're playing a game that on an AMD processor gets 100 FPS and an Intel gets a 120.. Then theres no discernible difference between either one if you're playing on a monitor that is 60hz (and the vast majority of computer monitors are)

You can look at those "benchmarkable" differences and say, aha! the Intel CPU is clearly better. Well sure.. but your monitor is only showing 60FPS no matter how many FPS the system is sending to it. Now, if an AMD processor only gets 40 FPS in a game you really want to play and an Intel gets 60FPS, then you have something worth considering, but the answers aren't really as black and white. As far as gaming goes, more often than not, the video card is going to be the most heavily influencing component in terms of gaming performance.

m
0
l
December 4, 2012 11:44:47 PM

i have heard of such a processor, are they as good as everyone says they are? or should i just get a 8- core fx-8350?
m
0
l
a c 78 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
December 4, 2012 11:45:56 PM

slendermanFTW said:
i have heard of such a processor, are they as good as everyone says they are? or should i just get a 8- core fx-8350?

Like I said, it really comes down to your individual needs, theres no simple answer. What games are you looking to play, at what resolution, are you building a new system and do you have a budget restraint?
m
0
l
December 4, 2012 11:49:24 PM

ok, im going to be playing games like skyrim,bf3,borderlands 2, at either 1680x1050 or 1920x1080 if i upgrade my monitor
and im building a new system with a budget of about $1000 US but if a part is good for the money, i will be willing to increase it by $200
m
0
l
a c 78 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
December 4, 2012 11:52:36 PM

With that kind of budget in mind, you can get a decent gaming system with an AMD or Intel CPU.

I would be looking at the Ivy Bridge i5s or the FX-8320/8350. Depending on if you want to overclock or not. If not overclocking, the 8350 or the i5-3450 are both decent choices.

For the video card I would be looking at 7870 or GTX 660 TIs and up. Possibly 7950/7970 or GTX 670 depending on how everything else fits into the budget.

Power supplies, you definitely want to pick a decent one. Don't just get any cheap old thing, this is something a lot of new builders do, spend their money on nice components and cheap out on the power supply.
m
0
l
December 5, 2012 12:09:10 AM

any motherboard you could recommend, i plan to overclock a little bit, depending on what the base clock is
m
0
l
December 5, 2012 12:37:11 AM

It depends on whether you go amd or intel. you can get a fairly feature rich and overclockable amd 970 chipset for pretty cheap.

If you go intel, the asrock extreme 4 z77 mobo is a good bet for an unlocked i5 k. if you get a locked one, get a h77 or b75 mobo.

If you get a locked i5 you won't be overclocking, but you won't need to. Part of amd's value is relatively cheap unlocked processors you can overclock.

Generally they have more cores per dollar than intel, but lower instructions per clock(ipc) per core. a 965BE is better than a fx 8000 series cpu when gaming.

A slower non k i5 quad is as fast or faster than an overclocked amd cpu. Intel also uses less power than amd.

with unlocked multipliers and late model intel chipset models not tolerating base clock manipulation well, adjusting multiplier is the the preferred(or only) way to really get notably more performance out of most modern processors(if the one you pick supports that functionality).

I agree about hd7870, 7950 and 7970(however much you can afford will last you longer). Think about something like xfx 550w for a psu.
m
0
l
a c 78 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
December 5, 2012 1:20:35 AM

slendermanFTW said:
any motherboard you could recommend, i plan to overclock a little bit, depending on what the base clock is

You know, I used to recommend the Asrock boards myself, to echo what jtenorj is saying, although evidence has come to light that Asrock cut corners on certain quality things both on their vaunted Z68 Extreme 3 and Z77 Extreme 4. So, I'm going to stick with Asus here.


Good overclocking boards for both AMD and Intel, and both around the same price range and similar features-
AMD-
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

Intel-
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

---

As far as jtenorj's thing about the FX series vs the Phenom II. I'm of the opinion that the new Piledriver (thats your FX-x3xx series) are worthy successors to the Phenom IIs. But everything else he said is basically correct.
m
0
l
December 5, 2012 2:56:35 AM

new is not always better. clock for clock, fx is slower than phenom in games. Since both can be overclocked and phenom is cheaper, phenom wins.
m
0
l
a c 78 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
December 5, 2012 3:12:34 AM

jtenorj said:
new is not always better. clock for clock, fx is slower than phenom in games. Since both can be overclocked and phenom is cheaper, phenom wins.

Clock for clock never struck me as a particularly useful metric.. Well, I guess its useful, but insofar as it demonstrates how different architectures compare in efficiency. Beyond that, its useless. Processors run at the clock speed they run at. Nobody is going to buy a FX-8350 thats 4.0GHZ stock and downclock it to say 3.4GHZ to play games on (the stock speed of a Phenom II 965). It just doesn't make sense in the practical world.

You also have to keep in mind that Phenom IIs have a relatively low ceiling for overclocking, they tend to top out at 4.2-4.4GHZ, and its rare to see em that high. Mine has the potential to do 4.2, but 4.0 is a more stable "daily OC". Even though theres little risk of frying a chip these days as long as you take proper precautions and do research to know what your limits are, you still probably don't want to do a daily overclock at its very peak. Now, FX 8s cores are well known to hit much higher clock speeds, potentially as high as 5.0, although more realistically, a 4.5GHZ daily OC would probably be fine. So the clock for clock thing becomes less relevant again when you figure in the Phenom IIs top OC.

Don't get me wrong, as I stated when I first posted in this thread, I love my Phenom II, but its time for new builders wishing to go AMD to look at the newer CPUs. PileDriver is what Bulldozer should have been.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
December 5, 2012 3:34:14 AM

They are great. Just buy a better video card.

spend 3x as much money on gpu as you do the cpu before the cpu won't be good enough generally.
m
0
l
a c 78 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
December 5, 2012 3:36:18 AM

iam2thecrowe said:
phenom II provides similar performance per clock speed to intel core 2 quad - see link
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/88?vs=50
even the fastest phenom II can not even compare with intels latest quad core offerings
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/362?vs=702
and amd's best 8 core cpu out trails intels latest mid range quad core for gaming
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/362?vs=697

I'm sorry, did you have a point in posting here? You get 5 points for answering questions that NOBODY asked.. idiot. Seriously, the fanboyism needs to take a friggin hike on these forums. You clearly did not read anything the OP mentioned (or anyone else for that matter) you just blither on about blah blah, heres links and bye. You have contributed nothing to this thread. How about an original thought for starters?
m
0
l
December 5, 2012 4:10:20 AM

say you get 965be to 4ghz vs a fx 8320 or 8350 at 4.5 ghz. The greater per clock performance of phenom will even things out. Phenom is 90 bucks where fx is 160-200 bucks. how much more do you want to pay for so little extra(or possibly a bit worse) performance? phenom remains amd's value king(while supplies last, anyway).
m
0
l
a c 78 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
December 5, 2012 4:45:55 AM

jtenorj said:
say you get 965be to 4ghz vs a fx 8320 or 8350 at 4.5 ghz. The greater per clock performance of phenom will even things out. Phenom is 90 bucks where fx is 160-200 bucks. how much more do you want to pay for so little extra(or possibly a bit worse) performance? phenom remains amd's value king(while supplies last, anyway).

Sure I can go along with that, if the system is strictly for gaming, the Phenom IIs are only $85 right now from Newegg, which is a hard deal to pass up. Although, I do believe (no I cannot prove it) that the 8 core FX would fair better in BF3 multiplayer, or the upcoming medal of honor (which uses the same engine as BF3), and possibly other games will favor the extra cores as well.


As far as those extra cores go.. Now they do have this open Beta, FX-8150s actually had a slight edge against SB i7s. Granted, an unnoticeable one in terms of practical gameplay.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/10/11/amd_bulldozer...

Thats about as close as you can really get to a multiplayer bench from any respectable tech site.. Since respectable tech sites don't do em, since they're too unreliable.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
December 5, 2012 4:57:55 AM

slendermanFTW said:
ok, im going to be playing games like skyrim,bf3,borderlands 2, at either 1680x1050 or 1920x1080 if i upgrade my monitor
and im building a new system with a budget of about $1000 US but if a part is good for the money, i will be willing to increase it by $200



With those games, your $1000 budget, and at 1080p your best bet would be a i5 3570k setup with a 7950.

None of the amd processors would give you that performance level when building a new PC, as they bottleneck anything higher than a gtx 560.
m
0
l
a c 78 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
December 5, 2012 5:03:40 AM

Now... that I have had a cigarette.. I'll give.. a thoughtful answer to the post that was made earlier.

First link from Crowe...

Showing Phenom II 955 vs Core2Quad 9550

Price difference... 9550 $290.. This was the high end CPU at the time of its generation's release, as you may or may not know, Intel CPUs drop very little in price from their release date.
http://ark.intel.com/products/33924/Intel-Core2-Quad-Pr...

Discontinued.. Your link may be pretty to look at from a computer geek's historian standpoint, but its completely irrelevant to in regards to building a new system TODAY.

The Phenom II 955 is still available from newegg, but its actually 10 dollars higher than the 965, so further irrelevant.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

------

Your second link showing Phenom II 980 up against an i5-3470.. This link is a bit more relevant. 980s are no longer available from newegg. The 965 again, is still available for $85. They are identical CPUs, the only difference is the stock multiplier settings, they even ship with the same cooler.. Once again.. priced at $85..

How much is the i5-3470? $199

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

Well hell, its over 2x as much. And funny, not one single bench in that link shows a 50% performance increase for over twice the money. I'm not saying the i5-3470 shouldn't be considered for the OPs build, but if you're seriously expecting an $85 CPU to perform on par with a $200, you really need to think about your logical processing.

Yes, I'm aware that when Phenom IIs were released they were priced higher than what they are today. But once again, while this may be relevant from a historian's perspective, it bears little relevance to building a system TODAY.

---

The third link, yup, the 8350 stock to stock outperforms the 980. Yes it costs more, yes, the performance difference is not that substantial. Thats about the only relevant information in your post.






m
0
l
a c 78 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
December 5, 2012 5:17:02 AM

maxalge said:
With those games, your $1000 budget, and at 1080p your best bet would be a i5 3570k setup with a 7950.

Again, I'm not saying an Intel setup isn't the best solution for the OP, but really, people need to know what they're talking about before they start advising people how to invest hundreds of their money into a computer. If nothing else, I want you to bear that in mind when you post on these forums. I real live person, is looking to invest real hard-earned money in a computer. Your advice should be thoughtful, and informed.


Quote:
None of the amd processors would give you that performance level when building a new PC, as they bottleneck anything higher than a gtx 560.


Well, let me see if I can find benchmarks of games he specifically mentioned.. Lets see if a video card bottlenecks something higher than a 560...

Battlefield 3.. with a GTX 580 CPU scaling.. Well, if the FX processors bottleneck a 580, so does the i5-2500K....

http://www.techspot.com/review/458-battlefield-3-perfor...

---

Skyrim with a GTX 680- You're onto something here, Skyrim is a fairly CPU bound game as shadow rendering is burdened upon the CPU. There is a fairly decent sized bottleneck, even so, the FX-8350 is still capable of performing just a hair below 60FPS in Tom's bench @ ultra settings. Notice they used several different resolutions. 1920x1080, it slightly exceeds the magic number of 60FPS. Which brings us back to what I already covered about noticeable performance differences and benchmarkable ones.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-rev...
---

Borderlands 2

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/2055/6/

Try as I might, I cant seem to find what video card they used in their setup, suffice to say both the i7 and FX-8350 in their setup have zero discernible difference. So, I don't think for the purposes of the point I'm trying to make, the video card really matters.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
December 5, 2012 5:17:51 AM

nekulturny said:
Now... that I have had a cigarette.. I'll give.. a thoughtful answer to the post that was made earlier.



Your second link showing Phenom II 980 up against an i5-3470.. This link is a bit more relevant. 980s are no longer available from newegg. The 965 again, is still available for $85. They are identical CPUs, the only difference is the stock multiplier settings, they even ship with the same cooler.. Once again.. priced at $85..

How much is the i5-3470? $199

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

Well hell, its over 2x as much. And funny, not one single bench in that link shows a 50% performance increase for over twice the money. I'm not saying the i5-3470 shouldn't be considered for the OPs build, but if you're seriously expecting an $85 CPU to perform on par with a $200, you really need to think about your logical processing.



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


The 2400 is about 10% slower than a 3470.


The 2400 is about 36% better in min, and 47% better in max fps than a 965.




The 3470 would be 46%, and 57% better respectively than a 965.



m
0
l
a c 78 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
December 5, 2012 5:20:50 AM


I've seen that link so many times, I'm gonna pretend I never saw this post. Its clear form your post you haven't really read a word I said, why should I give you the time of day? And there are plenty of tech site reviews that show Ivy Bridge offers little to no improvement over Sandy Bridge in terms of gaming performance. Its roughly 6-10% average in productivity type apps and synthetics the biggest improvement Ivy brought over Sandy was quicksynch which allows media encoding to be about 30% faster on an Ivy chip than an equivalent Sandy.. I'd link you a few, but I think thats something you should look up yourself.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
December 5, 2012 5:21:40 AM

nekulturny said:
Again, I'm not saying an Intel setup isn't the best solution for the OP, but really, people need to know what they're talking about before they start advising people how to invest hundreds of their money into a computer. If nothing else, I want you to bear that in mind when you post on these forums. I real live person, is looking to invest real hard-earned money in a computer. Your advice should be thoughtful, and informed.




http://techreport.com/review/23246/inside-the-second-ga...


m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
a b À AMD
December 5, 2012 5:24:08 AM

I have had AMD gaming rigs for many years and have not had any problems with playing any game I what 1080p max. I am running two AMD rigs now a AMD FX-8120 8gig with a Sapphire HD 6950 and a AMD FX-8350 8gig with a Sapphire HD 7950. Both of them can handle every game I have and I have quite a few between Steam Origin and CD/DVD games. Before that I was using a Phenom II 1090t and it to was able to hand everything I played.

With a good quality motherboard and good GPU I think that AMD CPU's can handle gaming just fine. I have been with AMD since the Pentium III mainly because of the price I just could not afford intel. And in my last build had I gone intel I would have had to forgo a few extras that I was able to get by going AMD.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
December 5, 2012 5:26:37 AM

nekulturny said:
I've seen that link so many times, I'm gonna pretend I never saw this post. Its clear form your post you haven't really read a word I said, why should I give you the time of day?



I don't care about what you think, obviously you seem to have some sort of chip on your shoulder.

Facts are, there is NO excuse to be telling the OP to waste his hard earned money on a amd gaming rig at the $1000 price point.

You are setting him up for regret and disappointment, based on some sort of misguided vendetta???

There are HUNDREDS of posts on this website from people with amd processors frustrated by their performance when coupled with higher end cards...

Normal people wasting their hard earned dough on a misguided upgrade, bemoaning their fps because of bottlenecking...

Go take a look.
m
0
l
a c 78 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
December 5, 2012 5:26:58 AM


Hell, I was expecting too much for you to read my posts, you don't even read your own links that you post to bolster your case

http://techreport.com/review/23246/inside-the-second-ga...

Quote:
Yes, we can still discern fine-grained differences between the CPUs with a really tight threshold, but there's really very little "badness" to be sifted out. Also, in a ray of light for AMD, the FX-8150 performs relatively well here. This is one of those cases, though, when nearly any modern CPU will do.
m
0
l
a c 78 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
December 5, 2012 5:30:44 AM

maxalge said:


You are setting him up for regret and disappointment, based on some sort of misguided vendetta???





Yes.. thats exactly it... I'm so dissapointed with how my computer performs, I want EVERY SINGLE person to buy one just as bad as mine.... Curses, you're figured out my motive.. Seriously.. Are you drunk/high?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
December 5, 2012 5:31:22 AM

nekulturny said:
Hell, I was expecting too much for you to read my posts, you don't even read your own links that you post to bolster your case

http://techreport.com/review/23246/inside-the-second-ga...

Quote:
Yes, we can still discern fine-grained differences between the CPUs with a really tight threshold, but there's really very little "badness" to be sifted out. Also, in a ray of light for AMD, the FX-8150 performs relatively well here. This is one of those cases, though, when nearly any modern CPU will do.




Are you Obtuse?

"Sadly, with Bulldozer, AMD has moved in the opposite direction. The Phenom II X4 980, with four "Stars" cores at 3.7GHz, remains AMD's best gaming processor to date. The FX-8150 is slower than the Phenom II X6 1100T, and the FX-6200 trails the X4 980 by a pretty wide margin. Only the FX-4170 represents an improvement from one generation to the next, and it costs more than the Phenom II X4 850 that it outperforms. Meanwhile, all of the FX processors remain 125W parts.

We don't like pointing out AMD's struggles any more than many of you like reading about them. It's worth reiterating here that the FX processors aren't hopeless for gaming— they just perform similarly to mid-range Intel processors from two generations ago. If you want competence, they may suffice, but if you desire glassy smooth frame delivery, you'd best look elsewhere."


The one not reading seems to be you.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
December 5, 2012 5:33:32 AM

nekulturny said:
Yes.. thats exactly it... I'm so dissapointed with how my computer performs, I want EVERY SINGLE person to buy one just as bad as mine.... Curses, you're figured out my motive.. Seriously.. Are you drunk/high?




Facts are, there is NO excuse to be telling the OP to waste his hard earned money on a amd gaming rig at the $1000 price point.
m
0
l
a c 78 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
December 5, 2012 5:36:24 AM

maxalge said:
Are you Obtuse?

"Sadly, with Bulldozer, AMD has moved in the opposite direction. The Phenom II X4 980, with four "Stars" cores at 3.7GHz, remains AMD's best gaming processor to date. The FX-8150 is slower than the Phenom II X6 1100T, and the FX-6200 trails the X4 980 by a pretty wide margin. Only the FX-4170 represents an improvement from one generation to the next, and it costs more than the Phenom II X4 850 that it outperforms. Meanwhile, all of the FX processors remain 125W parts.

We don't like pointing out AMD's struggles any more than many of you like reading about them. It's worth reiterating here that the FX processors aren't hopeless for gaming—they just perform similarly to mid-range Intel processors from two generations ago. If you want competence, they may suffice, but if you desire glassy smooth frame delivery, you'd best look elsewhere."


The one not reading seems to be you.

We're talking about PileDriver here, you're making the same mistake crowe made, posting older articles stuff thats useful from a historian's standpoint.. but bears little relevance to a system build today.. If you had actually bothered to read previous posts, you would see that I already covered this information.

Trails behind. Define "trails"

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/699?vs=362

m
0
l
a c 78 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
December 5, 2012 5:37:21 AM

maxalge said:
Facts are, there is NO excuse to be telling the OP to waste his hard earned money on a amd gaming rig at the $1000 price point.

No, the fact is, this is called an "opinion", if you cannot distinguish facts from opinions, you are the kind of person who has no business telling people how to spend money.

I have well over a grand in my system. It depends on what that money has to cover, a simple fact you're clearly ignoring. I have 5TB of hard drive space in my machine for example, 2 monitors, and a fairly high end computer tower.

We also come to the point I made what seems like decades ago in this thread, there are no simple answers, its a question of balancing the budget. There is no one size fits all solution.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
December 5, 2012 5:50:15 AM

nekulturny said:
We're talking about PileDriver here, you're making the same mistake crowe made, posting older articles stuff thats useful from a historian's standpoint.. but bears little relevance to a system build today.. If you had actually bothered to read previous posts, you would see that I already covered this information.

Trails behind. Define "trails"

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/699?vs=362



Yes piledriver, STILL lower IPC than the phenom 2 generation.

You would need to overclock much more, to barely beat them.

We talking 4.5ghz + to begin to overtake the 965 at 4ghz in gaming.



Best bang for fps dollars:







m
0
l
a c 78 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
December 5, 2012 5:52:44 AM

To slenderman,

If you wish to send me a PM about this computer build, I'll be glad to put together a system be it Intel or AMD. My apologies for contributing to the obvious derailment of your thread. I don't post on these forums as often as I used to, mainly due to what I view as trolling fanboy flamewars such as this one. I just simply have more entertaining things to do with my time. I enjoy offering advice on system builds. Its not a "game" to me, and you can use your own judgement at this point whether you believe I'll offer you objective advice or not. I won't take it personal, I admit I let my temper flare up here..

I'd ask that if you do decide to PM me to fill out this form from the homebuild section, and I'll put something together.

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/353572-31-build-upgra...
m
0
l
a c 78 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
December 5, 2012 5:55:27 AM

maxalge said:
Yes piledriver, STILL lower IPC than the phenom 2 generation.

You would need to overclock much more, to barely beat them.

We talking 4.5ghz + to begin to overtake the 965 at 4ghz in gaming.



Best bang for fps dollars:


http://techreport.com/r.x/cpu-gaming-2012/value.gif

And not a single one of those dots represent a single piledriver CPU.... I'm gonna go with you're high. Because even when I'm drunk as hell, I have better observational skills than you do.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
December 5, 2012 5:57:10 AM

nekulturny said:
No, the fact is, this is called an "opinion", if you cannot distinguish facts from opinions, you are the kind of person who has no business telling people how to spend money.

I have well over a grand in my system. It depends on what that money has to cover, a simple fact you're clearly ignoring. I have 5TB of hard drive space in my machine for example, 2 monitors, and a fairly high end computer tower.

We also come to the point I made what seems like decades ago in this thread, there are no simple answers, its a question of balancing the budget. There is no one size fits all solution.



5tb hard drives are relevant to a gaming machine how???


"I have well over a grand in my system", if its the one in your sig, i'm sorry to say you got shafted.

For 1k you can get a 3570k with a z77 mobo, 8gb ram, and a 7950.

Which would annihilate your system.








m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
December 5, 2012 5:57:52 AM

nekulturny said:
And not a single one of those dots represent a single piledriver CPU.... I'm gonna go with you're high. Because even when I'm drunk as hell, I have better observational skills than you do.



Add 10% to the bulldozers for piledrivers in multi and 5% in single threaded.


http://wccftech.com/amd-vishera-fx8350-x86-piledriver-p...

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-r...


Not that it matters, as the phenom 2's are better anyways for most games.



Yes piledriver, STILL lower IPC than the phenom 2 generation.




Obtuse man.
m
0
l
a c 78 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
December 5, 2012 6:44:21 AM

First link shows OBR Hardware.. This is an old topic, OBR Hardware is essentially an unknown website in the tech industry, by a guy who amoung other things claimed to have access to "top secret" internal memos from AMD corporate. Now, reputable websites have done their own benches of PD vs BD, those I'll accept, and on average yes, thats about the performance increase they got. Regardless of whether or not OBR Hardware has the same results, I'll accept nothing less than a reputable site. I'm not interested in an anonymous blogger who makes ridiculous claims of having James Bond like ability to access secret information. Just on mere principle alone I will not read anything OBR Hardware has to say. Stick to sites like Tom's Hardware, AandNtech, HARDOCP, Legitreviews, Techspot, etc.

But back to the point, which one of those links show the Phenom IIs being better for most games than PileDriver? Perhaps I am obtuse, but it doesn't appear to be in either of those links, OBR Hardware's credibility notwithstanding.

Incidentally, you've once again stumbled into a case of putting your own foot in your mouth.... Most of those game benches in that hardwarecanuks review actually show the FX-8350 performing on par with i5-3570k
m
0
l
a c 78 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
December 5, 2012 7:05:05 AM

maxalge said:
5tb hard drives are relevant to a gaming machine how???


"I have well over a grand in my system", if its the one in your sig, i'm sorry to say you got shafted.

For 1k you can get a 3570k with a z77 mobo, 8gb ram, and a 7950.

Which would annihilate your system.



Its not strictly a gaming system. I didn't see anywhere where the OP said his machine was strictly for gaming.. Did you?

My system was built to meet my needs. Again, you continue to assume one size fits all. I see no need to dignify that any further... But I will.. I overspent on the RAM, I bought 8GB modules when they first came out, as a result, they cost a bundle. I've admitted that many times on the forums. As far as all the other parts, no.. The price to performance is not out of proportion.

Monitor- $300
2nd monitor is an old one and was a gift from years ago, but it cost about $150
Video Card- $250
CPU- $150
CPU cooler $20
Hard Drives- $340 ish (purchased when hard drives were overinflated due to the flooding in Thailand)
Tower- $130
Power Supply- $105
Motherboard- $170
RAM- $140
Optical Drive- $20
Windows- $100
Mouse- Logitech G500- $50
Keyboard- Microsoft Ergonomic - $40
---

Now tell me all about how I could have gotten a system that meets my personal needs (hard drive space is important to me, yes I actually use the space I have) for that kind of money. And yes, I wanted a decent case and power supply that would last me at lest 2 or 3 builds, thats not negotiable. You owe me a build with 2x 2TB drives and 2x 500GB, an NZXT Phantom at bare minimum. Now shove the 7950 and i5-3570K.. And NO I do not live near a MicroCenter. AND I don't want a chinsy motherboard. Make it a Z77 Sabertooth, I want the 5 year warranty. Keep that Asrock stuff away from me.


Buts lets explore your logic more, and point out how once again you've failed to thoroughly vet your sources, we're going to look at 1080 specfically, because thats in line with what the OP said he wanted to play in.. (or perhaps higher, but unavailable from your link):

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-r...
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-r...

All of the CPUs tested easily exceed the frame rate limitation of a typical 60hz monitor. One of the 6 games tested even shows the FX-8350 slightly, (granted slightly) outperforming the i5-3570K. Skyrim, as I pointed out does indeed take a performance hit from the architecture. You seem to act as though I'm trying to conceal something from the OP, trying to convince him to buy a sub-par CPU for well.. you've already given your ridiculous explanation as to my motive.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
December 5, 2012 9:28:31 AM

Also, Steamroller will also be AM3+ whereas Ivy Bridge is the last CPUs to use LGA 1155.

So there are reasons to go for both Intel or AMD.
m
0
l
a c 87 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
a b À AMD
December 5, 2012 10:41:10 AM

m
0
l
a c 87 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
a b À AMD
December 5, 2012 10:49:10 AM

I think there is a lot of fighting going on over nothing. The budget is high enough to allow the current "champ" Intel CPU. No reason to worry about needing anything else. AMD CPUs do alright for the most part, but I'd get an Intel so I don't have to worry about those few times where AMD doesn't do well.
m
0
l
December 5, 2012 11:23:33 AM

4745454b said:
I think there is a lot of fighting going on over nothing. The budget is high enough to allow the current "champ" Intel CPU. No reason to worry about needing anything else. AMD CPUs do alright for the most part, but I'd get an Intel so I don't have to worry about those few times where AMD doesn't do well.


I agree. with a build budget of around 1k usd, you can bite the bullet and get an i5(not much more than a fx 8000 series for a locked one you can pair with a cheaper h77 or b75 mobo). you need to overclock a fx or phenom a ways just to get near an i5 like that. i5 shows no signs of being insufficient for games any time soon. You will thank yourself later.

m
0
l
December 5, 2012 2:39:32 PM

nekulturny said:
Synthetic benchmarks do have their place honestly. And yes, Intel does have an advantage in terms of better and more efficient CPU design. They wouldn't make the synthetic programs if they didn't serve a purpose.

But there are some things that people overlook either willingly or lack of knowledge.. For example... If you're playing a game that on an AMD processor gets 100 FPS and an Intel gets a 120.. Then theres no discernible difference between either one if you're playing on a monitor that is 60hz (and the vast majority of computer monitors are)

You can look at those "benchmarkable" differences and say, aha! the Intel CPU is clearly better. Well sure.. but your monitor is only showing 60FPS no matter how many FPS the system is sending to it. Now, if an AMD processor only gets 40 FPS in a game you really want to play and an Intel gets 60FPS, then you have something worth considering, but the answers aren't really as black and white. As far as gaming goes, more often than not, the video card is going to be the most heavily influencing component in terms of gaming performance.


You are correct and wrong at the same time... YES some differences in performance are hard to "see" but what about long term viability? what about when time goes by and games come out that for ex run at 60fps on the intel but at 40fps on the AMD?? I'm sure the user will be able to see the difference then.
And what about getting the best bang for your buck?

I have been an AMD fan for a long as I can remember but I never owned any AMD systems... WHY?? Because every time I would want to buy a new system it just so happened that Intel had the performance edge within my price range... if I would have spent my money on an inferior product just cuz of being an AMD fan I would not be able to live with myself.

I love AMD and yes Intel did some shitty stuff in the past, maybe still do but who knows? at the end of the day it's AMD's fault for what has happened so far...
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 5, 2012 3:04:12 PM

I can't stomach the bickering I think had to have gotten worse in the 20 or so posts I skipped over after starting down the thread, but I'll summarize the situation from the point of view of a realist who has no horse in this race....

1. The current circumstance is such that your GPU is going to have far, far more to do with the FPS performance while gaming than your processor, assuming you have a reasonably modern CPU.

2. The Phenom 965 is still well, well within the definition of being a "performance-level" processor. People are making it sound like there is no difference between the X4 965 and an Athlon X2 250. At stock speed, the 965 is solid enough to not bottleneck anything so badly as to be a real weight around the system's neck.

3. Benchmarks of AMD vs Intel definitely don't account for the fact that the 965 is so easily overclocked, and indeed runs in that configuration when owned by nearly any gamer, that it's hard to get much useful information when their clocks are set between 400-900mhz slower than the real-life application.

4. The Phenom is now $80-90 or so on Amazon and Newegg. Would it be great to have an Intel i7 CPU instead? Of course- but are you paying for the difference in cost even to get to a solid i5 chip? I'm not. Rather dump that into the GPU, where again, most of the gaming numbers come from. If you don't believe me, go search the 3Dmark archieves. There are literally X3 Athlon chips that are posting numbers that crush i7 systems, because the owner somehow decided to pair that CPU with crossfired 7950's or the like.

5. In terms of NON-gaming- in other words, where the CPU is the most vital component- the Phenom is still powerful enough to handle virtually anything you'd throw at it without there being enough lag to even bother trying to upgrade to lessen it. If you run an SSD for OS + apps, everything is still going to feel instantaneous with a Phenom. If you're doing serious video compression and encoding, I suppose there might be a reason to look at spending a good bit more, but that's far off this topic.
m
0
l
a c 78 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
December 5, 2012 3:42:44 PM

craul87 said:
You are correct and wrong at the same time... YES some differences in performance are hard to "see" but what about long term viability? what about when time goes by and games come out that for ex run at 60fps on the intel but at 40fps on the AMD?? I'm sure the user will be able to see the difference then.
And what about getting the best bang for your buck?

I have been an AMD fan for a long as I can remember but I never owned any AMD systems... WHY?? Because every time I would want to buy a new system it just so happened that Intel had the performance edge within my price range... if I would have spent my money on an inferior product just cuz of being an AMD fan I would not be able to live with myself.

I love AMD and yes Intel did some shitty stuff in the past, maybe still do but who knows? at the end of the day it's AMD's fault for what has happened so far...


Fair enough, although I tend to look at computers as having a 3-4 year lifespan. Games really don't evolve that fast in terms of their CPU usage. At least for the PileDriver CPUs, its the games made to the newest standards they do okay in. That would be your DX11 games like Battlefield 3, so I actually don't see the PileDrivers trailing that far behind as time goes on, Skyrim for example (and yes, I do own it), since thats one we've put benches up where it takes a hit. Its actually a console port, and a lousy, hastily done one at that. Just by playing the game, you can tell its made for a console, they didn't even bother to change the menus around to make them more PC-user friendly. Now with the Phenom II,, well its an $85 processor, how much life are you expecting from it? lol

As far as AMD being at fault for their current state of affairs, yes part of it is their fault, but actually Intel is to blame for a large portion of their problems. I know this starts an entirely different discussion/debate. Although theres not much debate about it, Intel has been fined by both the European Union and the Federal Trade Commission, as well as settled a lawsuit paying AMD 1.25 billion dollars. Its not really a debate, its now academic, Intel engaged in illegal competition practices. Intel has a much bigger warchest, and spend far more in Research and Development than AMD makes in profit per year. AMD has had to layoff thousands of workers because of the trouble their in. If it makes me an AMD fanboy by pointing it out, if you think that Intels corporate bullying of computer companies to exclusively carry their CPUs didn't play a role in that, you're kidding yourself.

But once again, back to the topic, just to reiterate, I have no problem putting a system configuration together based on any person's needs. If they prefer an Intel CPU, I have a gold badge in the homebrew section of these forums, I'm interested in giving a person what they want and giving objective advice about the differences between the two.

On the subject of owning Intel CPUs, my family for years bought exclusively Dell computers, they in turn exclusively use Intel CPUs in their desktops and laptops. I personally have owned 3 computers with Intel CPUs, between the 6 members of my immediate family, we've owned more Intel systems than many of you may ever own in your lives. When I was growing up, our family was better off financially, computers were bought more or less yearly.
m
0
l
!