Will AMD's CPU performance increase after NextGen Consoles release?

[Rollerbox]

I've been thinking about building a gaming PC on a budget and so I've been looking at processors like: fx-8350, fx-8320 and i5-3470. Where I live, the fx-8350 is the same price as the i5-3570 (not k) and so the only reason I've been considering purchasing it is because of the AMD hardware in the next generation consoles. I understand they will be utilizing custom 8-core x86 units.

I'm wondering now about the impact this will have on the performance of AMD's approach to 8-core desktop processors. Since games can be developed with multi-threaded consoles in mind and easily ported to different platforms, will the performance of multi-threaded CPU's increase as well? Intel offers the i7 family but these are much more expensive than the fx-8xxx's; regardless, can we expect the performance of such processors to increase with the implementation of 8-core consoles?

I understand that any change will be gradual and dependent on developers utilizing the hardware, but I'd like to know if such notions are likely to be actualized. If so, perhaps buying an AMD 8-core would be a good idea, even though they are beaten right now in single threaded applications by intels i5's. By going with something like a fx-8320 I can save something like $45 and upgrade from a 7870/660ti to a 7950.

On a side note, does anyone have information about the next generation AMD CPU's? I heard something about a 5GHz fx processor but it sounded like it was just the result of tweaks to the fx-8350 model, resulting in ridiculous TDP (and heat probably).

Thanks for your time.

 

[Intel God]

I've been thinking about building a gaming PC on a budget and so I've been looking at processors like: fx-8350, fx-8320 and i5-3470. Where I live, the fx-8350 is the same price as the i5-3570 (not k) and so the only reason I've been considering purchasing it is because of the AMD hardware in the next generation consoles. I understand they will be utilizing custom 8-core x86 units.

I'm wondering now about the impact this will have on the performance of AMD's approach to 8-core desktop processors. Since games can be developed with multi-threaded consoles in mind and easily ported to different platforms, will the performance of multi-threaded CPU's increase as well? Intel offers the i7 family but these are much more expensive than the fx-8xxx's; regardless, can we expect the performance of such processors to increase with the implementation of 8-core consoles?

I understand that any change will be gradual and dependent on developers utilizing the hardware, but I'd like to know if such notions are likely to be actualized. If so, perhaps buying an AMD 8-core would be a good idea, even though they are beaten right now in single threaded applications by intels i5's. By going with something like a fx-8320 I can save something like $45 and upgrade from a 7870/660ti to a 7950.

On a side note, does anyone have information about the next generation AMD CPU's? I heard something about a 5GHz fx processor but it sounded like it was just the result of tweaks to the fx-8350 model, resulting in ridiculous TDP (and heat probably).

Thanks for your time.

The way i think of it is it's just Amd PR till i see some benchmarks. I think it will help amd cpu's in the new games but they're not going to alienate 85% of the Market who runs intel processors. Same has to be said for Amd gpu's. Nvidia has a 73% market share i believe over amd. Are game designers going to alienate them as well?

In the end expect amd cpu's to perform better but still be behind intel's big guns.

 

[Rollerbox]

I think it will help amd cpu's in the new games but they're not going to alienate 85% of the Market who runs intel processors. Same has to be said for Amd gpu's. Nvidia has a 73% market share i believe over amd. Are game designers going to alienate them as well?

Yeah, I don't expect for there to be a role-reversal or anything, but I'm thinking that the gaming performance of multithreaded CPU's (i7's and fx's) will increase.

In the end expect amd cpu's to perform better but still be behind intel's big guns.

I agree but, in this case, Intel's 'big guns' are the range of multithread enabled i7's which are more expensive than the fx-8xxx's. Right now, if I wasn't interested in building such a budget-oriented PC, I'd go with the i5-4670k/i5-3570k. I'd like to consider the gain in performance for Vishera - perhaps it will be appreciable enough to open up the fx-8320 and fx-8350 in being more competitive with the i5's in gaming.

 

[Intel God]

I think it will help amd cpu's in the new games but they're not going to alienate 85% of the Market who runs intel processors. Same has to be said for Amd gpu's. Nvidia has a 73% market share i believe over amd. Are game designers going to alienate them as well?

Yeah, I don't expect for there to be a role-reversal or anything, but I'm thinking that the gaming performance of multithreaded CPU's (i7's and fx's) will increase.

In the end expect amd cpu's to perform better but still be behind intel's big guns.

I agree but, in this case, Intel's 'big guns' are the range of multithread enabled i7's which are more expensive than the fx-8xxx's. Right now, if I wasn't interested in building such a budget-oriented PC, I'd go with the i5-4670k/i5-3570k. I'd like to consider the gain in performance for Vishera - perhaps it will be appreciable enough to open up the fx-8320 and fx-8350 in being more competitive with the i5's in gaming.

Amd has a real chance with Steamroller. If they can get IPC up atleast 10% its a huge win against the 4770K but at the same time you have to think what does intel have waiting?

From what i've read if Amd beats up on the 4770K with steamroller intel has a 6 core I7 waiting with broadwell/Haswell refresh that will take over the 4770K's MSRP. The HT Quad cores will be pushed down to the 4670K's MSRP level.

 

[jaguarskx]

While it is possible to develop a game to make use of many cores, it can add costs and development time to the overall project. Just because you can do it doesn't mean you should.

Leveraging most / all the cores in AMD's Jaguar CPU will take time. Short term there will be little or no impact. Longer term we shall see, but that's several years away.

If you plan on buying a PC now for the next 3 or 4 years before upgrading again, then I would just go with Intel if you want performance.

 

[Rollerbox]

Leveraging most / all the cores in AMD's Jaguar CPU will take time. Short term there will be little or no impact. Longer term we shall see, but that's several years away.

If you plan on buying a PC now for the next 3 or 4 years before upgrading again, then I would just go with Intel if you want performance.

Yes, this is what I'm looking for. I suppose it will take longer than 3-4 years for the difference to become apparent and by then the current technology will be long outdated.

I hope AMD can come up with more competitive processors in the years to come, I don't like having little choice in which brand to choose.

 

[Intel God]

I still wonder how a Thuban based X8 would perform today on 32nm

 

[mariano guntin]

Buy a Cheap 8 core FX.

We saw how consoles keep our PC games , not only ports, everything , in 2 cores. Why? because consoles had 3 cores, 1 of them doing the GPU job.
Now the two new consoles uses 8 cores AMD using the SAME technology as the FX series. Besides the Jaguar architecture, that is a update from bobcat, and them both are using the same tech as FX series!. The FX series are more powerful than the Jaguar aimed for tablets and notebooks. Yes the Jaguar are more optimized, but think in the 8 1.6ghz jaguar working in the same lvl of a 2ghz FX 8120 or 1.8ghz 8320. But the FX are from 3.6 ghz stock to 5ghz depending on the Cooling system.

Why AMD and not Intel/nvidia. First in GPUs category, nvidia and AMD are in the same lvl,in CPU category the Intel I7 are "better" now, but they aren't really better. In Linux AMD CPUS work better, games aren't using 8 cores , even more than 4 cores. Windows and the game designers were the Aquilles Heel of AMD and PC gaming.
But NOW, the games will use the 8 AMD FX cores and will be optimized for AMD HARDWARE, CPU and GPU. So expect a 8320 being better in the next gen gaming than a I7 2600k , and AMD radeon cards having less problems than Nvidia ones.

If you was ok with AMD hardware before, now using FULL potential and optimized ONLY for AMD is a huge advantage for AMD hardware , and bad news for Nvidia/Intel hardware, and i think worst for intel that have bigger differences with AMD than Nvidia.

No matter what you think the performance will be in this "war", you will have less problems with AMD hardware.

Edit: The next gen games WILL ABSOLUTLY use the 8 CPU cores. It's not that hard use that and nobody is giving advantadge to competitors in the gaming wars, this is for game developers who want better games than competitors and sony/microsoft. It's no sense a 8 core console with one GPU , if nobody is using them, 2 gpu would be better.... right? and many games use SLI with no problem when they are console games developed for only one GPU.

No doubt about it, you will use your 8 amd cores in the next gen.

 

[smeezekitty]

If it is the same price as the 3570, then I would just buy the 3570. The FX is overpriced if it is on par with the 3570.

I think that AMD CPUs will get a speed boost once the new console ports come out. But obviously with intel having so much market share and overall good CPS, I don't think that intel users have anything to worry about.

 

[mariano guntin]

Anyway , keep in mind that if you only want to run well the new games, a FX 4300 will be enough or a OCed Core i3 from intel will be too. If you have ANY i5 even the old ones, you are done. But the closest thing to the Console Jaguar is any 8 core AMD.

Note: FX 8120+ are 8 cores, not 8 threads. It's not the same 4 cores than 4 threads. The intel i7 have 8 threads. Now can be similar in performances in multithreaded apps, but the AMD ones are getting better in the next gen.

 

[davidmustafa]

While it is possible to develop a game to make use of many cores, it can add costs and development time to the overall project. Just because you can do it doesn't mean you should.

Leveraging most / all the cores in AMD's Jaguar CPU will take time. Short term there will be little or no impact. Longer term we shall see, but that's several years away.

If you plan on buying a PC now for the next 3 or 4 years before upgrading again, then I would just go with Intel if you want performance.

but they are going to want to and have to for the next consoles that are coming out... they want to get max performance

 

[DirkXXVI]

Actually it looks like going forward games are going to be even less dependent on the traditional CPU. Remember the next gen consoles are being designed as an APU

For those who don't know: APU - a processor that combines CPU and GPU elements into a single architecture.

If I'm not mistaken the 9000 series GPU's will be APU's. Nvidia looks to be doing the same thing with their upcoming Maxwell cards. So in short a year or two from now the CPU you have might mean very little compared to now if you have a Maxwell/HD9000 or newer GPU.

Ironically enough this new GPU architecture is what might have led the suit at EA to get carried away saying that the new consoles are a generation ahead of PC's.

 

[jaguarskx]

While it is possible to develop a game to make use of many cores, it can add costs and development time to the overall project. Just because you can do it doesn't mean you should.

Leveraging most / all the cores in AMD's Jaguar CPU will take time. Short term there will be little or no impact. Longer term we shall see, but that's several years away.

If you plan on buying a PC now for the next 3 or 4 years before upgrading again, then I would just go with Intel if you want performance.

but they are going to want to and have to for the next consoles that are coming out... they want to get max performance

As I stated in my original post, it will take time for developers to efficiently and effectively use all of AMD's 8 cores. Games will not automatically run faster on AMD CPUs as soon as the next gen console games are released. It takes time to do so. Perhaps in 4 years the tide will turn in favor of AMD; perhaps... I will make the general statement that many gamers plan to upgrade the CPUs within 4 or 5 years, some more frequently. If you are buying a FX-8350 and plan to keep it for at least 6 years, then I suppose it is worth giving up performance now for potential increased performance after 4 year. However, the magic word is "potential". Additionally both AMD and Intel will have newer more powerful CPUs in 2017.

Lastly, I read somewhere that supposedly 2 of the 8 Jaguar cores are devoted to social networking. If true, then that means only up to 6 core will be used for the game itself. There are still many questions left unanswered. The best advice I can give is to stick with Intel if gaming performance is important and their CPUs are within your budget. Thanks to Intel's higher IPC their quad core CPUs can outperform the 8 core FX-8xxx series from AMD in BF3 multiplayer mode. I expect that to continue in BF4 as well.

 

[smeezekitty]

Lastly, I read somewhere that supposedly 2 of the 8 Jaguar cores are devoted to social networking. If true, then that means only up to 6 core will be used for the game itself.

That's absurd if its true.

 

[8350rocks]

Hello, I am a game developer.

Let me clarify things a bit here...

The consoles will mean several things for AMD performance:

(1) Next gen games will be optimized for AMD GPUs and AMD CPU architectures.

(2) The newest instruction sets that are in place on those Jaguar based custom chips will be implemented in the newest games.

(3) The PS4DK ships with an 8 core AMD 8350 as the basis for developers to work off of.

(4) AMD actually holds somewhere around 27-28% of the current PC Gaming market share in CPUs, it's actually the one segment that they have maintained market share in quite well. They are actually gaining market share there too, which is part of their "gaming evolved" program goals.

(5) AMD has designed the OS to be offloaded onto the GPU along with quite a bit of middleware, which means that under most conditions, something like 7 cores will be available to developers for console games.

(6) PS4 APU ES's have been benchmarked in the 2.4-2.6 GHz range already. I don't anticipate they will necessarily end up at 2.6 GHz, though I think 2.2-2.4 GHz with a turbo core for less threaded situations is entirely feasible.

(7) There are already roughly a dozen or more AAA titles for PCs that use 6+ threads to run effectively, and many more are in the pipeline.

Hope that helps you out...

 

[jaguarskx]

(7) There are already roughly a dozen or more AAA titles for PCs that use 6+ threads to run effectively, and many more are in the pipeline.

Which games? The only games I can think of are BF3 and 2 upcoming titles; BF4 and ARMA 3.

I had originally thought that ARMA 2 could use more than 4 cores, but I have not found any benchmarks to prove it. Additionally, I also thought that Crysis 3 was also able to use up to 6 cores when it was initially released, but benchmarks have shown it only uses 4 cores.

 

[8350rocks]

Crysis 3 will load all 8 cores on my 8350. Also, on the 3930k and 2600k it loads 4 cores + 2 HTT modules.

-BF3 multiplayer will load 6 cores
-Company of Heroes 2 will load up to 8 cores
-BF4 upcoming will be as much or more core dependent than BF3
-GTA5 coming this fall is on a new engine that runs on 4+ cores(hence the long wait since GTA4)
-ARMA2
-ARMA3
-Far Cry 3 loads 4 cores
-MechWarrior Online uses 4+ cores
-PlanetSide 2


Additionally, the following engines, and any games that use them, will run on 4+ cores effectively:
Frostbite (BF4)
Unreal 4
Cry Engine 3
OGE
Essence 3.0
jME3

 

[jaguarskx]

While Crysis 3 may load all of your 8 cores the performance chart below tells me the performance gain is relatively small.

http://www.techspot.com/review/642-crysis-3-performance/page6.html

Going from the 4 core FX-4170 @ 4.2GHz to the FX-8350 @ 4.0Hz yields only and additional 5FPS. Granted if the FX-4170 has a stockspeed of 4.0GHz the difference may be 6FPS or 7FPS. Granted, that is about a 11% increase in performance. But what the chart is telling you is going from 4 cores to 8 cores (100% difference) will gain you about 11% in performance.

As for the quad core i7-3770k @ 3.5GHz compared to the 6 core i7-3960X @ 3.3GHz the difference is 3FPS; 64 FPS vs 67 FPS. Assuming the i7-3770k ran @ 3.3MHz as well then perhaps the FPS will be 62 instead of 64. Under that assumption going from 4 cores to 6 cores on an Intel CPU only provides about a 8% increase in performance for a 50% increase in the number of cores. Of course when it comes to the price... the i7-3960X is definitely not cheap...

 

[jaguarskx]

With regards to Far Cry 3, while it might place a load on all 8 cores, it certainly does not seem to "full loads" meaning poorly optimized for 8 cores. Perhaps not even optimized at all.

The 6 core FX-6300 @ 3.5GHz provides the marginally better performance than the 8 core FX-8300 @ 3.3GHz; both at 58FPS, vs 57FPS. The extra 100MHz likely accounts for the extra 1FPS in performance. So if Far Cry 3 places a load on all 8 cores of the FX-8300, then each core's usage is lower than compared to the load placed on the 6 cores for the FX-6300 because if it wasn't for the extra 200MHz the performance would likely be the same.

To keep it very simple... at a very basic level what is the difference in performance it game place 100% load one each core in a quad core CPU compared to a 50% load on each core in an 8 core CPU (assuming the same clockspeed)? The simplest conclusion is that the performance will be the same. Therefore, while each core of the FX-8300/8350 maybe being utilized, the utilization is low and in actually does not really provide any performance gains.

http://www.techspot.com/review/615-far-cry-3-performance/page6.html

When comparing the quad core Phenom II X 980 @ 3.7GHz to the FX-8300 @ 3.3GHx, the performance is the same; 57FPS. Piledriver is an improvement over Phenom II so you can say that dispite the difference in clockspeed of 400MHz, the newer architecture makes up the difference in terms of performance. But what the chart tells me is that the 4 additional cores in the FX-8300 is not providing additional performance. So in this particular game what's the difference between performance when it comes to 4 cores vs 8 cores (taking into consideration the newer CPU architecture)?

 

[jaguarskx]

Crysis 3 will load all 8 cores on my 8350. Also, on the 3930k and 2600k it loads 4 cores + 2 HTT modules.
.
.
.

-Far Cry 3 loads 4 cores

.
.
.

Ahh... Since you were responding to my question regarding games capable of games capable of using 6+ cores, I though you were saying Far Cry could use 6+ cores since you listed that game.

So that basically disqualifies Far Cry 3.

However, just to reiterate... Because a game can utilize more core than 4 cores, that does not necessary mean increased performance if the load is lower on each core. As my comment in my prior post about a quad core with each core running at 100% as opposed an 8 core CPU with 50% load on each core.

 

[Rollerbox]

This is some good discussion guys.

Can anyone speculate how long it will take after the launch of the next-gen consoles for the efficient and total use of 4+ (and later, 6+) cores to become relatively mainstream?
Also, someone mentioned something about the 9000 series being APU's, does anyone know anything about this - I certainly have heard very little about the next generation ATI/Nvidia gpu's.

Thanks.

 

[8350rocks]

Crysis 3 will load all 8 cores on my 8350. Also, on the 3930k and 2600k it loads 4 cores + 2 HTT modules.
.
.
.

-Far Cry 3 loads 4 cores

.
.
.

Ahh... Since you were responding to my question regarding games capable of games capable of using 6+ cores, I though you were saying Far Cry could use 6+ cores since you listed that game.

So that basically disqualifies Far Cry 3.

However, just to reiterate... Because a game can utilize more core than 4 cores, that does not necessary mean increased performance if the load is lower on each core. As my comment in my prior post about a quad core with each core running at 100% as opposed an 8 core CPU with 50% load on each core.

Your points about Crysis 3 are noted, however, I would like to point something out...

The core usage numbers for the i5 Intels vs. the i7 Intels in Crysis 3 vary wildly depending on benchmarks. Additionally...Crysis 3 puts the i7-2600k @ 89% of total CPU resources used on average across the 3 benchmark suites.

Keep in mind, 97%+ is considered a bottleneck. It does the same to the 3770k.

By the same token, the FX 4300 is not a bottleneck but at 96% of total core resources used on average, it's not by much. It could theoretically bottleneck in a few really strenuous places in the benchmarks as I don't have the information for the full breakdown by time. The FX 6300 is the first CPU that has had the core resources tracked that falls under 89-90% and it's at 86% CPU resources used on average. The 8350 is around 75% and the 3960x falls around 60% core resources used.

That information tells me that Crysis 3 is really geared toward something with 6 cores, or in a 4 core CPU, something with HTT, though HTT (by the numbers) is clearly not an equal level replacement for actual cores, as the 6300 has fewer of it's resources tapped out by the engine.

Far Cry 3 is well threaded for 4 cores, but not enough to take advantage of 6 really.

 

[8350rocks]

http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3082278

i7 2600k takes 37% cpu usage in crysis 3.

Crysis 3 on a bottom end i7 mobile ivy bridge 45w tdp cpu gets 35-65% cpu usage mainly in crysis 3 recording with msi afterburner and the 797m is loaded over 99%.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0U7hLaFQHk

All this proves is basically quad core i7's are barely near the limit, especially a stock i7 2600k or 3770k or 4770k etc are rarely going to go above 50% load in these games. Future i7 will get the most consistent performance as it is the better all round product. At best amd will catch up with the fx8350.

I trust the actual benchmark sites that posted core usage, not the steam forums...

 

[Ags1]

Going from the 4 core FX-4170 @ 4.2GHz to the FX-8350 @ 4.0Hz yields only and additional 5FPS. Granted if the FX-4170 has a stockspeed of 4.0GHz the difference may be 6FPS or 7FPS. Granted, that is about a 11% increase in performance. But what the chart is telling you is going from 4 cores to 8 cores (100% difference) will gain you about 11% in performance.

You are reading the figures wrong. All the results are tightly bunched together, so it makes no sense to look at absolute differences (if you do that, you might as well say the Intel parts are 'obviously' overpriced, as they offer no appreciable improvement over the cheaper AMDs).

Look at it this way instead.... The difference between the FX4170 and FX8350 is 50% approx of the difference between the FX4170 and the top processor on the board. Put that way, the four extra cores are making a big difference.

 

[Guy Parris]

Defiantly get intel when it comes cpu. The 3570k spanks the 8350. There was an interview done by OC3D he is a very good reviewer he was even saying that AMD is really going down hill with there cpu's and the 8350 isn't great at all. Intel have better frames times which means smoother gameplay, they use less watts and are cooler. I just think amd are cheap for a reason and they just lack quality. There gpu's are better but there still meh due to drivers and frame latency issues. People say that single cards latency issues have been fixed but when you jump from a gigabyte 7950 to a gigabyte 760 you really can tell by a mile that nvidia is smoother. Saying that maybe amd gpu's could possible be better for next gen not sure. But yeah get the 3570 or 4670. The 4670k can overclock like hell if your into that kinda stuff a guy got it up to a steady 4.8ghz. The 4670 beats the 3570 a little bit average is about 20 fps. I'm using intel/nvidia in my pc and ps4 for amd lol. To amd fans I'm no fan boy! I have tried out both and just prefer nvidia for there smoother frames and drivers each to there own. But everyone know's amd cpu's are sucky not just me just read reviews and they will show the benchmarks/frame times and scores.