Trending

AMD's Piledriver And K10 CPU Architectures Face Off

By

Vishera, Deneb, Trinity, and Propus are code names for some of AMD's most value-oriented processor configurations from the past couple of generations. We get our hands on several models to compare in productivity, content creation, and gaming workloads.

Results: Crysis 3

We use a brutal Crysis 3 sequence to punish each processor. Consequently, we'll step down and also include the lowest-quality settings.

The FX-6350’s complete and total dominance proves that Crysis 3 scales well beyond four threads. While there are a couple dips below 30 FPS, each quad-core CPU remains playable at these entry-level settings.

Upped to medium-quality detail settings, my subjective impression of smoothness doesn't completely match the benchmark data. Each quad-core processor spends a few seconds under 30 FPS. But the main problem goes beyond that information. Through the test sequence, not one platform feels completely fluid. Average frame rates are reported higher than they actually feel. I’d call the Athlon II X4 640 unacceptable until you overclock it, though the others are at least playable. Without question, stock and overclocked, the FX-6350 is a pleasure to game on by comparison.

At Very High quality with 2x SMAA enabled, our platform starts suffering from a graphics bottleneck. Yet, scaling amongst these processors is still evident. While the FX-6350 takes a huge performance hit, it's still noticeably smoother than the quad-core models. Basically, an AMD FX-6300 or Intel Core i5 is my minimum CPU recommendation for enjoying Crysis 3. This hard-hitting title isn’t one for low budgets, and it prefers an FX-8350 or Core i7 if you have one.

134 Comments Comment from the forums
  • KelvinTy 19 August 2013 04:28
    So much BS, the old Phenom II X4 and X6 BE are still really competitive after all these years. Yet, if they bother to update the instruction set, and just shrink the thing, then change it to AM3+ socket, that would be great...
    K10 has so much more potential...
    Reply
  • 19 August 2013 04:57
    Personally, I was surprised to see the FX-4350 do so well. The bump up, compared to the FX-4300, has really done it some good.
    Reply
  • MU_Engineer 19 August 2013 05:01
    Kelvin, the tests showed that the Piledriver FXes are not that far off the Phenom IIs clock for clock and core for core. The Phenom II X4 965BE at 4.0 GHz was generally about as fast as the stock FX-4350 running 200-400 MHz faster so you figure about a 5% per-clock, per-core advantage for the Phenom II. However, each Piledriver core is quite a bit smaller than a K10 core and they also have a longer pipeline so they can clock quite a bit faster (K10 was pretty well tapped out.) So you get more cores and more clocks out of Piledriver with essentially the same performance per core and per clock. I'd say that the modular architecture used in the FXes finally got the vindication it deserved with this test. Way to go Tom's.
    Reply
  • Onus 19 August 2013 05:01
    As I was going through this, at first I was worried about the absence of comparison to Intel, but was relieved to see it at the end. Especially if I don't want to push my 970BE really hard (I'd rather play on my PC than with it), the FX-63x0 looks like a viable upgrade.
    Reply
  • cmartin011 19 August 2013 05:03
    I want some juice GPU news. I am aware they are not going anywhere fast with CPUs. My wallet will be open for 8 core in 2 years when performance Increases 20%
    Reply
  • rmpumper 19 August 2013 05:04
    I just want some solid numbers on Steamroller already.
    Reply
  • magnesiumk 19 August 2013 05:04
    Thank you so much for writing this article. Thank you also for including the Phenom II 965 processor to this test. I use it, and it is somewhat dated, and hard to find compared to newer cores. However it still kicks a lot of butt in gaming. I bought my Phenom II 955BE C3 last year with overclocking in mind

    I always wanted to see how it would compare to newer models, and even intel counterparts. Thank you for this. I loved reading the article. Keep comparisons like this coming.
    Reply
  • magnesiumk 19 August 2013 05:06
    I also wanted to add, thank you for listing the 965BE with overclock at 4Ghz. It's easy to clock this processor up to those speeds. That's about what I run at, and it also runs much greater than stock speeds. This is important in future comparison tests. Thanks again.
    Reply
  • envy14tpe 19 August 2013 05:49
    Wanted to see i3 and i5 CPUs on the charts. Not just in the "Wrapping things up" section. Also, why not compare to a i5-3470? It's locked, cheaper, and still fast.
    Reply
  • crisan_tiberiu 19 August 2013 06:08
    if the 6350 is so close to the 3570k the 8350 eats it alive..and everybody recommends the i5 ^-. AMD has still good value
    Reply