Doom (2016) CPU analysis.

are we looking at the same graphs? I wouldn't say that the AMD chips run "well" in this game. Here's to hoping that Zen kicks ass.
 
ahh yes, in games that's correct. In linux and the FX chips are really compelling
 
The roughest patch in AMD's history as a company started after the FX line was released, the phenom line prior to that was competitive enough to not be mocked. They took the opposite approach from Intel when they should've just followed in their footsteps and attempted to improve their idea(of the Core i3/i5/i7 lineup) at a competitive price.
 
This only shows that people that have already purchased an FX system in the past, still have a chip fast enough to keep up with the middle of the pack of Intel, of which they are priced under. It's a pretty good argument that even though Skylake is a new chipset and does have some upgrade options past the i3, if you already have an FX system then there is still some life left in that venerable platform. With my 8150 and 8350 I can wait until Zen, because in gaming there is little difference in the CPU and a whole lot of difference in the GPU. If Zen proves to not show a significant performance increase over the FX series, then I can look for a new platform, but it seems that my current chip will suffice until then.
 
a3venom said:
The roughest patch in AMD's history as a company started after the FX line was released, the phenom line prior to that was competitive enough to not be mocked. They took the opposite approach from Intel when they should've just followed in their footsteps and attempted to improve their idea(of the Core i3/i5/i7 lineup) at a competitive price.
Click to expand...

That Phenom II line was never mocked as far as I saw. The Phenom II performance combined with it's price point compared to the newly released i7's was not too bad. And there was also quite a while there that the Athlon II quad-core in particular was easily the best budget quad-core on the market. But AMD still wasn't that far off from Intel through the first generation of i7's. I was quite torn at the time of whether or not to go with a Phenom II or an i7 (Bloomfield). I decided on an i7 930 and in hindsight I'm glad I did because I recently gave that system away to a friend and it's still quite capable - more so than I know an AMD counterpart at that time would be now based on my experience with such.
 
xTrident said:
That Phenom II line was never mocked as far as I saw. The Phenom II performance combined with it's price point compared to the newly released i7's was not too bad. And there was also quite a while there that the Athlon II quad-core in particular was easily the best budget quad-core on the market. But AMD still wasn't that far off from Intel through the first generation of i7's. I was quite torn at the time of whether or not to go with a Phenom II or an i7 (Bloomfield). I decided on an i7 930 and in hindsight I'm glad I did because I recently gave that system away to a friend and it's still quite capable - more so than I know an AMD counterpart at that time would be now based on my experience with such.
Click to expand...
No other product released by Intel or AMD has been so bad that the first company literally stops recognizing the existence of the second company as a competitor a generation after it's release. Intel stopped giving a fuck about desktop CPUs and a part of that is AMD's fault that there is no need to compete. I understand the mobile segment might have a bigger role to play.
 
Last edited:
I love that video showing the 8350 vs the i5-6400. Where I shop I can get the 8350 for $20 less than the i5-6400 normally. Only difference is I can overclock my 8350 a lot easier. Until I strike it rich I will spend my money on as good of a GPU as I can and then plug and AMD in for the CPU.
 
The more cores that are used the better AMD does against Intel, thats not news, been true for awhile. What is news is a game actually using the cores like it should to help it run smoother.
 
Simmonz said:
I love that video showing the 8350 vs the i5-6400. Where I shop I can get the 8350 for $20 less than the i5-6400 normally. Only difference is I can overclock my 8350 a lot easier. Until I strike it rich I will spend my money on as good of a GPU as I can and then plug and AMD in for the CPU.
Click to expand...

you can never build a overclockable system with a 8350 that will cost cheaper than a system with 6500. 8350 is way tooo expensive of a platform/cpu
 
Simmonz said:
I love that video showing the 8350 vs the i5-6400. Where I shop I can get the 8350 for $20 less than the i5-6400 normally. Only difference is I can overclock my 8350 a lot easier. Until I strike it rich I will spend my money on as good of a GPU as I can and then plug and AMD in for the CPU.
Click to expand...
Lol so saving 20 bucks is a big deal but the extra power used from running an oced 8350 and oced 390 over time is irrelevant?
 
misterbobby said:
Lol so saving 20 bucks is a big deal but the extra power used from running an oced 8350 and oced 390 over time is irrelevant?
Click to expand...

Pretty much so. My PC runs 24/7 and every light in my fully electric house. Electric bill this month was less than $140. If I cut off the PC I would save... $2?
 
misterbobby said:
Lol so saving 20 bucks is a big deal but the extra power used from running an oced 8350 and oced 390 over time is irrelevant?
Click to expand...
Try reading his post again. He said they were nearly identical in price the difference between them for him was OCing the 8350 is easier. Also his concern is the GPU before a CPU so an AMD CPU would save money up front for a higher class GPU.
 
Can't really blame him picking up an FX 8350 over the pathetic i5 6400.

PassMark - Intel Core i5-6400 @ 2.70GHz - Price performance comparison
PassMark - AMD FX-8350 Eight-Core - Price performance comparison
PassMark - Intel Core i3-6320 @ 3.90GHz - Price performance comparison
http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i5-6400-vs-Intel-Core-i3-6320/3512vs3535

Shouldn't a modern quad core be scoring 8000+ with a single threaded score of 2000+ (even my old Phenom II manages 4000)

I think I'd rather grab a used i7 at the right price though - something like a 3770k or 2600k, etc.

Although I do have my reservations about buying used when it comes to electrical items - they've probably hammered them.

Or just wait for Zen.

Skylake seems like quite a poor line up overall compared to it's predecessors.
 
Gideon said:
The more cores that are used the better AMD does against Intel, thats not news, been true for awhile. What is news is a game actually using the cores like it should to help it run smoother.
Click to expand...

That statement is true when specifically comparing an AMD CPU against Intel's low offerings though, correct? Yeah, that eight core FX looks pretty good against an Intel dual core/dual thread CPU, especially on higher multi threaded applications. But what happens when say... a hexacore AMD is compared with a hexacore Intel?
 
mwnn said:
Can't really blame him picking up an FX 8350 over the pathetic i5 6400.

PassMark - Intel Core i5-6400 @ 2.70GHz - Price performance comparison
PassMark - AMD FX-8350 Eight-Core - Price performance comparison
PassMark - Intel Core i3-6320 @ 3.90GHz - Price performance comparison
http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i5-6400-vs-Intel-Core-i3-6320/3512vs3535

Shouldn't a modern quad core be scoring 8000+ with a single threaded score of 2000+ (even my old Phenom II manages 4000)

I think I'd rather grab a used i7 at the right price though - something like a 3770k or 2600k, etc.

Although I do have my reservations about buying used when it comes to electrical items - they've probably hammered them.

Or just wait for Zen.

Skylake seems like quite a poor line up overall compared to it's predecessors.
Click to expand...

I honestly don't see myself buying brand new on a number of items when it comes to PC's again - unless of course a great deal is found. My 4770K and 980 GTX are both used and I've had no issues with either. All I wanted was a 4.4GHz overclock on my 4770K and it got that easy and that's where I decided to keep it. I've bought a number of CPU's and GPU's used from members in this forum as well as on Ebay. No issues with any of the items through either source.
 
JustReason said:
Try reading his post again. He said they were nearly identical in price the difference between them for him was OCing the 8350 is easier. Also his concern is the GPU before a CPU so an AMD CPU would save money up front for a higher class GPU.
Click to expand...
My point was that it is beyond stupid to act like saving 20 bucks up front is a big deal when you are going to lose way more than that in the end from the additional power costs.
 
cageymaru said:
Pretty much so. My PC runs 24/7 and every light in my fully electric house. Electric bill this month was less than $140. If I cut off the PC I would save... $2?
Click to expand...
BS. It costs more than two dollars more a month to run an oced 8350 and oced 390 compared to say an i5 and 970 if you are gaming a lot. Even if we go by your BS claim it still costs more to have the 8350 within a year than the i5. So again anybody acting like 20 fucking dollars is a huge deal sure as hell should not be running an oced 8350 and oced 390.
 
misterbobby said:
BS. It costs more than two dollars more a month to run an oced 8350 and oced 390 compared to say an i5 and 970 if you are gaming a lot. Even if we go by your BS claim it still costs more to have the 8350 within a year than the i5. So again anybody acting like 20 fucking dollars is a huge deal sure as hell should not be running an oced 8350 and oced 390.
Click to expand...

He is lying anyways, there is NO WAY an oc-based 8350 CPU + MOBO + COOLER can be cheaper than i5 6400/6500 + mobo.
 
a3venom said:
He is lying anyways, there is NO WAY an oc-based 8350 CPU + MOBO + COOLER can be cheaper than i5 6400/6500 + mobo.
Click to expand...
right now at my preferred local part source there is a $70 difference between a FX-8350 system and an i5-6500 system. both had 16GB ram and a 390x. $1204 vs $1275CAN. that extra $70 could be used to upgrade the video card to the next tier giving you a better value for the dollar.
 
pendragon1 said:
right now at my preferred local part source there is a $70 difference between a FX-8350 system and an i5-6500 system. both had 16GB ram and a 390x. $1204 vs $1275CAN. that extra $70 could be used to upgrade the video card to the next tier giving you a better value for the dollar.
Click to expand...

use pcpartpicker and see if you can come up with a 8350 based system that OCs with a 390x cheaper than a 6500 based system with same gpu
 
Piss off already. I don't buy parts like that. I shop local and get every thing at once. You want to prove everyone wrong so bad you fucking do it.
 
LUL? Whatever that is...
You're in every Intel AND amd thread spouting off about this and its fucking annoying. You got what you like leave other alone FFS!
 
I am on a community service mission saving misinformed customers from Silicon scum.
Seriously though, an i5 6500 is 195 and Mobo is less than 50 USD.
 
a3venom said:
I am on a community service mission saving misinformed customers from Silicon scum.
Seriously though, an i5 6500 is 195 and Mobo is less than 50 USD.
Click to expand...
Sounds like you are on an Intel sponsored community service mission. You are correct you can get an i5 6500 (I will go with $195 even though the MSRP is $205) and a crappy MicroATX mb for $50 ( I found an ASRock for $48.) It is also true that you can get an 8350 for $150 (which is MSRP and not a sale price), if you want to overclock it you can add an EVO 212 for an MSRP of $30 and pair it with the same crappy style MicroATX for $45 (MSI board) or for $47.50 for the ASUS variant. Looks to me that those prices are roughly equivalent.
 
I wonder how Phenom II X4 / X6 handle the game. Paired with an older GTX 660 card, it may be the smoothest desktop machine I have. Newer hardware is more aggressive about trying to keep clocks low, lending to desktop stutter.
 
Dermac said:
Sounds like you are on an Intel sponsored community service mission. You are correct you can get an i5 6500 (I will go with $195 even though the MSRP is $205) and a crappy MicroATX mb for $50 ( I found an ASRock for $48.) It is also true that you can get an 8350 for $150 (which is MSRP and not a sale price), if you want to overclock it you can add an EVO 212 for an MSRP of $30 and pair it with the same crappy style MicroATX for $45 (MSI board) or for $47.50 for the ASUS variant. Looks to me that those prices are roughly equivalent.
Click to expand...

More than likely that's because his comments are in the AMD part of the forum. I don't find him off base with his comments just as I don't the pro-AMD people.

xorbe said:
I wonder how Phenom II X4 / X6 handle the game. Paired with an older GTX 660 card, it may be the smoothest desktop machine I have. Newer hardware is more aggressive about trying to keep clocks low, lending to desktop stutter.
Click to expand...

I've never noticed any desktop stutter comparing my two machines (sig). Of course I actually like the aggressiveness my Haswell build might have over my Phenom II build trying to keep clocks lower. I'll take less energy use but more so less heat output. But again I don't notice any stuttering with either machine trying to do such.

I hope Zen is pretty amazing as I'll probably start trying to save to upgrade my AMD build to it.
 
xorbe said:
I wonder how Phenom II X4 / X6 handle the game. Paired with an older GTX 660 card, it may be the smoothest desktop machine I have. Newer hardware is more aggressive about trying to keep clocks low, lending to desktop stutter.
Click to expand...
you can use after burner to turn off low power mode. That eliminates the desktop stuttering.
 
Dermac said:
Sounds like you are on an Intel sponsored community service mission. You are correct you can get an i5 6500 (I will go with $195 even though the MSRP is $205) and a crappy MicroATX mb for $50 ( I found an ASRock for $48.) It is also true that you can get an 8350 for $150 (which is MSRP and not a sale price), if you want to overclock it you can add an EVO 212 for an MSRP of $30 and pair it with the same crappy style MicroATX for $45 (MSI board) or for $47.50 for the ASUS variant. Looks to me that those prices are roughly equivalent.
Click to expand...

MSI 760GMA-P34(FX) is the cheapest one for 46 something dollars, will this be able to support an overclock for this CPU?
Biostar TA970 is the cheapest 970 chipset one which is 51.88 - using this one will make the total $11-$14 cheaper than a 6500 based system with a H110.

But would you still recommend something like this mobo (Biostar TA970) to go along with that particular CPU?
 
a3venom said:
MSI 760GMA-P34(FX) is the cheapest one for 46 something dollars, will this be able to support an overclock for this CPU?
Biostar TA970 is the cheapest 970 chipset one which is 51.88 - using this one will make the total $11-$14 cheaper than a 6500 based system with a H110.

But would you still recommend something like this mobo (Biostar TA970) to go along with that particular CPU?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't recommend either of these, this is only in the criteria in which you described. You are skimming the bottom of the barrel for your intel parts and the same was done for the AMD parts. Neither of the boards, intel or AMD flavor, should be tasked with overclocking, making the AMD setup all the more cheaper. But since I'm sure you don't think I or anybody else has known for months, yes the intel stuff is faster right now, and technology that appeared in 2015 is faster than the technology that appeared in 2011, this is true. This means the lowest end intel CPU should and rightfully so, be faster than the 2011 era tech. I know you are doing your due diligence by'informing' everybody you meet that AMD killed your dog, and not only that, AMD did it slowly but even as you pointed out yourself, AMD has slipping market share, which means your word has worked and you can rest now.
 
a3venom said:
MSI 760GMA-P34(FX) is the cheapest one for 46 something dollars, will this be able to support an overclock for this CPU?
Biostar TA970 is the cheapest 970 chipset one which is 51.88 - using this one will make the total $11-$14 cheaper than a 6500 based system with a H110.

But would you still recommend something like this mobo (Biostar TA970) to go along with that particular CPU?
Click to expand...

Stay away from the 760 mobo's with the FX chips, you want a 970 or 990 to get the most out of it, the 760 wont allow them to run at their potential even at stock speeds..
 
Tek syndicate has a good one too but I couldn't find it. They get the same results as jay using what they call the "stfu algorithm".
 
I value power-efficiency, but not specifically for the minimal electricity savings.

1. Less heat in the room = improved comfort. Also: using the Air-Conditioner slightly less might factor into that electricity cost I've been ignoring. This of course will depend on where you live... but I HATE having a hot PC room.
2. Less heat (being produced) in the case
3. Less fan noise (potentially) for the same cooling efficacy
4. More environmentally friendly. I try to save power when possible.

I'm not sure why these benefits (reasons) weren't mentioned. It almost seems disingenuous to frame a PC power-efficiency discussion solely around the electricity bill.
 
Archmage said:
I value power-efficiency, but not specifically for the minimal electricity savings.

1. Less heat in the room = improved comfort. Also: using the Air-Conditioner slightly less might factor into that electricity cost I've been ignoring. This of course will depend on where you live... but I HATE having a hot PC room.
2. Less heat (being produced) in the case
3. Less fan noise (potentially) for the same cooling efficacy
4. More environmentally friendly. I try to save power when possible.

I'm not sure why these benefits (reasons) weren't mentioned. It almost seems disingenuous to frame a PC power-efficiency discussion solely around the electricity bill.
Click to expand...

I mentioned such indirectly when talking about my 4770K. One of the main reasons I upgraded from my 930 was in the hopes of much less heat production.

That was exactly the case. Same reason for not continuing to use the 7970 card. Massive heat production.
 
Archmage said:
I value power-efficiency, but not specifically for the minimal electricity savings.

1. Less heat in the room = improved comfort. Also: using the Air-Conditioner slightly less might factor into that electricity cost I've been ignoring. This of course will depend on where you live... but I HATE having a hot PC room.
2. Less heat (being produced) in the case
3. Less fan noise (potentially) for the same cooling efficacy
4. More environmentally friendly. I try to save power when possible.

I'm not sure why these benefits (reasons) weren't mentioned. It almost seems disingenuous to frame a PC power-efficiency discussion solely around the electricity bill.
Click to expand...
Mainly because your first 3 points are the same/directly related = heat. The 4th is subjective in the fact it depends on many factors and unfortunately opens the discussion to why not use a tablet or your phone for tasks that don't require the desktop. The argument is far to complex to boil down to a single point.

For instance Temp is never an issue for me year round. My computer along with my wife's are enclosed in an air-conditioned cabinet. Hot air is exhausted out of my house in summer and inside in winter. Power cost is higher somewhat over not, really only in winter. That airconditioned case is far less power hungry than my house AC so there is some balancing going on and the heat added lessens the need for heat in winter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top