Here is my build log. http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/19093-my-a51-alx/ And here is a review with benchmarks. http://linustechtips.com/main/topic...d-asrock-990fx-extreme3-high-end-on-a-budget/ Noting of course - 1. Price. I got my CPU *AND* board for less than a 3570k. 2. Performance. Not once do I see unplayable frame rates. 3. How well Crysis 3 takes to 8 cores. So whilst the 3570k may provide, for example, 110 FPS when the 8320 'only' scores 90 FPS the bottom line is that at no point in time does an 8 core AMD *ever* fall into the unplayable category. Mind you, people seem to forget the most important thing. PRICE. I mean crap, even when you go up against people and beat them in benchmarks that are suited for 8 cores they just respond with "Yeah but SB-E.. Oh and IB-E is on its way !" Completely forgetting that anything Intel make with an E on the end costs a small fortune.
Game benchmarks are almost entirely GPU dependent above a certain threshold. Of course you're going to have "playable framerates" - you have two overclocked GTX670's in SLI... Here, give the CPC/Bit-tech benchies a run. http://forums.bit-tech.net/showthread.php?t=186134
I'm in the middle of installing W8 atm but will give it a go. As for me running two 670s in SLI? this only goes to prove that the 8320 does not bottleneck my SLI set up. Before I went AMD I was (and still have) running a Xeon E3 1220 oc to 3.5ghz and in Crysis 3 with 4XMSAA it was unplayable. Of course, you don't have to believe me but here were the results from running a 45 second FRAPS before I went AMD. The Xeon (I5 2400) simply could not cope. Flip that to a AMD 8 core? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVHwA7hMe1w And the difference is night and day. My FPS count doubled.
handbrake in the CPC benchmark hasn't been updated since 2007 - the maker updated it 2 weeks ago.. sorry but the CPC ones are so out of date to be useless.
If they don't support the AMD properly then I simply won't bother. I'm not denying Intel's single threaded dominance and I'm not going to say the AMD's don't use more power because they clearly do. They don't, however, get anywhere near as hot as an Intel CPU. Right now there are about four 'things' that support the AMD properly. That's not a lot, but I'm convinced enough (after reading all the facts from game devs and so on) to have made the switch. So whilst Intel may still have the lead in many things they do not have the lead in everything, especially price. For £200 right now you can buy a 990FX board (though only 4+1 power stages) and a 8320 and clock it to 4.2ghz at which point you are pissing with the big boys. The Haswell I5 costs the same as both the 8320 and the board. Even from the very start the 8150 was able to compete with the I7 when it was fully supported . The thing is we are now headed into a world that is changing, and it won't be long before every game that comes out supports all 8 cores. That will move the goalposts dramatically. Sure, Intel will still reign supreme with their high end CPUs but when it comes to price to performance? well unless they want to join in the "core race" and start releasing 6 and 8 core CPUs that are affordable then AMD will dominate in gaming. Even the Athlon XP that had no heat shield, was terribly flimsy and easy to break offered sheer raw gaming performance. It didn't support RDRAM and it didn't have netburst or anything else but above all it was a sterling CPU for gamers that cost absolutely bugger all when compared to the high end Pentium 4 CPUs. That's the way we are headed again. Cheap, low down dirty CPUs that can toss games around with ease.
Run Geekbench its what tundra ran for comparison check. its updated like every week so should be fully up to date.
I wouldn't bother it bottlenecks my 680's like mad. Can't wait to get rid of it. TO THE DARK SIDE !!!!!!!! INTEL!!
I'd personally ignore all of the AMD vs INTEL stuff in this thread since you don't want to switch. A hex core would be a nice bit of an upgrade if you could get one for a decent price. I would go for a Piledriver until AMD release their new stuff, to see what happens to prices etc.
The bit-tech benchmarks being old doesn't make them useless. They're still accurate in terms of comparing one CPU to another. Unlike geekbench.
no, it is useless - handbrake for example has been updated and recently - 0.9.9 utilises all the feature set of piledriver for example (and IB as well) , whereas the 6 year out of date version BT uses doesn't utilise any of the features. it also doesn't use OCL or AVX when available.
They would need to show the 8 core AMD chips coming out on top of the quad core Intel chips, as they should. Even when the 8150 released and was slagged off it still beat the I7 in a couple of things that used it properly. In every game I have ran so far that supports AMD's cpus I have beaten my Xeon. Here are the benchmark results from the Xeon which is basically an I5 2400. And on the 4.2ghz (which is pretty lame but there you go) FX 8320. So that, just like Crysis 3, went from completely unplayable to completely playable on a CPU that costs less than the I5 it was put up against. 3Dmark Firestrike on the Xeon, making note of the Physics score. And Firestrike on the AMD. Seriously, when 8 cores are being supported and used there really is no contest at all. Intel's threaded performance may be good, but it's not enough to outgun twice as many cores no matter how much slower they may run. Over the next few months you are going to see a core race, where it no longer becomes about fast quad cored CPUs and more about how many cores you have. It's been a bloody long time coming, but AMD are finally going to get their technology noticed. http://www.pcgamer.com/2013/06/07/a...-titles-are-likely-to-struggle-on-intel-tech/ And there you see it again.
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/geforce_gtx_670_2_and_3way_sli_review,1.html Old i7 965 stock speed still scores higher than your oced system. So what's a new intel CPU going to do it in that bench I wonder.
Eh? are you smoking something? I've not ran any of the benchmarks they ran there. It seems to me that you just don't like accepting facts. Oh well, enjoy your Intel I suppose. Seriously that's the third time now you've posted something that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. You seem to like posting a load of tosh and then just posting more when you're proved wrong.
In the original benches you linked on another forum you linked a 3d mark 11 bench so i did the same thing for intel using the same gpus. You just not linked that score into here but I could do it for you if you would like.
Tom's uses 0.9.8 and gets exactly the same result as the "out of date" bit-tech benchmarks. There's nothing wrong with them at all.
Another interesting article here. Does the AMD 8 core CPU perform better in SLI than Crossfire? http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/crossfire-sli-scaling-bottleneck,3471.html hahaha that's pretty hilarious really can add BF3 to the "I eat 8 cores" list too.
I must be blind or just drunk but the intel chip is ahead at the same speed on every single bf3 resolution. Even if the gap is a pitiful 1-2 FPS. Game is Gpu restricted since if they used 2 titans the FPS would be only between 1-2 FPS gap. The gap is kinda tiny in every test all things considered. Which proves what others have always said very few CPU games and mostly Gpu required with the faster the better. F1 2012 / metro 2033 shows the worst it can be whilst any other title Intel wins by a few FPS here and there. The most funny thing about that review is the end comment, AMDs fx processor is better for SLI than it is for the company's own cfx systems. That's kinda a mistake lol. By 5% lol go go. Would personally never upgrade just because a game gained 2 FPS would rather just buy better gpus and gain 100-200% better performance. As let's be honest with each other very few games are CPU limited can think of 2 civ 5 and sins both are duel core. As I and others have said the x6 CPU that AMD made if you can find it cheap is your best bang for buck upgrade.
