dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
538
share rss forum feed


Krisnatharok
Caveat Emptor
Premium
join:2009-02-11
Earth Orbit
kudos:12

Tom's Bargain Gaming CPU Matchup: February 2013

said by Tom's Hardware :

Gaming Shoot-Out: 18 CPUs And APUs Under $200, Benchmarked

Now that Piledriver-based CPUs and APUs are widely available (and the FX-8350 is selling for less than $200), it's a great time to compare value-oriented chips in our favorite titles. We're also breaking out a test that conveys the latency between frames.

At least on the desktop, dual-core processors rarely helped bolster performance when they were first introduced. Most mainstream apps simply hadn't been optimized for multiple cores; that sort of technology was principally enabled in the server and workstation space. You had multi-socket motherboards with single-core chips cranking on complex problems in parallel. But games were almost exclusively written to run on a one core.

Programming with threading in mind isn't easy, and it took developers years to adapt to a world where CPUs seemed destined to improve performance through parallelism rather than then 10 GHz clock rates Intel had foreshadowed back in 2000. Slowly, though, the applications most able to benefit from multiple cores working in concert have been rewritten to utilize modern hardware.

Want proof? Just have a look at our benchmark suite. We test something like two pieces of software that are still single-threaded: Lame and iTunes. Everything else, to one degree or another, is threaded. Content creation, compression, and even productivity apps tax the highest-end four- and six-core CPUs.

Games, on the other hand, have taken longer to "get there." With a primary emphasis on graphics performance, it's not surprising that single-threaded engines still exist. However, spawning additional threads and utilizing a greater number of cores allows ISVs to implement better artificial intelligence or add more rigid bodies that can be affected by physics.

...

--
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.


Krisnatharok
Caveat Emptor
Premium
join:2009-02-11
Earth Orbit
kudos:12

AMD gets brutalized again. The AMD FX-8350 is roughly on par with (but a little below) the Intel Core i3-2120, and the FX-4170 and FX-6300 rank somewhere between a Pentium G860 and Sandy Bridge i3-2120.
--
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.


me1212

join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO
reply to Krisnatharok

Not surprising at all, the fx series is only good when all of the cores are being used. Most games don't do that sadly. Heck even the phenom ll x4 980 beats the 8350 at skyrim, whether or not thats a testament to how good the phenom lls were for amd or how bad the fx series are I'm not sure.

If amd doesn't pick up single threaded performance soon they may become only good for home servers and the like, 6-8 cores for a decent price and all but no power behind individual cores.



Phantasee

join:2009-08-27
Hammond, LA
Reviews:
·Charter
reply to Krisnatharok

That's a shame. I know most games I play aren't a good benchmark, WoW, STALKER, Torchlight 2, Skyrim. But my build is an AMD setup. An older 920 x4 OC'ed to 3.2Ghz. 16gigs of DDR2 ram.

My wife's latest setup is an i5 2500k (stock) with 16gigs of DDR3. We have the same video cards, 560ti, same brand. Our PC's seem to boot up about the same time and run those same games well over 100fps.

I suppose if I were to play some newer games maxed out hers would pull ahead, easily.