Why so much cheaper than Intel?

[Frakk]

Yeah, i'm not sure TPU's scaling model there is entirely useful. it shows a 2500k at low res as better yet once the res goes up to what is more normal res the FX keeps its performance and starts to close the gap.

Look at this one, http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/HD_7970_CPU_Scaling/9.html

The FX is around 120 FPS at every res and stays around there right up to 2560 x 1600 where the FX beats the 2500k.

The same sort of thing happens on every benchmark there.

The 2500K is faster at 1024 x 768 , once the res goes up that gap closes right up.

 

[BeepBeep2]

Yeah, i'm not sure TPU's scaling model there is entirely useful. it shows a 2500k at low res as better yet once the res goes up to what is more normal res the FX keeps its performance and starts to close the gap.

Look at this one, http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/HD_7970_CPU_Scaling/9.html

The FX is around 120 FPS at every res and stays around there right up to 2560 x 1600 where the FX beats the 2500k.

The same sort of thing happens on every benchmark there.

The 2500K is faster at 1024 x 768 , once the res goes up that gap closes right up.

Okay, that is one game...and the ONLY one AMD goes touting it's performance with (and with Eyefinity...)

I was talking about the 1920x1200 scaling. ("If you were holding 60 FPS with a 2500K you'd have 53 with BD on average")


Low resolutions are CPU-limited scenarios. The GPU is bottlenecked by the CPU. High resolutions are somewhat GPU limited scenarios however the CPU still comes to play, the FPS difference is usually just lower because possible FPS in general are lower.

 

[notJUSTguitar]

All this talk has made me wanna buy an intel, since im more interested in gaming, than application... But im not a hardcore gamer, so my system will be just fine.
profit

Your AMD system is good.
I used to use AMD only (Last one was with a Phenom II 1090T)... Mostly because I didn't have much money at the time.

I switched to Intel (2600K) because I wanted Intel and I got a good deal.
But, I haven't really noticed any difference at all (Except in benchmarks of course)

So, besides benchmarks, nothing is really noticeable faster if you're just gaming and using basic applications.

No, running ridiculous amounts of monitors (and lowering GPU FPS, making GPU the bottleneck) is where FX does "okay".
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/HD_7970_CPU_Scaling/20.html

If you are holding 60 FPS with the Sandy Bridge CPU (these comparisons are at stock too...), you will be at about 53 FPS with the BD on average. Performance numbers are much worse in gaming too for the 4/6 core FX CPUs.

In many cases, a Phenom II X4 980 beats out every single FX CPU in gaming while at stock speeds using a little over half the power consumption. Same goes for the 2500/2600Ks, using less than half the power of the FX CPU in gaming.

As you can see, the stock 8150 can not beat out an i7 920...


They are cheaper because they are a smaller company by 10x...and they can't compete with intel's mainstream (BD vs SB, PD vs IB) without using twice as many cores. I hope PD looks better than BD did, with Phenom II X4 beating out FX-6100 all the time.

^ this.

If I do an AMD build I was considering the 7990

If you get a card as powerful as the 7970, AMD is totally fine (Especially since you're using it mostly for gaming...not video editing/encoding, etc.)
If you run one monitor, the 7970 would run any game maxed out.
And if you ran multiple monitors, the GPU usually becomes the bottleneck, not the CPU (As beepbeep stated above)
So either way, going with Intel over AMD wouldn't be much of an advantage.

 

[Aldakoopa]

Your AMD system is good.
I used to use AMD only (Last one was with a Phenom II 1090T)... Mostly because I didn't have much money at the time.

I switched to Intel (2600K) because I wanted Intel and I got a good deal.
But, I haven't really noticed any difference at all (Except in benchmarks of course)

So, besides benchmarks, nothing is really noticeable faster if you're just gaming and using basic applications.


If you get a card as powerful as the 7970, AMD is totally fine (Especially since you're using it mostly for gaming...not video editing/encoding, etc.)
If you run one monitor, the 7970 would run any game maxed out.
And if you ran multiple monitors, the GPU usually becomes the bottleneck, not the CPU (As beepbeep stated above)
So either way, going with Intel over AMD wouldn't be much of an advantage.

I couldn't agree more completely.

 

[Rotary]

im sorry but if you buy any cpu get a intel extreme because they never lose value, lol you can sell it 2 years later and lose only a few bucks at the most

 

[Bobnova]

I disagree, pay $1000 for a 980x a couple years ago and you're in trouble now, I just saw one go for $395.

 

[Rotary]

980 will do everything just fine and more stable as the cheaper ones, ok the truth is that i never owned one so i dont know, i was thinking on buying one because they do hold value longer

 

[Frakk]

Okay, that is one game...and the ONLY one AMD goes touting it's performance with (and with Eyefinity...)

I was talking about the 1920x1200 scaling. ("If you were holding 60 FPS with a 2500K you'd have 53 with BD on average")


Low resolutions are CPU-limited scenarios. The GPU is bottlenecked by the CPU. High resolutions are somewhat GPU limited scenarios however the CPU still comes to play, the FPS difference is usually just lower because possible FPS in general are lower.

Yeah i agree, the consensus is BD is fine. no one said it was better.

I completely understand the reasons behind low res to test CPU bottle-necking, at low res more work is done by the CPU than the GPU, it simple.

The problem i think is its not very accurate, especially when its testing completely different CPUs against eachother.

There are 3 occasions where the 2500k is double the performance over the FX at low res and yet once the GPU does more work the FX overtakes the 2500K.

I think its far to simplistic to look at the 1024 x 768 and think the 2500k is twice as fast in gaming when the apparently slowest (by 80 - 90%) suddenly becomes the fastest due to the formally fastest falling so far back once the res gets cracked up.

There is much more then that going on.

For me the best way to test a CPU's gaming performance is to test it at the res you want to use it at.

 

[mjw21a]

I play Battlefield 3 on Ultra settings no worries at all. Chip choice will not limit your gaming.

 

[Frakk]

I play Battlefield 3 on Ultra settings no worries at all. Chip choice will not limit your gaming.

****!!!!! my GPU won't do Ultra, not without stttttttutering.

 

[Rotary]

chip choice will limit you, its a fact

 

[mjw21a]

^^^Not really, at high res and high details its GPU limited. Who really plays their games at low res? Seriously, it'd look cr@p. If you think you can tell a difference outside of benchmarks then you're on some pretty good substance, and I want some!

 

[notJUSTguitar]

^^^Not really, at high res and high details its GPU limited. Who really plays their games at low res? Seriously, it'd look cr@p. If you think you can tell a difference outside of benchmarks then you're on some pretty good substance, and I want some!

It DOES look like crap
Before I used to have a $20 vid card lol...
I had to play the newer games on lowest settings at 1280X720... (on a 1920X1080 screen)

 

[mjw21a]

^^^Poor guy. I feel for you dude

****!!!!! my GPU won't do Ultra, not without stttttttutering.

So long as it was just your vid card.... I'm not sure the chicks dig the stutter