Game not running at full speed..........

[werewolfyman]

Notice something in common with all of those?
They're ALL heavily multithreaded apps, which AMD does well with.

Dolphin is primarily Single and Dual threaded.

[RaZZZa]

Does it matter? any application now means -using 2 cores or less-?
I do know, that the i3 i posted, performs better in games than the FX, but thats because the games only uses 2 cores. In game, where more cores where used, the AMD CPU´s catch up.

[werewolfyman]

(02-12-2013, 10:27 AM)RaZZZa Wrote: Does it matter? any application now means -using 2 cores or less-?
I do know, that the i3 i posted, performs better in games than the FX, but thats because the games only uses 2 cores. In game, where more cores where used, the AMD CPU´s catch up.

Only if the game uses five or more threads, does the FX 6300 win.
If it uses four or less, an I3 comes out on top.
I will admit that against a Pentium / Celeron G, it beats them hands down if three or more threads are required.
HOWEVER, Pentium and Celeron Gs have insanely low power consumption.

I think you notice a recurring theme here.

I personally think that AMD's best value right now is the FX 6300, which is why I keep using it as a point of reference.

[NaturalViolence]

Jesus cool it on the reaction images werewolfy.

This thread has now spiraled out of control into a AMD vs. Intel argument despite my repeated attempts to put things back into context (and my attempts being ignored in order to continue what seems to be a fond desire to debate this topic). By which I mean me constantly repeating "Intel is better for dolphin therefore I recommend that the OP buy an Intel cpu next time" only to be ignored by certain people who want me to stop saying bad things about AMD.

I should not be encouraging this since it was not the intent of the thread. But I might as well while I'm here. It's not like it's going to stop if I just stay on the sidelines.

AnyOldName3 Wrote:Sorry, but a 100$ Intel CPU will tie/beat/slaughter an equivalently priced AMD chip in any application,

Be careful about your choice of words. I agree that Intels offerings at this price range are generally better for most of the things that you would actually be doing with a midrange PC but there are some applications where AMD wins. AMD wouldn't bother pricing their cpus against competition that is superior in EVERY area.

RaZZZa Wrote:In game, where more cores where used, the AMD CPU´s catch up.

That's not always true. Unfortunately many people attempt to reduce the differences between the two architectures down to "better single threaded performance vs better multi-threaded performance" when the reality is far more complex. Games are very floating point heavy, very branchy, and have very unpredictable memory access patterns (among other things). These traits are generally more poorly suited to AMDs recent microarchitectures than Intels. As a result there are well multithreaded game engines that still perform better on a core i3 than an FX-4000 series. Making every application heavily multithreaded isn't magically going to make the problems in AMDs microarchitectures go away.

werewolfyman Wrote:I personally think that AMD's best value right now is the FX 6300, which is why I keep using it as a point of reference.

Interesting. Most reviewers say the exact opposite. That the FX 4000 and 8000 series are the only ones worth buying. And based on the benchmarking data I'm inclined to agree. Out of the three the 6000 series have the worst single threaded performance and their multithreaded performance is barely better than the 4000 series and way behind the 8000 series in most applications. If it were priced similarly to the 4000 series it might be a more enticing product (lower single threaded performance in exchange for higher multithreaded performance) but at its current midpoint I can't say that anyone is particularly impressed at the performance per dollar.

[werewolfyman]

As it stands, the 6300 is $139 on Newegg, $10 more than the fx 4300. It also has better multithreaded performance in some apps.


But hey, for stuff like Dolphin, neither of them are ideal.

[NaturalViolence]

For dolphin the 4000 series is significantly better. AMD must have came to their senses and dropped the MSRP because the price difference was definitely larger the last time I checked.

[werewolfyman]

(02-12-2013, 11:17 AM)NaturalViolence Wrote: For dolphin the 4000 series is significantly better. AMD must have came to their senses and dropped the MSRP because the price difference was definitely larger the last time I checked.

Yeah, it isn't as bad as you thought it was.



And that price is the reason why I say it is a decent value.

[admin89]

He has the point , he can grab a Phenom II x6 (ebay) for only 100$ and it will outperform any i3/i5 in multithreaded benchmark (except i5 2500k , i5 3570k) , it beats FX 6300 in multi-threaded benchmark

[werewolfyman]

(02-12-2013, 11:23 AM)admin89 Wrote: He has the point , he can grab a Phenom II x6 (ebay) for only 100$ and it will outperform any i3/i5 in multithreaded benchmark (except i5 2500k , i5 3570k) , it beats FX 6300 in multi-threaded benchmark

But not in terms of power consumption, oddly enough, as the FX 6300 is a good bit more efficient than the Phenom 2 x6.

[admin89]

Power consumption isn't a concern for all people , some people even buy 1200W PSU , they just don't care...
If you have to pay for electric bill like me , you will see how efficiency laptop power consumption compared to desktop PC nowadays muahahaha...