Discussion in 'AMD x86 CPUs and chipsets' started by Frontl1ne, Sep 11, 2014.
Except we are not. Stop saying stupid shit.
but we are in some games / test ( 1800x vs 8700k )
Depends entirely on the resolution and nobody runs 1080P any more.
Also In the case of bulldozer the CMT cores are kinda like an enhanced SMT. an 8 cores bulldozer can only do 4 floating point instructions simulationusly, so a lot of the time an 8 core bulldozer is basically a 4 core CPU. If instead you look at a video that looks at 'has the overall ranking of the fx series in gaming changed over time' as opposed to 'can a rubbish fx processor beat the the flagship intel i7', you'll find it has improved the stock fx beats an i5 2500k at stock in most games now whereas it consistently lost at launch. So in short as usual you're creating intel propaganda out of a video that doesn't actual prove what you claim it does.
Also lol @ adamsleath
OMG You guys check this review where the amd FX-57 smashes Intel this must show the future for all cpus and their performance!!!!
fuck off scrub
Not just FP. Fetch, decode, dispatch are all shared at 4 mOp/ cycle max
which goes back to cj's original statement that the fx has caught up. and also that obviously gaming tests vary across the board.
and about adjusting grfx settings for optimum performance, for increasingly grfx bound games.
the review which I find interesting is that despite teh Fx having double teh amount of physical cores has not caught up and has infact gotten further behind over the years even in more modern games that can use all teh CPU cores. Steve is such an AMD stooge I am surprised he made that video honestly, considering Ryzen is in almost the exact same bot now as it was back then. One cant help but drap conclusions on the parallels here.
Only if one is a moron. Which, one clearly is.
despite what you claim 1080p benchmark results are relevanat to show potential furure performance with faster GPU's
and that is still the most popular gaming resolution in the world by a large margin.
and the bias can be shown from either side, and often is
I leave the forums for a few months, come back a CJ is still talking out his arse and having everyone bite the obvious bait. Refreshing.
If you assume CPU's will be used in exactly the same way, which is exactly what you should not do.
i know maybe amd will relegate its cpus to mining boxes like their gpus as that is what AMD are directly now suggesting as they cant beat the competition in anything other than mining it seems in both camps.
i suppose amd have priced their cpu's accordingly, and have more than adequate performance
if you want the apex in performance for your specific task then pay more for it....which i guess is a reseller's MAIN GOAL
I was thinking along the lines of future games taking advantage of the higher core count in Ryzen.
Which of course won't be reflected in silly 1080p benchmarks.
the same arguemnt was made with the fs 8350 at teh time with its 8 cores and how did that work out today>?
It turns out that games do in fact use more cores today than they used to.
From a gaming perspective its only really a 4 core. You can't say the same with Ryzen. But this point has been made again and again. And you keep ignoring it.