Widescreen Gaming Forum

[-noun] Web community dedicated to ensuring PC games run properly on your tablet, netbook, personal computer, HDTV and multi-monitor gaming rig.
It is currently 29 Mar 2024, 01:18

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: 03 Sep 2014, 04:31 
Offline
Founder
Founder
User avatar

Joined: 13 Oct 2003, 05:00
Posts: 7358

Introduction






Price Cores Clock
AMD FX-9590 $229 8 4.7 GHz
AMD FX-9370 $209 8 4.4 GHz
AMD FX-8350 $179 8 4.0 GHz
AMD FX-6350 $139 6 3.9 GHz
AMD FX-4350 $99 4 4.2 GHz


Late last year I performed a massive 10-Way CPU Shootout. It looked at 10 different CPUs, each tested with three different GPUs. Each configuration was tested in 1080p HD and Eyefinity, across three games. Sum total it was 180 different tests.

My findings from that article were as such:

Widescreen - 1080p HD
  • There is absolutely no performance improvement to be had on a single HD screen, when paired with a Radeon R7 260X.
  • There are minor performance improvements in 1080p HD, when paired with a Radeon HD R9 270X. These improvements peak at the R9 270X, with no improvements beyond that.
  • There are noticeable improvements in performance with CPUs, when paired with the R9 280X. These hit a plateau around the FX-6350 or the FX-8350, with some small performance improvements in the Intel Core processors.





Eyefinity - 3x 1080p HD
  • There is absolutely no performance improvement to be had in an Eyefinity or Surround configuration, when paired with any single GPU





General Observations
  • There is no need for a Core i7-2600k, for gaming. This processor offers no realistic performance improvements in games, and cost significantly more than other chips.
  • The "sweet spot" for CPUs seems to be at the AMD FX-6350 or Intel i3-2130
  • There is good money to be saved in CPU purchase that can go into a better or 2nd GPU, or an SSD, etc.





Redux - The Update







Geekbench 3       Cinebench 11    
32-bit     64-bit 32-bit     64-bit
Single Multi Single Multi Single Multi Single Multi
AMD FX-9590 2,555 12,941     2,836 13,980       1.17 7.51     1.25 7.76    
AMD FX-9370 2,415 12,125 2,685 13,180 1.11 6.98 1.18 7.28
AMD FX-8350 2,215 11,820 2,448 12,752 1.03 6.60 1.10 6.86
AMD FX-6350 2,205 8,905 2,461 9,733 1.02 4.79 1.09 5.01
AMD FX-4350 2,256 6,642 2,529 7,273 1.04 3.43 1.11 3.56


For that article I tested a wide array of CPUs - three Intel CPUs (an i3, an i5, and an i7), four AMD FX CPUs, and three AMD APUs. It was a very wide range of processing units, but they were each only tested with one GPU (AMD R7 260X, R9 270X, and R9 280X).

At the time I didn't yet have my R9 290, nor did I have second video cards to create CrossFire configurations of the original three GPU options. And even with the range of CPUs that I had, I didn't have anything truly high-end.

Since that article I've sold my Intel rig. I've been able to source FX-9370 and FX-9590 CPUs, to look at the top end of the AMD processor stack. I've also been able to source an AMD Radeon R9 290 (no X), as well as the additional cards needed for CrossFire configurations.

The AMD FX-9590 was released into retail this past summer, available with and without a custom closed loop liquid cooler from Cooler Master. Given the now wide scale retail availability of both the FX-9370 and the FX-9590, it seemed like a good time to put the finishing touches on a new article.

So, we'll revisit the original premise, but with updated hardware. Is a higher end CPU needed to unlock the power of an R9 290, or the power of a CrossFire configuration. Or, is money still better saved on a CPU to upgrade video cards or purchase an SSD (which are cheaper than ever).

As before we'll start the review with a look at raw CPU power, and compare that to processor prices. Since their original launch, the AMD FX-9370 and FX-9590 have dropped significantly in price. (Prices here are without the custom closed loop water cool option offered by AMD).

At this point, AMD has a pretty linear price line from the FX-4350 ($99) through the FX-9590 ($229). Pricing advances $40 for each step between the FX-4350, FX-6350, and FX-8350. From there the price increases slow to a $30 increase for the FX-9370 and then $20 more for the FX-9590. While the price rises at a fairly linear rate, the Geekbench results only match this line slope through the FX-8350 (and actually provide a better price/performance ratio at the FX-8350). For the FX-9370 and the FX-9590, the performance largely flattens out - while the price continues to gradually rise.

Pic




Benchmarking



The previous project was weeks in the testing. For this redux I tested each of the five processors across three games, each of those across seven GPU configuration, in both 1080p HD and Eyefinity 3x 1080p HD. This results in a ton of tests - 210 to be exact (5 x 7 x 3 x 2). Thirty more tests than the first article

Each CPU was tested at stock clock speeds, with 16GB of RAM in Dual-Channel configuration. Everything was run on air cooling in an open "benchtop case". The cooler is a Zalman Ultra Quiet CNPS 9900DF (Dual Fan). It is rated for 300W TDP. The GPUs were also run at stock clock speed. I ran Windows 8.1, off of a 512GB Crucial M4 SSD.

I used FRAPS to capture frame rates for each game, running each test three times (so it was actually 630 runs). In the graphs below, the top of each segment of the stacked bar represents the value at hand.

The top of the red bar is the minimum. The top of the blue bar is the average. And the top of the purple will be the max. Taller blue sections show a higher minimum frame rate. And a thinner red section shows a tighter correlation between the minimum and the average. Both of these are positive trends to find. Remember that minimum and maximum values may only show up once or twice in a run. Or, they may be indicative of difficult parts of the test.

Metro Last Light and the Unigine Valley test have sections that are much more difficult than those around them. These represent an actual taxing of the system. A test such as DiRT: Showdown is fairly consistent throughout the test.


Last edited by skipclarke on 11 Jan 2018, 17:13, edited 10 times in total.
Edit


Top
 Profile  
 


PostPosted: 03 Sep 2014, 05:14 
Offline
Founder
Founder
User avatar

Joined: 13 Oct 2003, 05:00
Posts: 7358
Very big thanks to my fellow WSGF Editors, TheDestroyer and Delphium. They provided invaluable assistance in reviewing the article, for which they offered advice and critique. Thanks.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 11 Sep 2014, 16:07 
Offline
Insiders
Insiders
User avatar

Joined: 06 Sep 2011, 15:27
Posts: 213
Great line up! I recently purchased a FX-8350, because replacing a x58 mobo was too spendy for short notice, and it I haven't noticed a difference over my i7 950. The biggest advantage the Intel CPU's have though are the single core performance, but those apps are being phased out more and more each year.

I'm not disappointed in my choice at all.

Now all I need is a couple of 980 GTX and I'll be all set. :twothumb:

_________________
Azza Fusion 4000 Liquid Cooled Full/Mini-ITX Tower - AMD Ryzen 1700x CPU - Tt Water 3.0 Ultimate CPU Cooler - ASUS ROG Crosshair VI Extreme - 2x EVGA GTX 980 in SLI - Geil 16GB - Klipsch 5.1 THX Speakers - Vertex 4 128GB SSD, Sandisk 256GB SSD, Samsung 512GB 850 PRO SSD, WD Black 320GB & Two times Toshiba 5TB (one for Games and the other for Storage) - Logitech G502 - Corsair K65 RGB - Logitech G13 - Win10 Pro 64bit - 2-over-1 Viewsonic VA2448M 24" (2x 1920x1080 Secondary) & Samsung CHG90 Series Curved 49" (3840x1080) - Ergotech Monitor Stand - Shout out to WSGF for the upgrade on my stand!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 13 Sep 2014, 03:06 
Offline
Founder
Founder
User avatar

Joined: 13 Oct 2003, 05:00
Posts: 7358
Thanks for the comments, and glad that the article helped confirm your purchase decision.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 19 Jul 2015, 23:53 
Offline

Joined: 19 Jul 2015, 23:08
Posts: 1
I know this is an older thread, but I just wanted to share that I've come to the same conclusions. Last year I purchased a 4790k and ran it with a 690 and 290x after quite a bit of research that led me to believe AMD was simply inferior, only to realize the devil's canyon i7 was probably way more CPU than I needed. Fast forward to this spring when my wife needed a computer for her photo editing. Having learned a bit more about hardware I decided an affordable octa-core such as the 8370e ($129) would be good for what she was doing, especially since there was an intruiging new mATX 970 board out (ASRock 970m Pro3) and it was only $15 when purchased with the CPU - I love Microcenter. After building, benching, and gaming with the AMD setup I decided to hell with the haswell and sold it (for more than I paid, lol) in order to build a new rig with a six core AMD. You see, I had found the cheap mATX motherboard that I liked could only take the octa-core so far given the limited power delivery system. Since this new budget build would be focused on gaming and knowing DX12 only scales well up to 6 cores, the solution was obvious.

Enter the FX 6350. The very day I was headed up to Microcenter to purchase an FX 6300 for $90 I performed my morning scan of pcpartpickers and saw the FX 6350 for only $85 on Amazon. Click, boom - I was an AMD hexa-core owner. On the same $15 motherboard as the 8370e this little chip hums along at 4.5GHz on all cores with a $23 Arctic Freezer A11 CPU cooler and has displayed some head room for future cooling upgrades (it'll bench at 5.0GHz without a hiccup).

Since that time I've purchased an XFX R9 280 black edition ($179 before rebates, but as low as $149 with a free game these days) as well as an R7 260x (Sapphire OC edition) and R9 380 (Sapphire ITX) in order to do similar testing to what you've done here. I must commend you Sir as I know first hand how long and repetitive the testing process is. Helluva job you've done here. The conclusions you've come to are absolutely spot on and will no doubt be reinforced upon the implementation of w10/dx12 in the very near future.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  




Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group