🚀 go-pugleaf

On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 11:52:41 AM UTC-7, Ross Ridge wrote:
> Justisaur  <just...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >I'm currently running an E6850 Dual Core @ 3.0 GHz.  I'm looking over 
> >the info for CPUs and I see the CPU recommended for GTA V (similar 
> >issues) includes an intel i5-3470, AMD FX-8350.  From what I can see the 
> >AMD costs close to half the price ($159 w $59 gift card vs. 230  and 
> >provides about 25% more power.  Am I missing something?
> 
> The Intel i5-3470 is a 4-core 3.2 GHz (3.6 GHz turbo) "Ivy Bridge"
> processor, while the AMD FX-8350 is 8-core 4.0 GHz (4.2 GHz turbo)
> "Piledriver" processor.  Those names in quotes, the microarchitecture
> name, make a big difference, especially in gaming.  Gigahertz for
> gigahertz an Ivy Bridge CPU has a much better single threaded performance
> than a Piledriver CPU.  The extra 4 cores will probably sit idle
> while running most games with one thread running on one CPU being the
> bottleneck. (And if it's not the CPU, it'll be the GPU, and if it's not
> the GPU, it'll be memory bandwith.)  So between the two, for gaming I'd
> get the i5-3470 over the FX-8350, as you're probably going to get at least
> 25% better performance in games with the Intel processor over the AMD one.
> 
> I found a review online that compares the FX-8350 with the i5-3570K
> (slightly faster than the i5-3470 at 3.4/3.8 GHz):
> 
> 	http://www.techradar.com/reviews/pc-mac/pc-components/processors/amd-fx-8350-1137704/review
> 
> Unfortunately AMD is only really competive with in Intel at the low end.
> Unless you're doing a lot of video encoding or something else that can
> make use of all 8 cores, AMD high end CPUs aren't a good value compared
> to Intel's mid range CPUs.
> 
> I'd echo that Tim O said and save up for a good current Intel mid-range
> ($200) CPU with an appropriate motherboard.  Stick it in a good sized
> case, even if you have to do it yourself.  CPU technology isn't advancing
> the way it used to be and there are signs it's about to hit a wall.
> With AMD failing to catch up I also suspect that Intel will start
> jacking up their prices, so I expect to see Intel charging more for only
> marginally better CPUs.  A good CPU should easily last 5 years, maybe 10
> given how much things are slowing down.  As it is, I'm using an 7 year
> old $200 Intel CPU without much pain, though I mostly play older games.
> 
> I think the only risk is that the 8-core AMD-based PlayStation 4 and
> Xbox One consoles might cause a seismic shift in how games are designed,
> some how changing the equation to prefer more cores over better single
> threaded performance.  However after almost 3 years there's no sign of
> this happening.  The PC is still the king of gaming performance.

That was the point, my 8 year old CPU doesn't matter in the slightest with most games, which actually use the GPU, but some console ports are nearly unplayable on it - GTA IV and now The Crew.  I'm starting to think I'm going to just forget it because I still see people getting crap performance even with newer CPUs for The Crew with no apparent reason or fix.  If I thought it would fix my issues for sure, I'd do it, or if I really had the spare cash to do it right - New CPU, MB, Memory and an SSD, but it seems iffy if it'll work, which makes me shy of it.  

Since those games seem to be better with more cores, I was wondering if the AMD would be a better choice since you get more cores for less.  Does anyone actually use the AMD and played those games?  

I may just have to do a lot more research at this point.

I've now got the Crew on minimum settings except for resolution, and am overriding what I can with the Nvidia control panel at max and it seems far better, some of the graphics are a bit blocky looking due to the low textures, but the car bodies and buildings look decent with the AA maxed.

- Justisaur