Nvidia 980 SLI 4k Intel VS AMD test

http://www.tweaktown.com/tweakipedia/56/amd-fx-8350-powering-gtx-780-sli-vs-gtx-980-sli-at-4k/index.html
Came across this article/test at tweaktown. thought i would share cause its like... awesome.

I find it interesting that the FX8350 can keep pace and perform better/worse then the I7 4930k but not be consididered a contender. if you just scroll threw the article and not read it i feel sorry for ya.

to sum it up the 8350FX trades blows back and forth with the 4930k, but what is truely suprising is how the AMD 8350FX win's literally every single bench against the I7 4930k at 4k res.

Im not a fan boy. I have always loved my AMD parts but i respect intel. i dont like intel as a company so i will not buy there parts if i dont have to but on that note i admit they have faster cpu's.

Its really funny though. i get into these debates with ppl on line (huge Intel fan boys) and people dont understand that the FX8350 CPU is better then the benchmarks let it appear. my personal belief is every time a bench mark is created its created to bench a intel CPU. with intels market share cause of there buisness practices its understandable. but for the cost of the i7 vs the FX which one is actually the smartest buy. Money talk's bro's.

9 times out of 10 i tell people to buy the AMD. Cost wise its smart. and it apears it stands its ground when demand is increased.

What do you fine gents think of this awesome article?

 

I would be wondering how the FX8350 does in terms of heat, and power consumption. If you take that into caluclation (and some poeple don't want to have a power hungry or hot CPU), I'm not sure if things would look that equal anymore.
But with everything, that's a matter of what you're looking for. I'd go AMD for a CPU if I had the impression I'd actually win something besides money in the pocket that I spend on energy later on, or if the cooling becomes louder than with an Intel counterpart. But that's just my impression.

 

At 4k I believe the gpus become the bottleneck, I think thats why you are seeing similar numbers in this article.

 

Very interesting insight. I agree that might be the case with the 780s but not sure with the 980s. Also we don't know if they OC the fx 8350 or not.

I'm willing to bet if they OC the 4930k then the results might be a tad different.

 

Good stuff. ill have it tomorrow. pairing it up with 8GB Gskill Sniper 1600.

What i really like about the AM1 platform is that its a actual platform. If AMD puts out a new wave of APU's in the 25w segmant that double performance then my upgrade path down the road looks very promising.

I looked at the low power intel system setups but i decided that the AMD was just the better choice. I dont like the idea of a platform that cant be upgraded.

 

Nice article. Only 2 concerns.

1) No AA to see if there is any additional cpu optimizations on driver impact, not even 2xAA?
2) Where are the AMD GPU CFX results? Would be nice to see this added to both platforms.

 

I wouldn't pair an amd cpu with all that gpu power. Cpu limited games will start chugging compared to intel. The cpus are fine for single gpu. Something about the pci e lanes not being on the cpu like intel or something to that effect.

 

Yeah I agree. The AMD CPU would bottle neck the graphics cards especially the 980s.

The Intel Platform that I have can be upgraded.

 

I think the more interesting thing is the fact that SLI isn't being bottlenecked by the 990fx chipset which I've read countless times.

Nice article, however I have a bunch of single threaded and unoptimized titles I undoubtedly love, and can't leave intel I have jumped ship to the dark side long back.

 

CPU Dependant games are going to massively favour the Intel CPU, and I'd love to know what clock speeds they were running those chips at. If both were OC'd the 4930K would come out on top in pretty much every way. There's nothing wrong with running an AMD setup, but they're inferior to Intel in the majority of gaming scenarios.

I'm not sure why people are talking about AMD upgradability still either, upgrading a slow chip to a slightly faster chip isn't worth while. Someone buying a Z97 and a Pentium K will get fantastic budget game performance, while leaving an upgrade to a 4790K down the line open. AMD currently offers nothing on par with that chip, and never will with its current socket line up.

 

Kind of reminiscent of that tech syndicate video review of amd cpus.

 

Agreed. Very well said. I couldn't have said it better myself. Also Z97 leaves open for those who want to upgrade to Broadwell as well.

 

AMD is essentially brilliant with what they did with Mantle (even if by accident). Any effort to compete with it in reducing CPU overhead (as Nvidia did with their magical driver improvement) immediately levels the playing field for their CPUs. The 8350 is still better than its closest priced Intel counter part in areas outside of gaming, and isn't even drastically far behind there. Games are becoming more multithreaded, as required to a greater extent now for current gen consoles.

 

Rarely venture here, had intended to go to Intel forum but clicked AMD section by mistake. This thread though caught my eye.

For 4k gaming, forget the 8350, 4930 and even 4790k. The Pentium G3258 dual core is the way to go! At 4.5ghz it matches or beats the 4790k @ 4.7ghz (same site, Tweaktown):

http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/6...niversary-cpu-gaming-performance/index10.html

OK, not SLI, but for single card performance at 4k and at $69.99, looks like a good deal .

http://www.amazon.com/Intel-Pentium-Processor-G3258-BX80646G3258/dp/B00KPRWAZQ

 

It only beats it by 1-2 fps which is not that much. But Impressive nonetheless.

 

Thats because any single card will be hopelessly bottlenecked at that high resolution. Multi gpu is a must at that resolution. 3 or 4 cards imo. Than the weaker cpus will show their true colors.

 

Next week I'll be upgrading from an FX8350 to an i7 5820k - I'll be keeping my 680 SLI setup so will post a few benchmarks of my own in a post later next week to share what the differences are for comparison... I don't run a 4k display though but if I can get 3dmark to work with DSR in SLI i'll do that!

 

I only used the pentium example to illustrate that any other lowly CPU can probably do just as well at 4k, where the CPU has much less work to do than the GPU at that res. Of course buying a pentium just because it does well at 4k is silly imo, as it will be seriously behind in most other areas. I believe some new games wont even run with dual cores (FC4?) as quad cores are becoming minimum requirement. So to sum up, 4k res CPU benchmarks are not very indicative of anything imo.

 

WOW! That sounds like a Hugh and expensive upgrade. Something tells me you keep you hardware for at least 2 to 4 years, am I correct?