AMD FX-6330 Black Edition Six-core Processor Surfaces

Discussion in 'Frontpage news' started by Hilbert Hagedoorn, Dec 15, 2015.

  1. Hilbert Hagedoorn

    Hilbert Hagedoorn Don Vito Corleone Staff Member

    Messages:
    36,047
    Likes Received:
    5,092
    GPU:
    AMD | NVIDIA
  2. vbetts

    vbetts Don Vincenzo Staff Member

    Messages:
    14,670
    Likes Received:
    1,245
    GPU:
    RTX 2070FE
    For that price, that's a killer CPU.
     
  3. Undying

    Undying Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    11,720
    Likes Received:
    1,457
    GPU:
    Aorus RX580 XTR 8GB
    For gaming purpose i3-6100 would be alot better option. Idk about the pricing on Intel chip though.
     
    Last edited: Dec 15, 2015
  4. BLEH!

    BLEH! Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    5,876
    Likes Received:
    68
    GPU:
    Sapphire Fury
    Not bad. Better TDP, too.
     

  5. warlord

    warlord Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,359
    Likes Received:
    774
    GPU:
    Null
    I don't think so. I play every game I want smoothly with my cheap AMD here.
     
  6. Seketh

    Seketh Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    1,894
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Asus GTX 760 DirectCU II
    Performance should be about the same, and considering it has six cores, it'll be better on multithreaded applications.

    For the price range, it just looks like a better choice.
     
  7. schmidtbag

    schmidtbag Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    4,407
    Likes Received:
    1,343
    GPU:
    HIS R9 290
    I disagree - people have way too much faith in HT. It isn't anywhere near as good as people make it out to be (for gaming purposes), especially on a dual core. If the game wasn't optimized for HT, which does happen, then you don't get any performance gain. Then again, the vast majority of software doesn't knowingly take advantage of both cores in an AMD module either.

    So then, it really comes down to these worst-case scenarios:
    A. Get a dual core with decent power efficiency
    or
    B. Get a triple core with poor power efficiency

    Personally, I'd choose option B. For modern games (especially ones ported from consoles), AMD's module design works fine.
     
  8. theoneofgod

    theoneofgod Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    4,068
    Likes Received:
    49
    GPU:
    RX 580 8GB
    A lot of games benefit from higher IPC (or single core performance) which Intel excels in compared to AMD. That's why in quite a few games, a recent i3 will outperform a FX-8350. The effect can be amplified if combined with an AMD GPU which already suffers from more CPU overhead than the competition.
     
  9. schmidtbag

    schmidtbag Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    4,407
    Likes Received:
    1,343
    GPU:
    HIS R9 290
    That was true maybe 2 or 3 years ago. I don't know of any modern single-threaded games that the average CPU can't handle.
     
  10. theoneofgod

    theoneofgod Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    4,068
    Likes Received:
    49
    GPU:
    RX 580 8GB
    It's getting worse... Games are becoming more intensive, more drawcalls, etc. CPU IPC is getting more important. That's why we have Mantle/DX12/Vulkan.

    I'm not saying AMD CPU's can't handle games, but Intel handle them better.
     

  11. vbetts

    vbetts Don Vincenzo Staff Member

    Messages:
    14,670
    Likes Received:
    1,245
    GPU:
    RTX 2070FE
    True, but really if you are just playing games do you need a cpu that can play a game you would normally only play at say 30-60 fps at 200 fps? The good thing about that though, the cpu that can hit 200 fps over say 150 fps will be more future proof.

    Now what I will say about AMD CPUs, they do last. Intel's do too, but price for performance is still pretty nice. I had my Athlon II X3 435 since it was released, and up until about a year ago it was running 3.8 ghz non stop no problem and still could handle titles I threw at it with no issues. For a $70 cpu, that was awesome. Only reason it's not in service anymore is I wanted to downsize and got an Alpha for $300.
     
  12. theoneofgod

    theoneofgod Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    4,068
    Likes Received:
    49
    GPU:
    RX 580 8GB
    Overhead has a serious impact on lowest/avg FPS. If the driver thread gets bottlenecked during an intensive scene or a poorly optimized game, FPS will drop from a steady 60FPS. Sometimes it's inevitable (streaming problems, etc) but a higher IPC can reduce it.
    That's the problem AMD users are having now with AMD GPU's. NVIDIA has 70% or so less CPU overhead, in the overhead test anyway.
     
    Last edited: Dec 15, 2015
  13. schmidtbag

    schmidtbag Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    4,407
    Likes Received:
    1,343
    GPU:
    HIS R9 290
    Generally speaking, the GPU is the bottleneck, not the CPU. The only game I play where the CPU is the bottleneck is Starcraft 2, and that's just simply because that game's engine was very poorly designed. My system doesn't really lag any more or less than others who are Intel+Nvidia users.
     
  14. theoneofgod

    theoneofgod Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    4,068
    Likes Received:
    49
    GPU:
    RX 580 8GB
    If that was the case, surely overclocking the FX-9590 wouldn't increase FPS, or if it did, not so much?

    [​IMG]
    You can see it becoming GPU bound here but with an i7.

    [​IMG]
    Comparing these 2 also shows the IPC (or core performance) importance in games. The 4770K at 2.5GHz is outperforming the FX-9590 at 4.5GHz.

    Games are API bound in a way, that's why the low level API's are so important.
     
    Last edited: Dec 15, 2015
  15. vbetts

    vbetts Don Vincenzo Staff Member

    Messages:
    14,670
    Likes Received:
    1,245
    GPU:
    RTX 2070FE
    GTAV is one of the many games that take advantage of the more traditional design of the CPU. One thing I would like to see in gaming benchmarks of any FX cpu is CPU usage.

    Still for the price of the FX9 series compared to the i7 considering it's usually $100 less or more, that's not horrible performance. FX9 series compared to an i5 in the same price range however is a different story. :)
     

  16. schmidtbag

    schmidtbag Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    4,407
    Likes Received:
    1,343
    GPU:
    HIS R9 290
    I said "generally speaking", meaning, not always. Also as pointed out before, if you only intend to get to 60FPS, then getting higher than that doesn't matter. If you intend to get beyond 60FPS, then what's the point of wasting time and money considering a mediocre CPU?

    If you're an average gamer, a mildly overclocked FX-6330 will suffice.
     
  17. theoneofgod

    theoneofgod Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    4,068
    Likes Received:
    49
    GPU:
    RX 580 8GB
    CPU overhead doesn't just effect max FPS.
     
  18. Fox2232

    Fox2232 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    9,728
    Likes Received:
    2,188
    GPU:
    5700XT+AW@240Hz
    I think that future-proofness will come from software. Sooner of later DX12 will be main player and Vulkan will show itself.
    Only at that time we can say that Dual Core with High IPC & HT is better than hexa core with bit lower IPC, but much higher total performance.

    If ideologies behind those two rendering APIs reach their holes, then this will definitely live longer than any i3 made till today.
    And 8-cored Bulldozers owners will outlive same generation of i5s.

    I think we will see it in mid of 2016.
     
    Last edited: Dec 15, 2015
  19. schmidtbag

    schmidtbag Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    4,407
    Likes Received:
    1,343
    GPU:
    HIS R9 290
    Yeah, and the sky is blue... As I said before, in most cases, the GPU is the bottleneck. So what's your point? Just seems like petty nit-picking to me.
     
  20. vbetts

    vbetts Don Vincenzo Staff Member

    Messages:
    14,670
    Likes Received:
    1,245
    GPU:
    RTX 2070FE
    It is more than that though.

    You can hit 60fps now, but that does not mean much if it does not stay near 60fps, or even has frame sync issues or stuttering.

    Plus look at it like this, CPU1 can play Doom78 at max 200 FPS.
    CPU2 can play Doom78 at max 160 FPS.

    But what about future titles? I know it does not work always like this, but that's 12.5% more performance.

    So now Doom 79 is out 3 years later, and because of higher IPC CPU1 can play it at 60fps constant.

    CPU2 can reach 60fps, but it cannot keep it.

    It does future proof having the cpu that can hit a higher FPS even though you may not intend to play at that FPS.
     

Share This Page