1. Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

4 GB RAM - BF 4 stuttering a lot.

Discussion in 'Motherboards & Memory' started by itsakjt, Oct 30, 2013.

  1. itsakjt

    itsakjt

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2010
    Messages:
    1,173 (0.81/day)
    Thanks Received:
    381
    Location:
    Kolkata, India
    Do you think I just trusted the benchmarks only and overclocked as much as I could?
    I can show you how the FPS especially the minimum FPS increases with IMC clock increase and memory bandwidth. Also increasing the CPU/NB clock on AMD CPUs increases L3 cache performance too which IS needed by games and rendering wherever there is high memory use and frequent read/writes. Personally I know a friend who had the same CPU as mine but at absolutely stock and a GTX 460. Most games ran with a more consistent frame rate in my PC than his. He got the highest FPS more than me because he had a better GPU. But he had FPS drop issues in almost all games where I ran and still run everything much more stable and get a better experience than him. So yeah, benchmarks indeed are a reflection of the performance you get. Mind it I used the word reflection.

    Also if I can ever get hold of a Phenom II x6 BE, I will overclock it and beat the 8350 black and blue.
     
  2. Dent1

    Joined:
    May 18, 2010
    Messages:
    3,148 (1.99/day)
    Thanks Received:
    911
    Actually the L3 cache is very slow, its the slowest cache on a CPU and its plagued with high latencies. Look at an Phenom II VS Athlon II review. The Althon II is a Phenom II without L3 cache and it performs virtually the same. 5% difference on average.

    Toms hardware:
    http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/athlon-l3-cache,2416-9.html



    What makes you think a NB OC will overclock will increase performance much? Why would you want to access L3 cache any faster when we are aware L3 does little in the Phenom architecture.

    Why would you want to get hold of an Phenom II x6 BE? When you can get hold of an FX X6 which overclocks up to 1GHz further?

    What makes you think an overclocked Phenom II x6 BE would beat an FX 8350 black and blue?
     
    Last edited: Nov 3, 2013
  3. itsakjt

    itsakjt

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2010
    Messages:
    1,173 (0.81/day)
    Thanks Received:
    381
    Location:
    Kolkata, India
    Agreed die hard to your first point. Phenom II L3 cache is very slow. But what is wrong if I can increase it as much as possible? But talking about the 5% difference, keep in mind both of them are at stock. But when you overclock both, the L3 cache performance increases dramatically whereas there is no L3 cache at all in the Athlon IIs. If you can, try running AIDA 64 cache and memory benchmark in the latest stable release(3.20.2600). This is what I get.

    [​IMG]

    If you search benchmarks, you will find those are awesome scores for a Phenom II and Value RAMs.

    A stock Phenom II scores around 4000 points at stock in the 3D Mark 11 physics score. My Phenom II with the above OC scores above 5100 points.

    As for the Phenom II X6 and the FX 8150, if you check this:

    http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/203?vs=434

    You will see inspite of having two cores less, 300-500 MHz less clock(Turbo clock difference) and without AES, AVX, FMA4 instruction sets, the Phenom II X6 1100T BE CPU performs almost identical to the FX 8150. In most benches, the FX 8150 may win but by a very slight margin.

    Now coming to the point, the Phenom II X6s Thubans have a better architecture than the Denebs and their L3 cache is better than that of Denebs. The IMC and L3 cache of the FX is not that good. They don't like to OC above 100-200(max) MHz even with a very high voltage increase. A Phenom II X6 IMC can go as high as 3000-3200 MHz from 2000 MHz. And the X6 also overclocks well on the core clock at least 3.8-4.0 GHz. Now the thing is it is not all about overclocking. But it is a real shame on AMD and the FX lineup. An 8 core CPU developed some years later than that of a 6 core CPU should defeat the 6 core black and blue. Also keep in mind that a FX CPU requires a lot of voltage bump for overclocks. But even a bad Phenom II overclocks atleast 400-500 MHz at stock voltage. Having said all, I would rather keep a better 6 core than a crappy 8 core. The 63x0 and 83x0 are better though but still expected a lot more.
     
  4. de.das.dude

    de.das.dude Pro Indian Modder

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    7,652 (4.91/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,019
    ignorance? :roll::roll::roll::roll::laugh::laugh::laugh:
     
    Dent1 says thanks.
  5. itsakjt

    itsakjt

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2010
    Messages:
    1,173 (0.81/day)
    Thanks Received:
    381
    Location:
    Kolkata, India
    I mistyped it. It will be 8150 and not 8350.
     
  6. itsakjt

    itsakjt

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2010
    Messages:
    1,173 (0.81/day)
    Thanks Received:
    381
    Location:
    Kolkata, India
  7. Dent1

    Joined:
    May 18, 2010
    Messages:
    3,148 (1.99/day)
    Thanks Received:
    911
    They both were not running at stock. They down clocked the Phenom II to 2.6GHz to match the Athlon II X4 @ 2.6GHz so only the L3 cache is a factor in the results.


    The FX 8350 is the newer Piledriver and FX 8150 is the older Bulldozer, they are different.

    That link shows the FX 8150 out beating the Phenom II X6 easily.

    Most of the results are time based. "Time in seconds" to complete render, compression or encode. For time based activities the larger the file the longer the gap will be. For example Windows Media Encoder 9 the result was 28 seconds for the Phenom II X6 and 25 seconds for the FX 8150. If you are looking it ignorant eyes you will think that is a small gap of 3 seconds, but for encoding to finish that fast you must be dealing with extremely small video file, maybe 10MB or something unrealistically small. If your job was to convert and encode movie files you could be dealing with high definition files which are 8GB each. Now the Phenom II X6 could be 70 mins slower rather than 3 seconds slower.



    Why did you only post 5 pages. The review has many more pages you conveniently left out.

    Count how many the FX 8150 won in comparsion to the Phenom II X6. The FX8150 won the majority by a landslide overall, at worst it performed virtually the same, the few tasks which favoured the Phenom II X6 was only by slight margin, whereas the ones which favoured the FX were by a huge margin.

    Also I've already explained about how "time based" benchmarks work. The larger the file the greater the distance. I'm not going to explain it again.



    This thread started with you being humble and asking genuine questions for knowledge. Now it appears you are only here to validate your Phenom II X4 as being better than the FX. You obviously know better than us so no need to convince us.
     
    Last edited: Nov 3, 2013
    de.das.dude and FreedomEclipse say thanks.
  8. de.das.dude

    de.das.dude Pro Indian Modder

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    7,652 (4.91/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,019
    also whats the use of comparing an 8150. let the dead rest in peace.

    and there is a good lot of improvements with the new series.


    and benchmarks only tell your "that much".

    real world is a lot difference.
     
  9. itsakjt

    itsakjt

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2010
    Messages:
    1,173 (0.81/day)
    Thanks Received:
    381
    Location:
    Kolkata, India
    Ok agreed I am indeed wrong. But compare a FX 4350 to a Phenom II X4. And I am not saying that I am right and I am Mr. Know it all. This is a debate remember and debates are all about arguments.

    Coming to the point, all I wanted to say is that I am not convinced with the FX architecture.
    If you compare a FX 4300 and a Phenom II X4 980BE, you will see inspite of having a much higher clock rate, newer instruction sets and developed some years later, the FX 4300 looses horribly to the 980BE.

    http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/700?vs=362

    This is why I am saying that FX needs a revamp in the architecture and at the present scenario, someone not having a computer but who saw a friend playing on a Phenom II X4 980BE can not buy a CPU at a similar price at what his friend got the Phenom II. And what technology should be like? It should improve even if the cost is kept constant right?

    And thanks very much for explaining me the benchmark. I never thought of the file size and time part previously. Thanks a lot.
     
  10. de.das.dude

    de.das.dude Pro Indian Modder

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    7,652 (4.91/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,019
    you need to consider the costs of production. money makes everything happen.
    if the R9 290X is so much more succesful than the titan, its not because of the money, but because of the fact that it does so at half the costs.

    newer generation does not just mean blind performance. its performance for how much.

    given an unlimited pricetag anyone can build mammoth processors, but that does not happen because ultimately behind every product you need to consider the price bracket, demand, market, etc...

    also AMD has never really wanted to go for performance, they always go for affordable performance.
     
  11. Dent1

    Joined:
    May 18, 2010
    Messages:
    3,148 (1.99/day)
    Thanks Received:
    911

    The Phenom II X4 series was marketed as an enthusiast grade components on release, with the Phenom II X2 and X3 being mainstream.

    The FX 4xxx series was marketed as mainstream on release. It was never intended for you to upgrade from a Phenom II X4 to a FX 4xxx. No enthusiast would willingly go from a high end product to a low end product.

    Also the FX architecture was built with multi threading in mind so it supposed to scale with more modules added, the sharing of data between each modules making distribution of resources efficient. With 3 modules missing on the FX 4xxx its unable to do its primary function and thus yields mediocre both single threading and multi threading performance. But its a low end CPU so who cares?

    Your argument like saying why is the new R7 260X slower than a 4 year old 5870. The R7s architecture is obviously better, but for it to be sold as a cheap mainstream product it has to perform as so.
     
    Last edited: Nov 3, 2013
  12. itsakjt

    itsakjt

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2010
    Messages:
    1,173 (0.81/day)
    Thanks Received:
    381
    Location:
    Kolkata, India
    I agree man. Wholeheartedly to all you mentioned. But the thing is here in India where you live too, not everyone can afford 10,000 Rs for the CPU. The thing I am saying is not only me. Some time back, if someone had a budget of around Rs 6500-7000 Rs, he/she would choose a Phenom II X4 9xx over a FX 41xx(same time of the last Phenoms) any day but now they can't because the older Phenom IIs are no longer available. Now talking about cost, they both cost the same initially and people literally bought a Phenom II instead of FX when they were available. But after sometime, they were forced to buy a FX 41xx. 43xx improved a bit but sadly not what anyone should expect.

    Coming to the R9 290X, yes they are priced very well and gives excellent performance even when compared to a more expensive part from NVIDIA. That is why they are and will make a good market.
     
  13. itsakjt

    itsakjt

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2010
    Messages:
    1,173 (0.81/day)
    Thanks Received:
    381
    Location:
    Kolkata, India
    Kinda true. But ultimately, the Phenoms came down in the price and in sometime, the FX 4100 and the Phenom II costed the same. Yet Phenoms gave better performance.
    And coming to GPUs, even when the 5870 was being phased out of the market it was much more expensive than the now priced R 7 260X. And in India, that cost is more pronounced because of the 1$ = 55-60 Rs + value.

    Now if you compare a GPU available now at slightly less than the last retail price of 5870, that new GPU will definitely perform better than the 5870.

    In one word, I am not happy with the way AMD developed the FX. I think they could have done better in the same cost or even if they raised the cost slightly. I mean look, AMDs best selling CPUs were their Phenom lineup because they performed very well when compared to Intel counterparts at that time.
     
  14. Dent1

    Joined:
    May 18, 2010
    Messages:
    3,148 (1.99/day)
    Thanks Received:
    911
    The phenom II only came down in price so they could sell the inventory to ultimately discontinue it to make room for the FX range. having two competing ranges in the market place is bad for business.

    What would you rather they up the price of the remaining Phenom II 4x stock? That would make no sense as it'll be priced to similar to the FX 6xxx range which is clearly superior.


    The 5870 has to cost more, its was a high end product at one time #1 before the 5970, R7 260X is a midrange product.


    AMD's best selling processors are their desktop and mobile APUs.

    AMD's best performing processors was between 1998-2005 with their Athlon, Duron and Sempron series. They didn't sell very well.

    AMD doesn't compete well with Intel? Look back at that Guru of 3D review you posted the FX 8150 is consistently beating the i7 965 and sometimes out performing the 2500k and 2600k. If that isn't competition what is?

    Read some reviews the FX 8350 competes with Core i5-3470 and the 3570K in multi threaded tasks for cheaper, and competes with the i3-3225 in single threaded tasks.

    http://techreport.com/review/23750/amd-fx-8350-processor-reviewed/14
     
  15. FreedomEclipse

    FreedomEclipse ~Technological Technocrat~

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2007
    Messages:
    13,665 (5.05/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,273
    Not really. a E8400 clocked to 3Ghz will out pace a X4 9550 in most tests and E8400's can hit 4Ghz easily and I can only think how far the gap would be between the 2 CPUs when it is OC'd.

    In some tests even the older E6850 performed better

    Going by bit-techs massive CPU bench review

    Obviously there are tests where a dual core cant compete with a multi-core processor but Intels dual core's really put on a good show and even beat out the Phenoms in a few file compression and encoding tests.

    AMD Phenoms used more power than Intels C2D but they were priced very competitively otherwise the only people who would buy them are fan boys.
     
  16. Dent1

    Joined:
    May 18, 2010
    Messages:
    3,148 (1.99/day)
    Thanks Received:
    911

    Agreed.

    The Phenom Agena couldn't offer much performance competition for the Core 2 series.

    It was only when the Pheneom II Deneb with its refinements that it could compete with Core 2 series. i.e. Phenom II X2 5xx vs E8xxx or Phenom II X4 9xxx vs Q9xxx And even then the E8xxx series would outperform Phenom II and Intel's own Q9xxx series because applications just favoured the dual cores. It was only when applications became more intensive naturally we saw the E8xxx begin to trail in benchmarks, but this took a couple of years.
     
  17. natr0n

    natr0n

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2012
    Messages:
    1,906 (1.98/day)
    Thanks Received:
    975
    Thread has turned into CPU History 101 .
     
  18. Jaffakeik

    Jaffakeik

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2008
    Messages:
    2,585 (1.22/day)
    Thanks Received:
    188
    Location:
    Northampton,UK
    BF3 is good with 6gb aswell atleast for my old build it was no problem.Dont know about bf4 never played it.
     
  19. itsakjt

    itsakjt

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2010
    Messages:
    1,173 (0.81/day)
    Thanks Received:
    381
    Location:
    Kolkata, India
    You are not getting my point. I wholeheartedly agree with you. But ain't it bad for the customers who had to buy a new yet inferior product? And in the FX lineup, they are playing a number game. More clock speed is not everything. The FX needs serious IPC improvements. And when every manufacturers are reducing power usage in all their products, AMD is coming up with 125W CPUs. I mean if you compare 1st gen and 3rd gen Intel i3, i5, i7 i.e. the same time between the Phenom II X4 and FX 4xxx, the performance increase of Intel is much more pronounced than AMD and that too with a lower power consumption.

    True the 8350 "competes" with the Core i5s you mentioned. But if you keep the business aside i.e. forget the cost. Technologically speaking, ain't it bad for AMD that even with 8 cores clocked at a much higher clock rate and using more power, still it can't defeat a much lower clocked Intel quad core which consumes much lower power! Look even if AMD decided to pack some more expected performance to the FX WITH some extra cost and even if the FX 83xx were priced higher than the Intel counterparts, everyone would have bought it without thinking much. Those buying Intels then would have been fanboys.

    I think this discussion can be ended now. It is personal preference. I expected much better performance from the FX series.
     
  20. Dent1

    Joined:
    May 18, 2010
    Messages:
    3,148 (1.99/day)
    Thanks Received:
    911
    Had to buy? Nobody forces you to buy a FX 4xxx. If you don't want an inferior product get the FX 63xxx or FX 8xxx.



    What are you talking about? There are 95W FX's



    The difference between Ivy Bridge and Haswell was relatively small.

    Intel changed sockets like 4 times screwing their customers so they can't upgrade to the latest components.

    AMD gave us backward compatibility across all the generations. So you can drop a FX 8xxx in a 2006 AM2+ motherboard.



    Actually the FX 8350 CAN compete with core i7-3770k and i7-3960x too in multi threaded tasks. You would know this if you read the link I gave.

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
     
  21. Aquinus

    Aquinus Resident Wat-man

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2012
    Messages:
    6,264 (6.50/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,077
    Location:
    Concord, NH
    Don't lie. You need at least an AM3 board for FX CPUs. FX doesn't have a DDR2 controller on it like AM3 chips did.

    Or maybe Intel changes enough on their CPUs that changes to the motherboard were necessary. Haswell's redesigned VRM setup that uses a base voltage going into the CPU where the CPU regulates the rest of the voltages does in fact require changes to the socket and motherboard. Also it's not like they're changing it every year. Skt1155 was out for a while before it was succeeded by 1150 and 2011 is still very much so alive.

    I also think the OP is going to be gaming, so why are you showing multi-threaded benchmarks? In reality, it's not the kind of workload he will be putting on the computer.
     
    itsakjt says thanks.
  22. FreedomEclipse

    FreedomEclipse ~Technological Technocrat~

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2007
    Messages:
    13,665 (5.05/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,273
    This assumption is wrong...

    [​IMG]

    Here we have an intel DC that almost goes toe-to-toe with the 8350, It also costs significantly less. The only real downside is that the i3 cant be overclocked like the 8350 but at stock clocks the i3 is literally 1:1 performance and its about 60-70% more power efficient at doing it.

    What you're describing/wishing for just aint gonna happen.... For instance AMD's new 290X GPU. It draws 300w from mains while under load, thats 64w more than the Titan. but it runs faster than the Titan and is priced VERY competitively.

    what you are saying is that you want AMD to raise performance and charge more then intel counterparts when the only way AMD are going to be able to do that is raise TDP and their TDP is already higher then most better performing Intel processors. Throw in the price tag - AMD charging more than Intel and the ONLY people that would buy one would definitely the fan boys. What you describe are all negatives and not one positive. In the case of the 290X the power consumption and the 95'c thermals were massively offset by the price otherwise nobody would touch the 290X.

    Everything these days are made to be more (power) efficient than the last generation, and doing more for less is always seen as one of the top priorities whether its getting more mileage out of your car on a single tank of gas or heating your house on cold days while keeping the power consumption as low as possible to keep the bills down.

    More/marginal performance gain + Higher TDP - which is already much higher then the competitions + Higher price tag = More people buying intel.

    The situation with AMD isnt perfect but they are turning a profit by making processors that are sold at a price tag thats competitive as they know they cant compete 1:1 with intel. their APU's are probably one of their best creations in the last decade which has saved them from bankruptcy. Look at the Xbone & PS4 - Both running AMD APUs and those are HUGE contracts for AMD.
     
  23. itsakjt

    itsakjt

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2010
    Messages:
    1,173 (0.81/day)
    Thanks Received:
    381
    Location:
    Kolkata, India
    Yeah I am not happy with the current CPU tech of AMD FX. See why would I buy a FX 8350 over an i3? It costs less, has less power consumption and performs more or less same. And another thing, keep the technology in mind not just the price. A dual core performing almost on par with an 8 core. Isn't that horrible?

    @Dent1 - Who told you FX supports AM2+? FX doesn't even support AM3. It physically fits but it does not run except a very few AM3 boards which were very high end.
     
  24. Dent1

    Joined:
    May 18, 2010
    Messages:
    3,148 (1.99/day)
    Thanks Received:
    911
    Who said anything about DDR2? The GeForce 7025 / nForce 630a chipset which was originally a 2005-2006 chipset fully supports the FX range.


    Who cares why. AMD had compromised even greater performance for backward compatibility and it's worked out as a great selling tool.

    Not everyone was happy about Intel changing sockets 4 times.


    OP has already been given advice about his rig. We are off topic. He was saying the FX 8350 didn't compete which was a blanket statement. I've shown him evidence otherwise.

    Then don't buy an FX. Simple.




    What are you talking about??? Since when does the i3 perform the same as the FX 8350. The FX 8350 would spank it, I've already shown you numerous reviews of the of the FX 8350 competing with the core i7-3770k and i7-3960x and you are still talking about the i3.

    Heck the FX 6300 is often cheaper than the i3. Oh and faster than the i3 too.



    As far as power consumption. You want AMD's high end enthusiast CPU to generate lower power than Intel's budget CPU? - You want a 8 core monster to generate less power than a 2 core insect? What you're saying is illogical. If power consumption is your only issue that's what The AMD Llano Trinity, Richland are for :)





    itsakjt, you are coming off as a troll now. You thank Aquinus;3009713. But I send you 8 screenshots of the FX 8350 competing with the core i7-3770k and i7-3960x and I get no thanks. I taught you something new. FreedomEclipse posted power consumption stuff and it goes ignored. It's almost like anyone that says the opposite to us gets an automatic thank and fuels your motivation to post again.
     
    Last edited: Nov 4, 2013
  25. Aquinus

    Aquinus Resident Wat-man

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2012
    Messages:
    6,264 (6.50/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,077
    Location:
    Concord, NH
    You did. AM2+ only used DDR2 memory. I don't thank someone for giving information not relevant to the post and I don't give thanks for posts being wrong.

    See that? That's what you said, and it's a lie.

    Apparently you do, because your making a fuss out of it. If I'm going to be upgrading my computer, replacing the motherboard is always a consideration if you want some newer technology like USB 3.0 or SATA3 built-in. Even if I stuck with AMD, there is no way I would have kept with my AM2+ board from my Phenom 2 940 days...

    Maybe that's because he is talking about gaming. His "blanket statement" is clearly for what he will be using the PC for.
     
    Last edited: Nov 4, 2013
    itsakjt says thanks.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guest)

Share This Page