Core 2 vs Piledriver FX?

[mroofie]

Yes I am sure! I've been on this site long enough to see that it is pro Nvidia & Intel & its pretty obvious why! Because they're f..king better right now, especially Intel! What I don't understand is the constant AMD bashing

And you're telling me to stop living in denial gtfo you obvious troll!

well I'm on multiple sites which tend to be pro Amd so there goes that theory.
Stop saying I'm a troll what I'm doing is far from trolling

 

[Mussels]

Opening this thread to correct some of the misguided information in this community. In light of another thread where a few individuals believed than the Core 2 Duo E8400 could yield better performance in single threaded applications or games than the Piledriver FX 6300.

Some people even claimed that the Phenom II X4 couldn't even compete with the Core 2 Duo.

Upon posing numerous links rebutting this, nobody could challenge it with a logical argument.

This thread gives anyone the chance to prove me wrong.

To kick this thread off I will start with this.


Lets concentrate on the games on Anandtech (http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/56?vs=80)
E8400 vs Phenom II 940 (both 3GHz)
79.8 vs 76 FPS
45.3 vs 48.2
117 vs 116.2
87FPS vs 82.8FPS

^ above shows the E8400 and Phenom II 940 performing about the same in games. Common sense would say the FX6300 would outperform the E8400 in games given the Piledriver FX's IPC is up to 25% better than its predecessor.

Would this alone be a logical argument? If anyone disagrees I'm happy to rebuttal with more evidence.

the only addition was that the E8500/x8600 OC'd like monsters, easily passing 4GHz.

i recently upgraded someone from an E8600 to an athlon II x4, mostly because their DDR2 was failing... and that E8600 was definitely faster in games. the newer AMD simply had a lot more features on its mobo and DDR3 support, which meant it was a worthy sidegrade at least.

 

[EarthDog]

Athlon is lesser than the phenom... That would be expected considering.


@roofie... Give it up.. whatever you are trying (and failing) to do here and in that other closed thread. Learn to multi post edit as well...thought you said you belong to multiple forums...do they have no general etiquette rules or what?!!

 

[BarbaricSoul]

Why does this even matter? Core2 went EOL like what, 5 years ago? I find it pathetic that Core2 is so close to FX in performance.

well I'm on multiple sites which tend to be pro Amd so there goes that theory.

What sites are those? Simple fact of the matter is that Intel cpus do outperform AMD cpus, and Nvidia has the top performing GPU right now. That is why this site is primarily pro-Intel and Nvidia. If AMD takes the performance crown in either of those subjects, this site would turn pro-AMD.

 

[hat]

That's the main reason I still hold on to this Q6600... even though I mainly run at 3GHz. Years later it's still good. Sure there's much better performing stuff out there but for the money it would cost I don't really need it. Maybe in another year or two...

 

[Dent1]

Why does this even matter? Core2 went EOL like what, 5 years ago? I find it pathetic that Core2 is so close to FX in performance.

But it isn't close to the FX performance. That is what this entire discussion was about. I literally brought forward an argument (numerous times, with numerous links) which suggest the Core 2 on par with the last iteration of the Phenom II (45nm, C3). I painstakingly explain why the FX is at minimum up to 25% faster in single threaded applications.

But its like everyone rather not read, not comprehend or put in a valid argument with statistics and just throw around statements which are often false which they've regurgitated from somebody else.

It's OK to have an opinion, but I was hoping for people to support their arguments with evidence. I wanted a scientific debate. This is what TPU used to be about.

I'm still waiting for Apples to Apples stuff dent... I've mentioned that throughout the thread too...
So far you have come up with two tests relevant to your talking points as I see it. remember, same clocks and single or max dual threaded.

Apples to apples won't happen,because we are talking CPUs from different eras so finding benchmarks with both the FX and Core 2 Duo is impossible (other than Anandtech). We have to work with what we have. Get the results from review A + B and B + C.

If A>B and B>C then A>C This can be established without A and C being in the review. It isn't apple to apple, but at least its scientific which is better than blanket statements.

 

[EarthDog]

I'm still waiting for Apples to Apples stuff dent... I've mentioned that throughout the thread too...

So far you have come up with two tests relevent to your talking points as I see it. remember, same clocks and single or max dual threaded.

 

[the54thvoid]

Yes I am sure! I've been on this site long enough to see that it is pro Nvidia & Intel & its pretty obvious why! Because they're f..king better right now, especially Intel! What I don't understand is the constant AMD bashing

And you're telling me to stop living in denial gtfo you obvious troll!

Your assertions are unfair and misguided, dare I say even a little reckless. The site is absolutely not Pro Intel or Nvidia. To say that is questioning the professionalism of W1zzard. There are some idiotic sections that blindly support either side (I thought you were quite pro AMD but your Nv acquisition has stymied that feeling - I like to know what people have in their specs when they argue or take sides ).

Fact is, the site is a commercial site that raises revenue from adds. Review samples are sent by all all sides (or bought by some). The reviews are well balanced and point to base facts. People who object to the reviews then state illogical arguments or counter views based on their own hurt purchasing pride. It would be nice if people like yourself distanced the site's conduct from it's user base, many of whom are ignorant fuck sticks and many of whom are well educated technophiles.

If people think the SITE is biased and keep arguing blind about, then why not leave and join an AMD commune?

As for the current discussion - it looks as if it's based on fanning the flames of a pointless argument. I frankly couldn't give a shit which is better (not that my opinion means anything other than to me). FTR, my dad's PC -built and upgraded by me- runs a 10??T and a 270X because it was the best cost/perf solution at the time.

What is relevant is the use of the cpu. And also whether or not they can be bought these days from retail channels. The argument seems philosophically EOL, regardless of it's factual ideology.

I'm still waiting for Apples to Apples stuff dent... I've mentioned that throughout the thread too...

So far you have come up with two tests relevent to your talking points as I see it. remember, same clocks and single or max dual threaded.

In fairness to Dent, we don't discuss gfx cards of each generation clock by clock. If a cpu is clocked higher, that's a retail decision that should be taken into account. Equalising clocks is unfair as that is a manufacturing decision based on engineering, power and efficiency.

 

[EarthDog]

But the discussion is about IPC and single threaded performance...in order to compare IPC, they MUST be clocked the same. Video cards have nothing to do with this..

 

[Solaris17]

I am kind of surprised this wasn't posted in the OP or anywhere in the thread.


http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/56?vs=699
The benchmarks here show the amd 6300 beating the c2d 8400 in every benchmark. It didn't win by a lot in single threaded but it did win. So yes, the terrible bulldozer 6300 does beat the ancient c2d 8400.

On a side note, the 6300 has a 500 megahertz advantage. Maybe they are the same in single threaded performance clock for clock.

lets not forget that the 6300 will boost clock to 4.1

 

[Dent1]

So far you have come up with two tests relevent to your talking points as I see it. remember, same clocks and single or max dual threaded.[/QUOTE]

But the discussion is about IPC and single threaded performance...in order to compare IPC, they MUST be clocked the same.

To be fair the E8400 and Phenom II X4 940 are both clocked at 3GHz. Which I already discussed. Also discussed Q9xxx and Phenom II X4 in another thread at similar clocks.

But this is still a good point. I will try my best to cross correlate some results from the Phenom II X2 5xx.

 

[BarbaricSoul]

But it isn't close to the FX performance. That is what this entire discussion was about. I literally brought forward an argument (numerous times, with numerous links) which suggest the Core 2 on par with the last iteration of the Phenom II (45nm, C3). I painstakingly explain why the FX is at minimum up to 25% faster in single threaded applications.

But its like everyone rather not read, not comprehend or put in a valid argument with statistics and just throw around statements which are often false which they've regurgitated from somebody else.

It's OK to have an opinion, but I was hoping for people to support their arguments with evidence. I wanted a scientific debate. This is what TPU used to be about.

A 3 GHz Core2Quad compared to a 3.8GHz FX http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/700?vs=49

Yes, they are very close. Infact, I'd be willing to bet the Q9650 beats the FX4300 if they were both running 3.8GHz (which the Q9650 could easily do)

 

[Solaris17]

Why does this even matter? Core2 went EOL like what, 5 years ago? I find it pathetic that Core2 is so close to FX in performance.



What sites are those? Simple fact of the matter is that Intel cpus do outperform AMD cpus, and Nvidia has the top performing GPU right now. That is why this site is primarily pro-Intel and Nvidia. If AMD takes the performance crown in either of those subjects, this site would turn pro-AMD.

this exactly the fact that the 8400 can even beat a quad in some tests is ridiculous.

 

[Dent1]

this exactly the fact that the 8400 can even beat a quad in some tests is ridiculous.

I'm confused. What link or post are you referring to?

BarbaricSoul was talking about Q9650 not E8400. In his earlier post he didn't show any links showing the E8400 outperforming a quad core. It was just a blanket statement.

 

[Solaris17]

I'm confused. What link or post are you referring to?

BarbaricSoul was talking about Q9650 not E8400.

its ok sweet pea

 

[Durvelle27]

Wow

 

[Dent1]

In response to keeping the analysis apples vs apples. I will compare dual cores only at the same clock speed.

Phenom II X2 550 BE (3GHz) and E8400 (3Ghz) - Neoseeker review
http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/pii_555/8.html

Bioshock
Phenom II X2 550 BE
186 FPS
149 FPS
121 FPS
Core 2 Duo E8400
180 FPS
141 FPS
114 FPS

Farcry 2
Phenom II X2 550 BE
58 FPS
59 FPS
55 FPS
Core 2 Duo E8400
57 FPS
58 FPS
55 FPS

Crysis Warhead:
Phenom II X2 550 BE
43 FPS
37 FPS
33 FPS
Core 2 Duo E8400
47 FPS
40 FPS
33 FPS

Left4Dead
Phenom II X2 550 BE
113 FPS
110 FPS
84 FPS
Core 2 Duo E8400
103 FPS
97 FPS
85 FPS

Call of Jarez
Phenom II X2 550 BE
108 FPS
Core 2 Duo E8400
109 FPS

World of Conflict
Phenom II X2 550 BE
162 FPS
Core 2 Duo E8400
186 FPS

The Phenom II X2 is faster in Bioshock, Farcry and Left4dead. Whereas the Core 2 Duo E8400 is faster in Crysis Wars and World in Conflict. A draw for Call of Juarez. The results are too narrow to conclusively say which processor performed better overall.

The only stand out distinction between the too was that World of Conflict performed significantly better on the E8400 but this was balanced out by the Phenom II X2's narrow but somewhat wide victories in Bioshock and Left4dead and being generally consistent in either narrowing winning or narrowing losing in the other games.

Neoseekers reviews seem to support Anandtech and Bit Tech. All three demonstrate the C3 Phenom II series being on par with the Core 2 Duo in single threaded gaming.

Would it be a stretch to assume If the Phenom II X2 and E8400 are equal (according to 3 reviews) the FX 6300 which is IPC is up to 25% better than its predecessor would fair well?

I open the floor for responses.

 

[EarthDog]

I didn't think Bulldozer/Piledriver were 25% faster than Phenom...?

 

[Dent1]

I didn't think Bulldozer/Piledriver were 25% faster than Phenom...?

That is another thread. Don't want to delve too much because it would derail the topic.

The Bulldozers were very inconsistent. Single threaded performance was often about 5% less or 5% above the Phenom II architecture. In some cases as much as 10% less than the Phenom II architecture, but it made up for it in superior multi-threaded performance.

The community wasn't happy. So AMD claimed the Piledriver would be up to 25% faster IPC than Bulldozer. This should normalise it above Phenom II single threaded and obviously Core 2 Duo if the above reviews are to be believed.

 

[EarthDog]

We are going off AMD claims?????????????? Wha?

Get some benchmarks and find out. Otherwise, you will continue to shotgun things when the reality is we need sniping.

 

[Dent1]

We are going off AMD claims?????????????? Wha?

Get some benchmarks and find out. Otherwise, you will continue to shotgun things when the reality is we need sniping.

My friend. I'm the only one writing essays and posting benchmarks. Give me a break for 5 minutes to collect myself.

I actually did find a benchmark from HARDOCP . But you have to do the math to convert it into percentages as your contribution.

Hardocp - http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012...ver_processor_ipc_overclocking/5#.VHtFZ00qUdV

Lost Planet - 640x480
Vershera / Piledriver (4Ghz)
180FPS
Zambezi / Bulldozer (4Ghz)
150 FPS

Lost Planet - 1024x768
Vershera / Piledriver (4Ghz)
202FPS
Zambezi / Bulldozer (4Ghz)
184FPS

S.T.A.L.K.ER.: Call of Pripyat - 640x480
Vershera / Piledriver (4Ghz)
844 FPS
Zambezi / Bulldozer (4Ghz)
715 FPS

Final Fantasy XIV- 1280x720
Vershera / Piledriver (4Ghz)
4959 points
Zambezi / Bulldozer (4Ghz)
4255 points

 

[buildzoid]

The E8600 is a dual core right?
Well the Athlon X2 370K is also a dual core based on Piledriver
And a E8600 at 4.73Ghz thrashes a 370K at 4.75Ghz in cinebench R11.5
E8600
370K
So IPC wise an E8600>FX6300.

Also I own an AMD laptop. An FX 6350, A10-6800K, Athlon X4 750K, Anthlon X2 370K, R9 290X, R9 290 and an R7 260X so I'm one hell of an AMD fan but AMD's FX chips suck at IPC. Even compared to Phenom IIs.
Phenom II X4 965BE 4.975Ghz Cinebench R11.5
FX 4350 5Ghz Cinebench R11.5

 

[buildzoid]

That link doesn't tell us anything. Just shows one Cinebench R11.5 score.

Fixed it

 

[Dent1]

Fixed it

That link doesn't tell us anything. Just shows one Cinebench R11.5 score.

Fixed it

As an enthusiast I cream over hwbot.

But as a scientist it isn't in a controlled environment. The Phenom II 965 rig running 4GB @ 948MHz, whilst the FX 4350 memory information is missing!

Cinebench R11.5 is one benchmark, and hardly the best example for showing single threaded performance.

But thanks I appreciate your contribution. I haven't benchmarked my rig in years and looking at hwbot has given me that urge.

 

[buildzoid]

As an enthusiast I cream over hwbot.

But as a scientist it isn't in a controlled environment. The Phenom II 965 rig running 4GB @ 948MHz, whilst the FX 4350 memory information is missing!

Cinebench R11.5 is one benchmark, and hardly the best example for showing single threaded performance.

But thanks I appreciate your contribution. I haven't benchmarked my rig in years and looking at hwbot has given me that urge.

The memory specs are in the FX 4350's screenshot. it's 4GB 933 8-9-8-24. Also that FX 4350 isn't even close to the Phenom II that's not something that tweaking the NB and RAM will fix.

BTW I benched cinebench R11.5 hard. It's almost 100% linear scaling with frequency and core count. FX chips have this odd thing where 1 core running on it's has more IPC than 2 cores/2 because of how AMD setup the cache. When I was benching my FX6350 at 5Gh I was getting into the 6.5 point range which is not much better than that Phenom II X4 at 5Ghz so multithreaded IPC on the FX chips sucks. Running cinebench on 1 core at 5Ghz gave me something around 1.2-1.4 points which is still bellow that 4.7Ghz E8600 2.93pts/2