# 4 GB RAM - BF 4 stuttering a lot.



## itsakjt (Oct 30, 2013)

Hi everyone, I have the configuration as stated on my specs. I am getting pretty decent FPS in BF 4 with my 6770 overclocked as in specs(35 FPS average on 1600*900 some high, some ultra but antialiasing off). But after playing for say 5-10 mins, the game stutters and lags like hell and I can see the HDD is constantly being accessed. I monitored and found that the RAM usage is really high. I don't have much background process and in idle, around 28% RAM is used which is good for 4GB
Now new RAM is damn costly these days. It is almost impossible for me to buy a new 8 GB kit now but I will do it if it is absolutely required. Do you have the same problem too with 4 GB RAM? Help appreciated.


----------



## johnspack (Oct 30, 2013)

The 4gbs of ram is probably choking you a bit.  6-8 cpu threads will also help.  If I had the game,  I would be able to run it at 60fps min at ultra on 2 gtx480s,  or around 38fps on a single.  It's quite cpu dependant,  so an i7 will help a lot.  Sorry,  amd cpus I can't tell you about too much,  but I'd go a 6 or 8 core model.  If you like amd video cards,  a 7950 or better is what you want to get.


----------



## natr0n (Oct 30, 2013)

You might need to defrag game is huge.

try defraggler and see if it still stutters.


----------



## itsakjt (Oct 30, 2013)

johnspack said:


> The 4gbs of ram is probably choking you a bit.  6-8 cpu threads will also help.  If I had the game,  I would be able to run it at 60fps min at ultra on 2 gtx480s,  or around 38fps on a single.  It's quite cpu dependant,  so an i7 will help a lot.  Sorry,  amd cpus I can't tell you about too much,  but I'd go a 6 or 8 core model.  If you like amd video cards,  a 7950 or better is what you want to get.



I know but my CPU is fine. People are getting 70-90 FPS with the CPU I have without overclocking with a 7950. I just need to upgrade my GPU and RAM but I am giving priority on the RAM.



natr0n said:


> You might need to defrag game is huge.
> 
> try defraggler and see if it still stutters.



Yeah did it but no use.  But I managed to reduce the stutter by slightly decreasing settings. Still RAM is 81% used.


----------



## Jetster (Oct 30, 2013)

I would give priority to the GPU, then the Ram. Trying to run BF4 on a 6770 has got to be frustrating. And for the record I was getting 50 fps with a single 7950 and a 3770 CPU on High


----------



## itsakjt (Oct 30, 2013)

Jetster said:


> I would give priority to the GPU, then the Ram. Trying to run BF4 on a 6770 has got to be frustrating. And for the record I was getting 50 fps with a single 7950 and a 3770 CPU on High



I will see what I can do. Can you tell me when the price of DDR3 RAM will fall? If ever again? Or should I grab one 8 GB kit now?


----------



## Fourstaff (Oct 30, 2013)

itsakjt said:


> Can you tell me when the price of DDR3 RAM will fall? If ever again? Or should I grab one 8 GB kit now?



It has been going up for some time now, and I don't see it falling now that DDR4 has been finalised and factories starting to retool for its production. Grab another 4Gb kit if you have enough memory slots to save money.


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Oct 30, 2013)

natr0n said:


> You might need to defrag game is huge.
> 
> try defraggler and see if it still stutters.



You don't need defraggler if you are on Windows 7 or 8. 

You should definitely get another 4GB kit of memory. DICE recommends 8GB. I use about 5-6GB when im playing.

And yes that 6770 is killing you too.


----------



## Cruise51 (Oct 30, 2013)

I would think 4GB would be a little low. Though you may not need 8GB either. 
*6GB maybe?*


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Oct 30, 2013)

Cruise51 said:


> I would think 4GB would be a little low. Though you may not need 8GB either.
> *6GB maybe?*



8GB is pretty much the new gold standard.


----------



## Cruise51 (Oct 30, 2013)

MxPhenom 216 said:


> 8GB is pretty much the new gold standard.



True... Though he is on a tight budget, I'd think 6GB would be enough for him to play smoothly. 

Correct me if I'm wrong though, I have no personal experience with BF4.


----------



## itsakjt (Oct 30, 2013)

The thing is if I can get 6 GB, I can get 8 GB also. I will sell my existing 2 GB sticks. 
As for the GPU, it is okayish. Getting 35-40 FPS average on high settings but AA is set to off. Nevertheless, as long as it looks good, I am happy. I can set some settings to Ultra too without any issues and without any FPS drop but then the RAM struggles. That's why I am more inclined to getting more RAM.


----------



## HD64G (Oct 30, 2013)

HDD is almost full I suppose. Or above 60-70% at least. Page file problem I think due to low speed of HDD because they lower their performance to half when getting filled above this. Which starts from the drain of system RAM.


----------



## erocker (Oct 30, 2013)

itsakjt said:


> It is almost impossible for me to buy a new 8 GB kit now but I will do it if it is absolutely required.



It's pretty much been shown that 8 gb's of ram is needed with Battlefield 3. BF4 is no different.


----------



## itsakjt (Oct 30, 2013)

I played BF3 and still play it all at Ultra and 2x MSAA @1600*900 and get 40 FPS average in the same rig. So how come this is causing so much problem?


----------



## erocker (Oct 30, 2013)

It is more taxing on your system.


----------



## H82LUZ73 (Oct 30, 2013)

Frost Bite 3 is what is causing it ,Try to get another 4/8 gig memory and it should even out.

Wow really overclocking the AMD with the stock cooler is also the problem,Try to downclock the cpu a few mhz and see if the problem is there.I would recommend a cheaper $40-$60 tower cooler .


----------



## itsakjt (Oct 30, 2013)

H82LUZ73 said:


> Frost Bite 3 is what is causing it ,Try to get another 4/8 gig memory and it should even out.
> 
> Wow really overclocking the AMD with the stock cooler is also the problem,Try to downclock the cpu a few mhz and see if the problem is there.I would recommend a cheaper $40-$60 tower cooler .



That overclock is done with reduced voltage and is still stable. The IMC voltage is increased. Overall, the temps are almost same irrespective of stock and overclock at load and idle and no question of throttling. I will be buying more RAM soon.


----------



## Dent1 (Oct 30, 2013)

itsakjt said:


> Hi everyone, I have the configuration as stated on my specs. I am getting pretty decent FPS in BF 4 with my 6770 overclocked as in specs(35 FPS average on 1600*900 some high, some ultra but antialiasing off). But after playing for say 5-10 mins, the game stutters and lags like hell and I can see the HDD is constantly being accessed. I monitored and found that the RAM usage is really high. I don't have much background process and in idle, around 28% RAM is used which is good for 4GB
> Now new RAM is damn costly these days. It is almost impossible for me to buy a new 8 GB kit now but I will do it if it is absolutely required. Do you have the same problem too with 4 GB RAM? Help appreciated.



I did an experiment about 1 years back with BF3.

I have 16GB of ram so I turn off page filing. I found that BF3 actually uses up to 6 GB of RAM total if the resources are available. I would presume BF4 would use more.


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Oct 30, 2013)

Dent1 said:


> I did an experiment about 1 years back with BF3.
> 
> I have 16GB of ram so I turn off page filing. I found that BF3 actually uses up to 6 GB of RAM total if the resources are available. I would presume BF4 would use more.



Every time i turn off pagefile BF3 crashes on me - I also have 16gigs of ram. I just leave windows to manage pagefile instead of setting custom values.


----------



## Dent1 (Oct 30, 2013)

FreedomEclipse said:


> Every time i turn off pagefile BF3 crashes on me - I also have 16gigs of ram. I just leave windows to manage pagefile instead of setting custom values.



You have an stability problem.

Been running 16GB since DDR2 (2006) without page file. Never had a page file related crash.


----------



## Enterprise24 (Oct 30, 2013)

My rig with 8GB RAM still feel some laggy in multiplayer mode.
I read somewhere BF4 with highest setting can use RAM 9-10GB.


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Oct 30, 2013)

Dent1 said:


> You have an stability problem.
> 
> Been running 16GB since DDR2 (2006) without page file. Never had a page file related crash.



nope.

some other programs crash is well if i dont have pagefile on, its always how its been, Doesnt matter if it was on my old 2500k rig on this 3930k rig. some apps just *NEED* that pagefile there even if they dont use it.

::EDIT::

Also what i mean by crash is that the program CTDs on start up. I never got BSODs unless it was running AMD Xfire in ARMA II with 6970s. For the better part I make sure my OCs pass at least 12hrs+ of prime95 before I greenlight the system for use.

I rarely BSOD


----------



## itsakjt (Oct 30, 2013)

Update here. I installed a new update to the game and it is running so much better now. Almost zero stutter.


----------



## brandonwh64 (Oct 30, 2013)

4GB is not good for BF3 or BF4 as erocker said. When I first built my 2600K system I used 4GB and a 560TI and it stuttered like no ones business! After getting 8GB it was buttery smooth with the 560TI


----------



## itsakjt (Oct 30, 2013)

Yeah I will get a 8 GB kit soon. Anyone knows when the prices will drop? Or whether it will rise? Thanks.


----------



## Arjai (Oct 30, 2013)

itsakjt said:


> Yeah I will get a 8 GB kit soon. Anyone knows when the prices will drop? Or whether it will rise? Thanks.



Give me minute, while I fire up the time machine...


----------



## Wrigleyvillain (Oct 30, 2013)

Yes 6GB for BF3 is about right so 8GB min installed for BF4. It did not actually need the whole 8 but 4 wasn't enough. Just like 2 wasn't enough for BC2 nor 1GB for BF2.


----------



## Arjai (Oct 30, 2013)

http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3006760#post3006760


----------



## Frick (Oct 30, 2013)

itsakjt said:


> Yeah I will get a 8 GB kit soon. Anyone knows when the prices will drop? Or whether it will rise? Thanks.



Here they have been climbing pretty steadily the last year. If you bought 8GB sticks for €200 one and a half year ago you'd be able to sell them for €300 now. Now they seem pretty steady though, but I doubt we'll ever see those glorious days of €40 for a good 1600Mhz 8GB stick again.


----------



## itsakjt (Oct 30, 2013)

Frick said:


> Here they have been climbing pretty steadily the last year. If you bought 8GB sticks for €200 one and a half year ago you'd be able to sell them for €300 now. Now they seem pretty steady though, but I doubt we'll ever see those glorious days of €40 for a good 1600Mhz 8GB stick again.



My bad luck. :-( Better to grab them now I think.


----------



## Frick (Oct 30, 2013)

itsakjt said:


> My bad luck. :-( Better to grab them now I think.



You have 4 slots though, and 2GB sticks can be found for pretty cheap if you're willing to go for used parts.


----------



## itsakjt (Oct 30, 2013)

Frick said:


> You have 4 slots though, and 2GB sticks can be found for pretty cheap if you're willing to go for used parts.



I have 4 slots as well max 32 GB supported as of now. And I am not in for used parts. I have made up my mind and getting a new 8 GB kit along with a new full HD monitor.


----------



## Dent1 (Oct 30, 2013)

FreedomEclipse said:


> nope.
> 
> some other programs crash is well if i dont have pagefile on, its always how its been, Doesnt matter if it was on my old 2500k rig on this 3930k rig. some apps just *NEED* that pagefile there even if they dont use it.
> 
> ...



Strange. I've never encountered BSOD or crashes related to page file being disabled. Went through countless apps, freeware, games etc. over the last 6 years of running both 8GB and 16GB with no page file. This is in both Vista & Windows 7.

If my apps needed page file, its going fine without begging.


----------



## Aquinus (Oct 30, 2013)

You should get a better CPU cooler while your at it. I can see it overheating with your overclock real easily.



Dent1 said:


> Strange. I've never encountered BSOD or crashes related to page file being disabled. Went through countless apps, freeware, games etc. over the last 6 years of running both 8GB and 16GB with no page file. This is in both Vista & Windows 7.
> 
> If my apps needed page file, its going fine without begging.



That has been my experience as well...


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Oct 30, 2013)

Also BF4 seems to have a memory leak. Top that off with only 4GB of RAM and its stutter city.


----------



## de.das.dude (Oct 30, 2013)

itsakjt said:


> I will see what I can do. Can you tell me when the price of DDR3 RAM will fall? If ever again? Or should I grab one 8 GB kit now?



wont fall. i grabbed a kit for 3.5k, 2 days before it became 5.5k XD lol


n the topic of bf4, i wonder if ill be able to run ultra at my specs.


----------



## de.das.dude (Oct 30, 2013)

itsakjt said:


> I have 4 slots as well max 32 GB supported as of now. And I am not in for used parts. I have made up my mind and getting a new 8 GB kit along with a new full HD monitor.



dont be foolish and get a used ram kit. they last ages and have liftime warranty.
save money for a new video card or you wont be able to run much games at 1080p with a 6770. 6770 will feel like a 6450 then XD
if you are lucky you will get 3K off that 6770 if u sell asap. add 9k and get a 7790.
or get a 650 ti.


----------



## Vario (Oct 30, 2013)

16gb even feels smoother than 8gb under windows 7 pro, idk if thats the case with all but I feel smoother with 16gb than when I run 8gb.  8gb is really all you need though, I have rarely come close to filling up a full 8gb.

My dad's i7 930 was running 3x2 gb corsair xms? 1600 cas9 1.65 modules, we upgraded to 3x4gb (12gb) corsair 2000 (at 1600, cas9 1.5v, more stable, didn't perform rated too well) and it made a big difference.  He has a lot of bloat and is aware (and proud) of his bloated OS. LOL. Stubborn.


----------



## Eroticus (Oct 30, 2013)

BF4 Didn't used over 1.5GB of memory  4GB Enough ! don't worry ....


----------



## brandonwh64 (Oct 30, 2013)

Eroticus said:


> BF4 Didn't used over 1.5GB of memory  4GB Enough ! don't worry ....
> 
> 
> [url]http://i.imgur.com/dHdzIeL.jpg[/URL]
> [url]http://i.imgur.com/3tJiLnn.jpg[/URL]



Keep thinking that....


----------



## itsakjt (Oct 30, 2013)

de.das.dude said:


> dont be foolish and get a used ram kit. they last ages and have liftime warranty.
> save money for a new video card or you wont be able to run much games at 1080p with a 6770. 6770 will feel like a 6450 then XD
> if you are lucky you will get 3K off that 6770 if u sell asap. add 9k and get a 7790.
> or get a 650 ti.



The thing is ultimately it all comes down to money. So I can't afford a new GPU at the moment. 
And I want a good dual channel 1600 MHz 8 GB kit. But I don't see anyone selling it 2nd hand. :-(
As for the GPU, I will reduce resolution to 1600*900 if the games lag. I have seen the Dell S2240M on 1600*900 and it looks good enough.


----------



## Dent1 (Oct 30, 2013)

itsakjt said:


> The thing is ultimately it all comes down to money. So I can't afford a new GPU at the moment.
> And I want a good dual channel 1600 MHz 8 GB kit. But I don't see anyone selling it 2nd hand. :-(
> As for the GPU, I will reduce resolution to 1600*900 if the games lag. I have seen the Dell S2240M on 1600*900 and it looks good enough.



More RAM will help, but the real issue is the 6770. That would be barely enough for BF3 on ultra, let alone BF4 ultra. You need a better video card too. Otherwise keep everything at medium.


----------



## itsakjt (Oct 31, 2013)

I agree that upgrading the GPU will help a lot. But is it absolutely necessary? I mean look, it is not that I have to play the game at the highest possible settings. I am playing it with the following settings and you will see the FPS on the screens as follows :




















































It looks quite good and settings are good enough. The GPU is even able to handle texture quality and filtering at Ultra but then the game stutters after sometime of play because of insufficient RAM. I am getting 35-40 FPS most of the times. So its quite good.


----------



## natr0n (Oct 31, 2013)

IMO turn off ambient occlusion,AA post set to low and set motion blur to 0.

You will get better frames and card wont get hammered.

*until you get more ram

I had a 5770/6770 so I know what they can handle.


----------



## ShiBDiB (Oct 31, 2013)

You need more ram

/thread

Seriously tho.. that's the fix, you need 8GB to play this game without a ram bottleneck.

The gpu can be upgraded later, just play on medium/high and not ultra


----------



## Hayder_Master (Oct 31, 2013)

the 8Gb is stander ram size for games, nothing reach 6Gb usage but 8 gb will be cool


----------



## Dent1 (Oct 31, 2013)

itsakjt said:


> I agree that upgrading the GPU will help a lot. But is it absolutely necessary? I mean look, it is not that I have to play the game at the highest possible settings. I am playing it with the following settings and you will see the FPS on the screens as follows :
> 
> http://imageshack.us/a/img594/3032/1dvp.png
> 
> ...



Is that campaign or online? The requirements for online is significantly more intense.

64 players on the map online vs a few CPU controlled characters on campaign.


----------



## itsakjt (Oct 31, 2013)

Dent1 said:


> Is that campaign or online? The requirements for online is significantly more intense.
> 
> 64 players on the map online vs a few CPU controlled characters on campaign.



That is single player. I don't play multiplayer much. But I think it should run better because the CPU would not have to control any players at all. Time will tell. I don't feel like that I have to upgrade my GPU. As for my CPU, it is awesome thanks to the overclock I did to it. I have benchmarked and it is better than a FX6100, 6300 and sometimes even 8120.


----------



## Dent1 (Oct 31, 2013)

itsakjt said:


> That is single player. I don't play multiplayer much. But I think it should run better because the CPU would not have to control any players at all. Time will tell. I don't feel like that I have to upgrade my GPU.



Multi player wouldn't run better.  The CPU still have to perform calculations which the video card doesn't or hasn't done. i.e. sending / receiving server calculations and logs about where all 64 players are on screen, calculating damage, calculating physics, processing the audio for al 64 players including cars, jets and objects in your surrounding area that produce audio. Managing post processing for the GPU. I can go on forever.

I'm not saying you need a new CPU I'm just saying multi player requires a beefier CPU than single player in general.




itsakjt said:


> As for my CPU, it is awesome thanks to the overclock I did to it. I have benchmarked and it is better than a FX6100, 6300 and sometimes even 8120.



This is false. An overclocked AMD Phenom II X4 955 would not be powerful than an  FX6100, 6300 or 8120, especially in a game like BF4 which is multi thread and CPU heavy in general.  Also consider those above mentioned CPUs can overclock up to 1Ghz above what a typical Phenom II can.


Judging by your screen shots your system handles single player OK, if you just play campaign you're fine. The stuttering could be driver related or a slow HDD or anything really. But only having a 6770 and 4GB does stick out and if money was to be dropped those two issues should be solved first.

But for now look into ATI's new Beta Driver http://www.techpowerup.com/downloads/2295/amd-catalyst-13-11-beta-8/


----------



## ShiBDiB (Oct 31, 2013)

So steps to upgrade

1. More RAM (Will be playable on medium/high)
2. GPU (Will be smooth on high)
3. MOBO/CPU (Ultra all day er day)


----------



## de.das.dude (Oct 31, 2013)

955 better than a 8120. rofl.


----------



## itsakjt (Oct 31, 2013)

Are you sure?

I compared the FX 6300 and the Phenom II X4 980BE since mine is overclocked to 3.8 GHz, it should be better than the 980BE at stock and even better because of the 2.8 GHz NB overclock.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/699?vs=362

FX 8150 vs 980 BE

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/434?vs=362

Still better in most benchmarks, 8150 wins in most of the multithreaded benchmarks though but not by a large margin as expected from an octa core.


----------



## Dent1 (Oct 31, 2013)

itsakjt said:


> Are you sure?
> 
> I compared the FX 6300 and the Phenom II X4 980BE since mine is overclocked to 3.8 GHz, it should be better than the 980BE at stock and even better because of the 2.8 GHz NB overclock.
> 
> ...




Even with a 200Mhz handicap the FX 6300 is faster than 980BE in the majority. Keep in mind some of the results are "lower is better".


Also keep in mind that only 4 games appear, Its a very small sample, not large enough to make any credible assessment. Those 4 games are World of Warcraft, Dawn of War II, Dragon Age Origins and StarCraft II. None of these games are new or as CPU intensive or as optimised for multi core CPU as BF4 and they still favoured the FX 6300.

Again nobody is questioning your CPU, the main issue is the RAM and GPU.


----------



## AltecV2 (Oct 31, 2013)

I have been trying to work through BF4 campaign with my now ancient PC (E8400,4GB ddr2,HD4850),and it has been a nightmare. With lowest possible settings i get ~18-44 FPS,can only play like 30min before getting a migrane thanks to the contant low frame rate, also game freezes and stutter when it's trying to stream data from my dying harddrive. Being poor sure sucks


----------



## Dent1 (Oct 31, 2013)

itsakjt what's more interesting is...

The FX 8150 8 core is actually slower than the FX 6300 6 core in a lot of applications. In Dawn of War II and Dragon Age Origins 12 FPS and 15 FPS separate the two. The FX 6300 seems faster in some of the non-gaming apps too, despite the 2 core, 2MB L2 and 100Mhz handicap. I can only put this down to the Piledriver refinements outweighing the Bulldozer architecture.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/434?vs=699


----------



## itsakjt (Oct 31, 2013)

Yeah.  Anyways, a friend of mine having a Core i3 540 @3.7 GHz, 8 GB dual channel 1600 MHz(OCed) RAM and a GTX 560Ti 1GB is getting 45-60 FPS Vsync on at all Ultra and highest settings and 2x MSAA @ 1600*900 in BF4. A better GPU should max it out on a 1080p screen. Correct me if I am wrong. And a 955 is better in all terms than an i3 540.
Yeah a 6300 is indeed better than a 955. But a 955 isn't bad either. I am sure that with a good GPU and good RAMs, an overclocked 955 can max out BF4 too without major issues right? Yeah a 6300 will run it better but there is no end to better right?

BTW, this forum is so much for the win. These discussions- I learn so much from these. Respect TPU and its members. Thanks everyone.


----------



## Wrigleyvillain (Oct 31, 2013)

AltecV2 said:


> I have been trying to work through BF4 campaign with my now ancient PC (E8400,4GB ddr2,HD4850),and it has been a nightmare. With lowest possible settings i get ~18-44 FPS,can only play like 30min before getting a migrane thanks to the contant low frame rate, also game freezes and stutter when it's trying to stream data from my dying harddrive. Being poor sure sucks



Keep your chin up. Maybe you can find a deal on a used 7850 or something plus another 4GB ram.


----------



## de.das.dude (Nov 1, 2013)

itsakjt said:


> Are you sure?
> 
> I compared the FX 6300 and the Phenom II X4 980BE since mine is overclocked to 3.8 GHz, it should be better than the 980BE at stock and even better because of the 2.8 GHz NB overclock.
> 
> ...



even without looking at benchmarks, i am sure.
plus most synthetic benchmarks are really worthless.

you can never beat the advantage of having two extra threads.


----------



## Dent1 (Nov 1, 2013)

itsakjt said:


> Yeah.  Anyways, a friend of mine having a Core i3 540 @3.7 GHz, 8 GB dual channel 1600 MHz(OCed) RAM and a GTX 560Ti 1GB is getting 45-60 FPS Vsync on at all Ultra and highest settings and 2x MSAA @ 1600*900 in BF4. A better GPU should max it out on a 1080p screen. Correct me if I am wrong. And a 955 is better in all terms than an i3 540.
> 
> Yeah a 6300 is indeed better than a 955. But a 955 isn't bad either. I am sure that with a good GPU and good RAMs, an overclocked 955 can max out BF4 too without major issues right? Yeah a 6300 will run it better but there is no end to better right?
> 
> BTW, this forum is so much for the win. These discussions- I learn so much from these. Respect TPU and its members. Thanks everyone.





The i3 540 would probably out perform the 955 single threaded games and app, the 955 would outperform in multithreaded games. But the i3 is a very strong dual core and a fresh architecture so it can still hang with quad cores. The FX 6300 will consistently beat out the i3 540 though. 

i3 540 v 955 
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/143?vs=88

i3 540 v FX 6300
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/143?vs=699


Its all really subjective too. Yes a new GPU would help significantly but stick in a GTX 560Ti or 7850 and you'll start to see diminishing results due to bottlenecking, these new cards perform better on a fast dual core than a slow quad core. But I wouldn't let that deter you as its a huge upgrade from a 6770.


----------



## de.das.dude (Nov 1, 2013)

pretty sure that the bottle neck is the 6770 and not the cpu. i got a 945 and i am getting 60fps at all ultra except no anti aa(post enabled) and ambient as ssao. took advice from the BF4 thread here


----------



## itsakjt (Nov 1, 2013)

de.das.dude said:


> even without looking at benchmarks, i am sure.
> plus most synthetic benchmarks are really worthless.
> 
> you can never beat the advantage of having two extra threads.



Synthetic benchmarks ARE NOT worthless. They are surely a reflection of the performance. And forget the 8120. A stock 980BE beats the crap out of a stock FX 8120 or a FX 8150. Those two FX perform well where rendering related work is there or as in very high multi-threading. As for the 980BE, my overclocked 955 at 3.8 GHz and 2.8 GHz NB speed is better than a stock 980BE. And therefore, it beats the 8150 black and blue. And as for the overclock, I really don't care if you say I am comparing an OC'ed CPU with another one at stock. All I know is that the 8150 costs twice as much as the 955. So if I can overclock the 955 that much and in that much low voltage and make it equivalent to a 8150 and at most works, beat the 8150, I think its my good luck and my credit. As for overclocking, I am pretty good than most people who do so. Show me one person who overclocked a value RAM to 1744 MHz from 1333 MHz at 8-9-8-24-1T, a Phenom II X4 at 3.8 GHz from 3.2 using the AMD stock cooler, NB to 2.83 GHz from 2.0 and the list goes. And ask me for stability, I am using this overclock for almost one year without a single crash. Yes I don't need to run 8 hrs of Prime 95. I run it max 1 hr after doing the OC or modifying any setting. I run prime 95 for just 1 hr max to prevent damage to the CPU, Intel Burn Test at Max 10 tests, Memtest for 45 mins and so. And then use the computer like I should doing random tasks like I do in real time like rendering, gaming, benchmarking, downloading, surfing and all. Never crashed for once = 100% probability it is stable. 



Dent1 said:


> The i3 540 would probably out perform the 955 single threaded games and app, the 955 would outperform in multithreaded games. But the i3 is a very strong dual core and a fresh architecture so it can still hang with quad cores. The FX 6300 will consistently beat out the i3 540 though.
> 
> i3 540 v 955
> http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/143?vs=88
> ...



Yeah true. But compare an i3 540 with a 980BE and I think it will be better in all aspects. My overclocked 955 is better than a stock 980BE. And I will be getting a GPU equivalent to the R9 270 next year.  Should be good for a 1080p screen.



de.das.dude said:


> pretty sure that the bottle neck is the 6770 and not the cpu. i got a 945 and i am getting 60fps at all ultra except no anti aa(post enabled) and ambient as ssao. took advice from the BF4 thread here



True. Will be getting a better GPU next year. No one told me that I have to play all games at Ultra. XD My 6770 is doing good in a mixture of high-ultra settings with AA off but with AA post high and SSAO. Getting 40 FPS average.


----------



## itsakjt (Nov 1, 2013)

Anyways.


----------



## Dent1 (Nov 1, 2013)

itsakjt said:


> Synthetic benchmarks ARE NOT worthless. They are surely a reflection of the performance. And forget the 8120. *A stock 980BE beats the crap out of a stock FX 8120 or a FX 8150*. Those two FX perform well where rendering related work is there or as in very high multi-threading. As for the 980BE, my overclocked 955 at 3.8 GHz and 2.8 GHz NB speed is better than a stock 980BE. And therefore, it beats the 8150 black and blue. And as for the overclock, I really don't care if you say I am comparing an OC'ed CPU with another one at stock. All I know is that the 8150 costs twice as much as the 955. So if I can overclock the 955 that much and in that much low voltage and make it equivalent to a 8150 and at most works, beat the 8150, I think its my good luck and my credit. As for overclocking, I am pretty good than most people who do so. Show me one person who overclocked a value RAM to 1744 MHz from 1333 MHz at 8-9-8-24-1T, a Phenom II X4 at 3.8 GHz from 3.2 using the AMD stock cooler, NB to 2.83 GHz from 2.0 and the list goes. And ask me for stability, I am using this overclock for almost one year without a single crash. Yes I don't need to run 8 hrs of Prime 95. I run it max 1 hr after doing the OC or modifying any setting. I run prime 95 for just 1 hr max to prevent damage to the CPU, Intel Burn Test at Max 10 tests, Memtest for 45 mins and so. And then use the computer like I should doing random tasks like I do in real time like rendering, gaming, benchmarking, downloading, surfing and all. Never crashed for once = 100% probability it is stable.



The Bulldozer FX 8150 beat out the 9850BE in 22/33 tests according to the anandtech.com comparison chart you posted earlier. I doubt your mere 100Mhz overclock over base will change this fact. 



itsakjt said:


> Yeah true. But compare an i3 540 with a 980BE and I think it will be better in all aspects. My overclocked 955 is better than a stock 980BE. And I will be getting a GPU equivalent to the R9 270 next year.  Should be good for a 1080p screen.



Not all aspects. The architecture is significantly faster. It would take your CPU overclocked just to match it in single threaded environment.




itsakjt said:


> Anyways.
> 
> http://img.techpowerup.org/131101/1402938_560030337403237_385162881_o.jpg




I like how you conveniently didn't notice the dual core i3s crushing the Phenom II X4 955.   




When you've got a $600 GPU, R9 290x. Which happens to be one of the worlds fastest GPUs on the planet its fair to say the GPU is doing most of the work. All this is showing is GPU performance not CPU performance. 

Notice all the GPUs are between 95-98 FPS. 3FPS is within margin for error. Do you really think a Phenom II X4 980 @ $100 is only 3FPS slower than a i7-4960x @ $1150.


----------



## Hilux SSRG (Nov 1, 2013)

itsakjt said:


> Anyways.
> 
> http://img.techpowerup.org/131101/1402938_560030337403237_385162881_o.jpg



And that is why I haven't upgraded my i7 920 yet.  For gaming purposes, this shows how much Intel has sat on its hands for YEARS!!

/end rant.


----------



## brandonwh64 (Nov 1, 2013)

Dent1 said:


> Obviously you didn't read my post just below otherwise you wouldn't say that.
> 
> 3FPS is called margin for error my friend.



Dent you are lost.


----------



## itsakjt (Nov 1, 2013)

Dent1 said:


> The Bulldozer FX 8150 beat out the 9850BE in 22/33 tests according to the anandtech.com comparison chart you posted earlier. I doubt your mere 100Mhz overclock over base will change this fact.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I never compared an i3 3220 to a 980BE. I compared a 1st gen i3 540. And you are forgetting, the i3 3220 is newer and its IMC is the only thing which is A LOT better than that of a 980BE. But the benchmark shown above have them at stock(did not say anything about OC). Remember my Phenom II IMC is highly overclocked at 2.83 GHz and I get a memory bandwidth score of 16.5 GB/s in SiSoft Sandra bench. A stock 980 BE gets around 12.5 GB/s. So that 3.5 GB/s extra gain will rise my FPS by atleast a 2 or 3. As for the $100 and $1150, you have answered the question. The discussion this is all about is what I stated earlier. I said that ultimately,when it comes to gaming, it is the GPU that counts. And my point is that my tweaked Phenom II can in no way bottleneck a good GPU. If I upgrade now, the best I can get is a 8350. What's the use?


----------



## Dent1 (Nov 1, 2013)

Hilux SSRG said:


> And that is why I haven't upgraded my i7 920 yet.  For gaming purposes, this shows how much Intel has sat on its hands for YEARS!!
> 
> /end rant.



Your rant has no basis because your i7-920 (94 FPS) is getting beat out by the Phenom II X4 980 (95FPS)  in that chart. It's actually below a few of AMDs products.  So I guess its the other way around and AMD have been sitting on their hands. No 

Again 3 FPS between the lowest and highest is margin or error due to the top #1-3 GPU driving the frame rate. I just wanted to prove a point that your rant was flawed.




itsakjt said:


> I never compared an i3 3220 to a 980BE. I compared a 1st gen i3 540. And you are forgetting, the i3 3220 is newer and its IMC is the only thing which is A LOT better than that of a 980BE. But the benchmark shown above have them at stock(did not say anything about OC). Remember my Phenom II IMC is highly overclocked at 2.83 GHz and I get a memory bandwidth score of 16.5 GB/s in SiSoft Sandra bench. A stock 980 BE gets around 12.5 GB/s. So that 3.5 GB/s extra gain will rise my FPS by atleast a 2 or 3. As for the $100 and $1150, you have answered the question. The discussion this is all about is what I stated earlier. I said that ultimately,when it comes to gaming, it is the GPU that counts. And my point is that my tweaked Phenom II can in no way bottleneck a good GPU. If I upgrade now, the best I can get is a 8350. What's the use?



It may be a different dual core but it illustrates my point that a powerful dual core can outperform or be on par with an average quad core, depending on the software tested.


Since you didn't mention the Bulldozer FX 8150. You are in agreement with Anandtech results that the Bulldozer FX 8150 is faster than your overclocked Phenom II X4? 

Bottleneck a GPU? Depends on the GPU, depends on the game. The BF4 has a frame rate cap of 98FPS, hence why it bounces from 94-98FPS. Had the cap been removed who is to say the Phenom II X4 980 would have stayed @ 94FPS and the i7-4960x wouldn't risen 150 FPS. 

Also you are talking about average FPS, what about minimum FPS. You are not considering that the Phenom II X4 980 might get lows 10 FPS making certain spots unplayble whereas the i7-4960x  might have lows of 60FPS making it playable.

You can't use Sandra to predict real world  performance. Not all applications are sensitive to memory bandwidth. 3.5 GB/s extra is insignificant, you may gain 2-3 FPS but will that make a game that's getting 30FPS more playable? No.


----------



## itsakjt (Nov 1, 2013)

Why are you comparing a $100 CPU to a $1150 CPU? Is that fair? First of all very people would be able to buy that CPU and I am definitely not one of them at present so that i7 4960x is out of the league. I compared the FX 8150 to a 980BE and that too in gaming. I stated that 8150 is better in multithreaded tasks. 
Now see an old 980BE beat the crap out of a FX8150.
http://techreport.com/review/23246/inside-the-second-gaming-performance-with-today-cpus/3 

http://techreport.com/review/23246/inside-the-second-gaming-performance-with-today-cpus/4

http://techreport.com/review/23246/inside-the-second-gaming-performance-with-today-cpus/7

Crysis 2 is the only game in which the FX 8150 beats a Phenom II 980BE. 
BF3 is same but frame time is more in the 980BE.
Considering all these and also considering memory bandwidth plays a major role in games, will you still say that a 980BE with overclocked IMC and a FX8150 have hell and heaven difference?


----------



## Hilux SSRG (Nov 1, 2013)

Dent1 said:


> And that is why I haven't upgraded my i7 920 yet. For gaming purposes, this shows how much Intel has sat on its hands for YEARS!!
> 
> /end rant.
> 
> ...



Your point has failed miserably.  Reread my prior post.

My rant was referencing my i7 920 with current Intel products, aka 17 4770k.  I made no mention regarding AMD products and don't care what they offer frankly.  Just wanted to point out the unimaginably awesome 3 FPS gained in the last 3/4+ years by Intel processors.


----------



## Dent1 (Nov 1, 2013)

Hilux SSRG said:


> Your point has failed miserably.  Reread my prior post.
> 
> My rant was referencing my i7 920 with current Intel products, aka 17 4770k.  I made no mention regarding AMD products and don't care what they offer frankly.  Just wanted to point out the unimaginably awesome 3 FPS gained in the last 3/4+ years by Intel processors.



Irrespective of processor there was no 3 FPS gain or hindrance. What you saw was margin for error. Margin for error means that the results can go in any favour depending on how many times the test has been run or external variables e.g. drivers, a random background app eating 0.5%, random unexplained CPU spike etc. The chart could have been in any order and it would still be margin or error.

I already explained this margin or error was because it's not taking into consideration for minimum FPS and the average is being capped.  Include the fact that its running the worlds #1-3 GPU distorts the results further.


----------



## Hilux SSRG (Nov 1, 2013)

Dent1 said:


> Irrespective of processor there was no 3 FPS gain or hindrance. What you saw was margin for error. Margin for error means that the results can go in any favour depending on how many times the test has been run or external variables e.g. drivers, a random background app eating 0.5%, random unexplained CPU spike etc. The chart could have been in any order and it would still be margin or error.
> 
> I already explained this margin or error was because it's not taking into consideration for minimum FPS and the average is being capped.  Include the fact that its running the worlds #1-3 GPU distorts the results further.



I reject all your points Dent 

and recommend the OP get more RAM. As others have stated, can't have enough ram for BF4.


----------



## Dent1 (Nov 1, 2013)

Hilux SSRG said:


> I reject all your points Dent
> 
> and recommend the OP get more RAM. As others have stated, can't have enough ram for BF4.



I agree more RAM is needed. Followed by a more powerful GPU.

I also agree there is no reason to upgrade from an i7 920, not because of the chart above results, but because in all reviews I've seen its always performs respectably still. It's one of the reasons why I've also held onto my Athlon II X4 for so long. I see no reason to upgrade it until games require it. But I'm aware that my 5850 CF is being somewhat bottlenecked by my CPU, although it still performs pretty well still.


----------



## Frick (Nov 1, 2013)

itsakjt said:


> Synthetic benchmarks ARE NOT worthless. They are surely a reflection of the performance.



Might be, but why not just test stuff as you use them? Can you tell the difference in gaming (I imagine that's what you're interested in) between your stock memory and overclocked? If you can't tell the difference, the real life point goes away.

E-peen and group masturbation (or Internet Forums) is a different thing though.


----------



## natr0n (Nov 1, 2013)

Frick said:


> E-peen and group masturbation (or Internet Forums) is a different thing though.



lol wow


----------



## itsakjt (Nov 2, 2013)

Frick said:


> Might be, but why not just test stuff as you use them? Can you tell the difference in gaming (I imagine that's what you're interested in) between your stock memory and overclocked? If you can't tell the difference, the real life point goes away.
> 
> E-peen and group masturbation (or Internet Forums) is a different thing though.



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.


----------



## Dent1 (Nov 3, 2013)

itsakjt said:


> 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.



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:


> The result is a 5.8% performance benefit for the Phenom II X4 versus the Athlon II X4 or a 5.5% performance decrease if you use the Phenom II X4 as the basis.
> Some benchmarks benefit by 20%; others don’t benefit at all. Yet, the 5% to 6% aggregate performance difference is the number you should remember.


 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?


----------



## itsakjt (Nov 3, 2013)

Dent1 said:


> 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% defence on average.
> 
> Toms hardware:
> 
> ...



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.







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.


----------



## de.das.dude (Nov 3, 2013)

Dent1 said:


> What makes you think an overclocked Phenom II x6 BE would beat an FX 8350 black and blue?



ignorance?


----------



## itsakjt (Nov 3, 2013)

de.das.dude said:


> ignorance?



I mistyped it. It will be 8150 and not 8350.


----------



## itsakjt (Nov 3, 2013)

Are you guys blind or something? 

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_fx_8150_processor_review,13.html

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_fx_8150_processor_review,14.html

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_fx_8150_processor_review,15.html

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_fx_8150_processor_review,16.html

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_fx_8150_processor_review,17.html

LOL  An eight core CPU with "new" architecture fails to beat an old 6 core or performs on par and fails to get a reason to buy a FX instead of a 6 core.


----------



## Dent1 (Nov 3, 2013)

itsakjt said:


> 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.



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.




itsakjt said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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.




itsakjt said:


> Are you guys blind or something?
> 
> 
> http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_fx_8150_processor_review,13.html
> ...




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.


----------



## de.das.dude (Nov 3, 2013)

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.


----------



## itsakjt (Nov 3, 2013)

Dent1 said:


> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



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.


----------



## de.das.dude (Nov 3, 2013)

itsakjt said:


> 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.
> ...



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.


----------



## Dent1 (Nov 3, 2013)

itsakjt said:


> 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.
> ...




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.


----------



## itsakjt (Nov 3, 2013)

de.das.dude said:


> 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.
> ...



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.


----------



## itsakjt (Nov 3, 2013)

Dent1 said:


> 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.
> 
> 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.



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.


----------



## Dent1 (Nov 3, 2013)

itsakjt said:


> 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.



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.




itsakjt said:


> 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



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


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Nov 3, 2013)

itsakjt said:


> _<snip> _I mean look, AMDs best selling CPUs were their Phenom lineup because they performed very well when compared to Intel counterparts at that time.



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.


----------



## Dent1 (Nov 3, 2013)

itsakjt said:


> AMDs best selling CPUs were their Phenom lineup because they performed very well when compared to Intel counterparts at that time.






FreedomEclipse said:


> 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
> 
> ...



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.


----------



## natr0n (Nov 3, 2013)

Thread has turned into CPU History 101 .


----------



## Jaffakeik (Nov 3, 2013)

BF3 is good with 6gb aswell atleast for my old build it was no problem.Dont know about bf4 never played it.


----------



## itsakjt (Nov 4, 2013)

Dent1 said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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.


----------



## Dent1 (Nov 4, 2013)

itsakjt said:


> 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?



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. 




itsakjt said:


> 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.




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





itsakjt said:


> 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.



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. 




itsakjt said:


> *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.




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.


----------



## Aquinus (Nov 4, 2013)

Dent1 said:


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



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.



Dent1 said:


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



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.


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Nov 4, 2013)

itsakjt said:


> _<Snip>_
> 
> 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.



This assumption is wrong...






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.


----------



## itsakjt (Nov 4, 2013)

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.


----------



## Dent1 (Nov 4, 2013)

Aquinus said:


> 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.



Who said anything about DDR2? The GeForce 7025 / nForce 630a chipset which was originally a 2005-2006 chipset fully supports the FX range.




Aquinus said:


> 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.



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.




Aquinus said:


> 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.



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.



itsakjt said:


> Yeah I am not happy with the current CPU tech of AMD FX.



Then don't buy an FX. Simple.






itsakjt said:


> It costs less, has less power consumption and performs more or less same



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 said:


> @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.






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.


----------



## Aquinus (Nov 4, 2013)

Dent1 said:


> Who said anything about DDR2? The GeForce 7025 / nForce 630a chipset which was originally a 2005-2006 chipset fully supports the FX range.



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.



Dent1 said:


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



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



Dent1 said:


> 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.


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...



Dent1 said:


> 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.



Maybe that's because he is talking about gaming. His "blanket statement" is clearly for what he will be using the PC for.


----------



## Dent1 (Nov 4, 2013)

Aquinus said:


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



To be fair the The GeForce 7025 / nForce 630a chipset  was originally a AM2/AM2+ chipset. 


So it couldn't be misprint, or a misquote, or a misunderstanding or mistake. I'm so sinister and evil it has to be a lie. OK.




Aquinus said:


> 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....



Well that's you. AMD gave you that choice. A choice is better than no choice.




Aquinus said:


> Maybe that's because he is talking about gaming. His "blanket statement" is clearly for what he will be using the PC for.....



No because we moved off the topic of gaming and his rig a long time ago. We are talking generally speaking.


----------



## Aquinus (Nov 4, 2013)

Dent1 said:


> No because we moved off the topic of gaming and his rig a long time ago. We are talking generally speaking.



Sounds like the thread needs to be locked then.

New topic? New thread.


----------



## Dent1 (Nov 4, 2013)

Aquinus said:


> Sounds like the thread needs to be locked then.
> 
> New topic? New thread.



I'm happy to lock it. OP kept asking more question so we answered it.


----------



## de.das.dude (Nov 4, 2013)




----------



## Mindweaver (Nov 4, 2013)

Everyone stay on topic or move along. The next time it won't be a warning.


----------



## Pakoloks24 (Nov 4, 2013)

*check that WD GREEN hard drive....*



itsakjt said:


> Hi everyone, I have the configuration as stated on my specs. I am getting pretty decent FPS in BF 4 with my 6770 overclocked as in specs(35 FPS average on 1600*900 some high, some ultra but antialiasing off). But after playing for say 5-10 mins, the game stutters and lags like hell and I can see the HDD is constantly being accessed. I monitored and found that the RAM usage is really high. I don't have much background process and in idle, around 28% RAM is used which is good for 4GB
> Now new RAM is damn costly these days. It is almost impossible for me to buy a new 8 GB kit now but I will do it if it is absolutely required. Do you have the same problem too with 4 GB RAM? Help appreciated.



that HDD western digital Green its a piece of sh... its imposible play games whit it, you may need a new HDD, i recommend you a Western Digital BLUE series, or a BLACK series if you can afford it.... wester digital green is just for  data storage , you must not use it for run OS...


----------

