Please explain this anomaly fx6100 vs i5 2500 bf3

Alright so a buddy and I built our gaming pc's together 3 months ago. He had a bit of a bigger budget than I did so he went and go the i5 2500 and I decided on the fx6100 by AMD. I was going to go with a phenom chip but wanted to save a bit more money. We also both got the gigabyte radeon hd6850, both got 8 gb of kingston elite limited edition ram, the only difference in the systems were the HDD and the processors.

Today we decided to put our systems side by side and play some bf3. Both had the exact settings. First was ultra with no AA. We used the render.drawfps 1 command in game to show our FPS. We would go stand in the same area and for some reason I had a standing avg of 76 fps, and he had an avg of 72 fps.(we were stanind in the same spots on the maps. He had a 4 frame drop. While running or moving in an area with lots of action I had an avg of 59 fps and he had 56 fps. again he was losing 3 fps compared to mine. We have both processors at stock speeds.

With AA on I was getting a moving avg of 34 fps while he was getting 31 fps. We checked out our drivers, we have the same drivers for our GPU and same chipset drivers for our MOBO's. In theory he should be getting better performance from what we have seen in benchmarks but it doesn't not appear that way.

Could the HDD cause a drop in frames? Again I dunno how they would change anything as my HDD speed is slower than his.

When we overclocked we only did a bit to 3.7 ghz and I was again beating him by a couple of frames.

Could there be a reason for this? we had no programs running in the back ground, and both on the same internet connect..

You just learned that:

1) BF3 works well on FX processors

2) Buying a 2500k is a waste of cash

AMDs processors are fine, everyone who says otherwise is a troll.

You just learned that:

1) BF3 works well on FX processors

2) Buying a 2500k is a waste of cash

AMDs processors are fine, everyone who says otherwise is a troll.

GummiRaccoon

I agree 100% that the FX processors are fine and aren't "garbage" like we've been lead to believe but I really expected to have my ass handed to me today from all the talk about the i5 2500. Even the 2500 benchmarks put my 6100 to shame. In game seems to be a bit different. But ya i'm glad i saved the money and went the AMD route now that we've done this.

You're lying - we all know Bulldozer can't play games.

In order to see the benefit of a 2500k you need to use your computer in a way that no person uses their computerGeneral_X

You just learned that:

1) BF3 works well on FX processors

2) Buying a 2500k is a waste of cash

AMDs processors are fine, everyone who says otherwise is a troll.

GummiRaccoon

[QUOTE="General_X"]In order to see the benefit of a 2500k you need to use your computer in a way that no person uses their computerGummiRaccoon

GummiRaccoon

You do this in single player or a large multiplayer server?C_Rule

it was a 58 player server we were playing on Grand Bazhar if thats how you spell it lol

I think what we kinda found today was that the i5 2500k is indeed the better processor if you're going to do things like video editing, and some large project maybe folding at home or something.. But when it comes to gaming all the stats and benchmakrs that people are pointing out seem to be useless. and the useage of the cpu in terms of gaming is just fine. The 2500 is a great processor, no doubt about it but I don't think spending that amount on it is nescisarry if you're just going to be gaming.

The FPS drops im sure were some what GPU related but we were running the exact same GPU with the stock speeds. I thought possibly the large amount of players on the servers would result in him getting better frame rates but that didn't end up being the case.. in this particular situation.

Possibly he would have a better set up if he was using an nvidia gpu with an intel processor? as mine is AMD cpu with and AMD gpu maybe that helped?

[QUOTE="C_Rule"]You do this in single player or a large multiplayer server?Bishop1310

it was a 58 player server we were playing on Grand Bazhar if thats how you spell it lol

[QUOTE="Bishop1310"]

[QUOTE="C_Rule"]You do this in single player or a large multiplayer server?C_Rule

it was a 58 player server we were playing on Grand Bazhar if thats how you spell it lol

At what resolution was this?

At what resolution was this?

mitu123

1080p

To test CPU ability, wouldnt it have been best to run the game at low settings, to eliminate any GPU bottleneck ? Chris_53

well if we're running the same gpu would there not be a bottleneck on both? or could it very from cpu to cpu? he said he's never expierenced any bottle neck with this gpu and cpu together and I think I could say the same about my set up.

[QUOTE="Chris_53"]To test CPU ability, wouldnt it have been best to run the game at low settings, to eliminate any GPU bottleneck ? Bishop1310

well if we're running the same gpu would there not be a bottleneck on both? or could it very from cpu to cpu? he said he's never expierenced any bottle neck with this gpu and cpu together and I think I could say the same about my set up.

[QUOTE="Bishop1310"]

[QUOTE="Chris_53"]To test CPU ability, wouldnt it have been best to run the game at low settings, to eliminate any GPU bottleneck ? mitu123

well if we're running the same gpu would there not be a bottleneck on both? or could it very from cpu to cpu? he said he's never expierenced any bottle neck with this gpu and cpu together and I think I could say the same about my set up.

At the resolution you won't be using? Alright

The i5-2500K is good. Not a waste, breh.

The i5-2500K is good. Not a waste, breh.

Masenkoe

[QUOTE="Masenkoe"]

The i5-2500K is good. Not a waste, breh.

ionusX

while playing bf3 my cpu usage is between 45 - 75 percent, is that normal? should it be loweR? higher? some cores more than others.

[QUOTE="ionusX"]

[QUOTE="Masenkoe"]

The i5-2500K is good. Not a waste, breh.

Bishop1310

while playing bf3 my cpu usage is between 45 - 75 percent, is that normal? should it be loweR? higher? some cores more than others.

[QUOTE="Bishop1310"]

[QUOTE="ionusX"] if all you play is BF3 amd cpu's are quite good

ionusX

while playing bf3 my cpu usage is between 45 - 75 percent, is that normal? should it be loweR? higher? some cores more than others.

My thoughts exactly. for the last 2 months I've been kinda upset with myself that i bought the 6100 with all the crap and stuff its been getting from gamers. But after today it's eased my mind and I feel like i made a good purchase. I'm looking forward to the pildriver series as well in a few months. Depending on the performance increase I may jump to one of them sooner than I thought. we'll see.

[QUOTE="ionusX"]

[QUOTE="Bishop1310"]

while playing bf3 my cpu usage is between 45 - 75 percent, is that normal? should it be loweR? higher? some cores more than others.

Bishop1310

My thoughts exactly. for the last 2 months I've been kinda upset with myself that i bought the 6100 with all the crap and stuff its been getting from gamers. But after today it's eased my mind and I feel like i made a good purchase. I'm looking forward to the pildriver series as well in a few months. Depending on the performance increase I may jump to one of them sooner than I thought. we'll see.

You are now aware that most gamers only know brand image and what anandtech says (who has a former high ranking intel employee working for them now)

Alright so a buddy and I built our gaming pc's together 3 months ago. He had a bit of a bigger budget than I did so he went and go the i5 2500 and I decided on the fx6100 by AMD. I was going to go with a phenom chip but wanted to save a bit more money. We also both got the gigabyte radeon hd6850, both got 8 gb of kingston elite limited edition ram, the only difference in the systems were the HDD and the processors.

Today we decided to put our systems side by side and play some bf3. Both had the exact settings. First was ultra with no AA. We used the render.drawfps 1 command in game to show our FPS. We would go stand in the same area and for some reason I had a standing avg of 76 fps, and he had an avg of 72 fps.(we were stanind in the same spots on the maps. He had a 4 frame drop. While running or moving in an area with lots of action I had an avg of 59 fps and he had 56 fps. again he was losing 3 fps compared to mine. We have both processors at stock speeds.

With AA on I was getting a moving avg of 34 fps while he was getting 31 fps. We checked out our drivers, we have the same drivers for our GPU and same chipset drivers for our MOBO's. In theory he should be getting better performance from what we have seen in benchmarks but it doesn't not appear that way.

Could the HDD cause a drop in frames? Again I dunno how they would change anything as my HDD speed is slower than his.

When we overclocked we only did a bit to 3.7 ghz and I was again beating him by a couple of frames.

Could there be a reason for this? we had no programs running in the back ground, and both on the same internet connect..

[QUOTE="Bishop1310"]

[QUOTE="ionusX"] sounds about right to me. in reality if all you ever played (i mean this literally) was bf3 getting an fx-8150 actually makes alot of sense considering how badly it wastes the core i7 2600k and 3570k

GummiRaccoon

My thoughts exactly. for the last 2 months I've been kinda upset with myself that i bought the 6100 with all the crap and stuff its been getting from gamers. But after today it's eased my mind and I feel like i made a good purchase. I'm looking forward to the pildriver series as well in a few months. Depending on the performance increase I may jump to one of them sooner than I thought. we'll see.

You are now aware that most gamers only know brand image and what anandtech says (who has a former high ranking intel employee working for them now)

indeed. and the way things are looking the fx-6200 is about on par with their lowest end piledriver quad core. which is a huge improvement over bulldozer (based on the a10-5800k trinity benchmarks) i may go fm2. simply because piledriver will have fm2 and am3+ socket variants

ionusX

For AMD Bulldozer module's dual thread operations, AMD didn't double TLB L1 entries.

AMD's older K10 CPU's TLB L1 has 48 entries.

AMD's older K8 CPU's TLB L1 has 32 entries.

Intel Sandybridge core's TLB L1 has 64 entries(1).

Intel Clarkdale/Westmere's TLB L1 has 64 entries(2).

AMD stuff'ed up with Bulldozer i.e. K8's TLB L1 32 entries with added stress of 2 threads. Effectively has 16 entries per thread. It's LOL episode. AMD fixed this issue with Piledriver.

Reference
1. Link, Intel Core i5-2400

2. Link, Intel Core i5-560

Other improvements with Piledriver.