Please explain this anomaly fx6100 vs i5 2500 bf3

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for Bishop1310
Bishop1310

1274

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1 Bishop1310
Member since 2007 • 1274 Posts

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..

Avatar image for GummiRaccoon
GummiRaccoon

13799

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#2 GummiRaccoon
Member since 2003 • 13799 Posts

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.

Avatar image for Bishop1310
Bishop1310

1274

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3 Bishop1310
Member since 2007 • 1274 Posts

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.

Avatar image for deactivated-5a9b3f32ef4e9
deactivated-5a9b3f32ef4e9

7779

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4 deactivated-5a9b3f32ef4e9
Member since 2009 • 7779 Posts

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

Avatar image for General_X
General_X

9137

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5 General_X
Member since 2003 • 9137 Posts
Sounds like you were GPU constrained, not CPU constrained, in this particular experiment. I'm sure if you tried to pile in heaps of units on a very large map on Supreme Commander then you might start running into CPU constraints.
Avatar image for C_Rule
C_Rule

9816

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6 C_Rule
Member since 2008 • 9816 Posts
You do this in single player or a large multiplayer server?
Avatar image for GummiRaccoon
GummiRaccoon

13799

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7 GummiRaccoon
Member since 2003 • 13799 Posts

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

Avatar image for V4LENT1NE
V4LENT1NE

12901

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#8 V4LENT1NE
Member since 2006 • 12901 Posts

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

you_mad_dancing_gif.gif

Avatar image for C_Rule
C_Rule

9816

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9 C_Rule
Member since 2008 • 9816 Posts

[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

That's pretty rich coming from you, the one who tells us to buy a 8150 so we can do a thousand different things at once.
Avatar image for General_X
General_X

9137

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10 General_X
Member since 2003 • 9137 Posts
GummiRaccoon
Almost every FPS is GPU constrained (right now). If you really want to see the benefit of a faster processor you will have to play RTS games, encode video, create 3D renders with Maya/3Ds Max/Cinema 4D, or wait a few years for more advanced games to come out. Just because there isn't a need NOW doesn't mean there won't be in the future. More Core 2 Duo started struggling on BF3 and that was my single to upgrade, my friends with AMD CPUs from the same era and even newer werent even getting halfway playable frames.
Avatar image for Bishop1310
Bishop1310

1274

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#11 Bishop1310
Member since 2007 • 1274 Posts

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

Avatar image for Bishop1310
Bishop1310

1274

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#12 Bishop1310
Member since 2007 • 1274 Posts

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?

Avatar image for C_Rule
C_Rule

9816

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#13 C_Rule
Member since 2008 • 9816 Posts

[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

In that case I'd put it down to BF3 being a game that makes good use of extra cores, you won't see similar results in all games. Also if you were both to start overclocking, you would see the 2500K pull ahead.
Avatar image for 04dcarraher
04dcarraher

23775

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#14 04dcarraher
Member since 2004 • 23775 Posts
[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

Also if you were both to start overclocking, you would see the 2500K pull ahead.

Not with BF3,
Avatar image for mitu123
mitu123

155290

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 32

User Lists: 0

#15 mitu123
Member since 2006 • 155290 Posts

At what resolution was this?

Avatar image for Chris_53
Chris_53

5510

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 33

User Lists: 0

#16 Chris_53
Member since 2004 • 5510 Posts
To test CPU ability, wouldnt it have been best to run the game at low settings, to eliminate any GPU bottleneck ?
Avatar image for Bishop1310
Bishop1310

1274

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#17 Bishop1310
Member since 2007 • 1274 Posts

At what resolution was this?

mitu123

1080p

Avatar image for Bishop1310
Bishop1310

1274

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#18 Bishop1310
Member since 2007 • 1274 Posts

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.

Avatar image for mitu123
mitu123

155290

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 32

User Lists: 0

#19 mitu123
Member since 2006 • 155290 Posts

[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.

At lower res the cpu is used more actually and that's where Intel wins.
Avatar image for GummiRaccoon
GummiRaccoon

13799

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#20 GummiRaccoon
Member since 2003 • 13799 Posts

[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 lower res the cpu is used more actually and that's where Intel wins.

At the resolution you won't be using? Alright

Avatar image for Masenkoe
Masenkoe

4897

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 15

User Lists: 0

#21 Masenkoe
Member since 2007 • 4897 Posts

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

Avatar image for ionusX
ionusX

25760

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 0

#22 ionusX
Member since 2009 • 25760 Posts

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

Masenkoe

if all you play is BF3 amd cpu's are quite good

Avatar image for Bishop1310
Bishop1310

1274

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#23 Bishop1310
Member since 2007 • 1274 Posts

[QUOTE="Masenkoe"]

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

ionusX

if all you play is BF3 amd cpu's are quite good

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

Avatar image for ionusX
ionusX

25760

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 0

#24 ionusX
Member since 2009 • 25760 Posts

[QUOTE="ionusX"]

[QUOTE="Masenkoe"]

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

Bishop1310

if all you play is BF3 amd cpu's are quite good

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

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

Avatar image for Bishop1310
Bishop1310

1274

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#25 Bishop1310
Member since 2007 • 1274 Posts

[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.

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

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.

Avatar image for GummiRaccoon
GummiRaccoon

13799

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#26 GummiRaccoon
Member since 2003 • 13799 Posts

[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

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

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)

Avatar image for ronvalencia
ronvalencia

29612

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#27 ronvalencia
Member since 2008 • 29612 Posts
[QUOTE="Bishop1310"]

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..

Multi-threading games like BF3 and multi-threading friendly DX11 middleware is fine on AMD FX CPUs.
Avatar image for ionusX
ionusX

25760

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 0

#28 ionusX
Member since 2009 • 25760 Posts

[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

Avatar image for ronvalencia
ronvalencia

29612

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#29 ronvalencia
Member since 2008 • 29612 Posts

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_15h_family_features.jpg

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.

600x600px-LL-f6fe7582_16108893.jpeg