proof that 8GB vram is not enough

[ChickenBalls]

Even the lowly 12GB 3060 and 16GB Arc A770 perform way better than rtx 3070 and 3070Ti and thats only at 1920x1080
https://youtu.be/_lHiGlAWxio?t=460

[CJM]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von ChickenBalls:

That FX 8300 you claimed to be running is way below the minimum i7 4770K.

How is that so? The FX 8300 is a proper 8-Core. The i7-4770k is only a Quad Core.

Plus the FX 8300 has Boost/Turbo of 4.2GHz, while the i7-4770k only gets to 3.90GHz.

When running hyper-threaded optimized workloads, the i7-4770k might come close to an FX 8300, but for raw compute power the FX 8300 should outperform the i7-4770k.

Ursprünglich geschrieben von ChickenBalls:

Its about as bad as i5 4570 and even if you would be able to run it you'd get 1% lows below 10fps.

The i5-4570 is a Quad Core without Hyper Threading, only 3.6GHz Turbo, and only 6MB cache.

The FX 8300 will absolutely dunk on an i5-4570 in every benchmark.

[Vox Maximus]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von CJM:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von ChickenBalls:

That FX 8300 you claimed to be running is way below the minimum i7 4770K.

How is that so? The FX 8300 is a proper 8-Core. The i7-4770k is only a Quad Core.

Plus the FX 8300 has Boost/Turbo of 4.2GHz, while the i7-4770k only gets to 3.90GHz.

When running hyper-threaded optimized workloads, the i7-4770k might come close to an FX 8300, but for raw compute power the FX 8300 should outperform the i7-4770k.

Ursprünglich geschrieben von ChickenBalls:

Its about as bad as i5 4570 and even if you would be able to run it you'd get 1% lows below 10fps.

The i5-4570 is a Quad Core without Hyper Threading, only 3.6GHz Turbo, and only 6MB cache.

The FX 8300 will absolutely dunk on an i5-4570 in every benchmark.

4770K was much better. Especially in a single core performance benchmarks. Frequency doesn't meter
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/Intel-Core-i7-4770K-vs-AMD-FX-8300-Eight-Core/1919vs1825

[kgkong]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von MaxL:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von CJM:

How is that so? The FX 8300 is a proper 8-Core. The i7-4770k is only a Quad Core.

Plus the FX 8300 has Boost/Turbo of 4.2GHz, while the i7-4770k only gets to 3.90GHz.

When running hyper-threaded optimized workloads, the i7-4770k might come close to an FX 8300, but for raw compute power the FX 8300 should outperform the i7-4770k.


The i5-4570 is a Quad Core without Hyper Threading, only 3.6GHz Turbo, and only 6MB cache.

The FX 8300 will absolutely dunk on an i5-4570 in every benchmark.

4770K was much better. Especially in a single core performance benchmarks. Frequency doesn't meter
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/Intel-Core-i7-4770K-vs-AMD-FX-8300-Eight-Core/1919vs1825

Benchmark results versus practical results are different. You're comparing benchmark results from back when the CPUs first came out and when single core single threading was the only real way gaming was utilized. As games began to utilize more cores and multi-threading, the FX 8000 series of CPUs gained a surprisingly large edge against the Intel counterparts.

[Vox Maximus]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von KingGorillaKong:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von MaxL:

4770K was much better. Especially in a single core performance benchmarks. Frequency doesn't meter
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/Intel-Core-i7-4770K-vs-AMD-FX-8300-Eight-Core/1919vs1825

Benchmark results versus practical results are different. You're comparing benchmark results from back when the CPUs first came out and when single core single threading was the only real way gaming was utilized. As games began to utilize more cores and multi-threading, the FX 8000 series of CPUs gained a surprisingly large edge against the Intel counterparts.

https://www.gpucheck.com/compare-game-cpu/fortnite-battle-royale/intel-core-i7-4770k-3-50ghz-vs-amd-fx-8300-eight-core/nvidia-geforce-gtx-970/ultra

Is it practical enough?

[CJM]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von MaxL:

4770K was much better. Especially in a single core performance benchmarks. Frequency doesn't meter
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/Intel-Core-i7-4770K-vs-AMD-FX-8300-Eight-Core/1919vs1825

Frequency does matter.

There is a note regarding the FX 8300 that the cores were in in 4 separate "physical modules", which may be the cause of the under-performing chip. Better integration of cores improves performance tremendously, as I understand it.

Still, it does not look like a massive difference to me.

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/1919vs1825vs1896vs896vs3907/Intel-i7-4770K-vs-AMD-FX-8300-Eight-Core-vs-Intel-i5-4570-vs-Intel-i7-3770-vs-AMD-Ryzen-7-5800H

[Pencillus Sedatus]

8G is definitely not enough, i have a 10G but 2G is used by up "OS and applications" so oh well

[kgkong]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von MaxL:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von KingGorillaKong:

Benchmark results versus practical results are different. You're comparing benchmark results from back when the CPUs first came out and when single core single threading was the only real way gaming was utilized. As games began to utilize more cores and multi-threading, the FX 8000 series of CPUs gained a surprisingly large edge against the Intel counterparts.

https://www.gpucheck.com/compare-game-cpu/fortnite-battle-royale/intel-core-i7-4770k-3-50ghz-vs-amd-fx-8300-eight-core/nvidia-geforce-gtx-970/ultra

Is it practical enough?

Those benchmark results aren't very informative. Only gives us two pieces of hardware used. CPU and GPU. What about RAM? What about BIOS settings?
Not to mention that those frame rates were ass compared to what I was getting on my FX 8100 paired with a 750 Ti GPU. Having adequate DDR3 memory on a motherboard that isn't nerfing any bandwidth between PCIe and memory and other hardware also matters. This is also an era where a lot of motherboards actually also crippled and reduced a lot of CPU performances, so what mobo is used on that FX 8300 in the benchmark?

[ctpatown]

ah the good old Bulldozer cpus

https://www.anandtech.com/show/14804/amd-settlement

AMD’s Bulldozer microarchitecture used 'dual-core modules' containing two independent ALUs and a shared FPU. AMD believed that such design allowed it to call its FX-8000 and FX-9000 series processors as the industry’s first eight-core desktop CPUs, yet the latter were quite often behind their quad-core rivals from Intel in terms of performance. As a result, a group of people from California filed a class action suit that accused AMD of false advertising back in 2015.

[ChickenBalls]

This video from 2021 shows the FX-8350 at 4.6GHz tested against i7 3770 (non-K) at 3.7 GHz and being outperformed in all 7 games:

https://youtu.be/KJGBN5EZtG0


AMD almost went bankrupt because of the FX8000 and 9000 CPUs
if they were so damn good as you claimed they wouldnt be losing their market share to intel until Ryzen was released and intel wouldn't have been able to milk their 4core/4thread i5s and 4core/8thread i7s for so long.

[Vox Maximus]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von KingGorillaKong:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von MaxL:

https://www.gpucheck.com/compare-game-cpu/fortnite-battle-royale/intel-core-i7-4770k-3-50ghz-vs-amd-fx-8300-eight-core/nvidia-geforce-gtx-970/ultra

Is it practical enough?

Those benchmark results aren't very informative. Only gives us two pieces of hardware used. CPU and GPU. What about RAM? What about BIOS settings?
Not to mention that those frame rates were ass compared to what I was getting on my FX 8100 paired with a 750 Ti GPU. Having adequate DDR3 memory on a motherboard that isn't nerfing any bandwidth between PCIe and memory and other hardware also matters. This is also an era where a lot of motherboards actually also crippled and reduced a lot of CPU performances, so what mobo is used on that FX 8300 in the benchmark?

Are you serious? Even 8350 is slower than 4770k in real games https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TzbvHCxjsZI

[UserNotFound]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von episoder:

clickbait video. it's not facts. just selling you another gpu. if you lower your demands and settings to something your gpu can manage it will run just fine.

You've got the 'clickbait' part wrong, HardwareUnBoxed is simply saying that gamers should lower ingame graphics setting for a smoother gameplay, especially those with 8GB VRAM cards. Steve had also stated that turning graphics setting too high, even at 1080P, would result in stuttering gameplay as the 1% minimum framerate is just too low.

Even the RTX 3070 Ti, a very powerful card, is kneecapped by the 8GB VRAM, it's usually competitive against the RX 6800 16GB (non-XT) and usually beats the RX 6700 XT 12GB, but is beaten by them in this game because of VRAM. The 1% low is just bad, causing the game to stutter, the RX 6700 XT and RX 6800 would feel smoother because the 1% low isn't as bad as the RTX 3070 Ti.

[xZeik.x]

so this is false?

MINIMUM:
Requires a 64-bit processor and operating system
OS: Windows 10 (Version 1909 or Newer)
Processor: AMD Ryzen 5 1500X, Intel Core i7-4770K
Memory: 16 GB RAM
Graphics: AMD Radeon RX 470 (4 GB), AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT (4 GB), NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 (4 GB), NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (4 GB)
Storage: 100 GB available space
Additional Notes: SSD Recommended

RECOMMENDED:
Requires a 64-bit processor and operating system
OS: Windows 10 (Version 1909 or Newer)
Processor: AMD Ryzen 5 3600X, Intel Core i7-8700
Memory: 16 GB RAM
Graphics: AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT (8 GB), AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT (8 GB), NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 SUPER (8 GB), NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 (8 GB)
Storage: 100 GB available space
Additional Notes: SSD Recommended



Sony lying? no way

[Vox Maximus]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Kassz:

so this is false?

MINIMUM:
Requires a 64-bit processor and operating system
OS: Windows 10 (Version 1909 or Newer)
Processor: AMD Ryzen 5 1500X, Intel Core i7-4770K
Memory: 16 GB RAM
Graphics: AMD Radeon RX 470 (4 GB), AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT (4 GB), NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 (4 GB), NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (4 GB)
Storage: 100 GB available space
Additional Notes: SSD Recommended

RECOMMENDED:
Requires a 64-bit processor and operating system
OS: Windows 10 (Version 1909 or Newer)
Processor: AMD Ryzen 5 3600X, Intel Core i7-8700
Memory: 16 GB RAM
Graphics: AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT (8 GB), AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT (8 GB), NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 SUPER (8 GB), NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 (8 GB)
Storage: 100 GB available space
Additional Notes: SSD Recommended



Sony lying? no way

Recommended is not false if you're OK playing on medium

[Vox Maximus]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von U_Go_6FT_BeLOW:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Kassz:

so this is false?

MINIMUM:
Requires a 64-bit processor and operating system
OS: Windows 10 (Version 1909 or Newer)
Processor: AMD Ryzen 5 1500X, Intel Core i7-4770K
Memory: 16 GB RAM
Graphics: AMD Radeon RX 470 (4 GB), AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT (4 GB), NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 (4 GB), NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (4 GB)
Storage: 100 GB available space
Additional Notes: SSD Recommended

RECOMMENDED:
Requires a 64-bit processor and operating system
OS: Windows 10 (Version 1909 or Newer)
Processor: AMD Ryzen 5 3600X, Intel Core i7-8700
Memory: 16 GB RAM
Graphics: AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT (8 GB), AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT (8 GB), NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 SUPER (8 GB), NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 (8 GB)
Storage: 100 GB available space
Additional Notes: SSD Recommended



Sony lying? no way

No, Sony just plays it safe for the best most "smooth" experience. Their not going to min./recommended a 2013/14 CPU to play a 2023 game, but doesnt mean it cant...

Hardly smooth experience there lol

[kgkong]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von ChickenBalls:

This video from 2021 shows the FX-8350 at 4.6GHz tested against i7 3770 (non-K) at 3.7 GHz and being outperformed in all 7 games:

https://youtu.be/KJGBN5EZtG0


AMD almost went bankrupt because of the FX8000 and 9000 CPUs
if they were so damn good as you claimed they wouldnt be losing their market share to intel until Ryzen was released and intel wouldn't have been able to milk their 4core/4thread i5s and 4core/8thread i7s for so long.

AMD has never been one to shell out a lot of cash for mass marketing and being a household brand. That's a big downfall. The popularity and reach of a lot of AMD's products haven't reached a lot of users.

Iunno how else to put it though, but the experiences myself and all my friends have had with the FX 8000 series CPU is that they out performed every Intel CPU up to 9th gen in nearly every single practical case, and in some cases even out performed 10th and 11th gen Intel CPUs (not just the low entry level ones either).

Albeit, I did have to OC my FX 8100. Never had issues with the OC myself. So I did give a little edge there. But even then, a lot of the rigs I was comparing to over the year before I upgraded from that build, was showing that I was getting more performance than Intel CPUs that were also equally OC'd the same amount as my FX 8100.

And there's a lot more going on when you get into the realm of a bottlenecked CPU. How bottlenecked is it and what other hardware is also bottlenecking the system? Motherboards and RAM kits can also dramatically reduce the practical performance of the CPU, can cause low 1% lows in performance, can cause latency spikes.

I'd equate the overall performance advantages my friends and I all had with the FX 8000 series to just having very compatible and harmonious hardware for the full system. Iunno how many Intel users were using a lower end mobo that applied more rigorous restraints and limits on the CPU, but it was a fairly common thing to see in a lot of older systems about 5 years ago.